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 Procedures Review

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

The Subcommittee convened via Teleconference at 

11:00 a.m. EDT, Josie Beach, Chair, presiding.
2 

Present: 

Josie Beach, Member

Loretta Valerio, Member

Paul Ziemer, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Fin Black, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Lori Marion-Mmoss, DCAS

Wade Morris, ORAU

Michael Rafky, HHS

Lavon Rutherford, DCAS

Tim Taulbee, DCAS
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee for 

Procedure Reviews Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1

Welcome and Roll Call 4

Carryover Items From Feb 15, 2022 SCPR 

Meeting 5

Newly-Issued SC&A Reviews 15

DCAS-PER-052, Subtask 4 

Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Division 

Case Reviews 15

DCAS-PER-059, Subtask 4 Norton 

Company Case Review 29

DCAS-PER-062, Subtask 4 ORAUTOTIB-0052 Parameters to Consider 

When Processing Claims for 

Construction Trade Workers Case 

Review 32

Document Tracking 47

Preparation for August 2022 Full ABRWH 

Meeting 48

Newly-Issued Guidance Documents and 

Supplemental Topics 52

Next Subcommittee Meeting/Plans 60

Adjourn 64
4

Proceedings

(11:00 a.m.)

Welcome and Roll Call

Dr. Roberts: I think I'm going to go ahead and open 

it up since it's 11:00 a.m., and we'll go from there. 

So good morning everybody. Welcome to the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. This 

is the meeting on the Subcommittee on Procedures 

Review. I'm Rashaun Roberts, and I'm the DFO for 

the Board.

There is an agenda for today, and it's on the NIOSH 

website under scheduled meetings for May 2022. 

Since the Subcommittee will be discussing a number 

of different documents, some of which involve 

specific Sites, we do need to address conflict of 

interest in the roll call. If a conflict does happen to 

come up during the course of the meeting, 

Subcommittee Members and others need to recuse 

themselves from the discussion where that conflict 

might apply.

So as we move through the roll call, Subcommittee 

Members and others please state where you have a 

conflict of interest, and let's go ahead and get started 

with the Subcommittee, Josie Beach.

(Roll call)

Dr. Roberts: Thanks everyone, and welcome again to 

everyone. I just need to go over a couple of additional 

items before I give the floor to Josie Beach, who 

chairs the Committee. So everyone should have 

called in on the telephone line versus using audio 

through Skype, so hopefully everyone is on the same 

page at this point.

In order to keep everything running smoothly and so 

that everyone speaking can be clearly understood, 

please mute your phone unless of course you're 

speaking. If you don't have a mute button press *6 

to mute. If you need to take yourself off, press *6 
5

again. 

As I stated earlier, the agenda presentations and 

other documents that are relevant to today's meeting 

can be found on the NIOSH DCAS website, and all of 

these materials were sent to Board Members and 

other staff prior to this meeting.

So with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn the 

meeting over to you Josie.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Hey Rashaun, this is Lori reporting 

in.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, thank you Lori. 

Carryover Items From Feb 15, 2022 SCPR Meeting

Chair Beach: Good morning, everyone. So we do 

have an agenda as Rashaun mentioned and posted. 

Our first item is the carryover items, and Kathy has 

put out a document that lists all the carryover items, 

and I guess I'm going to ask Kathy do you think we 

should go over some of those now? I know some of 

them are going to be tracked at the end of the 

meeting also. There might be a couple of things --

Ms. Behling: Okay, yeah. I can at least explain. Are 

you seeing my screen? I have the agenda up right 

now?

Chair Beach: No, I'm not. Is anybody?

Dr. Roberts: No.

Chair Beach: No.

Ms. Behling: Okay, okay. So sharing controls are 

disabled by policy. How do I -- I'm not sure how to 

take control of this. Does anyone have any 

suggestions? When I select the button at the bottom 

for sharing my screen, it's giving me -- it's saying 

"Sharing controls are disabled by policy." I'm not 

sure what that is.

Chair Beach: No idea.
6

Dr. Taulbee: I think it may be because you originally 

came in as under Guest. Bob, I see you listed as a 

presenter. Can you present or show a screen?

Mr. Barton: Yeah. Let me see if I can get this to you. 

I think Tim you're right, that it depends on how you 

log in, whether you're a guest or a presenter. 

Ms. Behling: Yeah I -- okay. I thought I logged in as 

-- I can try to log in again if you would like. Let me -

-

Chair Beach: Yeah. Go ahead, Kathy.

Ms. Behling: Yeah, because I really need to --

Chair Beach: Yeah, you do. You have the lion's share.

Ms. Behling: Okay I'm -- yeah. I'm going to cancel 

out here and try to come back. So sorry about this, 

but I am going to have to log off.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

(Pause.)

Ms. Behling: Okay. I am entering here as a CDC 

cardholder. 

Chair Beach: Oh, it's loading. That's a good sign. Oh, 

there you go. Yep, we're viewing your --

Dr. Taulbee: This is Presentation Handout Carryover 

Items.

Ms. Behling: Okay, and I think I'm going to be able 

to do this. I'm going to select "don't join audio" I 

believe. 

Chair Beach: Correct.

Ms. Behling: Okay, and now let's see. Okay. So Bob, 

are you showing -- should I try and share my screen?

Chair Beach: Yes.
7

Mr. Barton: Yes. I think that would probably be best.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Let's do this. First of all, do you 

see the agenda?

Chair Beach: Yes.

Ms. Behling: Okay, all right. Let me also --now we're 

going to go to this carryover. Do you see the 

Carryover Items from February 2019 and 2021? Are 

you seeing that on the screen?

Chair Beach: Yes, we do.

Mr. Barton: Yes.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Initially, what I did, I had 

identified a list of documents that these documents 

have actually been updated on the BRS. That 

happened before we lost access, and when we were 

talking about putting together an agenda for today's 

meeting, I listed all of these --

I decided to go back and say are there outstanding 

items for documents that are already on the BRS that 

we should be still thinking about and addressing until 

we get access to the BRS, and I came up with this 

particular list.

Now I listed each one of these documents separately, 

and in response to that, Tim Taulbee gave NIOSH's 

progress with regard to these items. So I started out 

with a summary, so that we would know total number 

of findings, how many are outstanding, and then the 

additional pages have details about each of the 

findings and each of the observations.

If you take note on 3/17/2022, that's when Tim gave 

us a response to the agenda items, which I ultimately 

pulled off, Josie referred to, make this a separate 

document. So not to confuse things, because I made 

this a separate document as it didn't include it on our 

temporary BRS because the temporary BRS is going 

to be used to update all of the data in the BRS when 

we get access again.
8

These are findings that are already listed in the BRS, 

but we still had issues that had to be resolved. All of 

the documents that are listed on this summary table, 

the OTIBs and the PER-073, Tim's response back in 

that March was that NIOSH is working on these 

things, but they're not in a position to discuss them 

or give any responses at this point.

However, he did indicate back at that time that the 

dose reconstruction that's acknowledged for Peek 

Street Facility, for which SC&A had a number of 

findings, that he felt that he would have responses. 

Just scroll down. I think that's the last one here, that 

they would have responses to those findings for 

today's meeting.

And that's, I guess, what prompted me to put out an 

email yesterday and I apologize to everyone, 

indicating that I thought NIOSH would perhaps be 

prepared to at least discuss the Peek Street 

responses. But it's my understanding from Lori that 

that is probably not going to happen today and 

perhaps that's somewhat my fault, because they 

didn't think that it was on the agenda.

And Josie please, step in here. I was just going to say 

if we list Carryover Items as one of our agenda items, 

it seems to me that if our agenda is not super-filled, 

which today I don't think it will be, that when NIOSH 

has responses we should be able to fit that into that 

agenda item. I don't know if you would agree with 

that.

Chair Beach: And I agree with that. However, when I 

saw the emails flying back and forth yesterday, I 

decided not to step in because it was such a short 

turnaround time, and I felt like if SC&A even had a 

chance to go through them and, as Lori pointed out, 

they weren't ready to present so I was okay with 

that.

But in the future moving forward, I think that is 

probably a good idea, is to be ready if those are 

ready. Unless it's such a short turnaround time. With 

us getting it one day before the meeting, I mean 
9

that's not a lot of time, other than maybe just a 

verbal. I can throw that over to NIOSH and see what 

they think also.

Ms. Marion-Ross: I agree with you, Josie. This is Lori.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. I'd also agree. I mean yeah, 

absolutely. I mean we certainly had hoped to give 

you more time on the Peek Street, but things just 

didn't spin out that way. And you know, that's -- so 

we're -- we will be ready to do a presentation if you'd 

like, or if you want SC&A to do their review and then 

provide, you know, their responses. However you 

want to do it is fine with us.

Chair Beach: Yeah. Well, I think SC&A is going to 

have time to look at it, and maybe we can just do it 

back to back at the next meeting, just you guys 

present and SC&A can follow up if that is suitable for 

everybody.

Ms. Marion-Ross: This is Lori. That sounds like a good 

plan, Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay, and then in the future -- go 

ahead?

Ms. Marion-Ross: I'm sorry, Josie. SC&A will be 

prepared to respond to their replies. So yes, we'll be 

ready.

Chair Beach: Well and maybe like today's meeting, if 

NIOSH can let us know what they think they may 

have ready, like Birdsboro. I knew that, I know that 

one's coming up. Maybe we can be better prepared, 

or like Tim said, maybe get it a little earlier if 

possible.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Right, and if -- we also did receive 

from NIOSH yesterday some responses to the 

Battelle TIB-5000, and again I wasn't sure if NIOSH 

was going to be prepared just to go through their 

responses, and if so I was going to have the reviewer 

on the line. But again, it appears that it would be best 

if we wait til the next meeting for that. So it seems 
10

to me that those will be --

The other thing I'll make mention of, and this is an 

item again, not to confuse things, but it's an item that 

is on our temporary BRS matrix, and that has to do 

with the Grand Junction Facility. We talked last time. 

One of the Carryover Items was supposed to be that 

NIOSH send us, we were talking about observation, I 

think Observation 3 or I'm not exactly sure which 

one, and NIOSH would send us the information, the 

Standard Operating Procedure for the radon 

chamber.

And also there was an interview done, I think, with 

the health physicist, and we had asked to review that 

documentation. We did get that documentation I 

think back around the 7th or so, 7th or 9th of May. 

We started to -- Don Buchanan started to prepare a 

response to the documents that we were sent and 

where we reviewed, and we prepared a memo.

However, we determined that one of the documents 

that we were asked to look at or that we asked for 

and that we got to look at was an official use-only 

document, and for us to be able to cite that in our 

memo, we have to have DOE clearance. We were not 

able to get that clearance in time for this particular 

meeting.

So yeah, I apologize for that. We thought we were 

going to have, be able to have a discussion on that, 

but that didn't happen because of that particular 

document that we were referencing. 

Chair Beach: Okay, and then on the TIB-5000, when 

I reviewed that there was one item, and this is a 

question for Tim. I wrote it down, but I don't see my 

notes here, that they were working on a separate 

memo for that particular item. I think it was 3 or 9. 

I'm not sure if anybody's familiar with that. I'm just 

wondering if that will be prepared by the next 

meeting?

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. Most likely not. That one's 

taking up -- going to take some significant effort in 
11

order to document into a separate report. It's 

something that we use quite a bit throughout the 

entire dose reconstruction process. This has to do 

with the GSD of 3 that we use for internal doses, and 

we've -- we decided to -- that needs to be pulled out 

into a separate report in and of itself from that 

standpoint.

Unfortunately, I don't see that being ready for the 

next one. However, the one afterwards I do. But I 

guess then again it does depend upon when you 

schedule your next meeting. That plays a role in this 

as well so --

Chair Beach: Okay, all right. Thank you. 

Ms. Behling: And Josie, if I can ask a question also of 

Tim. I also read through other responses, and it looks 

as if in most cases they were all observations, but 

NIOSH did concur with most of the concerns or 

questions that we had. I didn't -- I'm not sure that I 

know what the follow-up action is going to be or if 

you know, because there was some discussion that 

that OTIB or that TIB might be cancelled.

But if you are in agreement with our concerns, how 

will that be addressed? Do you know at this point? 

And Tim, that was the only question I had reading 

through your responses. And that question is for Tim.

Mr. Rutherford: Tim, are you there?

Ms. Behling: Oh boy, I sent Tim away.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, yeah. It sounds like we lost 

Tim. Yeah we -- you know, we'll give Tim a minute 

here, but we do anticipate actually cancelling that TIB 

and Tim, we will address that and I believe we've 

indicated in the responses, I don't have the 

responses in front of me at this time.

But I believe we indicated where we were going with 

that, and if the items are being used in dose 

reconstruction, we will have a new location for each 

of those items. That would be where they would be 
12

addressed.

Ms. Behling: Okay. That was my question, because 

when I -- and I just briefly read through them 

because we received them yesterday or the day 

before, and in many cases it said yes, we concur and 

we agree that this should be done. 

But there was no indication that I could see as to 

where that correction would be made, what 

documents, and especially my concern was the fact 

that this document may be cancelled. So just wanted 

to be sure that that was going to be picked up 

somewhere else.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah well, and we will make sure that 

the Subcommittee and you are -- and SC&A are made 

aware of locations.

Ms. Behling: Okay, all right, and again we can have 

a further discussion on that during the next meeting. 

But that may be something that you want to include 

in that discussion if you don't mind.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, we will.

Ms. Behling: Okay, thank you.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim again. Sorry for that. My 

entire system just dropped; the network went away. 

Thanks Bomber for filling in, and I'll catch up with you 

later on what we have to do there.

Mr. Rutherford: I just hope you don't do that to me 

on something hard.

(Laughter.)

Dr. Taulbee: Right.

Ms. Behling: I don't know when these systems are 

down. Okay. So the only other carryover item I think 

to discuss is the templates. Lori had indicated she 

would, she did provide a list of the templates, but she 

was going to provide an updated list I believe, and 

Lori, how's that coming?
13

Ms. Marion-Ross: This is Lori. Josie, it's kind of slow 

but I made progress. So you guys should be receiving 

that in a few weeks. Kathy had asked for some time 

lines basically on when they were to be -- when our 

templates were revised, so I'm pulling all that 

together to make sure that list is inclusive to her 

request. 

So I would say a couple more, two or three weeks 

and I'll have it for you. I'll send out an email as well.

Chair Beach: Lori, that's perfect.

Ms. Behling: And Josie, I have also, if you don't mind, 

I did take a list, three -- at the last meeting, we 

discussed about the templates, and Lori did send us 

a list. And what I requested thereafter was can we 

determine what version are we on and what's the 

latest date and those types of things, just a little bit 

more details about the templates.

Now I wrote, at least a note to myself, that under our 

supplemental topics today, I wrote down that 

perhaps we can have another discussion on the 

templates, because I took the list that Lori initially 

gave us, and I at least went through the list and 

identified, and I will -- I didn't get a chance to send 

it out, but I will pull it up for us later in the day, unless 

you want to discuss is now. 

It lists all of these Sites that supposedly have 

templates, and those for which we have already done 

a review and those that I could not determine, I don't 

think that there has been a review done by SC&A. I 

just thought we might have that discussion at the end 

of the meeting and perhaps there could be some 

tasking. 

I don't know, that's up to you. But I do, was hoping 

that we could have more discussion on those 

templates.

Chair Beach: Okay. No, that's fine. I'm okay with 

waiting til it's in your -- in the agenda. So anything 

else on carryover?
14

Ms. Behling: I have nothing else. I don't know if 

NIOSH has anything to add.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Correct me if I'm wrong Tim. Again, 

this is Lori Marion-Moss. We don't have anything to 

add at this point regarding carryover.

Dr. Taulbee: That is correct. Yes, nothing.

Chair Beach: Okay, and anything that is in our 

carryover list that you think would be ready for the 

next meeting, and next meeting being probably in the 

three to four month timeframe I would say, or midsummer, that you think would be ready?

Dr. Taulbee: I'm quickly looking at the list. Oh man.

Chair Beach: I know Birdsboro was high on the list. 

Dr. Taulbee: Let me get back to you by the end of 

the meeting on that. I'm sorry.

Chair Beach: Maybe towards the end of the meeting.

Dr. Taulbee: Yeah, thanks.

Chair Beach: Okay, thanks Tim. Loretta, anything? 

Any questions?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Valerio: No, not right now Josie. Thank you.

Member Ziemer: This is Paul.

Chair Beach: Okay, Paul. I was just going to ask if 

you had joined us.

Member Ziemer: Well, I joined about 11:15, and so 

I've been listening. But just wanted to let you know 

I was aboard. Sorry I was late, but that's --

sometimes things don't work out.

Chair Beach: Yeah, exactly. So we're happy you're 

on.

Member Ziemer: Thank you.
15

Chair Beach: So we just got through our Carryover 

Items. I know you're aware of that. Any comments 

on the carryovers Paul or --

Member Ziemer: Right, no. No comments. I think 

obviously we're going to have to meet and tie a lot of 

things up yet. 

Chair Beach: Yeah, and Kathy, I appreciate the 

carryover document. It's helpful and it's useful. Is 

there any additions that anyone thinks that needs to 

be made to it?

(No response.)

Newly-Issued SC&A Reviews

Chair Beach: Okay. Hearing none, I think we can tee 

up the DCAS-PER-052 subtask 4, the Westinghouse 

Nuclear Fuels Division case reviews. I know that's 

you Kathy, so we'll give you a minute.

DCAS-PER-052, Subtask 4 Westinghouse Nuclear

Fuels Division Case Reviews

Ms. Behling: Okay, do you see my screen?

Chair Beach: Yes, we sure do.

Member Ziemer: Yes. 

Ms. Behling: Okay. I'm ready when you're ready. All 

right, okay. The first one, first document review we're 

going to talk about today is PER-052, and that's 

associated with the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels 

Division, and for this facility, there was never a TBD 

issued, and so this is where the templates come into 

play.

Under SC&A's Subtask 4, we reviewed three cases 

associated with the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels 

Division. Summary of the facility history. They 

received enriched uranium from Fernald and some 

plutonium from West Valley that actually originated 

at Hanford. Records indicate that the plutonium was 

also -- also included thorium.
16

The operational period was 1971 through 1972, and 

the residual period was 1973 through 1979. PER-052 

was issued in March of 2014, and that was to assess 

changes to the June 2012 DR template. The revisions 

incorporated updated data from the discovery of 

about 9,600 air samples, and this new data 

significantly increased the inhalation intakes.

In addition, the template established three categories 

of unmonitored workers, namely Operators, laborers, 

Supervisors and other workers. So SC&A reviewed 

PER-052, Subtask 1 through 3 in October of 2014, 

and that review -- yeah. That review did include 

evaluating the DR methodology for the template. So 

on the list that Lori gave us, this is one that we have 

reviewed.

SC&A during that review identified two findings. In 

Finding 1, the guidance for adjusting intakes for 

partial, partially monitored versus completely 

unmonitored cannot be followed with the data 

provided in the template, and with Finding 2 the 

designation of plutonium-241 as an alpha emitter is 

incorrect. We discussed those findings and closed 

them at the April 28th, 2015 Subcommittee meeting. 

With case reviews, let me see if I'm on the right -- oh 

yeah. For the case reviews, SC&A suggested that 

cases be selected based on three criteria. We wanted 

the one case that resulted in a POC between 45 and 

50 percent. That particular case represented a 

worker that was classified as a Supervisor.

Also we wanted one case that had internal dose and 

was categorized as an Operator, and thirdly a case 

where there was internal dose assigned and the 

individual was classified in the Other category. SC&A 

submitted its review of the reworked cases in 

December of 2021. Since Case 1 represented the 

best estimate, we reviewed both the external and 

internal pathways. However, for Cases 2 and 3, we 

just assessed the internal doses that were impacted 

by PER-052, which is really our charter.

When NIOSH reworks their cases, they used the most 
17

current and applicable DR tools. They recalculate all 

the annual doses and they rerun IREP. In this case, 

it was not necessary to send the revised DR report 

back to the DOL because the compensation decision 

did not change.

So Case 1. This is again the EE represented the 

reworked case, the reworked DR was between 45 and 

50 percent. The EE for this case worked at the facility 

for multiple employment periods. The EE was 

monitored periodically for radiation exposure and 

was diagnosed with a qualifying cancer during his, 

the employment period.

Okay. This table shows a comparison of the reworked 

doses and the original doses for Case 1, and as you 

can see from the table the external doses increased, 

but the internal doses increased significantly. So we 

look at both the original and the reworked, and for 

calculating external doses in the original dose 

reconstruction, ambient dose was assigned for 

unmonitored periods, and all recorded doses were 

zero.

So therefore they were treated as missed dose, and 

then this dose was calculated assuming 19 zeros 

times and LOD of 40 divided by 2. We also applied a 

glovebox correction factor of 2.19, and the DCF 

values were based on IG-001, the external dose 

guidelines. Data was entered into IREP as a 

lognormal distribution, with a geometric standard 

deviation of 1.34, and that resulted in a total of 

approximately 800 millirem.

Okay. The ambient dose in the original DR was fine 

for each year of employment. A DCF-1 was applied 

and annual doses were entered into IREP as a normal 

distribution, with a 30 percent uncertainty. Again, 

this resulted in a total dose of approximately 1 rem.

For occupational medical doses, in the original case 

or the original DR, doses were calculated for the Xray exams that were found in the DOE records, and 

doses were based on guidance in OTB-006, Rev. 3, 

page change 1. It resulted in doses less than 1 
18

millirem and therefore those doses were not entered 

into IREP. 

Now for the rework case, the external photon dose, 

ambient dose was assigned during unmonitored 

periods of employment, and although the PER 

addresses changes and reduced in the 2012 

template, this case was not reworked until March of 

2014. By that time, another template, another, yeah, 

another template for the Site was revised and issued 

in 2014, which significantly lowered the external dose 

during the residual period. That was as a result of 

introducing OTIB-70 guidance.

Again, IG-001 DCFs were applied, and doses were 

entered into IREP as a normal distribution with a 30 

percent uncertainty. This resulted in a dose of 

approximately 300 millirem. For occupational 

medical dose, the rework DR calculated doses for 

each recorded X-ray exam. They based those doses 

on guidance in OTIB-0006, Rev. 4, and as with the 

original, the resulting doses were less than 1 millirem 

and not entered into IREP.

So SC&A's review of the cases and of the reworked 

case, we reviewed the DOE files and also the 2012 

and 2014 templates. As mentioned, the external 

doses were based on guidance in the 2014 template, 

which is -- which reduced those doses. The residual 

period doses decreased in the 2014 template because 

rather than using residual period dosimetry, the 

standard derived residual dose from OTIB-70 were 

incorporated into the template, as I previously 

mentioned.

The annual doses were correctly entered into IREP as 

chronic exposure, with a normal distribution and 30 

percent uncertainty, and also SC&A could confirm 

doses were derived as stated, we did have two 

findings.

Okay, in Finding 1, it has to do with the DCFs that 

are specified in the template to be applied. The 2014 

template states that the exposure to organ DCF to 

isotropic geometry be used. 
19

However, the guidance doesn't specify if the DCFs are 

for the exposure or the ambient isotropic geometry, 

and actually when the rework was done, the rework 

DR used the DCF that's typically applied, which is the 

AP geometry and applied that DCF, which is actually 

more claimant-favorable. That's Finding 1.

Finding 2, for the external dose, NIOSH used ambient 

dose and SC&A questions why the ambient dose was 

assigned during the operational period. There were 

no external monitoring records during the time that 

the EE was monitored for internal exposure, and 

some of those results were positive.

Therefore, we questioned if the most claimantfavorable dose, such as maybe in a co-exposure dose 

would be more appropriate. I'm not even really sure 

that a co-exposure dose has been calculated or 

developed for this particular Site. I doubt it, but we 

just wondered if there would be something that 

perhaps would be more claimant-favorable than the 

ambient dose, and so that's our Finding 2.

Okay. Moving on to the internal dose for the original 

dose reconstruction, there were positive urine 

bioassay results during the operational period. The 

highest value was entered into IMBA, which projected 

nearly 133,000 DPM per day of the uranium-234. 

NIOSH compared solubility types S, M and F with 

Type S resulting in the highest dose.

Recycled uranium was also included in the 

assessment, and that was based on a two percent 

enriched uranium. Doses were entered into IREP as 

a chronic exposure with lognormal distribution and a 

GSD of 3, and this resulted in a total dose of 

approximately 4.5 rem. For unmonitored internal 

dose, there was one year with no bioassay 

monitoring. The internal dose was based on the 

facility air concentration data, and that was from the 

2009 template.

The unmonitored exposure was calculated using a 

geometric mean intake value and assigned as 

thorium-228 and thorium-232. NIOSH compared 
20

again solubility types M and S. Type M resulted in the 

higher dose. The thorium ratio that was assumed was 

50 percent thorium-228 and 50 percent thorium-232. 

The data, the annual doses were entered into IREP 

as a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard 

deviation of 4.638.

That was in accordance with the template guidance, 

and the total dose was insignificant. Okay, and 

missed dose in the original dose reconstruction was 

the uranium results during the residual periods were 

less than the MDA value. So chronic intake based on 

assuming one-half of the MDA value for plutonium. 

They also assumed a 12 percent ten year old grade 

plutonium that was associated with Hanford. 

Compared Types M, S and Super S and Type Super S 

was claimant-favorable.

Data was entered into IREP as a triangular 

distribution and resulted in a total dose of 

approximately 300 millirem being assigned. 

Okay, original unmonitored radionuclides, the 

template states that if the EE was monitored for 

uranium and/or plutonium, unmonitored dose should 

be assigned for any unmonitored uranium, plutonium 

or thorium, and that should be assessed based on 

95th percentile to the co-exposure intake.

So for this case, the unmonitored thorium-228 and 

232 was assessed using 95 percent intake, with 95 

percent co-exposure intakes for the operational 

period. NIOSH compared Types M, S and Super S, 

with Type M resulting in the highest dose, and again 

the ratios were assumed to be 50 percent thorium228 and 50 percent thorium-232, and they were 

entered into IREP as a chronic exposure as a 

constant. That resulted in dose of approximately 100 

millirem.

For the reworked case calculating recorded internal 

dose, NIOSH identified three positive uranium urine 

bioassays during the operational period, and the 

highest value again was entered into IMBA, which 

projected a U-234 intake of nearly 133,000 DPM per 
21

day, which is the same as the original. 

However, the rework adjusted that intake based on 

the bioassay period, which resulted in an intake of 

approximately 5,300 DPM per day. A comparison of 

solubility Types F, M and S was done, with S resulting 

in the highest dose. Recycled uranium component 

was considered using two percent of the enriched 

uranium, and as 12 percent ten-year old plutonium 

and natural thorium.

The recycled uranium ratios for each of the 

radionuclides was compared and the largest intake 

was used, and annual doses were entered into IREP 

as chronic exposure with a lognormal distribution in 

GS DF-3. This resulted in finding a dose of over 17 

rem. Reworked unmonitored radionuclides, as 

mentioned the template characterizes the 

unmonitored workers into either Operators, laborers, 

which represents at this dose category is based on 

the 95th percentile of the air sample data.

The Supervisors is Category 2, and that's 50 percent 

of the Operator dose, and the other work category is 

ten percent of the Supervisor dose. For this case, the 

EE was categorized as Supervisor, and so the 

calculated unmonitored dose using a plutonium 

mixture and compared solubility Types M and S with 

M resulting in a higher dose, and it was chronic -- the 

doses were entered in IREP as chronic exposure and 

as a constant value, and the total dose that was 

assigned was approximately 1 rem.

Okay. SC&A's conclusion on the rework for Case 1 for 

internal dose, again SC&A reviewed the DOE records 

and the 2012 template. We reviewed the CADW files 

in IREP and we were able to verify that correct intake 

values were used to calculate the recorded dose. We 

agree with the fact that the EE should have been 

classified as a Supervisor, and for unmonitored 

radionuclides, Type M was the most claimantfavorable solubility.

Doses were correctly entered into IREP and doses 

were assessed to the date of the cancer diagnosis. 
22

SC&A notes that there was an extra entry into IREP. 

The plutonium-239 was entered twice, which resulted 

in a slight overestimate. But we have no findings with 

the rework of Case 1. 

Okay. If we're ready, we can move on to Case 2, and 

Case 2 represents the Operator category, and in this 

particular case we only looked at the internal dose, 

which was impacted by this PER. The EE for this case 

worked approximately 20 years at the Westinghouse 

Nuclear Fuels Division. He was not monitored and 

was diagnosed with a qualifying cancer 

approximately ten years after the termination of 

employment.

This table shows you a comparison again of the 

reworked and original doses, and external doses 

decreased but the internal doses significantly 

increased. Okay, for the original dose reconstruction, 

the EE was not monitored, and then internal dose was 

based on gross alpha air sampling data from the 

operational period. NIOSH used the geometric mean 

intake rate for inhalation and ingestion, and they 

used CADW and compared plutonium, uranium and 

thorium mixture intakes, and plutonium resulted in 

the highest dose.

They assumed the 12 percent ten year old plutonium 

mixture and compared solubility Types M and S, with 

M resulting in the higher dose. The lognormal data 

was entered into IREP was a lognormal distribution, 

with a GSD of 4.638. That resulted in a dose of less 

than 50 millirem.

For the reworked case, again the EE is an Operator 

and as with the original, they compared the 

plutonium, uranium and thorium mixtures, with 

plutonium resulting in the highest dose. They also 

applied the 12 percent ten year old plutonium ratios. 

The operational intakes used for both operations and 

residual period. They used operational intakes for 

both those periods. 

They compared again the solubility Types M and S, 

with M being the most, more claimant-favorable, and 
23

doses were entered into IREP as constant, resulting 

in a total dose of 5.5, approximately 5.5 rem. Then 

SC&A reviewed the template, the CADW files, IREP. 

We were able to confirm that the data was entered 

correctly. We agree with the fact that the EE should 

have been categorized as an Operator, and we agree 

with all of the assumptions used for calculating the 

internal doses, and we have no findings associated 

with doses calculated for the Operator.

On to Case 3. This individual represented the 

category of Other Worker, and he -- the EE was 

employed for multiple decades and not monitored, 

and diagnosed with a qualifying cancer during the 

employment period. Again, here is our table of 

comparisons between reworked and original doses. 

There's a slight decrease in external dose, but a 

significant increase in internal dose due to the 

discovery of the additional air sampling data.

The original internal dose calculated for Case 3 was 

no monitoring, and so they used air sampling data 

during the operational period. Calculated doses 

based on the geometric mean intakes for inhalation 

and ingestion. Again as with Case 2, compared the 

plutonium, uranium and thorium mixtures, and 

plutonium resulted in the highest. 

Used a 12 percent ten year old plutonium mixture, 

again compared solubility Types M and S, with M 

being the higher, resulting in the higher dose. All 

doses were -- annual dose were entered as a 

lognormal distribution, with a geometric standard 

deviation of 4.638. That resulted in a total dose of 

about 50 millirem being assigned. 

Reworked based on the job title. The EE was 

considered an Other category worker, and again 

same internal dose assessments and assumptions 

made. Compared the three mixtures with plutonium 

being the highest, used the 12 percent ten year old 

plutonium mixture ratios. Entered the operational 

intake values for both the operational and residual 

periods as a claimant-favorable approach.
24

Compared Types M and S solubilities with M being the 

higher. Doses were entered as a constant, and that 

resulted in approximately 200 millirem of total dose, 

internal dose being assigned. SC&A reviewed all the 

relevant data and concurs that the EE should have 

been assigned as an Other worker, and we also 

agreed with all of NIOSH's internal dose assumptions, 

so we have no findings.

Okay. In summary, there were three cases. The first 

case was a Supervisor whose POC was between 45 

and 50 percent. The second case, we looked at just 

the internal dose for an Operator category, and for 

the third case, internal dose for the Other category. 

We had two findings on the rework of Case 1. 

Finding 1 had to do with the guidance in the template 

indicating that the DCS should be -- that should be 

used to calculate the dose. It's not clear which 

isotropic geometry they are referring to in that 

guidance, and that's not what was used in the 

rework. Number two is whether -- SC&A questions 

whether the ambient external dose should have been 

used rather than some other more claimantfavorable dose for the operational period.

Internal doses for the two cases, for Cases 2 and 3 

were done in accordance with PER-052. So and I did 

mention this during our last meeting, but I -- we 

added an observation, because as a result of this 

review, this is what generated our discussion on the 

templates at the last meeting. We realized that the 

Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Division template was 

revised in 2012, 2014 and there was also a revision 

in 2016.

When templates, first of all when they're being used 

and when they're being changed, we only become 

aware of them if there was an PER issued, or if it 

comes up in a case review under the dose 

reconstruction group. So our observation is and 

suggestion is that the Board should be given the 

complete list and be notified of changes.

So I think we've started that process by Lori giving 
25

us the list, and as we'll be discussing later in the day, 

I'm going to go through that list and let the 

Subcommittee have an understanding of how many 

are on the list and how many have been reviewed to 

date. And that's it for PER-052.

Chair Beach: Thanks Lori. Any questions or 

comments from NIOSH or Subcommittee Members?

Member Ziemer: Josie, this is Paul. I'm trying to 

recall whether we actually took any formal action on 

the template changes, in terms of sort of -- did we 

take that to the Board, or do we need to take it to 

the Board to make sure that we have that information 

in a timely fashion? Or has it already been -- I mean 

it looks like it's been implemented. Do we need to 

formalize that, or has it been?

Chair Beach: You know, I don't know if we need to 

formalize it with the Board. We do have a list, and it 

will come up for further discussion on adding more 

information to the updated list. I know we're going to 

cover that at the last topic today. I guess Rashaun, 

is there anything we need to do on that? I think 

NIOSH is in agreement to give that information to the 

Subcommittee so --

Member Ziemer: It appears that it's been 

implemented, right, and I don't know why -- Grady, 

has that been formalized, or do we need to do 

anything with that?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Beach: Oh, go ahead.

Mr. Rutherford: Oh no, I was -- I missed what the 

question was except what had been formalized. I 

apologize. There are three things going on here and 

I missed that. What was the question again?

Member Ziemer: So it has to do with letting the Board 

and SC&A know when the templates have been 

modified, so that the --
26

Mr. Rutherford: Yes.

Member Ziemer: I think we're doing that now. I was 

just trying to determine whether or not --

Mr. Rutherford: Well, I'll answer that. We are going 

to inform the Board when the templates are updated. 

We're also doing some additional work with the 

templates. We're looking back at the process of how 

the templates are handled. We're also looking at 

some of the templates that we have done in the past, 

and for Sites that have larger number of cases that 

we feel that should be moved into Technical Basis 

Documents.

So you will see some of the Sites that are currently 

templates that are actually going to be moved away 

from a template into a Technical Basis Document. 

Member Ziemer: Okay. Oh thanks. Josie, it sounds 

like they're doing it and plan to, so it probably doesn't 

need to have any more formality than that. I just 

wanted to make sure that it was being done.

Chair Beach: Okay, yeah. It sounds like we're in 

process and we're working out that system now. So 

once Lori gets that list to us and Kathy goes through 

her review today, I think we'll be in -- better placed 

to discuss it if there's more need. So all right, and so 

-- okay. I thought you were going to say something, 

Paul. So the two findings for Case 1, is there any 

comments on that?

Mr. Rutherford: I will say that we have been working 

on the responses for those two findings. I think ORAU 

may be able to discuss them generally, but the official 

responses, I don't -- have not been completed yet. 

So Scott Siebert or Wade Morris, do you have any 

comment?

Mr. Morris: This is Wade Morris. Sorry, for the delay, 

but no responses at this time.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. Yeah, we are working on those 

responses though, and we will have them prepared 
27

and sent to the Subcommittee in the near future, and 

definitely be prepared to discuss them at the next 

meeting. 

Chair Beach: Okay, and the next meeting, I misspoke 

when I said mid-summer. We're looking more at the 

fall, if we're going to be three to four months out. So 

sorry for that. It's not going to be mid-summer, so 

any other comments, questions for 052?

Member Valerio: Josie, this is Loretta. If I could have 

Kathy go to I believe it was Slide 33 that I might have 

had a question on. I was trying to get back to that. 

So on Slide 33, this was Case 3, the second bullet. 

Was that the Operator or was that Other?

(Pause.)

Member Valerio: I thought that category was Other.

Chair Beach: So you're talking about the second 

bullet, correct Loretta?

Member Valerio: Yes, yes.

Chair Beach: And they selected Operator for that 

dose. I think there was three, Supervisor, Operator, 

and you think that should say "Other"? Is that what 

you're asking?

Member Valerio: Yeah. I thought that Case 3 was a 

classification of Other. I may be wrong. I'll go back 

and I'll look that up. 

Chair Beach: Did we lose Kathy?

Ms. Behling: No, I'm talking on mute. I'm sorry. You 

are correct, Loretta. That was an error on my part. I 

should have made mention of it when I was going 

through the slide. I had it written down, but I just 

passed right over that. But no. Case 1 was the 

Supervisor; Case 2 was the Operator; and Case 3 is 

Other, and so that was just an error on my part and 

I should have corrected that or made mention of it. 

So Loretta is correct.
28

Member Valerio: Okay. I just wanted to clarify for my 

notes. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: Slide 32. Slide 32 indicated it was 

Other, and then as Loretta pointed out, 33 showed it 

as Operator. 

Chair Beach: All right, good catch. I passed right over 

that also. Any, anything else for 52? I believe this will 

stay in progress; correct?

Member Ziemer: That sounds correct to me.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Josie, this is Lori. I have a question 

about Finding No. 1. Kathy, you stated that -- I mean 

the issue here is that, and I went through this real 

quick so correct me if I'm wrong, but you state that 

we used the AP DCF instead of the lower isotropic 

DCF; correct?

Ms. Behling: Yeah. The rework used the AP and that's 

really not the -- well, the guidance, first of all the 

guidance states to use the exposure to organ DCF for 

isotropic exposure, but it doesn't specify whether you

use the exposure or ambient isotropic geometry. So 

it's not clear in the guidance, and then thirdly the 

rework used the AP, which I really don't have -- it 

didn't follow the guidance. She didn't follow the 

guidance, but it was a claimant-favorable decision to 

use the AP DCF values, and that's typically what we 

see in dose reconstruction.

So I would just -- it was a little confusing to me as to 

why the guidance in the template states to use the 

isotropic. I don't know.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Well that is what you're really 

wanting a response --

Ms. Behling: Yes, yes.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Because this particular claim, and 

correct me if I'm wrong, using the more claimantfavorable geometry, still resulted in a POC on the 
29

rework of less than 50; correct?

Ms. Behling: Yes. Correct, yes. So there was no 

change, and it was claimant-favorable to do that. It's 

just that the guidance is incomplete and somewhat 

inconsistent with what is typically done. So we're 

questioning the guidance. I'm sorry. I should have 

stated that more clearly. 

Chair Beach: All right. Anything else for this subtask? 

(No response.)

Chair Beach: All right. So we're in progress. We'll 

await for NIOSH's answer on those two findings, and 

are we ready to move on? Looks like Kathy's got it 

up. Kathy, you're presenting all three of these day 

aren't you?

Ms. Behling: Yes, uh-huh.

Chair Beach: Okay. If you need a break sometime, 

let us know. Otherwise --

DCAS-PER-059, Subtask 4 Norton Company Case 

Review

Ms. Behling: Okay. Well, if you need a break from 

me, let me know. I hope you'll follow this, so all right. 

All right. We're going to move on to PER-059, and 

again this is Subtask 4, it's the case review.

For PER-059, this has to do with Norton, which is also 

has no Site Profile and it's a template, a DR Methods 

template, and for this particular PER, we reviewed 

one case. A little summary of the Norton facility. They 

worked with thorium and uranium, and their 

operational period was 1945 through 1957. The 

residual period started in '58 through October of 

2009. As I mentioned, there's no Technical Basis 

Document for this facility, but there is a template. 

We reviewed PER-059. PER-059 actually was issued 

in -- I should start there -- in April of 2015, and the 

revisions included adding a second SEC Class to the

residual period, and incorporating the OTIB-70 
30

Revision 1 into the guidance, which lowered the 

depletion rate during the residual period.

SC&A issued its review of PER-059 in May of 2017, 

and since the Norton template had not been 

previously reviewed, an evaluation of the dose 

reconstruction methodology was included in our 

review of PER-059. That's under our Subtask 2. SC&A 

identified three findings during that review. 

Finding 1, there was a lack of available data to 

duplicate external deep and shallow doses in the 

residual period. Finding 2, the air survey data 

includes five of nine references identified as 

operational data, but they actually had a data that 

coincided with the residual period. Number three, 

SC&A calculated air concentration and intake values 

for uranium that were a factor of two lower than 

those listed in the template. The Subcommittee did 

discuss all these findings and closed them at the 

October 31st, 2018 meeting.

So for a case review, one case was selected that had 

external and internal dose assigned during the 

residual period, and SC&A submitted its review of the 

reworked case in December of 2021. And again, 

NIOSH's rework looked at applicable DR tools, 

recalculates all annual doses and reruns IREP. 

This case after the rework, it was not sent to the 

Department of Labor because the compensation 

decision did not change.

A little bit about the case itself, the background. The 

EE worked at the Norton Company for multiple brief 

time periods during the residual period. There was no 

monitoring provided and the EE was diagnosed with 

a qualifying cancer approximately 25 years after the 

termination of employment.

We did a comparison of the original and reworked 

doses, and interestingly enough, the total internal 

and external dose for the original case was less than 

1 millirem, and for the reworked case it was a total 

of -- it was a modest dose assigned to both internal 
31

and external.

Okay. So for more details, the original external dose 

calculations used guidance in 2010 template, and as 

a claimant-favorable approach no prorating was 

supplied for the partial years of employment. A DCF 

of 1 was used, and the external dose resulted in less 

than 1 millirem.

For the reworked, the template that was used was 

2011 template. That was the reason for the PER, and 

again there was no prorating done for partial years 

of employment. The DCF value of 1.44 from IG-001 

was used, and that's associated with the thyroid as a 

surrogate organ, and this resulted in a total external 

dose of approximately 30 millirem.

SC&A concluded that the appropriate doses were 

based on the 2011 template, and the selection of the 

surrogate organ was in accordance with OTIB-0005, 

Revision 5. Appropriate DCF values were used. We 

agree that the no prorating was appropriate, was an 

efficiency measure and also claimant-favorable, and 

that doses were accurately entered into IREP.

The rework doses increased as expected, and SC&A 

had no findings with the calculation of external dose. 

For the internal dose, in the original DR inhalation 

and ingestion intakes were taken from the 2011 

template. They compared uranium-234, solubility 

Types M and S with thorium-232 absorption Types M 

and S, and thorium-232 Type M resulted in the 

highest dose. They calculated a total dose again of 

less than 1 millirem.

For the reworked internal, inhalation and ingestion 

intakes were taken from the 2011 template. They 

assumed a mixture of uranium-234, thorium-232, 

thorium-228, actinium-228, radium-228, radium224 and thoron. They compared, compared M and S 

type solubility with M being the more claimantfavorable, and resulted in a total dose of less than 20 

millirem.
32

Finally, SC&A's conclusion on internal dose, we 

reviewed the CADW files and confirmed that intakes 

that were used were based on data in the updated 

template, and we also agreed with all of NIOSH's 

assumptions regarding entering the data into IMBA 

and IREP, and we had no findings associated with the 

internal doses in the reworked case. That was a 

pretty simple one so --

Chair Beach: Yeah, and you mentioned the updated 

template. Is that the 2011 or I might have missed 

that?

Ms. Behling: Yes, yes.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Ms. Behling: 2011 was the updated template, uhhuh.

Chair Beach: Okay, thank you. Paul, Loretta, 

questions, comments?

Member Ziemer: Yeah, this is Paul. I have no 

comments. I'm good on this one.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Member Valerio: I have no comments or question, 

Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay, great. Yeah, that was relatively 

easy and I think we can go ahead and vote to close. 

All in agreement?

Member Ziemer: I agree.

Member Valerio: I agree.

Chair Beach: Okay, thank you. Kathy, that was easy 

and it looks like you're already set for the next one. 

DCAS-PER-062, Subtask 4 ORAUT-OTIB-0052 

Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for 

Construction Trade Workers Case Review

Ms. Behling: Yes, okay. This is our case review of 
33

PER-062. We reviewed one case and this PER was 

prompted due to revisions in OTIB-0052. Now OTIB0052 is parameters to consider when processing 

claims for construction trade workers. There is a long 

history associated with this OTIB, and I will make 

mention.

This is one of the OTIBs that has so many PER -- has 

several PERs and was one of the OTIBs that I was 

hoping that we could discuss with the full Board. 

When I started going through the transcripts and 

putting together all of the data, I realized and we'll 

get to that as I go through here, but there were some 

unanswered questions that I should walk through 

this.

But OTIB-0052 was issued in August of 2006, and 

SC&A reviewed Rev 0 in July of 2007 and we 

identified 16 findings as a result of that review. Rev 

0, PC 1 was issued in January of 2007, and then PER014 was issued in November of 2007 to evaluate 

cases adjudicated prior to the issuance of OTIB-0052. 

Rev. 1 of OTIB-0052 was issued in February of 2011, 

and SC&A reviewed Rev. 1 to determine how many 

of the original 16 findings were resolved with the 

issuance of Rev. 1.

SC&A also reviewed PER-014 in March of 2012, and 

then NIOSH issued Rev. 2 of OTIB-0052 in July of 

2014. We'll all note that the 16 findings were 

ultimately closed by the Subcommittee at meetings 

in 2008 and 2012, and the OTIB-0052 review was 

presented to the full Board in March, it was a March 

12th, 2013 meeting.

But as a result of that presentation, the Board had 

numerous questions and to the best of my knowledge 

those questions haven't been answered yet. And so 

this is one of the things that somehow, a little bit gets 

-- it goes through the cracks, and it will be something 

that I'm going to bring to the Board maybe -- I don't 

know if I should commit to the next meeting or not, 

but to the Subcommittee, to your Subcommittee, to 

try to go through the history of all of this and to pull 
34

out where the Board had questions and what hasn't 

been answered yet.

Lori and I have both been working on this sort of 

together, trying to make some sense out of it. But 

that's going to have to be a separate presentation 

with OTIB-0052, with some of these PERs, the PER014, and there's an OTIB, OTIB-0014 or one of the 

others; I'm not remembering the number right now, 

that also intertwines in all of this.

So we will have to schedule that for one of the 

Subcommittee meetings to try to work through all of 

this history of OTIB-0052 and where we stand to 

date. Okay. So finally PER --

Chair Beach: Let me ask you just for my notes. So 

OTIB-0014, PER-014, was there other ones that 

needed to be looked at, the PC-1?

Ms. Behling: Yeah. I can put that together for you. I 

have it somewhere in this mass of documents on my 

desk to go back to. I've been trying to present things 

to the Subcommittee that are recent and relevant 

and like I said, when we started to decide that we 

were going to use this matrix approach to discuss 

these with the full Board and I started going through 

transcripts, I realized that this OTIB-0052 is just very 

complex and convoluted.

But I can put together for you all of the documents 

that would be associated with that, and then perhaps 

I can make one presentation to the Subcommittee 

that discusses how all of those documents are 

intertwined. I don't have all the documents with me. 

Chair Beach: That would be fine.

Ms. Behling: But I'll give that to you after the 

meeting, if that's okay.

Chair Beach: Okay, great. Thank you.

Ms. Behling: Okay, yeah. I don't mean, didn't mean 

to do an aside there, but I think that's something that 
35

I've been thinking about and wanting to talk to the 

Subcommittee about for a long time, and so I'm using 

this as that opportunity.

Okay, so finally PER-062 was issued in November of 

2017, and it assessed changes introduced into both 

Revision 1 and Revision 2 of OTIB-0052. OTIB-0052, 

as you know, developed a correction factor that 

increases external dose to unmonitored construction 

trade workers when co-exposure data is used to 

assign dose.

To determine the population of cases impacted by 

PER-062, NIOSH evaluated 20 different Sites were 

there were -- there was already a co-exposure model 

developed, and from that list of 20 Sites there were 

only eight Sites that didn't, didn't already have a PER 

in progress or forthcoming, and therefore only the 

eight Sites were included in this PER.

For PER-062, there were a total of 1,006 cases that 

were identified initially for reevaluation. One of the 

cases resulted in a POC of greater than 52 percent, 

one case, I think the POC was between 45 and 50 

percent, 992 cases were less than 45 percent POC, 

and 12 cases had been returned to DOL prior to the 

issuance of PER-062.

So SC&A issued its review of PER-062 in May of 2008, 

and we identified two observations. Observation 1, 

for the list of 20 Sites, one of the Sites that was listed 

was Albany Research Center, which we could not --

it didn't look to us that there was a PER forthcoming 

or a coworker, a co-exposure model developed for 

that Site. So that's why we identified that as an 

observation. We couldn't confirm that.

Observation 2, to ensure that OTIB-0052 is applied 

to all cases at the 20 Sites, SC&A's suggestion is that 

we should maintain a list of these Sites. We should 

be informed when the PER is issued, and we should 

review that PER to ensure that all the reworked cases 

are adequately captured, or captures all potential 

construction trade workers. These observations were 

discussed and closed at the February 13th, 2019 
36

Subcommittee meeting.

So for SC&A's review of an impacted case, the Board 

selected the one reworked case with a POC between 

45 and 50 percent, and SC&A submitted its review in 

December 2021. We assessed the times at 10,000 

iterations because it was a best estimate case that 

was between 45 and 50 percent. 

The combined POC did increase 19 percent; however, 

the revised DR was not sent to the DOL because the 

compensation decision did not change. Okay. In a 

brief background for this case, the EE worked at 

Nevada Test Site for 20 years and also worked at one 

additional location or site. The EE's job title was 

classified in the EE as a construction trade worker. 

The EE was periodically monitored and diagnosed 

with two qualifying cancers approximately 30 years 

after termination of employment.

Again, as our table of the two -- of the comparison of 

the reworked and the original doses for the two 

diagnosed cancers, only external dose changed. It 

increased for Case 1 and decreased for -- for Cancer 

1 and decreased for the second diagnosed cancer. 

Okay. The external dose components for this case 

include recorded photon, missed photon, 

unmonitored photon and unmonitored electron dose. 

So for the original recorded photon dose calculations, 

they were based on guidance in Nevada Test Site 

Technical Basis Document. A film badge correction 

factor of 1.25 was applied, and an uncertainty factor 

of 1.3 was applied for -- to the second cancer site.

Photon energies were distributed as 25 percent 30 to 

250 keV, and 75 percent greater than 250 keV. The 

liver was selected as the surrogate organ and the 

applicable IG-001 DCFs for the 30 to 250 keV photons 

for Cancer 2. But for the original, they used a 

claimant-favorable DCF of 1 for greater than 250 

keV. So it's no real explanation for that, and this 

resulted in a total recorded dose to both cancer sites 

of approximately 6 rem.
37

For the reworked recorded photon dose, the assigned 

external dose used Rev. 3 of the NTS TBD. They also 

applied the film badge correction factor of 1.25, and 

the uncertainty factor of 1.3 to Cancer 2, and used 

the same energy distribution. Also used the same 

surrogate organ for this Cancer No. 2, and applied 

the DCFs using guidance in OTIB-0017 for Cancer 1 

and the IG-001 DCFs for Cancer 2.

For Cancer 2, they applied the range of the DCF 

values using Monte Carlo methods that are cited in 

the IG-001, and the total Cancer 1 dose was 

approximately 5 rem and total Cancer 2 dose 

approximately 4 rem. And SC&A confirmed that there 

were three years of positive recorded doses, and we 

verified that the reworked used the appropriate 

energy fractions cited in the TBD, and applied the 

TBD-specified biases in the uncertainty.

Correct DCF values were used. Doses were entered 

appropriately into IREP, and just noted or made note 

that the reworked Cancer 2 doses decreased because 

the original applied a DCF for the greater than 250 

keV photon component of 1, as opposed to the value 

that was cited in IG-001. So we have no findings with 

the reported, the assignment of the recorded photon 

dose. 

Okay, missed photon dose. For the original, they 

calculated missed dose for two years with zero badge 

readings. They also calculated missed dose for partial 

years of employment when the EE was not 

monitored. They assumed, they counted 13 zero 

badge exchanges, and using one-half of an LOD of 40 

they calculated their dose. 

A film badge correction factor of 1.25 was applied, 

and again the energy fractions of 25-75 for the two 

photon energy ranges, and they applied the same 

DCF as the recorded dose, which again they used the 

DCFs from IG-001 for the 30 to 250, but they used 1 

for greater than 250 keV photons. This resulted in a 

total missed dose of approximately 300 millirem.

For the reworked missed photon dose, here NIOSH 
38

counted 16 zero readings for years of employment, 

and they also counted and based on the NTS TBD, 

they counted an additional 15 missed doses monthly 

exchanges during years when the unmonitored dose 

was assigned. Doses were calculated again using 

one-half the LOD value of 40 millirem. Again, they 

applied all the correction factors, and also used 100 

percent 30 to 25 keVs for Cancer 1, and they did the 

25-75 percent split for Cancer 2 and DCF values for 

OTIB-17 and IG-001 were applied.

And this resulted in a dose for Cancer 1 of 

approximately 700 millirems, and for Cancer 2 500 

millirems. SC&A did confirm that the 16 badge 

exchanges were recorded as zeros, and based on the 

TBD prior to 1957, a monthly missed dose should be 

assigned for years when unmonitored dose is 

assessed. So they were correct in having those 

additional 15 zeros.

The rework applied all the appropriate TBDs, 

specified dosimeter biases, and we verified that the 

correct AP exposure to organ DCFs were used, and 

the doses were accurately entered into IREP. As I 

made mention, the reworked doses increased 

because they counted 31 zeros rather than 13 in the 

original, original dose reconstruction. So SC&A has 

no findings with the recalculation of the missed 

external dose. 

Okay. On to unmonitored photon dose. For the 

original, they assigned unmonitored photon dose for 

one year of employment, and that was based on a 

50th percentile co-exposure dose. Again, applied the 

film badge correction factor of 1.25 and the 

uncertainty for Cancer No. 2. Split the photon 

energies 25 and 75 percent, as specified in the TBD, 

and applied the same DCF values as with the previous 

doses where they used the 1, the DCF of 1 for the 

greater than 250 as opposed to the IG-001 value. 

This resulted in a modest dose assignment. 

For the rework, since the EE was not monitored 

before universal badging was implemented, 
39

unmonitored dose was assigned during prior years of 

employment. Doses were based on 50 percent, 

percentile of the co-exposure values. All of the NTS 

correction factors and uncertainty were appropriately 

applied, and there was also a -- obviously this is a 

construction trade worker, so in accordance with 

OTIB-0052, a correction factor of 1.4 was applied.

Photon energy fractions, again 25-75 percent, and 

DCF values were based on IG-001. This resulted in a 

total unmonitored photon dose of approximately 100 

millirem. Okay. SC&A verified that all the TBD 

guidance was followed appropriately. All of the TBD 

specified bias and uncertainty values were applied, 

and they selected the -- they used the appropriate 

correction factor from OTIB-0052 to calculate the 

unmonitored photon dose.

Appropriate DCFs were used and annual doses were 

correctly entered into IREP. The reworked doses 

increased due to the number of years of unmonitored 

dose that was assigned, and SC&A had no findings 

with the assignment of unmonitored photon dose.

Okay. Now unmonitored electron dose. The original 

DR electron dose was not recorded at NTS prior to 

1966. Therefore, unmonitored electron dose was 

assigned prior to '66 when photon dose was 

assigned. 

Electron dose was calculated based on a photon to 

electron ratio of 1. Due to the cancer location, they 

also applied a closing attenuation factor of .0855 in 

accordance with OTIB-17, and the total dose resulted 

in about approximately 4 rem. These doses were 

entered into IREP as greater 15 keV electrons as a 

constant. 

The reworked unmonitored electron dose was 

calculated for prior to 1966, when the EE was 

monitored for photon dose, and when photon coexposure dose was assigned. So doses were based 

on a photon to electron ratio of 1.04 to 1. They also 

applied a closing attenuation factor of 0.855, and the 

total dose resulted in approximately 4.5 rem.
40

Again, as with the original, this was entered as a 

greater than 15 keV electrons, but the difference 

here is they entered that as a lognormal distribution 

with a GSD of 2.14. SC&A evaluated the unmonitored 

electron doses and the rework followed the TBD 

guidance, and they applied the appropriate photon to 

electron ratios.

We agree with the application of the attenuation 

factor, and doses were correctly entered into IREP, 

and the reworked electron doses increased due to the 

number of years of unmonitored dose assigned, and 

we have no findings with the assignment of electron 

dose.

Okay, and just in summary, here are the four dose 

categories and the result of the reworked cases, a 

comparison of the original and the reworked, doses 

decreased due to the DCF issues used between the 

original and the reworked for the recorded dose. For 

the missed dose, the doses increased because of the 

number of zeros assumed. For the unmonitored dose, 

the doses increased because of assigning dose for the 

years for -- prior to universal badging.

The electron dose increased because of the assigning 

of prior to 1966 plus co-exposure doses were 

assigned during years when there was co-exposure 

monitoring, or co-exposure assignment of dose. It 

was also assigned for electrons. Okay. That is the 

review of PER-062, Subtask 4. You have any 

questions?

Chair Beach: Okay. Questions anyone, comments? 

Paul, Loretta?

Member Valerio: None here Josie.

Member Ziemer: Well, yeah. As far as the rework's 

concerned, and that looks fine. I don't think that will 

be affected by the other issues that you have on the 

documents, right? 

Chair Beach: Yeah. That was --
41

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: That's separate from the rework in 

a way. 

Chair Beach: Yeah.

Member Ziemer: But do you anticipate that that, 

there would be any impact on the reworked doses 

here?

Ms. Behling: No, I don't.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I was just a matter of (audio 

interference) I get some of that stuff, yeah.

Ms. Behling: Right. The only thing that I'm concerned 

about is that that -- years ago, Wanda presented our 

review of OTIB-0052 to the full Board, and during 

that presentation there were numerous questions, 

and questions that I believe they were asking NIOSH 

to give answers to. I'm not sure we ever went back 

to revisit those questions and bring, you know, have 

NIOSH perhaps answer those.

So it's been so many years ago, and I think it's 

between -- we're going to have to do a refresher for 

all of us, SC&A, NIOSH and the Subcommittee, and 

see if we can perhaps get answers to some of those 

questions, and then take the entire package back to 

the full Board. That would be my suggestion.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. 

I'm just thinking in the back of my mind when we do 

that, let's keep sort of in the back of our minds will 

any of this impact on the reworks that have been 

done.

Ms. Behling: It depends on the questions that were 

asked by the Board.

Member Ziemer: No, right, exactly.

Ms. Behling: And NIOSH, yeah, is going to have to 

make any changes or feels that they will have to 

make any changes to OTIB-0052. If that's the case -
42

-

Member Ziemer: Yeah, and I guess -- and that will 

drive the final action, yeah exactly.

Ms. Behling: That will prompt another PER, but this 

PER satisfies, and our review of this PER satisfies the 

Revision 1 and 2 of OTIB-0052. So I think we're good. 

If there is changes that increase the dose, NIOSH will 

issue a PER.

Member Ziemer: Right, good. Thank you.

Chair Beach: Okay. So for Subtask 4 for PER-062, 

that is complete. There's no findings, and we can 

close that; correct?

Ms. Behling: Correct.

Chair Beach: Okay. So let's do that. Is everybody in 

agreement with closing PER-062, Subtask 4?

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I agree to close.

Chair Beach: Okay, and Loretta?

(Pause.)

Member Ziemer: She may be on mute.

(Pause.)

Chair Beach: Loretta, are you on mute or maybe 

stepped away for the moment?

Member Valerio: No, the call dropped and I had to 

call right back in. 

Chair Beach: Oh darn it. Okay. So you're agree to 

close?

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. So let's go back to the discussion 

on 052 on how to track that. I went back and looked 

through the documents to present to the Board, and 

I don't see that listed at all Kathy. There may be a 
43

tasking, because I know you and Lori have talked 

about it and it would be a tasking to SC&A to go back 

and review the transcript from 2013, and to flush out 

all the questions.

Ms. Behling: Yes, and I've already started to do that.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Ms. Behling: Let me see here. I'm trying to look down 

my list of completed reviews, and see if -- why that 

is not -- that should have been online.

Chair Beach: Yeah. I briefly looked through and I 

didn't see it though, while you were presenting.

Ms. Behling: Oh yes, and I think the reason it didn't 

get on that list, and in fact when we go into this, let's 

see. OTIB-0014 is the very first one on our approved 

list, and that's the one that should be discussed also 

as part, under OTIB-0052. When --

Chair Beach: Yeah. I do see that in my notes now, 

yep.

Ms. Behling: Yeah, and the reason OTIB-0052 didn't 

make it onto this list is because initially I had a 

separate list of those documents that were already 

presented to the Board, and OTIB-0052 was on that 

list. But it wasn't until I started looking through the 

transcripts that I realize that's got to be put back 

onto the approved documents, but we're not there 

yet.

And so that's why it doesn't, it's not listed under the 

approved documents, because --

Chair Beach: Yeah. Under my February, I have three 

of them. But under February, I do have that in on the 

notes. 

Ms. Behling: Yeah.

Chair Beach: So it everybody on the Subcommittee 

in agreement with going back through, with that 

tasking? It sounds like you've already started, but 
44

with the tasking to continue looking at the transcript 

and fleshing out those questions for 052?

Member Ziemer: (Audio interference).

Chair Beach: Okay. 

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. Can I ask a question here?

Chair Beach: Of course. Go ahead, Tim.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Kathy, when you indicated that 

this was reviewed by the Board, did you say that it 

was a March 12th, 2013 meeting? Is that correct?

Ms. Behling: Let me see. I believe so. 

Dr. Taulbee: Okay.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: I'm just asking, because I think we have 

a -- have a revision out after that of OTIB-0052, after 

that presentation.

Ms. Behling: Okay, okay. 

Chair Beach: When did that come out Tim? Do you 

have a date?

Dr. Taulbee: I am looking that up as we are speaking 

here. I want to say it's 2014. 

Ms. Behling: It is July. It's July 2014. That was 

Revision 2. 

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. So what I'm getting at, some of 

Revision 2 might have incorporated those comments 

and questions from the Board.

Ms. Behling: You're correct. I don't know the answer 

to that, and I'm glad you pointed that out because 

yes. Wanda presented to the full Board March 12th, 

2013, and then you had Revision 2 in July 2014. So 

I am going to have to -- I've already started putting 

all of this together. But I will go in and see if Rev. 2 

answered some of those questions. So thank you for 
45

pointing that out.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. All right, thank you.

Chair Beach: And in closing, we need to address 

those anyway, and then if some of them aren't 

answered, we need to point those out as well. So I 

think it's a good, it's good to go ahead and continue 

on with that Kathy, and verified. We do --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: Have we been, have you been tasked 

to review Rev. 2 of 052?

Ms. Behling: I believe we did, but I -- we reviewed 

PER-062, which was the result of Rev. 1 and Rev. 2, 

and in our Subtask 2 of that, we should have looked 

at Rev. 2. So I believe we have reviewed Rev. 2. I 

will verify that again, but that should be done as part 

of our PER review. 

If we haven't reviewed all of the most current 

documents or if there's a White Paper or something 

else out there that hasn't been reviewed, we do that 

as part of the PER.

Chair Beach: Okay. I just want to make sure you're 

tasked and there's no issues there. So for this, you 

will send out a list of other documents that are in 

addition to this 052 that need to be verified that we're 

current on?

Ms. Behling: Yes. Perhaps at the next meeting I can 

pull together all of these documents, and we can 

have a discussion on them. Because OTIB-0052 is 

just something in the back of my mind all the time, 

but I know we're going to have to discuss. So perhaps 

I can get that together for the next meeting.

Chair Beach: Okay, that would be great, and then 

you'll continue reviewing the questions and what was 

answered or not answered, and have a better idea by 

the next meeting?

Ms. Behling: Correct.
46

Chair Beach: Okay, that sounds good. Any problems 

with that Rashaun?

Dr. Roberts: No, I don't see any.

Chair Beach: Okay, thank you. How about a comfort 

break, unless people don't need one and want to just 

carry forward?

Member Ziemer: How much more time do you think 

we'll need here?

Chair Beach: Let's see. Kathy, what do you look --

what do you think, another 30 minutes or so?

Ms. Behling: Yeah. Maybe that, yes. Not very much 

more to discuss.

Chair Beach: Okay. If everybody's good with just 

moving forward, I'm okay with that. But I want to, 

you know, if people need a comfort break, give you 

that option. 

Member Ziemer: I'm thinking of maybe 15 minutes, 

10 or 15 minutes would be good.

Chair Beach: Okay. That's what I was thinking also. 

So let's go ahead and stay connected, but come back 

at one o'clock. That's ten minutes. Is that enough?

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Member Valerio: Yeah.

Chair Beach: Okay, thank you. Let's do that.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:50 p.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)

Chair Beach: All right. So we are on to Document 

Tracking, and Kathy I see you have that posted. 

Ms. Behling: Yes. If you would like me to discuss this 

briefly, I'm ready.

Chair Beach: Yes, please do. Go for it.
47

Document Tracking

Ms. Behling: Okay, all right. Typically at the end of 

every meeting, I have been, as you see here, 

updating, putting in details that we will -- from the 

previous meeting, and keeping this as a live 

document so that ultimately when we get the BRS 

back or something equivalent, we'll be able to import 

this information and not lose anything.

The only thing that I have added to this one, last time 

at the last meeting, Paul mentioned that it would be 

nice to see total number of findings, and it wasn't --

I didn't find a convenient way of putting it into the 

detailed matrix. So I did something which is akin to 

what they -- what we already do in the BRS when we 

generate a report. 

I created this matrix summary on this table up front 

that lists all of the documents that we've been 

tracking since we lost the BRS. It provides total 

number of findings, total number of observations, 

and what the status of those findings are. 

Then if there's things that are still in progress they -

- everything is listed in the detailed section. So I just 

wanted to make mention of that new addition to the 

BRS tracking matrix.

Chair Beach: Yeah. I thought that looked good, and I 

appreciated the way you did the summary, so I think 

it's great myself.

Ms. Behling: Does anyone feel we need to add 

anything or make any corrections to this? 

Member Ziemer: It's very helpful, very helpful. Thank 

you.

Ms. Behling: Okay, great. So I don't know that that 

we need to go through all of this, but as I said, 

anything that was discussed during the previous 

February meeting did get added into the detail 

section, Table 2 of this temporary BRS tracking 

matrix.
48

Chair Beach: Yeah, and I think that's just an addition 

that we need to make to each Subcommittee meeting 

where -- and we can, I mean I went through it, right. 

I didn't see anything that I had questions on, and it's 

a -- it's a very useful tool to keep us on track, or at 

least remember where we're at and what we've done. 

Loretta, anything --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Beach: Oh, go ahead.

Ms. Behling: No, I'm sorry. The other thing that I 

know maybe years ago, you had made mention of 

that sometimes when you go back into the BRS, 

there's not sufficient details, and sometimes we have 

some questions as to what really happened or how 

things got closed out. 

So I'm trying to be a little bit more detail oriented 

here and provide a fair amount of information, and 

also attach documents, relevant documents to this 

matrix so that we have a clear understanding of what 

happened when we go back into the BRS to update 

it.

Chair Beach: Yeah, and I appreciate that. I know we'll 

want to go through the BRS or what form we get back 

possibly in the future, but for now this is -- this is 

perfect.

Member Ziemer: Right, right.

Chair Beach: And helpful. All right. With nothing, if 

you just keep tracking, that would be great Kathy. 

Ms. Behling: Okay, will do. 

Preparation for August 2022 Full ABRWH Meeting

Chair Beach: And then the next one would be 

preparations for the next Board meeting. I guess 

while you're getting that document up, Rashaun do 

you know what kind of timeframe we're going to 

have? I don't -- I'm not sure. You probably haven't 

even started working on the agenda for the next 
49

meeting. But can we still have what's an hour, hour 

and a half?

Dr. Roberts: Sure. I mean it's really whatever the 

committee thinks is appropriate, and I can carve out 

the time you need.

Chair Beach: Okay. Okay, great. I don't know how 

the other Subcommittee Members feel. I know the 

last meeting was -- it was a long, a lot of documents. 

I think what did we do, seven Kathy and --

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Beach: There was some talk that you thought 

that might have been too long. What do other 

Subcommittee Members feel?

Dr. Roberts: Well, I just want to make -- it didn't 

matter to me. I know that Dr. Kotelchuck said that 

he thought it was a little bit like --. But I'll do 

whatever the Subcommittee requests.

Member Ziemer: Well you know for -- this is Paul. I 

think for us it's easier, because we've been through 

it all and we knew, we knew the issues before we got 

there. But for the Board Member, when it hits them 

cold like that, even though they have the -- may have 

had the documents in advance, it's a lot of 

information to absorb.

So you know, I don't know if we need to abbreviate 

it a little more or what. Maybe there's too much detail 

for them, I don't know.

Chair Beach: It's definitely a fine balance with trying 

to work through some of our documents and not 

over-presenting. So I think we need to --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Beach: Go ahead.

Ms. Behling: In fact, I believe that I did, I believe I 

did ask that question during the full Board meeting, 

and at least Dr. Kotelchuck indicated that no, he 
50

appreciated the level of detail. It's just that the 

number of documents were a little bit much.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. Maybe we could maybe hold 

it to an hour instead of an hour and half or something 

like that. I don't know. You gauge it as you go.

Chair Beach: Yeah, yeah. Okay. 

Member Ziemer: And maybe after you get there, you 

can see what you have and see what the timing will 

require.

Chair Beach: Correct.

Member Ziemer: As you prepare it I mean, Kathy. I 

don't know.

Chair Beach: Right.

Member Ziemer: Maybe between you and Josie, you 

can kind of figure what are you going to need to sort 

of limit it maybe.

Chair Beach: Yeah. I always push for a little more, so 

you'll have to hold me back, Kathy. I think Kathy is 

recommending --

Member Ziemer: No, no, I understand that. I think 

we do want to have enough detail so the Board 

understands the issues. But we don't want to lose 

them along the way because there's too much.

Chair Beach: Right, agreed. 

Ms. Behling: Then I guess what I have up on the 

screen right now, the last four digits, the four 

documents that are listed there on page two of our 

approved document list, starting with PER-049, 

OTIB-0006, PER-008 and PER or OTIB-0023. Those 

are the four that I was going to suggest that we may 

want to present to the next full Board meeting.

What I'll tell you, what I'm finding is PERs take a little 

bit more effort, just because there's a two-step 

process typically. In some cases, we just have a 
51

Subtask 4, but it still requires an explanation of the 

PER and why we only did the Subtask 4, and because 

we had previously looked at that specific document. 

I also seem to spend a little bit more time with 

documents that we had no findings, because I 

wanted the full Board to have a better understanding 

of this is the process that NIOSH uses and go through 

all of that, and say we didn't find any problem with 

their approach or their assumptions and that type of 

thing.

So in these four documents, there's two PERs. The 

first one has no findings, and like I said the PERs do 

take a little bit more time, and the other two OTIBs 

have some significant findings, seven and eight 

findings. So it seems to me that perhaps those four 

would be adequate, but if you'd like, I see the next 

one on the list has one finding. That would be rather 

simple to go through.

As I start to prepare for these, if I'm understanding 

the Subcommittee correctly, if I feel that I can fit all 

of those like five in in an hour, that that would be 

adequate. So is that how you want me to approach 

this?

Chair Beach: Yeah. An hour to an hour and 15 

minutes maybe for questions. But yeah, I would 

prefer to try to add an additional one Kathy, if you -

-

Ms. Behling: Okay. 

Chair Beach: I guess as you're presenting 87 slides, 

I mean is there a maximum we should try to go for? 

I think you did seven last time, so if we hit, try to go 

for five and see where we're at --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: And we can again find out the comfort 

level of the Board.

Ms. Behling: Yes, I think that's a good approach. 
52

Okay, all right. So we are -- you're suggesting that 

we do PER-049, OTIB-0006, PER-008, OTIB-0023 

and PER-006 if we have the time?

Chair Beach: Yes. Yeah, I think we should go with 

those five, and then as you're developing your slides 

and it gets closer to the agenda, I think you can work 

with or let Rashaun know what kind of timing we're 

going to need, the hour or the hour-30.

Ms. Behling: Okay, okay. Very good. Chair Beach: 

Okay and any other comments on that item? Okay. 

So the next one is the Newly-Issued Documents and 

Supplemental Topics. Kathy.

Newly-Issued Guidance Documents and 

Supplemental Topics

Ms. Behling: Yeah. To the best of my knowledge, I 

don't think there's been any new guidance 

documents listed or published, that we haven't been 

tasked to do. We are working on some other OTIBs 

yet, but what I did want to share with you, and as I 

discussed before, this what I have on the screen right 

now is the list of facilities that have DR 

methodologies embedded in dose reconstruction 

reports or what we call templates.

I did agree, I went down through this list, and any of 

them that you see with an asterisk behind them like 

Carborundum. Let's see what else we have here. 

Metals and Controls, Peek Street, Norton, those are 

all that we just discussed today. Those are all 

templates that we have already discussed.

Chair Beach: Kathy, this is Josie. You've got an echo 

going on, and I don't know if that's going to be bad. 

I don't know. If people aren't muted, because you 

didn't have that before. So I don't know what's 

changed. 

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: Okay. Very good.
53

Ms. Behling: Okay, all right great. All right. If you'd 

like me to start over, I'm just showing you the list of 

facilities, Sites that have templates. I've gone 

through this list, and what I've asked Lori for is we, 

we need to know -- I don't know that, I haven't really 

seen that you put a version number on these that you 

know 2016 is Version 5 or something like that.

But what I'd like to know is what the current version 

is and if she can tell me, at least what the date is of 

the current version, because in some of these, in 

some instances we have looked at these templates, 

but we want to be sure that it's the most current 

version also. So I did indicate that at the bottom 

here, that anything with an asterisk we have 

previously reviewed.

Typically, they've been reviewed as part of the PER. 

Now I also, I didn't mark this on here, but I have to 

assume that this Westinghouse New Jersey, SC&A 

reviewed the ER for that SEC. So I have to assume 

that we could probably mark this off of our list, that 

we've already looked at this DR methodology too.

But and as I went through this, I realized there was 

a lot, a lot of these facilities that sounded familiar to 

me. I know that with the BWXT, there was a PER-056 

that was issued, and associated with that Site. I 

guess for some reason, the Subcommittee had asked 

us to do a focused review and say does this need to 

be looked at. At the time, we based that decision 

probably on number of cases that were looked at.

I'm not sure why some of these were not because --

because we didn't review PER-056, we didn't look at 

the DR methodology for that particular Site. So I'm 

suggesting that we do. We don't necessarily have to 

go back and do PER-056, but I think we need to look 

at the DR methodology, or I would think that the 

Subcommittee would want us to look at the DR 

methodology for all of these.

There are some cases, there's some facilities where 

we have been assigned a case review for that facility. 

Now that case review is just looking to see did NIOSH 
54

follow what that review, what that guidance told 

them to do. So it wouldn't necessarily be something 

that we would have analyzed the dose reconstruction 

methodology. We would just say did NIOSH 

appropriately follow that methodology.

So even though we may have done a case review, 

I'm not sure that qualifies as -- to say that we've 

looked at the DR methodology, because that wasn't 

part of the tasking. So I just wanted to give you this 

list. I don't know if it's appropriate at this time to --

because we don't necessarily have to know what the 

most recent version is.

If we were tasked to look at some of these, some of 

this methodology, NIOSH could just provide us with 

the most recent template. 

Chair Beach: Okay. Subcommittee Members, Loretta, 

Paul, what are your thoughts?

Member Ziemer: Well, this is Ziemer. I for one would 

like to have it spelled out what, what has been 

reviewed and what hasn't. Could we get a copy of this 

list as well from you?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I --

Member Ziemer: Distribute it to the committee here.

Ms. Behling: I apologize. I did put it in the materials. 

I put it yesterday, I believe, and I didn't --

Member Ziemer: Oh, I guess I --

Ms. Behling: So it's in, on the virtual volume I put a 

copy of this, and this is just a very informal list --

Member Ziemer: Okay.

Ms. Behling: --that I put together.

Member Ziemer: Okay.

Chair Beach: So this is the list that we had before?

Ms. Behling: This is the list that Lori provided me of 
55

the facilities that have templates, and I still don't 

know what the most current version is and what the 

dates of those are, but that doesn't preclude us from 

reviewing some that haven't been looked at yet. 

I know, as I said, for sure we have not looked at --

or we have looked at Carborundum, Metals and 

Controls, Norton, Peek Street, Westinghouse Nuclear 

Fuels. That was one of ours that we talked about 

today, and W.R. Grace. We've looked at those 

facilities.

Chair Beach: Kathy, can you send us a list of the ones 

that you have not looked at that you feel that you 

should look at the PR methodology, and that way we 

have an idea of what you have moving forward. I 

know you mentioned BWXT, but and then --

Ms. Behling: That clearly. Yes, and okay. I can do 

that.

Mr. Rutherford: Kathy, Josie, could I offer something 

up real quick? This is LaVon.

Chair Beach: Yes. Go ahead, LaVon.

Mr. Rutherford: BWXT is going under a major revision 

at this time. I think it would be a good idea for you 

guys to look at that after we get done with that one. 

I mean it's changing.

Chair Beach: Okay. That's good to know. In fact, if 

NIOSH can provide me with -- can you tell me if any 

of these on the list are undergoing changes, that's 

something that the Subcommittee should know, and 

I can put that on my list so we don't look at that 

prematurely.

Mr. Rutherford: I think we can do that.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: This is Paul again. 

Chair Beach: Go ahead.
56

Member Ziemer: Go ahead, go ahead.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Beach: Lori said that she would have that list 

out within the next, what did you say two to three 

weeks Lori?

Ms. Marion-Ross: Correct.

Chair Beach: And if you could add to it the last 

comment about what's going under major revision or 

what's going to be revised. If you could add that, and 

then possibly once SC&A has that list, then the 

Subcommittee -- and there's some you feel you could 

start on, Kathy, we could do a tasking via email I 

believe; is that correct Rashaun?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. That should be fine.

Chair Beach: It feel like we should have more 

information before we start. Paul, what were you 

saying?

Member Ziemer: Well, yeah. My question was or sort 

of comment, I want to make sure that these don't 

supersede some other priority tasking that's 

underway on that regular review thing. So I guess we 

need to take a look first at what's there and what 

needs to be done. Is there anything on these that is 

high priority right now? That's --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy. The reason that I decided 

to discuss this under the Newly-Issued Guidance 

Documents and Supplemental Topics is because we -

- there right now, NIOSH has not, that I'm aware of 

anyway, has not issued any new documents that I 

would suggest to the Subcommittee that we may 

want to look at. So this list, these are -- this is DR 

methodologies that is like a small, it's like a TBD, that 

they haven't been looked at yet.

So it's not that there's any pressing issue, but they've 

been --
57

Member Ziemer: Oh okay.

Ms. Behling: And there's nothing else in the back --

waiting in the background. So we can start working 

on these as far as, you know, I'm concerned because 

there's nothing else.

Member Ziemer: Okay. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to 

make sure, because I wasn't -- I wasn't aware of 

what all the other Work Groups might be having you 

work on, so thank you.

Ms. Behling: Right.

Dr. Taulbee: If I could just -- this is Tim. If I could 

interject.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: There is a document out there that I'm 

not sure that SC&A has reviewed, that I believe 

would fall best under the Subcommittee, and that's 

Report 87. This is Applications for Regression of 

External Dose Reconstruction, and most importantly 

what this covered is the quantile regression 

methodology, which is actually impacting a couple of 

Sites. That would be the Nevada Test Site in the 

gaseous diffusion plants.

I've used this approach, and it appears that this is 

kind of -- it's a global document that we use. It's a 

report, it's not a guidance document. But it is 

something that other Sites have been using that has 

been causing questions, and I think may be 

appropriate for this Subcommittee to review. I'm not 

sure that this committee has ever reviewed Report 

87. Have they?

Chair Beach: I don't think so. Kathy?

Mr. Barton: Tim, this is Bob Barton. Hopefully 

everybody can hear me. On the quantile regression 

analysis, we are looking at that actually. That is in 

our shop. I think it came up mostly related to 

Portsmouth, where it was used for photon-neutron 
58

ratios and that sort of analysis.

So that is in our shop, and we are taking a look 

at that, and hopefully we'll have a report out to you 

fairly shortly, within the next month or two. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: Yeah, that's a task. I think that was a 

task.

Chair Beach: Oh go ahead, sorry.

Ms. Behling: Oh no, I'm sorry. I think that was tasked 

in February, at the February meeting. Yes, I've listed 

that, uh-huh. So yeah, we are working on that.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: Good, all right. Thank you very much.

Ms. Behling: Thank you for pointing that out.

Chair Beach: Yeah. So I was going to ask Kathy, is 

there something you do in conjunction with waiting 

for Lori's list, so that you -- on this template? Okay. 

Ms. Behling: Yes, that's a task. Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. Can you get that out for me?

Ms. Behling: Okay, I will, because some of these 

Sites like Albuquerque Operations Office, they just 

sound so familiar, and I want to dig in and make sure, 

you know, that we're not repeating something we've 

already done. But and like Metallurgical Lab, PER-044 

addressed changes to that template, but we didn't --

we weren't tasked to review that. And so but that Site 

sounds so familiar to me, but I think it has to do with 

-- I'll have to work with Rose to look at the dose 

reconstructions that we may have done early on.

If we found something, I think back when Mark 

Griffon was still on the Board, he would ask us to do 

like a mini-Site Profile review of something that we 

hadn't already looked at. So I just want to convince 
59

myself. But that would have been years ago, and so 

these templates may have changed, so it -- and 

that's why I'm sort of waiting on Lori to give me just 

some dates associated with the most current 

template.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Ms. Behling: I can, I can focus a little bit more deeper 

because I have some questions in my mind also as to 

whether we have looked at all at the methodology. 

Even if we would have under a dose reconstruction 

review, we probably wouldn't have looked at the 

totality of the dose reconstruction methodology. We 

would have only looked at those components that 

were used in that dose reconstruction, and that may 

not be the entire DR methodology.

Chair Beach: Okay. So that makes sense, to perhaps 

look at that and send out a list to the Subcommittee, 

for if we need to do some further tasking. I think we 

can do that via email.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Kathy, this is Rose. I have DR statistics 

on basically all the Sites that I could send you, that 

might help you prioritize which ones or which 

templates might be the best to review first.

Ms. Behling: Okay, right. Thank you. Perfect.

Chair Beach: Okay, that sounds good. Anything else 

on that?

Ms. Marion-Ross: So this is Lori. For clarification, 

Kathy you're waiting on the list that will include the 

versions and the dates that that DR methodology had 

been revised, along with information as to which Site, 

which Sites may be underway in terms of being 

converted to a Site Profile or a TBD?

Ms. Behling: Correct.

Ms. Marion-Ross: That's what you're waiting on me 

for?
60

Ms. Behling: That's correct, yeah, if there's any major 

changes. Even if this BWXT is going to remain as a 

template, but you know that you're making changes 

to it, we should know that so that doesn't, that gets 

-- doesn't get prioritized as something we want to 

review. We want to wait until the revision comes out.

Ms. Marion-Ross: Sounds good. Thank you for that.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: Thanks for asking for that clarification. 

It's good to know what we're all doing. Anything else 

on the templates or newly-issued guidance 

documents? 

(No response.)

Next Subcommittee Meeting/Plans

Chair Beach: I want to circle back to Tim. We had 

talked earlier about things that may be coming up 

that are ready for the next meeting. Dr. Taulbee: Yes, 

and the -- well obviously Peek Street and TIB-5000. 

We can be ready for the next meeting to present 

those for sure. You've already got the draft out there, 

so we will have some presentations ready for that. 

Bomber, had mentioned Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels 

Division. He committed by the next meeting that that 

one is one that we will be ready to talk about as well. 

And the other one that I'm going to add here is 

Birdsboro, because we are close on that one and I do 

feel that within the next month, next month or six 

weeks or so, we should be able to put out a memo to 

the Work Group from that standpoint. Of course, it 

might take us two months, but somewhere around 

there. That one is pretty close as well. 

So those are the four that I've got on my list of things 

that I think we can be ready for the next meeting.

Chair Beach: Okay, and then -- oh, go ahead.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy. Yeah. I was just going to 

say from the SC&A side, we should definitely have 
61

the Grand Junction facility, the radon chamber 

discussion. We should have that memo prepared for 

the next meeting, plus we also have finished 2 PERs, 

PER-092 and 093, and we're ready to discuss those.

Chair Beach: Okay, and then you'll have a report for 

us on OTIB-0052?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Beach: And the templates possibly. The list will 

be out for that and we can task soon on those?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. Anything else for the good of the 

Subcommittee? 

Member Valerio: So Josie, just to clarify. All of these 

items that were just discussed are for the next 

Subcommittee meeting, not full Board meeting; 

correct?

Chair Beach: Correct. The only thing for the next 

meeting are the five, five that we discussed, 049, 

006, 008, 023 and 006. So yeah, those are the only 

ones that will present to the full Board meeting. 

Everything else is Subcommittee.

Member Valerio: Right.

Chair Beach: Okay. Can we -- what do you think? 

Should we go ahead and schedule Rashaun?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. We can tentatively identify 

something. Based on the rough agenda, I guess, that 

was just described, should we maybe zero in on 

September some time?

Chair Beach: That's what I was thinking, and because 

I am -- the first and second week, I'm unavailable. 

So anything from the 12th on.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, the 12th on? Let's see. How would 

September 14th?
62

Chair Beach: I asked --

Dr. Roberts: Would that work or the 15th?

Chair Beach: Yeah. The 15th would be better for me 

personally. I have an appointment on the 14th. 

Other, other Members?

Member Ziemer: I'm okay on the 15th. I'm okay on 

the 15th, Josie.

Chair Beach: Can we push that back just to the next 

week? I'm sorry, because I'm going to be out of town 

and I don't have time to prep. Maybe the week of the 

19th. Any of those days work for me. Others?

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. I will out that week.

Chair Beach: Oh you will? Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: Not that I'm critical. Others can fill in for 

me.

Chair Beach: Okay. So then just, let's just go back to 

the 15th, if everybody's okay with that? I can be 

ready.

Dr. Roberts: And that works tentatively?

Chair Beach: Yes.

Member Ziemer: That's Thursday the 15th, right?

Chair Beach: Correct, yes.

Member Ziemer: Okay. That's good for me. 

Member Valerio: That's good for me.

Chair Beach: Do we want to choose an alternate, or 

are we okay with that?

Member Ziemer: Well you know, we have enough 

time. If something came up, we could do something 

else.
63

Chair Beach: Okay. That sounds good. If everybody's 

okay subcommittee-wise. SC&A, no conflicts?

Ms. Behling: Fine with me. This is Kathy.

Member Ziemer: I mean I'm okay going another 

week beyond that if necessary, but is later in the 

month better for you Josie?

Chair Beach: Yeah. I'm okay with going, moving to 

the 29th and that gives us a little bit more time. But 

I can also do the 15th so --

Dr. Roberts: Would you like to go for the 29th, if that 

works for others?

Member Ziemer: I'm fine with that.

Member Valerio: Either date works for me.

Chair Beach: All right. I'm good with going a little bit 

later, so that would be okay. Thank you for all for 

mentioning that.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, and is the 28th or the 29th 

preferred? 29th?

Chair Beach: Either/or.

Member Ziemer: Either one is fine for me.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, either/or? Let's go with -- let's do 

the 29th. 

Chair Beach: Okay, okay. All right. I think we are 

ready to adjourn, unless there's any other 

comments, questions?

Ms. Marion-Ross: This is Lori. I just want to add one 

thing. We may have some documents that will be 

published soon, so just look ahead Kathy, Rashaun. 

We'll be seeing all the emails letting you know where 

I've posted those documents in the virtual volume, 

as well you will know that they've been posted to the 

web.

Ms. Behling: Okay, very good.
64

Chair Beach: Okay, and that's great to know. Thank 

you, and then Rashaun, would you let the -- I'll know 

you'll let SC&A know, but the rest of the 

Subcommittee also that we can look at those?

Dr. Roberts: Sure, uh-huh.

Chair Beach: Thank you. Anything else? All right. Well 

thank you for all the hard work and the 

presentations. Kathy, I know a lot of that fell on your 

shoulders. Good work.

Ms. Behling: Thank you, not a problem.

Adjourn

Chair Beach: I would say we adjourn. Any seconds?

Member Valerio: I second.

Member Ziemer: Second, in favor.

Chair Beach: All right. Take care everyone. We'll talk 

soon. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 1:37 p.m.)