NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 17, 2009

+ + + + +

The meeting convened in the Zurich 

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, 

2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky at 10:00 

a.m., Wanda Munn, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA MUNN, Chair

MICHAEL GIBSON, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

PAUL ZIEMER, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, Contractor

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHLEEN BEHLING, SC&A*

ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH*

STUART HINNEFELD, OCAS

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A*

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A 

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU*

*Present via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

2 (10:02 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. This is 

5 the Procedures Subcommittee. My name is Ted 

6 Katz, and I'm the Designated Federal Official 

7 for the Advisory Board. And starting with 

8 Board members in the room, roll call.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, chair of 

10 the Subcommittee.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, 

12 Subcommittee member.

13 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

14 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

15 Subcommittee member.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

17 Subcommittee member.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay and then NIOSH 

19 ORAU team in the room?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

21 Interim Director of the Office of Compensation 

22 Analysis.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1 MR. KATZ: And on the line? NIOSH 

2 ORAU team?

3 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU.

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Elyse.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

6 team.

7 MR. KATZ: Hi, Scott.

8 MR. SMITH: Matt Smith, ORAU team.

9 MR. KATZ: All right, SC&A in the 

10 room?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke.

12 MR. KATZ: And SC&A on the line?

13 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling.

14 MS. LIPSZTEIN: And Joyce 

15 Lipsztein.

16 MR. KATZ: Hans Behling, Joyce 

17 Lipsztein; is Kathy Behling on, too?

18 MS. BEHLING: Yes, Kathy Behling, 

19 I'm here.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, sorry, you got 

21 squashed out by other affirmations. And HHS 

22 and other government officials in the room?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

2 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

3 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

4 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

5 contractor.

6 MR. KATZ: Any other federal 

7 officials or contractors on the line?

8 Okay, and any members of the 

9 public on the line? All done, okay, Wanda?

10 CHAIR MUNN: I hope all of you 

11 have received the email communications that 

12 were flying back and forth yesterday, several 

13 of which are pertinent to what we are doing 

14 today. The first two things I'd like to have 

15 us make a decision about is where on the 

16 agenda we want to address the information that 

17 Ted sent us with respect to PERs, and 

18 secondarily, the comments with respect to the 

19 letter that Paul provided as our second annual 

20 report to the Secretary. I hope you received 

21 my comments on that, some concern about the 

22 very last paragraph on the first page of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 letter. 

2 I'd like to address both of those 

3 items fairly early before we actually get into 

4 the nitty gritty of our action item list. 

5 Does anyone have any concern about our doing 

6 that first, and which of the items are the 

7 items you would prefer to address first?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever you want 

9 is fine with me.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Not 

11 hearing any concerns one way or the other, 

12 let's do address the issue of the PERs. Ted 

13 had suggested, I think quite appropriately, 

14 that the request of briefing from SC&A as to 

15 how they anticipate addressing the PERs, and 

16 Ted provided a set of specs that he had 

17 suggested. 

18 I would ask of Steve Marschke, who 

19 I assume is going to do that for us -- right? 

20 Is that your --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Probably Kathy or 

22 Hans will probably do the -- your addressing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 of the PER question.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good. 

3 Before we do that, I guess I'd 

4 like to make sure that we are aware of where 

5 we are with our database, even before we get 

6 to that. Steve has a report for us with 

7 respect to our status with items, as well as 

8 where we are with the database itself. 

9 Apparently, we are not yet where we need to be 

10 with the electronic version. Steve, do you 

11 want to bring us up to date?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, NIOSH has been 

13 bringing the database over from the ORAU 

14 computer to the CDC computer. And last week 

15 we got access to the database and were able to 

16 -- we had write access to the database, so we 

17 were fat, dumb, and happy last week. But then 

18 when I started preparing for this meeting and 

19 preparing the summary sheet which I like to 

20 send out, either myself or Nancy Adams usually 

21 sends out, when I was preparing a summary 

22 sheet I realized that we were going backwards, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 and that the database was reflecting the 

2 database as it stood prior to the August 

3 meeting, and it did not reflect any of the 

4 changes that were made during the August 

5 meeting or during the October meeting. 

6 Now we knew it wasn't going to 

7 include any of the changes during the October 

8 meeting because during that meeting we were 

9 not live. But we had anticipated including 

10 the October changes -- including the August 

11 changes because during the October meeting we 

12 weren't able to -- it did reflect those. 

13 So I emailed the Subcommittee, and 

14 I emailed NIOSH; I forgot to email Nancy, I 

15 apologize, and basically I stopped updating 

16 the database at that point because I didn't 

17 know what we were going to do, whether we were 

18 going to try to replace the current database 

19 with a newer version from the ORAU machine or 

20 whether we were going to try to update it by 

21 hand. So basically now we are kind of waiting 

22 now to take the next step. We have -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 electronic database as it is available 

2 currently on the NIOSH computer or the CDC 

3 computer does not reflect the latest changes. 

4 And as to the latest email I sent out, I 

5 think there are about 14 open issues that 

6 during the August meeting we had dispositioned 

7 one way or the other. Another, I think, four 

8 or so in progress issues that we had 

9 dispositioned one way or the other, and the 

10 database does not reflect that. 

11 So I guess there are two options 

12 to go. One is somebody sit down with the 

13 minutes of the August meeting and try to 

14 update the database. The other one is to go 

15 back to the ORAU version that would show up 

16 there and bring it over again and try and 

17 update it that way. 

18 But that is where we stand, and 

19 then once we get it to the end of the August 

20 meeting, then we have to do the update by hand 

21 for the October meeting, and we probably do -

22 - any updates that get completed today will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 have to be entered by hand as well. I don't 

2 know if we want to update the database today, 

3 how it gets reflected.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That is an extremely 

5 tedious process. I would hope that we could 

6 in any event be able to bring over the 

7 database which was complete after the August 

8 meeting. Even if we have to enter the October 

9 data by hand, that is tedious, and --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: The October data, 

11 we always knew we were going to have to do 

12 that by hand. And if we have to do the August 

13 data, that would be quite a bit of a job, and 

14 -- just to make sure that we got it correct 

15 because I looked at the August transcript and 

16 it's 300 pages long. So that would be a very 

17 tedious job for someone to sit down and go 

18 through there and make sure, but those are the 

19 options.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have anybody 

21 from that side of the house that can give us a 

22 feel about when they might be able to -- since 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 we at one time had the database, following the 

2 August meeting.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that was on 

4 the ORAU side. The updates, remember in the 

5 August meeting, everybody at that meeting was 

6 still looking at the database on the ORAU.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: We did have it 

9 during the October meeting, and we were on the 

10 CDC machine on the October meeting. And it 

11 was up to date at that point. So it might be 

12 already over on the NIOSH side. It'd just be 

13 pointing to the wrong file, data set, 

14 someplace. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Once they find the 

16 right files, it won't be -- that is the key 

17 element, is finding the right version of it. 

18 And I don't know how they distinguish these. 

19 It might be that they have modified dates on 

20 the properties in the files or something, I 

21 don't really know. But if Tom is coming down 

22 here, I don't know that he's going to be able 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 to do that today, but he might. He has a lot 

2 of access to computer servers.

3 CHAIR MUNN: That would be great. 

4 Do we have any feel for when Tom might be 

5 here?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I didn't know 

7 he was coming. He was sick yesterday, and I 

8 didn't know for sure he was at work today.

9 CHAIR MUNN: But we think he is 

10 going to be here?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Nancy said he's on 

12 the way.

13 MS. ADAMS: This is Nancy Adams. 

14 I got an email from Leroy last night because I 

15 sent him an email about the database. And he 

16 said Tom was coming over this morning. I 

17 emailed Tom, and I tried to get hold of him, 

18 but I've been unsuccessful. So I don't know 

19 when he might be there.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we'll just hope 

21 that he might show up, and when he does, 

22 perhaps we will stop whatever we are doing at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 the time and give him an opportunity to do 

2 everything possible to bring us up to date.

3 Yes, Paul.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have one 

5 question. Steve, can you tell us are the 

6 numbers we used, the statistical numbers that 

7 we used in our report, up to date as far, if 

8 you go back to the slide you just showed, are 

9 we up to date on the numbers we provided for 

10 the Secretary's report, relative to the -- I 

11 thought we were.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We were up to date as 

13 of the time the letter was drafted, which was 

14 just before the October meeting.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Before the October 

17 meeting, yes. I'd say those numbers were good 

18 --

19 CHAIR MUNN: They were good 

20 through August.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Through August, 

22 right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Correct.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: They didn't 

4 reflect October changes?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: They did not 

6 reflect October changes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I sort of recall 

8 you sitting here in the meeting and changing 

9 the numbers on the chart.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: In the August 

11 meeting, I did that. In the October meeting, 

12 I don't recall doing that. I don't think I 

13 did that because I don't think we had -- it 

14 was not -- the database was on the CDC machine 

15 at that time --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I meant the 

17 summary sheet you just showed us.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: The summary sheet 

19 that I just showed --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Didn't you update 

21 that while we were in the meeting?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 MR. MARSCHKE: The summary sheet 

2 that I just showed -- well, I've lost it now, 

3 but that summary sheet -- that was the end of 

4 August. That was a summary sheet that I 

5 generated yesterday, and that's the database 

6 as it stands right now. And it basically is 

7 the same as it was in, at the start of August. 

8 If you look at this graph here, 

9 you can see that this line, the November line 

10 that is shown here, is virtually identical to 

11 the August line, whereas the October line is 

12 different. And this, going from here to here 

13 is the update that was lost. 

14 MS. ADAMS: This is Nancy Adams. 

15 Steve, the number that I have written on my --

16 the total findings of 538.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

18 MS. ADAMS: And then open was 105, 

19 which was different from July which was 118.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, yes, we had 

21 104, 105 in October, and now we are back to 

22 115 open items, or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 MS. ADAMS: And 38 in progress, 86 

2 in abeyance.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I just 

4 wanted to cross check what we used in the 

5 letter. I thought it was the October data.

6 CHAIR MUNN: It was the October 

7 data, yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: At the start of the 

9 October meeting data, the start of the --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Remember, 

11 we left the blanks, the letterhead blank for 

12 the numbers, and we were going to fill them in 

13 after the meeting.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Originally we 

15 had intended having more numerical data there. 

16 We were going to give more numbers and agreed 

17 that that was overkill.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But we had a 

19 couple of percentages.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, and the 

21 percentages were correct as of October, when 

22 we wrote the letter.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we are probably 

2 okay on that.

3 CHAIR MUNN: I believe we are.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Percentage won't 

5 make much difference.

6 CHAIR MUNN: No, and it's such a 

7 small -- any change would be so small that it 

8 wouldn't affect the percentage by any more 

9 than one point at the very most, I'm sure. 

10 They were all significant numbers.

11 All right, well, we'll wait to see 

12 if we can get back to where we need to be 

13 sometime later today. In the meantime we'll 

14 have to work with what we've got. The 

15 tracking system status that comes up for me 

16 shows currently the total findings of 538; 

17 open, 115; in progress, 40; in abeyance, 79; 

18 addressing findings, 15; transferred, 39; and 

19 closed, 250. That's what comes up on the 

20 current base. 

21 And that's it, only one or two 

22 single items away from where we were. That's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 just about what we were using as our 

2 calculator. So yes, I think we are fine, 

3 Paul. I can't see this would be a problem. 

4 Now next item, the PERs. Steve, 

5 do you have --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: A count? Well, I 

7 can just say -- I can introduce it a little 

8 bit. Yesterday the Subcommittee and the 

9 Board, actually, should have received an email 

10 from SC&A in which we transmitted two 

11 documents. One of them was the protocols to 

12 review NIOSH Program Evaluation Reports. And 

13 that is exactly what its title indicates. 

14 It's our draft protocol that we propose to 

15 utilize to review the PERs. 

16 And it was written by Hans and 

17 Kathy. I have a version of it here on the 

18 screen that I can put up, and if Hans or 

19 Kathy, if you want to basically take over the 

20 discussion at this point, that would be good.

21 DR. BEHLING: Okay. This is Hans. 

22 First of all let me apologize 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 because I wasn't really aware until yesterday 

2 that this would be on the agenda for today. 

3 And I had it in the hands of people at our 

4 SC&A home office and was hurriedly trying to 

5 get it into your hands before this meeting. 

6 So I apologize, but I do hope that members 

7 have had a chance to review it and understand 

8 what's in it. But let me briefly go over what 

9 it really involves.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hans, can I 

11 interrupt for a second? This is Mark Griffon.

12 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Where did that 

14 email come from? I can't seem to find that.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: It went to your CDC 

16 email address. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, that explains 

18 it, thank you. I'll look on there. Thank 

19 you.

20 DR. BEHLING: At least we know 

21 that some of us, some of the Board members, 

22 may have not had a chance to look at it. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 just in brief, let me go over what I did here. 

2 Among the things that was apparent 

at the October 23rd 3 Board meeting was that we 

4 had really lost track of what happened to 

5 PERs. So the first section in the report 

6 tries to go back in time and explain what has 

7 happened to PERs. And one of the things I 

8 tried to do here was remind people of previous 

9 discussions we had in the form of attachments, 

10 some of which are obviously part of the 

11 report, and others are strictly referenced. 

12 In past meetings we have had 

13 discussions about PERs, and to date we have 

14 done two PERs that try to track somewhat with 

15 the protocol that is being outlined or 

16 proposed here. 

17 The first PER that was done in 

18 accord with this type -- with this basic 

19 procedure was the lymphoma PER, and following 

20 that one we had a discussion, and I think it 

21 was Mr. Katz's recommendation to at least 

22 eliminate one of the sub-tasks. Initially we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 had six sub-tasks, and as a result of the 

2 recommendation to eliminate the first sub3 task, we are at this point with five sub4 tasks.

5 MR. KATZ: Hans, I'm sorry, this 

6 is Ted, but let me just clarify, that is not a 

7 Mr. Katz recommendation. That was a decision 

8 of the contract evaluation panel. That's 

9 where that came about. It was during the 

10 review of the new SC&A contract that the panel 

11 recommended that that first step be eliminated 

12 as unnecessary.

13 DR. BEHLING: Okay, we will 

14 obviously make a correction here to the report 

15 to reflect your comments here. 

16 But even beyond PER-0012 and 0020, 

17 which were done basically in a format that is 

18 being proposed here, there were previous other 

19 PERs, and, in fact, I was reminded yesterday, 

20 and I guess it was Steve who also recalled 

21 that in addition to the four PERs that were 

22 done early on, there were an additional two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 PERs, so we've done several PERs not by this 

2 protocol but basically under the protocol that 

3 was identified for review of procedures and 

4 OTIBs. So at this point we have really done a 

5 total of six PERs that were done initially 

6 under the protocols for procedures, and then 

7 two were done under a modified version of 

8 what's being proposed here. So that is the 

9 history behind it. 

10 And one of the things that you 

11 will see if you go through this writeup is 

12 that the outstanding issue to date is the fact 

13 that we have yet to do any review of dose 

14 reconstructions that reflect these PERs, and 

15 that has been the topic of discussion on 

16 several occasions of previous work group 

17 meetings as well as full Board meetings. And 

18 I think this is a thing that needs to be 

19 looked at today. 

20 Initially if you look at some of 

21 the attachments of previous meetings, we had 

22 proposed to do the, perhaps, three DRs that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 have been modified or reassessed under the 

2 existing PER, and then in behalf of this 

3 particular draft report, I look back and say, 

4 is this really reasonable? And I think this 

5 is the thing that needs discussion today, is 

6 that who is going to basically decide what the 

7 number of PERs should be and whose 

8 responsibility should that be. 

9 For those who may have the report 

10 and have it available, the existing proposal 

11 is to essentially follow sub-tasks one through 

12 five as defined on page six of the report that 

13 you may have available at least 

14 electronically.

15 MS. BEHLING: Would you like Hans 

16 to go through those sub-tasks, since many of 

17 you may not have had an opportunity to read 

18 through this?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that would be 

20 useful. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: It would be helpful.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before you start, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 Hans, just to make sure everyone has the same 

2 report, the title of it under the SC&A 

3 transmittal is called Draft Transmittal, Draft 

4 SCA TR PR2009 0002 Rev 0 Restricted.

5 That's what it's under, what Judy 

6 sent us, so just for the benefit of those who 

7 are looking in there.

8 MS. BEHLING: To your CDC email.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

10 DR. BEHLING: Okay, if you have 

11 that report, on page six is really the 

12 identification of the five sub-tasks that we 

13 are proposing to use in fulfillment of our PER 

14 review. 

15 Sub-task one, and I'll read it 

16 verbatim so that -- for those who don't have 

17 it will get some understanding. Sub-task one 

18 states SC&A will assess NIOSH's 

19 evaluation/characterization of the issue and 

20 its potential impacts on DR. Our assessment 

21 intends to ensure that the issue was fully 

22 understood and characterized in the PER. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 And that is basically just simply 

2 going through the steps that NIOSH will 

3 normally follow in establishing a PER. And 

4 that obviously includes certain discussions, 

5 writing up a PIP, and the writing of the PER 

6 that reflects what the technical issues are 

7 that prompted this whole issue. 

8 Sub-task two, assess NIOSH's 

9 specific methods for correction action in 

10 instances where the PER involves a technical 

11 issue. SC&A will review the scientific basis 

12 and/or sources of information, ensure the 

13 credibility of the corrective action and its 

14 consistency with current/consensus science. 

15 And that is nothing more than, again, going 

16 over all of the technical information that 

17 NIOSH has cited on behalf of the PER, 

18 verifying the sources, and making sure that 

19 the PER truly reflects that information, in 

20 addition to perhaps going outside those 

21 sources and seeing if the technical sources 

22 that are cited by NIOSH are consistent with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 the scientific literature at large.

2 Task three, evaluate the PER's 

3 stated approach by identifying the universe of 

4 potentially affected DRs and assess the 

5 criteria by which a subset of potentially 

6 affected DRs was selected for reevaluation. 

7 The second step may have important 

8 implications in instances where the universe 

9 of DRs is too large, and for reasons of 

10 practicality NIOSH reevaluation is confined to 

11 a subset of DRs. 

12 On behalf of sub-task four, SC&A 

13 will also evaluate -- actually, that should be 

14 sub-task three. On behalf of sub-task three, 

15 SC&A will also evaluate the timeliness for the 

16 completion of the PER. And that pretty much 

17 is nothing more than trying to assess the 

18 database under which these potential DRs may 

19 be selected for reassessment, and as I'm 

20 currently doing, I'm reevaluating -- or I'm 

21 evaluating -- PER 12, and here we are, we are 

22 essentially looking at, in this case, at all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 facilities in the DOE complex, including AWEs

2 that may have, in the case of high-fired 

3 plutonium, be affected by this PR. And then 

4 understanding how that universe of claims can 

5 potentially be reduced to a more manageable 

6 system by applying certain screening tests. 

7 And, again, you will see later on when you 

8 read in my report how that is done, those two, 

9 not necessarily review all of the potential 

10 claims in this universe, but select those that 

11 will only be affected by the PER, and that is 

12 most likely driven by the Probability of 

13 Causation. If the corrective action on the 

14 part of a PER will not come even close to the 

50th 15 percentile of Probability of Causation, 

16 we can certainly reduce the number that would 

17 require reassessment. And that's really the 

18 central theme of task three. 

19 Under sub-task four, conduct 

20 audits of DRs affected by the PER under 

21 review. And that is really the step that 

22 needs a substantial amount of discussion by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 the Work Group. And we have up to this point 

2 come to the conclusion -- or at least I have 

3 come to the conclusion -- that the initial 

4 proposal to perhaps only limit our review of 

5 DRs to three may not be appropriate, and that 

6 was somewhat prompted by my current review of 

7 PER 12. And I explained why or what are the 

8 basic mechanisms by which we may have to 

9 increase the number. And that number may be 

10 variable and PER-specific. And as you will 

11 read in this particular protocol here, in the 

12 case of PER 12 there are any number of changes 

13 to the reassessment of dose reconstruction 

14 that may require a certain minimum number of 

15 DRs to be reviewed, and that is driven by the 

16 -- and in the case of Super S plutonium, that 

17 is driven by not only the facility that may be 

18 affected but the type of tissue or the organ, 

19 the target organ in question, and the 

20 methodology that was used to originally 

21 reconstruct doses, that is the type of 

22 bioassay that was used. In the case of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 plutonium Super S the corrective action as 

2 defined under OTIB-0049 is based largely on 

3 the bioassays that were used to reconstruct 

4 the original dose. 

5 And so if you go through the 

6 original report, and I won't go through the 

7 details here, you will realize, on behalf of 

8 PER 12, the potential number of variables that 

9 affect dose reconstruction are driven by the 

10 type of organ and the method by which the 

11 original dose reconstruction was determined. 

12 And my feeling is that to really 

13 assess at least each and every one of the 

14 permutations by which a dose may be reassessed 

15 under PER 12, you may have to assess as many 

16 as 12 DRs as a minimum. And that really is 

17 basically what I think are the issues that 

18 need to be discussed here, and the real 

19 question is who should make the decision in 

20 terms of defining which DRs need to be 

21 assessed from the universe of DRs that are 

22 potentially available for us to review.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 CHAIR MUNN: Hans, it would seem 

2 to me that PER 12 and the high-fired plutonium 

3 issues are probably among the more complicated 

4 of the PERs that we have before us. Is that 

5 not correct?

6 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it is. As I 

7 said, Kathy had put out a table, I think it's 

8 Table 1, that sort of looks at the complexity 

9 by which a PER will be used in terms of 

10 redefining dose reassessment. And this one 

11 turns out to be, perhaps, a little more 

12 complex. For those who are familiar with 

13 OTIB-0049, there are obviously a host of 

14 issues by which a dose reassessment has to 

15 comply with the OTIB-0049. And I think you 

16 are correct, Wanda, that not all of these PERs 

17 are equally complex. And perhaps the number 

18 of DRs in behalf of those PERs will vary 

19 considerably from perhaps as few as two, three 

20 to perhaps quite a few, and as I said, I 

21 haven't gone through all of them obviously, 

22 but in the case of PER 12 it appears that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 would probably want to look at maybe perhaps 

2 12. 

3 And if you read through the report 

4 I have basically stated that we would like to 

5 do the following: review the various documents 

6 under sub-task one through three and then 

7 prior to identifying and reassessing those 

8 reconstructions, is to present our findings to 

9 the Board, and make a certain -- make certain 

10 recommendations that, as I've just explained 

11 in the case of PER 12, we would go through it 

12 and say, in order to assess all of the 

13 different protocols that may be applied, and 

14 they do significantly vary based on the target 

15 organ that is assessed and also based on the 

16 methodology that was initially used on the 

17 original DR, we would then for instance 

18 propose to the Working Group what we would 

19 consider maybe a minimum or an appropriate 

20 number of DRs. And of course that would 

21 clearly involve a dialogue with NIOSH because 

22 as I also point out, there may not be any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 claims that necessarily reflect each of the 

2 protocols that are stipulated in OTIB-0049. 

3 So we would have to obviously assist -- get 

4 assistance from NIOSH to say, okay, from the 

5 universe of DRs, they screen certain DRs down 

6 to those that will be affected by PER 12, and 

7 then make a selection based on certain 

8 features that will at least identify as many 

9 of the potential 12 permutations as possible, 

10 not necessarily meaning that all permutations 

11 that I have identified are necessarily part of 

12 the pool of, in this case, 1,720 claims that 

13 may be required to be reconstructed or 

14 reassessed for dose. 

15 And I would assume that our 

16 recommendations would then go to the Working 

17 Group who then in turn would, like they 

18 normally do for our assessment of dose 

19 reconstruction, make a selection as they see 

20 appropriate.

21 CHAIR MUNN: My apologies. Hans, 

22 I now see for the first time scrolling down 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 through that entire document that you have 

2 already done a great deal of evaluation with 

3 respect to the complexity and scope of each of 

4 these PERs. That should be very helpful to 

5 us, once we've absorbed it. I don't know if 

6 anyone else has had an opportunity to really 

7 absorb this or not. Ted?

8 MR. KATZ: That is the material 

9 that was presented to the Board at the last 

10 Board meeting. You've actually received and 

11 may have reviewed that at the last Board 

12 meeting, full Board meeting.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which material are 

14 you referring to?

15 MR. KATZ: That's the SC&A sort of 

16 analysis to identify some potential high 

17 priority PERs for consideration.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And very frankly I 

19 scanned it and did not really and truly absorb 

20 it, and without this briefing this morning 

21 would not have realized that I have seen it 

22 before. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 What's the feeling -- yes, Paul.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if I might 

3 make a couple of comments. And I appreciate 

4 the document that has been provided and the 

5 work that Hans and Kathy have done on this to 

6 kind of outline in more detail the approach. 

7 I have just a couple of questions, 

8 Hans. Number one, on the various sub-tasks, 

9 particularly on the first -- well, the fifth 

10 one is simply to write the report, so that is 

11 a no brainer, I guess. 

12 But on the first two you talked 

13 about assessing and the third one is 

14 evaluating. And what I'm wondering is how you 

15 actually do the assessment. I'm not asking 

16 for an answer now per se, but it is certainly, 

17 we want to assess it, but there's got to be 

18 some sort of assessment criteria that are used 

19 to characterize things to ensure the issue is 

20 fully understood. 

21 Well, I don't know what that means 

22 exactly. But you must have in mind some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 assessment tools that would indicate whether 

2 or not you believe that NIOSH got their arms 

3 around the issue. 

4 Also I think I understand the 

5 assessment of the methods outlined in the 

6 second sub-task. You're just going to look at 

7 the technical materials that they used and see 

8 how representative they are of the scientific 

9 literature, I guess. 

10 But it seems to me it would be 

11 helpful if we actually had you try this, and 

12 you sort of have already on some other ones, 

13 but here you are formalizing it, to try this 

14 with a particular PER, maybe not one that is 

15 overly complex, and not one that is overly 

16 simple, and show us what these assessments 

17 look like. Is there some way that you are 

18 going to score things, quantify things?

19 DR. BEHLING: No, I think --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: How subjective and 

21 how objective can it be? That's what I'm 

22 getting at.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 DR. BEHLING: Well, to quantify 

2 something would be very difficult.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but I'm trying 

4 to get a feel between subjective and objective 

5 assessments because I think it's difficult.

6 DR. BEHLING: It is very 

7 difficult, and I think it's very DR specific.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's why I said 

9 I'd like to see what an assessment looks like. 

10 I think as you get into it you will have some 

11 criteria against which you make the decision. 

12 For example in sub-task two, you would, for 

13 example, say, okay, we have reviewed these 

14 technical documents and they are or they 

15 aren't representative of the consensus of the 

16 scientific literature, or some particular 

17 document has been ignored. And I think you 

18 can get at it pretty easily in sub-task two. 

19 Sub-task one, it seems to me it's 

20 difficult, and I'm not sure on -- well, I 

21 guess on sub-task three -- I just don't have a 

22 feel for how you would approach it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 DR. BEHLING: Well, as I said, I 

2 have at least tentatively scanned the 

3 different PERs, and I realize the approach 

4 will probably vary and be tailored to the 

5 specific PER. But in the case of -- we have 

6 already done two cases, two PERs, one which 

7 was reviewed by the Work Group, namely, that's 

8 PER 9, the lymphoma issue. And then there is 

9 PER-0020, which is the Blockson. And in the 

10 case of, for instance, lymphoma, there was 

11 obviously some lengthy discussion about early 

12 diagnostic tools and so forth, and I think we 

13 have a transcript of the discussion that was 

14 held in behalf of my writeup for the lymphoma 

15 PER. 

16 In the case of -- and that was a 

17 very medically-oriented kind of thing where I 

18 went back into the medical literature, my own 

19 pathology textbook, and we had a fairly lively 

20 discussion with NIOSH over that issue. And it 

21 was a very different and unique situation. 

22 In the case of Blockson, it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 basically a revision to the TBD, and many of 

2 the changes that occurred, that was the 

3 genesis for the PER. So it's going to be very 

4 difficult for me to tell you precisely how 

5 it's done, but each one will be different. In 

6 the case of the current PER, Super S 

7 plutonium, again, will be an assessment that 

8 looks at the data that were used to come to 

9 this conclusion, namely, what was prompted 

10 obviously was the discussion and the SEC 

11 petition regarding Rocky Flats, that there 

12 were plutonium fires. These were very highly 

13 oxidized, plutonium oxide, highly insoluble 

14 materials. And the realization was that post15 mortem studies and others involving exposed 

16 individuals showed retentions in their lungs 

17 that far exceed type S as described by the 

18 ICRP test group, lung model, and so on and so 

19 on. 

20 So I don't know if there is a 

21 generic protocol that I can point to that will 

22 identify the method, and I haven't gotten to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 the Super S plutonium. Obviously, Dr. 

2 Lipsztein, who is on the line, was very 

3 central to that whole discussion. But we will 

4 probably go back and assess whether or not 

5 there are any other data that could 

6 potentially trump the information, which is 

7 not likely, but it appears from what I have 

8 done at this point is that NIOSH took a very 

9 conservative approach by looking at the two 

10 most restrictive cases involving data, human 

11 data, that are available, and coming up to the 

12 various recommendations for this PER. 

13 And as I said, I don't know if 

14 there is a generic protocol for me to point to 

15 and say we will follow this protocol. I don't 

16 want to box myself or paint myself in a corner 

17 by writing a protocol that may not apply at 

18 all. I believe each of these PERs will be 

19 very very different in terms of assessing the 

20 technical basis for it and simply following 

21 the methodology that NIOSH has supplied in 

22 coming to some understanding of whether or not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 that was technically sound, claimant 

2 favorable, et cetera, et cetera.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: But, Hans, this 

4 is Mark Griffon. If I understood you right 

5 the PER-0009 and PER-0020 reports that you did 

6 were done based on this protocol, so 

7 theoretically your reports should include a 

8 description of sub-task one through four and 

9 what you did.

10 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, Paul, maybe 

12 that would be something to start with in terms 

13 of getting an example of how it looks.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's a good 

15 point. And, Hans, in those reports do you 

16 actually identify these as issues? Can we put 

17 them one to one against these sub-tasks?

18 DR. BEHLING: Yes, absolutely.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

20 DR. BEHLING: The report is 

21 essentially broken up by sub-tasks. And as I 

22 said, the difference between PER-0009 was that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 there was an additional sub-task that has at 

2 this point been taken off as Ted Katz had 

3 pointed out, it's no longer part of the 

4 protocol that we intend to use and was not 

5 part of the protocol that was applied in 

6 behalf of PER-0020.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask another 

8 question on the document you sent around?

9 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Under sub-task 

11 four, I think that probably is something we 

12 might want to discuss a little bit. I 

13 certainly agree with the criteria you listed. 

14 I guess it goes into section four, actually. 

15 But I was noting the three bullets in the 

16 beginning of Section 4, page 7 in the 

17 document. It seems to me, and PER-0012 or 

18 OTIB-0049, I guess, would be a starting point 

19 in my thought process, it seems to me that at 

20 least overlapping criteria would be the site 

21 where -- that was affected by the PER. 

22 Because I think in the case of high-fired
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 plutonium, we certainly -- it affects more 

2 than one site. So that is not listed in your 

3 criteria, although it sort of is underlined 

4 there I guess. 

5 And then the other criteria --

6 and, again, this may be sort of underlining 

7 also -- is the Probability of Causation of the 

8 cases, just as criteria to consider when we 

9 select these cases for review. I don't know 

10 if others have thoughts on that, but I think 

11 this is an important part, where the 

12 Subcommittee or the Board sort of is brought 

13 into this, into the fold here. 

14 DR. BEHLING: Again, Mark, this is 

15 so different among the PERs. In the case of 

16 PER-0012, it was here that for instance the 

17 recommendation to use a factor of four for the 

18 highly insoluble would allow a very quick and 

19 dirty approach at least for the urinalysis 

20 portion if the original dose reconstruction 

21 was performed by way of urinalysis, then the 

22 factor four, which is one that says, okay, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 we have to apply that, then we can clearly 

2 identify the threshold level of PoC, which 

3 turned out to be under OTIB-0049 16.57, or 

4 something like that, as a threshold. And that 

5 is clearly understood when you realize the 

6 corrective factor for Super S plutonium 

7 involves four. So that however is not a 

8 constant; it's a very critical variable, and 

9 it always comes into play when you try to 

10 screen out certain claims that are part of the 

11 universe initially, but then by way of a 

12 screening factor you try to reduce it in order 

13 to obviously maximize the effort in affecting 

14 only those claims that will truly have the 

potential for exceeding the 50th 15 percentile 

16 PoC value. But that will, again, change from 

17 one PER to the next.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. I just 

19 thought that in that section you were listing 

20 criteria that may be considered in the 

21 selection of cases. And certainly the site is 

22 not going to affect many of the PERs because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 they are site-specific.

2 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and in this 

3 case I think I did mention the fact that a 

4 site, in the case of even the PER-0012, we 

5 realize there is one additional correction 

6 factor that may be somewhat site-specific, and 

7 that is the particle size for Rocky Flats, 

8 we've assumed that in a fire, in an instance 

9 of high-fired plutonium that is the result of 

10 an actual fire, that the particle size may go 

11 from the default value of five microns to 0.3 

12 microns, and that may be highly site-specific. 

13 Not to mention the fact that in attachment A 

14 of PER-0012 we do list the various sites that 

15 will be potentially affected by the Super S 

16 plutonium. I didn't necessarily -- I tried to 

17 be more generic in my writeup.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree with 

19 that. I think the other complication that I 

20 mentioned at the Board meeting that I thought 

21 we might want to discuss more here is that 

22 when we select these cases for review, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 know, the cases that fall under a certain PER, 

2 and Stu, we've certainly discussed this either 

3 at this Subcommittee or the other 

4 Subcommittee, I'm just not sure we will go 

5 about the reviews because oftentimes when 

6 NIOSH modifies a case or goes back and makes 

7 corrections to a case, they will not only do 

8 corrective actions based on PERs but may 

9 actually end up reworking the entire case 

10 based on more current procedures that are out 

11 there. Is that correct, Stu, if you are in 

12 the room?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that is 

14 correct.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I don't know 

16 how that complicated things when we go back to 

17 audit, but you know, to look at this, but it 

18 may complicate things is my impression.

19 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and you've 

20 mentioned one, and in fact if you look at 

21 OTIB-0049 they make a strong statement about 

22 identifying not only the universe but then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 whittling down, and there will be a 

2 subcategory of claims that will not only be 

3 affected by PER-0012 but by others including 

4 for instance in the case of a lymphoma that 

5 may involve lymph nodes, thoracic lymph nodes, 

6 they will be affected not only by 12, but by 

7 PER-0009 and by other factors. And also there 

8 is the issue of was the original dose 

9 reconstruction one involving a best estimate 

10 or a maximized? If, for instance, the 

11 original dose reconstruction was a maximized 

12 dose, well, there will be certainly revisions 

13 to the dose reconstruction that reflect PER14 0009, but NIOSH may elect to go back and say, 

15 well, we gave you a lot of gifts here as a 

16 maximized dose reconstruction that we will 

17 withdraw now, and so the whole idea of the 

18 dose reconstruction audit involving the PER is 

19 very complex.

20 MS. BEHLING: That's what we tried 

21 to discuss under sub-task four, if you read 

22 through that, we identified that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I guess 

2 that's my point is it could complicate the 

3 selection process for us because if you just 

4 look at sort of descriptive statistics and 

5 information like that, you may not be getting 

6 the full picture of what you're, you know --

7 because other changes could have been made, 

8 they could have -- well, I guess we just 

9 stated it. 

10 DR. BEHLING: And, Mark, not even 

11 the least of which may be the fact that a dose 

12 reconstruction may actually have been audited 

13 under task three, and there may be outstanding 

14 issues that have yet to be resolved by your 

15 Work Group. And so -- I mean, under task 

16 four, so we are dealing with a very complex 

17 issue here, and that is why I have elected to 

18 basically make this into a two-step process, 

19 which is we will go through sub-task one 

20 through three, and then make a certain 

21 recommendation to the Work Group, and then 

22 allow the Work Group to discuss it, and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 select the cases that you may want to have as 

2 part of the audit.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Ted. 

4 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I just 

5 wonder, because this discussion came up when 

6 we were reviewing the contract as well, the 

7 contract evaluation panel, but I don't know if 

8 this simplifies things, Mark, but I mean the 

9 point of these PER reviews is to review the 

10 adequacy, appropriateness, scientific quality 

11 of the PER action, and not really to evaluate 

12 other factors with respect to the redo of a 

13 dose reconstruction, and if it were just 

14 another dose reconstruction review. And I 

15 wonder if that doesn't simplify things in a 

16 sense. Because really you are only looking --

17 the point of these reviews is to determine how 

18 well was the PER constructed and then 

19 implemented, not any other sort of 

20 coincidental consequences for a particular 

21 dose reconstruction that you would address in 

22 a normal dose reconstruction review.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think it's 

2 only complicated in the selection. I'm just 

3 trying to think this through, Ted, but I mean 

4 in terms of the selection you may see 

5 something that for instance using my PoC 

6 example you may look through all the potential 

7 cases and say, oh, let's look at this one 

8 because it's 48 percent or 47 percent, and 

9 when they read -- when they rerun it or reran 

10 it, it may have gone over 50 percent, but in 

11 fact it was a maximizing case, so then all 

12 those generosities as Hans just alluded to are 

13 taken out when they had to redo it, when they 

14 redid it with the PER corrective action. So 

15 you may not be selecting -- I think it affects 

16 things more in the selection process than in 

17 the actual audit process.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is correct 

19 because in the audit process obviously they 

20 will have to consider those other factors. 

21 And you won't a priori know, I don't think, in 

22 the selection process how those will impact. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 But it seems to me that one way to handle this 

2 is to include in the document the fact that 

3 SC&A would work, I think, with the Dose 

4 Reconstruction Subcommittee in the selection. 

5 I don't believe this Subcommittee would get 

6 involved in the selection. I mean if we 

7 approved this as an approach, we wouldn't be 

8 involved, would we, in selecting cases?

9 CHAIR MUNN: In selecting the 

10 cases, I wouldn't think so.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so in making 

12 the decision on criteria for case selection, I 

13 don't think that is unilaterally SC&A's 

14 decision. Mark, wouldn't your Subcommittee be 

15 involved if it's a particular PER situation, 

16 or group of cases? Wouldn't you be involved 

17 in that decision, under number four?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I would, 

19 either this Subcommittee or the DR 

20 Subcommittee.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I would 

22 think it would be the DR Subcommittee. All 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 you are really saying here is that this is a 

2 procedure that should be followed to audit 

3 some DRs that are affected, but the selection 

4 of those, it seems to me, would be done in 

5 collaboration with the Dose Reconstruction 

6 Subcommittees, though SC&A would need to --

7 well, they would need to be tasked or sub8 tasked by your Subcommittee. So I don't -- I 

9 think these are criteria that they have 

10 identified, and it doesn't seem to me that 

11 your Subcommittee is necessarily restricted to 

12 consider only these things, but other related 

13 issues as you see it, it would seem to me.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and I think 

15 they do state, SC&A's document says that the 

16 selection will be up to the Board.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I agree.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it basically 

20 says -- I don't think this is stated that 

21 these are restricting considerations, but 

22 let's see how it says -- it includes the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 following, it doesn't say it's only the 

2 following. So there can be other factors as 

3 you described, it seems to me.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, I agree. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or maybe they 

6 would say include but are not restricted to 

7 the following. 

8 Hans, I think you said there were 

9 a couple of other minor changes you were going 

10 to make anyway, right?

11 DR. BEHLING: Right, but, Dr. 

12 Ziemer, let me just point out in my summary 

13 conclusions I clearly state that SC&A will not 

14 be the people who make any primary decisions. 

15 We will only make recommendations.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, that's why 

17 I'm saying I think the listing of the three is 

18 not intended to be restricted at all; it's 

19 just examples of issues that may affect us.

20 MS. BEHLING: And it's to guide 

21 you as to how many cases you might want to 

22 consider soliciting. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 DR. BEHLING: And the diversity of 

2 the different cases. Like I said, it would 

3 be, in the case of PER-12, we would probably 

4 want to select -- under PER-12 we select -- or 

5 there are four different classes of target 

6 organs or tissues, the lungs, the thoracic 

7 lymph nodes, all other organs, et cetera. So 

8 we would probably say or recommend to the 

9 Subcommittee or Work Group, whoever, whether 

10 it's Wanda's group or Mark Griffon's group, a 

11 pool of criteria by which to select those. 

12 And then of course the Work Group or the 

13 Subcommittee would then make a final decision 

14 as to which ones they would like us to audit.

15 CHAIR MUNN: And, ultimately, no 

16 matter how prescriptive we attempt to be in 

17 establishing criteria, the bottom line is it's 

18 going to involve some technical judgments. We 

19 will have to have an agreement on items that 

20 are not as proscribed as we perhaps would like 

21 them to be, often.

22 DR. BEHLING: And as I said, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 would be really our input, SC&A's input, in 

2 behalf of sub-tasks one through three, that 

3 would provide the committee or the Work Group 

4 with the basic information on which they would 

5 then make a decision as to how many and which 

6 type of DRs we should then be looking at for a 

7 reevaluation of dose.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That recommendation 

9 would be welcome. It's very difficult for 

10 people who do not work with the cases and each 

11 of the procedures on a daily basis to make the 

12 kind of evaluations we're asking you to make.

13 DR. BEHLING: And in this case, I 

14 think, we have the blessing of Mark Griffon 

15 who is obviously a member of both committees, 

16 chairperson of the Dose Reconstruction 

17 committee. So certainly we have the ability 

18 to communicate well with the people who are 

19 well-versed in the issues of dose 

20 reconstruction and the audits of dose 

21 reconstructions.

22 CHAIR MUNN: So how do you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 perceive our next step in this process as 

2 going?

3 DR. BEHLING: Well, I guess -- I 

4 hope that the Work Group members that are in 

5 attendance today will look at the writeup, 

6 and, as I said, I apologize that you didn't 

7 have a chance to review it and then perhaps 

8 make certain recommendations, whether they be 

9 by way of email or otherwise, so wait for 

10 another Work Group meeting to commence. 

11 At this point I'm going to go 

12 ahead and conduct my audit of PER-0012 

13 without, obviously, committing myself to any 

14 particular format. There is a lot of 

15 background work that needs to be done, but I 

16 will continue, and then I will await your 

17 final decision as to whether or not the basic 

18 methodology as provided here in our draft 

19 report will stand, and I still strongly feel 

20 that we should follow basically a two-step 

21 protocol that will allow SC&A to assess the 

22 PER under sub-task one through three, provide 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 a draft report on behalf of those findings, 

2 and then recommend to the Work Group or the 

3 committee a list of DRs, the -- or qualify the 

4 DRs based on an understanding of what the PER 

5 intends to do, and then allow the committee to 

6 select those cases which we will then review, 

7 and then we will write a final report.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Could I just ask 

9 how this is going to work? I mean to me, 

10 listening to all this, this is kind of the 

11 first time I've listened to all this, but 

12 listening to all this it seems like there's 

13 going to be a breakdown between Subcommittees, 

14 and task one, two, and three is going to be 

15 done kind of under this Subcommittee, the 

16 Procedures Subcommittee, and then we are going 

17 to get a report -- SC&A is going to generate a 

18 report, and then it is going to go over the 

19 fence to the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

20 to really do task four, sub-task four, under 

21 really the DR Subcommittee. 

22 I'm a little wondering about the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 logistics, or maybe it's too early to worry 

2 about the logistics of how this is going to be 

3 --

4 DR. BEHLING: Well, we anticipated 

5 that as an issue, and in our writeup we 

6 referred to it as the Subcommittee versus the 

7 Work Group because it tends to be basically an 

8 issue that I think needs further discussion, 

9 who will ultimately then undertake the role of 

10 reviewing our audits of selected DRs. Would 

11 it be Mark Griffon's group or Wanda's group?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Stu.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have an 

14 unrelated question, if you want to talk about 

15 that. I mean it's related to procedure, but 

16 not that specifically.

17 MR. KATZ: I have a related 

18 question which may complicate things a little 

19 bit, but depending on which PER it is, when 

20 you have a site-specific PER I would think you 

21 would want that, if there is a Working Group 

22 for that site, that that Working group would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 be the one to oversee the PER review, not 

2 really this. But that's a question, that's 

3 not an assertion. So if it's a PER for NTS, 

4 you would think the NTS Working group.

5 MS. BEHLING: I think from a 

6 conflict of interest standpoint we really need 

7 to move in that direction. And also I'm not 

8 sure -- why can't we treat the PER assignments 

9 similarly to how we treat receivers where 

10 there is a transferring mechanism from this 

11 Subcommittee to the appropriate Working Group, 

12 or even the DR Subcommittee. So that at least 

13 then we can track what happened.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I need to think about 

15 that. 

16 Paul, you had a comment?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, let's say 

18 that there is a particular PER of interest, 

19 let's say it's, I don't know, high-fired

20 plutonium, it cuts across a number of sites in 

21 some cases, or you may have a site-specific 

22 one, what we would be approving initially is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 the approach, that's this. Once that is in 

2 place, the Board can assign -- the Board can 

3 assign -- well, I guess we would be tasked to 

4 pick out PERs to review.

5 CHAIR MUNN: I would think.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's the 

7 question.

8 MR. KATZ: That's a big question 

9 that was raised at the -- I raised at the full 

10 Board meeting. It's the actual selection of 

11 the PERs that will be reviewed. I had argued 

12 at the last Board meeting that that should be 

13 done by the full Board because of conflict of 

14 interest trouble with putting it with a narrow 

15 Subcommittee.

16 CHAIR MUNN: But by the same token 

17 if the recommendation from SC&A comes with a 

18 similar recommendation from this body, it 

19 seems to me that would be helpful for the full 

20 Board to make that decision.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, at the front 

22 end we have to decide on what PERs to review. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 And so we have this list, and I think they 

2 are all in the document here, most of them, or 

3 all of them I guess are in the document, and 

4 we looked at the first several on the list 

5 last time. 

6 But I think what we were 

7 struggling with, and maybe counsel was as 

8 well, is what can we discuss and maybe do we 

9 know the answer to that, in full Board when we 

10 have the whole list, other than making 

11 motions? The fact that some -- let's say 

12 someone from Hanford makes the motion that we 

13 do an Oak Ridge PER. Well, in a sense they 

14 are doing that to the exclusion of the site 

15 that they are involved in. So can they really 

16 do that, see? Can everything be on the table 

17 at startup? I have a lot of problems with how 

18 we make the selection. Once the selection is 

19 made, then I think it's fairly 

20 straightforward. Then SC&A can start their 

21 tasks, reviewing the thing, and they have to 

22 work with the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 to select doses, I guess, test and review, and 

2 task -- sub-task four. 

3 But the front end of the whole 

4 thing, it seems to me, is --

5 MR. KATZ: I mean there are two --

6 I mean before the selecting dose 

7 reconstruction cases, I mean it's the 

8 oversight of task one, two, three of the PER 

9 procedures, as Hans laid out, and I would 

10 think the Work Group, if it is a site-specific 

11 one, I would think, again, the Work Group that 

12 is responsible for that site might be the 

13 logical one to oversee steps one, two, and 

14 three that they laid out here.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Once the full 

16 Board has made that --

17 MR. KATZ: Once the Board has made 

18 that selection. But let me just go back. I 

19 mean, I don't think OGC wants to be committed 

20 at this point since there are still issues 

21 with HHS about this. I think I as a DFO don't 

22 mind that, I don't mind being strung up later 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 if I am. But I think that the only thing that 

2 makes sense -- again, there are practical 

3 limitations on what we can do to deal with 

4 this conflict of interest problem because 

5 there is no way that I can imagine -- and I've 

6 given this some thought -- for breaking up the 

7 Board in ways to be able to deal with the 

8 question of selection piece by piece to avoid 

9 conflict, and I think the only thing that is 

10 practical, even though it's imperfect in the 

11 view of HHS with respect to tasking and 

12 conflict of interest, I think the only thing 

13 that is practical is for the list to come 

14 before the full Board, and those people --

15 people's conflicts, they simply stay silent on 

16 their conflicts. They can make 

17 recommendations unrelated to their conflict. 

18 They can contribute to discussion unrelated to 

19 their conflict, you know, the conflicted site, 

20 but they stay silent on those, and obviously 

21 they don't vote on those. 

22 And I just think that is the only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 workable way to do it.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what you are 

3 talking about is that in full Board, suppose 

4 we select five PERs to review and say, okay, 

5 here's these five. Then we would take them 

6 one by one and say, okay, here's the Hanford 

7 one, the Hanford people say, how many vote to 

8 task this.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: And here's an Oak 

11 Ridge one, the Oak Ridge people have to sit 

12 out. If we have one that is across the 

13 complex, then we will need some decision from 

14 counsel on how that would work, I guess, or 

15 maybe we have it. But it seemed to me there 

16 was some sort of feeling that if it's bigger 

17 than a certain amount it becomes more 

18 universal. If it's just like two sites, those 

19 people have to sit aside, if it's five or six 

20 or something, there's some point at which 

21 everybody -- am I understanding this 

22 correctly? Or maybe it's too early to say.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 MS. HOWELL: I mean, I definitely 

2 think that that was what I conveyed during the 

3 October Board meeting. But it hasn't been 

4 finalized because it's a question that has to 

5 go beyond our team. And certainly we 

6 recognized the importance of it, and we have 

7 been in conversations with not only the other 

8 HHS folks, but also Dr. Howard is well aware 

9 of the concern, and Ted's working with us. So 

10 I'm hopeful but not -- can't promise that 

11 maybe we will be able to address it on the 

December 8th 12 call.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me ask you 

14 another question. Are we meeting again before 

15 the full Board meeting? Is this Subcommittee 

16 meeting? I would like to see this document in 

17 some form approved. I sort of feel like it's 

18 -- in spite of the questions I asked earlier -

19 - I suspect it's about what we are going to 

20 end up with, with a few minor edits. But I'm 

21 wondering if we would be prepared, at a full 

22 Board meeting, to recommend that this be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 procedure, recognizing that it already in 

2 practice, number one, has been used. I think 

3 it pretty well reflects the original contract 

4 tasking for this activity. Although that 

5 didn't have official Board approval, I think, 

6 it was approved through the contracting 

7 process by those who were involved. And I 

8 think all we were trying to do is formalize 

9 that with the full Board in our last meeting, 

10 or that's what generated this.

11 MR. KATZ: So you are speaking 

about the December 8th 12 meeting, conference 

13 call?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I'm talking 

15 about the February meeting. I think the 

16 conference call would be a little too early. 

17 I think we need to have a full discussion.

18 MR. KATZ: So we can certainly 

19 have this on the agenda for February. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, I 

21 certainly am willing to -- to recommend that 

22 we approve this or whatever the document with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 minor edits might be.

2 MR. KATZ: And then maybe, given 

3 that we have until February, maybe we can work 

4 hard at least to try to get clarity about this 

5 issue of when you have a PER that cuts across 

6 a few sites, how do we deal with that numbers 

7 problem? Because we are going to have to have 

8 a practical solution to that.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And even if we 

10 don't know the answer to that, we could still 

11 have a general approved procedure.

12 MR. KATZ: Right. Right, but it 

13 would be nice to settle it all at the February 

14 Board meeting, and we will work towards that.

15 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

16 Behling. I would also recommend that maybe 

17 the Subcommittee go back and review PER-0009 

18 that we've already done which is one of the --

19 which is a PER that crosses a number of 

20 facilities, and also PER-0020 which is site21 specific. And, again, as Hans said, you will 

22 see in those PERs that are already completed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 how we've followed the sub-tasks that are laid 

2 out here. 

3 The other thing you might want to 

4 think about for future meetings -- I don't 

5 know if it has to go to the full Board meeting 

6 -- but as Hans mentioned, both PER-0009 and 

7 0020 -- in fact PER-0020 I don't believe has 

8 been reviewed by this Subcommittee, and it 

9 would be a good example of where do we want to 

10 review that, that's Blockson PER, and we 

11 haven't selected any -- there hasn't been any 

12 decision on the number of cases or the cases 

13 that should be selected for PER-0009 which is 

14 the lymphoma issue. So those are also things 

15 you might want to consider for future 

16 meetings.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I make one 

18 comment? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul -- I agree 

21 with Paul that I think we should probably --

22 this procedure looks very reasonable and looks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 appropriate to follow, and we should probably 

2 at some point vote to approve the use of this 

3 or however that process has to work. 

4 As far as the handling of the 

5 cases, I'm not sure, I can sort of follow the 

6 logic of the site-specific questions, but then 

7 I also have to reflect back on the fact that 

8 the DR Subcommittee has been looking at cases 

9 from all sites throughout its history, so if 

10 this is a -- really this is a dose 

11 reconstruction question, probably, and might 

12 be a lot easier if we just keep it between two 

13 Subcommittees, instead of farming it out to 

14 every work group and -- I'm just envisioning 

15 that process being very difficult to track, 

16 and really the work groups have been looking 

17 more at site profile and SEC issues, rather 

18 than does reconstruction issues. 

19 Although they certainly overlap, I 

20 understand, but I guess if I had -- I guess 

21 it's my thought on that, that it would be a 

22 lot easier to manage if it were between the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 two Subcommittees.

2 And then the final point is really 

3 a question. I was wondering if Hans or Kathy 

4 can elaborate on, in attachment one of this 

5 procedure, the -- I understand, in your level 

6 of complexity I understand how you ranked, or 

7 I can certainly envision how you ranked the 

8 science factor as medium, high, or low, but 

9 can you explain -- just explain a little bit 

10 on how you arrived at these selection 

11 criteria, high, medium, and low for the 

12 various PERs that you looked through in the 

13 table.

14 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

15 Behling. Yes, in some cases, in some PERs, 

16 the selection criteria for NIOSH can be 

17 something very simple. I think John Mauro 

18 might have mentioned this at the last Board 

19 meeting. But something as simple as saying, 

20 if it's less than 50 percent we are going to 

21 look at everyone that is less than 50 percent, 

22 and there is not any additional criteria or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 protocols that they use to select which cases 

2 are actually going to reevaluate, but in the 

3 case of the PER-0012, as Hans was mentioning, 

4 they are going to go back to cases, and they 

5 are going to say, we are going to look at this 

6 if -- depending on what the bioassay was and 

7 what the PoC was, and there is a calculation 

8 that they do for determining what the minimum 

9 PoC was, and so it becomes a much more complex 

10 process for determining who they are going to 

11 actually select in order to reevaluate their 

12 dose reconstruction. Does that make sense?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, thank you, 

14 Kathy, this is Mark Griffon again. That makes 

15 sense. And let me just for clarity purposes, 

16 in that last column, the selection criteria, 

17 high, medium, and low, that is based on 

18 NIOSH's stated selection criteria, or is this 

19 sort of SC&A's independent opinion on how 

20 difficult it will be to select?

21 MS. BEHLING: No, I think that on 

22 reading through the PER and looking at NIOSH's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 selection criteria.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, so you may 

3 -- and in your steps one, two, three, I guess 

4 part of that would be to assess if the 

5 criteria is getting at what they need to?

6 MS. BEHLING: That is correct, 

7 absolutely.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right, so 

9 this is really an unstated criteria.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: These are SC&A's 

12 evaluations, though, right? When you say 

13 medium, Kathy?

14 MS. BEHLING: Yes, those are my 

15 evaluations. But those evaluations were based 

16 on NIOSH's selection criteria as stated in 

17 their PER.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, but they 

19 are somewhat subjective.

20 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: When does it go 

22 from medium to high, in other words.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that is always 

2 going to be there. Stu?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I apologize, the -

4 - this is Stu Hinnefeld. I'm interested in 

5 sub-task one and two, exactly what does that 

6 mean? And to keep in a specific example, 

7 let's talk about PER-0012, high-fired

8 plutonium. Presumably sub-task one is that we 

9 correctly identify the issue, and I guess the 

10 issue, loosely speaking, is that there is this 

11 high-fired plutonium out there at a number of 

12 sites that the behavior is not described 

13 appropriately by the existing ICRP models. 

14 That's the issue. So the corrective action we 

15 did here was we wrote an OTIB, which was, I 

16 think, 0049, and OTIB-0049, then, was our 

17 method to address that issue and apply that to 

18 the -- to the populace, to the subject 

19 population. So in sub-task two then, SC&A 

20 proposed review of the scientific basis -- or 

21 essentially, is that -- it sounds like it's 

22 the review, assess our methods for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 corrective action, in other words, assess 

2 OTIB-0049.

3 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and, again, 

4 there is some redundancy here, and --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it sounds 

6 exactly redundant to me because there is an 

7 OTIB-0049 review already.

8 DR. BEHLING: Exactly, and I think 

9 we have that review. And, again, that was Dr. 

10 Lipsztein's work that we used in OTIB-0049, 

11 and it's basically trying to pull -- and I 

12 have to say much of this has been done. And 

13 so what we are oftentimes tasked to do is to 

14 pull all the little strings together into a 

15 single report because we realize not everyone 

16 has been involved in, for instance, the review 

17 of OTIB-0049, and so part of this review of 

18 the PER goes beyond just PER-0012 because that 

19 is a relatively short document and it only 

20 summarizes and only references critical 

21 documents. The most critical document for the 

22 evaluation of PER-0012 is really OTIB-0049.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So then if this --

2 well, it sounded to me like it was essentially 

3 another review of OTIB-0049 is what it sounded 

4 like.

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it is. Yes it 

6 is.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's what 

8 you want to do?

9 DR. BEHLING: Well, I will review 

10 it, and, again, I will heavily rely on Dr. 

11 Lipsztein and perhaps sort of audit the 

12 auditor. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So is that what 

14 you want to do, do another review of a 

15 document we've already reviewed? Now to me 

16 this PER -- and in fact I believe our findings 

17 on OTIB-0049, which may still need to be 

18 resolved, which may result in changes.

19 DR. BEHLING: And I think Dr. 

20 Lipsztein is on the phone, so she can make a 

21 comment as to what is outstanding.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Before we do that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 I'd like to finish the thought. The PER 

2 process was a process -- that's what we've 

3 adopted, when we make a technical change in 

4 how dose reconstructions are done, we adopt 

5 this process to go back and reevaluate things 

6 that were done under the previous method. In 

7 this case our change was we published OTIB8 0049 that specified the kinds of claims that 

9 that applied to. So in this case we've done 

10 this PER-0012, we have been -- have selected a 

11 population. The rest of this I think is 

12 absolutely good stuff to evaluate -- did we 

13 select the right population, all that stuff, 

14 that's good. We selected that, and then did 

15 we appropriately apply OTIB-0049 to the dose 

16 reconstruction? If in fact there are flaws 

17 with OTIB-0049 and that has to be revised and 

18 so the dose reconstruction method is changed 

19 yet again, then that is another PER, and that 

20 would have to come later.

21 I mean, to me reassessing the 

22 adequacy of our fix is essentially a review of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 a technical document that we have already 

2 changed, and that technical document that we 

3 have already changed is the basis for the PER 

4 that we did.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And it's the response 

6 to the PER, yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So I mean to then 

8 go on and further evaluate the PER process 

9 based on a new review of our resolution is 

10 going to bollix this -- this PER-0012 is going 

11 to get all bollixed up.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Agree.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agreed.

14 MR. KATZ: Just from a contracting 

15 point of view, this is for the Work Group to 

16 decide. It's something you decide, but it 

17 doesn't make sense to pay twice for a second 

18 review of a document that SC&A -- in some 

19 cases SC&A may not have reviewed the Technical 

20 Basis Document perhaps, but in a case where 

21 they have already reviewed it, you would think 

22 that would stand on its own.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And my fundamental 

2 issue here is that the technical change that 

3 led to the PER is complete. It is done. It 

4 was the publication of OTIB-0049. So to then 

5 include a further evaluation of OTIB-0049 into 

6 the evaluation of this PER introduces a whole 

7 other set of possible upset conditions that 

8 were not a part of the universe that was faced 

9 in the completion of the PER. You are 

10 introducing a confounding factor into 

11 understanding whether the PER was done 

12 correctly or not.

13 CHAIR MUNN: It's a circular 

14 process that is really not what we want to get 

15 into.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu -- this is 

17 Mark Griffon -- Stu, I definitely agree that 

18 we should --

19 (Telephone interruption.)

20 MR. KATZ: For the record, Mark 

21 agreed with me, and then someone cut him off. 

22 So everyone else is still on the line?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 DR. BEHLING: There are others 

2 still on the line.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. He'll dial in. 

4 DR. BEHLING: Let me just fill in 

5 the gap here while Mark is trying to reconnect 

6 here, and I understand that this is somewhat 

7 redundant, and what I was really hoping to do 

8 under sub-task one, two, and three is to 

9 basically consolidate and summarize what has 

10 been done. I am not going to go through the 

11 effort that Dr. Lipsztein had gone through in 

12 assessing the credibility of OTIB-0049. I 

13 will accept her comments and perhaps maybe add 

14 just a few comments and look at the PER-0012 

15 in terms of, for instance, in the case of the 

16 PER-0012 there are certain criteria which are 

17 not necessarily addressed in OTIB-0049, and 

18 that is how to select the dose reconstruction 

19 screening methods one and two --

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I'm sorry, 

21 this is Mark Griffon. I think I cut myself 

22 off accidentally.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 MR. KATZ: I credited it to 

2 agreeing with me, Mark.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, you liked 

4 that ending, right?

5 The only thing I was going to add 

6 on, and I think it's still pertinent, is 

7 perhaps we should consider this as part of our 

8 selection process. Like in the case of PER9 0012, I would say maybe we shouldn't review 

10 PER-0012 unless OTIB-0049 has been completely 

11 through our process and all findings are 

12 closed because if we end up disagreeing with 

13 fundamental -- you know the OTIB-0049 in any 

14 substantial way, and that has to be revised, 

15 then I would say hold off on reviewing the 

16 PER-0012 at all. So I guess that would 

17 possibly be a way to look at this, we don't 

18 want to do the work twice, and I don't want to 

19 review cases that are under a PER that we have 

20 sort of fundamental disagreements with on the 

21 basis of an OTIB change or something like 

22 that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think the 

2 issue here is whether the task of, I guess 

3 it's sub-task one, assess the evaluation of 

4 the issue and potential impacts -- is that 

5 what -- what sub-task is assessment?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Three.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, three is how 

8 you identify the dose reconstruction.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Assess NIOSH's 

11 specific method for corrective action. In 

12 this case that would be assess OTIB-0049. In 

13 this case it might be as simple as just saying 

14 enough has been done.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: But my point is 

16 that if it's under review still, I think I 

17 would hold off on moving any further until 

18 whatever entity is done reviewing it, if it's 

19 the Procedures Subcommittee or if it's another 

20 Work Group.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't have 

22 a particular strong opinion on that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wait until it's 

2 finished. We don't want to duplicate the 

3 effort in this process.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand. But 

5 understand that the PER-0012 is done, and if 

6 in fact there are subsequent changes to OTIB7 0049, there would not be a new PER-0012, there 

8 would be a PER-0036 or whatever the number is 

9 to evaluate those.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, you're 

11 talking about the OTIB, right? Mark, are you 

12 talking about the OTIB?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, my point 

14 there was, and I understand Stu's point, but 

15 our bottom line is we want to eventually see 

16 that cases are done appropriately and have the 

17 correct scientific basis. If OTIB-0049 is 

18 still -- and I don't know the status of it --

19 but assume there are still some outstanding 

20 findings, I would say let's wait until we 

21 close those out in the procedures review 

22 because if in fact we end up or NIOSH ends up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 revising OTIB-0049, then they come out with a 

2 PER whatever, 40 or whatever number, that 

3 replaces PER-0012 sort of. I don't know that 

4 we want to review different -- we might not 

5 want to review PER-0012 right now if we are 

6 not in agreement with the scientific basis 

7 underlying PER-0012. It would just cause us 

8 to review the same sort of issue again in PER9 0040, if that makes any sense. So I'm saying 

10 wait until it's closed out.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Mark, just to give 

12 you an idea, the current status of the review 

13 of OTIB-0049 is that SC&A had identified two 

14 issues, and currently those two issues are 

15 being shown as being in progress. 

16 So that means that there are 

17 still, I guess, still outstanding issues to be 

18 resolved between NIOSH and SC&A and the 

19 Subcommittee here. So what you say is very 

20 true, that depending on the resolution of 

21 these issues they could involve a revision to 

22 OTIB-0049. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 MR. HINNEFELD: You can do like 

2 you want. I mean we don't have a horse in the 

3 race, in terms of how this Subcommittee 

4 decides to do this. Just from my standpoint 

5 from the review, you have a complete set of 

6 actions from the publication of PER-0049, a 

7 PER to implement that, that OTIB. Okay, and 

8 that gets us to a certain spot where we are 

9 today, and then we have a review of OTIB-0049 

10 that may result in some changes, may result in 

11 changes to OTIB-0049. Those changes, then, 

12 may cause us to reevaluate some of the claims 

13 again. That will be from where they are now; 

14 that will not be from where they were before 

15 PER-0012. And so it's like step-wise. Now 

16 you wait until the end and say, okay, when 

17 everything is done then we'll review it, then 

18 you have essentially two PERs to review at 

19 that time, one, 12, which is first, and then 

20 the number 40 or whichever it is that comes 

21 later.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I'm saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 that we may decide, if that all happens that 

2 way, Stu, we may decide we don't need to look 

3 at 12 at all; we can just look at 40. That is 

4 just what I'm thinking in terms of the 

5 selection.

6 I mean what I certainly want to 

7 avoid is having us review the OTIB-0049 issues 

8 in two places. I think that would be very 

9 complicated.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, the other 

11 side of the coin is that anything reviewed at 

12 this point, say with 49, it still has a couple 

13 of open issues, any changes that occurred in 

14 terms of compensation, those are in place. So 

15 if a change comes later, those aren't affected 

16 by it because they've been compensated. So 

17 those drop out of the review process. 

18 Understand what I'm saying?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that's true. 

20 That's true.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: So if you want to 

22 assess whether NIOSH is correctly applying the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 PERs, it seems to me you look at them as they 

2 are being applied, in any cases that are 

3 affected by those, otherwise you are not going 

4 to see -- even though you say, okay, this 

5 particular OTIB is not completed yet, 

6 nonetheless we have a PER that is in effect, 

7 and we are asking, in essence, SC&A to see 

8 whether -- how they are applying that, I 

9 think. Isn't that what we're trying to 

10 achieve here?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then you are not 

12 addressing the underlying science. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically you're 

14 not doing sub-tasks.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's exactly the 

16 point, and I think I understand the point Stu 

17 is making. We are applying the science as we 

18 have it today based on an approved PER. And 

19 we are asking if it's been properly applied. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

21 there are two steps, and all I'm -- I think we 

22 should review the underlying science, but we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 shouldn't do it in two different places, you 

2 know. So if the underlying science ends up 

3 being documented in a revised TIB, and we are 

4 already reviewing that in the Procedures 

5 Subcommittee, then we shouldn't also have Hans 

6 do it in this PER review process. I don't 

7 think we should skip reviewing the underlying 

8 science.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Can we make -- when 

10 the PER review is assigned to SC&A, can sub11 task two be optional? I mean basically not 

12 optional, but I mean the Subcommittee in the 

13 assignment says the PER review has to look at 

14 the underlying science or sub-task two has 

15 already been done under separate review of, in 

16 this case, OTIB-0049, and therefore sub-task 

17 two under the SC&A review of the PER review 

18 does not need to be implemented.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: That makes sense 

20 to me, Steve.

21 DR. BEHLING: And I think that is 

22 correct in the sense where not every PER has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 the technical backbone that corresponds in the 

2 case of PER-0012, too, and OTIB-0049, and so 

3 you are absolutely correct, and I certainly 

4 wasn't planning on spending a lot of time 

5 rehashing things that have already been done 

6 or are currently in progress. 

7 On the other hand, PER-0012 and 

8 OTIB are, you know, it's a marriage bond 

9 between the two; one basically is based on the 

10 other. And yet there are certain factors such 

11 as the selection criteria by which the PoC, 

12 the threshold PoC, is driven by a value that 

13 is defined in OTIB-0049, and so one has to go 

14 back and say were the selection criteria that 

15 identifies the universe, and then the 

16 screening criteria number one is defined in 

17 OTIB-0012. Is that appropriate? Is it 

18 consistent with OTIB-0049? The two are very 

19 difficult to separate out entirely. It's 

20 clear that OTIB-0049 trumps the technical 

21 basis for PER-0012; there's no question about 

22 that. But yet there are still issues that are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 not yet necessarily specified under OTIB-0049 

2 that should be looked at in behalf of PER3 0012.

4 MR. KATZ: But, Hans, those come 

5 under sub-task three, the selection criteria, 

6 et cetera. I mean those come under three. So 

7 sub-task two does not need to be done where 

8 you already have a review of an OTIB as a 

9 basis. 

10 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: So it sounds as 

12 though we all need to have some thinking time 

13 around this before we come to any specific 

14 instructions to SC&A. Except that Mark's 

15 point is certainly well taken. It would seem 

16 to be redundant and in many ways adding to 

17 confusion if we continue down the path right 

18 now of spending a great deal of time and 

19 effort on PER-0012.

20 DR. BEHLING: Well, Wanda, can I 

21 just make a comment, for instance. It was 

22 never my intention, and as I've said, I have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 only started to look at PER-0012 in context 

2 with actually using or applying this protocol 

3 to it, and clearly at this point I would not 

4 have obviously spent a lot of time on this 

5 sub-task two. I would have probably used 

6 Joyce Lipsztein's comments and review comments 

7 and other things as an attachment and simply 

8 defaulted to them, so when we think about, oh, 

9 we're being redundant, we are paying for the 

10 same thing twice, no, I don't think I would 

11 expect to spend a lot of time writing up sub12 task two that would potentially cost man hours 

13 in behalf of this particular task. I would 

14 simply default to what has already been done. 

15 And I think this whole thing sort 

16 of summarizes the complexity of PERs that no 

17 two PERs are going to be identical, and each 

18 one has to be treated on its own merit, 

19 depending on what information is available, 

20 what has been done, have OTIBs been already 

21 issued, in which case some of these sub-tasks 

22 will simply be a reference to what has already 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 been done, and we'll simply brush over it. 

2 And that's really the difficulty in writing a 

3 generic protocol.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. We 

5 recognize, Hans, that you were simply using 

6 PER-0012 as an example and probably a very 

7 good example since it has generated this kind 

8 of discussion. 

9 DR. BEHLING: And the reason I 

10 used it, Wanda, is first of all, it is 

11 obviously on the table, and people are already 

12 familiar with it, and the real emphasis was 

13 not so much on task three but on the selection 

14 criteria of DRs. And it provides a perfect 

15 example how this selection criteria and the 

16 total number of DRs that may want to be 

17 audited are defined. But what is the method 

18 by which the Subcommittee will make the 

19 selection. And I used PER-0012 for that 

20 reason because people are familiar with it, 

21 and they can go to OTIB-0049, look at Table 1, 

22 and say, oh yes, these are the number of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 permutations that you may want to look at that 

2 will affect the methodology for dose 

3 reassessment, and on the basis of that we will 

4 select certain numbers and certain types of 

5 reassessed DRs for auditing.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we appreciate 

7 that, and my instinct is to follow Mark's 

8 recommendation that we -- I assume that was a 

9 recommendation, Mark -- that we actually not 

10 pursue the PER actively until we have in fact 

11 closed the OTIB-0049 issues. Am I stating 

12 that correctly?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that was my 

14 feeling on that one, yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: That seems 

16 appropriate to me. The point that was brought 

17 up earlier with respect to getting something 

18 done before the next Board meeting is probably 

19 one we should think about at this juncture, to 

20 see if we can get further through our own 

21 process with these issues prior to that Board 

22 meeting. We don't have a session scheduled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 for this Subcommittee prior to that time. And 

2 my calendar would put it in any case toward 

3 the end of January if we assume that we were 

4 going to have a meeting before the Board. If 

5 we want to bring something to them, then we 

6 probably should pursue this further and 

7 especially take a look at what's outstanding 

8 on OTIB-0049 and make every effort to try to 

9 close those, if at all possible, during that 

10 period of time. 

11 I doubt that anyone will be able 

12 to spend much time on any of these individual 

13 items that we have before us over the next 

14 month or so. It's going to be difficult. But 

15 perhaps January would offer an opportunity for 

16 that to occur. I don't know how other 

17 people's calendars look for January and 

18 whether the last week of January is something 

19 we can look at. But when we -- is it your 

20 desire to take a look at that now, or would 

21 you prefer to wait until the end of our 

22 session later in the day and look at calendars 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 then?

2 I see Ted nodding his head.

3 MR. KATZ: You might as well see 

4 what else you have on your plate by the end of 

5 the meeting in deciding about scheduling this, 

6 unless we are going to lose some people 

7 between now and then.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I would hope not.

9 Let's keep that in the back of our 

10 head as a very good reason for us to consider 

11 a Subcommittee meeting prior. 

12 Yes?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I still have a 

14 concern about the idea of waiting until 

15 everything is closed because, Mark, I want to 

16 just bounce this off of you. Let's suppose 

17 that something arose on the unclosed issues, 

18 maybe on this one or something like it, where 

19 it became evident that some completely new 

20 model was going to be developing and so on 

21 that might take a year or more to come to 

22 closure. I mean some of these thorny issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 get passed around and around. But in the 

2 meantime, NIOSH has gone back and are redoing 

3 -- at least on this PER, right. You are not 

4 sitting by, waiting --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We are not 

6 waiting. PER-0012 --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because I think 

8 it's possible on almost every issue that new 

9 information can arise and a new PER can 

10 develop. And if we say that we want to wait 

11 until sort of closure on everything, I still 

12 have a concern about how we assess those 

13 reconstructions that are done under the 

14 current PER.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul, I guess I 

16 should clarify it. I guess I just wanted to 

17 make sure that we consider that issue, that we 

18 -- if as we are selecting the ones we want to 

19 review, I think we should consider that 

20 status.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay, you are 

22 not saying automatically eliminate because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 there is an opening.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I wouldn't say 

3 automatically eliminate it, but I would also 

4 say that like in this case, PER-0012, we may 

5 say, you know, it is under review in the 

6 Procedures Work Group; it is not closed. But, 

7 however, we want to look -- but then I think 

8 we have to say we are going to look at the 

9 application only. The application, the PER as 

10 it -- because obviously we have to assess how 

11 the PER applied TIB-0049, we can't -- but in 

12 other cases where there is no sort of TIB 

13 attached, I think we look at the underlying 

14 science and the application.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I understand that.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I'm not saying 

17 exclude it, I'm just saying make sure we --

18 because I can just see the situation where we 

19 start talking about the underlying science in 

20 this process as well as in the OTIB-0049 

21 review , and I think we can't really -- we 

22 have to look at the application only in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 instance, I would think.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I suppose you can 

3 go to the open issues and get a feel for 

4 whether you think there is a likelihood they 

5 will have any significant impact anyway, or 

6 sometimes things are just not closed because 

7 there is some sort of administrative thing 

8 that hasn't occurred yet, or you are waiting 

9 for revised wording in the upcoming document 

10 or something, so it's in abeyance or something 

11 like that.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I didn't 

13 mean it be exclusionary. I meant just that we 

14 take that into account or be aware of it when 

15 we're selecting.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: It's only logical, 

18 and it underscores what Hans has said several 

19 times. Each of these will require an entirely 

20 different set of criteria for evaluation, and 

21 we can very easily see why.

22 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 Behling. I just want to be sure I understand 

2 that we should then continue with our work on 

3 PER-0012. You are not telling us not to 

4 continue that work, I assume.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think that has 

6 already been tasked, hasn't it?

7 MS. BEHLING: It has been, just 

8 based on this discussion. I wasn't sure if --

9 but we will just elaborate all of that in sub10 task two as to the status of OTIB-0049 and

11 continue on with our work.

12 CHAIR MUNN: That seems reasonable 

13 at this juncture.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay, just wanted to 

15 clarify that. 

16 DR. BEHLING: This is Hans. I'm 

17 looking at basically a summary of what changes 

18 will impact the reassessment of dose, and 

19 those are pretty much summarized in Table 4-8 

20 of OTIB-0049, and we really have only a number 

21 of things that will involve dose reassessment, 

22 that is the factor of four, I assume, is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 being challenged, and I don't think Super P is 

2 going to be challenged for adjusting doses 

3 based on urinalysis. 

4 Is there anything that is 

5 outstanding that would grossly affect the 

6 central methodology and values as defined in 

7 Table 4-8 that would affect dose -- the 

8 reassessment of dose? Are there issues that 

9 are outstanding, maybe more semantics or 

10 things that would not necessarily affect the 

11 methodology and the quantitative elements that 

12 are going to be used in the dose reassessment. 

13 I am not familiar with where we 

14 are on OTIB-0049, in essence, what specific 

15 issues are outstanding.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have the 

17 database up? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: It's here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Can you actually read 

20 the two outstanding issues?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: First issue is 

22 basically a clarification issue. The issue is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 some paragraphs need clarification, but in 

2 general it presents the data in a logical 

3 understandable sequence. Some of the sources 

4 of information in the document are not 

5 referenced. And then NIOSH's response is 

6 basically it does not appear that a specific 

7 response is going to be provided to this 

8 comment. If SC&A wishes to elaborate it more 

9 specifically on what sources of information 

10 are not referenced, then NIOSH can address 

11 this in page changes or future revisions of 

12 this document.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is like an 

14 abeyance thing. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Then basically the 

16 SC&A follow up was, NIOSH -- again, I don't 

17 know how far this goes on. Let me just scroll 

18 from here. There is a whole series of SC&A 

19 responses. The NIOSH response of the OTIB20 0049-1 Part A does not satisfy the SC&A 

21 concerns. SC&A agrees with the NIOSH 

22 statement on page 41 Appendix C that the acute 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 scenario does not produce adjustment factors 

2 that are fairly consistent -- I don't know how 

3 much you want to go through all this.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to have a 

5 good feel for what the actual outstanding 

6 issues are.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I can send these to 

8 Hans when I get back and make sure that he has 

9 -- he is aware of these when he does his work.

10 CHAIR MUNN: It would be helpful, 

11 I think, for Hans and Kathy to have the entire 

12 history of OTIB-0049, what the issues were, 

13 what's been closed, and where we are with the 

14 two that are in progress.

15 DR. BEHLING: Well, I remember the 

16 writeup that Joyce submitted, and based on 

17 that it was a fairly strong technical 

18 endorsement of OTIB-0049. I don't think there 

19 were any major issues that she raised in her 

20 review.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Let me insert --

22 Joyce Lipsztein -- we didn't read the last --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 we didn't reveal the last version of OTIB2 0049, and there were some changes made. One 

3 of the things that applied to both OTIB-0049, 

4 the last one and the initial one, that we need 

5 some specification or clarification on some of 

6 the application of OTIB-0049. It's not the 

7 period that is problematic. The problem is 

8 how to apply it if someone has two exposures 

9 or someone has three exposures. There is no 

10 clarification on what to do, and that is, I 

11 think, the issue that would be important for 

12 PER-0012.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I remember the 

14 issue. It's multiple acute exposures, 

15 monitoring, and how do you interpret it in 

16 that instance. Those are the issues, and that 

17 goes on there. I don't know that we provided 

18 a response.

19 CHAIR MUNN: So, John, does that 

20 help you any with respect to understanding 

21 better where we are?

22 DR. BEHLING: I'm trying to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 understand what Joyce just said. Joyce, are 

2 you implying that perhaps the Table D 

3 adjustment factors may not be appropriate for 

4 all cases of exposures? Is that what you are 

5 getting to?

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, there is some 

7 clarifications because you don't know where or 

8 how you should apply it when someone is 

9 exposed, for example, in one year, and he is 

10 exposed again, for example, five years later. 

11 You don't know how to apply the table, that 

12 is all. So it needs some clarifications on 

13 what to do if someone has a chronic intake, if 

14 someone has one intake in year one and then 

15 has an intake 10 years later; we don't know 

16 what to do with the numbers on this table. It 

17 needs some clarification on how to apply OTIB18 0049. Maybe what we should do is I can send 

19 you our problems with how to apply OTIB-0049, 

20 and I didn't read what you wrote about the 

21 PER-0012, so I was quiet because I didn't read 

22 it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 DR. BEHLING: Well, Joyce, for 

2 your information, so far my writeup is really 

3 not a strong technical evaluation that 

4 basically would compete, or even try to re5 evaluate what you have already stated. Mine 

6 is not. So mine is a much more simplistic 

7 evaluation of PER-0012.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And the other 

9 thing that might be important is that the new 

10 OTIB-0049 has some application of cycle 

11 samples, and we didn't review it. I don't 

12 know if it will affect PER-0012. But I was 

13 not involved in reviewing it. 

14 What I was trying to say about the 

15 application that NIOSH has to clarify how to 

16 apply OTIB-0049 because I was trying to do a 

17 dose reconstruction for a worker and I had 

18 difficulty following NIOSH instructions. So I 

19 think it just has to be a clarification on how 

20 to apply 49, and that is what PER-0012 should 

21 be about, right? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 response to your comment will be explanatory 

2 and will not really be particularly 

3 substantive. But it will explain how your 

4 technique would apply; that's what I believe. 

5 And so I believe that the issues remaining are 

6 not huge in terms of technical rules. That is 

7 my belief. I've been known to be wrong.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: The summary of the 

9 -- or the SC&A summary of the issue or what we 

10 would see is SC&A would like a more detailed 

11 explanation of OTIB-0049 on how to calculate 

12 doses from multiple independent acute 

13 exposures and why the approach given by NIOSH 

14 is claimant-favorable. More examples should 

15 be given including the treatment of 

16 independent intakes. As such SC&A recommends 

17 the status of Part A of the OTIB-0049 issue 1 

18 remain as in progress. So really it looks 

19 like it's asking for more explanation, more 

20 examples. They are not really saying that 

21 this was done wrong. We think that we need to 

22 do it this other way. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 CHAIR MUNN: That's a very small 

2 number of issues that are even being debated 

3 any longer. So if Steve can send a full 

4 history of all of the OTIB-0049 findings and 

5 the resolutions, that would be helpful, I 

6 think, for Hans and Kathy in their approach to 

7 PER-0012.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I was wondering, 

9 Kathy, have you used the database?

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I can. I was 

11 about to say that I can pull up all the data 

12 and go back and get a history. And we will 

13 summarize that as our sub-task in this 

14 particular case, in this PER review.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe Steve 

16 has updated all the information from SC&A, I

17 believe is on the database, so it's all on 

18 there.

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

20 DR. BEHLING: Stu, this is Hans. 

21 Can I ask just maybe for a little bit of 

22 clarification. Is it the intent of NIOSH to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 basically review the recommended approach as 

2 stated in OTIB-0049 to see if the issues that 

3 Joyce raised are basically issues that will 

4 fall by the wayside because your protocol is a 

5 more bounding assessment that will more than 

6 adequately address any uncertainties that are 

7 being raised by Joyce. Is that what NIOSH 

8 intends to respond with?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, my judgment 

10 -- and I don't have our response; the 

11 technical people should give the response --

12 my judgment is that the scenario that Joyce 

13 describes does not occur in our dose 

14 reconstruction. If we have essentially a 

15 positive bioassay with some years separation, 

16 unless there is very clear evidence that this 

17 employee was nowhere possibly exposed, the 

18 assumption on the dose reconstruction was that 

19 the person was chronically exposed during 

20 their employment, and the acute intakes are 

21 superimposed on the chronic exposure in order 

22 to match the bioassay that you have. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 And I believe in that circumstance 

2 our judgment factor will still be favorable. 

3 That's what I believe, but that is strictly a 

4 judgment sitting here, and no one has told me 

5 that that is true. So don't everybody bank on 

6 that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: We had an action item 

8 for a technical call on this OTIB to try to 

9 resolve these last outstanding issues. But I 

10 have no evidence that that call took place.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no. In fact 

12 I haven't got a response. I would like us to 

13 be able to try to respond to this, just answer 

14 it without committing to a phone call first. 

15 If our answer is insufficient in some ways we 

16 can try a call.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right, well, we 

18 will continue to carry the phone call, or we 

19 will change it when we get to that action item 

20 later on. 

21 So are you okay, Hans and Kathy?

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes, one I'm trying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 to look back and say, okay, the issues that 

2 Joyce raised -- and let me just get an 

3 understanding and ask for comments here. We 

4 are basically reviewing a dose reconstruction, 

5 will be reviewing a dose reconstruction that 

6 assumes Type S. Now we know perhaps in some 

7 instances it was Super S, so obviously acute 

8 exposures, chronic exposures, these should all 

9 have been addressed in the original dose 

10 reconstruction. And now on your PER-0012 we 

11 are simply going to modify that by applying 

12 certain adjustment factors, in the case, if 

13 the target organ was either the lung or the 

14 thoracic lymph nodes we would simply apply a 

15 factor four, it was based on urinalysis plus 

16 the yearly adjustment factors as defined in 

17 Table D. And that would be all the revisions 

18 to the dose reconstruction would encompass it, 

19 is that correct? And it would not necessarily 

20 go back and say, okay, what was the bioassay, 

21 the original bioassay? Did it consist of 

22 potential periods or intake regimes that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 consist of an acute period of exposure or 

2 discrete -- acute exposures followed by 

3 chronic exposures? That would not be part of 

4 the reassessment, I take it.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe you are 

6 correct, Hans.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I think you are 

8 right.

9 DR. BEHLING: So all these issues 

10 may not even come into play when we look for 

11 dose reconstructions that have been 

12 reassessed. I mean, we are basically saying, 

13 okay, for this individual where there was a 

14 potential for exposures, and the assumption 

15 was that it was Type S, we will then now apply 

16 Super S, and if in the case of lung we would 

17 apply the factor of four. If it's urinalysis 

18 based, and in addition to that the Appendix D 

19 yearly adjustment factors, and that would be 

20 the sum total of the dose readjustments.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we may find 

22 that many of our concerns are moot once you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 actually look at the data itself. 

2 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Is there anything 

4 more to be said about this before we go to 

5 lunch?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I just wanted to 

9 say, while we have Joyce on the line, before 

10 we break for lunch, can we talk about the two11 day sampling thing, item -- this item here?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Certainly.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And then maybe we 

14 might be able to release Joyce from the 

15 discussion?

16 CHAIR MUNN: I can see no reason 

17 why not. We go to OTIB-0029, right?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I wanted to 

19 specifically go through the action item on 

20 Wanda's action item list of data sources and 

21 transcripts regarding practices of OTIB-0029 

22 on two-day sample issues.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 CHAIR MUNN: We might ask if 

2 everyone received the data that was just sent 

3 by email with respect to OTIB-0029, yesterday 

4 or the day before?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I did send out 

6 an email on issue 1 of OTIB-0029, we had an 

7 action item to clarify Joyce's comments and 

8 upload them into the database.

9 CHAIR MUNN: And so we have item 1 

10 and item 2 were covered in that.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So, yes, item --

12 issue 1 and 2 were covered in that, and what I 

13 did, the Subcommittee and NIOSH up until that 

14 point had not received Joyce's comments on the 

15 NIOSH responses. So those were sent out. And 

16 then there was a specific issue about this 

17 two-day hiatus, I guess, between the time that 

18 the sample is taken -- or maybe -- yes, 

19 between the time that the worker is exposed 

20 and the time the sample is taken. And I think 

21 we talked about this a little the last time we 

22 met, and it was mentioned that in some cases 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 this was done intentionally, and I guess --

2 this is an email that I always see. I'll put 

3 it up on this board here now, and 

4 unfortunately I did not send this to the total 

5 Subcommittee members. But it's basically an 

6 email that I received from John. And if we 

7 can just start with about the third sentence 

8 there. 

9 It says, respect to my action 

10 item, that's the two-day -- I did look into 

11 the two-day hiatus issue and determined that 

12 the basis for our concern was the early years 

13 at Y-12 and virtually all facilities with 

14 widespread documentation that it was standard 

15 policy to deliberately have a two-day hiatus, 

16 so that only uranium we were looking at was 

17 Type S. NIOSH has already confirmed that this 

18 is true, and I believe that was done at the 

19 last issue, we talked about that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: You mean here?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: In here. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: What I said was, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 recognize -- I remember when it was preferred 

2 to have the days off. I didn't intend to say 

3 that the samples were only collected with two 

4 days off. What I said was, because of lab 

5 capacity, we didn't normally, it's just that 

6 samples be collected.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: So it was -- I 

8 really confirmed that it was --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't know 

10 that that actually --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So this is a little 

12 -- the reason for that is that in the early 

13 days Type S and M uranium were not considered 

14 important contributors to the dose. NIOSH 

15 argues that later this policy was changed as 

16 evidenced by the fact that they see urine 

17 samples on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, et cetera. 

18 During a site visit interview, 

19 Kathy DeMers found out that there was still a 

20 two-day break, i.e. workers took their two 

21 days off during the week. That interview is 

22 the basis for our concern. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 That being said, this is a 

2 relatively small problem since most intakes 

3 are in fact episodic, which specifically 

4 reduces the significance of this issue. 

5 Nonetheless if you assume chronic intake, 

6 there could be a three to tenfold 

7 underestimate of the dose if you don't take 

8 this two-day hiatus into consideration if the 

9 exposures are primarily Type M and Type S. 

10 And Joyce did a detailed analysis 

11 of this which has been provided to NIOSH. So 

12 I guess I wanted to -- that is what we at SC&A 

13 have really done on this -- on this action 

14 item, to query the data sources regarding the 

15 progress on the two-day sample issue. 

16 So I wanted to put that out on the 

17 table and see what the next step is to help us 

18 smooth this along.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: So is the 

20 suggestion that everybody had the two days off 

21 before the urine sample, regardless of which 

22 day of the week it was, it's always --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 MR. HINNEFELD: That is our 

2 understanding. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what I was 

4 going to ask Steve. Is there any way you can 

5 provide -- you said in that statement, that 

6 email from John, it's been well documented for 

7 -- what I want to understand is, what does 

8 well-documented mean? Do you have the 

9 document? And the second part of that was in 

10 the early years. And then, again, how do you 

11 define early years. 

12 And then I guess the last thing 

13 would be the interviews; was it one single 

14 person interviewed, or were there multiple 

15 interviews confirming this, and if there were, 

16 could we have the references for those? That 

17 would be useful.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't have 

19 the answers to those right now, Mark, but 

20 those are very good questions. And I would 

21 like myself to know the number of interviews, 

22 and, again, defining early days is really kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 of subjective. But we can look into it and 

2 see if we can tie it down a little bit.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: It seems like the 

4 only way we're ever going to resolve this is 

5 if we have some of these documents, documented 

6 things, if there are actual procedures and if 

7 you have interviewed former HPs that have sort 

8 of confirmed, yes, this was the policy up till 

9 whenever. You know, I think that is the only 

10 way we are going to resolve this.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: But also the NIOSH 

12 response to our comments was that 40 percent 

13 of the samples were not collected on Monday, 

14 and I don't know how this would change because 

15 60 percent of the samples were collected on 

16 Monday, so why should we not use the Monday --

17 even if this was not two days absence, how do 

18 we demonstrate that 40 percent of the samples 

19 were not collected on Monday. This is not 

20 important anymore.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is a good 

22 point. Sixty percent, if it was equally 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 dispersed between the five days, you'd have a 

2 stronger case -- NIOSH would have a stronger 

3 case.

4 CHAIR MUNN: So the action is for 

5 NIOSH to respond to the current comments?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we will 

7 share that.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: I will -- I 

9 would like SC&A to follow up on the specific 

10 questions I asked, too.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And those were 

12 the number of interviews and what we mean by 

13 early days and what we mean by widespread 

14 documentation; is that it?

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: And the 

16 references to the interviews and the 

17 references to the documentation.

18 MR. KATZ: And another question 

19 Mark raised was, have HPs confirmed this was 

20 the policy.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, who were 

22 the interviewees, I guess. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 CHAIR MUNN: So it actually is 

2 SC&A's ball right now. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or both.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's hard for 

5 NIOSH to respond to the comments if they don't 

6 have the comments, clearly. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It would be kind 

8 of important to know what the references are 

9 for the documentation.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So right now 

11 it's SC&A's problem. 

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Actually, for 

13 most of the plant's history, the plant review 

14 and collection methods were a spot sample 

15 submitted Monday morning before entering the 

16 work area. But these were samples that were 

17 submitted at a minimum of 48 hours absent from 

18 the work area, and besides is it July 1 to 

19 December 31, 1961, it was stated that Friday 

20 evening samples should be discontinued in 

21 favor of Monday morning samples. That's 

22 somewhere in 14-5.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 MR. HINNEFELD: What document was 

2 that, Joyce?

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: That's from the 

4 TBD 14-5 on the I-12, the internal dosimetry.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank you.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the 

7 number?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It was 14-5.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is the same 

10 profile.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right, Joyce, do 

13 you have anything else to add?

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Not on this 

15 issue, but I have a big problem with TIB-0029. 

16 I don't know if we are scheduled to discuss 

17 this. But it's the data for '47 to '51. 

18 Because the first urine samples that are given 

19 in TIB-0029 is from '52, and the TIB-0029 

20 states that from '47 to '51 they had very 

21 similar operations, and therefore they were 

22 modeled as one intake experience, but we don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 have any bioassay results in TIB-0029 before 

2 '52. So I don't -- we need more documentation 

3 on why this was --

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why it's 

5 appropriate to use that later data?

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: That is on our 

8 list of things to respond to, because we just 

9 got that at the last meeting. Isn't that 

10 right, Mark?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think so, yes, 

12 but NIOSH still owes theirs.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Anything else with 

15 respect to OTIB-0029?

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And also I don't 

17 know if that's appropriate here, it's why 

18 OTIB-0029 doesn't have Type S for uranium when 

19 the DVD 14-5 says that there were Type S, 

20 there was highly soluble uranium at the site 

21 also.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Can you say that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 again, Joyce? I didn't catch the first part.

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I said that in 

3 TIB-0029, there is only type M and type N, and 

4 not type S. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I see.

6 DR. LIPSZTEIN: But if you go to 

7 the occupational internal dosimetry document, 

8 on Y-12, you have highly soluble uranium 

9 listed there. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So why isn't it 

11 addressed in TIB-0029, is your question, 

12 right?

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, why it isn't 

14 addressed at the Type F also. But for some 

15 of the cancers and internal organs, Type F 

16 would be the most claimant-favorable. 

17 (Simultaneous speakers.)

18 MR. MARSCHKE: F as in Frank.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually I think 

21 it's covered in the issue or part of issue 

22 five under OTIB-0029. We raised a concern of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 why Type F is not considered. And again I 

2 think we have been doing some back and forth. 

3 Again I'm looking at the database. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that is in 

5 NIOSH's --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, as I got it, 

7 what the Work Group directive says is NIOSH 

8 and SC&A should have a detailed teleconference 

9 to resolve this issue, Subcommittee members 

10 will be informed when the teleconference will 

11 occur. And that was back in March of this 

12 year, where that was -- that directive was 

13 given, and I guess nothing has really happened 

14 since then.

15 MR. KATZ: Stu, does that need a 

16 teleconference, or does that just need a 

17 response?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to see. 

19 It would depend. I mean, you're using 

20 bioassay data to get your dose assessment. 

21 And you're assessing systemic organ doses. It 

22 really doesn't matter what the solubility 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 class of uranium was. What's systemic is 

2 systemic, and it's going to behave in set 

3 given models regardless of solubility. The 

4 solubility is lung removal, that's what that 

5 pertains to. So the bioassay essentially 

6 translates directly to systemic organ dose. 

7 Talking about non-systemic organs like lung 

8 and GI tract, there may be in fact -- be some 

9 difference, so I don't know. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Is it possible that 

11 I have an error on my reference to 

12 teleconference meeting, and that it is not--

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be this 

14 one. I don't know.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought you 

16 said you were going to check first and see if 

17 you needed a teleconference. That was my 

18 recollection.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That was our comment 

20 with respect to issue one, but this is not 

21 issue one. This is -- I don't believe, 49.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: No, 29.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 CHAIR MUNN: Twenty-nine, 29? 

2 Really? I even specified the page, 29-1.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, 49 is a 

4 different question. I don't know --

5 CHAIR MUNN: But this is 29.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Twenty-nine is 

7 the Super S we had. OTIB-0049? That's the 

8 one we were talking about.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't decide 

11 today whether a phone call is needed. We will 

12 determine in looking at the issue, we will 

13 determine, and if we do feel like a phone call 

14 would be beneficial, we will let the 

15 Subcommittee know, and SC&A know. We'll try 

16 to reschedule something.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Anything 

18 else? 

19 Shall we break for lunch? 1:30?

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record at 12:21 p.m. and 

22 resumed at 1:30 p.m.)

23
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 (1:30 P.M.)

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let's go ahead 

4 and begin. I think our first item is probably 

5 one that Mark probably wouldn't have a lot of 

6 interest in anyway.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, just to make it 

8 official. So this is the Subcommittee on 

9 Procedures Review, Advisory Board on Radiation 

10 Worker Health, and we are reconvening after a 

11 lunch break. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. The 

13 first item that I'd like for us to get out of 

14 the way, since I think it's a fairly 

15 straightforward one is the transmission letter 

16 to -- of our report to Secretary Sebelius. 

17 Paul provided us with a letterhead copy of 

18 what we had agreed to in our last Board 

19 meeting as being our transmission letter. And 

20 with the exception of needing to remove the 

21 question mark from the first page --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where was that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 CHAIR MUNN: That was right after 

2 February, 2009, and the second paragraph, 

3 almost the next to the last line. I had no 

4 issue except the first paragraph on page two, 

5 the last sentence. As some of you may recall, 

6 we originally had a rather lengthy paragraph 

7 there talking about our evolution of the 

8 current tracking system. We opted to take 

9 that out. But having done so, we are left now 

10 -- I didn't realize this until I read it 

11 through clean -- we are now left with a 

12 sentence that says: Initial meeting's 

13 findings and the result of process of 

14 addressing them was undertaken with a 

15 spreadsheet matrix tool for tracking progress. 

16 But then that leaves you with no feeling at 

17 all of what happened after -- initially. We 

18 certainly have gone a long way from that 

19 simple matrix that we first started with, and 

20 my concern revolved around the fact that it 

21 seems to be incomplete. I had suggested that 

22 it seemed to me that we still needed at least 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 a sentence there to essentially state that 

2 that tracking process has evolved into an 

3 electronic process for not only tracking but 

4 also archiving, and didn't feel the sentence 

5 needed to say much more than that, but did 

6 feel in view of the fact that we spent a 

7 considerable amount of time developing this 

8 database, and how we operate it, and in view 

9 of the fact that I anticipate it will be used 

10 extensively as time goes on, by more and more 

11 subgroups. Don't want to go on playing with 

12 this forever, and it's been approved by the 

13 Board, but I thought we ought to discuss my 

14 reaction to it, I don't know whether anyone 

15 else had that reaction or not.

16 Paul, do you see what I mean?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I do. It 

18 doesn't make sense, and we either need to add 

19 to it or change it or delete it.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it seems to me 

21 that it's -- one simple sentence would take 

22 care of it I think. But this probably means 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 that we'd have to take this back to the Board 

2 again.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think it 

4 would change the intent, if you want to leave 

5 something in, you could say something like 

6 this, that these findings were tracked on an 

7 electronic database, it was established on a 

8 protected CDC site where access was simple for 

9 the agency, the contractor and the Board. And 

10 that would be it. It includes one of the 

11 sentences we took out. But I think as Ted 

12 said, we don't want to get into elaborate 

13 discussion of the tracking system.

14 CHAIR MUNN: No, no, I didn't 

15 suggest that we should. But it just seemed to 

16 me that we needed to at least indicate that we 

17 are no longer just tracking it on a paper 

18 matrix, which is what this suggests. Mike, do 

19 you have any problem with that?

20 MEMBER GIBSON: No, not at all.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, are you back 

22 yet?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I just got 

2 on, Wanda. I'm sorry.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, did you pick 

4 up on what we were talking about?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I missed 

6 that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, we are talking 

8 about the transmission letter to the 

9 Secretary.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Paul provided it for 

12 us. And I pointed out that the only problem I 

13 had with it was the first paragraph on page 

14 two, the last sentence leaves us hanging after 

15 we deleted that other full paragraph where we 

16 had originally described our evolution of the 

17 database in considerable length. Now that 

18 sentence leaves us hanging out in midair, and 

19 I was suggesting that we need at least another 

20 brief sentence just to make notation of the 

21 fact that it's evolved considerably and that 

22 it's a fairly sophisticated tool now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine with 

2 me.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So Paul is busily 

4 writing out a proposed sentence here.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: The proposed 

6 sentence would be to delete -- or the proposed 

7 action would be to delete that sentence that 

8 says initially these findings and the 

9 resultant process of addressing them was 

10 undertaken with a spreadsheet matrix tool for 

11 tracking progress, and to replace that with 

12 this: to track these findings, an electronic 

13 database was established on a protected CDC 

14 website where access was simple for the 

15 Agency, the contractors, and the Board. And 

16 that would be it.

17 CHAIR MUNN: I would make one 

18 suggestion to your wording that would suggest 

19 that, instead of saying was established, could 

20 we say, has been developed.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Has been

22 developed? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 CHAIR MUNN: Just indicative of -

2 -

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This wording is 

4 part of what was in there before, but that 

5 sounds better, if that is okay with Mark and 

6 Mike.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Fine with me.

8 CHAIR MUNN: So you want to read 

9 that whole paragraph through now?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: The whole 

11 paragraph would state: findings and 

12 observations made from the technical reviews 

13 range from minor issues with no measurable 

14 impact on composition decisions to manage the 

15 scientific debate which may have complex-wide 

16 implications. To track these findings, an 

17 electronic database has been developed on a 

18 protected CDC site where access was simple --

19 that should say is simple for the Agency, the 

20 contractor, and the Board. Is it contractor 

21 or contractors?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Contractors, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 believe.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Does that do what we 

4 need it to do, Mark?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that sounds 

6 fine to me.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Mike?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that sounds 

9 fine.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right, since 

11 Paul wrote it, I'm assuming that he agrees 

12 with it.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think 

14 that changes the meaning from what the Board 

15 approved. It's an editorial.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone else 

18 have any concerns with the letter, and our 

19 anticipated enclosures with that?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask 

21 Nancy, Nancy Adams, are you still on the line?

22 MS. ADAMS: Yes, I'm here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Nancy, for 

2 delivering this letter, I assume we go through 

3 the same process as we do on the others, we go 

4 through John and then through the Secretary?

5 MS. ADAMS: Correct.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so I can 

7 provide this letter to you electronically, and 

8 that - as a modified letter - and what are the 

9 attachments?

10 CHAIR MUNN: The attachments are 

11 the status sheet that Nancy and Steve always -

12 -

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so you have 

14 the status sheet, Nancy?

15 CHAIR MUNN: It would be the 

16 status sheet, our most recent one, the one 

17 that is not up right now because it 

18 disappeared in the transfer.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want me to 

20 get you a new version of that, Wanda?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Steve has the 

22 version that we were using.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: The numbers have 

2 to match.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I can send you --

4 I think I have in my archive what I handed out 

5 back at the beginning of the October meeting.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and that's the 

7 one that we were working from.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: The letter says, 

9 538 findings.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 538 findings 

11 and the percentages were --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: It says more than 

13 80 percent.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That looks right.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 49 percent.

16 CHAIR MUNN: And open, 21 

17 percent.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: This shows 49 

19 percent closed.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 49 percent 

21 closed, and 80 percent having been deliberated 

22 on one way or another.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: This shows 47, so 

2 that's a different chart.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's fine.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: What are the 

5 percentages open?

6 CHAIR MUNN: He said the number -

7 -

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: In the letter, we 

9 have 80 percent, more than 80 percent 

10 deliberated on.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Which means, yes --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 49 percent 

13 was the total that were closed. And so 47 --

14 so there is a discrepancy between the letter 

15 and the attachment. We need to make sure --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we need to make 

17 sure that's okay. And that attachment had the 

18 usual indications below it, what each of the 

19 categories meant.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this one that 

21 I'm showing here now was one that I did by 

22 hand because I didn't have access to the last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 list. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you see 

3 more than 80 percent, so this percentage here 

4 must have gone down and the other went up. We 

5 must have closed something at that meeting. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: October. This is 

7 really where I think you want -- well, this 

8 only shows 48 percent being closed.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's October 

9th 10 , but I think we changed that at the 

11 meeting.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully you can 

13 find that in your records. I'll check mine 

14 too to see if I have it. We anticipated 

15 sending that summary sheet and the chart, the 

16 bar chart.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: We have two bar 

18 charts, we have the percentage bar chart, 

19 which basically always adds up to 100 percent; 

20 and then we have the number of issues bar 

21 chart. I can send you both and you can pick 

22 whichever one you want.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 CHAIR MUNN: No, I think we were 

2 going to do the percentage, weren't we?

3 MR. MARSCHKE: If you are talking 

4 in percentages in the body of the letter, it 

5 makes sense.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's the 

7 one we had agreed we would use.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so maybe we 

9 were at the second to last one, it's more than 

10 80 percent and now it's back down.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's 

12 because on October we went back because of 

13 lost data.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I need to 

16 change the numbers in the letter?

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, why don't we say 

as of October 1st 18 , the numbers, then you 

19 wouldn't have to change anything. In the 

20 letter, if we said as of October 1, 2009 --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I can send you 

22 this bar chart, which basically shows more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 than 80 percent --

2 MS. ADAMS: This is Nancy. I 

have a PDF file that's October 14th 3 , 2009.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, that is 

5 the one we're looking at now.

6 CHAIR MUNN: And that is the one 

7 we were using at the time we put the letter 

8 together.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have the bar 

10 chart, Nancy?

11 MS. ADAMS: I do. It's all part 

12 of the same PDF.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: The numbers and 

15 the bar chart?

16 MS. ADAMS: Right.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so you have 

18 what we need?

19 MS. ADAMS: I do. I will forward 

20 it to you just to triple check that it's the 

21 right thing.

22 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 fairly certain that it is, because it was the 

2 one I was using at the time we were putting 

3 the letter together.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: If you will make 

5 a note that that will be the attachment, then, 

6 for this letter, also.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Those two things 

8 were the only thing we were going to enclose 

9 since we felt anything else would be 

10 extraneous and we agreed we would not send the 

11 SC&A report, as too voluminous.

12 All right, we know where we are 

13 going.

14 MR. KATZ: Just a note, though, 

15 we still need to collect votes from Dr. Melius 

16 and Mike Gibson to close that out before 

17 sending that letter, right? Mike, are you 

18 still on the line still?

19 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here.

20 MR. KATZ: You got my email about 

21 your vote on this letter?

22 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. I'm fine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 with it.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, can you 

3 send me an email formally just letting me know 

4 that you are voting in favor of the motion?

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Will do.

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you. That's 

7 one. So then I just need to get -- I've asked 

8 Jim for his vote too.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Any other 

10 issues surrounding the transmittal letter?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And what they 

12 have is the draft we had at the Board meeting, 

13 not this. Because we voted on the draft.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is 

15 correct. That is correct. 

16 Shall we move on to our action 

17 items? The first item that we had was 

18 transferring the two procedures from our 

19 responsibility to Rocky Flats, that memo was 

20 sent, and it should now be in their hands. Is 

21 that not correct, Mark?

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: We have it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. That's 

2 done. And we just completed item number two, 

3 the draft of the report to the Secretary. 

4 Stu is going to check with IT to 

5 verify how to provide PDF files.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have an 

7 answer yet, but I did get the question to them 

8 fairly recently, so. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That will 

10 continue. 

11 OTIB-0029, is there anything there 

12 that we did not cover with our discussion this 

13 morning with Joyce?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No I think we 

15 covered that this morning.

16 CHAIR MUNN: So we now have the 

17 action in SC&A's court to respond more 

18 thoroughly with respect to where the data came 

19 from that they are using for their comments; 

20 correct?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Next, query data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 sources and transcripts on the two-day sample 

2 issue.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: They're the same.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that the same 

5 as OTIB-0029?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: That's part of 

7 OTIB-0029.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's part of what 

9 we were discussing under OTIB-0029. So that's 

10 -- that's actually nothing -- well, my concern 

11 here is whether we have an open issue on the 

12 database that needs to be, that we need to 

13 follow up on. Do we have an OTIB-0068 open 

14 issue? I'm trying to get back to it, I keep 

15 losing it.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't have 

17 OTIB-0068 in our database at all.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0068 was the 

19 two-day hiatus OTIB that never got published. 

20 But it's the same discussion we had in OTIB21 0029. That's where we had that discussion.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, since it never 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 got published, really and truly, it's actually 

2 covered under 29.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: We should probably 

5 stop referring to OTIB-0068, because it never 

6 got published.

7 And it seems to me that that is 

8 covered by our previous discussions with OTIB9 0029, or am I mistaking it?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I believe you are 

11 correct. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: So we will eliminate 

13 that, and consider it closed by reason of the 

14 previous one.

15 Distribute a draft transfer of ID16 43 and 07 to Surrogate Data Work Group, and 

17 that one I have not done. 

18 MR. KATZ: We want to knock that 

19 off, because the Surrogate Data Work Group I 

20 think should be meeting soon.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'll make 

22 sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 Next item is revise two, 

2 identified changes in SC&A procedure used to 

3 review NIOSH procedures, and briefly revisit 

4 the entire text for other potential updates. 

5 This is another carry-over.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: We have done that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: You have done that?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: And there was, of 

9 the same email that transmitted the draft PER 

10 review procedure, also transmitted the revised 

11 draft of the procedure-review procedure, and 

12 the one thing we were going to change was on 

13 the -- or the one thing we were going to 

14 change in two locations was on the table 

15 checklist table, and was item 1.3, where we 

16 basically had a, in parenthesis, a statement 

17 for the reviewer to check and make sure that 

18 all the data was provided in the procedure 

19 itself, and none of the data had references, 

20 or was provided by references. And that was 

21 just not a reasonable expectation. So as you 

22 can see here, by item 1.3, we have deleted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 that, the parenthesis, the statement that was 

2 in parenthesis, from the checklist table, and 

3 also from further on down in the report.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: What page is 

5 that?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: That is on page 

7 15, or 14. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: On what date did you 

9 transmit that?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: That was 

11 transmitted yesterday. That was -- Judy 

12 transmitted that yesterday.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: With the PER 

15 report, they were both --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: -- both documents 

17 were transmitted in the same email.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I remember that now, 

19 okay.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And then there was 

21 also, further on down I think in Section 3.4, 

22 the same phrase was in parenthesis under -- in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 one of the bullets, under Section 3.4, where 

2 we did go in and we deleted from there as 

3 well. And then when we performed a more -- or 

4 looked at the procedure in its entirety, we 

5 found that much of the procedure was written 

6 geared towards the first set of procedures 

7 that were under review. And in a couple of 

8 occasions, under scope, and under Section 4,

9 select technical issues, we have really geared 

10 those sections toward the specific procedures 

11 that were included in the first set of 

12 reviews. And we have gone in -- in this 

13 revision and tried to make those two sections 

14 of the document more general, tried to 

15 generalize those, as you can see under Section 

16 2, under procedures to review, we kind of, 

17 before it had a list of the exact procedures 

18 that were included in the first round, and now 

19 we just included some general statements that 

20 these are the types of documents that will be 

21 reviewed, and so on and so forth. 

22 And the other third type of change 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 we made was, this procedure referred to task 

2 three, which was a terminology under the 

3 original contract, which is no longer included 

4 in this new contract. So we have gone through 

5 and we have changed any reference to task 

6 three and put in more appropriate references 

7 to the current contract.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And how is it 

9 currently described? I know task three is 

10 incorrect.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't think of 

12 where there is a good example. I'd have to 

13 get back to you on that one, exactly where 

14 that change got made.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know what 

16 would be good on a document like this would be 

17 to enumerate the changes. I'm wondering if 

18 either -- yours have a page, I guess it's like 

19 the second page after the cover page where you 

20 -- let me look at that -- you indicate the 

21 effective date and revision number and so on.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm wondering, 

2 whenever there is a revision, if it would be -

3 - would it be worthwhile enumerating how this 

4 document differs from the previous one, this 

5 document reflects the following changes, 

6 Section A, Section B, whatever it is? Or 

7 otherwise you have to lay it side by side and 

8 say, now what did they change here. It 

9 doesn't jump out at you. Or in the purpose, 

10 you add a paragraph that indicates that this 

11 is a revision of the earlier document that 

12 includes the following changes. I'm trying to 

13 think, I think to do it on that first sort of 

14 summary thing would be an easy way to do it.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, especially in 

16 light of the fact that most other governmental 

17 agency documents do that. 

18 MR. KATZ: Stu's focus documents 

19 do that.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly, and it's 

21 very helpful, especially if you are tracking.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or you may sort 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 of want to review the changes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Right.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now wait a 

4 minute. Where are they?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: So underneath 

6 this, we have this heading type thing, where 

7 we have all this on the front page, and then 

8 underneath this we can just list out --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The following 

10 revisions have been made from the previous 

11 version, page so and so, section such and 

12 such, has been revised to do something. It 

13 could be just a simple chart or something. 

14 This might be something whenever you revise a 

15 document, to indicate how does it differ from 

16 the previous one.

17 CHAIR MUNN: If you reference the 

18 NIOSH documents, you will see clearly how that 

19 is done.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I know what 

21 you are talking about.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That would be very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 helpful. So the questions like this one would 

2 be much easier to track.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Let me ask the 

4 Subcommittee's opinion here. We are calling 

5 this document Revision 3 because it replaces 

6 this document which was Revision 2. But we've 

7 given it a different document name, a 

8 different document number, because we've 

9 changed the way we assign numbers, so it's 

10 really, in my way of thinking anyway, this is 

11 Revision 0 of this document --

12 CHAIR MUNN: I agree.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And supersedes 

14 Revision 2 of this document.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I agree absolutely. 

16 Otherwise -- yes, any time we change the 

17 document numbers --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this simply 

19 replaces --

20 MR. MARSCHKE: We need to put 

21 down what we talked about earlier, we know 

22 this, and say, these are the changes that were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 made.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now what if you 

3 didn't change anything, but you were only 

4 changing the document number?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Then you would put 

6 down underneath here no changes.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: You would put down 

9 underneath, no changes were made to this 

10 document.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a new 

12 numbering system.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: What we need to 

14 add to our cover or our summary page, we need 

15 to add, down below here, we need to say, the 

16 changes that were incorporated were, and then 

17 --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And even if it's 

20 no changes, and it's just the document number.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The document 

22 number and change the document, something like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 that.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what are you 

3 doing on document numbers? So this is SC&A, 

4 does PR stand for something specifically?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it does. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: PR stands for 

7 something.

8 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, this is 

9 Kathy Behling, PR stands for procedure, and we 

10 do PR for a technical review, and so the PR is 

11 supposed to stand for procedure.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then 2009 is?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: The year.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's procedure 

15 one of this year?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Procedure one that 

17 was issued this year.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

19 CHAIR MUNN: And in my personal 

20 opinion, Steve's comment about the numbering 

21 system is absolutely correct. This should be 

22 Rev 0 of this document.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of the new 

2 numbering.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Otherwise we could 

4 get really confused.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you would 

6 point out that it's not just -- it's not Rev 2 

7 of the old system. It is a revision in Rev 2 

8 of the old document. It doesn't supersede it; 

9 it was a revision.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, yes, all 

11 right.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Otherwise you 

13 could just say --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- a number change.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. A number 

16 change. I think that would be helpful as you 

17 go forward to do that. But I couldn't keep 

18 track of what you said all the changes were as 

19 you went.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, we will add 

21 to this page a list of changes, and we will 

22 change the rev to Rev 0.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so I'm going 

2 to leave this on the list so that next time we 

3 see it, we'll have the addition of changes 

4 shown on the introductory sheets. So that we 

5 can follow -- it is sort of difficult for us 

6 to discuss the changes that were made if we 

7 don't have them right in front of us.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: So the Subcommittee 

9 doesn't want to -- okay, we will add those and 

10 resend it.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And personally this 

12 member of the Subcommittee wants to have an 

13 opportunity to read through the new documents, 

14 which I haven't had an opportunity to do, 

15 being on an airplane yesterday.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I mean the 

17 other part of the question, does the 

18 Subcommittee want to give us any other 

19 comments that we might as well include when we 

20 issue another draft B, or should we just issue 

21 draft B and then wait for the Subcommittee to 

22 give us comments on draft B.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm not sure if 

2 you do what I just described that that is a 

3 new revision. That is just a new format.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Unless we ask for 

6 other changes. If you reissue it with that 

7 identifying sheet, it's still --

8 MR. MARSCHKE: It's still Rev 0?

9 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we should 

11 identify this as Rev 0, draft 1, or --

12 exactly.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, probably so. 

14 That would be better. 

15 All right, if you will do that for 

16 us, then we will have an opportunity to look 

17 at it after you identified what the changes 

18 are and where they are, and we can review 

19 those briefly at our next meeting, if that is 

20 agreeable with everyone. Anyone have a 

21 problem with that? If not, it will carry over 

22 to our next agenda, and we have a review, an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 individual review to do prior to that time to 

2 be ready for it.

3 The next issue that we had was the 

4 Commonalities Report, the table. And so far 

5 as I know I was the only person who had any 

6 comments that went to Steve. Steve, did you 

7 have any other comments?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I did not 

9 receive any other comments other than yours, 

10 Wanda, and again, yesterday around 1:00 

11 o'clock yesterday afternoon, Judy sent to the 

12 Subcommittee the draft version of the 

13 Commonality Report.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Does everyone have 

15 that? Mike, Mark, do you have it on your CDC 

16 mail?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I do.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

19 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I have it, 

20 too. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is a more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 recent version, a November version.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: This is one that 

3 came out yesterday.

4 CHAIR MUNN: It just came 

5 yesterday on the CDC mail.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did you pick out 

7 -- there were some spelling errors in the 

8 first version.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean the spell 

11 checker picked them out, so I assume you guys 

12 would have also.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda picked up a 

14 bunch of my spelling errors, and Nancy 

15 Johnson, our proofreader or our technical 

16 editor, she went through it and picked out --

17 cleaned up more of my stuff, so any spelling 

18 errors are my fault. But we've had a couple 

19 of people go through it and look at it.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, thank you. I 

21 see in Table 2.1, you clarified the wording 

22 there; thank you for that. I'm assuming the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 other concern I had about those two tables 

2 turned out to be pretty much the same thing. 

3 This was very interesting from my perspective 

4 to see the common issues here. I'm not sure 

5 exactly what we want to do with them now that 

6 we have them, but I found it interesting to 

7 see what we have. Does anyone on the 

8 Committee have any feelings about how this 

9 information should be applied, other than 

10 simply to have it available for those of us 

11 who work across a number of issues from 

12 various sites? Is there a specific action 

13 that you need taken with respect to this?

14 I certainly appreciate the work 

15 Steve has done on it. This was no easy thing. 

16 And it was certainly confusing to me, as 

17 I'm certain it was to other members of the 

18 Committee. Some of these cross-cutting issues 

19 were difficult to remember where they 

20 belonged. This will help greatly.

21 We can show this on our record as 

22 closed, then, unless someone has something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 further they want to say at this time.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I just 

3 wanted to double-check, now, we were only 

4 looking for consistency, weren't we, from one 

5 finding to another, for common findings?

6 CHAIR MUNN: That was the 

7 original concern that was raised.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I don't 

9 recall that we saw any inconsistencies in this 

10 later, did we?

11 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't see any. 

12 Did Steve as he went through them?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, you've 

14 looked through. Did you see any 

15 inconsistencies?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: No inconsistencies, 

17 no. There are some cases where this --

18 actually this exercise may be helpful in that 

19 some of the common issues were resolved for 

20 some of the procedures. We can then use those 

21 resolutions to resolve where that issue pops 

22 up on other procedures. So that may be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 useful.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's one of the 

3 reasons why I anticipate that this will 

4 continue to be a reference document for 

5 exactly that reason.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we need to 

7 approve the document then, or what do we need 

8 to do?

9 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to have 

10 a record of the committee having approved it, 

11 and if we are going to do that it may be that 

12 we need to give everyone a little more time to 

13 look it over, although we had more than 

14 adequate time to review the original report. 

15 The only changes that have been incorporated 

16 here have been explanations that Steve has 

17 marked with an asterisk underneath, a couple, 

18 three of the tables, just additional 

19 information identifying what the wording 

20 meant, where the words came from. I had 

21 indicated that it wasn't -- I didn't think it 

22 was clear to the casual reader where some of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 the similar-issue wording referenced. It 

2 didn't seem to me that it was -- it didn't 

3 actually say that the wording was the same in 

4 both cases. But the asterisk information 

5 clarifies it, I think, quite well. 

6 What is your desire? Do you want 

7 to take a look at this before we approve it, 

8 or are you willing to approve it now?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I will 

10 start us off.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Paul.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we should 

13 approve it or accept it or whatever action you 

14 desire. And then we should, in your report at 

15 the full Board meeting, we should share the 

16 outcome with the Board. And I don't know if 

17 you've distributed this, but it seems to me 

18 it's useful to make it available to all the 

19 Board members for reference.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I think we have not 

21 distributed it, not to my knowledge.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And we did not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 distribute it. When we sent the email, we 

2 sent the email only to the Subcommittee, as 

3 opposed to the other procedures email we sent 

4 to the full Board.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it seems to 

6 me, maybe it's two motions, one is to accept 

7 the report, and the other would be a separate 

8 motion when you make the report to the full 

9 Board you keep them apprised that this has 

10 been done and to share with them a copy of the 

11 outcome. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds like one 

13 motion to me, unless there are objections. If 

14 there is no objection, I will take that as a 

15 single motion. 

16 Do I hear a second?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: I will second 

18 that.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

20 Any opposition? If anyone 

21 opposes, speak now or forever hold your peace. 

22 It will otherwise be recorded as a unanimous 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 vote of the Subcommittee to accept the report 

2 as written and to provide it to the Board as a 

3 part of this Subcommittee's report at the 

4 upcoming teleconference.

5 Hearing no objection, it is 

6 accepted, with commendation to Steve for a job 

7 well done. Thank you.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: You're welcome.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Provide more input 

10 on OTIB-4701 for Subcommittee members. Let's 

11 take a moment to get back to where -- through 

12 five other screens. 

13 Let me have the screen back. 

14 Okay, 47-02. Extended radiation monitoring at 

15 Y-12. The OTIB states there were 240 distinct 

16 ID badges, but SC&A was only able to identify 

17 229. And it looks like the last notation that 

18 I believe I have is a June notation, SC&A to 

19 provide discussion as to why they agree with 

20 the NIOSH response at the next Subcommittee 

21 meeting.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: I sent the Board -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 - Bob Barton of our staff actually had looked 

2 at this issue, and we talked about this issue, 

3 and Bob was on the phone in the October 

4 meeting, I believe. And we've gone through --

5 issue two has got three parts to it, and I 

6 believe we are in agreement on the first and 

7 second part. Let me just make sure -- yes, 

8 the first part was how many individuals, 

9 workers, are represented in the database, and 

10 I think NIOSH eventually -- we agreed with 

11 NIOSH on the final number eventually, and so 

12 that issue was considered to be in abeyance.

13 Part two, the issue in brief was, 

14 were zero dose values included in the analysis 

15 for all four dosimeter types. And NIOSH came 

16 back and said, yes, and we agreed with that 

17 response, and basically that portion of the 

18 issue was closed.

19 The third part, the issue in brief 

20 was that the TIB would benefit from a more 

21 substantial discussion of why the RPRT-0032 

22 values are more claimant-favorable than the Y-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 12 external monitoring records. And NIOSH 

2 basically gave a rather detailed analysis as 

3 I'm looking at it here. And SC&A gave an even 

4 more detailed analysis.

5 Our concern on this one as I 

6 recall was that in the NIOSH analysis, they 

7 were utilizing what is essentially weekly 

8 monitor readings, and they are using them as 

9 if they were quarterly monitoring readings. 

10 And what we've done, besides redoing this 

11 analysis, was redo the -- what the analysis 

12 that NIOSH had done except multiply all the 

13 numbers by 12.5, which would be converting 

14 them from a weekly meeting to a quarterly 

15 meeting. 

16 And when we do what we thought was 

17 a comparable analysis to what NIOSH had done, 

18 we have the results that are presented here on 

19 this table or in this file. And we get -- the 

20 conclusions are very similar. We get very few 

21 instances where the conclusions differed if we 

22 had any. But we just felt that the analysis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 had to be done correctly, or differently.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So this is -- what 

3 you have on this screen, Steve, is your 

4 report?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: This I believe I 

6 sent to -- yesterday at eight o'clock in the 

7 morning, again on CDC mail, I forwarded this 

8 analysis that Bob Barton of our staff has 

9 done, and this is what I'm showing on the 

10 screen here now. This was -- yes, this was --

11 I sent this to the Subcommittee yesterday.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I see, we just 

13 got it yesterday. I missed it.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: This was an email 

15 that Bob Barton had sent to me back in July, 

16 and I just forwarded it to the Subcommittee 

17 yesterday. But we did discuss this in the 

18 October -- it may have been the August, but I 

19 think it was the October meeting -- and I 

20 remember we had Bob on the phone, and we did 

21 discuss this. And -- but I don't think we 

22 ever sent the attached files. So -- for NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 to take a look at. And I can see that they 

2 agree with what we have done, and what they --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that jibes with 

4 the wording of the action item as I have it, 

5 that more information was required on this 

6 one. So is it possible for you to now send 

7 that data to NIOSH and to us?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: What, the 

9 analysis? I mean you're talking about what he 

10 just sent, right? Or what are you talking 

11 about?

12 CHAIR MUNN: We're trying to get 

13 a resolution of the concerns.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: The thing you 

15 sent yesterday was from Ron?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: It was from Bob 

17 Barton.

18 CHAIR MUNN: But Bob wasn't the 

19 one who sent it?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I sent it.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I saw a 

22 couple you sent that were labeled Joyce, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 one that was labeled Ron. This was labeled 

2 Bob.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: No, this was 

4 labeled from, it would have been from Steve 

5 Marschke. That would be the email you look 

6 for in your CDC box.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: And there is a 

9 forward of a NIOSH OTIB-0047 issue two, was 

10 the subject of the email. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: I don't see it.

12 MEMBER GIBSON: I don't think I 

13 got that email.

14 CHAIR MUNN: No, I can't see 

15 mine.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: This was 

17 yesterday, right?

CHAIR MUNN: Correct. The 16th 18 . 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got several 

20 from Judy and one from you that said --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute, 

22 maybe it did not go to your CDC mail, I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 sorry. It went to your real -- to your 

2 regular account. I'm sorry.

3 MR. KATZ: It didn't go to me at 

4 all.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: It didn't go to 

6 you at all?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm sorry, it 

9 showed up on my CDC email, I thought I sent 

10 it.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So the contention 

12 here though I'm guessing that -- and I am not 

13 a hundred percent sure of this, but in one set 

14 we have -- I guess it's in the CEDR weekly 

15 results, is that right?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The database, 

18 that was a weekly result?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And the TIB 

21 reports quarterly, is that it? And then the 

22 comparison somewhere, the comparison that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 done was, the data was used as if they were 

2 quarterly, and they are actually weekly. But 

3 there is not a thirteen-fold difference 

4 between your calculated numbers and ours, 

5 right, or do you know?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Off the top of my 

7 head, I don't know.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I would have to 

9 look at it more, because I remember the issue 

10 from last time, and it came up last time, and 

11 I remember it. It would seem that there is a 

12 little more to it. It was treated in some 

13 fashion, and inflated from weekly data up to 

14 quarterly data in order to getting them more 

15 close to each other. Or maybe we're not 

16 anywhere close to each other. But the TIB 

17 would be the direct -- that would be the 

18 coworker study that we would say, this is what 

19 -- this is the code word for population use 

20 for dose reconstruction, and the database then 

21 should support it for SC&A, but it doesn't 

22 exactly, because it is quarterly data and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 being treated as quarterly data. But if we 

2 felt like each of those readings was a 

3 quarterly reading, and used the data, our 

4 number would come out thirteen times lower, 

5 the TIB number would be about thirteen times 

6 lower than the number that you guys calculated 

7 taking twelve and a half times those database 

8 numbers. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: You're saying that 

10 you would have assigned it as quarter, but it 

11 was only for the week? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if that's what it 

13 really was, there wouldn't be a thirteen times 

14 difference.

15 MR. KATZ: Nancy? I'm sorry, 

16 Nancy, or anyone -- is anyone still on the 

17 line? It's showing as if it's still live. 

18 Anybody hear us on the line? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: The issue in 

20 brief, if you read the issue in brief, it said 

21 the TIB would benefit from a more substantial 

22 discussion of why they used RPRT-0032 values 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 were more claimant favorable than the Y-12 

2 external monitoring records. And then so --

3 then the NIOSH response generates these tables 

4 that you see there, table one, that you see 

5 there with -- where there is an attempt to 

6 show that the monitoring data was in fact --

7 that the e-values are -- the e-dose values on 

8 the right-hand side of the table are claimant9 favorable versus the R-1 and R-2 and R-3 and 4 

10 values, listed in the body of the table. What 

11 we think is the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 values 

12 that are in the body of the table, those are 

13 generated on -- from weekly data as if that 

14 weekly data were quarterly data.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: When we were 

16 putting this table together.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: When you were 

18 putting this table together.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And I don't think 

21 you have to go -- we are not really asking you 

22 to go back into the OTIB and change anything. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 Basically this proof, if you will, that the 

2 R-32 values, the RPRT-0032 values are more 

3 claimant-favorable; this proof needs to be 

4 redone. But when Bob has redone the proof --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Hold up a minute, 

6 Steve. The reason I'm asking you to hold up 

7 is because we seem to have lost everybody on 

8 here, and I'm sure that Mark will want to hear 

9 this. 

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 2:31 p.m. and 

12 resumed at 2:34 p.m.)

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: See if Mark and 

14 Mike are still here.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Mark, Mike, do we 

16 still have you?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yep, I'm here.

18 MEMBER GIBSON: I'm here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Let's very quickly 

20 tell them what we were talking about. Do you 

21 have Steve's email from yesterday on OTIB-0047 

22 issue two, status rationale? Mark and Mike? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 That's what we're discussing.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I couldn't 

3 find the email. And you say it didn't go to 

4 the CDC account, it went to the other one?

5 CHAIR MUNN: It went to your real 

6 account.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I will look on 

8 there.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is an 

10 attachment, which is the document. And while 

11 we're looking for it, I want to point out that 

12 normally when there is an attachment, I file 

13 the attachments. But this attachment has no 

14 date on it and no authorship on it, so a year 

15 from now it's going to be hard to remember 

16 where this fits into the scheme of things. 

17 That's just a reminder. I think even a 

18 document like this -- it gets dis-attached 

19 from the email is my point, and therefore 

20 sometimes to put it into context, it's good to 

21 have a date on the document.

22 CHAIR MUNN: It's cumbersome to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 do, but what I do when I personally download 

2 something like this is, I also download the 

3 transmittal message just as a transmittal with 

4 the same title as this. It is cumbersome, but 

5 it's to make sure that I have -- if there is 

6 anything said in the transmittal that is 

7 helpful, it is there.

8 How are you doing out there in 

9 radio land, have you found it yet?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm doing 

11 peachy. Actually while I'm trying to find it, 

12 I have a recommendation that may change the 

13 status anyway. From Steve's last document, 

14 the comparative analysis, along with these, 

15 the TIB-0029 and the TIB-0047 stuff, I'm 

16 wondering whether we should reform whatever we 

17 ever had in the Y-12 Work Group. But we 

18 certainly had -- because it was under that one 

19 large work group I believe at the time, we 

20 were handling Mallinckrodt and Y-12 and 

21 several issues.

22 But I know, if memory serves me, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 we were looking at the state profile issues 

2 too, and we had left several open. And Jim 

3 Neton brought this to my attention a while 

4 back, but we never did close out the -- we 

5 have remaining Y-12 profile issues. So I'm 

6 wondering with all these issues and the 

7 remaining set of profile issues, whether we 

8 shouldn't reform our Y-12 Work Group and take 

9 some of these things up there. Just thought 

10 I'd throw that out while I'm looking for the 

11 email.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, that should 

13 confuse the issue.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Glad to be at 

15 home.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It might be helpful 

17 for you to broach that during our 

18 teleconference, if you feel that is a valid 

19 problem. Because it seems to me that would 

20 something the Board should address rather than 

21 --

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 just thought I'd -- I wonder what your 

2 thoughts are, too.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my personal 

4 thought is if we can deal with it here, that's 

5 better. But and the only reason I say that 

6 is the more the Work Group and Subcommittees 

7 we have, the more cumbersome it is for 

8 everyone to deal with.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that was 

10 what I had originally thought, because we 

11 didn't have a Work Group and why create one 

12 just to deal with this. But after looking at 

13 several of this ongoing findings, I'm a little 

14 -- it's raising my concern that we might want 

15 to in some ways just key in on some of these 

16 issues.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, of course 

18 that's one of the reasons we asked Steve to 

19 put together the list of commonalities.

20 (Telephone interruption.)

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right, Mike, do 

22 you have the document?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 MEMBER GIBSON: No, I have not 

2 found that one.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not on your 

4 CDC mail. If you are looking in CDC, it is 

5 not there.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I did find 

7 it, TIB-0047 issue two, that is the subject, 

8 right?

9 CHAIR MUNN: You're right, that 

10 is it.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I did have it.

12 MEMBER GIBSON: It's regular 

13 email, not the CDC.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Correct, your 

15 regular mail.

16 MEMBER GIBSON: I have it open 

17 now.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Have any of 

19 you got it?

20 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I found it.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Do you have 

22 it open? Ready to go?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 MEMBER GIBSON: Ready to go.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. Then 

3 we'll ask Steve and Stu to give us a very 

4 quick thumbnail sketch of the discussion that 

5 was going on which is not yet complete, it was 

6 underway while you folks were offline. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I will 

8 start.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Stu. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Steve, these 

11 documents that he sent yesterday -- and I 

12 think Part 3 is the one to talk about, Part 1 

13 and 2 are essentially put in bed. So Part 3 

14 is the one that I think we talk about, I think 

15 it just starts on page two of four of the Word 

16 file. Table 1 that he presents is reproduced 

17 from a NIOSH response where we said this 

18 should support our contention in the TIB that 

19 the TIB numbers, the TIB doses, are favorable 

20 compared to the actual dosimetry data which 

21 was in the CEDR database. 

22 And as Steve has pointed out, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 the reviewer has pointed out correctly, the 

2 values, the R-2, R-3, R-4 values in Table 1 

3 are potentially a quarterly read, I believe 

4 that's the contention. I'm not saying 

5 absolutely because I don't know for sure, but 

6 they say that it's a quarterly reading, and 

7 it's being compared to this table -- or I'm 

8 sorry, this is a weekly reading, R-1, 2 and 3 

9 are a weekly reading, which are being compared 

10 in Table 1 to a quarterly number in the e-dose 

11 column, and the quarterly dose -- e-dose 

12 column is the number from the coworker TIB. 

13 So really the comparison, we 

14 cannot compare weekly numbers, you should 

15 multiply that by twelve and a half and you get 

16 their Table 2 which is on the following page, 

17 and then that shows which of those one, two, 

18 three and four numbers get -- it's not 

19 necessarily some of those numbers are higher 

20 in some cases than the e-dose. Although yes, 

21 even in one case the total is higher for R-2. 

22 Now as I recall there are some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 complicating factors here. I think I recall 

2 that R-1 is the canceled dosimeter reading, 

3 and R-2, 3 and 4 are other, like filtered 

4 badge, or unfiltered badge readings. I don't 

5 remember which is which, so there are some 

6 things to consider there. 

7 And the other thing I think that 

8 complicates this analysis, if I remember our 

9 original response, is that it's clear from the 

10 reporting of data, the CEDR data, that there 

11 are for quite a period of time the --

12 essentially all of the results are 30, which 

13 is the reporting level. So it appears during 

14 those periods of time, rather than reporting 

15 zero, they reported at reporting levels, 30. 

16 So it's a little more complicated than adding 

17 the numbers up, but it is a fact that the 

18 table that was presented in our response, 

19 Table 1 in this document, is not convincing 

20 support for our contention that the coworker 

21 approach is more favorable than the actual 

22 reading. That is a true statement, and it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 just going to take some more time to go back 

2 through and adjust and figure out what to say.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I agree with what 

4 Stu said. In Table 2 if you look at the 

5 response from Table 2, it's basically taking 

6 the numbers from Table 1 and multiplying them 

7 by twelve and a half, and then Bob Barton 

8 realized, again like Stu said, that there are 

9 a bunch of 30s in there, which are really less 

10 than NBL values, so instead of using 30 you 

11 use 15, then you get the values which are 

12 really in Table 3, then I think the majority 

13 of them if not, maybe only one -- maybe only 

14 one or two, not very many if any, exceed the 

15 e-values. Our values are always less than the 

16 e-values except for maybe one or two. I can 

17 see 1949 the R-2 value that seems to be 

18 higher. 

19 But again --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the e-value 

21 is supposed to be yearly? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the e-value 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 is --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that quarterly 

3 or yearly?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a 

5 quarterly value. E-value is quarterly. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Quarterly, okay.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It's listed here 

8 by year, quarters one, two, three and four, 

9 and then it's the total for the year, it's 

10 listed.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: E-dose is what?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the number 

13 in the coworker table.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, is that 

15 the yearly value?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the bold 

17 one, where it says total, that's a yearly 

18 value. The 1948-1 is the first quarter of 

19 1948.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which table are 

21 you looking at?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm looking at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 Table 3 right now. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: R-1, R-2, R-3 

3 and R-4 are quarterly values, with calculated 

4 --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Calculated to be 

6 quarterly, yes. In two and three, those are 

7 calculated to be quarterly from the weekly 

8 numbers, Table 1 has just the weekly numbers, 

9 in R-1, 2, 3 and 4.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: The first four 

11 lines of the table are supposed to be 

12 quarterly numbers, all the way across. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's R-1, R-2, 

14 R-3?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: R-1, R-2, R-3, is 

16 different -- one of them is -- what is it? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I think R-1 is 

18 the pencil dosimeter. I think R-2 is the open 

19 window. I think R-4 is cadmium filter. I 

20 don't know what R-3 is. But I'm just going 

21 from memory and I could be wrong.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: The different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 types of doses that were measured?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, different 

3 dose quantities in the CEDR database.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: So really the 

5 concern was that these numbers here, R-1, R6 2, R-3, are really weekly numbers.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I understand 

8 that.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: And we are 

10 carrying them over here to the quarterly 

11 numbers.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: But when you 

13 redid Table 3, these are all lower?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: When we redid 

15 Table 3 was, we took the Table 1 numbers and 

16 just multiplied by twelve and a half.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was for 

18 Table 2.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: For Table 2, and 

20 then for Table 3, up here like I said, we 

21 changed the zeroes, the thirties were changed 

22 to fifteen. And this is kind of like what Stu 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 is saying, is that more -- the Table 2 numbers 

2 are a simplification, and probably need to do 

3 more analysis than just that, and whether or 

4 not you have to do what's in Table 3 or 

5 something more or along those lines.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I tend to agree 

7 with Stu that it is more complicated. I mean

8 I hear you saying that there were a lot of 

9 requisite thirty values, but also I'm reading 

10 in the database the response for finding 47-2 

11 it says that although it was stated that 

12 zeroes were excluded from this analysis, it 

13 turns out that zeroes were not always 

14 excluded, and that the -- on April '48 through 

December '49, the 25th 15 percentile, dose for 11 

16 of the 21 months were equal to zero. So I 

17 think there is -- I guess I tend to agree with 

18 Stu that a little more work needs to be done 

19 here to prove the case. I'm still not clear 

20 whether or when zeroes were excluded. Certain 

21 30s were recorded in some years. Did the 

22 policy change? I'm not quite clear.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in part two of 

2 this particular issue, the brief that we are 

3 all looking at, the summary NIOSH response 

4 says the analysis included all zeroes but 

5 removed entries listed as NR, and SC&A said 

6 they revisited and agreed that the zeroes were 

7 in fact included for all four cases, and that 

8 entrees listed as NR were not included in the 

9 analysis. So doesn't that answer the question 

10 you were asking, Mark, or does it not?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it shows --

12 yes, I didn't see that, so that's part two, it 

13 says that all zeroes were included. But then 

14 I guess the table -- I'm not sure where we 

15 stand, I guess is the question. I mean it 

16 sounded like Stu said he wants to go back and 

17 look further at this because of the recording 

18 of the MBL issue . SC&A may have in Table 3 

19 offered a sort of a way to get around that, 

20 but I'm not sure that is their place to do, 

21 once again. But I've taken half the MBL, I 

22 mean, I don't know that NIOSH has said that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 they are going to do that in their coworker 

2 models. So I guess I don't know where NIOSH 

3 stands with their responses to questions.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a fairly

5 long response that we wrote some time ago that 

6 -- sent in August that we haven't managed to 

7 get in the database yet, I haven't managed to 

8 get it in the database yet. Because it really 

9 needs to be linked. It's long, it's a long 

10 document, and it really needs to be a linked 

11 document, and that was one of the things that 

12 we had to fix when we read this over. It was 

13 just a linked document. 

14 So there is some information that 

15 has been prepared that is not available in the 

16 database we used to get here. So I think 

17 there is a way out of this. I want to make 

18 sure in my own mind I understand R-2, R-3, and 

19 R-4, because our response does identify them 

20 as being from bad results, but it's not clear 

21 why somebody has three different film badge 

22 readings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well under each 

2 filter, maybe. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm thinking it's 

4 different filters. And we have a TIB that 

5 describes -- there is a TIB that describes --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: For the most part 

7 those numbers won't be very different.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So I need to --

9 we need to on our side sort out what the --

10 what we know, and what the issues-- how to 

11 formulate this a little better.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: So we're left with 

14 an open action item for NIOSH to what, to 

15 organize and re-present the data that is 

16 already available?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The data or 

18 something else. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Again in fact, 

20 the fairly long response I sent in August 

21 predates the document that Steve sent last 

22 night. They had the benefit of that document,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 I think.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that Table 

3 1 came out of that document.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Table 1 came out 

5 of that long response, so they had the benefit 

6 of that when they wrote the most recent, so 

7 it's probably going to be an iteration of us 

8 and them in the database, and then we go 

9 another round.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So Stu, do we have 

12 that long response document?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I sent it in 

14 August, I sent it to the Subcommittee in 

15 August.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh you sent it to 

17 the Subcommittee, okay.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you know what 

19 it was called?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: NIOSH responses 

21 to selected findings from third set ER review 

22 underscore to Subcommittee underscore August 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

20th 1 , '09. And so I would think I sent it on 

2 August 20. And there are a series --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's dated August 

13th 4 .

5 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a 

6 series of things that we added in there, but 

7 this specific one on 47-2 is in there, just 

8 one of the selected ones. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right, so I'm 

10 going to keep this action item open. NIOSH is 

11 going to reorganize and present the material 

12 that already exists on this issue. For OTIB13 47-01, and it's three segments.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is 02, I think.

15 CHAIR MUNN: It's 02? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, 47-02.

17 CHAIR MUNN: What did we do with 

18 01? I thought what we were looking at here 

19 was -- this was issue number 2. And there 

20 were three parts to issue two, and these are 

21 the three parts that we are talking about 

22 here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So you are telling 

3 me that the open item ought to be -- okay. So 

4 issue one is -- what is the status of issue 

5 one, then? Why am I still carrying it?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know in that 

7 document, Stu, that you just referred to, 

8 there is almost nothing on 47-02.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe it is 47-

10 01.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Forty-seven oh one.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is an 

13 extensive discussion of 47-01.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the one 

15 where it didn't support --

16 CHAIR MUNN: So it's shown --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That is dash oh 

18 one.

19 CHAIR MUNN: This is dash oh one? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: That we have been 

22 discussing?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I 

3 thought, but then you just told me no.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and you were 

5 right.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's 01. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: And then 02.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before we leave 

9 01, I think --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the same 

11 finding, the same finding is number three in 

12 dash oh two, it seems to be the same as the 

13 finding in one.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that is 

15 the key. I think we decided upon that last --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was on one.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Because 01 - when 

18 we resolved part three of issue two, we also 

19 took care of issue one. So it's kind of 

20 redundant on our part.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so that is why 

22 R-2 carryover item says check incorporation of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 closure data in OTIB-47-02. But if 47-02 item 

2 three is the one that we are going to be 

3 dealing with under finding 47-01, then one of 

4 the two of them needs to say -- needs to 

5 reference the other, and be closed, correct? 

6 Should not 01 reference -- shouldn't 02 be 

7 closed, and reference that it's being dealt 

8 with in item one?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: The problem you 

10 have, Wanda, is 02 is a three-part issue.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I understand 

12 that.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So you have -- I 

14 mean, you could say the third part of it is 

15 closed or is addressed in issue one, and the 

16 third part of it therefore doesn't need to be 

17 further chased as part of issue two. And then 

18 part one, I guess, of issue two is we do 

19 recommend putting it in abeyance and recommend 

20 part two, we recommend it be closed. So I 

21 guess issue two would then be changed in 

22 abeyance, that would be the most --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 CHAIR MUNN: It would seem 

2 logical to me that we close one or the other 

3 of them, and if we want to track it through 

4 02, as it's broken out into its three parts, 

5 then that is fine. But whichever we choose to 

6 do, it seems foolish to continue to track the 

7 same issue in both finding one and finding 

8 two. So which is most logical from the 

9 database-maintenance point of view?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it's most 

11 logical to keep tracking one as a separate 

12 issue, and then basically issue two would then 

13 consist really of two parts, the part about 

14 the number of badges, and the questions about 

15 zeroes at the end included or not included. 

16 And I think we have a meeting of minds between 

17 SC&A and NIOSH on those key parts. So issue 

18 two would then be restatused to in abeyance or 

19 closed.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and for 

21 completeness, since we have been talking about 

22 part three, we can just say part three is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 addressed --

2 MR. MARSCHKE: In the text. In 

3 the Work Group directives up in here, we would 

4 say part three of this issue would be 

5 addressed --

6 (Simultaneous speakers)

7 CHAIR MUNN: And we have already 

8 recommended closure of part two. So that 

9 leaves --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, SC&A 

11 recommended closure on part two, and in 

12 abeyance on part one, but we haven't actually 

13 formally accepted those yet, right?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, SC&A and NIOSH 

15 have agreed on part two?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I'm 

17 speaking of Mark -- Mark?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, what is 

19 part two? Is that the --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have your --

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- R-1 to R-3, 

22 any instance of zero was not included, but it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 was included for all four, is that the one 

2 we're talking about?

3 MR. MARSCHKE: That is part two 

4 of it, yes.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: And what is the 

6 conclusion, that all the zeroes were included 

7 for all four? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: The NIOSH, our 

9 response to the initial comment was that the 

10 analysis included all zeroes but removed 

11 entries listed as NR, which presumably is not 

12 read. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: But it included 

14 all the zeroes for all R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, well at 

16 least two, three and four. R-1 was not a film 

17 badge reading.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: R-1 was the 

19 pocket dosimeter?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: The pocket 

21 dosimeter.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I just don't want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 carry two issues forward if we have only one.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't think 

3 you have to carry that one forward. It's just 

4 a statement of fact, right; NIOSH has 

5 corrected that, that they in fact did include 

6 the zeroes?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I guess 

9 that's fine.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Steve is 

11 going to make this magically happen to our 

12 database, right?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: When we get the 

14 database back.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Whenever it occurs.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Did anyone look 

17 into this not-recorded question, I'm curious 

18 what percentage of -- how many NRs were there 

19 in the various fields, and why were they not 

20 recorded, or why were the field of NR be 

21 filled out for the damaged film, damaged --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know off 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 the top of my head. Maybe the person who 

2 monitored for that week or whatever, they 

3 weren't in the area that week. But the 

4 documents, the underlying documents, might 

5 say. I would need some time to find out.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because to me, 

7 an NR could mean not recorded or not read, and 

8 those could be different, obviously. You 

9 could decide not to record a value because it 

10 looks like the film was overexposed, in 

11 advertently or whatever, or the pocket 

12 dosimeter was dropped, you know. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: But you could 

15 not read it because you just decided not to 

16 read all films. That's a very different 

17 circumstance. I was just curious.

18 CHAIR MUNN: So can we call it 

19 the original SC&A report where the findings 

20 should tell us that?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I would think.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 don't know. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I am just looking 

3 -- again, part of the email that I sent out, 

4 there was a second file attached to the email 

5 that I sent yesterday, an Excel file, which is 

6 a Y-12 database, external dose database. And 

7 if you look in column N, O, P and Q of the Y8 12 external database worksheet, you can see 

9 the NRs are -- those are the doses, those are 

10 the raw data that we are talking about, this 

11 file contains the raw data that we are talking 

12 about.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Where is this 

14 data?

15 CHAIR MUNN: In the Excel file.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The Excel file 

17 that I attached to the email, 4-megabyte file 

18 that I attached to it, there are three 

19 worksheets in that file, the Y-12 external 

20 database worksheet. And the columns N, O, P, 

21 Q are readings one, two, three and four, even 

22 though Q is labeled comments, it's really the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 reading four. And the question about how many 

2 go through there, and I have not done this, 

3 Mark, but we could do that right now.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: I didn't see the 

5 spreadsheet before.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: We could do a --

7 you could do a -- you could count up the 

8 number of NRs in there. I don't know that we 

9 have done that, let's put it that way. I 

10 don't know that we have done that, but we can 

11 certainly go through there and count up -- do 

12 a sum if, or count, I guess, how many NRs 

13 there are in each one of those columns, and 

14 that would tell us how many -- what the 

15 percentage of NRs are. It won't tell us why 

16 it's an NR.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, for 

18 example, the first name on the list has all --

19 basically all NRs through the early part of 

20 '48. Maybe he didn't wear a film badge. Then 

21 it starts to be recorded. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: And there is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 lot of -- we don't have to do it now 

2 obviously, but I have the data, so I can look

3 at this myself. I'm not asking for any 

4 action. But just from the interviews I've 

5 seen on there at sites, I was told that the 

6 pocket dosimeters were usually not recorded, 

7 they were just used for field controls. And I 

8 was just curious, the number of NRs for the 

9 pocket dosimeters versus the films and stuff 

10 like that. But I don't think I'm asking for 

11 any action. I was just curious. And thank 

12 you for pointing that out, the spreadsheet; I 

13 didn't see that. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so you can 

15 satisfy yourself from the data you have?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Absolutely.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good. Now I'm 

18 still not crystal clear on where we are with 

19 what we are going to do on the status of these 

20 two leftovers on OTIB-0047. But Steve knows 

21 what we are doing, right?

22 MR. MARSCHKE: What I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 recommend to the Subcommittee that we do is 

2 that OTIB-0047-1 be tabbed in progress, until 

3 NIOSH gets back to us with their response to 

4 the email that I sent out yesterday. And then 

5 OTIB-0047-2, we change the status of that from 

6 in progress to in abeyance, with a note added 

7 to the Work Group directive portion saying 

that on this date, November 17th 8 , part three 

9 was -- the status of part three of this issue 

10 was changed to addressed in issue OTIB-0047-1, 

11 and no longer needs to be addressed under this 

12 issue.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: And then basically 

15 -- and that is that. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Good, that should 

17 work, perfect. 

18 So for all intents and purposes, 

19 we have our arms around OTIB-0047 where we 

20 are. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 49 -- oh, 

22 that's both 47. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 CHAIR MUNN: All right? Now our 

2 next item was OTIB-0051.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, have you 

4 given any thought to time for a break this 

5 afternoon.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I have. I 

7 thought there wasn't going to be much going on 

8 with 51 and so I thought I'd look at it before 

9 I declared a little break.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It's always self11 serving.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. The 

13 action item was to link OTIB-0051-01 to the 

14 white paper and close the item on the 

15 database. Were we able to get that done or 

16 not?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, 

18 we haven't got the links working. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right, so we'll 

20 call that a carry-over to next time.

21 It is 12 minutes after three 

22 o'clock. We need a break. Let's call it a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 10-minute break and make sure you are back by 

2 15. You will return about 3:20?

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

4 matter went off the record at 3:12 p.m. and 

5 resumed at 3:23 p.m.) 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take up where 

7 we left off. The next item on our list was 

8 the one that we had pursued briefly before, 

9 the Tech Call on 49-01, which I understand 

10 never occurred. And I guess the question for 

11 our action item list is whether or not it is 

12 going to occur.

13 Is that going to happen? This is 

14 estimating doses for plutonium, strongly 

15 retained in the lung. It's that issue. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we would 

17 like to write a response first, and see if the 

18 conversation then would be helpful after that.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, we are going to 

20 change -- response due, and that's a NIOSH 

21 action, correct?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 CHAIR MUNN: That's what the 

2 action item will say next time. The next 

3 action item, OTIB-0057. Send the current 

4 material to the Subcommittee and update the 

5 database of the SC&A action.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: We did not update 

7 the database. We started to update the 

8 database. I did the status changes, but I did 

9 not include the NIOSH responses nor the SC&A 

10 response to the NIOSH responses. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Did we get -- I'm not 

12 clear what sending current material to us 

13 would involve. Did that happen?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: No, that did not 

15 happen. It should have happened, but it did 

16 not happen. I don't have any good reason why 

17 it did not happen.

18 CHAIR MUNN: So our current action 

19 item is to send the current material to the 

20 Subcommittee.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: And provide the hot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 link for the supporting data, right? The hot 

2 links stuff needs to stay in there.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: What we have is the 

4 response to issue number three is quite --

5 particularly on the SC&A portion -- quite 

6 long. I guess that is what they were talking 

7 about.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's what we 

9 were talking about. We were talking about 

10 having a hot link to get to that exclusive 

11 material we had.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: All the portions 

13 about updating the database, until the 

14 database gets stable --

15 CHAIR MUNN: Changed, changed, 

16 changed, that's happened.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: It's happened, but 

18 it may become unhappened, when they update it.

19 CHAIR MUNN: I understand. I 

20 assume that you will double-check that, and 

21 our remaining action item that is clearly open 

22 is sending current material to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 Subcommittee and providing a hot link to the 

2 supporting data.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: That is right.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Next item is a 

5 carryover from last time, a NIOSH item to 

6 provide a response for PROC-95. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: We still owe you 

8 those.

9 ` CHAIR MUNN: Next item, check the 

10 documents on PROC-97 and assure all nine 

11 findings are covered by a PR-12. And that's 

12 the SC&A item. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: We still owe you 

14 that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Next item is load 

16 responses into database and ensure paragraphs 

17 are numbered properly for TIB-0013. NIOSH?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Not done yet.

19 CHAIR MUNN: The other carryover 

20 for responses to 54 and 14 to NIOSH. Did you 

21 not send us 54? I'm trying to remember 

22 whether we saw the responses for 54. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 MR. MARSCHKE: We still owe those.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I was imagining 

3 things? Okay. 

4 No, I don't see 54. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: PROC 97, was that 

6 an SC&A action?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It was an SC&A 

8 action.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Worker outreach. 

11 That was the ORAU. ORAU doesn't do worker 

12 outreach any more. We have a different 

13 contractor who rewrote the procedure. We 

14 attempted to address some of the findings from 

15 PROC-97. I'm not saying we did that for all 

16 of them, but some of them we did.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Your job was to check 

18 the two and see, and make sure that everything 

19 was carried over properly. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Clarification, we 

21 don't have -- this is basically just to check 

22 the nine findings, the nine PROC-97 findings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 and not to do a separate review of TIB or PR2 0012.

3 CHAIR MUNN: No, it was to make 

4 sure that the carryover was correct. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Just to make sure 

6 we're on the same page.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely. Status 

8 of TIB-0010, item eight for possible closure?

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can we go back to 

10 the last one just for a second?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Back to where?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Back to your last 

13 action item, or your last agenda item?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Right, 54 and TIB15 0014?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, TIB-0014, 

17 are they ORAU TIB-0014 or OCAS TIB-0014. 

18 Because I'm still on TIB-0014 is transferred -

19 - oh well, TIB-0014 has transferred, maybe I'm 

20 looking at the wrong one.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on, let me see 

22 if I can get to the right spot. OTIB-0014.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 MR. HINNEFELD: OCAS TIB-0014 is 

2 the extension of Rocky Flats. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: But if it's TIB -

4 - if it's OCAS TIB-0014, didn't that go to the 

5 Rocky Flats?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's one 

7 that should be transferred to Rocky Flats.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay, got it, 

9 thank you.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. TIB-0010-8 for 

11 possible closure?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have 

13 anything today. OTIB-0010 is the glove box. 

14 This is about benchmarking the ATTILA with 

15 MCNP, and basically we just, we take a look at 

16 the NIOSH MCNP for any calculation package 

17 that NIOSH had put together for that 

18 comparison and verification.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That whole software 

20 issue.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Excuse me, I 

22 think I have to go back to that last one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 again. I think you are showing the wrong one 

2 transferred in the database. The Rocky Flats 

3 is OCAS TIB-0014, and that should be 

4 transferred, but that's showing it open. And 

5 then the ORAU TIB is showing it transferred. 

6 Am I wrong in that? Someone should check 

7 that.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: You're right, Mark. 

9 I think the reason for the ORAU TIB-0014 

10 being transferred, it was transferred and 

11 addressed, it's the construction worker.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, so they 

13 should both be transferred?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's 

15 transferred and reviewed under the review of 

16 OTIB-0052.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That went out.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: So it could be 

20 addressed under OTIB-0052, but it was 

21 transferred.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 CHAIR MUNN: And TIB-0014-02 is --

2 SC&A finds it to be incomplete because it does 

3 not address what? Because it does not address 

4 in vivo counting results. That's a Rocky 

5 Flats internal dosimetry issue.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Should that one 

7 show as transferred or not?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it shows as 

9 open. Are we going to send it over to Rocky?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't know. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think we had 

12 said before that we were likely to transfer 

13 that one because it's kind of this internal 

14 dosimetry coworker issue is one of the 

15 overlapping issues between sites. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I think at the end 

of the last meeting, the October 15th 17 meeting, 

18 we were going through the various procedures 

19 and trying to identify which ones could be 

20 next up for action on them. And I think TIB21 0014 kind of fell into that box as being a TIB 

22 which we hadn't done anything on yet and which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 we could do something on in the near future. 

2 And I think that may be why it got listed in 

3 the action item list because right now the 

4 database is showing that we haven't received 

5 anything back from NIOSH on that.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: And --

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's why it's, you 

9 know, shown as a NIOSH action item to provide 

10 a response. 

11 (Simultaneous speakers.)

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it doesn't 

13 have to be transferred. I was just asking.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, no.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: It doesn't come out 

16 of the commonality analysis.

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, but it's the kind 

18 of thing that we encounter often. 

19 Okay with that, Mark?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that's fine. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, we were looking 

22 at 10 for possible closure, and that was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 carryover, too, 10-8. And we still just 

2 continue to wait for a NIOSH response, right? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we still 

4 talking about OTIB-0014?

5 CHAIR MUNN: No, we've gone to 10-

6 8.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: 10-08

8 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-0008? Yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's the ATTILA.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the software 

11 thing. Note the transfer of us from Work 

12 Group TBD-6000 of OTIB-0070 finding 6, and set 

13 the priorities. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you haven't 

15 gotten the formal letter from me on that.

16 CHAIR MUNN: No.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: But we -- I guess 

18 the 6000 Work Group approved the transfer, so 

19 all we need is the letter. So you know it's 

20 coming. But -- and we can pull it up, I 

21 think, probably. Or, no, that wouldn't be on 

22 this thing, would it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that is what 

2 I just was wondering. We have a whole bunch 

3 of issues on OTIB-0070 here. And I don't 

4 know, first of all, if they're identified here 

5 as being open and not being transferred to the 

6 TBD-6000 Work Group. So I'm confused.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let me pull 

8 up the matrix for that item. It may refer to 

9 this OTIB.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Look specifically at 

11 6, that is what we were concerned with. OTIB12 0070, finding 6, says use of Horizons summary 

13 survey data as a default value for operational 

14 air concentration at a thorium refining 

15 facility is inappropriate and not claimant16 favorable. No, that's not OTIB, sorry, I'm 

17 giving you the wrong information.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: What is the TBD19 6000 -- you are talking about transferring to 

20 --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was going to 

22 pull up the matrix for that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-0070 --

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think that was 

3 the right one, wasn't it, Wanda, that you read 

4 out?

5 CHAIR MUNN: It's the right one on 

6 our list. But I'm remembering something that 

7 had -- that we had not established a priority 

8 for, and it was something that was necessary 

9 for us to move ahead. That's what I had. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's see, TBD, 

11 finding 6. Let me just pull it up. This is 

12 underestimate of resuspension factor. And 

13 it's -- in order to drive upper bound of 

14 default inhalation exposure due to 

15 resuspension of uranium particles on deposit 

16 surfaces, TBD uses default suspension factor. 

17 That's a common issue in a lot of sites. 

18 NIOSH response talks about the details appear 

19 in OTIB-0070. And then SC&A has a response 

20 why they recommend the use of 10 to the minus 

21 6 and so on. 

22 So since this was basically a TBD 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 -- OTIB-0070 issue because this resuspension 

2 factor issue comes up at many sites. That's 

3 why it was being transferred. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and it seems 

5 that --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's --

7 CHAIR MUNN: I think the error is 

8 in saying finding 6.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's our 

10 finding 6 on the TBD-6000 Work Group. It's 

11 finding 6 in their matrix, and it's the 

12 general issue of the resuspension factor which 

13 shows up in OTIB-0070.

14 CHAIR MUNN: In many of the 

15 findings under 0070, not just one.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the TBD-6000 

17 Work Group officially said we will transfer 

18 that to this Subcommittee since the 

19 Subcommittee's dealing with that as part of 

20 the TBD -- or the OTIB-0070 issue. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: And I recall some 

22 concern about the conversation over no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 priority having been set that would pull this 

2 up to the top of the heap, and we were 

3 ostensibly going to --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is what 

5 priority is it for you folks. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: For us. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think it falls 

8 under OTIB-0070-10, finding number 10.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have 

10 multiple findings that impinge upon this.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it sort of 

12 hit on it, but 10 is just specifically--

13 CHAIR MUNN: Quite clearly. 

14 So the action item here isn't 

15 NIOSH's really. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we owe 

17 responses on OTIB-0070.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: There were 

19 responses already on the TBD -- on the TBD20 6000 Work Group.

21 CHAIR MUNN: But not here.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 responses would need to be transmitted to you.

2 CHAIR MUNN: They need to be 

3 transmitted to you as well. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because SC&A then 

5 had another response to it. NIOSH's response 

6 is very brief. There is little specific 

7 information related to resuspension factors in 

8 the SC&A review of this TBD. They are talking

9 about 0070. As such insufficient detail is 

10 provided to allow NIOSH to address the 

11 comment. It is suspected that the details 

12 appear in the SC&A review of OTIB-0070. And 

13 then SC&A has a fairly extensive reply which I 

14 won't read here. But I think nothing is 

15 showing up here. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I have been out 

17 of the loop on this. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, so I need to 

19 carry and submit this document to all the --

20 to the Work Group and to you, Steve, as well.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I have to convey to 

22 John when he gives responses to OTIB-0070 or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 other questions or other procedures that are 

2 in the database that he should put me on cc so 

3 I can update the database.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. This reply 

5 goes back -- this is a November of '08 reply. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: So I'm going to break 

7 this out into two different action items. One 

8 is the transfer of the Work Group TBD-6000 

9 finding 6 to us for us to set priority. And 

10 the other is the remaining OTIB-0070 responses 

11 due from NIOSH. Is that acceptable? No grief 

12 with that?

13 Now that is the end of our list of 

14 action items that we brought forward. Does 

15 anyone else have anything that they feel needs 

16 to be on our database which will magically 

17 become current and updated before our next 

18 meeting?

19 If such things occur, do please 

20 let me know. Yes?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I have one which 

22 I'm trying to find it now. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do we have a date 

2 set for our next meeting?

3 CHAIR MUNN: No, that is the next 

4 thing for us to do.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I got an email 

6 from Ron Buchanan who was looking at PROC7 0042, and PROC-0042 has to do with Y-12. And 

8 I think Ron is indicating that in our report 

9 we had identified -- this is a copy of the 

10 thing from the report, this is a copy of the 

11 report itself. And they had identified a 

12 number of issues, and then they had identified 

13 a couple of issues with the workbook. And if 

14 you look at the database, the workbook issue 

15 that was identified with PROC-0042 did not get 

16 incorporated into the database. And Ron is 

17 saying that the workbook includes an error, 

18 and it hasn't been corrected to this point. 

19 And I guess the error manifests itself when 

20 scaling factors, negative scaling factors are 

21 utilized. It works okay when the scaling 

22 factor is zero or positive, but it creates a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 problem if the scaling factor is negative. 

2 And I guess the question begs 

3 itself, this is really not in our issues 

4 database, and I don't think NIOSH has been 

5 actively addressing, probably because it's not 

6 in the issue database. But it is a concern 

7 that was identified in the report, and it's 

8 just to basically our oversight of when we 

9 transfer data issues from the report into the 

10 database. But this did not get incorporated. 

11 And so I wanted to bring this up 

12 at the Subcommittee meeting here today, and I 

13 will forward this email from Ron to the 

14 Subcommittee when I get back to my office 

15 tomorrow. I just got this yesterday, and I 

16 don't know how we want to handle this type of 

17 thing.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I think you are on 

19 the right track. From my perspective the 

20 logical thing to do is to send it to us. We 

21 originally had, what, five findings, or were 

22 there more than that originally?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: The database is 

2 showing five findings.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Five findings? It 

4 appears to me that in cases like this the only 

5 legitimate thing to do is for you to notify us 

6 that although this was identified in a report 

7 it was -- it fails to be incorporated in the 

8 list of findings, and identify what the 

9 specific issue is. And we should incorporate 

10 it as finding number six.

11 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith 

12 with the ORAU team.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Sorry, we can't hear 

14 you. Speak up.

15 MR. SMITH: I've got some input on 

16 that item. On that particular workbook, we 

17 don't use a negative number. We only allow 

18 the dose to be scaled upward. So in other 

19 words if a person's dose after 1960 would 

20 indicate that you could potentially scale the 

21 previous years, in other words the coworker 

22 years, downward. We don't do that; we only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 scale upward. But go ahead and put forth the 

2 finding and have it go through the channels 

3 and I'll respond to it. But that scaling 

4 method, it has the potential to actually scale 

5 the dose downward, but we don't do that.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Probably a 

7 good idea however to record this interaction.

8 MR. SMITH: I agree. We want to 

9 get it in writing.

10 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. So the 

11 action will be for Steve to get the statement 

12 and the necessary references to me, and at our 

13 next meeting we will incorporate that as 

14 finding six. And then NIOSH can give us a 

15 direct response to close it.

16 Anything else? If not, it's 

17 calendar time. 

18 You have all been privy to the 

19 previous discussions with respect to the 

20 probable need for a meeting prior to the 

21 February Board meeting, and as I had indicated 

22 earlier, about the only time that I would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 available would be the last week in January. 

2 What do other Board members' calendars look 

3 like that week?

4 MR. KATZ: What are the agenda 

5 items? Can we go over that first just to make 

6 sure we will have material ready for that 

7 meeting, given the Christmas holidays and all 

8 that?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: One was the PERs 

10 review --

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- bring that to 

13 the Board.

14 MR. KATZ: PERs review methods and 

15 selection criteria.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Which is a fairly 

17 biggie. That's likely to occupy a 

18 considerable amount of time for all of us, 

19 including at this meeting.

20 MR. KATZ: I think you made a lot 

21 of headway today on this issue. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 have a revised -- I guess it's going to be not 

2 a revised but an edited copy, or what will it 

3 be? 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: There were a few 

5 typos that were identified and a few other 

6 issues that were identified. Kathy, are you 

7 still on the line, or Hans?

8 MS. ADAMS: Did you say Nancy or 

9 Kathy?

10 MR. KATZ: Kathy or Hans. 

11 Well, if they're not on the line, 

12 I will commit them. So what we will do is we 

13 will look over our notes of the conference 

14 this morning and clean up the draft procedure 

15 and re-issue it as a draft B.

16 So there is that, the PERs review, 

17 and then the carryover --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's not clear 

19 whether those things will be ready.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: It is hard to 

21 predict. We are, A, going into the holiday 

22 season. We have an aggressive reconstruction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 production goal, and we have aggressive goals 

2 on site research to get research out of the 

3 way so that all the sites are available for 

4 dose reconstruction -- so it is very hard for 

5 me to predict that we will have much product.

6 MR. KATZ: We have some very 

7 substantial Work Group meetings, NTS and 

8 Fernald, both of which were turned in and put 

9 to bed. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Are you speaking 

11 against a meeting?

12 MR. KATZ: No, I'm just trying to 

13 figure out if this is -- if there is so much 

14 that either -- whether there will be enough to 

15 do before the February Board meeting, or if 

16 there is only a little bit -- would we want to 

17 get it done for the February Board meeting, 

18 whether we don't do that by teleconference. 

19 If all we have really is the PER thing, then 

20 that might be accomplished by telephone 

21 without having to meet face to face.

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think so. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 We did also want to provide the full Board 

2 with SC&A's completed document with regard to 

3 the commonalities, but we were going to do 

4 that at the teleconference, and that will be 

5 done.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, Fernald and NTS;

28th is NTS, 29th 7 is Fernald. 

8 MS. HOWELL: Did that just happen? 

9 MR. KATZ: Recently. Yes, I think 

10 -- maybe yesterday. It may have been 

11 yesterday that I sent out a notice. I copied 

12 you.

13 MS. HOWELL: I'm sure you did. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: We have Mound 

15 early.

16 MR. KATZ: We have Mound early in 

17 the month.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Early in the 

19 month.

20 MR. KATZ: And we have Surrogate 

21 to show up somewhere.

22 CHAIR MUNN: And Dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

Reconstruction is already on the 7th 1 . 

2 MR. KATZ: Right.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So if we were going 

4 to meet that week it would probably be the 

27th 5 , if we felt that was appropriate. 

6 MR. KATZ: And my question is 

7 really is this a teleconference, or is this a 

8 face to face. Because if there is not a lot 

9 of work to get done and we are just dealing 

10 with this PERs work which has largely been 

11 discussed, and you are really just sort of 

12 wrapping things up so that you can make a 

13 recommendation, it seems like that could be 

14 accomplished on a teleconference.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because two of the 

16 members are going to be on the phone anyway.

17 CHAIR MUNN: You think so?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

19 know. That's been the pattern.

20 CHAIR MUNN: With NTS, and Fernald 

21 is coming up, too. 

22 (Simultaneous speakers.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 CHAIR MUNN: You'd come for two 

2 days, wouldn't you, Mark?

3 MR. KATZ: Mark is already coming 

4 for two days. He's got NTS and Fernald.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not on NTS.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, you are not on NTS?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, Fernald.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Fernald.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe we should 

11 sort of block off the time and make sure we 

12 are available if we need to meet. But when 

13 does it have to be --

14 CHAIR MUNN: Let's for the time 

15 being say that we are going to do it on the 

27th 16 .

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have to 

18 register it anyway, even if it's by phone, 

19 don't you?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, either way, no 

21 difference.

22 CHAIR MUNN: So let's go ahead and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 do that, and I will put together an action 

2 item list so that we can perhaps get a little 

3 better handle then on what items we really 

4 should be addressing in addition to PERs by 

5 that time. 

6 It's hard to get through. 

MR. KATZ: Okay, the 27th 7 , okay. 

The 27th 8 if people are traveling -- so Mark 

wouldn't be coming the 28th 9 . It wouldn't be a 

10 problem. All righty. Okay.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, are you on 

12 Fernald?

13 CHAIR MUNN: He is on Fernald.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

15 MR. KATZ: He's on Fernald, but 

16 there is no issue, okay, with NTS. All those 

17 -- none of those individuals except for you --

18 none of those individuals are coming down on 

the 28th 19 . 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we will 

tentatively leave it on the 27th 21 , and 

22 hopefully by the time of the Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 teleconference in December we will be able to 

2 identify whether we will have a face to face 

3 or a teleconference event. 

4 All right? Is that amenable with 

5 all? Mark?

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sounds good, yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Mike?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that's fine. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good, 

10 please leave it on your calendar, and I will 

11 try to get this action item list to you as 

12 soon as possible if I can figure out what I've 

13 written.

14 MR. KATZ: If you could just by 

December 8th 15 give some consideration -- but if 

16 the answer is you guys aren't going to be able 

17 to get to this other work, then that will just 

18 push it toward the teleconference.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: What start time 

should we plan for the 27th 20 ?

MR. KATZ: For the 27th 21 , if it's 

22 going to be a -- we still have the time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 difference even if --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, 11:00 

3 o'clock if it's teleconference because that's 

4 --

5 MR. KATZ: She'll be coming that 

6 day for NTS the next day, so how will that 

7 work in terms of a teleconference?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Badly. 

9 MR. KATZ: So what would be a 

10 timing that would work?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Late in the day?

MR. KATZ: The 27th 12 may not be a 

13 good day then for a teleconference, is what 

14 I'm saying.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we're doing a 

16 teleconference, we could do it earlier in the 

17 week.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Like Tuesday.

20 CHAIR MUNN: These are the kinds 

21 of decisions that try men's souls.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you on NTS?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 7:00 a.m. 

2 teleconference if it were at 10:00. A lot are 

3 traveling that day anyway, then it would be 

4 okay.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: What time do you 

6 have to be at the plane typically?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I have my 

8 choice of 9:00 o'clock or 11:00 o'clock. So I 

9 could make the 11:00 o'clock if we had a short 

10 teleconference. So, yes, let's say 10:00 

11 Eastern.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, then it's not a 

13 problem. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's right. 

15 MR. KATZ: I am going to hold off 

16 on sending out a notice for this.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Right. I have a 

18 brief note to myself here that no longer makes 

19 any sense, but it was a point that I felt 

20 needed to be made, so I will have to wait 

21 until the next time we meet in order to make 

22 the point. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 Any other issues? Any other 

2 actions? If not, we are adjourned. Thank 

3 you. 

4 (Whereupon at 4:05 p.m. the 

5 proceeding in the above-entitled matter was 

6 adjourned.)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22