1 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

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 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY 

NOVEMBER 1, 2012 

+ + + + + 

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron,

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

presiding. 

PRESENT: 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member*

PAUL L. 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 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

BOB BARTON, SC&A*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

GREG MACIEVIC, DCAS*

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU* 

*Participating 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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

A-G-E-N-D-A 

Marschke 

Welcome and Roll Call . . . . . . . . . 5 

BRS Update, including overarching issues

NIOSH 

8 

OTIB-0009 Status and Process 

NIOSH/SC&A . . . . . . . . . . . .

SC&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

47 

58 

PER-012 Closure Note and Reference Link 

Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

PER-014 Status of DR Pool for Audit . . 101 

NIOSH 

PER-017 Status of Six DR Cases for Audit 109 

NIOSH 

PER-20 Report Clarifying Number of Cases 109

Needed 

SC&A 

Status Report on Seven Newly Authorized 

Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 

SC&A 

Continue selection of PER reviews beginning

with PER-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 

SC&A 

OTIB-0037 - 02, 03 and 04 Response . . . 186

SC&A 

OTIB-0054 Status Report on Revision . . 191 

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
 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

IG-001 - 02, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 Result

of Status Review . . . . . . . . 192 4 

NIOSH 

TIB-0010 Status - Rev 4 Posted . . . . 233 

NIOSH 

- Review of NIOSH Response

SC&A 

- Finding 5 and 6 Status . . . . . . . . 239 

TIB-013 Status - 04 Re-Review - Overarching or

Site 

DCAS 

- Populate DB and verify

NIOSH 

IG-003 and IG-005 - Final Reports Transmitted

and DB Loaded . . . . . . . 269 

SC&A/NIOSH 

PER-0029 Opinion on Approach . . . . . 273 

Hinnefeld 

Administrative Detail . . . . . . . . . 280 

Contractor Update PROC 0044 and Document 

Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 

Mauro 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

5

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

2 
 9:01 a.m. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: We can get started with 

4 
 roll call. Why don't we do that? I don't 

5 
 believe we're focusing on any work sites, so 

6 
 we don't need to address conflict of interest 

7 
 in roll call with the Board Members. Let's 

8 
 get going and do roll call beginning with the 

9 
 Board Members, with the Chair. 

10 (Roll call.) 

11 
 MR. KATZ: All right then. The agenda 

12 
 for the Subcommittee meeting is posted on the 

13 
 NIOSH website under the Board section, under 

14 
 meetings. It looks like we have a pretty full 

15 
 agenda, and let's go ahead. So Wanda, it's 

16 your agenda. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Let's 

18 
 start by taking a look at, a quick 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what's going on with our database, the BRS.6

2 
 Lori, do you want to take the lead on this or 

3 
 Stu? 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think Lori 

5 
 better. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Where are 

7 
 we? I'm particularly interested in knowing 

8 
 how we're dealing with the overarching issues. 

9 
 Where are we with that? 

10 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, this is 

11 
 Lori Moss. If you will, I'll kind of guide 

12 
 you through it. What we've done thus far is 

13 
 for a couple of the findings that's in the 

14 
 BRS. We've actually transferred them over 

15 
 under a particular overarching category if you 

16 will. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. How do we pull 

18 it out? 

19 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. Once 

20 
 you're in the BRS, if you were to click on 

21 
 "Document Type Filter" and choose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 "Overarching" on the dropdown menu. 7 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on a minute, I'm 

3 
 stuck in an OTIB. Overarching. Where is 

4 
 overarching? 

5 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: It's in the 

6 
 middle, "Document Type Filter." The middle 

7 
 option of the dropdown menu. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: I don't see it. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: She doesn't have 

10 that section that has the Work Group filter. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, thank you. 

12 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: What appears on 

13 
 that screen is actually eight categories, if 

14 you will, of overarching issues. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: The first two are 

16 
 populated and the others are not, is that 

17 correct? 

18 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So we're 

20 getting there. 

21 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. If 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 will, if you click on "Workplace Ingestion"8

2 
 you'll see that the TIB-9, one finding has 

3 
 been populated to overarching. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

5 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: And if you click 

6 
 on the plus sign icon you will find the 

7 
 findings -- I mean, the findings and the 

8 
 responses, excuse me. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

10 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: The last entry 

11 
 made for this particular finding was where I 

12 attached Jim Neton's White Paper. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And I think we sent 

14 that also, right? 

15 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, we did. 

16 
 Yes. Sorry about the confusion. It was sent 

17 separately. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Very good. 

19 
 And it all works. It's so nice to have those 

20 
 PDF files. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We never, ever see 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a computer system work. 9 

2 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: I would like to 

3 
 show you another feature associated with the 

4 
 overarching. If you go back to the top on 

5 
 that page and click on "Board Review," 

6 
 "Document" under "Board Review" it should take 

7 
 you back to the original screen. And if we 

8 
 were to choose the document type filter for 

9 
 TIB, Technical Information Bulletin, scroll 

10 
 down on that screen to page 3, click on the 

11 
 "3" at the bottom of that screen, scroll down 

12 
 on the TIB screen and the second from the last 

13 entry should be "Estimation of Ingestion." 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

15 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Click on that. 

16 
 So, in the event you were to go to the actual 

17 
 TIB itself, it will tell you that your finding 

18 
 has been transferred and you click on the word 

19 
 "here" and it will take you, actually, to the 

20 overarching so you won't have to run through. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: How is that done, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Lori, is that done manually or somehow? 10 

2 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: By IT people. 

3 
 (Laughter.) 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Magic. Basically we 

5 
 tell you that something's been changed and you 

6 
 tell the IT people and then they go in and 

7 
 manually make it. It's not something that I 

8 
 can enter here --

9 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm working 

10 toward that point, Steve. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I just --

12 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Because once we 

13 
 identify what findings are essentially 

14 
 overarching findings and they need to be 

15 
 transferred, I want you to have any one of us 

16 -- or whoever we authorize --

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Whoever writes to 

18 the application. 

19 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Should have that 

20 capability. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: But it may be also -

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 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

- not everything gets transferred to the 

overarching issues. Sometimes things get 

transferred to other Work Groups, mainly, I 

think it is, yes. 

CHAIR MUNN: So when you click on 

here it should take you to wherever that's 

being transferred, not always the overarching 

issues. 

MS. MARION-MOSS: Exactly. But for 

this particular finding, I just wanted to 

illustrate. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's also 

-- the additional complication to that is that 

no one else besides this Subcommittee is using 

this. 

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So transferring 

electronically anywhere else is sort of 

meaningless at this point. 

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is, it is. 

But we know where it's going inside the BRS 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and that's -- 12 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I guess the 

3 
 thing I was thinking was sometimes we do have 

4 
 findings which are covered by another finding. 

5 
 Or this is a finding that's addressed in --

6 
 finding 1 is addressed in finding A. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And it would be 

9 
 maybe nice to have something like this for 

10 
 that. I mean, but again this is putting --

11 
 this is gilding a lily a little bit here and I 

12 don't know if we want to. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Sometimes we have 

14 
 lilies that need to be gilded though, holy 

15 
 writ to the contrary. But someone had a 

16 question? 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: So I have a 

18 
 question. Once an item is transferred to a 

19 
 Work Group, will you continue to try to track 

20 what happens here? 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Lori won't be in 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 position to do that. 13 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: No, we're not in a 

3 
 position to do that. Only when the Work Group 

4 
 reports back to us. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: My long-term scheme 

6 
 was that -- I think Wanda's as well, is that 

7 
 this is a tool other Work Groups can use. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right, right. That 

9 
 was mentioned at the last Board meeting. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And that, in 

11 
 that instance, if we asked, for instance, the 

12 
 Rocky Flats Work Group, you know, since it's 

13 
 getting going again, to develop another set of 

14 
 findings and use this and we had something to 

15 
 transfer to Rocky Flats, then it would appear 

16 
 to and be available for that Work Group. That 

17 
 was the intention of how we designed this 

18 originally. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: It's going to take 

20 some training. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's going to take, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 yes. And -- 14 

2 
 DR. NETON: It seems like it's all 

3 
 hard-wired to do that. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's set up to do 

5 
 it. It was built to do that. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And we have --

7 
 one of the reasons it's taken us so long to 

8 
 get to this point is we kept aiming for that 

9 
 particular thing. But whether that's actually 

10 
 going to be implemented by each of the Work 

11 Groups is up to individual chairs. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a lot of 

13 
 advantage to doing this, in terms of 

14 
 maintaining the record of what was done. 

15 
 Because if you work on -- sit on Work Groups 

16 
 you know that things are maintained in 

17 
 essentially Word document matrixes. And 

18 
 keeping up with the last one and getting 

19 
 everybody to agree what is the last one and 

20 
 what should go in this matrix is harder than 

21 sometimes the discussions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's very difficult.15 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And so if this sort 

3 
 of application -- and that's why we try to do 

4 
 our stuff on things like this, applications 

5 
 like this is that we create the record of what 

6 
 we have done automatically. And you don't 

7 
 have to build a filing system other than this 

8 
 to do it. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Wanda and Paul, I don't 

10 
 know what your thoughts are. My thought is 

11 
 that -- I mean, I totally agree I think it 

12 
 would be great from an organizational 

13 
 perspective to have this implemented across 

14 
 the board not to -- the Board, but I think in 

15 
 reality a lot of Board Members aren't going to 

16 
 do what it takes to get fluent with this 

17 
 system. And I think then it's going to 

18 
 require that there be someone at a Work Group 

19 
 meeting who can handle that other than --

20 
 because the Board Chair won't. The Work Group 

21 Chair won'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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, just like Steve16

2 
 inputs for this Work Group you would need 

3 
 someone inputting for your Work Group. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Right. I think that's 

5 
 the only way that we're going to implement it 

6 
 that way. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's designed 

8 
 that way. It's designed to have a DCAS person 

9 
 and an SC&A person who essentially fulfill 

10 Lori's and Steve's roles for each of them. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: So I think if DCAS is 

12 
 willing to have their lead for Work Group be 

13 
 able to work in this system then we can work 

14 
 on having the SC&A lead also. It may be 

15 
 tricky, I don't know. I guess Joe, like Joe 

16 
 is a lead on a number of them. I think he'd 

17 
 be willing to do that. I think it'll work out 

18 
 if we do it that way as opposed to putting it 

19 
 on a Board Member, because I just don't think 

20 
 that's going to happen. There are many Board 

21 Members. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: I wonder if you17 

2 
 should start with newly formed Work Groups. 

3 
 Trying to go back and reinvent from --

4 
 MR. KATZ: I think that's a place 

5 
 to start. And then someone would have to -- I 

6 
 mean, it would be a lot of work, actually, for 

7 
 a Work Group that's been around a long time to 

8 
 transfer all their matrix information. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's almost not 

10 doable. 

11 
 DR. NETON: Well, they could get 

12 the most current version. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They could start 

14 
 using it from where they are today. But 

15 
 reconstructing the history is almost undoable. 

16 
 DR. NETON: That would be 

17 impossible. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That is pretty much 

19 undoable. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: But some of the 

21 
 matrices really are so unwieldy that dealing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 with them would be almost impossible, which is18

2 
 reason why reality raising its ugly head. 

3 
 My thought has been from the outset 

4 
 that what would be required of the Work Group 

5 
 Chair is a final report as to what solution 

6 
 was reached to each of the findings. Anything 

7 
 other than that I think is hoping that you 

8 
 will get some specific action from the Work 

9 
 Group, which you may or may not get. If 

10 
 you're relying on getting reports from each of 

11 
 the Work Groups on a timely basis, that is, 

12 
 realtime reports, then I think you're going to 

13 be mightily disappointed. 

14 
 But certainly Josie's suggestion 

15 
 that we start with newly formed Work Groups 

16 
 and move backwards is well taken. I just 

17 
 don't see, sitting here this morning, how we 

18 
 can anticipate that, for example, the other 

19 
 Subcommittee is going to be able to put 

20 
 together what we anticipate from them for this 

21 
 particular set of findings that will follow. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 It seems very cumbersome if you consider what19

2 
 that matrix looks like. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That one is just 

4 
 kind of a special problem because we have to 

5 
 come up with some business rules for what is 

6 
 the document that's reviewed. 

7 
 I mean, theoretically there are two 

8 
 ways to do that. One is to each time SC&A 

9 
 delivers a report or DR reviews that is the 

10 
 document that goes in there. Or conversely, 

11 
 each case they review could be a document, a 

12 
 separate document, because there could be 

13 multiple findings on a case. 

14 
 So, that will be I think the 

15 
 hardest fit, the hardest business rules to fit 

16 
 of any. I think the site-specific Work 

17 
 Groups, I think the business rules as they are 

18 
 fit there better. Because you have the Site 

19 
 Profile, you have the Evaluation Report, you 

20 
 have certain Technical Basis Documents. Those 

21 
 are the things that are reviewed by siteNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 specific Work Groups. And so to me, the logic20 

2 
 fit for DR is going to be hard to work out. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: I think so too. And 

4 
 it's just simply trying to be realistic, I 

5 
 think, trying to impose a requirement on the 

6 
 Work Groups to do this may not really and 

7 
 truly work. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Well, it may not be a 

9 
 great imposition if we have staff that are 

10 handling it. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, our staff does 

12 the work. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Let's just take this as 

14 
 an action item, Stu. If you'll work your side 

15 
 and I'll work with SC&A and see if we can't 

16 
 start erecting it, not just for the new Work 

17 
 Groups but I guess, like you said, we could go 

18 
 with matrices as they stand now, current 

19 
 matrices, and maybe do it in the order as Work 

20 
 Group meetings are coming up and try to get 

21 this going. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm going to miss21 

2 
 the next Work Group meeting. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: That's okay. That's 

4 
 probably not the most urgent one in terms of 

5 
 putting it in place, given where we are with 

6 
 that Work Group. 

7 
 So Steve, if you would just give a 

8 
 heads up. Or John, you're on the line, right? 

9 
 Stiver? John Stiver, are you still with us? 

10 
 Are you on mute, maybe? Is anyone on the 

11 line? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: I was just on the 

13 
 phone with Mauro, and he's having difficulty 

14 
 dialing in. So I was trying to cover two 

15 phones at once. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, John. I 

17 
 don't know if you heard that discussion but 

18 
 let's you and I, let's talk with Steve who's 

19 
 most fluent in these matters but about trying 

20 
 to get Work Group leads up to snuff on the 

21 
 system so that we can implement it in 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Work Groups. Okay? And that's the Board22 

2 
 review system that we've been talking about. 

3 
 Okay, John? 

4 
 MR. STIVER: That's fine, yes. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Lori, are you finished 

7 
 telling us what you were prepared to tell us? 

8 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, I would 

9 
 like to also talk about -- kind of discuss 

10 some of the limitations right now. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

12 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Let's go to --

13 
 Steve, do you remember procedure -- I mean, 

14 PER-12. Could you go to that? 

15 
 DR. NETON: Before we move onto the 

16 
 PERs, can we talk about these overarching 

17 issues just a little bit? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 
 DR. NETON: I don't attend these 

20 
 meetings very often and these issues are 

21 
 typically under my purview. And I'm wondering 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 where the Subcommittee is going with this23

2 
 because some of these that I see that are in 

3 
 here are either in my opinion closed or really 

4 
 were never findings to begin with. They were 

5 
 sort of opinions expressed by folks and NIOSH 

6 
 agreed to behave a certain way based on 

7 
 opinions that were expressed at, say, Board 

8 
 meetings. 

9 
 And a couple of these I can point 

10 
 out. The internal dose from Super S plutonium 

11 
 has been closed a long time ago with TIB-49. 

12 
 So I don't know why that would even be on 

13 
 here. You almost have to like create a paper 

14 
 trail to close it out in the system because it 

15 
 really has been closed prior to the Work 

16 
 Group, prior to the Subcommittee taking up 

17 this issue I guess. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: And if you click on 

19 that one there's --

20 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I think there's 

21 
 probably no history associated with almost 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of these. 24 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No findings and no 

3 
 active file. 

4 
 DR. NETON: Well, exactly. So 

5 
 that's my point. I don't know what the intent 

6 
 is of these being on here, all of these. The 

7 
 ingestion certainly needs to be on there. The 

8 
 material tracking finding was really something 

9 
 that was raised at a Board meeting where a 

10 
 concern was expressed like if you find 

11 
 something unusual at one site how do you know 

12 
 -- are you going to run it to ground and make 

13 
 sure it didn't exist somewhere else? And 

14 
 that's a nice thing to do but that's not 

15 
 really a finding, that's just sort of a 

16 
 concept. So both of these, almost three or 

17 four of these fall into that category. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's really good to 

19 
 have you here today, Jim, because you're 

20 
 right, we don't often get the benefit of 

21 
 having you to tell us where we are and where 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 we need to go. 25
 

2 
 I think the concept from the outset 

3 
 for overarching issues have been a concern 

4 
 that we didn't have any actual effort. We had 

5 
 said for 5 or 6 years that's an overarching 

6 
 issue. You know, Jim is going to take care of 

7 
 that. So what we're trying to do here in my 

8 
 view -- other Board Members please stop me if 

9 
 I'm incorrect -- what we're trying to do is 

10 
 first of all identify what those overarching 

11 
 issues are and second, at this stage what we 

12 
 need to do is identify any active findings 

13 
 that are still there and not only address the 

14 
 active findings but also have the benefit of 

15 
 something like what you just gave us verbally. 

16 


17 
 We need to know from some source 

18 
 that this has -- what precipitated this 

19 
 overarching issue and what the current status 

20 
 of it is. If it's a simple matter of getting 

21 
 a one-paragraph report from you and closing 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 out, then that, from my perspective, serves26

2 
 the purpose. Am I incorrect? 

3 
 DR. NETON: And you know, you don't 

4 
 have to necessarily take my word for it. I 

5 
 can tell you the history as I remember it and 

6 
 SC&A, I'm sure, can also have their input. But 

7 
 I'm happy to do that. I'm just concerned 

8 
 these things could stay out here forever. 

9 
 And frankly, I've actually 

10 
 discussed each of these at various Board 

11 
 meetings and didn't get much feedback on when 

12 
 I pointed out that I thought they were closed. 

13 
 There is no paper trail that documents their 

14 closure. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let's take 

16 
 Super S for example. What do we have that's 

17 
 sort of the official NIOSH position on Super 

18 S? 

19 
 DR. NETON: TIB-49, which is the 

20 
 TIB that --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the document. 27 

2 
 DR. NETON: Sure. Yes. Right. In 

3 
 fact, the TIB-49 issue originally arose in the 

4 
 Rocky Flats SEC evaluation, if you remember. 

5 
 But then once we recognized that what was 

6 
 recognized by the Board and others, that Super 

7 
 S was not just confined to Rocky Flats, it 

8 
 could be elsewhere, we made this TIB more 

9 
 generic and it applied to anywhere where Super 

10 S could have been handled. 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Now, do we 

12 
 have a separate -- we have TIB-49 in here, 

13 don't we? 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. We do. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So maybe 

16 
 that can simply refer somehow to TIB-49 

17 
 because somebody could track it through that 

18 then, right? Or can they? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: To a large extent I 

20 think that's true. Go ahead. 

21 
 DR. NETON: I don't know how much 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 you want to recreate the history behind this.28 

2 
 MR. KATZ: I don't think you need 

3 
 to. Suffice to say that the issue has been 

4 
 addressed and one sentence. And that's it. I 

5 
 don't think you need to spend any time 

6 
 recreating the history. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think you'd 

8 
 go get very far into this at all. If you want 

9 
 to close it -- well, you can do two things. 

10 
 You can take off, you can take it out of the 

11 
 overarching issues -- or we can leave it there 

12 
 and we can say "brought up during the 

13 
 discussion of the first Rocky Flats SEC and it 

14 was closed by the issuance of TIB-49." 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And then that 

17 
 leaves a record. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: I think that's a good 

19 solution. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Doesn't take 

21 much to write 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: It really doesn't.29 

2 
 Then that's why I said I do believe in most 

3 
 instances, when it has been resolved, all we 

4 
 really need is just a brief one paragraph 

5 
 identifying where and how the issue was 

6 
 closed. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: And that should be 

8 
 true for all of these. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: It should be true for 

10 all of these, yes. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Some of them, 

12 though. 

13 
 DR. NETON: Super S is pretty 

14 
 obvious. Material tracking was never a 

15 
 finding anywhere, it was just a suggestion. I 

16 
 mean, I could close that out in that way I 

17 suppose. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: But you see, that's 

19 what we need to have in the record. 

20 
 DR. NETON: But if you look at the 

21 
 interpretations of unworn badges started out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 at -- I think it was a Los Alamos case where -30

2 
 - was it Los Alamos? No. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Nevada Test Site. 

4 
 DR. NETON: Nevada Test Site, there 

5 
 were some allegations that people didn't wear 

6 
 their badges. There was a very extensive --

7 
 John Mauro knows this as well -- investigation 

8 
 to that. And at the bottom line, we couldn't 

9 
 definitively say that it really made any 

10 difference. 

11 
 But then it became an overarching, 

12 
 and we said, "What about other sites?" And we 

13 
 soon realized that that's a sort of slippery 

14 
 slope. You almost have to evaluate that on a 

15 
 case-by-case basis. And that's the bottom 

16 line answer to that one. 

17 
 Very much like non-standard 

18 
 exposures. I mean we have some non-standard 

19 
 exposure geometries in TIB-10, TIB-13. We're 

20 
 happy to create new exposure geometries as 

21 
 they arise but there's nothing else we can do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 other than say that. So, that's going to be31 

2 
 sort of the resolution of many of these 

3 
 findings. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: And that's perfectly 

5 
 acceptable from this Chair's point of view, 

6 
 anyway. Our whole concept was to just make 

7 
 sure that we had a record. And this seems to 

8 
 be the logical place to have a record of what 

9 
 we considered to be overarching issues and how 

10 we resolve them. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: So how did you 

12 
 decide what went on this list? Was it just 

13 random? 

14 
 DR. NETON: I think I provided it 

15 
 to them. These were issues that I have been 

16 
 following for, well, six years or more in some 

17 
 cases. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Six or seven years. 

19 
 DR. NETON: And in my opinion, most 

20 
 of them had been closed. Again, as I said, I 

21 
 addressed the Board on these and didn't get 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 much feedback saying that we disagree with32

2 
 you, but they were never required, I guess, to 

3 
 be formally closed as now would be the case. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

5 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know, I think 

6 
 what happens is time passes and we forget, 

7 
 wait a minute, we already addressed this and 

8 
 we agreed that we would take it site by site 

9 
 or something. 

10 DR. NETON: Right, exactly. 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This way you could 

12 go to that and say, oh yeah. 

13 
 DR. NETON: I'm happy to put 

14 
 together a paragraph or two for each of these. 

15 
 As I say, you know, feel free to look at them 

16 
 and vet it and make sure that I don't have 

17 convenient memory. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then we can have 

19 SC&A review it and get findings. 

20 
 DR. NETON: We'll have a finding on 

21 my memory. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 (Laughter.) 33

2 
 DR. NETON: Okay, well, that helps 

3 
 me out here. And I think we'll find that at 

4 
 least in my opinion five out of these eight 

5 
 probably, I think, are resolved or else agreed 

6 
 that we would pursue them on a case-by-case 

7 
 basis, that sort of thing. 

8 
 Ingestion is one that we're going 

9 
 to talk about today. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. If you'll 

11 provide us with a brief overview of --

12 
 DR. NETON: Yes. It might not be 

13 in a week, but--

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's okay. For our 

15 
 next meeting we will probably be able to, as 

16 you said, close out a half dozen of these. 

17 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I'll work with 

18 
 Lori. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: Action item for 

20 
 June. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, exactly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. NETON: I'll work with Lori. 34 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, I think there 

3 
 are additional. I mean, right now for the 

4 
 overarching issues it's showing three of the 

5 
 findings, only three findings that were 

6 
 transferred to overarching issues. I think 

7 
 there are more than that. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: I suspect there are. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And I think -- I can 

10 
 go back through and tell Lori, you know, try 

11 
 and look and find ones that have been 

12 
 identified as being I think we used the term 

13 
 "global," "global issues" as opposed to 

14 "overarching." 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did. 

16 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And so we can search 

17 
 for that. And maybe we have to populate this, 

18 
 these eight a little bit more before Jim 

19 
 closes them out. And then we can go back, 

20 
 when Jim closes them out we can go back and 

21 
 close out any of the findings 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 associated with that particular overarching35

2 
 issue. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree. Because 

4 
 there are findings that, for instance, on the 

5 
 doses from hot particles, I can remember that 

6 
 came up at Hanford or someplace like that. 

7 
 And you know. But I thought that the 

8 
 resolution of those were that we would address 

9 
 it on a case-by-case basis. I don't know 

10 
 where that's written down. Maybe I'm just 

11 
 remembering. But you're right, there are 

12 
 findings. Non-standard exposures came up at 

13 Mallinckrodt. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think this has to 

15 
 be -- what we have to do is, and I can work 

16 
 with Lori on this, is we have to populate 

17 
 these eight overarching issue findings with 

18 
 the findings from the main body of the reviews 

19 as the first step. 

20 
 And the second step, and then 

21 
 concurrently Jim can -- or even concurrently 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Jim can go through and say well, we thought36

2 
 this was the resolution that we had agreed 

3 
 upon to these particular eight. And then we 

4 
 can go back and implement those resolutions on 

5 
 those findings. 

6 
 DR. NETON: Well, I think what 

7 
 you're going to find, the resolution was they 

8 
 got transferred to overarching issues. And 

9 
 then, you know, I was working closure of these 

10 
 through addressing the Board because they had 

11 not been taken up with the Subcommittee yet. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: I think, Jim, if you go 

13 
 ahead with your piece I think that'll work. 

14 
 In the mean -- and concurrently like you're 

15 
 saying, Steve and others can look to find 

16 
 where the findings were just as a check on the 

17 
 resolution for each of these. And that's 

18 fine. You can do them independently. 

19 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And then if they're 

20 
 closed, then we can go back and close those 

21 particular 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'd like to add37 

2 
 one thing, just so you know what you're 

3 
 looking at here. I went in and did a search 

4 
 for "transferred," okay? All findings that 

5 
 were transferred. And most of the findings --

6 
 I got a result of about 44 findings. Most of 

7 
 the findings were transferred in the body of a 

8 
 finding. It was transferred to the Working 

9 
 Group. It says transferred. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The site-specific 

11 Work Group. 

12 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right, site13 
 specific Working Group. I believe there's 

14 
 about maybe five max, four -- three or four --

15 
 yes, three that was actually specified as 

16 
 being transferred to overarching issue, okay? 

17 
 The rest of them was either, you know, 

18 
 transferred to a Working Group or transferred 

19 
 to another finding or something of that 

20 
 nature. So I say that to say that effort has 

21 been made. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Global issue, I guess you're38 

2 
 saying, Steve, that that at one time was a 

3 
 status? 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: No, not a status, 

5 
 but it was -- I don't know what term we used, 

6 
 whether we said it was transferred to a global 

7 
 issue or if we just said it was a global 

8 
 issue. But I know that that global is a 

9 
 keyword that we can look at and perhaps even 

10 
 going back to the -- it might be easier to do 

11 
 it on the old database to identify those 

12 issues that are identified as global. 

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. 

14 
 DR. NETON: I think what you're 

15 
 going to find though Steve is that most of the 

16 
 findings that are listed as overarching or 

17 
 global are not going to be in this system. I 

18 
 mean, the findings that got transferred 

19 
 because they originated in procedures -- I 

20 
 mean TIB reviews and Site Profile reviews or 

21 
 dose reconstructions and those aren'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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 trackable through this system at all. So you39 

2 
 would have to go through every matrix. 

3 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not saying that 

4 
 we go through and -- I'm just saying that as I 

5 
 recall there were maybe half a dozen. I'm not 

6 
 saying there was a whole lot, maybe a half a 

7 
 dozen or so, or maybe even less, that we said 

8 
 were global issues. And I don't know that 

9 
 they were -- I would just want to check that. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Steve, and that's fine, 

11 
 that's fine. Really, we don't need to belabor 

12 
 this. Steve, absolutely. And same for anyone 

13 
 that's listening on the line too. John Mauro 

14 
 may remember items, whatever. That's fine. 

15 
 We get that input and deal with it once we 

16 have it. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Ted, everyone, this is 

18 
 John. I was able to get through, so I'm on 

19 the line. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Glad to have you, John, 

21 and I'm sorry for your troubles. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, a little bit rough40 

2 
 these days but we're making it. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. You have 

4 
 food, water and shelter, right? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Right. Just no power and 

6 
 no gasoline. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, my goodness 

8 
 gracious. That sounds like Bellevue. 

9 
 (Laughter.) 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right, that's 

11 
 good. Thank you. Glad you're here, John. 

12 Thanks. 

13 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: We understand what our 

15 
 action items are with respect to the global or 

16 
 overarching issues, correct? All right. 

17 
 We'll have that on our agenda for our next 

18 meeting. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And Lori was about 

20 
 to talk about some limitations. 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: When we went back41 

2 
 to this. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Remember that? 

5 
 What you wanted to say about the limitations? 

6 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, I do. 

7 
 Steve, if you can help me out with the one 

8 
 attachment that you added to the BRS. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, PER-12, 

10 
 that's coming up at 10:15 but we can go to 

11 that. 

12 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Do you remember 

13 the finding number on this? 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think, well, it 

15 
 was basically the second finding, the case 

16 
 audits. Actually, I took it out so it's no 

17 longer there. 

18 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. Well, what 

19 
 happened, what Steve and I found out about the 

20 
 BRS, was that Steve attempted to attach a 

21 
 document to the actual finding itself. 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 once he did it, you were able to attach it but42

2 
 it did not show up as an attachment in the 

3 
 finding. 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The BRS has a quirk 

5 
 in that when you attach -- make an attachment 

6 
 to the finding -- if you make an attachment to 

7 
 a response, it shows up on the summary page 

8 
 here saying that you have an attachment as 

9 
 it's showing here on the screen. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: As we want it to do. 

11 
 MR. MARSCHKE: As you want it to 

12 
 do. However, if you make an attachment to the 

13 
 finding itself it does not -- the fact that 

14 
 there is an attachment does not show up on the 

15 
 screen, and the only way to know about it is 

16 
 if somebody were to put in here, "there is an 

17 
 attachment, click on `Edit Messages' and you 

18 
 go to the edit messages and it comes down. If 

19 
 there was an attachment it would show up down 

20 here." 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: You have to actually 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 physically say "See attachment" in the text of43

2 
 the finding. 

3 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. But there was 

4 
 a logic behind that, Wanda. The logic was, 

5 
 you know, basically the findings themselves 

6 
 don't usually have attachments. Usually, when 

7 
 you get into the long detailed attachment, the 

8 
 finding itself --

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's a response. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: -- it's usually a 

11 
 response of some kind. And so, you know, the 

12 
 system is operating kind of the way it was 

13 
 designed to operate, it's just that there's a 

14 
 little quirk here that when there is an 

15 
 attachment to a finding, it's a little bit 

16 
 difficult to know about. But given that 

17 understanding, you can work with it. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: As long as we 

19 
 understand it I think it's okay, especially if 

20 
 those of you who actually input the original 

21 
 finding remember that you have to say "See 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 attachment" if there's attachments there that44

2 
 refers directly to the original finding. 

3 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: But actually, 

4 
 Wanda, we're working to make that correction. 

5 
 And once it's done I'll inform the Committee. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good. Good to 

7 
 know. Have we encountered before? Is this 

8 
 the first? 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It's the first time 

10 I've encountered it. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's the 

12 
 first time we tried to attach a document to a 

13 finding itself. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: This is a strange 

15 
 case because this is that case, remember at 

16 
 the last meeting when Hans did the review of 

17 
 PER-12 he looked at the cases and he had no 

18 
 issues with any of the cases that he audited. 

19 
 And so we were going to enter a dummy finding 

20 
 saying that there is no problem with any of 

21 
 these, and I was going to attach Hans's report 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to that finding. So this is a little bit --45 

2 
 so this really isn't even a finding that we're 

3 
 talking about. It's really just a finding of 

4 
 no findings. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is unusual 

6 
 for Hans. But yes, I can see that would 

7 
 create a problem. But it's good that you 

8 
 worked out a way to be able to do it. That's 

9 
 good. And you'll let us know then --

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: -- when you've 

12 resolved that and how you've resolved that. 

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Good. All right. 

15 Anything else? Yes, Steve. 

16 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The only thing I 

17 
 noticed when we tried to generate the Wanda 

18 
 table, preparing for this meeting I entered 

19 
 the 10 findings that we made on PROC-44 

20 
 review. And I entered that into the system. 

21 
 When I tried to generate the Wanda table 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 came out -- the numbers are right, it just46

2 
 came out very strange. It brings out the fact 

3 
 that -- it repeats PROC-44 nine times. And 

4 
 all ten findings are there, but it shows up on 

5 
 the table nine times. And so I don't know if 

6 
 it's a problem with the way I entered the 

7 
 stuff, I don't know if it's a problem with the 

8 
 way the table is being formed or what, but 

9 
 there, you know, this came I think Tuesday 

10 when I was generating this. 

11 
 And I let Lori -- when I sent the 

12 
 summary table out I gave a note to Lori. And 

13 
 so obviously there's been no time to think 

14 
 about this yet. But it's something that's, 

15 
 again, it's just strange. I mean, the numbers 

16 
 are correct and everything is correct but it's 

17 just not right. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's interesting 

19 
 that you have two that were lumped together 

20 but the rest came out singly. 

21 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm not quite47

2 
 sure what occurred. It could have been that 

3 
 when they were working on transferring to 

4 
 overarching you were putting your information 

5 
 in. I'm not sure. But I have them working on 

6 
 it as we speak. 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the thing that 

8 
 hit my mind, the thing that I thought of is 

9 
 maybe they're looking at times, and looking at 

10 
 times out to minutes or something like that, 

11 
 and I was fast enough to enter two of them in 

12 
 the same minute or something like that, and 

13 
 the other ones I was slower on. And so if 

14 
 you're doing a sort by just looking at, 

15 
 really, times, the times may be different. So 

16 
 I don't know how they're generating this 

17 
 table. So there's something strange going on 

18 there but it's not real critical. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's an interesting 

20 glitch. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's a glitch. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: I'm quite sure that48 

2 
 there is an easy software solution somewhere. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Easy for us because 

4 
 we don't have to do it. 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Easy for you and I, 

6 
 Wanda. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. True. 

8 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, they're 

9 
 working on it now, Steve. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: But it's interesting. 

11 
 And thank you for that marvelous little "I 

12 
 love a mystery." That's good. Anything else? 

13 
 As long as we're looking at the 

14 
 table, let's take a look at your Wanda table 

15 
 again because it's always informative I think 

16 
 to see where we are and what we're doing. 

17 
 Remember that when we look at those 

18 
 percentages we're only -- the ones that are 

19 
 actually close as far as we are concerned are 

20 
 more extensive than just the ones that we have 

21 listed as closed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 So if you look at the actual49 

2 
 numbers there and you see where we are we as a 

3 
 Subcommittee have dealt with and disposed of 

4 
 for our purposes 75 percent of what we've been 

5 
 charged with doing. So we have one quarter of 

6 
 our original load that we still need to deal 

7 
 with in an effective manner so we can get it 

8 
 off our slate. That's pretty good. It's 

9 
 taken us a long time but it's been productive 

10 
 in the long haul. So, courage. Don't give 

11 
 up. We're getting there, with much help from 

12 
 Steve and Lori getting this database so that 

13 
 we can actually work with it well. Thank you 

14 both. 

15 
 All right, anything else for the good of 

16 
 that part of the order? If not then let's 

17 
 move on to OTIB-9. We have reports from both 

18 NIOSH and SC&A. Who's leading off? 

19 
 DR. NETON: I think I'll probably 

20 
 lead off. I don't know that we have a report 

21 
 from SC&A, at least written. It sounds 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 John Mauro may have some input. 50 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, Jim, this is John. 

3 
 I did read through your report. I do have a 

4 
 couple of comments. I've looked into it. 

5 
 But, certainly you may want to start off. 

6 
 DR. NETON: Yes, let me just 

7 
 summarize for the benefit of folks who might 

8 
 have read this a while ago, what's going on 

9 
 here. This is TIB-9 which is related to the 

10 
 overarching issue of ingestion. In fact, this 

11 
 issue is probably one of the most pervasive 

12 
 overarching issues we have. It covers 

13 
 virtually every site that has a reconstruction 

14 
 either done using air sampling data or 

15 
 residual contamination period. It doesn't 

16 
 necessarily affect any sites where we use 

17 bioassay data to do reconstructions. 

18 
 But back in 2006, SC&A reviewed 

19 
 TIB-9 and published their findings. And I've 

20 
 summarized them in the write-up -- the White 

21 Paper that was provided. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 But, essentially, there were two51

2 
 main issues in my opinion. One was the lack 

3 
 of a possible association between measured air 

4 
 concentrations in the workplace and the 

5 
 surface contamination that might exist. 

6 
 That's a key factor for TIB-9 to work. And 

7 
 they are correct that we sort of assume that 

8 
 relationship. It seems somewhat intuitive but 

9 
 we went back since then and took a look at 

10 that. 

11 
 And the second issue was the model 

12 
 transfer rate of surface contamination to the 

13 
 GI tract through inadvertent ingestion. 

14 
 Essentially, how much of the surface area does 

15 
 a person ingest per unit time in the 

16 
 workplace? So we also looked at that. That's 

17 what this White Paper intends to address. 

18 
 I would say that the ingestion 

19 
 discussion predates the 2006 review by SC&A 

20 
 because at first, that was the first time they 

21 
 actually were tasked with reviewing TIB-9. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 But the initial place where the surface was in52

2 
 the review was the Bethlehem Steel Site 

3 
 Profile where we used TIB-9. And that spawned 

4 
 another level of debate that surrounds this 

5 
 issue. 

6 
 At any rate, to address the two 

7 
 issues that SC&A raised, that is, the 

8 
 relationship between air concentrations and 

9 
 surface contamination, we went and pulled out 

10 
 -- there aren't many data points out there 

11 
 that give us simultaneous surface 

12 
 concentrations and air concentrations, 

13 
 especially in the AWE period where this is 

14 typically applied. 

15 
 We went through and pulled out a 

16 
 number that we could find and assembled them 

17 
 into Table 1 of the document and determined to 

18 
 see if there was a relationship that existed. 

19 
 Like I say, intuitively you would think that 

20 
 the higher the air concentration, the higher 

21 
 the surface contamination but then the lower 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the air, the lower the surface. And53 

2 
 obviously, when there's zero air concentration 

3 
 there's zero surface concentration. 

4 
 Well, we put together -- I think 

5 
 there's about 10 or 12 different sites. Now, 

6 
 that's not individual air measurements but 10 

7 
 or 12 individual sites. Graphed them and ran 

8 
 a linear regression through them and obtained 

9 
 a relationship that demonstrates, at least in 

10 
 our mind, that there is a linear-type 

11 
 relationship, albeit not perfect, between 

12 
 surface contamination and air concentration. 

13 
 You can see that on the graph in front of you. 

14 
 So, we feel that it's important 

15 
 that this relationship be established because, 

16 
 like I say, we rarely, in many cases do not 

17 
 have surface contamination measurements at 

18 
 AWEs. 

19 
 So if one will take that at face 

20 
 value that there is some sort of relationship 

21 
 between air concentration and surface, 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the remaining issue is, well how much of the54

2 
 surface contamination is predicted by the air 

3 
 concentration that a person ingests per unit 

4 
 time, whether it's per hour or per day? 

5 
 Then the model in TIB-9 that Dave 

6 
 Allen put together was -- I wouldn't say it 

7 
 was arbitrary, but it certainly was based on 

8 
 some common sense beliefs of what happened in 

9 
 the workplace. It was modeled based on our 

10 
 observations of what we perceived to be the 

11 
 case of how often does a person go to their 

12 
 mouth with their hand. There were some issues 

13 
 about surface contamination and ingestion, 

14 open containers and that sort of thing. 

15 
 Well, we looked around the 

16 
 literature and it turns out that this RESRAD17 
 BUILD program the NRC has put together has a 

18 
 fairly decent treatment, pretty extensive 

19 
 treatment of how much a person actually 

20 
 ingests per unit time. And those values were 

21 
 reported to be anywhere from between 2.8 x 10-5
 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

55 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

and 2.9 x 10-4 meters squared per hour with a 

mean value of 1.1 x 10-4. 

 In this RESRAD program, especially 

in Volume 3 of the compendium on NUREG-5512 

that was there to evaluate the parameters, 

they tried to use known ingestion rates --

studies of published known ingestion rates 

using fecal sampling. In other words, they 

would go out and take a fecal sample and try 

to estimate how much in the fecal sample is 

related to what was in the person's 

environment during that day. 

Primarily these were residential 

studies. I think they were all residential 

studies. So there's some issues with those 

studies and they came out with some very high 

values. I mean, they would estimate in some 

cases 50 to 100 milligrams per day ingestion 

of contaminants. 

One notable, I think, deficiency in 

those studies is that they ignored the fact 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that when a person inhales material, they also56

2 
 tend to ingest it. So the inhalation pathway 

3 
 was sort of inherently included in those 

4 
 studies. 

5 
 At any rate, they tried to use 

6 
 those studies and if they used the upper limit 

7 
 of 50 milligrams per day ingestion they came 

8 
 out with what they believed to be an 

9 
 implausibly high ingestion rate. A person 

10 
 would have to ingest about 100 square 

11 centimeters per hour of their workplace. 

12 
 And so they kind of rejected those 

13 
 studies out of hand and said, well, let's look 

14 
 at this a little closer, and in fact what they 

15 
 did was they reduced it by a couple of orders 

16 
 of magnitude and said it's probably more like 

17 
 a half a milligram per day, is where they 

18 
 ended up at the end of the day. And so that 

19 
 upper limit that they had was with some 

20 question. 

21 
 We chose to use the middle 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the mean value, 1.1 x 10-4, because it had been57 

2 
 relied on in previous studies that did not 

3 
 rely on ingestion and in fact was the 

4 
 recommended value in Volume 1 of the NUREG 

5 
 itself. 

6 
 So if one takes that surface 

7 
 contamination ingestion rate of 1.1 x 10-4 

8 
 meters squared per day and uses the 

9 
 relationship that we established between air 

10 
 concentration and surface concentration, you 

11 
 end up with an equation that says that the 

12 
 daily ingestion rate is about 10 percent of 

13 the air concentration. 

14 
 You multiply the air concentration 

15 
 by 0.1, you'll end up with a daily ingestion 

16 
 rate in milligrams per day. And you compare 

17 
 that to TIB-9 which says at 0.2 times 

18 
 ingestion rate we feel that that favorably 

19 
 matches with what TIB-9 is predicting. And in 

20 
 fact, I think, in my opinion, it's almost an 

21 
 empirical validation of the TIB-9 model. 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 can argue about those specifics behind what58

2 
 went in the TIB-9 but nonetheless we believe 

3 
 that at least it provides -- TIB-9 provides, 

4 
 based on this analysis, a reasonable estimate 

5 
 of daily ingestion. 

6 
 The last thing I want to talk 

7 
 about, though, is the application of TIB-9 

8 
 during residual contamination periods. It 

9 
 turns out that, and this came up because, I 

10 
 think, the DuPont Deepwater Works is under 

11 review and it's being studied. 

12 
 And what we have done, which is in 

13 
 error, in my opinion, is: yes, there is a 

14 
 relationship between air concentration and 

15 
 surface contamination, but only if you have an 

16 
 active source generating that air 

17 concentration. 

18 
 What we've done in the residual 

19 
 contamination period at DuPont Deepwater 

20 
 Works, as well as a lot of other sites, is 

21 
 taken a resuspension factor of 1 x 10-6, put 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that in the air and said that the ingestion59

2 
 will be 10 percent of that value. That's not 

3 
 appropriate. You end up with some extremely 

4 
 small ingestion rates. I mean, you could have 

5 
 contamination levels that are pretty high. If 

6 
 you take a 1 x 10-6 resuspension factor you end 

7 
 up with -- I forget what Dupont Deepwater 

8 
 Works came up with, but very, very small 

9 
 ingestions that are unreasonable. 

10 
 So, we believe TIB-9 is appropriate 

11 
 to be used but you have to be careful when 

12 
 you're using it in a residual contamination 

13 
 period. There are errors and there are 

14 
 probably going to be a number of sites. We're 

15 
 going to have to go back and do a PER and 

16 
 review those to see what effect they may have 

17 on the doses. 

18 
 I will say that we don't expect 

19 
 much change because I think at the very end of 

20 
 this White Paper I did a little analysis that 

21 
 demonstrates that for most soft tissues, 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 increment in dose for ingestion if using the60

2 
 TIB-9 approach is about 0.6 percent above. For 

3 
 soft tissues. It would be an increase of 

4 
 about 0.6 percent. The TIB-9 approach adds 

5 
 about 0.6 percent to the soft tissue dose, so 

6 
 it's not much. 

7 
 You do end up with slightly higher 

8 
 values for the GI tract which you would 

9 
 imagine because you're ingesting it, it's 

10 
 directly affecting GI tract, comes out around 

11 
 a couple percent. But the fact is that the GI 

12 
 tract doesn't have much -- doesn't get much 

13 
 dose anyway. So I don't think there's going 

14 
 to be much effect on the doses for the 

15 residual period when we do the PER. 

16 
 That's the bottom line. I'd be 

17 
 happy to discuss any of these points if people 

18 
 want to. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Jim. This 

20 
 has been an interesting study and a long time 

21 
 in getting to this 10-6 figure. I'm interested 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 in hearing what SC&A has to say about that.61

2 
 John? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. Can everyone hear 

4 
 me okay? I'm on my cell phone because our 

5 
 regular phones are out too. Is it coming 

6 
 across clearly? 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're clear, John. 

8 
 Thanks. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Thank you, thank you. 

10 
 Yes, Jim, I agree with everything that you 

11 
 just described. I would like to put in a 

12 
 couple of qualifiers. And first of all, I 

13 
 read your White Paper and it's exactly 

14 
 consistent with everything that we discussed 

15 
 in the past except for one item which we'll 

16 
 get to very quickly. We agreed that that was 

17 
 the relationship you established between air 

18 
 and on surface. That was very well done and 

19 
 we agree completely. So you're correct, I 

20 
 think any issue that might be associated with 

21 
 that in the record I would recommend 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 closed. We agree with that part of it. 62 

2 
 And you very correctly 

3 
 characterized the hand to mouth behavior. I 

4 
 did look very carefully at 5512 and there's an 

5 
 excellent summary. And I also went back and I 

6 
 pulled two of the key papers that are 

7 
 referenced in 5512. I have them actually 

8 
 here, one by a fellow named Stanek which was 

9 
 excellent, and the other one by a fellow named 

10 Sheppard. 

11 
 I read both this week and did some 

12 
 calculations and checked some numbers. And we 

13 
 are in a place where I think I was going to 

14 
 write a response but I think -- I don't know 

15 
 if a written response would have been possible 

16 
 because all power's out. My computers are not 

17 
 working and I couldn't write it. But I think 

18 
 I could explain it and boil it down to a 

19 simple concept. 

20 
 Let's say we all agree that we 

21 
 could predict what's on the surface. Given 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the airborne concentration, we could reliably63

2 
 estimate what's on the surface. So we're at a 

3 
 point now where a person is working in an 

4 
 environment where we know what the becquerels 

5 
 per meter squared is on surfaces. Let's give 

6 
 that as a stipulation. Let's agree to that, 

7 
 we know that, we can predict that. 

8 
 And the next step in the process is 

9 
 to say: okay, how much of that, those 

10 
 becquerels per meter squared that's on the 

11 
 surface might be inadvertently ingested from 

12 
 hand to mouth behavior, that sort of thing? 

13 
 And there's a long story behind it and Jim 

14 
 correctly characterized it's a difficult 

15 
 story. The data that's out there is mainly 

16 
 associated with residential properties and 

17 
 people working there, people working in dusty 

18 
 attics, people working in the garden. So it's 

19 
 mainly a residential situation, and there are 

20 problems, as Jim pointed out. 

21 
 But it turns out ultimately 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 most -- the key factor, given a meter squared,64

2 
 let's say you have a certain number of 

3 
 becquerels per meter squared on the surface. 

4 
 I'm hearing a beep. I don't know if you're 

5 
 hearing that also. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: You're still clear, 

7 
 John. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: I'm still clear, good. 

9 
 Now, Jim basically was saying that in the 

10 
 working environment a person is going to 

11 
 ingest every hour on 1 centimeter squared --

12 
 so picture every hour a person is going to 

13 
 behave in a way that whatever the activity is 

14 
 on 1 centimeter squared of a surface he's 

15 
 going to inadvertently ingest. That is one 

16 
 estimate. It's basically what's considered to 

17 
 be a low end but perhaps realistic assessment. 

18 
 And the other one, which is more of 

19 
 a high-end estimate, is a person would be 

20 
 ingesting 100 centimeters squared every hour. 

21 
 Not every day, every hour. So where we 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 right now is almost after you read all the65

2 
 letters and you walk away and say, you know, 

3 
 I'm not really sure what to do here. What 

4 
 seems to make more sense? Does it make sense 

5 
 that a person who's working in a contaminated 

6 
 environment is going to ingest -- figure he's 

7 
 licking the floor, okay? Let's say it that 

8 
 way. In a way that every hour he licks 1 

9 
 centimeter squared of the floor and ingests 

10 
 whatever's there. Or every hour he's going to 

11 
 ingest 100 centimeters squared of what's on 

12 
 the floor, whatever is there. And that's what 

13 
 we're left with. We're left with these two 

14 
 extremes. 

15 And I have to say that almost --

16 
 the literature on the subject really is not 

17 
 that helpful even though it's vast and a lot 

18 
 of work was done. And if you look at the 

19 
 literature on first impressions you would say 

20 
 well, that 0.5 -- the 1 centimeter squared 

21 number seems to be at the low end. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 But I guess where I walk away is66

2 
 that there are two things. It doesn't seem 

3 
 intuitively too bad to assume whatever's on 1 

4 
 centimeter squared is being ingested per hour 

5 
 in the working environment. It does seem to 

6 
 be somewhat extreme to assume that every hour 

7 
 a person's going to ingest what's on 100 

8 
 centimeters squared. And it doesn't sound 

9 
 very sophisticated but after you go through 

10 
 all this literature you're left with that 

11 
 sense. Because the studies themselves are 

12 
 very ambiguous and they are admittedly so, 

13 
 especially as it applies to the industrial 

14 setting. 

15 
 I would say the studies are much 

16 
 better for doing a residential setting. And 

17 
 the number that Jim picked is probably not 

18 
 good for that. But for industrial settings I 

19 
 guess I walk away and I was the one that 

20 
 brought this up initially starting to lean --

21 
 to agree with Jim that assuming that 1 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 centimeter squared per hour is being ingested67

2 
 and that is probably a lot more realistic than 

3 
 assuming the person is effectively licking 

4 
 everything that's on 100 centimeters squared 

5 
 every hour while he's working. 

6 
 So, I guess I'd recommend we 

7 
 finally close this, and especially when one 

8 
 considers that the contribution of ingestion 

9 
 to the internal dose compared to inhalation is 

10 
 minuscule even if you -- you know, it's an 

11 
 extremely small contribution. And I would 

12 
 have to say that the idea of assuming that a 

13 
 person is every hour ingesting whatever is on 

14 
 100 centimeters squared of a surface seems to 

15 
 be absurdly large. So I guess I'm 

16 
 recommending that we finally close this issue. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John. 

18 Steve? 

19 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Can I say something? 

20 
 John asked me to look into this a little bit 

21 
 on Monday. And there's one -- I was looking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 into many of the same documents that I think68

2 
 Jim and John were both looking at, NUREG-5512, 

3 
 RESRAD. They were all kind of based out of --

4 
 came out of PNL and so they're really all kind 

5 
 of interrelated. 

6 
 But there was one document that I 

7 
 found which was independent and I think maybe 

8 
 there would be a benefit from taking a look at 

9 
 that one document. It was a study done on 

10 
 World Trade Center workers after 9/11. And it 

11 
 was done by the -- and the EPA has a model 

12 
 that they use for pesticides, transferring 

13 
 pesticides hand to mouth. And they applied 

14 
 this -- they had a working group that applied 

15 
 this EPA model to these World Trade Center 

16 cleanup workers. 

17 
 And when I looked at this they also 

18 
 -- they looked at hard surfaces and soft 

19 
 surfaces. And again, when they're talking 

20 
 about these centimeter squared per hour, how 

21 
 much is transferred on 1 centimeter squared 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 per hour, if you go through some of the69

2 
 numbers that they show in here for soft 

3 
 surfaces they're talking about 2 centimeters 

4 
 squared per hour which is right in the number 

5 
 that Jim came up with for TIB-9. For hard 

6 
 surfaces they're talking more in the 

7 
 neighborhood of 10 centimeters squared per 

8 
 hour which is basically, you know, it's an 

9 
 order of magnitude less than the high end but 

10 
 it's something that, again, I sent this to 

11 
 John but I think his power went out probably 

12 before he had a chance to look at it. 

13 
 So, but again it's down into, 

14 
 you're talking about a few percentages of the 

15 
 total dose. And so I don't know if this will 

16 
 change the whole bottom line of the decision 

17 
 here, but it's another data point which really 

18 
 has not been in the radiological protection 

19 
 world; it's coming out of the pesticides 

20 environment. 

21 
 DR. NETON: I'm not familiar 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that study and I probably need to look at it70

2 
 and see if it really ports over nicely, you 

3 
 know, based on the work conditions and what 

4 
 they're doing and the contamination levels and 

5 
 such. 

6 
 But I want to say a couple of 

7 
 things about that. You did point out that 

8 
 John said 1 centimeter squared per hour and 

9 
 that's the mean value using 1 x 10-4 meters 

10 
 squared per hour. TIB-9 does use 0.2 so it's 

11 
 effectively two per hour. So you end up with 

12 
 about 20 square centimeters of ingestion of 

13 surfaces per day. 

14 
 The other thing you want to fold in 

15 
 there is that most of the contamination --

16 
 this applies to loose contamination only. 

17 
 Most of the contamination levels we have are 

18 
 surface contamination levels using field 

19 
 sampling, field survey instruments. They're 

20 
 measuring total contamination. So when we 

21 
 apply that we're assuming that all 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 material that is being measured by that survey71

2 
 meter is actually loose. It's probably not. 

3 
 So that's conservative in itself. 

4 
 So what I think we're doing is 

5 
 we're using the upper end of the range 

6 
 recommended in the NUREG-5512 because I think 

7 
 their upper value is 2.4 x 10-4 or something 

8 
 like that. Maybe it's 2.8. But it's well 

9 
 above the mean value, what we're using. And 

10 
 we're also using, in many cases, the total 

11 
 contamination to represent loose 

12 contamination. 

13 
 And finally, there is a GSD, a 

14 
 geometric standard deviation associated with 

15 
 each ingestion intake that has a minimum value 

16 
 of 3. In many cases it's higher than that. 

17 
 If you look at TBD-6000 the GSD is 5. So 

18 
 there's a lot of uncertainty built into those 

19 
 calculations as well. So I think, given all 

20 
 those parameters, we're on very solid ground 

21 with what we're doing using the 0.2 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MAURO: This is John. You're72 

2 
 correct. I did not see the paper you had 

3 
 mentioned. It's interesting that in effect 

4 
 what you're saying is that paper is saying on 

5 
 hard surfaces we're talking about 10 

6 
 centimeters squared per hour that's being 

7 
 ingested as compared to Jim's number which is 

8 
 about 2 centimeters squared per hour. 

9 
 In the paper that you cited, did 

10 
 they speak at all that they factored in that 

11 
 some of the material that might have been 

12 
 taken in was inhaled and then swallowed? That 

13 
 would be one area that would be interesting. 

14 
 But nonetheless, whether they did or didn't 

15 
 what I'm hearing is we're sort of converging. 

16 
 And correct me if I'm wrong, what I just 

17 
 heard was what we're really talking about is 

18 
 the difference between 2 versus 10 centimeters 

19 
 squared per hour as being a number that we're 

20 sort of trying to deal with. 

21 
 And you know, again, I guess, Jim, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it would probably be a good idea to take a73

2 
 look at this paper that I haven't seen either. 

3 
 It sounds interesting. But I don't think, if 

4 
 it comes out as the hard surface being at 10 

5 
 in that particular study, I would argue that 

6 
 that's not incompatible with your 2, given the 

7 
 fact of the kind of uncertainties we're 

8 
 dealing with. So I think it's an important 

9 
 paper, we should probably look at it, but even 

10 
 if it turns out that yes, there's this 

11 
 difference -- I don't see a difference between 

12 
 2 and 10 from this study as being what I 

13 
 consider to be inconsistent. In fact, if 

14 
 anything I say I'm surprised how consistent it 

15 
 is, given this kind of variabilities and 

16 
 uncertainties. And that paper, Steve, I think 

17 
 it was an important paper. I haven't seen 

18 
 anything where they actually did a good job on 

19 
 looking at the industrial environment. Sounds 

20 
 like this is one of the places where we have a 

21 real paper that we can hang our hat on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this was done74 

2 
 by a group of experts that went together, I 

3 
 guess, because of the concern of the workers 

4 
 after 9/11, the cleanup workers. And so this 

5 
 was, you know, they looked at it. And the EPA 

6 
 model is really tailored towards children, but 

7 
 this group of experts took the EPA model and 

8 
 adjusted it for workers. 

9 
 And you can see in their write-up 

10 
 how they did their adjustments. They give a 

11 
 description on how they do the adjustments and 

12 so on and so forth. 

13 
 DR. NETON: Is this based on a --

14 
 is this an empirically, behaviorally based 

15 study as opposed to --

16 
 MR. MARSCHKE: There's an equation 

17 
 which basically talks about the transferable 

18 
 residue and the frequency of hand-to-mouth 

19 
 events. 

20 
 DR. NETON: So it's a behavioral 

21 thing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: But the data that75

2 
 goes into it, you know, they go in and they 

3 
 look at well, how do you figure out that data, 

4 
 or what is the right data for that and then 

5 
 they look at --

6 
 DR. NETON: But the key value is the 

7 
 hand to mouth number of times per hour. 

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: They have 

9 
 observations apparently from children at 

10 least. Do they have them from adults? 

11 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that's why you 

12 
 look at this model, which is for the World 

13 
 Trade Center, because it's been tailored for 

14 
 workers. The model started out -- the EPA 

15 
 basic model is for children and it says that 

16 
 in here. But then for this particular study 

17 
 they talk about tailoring it for adults. And 

18 
 so, the hand to mouth available for other ages 

19 and so on and so forth. 

20 
 So I mean it's just, it's a data 

21 
 point which is really independent because 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the other data points we have are kind of all76

2 
 related. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Well, they aren't 

4 
 necessarily. The EPA -- I mean the NRC when 

5 
 they developed RESRAD tried to rely heavily on 

6 
 those ingestion studies and to be honest, they 

7 
 failed miserably. I mean, they looked at them 

8 
 and looked at them and then they said they're 

9 
 off by a factor of 100. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

11 
 DR. NETON: And they reduced it 

12 
 down to 0.5. The reality is, before they ever 

13 
 embarked on those studies there were some 

14 
 behavioral type studies, just of the nature 

15 
 you're pointing out, in nuclear facilities 

16 
 that were published around 1985 that sort of 

17 
 confirmed the 1.1 x 10-4 number. In fact, 

18 
 that's where that value came from in Volume 1 

19 
 of NUREG-5512. So I'm more inclined to go 

20 
 with the nuclear facility studies than the 

21 
 World Trade Center studies and their 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 behavioral stuff. But we'll take a look at77 

2 
 it. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

4 
 that the fact that this effort was made 

5 
 relatively recently and it does deal with an 

6 
 industrial setting. And it does deal with 

7 
 clearly what would be a heavily contaminated 

8 
 it sounds like circumstance. I'm not sure. 

9 
 And the fact that, if I've got it 

10 
 right, it sounds like you're coming in at 10 

11 
 centimeters squared per hour, that is 

12 
 supportive of Jim's number in my opinion, 2 

13 
 versus 10, as opposed to, let's say, the 100 

14 
 number or the 50 number that has been 

15 
 historically used by EPA and CRP. But I think 

16 
 it's -- you know, we put so much time into it, 

17 
 the fact that you have this paper, not a bad 

18 idea to take a look at it. 

19 
 I guess I'm still inclined to think 

20 
 that it seems inconceivable to me that a 

21 
 person would be ingesting 100 centimeters --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 basically licking the floor, 100 centimeters78

2 
 squared every hour. And that's what you would 

3 
 need to have to get up to these higher 

4 
 numbers. It just seems to be inconceivable. 

5 
 And by the way, it's important to 

6 
 keep in mind that they are two different 

7 
 strategies that are used to come up with these 

8 
 ingestions. One is this modeling the hand-to9 
 mouth behavior and the other is to actually 

10 
 measure fecal samples to see how much silicon 

11 
 is in there, how much arsenic is in there, and 

12 
 knowing that how much is on a surface and then 

13 
 you measure how much is in the fecal sample. 

14 
 You could estimate, well, how many square 

15 
 centimeters effectively has been ingested? It 

16 
 sounds like the one that you're referring to, 

17 
 Steve, is the one that's based more on hand18 
 to-mouth behavior rather than taking advantage 

19 of any fecal samples. Is that correct? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. Quite frankly 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 sort of like the fecal sample approach because79

2 
 it's direct, if you take into consideration 

3 
 backing out what might be in food and what 

4 
 might have been ingested inadvertently from 

5 
 inhalation, it's a direct method. But I think 

6 
 that it is limited because I don't think 

7 
 anyone has actually went back to back out what 

8 
 might have been inadvertently -- that might 

9 
 have been inhaled and swallowed. There's no 

10 way to tease that out. 

11 
 I guess in light of Steve's paper 

12 
 it probably would be a good idea for NIOSH to 

13 
 take a look at it and see if fits well with 

14 their concept of this strategy. 

15 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, if you 

16 
 provide us a reference we'd be happy to look 

17 at it. 

18 
 MR. MARSCHKE: At this break I can, 

19 
 you know, it's on my disk here. At the break 

20 I can give it to you. 

21 
 DR. NETON: I can't copy it on 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 computer. 80 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, you can't? 

3 
 Okay. I'll email it to you when I get home 

4 
 tomorrow. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Okay. We'll take a 

6 
 look at it. It's another piece of data. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, an interesting 

8 
 piece of data. It's hard to see how it would 

9 
 really be very applicable to the nuclear 

10 facilities that we're dealing with. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Well, Wanda, keep in 

12 
 mind that my initial concern with the 0.5 -- I 

13 
 call it the 0.5 milligram because that's what 

14 
 everything reduces to. What we're really 

15 
 talking about is the difference between 

16 
 assuming a person inadvertently ingested about 

17 
 0.5 milligrams per day as opposed to let's say 

18 
 50 or 100 milligrams per day. It reduces down 

19 to that. 

20 
 And I would agree it would be 

21 
 inconceivable if it's a relatively clean 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 environment. You know, you're not going to81 

2 
 ingest 50 milligrams a day. But we 

3 
 originally, this really emerged, as Jim 

4 
 pointed out, with Bethlehem Steel where the 

5 
 amount of uranium oxide dust covered 

6 
 everything. It was a filthy environment. And 

7 
 these environments, these early AWE 

8 
 facilities, were not clean environments. 

9 
 These were dirty environments, where it seemed 

10 
 to me at the time that assuming 0.5 milligrams 

11 
 per day is just a little too small a number. 

12 
 We went over this. And so I would 

13 
 agree completely in a site that's being 

14 
 maintained in a clean fashion where there, you 

15 
 know, you're not going to get that kind of 

16 
 ingestion. But at these really dirty 

17 
 facilities it was my concern at the time that 

18 
 this number of 0.5 milligrams per day is too 

19 low. 

20 
 But Jim's work here showing this --

21 
 expressed in terms of meters squared, 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 know, how many centimeters squared per hour a82

2 
 person may inadvertently ingest is another 

3 
 good way to look at it. And it would be good 

4 
 to see if the numbers that come out of the 

5 
 World Trade Center work, which I would liken 

6 
 to maybe a fairly dirty AWE facility, and how 

7 
 they fit into the scheme. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: I would liken them to 

9 
 something even worse than that, by a long 

10 
 shot, because of the enormous variety of 

11 
 material that's involved here and the kind of 

12 
 thing that is entirely unreasonable in terms 

13 
 of measurement which is not true in a nuclear 

14 
 facility. At least you have good -- the 

15 
 capability of measuring good radionuclide 

16 
 burdens anyway. But that's neither here nor 

17 there. Paul? 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wanted to ask a 

19 
 question, Jim, on the residual periods. As 

20 
 you went through this it looks like you came 

21 
 across an incorrect application here 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

multiple incorrect applications. I was trying 

to understand what was actually being done. 

We had agreed early on, I think, 

that for a cleaned up facility 1.1 x 10-6 was 

the number to use for resuspension. So what 

was actually happening? You weren't using the 

end surface or the end -- what were they 

doing? 

DR. NETON: Let me just pull out 

where we noticed this. 

MEMBER ZIEMER: It gets a little 

circular here. 

DR. NETON: Yes. 

MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you use that to 

get a surface contamination? 

DR. NETON: Yes, don't confuse the 

use of 10-6 versus 10-5. That's not the point I 

was trying to make. 

MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. NETON: If I can find. Well, 

what happens is -- if TIB-9 is going to work 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the relationship between the amount of84 

2 
 contamination that's on the surface is 

3 
 directly related to the amount in the air only 

4 
 if there's an external generator of that 

5 
 material that deposits. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, otherwise --

7 
 DR. NETON: Otherwise it's not. So 

8 
 you get in the residual contamination period 

9 
 and there is no external generator of 

10 
 contamination. It's gone. They're no longer 

11 
 working with the materials. So now you have 

12 material deposit on the ground. 

13 
 And let's say you've estimated how 

14 
 much is on the ground. Now what they've done 

15 
 in the residual period is said well, the 

16 
 amount in the air is based on some residual 

17 
 resuspension factor, let's say it's 1 x 10-6
 

18 
 times the surface contamination. You end up 

19 
 with a very low air concentration. It's not 

20 
 true that your ingestion intake is 0.2 times 

21 
 that very low air concentration. It's 0.2 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 times whatever the original air concentration85

2 
 was that generated that material on the 

3 
 ground. 

4 
 So the appropriate way to use TIB-9 

5 
 in residual periods is to say: my ingestion on 

6 
 day one after the cessation of AEC activities 

7 
 is equal to 0.2 times the amount of air 

8 
 concentration there was --

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whenever that was. 

10 
 DR. NETON: -- on the last day. 

11 And then you decrement it down from there. 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: They just weren't 

13 doing that. 

14 
 DR. NETON: Because it bothered me. 

15 
 I was looking at DuPont and we were 

16 
 predicting like 10-3 milligrams intake per day 

17 
 or something like that even though the 

18 
 contamination levels were fairly large. And 

19 
 if you use the 1.1 x 10-4 meters squared per 

20 
 hour out of the RESRAD document you end up 

21 with a factor of 10 higher intakes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 86 

2 
 DR. NETON: And in fact they're 

3 
 probably in that ballpark. So we have done 

4 
 this at a number of sites with residual 

5 
 contamination. It's sort of a trap we fell 

6 
 into because it's easy to say well, I still 

7 
 believe that for cleaned up facilities the air 

8 
 concentration in the residual period is 1 x 

9 
 10-6 of the surface contamination. That's 

10 
 true. But that in no way is related to how 

11 
 much a person is ingesting. That's the 

12 
 problem. So we have to go back. And I think 

13 
 there's going to be a number of sites, not 

14 all, but many sites where we've done this. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: So will you just 

16 have to go back and rewrite that? 

17 
 DR. NETON: Well, we're going to go 

18 
 back in the PER and TIB-9. We're going to 

19 
 have to make sure that people understand that. 

20 
 But we're going to go back and redo the dose 

21 
 reconstructions, reevaluate the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 reconstructions that were done. 87 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it's the 

3 
 ingestion component, which is likely still to 

4 
 be pretty small numerically. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Even under its maximum 

6 
 impact, TIB-9 adds 0.6 percent to the dose for 

7 
 soft tissue. So it's very small. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Very small indeed. 

9 
 DR. NETON: It's unlikely to change 

10 
 anything, but when you have N equals 30,000, 

11 who knows? 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John. 

13 
 Given that we eventually do soon close out 

14 
 this matter of inadvertent ingestion during 

15 
 operations and what you just described as the 

16 
 way to deal with the residual period is what I 

17 
 would call similar to the -- essentially the 

18 
 old TIB-70 approach. Let's find out what it 

19 
 is on the last day of operation using your 

20 
 approach for ingestion and then let it 

21 
 decline, that's your starting point, and let 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it decline using I guess the -- what you did88

2 
 before where you get a slope. Not the 1 

3 
 percent a day slope. 

4 
 DR. NETON: The TIB-70, the new 

5 
 TIB-70, right? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, the 0.0067 

7 
 percent. I think that's the number you have 

8 
 now. You reduce it about fiftyfold, if I 

9 
 recall. 

10 DR. NETON: Yes. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: The slope of the 

12 
 decline. I hate to just jump at these things 

13 
 but I've been so close to this for so long. 

14 
 Once we settle on the ingestion rate during 

15 
 operations, and I think we're close to that, I 

16 
 would say my impression is that the strategy 

17 
 that you just described for revising and 

18 
 dealing with the residual period sounds like 

19 the appropriate approach. 

20 
 DR. NETON: Well, the residual 

21 
 period was always done properly, it's just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that we inappropriately applied it. I mean,89 

2 
 that's the key. TIB-9 never said take 1 x 10-6 

3 
 as your air concentration, multiply it times 

4 
 0.2. We did that. We shouldn't have done 

5 
 that because that's not the representative of 

6 
 the ingestion in the residual period. But I 

7 
 think we need to make sure we strengthen that 

8 
 language in TIB-9 to point that out and make 

9 
 sure people don't do that. 

10 
 But yes, I agree with you, I hope 

11 
 we're close here because this has been going 

12 
 on for 6 years for something that's a fairly 

13 small dose. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: So, let's be clear 

15 
 about where we are here. If I understand 

16 
 correctly NIOSH is going to clarify the 

17 language in 09. 

18 
 DR. NETON: Well, I think that'll 

19 
 come once we agree that the approach we're 

20 
 using is appropriate. Right now I don't think 

21 
 we have agreement with SC&A that our 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that we've selected for meters squared per day90

2 
 is correct. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Now I thought I heard 

4 
 that that was going to be acceptable following 

5 
 your review of the new paper which Steve just 

6 
 brought to our attention. 

7 
 DR. NETON: Right. Well, I think 

8 
 we will review the EPA document, comment on 

9 
 it, and if we believe that our value is still 

10 
 appropriate we'll say so and then SC&A of 

11 
 course will have to evaluate our review of the 

12 EPA document in light of our number. 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask one 

14 
 other question? Did the EPA document discuss 

15 
 the error sizes or the uncertainties? Your 

16 
 distribution may not really be different than 

17 theirs if we knew that. 

18 
 MR. MARSCHKE: No and I think 

19 
 that's one -- Jim points out that there's a 

20 
 rather large standard deviation on that he's 

21 going to be utilizing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 91 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: He's going to 

3 
 encompass any numbers that come out. Two is 

4 
 going to be equivalent --

5 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Your standard 

6 
 deviation is 4, right? 

7 
 DR. NETON: Minimum of 3 GSD. 

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Minimum of 3. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: So, yes. So I mean, 

10 
 and like I said, the EPA -- adding up, you 

11 
 know, confirming and just basically supporting 

12 the White Paper. 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, we can 

14 
 already say it's certainly well within that 

15 distribution. 

16 DR. NETON: Within the envelope. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

18 
 DR. NETON: So I guess I will take 

19 a look at this document. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. So we'll 

21 
 expect the report back from you at our next 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 meeting, right? 92 

2 
 DR. NETON: Sure. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Or you can send 

4 
 something in advance because SC&A, if you get 

5 
 to it. 

6 
 DR. NETON: Yes. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Just looking at this 

8 
 last paper. That's all you're doing, right? 

9 
 DR. NETON: Yes. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Just confirming whether 

11 
 it falls within the envelope. SC&A can 

12 respond to that. 

13 
 DR. NETON: Well, it takes a little 

14 
 more work than that, Ted. You have to review 

15 
 the document. Then I think I'd want to look 

16 
 at the other behavioral analyses that have 

17 been previously done at nuclear facilities. 

18 
 See, that's another piece of this 

19 
 puzzle. They base their values on what 

20 
 happened in nuclear facilities. This is based 

21 
 on some -- I don't know what the behavior 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 for people working in the World Trade Center,93

2 
 but I'll have to look at it. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, they didn't use 

4 
 them. They took the kids and they said, they 

5 
 just made a linear drop-off to what they see 

6 
 for adult studies. He described it. I don't 

7 
 think they looked at World Trade Center 

8 
 people, from what that paragraph said. 

9 
 They did -- yes. There it is. You 

10 
 see, 1 to 6 years, 7 to 12 years, 8 to 18 and 

11 
 then 19 to 31. They just assumed some 

12 
 declining frequencies that made sense to get 

13 
 to an endpoint from what they know studies 

14 
 have shown for adults. I don't think it's 

15 
 World Trade Center data at all. 

16 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I agree with 

17 
 Paul. I don't think a lot of it has been 

18 
 applied to the World Trade Center case. But 

19 
 again, it's independent people looking at it, 

20 
 coming up with an answer which is in the same 

21 
 ballpark. And so it really kind of confirms 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what we're talking about. 94 

2 
 DR. NETON: We'll look at it but I 

3 
 want to make sure I put together a nice 

4 
 package because, frankly, I don't want to have 

5 
 another go-around on this. 

6 
 (Laughter.) 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think anyone 

8 
 does, Jim. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: So my only point was 

10 
 that if you send out a report we'll task SC&A 

11 
 with having a look at that to button up this 

12 
 issue, whether it gets done in advance of the 

13 next Subcommittee meeting or whatever. 

14 
 And then my only concern is that 

15 
 this will then regulate when we have the next 

16 
 Uranium Refining Work Group meeting because 

17 
 they need that to button up their work on 

18 Deepwater. 

19 
 DR. NETON: Do they? I think in 

20 
 principle we've reached some sort of approach 

21 
 here. It's a global issue, so they can close 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 out their review saying it's a global issue95

2 
 and they'll abide by whatever decision. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, the 

4 
 thinking at the time of that Work Group was 

5 
 that it would be case-specific in how you 

6 
 exactly handle it per site. 

7 
 DR. NETON: Oh no, it's not. It's 

8 
 not at all. There's a generic air 

9 
 concentration relationship. Now, that being 

10 
 said the DuPont Deepwater Works has an error 

11 
 in it. I mean, we identified that an 

12 
 inappropriate application of the TIB. But 

13 that's independent of this discussion. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, so you're saying 

15 they can go forward. 

16 
 DR. NETON: I think so, yes. 

17 
 Because I've agreed in principle that there is 

18 
 a relationship between air concentration and 

19 
 surface, and that if one can agree on the 

20 
 amount of ingestion meters squared per hour 

21 we're good 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So John, you can96 

2 
 carry your part of that water for the next 

3 
 meeting of that Work Group, right? 

4 
 DR. MAURO: I don't know if you're 

5 
 speaking to me or John Stiver. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: No, I'm talking to John 

7 
 Mauro, actually. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Oh yes, this is John. 

9 
 Yes, I guess we'll wait. Jim, you're going to 

10 
 just write something up on this -- I'll take a 

11 
 look at Steve's paper, I haven't looked at it. 

12 
 But I won't take any action. I'll just wait 

13 
 and see your perspective on the degree to 

14 
 which -- we'll call it Steve's paper is 

15 
 compatible with given uncertainties and the 

16 
 envelope. And then we'll just take a look at 

17 
 that. And if you'd like us to write something 

18 
 up or just report back, whatever you'd prefer, 

19 Ted. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: No, it's fine to report 

21 
 back in whatever form once you have that from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Jim. I was just saying, John, with respect to97 

2 
 the Uranium Refining Work Group, Jim was 

3 
 saying that since everything is in principle 

4 
 agreed upon, that Work Group can go forward 

5 
 and finish up its work on Deepwater. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. Yes, I 

7 
 reviewed Deepwater. I have to say I forget 

8 
 the details of it but we'll certainly factor 

9 
 this in. I understand where we are on this 

10 
 matter and certainly we can come to -- deal 

11 
 with the issue once we understand that that 

12 part of it has been taken care of. 

13 MR. KATZ: Right, okay. Good. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: I agree with Jim's 

15 
 conceptual approach to dealing with the 

16 residual period. 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, good. Thank you. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. For our 

19 
 purposes the action is with NIOSH for our next 

20 meeting. 

21 
 And it's -- we have one other item 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 on our agenda but I think we should take a98

2 
 break right now. Let's take a 15-minute 

3 
 break. When we come back we'll start with 

4 
 PER-12. 

5 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 
 matter went off the record at 10:31 a.m. and 

7 
 resumed at 10:49 a.m.) 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: My next agenda item on 

9 
 our list is Steve Marschke for SC&A on PER-12 

10 closure note. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Let me just check. 

12 Dick, do we have you on the line? 

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Dick is here. 

14 MR. KATZ: Great. Okay, Steve. 

15 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the only thing 

16 
 we had on 12 was, I think we talked about this 

17 
 last time, and Hans actually sent us the 

18 
 report and talked about it at the last 

19 
 meeting. But what we've done, we took an 

20 
 action item or I took an action item was to 

21 
 add a finding of no findings, if you will, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the BRS. And that has been done. 99 

2 
 And it's, you can see it, it's up 

3 
 here on the screen if you go to the PER-12 

4 
 page in the BRS, you'll see that there's two 

5 
 findings and they're both findings of no 

6 
 findings if you will. The first one says 

7 
 there was no findings in our review of the PER 

8 
 itself and the second one says that there was 

9 
 no findings in the case audits. 

10 
 And you also look, if you click on 

11 
 the plus arrow for the second finding you will 

12 
 see that it says this finding is simply a 

13 
 placeholder to indicate SC&A made no findings 

14 
 there during its audit of nine cases. And we 

15 
 attached the SC&A report that states that has 

16 been attached to the BRS. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Just a moment. Let's 

18 
 see if the attachment comes up. Yes, it does 

19 for me, it should for anyone. All right. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question. 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: If I put in the PER 100 

2 
 filter shouldn't I get all the PERs? What am 

3 
 I doing wrong? I've got 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 

4 
 when I put in the PER filter. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: There's different 

6 
 pages. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It says there are 

8 
 just five documents. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: There's way more 

10 than five. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: There's a lot more 

12 than five. 

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: Are you minimized on 

14 
 your screen? Your screen's minimized, it 

15 looks like. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It says there's 

17 five documents. I'm looking at all five. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: It says there's 19. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Did you get it? 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing, 101 

2 
 kind of on a similar thing -- is there any 

3 
 further on this? I mean, that's all I think I 

4 
 had on that. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Was your only action 

6 
 to just identify that it was closed? 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I had a similar 

8 
 action on PER-17, but this time it was to 

9 
 identify that there was no findings on the 

10 
 review of the PER itself, not of the case 

11 audits. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

13 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And I have done 

14 
 something similar that we did for PER-12 if 

15 
 you see. We've entered a finding of no 

16 findings and have attached the SC&A report. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Any questions? 

18 Any comments for Steve? 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Well, on 17 you have the 

20 question of status of the DR cases for audit. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, yes, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 not a question for me, that's a question for 102

2 
 John Stiver and Hans. And that's actually, I 

3 
 think, coming up next on the agenda. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: We have PER-14 and 

5 
 then 17. Yes. And sorry, there will be a 

6 
 brief pause here while I try to get back on 

7 
 where I'm supposed to be. I inadvertently 

8 
 took myself off, or I guess I was taken off. 

9 
 All right. I'm almost back to where I need to 

10 be. 

11 
 All right, if we're fine on 17 -- I 

12 
 mean on 12, we'll go onto PER-14, status of 

13 
 the DR approval for audit. NIOSH was going to 

14 
 do that for us, right? They were going to put 

15 together what we needed. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we I think 

17 
 went ahead and made the selections, the 

18 
 recommended selections because I think that's 

19 
 what we were told to do. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you were. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We identified 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 case numbers and put them on the K drive where 103

2 
 Steve should be able to see them. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. There 

5 
 are two spreadsheets, one for PER-14 and one 

6 
 for 17 which do have the -- a listing of the 

7 
 cases by the criteria that we had specified. 

8 
 So the only thing left to do now is to 

9 
 actually put the cases together. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: So John, what's your 

11 schedule for that? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: At this point we're 

13 
 just waiting for the actual case files to be 

14 posted. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, you would 

16 like the case files to be posted? Okay. 

17 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: And then just, John, 

20 
 just in terms of presuming that that gets done 

21 
 more or less immediately what -- is 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 something that would be ready within 3 months? 104

2 
 MR. STIVER: In the next 3 months 

3 
 or 2 months? 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: We could certainly get 

6 
 one of them done and maybe possibly two, 

7 
 possibly both. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: So you mean PER-14? 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, PER-14, I think 

10 we could definitely have that. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: And possibly be well 

13 on our way on 17. 

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Thanks. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: We'll have you on the 

16 agenda for 14 for sure. 

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: And now, is there 

19 
 anything in addition for PER-17 that we 

20 haven't already mentioned? 

21 
 MR. STIVER: I think we're in 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 same position for 14 and 17. We just needed 105 

2 
 to get the cases posted. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right, so it's 

5 
 NIOSH's action in both cases to post the 

6 
 files. And we will expect PER-14's report 

7 
 from SC&A next time. Questionable on 17, 

8 
 correct? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Right. And I'll check 

10 
 with SC&A closer to time to see whether that 

11 needs to be on the agenda or not. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Good, thank 

13 
 you. Next on our list is PER-20. SC&A was 

14 
 going to clarify the number of cases that were 

15 needed. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I'm 

17 
 going to take that one too. Remember the last 

18 
 time we were looking at the matrix that we had 

19 
 put together in May that listed the status of 

20 
 the PERs from the first set of 14. And on 

21 
 PER-20 we had -- evidently there were 59 --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 this is Blockson, and again there were 59 106

2 
 denied claims. 

3 
 And we had put in what was actually 

4 
 a placeholder, kind of a generic placeholder 

5 
 recommending three to five cases. And then 

6 
 Ted rightfully asked what was the technical 

7 
 basis for that. 

8 
 And so we went to do a little 

9 
 backtracking. In this case, this PER was 

10 
 produced by Hans over 3 years ago. And I 

11 
 talked to Hans and to John Mauro. I said, 

12 
 well, what is the basis of this three to five? 

13 
 And it turns out it's kind of a generic 

14 
 placeholder for a situation where you had the 

15 simplest of case selections. 

16 
 I talked to Hans some more about 

17 
 that and actually, I believe he's on the line 

18 
 now. 

19 
 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I am. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: You could maybe 

21 
 explain. There's a little more to 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 particular PER-20 than we initially thought. 107

2 
 And there may actually be a requirement for 

3 
 more cases due to the number of permutations 

4 
 for dose reconstruction pathways. 

5 
 So, Hans, if you could just explain 

6 
 where we stand on that particular issue. 

7 
 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Let me go back 

8 
 to the time that I actually submitted my 

9 
 review of PER-20. And that, again, as you 

10 
 mentioned was back in March of 2009. And at 

11 
 the time in my final sub-task 5 that's 

12 
 discussed in Section 6.0 of my report, I by 

13 and large stated the following. 

14 
 The universe of dose reconstruction 

15 
 from which the Advisory Board may select the 

16 
 subject for audit under task 5 is currently 

17 
 defined by the 59 Blockson claims that turned 

18 out to be with PoCs less than 50 percent. 

19 
 However, given these three 

20 
 unresolved issues under sub-task 3 in this 

21 
 review and again I will just briefly identify 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 those. That is the solubility class type S 108 

2 
 for uranium-3 oxidate and the S sub-1 value 

3 
 for the uranium were two issues that I'm not 

4 
 sure have been resolved. I believe the radon 

5 
 issue has been resolved, so there were still 

6 
 two outstanding issues that prevented us from 

7 
 making a recommendation about any kind of 

8 
 cases that we should be auditing in behalf of 

9 
 PER-20 until those two issues were resolved. 

10 That's number one. 

11 
 The other thing is the 59 cases 

12 
 that turned out to be after dose 

13 
 reconstruction still with PoCs less than 50 

14 
 percent. To what extent they were affected by 

15 
 the SEC petition that was granted to Blockson 

16 
 is another question. And again I'm going to 

17 
 ask NIOSH to comment. Since the SEC was 

18 
 granted back in September of 2010, the 59 

19 
 cases that we're talking about here which 

20 
 represent the universe of DRs that we might 

21 
 want to look at for auditing, how many 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 those 59 cases were affected by the SEC 109 

2 
 petition which makes this a moot number of 

3 
 cases that we should even be looking at. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can tell 

5 
 you that I don't have a count. The effect of 

6 
 the SEC would be to remove the radon dose from 

7 
 any of those cases. Now, that would only be 

8 
 relevant to respiratory tract cancer. 

9 
 So, if you felt like that change to 

10 
 those cases would obviate their review under 

11 
 this PER, then if you would just avoid 

12 
 choosing respiratory tract cancers, that 

13 
 effect will go away. Because that's the only 

14 thing to change. 

15 
 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Again, to 

16 
 reiterate what John Stiver already said, our 

17 
 recommendation, subsequent recommendation is 

18 
 that initially I said until these two issues 

19 
 are resolved regarding the solubility class 

20 
 and the S sub-1 value for the ingestion 

21 
 pathway are resolved we may want to postpone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 any decision about identifying the number of 110

2 
 audits that might be needed. 

3 
 We did in fact put in a placeholder 

4 
 for three to five, which really had no 

5 
 scientific basis other than to say this is 

6 
 perhaps a reasonable number that we might want 

7 
 to look at. But in looking at the actual PER8 
 20 there were a host of issues that were 

9 
 revised in the final revision which were the 

10 Site Profile for Blockson. 

11 
 And they include obviously 

12 
 inclusion of non-uranium activities in 

13 
 Building 40 for non-uranium workers. Number 

14 
 2, revision intakes for uranium extraction, 

15 
 Building 55, that affected the 

16 
 inhalation/ingestion estimates. Number 3, the 

17 
 revision to radon exposure estimates for 

18 
 Building 40 and 1255 and also changes 

19 
 associated with external exposures. And 

20 
 lastly, revisions to doses from residual 

21 contamination. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Now, on this we have some 111 

2 
 understanding of which of the 59 cases were 

3 
 affected by these variables. We really have a 

4 
 tough time. We would like to obviously audit 

5 
 every one of these potential variables that 

6 
 were introduced in the revised TBD for 

7 
 Blockson. And unless we have some 

8 
 understanding of how these 59 cases were 

9 
 affected by these variables it would be 

10 difficult for us to make a decision. 

11 
 For instance, if an exposure to a 

12 
 worker was confined to the residual 

13 
 contamination we would obviously have only one 

14 
 variable here. On the other hand, if a person 

15 
 was assigned also to Building 40 that may have 

16 
 not been incorporated among the initial dose 

17 
 reconstruction. Again, we would have a 

18 
 problem with identifying which of the 59 cases 

19 
 would really cover all of the variables that 

20 
 were affected by the revised Site Profile for 

21 Blockson. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And I guess we would have to ask 112

2 
 NIOSH for help in identifying certain cases 

3 
 that would at least cover -- among the cases 

4 
 that we will be auditing, we would like to 

5 
 cover all of the variables that were subject 

6 
 to change in the Site Profile. 

7 
 There may be individuals that were 

8 
 there from day one and were exposed at 

9 
 Building 40, at Building 55 and even in the 

10 
 post-operational period so that one particular 

11 
 case could cover all of the variables. But we 

12 
 don't know that up front without knowing how 

13 
 those 59 cases really fall into place with 

14 
 regard to the changes that we introduced in 

15 the Site Profile. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu. 

17 
 There was not an ability to place people in 

18 
 40 or 55 and so the dose reconstruction 

19 
 technique either, I think it does both and 

20 
 uses whichever is more favorable to the 

21 
 particular case because the radionuclides 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 40 were different from just uranium. 113 

2 
 So, it would seem to me that if you 

3 
 would select cases just based on their period 

4 
 of employment during the covered period and in 

5 
 addition include some that had employment 

6 
 during the residual period. And you could 

7 
 have some that span both. It could be the 

8 
 same case that cover all those. But I think 

9 
 you would cover all the variables by doing 

10 that. 

11 
 I can refresh my memory. If you 

12 
 would like us we can select these. And so I 

13 
 think the only possible situations you're 

14 
 going to have are if you would want to 

15 
 basically -- if I can recall the things you 

16 
 mentioned. There was the non-uranium intakes 

17 
 in Building 40, the change to the uranium 

18 
 intakes in Building 55, there's an external 

19 dose change apparently. 

20 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And a change in how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the residual is done. And then there was the 114 

2 
 radon issue which would go away. And the 

3 
 radon issue would be a complication because 

4 
 those radon doses are going to go away in the 

5 
 final dose reconstruction because of the SEC. 

6 
 And so we can just avoid respiratory tract 

7 
 cancers. And so we can eliminate the 

8 
 complication of the radon question. 

9 
 So, if we avoid respiratory tract 

10 
 cancers I can go and check and see how that 

11 
 actual selection was made between Building 40 

12 
 and Building 55. Because it's probably going 

13 
 to be by cancer type. And then pick some, how 

14 many do you want from each Class. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: As long as you cover all 

16 
 the factors, I think you're good with however 

17 many cases you select. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We could 

19 conceivably cover it with one or maybe two. 

20 MR. KATZ: Or two, whatever. 

21 
 DR. BEHLING: And that's exactly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 right. If we could cover with a fewer number 115 

2 
 of DRs all of the issues that were changed I 

3 
 think we would probably, from an experience 

4 
 point of view, settle for a lower number. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: That sounds good. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: What's the specific 

7 
 action and who has it? 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, it's our 

9 
 action. We will go check out the actual --

10 
 how the choice was made between the non11 
 uranium intakes in Building 40 and the uranium 

12 
 intake in Building 55. Once we've decided on 

13 
 how to apportion those, make sure we get those 

14 
 two effects, we'll include a case that has 

15 
 residual employment, maybe one of those 

16 
 anyway. And they'll all be affected by the 

17 
 external dose number so that won't matter. So 

18 
 it sounds to me like it might only be two 

19 
 cases. 

20 And we will identify, and if you 

21 
 would like we will pick a couple of cases 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 say here are two cases. This one fits these 116 

2 
 criteria, this one fits these criteria. Just 

3 
 to make sure. And we will say which of the 

4 
 four relevant items are covered by each one. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: That would seem to be 

6 
 expeditious. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And we'll provide 

8 
 those. And we can put them up here. And this 

9 
 time we'll remember to put the case files up 

10 at the same time. 

11 MR. KATZ: Right, that's great. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: If you would do so. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: That's great. Just copy 

14 the Work Group so they know. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The reason we don't 

16 
 think about it all the time is the entire case 

17 
 file is available to everybody on NOCTS. But 

18 
 it is more convenient apparently to work with 

19 
 the case file by itself on the disk so we'll 

20 do that. 

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: And then SC&A can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 just start work on their own. 117 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. They can 

3 
 get going as soon as you have it. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, great. As soon 

5 
 as they're posted, we can get started then. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Super. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. And then 

8 
 we'll have it on our list of outstanding 

9 
 items. If you're ready to report on it you'll 

10 let us know, right? 

11 MR. KATZ: Right. 

12 MR. STIVER: We will. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: So that's true for 

15 
 14, 17 and 20 now. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: That's only 20. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's just 20. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: You're not picking 

19 them, you're just going to --

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to put 

21 the case files on for 14 and 17. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Sort of just the next 118

2 
 in queue. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Our next 

4 
 item is the status report on the seven newly 

5 
 authorized reviews. SC&A. Have we gotten 

6 
 anywhere with those? 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we have made 

8 
 some progress on those. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The first thing is 

11 
 we had -- I think there was eight that were 

12 
 authorized. I initially thought there were 

13 
 seven but I think when I went back and looked 

14 at the transcript I think there were eight. 

15 
 But we had four of them which were 

16 
 actually pre-reviews. TIB-5, 531, 561 and 

17 
 OTIB-20. At first we sent back to the 

18 
 original authors OTIB-20. It was slipping 

19 
 through the cracks until the end, and so I 

20 looked at that myself. 

21 
 But they did a -- because these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 were previously reviewed, we asked to do a 119

2 
 pre-review to see whether or not there was any 

3 
 substantial technical changes. That was the 

4 
 request for the Subcommittee at the last 

5 
 meeting. So we just don't go off and just 

6 
 start re-reviewing, a full-blown re-review on 

7 
 something that really doesn't need it. 

8 
 And the end result is that these 

9 
 revisions, these are documents that had been 

10 
 revised two or more times since SC&A had done 

11 
 the original review. And the current version 

12 
 of these documents did not warrant a full13 
 blown re-review. And so what we've done is 

14 
 we've put together a report documenting that 

15 
 fact. And it's going through the SC&A review 

16 
 process at this time. And we will get that to 

17 the Committee or to the Board shortly. 

18 
 John Stiver, do you have any 

19 schedule for that? 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Excuse me, Hans. I 

21 didn't quite catch that 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: John, the re-review 120 

2 
 report that I put together, do you have a 

3 
 schedule for when that can be provided to the 

4 
 Board? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: I wouldn't see any 

6 
 reason why we couldn't provide that at the 

7 
 next meeting. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: And then just to be 

9 
 clear, that is a review of --

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That is a pre11 
 review. That's the end. For these four 

12 
 documents, that's the end of SC&A's review of 

13 these. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So that's 

15 
 updating the review that you already have done 

16 on this. 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It's updating the 

18 
 review and taking a fresh look at these 

19 
 documents to see what changes have been made 

20 since the --

21 MR. KATZ: And comment on 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And what we've 121 

2 
 done is we've looked at the comments that were 

3 
 made on the previous versions for -- in most 

4 
 cases, they already had been closed by the 

5 
 Board or the Subcommittee. 

6 
 In one case, I think it was PROC-61 

7 
 there was one that was still outstanding and 

8 
 we are making a recommendation in this report 

9 
 that that one outstanding one be closed. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Can you just name 

11 them again? 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this the draft 

13 report? 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this is a draft 

15 table of contents which I put up. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: 0005. 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: PROC-31, PROC-61 and 

18 
 OTIB-20. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Hold on one second. 

20 
 Leave that up there if you could, 31, 61, TIB21 
 20. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: Now John, when you say 122 

2 
 that those are going to be ready for the next 

3 
 meeting, do you mean for the next Board 

4 
 meeting or for the next Subcommittee meeting? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Certainly by the next 

6 
 Subcommittee meeting. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: I'm not sure that when 

9 
 that would be ready. The Board meeting is, 

10 what, the first week in December? 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, second week I 

12 guess. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: That might be pushing 

14 it. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: We could make 

17 
 arrangements to discuss it at the Board 

18 meeting. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: No, no, I mean these are 

20 for the Subcommittee anyway. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 by the next Subcommittee meeting. 123 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I would prefer 

3 
 the Subcommittee. I just wanted to make sure. 

4 
 When you said the next meeting, I didn't know 

5 
 whose next meeting. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: That's what was 

7 
 implied, the next Subcommittee meeting. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The other activity 

10 
 that was authorized was to review four 

11 
 previously unreviewed documents starting with 

12 
 PROC-44 which is for SECs. We have that 

13 
 scheduled for 4 o'clock this afternoon so I 

14 
 guess we can basically postpone any discussion 

15 on that until then. 

16 
 The thing is it's been -- that 

17 
 review has been completed, a report has been 

18 
 issued and findings have been made and entered 

19 
 into the BRS. And I guess we'll talk about 

20 that at 4 o'clock this afternoon. 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: We also are looking 124 

2 
 at Report 53. And Report 53 has to do with 

3 
 dividing the sample into multiple strata, two 

4 
 strata actually. And we've started looking 

5 
 at. 

6 
 Harry Chmelynski. Sorry, Harry, I 

7 
 probably butchered your name. But he did the 

8 
 review on it and he has made a draft report. 

9 
 And again it's in the process. I looked at 

10 
 it, made some comments on it. Arjun has 

11 looked at it, he made some comments on it. 

12 
 This report, by the way, is also of 

13 interest to the Savannah River Working Group. 

14 
 And we've asked Kathy -- actually 

15 
 one of the things that they were looking at in 

16 
 this report is to use what they call the one 

17 
 person, one sample approach where they take 

18 
 all the samples that occurred to one 

19 
 individual over a time period and collapse 

20 them down into one equivalent sample. 

21 
 And so what we wanted to do is 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 wanted to make some IMBA, I-M-B-A, IMBA runs 125

2 
 to see, you know, compare the two approaches 

3 
 and see what the differences were. And so 

4 
 Kathy Behling is working on that for us. And 

5 
 so that's one of the things that we still have 

6 
 outstanding on this. 

7 
 We're also working on finalizing 

8 
 the list of findings and things like that. 

9 
 But again this is something which, you know, 

10 
 the report for the most part, the review for 

11 
 the most part has been done and the report is 

12 
 in the preparation stage. There's a little 

13 
 bit more analysis which we're working on but 

14 we're making good progress. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: So that should be ready 

16 for the next Subcommittee, probably. 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Probably, depending. 

18 
 In 4 months hopefully or 3 months that'll be 

19 ready, yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, good. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Steve? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 126 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: I don't have that up 

3 
 but the one person, one sample concept is a 

4 
 new one to me. This is -- what's the 

5 
 background on that? 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I can 

7 
 speak to that a little bit. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, thank you, Stu. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I can. And 

10 
 I think it's actually a person year, I mean a 

11 
 person's samples for a year represent that 

12 year. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: One year. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's a one 

15 
 data point in a coworker. I think we've done 

16 
 coworker models both ways, to be honest, some 

17 
 of this way, some of them without this one 

18 person, one sample, treating each sample. 

19 
 The reason that I think and there 

20 
 are probably -- there's some people on the 

21 
 phone listening from ORAU probably who 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 smarter than I who might be able to explain 127

2 
 this better. So if I get it wrong, guys, you 

3 
 can go ahead and correct me. I won't be hurt. 

4 
 My feelings won't be hurt. 

5 
 I think the issue here is that the 

6 
 purpose of the coworker is to describe the 

7 
 range of exposure experiences of the 

8 
 population, of the monitored population. And 

9 
 so when you have a highly exposed person, a 

10 
 particularly highly exposed person, chances 

11 
 are that person is over-sampled compared to 

12 
 the rest of the population because there will 

13 
 be follow-up samples, et cetera, et cetera. 

14 
 And so you are over-weighting that person's 

15 
 experience in terms of characterizing the 

16 exposure to the exposed population. 

17 
 And so that's why this -- and I 

18 
 don't do this. People explain these things to 

19 
 me. I don't do these things. That's why this 

20 
 one person, one sample phraseology was used in 

21 
 order to better characterize person's exposure 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 experiences and people's exposure experiences 128

2 
 rather than weighting it toward the more 

3 
 heavily sampled and probably more heavily 

4 
 exposed people. I believe that's how it was 

5 
 done. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It would change the 

8 
 distribution. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Nominally probably. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it would 

12 
 change the distribution of doses because you 

13 
 drop out some of the high-end stuff. So no 

14 
 one has yet jumped in to correct me, so maybe 

15 I got it right. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And you guys are 

17 
 going to do some runs to see how that 

18 
 distribution actually changes if you use the 

19 full set versus the one? 

20 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Not that actually --

21 
 not that distribution. Really on a -- well, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 person-by-person approach. If you take a 129 

2 
 claimant, for example, and you analyzed his 

3 
 intake over a year using all the sample data, 

4 
 IMBA's going to give you a distribution that 

5 
 fluctuates up and down over time. And we have 

6 
 IMBA runs for actual claimants that are done 

7 
 that way. So we know what they look like. 

8 
 Now, if we take those actual sample 

9 
 data and class it into one sample for that 

10 
 person over that exposure period, what would 

11 be the difference in that person's exposure? 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you're not 

13 comparing the committed doses. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Or the intake, which 

15 
 is a surrogate for the committed doses, yes. 

16 
 What we're trying to do is integrate under the 

17 
 curve. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds like 

19 
 recognizing that this person's exposure 

20 
 experience is what we're trying to 

21 
 characterize as opposed to the various 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 sampling distributions. 130 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Is using the 

4 
 approach we use, does that appropriately 

5 
 characterize the exposure experience based on 

6 
 the actual sampling data? 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The way I found to 

8 
 look at this one person, one sample approach 

9 
 it's really, instead of creating the 

10 
 distribution of samples what you're really 

11 
 doing is creating a distribution of exposures. 

12 
 And you're sampling from that distribution of 

13 
 exposures and you're using the one person, one 

14 sample as a surrogate for those exposures. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems logical. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It seems reasonable, 

18 
 we're just doing a little final check on it 

19 
 and you know, poking around, poking it with a 

20 stick a little bit. 

21 MR. KATZ: Good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now, is Report No. 131 

2 
 0053, you have already reviewed that? Or is 

3 
 that? 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the one 

5 
 we're in the process of reviewing. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're reviewing it 

7 
 now. 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the one that 

9 
 has the one person, one sample. 

10 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we don't have it 

11 in our system. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

13 MR. KATZ: It's not delivered yet. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If you want our 

15 Report No. 53 we can --

16 MR. KATZ: That's available. 

17 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no, I'm talking 

18 about their review. 

19 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Our review, we're 

20 
 still working on the review. We're 

21 
 finalizing, doing some additional analysis 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 finalizing the list of findings and things 132

2 
 like that. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: This is the second of 

4 
 the four new ones. 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. We're taking 

6 
 these more or less in order of where they are. 

7 
 And the next one is OTIB-55. If I can pull 

8 
 it up here. It has to do with the neutron 

9 
 weighting factors, a methodology for adjusting 

10 
 from the NCRP 38 factors to the ICRP 60 

11 factors. 

12 
 And I've been, again, this is 

13 
 something that I've been involved in doing 

14 
 this review myself. And I'm still in the 

15 
 process of doing the review. We do not have a 

16 draft report at this time. 

17 
 One of the things I did notice is 

18 
 that ICRP 60 is no longer the latest 

19 
 recommendation on weighting factors. ICRP 103 

20 
 has come out with different weighting factors. 

21 
 So that will be one finding. I don't know 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what NIOSH -- the use of ICRP 60 I did happen 133

2 
 to notice is in, I think it's specified in 42 

3 
 CFR 82 in a footnote. So I don't know if that 

4 
 would have any effect on what they want to do 

5 
 with it but it's no longer -- 60 is no longer 

6 
 the ICRP-recommended weighting factors. So 

7 
 that's a little preview of what one of the 

8 
 findings would be. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It was when we 

10 wrote that. 

11 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It was when you 

12 wrote that. 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Is there an 

15 
 appreciable difference in the weighting 

16 factor? 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: They went down. 

18 
 Actually they went down so that would be 

19 
 another argument for not making any changes. 

20 
 For the most part they're either the same or 

21 
 they're lower so 60 would be claimantNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 favorable. 134 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Well, that's not an 

3 
 argument for not making the change at all 

4 
 because they're supposed to try to stay as 

5 
 they can, current with science. If science 

6 
 sends you down, you go down. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Jim and I have 

8 
 talked about ICRP-103 very briefly and we 

9 
 looked at each other and said well, let's 

10 
 think about that later. That's how far we've 

11 
 gone. So we've not started any real serious 

12 discussion of incorporating 103. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. But just to answer 

14 
 your question, Steve, even if it's in a 

15 
 footnote the regulation very clearly specifies 

16 
 that they have the latitude to update as ICRP 

17 updates its science. 

18 
 MS. LIN: It also depends on where 

19 
 the footnote is, whether it's in the preamble 

20 or actually in the regulatory provisions. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: But it's the best 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 possible science which theoretically is the 135

2 
 most recent. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The most recent 

4 
 recommendations of the ICRP and I forget how 

5 
 we used that term or where we used that term. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: I say theoretically. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Jim's ready to jump 

8 
 off a bridge because we used that term. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: I can understand that 

10 
 too. So that's OTIB-55. Anything else on 

11 OTIB-55 or is the ICRP change the biggie? 

12 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the big one. 

13 
 There's a -- the document gives some guidance 

14 
 as to when to -- what neutron energy to select 

15 
 when no neutron energy is specified. You have 

16 
 a neutron dose specified but you don't have 

17 any energy associated with it in the records. 

18 
 The OTIB-55 gives some guidance on 

19 
 how to select the -- I think it says use a 

20 
 factor of 2, use the maximum weighting factor 

21 
 difference. And if you look in IG-1, there'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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a slightly different approach on how to select 136

2 
 neutron and how to apply neutron energies. 

3 
 And so again, we'll probably make 

4 
 that finding if it works this way through 

5 
 SC&A. That's one thing that I've picked up 

6 
 on. I haven't, you know, we haven't worked it 

7 
 through SC&A but that's you know, again, a 

8 
 preview. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: So it sounds like 

10 
 timing-wise that too may be ready for the next 

11 Subcommittee meeting. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I would hope so. 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: So probably at least 

15 
 there'll be the three in a lump depending on 

16 
 what we get in the next one. Anything else on 

17 55? 

18 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it's not in 

19 
 the -- what they say is the equivalent dose 

20 
 will be calculated using current and then it 

21 
 goes down the current weighting factors in 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 footnote. So that fact happens to catch my 137 

2 
 eye. What its meaning is I don't know. It's 

3 
 not my --

4 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, but that's my point 

5 
 anyway. That's how we set up the rule so that 

6 
 they could make their discussion but they can 

7 
 update as ICRP gets updated. I read the 

8 
 report, it makes sense. It's repeated there 

9 
 in that footnote. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The last one that we 

11 
 were asked to look at, and this one is the 

12 
 least developed at this point from the point 

13 
 of view of SC&A's review, is OTIB-79, which is 

14 
 the guidance for assigning occupational X-ray 

15 doses for offsite-administered X-rays. 

16 
 And so again, Harry Pettengill has 

17 
 looked at this and I don't think he has any 

18 
 major findings with it. We haven't started 

19 
 pulling together the report at this point in 

20 
 time so I'm not sure exactly where we're going 

21 
 to go with this. But this is the 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 developed of the four new ones for review. 138 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: So we don't know what 

3 
 we're going to have on that next time. It may 

4 
 be just another status report. 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Or it may be the final 

7 
 comment. So those are the eight. You're 

8 
 right, there are eight. I don't think we were 

9 
 counting --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: The one I missed, 

11 
 Wanda, was OTIB-20. That was the one that I 

12 
 kind of missed. And then I went back and 

13 
 looked at the transcript and I thought it was 

14 
 indicated in the transcript. And so that's 

15 
 also kind of the reason why I did not -- Hans 

16 
 I think was the original reviewer on that and 

17 
 that one did not get back to Hans for review. 

18 
 I did look at his original comments. I did 

19 
 look at -- they were all closed originally and 

20 
 that the changes on OTIB-20 were basically in 

21 
 response to comments made in OTIB-52. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 again, that's why I felt comfortable saying 139

2 
 that there was no re-review required on that. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Anything else 

4 
 on those eight? If not, then we can do one of 

5 
 two things. Either we can move onto our 

6 
 after-lunch agenda or we can continue in this 

7 
 general pattern and address PROC-44. That 

8 
 would be my choice right now, since we're 

9 
 thinking in these terms. Does anyone have any 

10 
 objection to that? If not then Steve, why 

11 don't you continue with PROC-44. 

12 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I need Stu's smart 

13 card. Is John Mauro on the phone? 

14 
 MR. KATZ: People were trying to 

15 
 call in maybe. Or maybe he was running out of 

16 battery. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe he's running 

18 out of battery. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: I didn't think about 

20 that. He has no juice. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: He has no way 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 charge it. 140 

2 
 MR. KATZ: John Mauro, are you 

3 
 still on the line? 

4 
 MS. LIN: You can charge it in your 

5 
 car. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: He may have been 

7 
 planning to call in this afternoon. That's 

8 
 likely. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know. John 

10 
 Stiver? Do you have any idea what's going on? 

11 
 MR. KATZ: I think John is trying 

12 to get ahold of him. 

13 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Because John Mauro 

14 did the review on PROC-44. That's why. 

15 
 I can give you a summary. SC&A has 

16 
 done the review on it. We have prepared a 

17 
 report and that report was issued. Nancy sent 

18 
 it over to the Board. So it's been issued. 

19 
 There were 10 findings that have been 

20 
 identified in there. I just yesterday or, 

21 
 yes, yesterday morning, I guess, I entered 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 these in before I left the house. And so 141 

2 
 there are 10 findings that have been entered 

3 
 in here. And then there --

4 
 MR. STIVER: This is John. I tried 

5 
 to get ahold of Mauro. He may have run out of 

6 
 batteries at this point. I don't know. I 

7 
 left a message and hopefully he'll be able to 

8 
 call in. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Do you think he was 

10 
 planning to call in this afternoon when it's 

11 on the agenda? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: I would assume that he 

13 
 was, because we had talked about this earlier. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Since this is ready for 

15 
 Subcommittee discussion, Wanda, why don't we 

16 just shelve this until the appointed time? 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: We'll be glad to do 

18 
 that. Since we can't get ahold of John and I 

19 
 sense that Steve would just as soon John 

20 covered it. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm unprepared. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have not reviewed the report. I'm unprepared 142 

2 
 to really lead a discussion on this. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Understand. All 

4 
 right. We'll postpone and try to pick this up 

5 
 at 4 o'clock when hopefully John will have a 

6 
 battery somewhere around the house. We'll 

7 
 keep our fingers crossed. 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The alternative, 

9 
 John Stiver, is Steve Ostrow was also involved 

10 
 in preparation of this report. I don't know 

11 
 how -- I think John Mauro had to leave, but I 

12 know that Steve Ostrow worked with him. 

13 MR. KATZ: Steve has power. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And Steve has power. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: He's far enough from 

16 New York to have power. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: I traded emails with him 

18 yesterday. He's got power. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: I talked to him 

20 
 yesterday to see if he did have power. Yes, 

21 they were 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: So he may be a 143 

2 
 backup for John Mauro. 

3 
 MR. STIVER: I'll ask him. I'll 

4 
 get ahold of him and see if he can stand in. 

5 
 Because I have a suspicion that Mauro ran out 

6 
 of batteries. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: That makes sense. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: They don't have any 

9 
 little charging stations set up in his neck of 

10 the woods, I don't think. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, since that's the 

12 
 case, let's go ahead and discontinue our 

13 
 discussion of PROC-44 and take it up -- why 

14 
 don't you take it up at about 4 o'clock this 

15 afternoon with one person or the other? 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, question on 

17 that. Has NIOSH had a chance to look at this? 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't seen the 

19 
 report yet. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what would we 

21 do, just look at the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 144 

2 
 MR. KATZ: They have the report, 

3 
 they just haven't reviewed it yet. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We'll just go 

5 
 through the findings. So we'll know what 

6 
 NIOSH is looking at. All right, very good. 

7 
 Any clarification that's necessary from the 

8 
 findings that Steve has posted for our benefit 

9 
 so that NIOSH won't have to do that when they 

10 give their report. Okay. 

11 
 That being the case, let's go ahead 

12 
 and break for lunch now, and be back in an 

13 
 hour which by my watch would put us at about 

14 12:40, right? We'll reconvene at 12:40. 

15 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 
 matter went off the record at 11:35 a.m. and 

17 resumed at 12:40 p.m.) 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's make sure John 

19 
 Stiver is on. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: Hi, this is Ted Katz 

21 
 with the Advisory Board, Subcommittee on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Procedures Review. Let me just check on the 145 

2 
 line. John Stiver, do we have you on? 

3 
 MR. STIVER: I'm here. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: And Dick Lemen? He 

5 
 wasn't expecting to be ready quite when we 

6 
 started I think. Okay, do we need to check on 

7 
 anyone else before we go on? 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that's the 

9 
 key person. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

12 MR. KATZ: Wanda. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take up where we 

14 
 left off. Our post-lunch agenda begins with 

15 
 continuing selection of the PER reviews. We 

16 
 were going to begin with PER-26 I think. We 

17 
 had to break that off in our last meeting. We 

18 
 ran out of time. And I'm not sure who's 

19 leading off on this. Is that you, John? 

20 
 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I'll 

21 
 take this one. I had sent out -- actually Ted 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 had sent you guys a new table. It starts with 146 

2 
 PER-26 instead of following onto the old one. 

3 
 It added some new information clarifying for 

4 
 some of them when SECs might impact the 

5 
 previously determined number of affected 

6 
 cases. 

7 
 So that particular file I assume 

8 
 everybody has. It's called prospective SC&A 

9 
 PER reviews, 12/11/01 PER SC meeting, 121029B. 

10 
 Everybody can open that up and go ahead and 

11 get started. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think folks are 

13 
 working on opening it up as we speak. And 

14 
 it's up on the screen too for people in the 

15 
 room. 

16 MR. STIVER: Okay, just let me know 

17 when everybody's ready, I can get started. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: I think we're ready, 

19 John. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. Okay, PER-26, 

21 
 this is a Pantex TBD revision. This is 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 occupational medical dose TBD. This was 147 

2 
 modified in February 2007. And this --

3 
 increases doses associated with certain chest 

4 
 X-rays. 

5 
 This is one that has been impacted 

6 
 by an SEC, the PER that was issued in October 

7 
 2007. An SEC Class was added in January of 

8 
 2012 which covers the period of 1958 through 

9 
 1983. And it so happens that the revision to 

10 
 the TBD affects assigned X-ray doses during 

11 
 the period 1967 to 1971, and then also another 

12 Class of organs between 1995 and 2004. 

13 
 There were initially 50 cases that 

14 
 were reevaluated. And we had in our last 

15 
 meeting had deferred some of these pending a 

16 
 reevaluation of the number of cases that might 

17 be affected given the SEC determination. 

18 
 Prior to looking at the SEC's 

19 
 impact we had recommended that this would 

20 
 possibly benefit from a review but after 

21 
 comparing it to the SEC this may be one 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the Subcommittee might want to defer until 148

2 
 after that determination. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

4 
 reactions one way or the other? Any strong 

5 
 feelings? 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Well, I have just one 

7 
 comment to make related to not so much related 

8 
 to SEC, but I think this is listed as medium 

9 
 in terms of complexity. But that was sort of 

10 
 the key issue when we did these, this taxonomy 

11 
 of complexity and so on, one of the thoughts 

12 
 for doing that is that some PERs aren't really 

13 
 worth going and looking at the implementation 

14 
 because it's really -- it's not like there's 

15 great doings in implementing it. 

16 
 And so my question just maybe for 

17 
 John's thoughts is whether there's really 

18 
 enough -- is this a case where there's enough 

19 
 complexity in the implementation that you 

20 really need to go and check the cases. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Well, this particular 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 case it is somewhat complex in that you have - 149

2 
 - within the period of `67 to `71 there are 

3 
 increases in some organs, thyroid, testes, and 

4 
 uterus for chest examinations. And then also 

5 
 ovaries, another set of organs occurred in the 

6 
 time frame. And also in the later time frame. 

7 
 So you know, implementing it might involve 

8 
 having to look at a few cases to see whether 

9 
 those subsets of doses were correctly 

10 adjusted. 

11 
 I think in this case there would be 

12 
 some merit. My only concern was in whether, 

13 
 you know, given the SEC whether we need to go 

14 
 back and reevaluate the number of cases. I 

15 
 mean that's something that there was only 50 

16 
 of them. It might not be that difficult to 

17 
 determine which ones were impacted. It may 

18 
 turn out that given that both of these changes 

19 
 take place during the SEC period you may be 

20 
 just looking at just a handful of cases at 

21 
 this point. Given that I would recommending 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 deferring it. 150 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: I think that would be 

3 
 my recommendation as well, especially based on 

4 
 the source of the exposure itself. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: We're not looking at 

6 
 very large doses. Especially over a period of 

7 
 just a few years. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's defer that one. 

9 
 Unless someone has very strong feelings about 

10 
 it let's defer. It can always be taken up at 

11 
 some other time if we feel that's necessary. 

12 Go ahead, John. PER-36. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, the next one is 

14 
 kind of a follow-on to our discussion about 

15 
 Blockson this morning. This is a situation 

16 
 where there was a change that resulted in the 

17 
 PER and then a few years later in response to 

18 
 the SEC and another revision of the TBD there 

19 
 was another PER issued. 

20 
 This one, let's see, this PER was 

21 
 fairly recent, in April 2012. Rev 3 of 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Blockson TBD was issued in December of 2010, 151

2 
 and the previous version, as we know, was 

3 
 issued back in February of 2007. 

4 
 Now this PER is kind of interesting 

5 
 because it considers changes that resulted in 

6 
 an increase of dose between Rev 2 and Rev 3, 

7 
 and that is an increase in the radon exposure 

8 
 from `63 to the end of the residual 

9 
 contamination period and also particulate 

10 
 intakes during the residual period after 1977. 

11 
 The SEC was based on the inability 

12 
 to reconstruct radon for the period 1951 to 

13 
 1960. So what we're looking at is the post14 
 SEC period and a change in the TBD that has 

15 
 resulted in the change of the radon exposure 

16 
 during that period. So it's kind of a crazy 

17 
 system here in some ways in that radon is 

18 
 reconstructable evidently in this post-SEC 

19 environment in the residual period. 

20 
 There were very few cases affected 

21 
 by this as you can see. Four were initially 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 identified for radon exposure after 1963 and 152

2 
 only one required reevaluation. Thirty-two 

3 
 are identified in that post-1977 environment. 

4 
 None of those required reevaluation. 

5 
 Nonetheless, given this kind of 

6 
 complex juxtaposition in the two PERs relative 

7 
 to the SEC, the implications for dose 

8 
 reconstruction, we felt that it might benefit 

9 
 from a review. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thoughts, comment? 

11 MR. STIVER: Any comments on that? 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: I have only one 

13 
 thought, and it's not very complex. And that 

14 
 is since we're -- even though it's of low 

15 
 selection criteria since we seem determined to 

16 
 make a Caesar's wife case out of Blockson. It 

17 
 might as well be considered for review. 

18 Anyone else? 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: When did the 

20 residual period start on this one? 

21 
 MR. STIVER: The SEC -- June 30 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 1960. 153 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we're talking 

3 
 about radon only in the residual period? 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. During the 

5 
 operational period basis for the SEC. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Low to negligible 

7 
 doses, low to negligible exposures. Low 

8 
 numbers of people. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: You don't need to assign 

10 
 one if there's no value there to doing so. 

11 That's what the Subcommittee needs to decide. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: My real preference 

13 
 would be to go to some of the more highly 

14 rated. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: I would agree with 

16 that as well. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Larger groups. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: Leave this one open 

19 in case we decide to do it at the later date. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Deferred. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Go ahead and defer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that one then? 154 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do. Go on to 

3 
 PER-33. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Next on our list is 

5 
 PER-33. This is the Reduction Pilot Plant in 

6 
 Huntington, West Virginia. This was a plant 

7 
 that processed contaminated nickel scrap. 

8 
 Where have we seen that before? 

9 
 And revision to the TBD with 

10 
 Technical Basis Document 4. Let's see. Only 

11 
 one change reflected an increase in internal 

12 
 dose during the years `66 to `73, `78 and `79. 

13 
 Now, this was an estimate of the 

14 
 internal dose increased -- the intake 

15 
 basically went up by a factor of 10 from about 

16 
 4 picocuries today to 44 picocuries today. 

17 
 Basically it went from a geometric mean of a 

18 
 log normal distribution to an upper bound 

19 single bounding value. 

20 
 Again, there's a small number of 

21 
 cases but they would need to be evaluated on 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 case-by-case basis to assess the impact of 155

2 
 this increase. And we felt that this one is 

3 
 in the category that we thought would benefit 

4 
 from a review. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: We're talking 

6 
 statistical variation here primarily, right? 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Depending on how 

8 
 they're implemented, yes. A geometric mean 

9 
 versus a bounding value. But yes, based off 

10 of presumably the same distribution. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Comments? Thoughts? 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the 

13 
 Huntington Pilot Plant revision I think was 

14 prompted by a review in the DR Subcommittee. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: I think so. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It was the DR 

17 
 Subcommittee that was an Appendix to one of 

18 the groups of their review. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'm not certain 

20 of that, but I think you're right. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was this a coworker 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 model that used these numbers? These were 156
 

2 
 numbers for the operators. In other words, if 

3 
 someone was an operator they were assigned the 

4 
 3.83 and now it would be 44. Was that it was? 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Inhalation dose. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe there's a 

7 
 bifurcation in there depending upon job title 

8 
 of what the dose reconstruction is. I think. 

9 


10 
 MR. STIVER: That might explain the 

11 
 small number of cases in --

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't think 

13 
 we have a lot of claims from this site anyway. 

14 
 I'm not sure but I don't think there were a 

15 
 lot of claims from it. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: So again, maybe most 

17 
 of them were considered to be operators to 

18 
 begin with. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't know 

20 
 how that was done. I could even be wrong on 

21 
 that. I'm trying to remember the data 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 was used for this, and I just don't. So I 157 

2 
 don't know whether we had --

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it looks like 

4 
 a coworker model because they're giving 

5 
 numbers for operators. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean it's 

7 
 not a site where we have individual-specific 

8 
 exposure responses. We may have --

9 
 MR. STIVER: It was definitely 

10 based on a coworker model. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. So it is --

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it says that 

13 
 you need to review it on a case-by-case basis. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there was an 

15 
 error in the original -- I think it was in the 

16 
 Pilot Plant dose Site Profile that went the 

17 
 other way. I mean, there was a 

18 
 misinterpretation of a piece of data that 

19 
 really very much overestimated the intake for 

20 some period of time. 

21 
 And so I can't remember 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 specifics of the change, you know, what was 158

2 
 changed in the Site Profile and how it works, 

3 
 but the complicating factor is there was -- in 

4 
 addition to the change from geometric median 

5 
 to confidence level, 95% confidence level, on 

6 
 intake rate for certain people there was a 

7 
 counterbalancing change in the other 

8 
 direction. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right and it would 

10 
 also be different for different cancers. It 

11 
 looks to me like it might be worth looking at 

12 this. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with you. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Because there were 

15 
 several changes it's an interesting thing. 

16 
 Okay. You have PER-33 unless anyone objects. 

17 Any objection? You have it, John. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, good. The next 

19 
 one is PER-28. This is the Pinellas TBD 

20 
 revisions circa 2006. As some of you know the 

21 
 TBD was completely rewritten in 2011 and there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 are still issues that are currently being 159

2 
 discussed in the Work Group forum. Because of 

3 
 that we would recommend deferring review on 

4 
 this until after those issues are resolved in 

5 
 the Work Group. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Makes sense to me. 

7 
 Any objection to the defer? 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agreed. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, moving along, 

11 
 PER-23. This is Argonne National Laboratory12 
 West. This was again a TBD revision. It was 

13 
 revised in May 2005. The PER was released in 

14 
 September 2007. Then again there was another, 

15 
 the latest revision was produced in December 

16 
 2009. So again we have kind of a moving 

17 target. 

18 
 This is once again an occupational 

19 
 medical dose -- frequency of X-ray exams. 

20 
 Originally based on the employee's age 

21 
 according to the TIB-6. Went on to be changed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to using annual exams for all employees. This 160 

2 
 was for the period 1954 to 1974. 

3 
 And looking at the table that is in 

4 
 the attachment to the revised TBD the doses, 

5 
 the annual doses, as you might expect, are 

6 
 quite small. I believe the highest was 70 

7 
 millirads per year for skin. The others were 

8 
 significantly smaller than that. 

9 
 There were 22 cases potentially 

10 
 affected. The Probability of Causation less 

11 
 than 50 percent. We felt that because it was 

12 
 such a minimal impact on the Probability of 

13 
 Causation that this wouldn't be one we'd 

14 
 necessarily want to review right away. We 

15 
 might want to hold it in abeyance for some 

16 
 later date. So we recommend deferring this 

17 
 one. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: I would agree with 

19 that. Any objection? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, next we 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 PER-19. 161 

2 
 MR. STIVER: PER-19. This is the 

3 
 Savannah River Site. This is the effect of 

4 
 the additional neutron dose data. Back in the 

5 
 2007 time frame SRS notified NIOSH that not 

6 
 all the neutron dosimetry data were sent for 

7 
 several claims. There were 17 that were 

8 
 initially identified. Four of these required 

9 
 reevaluation. 

10 Now this is another one, let's see. 

11 
 We don't really know what the time frame is, 

12 
 at least I don't. NIOSH may have a better 

13 
 understanding of that for when these 

14 
 particular claims, these 21 claims were --

15 what time period we're looking at. 

16 
 But as you remember in February 

17 
 2012 an SEC Class was added from 1953 through 

18 
 1972. So there may be an impact there on the 

19 number of claims that were evaluated. 

20 
 Once again, while this could 

21 
 benefit from a review given the impact of 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 SEC cases the Subcommittee may want to defer 162

2 
 this one. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Am I hearing you 

4 
 correctly, John? You just said -- I could 

5 
 scarcely hear you toward the end. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, I'm sorry. I 

7 
 kind of faded out there. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Do I understand 

9 
 correctly that essentially there's only one 

10 claim that hasn't been reevaluated? 

11 
 MR. STIVER: There were 17 that 

12 
 were initially identified and of these 4 

13 needed to be reevaluated. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Right. And you did 

15 three. And there's one still outstanding? 

16 
 MR. STIVER: No, three haven't been 

17 
 done. This was just the initial scoping by 

18 DCAS of the universe of affected claims. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, I misunderstood 

20 what I was reading then. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's no real 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 change in methodology or approach here, it's 163

2 
 just we found some additional dose that needed 

3 
 to be assigned to several people, isn't that 

4 
 correct? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, it would be 

6 
 assessing whether the -- for those claims 

7 
 whether the doses were actually indeed 

8 
 assigned based on the new data that were 

9 
 available. But yes, no changes in 

10 methodology. 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I mean, it 

12 
 looks to me like that would be about $100 

13 worth of effort to do that. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: One analyst one 

15 afternoon could probably do that one. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I mean I 

17 
 don't object to it being done but I don't see 

18 
 $6,000 worth of work on this. You're just 

19 
 looking to see whether they actually went back 

20 and added in the new neutron stuff, right? 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that $6,000, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 again those values are like the absolute high- 164

2 
 sided estimate. This is just based on those 

3 
 three categories, low, medium, and high. I 

4 
 think this would be -- we really should say up 

5 
 to $6,000. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is almost like 

7 
 the cake we had for lunch should be gratis. 

8 
 (Laughter.) 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Inside joke here. 

10 Anyway, okay. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Quite a response 

12 there. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: I can see no reason 

14 
 why it shouldn't be done. It's fairly 

15 simplistic. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: If they can do it. 

17 I mean please don't spend $6,000 on it. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: I'm trying to understand 

19 
 again sort of rationale for where we select 

20 
 these. Because I thought the original 

21 
 thinking was, again, where you have a 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 in a dose reconstruction methodology and it's 165

2 
 completely straightforward, there's nothing 

3 
 controversial about the change. Sort of like 

4 
 before we were talking about we deferred it 

5 
 but I mean, even I don't know why we deferred 

6 
 it, medical doses, that we're going to do the 

7 
 medical doses. Those are cranked out in very 

8 
 well known machinery. There's no complexity. 

9 
 I don't understand why we would assign a 

10 
 review of the PER for doing that, period. I 

11 
 mean we deferred it, but I would say why would 

12 we even do it, ever. 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is sort of 

14 
 like that in my mind. If there's no 

15 
 methodology change that I understand. You 

16 
 just said oh, here's some -- here's a couple 

17 
 more neutron doses that should have been 

18 assigned. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Lori pulled up the 

20 
 PER and the reason that only 4 of the 17 were 

21 
 reevaluated was 1 of the 17 hadn't been done 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 yet. And the remainder apparently were 166 

2 
 compensable. They were above 50 percent. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Already. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Already. Without 

5 
 the additional neutron data. So there's not a 

6 
 lot to look at. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I would say no 

8 
 on that one. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, so then no on 

11 this one. I would not disagree with that. 

12 
 Ted, in response to your comment 

13 
 earlier the table is really just a compilation 

14 
 of all the unreviewed PERs. And we tried to 

15 
 kind of get an initial, maybe a first order 

16 
 approximation of whether we thought they 

17 
 should be reviewed with the idea of bringing 

18 
 it to the Subcommittee to have this discussion 

19 we're having right now. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: No, I'm all in favor of 

21 
 going through these systematically. I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it's great. I just wanted to clarify because 167 

2 
 I just think we keep losing focus on why we 

3 
 would have one reviewed. And I think again we 

4 
 would have one reviewed where there's 

5 
 complexity and there's uncertainty about 

6 
 whether it would be handled right or not. But 

7 
 some of these are really just, we know very 

8 
 well how these get handled and it's just 

9 
 completely mechanical and there's no reason to 

10 
 spend time on it whatsoever. Money, any of 

11 it. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Almost a QA action in 

13 some cases. All right. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Sorry, I might have 

15 
 dropped off the line there. It went quiet for 

16 a bit. 

17 
 Okay, the next one in line here is 

18 
 PER-15. This is a Mallinckrodt TBD. This was 

19 
 issued in July 2007. It refers to Rev 1 of 

20 the TBD. 

21 
 This is a response to some 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that arose from the SEC being granted. Some 168 

2 
 gave rise to higher doses and others went 

3 
 down. 

4 
 This is one of the situations, 

5 
 let's see, there's about 16 claims evaluated. 

6 
 Again, referring to Rev 1. Now, the latest 

7 
 revision came out in November of 2010. And 

8 
 there's no indication whether Rev 3 actually 

9 
 resulted in increased dose assignment, but I 

10 
 did note here that it might be inferred from 

11 
 the statement here in Section 17071. It would 

12 
 be changed to clarify the external exposures 

13 
 to monitored employees as to conclude dose 

14 
 reconstructions for individuals employed prior 

15 
 to 1949. This exposure was previously 

16 
 excluded from dose reconstruction reports. So 

17 
 I guess you could infer that there might be an 

18 
 increase that would not necessarily be 

19 
 captured by this PER because it took place at 

20 
 a later time period. So to the extent that it 

21 
 should be reviewed we would consider deferring 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it pending an evaluation of this pre-1949 169

2 
 exposure potential. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it sounds as 

4 
 though it's going to be straightforward in any 

5 
 case. Any objection to deferring this? 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Deferred. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Next is PER-22 Chapman 

10 
 Valve TBD revisions. This was produced in 

11 
 September 2007 based on Revision 1 of the 

12 
 Technical Basis Document which was dated 

13 October 2006. 

14 
 This TBD was modified to provide a 

15 
 constant intake of uranium as opposed to a log 

16 
 normal distribution in the original TBD. It 

17 
 was difficult to determine the effect on dose 

18 
 and PoC and best estimate was required for 

19 
 some cases. The number of cases reevaluated 

20 were 10, a very small number. 

21 
 Again, this is Rev 2 to the TBD 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 been released the following year in September 170

2 
 2008. And this revision incorporated some new 

3 
 information regarding dates of uranium fires, 

4 
 periods of operation, details of plant 

5 
 processes, facility layout, radiological 

6 
 control practices, and monitoring results. So 

7 
 it really kind of is a rewrite across the 

8 
 board. 

9 
 Updated information on the data of 

10 
 the uranium fire results in changes in the 

11 
 internal exposure scenario. It was not 

12 
 indicated whether this resulted in an 

13 increase. 

14 
 So again, given the magnitude of 

15 
 changes to TBD we would recommend deferring 

16 
 this pending a reevaluation after that new TBD 

17 review. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

19 deferring? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection, just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a question though. Is an evaluation of the 171 

2 
 fire scenario under way? 

3 
 MR. STIVER: I don't know. Stu, 

4 
 could you weigh in on that? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I believe 

6 
 what's gone on is there's been a subsequent 

7 
 revision to Chapman Valve. What was the date 

8 
 of this revision? 

9 
 MR. STIVER: This was September 

10 2007. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think the 

12 
 actual Chapman Valve disposition is more 

13 recent than that. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this says 

15 Revision 2 released September 2008. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: Revision 2 is the one 

17 that seems to have the biggest impact. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But SC&A hasn't 

19 reviewed Rev 2 yet? 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The discussion of 

21 Chapman Valve is over I believe. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Why does it say 172 

2 
 pending evaluation of revised fire scenario in 

3 
 Rev 2? 

4 
 MR. STIVER: That's just a 

5 
 recommendation that we would think that that 

6 
 fire scenario and other aspects of the TBD 

7 
 should be evaluated to determine the potential 

8 
 for increased doses. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you haven't 

10 reviewed Rev 2 yet is what you're saying. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. Rather than 

12 
 spend money on evaluating this PER which is 

13 
 kind of outdated at this point it might be 

14 
 money better spent to wait until an evaluation 

15 of the most latest. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of Rev 2. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Has Rev 2 been 

18 assigned? 

19 
 MR. STIVER: I didn't hear you, 

20 Wanda. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: John, do you know 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Rev 2 has been assigned? 173 

2 
 MR. STIVER: I don't believe it 

3 
 has. I can't speak to that directly. I can 

4 
 certainly find out. I don't think it has 

5 
 though. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: I don't think it has. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: If it has not then 

8 
 we're deferring based on the assumption that 

9 
 at some juncture you're going to have that 

10 assignment? 

11 
 MR. STIVER: The way -- word this 

12 
 correctly. I was thinking more on the lines 

13 
 of having NIOSH reevaluate the number of cases 

14 
 that might be affected and issuing a new PER. 

15 
 Kind of the situation where if there was a 

16 
 new PER that came out then we could kind of 

17 
 roll these two into one combined, rather than 

18 
 look at issues that may no longer be relevant. 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the 10 was based 

20 
 on Rev 1? 

21 MR. STIVER: That was based in 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 September 2007 evaluation. This was all old.174 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Gotcha. Okay. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: So it sounds as though 

4 
 we need to request NIOSH to take a look at 

5 
 this to identify first of all what the 

6 
 claimant base is and second to determine 

7 
 whether there is -- well, I guess it's our job 

8 
 to determine whether there's an issue with 

9 
 respect to the fire. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we always 

11 
 knew there were fires. But early on we didn't 

12 
 know the dates of the fires. And that's what 

13 
 was changed. And there's also -- the 

14 
 description was changed to include the Dean 

15 
 Street location which was their second 

16 
 location that DOL added --

17 
 MR. KATZ: I thought John's 

18 question was whether there's a PER. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- PER on this. 

20 MR. KATZ: Right. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: A different 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, a newer one in the 175 

2 
 works. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And a different 

4 
 number of people affected. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the idea was 

6 
 that this is the final change in the PER. 

7 
 Let's look at it once. Let's look at the PER 

8 
 once and it would incorporate all the changes 

9 
 made up to that time. That would be the 

10 
 thought, and I don't know if -- do you have 

11 
 the PER list? And there's a not a second 

12 Chapman on there? 

13 
 Sometimes the revision doesn't 

14 require one because the doses don't --

15 MR. KATZ: Right. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So I'll have to go 

17 find it. I don't know. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we'll just 

19 
 follow up on that to find out if there is or 

20 
 isn't a PER in the works. And the answer 

21 
 isn't I guess means that there's no dosimetric 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 importance to the changes. On the positive 176 

2 
 side, moving up the doses. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If there is no dose 

4 
 impact on Rev 2 then you would reconsider the 

5 
 question. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Exactly. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: So we're really just 

8 
 kind of pending this waiting on a -- by you 

9 
 guys whether the dose will increase. 

10 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we would defer 

11 that. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: We'll defer that for 

13 
 the time being, and we'll have an action item 

14 
 for NIOSH for possible PER in process on Rev 2 

15 
 -- that's even going to be an issue at that 

16 next time. 

17 All right, John, PER-34. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, 34 Harshaw 

19 
 Chemical Company. There was a revision to the 

20 
 TBD-22, included several changes. Only one 

21 
 resulted in an increase in the estimated 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and that's related to the intake of type S 177

2 
 uranium for the period 1949 through 1953. 

3 
 There is an SEC here. However, the 

4 
 SEC -- let me see. I believe it's 1942 to 

5 
 `49. So this is all post SEC. There is no 

6 
 impact on this particular PER based on the SEC 

7 
 because it took place after the SEC was 

8 
 granted. 

9 
 A small number of cases again. Six 

10 
 were affected here. But given the fact that 

11 
 it is a uranium intake for a 5-year period we 

12 
 felt that it might not be as straightforward 

13 
 as say something like a medical X-ray dose and 

14 therefore would benefit from a review. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: So you've reviewed the 

16 most recent TBD revision, right? Yes? No? 

17 
 MR. STIVER: Was that question 

18 directed at me? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was, John. 

20 
 I'm sorry. Yes. Has SC&A reviewed the most 

21 recent revision of Harshaw? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: I don't believe we 178 

2 
 have. This was December 2011. But that 

3 
 wouldn't necessarily be based on our review of 

4 
 it so much as whether there's anything that 

5 
 had changed since this PER was issued. Fairly 

6 
 recent PER. It's only been a year, not even a 

7 
 year yet. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So 

9 
 essentially the only change that we're aware 

10 of is intake rate for type S. 

11 MR. STIVER: That's correct. 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Intake rate. What 

13 
 caused that to change? Does anybody remember? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I have no idea. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Anybody on the DCAS 

16 side can enlighten us on that? 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Off the top of my 

18 
 head I don't remember this one. Seems like 

19 Harshaw CC is quite a lot older than that. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, the SEC was in 

21 2007. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Four years later we 179 

2 
 decided we shouldn't even be changing the Site 

3 
 Profile for --. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Maybe we could just get 

5 
 a report from DCAS for the next meeting of 

6 
 what went on here. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Because it says 

8 
 there were several changes. However, there's 

9 
 only one --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That would cause 

11 the dose to go up. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That was only a 

14 
 year ago. For the life of me I can't remember 

15 our Harshaw activity a year ago. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: We'll have a report 

17 from NIOSH next time, okay? 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we'll get 

19 something out ahead of the meeting. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes and if this 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 simply an agreed-upon change in a rate factor 180

2 
 or something which means you -- you know, it's 

3 
 really straightforward. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to think 

5 
 what would have gotten us back to Harshaw a 

6 
 year ago. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Could be suspension 

8 
 factors again. All right. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: It may have just been 

10 held on the backburner for a number of years. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: We'll check on it for 

12 
 next time. In the meantime, John, we're back 

13 to PER-24. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: PER-24, General Steel 

15 
 Industries as we all know is still very much 

16 
 in the works. This is a September 2007 PER as 

17 
 we all know. Many, many changes and Work 

18 
 Group meetings have taken place since that 

19 
 time. We would certainly recommend deferring 

20 
 this one -- resolution of those SEC and Site 

21 Profile issues that are ongoing. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: I would agree with 181 

2 
 that. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Appendix BB 

4 
 will be revised and in the event we have a 

5 
 number of changes beginning with the length of 

6 
 the work day and onto some of these other 

7 
 issues. And there could be other changes as 

8 
 well that need to be addressed at the same 

9 
 time. So it would make sense to defer this 

10 till we get Appendix BB resolved. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

12 
 deferring until -- all right. Deferred. PER13 25, John. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: PER-25 is -- we just 

15 
 talked about the Huntington Pilot Plant in 

16 
 regards to 33. Now this is an older PER that 

17 
 came out back in 2007. External electron dose 

18 
 required in the reevaluation. Only one 

19 affected claim. 

20 
 Our thoughts on this is that since 

21 
 33 has been authorized that we just look 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 this and kind of amalgamate them into one 182

2 
 report to the extent that this is still 

3 
 relevant and just kind of combine them for one 

4 
 PER review. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let me ask since 

6 
 you're going to be looking at Huntington 

7 
 anyway. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, we're already 

9 
 looking at it. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: For 33. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: So is that a two for 

12 one special? 

13 MR. STIVER: Two for one special. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Sounds like a two-fer. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We'll list 

17 it as assigned. And PER-37. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: These next three were 

19 
 PERs that we've added since our last meeting. 

20 
 They're all quite new. Thirty-seven is the 

21 
 Ames Laboratory TBD revision which took place 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 in January of this year. The previous version 183 

2 
 was 1 year prior to that, January 2011. 

3 
 There's a whole series of these dating back to 

4 
 August of 2008. Those considered changes that 

5 
 are made in all those revisions and I've kind 

6 
 of summarized. There's four aspects that will 

7 
 be considered. 

8 
 First in Revision 1 there was an 

9 
 increase in uranium intakes for researchers in 

10 
 the chemistry building during the period `42 

11 
 to `53. Revision 2 included the increase in 

12 
 the intakes for all employees in the chemistry 

13 
 building between `54 and `76. So there's 

14 
 another group that was considered there in the 

15 later time frame. 

16 
 External doses for unmonitored 

17 
 workers before 1946 were increased in --

18 
 categories. They remain the same in Revision 

19 
 2 but then increased again in Revision 3. 

20 
 External dose monitored workers based on a 

21 
 coworker model between `46 and `53 decreased 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 for all categories in Revision 1. They remain 184 

2 
 the same in Revision 2 but increased in 

3 
 Revision 3. However, the Revision 3 increase 

4 
 was still below the Revision 0 values with the 

5 
 exception of extremity dose. 

6 
 So there's kind of a mix of changes 

7 
 taking place throughout all these revisions. 

8 
 Sixteen cases were considered for 

9 
 reevaluation. We thought that this would be a 

10 good candidate for review. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's certainly 

12 not straightforward, is it? 

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: It would be 

14 interesting. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Comments? Questions? 

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: I say you should 

17 assign it. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agreed. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Assigned. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. The next one is 

21 
 PER-38, Hooker Electrochemical. This is 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 one where there was the site-specific -- TBD- 185

2 
 6001 back in 2007. Then superseded by a 

3 
 standalone TBD in 2011, Rev 0. Then -- later 

4 
 Revision 1 corrected an error. 

5 
 The changes that were made in Rev 1 

6 
 -- doses for operators to decrease during the 

7 
 operational period. There was no increase in 

8 
 any dose in Revision 1, but the Revision 0 did 

9 
 result in some increased doses when compared 

10 
 to Appendix AA. Therefore Appendix AA was 

11 
 compared to Revision 1 to itemize the 

12 increase. 

13 
 And this PER was issued in July of 

14 
 this year. Intake rates and external dose 

15 
 rates were assigned based on type of job, job16 
 specific. Different doses were assigned in 

17 
 the operational period and the residual 

18 
 period. This and the Appendix, TBD were 

19 
 different. A detailed listing of rates and 

20 dose rates were included in attachments. 

21 
 The bottom line, the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 assignments had increased in the current 186 

2 
 revision compared to documents for uranium 

3 
 intakes during the operational years. Do not 

4 
 assign the operator intakes which were --

5 
 high intakes in Appendix AA, dose rates during 

6 
 residual period for all categories. 

7 
 Again, we think this is complicated 

8 
 enough that it warrants a review. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: Any thoughts? 

10 
 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, assign this 

11 one. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think it's 

14 sufficiently complex. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: Is Dick back yet? I 

16 
 haven't heard from him so I assume he's not. 

17 You're assigned. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is 38, yes. 

19 It's Hooker Electrochemical. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: PER-38. And next we 

21 have PER-41. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is -- we 187 

2 
 talked a bit about OTIB-6 today. This is the 

3 
 latest revision -- effects of previously 

4 
 completed claims for dose reconstruction from 

5 
 occupational medical X-ray procedures. 

6 
 Thirty-five cases were initially 

7 
 identified. Of those, 26 warranted 

8 
 reevaluation. This again is a fairly recent 

9 
 one in July 2012. Rev 4 was issued in 2011, 

10 
 June 2011. Previous versions date back to 

11 2003. 

12 
 This is interesting. A change in 

13 
 Rev 2 and earlier were addressed in PER-2 

14 
 which we reviewed without any findings 

15 whatsoever. 

16 
 Several changes were made in Rev 4. 

17 
 Some did result in a slight decrease. Others 

18 
 resulted in increased doses. And these are 

19 
 listed here in these two bullets. There was 

20 
 an increase in the dose from lateral 

21 
 projection of the lumbar spine X-ray for 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 years for stomach and bone surfaces, liver, 188

2 
 gallbladder, spleen. And an increase in the 

3 
 dose to the ovaries from pelvic X-rays through 

4 
 the end of May, `70. 

5 
 There are four sites that currently 

6 
 still use TBD -- or OTIB-6, Harshaw, 

7 
 Brookhaven, the Extrusion Plant, and Paducah 

8 
 East. This is, again, they are X-ray doses 

9 
 which are typically sufficiently complex in 

10 
 impact that we thought that might benefit from 

11 a review. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: So despite the scope 

13 
 of this it appears to me to be the exact thing 

14 
 that Ted was talking about earlier. This is a 

15 
 case where there's no question about the 

16 
 technical merit or reason for these changes. 

17 
 The changes are now codified, and they are 

18 
 implemented, and the only thing this review 

19 
 would do, as I understand it, is to see that 

20 
 the implementation was being made in the 

21 correct way. Am I reading that right, John? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think that 189 

2 
 pretty well sums it up. To the extent that 

3 
 these changes would be captured in the dose 

4 
 reconstruction reviews then that may be the 

5 
 proper venue to do this in. In this case --

6 
 ascertain whether the changes were made at one 

7 
 time in one shot as opposed to waiting for 

8 
 cases to come through for those particular 

9 
 sites. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: I don't see that this 

11 
 rises to the level of need that we supposedly 

12 
 identified earlier in our discussion here. 

13 Any thoughts? 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to 

15 
 understand the last part of the comment about 

16 
 the TBDs that require or allow lumbar spine 

17 
 and pelvic X-ray, and it lists these four 

18 
 facilities. Why these four? I didn't quite 

19 
 catch that. Are these doing X-rays 

20 differently from the rest of the facilities? 

21 
 MR. STIVER: I think that's 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 sites that are still using TIB-6 as opposed to 190

2 
 having their own site-specific guidance. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there was 

4 
 selected -- some -- not every site did a 

5 
 lumbar spine or pelvic X-ray. There were 

6 
 certain selected sites where that was part of 

7 
 the regime. And I think that's probably what 

8 
 this refers to. It's that there are only 

9 
 certain limited places where they were done. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the --

11 that actually used those, those procedures 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right, but 

13 
 the procedure itself is -- I mean they would -

14 
 - you would use it on these because they 

15 specify --

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They specified that 

17 they took lumbar and pelvic. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: The procedure 

19 
 itself is not specific to those sites. The 

20 procedure is a universal procedure. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: -- was addressed in a 191 

2 
 procedure. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But this is where 

4 
 you would get the cases to review. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: The 253. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: The first one, I was 

7 
 looking at all the revisions but when you read 

8 
 through them they're all fairly minor and 

9 
 straightforward. I think this one probably 

10 should be deferred at this time. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: I agree. Paul, do you 

12 have an objection? 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I was just 

14 
 wondering if there was something unique here. 

15 
 At least some of the revisions were just 

16 grammatical or something it looks like. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Typographical error. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Typographical. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: Revision 3 PC --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: What else changed? 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's why I asked 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what I did, and John said that apparently my 192

2 
 reading is fairly accurate, that primarily 

3 
 what they'd be doing is checking to see that 

4 
 the changes were applied correctly which is a 

5 
 QA. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But when it 

7 
 says Rev 3 added dose estimates for procedures 

8 
 not previously addressed, is this where they 

9 
 added the lumbar, spine, and pelvic stuff that 

10 wasn't in the procedure before? 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's under 

12 Revision 4 they did. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it just 

14 changed the numbers. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, Rev 4 has really 

16 
 resulted in those changes from the lumbar 

17 spine. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: And, John, you guys 

19 
 reviewed this, the 2003 Revision 2 was 

20 
 reviewed by SC&A already, right? With no 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Anything -- prior has 193 

2 
 already been reviewed with no findings. This 

3 
 was really related to -- Rev 3 is pretty minor 

4 
 in its impact. It looks like Rev 4 is really 

5 
 where the big change --

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Has Rev 4 itself as 

7 
 a procedure been reviewed? 

8 
 MR. STIVER: No, it has not. Not 

9 
 by SC&A. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Seems to be fairly pro 

11 forma. 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but I'm just 

13 
 thinking I wouldn't spend time on this unless 

14 the procedure itself had a problem. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Deferred? 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Deferred, John. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Deferred or no? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, actually no from 

20 my perspective. 

21 MR. STIVER: I take that as a 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, let's do it no. 194 

2 
 Unless I hear objection to the otherwise. 

3 
 That's it, right? 

4 
 Good. So you have your 

5 
 assignments. What were there, four or three? 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: The two for one. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Actually four but 

8 
 really three. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: And NIOSH is going 

10 to report back on a couple. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: We have two actions 

12 
 for NIOSH. And that's good. Thank you, John. 

13 
 Now we'll move on to our 1:30 

14 
 agenda item which is OTIB-37. This is SC&A's 

15 
 responses to three of the outstanding 

16 findings. 

17 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think I'm going to 

18 
 punt this back over to NIOSH because if you 

19 
 look at what was entered into the BRS and look 

20 
 at the transcript from the last meeting I 

21 
 think we had decided that we were 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 wait until the TBD was reissued. This is on 195 

2 
 the Paducah internal dose coworker data. 

3 
 And for findings 3 and 4 we kind of 

4 
 indicate that we were going to wait for the 

5 
 reissuance of the Paducah TBD. And so we 

6 
 haven't really done anything on this because 

7 
 we're waiting for that. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: And we have a 

9 
 meeting that should cover this as well in 

10 December. 

11 MR. KATZ: We do. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: There's a meeting 

13 coming up. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: And a teleconference, 

15 
 but I'm not sure how much is resolving matters 

16 
 versus sorting out the path forward. I don't 

17 
 recall right now, but I'm thinking it's more 

18 getting our bearings again. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: I think so. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: A planning meeting. I 

21 
 think it's a planning meeting versus an 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 resolution meeting. 196 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: These Site Profile 

3 
 chapters are being redone. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Are they? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: I mean the Work Group 

7 
 had actually gotten through a lot of material 

8 
 already. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean --

10 
 MR. KATZ: They worked very well 

11 with DCAS. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There's been a lot 

13 
 of revisions made because of those resolutions 

14 
 I think. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, that makes sense. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If you want, I'd 

17 
 have to get on my computer, but I could 

18 
 probably find the schedule for these Site 

19 
 Profiles. I can do it now, or I can do it 

20 later at a break or something. 

21 
 But it seems like this one's pretty 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 far along. I remember gaseous diffusion 197 

2 
 plants, for the ones that ran up to high 

3 
 enrichments there's this product having to do 

4 
 with neutron doses from high enriched uranium 

5 
 which has to be put to bed. But that didn't 

6 
 happen at Paducah. They didn't run up to the 

7 
 high enrichments there. And so I think 

8 
 Paducah is done or getting done. So I know 

9 
 where to look on my computer for it if you 

10 want me to or I can wait and do it later. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: I thought we were 

12 pretty darn close, but I haven't reviewed it. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, we don't have to 

14 
 sort it out at this meeting though. I don't 

15 
 see any reason why we need to sort it out 

16 right now. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: So maybe just an 

19 action. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: So. Do I understand 

21 
 correctly that SC&A won't respond to finding 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 2? 198 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well 2, 3, and 4 I 

3 
 thought we -- finding 2 we did not indicate 

4 
 that we were going to wait for the reissuance 

5 
 of the TBD. With 3 and 4 we did indicate 

6 
 that. And so I didn't see any sense in 

7 
 getting Joyce started looking at the review 

8 
 and then having her look at this 2 and then 

9 
 come back and look at 3 and 4 separately. So 

10 
 I just kind of held 2 until you can do them 

11 all at one time. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Steve, I talked to 

13 
 Joyce about that too, and she would prefer to 

14 
 wait until the TBD is released before doing 

15 that 2 as well. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: So this is a NIOSH 

17 
 action. 

18 MR. KATZ: So we'll get word back 

19 
 from NIOSH on when those revisions are 

20 expected. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. OTIB-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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 status of the revision. NIOSH? 199 

2 
 MS. THOMAS: This is Elyse and --

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Good afternoon. 

4 
 MS. THOMAS: -- these responses 

5 
 won't be finished until the revision is 

6 
 finished. And that's still several months 

7 
 away, probably shortly after the first of the 

8 
 year. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So our next 

10 
 meeting is probably -- it will definitely be 

11 
 after the first of the year. So should we 

12 
 carry this for our next meeting? Is that a 

13 
 possibility you think? If we meet in late 

14 
 January and I'm quite sure it will be at least 

15 
 late January by the time we meet can we 

16 
 anticipate some kind of response on TIB-54? 

17 Or should we set it out further than that? 

18 
 MS. THOMAS: I'm not sure. I know 

19 
 that the authors didn't want to prepare the 

20 
 responses until the revision was pretty much 

21 ready to be published. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: We don't have any 200 

2 
 dates. 

3 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, that's the 

4 
 one I forwarded some information to you and 

5 
 Ted. That TIB-54 will not be ready until 

6 
 February of `13. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: You did send that. 

8 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. So probably 

9 
 if we meet early February it might not be. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. February 

11 
 possible. That's good, then we won't carry it 

12 
 for next time. We'll just have it when it's 

13 
 ready. Which brings us to IG-1 and the NIOSH 

14 result from the status review. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Some of 

16 
 these I'd like us to talk about a little bit 

17 today. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Which is our first 

20 finding that we got to deal with here, 2? 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the first one 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have listed is 2. We had a half dozen, or 201 

2 
 actually more. Eight. It's very nice to be 

3 
 addressing these actually. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, the 

5 
 finding here and I want to go back to the 

6 
 nature of this document and the nature of the 

7 
 findings and when they were written. 

8 
 This particular finding is that the 

9 
 guidance for deriving uncertainties, neutrons 

10 
 or source term in occupational medical dose 

11 
 rate using x-ray machine operating parameters 

12 
 are not available to a dose reconstructor. In 

13 
 other words, it says things should be done in 

14 
 a certain manner, but the resources to do that 

15 
 are not available to dose reconstruction. 

16 
 Now remember IG-1 was like one of 

17 
 the first documents we wrote. It was an 

18 
 implementation guide and it kind of lays out 

19 
 the principles of doing a dose reconstruction, 

20 
 but it doesn't really give specific 

21 
 instruction for dose reconstruction. 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 was intended to give instructions to the dose 202

2 
 reconstructor. All these other technical 

3 
 documents that we write, that we've been 

4 
 reviewing, those are supposed to incorporate 

5 
 principles in IG-1 with specific instructions 

6 
 to the dose reconstructor. 

7 
 So the fact that this has, you 

8 
 know, makes reference to pieces of information 

9 
 that are not available to the dose 

10 
 reconstructor is irrelevant because the dose 

11 
 reconstructor doesn't ever look at this 

12 
 document. He has a procedure that tells him 

13 
 what he needs in order to do it. We think 

14 
 this should just be closed based on that, that 

15 
 the finding doesn't speak to the nature of the 

16 
 document. We should just close it despite 

17 anything we may have said in the past. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: There's certainly a 

19 logic in that. 

20 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me that 

21 
 the simple solution is to have a statement 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that effect in here as the response. 203 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You mean a 

3 
 statement like that in here in the database. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: A response to the 

5 
 finding is that this document isn't intended 

6 
 to provide that. This is sort of a --

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: It does say that 

8 
 though. It does say that. 

9 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: It is in one of 

10 the responses. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: Even though it 

12 
 sometimes employs language that implies -- and 

13 
 then you go down further it says it's not 

14 
 intended as a step-by-step procedure but 

15 rather a guidance. So. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But for this 

17 
 particular finding 02 there's no response 

18 here. 

19 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It says basically 

20 recommend NIOSH modify procedure. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Here. It wasn'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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 coming up when I looked at it. 204 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: So basically what we 

3 
 want to do is we want to say that Rev 2 was 

4 
 issued. I guess what you could do is you 

5 
 could reiterate. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We could just say -

7 
 - you know, down at the -- we can make the 

8 
 last entry here. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the last 

11 entry still needs one thing. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's appropriate. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So you've got a 

14 
 note. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: And the new note can 

16 
 simply say the Subcommittee agrees that this 

17 procedure is not used as that procedure. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You can make that 

19 statement today. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we can make that 

21 
 statement today. And I think 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 appropriate. 205 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: If you want to close 

3 
 it we can just close it and say that Stu 

4 
 Hinnefeld explained once again that this is a 

5 
 procedure and a principles guidance document 

6 
 and not an implementing document. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: You were doing fine. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: It looks like it's 

9 
 been said over and over over the years. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That's why I say 

11 reiterate it. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let Steve just say the 

13 Subcommittee agrees. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Where do I get to 

15 edit status? 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually I hope I 

17 
 have it right. Do you add a comment or just 

18 edit the finding. How do you? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: I think final comment. 

20 
 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we're going to 

21 close 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but -- 206 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: When we put the 

3 
 closure, that's when --

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: We can't have a 

5 
 comment box. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: See I never do 

8 
 that. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: So Stu is that true 

10 for all of these? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we'll do this 

13 one. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's true 

15 for more than just this one. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but we'll do this 

17 one at a time. We get the words correct. 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: I was just curious but 

19 one at a time is good. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Just a slight 

21 change in some of the wording. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 207 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's say -- instead 

3 
 of the detailed implementation let's say --

4 
 start with detailed. Detailed implementation. 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Detailed. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Not can be found, is 

7 
 to be found. Is to be found in other 

8 
 documents and procedures. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Information and 

10 guidance. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Detailed 

12 
 implementation guidance and related 

13 
 information is to be found in other documents 

14 
 and procedures. The Committee agrees -- the 

15 
 Subcommittee agrees period. Consequently this 

16 finding has been closed. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, now it reads in 

18 
 its entirety NIOSH reminded the Subcommittee 

19 
 that IG-1 provides general principles, not 

20 
 specific guidance. Detailed implementation 

21 
 guidance and related information is to 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 found in other documents and procedures. The 208 

2 
 Subcommittee agrees. Consequently the finding 

3 
 has been closed. 

4 
 That should do it. Anyone else 

5 
 have any editorial comment to make there? 

6 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Are you going to use 

7 
 this again? 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we can use that 

9 
 if that is what we agree on. Others? We can 

10 use that same wording. Okay. Very good. 

11 
 Finding 2. Wait, something strange 

12 happened. Number 3. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We're trying to 

14 figure out why this thing won't work. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: Why does number 3 say 

16 closed? 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Because we should 

18 see it pretty quickly, right? 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It should change 

20 right away. It's not doing something. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not doing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 something. 209 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I might not have 

3 
 rights to close something. 

4 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: You have rights. 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll have to make a 

6 
 note and close it when I get --

7 
 MR. KATZ: That's fine. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Steve will have to 

9 
 do it himself. We can work with IT on my 

10 
 rights. What's the good of being the director 

11 if you can't do everything? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a lot of 

14 
 downside to being the director, I'll tell you 

15 that. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: They never told you 

17 that. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I kind of 

19 
 knew. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: You've watched, right? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I've been there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Steve, could you 210 

2 
 try one more time on behalf of Stu? 

3 
 MR. MARSCHKE: On behalf of Stu? 

4 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, just one 

5 
 more time to see if I have rights to add Stu. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So you're trying to 

7 
 add me. 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Lori's going to 

9 
 enter this on behalf of Stu. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Even you're not on 

11 here. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well she'd have to 

13 
 be screwing with the rights table, and I'm not 

14 
 sure any of us can do that. Okay, Steve can 

15 close these back when he gets --

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's fine. You 

17 have the verbiage now. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't, 

19 
 because it's -- well I can get it out of the 

20 transcript. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 I'm sure that our court reporter has all those 211

2 
 words that I read verbatim. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: You can recreate it. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: They can do that for 

5 
 you. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: It wasn't that complex. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: We have the words. 

8 
 And the next one that we have is 12. And 12 

9 
 is an entirely different kind of animal. It's 

10 
 talking about Appendix B's PA geometry. The 

11 DCFs are in error and underestimates dose. 

12 
 And we said in the past that that 

13 
 would be picked up in a revision, but Rev 2 

14 
 came and it wasn't there. And as of last May 

15 
 there was no modification introduced into Rev 

16 
 3. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Why would this 

18 
 table be in there if the document is not used 

19 
 for dose reconstruction? 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, these tables 

21 
 are used -- aren't going into the 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 reconstruction pools. They're -- 212 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Into the other 

3 
 documents. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, into the other 

5 
 technical documents. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it looks like 

8 
 they're saying that it didn't actually get 

9 
 changed in the revision. Is that correct? 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: That looks like it was 

11 
 one of those things we had expected to get 

12 
 picked up in Rev 3. And for some reason it 

13 
 wasn't. So it's still in abeyance. And 

14 
 nothing has happened. And I'm assuming that 

15 
 there is going to be a Rev 4 at some juncture. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't 

17 revise them with any frequency. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: No, I know that, but 

19 
 hopefully somewhere there's a to-do list that 

20 
 includes adding -- changing this table when 

21 next the revision comes around. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I remember 213 

2 
 the discussion about taking it out, and I got 

3 
 a lot of resistance from the technical folks 

4 
 about taking PA geometries out. 

5 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess what I'd 

6 
 like to know is whether the correct table has 

7 
 shown up in the documents that are actually 

8 
 used. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

10 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other words, 

11 this is still one of those things that --

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There has been a 

13 
 correction written that recognizes that 

14 
 certain of the PA geometries are not to be 

15 
 used and do not use a PA geometry except for a 

16 
 couple of organs where the PA geometry 

17 
 actually gives you the highest DCF. And 

18 
 that's written, and I can't remember where 

19 
 that's written, whether that's here or 

20 
 somewhere else. But I know we've got that 

21 down somewhere. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 I got a lot of resistance to taking 214

2 
 these numbers out of here because (a) we do 

3 
 use them for a couple of organs, and (b) there 

4 
 may be a special case where you have a 

5 
 geometry like that, a long-term exposure with 

6 
 a source behind the person. And so there was 

7 
 resistance to taking it out. So that's why 

8 
 it's still there after a couple of revisions. 

9 
 I think I may need to go back and 

10 
 refresh my memory about where exactly we are 

11 
 with this. And where all those things are 

12 
 written. And we can even -- and it would 

13 
 probably seem to be pretty easy to put into 

14 
 the verbiage of this or in the tables 

15 
 themselves the prescription or the warning, 

16 
 cautionary note about these PA geometries. So 

17 let's take that action. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Maybe the agenda 

19 mentioned it. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: This has been a 

21 
 finding that we've carried for a long 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And it was supposed to be put into the two 215

2 
 revisions, so there must be a reason why it's 

3 
 not making the revision. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's the 

5 
 technical guys that think we should keep these 

6 
 geometries there in case we want to use them. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: But I mean it's not 

8 
 to take them out it's to fix them, right? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the table, I 

10 
 don't know that the table -- I'll have to go 

11 
 back. I'm not sure there's general agreement 

12 that the table is in error. 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that was the 

14 original finding. DCF values are in error. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right. So if it's 

16 not in error that would be the --

17 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It says OCAS will 

18 revise to correct the DCF tables. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This all happened 

20 
 so long ago that I don't recall. I'm just 

21 
 going to go back and try to figure it out. 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 apologize that I didn't get that done before I 216

2 
 came. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: The finding says 

4 
 they didn't change the tables. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. If I recall 

6 
 the full discussion had to do with the way the 

7 
 PA geometry, there was some question about 

8 
 whether the PA geometry was DCFs, what way --

9 
 where the dosimeter badge was located when it 

10 generated those DCFs. 

11 
 I think what the idea -- I think 

12 
 what the objection was according to a reviewer 

13 
 was that they were derived as if the person 

14 
 wore their dosimeter on their back. So the 

15 
 dosimeter was exposed directly to the beam and 

16 
 then the beam entered from the posterior side. 

17 
 And so the attenuation and distribution 

18 
 across the organs is different than when it 

19 
 comes in from the front. But having the beam 

20 correctly measured at entrance. 

21 
 And the reviewer's point is nobody 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 wears their dosimeter on their back, they wear 217

2 
 it on their chest. And so the adjustment is 

3 
 wrong because the exposure to the badge in the 

4 
 front would be different if you're going to 

5 
 attenuate across the body for DCFs it's 

6 
 certainly going to affect -- the exit dose is 

7 
 going to be different from the entrance dose. 

8 
 So if I'm not mistaken as I think 

9 
 about it that's the basis for the finding. 

10 
 And I've just got to go back and figure out 

11 
 what in the hell the conversation was because 

12 
 it's been too long since I've talked about it. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Just have to check it 

14 
 again. And I believe that -- we know what 

15 
 we're doing with 12, right? We're going on --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Sort of. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We're going on 

18 
 to 16 now. And in 16 it appears to me just on 

19 
 reading it that this may be another one of 

20 
 those that's not supposed to be there. 

21 
 Environmental uncertainty, that is heat, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 humidity, light, et cetera was not addressed 218

2 
 in the IG. And is our position that it's not 

3 
 supposed to be? 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: It looks like we 

5 
 were waiting for revisions but then it never 

6 
 got added. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: It says the reference 

8 
 to this section is mistaken. An analysis of 

9 
 environmental uncertainty for film-based 

10 
 dosimeters was not done in IG-01. OCAS will 

11 
 revise the uncertainty language in various 

12 
 sections of the procedure so that it reflects 

13 
 the basis for the uncertainty approaches 

14 
 utilized in the program. The revision will 

15 
 address the NAS's case -- additional 

16 
 uncertainty. We recommend it modify the 

17 procedure. 

18 
 No, this is a different thing. 

19 
 Revise it -- Rev 2 is issued. There's been no 

20 
 discussion added that addresses environmental 

21 uncertainties. And then last May --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Same thing. 219 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: There's no addition in 

3 
 Rev 3 so it's still in abeyance. So the 

4 
 question is should it be there since this is 

5 
 an overall guidance document. Sounds like it 

6 
 might be, it should be there. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, here up on 

8 
 right -- the very first one that said the 

9 
 revision will address the NAS's KE additional 

10 
 uncertainty. And I'm wondering if that still 

11 
 applies or if that's changed through the last 

12 couple of --

13 CHAIR MUNN: In the last 7 years. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, exactly. That 

15 was a 2005. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This kind of falls 

17 
 in between the first two I think in terms of 

18 
 feeling about what should be here or not. The 

19 
 fact is we've written probably dozens of 

20 
 Technical Basis Documents, the OTIBs, and 

21 
 tools that incorporate the dosimeter 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 uncertainty value. 220 

2 
 And as a general rule there's not 

3 
 been a lot of discussion about that. Once or 

4 
 twice we've had some comments that the 

5 
 uncertainty is too tight on dosimeters. We 

6 
 discussed like 20 percent, and people thought 

7 
 it should be 30 percent, things like that, or 

8 
 40 percent. So, but the actual wording in 

9 
 this document is relatively -- whether, you 

10 
 know, what we describe about uncertainty in 

11 
 various uncertainty components in this 

12 
 document doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of 

13 outcome on how to put into those documents. 

14 
 So I think it really falls in the 

15 
 category of the first one that we talked 

16 
 about. Putting that information into this 

17 
 document serves no real purpose in the end, 

18 
 that the actual uncertainties that are in the 

19 
 site-specific or operation-specific technical 

20 
 documents seem to be acceptable to people and 

21 
 so the wording here is kind of not really 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 relevant. 221 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Stu, it sounds like 

3 
 the document itself is referencing something 

4 
 that's supposed to be in Section 2.1.3. 

5 
 Somewhere in the document it must be 

6 
 indicating that it's going to discuss this and 

7 
 then it doesn't. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think what 

9 
 it said was there were --

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Uncertainty of 

11 environmental dose. 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it may be that 

13 
 all this document has to say is that 

14 
 uncertainty will be addressed in this other 

15 
 specific documents. There must be some 

16 
 internal inconsistency that it's -- I don't 

17 think we know what it's saying here. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I can go back and 

19 find --

20 
 MR. STIVER: I might be able to 

21 
 weigh in on this. This is coming out of 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 1980 report "Dosimetry and Atmospheric Nuclear 222

2 
 Testing." And this is one of the different 

3 
 sources of uncertainty that are factored in. 

4 
 This seems like kind of a real 

5 
 detailed thing to include in what would be 

6 
 kind of a high-level guidance document. 

7 
 There's several different types of uncertainty 

8 
 that need to be factored in. I don't know if 

9 
 -- I haven't read that particular section of 

10 
 IG-001 to know if all the others are included 

11 or not. 

12 
 If these values are being included 

13 
 in the lower-level documents they really 

14 shouldn't belong there. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: I'd say that's a 

16 NIOSH one. Go back and look. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we can go 

18 
 back and see what it said. As I recall 

19 
 there's a description of the things that 

20 
 inject uncertainty into dosimeter readings in 

21 
 the IG. And there were some things 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 not addressed and that's what the finding was, 223

2 
 and one of them being this National Academy of 

3 
 Sciences as a function of energy. 

4 
 So that's my recollection. There's 

5 
 kind of a general, you know -- motherhood and 

6 
 apple pie paragraph about these things affect 

7 
 dosimetry uncertainty. And it didn't list 

8 
 everything that the reviewer said. Well, you 

9 
 didn't list these other things. 

10 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the other part 

11 
 of this is that it looks like OCAS originally 

12 made a commitment to --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we were going 

14 to like put those words in there. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: As opposed to the 

16 first one where you guys said this is not --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Isn't supposed to be 

19 
 there anyhow. But this looks like something 

20 which perhaps should be there. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't know. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if it 224 

2 
 should or not. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It looks like they 

4 
 committed to doing something that wasn't done, 

5 
 and they just need to find out whether it 

6 
 really is important or not. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: It looks like it might 

8 
 be, and it looks like it might be a simple 

9 
 change. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: It might be a 

11 simple change. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Simple fix. All 

13 
 right, 17 is -- NIOSH is going to check that. 

14 
 It'll be on our list next time. Number 17, 

15 
 guidance for the selection of uncertainty 

16 
 distributions for total organ dose. Raises 

17 
 questions of consistency and requires 

18 
 professional judgment. Was going to revise 

19 
 the uncertainty language in various sections 

20 
 so that it would reflect the basis used. And 

21 
 our last finding, requested SC&A to review IGNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 1 Rev 3 to determine whether it addressed any 225

2 
 of the findings. It doesn't resolve the issue 

3 
 of consistency or address the need for 

4 
 professional judgment. So, sounds like it may 

5 
 be another item for pending Rev 3. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it says Rev 3 

7 
 was issued and it doesn't resolve --

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: -- Rev 4. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Rev 4. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Possibly. Does that 

11 go on your have to check this out, Stu? 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can. But I 

13 
 mean the fact that the finding talks about 

14 
 raising questions of consistency and requires 

15 
 professional judgment seems to be a finding as 

16 
 if dose reconstructors were using this 

17 
 document. And so the fact that dose 

18 
 reconstructors don't use this document doesn't 

19 
 matter if there would be professional judgment 

20 
 in the reading of this. The dose 

21 
 reconstructor would use a more specific, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 site-specific tool or a more specific 226 

2 
 technical document that would tell him how to 

3 
 do the dose reconstruction. And so to me this 

4 
 sounds like a finding that was written with 

5 
 the idea that dose reconstructors would be 

6 
 working from IG-1. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Certainly I can see 

8 
 that with professional judgment. I don't know 

9 
 about selection of uncertainty distributions 

10 for total organ dose. 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if you look 

12 
 down through the findings as they progress 

13 
 here it looks like NIOSH eliminated the 

14 
 examples to accomplish what you said, Stu, to 

15 
 make it more clear that we're not trying to 

16 use this document --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for that 

19 
 purpose. But then that was misunderstood in 

20 saying well now it's less clear. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It's less specific 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 now. 227 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So, yes. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think the only 

5 
 thing it seems to me that's missing is 

6 
 something similar to your first statement on 

7 
 that original one that says look, this is just 

8 
 an overall document. It may be that something 

9 
 like that has to be incorporated in several 

10 cases here to remind folks. 

11 
 But it's not completely clear what 

12 
 you committed to. You apparently did -- or 

13 
 "you" I say. DCAS apparently did revise it, 

14 
 but the reviewer apparently is still thinking 

15 
 of it in the original terms of how it's 

16 utilized as a dose reconstruction document. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Can we include that in 

18 
 the group of things that NIOSH is going to 

19 
 look at and tell us whether it falls in the 

20 
 category of this doesn't count, we're going to 

21 
 close it? Or whether it counts as yes, you're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 right, something does need to change in the 228

2 
 next revision. Because that's really what 

3 
 we're asking you to do. 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Or is something we 

5 
 close right now like we did with the first 

6 
 one. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, this one's not 

8 
 clear enough. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we just 

10 
 need to see what it says. I think NIOSH says 

11 
 look, we can just add -- or we can do it here 

12 
 in the group I guess. But it's not clear 

13 exactly what it is that's --

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: I think we need 

15 
 assurance from NIOSH that that is the same. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: And the next of the 

17 
 findings is 19 which is sort of a different 

18 
 booger. The deficiency identified under Rev 1 

19 
 review was the fragmented structure and 

20 
 illogical sequencing of information during the 

21 findings resolution process. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 NIOSH agreed that SC&A's comments 229

2 
 were constructive and future revisions would 

3 
 include a change to the structure of the 

4 
 document. However, that didn't happen in 

5 
 Revision 2. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: It says finding 1. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Rev 3 made no change 

8 
 to the structure of the document. SC&A had 

9 
 recommended keeping it open but believe that 

10 
 finding 1 was very similar and could be 

11 
 incorporated into this finding. Did we close? 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Finding 1 has been 

13 closed. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: We closed it based on 

15 
 the fact that we were going to deal with it 

16 
 here in 19. And apparently we've gone through 

17 
 the next revision without any changes in 

18 
 structure. And it appears to me that this was 

19 
 more a matter of format than anything else. 

20 And the format wasn't changed. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It seems that 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to me. 230 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's 

3 
 leave that one as is. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So what do we have 

5 
 to do? 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: What we're going to 

7 
 have to do is I guess from the perspective of 

8 
 the Subcommittee that's another one of those 

9 
 things that needs to go on a list of changes 

10 that will occur. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I wouldn't propose 

12 
 we change a format for a document for a 

13 
 reviewer at all. The reviewer doesn't use the 

14 
 document. The reviewer's view of the format 

15 
 of the document is irrelevant. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't get the 

17 
 feeling that this was particularly for the 

18 reviewer. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the reviewer 

20 
 says I don't like the structure and the 

21 
 sequence of the information. I mean 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what they're saying. They didn't find 231 

2 
 anything wrong with the information, they just 

3 
 don't like the order in which it's presented. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: It says it's 

5 
 fragmented and illogical sequence. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the sequence 

7 
 isn't -- what the reviewer would put it in and 

8 
 it was fragmented. I mean there would be a 

9 
 piece of information here and then a related 

10 piece of information later. 

11 
 I don't see any particular reason 

12 
 why we should change a document that serves 

13 
 the purpose that it serves, this purpose. 

14 
 Again, it's not like there's a dose 

15 
 reconstructor who has to choke through those 

16 
 being directed various places to have to do 

17 
 this and then to have to look somewhere else 

18 to do the next step. 

19 
 That's not what we're talking about 

20 
 here. We're talking about this general 

21 
 principles document that this information 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to be included in other technical documents. 232

2 
 It's not like people were using this all the 

3 
 time. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: I think we should 

5 
 close that one. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well you know, it's 

7 
 been years since I read any of those IGs, but 

8 
 I do remember agreeing with this kind of 

9 
 finding in one or more from my own reading, 

10 
 thinking this doesn't follow. You have to 

11 
 jump around too much to get to it. And I, 

12 
 frankly I don't remember whether this was --

13 
 it may not have anything to do with IG-1. But 

14 
 the only point I'm making here is the dose 

15 
 reconstructors are not the only people who 

16 refer to this from time to time. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They never refer to 

18 it. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: They don't refer to it. 

20 That's this one. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: I know, I know. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it just seems 233 

2 
 to me that in terms of time and effort 

3 
 probably our time is better spent on doing the 

4 
 other kinds of changes. This is something, I 

5 
 guess at some point if you do a Revision 4, 

6 
 we're talking about shuffling stuff around. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's not always a 

8 
 trivial change though. I mean to say okay, 

9 
 I've got all the information I want in this 

10 
 document. Now how am I going to write it in a 

11 
 different sequence that is more -- that 

12 
 doesn't fragment it and is more appealing, 

13 that's not trivial. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's fairly 

15 subjective. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Even if you're just 

17 
 moving blocks around. And it's a subjective 

18 determination anyway. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: And it's not worth it if 

20 
 it's not substantive frankly because they have 

21 
 this whole pile of things that are substantive 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that they have to do. 234 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't 

3 
 intend to do anything about that. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: I would close it 

5 
 honestly. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay to close 

7 
 it. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's revise the 

9 
 language to our closure slightly and say that 

10 
 the Subcommittee agrees that the sequence of 

11 
 information is not a key factor in providing 

12 
 adequate guidance and therefore feels that 

13 this finding can be closed. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: How about recommends 

15 the finding is closed. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we're the only 

17 
 people who can do it. We either do it or we 

18 don't do it. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: I just didn't like 

20 the wording of "feels." That's okay. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but the buck 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 stops here. You know, SC&A can recommend, 235 

2 
 NIOSH can recommend. 

3 
 MEMBER BEACH: I understand what 

4 
 you're saying. Okay. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: We have to do it. So 

6 
 we either bite the bullet or we don't. 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: The Subcommittee 

8 
 agrees that the sequence of information is not 

9 
 a key factor and --

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: In providing adequate 

11 oversight. 

12 MR. KATZ: And closes. 

13 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Comma and closes. 

14 And has closed. Okay. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. The next 

16 
 one is 20 Rev 1. Identify guns was not 

17 
 provided regarding the assessment of neutron 

18 
 doses using source term data. Rev 2 simply 

19 
 removes the equation for calculating neutron 

20 
 fluence. However, the methodology for 

21 
 assessing neutron dose from source term 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 not been changed. The revision also neglects 236 

2 
 to direct the dose reconstructor to site3 
 specific documentation for additional 

4 
 information. 

5 
 Now that last sentence falls into 

6 
 the category of never mind. But if the 

7 
 methodology for assessing neutron dose from 

8 
 the source term should have been changed and 

9 
 was not then we still have an outstanding 

10 
 item. That appears to be the question before 

11 
 us. I don't know the answer to whether 

12 
 neutron dose from source term should be 

13 addressed in this document. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to be 

15 
 saying that you use the source term for 

16 
 determining neutron doses and doesn't tell you 

17 
 how to do it. Well that's exactly what you're 

18 
 saying the document is for. That's the basis 

19 for which we're doing it. 

20 
 And again, you're not pointing the 

21 
 dose reconstructors to site-specific documents 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 because they're not reading this to start 237

2 
 with. It would seem that your answer to the 

3 
 first item would be similar to this one, or 

4 
 this one would be similar to the first one. 

5 
 Because the business about the original 

6 
 finding doesn't provide guidance regarding 

7 
 assessment of doses using source term data. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You don't need the 

10 
 guidance here in this document. You're just 

11 
 saying we'll use source term data to calculate 

12 neutron doses. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: So the wording of the 

15 first --

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And by removing the 

17 
 equation you're doing what you said don't do 

18 that. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't do that 

20 
 here. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually I remember 238 

2 
 the history on IG-1. SC&A reviewed it twice. 

3 
 We reviewed Revision 1, and then we reviewed 

4 
 Revision 2. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

6 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And this comment 

7 
 actually is just a follow-on to IG-1 which we 

8 
 have already closed. I guess we closed it 

9 
 because it's here -

10 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: You meant to say 

11 Rev 1. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: All of the findings 

13 after 18 I believe are Rev 2. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess I would 

15 
 recommend that we close this in a manner 

16 
 similar to item 2. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: The first one. Item 

18 
 2. 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It was item 2. 

20 
 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

21 closure? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: No. 239 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Then our next item 

3 
 would be number 22. IG-01 should but does not 

4 
 direct the dose reconstructor to technical and 

5 
 site-specific documentation where the DR can 

6 
 find more specific guidance. That would be in 

7 
 my view the same response as item 2. Is that 

8 
 agreed? 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Any contrary comment? 

11 
 We will close 22. The last and final item 

12 
 that we have is 24 and we're back to PA 

13 
 geometries in Appendix B. All DCFs associated 

14 
 with PA geometries in Appendix B of Rev 1 are 

15 
 in error and underestimate dose. NIOSH should 

16 
 have either identified the problem and 

17 
 recommended a badge placement correction 

18 
 factor as they did for erroneous isotopic and 

19 
 rotational DCFs or eliminated the use of PA 

20 geometry altogether. 

21 
 Environmental uncertainty 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 associated with dosimeters was not addressed 240

2 
 as Rev 2 does not include any discussion of 

3 
 environmental uncertainty associated with 

4 
 dosimeters. And reference to the topic in 

5 
 Section 21131 has not been changed. 

6 
 Guidance for selection of 

7 
 uncertainty distributions raises questions of 

8 
 consistency and required professional 

9 
 judgment. In addition, Rev 2 should have 

10 
 identified the fact that calculational tools 

11 
 and workbooks have been developed for best12 
 estimate cases that automate the process of 

13 
 determining dose uncertainty using Monte Carlo 

14 sampling techniques. 

15 
 That sounds like item 2, closed 

16 
 because it's not applicable. Is that correct? 

17 Am I misreading that? 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think there 

19 are three items actually listed here. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Number 3 does fall 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 into that and is like a number 2 closure. But 241 

2 
 the other two are restatements of things that 

3 
 we're going to go look at I think. 

4 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Number 12. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Number 1 would be a 

6 
 statement of the geometries that I'm going to 

7 
 look at. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's include that, 

9 
 12, 16, 17, and 24. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Can you close it as 

11 
 saying it's already been included -- being 

12 taken care of under the --

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Let's just wait until 

14 Stu has reviewed what's going on. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: When I provide 

16 
 something I'll also provide my judgment on 

17 
 which of the other findings. Because 1, 2, 

18 
 and 3 are restatements of things we just 

19 
 talked about. And so I'll just say number 1 

20 
 should be addressed by such and such a 

21 
 finding, number 2 should be addressed by such 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 and such a finding, number 3. 242 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's pretty clever 

3 
 to get three findings in one there. 

4 
 All right. The only thing that I 

5 
 have now is holdover for a NIOSH report next 

6 
 time on findings 2, 16, 17, and 24. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Twelve. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Did I not say 12, 16? 

9 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: You said 2. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: And 24. No, 2 is 

11 
 closed. So 12, 16, 17, and 24. All right. 

12 
 That was an exercise and it's almost 2:30. 

13 
 Let's take our afternoon break, and we'll 

14 
 address our carryover items when we get back 

15 starting with TIB-10. Fifteen minutes. 

16 
 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

17 
 went off the record at 2:26 p.m. and went back 

18 on the record at 2:40 p.m.) 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Our next item looks 

20 
 like it's a NIOSH report, TIB-10, Rev 4 

21 posting, question mark. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, which one are 243 

2 
 we on? Is this the one where we --

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: TIB-10, Rev 4. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes, I think 

5 
 at the last meeting we said we would -- this 

6 
 is -- the finding here relates to SC&A ran 

7 
 MCNP and got one set of results. We had used 

8 
 Atilla to arrive at a different set -- I think 

9 
 a different set of results. We had Atilla for 

10 
 a short period of time. It was 

11 
 extraordinarily expensive so we didn't keep. 

12 
 There was an annual fee that was really 

13 expensive so we didn't keep it. 

14 
 And since we don't have it, it's 

15 
 silly to have stuff based on it. We're going 

16 
 to redo the calculation with MNCP and then 

17 
 we'll have a basis for having an 

18 
 understandable conversation with SC&A about 

19 
 the finding. So that is being done by our 

20 
 contractor and it is on their project list. 

21 
 I'm thinking we're looking at the end of 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 
 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 year, end of this calendar year before we have 244

2 
 a result from that. So it might be ready for 

3 
 the next Board meeting which will be after the 

4 
 first of the year to talk about that. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Essentially we need to 

6 
 carry it over. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: And none of the other 

9 


10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But now Rev 4 to 

11 
 the document is available for you to look at. 

12 
 I don't think the BRS brings it up but if you 

13 
 go to your ABRWH folder on Site Tools. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, if you bring 

16 
 up the ABRWH folder. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's not opening. 

18 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And in that folder 

20 
 there's a Procedures Subcommittee folder if 

21 
 you open that, and then NIOSH documents. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 There it is. 245 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's available 

4 
 now to look at. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But now what we're 

7 
 going to do though is we're going to run --

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is it? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you see an ABRWH 

10 folder? 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think I'm in 

12 it. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And there's AB 

14 
 Document Review folder. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Procedures 

16 
 Subcommittee folder? 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And then there's 

20 
 NIOSH documents. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 documents. Gotcha. There it is. 246 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, it's 

3 
 available for you to look at. Since we're 

4 
 going to rerun MCNP, there's going to be 

5 
 further discussions to get that done. 

6 
 And so the findings 5 and 6 are 

7 
 covered in TIB 13. What are findings 5 and 6? 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: We put together this 

9 
 little document here that's attached to 

10 
 finding 8 and it has some thoughts on finding 

11 
 8 including some pictures of the glove box 

12 
 that was said to be used and some 

13 
 specifications for the glove box that was said 

14 to be used. 

15 
 I don't know if you've been looking 

16 
 at this but you may find it helpful if you're 

17 
 redeveloping and refining your model to use 

18 
 for MCNP. It's there. It's the results of 

19 
 our investigation. So if we want to take a 

20 
 look at it and if it's helpful, good. You 

21 know, and if 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 247 

2 
 MR. MARSCHKE: But it's there for 

3 
 you to see. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: That was a nice little 

5 
 White Paper. 

6 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It was a nice little 

7 
 White Paper. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: And the other thing 

10 
 we did in this White Paper if you want to jump 

11 
 ahead to finding 9 is that we do make a 

12 
 recommendation in here that finding 9 be 

13 
 closed because the Rocky Flats data has been 

14 
 removed from the TBD. So there is a 

15 recommendation that finding 9 can be closed. 

16 
 Finding 9 was this one here, use of 

17 
 the Rocky Flats data to validate the model was 

18 questionable and that data has been removed. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any 

20 objection? 

21 MEMBER BEACH: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 248 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: We may -- the 

3 
 Subcommittee agrees, finding 9 can be closed. 

4 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That's all. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What are findings 5 

6 
 and 6? I'm not real familiar with those. It 

7 
 says they were addressed or covered in TIB-13, 

8 
 question mark, but I wonder what they are. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: It's the location of 

10 
 the film badge I guess relative to the glove 

11 
 box and the angular -- Bob Anigstein, are you 

12 on the phone? 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am. 

14 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Can you give Stu a 

15 brief summary? 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I can see that 

17 there's a fairly --

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sorry, summary of 

19 what? 

20 
 MR. MARSCHKE: We're talking about 

21 
 findings 5 and 6. I think we were 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 transferring these to TIB-13. 249 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Now finding 

3 
 5 was more a matter of philosophy and 

4 
 methodology. And that was, what was done in 

5 
 the original -- not very clearly described but 

6 
 what was done was apparently they did the 

7 
 Atilla and there was a slight amount of 

8 
 speculation in what I'm saying. It was not 

9 
 clearly spelled out but this is the general 

10 impression we got. 

11 
 They did the Atilla and they 

12 
 divided the torso into two regions, two 

13 
 rectangular regions of the body. One 

14 
 comprising the chest and abdomen, or part of 

15 
 the chest and abdomen, and the other one 

16 
 comprising locations where the lapel might be, 

17 where the film badge might be. 

18 
 And then because the advantage of 

19 
 the Atilla apparently why they used it is you 

20 
 can get multiple dose points at once. 

21 Actually you can do that with MCNP also. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And then, having produced the 250 

2 
 output and tabulated the output, they used 

3 
 Crystal Ball, I believe, they don't specify 

4 
 but that's what they used to randomly sample 

5 
 and pair. So let's get one point, a dose 

6 
 point on the body and a receptor point where 

7 
 the film badge might be, and take the ratio of 

8 
 the two. And this is done repeatedly sampling 

9 
 with no correlation, sampling over the dose 

10 
 point and over the -- I'm going to call them 

11 
 receptor points which is the -- or detector 

12 
 points for the film badge. And then -- and 

13 this way you get a distribution of ratios. 

14 
 And from that distribution, I don't 

15 
 have it in front of me but there was a -- the 

16 
 mean was 2 point something, 2.1, 2.3, in that 

17 
 range, and then there was of course a standard 

18 deviation. 

19 
 And our objection to that is that 

20 
 you're looking at a specific worker who wears 

21 
 his, shall we say habitually wears his film 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 badge in a specific location and more 251 

2 
 important he has a cancer on a specific organ. 

3 
 He doesn't have a cancer over a range of 

4 
 organs. So that range is inappropriate. It 

5 
 should be more appropriate to say either doing 

6 
 it for each organ which would be a bit of a 

7 
 chore but not terribly difficult in saying for 

8 
 a cancer of the liver this would be the dose, 

9 
 this would be the ratio of the dose between 

10 
 the liver, the center of the liver and the 

11 
 film badge on the lapel. That would be one 

12 approach. 

13 
 The other approach would be a 

14 
 limiting one where you simply say which organ 

15 
 would be at the greatest distance from the 

16 
 lapel. Which organ would be reasonable to 

17 
 expect it would be in line with the -- in the 

18 
 glove box, it would get the highest exposure. 

19 
 Which organ would get the highest exposure 

20 
 with the lowest film badge reading and use 

21 
 that as a ratio to have a limiting claimantNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 favorable case. One or the other, but not 252 

2 
 this range. That was our approach and 

3 
 philosophy. 

4 
 Now, what we did way back I believe 

5 
 in 2005, imagine we're going back that far, 

6 
 actually it just so happened that there was --

7 
 my colleague [identifying information 

8 
 redacted] who was at that time a staff member 

9 
 of Los Alamos, LANL, had a colleague first 

10 
 name [identifying information redacted] who 

11 
 did his Ph.D. thesis. And he modeled, he 

12 
 hunted around because they no longer use them, 

13 
 but he hunted around, found a glove box at 

14 
 LANL that was still in dust, somewhere in 

15 
 storage, carefully took measurements on it and 

16 
 reproduced it in an MCNP model. So here you 

17 
 have the detailed model of the dimension, the 

18 thickness, the materials. 

19 
 And we use that model to represent 

20 
 an organ that was directly in line with the 

21 
 plutonium flows being handled or radioactive 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 flows being handled -- I think we used 253 

2 
 plutonium -- and the likely location of the 

3 
 lapel. And we did get a ratio that was within 

4 
 10 percent of the NIOSH ratio. So, the number 

5 
 came out reasonably good but we just 

6 
 disapproved of the concept behind it. And we 

7 
 don't feel that there was a good basis for 

8 
 using a distribution as opposed to a fixed 

9 
 number. 

10 So sorry, that's a long-winded 

11 
 answer to what -- that's basically what 

12 
 finding 5 is all about. More a question of 

13 
 approach and methodology than actually the 

14 number. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thanks, Bob. 

16 
 This is Stu. I thought that was pretty 

17 clear, actually. 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: This is Greg 

19 Macievic. It was pretty clear but incorrect. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Greg, go 

21 ahead. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Let me explain 254 

2 
 actually what we did and then -- first of all, 

3 
 Bob keeps talking about doses. In no cases 

4 
 are we computing doses in any of this 

5 
 scenario. What we did, because the dose 

6 
 computation comes in from the dose 

7 
 reconstruction reconstructor. He is the one 

8 
 who has to look at the badge types that were 

9 
 used, filter configurations, whether it's TLD 

10 
 or film, also look at where the organ for the 

11 
 cancer is and do all the corrections and 

12 
 modifications that are required. The 

13 
 functions of things like the energy of the 

14 
 protons and all that has to be done first. 

15 
 The whole point of this modeling is that it's 

16 a geometric correction. 

17 
 What I did was because you can pick 

18 
 and not just a few points, and Atilla can't 

19 
 just pick a few. You can pick 10,000 points 

20 
 if you want to and it does it much faster than 

21 
 MCNP and that's why we use this. We picked --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 I picked 30 points that covered the entire 255

2 
 area of the chest. I picked 30 points that 

3 
 covered the whole lower abdomen. 

4 
 And the whole point is that you 

5 
 compared the fluxes at -- you would take, say, 

6 
 the lower abdomen or the lower torso part, 

7 
 you'd have the first point. You would take 

8 
 the ratio of that first point with all the 30 

9 
 points of the chest. And you did use Crystal 

10 
 Ball and that is stated specifically in the 

11 
 procedure. It is stated throughout that, what 

12 was done. 

13 
 You take that and use all these 

14 
 different ratios, just of the flux. Because 

15 
 the intention is that if the dose 

16 
 reconstructor has done all his dose 

17 
 computations, you will take that badge reading 

18 
 that's been corrected, take that number which 

19 
 is the geometric mean and the whole 

20 
 distribution, geometric mean of 2.19 plus the 

21 
 geometric standard deviation of 1.35. So 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have a ratio range that goes from 0.89 to 4 256

2 
 and you get -- that applies that distribution 

3 
 to the badge reading and you will get a 

4 
 distribution of the potential doses that 

5 
 corrects that badge. So now you are not 

6 
 talking in terms of dose. 

7 
 And as a matter of fact what you're 

8 
 doing, I think when one of the parts of the 

9 
 response where you use the MCNP and said, boy, 

10 
 this is a simple inverse square law geometric 

11 
 effect and you came up close to our number, 

12 
 it's funny how you keep coming up close to 

13 
 what the Atilla number is but yet you don't 

14 accept the Atilla. 

15 
 Because part of the problem is you 

16 
 don't want to get into the specific organs and 

17 
 discussing each one because there are too many 

18 
 things. I mean even the type of glove box, 

19 
 there are so many types of glove box out 

20 
 there. So to make it as simple as possible 

21 
 and only 16 pages, we went with that, I went 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 with that methodology of computation. And 257 

2 
 there is nothing unusual about a distribution 

3 
 of ratios between two regions because those 

4 
 regions are right at the surface. And I have 

5 
 rambled too much. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Once again, to 

7 
 answer that briefly, the problem is you're 

8 
 having -- the distribution of ratios assumes 

9 
 the distribution of organs and yet you're 

10 
 applying that distribution to a specific 

11 
 worker with a specific cancer in a specific 

12 organ. And it just seems to be illogical. 

13 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, what you're 

14 doing --

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because they would 

16 
 also consider at the low end, he could get a 

17 
 small correction because what if the organ was 

18 
 high on the body and not that far from the 

19 
 lapel whereas in reality his organs, that's 

20 
 not his organ. So it's not -- if you were 

21 
 doing epidemiological study of a lot 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 workers and saying, well, on average this 258

2 
 would come out. But if you're doing a dose 

3 
 reconstruction of a specific worker that 

4 
 distribution based on exposure of all the 

5 
 organs in the body just does not -- is not 

6 
 reasonable. 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You are looking at -

8 
 - the reason you're covering both regions of 

9 
 the body is because all you're trying to get 

10 
 is you're saying with a glove box, the dose is 

11 
 going to be to the lower abdomen because he's 

12 
 working on a table and the dose is going to 

13 
 the lower abdomen. And you want to ask well 

14 
 how do I correct that badge reading. How much 

15 
 is that badge reading under-responding based 

16 
 on a dose to the lower abdomen and that is 

17 what you're correcting. 

18 
 When you're talking about the 

19 
 organs and the doses to the organs now you 

20 
 have to start looking at the photon energies, 

21 
 you have to start looking at different types 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 of corrections for the glove box material. 259

2 
 When we tried to make that glove box as 

3 
 simplified by having the Lexan face and the 

4 
 lower abdomen in the line of the exposure as 

5 
 opposed to in a real glove box where you have 

6 
 a lower metal portion and a higher Lexan 

7 
 portion, you would get less dose to the lower 

8 
 abdomen. So we were trying to make it --

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not correct, 

10 
 by the way, because our glove box was a real 

11 glove box. So we did not get less dose. 

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No, and you came up 

13 with my --

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, we came up 

15 
 with the average, the same average number. 

16 But again --

17 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Did you run all the 

18 


19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not sure we're 

20 
 addressing the same -- we're talking about the 

21 
 same thing. The objection is that by sampling 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 from a distribution, sometimes the worker is 260

2 
 going to get a lower correction factor that 

3 
 may be applicable to somebody else with a 

4 
 different cancer but not to his cancer. So it 

5 
 just seems that it should not be a crap shoot 

6 
 that he takes his chances of where 

7 
 particularly, where you draw the distribution, 

8 
 but it should be a fixed value, a conservative 

9 
 fixed value that will be claimant-favorable, 

10 
 that will not risk underestimating the dose. 

11 That's the objection. 

12 
 DR. MACIEVIC: -- made the 

13 
 specifics of a LANL glove box and said okay, 

14 
 the LANL glove box is the glove box of choice 

15 for all workers at all sites. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, we're not 

17 
 saying that because as it turns out you're 

18 
 correct to point it out that in general as it 

19 
 turns out, the inverse square law gives you a 

20 
 reasonably good correction without considering 

21 
 the energy and the attenuation. That seems 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 come out. But again, by using a distribution, 261 

2 
 you're also sampling from the low end as far 

3 
 as, as well as from the high end and you risk 

4 
 underestimating the correction factor. I 

5 
 won't say dose even though we use doses. You 

6 
 risk underestimating the correction factor by 

7 
 simply lumping the individual cancer with a 

8 
 whole array of possible cancers. That's the 

9 
 objection. 

10 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, the objection 

11 
 would be more valid if that correction factor 

12 
 went down to zero, between zero and 4. But 

13 
 you're basically between 1 and 4 and the mean 

14 
 at 2.19. So you're really -- the sampling is 

15 
 always going to be greater than 1 in a 

16 correction to that dosimeter --

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: How can you have a 

18 
 correction factor of zero? That means that 

19 
 the film badge got a dose and the organ got 

20 zero dose? 

21 
 DR. MACIEVIC: No. Obviously, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 can't have a correction factor of zero. 262I 

2 
 said zero to 4 just to go to the extreme down 

3 
 to zero. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, 1 would be the 

5 
 lower limit. 

6 
 DR. MACIEVIC: A lower limit to the 

7 
 upper limit which covers all the calculations 

8 
 from Tim Taulbee's calculation. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

10 DR. MACIEVIC: Also --

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, again I can 

12 
 see clearly we're not going to agree. It's my 

13 
 point, and I believe SC&A stands with this, is 

14 
 that this should be a fixed number. I'm not 

15 
 saying that this should be the fixed value 

16 
 that we came up with the LANL glove box, we 

17 
 just used that as a -- limited. We were not 

18 
 asked to do 10,000 possible simulations, we 

19 
 just did one to see if it's reasonable. That 

20 
 the thing is, it should be offhand I would 

21 
 say, if you want to use a distribution 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 should take maybe the 95th percentile of that 263

2 
 distribution and use that as the fixed value. 

3 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I would agree. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Or use the mean for 

5 
 a particular organ. But not to use a 

6 
 distribution which includes both above and 

7 
 below. 

8 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, that's true. 

9 
 You could do that and truncate it and move the 

10 upper part, I would agree with that. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, that would be 

12 claimant-favorable and reasonable. 

13 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. I'm done. 

14 (Laughter) 

15 
 MR. KATZ: That's surprising how it 

16 
 came out at the end. What does the 

17 
 Subcommittee think? 

18 
 DR. MACIEVIC: You've got a lot to 

19 vent after 7 years. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

21 
 just want to make sure I -- the last part 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 that conversation caught me by surprise. 264 

2 
 Apparently both of you feel like if we used 

3 
 the distribution that we generated but rather 

4 
 than use the full distribution use the 95th 

5 
 percentile of what you get from the 

6 
 distribution we generated that that would be 

7 
 an acceptable correction factor. Did you both 

8 
 say that would probably be okay? 

9 
 DR. MACIEVIC: I would have no 

10 problem with it. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: And Bob, that sounded 

12 right to you? 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say it again? I 

14 
 didn't quite -- could you repeat what you 

15 said? 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. If in fact 

17 
 using the values that were generated in our 

18 
 document, it's got a median, a mean and a 

19 
 geometric standard deviation. And if we use -

20 
 - what would be the resulting 95th percentile 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That would be 265 

2 
 great. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be an 

4 
 acceptable item for you. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that would be 

6 
 very favorable. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think we 

8 
 might have a resolution then. That would be 

9 
 something we would have to change in our 

10 approach though. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It only took 5 

12 years. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's why I was a 

14 little caught off guard by that conversation. 

15 (Laughter) 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So that would be 

17 
 essentially something that we could come back 

18 
 and say as a result of this we have agreed to 

19 
 do that and that if we do that then that 

20 
 presumably would put this in abeyance until 

21 our guidance is included. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: I have a 266 

2 
 question. Steve, this potential resolution 

3 
 will address what finding? Is it 8 or 5 and 

4 
 6? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is 10-05. 

6 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: But we have what 

7 
 they discussed just now in finding 8. 

8 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That's another 

9 
 question. We have to go back through those. 

10 
 Those findings in 10, findings 5 and 8 are 

11 
 still open and 6 is still open but 6 is going 

12 
 to -- there's also the TIB-13 factor in here. 

13 
 There's some connection between the TIB-10 

14 
 findings and the TIB-13 findings which are 

15 
 very similar. In fact, finding 6 we said the 

16 
 last entry in the BRS was this finding will be 

17 
 transferred to TIB-13. Until then the status 

18 
 is changed to in progress. So I don't know 

19 
 why we didn't change it to transferred at that 

20 particular point in time but we didn't. 

21 
 So I think I've been confused on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the TIB-10 findings and the relationship 267 

2 
 between TIB-10 and TIB-13 for 5 years now. 

3 
 And I would think we need to take a step back. 

4 
 Now that we have some agreement between NIOSH 

5 
 and SC&A on an approach to resolution of this 

6 
 we can go back and look at all the findings 

7 
 and see which ones this resolution will 

8 
 address. And what it's going to take to 

9 
 address any ones that this proposed resolution 

10 does not address. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: That's an excellent 

12 suggestion. 

13 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Bob, does that sound 

14 reasonable to you? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Bob, are you there? 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, yes. I'm not 

17 
 quite sure what the question. Sorry. I'm 

18 having a little trouble hearing. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Steve was questioning 

20 
 the fact that we appear to have this overlap 

21 of 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm well aware of 268 

2 
 that. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: Of issues between --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I want to comment 

5 
 on the other, the summary of the open findings 

6 
 on TIB-10. And I think largely they're 

7 
 thinking of finding 8. Finding 8 arose 

8 
 because NIOSH ran and constructed an MCNPX 

9 
 model which was quite different from the model 

10 
 they used for Atilla. And that was withdrawn 

11 in Rev 4. So that finding is gone. 

12 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 8 is gone 

13 now? 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe so 

15 
 because that was a question of the model used 

16 
 in the MCNP for Rev 3. And NIOSH then 

17 
 withdrew the MCNP analysis when they issued 

18 Rev 4. So finding 8 is gone. 

19 
 And finding 6 which talks about the 

20 
 model of glove box is also more of an issue of 

21 
 appearances. We disagreed with the model 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 we don't disagree with the results. In light 269 

2 
 of what we just said, I think we can withdraw 

3 
 both findings as being editorial issues. The 

4 
 model is not a correct model but it doesn't 

5 
 change the results. I don't know how NIOSH 

6 
 wants to handle that. 

7 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think what I 

8 
 want to do is there's three outstanding issues 

9 
 on the TIB-10 which is 5, 6 and 8. And we 

10 seem to be -- they seem to be very fluid. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Again, we 

12 
 produced a report together, Steve and I, 

13 
 showing that the glove box -- I believe it was 

14 
 called Innovative Technologies if I remember 

15 
 correctly -- that was used in the original 

16 
 Atilla model was simply not -- that was not in 

17 
 fact innovative technology, the glove box. 

18 
 There was a misinterpretation of the 

19 
 engineering drawings and there wasn't enough 

20 
 information available at the time. So it's a 

21 
 technical point but it doesn't change 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 result. So I'm not sure how the NIOSH and the 270 

2 
 Subcommittee want to handle the fact that 

3 
 there was a technical error in the analysis 

4 
 but the result is still reasonable. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well Bob, the way I 

6 
 would like to handle this is I would like to 

7 
 have whoever is the point person for SC&A and 

8 
 the point person for NIOSH discuss now where 

9 
 we are now that we have one or two points of 

10 
 agreement, and meld the two issues, what we 

11 
 have in TIB-10 and what we have in TIB-13, 

12 
 identify which issues are still outstanding 

13 
 and agree which ones can be closed and have 

14 
 that information brought to the Subcommittee 

15 
 at its next meeting so that we can at least 

16 
 get some clarity on exactly what we still have 

17 
 outstanding. At this juncture, I don't know 

18 
 about the other Members of the Subcommittee 

19 
 but it's very muddled in my mind as to what's 

20 
 clear, what we have agreed upon, what we have 

21 
 not agreed upon. That's obviously a technical 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 question and you need to bring some resolution 271

2 
 I think, some suggested resolution to the 

3 
 Subcommittee before we begin to close or 

4 
 attempt to actually place language in a 

5 
 closure statement for any of these items. 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, 6 seems to run 

7 


8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Who is the NIOSH 

9 
 point person on this? 

10 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Greg Macievic. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Greg Macievic. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: Six falls under the 

13 
 same thing because it references 13 and the 

14 
 MCNP model so all of them. 

15 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we're going 

16 
 to look at 5, 6, 8. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Nine is closed. 

18 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Nine is closed. And 

19 
 TIB-13 I think there's only one open on TIB20 
 13. We'll look at that as well. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Four. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Four. 272 

2 
 MR. KATZ: You said 5, though. 

3 
 We're already in agreement on 5. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: I'm not asking for 

5 
 specific findings. I'm asking that you look 

6 
 at TIB-10 and TIB-13 and identify which 

7 
 findings can be closed based on the 

8 
 discussions that we've had today and 

9 
 previously and which ones are open and why. 

10 
 Can we agree that we'll have that at our next 

11 
 meeting? Can our SC&A and our NIOSH folks get 

12 
 together on your own without us and identify 

13 
 where we are, bring us back closure statements 

14 
 or updates that we can post to the database 

15 
 with the Subcommittee's approval at our next 

16 meeting. Okay? Is that agreeable? 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wanda, would you 

18 want to participate in that technical call? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to hear 

20 
 it. Yes, if I can. Just let me know that 

21 
 it's going on. I'll let you know if I can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 make it. 273 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Whoever organizes it 

3 
 send me date and time and I will distribute 

4 
 that and any of the Subcommittee Members who 

5 
 want to listen in can. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right? 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And then any 

8 
 communications that are done, for instance 

9 
 email exchanges or things like that --

10 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, just email those. 

11 
 We can't have a quorum for a call but 

12 
 otherwise you guys can listen in, some of you 

13 at least. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now what we heard 

15 
 is that maybe Bob and Greg are close to 

16 
 agreement on that particular issue. I'm not 

17 
 sure that the Subcommittee is in agreement on 

18 it. 

19 
 What's not clear to me now, I think 

20 
 you were -- I guess NIOSH was proposing that 

21 
 they would use the distribution in 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 calculational thing as opposed to a fixed 274

2 
 point. But if you use a distribution, 

3 
 ultimately you're still picking up the tail 

4 
 anyway. It's not clear to me how the endpoint 

5 
 differs very much in these two cases. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: SC&A did a study at 

7 
 the very beginning of its contract -- this 

8 
 goes back to 2004 -- over how the fixed 95th 

9 
 percentile of the distribution compares to 

10 
 using an entire distribution. And depending 

11 
 on the distribution but in most cases we found 

12 
 the 95th percentile was more claimant13 favorable. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's very 

15 much dependent on the size of the error bars. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It does. I said in 

17 
 most reasonable cases. This was done together 

18 
 by myself and Harry Chmelynski, a Ph.D. in 

19 
 statistics, another part of our group. And in 

20 
 most cases, there were a few unusual cases but 

21 
 with very, very large error bars but in 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 cases the fixed 95th percentile was more 275 

2 
 claimant-favorable. This is the answer to 

3 
 that question. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think 

5 
 you're required to use what you would call 

6 
 claimant-favorable assumptions at every step 

7 
 of a calculation. You have to use reasonable 

8 
 assumptions along the way. And the 99th 

9 
 percentile on the distribution ends up giving 

10 
 you the claimant favorability that you want. 

11 
 You don't always have to -- I mean you could 

12 pile 95th by 95th by 95th. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the only way 

14 
 you can confirm that categorically would be to 

15 
 do it twice but maybe that's not unreasonable 

16 to do each run twice. 

17 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, there's 

18 
 always going to be exceptions. I guess it 

19 
 seems to me there has to be a decent rationale 

20 
 for selecting a single point versus a 

21 
 distribution when in fact -- if you're talking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 about workers having their organs in different 276

2 
 positions then it seems to me it makes sense 

3 
 to use a distribution. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But we're talking 

5 
 about, again, I'm sorry, it sounds like we're 

6 
 reopening the issue which we just agreed on. 

7 
 Again, we're talking about the specific work, 

8 
 not an individual whose organ -- the 

9 
 individual organs doesn't wander. The cancer 

10 
 can be two different organs. We're talking 

11 
 about a specific dose reconstruction to a 

12 
 specific, a known, specific cancer. To say --

13 
 I'm sorry, I thought we just solved this 

14 issue. Resolved. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I said you and 

16 
 Greg agreed to it. I don't think the 

17 
 Subcommittee did and I was asking why you 

18 
 would go with a single point versus a 

19 distribution. 

20 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I think the thinking 

21 
 is, again, it's like what Bob says. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 individual is going to have a cancer in a 277

2 
 particular organ whether it be prostate or 

3 
 something like that and that's going to be a 

4 
 fixed relationship between the organ that has 

5 
 the cancer and the location of the dosimeter. 

6 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes but in fact you 

7 
 don't know what it is for that individual. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We know where the 

9 
 cancer is or you wouldn't be doing the dose 

10 reconstruction. 

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You don't know 

12 where that individual's organ is. 

13 
 MR. MARSCHKE: We don't know the 

14 
 height of the individual. I think what Paul 

15 is saying --

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have pretty 

17 
 detailed information from the ICRP reference 

18 
 man. We know the approximate location of each 

19 organ. 

20 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Exactly. That's my 

21 
 point, Bob. That you're using a reference 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 phantom and -- 278 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But all your dose 

3 
 conversion factors --

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- distribution --

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- interrupting. 

6 
 All the dose conversion factors in use by 

7 
 NIOSH and by every other body that I know of 

8 
 is based on the reference man. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Exactly. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Otherwise you would 

11 
 have to rewrite the whole book and do it for 

12 
 each individual and I don't think anybody is 

13 going to do that. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. I'm saying 

15 
 that makes the argument for using a 

16 distribution because --

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I don't agree 

18 with that. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, well ultimately 

20 it's the Subcommittee that has to --

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the distribution that is used by NIOSH is 279

2 
 still based on a particular phantom, not on a 

3 
 range. Not on a range of sizes. 

4 
 It just so happens that I'm working 

5 
 on a contract with CDC Radiation Studies 

6 
 Branch on this very topic on screening people 

7 
 for radiation intake and should they use a 

8 
 standard phantom or should they use a 

9 
 different one for each individual. I think 

10 the resolution --

11 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, no, I 

12 
 wouldn't be arguing for that. I'm just 

13 
 thinking off the top of my head here that the 

14 
 organ position relative to the phantom is 

15 still in a sense a part of a distribution. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That may be the 

17 
 case. 

18 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: There's an 

19 uncertainty is all I'm saying. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, there's no 

21 question. There's no question. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And wherever 280 

2 
 there's uncertainty we've got to try to use 

3 
 distribution. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But this 

5 
 distribution developed for TIB-10 does not 

6 
 address that uncertainty. It addresses an 

7 
 uncertainty as to we don't know which organ is 

8 
 affected not that we don't know the size of 

9 
 the individual or where, you know, his liver 

10 
 is with respect to his collarbone, for short 

11 individuals compared with --

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're saying that 

13 uncertainty is --

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not what was 

15 
 addressed. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I understand. 

17 Thank you. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We have 

19 
 our marching orders with respect to TIB-13 and 

20 
 TIB-10, right? And we can now close that for 

21 purposes of discussion 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Our next agenda item is IG-003 and 281

2 
 IG-005. Final reports were to be transmitted 

3 
 and we were to load them on the database. 

4 
 Both SC&A and NIOSH had actions. Who can tell 

5 
 me where we are? 

6 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think we did 

7 
 anything. I think that's going to be a 

8 
 carryover item, Wanda. I don't know. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: They're not loaded, 

10 I just tried. 

11 
 MR. MARSCHKE: So I'm not even 

12 
 sure. From SC&A's point of view I guess I'd 

13 
 have to look into that. I apologize, Wanda, I 

14 did not -- that agenda item slipped my --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The reports have 

16 been written? 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: That's what I was 

18 going to ask, do we have final reports. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

20 
 have final reports. IG-003 and IG-005, SC&A's 

21 
 review of IG-003 and IG-005. I guess 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what we're talking about, right? Did we task 282 

2 
 them to do that? 

3 
 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think we're 

4 
 reviewing -- are we reviewing IG-003, IG-005? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the action 

6 
 here? 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well it says the 

8 
 final reports transmitted and then loaded into 

9 
 the database but do we even have a report? I 

10 don't remember seeing one. 

11 
 MS. LIN: I don't remember findings 

12 for IG-005. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: This goes back a long 

14 way. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: IG-004 says there's 

16 
 seven findings. Oh, we weren't talking about 

17 
 4. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Three and five. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: Zero zero, so. 

20 
 MR. MARSCHKE: John Stiver, are you 

21 on the phone? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, I'm on. I don't 283 

2 
 recall what this was about though either. 

3 
 We'll have to look into it. 

4 
 MS. LIN: IG-003 is the external 

5 
 exposure. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: External is 1, 

7 
 internal is 2. Three is exposures that are 

8 
 included. Five, excuse me, classified 

9 
 information. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: For some reason our 

11 
 prior information led us to believe that both 

12 
 those were outstanding and needed reports, 

13 both what's covered and --

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Were we supposed to 

15 report on what's in them? 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: Classified 

17 
 information. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: To be honest I 

19 
 don't remember. 

20 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: What would be 

21 
 loaded would be the findings, right? 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 have any yet. 284 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

3 
 you've been tasked to review. 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: I will have to track 

5 
 back and see exactly what the instruction was 

6 
 because as I said, this has been carried over 

7 
 for at least three meetings. So I'll go back 

8 
 and check to see what it is. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, 003 actually 

10 
 says Rev 1 on here, so. Wanda has that 

11 action. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda has the action. 

13 I'll double-check it. 

14 
 Our next one is PER-29. NIOSH is 

15 
 going to give us an opinion on what the 

16 approach was going to be. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I sent 

18 
 that. Did I send that? 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there was 

20 something that was sent. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This PER is about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Clarksville/Medina, the weapons storage sites 285

2 
 -- or modification centers. The PER was 

3 
 written, this is unusual but it was written at 

4 
 the initial issuance of the Site Profile for 

5 
 those sites, the reason being that some dose 

6 
 reconstructions had been done with some --

7 
 where we only have a few cases, a lot of times 

8 
 we'll just do the dose reconstructions rather 

9 
 than write a Site Profile. And then we got 

10 
 more cases and we decided we've got enough. I 

11 
 guess this is what happened. We eventually 

12 issued a Site Profile for Clarksville/Medina. 

13 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this says 027 

14 is Clarksville/Medina, 029 is Hanford. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'm sorry. I 

16 said --

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Internal --

18 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Is 29 the Y PER? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Twenty-nine is Y-12. 

20 
 MS. MARION-MOSS: Twenty-nine is 

21 Hanford. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well this says 00 286
 

2 
 and I have 029. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That won't make any 

4 
 difference. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we were supposed 

7 
 to have cleaned those numbers up 

8 
 theoretically. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I sent 27 which I 

10 
 thought was what was in my notes from the last 

11 
 meeting. That notebook's out in the car. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: It seems like it 

13 
 would make sense because we were talking about 

14 


15 
 CHAIR MUNN: PER-29 is --

16 
 MEMBER BEACH: Irregardless there's 

17 
 zero on both of these. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on just a moment. 

19 
 No. Since that was a carryover also it would 

20 
 have to be something I'd have to go back and 

21 
 check from at least three meetings ago. I'll 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 take the action check and make sure I'm very 287

2 
 clear and then the parties involved will get a 

3 
 note from me about what those are. 

4 
 That brings us a little early but 

5 
 back to PROC-44 and the document review that 

6 
 we were going to see if we had John Mauro for. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you want 

8 
 my opinion on Hanford PER I would kind of 

9 
 recommend you wait until the new one comes out 

10 
 because there will be one probably, well, I'm 

11 
 trying to think of when that's going to come 

12 
 out. We're going to issue a Site Profile 

13 
 revision soon so that we can do the non14 
 presumptive cases covered by the last SEC but 

15 
 there's still things to talk about. So we 

16 
 might need to wait and do an ultimate PER when 

17 
 all the changes are done. So I'd have to --

18 just let us know which one that is. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: As I recall I think 

20 
 the issue was that we were tasked a review of 

21 
 29 for the first set several years ago. 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 then I think Kathy Behling brought up the 288

2 
 issue that there had been new changes in some 

3 
 of the latest revisions that impacted, had a 

4 
 pretty significant impact on neutron dose. 

5 
 And so the question was, as 

6 
 mentioned, should we go ahead and get started 

7 
 or combine and amalgamate the PERs based on 

8 
 what might come out of the TBD. I think the 

9 
 suggestion to wait until the new revision 

10 comes out is probably the best way to go. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean that's 

12 
 not imminent because there are still changes 

13 
 that I think that are going to affect post 83 

14 
 which would want to get those resolved and 

15 
 done, and then do a PER rather than doing 

16 iterative PERs. 

17 MR. STIVER: Right. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: My memory of the PER19 
 29 issue was that you were going to look at 

20 
 what you wanted to do and when you wanted to 

21 do 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I just told 289 

2 
 you. 

3 
 CHAIR MUNN: I know. But I hadn't 

4 
 heard that before. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: So all right. We'll 

7 
 take that under advisement I guess and 

8 
 continue to carry it here until we get some 

9 
 feel for when that's going to happen. 

10 Otherwise we'll lose that. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, yes, you 

12 
 can keep it on there but I think that PER for 

13 
 Hanford will wait a while because as I said 

14 there are still issues to solve post 83. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we'll want 

17 
 to resolve those, then write one PER. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: We just need to get a 

19 
 feel for how and when. I suppose you can't 

20 
 double-check that until events unfold. So 

21 
 we'll just continue to carry it until we find 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 out what we're doing. 290 

2 
 PROC-44. John Stiver, are you 

3 
 there? 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. I told John 

5 
 Mauro that we're going to go at 4 o'clock, 

6 
 that I'd give him a call about 15 minutes 

7 
 beforehand. Let me call him and let him know 

8 
 that we're starting a little early. And Steve 

9 
 Ostrow also agreed to be on the line. 

10 
 DR. OSTROW: Hi guys, this is Steve 

11 Ostrow. I'm on the line. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Had you talked to John 

13 earlier? 

14 
 DR. OSTROW: I spoke to John. I 

15 
 went through our report briefly with John. 

16 
 He's operating with a cell phone and 

17 
 candlelight right now in New Jersey so he 

18 
 wasn't sure whether he'd be able to connect to 

19 
 this call but he'd give it a try. If not I'll 

20 try to lead it. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Okay, all 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 That's good, thanks. 291 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: So John, you're going 

3 
 to call up John Mauro. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: I'll go ahead and give 

5 
 him a call. And also I believe Bob Barton's 

6 
 on the line. He was involved in the 

7 
 appendices. 

8 
 DR. OSTROW: That's right. Bob, 

9 
 you there? 

10 MR. BARTON: Yes, I'm here guys. 

11 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, good. So let's 

12 
 take a little break while John Stiver calls 

13 John Mauro. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: I'll go on mute here 

15 and I'll get a hold of John if I can. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: Why don't you folks go 

17 
 ahead and do that and we'll move onto our 

18 
 administrative work while you're doing that. 

19 
 We'll take a look at what our schedules look 

20 
 like and when we might be able to arrange our 

21 
 next meeting. Based on what we said earlier 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 think everyone agrees that the earliest we 292

2 
 could possibly do this was late January 

3 
 sometime. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: Or February. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: February is always 

6 
 such a terrible weather month. 

7 
 (Laughter) 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think it'll be 

9 
 worse than January. February is always worse 

10 than January. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: February is worse than 

12 January. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is, in terms 

14 
 of --

15 MR. KATZ: Not necessarily in this 

16 part. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Depends on where 

18 you are. 

19 
 CHAIR MUNN: Unpredictability. If 

20 
 it's just snowing and ice then you know it's 

21 snowing and ice. But if it's storming. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 293 

2 
 if this will affect your decision or not but 

3 
 I'm going to be on vacation from January 18th 

4 
 to the 29th. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that does affect 

6 
 our deliberations, no question about it. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: That sends us into 

8 
 February. 

9 
 CHAIR MUNN: That does put us into 

10 February. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: We have a Board call 

12 on the 7th. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And I am out 

14 
 from the 8th to the 15th. 

15 
 MEMBER BEACH: I've got the 31st or 

16 the 1st. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: Thirty-first or first 

18 of February? 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: January 31st or 1st. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I was going to say. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 I just called John Mauro and he's going to 294

2 
 try to connect. I said we'd give him about 5 

3 
 minutes. He's had kind of spotty connectivity 

4 
 so far. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, thanks. 

6 
 Appreciate that, John. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Eighteenth through 

8 
 the twenty-eighth. I'll have essentially no 

9 
 ability to prepare for the end of January. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, so that's not good. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, it isn't. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: And Wanda, when do you 

13 leave? 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: I'm out from the 8th 

15 through the 15th, that week. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: So what about February 

17 6? It's a Wednesday. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: February? 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Sixth. That gives Stu a 

20 week to get up to snuff. 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that puts us, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the teleconference is the next morning. 295 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: So the fifth or the 

3 
 sixth. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: What time are your 

5 
 flights out of here, Wanda, when you leave? 

6 
 CHAIR MUNN: I leave early in the 

7 
 morning. What about the 20th? 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: That's getting real 

9 
 close to the next Board meeting and that gets 

10 
 pretty busy. That was the only thing I was 

11 thinking. If we wait until the end. 

12 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's 2 weeks 

13 
 away, 2 and a half weeks away between the next 

14 
 meeting. The Augusta meeting isn't until the 

15 12th of March. 

16 MR. KATZ: How about February 5? 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: February 5 is okay 

18 with me. It's still pushing Stu a little. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Stu, how is that for 

20 you? 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Lori will get us 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 ready. 296 

2 
 (Laughter) 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You guys really 

4 
 overestimate how much I do. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds like the 

6 
 fifth it might be. 

7 
 CHAIR MUNN: Is the fifth a good 

8 
 date for everyone? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Will February 5 work for 

10 other folks? 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: February fifth is a 

12 Tuesday. 

13 
 CHAIR MUNN: February fifth is a 

14 
 Tuesday, yes. Nine a.m., Cincinnati. 

15 February fifth it is. Okay. 

16 
 Is there any other administrative 

17 
 activity that we need to see to before we go 

18 
 back into PROC-44? All right. We're good 

19 
 with that then. Only wise people take 

20 
 vacations in January and go somewhere where it 

21 isn't the way it is here in January. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Weather's nice here 297 

2 
 in the summer. Why not go on vacation in the 

3 
 summer? 

4 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I agree. Good 

5 
 thinking. From the very beginning. All 

6 
 right. John, do we have any feel yet for when 

7 
 John Mauro might be back? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: I am. Hi, Wanda, it's 

9 
 John. Can you hear me okay? I was able to 

10 get through. 

11 
 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, that's 

12 wonderful. Welcome back. 

13 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve, I'm 

14 
 here too. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Glad you're 

16 
 both here. We're ready to have you update us 

17 on PROC-44. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, John, I'm here 

19 
 too. 

20 DR. MAURO: Okay, very good. 

21 Wanda, how would you like to proceed? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: However is most 298 

2 
 convenient for you. You're the one with the 

3 
 process problem here. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. You know what 

5 
 would be best? Steve and I earlier today went 

6 
 over the document carefully. I don't actually 

7 
 have the document. I never printed a hard 

8 
 copy for myself and I cannot get to it 

9 
 electronically on my computer. So what I 

10 
 would suggest is, since Steve and I did go 

11 
 over it carefully today, and Steve has a copy 

12 
 in front of him and he wrote, basically there 

13 
 were three authors. Steve did part, I did 

14 
 part and Bob did part. Steve, if you wouldn't 

15 
 mind could you sort of be the point man and 

16 
 tell our story about our findings with respect 

17 
 to this? And I could help out as you go 

18 along. 

19 
 DR. OSTROW: Sure. Is that okay 

20 with you, Wanda? 

21 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 ideal. Thank you. 299 

2 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay. All right. So, 

3 
 what we reviewed is PROC-44 Rev 0 which is 

4 
 dated October 2005 which is sort of important 

5 
 in some of our comments. The procedure is 

6 
 about 7 years old and because of that it's 

7 
 somewhat outdated. And although we have 

8 
 criticisms of some parts of it part of it just 

9 
 may be because it's an old revision and hasn't 

10 been changed recently. 

11 
 That said, as John was saying we 

12 
 reviewed it in our report which came out 

13 
 October 15, 2012 we had our review report. 

14 
 And we divided it into three technical 

15 
 sections. One was on the procedural 

16 
 evaluation, how well does this procedure 

17 
 follow the administrative requirements. Does 

18 
 it cover all the bases. We had a technical 

19 
 evaluation also and then we looked at it. And 

20 
 we had two appendices that gave SC&A's 

21 
 examples of some of our strategies 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 used in reviewing the completeness of 300 

2 
 available site-specific data and examples of 

3 
 strategies that we used in analyzing 

4 
 allegations of data falsification. We put in 

5 
 those two appendices also. 

6 
 So, just to build background. SC&A 

7 
 was asked to review this procedure in the June 

8 
 2012 Santa Fe meeting of the Advisory Board. 

9 
 And in reviewing it, we used three different 

10 three-part methodology. 

11 
 First, we used the protocol for the 

12 
 review of procedures and methods employed by 

13 
 NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Secondly, we 

14 
 also took some guidance from the Board 

15 
 procedures review of Special Exposure Cohort 

16 petitions and Petition Evaluation Reports. 

17 
 And third, beyond that, since we've 

18 
 been involved in the SEC process for these 

19 
 past few years, we also tried to use some of 

20 
 our own experience of how the review process 

21 
 is actually done. Not how it's written 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 necessarily but how it actually goes. So we 301 

2 
 gave some insights based on that too. 

3 
 The overall PROC-44 is divided into 

4 
 two parts really. It provides protocols for 

5 
 determining whether an SEC petition qualifies 

6 
 for evaluation, that's the first part. And 

7 
 then if it's qualified, then it looks at 

8 
 evaluating how do you evaluate those 

9 
 qualifying petitions. 

10 
 Based on our understanding of the 

11 
 mission of the Advisory Board we only covered 

12 
 the part 2. That means we assumed that a 

13 
 petition is already qualified. We didn't look 

14 
 at the first part, how NIOSH decides if a 

15 
 petition is qualified or not. But that's our 

16 
 understanding, that's the mission, the second 

17 part. 

18 
 We reviewed the procedure looking 

19 
 at a hierarchy of documents in that context. 

20 
 The highest part is the Act of course and then 

21 
 its implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. Parts 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 82 and 83. Then you have the DCAS guidelines 302 

2 
 which is specifically DCAS-PR-004 and OCAS-IG3 
 001 and -002. 

4 
 So we tried to address two 

5 
 questions. Does the procedure materially 

6 
 follow the provisions of statute and are the 

7 
 guidelines scientifically sound and claimant8 
 favorable? And after we did this review we 

9 
 ended up with ten findings and a bunch of 

10 
 comments. The findings, the first six of them 

11 
 were procedural and the last four were more 

12 technical. 

13 
 So with that preamble, I'll talk 

14 
 first about the procedural evaluation which is 

15 
 Section 2 of our report. The way we did that, 

16 
 we looked at 42 C.F.R. 83 which is the SEC 

17 
 part of the Part 42. And we lined up the 

18 
 requirements of that against the DCAS-PR-004 

19 
 which is the DCAS procedure, internal 

20 
 procedures for the processing of Special 

21 
 Exposure Cohort petitions. And in 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 column the ORAU procedure 0044. So we wanted 303 

2 
 to see at the end, did the ORAU PROC-44 

3 
 capture everything that was required by the 42 

4 
 C.F.R. 83 and the DCAS procedure. That's the 

5 
 hierarchy. So that's what we did. And we 

6 
 have some tables summarizing this. 

7 
 And I'll go through, I'll get to 

8 
 the heart of some of our findings now. And 

9 
 finding 1, I'm not going to read the whole 

10 
 thing, it's too long, but the essence is that 

11 
 part of the ORAU PROC-44 mis-cites sections of 

12 OCAS-PR-004 and 42 C.F.R. 83. 

13 
 As I said, there's no reason why 

14 
 the PROC-44 should line up with sections of 

15 
 OCAS-PR-004 since they were like 6 years 

16 
 apart, the two procedures. However, it did 

17 
 mis-reference 42 C.F.R. 83 sections which it 

18 should be noted. That's a minor finding. 

19 
 Finding 2, the PROC-44 does not 

20 
 appear to include the requirements of 40 

21 
 C.F.R. Part 83 and the DCAS PROC-44 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 regard to timeline. Both the 40 C.F.R. 83 and 304 

2 
 the DCAS procedure have extensive discussions 

3 
 and requirements about timeliness and how much 

4 
 time each step should take in the process. 

5 
 And the ORAU PROC doesn't seem to include very 

6 
 much of that. It leaves a lot of that out. 

7 
 That's our second finding. I'm looking for my 

8 
 findings here. Okay. 

9 
 Three is that both the Part 83 and 

10 
 the DCAS procedure cover the period after the 

11 
 evaluation findings are reported. And I have 

12 
 several sections on that. The ORAU PROC-44 

13 
 ends with the -- at the time that the 

14 
 evaluation findings are reported. And it 

15 
 doesn't include anything about the iterative 

16 
 process that we all know goes on, that after 

17 
 the report is given, we have the back and 

18 
 forth between the Board, SC&A, DCAS, the 

19 
 petitioners, et cetera, which can go on for 

20 years and that's not really mentioned. 

21 
 So we thought that was important. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 We mention that again later in our technical 305

2 
 findings. 

3 
 Finding 4, and this I mentioned 

4 
 before, that this is a -- we realized that the 

5 
 ORAU PROC-44 in 2005 and it antedates the 

6 
 current version of the DCAS PR-004 which is 

7 
 2011. So whenever the ORAU PROC is revised 

8 
 citations to different sections should be 

9 
 updated so that things line up. 

10 
 The finding 5 is that the ORAU PROC 

11 
 doesn't adequately reflect the role of the 

12 
 Advisory Board and the Board's technical 

13 
 support contractor, which is us, in the SEC 

14 process. 

15 
 And for example, the Advisory Board 

16 
 Work Group for specific sites often become 

17 
 very involved in reviewing, commenting on and 

18 
 rendering additional analyses. And plus 

19 
 outside groups like the petitioners and et 

20 
 cetera also get very involved in the process. 

21 
 And this can go on for a long time. And 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 ORAU PROC doesn't capture the process. 306 

2 
 Finding 6, which was the last of 

3 
 the sort of procedural findings, is that the 

4 
 ORAU PROC doesn't discuss the issue of 

5 
 separating the SEC from Site Profile issues. 

6 
 Just based on our experience and my experience 

7 
 personally working on some of the SECs, 

8 
 there's a lot of discussion and back and forth 

9 
 also on how do you distinguish between what's 

10 
 a Site Profile issue and what's an SEC issue. 

11 
 And that should be probably mentioned in the 

12 PROC-44. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Steve, this is John. 

14 I'd just like to add a little comment here. 

15 
 DR. OSTROW: Let me get a drink of 

16 water while you comment. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. On that matter, 

18 
 you know, it became very important -- it's 

19 
 really a question for the Subcommittee and 

20 
 NIOSH. The very fact that our experience is 

21 
 that we very often try to sort issues out, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 technical analyses and issues into those two 307

2 
 categories when they serve the process well. 

3 
 Very often we are able to do that easily and 

4 
 sometimes we're not. There's always some 

5 
 concern that we might call something an SEC 

6 
 issue or a Site Profile issue. 

7 
 I've got to say, I'm not sure the 

8 
 degree to which this procedure should attempt 

9 
 to capture that and to discuss it. And sort 

10 
 of make an effort at actually having some 

11 
 discussion regarding that process and making 

12 
 such distinctions. But we thought it 

13 
 important to raise it here because it has 

14 
 become an important part of the whole SEC 

15 
 issues resolution process. Perhaps not so 

16 much in the actual review. 

17 
 In other words, when NIOSH and its 

18 
 contractor reviews a petition and prepares an 

19 
 Evaluation Report the real question becomes --

20 
 and an Evaluation Report is produced by NIOSH 

21 
 and delivered to the Board the whole process 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 as Steve pointed out sort of stops there in 308

2 
 this procedure. And it's really a judgment 

3 
 call whether this procedure should continue to 

4 
 address the process after it's delivered and 

5 
 after it enters into the deliberative part of 

6 
 the Board, the degree to which this procedure 

7 
 should cover that part of the process. 

8 
 And also if it does it's at that 

9 
 point where an attempt to distinguish between 

10 
 -- identify issues once the Board identifies 

11 
 the issues that are before them. So this is 

12 
 really part of the back end of the process. 

13 
 And once you enter the back end of this 

14 
 process, this SEC issues resolution process, 

15 
 making distinctions between what might be 

16 
 critical SEC issues and what might be more 

17 
 considered Site Profile issues is very 

18 important to the process. 

19 
 But the bigger question is, and 

20 
 this is really a question too, one of our 

21 
 comments was it seems that the PROC itself 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 would benefit if it went beyond just stopping 309

2 
 at delivery of the SEC Petition Evaluation 

3 
 Report completion but went on to the post --

4 
 when the deliberative process begins. And 

5 
 that's a judgment call I guess that the 

6 
 Subcommittee might want to discuss, whether 

7 
 there would be a benefit for the procedure to 

8 
 go beyond and enter that realm. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: Well, this is Steve. 

10 
 Let me just add one more thing. One of the 

11 
 reasons I put this comment in is that the 

12 
 OCAS-PR-0044 does go beyond the delivery of 

13 
 the Evaluation Report. And the ORAU procedure 

14 
 basically follows the OCAS procedure pretty 

15 
 much section by section except for it ends 

16 earlier. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Can I just toss out a 

18 
 thought into this discussion? Just because, I 

19 
 mean it occurs to me once you have the report 

20 
 before the Board for NIOSH, an ER report, the 

21 
 resolution process, ORAU does not drive 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 process. It's not in the driver's seat 310 

2 
 whatsoever. Really it seems to me DCAS takes 

3 
 the lead on that and uses ORAU for technical 

4 
 support when it comes to issue resolution 

5 
 where all these matters of sorting out, well, 

6 
 there's this finding but it's really a Site 

7 
 Profile or not and so on. 

8 
 So I'm just wondering whether it 

9 
 really is germane to the ORAU procedure since 

10 
 they're getting guidance from DCAS in terms of 

11 
 what issues to resolve, what paths to go down, 

12 
 what follow-up is needed. You know, with 

13 
 guidance from the particular Work Group that 

14 is assigned that petition as well. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu 

16 
 and I guess I'm kind of neutral on this one. 

17 
 Certainly you can't write anything in this 

18 
 prescriptive in this procedure past that 

19 
 delivery because the authority to be 

20 
 prescriptive about decisions after delivery of 

21 
 the Evaluation Report is really with 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Advisory Board. To be prescriptive, what has 311 

2 
 to be accomplished in order to resolve these 

3 
 findings. Are we going to review this once 

4 
 there are findings, how do we resolve the 

5 
 findings. Really it's the Advisory Board who 

6 
 speaks definitively or authoritatively about 

7 
 those steps. 

8 
 And so you can't write a procedure 

9 
 that's descriptive in terms of what will you 

10 
 do after that. You can write some general 

11 
 statements about in the event of such and such 

12 
 then provide. But that process -- and you 

13 
 can't really write much and that's driven by 

14 
 our project planning activities that occur 

15 
 between DCAS and ORAU. That's how ORAU gets 

16 
 their instruction for proceeding beyond. 

17 
 Really that's how they get the instructions 

18 
 all the time but certainly beyond the delivery 

19 
 of the Evaluation Report that's where it comes 

20 from. 

21 
 So we could -- I guess I'm kind 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 neutral on it. It wouldn't hurt to write 312 

2 
 something in there about the possibility of 

3 
 that kind of a follow-on activity but it's not 

4 
 going to really provide much oomph to a 

5 
 procedure. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Well, I guess my point 

7 
 is it's not going to really change anything. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Because you are going to 

10 
 tell them what to follow up on no matter what 

11 
 through that process as the Board gives its 

12 
 feedback on the issues that concern it. So 

13 
 you know, it's not going to affect how things 

14 
 get done, whether there's more written or not. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: I don't think. But just 

17 my point of view. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: It would be very 

19 difficult to be prescriptive. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, PR-4 was 

21 
 revised somewhat recently and I believe there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 are a series of timing sort of things built 313

2 
 into there and that's part of the reason why 

3 
 it was revised was to put in some timing and 

4 
 questions of is it worthwhile to proceed to 

5 
 research, you know, continue research. Things 

6 
 like those kinds of questions were put in 

7 
 there. That was all written after and it's 

8 
 all -- and that decision process is on our 

9 
 side. There is no part of the decision 

10 
 process which is on ORAU's side other than 

11 
 that they can give us feedback on, you know, 

12 possible avenues that appear. 

13 
 To me it's a wash. It doesn't hurt 

14 
 anything to write it there. I don't think --

15 to write it there either. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I certainly think 

17 
 they can make some general statements about 

18 
 what would happen but be very prescriptive 

19 
 would be appropriate it would seem to me. 

20 
 This is strictly how they're interacting with 

21 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a largely 314 

2 
 administrative procedure. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: To help out a little 

4 
 bit here we have -- portions of this procedure 

5 
 that begins with I guess the process. I could 

6 
 envision, and this is certainly a judgment 

7 
 call, that the PROC describes this process and 

8 
 how for example it takes its direction, who 

9 
 takes the lead. 

10 
 For example, you could very well 

11 
 move into as Steve pointed out an outreach 

12 
 process where the role of your contractor is 

13 
 to support the additional data acquisition. 

14 
 And I could see cross-referencing I believe 

15 
 it's PR-12. In other words, procedurally, and 

16 
 this is really a judgment that needs to be 

17 
 made on what the scope of this procedure could 

18 
 be. There are elements that go into the 

19 
 process and the role that is played by I guess 

20 
 your contractor in supporting the back end of 

21 the process. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 And the value that describing the 315

2 
 elements that comprise that process and how 

3 
 it's implemented by your contractor under your 

4 
 direction might add some value for those 

5 
 reading it. But again, like you said, it 

6 
 can't be very prescriptive. It really is just 

7 
 structuring that there is a world after the 

8 
 SEC petition evaluation is completed and there 

9 
 is a process that takes place. And certainly 

10 
 your contractor because this is clearly for 

11 
 your contractor has a role to play in that 

12 process. 

13 
 And that was why we brought that 

14 
 point up. And we recognize that this is 

15 
 clearly a judgment call on whether there would 

16 be value to go that step first. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's hard for me to 

18 
 see how that would be helpful, especially in 

19 
 light of the fact that it will vary 

20 significantly from one situation to the next. 

21 
 MR. MARSCHKE: That might be 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 answers to the comment. We made the comment 316 

2 
 and whether or not you feel it's a valid or 

3 
 worthwhile comment to take any action on 

4 
 that's up to NIOSH and the Subcommittee to 

5 
 make the decision. I mean we're not, you 

6 
 know. And so it's really, it's out there now 

7 
 and you know. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's worth 

9 
 looking at. It's worth asking the question. 

10 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Make people think 

11 
 about it a little bit and if the answer comes 

12 
 back and say no, it's not needed then it's not 

13 needed. 

14 
 CHAIR MUNN: It's not needed. So 

15 that's good. All right, good. Finding 7. 

16 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, perhaps I'll 

17 continue then. 

18 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Thanks, Steve. 

19 
 DR. OSTROW: As we get to the last 

20 
 few of our comments, findings are related to 

21 
 technical matters. And John led on this. 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 findings -- and this is our Section 3 of the 317

2 
 report. 

3 
 Finding 7 is that we make the 

4 
 statement that the special review process 

5 
 seemed to miss the fundamental issues which 

6 
 includes the adequacy, accuracy and 

7 
 completeness of data needed to reconstruct 

8 
 exposures. The fact that there is a Site 

9 
 Profile user's guide and previous dose 

10 
 reconstructions for a given site does not 

11 
 necessarily mean that doses can be 

12 
 reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. 

13 That's in the preamble. 

14 
 Our actual finding 7 is that ORAU 

15 
 PROC-44 should de-emphasize its dependence on 

16 
 Site Profile -- aside and previous dose 

17 
 reconstructions for evaluating SEC petitions 

18 
 and emphasize the need to review source 

19 
 documents that will help to achieve a 

20 
 completely understanding of the operations, 

21 
 radionuclides is concerned, exposure 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 scenarios, et cetera. And review of Site 318 

2 
 Profile, user's guide, dose reconstruction is 

3 
 helpful but should not be assumed to be the 

4 
 authoritative documents with respect to SEC 

5 
 petition evaluations. 

6 
 John, do you want to jump in on 

7 
 this? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think the 

9 
 statement the way you just read explains it. 

10 
 See, the way I've looked at it is in the PROC 

11 
 itself it starts out technically the process 

12 
 that's used, the first thing that's done is to 

13 
 go to the Site Profile. And the argument I 

14 
 make there is that that really -- and to 

15 
 judge, using the Site Profile as to explain 

16 
 this is how we're going to do doses, 

17 reconstruct doses. 

18 
 And I felt that that's not the 

19 
 starting point. I think that it's a document 

20 
 that's there that's useful but the starting 

21 
 point is the fundamental questions regarding 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 data adequacy. That really should be the 319 

2 
 starting point. 

3 
 And going to cases that have been 

4 
 completed again which of course use the Site 

5 
 Profile is not the starting point. And there 

6 
 really -- the fact that those exist and have 

7 
 been used in the past, you know, those were 

8 
 never written -- in fact, I always said the 

9 
 Site Profile is a living document. And so I 

10 
 don't think it was ever intended to be the 

11 
 starting point for an SEC petition evaluation 

12 process. 

13 
 And so I felt that that should be 

14 
 de-emphasized and the emphasis needs to be 

15 
 placed on the data adequacy, completion, 

16 
 accuracy, that sort of thing which actually 

17 
 starts to be addressed a little later in the 

18 
 procedure. And that's where I think a lot 

19 
 more attention has to be given. In fact, I 

20 
 think that the next finding -- so that's the 

21 
 finding we have. And really to de-emphasize 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the role of the Site Profile and previously 320

2 
 done dose reconstructions and let's now zero 

3 
 in on where the action is. Data adequacy, 

4 
 data completeness. And I believe that's the 

5 
 next finding, Steve, is that? 

6 
 DR. OSTROW: Okay, I'm going to 

7 
 read finding 8, that's the next one. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, please. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: The guidance should be 

10 
 more specific with respect to the evaluation 

11 
 of NOCTS data that will help to determine data 

12 
 adequacy and completeness. That's the NIOSH 

13 
 OCAS Claims Tracking System. So I 

14 
 think John's comment here was that there's a 

15 
 lot of information in the Dose Reconstruction 

16 
 Database Claims Tracking System and that this 

17 
 procedure should give a specific guidance on 

18 
 what's in there and how to use it. John, is 

19 that right? 

20 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. In fact, what we 

21 
 did here with the help of Bob Barton who's on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 the phone is that, you know, when we look at 321

2 
 all of these SEC petition reviews, when we 

3 
 were asked to review them, we always asked 

4 
 ourselves the question what does the data look 

5 
 like. Is it complete? Is it solid? Does it 

6 
 give you the information you need? 

7 
 And right now the procedure, the 

8 
 PROC says yes, you must review the data for 

9 
 completeness but it doesn't really -- and 

10 
 here's where the hard part is. It doesn't 

11 
 really say how do you do that. What do you 

12 
 mean you want to look for data completeness, 

13 accuracy, adequacy? 

14 
 So what we did is provide an 

15 
 appendix, I think it's Appendix A where we go 

16 
 into some detail and this really draws from 

17 
 our experience on the kinds of things that 

18 
 need to be done and checked in order to 

19 
 evaluate the degree to which the data set, the 

20 
 air sampling data, the bioassay data, the film 

21 
 badge data, the site description, et cetera, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 et cetera, is complete and adequate based on 322

2 
 knowledge of what took place at the facility. 

3 
 So I think that in our opinion the 

4 
 procedure could be kicked up a notch by going 

5 
 into the various tools and techniques and 

6 
 approaches that can be used to evaluate data 

7 
 completeness, data adequacy and accuracy. 

8 
 And we gave examples in Appendix A 

9 
 of how we do it. In a funny sort of way what 

10 
 we do when we're asked to review an SEC 

11 
 Petition Evaluation Report and its supporting 

12 
 Site Profile is what I think that your 

13 
 contractor should be doing also. And the 

14 
 lessons we've learned and the skills we've 

15 
 developed, and certainly the skills your 

16 
 contractor has developed should be 

17 articulated. 

18 
 Here's a golden opportunity to 

19 
 actually -- in fact, quite frankly I enjoyed 

20 
 working with Bob Barton on this part of it 

21 
 because I said let's take a look. What do 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 do to see whether the data are adequate and 323

2 
 complete? What are the questions we ask 

3 
 ourselves and then what do we do when we dive 

4 
 into the data sets and the Site Research 

5 
 Database. 

6 
 And that's where Bob laid out very 

7 
 nicely -- I think, Bob, you had four examples 

8 
 of different SEC petition reviews and what we 

9 
 did as exemplifying the different kinds of 

10 things that can be done. 

11 
 We recommend as a finding here that 

12 
 it would be a useful exercise to extend this 

13 
 procedure and provide examples or actually 

14 
 recommended steps that could be taken to check 

15 for data completeness, data adequacy. 

16 
 And as we try to write them down in 

17 
 the procedure. And that would add a lot of 

18 
 value so that others later when they're doing 

19 
 an actual SEC Petition Evaluation Report could 

20 draw from that and use it as guidance. 

21 
 And you know, quite frankly I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 it would close the gap between when we're 324

2 
 asked to review something, an SEC Petition 

3 
 Evaluation Report, if that -- in a way you can 

4 
 see what we do. And whether you see that as 

5 
 valuable, and maybe we should write it down as 

6 
 part of your own instructions for your own 

7 
 selves or your contractor might be useful. 

8 
 It sounds a little arrogant but 

9 
 this is what we've been doing for 6-7 years 

10 
 now and I thought it valuable to sort of write 

11 
 that down because I don't think it was ever 

12 
 written down before. You know, what do you 

13 
 actually do to check for data adequacy and 

14 
 data examples provide some, I guess a path 

15 forward for doing that. 

16 
 MS. LIN: Hi everyone, this is 

17 
 Jenny with HHS. I just want to provide one 

18 
 perspective which is that all these 

19 
 recommendations that I'm hearing so far from 

20 
 SC&A has been great but I really want to know 

21 
 what would be the substantive impact 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 improving -- in incorporating all these 325 

2 
 recommendations into the current ORAU 

3 
 procedure. 

4 
 The scope of ORAU's work is 

5 
 primarily driven by the Agency's directive and 

6 
 also by their resources. So by adding a lot 

7 
 of these recommendations into the PROC you 

8 
 know, you sort of inadvertently extended the 

9 
 scope of the work that ORAU may be directed to 

10 
 do. And I'm just not sure if that necessarily 

11 
 there's a way how an Agency decides to use 

12 
 their resources in terms of providing 

13 
 contracting work to ORAU. So I just want to 

14 keep that in mind. 

15 
 CHAIR MUNN: Paul has a comment. 

16 Thank you, Jenny. 

17 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me that 

18 
 NIOSH is going to have to take the first crack 

19 
 at some of these suggestions and see if they 

20 
 make sense both in terms of what is practical 

21 
 from the Agency's point of view as well as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 what the issues that Jenny raises. 326 

2 
 It seems to me some of these ideas 

3 
 are great ideas and they might be incorporated 

4 
 in a way that doesn't look like a mandated 

5 
 procedure but things that might be considered. 

6 
 But certainly the first step would be for 

7 
 NIOSH which I guess is the next step anyway to 

8 
 react to all of these things. Because I think 

9 
 it's written out only for NIOSH and ORAU but 

10 
 also for the Board to have some of these data 

11 
 adequacy issues sort of codified in the sense 

12 
 that we are doing it in sort of a similar way 

13 
 on different facilities. At least with our 

14 
 contractor that we say yes, this is how we go 

15 about doing it. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I was 

17 
 just going to comment that this procedure 

18 
 dates from 2005, is that right? Okay. Those 

19 
 of us who have been around for a while 

20 
 remember the nature of discussions in 2005 and 

21 
 that over the course of 7 years we've had 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 sort of collective learning process about how 327

2 
 this is going to work. So it's not surprising 

3 
 to me that this, something written in 2005 

4 
 doesn't really reflect what's done now. That 

5 
 speaks to the issue of you have a procedure 

6 
 that's 7 years old, why haven't you revised it 

7 
 already, but that's another question. So I 

8 
 think certainly we would want to take this 

9 
 information, go back in light of what we do 

10 
 now because certainly, you know, we view the 

11 
 SEC process differently than we did the 7 

12 
 years ago. And so I think that's certainly 

13 
 worthwhile to go take a shot at this, take 

14 this under advisement. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: My two cents, I think 

16 
 it's great, really valuable actually John and 

17 
 Bob and Steve to be laying out this on the 

18 
 table in terms of how SC&A goes at that and 

19 
 thinks at these issues. Because I think 

20 
 you're absolutely right, the more convergence 

21 
 there is on methods and so on the 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 efficient the whole system will be in terms of 328

2 
 disposition of SECs in a timely fashion which 

3 
 we all want to achieve for the sake of 

4 
 petitioners and claimants at these sites. So 

5 
 I just want to commend. I think this is a 

6 
 really worthy effort to be laying these issues 

7 
 out and sorting through what are the best ways 

8 
 to go at this on both sides of the fence, 

9 
 whether it's DCAS or SC&A. 

10 
 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's certainly 

11 
 interesting to see them step by step as the 

12 
 contractor has laid them out here so far in 

13 
 what we've seen up through these first seven. 

14 
 By the same token Jenny's comments are 

15 
 certainly well received and well thought out I 

16 
 think. It's a natural concern I think to have 

17 
 your first reaction be in what kind of effort 

18 is it going to take to do these things. 

19 
 So, I'm looking forward to the NIOSH 

20 
 response to what's been laid out for us 

21 
 because that's really intriguing and I'd 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 to hear the last three, right? 329 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We've already 

3 
 covered 8. 

4 
 DR. OSTROW: Before we put this 

5 
 issue away for a while I just want to make a 

6 
 general comment on this. You really have to 

7 
 look, take an overview of the entire process 

8 
 you know about resources and saving time and 

9 
 all that. It may be if you look at the 

10 
 overall SEC cycle for a particular SEC adding 

11 
 some work up front to ORAU's scope may 

12 
 actually reduce the overall time and cost to 

13 
 complete the entire SEC review from beginning 

14 to end. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: And Steve, that was my 

16 point. 

17 
 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I know, and I 

18 
 agree completely. This is something I think 

19 
 the Subcommittee should think about, you know, 

20 look at the entire picture. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd go 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 step further. When all is said and done and 330 

2 
 all of the work that we've all been engaged in 

3 
 for so many years and where things have been 

4 
 most contentious have always been data 

5 
 completeness, data adequacy, always. And I 

6 
 think this was an opportunity for us to get 

7 
 our thoughts together. 

8 
 And quite frankly I think that 

9 
 thinking through this and the degree to which 

10 
 maybe not a procedure, maybe it shouldn't be a 

11 
 procedure because this is clearly a creative 

12 
 process. Each one was unique. You'll see by 

13 
 the examples that are provided in the 

14 attachment that Bob put together. 

15 
 And you know, each one is different 

16 
 but you start to see a common thread. In a 

17 
 certain class of problems you look for certain 

18 
 things to see for completeness and adequacy. 

19 
 And they emerge from the examples. And Bob 

20 
 picked his examples carefully to reveal the 

21 
 different classes of problems that we've 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 been challenged by and which have consumed so 331

2 
 much of our efforts. 

3 
 And by putting this down on paper 

4 
 I'm hoping that it starts a dialogue that may 

5 
 result in a procedure that gets a little bit 

6 
 more detailed and that is a little more 

7 
 helpful to not only the contractor but you 

8 
 know it almost establishes when you're working 

9 
 on your Petition Evaluation Report you may 

10 
 actually want to check the degree to which you 

11 
 may need to look into this or look into that. 

12 
 The way I went through this with 

13 
 Bob I have to say I didn't realize all the 

14 
 experience we all acquired over these years 

15 
 and this was our first opportunity to actually 

16 
 write it down. So I really hope you find it 

17 useful. 

18 
 Oh, one more thing. We have also 

19 
 Appendix C. That might be another separate 

20 
 finding. Like I say I don't have the report 

21 
 in front of me. We have a separate section on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 a very delicate subject dealing with data 332

2 
 falsification. 

3 
 DR. OSTROW: That's Appendix B, 

4 
 John. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: That's Appendix B, I'm 

6 
 sorry. I don't know if that's a separate 

7 
 finding but I don't want to lose sight of 

8 
 that. In many ways that might be even more 

9 
 interesting let's say. 

10 
 We have encountered, we have all 

11 
 encountered claims of data falsification which 

12 
 is one of the most difficult, challenging and 

13 
 stressful issue that we've all had to try to 

14 
 deal with. We all encountered it at the 

15 
 Nevada Test Site, for example, and that's the 

16 one that I'm most familiar with. 

17 
 But Bob put together -- how many 

18 
 cases did you have in there, Bob? I don't 

19 have it in front of me. Of different. 

20 
 MR. BARTON: It was two main 

21 
 instances of where we -- kind of in one case 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 we actually did investigate data 333 

2 
 falsification. That was the Nevada Test Site, 

3 
 the one you just mentioned. 

4 
 And in the other case we were 

5 
 tasked with trying to develop strategies to 

6 
 investigate it at Fernald. And that case was 

7 
 very unique because we went through and we 

8 
 came up -- there were three different 

9 
 strategies we had to sort of put the data to 

10 the test to see if it kind of held up. 

11 
 And what eventually happened is we 

12 
 came up with the strategies, we sort of did a 

13 
 sort of proof of concept and then weighed the 

14 
 pros and cons. And when we went and discussed 

15 
 them with the Fernald Working Group you know 

16 
 everyone was pretty much in agreement that 

17 
 none of these strategies would ever really 

18 
 come to any sort of quantitative conclusion to 

19 whether there was data falsification. 

20 
 So while that might initially be 

21 
 seen as a failure, you know, you couldn'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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 investigate it, it also showed that we 334 

2 
 performed our due diligence to see what we 

3 
 could have possibly done there and how 

4 
 feasible was it and what would be the benefit 

5 
 that we'd get from it. 

6 
 And again, all these situations are 

7 
 very unique and it's a lot of information in 

8 
 those appendices so I don't really want to get 

9 
 into it too much. But the situations are 

10 there. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. The reason I 

12 
 bring it up is I hope you find it valuable 

13 
 when you look at the Appendix. And Bob 

14 
 prepared all that material. It reflects the 

15 
 collective experience of SC&A over many years 

16 
 on these SEC issues which, as I said, and I 

17 
 broke them down to two categories, these two 

18 
 appendices. One dealing with just data 

19 
 adequacy, completeness, and the other, a 

20 
 special one dealing with data falsification. 

21 
 It's, you know, the degree to 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 NIOSH would probably find it useful and the 335

2 
 Board finds it useful, wonderful. I know we 

3 
 did in collecting our thoughts and experience 

4 
 and putting it down on paper. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: One other thing I'd just 

6 
 add for everybody's thought too. I don't know 

7 
 if you addressed this in your report, John and 

8 
 company, but there is one significant 

9 
 difference that also needs to be taken into 

10 
 account as DCAS wrestles with these and the 

11 
 Board, and that's the timing issue because 

12 
 DCAS is always under this statutory deadline 

13 
 situation which makes some sorts of analyses 

14 
 pretty challenging to get to within the 

15 
 deadline and is a situation where I think SC&A 

16 
 has more latitude in terms of digging on data 

17 
 and so on sometimes than DCAS does in some of 

18 
 these cases. 

19 DR. MAURO: That's absolutely true, 

20 absolutely true. 

21 MR. KATZ: Keep in mind. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIR MUNN: Your appendices are 336 

2 
 pretty impressive and it will be interesting 

3 
 to go through them in more detail. Thank you 

4 
 for a good report, all of you. 

5 
 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve again. 

6 
 We have two more findings, technical, 9 and 10 

7 
 which are short. 

8 
 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I saw them. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: Finding 9 is that the 

10 
 guidance would benefit from identifying 

11 
 specific types of flaws in personnel and air 

12 
 and facility monitoring data that should be 

13 
 investigated and examples of how these 

14 
 investigations can be performed. So 

15 
 specifically talking about air and facility 

16 monitoring data. 

17 
 And finding 10 is the procedure 

18 
 would benefit by referencing the Advisory 

19 
 Board's surrogate data criteria. So those are 

20 the end of our findings. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: The surrogate data part 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 is of course relatively recent and I realize 337

2 
 that but that's certainly -- I think it's 

3 
 important that the procedures do address the 

4 
 surrogate data part of the story now. I 

5 
 realize that was not a subject back when this 

6 
 originally was written but it's certainly a 

7 
 very important part of the whole SEC process 

8 
 now. 

9 
 DR. OSTROW: So that's it for our 

10 
 evaluation. Plus we just mentioned the two 

11 appendices that we included also. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think that about 

14 
 covers our report. I know there's a lot there 

15 to think about. 

16 
 CHAIR MUNN: There is indeed and 

17 
 we'll all make an effort to try to assimilate 

18 
 at least the bulk of this information between 

19 
 now and our next meeting. Is there any 

20 
 possibility that we'll have any feedback from 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: On these? 338 

2 
 CHAIR MUNN: On these. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there's a good 

4 
 chance of that. 

5 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We will 

6 
 include this in our agenda item as a NIOSH 

7 
 response action. Thank you to all of you out 

8 
 there on the phone for getting such a large 

9 
 number of questions in front of us all at the 

10 
 same time. We do appreciate it and the report 

11 
 itself will be I'm sure the subject for much 

12 
 midnight oil between now and the next time we 

13 meet. Thanks. 

14 
 Does anyone else have any other 

15 
 items that are not shown on the agenda that 

16 
 need to be covered? I don't want to miss any 

17 
 topics that we might have discussed but for 

18 
 some reason failed to get on our agenda list. 

19 If not --

20 
 MR. KATZ: So there are no other --

21 
 just to make sure there are no other -- 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 covered all the PERs that are going to come to 339

2 
 fruition for the next meeting and so on. 

3 
 There are no other procedure reviews where 

4 
 SC&A is coming out with a report? 

5 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Just the ones we 

6 
 talked about this morning. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, no, I mean we 

8 
 covered a bunch. 

9 
 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Just to make 

11 sure. Okay, good. 

12 
 MR. MARSCHKE: As far as I know. I 

13 mean John Stiver might know of some. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: I think we covered the 

15 
 waterfront on this. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: Good. 

17 
 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any other 

18 
 concerns? Any other comments? If not we are 

19 adjourned. 

20 
 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

21 went off the record at 4:22 p.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 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 340
 

2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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