This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

94th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 17, 2013

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:30 

a.m., Mountain Daylight Time, in the 

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Denver -

Westminster, 8773 Yates Drive, Westminster, 

Colorado, James M. Melius, Chairman, 

presiding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

2

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*'

MARK GRIFFON, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member*

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

3

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

BISTLINE, ROBERT

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, NIOSH

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

4

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

PAGE

Welcome

by Dr. James Melius, Chair ........... 5

General Steel Industries Technical

Basis Document (TBD)/TBD-6000

Reviews (PV)

by Dr. Paul Ziemer, WG Chair ......... 7

DuPont Deepwater Works

(Deepwater NJ) TBD Review (PV)

by Dr. Henry Anderson, Uranium

Refining Atomic Weapons

Employers WG Chair .................. 13

Procedure Reviews

OTIB-10: Standard Complex-Wide

Methodology for Overestimating

Doses Measured with Film Badge

by Ms. Wanda Munn,

Subcommittee Chair .................. 28

Understanding the Need for PERs

by Ms. Wanda Munn,

Subcommittee Chair .................. 46

PER-0012: Evaluation of Highly

Insoluble Plutonium Compounds

by Ms. Wanda Munn,

Subcommittee Chair .................. 50

Board Work Session

by Dr. James Melius, Chair

Matters of Funding .................. 61

SEC petition letters ................ 64

Public comments from

last meeting ........................ 72

Final Comments and Adjournment ............ 75
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

5

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

2 (8:32 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're going to 

4 start. Apparently we're starting this 

5 morning with LaVon giving his presentation 

6 again. LaVon, we tried to get him down under

7 30 minutes, he didn't quite do that. So 

8 another chance. Only kidding.

9 But I'm not quite sure why that's 

10 up there, but -- yes. But we have spoken to 

11 him about the 51 slides.

12 MEMBER MUNN: They were good 

13 slides, don't knock it.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's 51 

15 slides to approve. Think of how much --

16 MEMBER MUNN: They were 51 good 

17 slides.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, so we'll 

19 start. The plan again is, first, we'll have 

20 an update for TBD-6000 GSI. It'll be 

21 relatively short. Then an update on DuPont 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

6 1 TBD's, the 6001 committee or Work Group, and 

2 then we'll do procedure reviews. Then we 

3 have a Board Work Session which should be 

4 relatively quick also, because we have a 

5 couple letters to approve.

6 So I think we can probably go 

7 through without a break, but let's see how 

8 many questions we have and how long the 

9 presentations take. So we'll start with Paul

10 Ziemer and General Steel Industries.

11 MR. KATZ: Before Paul gets on, 

12 let me just check a couple of things. Well, 

13 first of all, welcome everybody for a second 

14 day. And for anyone on the phone, the 

15 materials for this day's sessions are on the 

16 web on the NIOSH website under the Board 

17 section under today's date for scheduled 

18 meetings.

19 Let me check on the line and see 

20 that we have our Board Members who are 

21 remote. Dr. Richardson, are you on the line?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

7 1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I'm 

2 here.

3 MR. KATZ: Great. Welcome. And 

4 Dr. Field?

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Did you tell 

6 me is the Live Meeting supposed to be showing

7 the thorium strikes, or is it just my screen?

8 MR. KATZ: No, it is showing for 

9 everybody right now, but it won't last. 

10 Right. And Dr. Field, are you on the line?

11 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I'm here Ted. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, and welcome. 

13 And just note for the record that Dr. Poston 

14 is absent today. And yes, and there are no 

15 conflicts for any of the sessions today. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And now we'll go back 

17 to Paul.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, good 

19 morning. I'm going to give a brief report on

20 TBD-6000 Work Group. This is an oral report.

21 I do not have any handouts nor am I using 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

8 1 any slides.

2 The TBD-6000 Work Group met by 

3 teleconference on October 11th, 2013. The 

4 primary focus of the meeting was two White 

5 Papers prepared by NIOSH. One concerning 

6 particle settling times, which was an 

7 unresolved issue pertaining to the TBD-6000 

8 findings matrix, and the other providing a 

9 summary of bounding doses to be assigned to 

10 several categories of workers at GSI.

11 In addition to the NIOSH White 

12 Papers, the Work Group also considered SC&A 

13 reviews of the NIOSH recommendations as well 

14 as comments from the GSI co-petitioner, Dr. 

15 Dan McKeel.

16 Copies of the NIOSH documents and 

17 the SC&A reviews and related comments and 

18 concerns raised by the co-petitioner are 

19 provided on the NIOSH DCAS website under the 

20 October 11th Work Group meeting information 

21 and agenda. I believe all of those documents
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

9 1 were also distributed individually to all of 

2 the Board Members not just to the Work Group.

3 These NIOSH documents are 

4 relatively brief and I do not plan to go 

5 through them here at the Board meeting, but 

6 if you have not already done so, please 

7 review them and the comments of SC&A and the

8 co-petitioner at your earliest convenience.

9 The Work Group agreed that 

10 several follow-up actions were needed before 

11 these issues could be closed. Let me 

12 enumerate those. Number 1, SC&A will double 

13 check the NIOSH calculations to verify the 

14 surface contamination levels that derive from

15 the proposed particle settling times.

16 Number 2, SC&A will provide NIOSH 

17 with details of their analysis of the values 

18 for residual contamination levels so that any

19 differences in calculational methods can be 

20 identified.

21 Number 3, NIOSH will contact 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

10 1 Landauer, the film badge suppliers, to 

2 clarify the issue of how control badge 

3 readings were reported to the client. And 

4 Number 4, NIOSH and SC&A will exchange 

5 information on how beta doses were calculated

6 in order to identify whether differing inputs

7 to the MCNP program were being used.

8 In addition to these specific 

9 tasks, NIOSH is also considering whether or 

10 not a document submitted by the co11 petitioner, and the document is identified as

12 AEC Report NYO4699 dated April 1957 that 

13 provides details of radiation surveys made by

14 the AEC around a number of accelerators, can 

15 be used to provide any useful surrogate data 

16 for GSI.

17 The Work Group expects to 

18 schedule a follow-up meeting very soon to 

19 resolve these issues and then address the 

20 remaining open issues from the TBD-6000 

21 Appendix BB findings matrix. TBD-6000 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

11 1 Appendix BB is the document that is specific 

2 to General Steel Industries. If 

3 there are specific questions today on these 

4 issues we'll be glad to address them. Also 

5 both NIOSH and SC&A have their participating 

6 technical personnel available today, either 

7 here or by phone, to answer questions or to 

8 clarify these documents if any Board Member 

9 wishes to raise issues or questions. And 

10 that completes my report, Mr. Chairman.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you Paul. 

12 Any questions from Board Members or any of 

13 the Work Group that would like to add 

14 comments? Do you have a time table on some 

15 of these follow-up items?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, actually I 

17 have just received and haven't even read it 

18 yet, but I have just received from SC&A the 

19 first item that's on the list. So they have 

20 already completed that.

21 And I believe, I understand that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

12 1 we have gotten feedback already from 

2 Landauer, and I guess we'll get in writing 

3 what the result of that was. So out of these

4 four items, two of them are already completed

5 and I think the other two will be following 

6 shortly.

7 So I anticipate that we may be 

8 able to meet in the fairly near future and 

9 try to resolve these issues. We don't have a

10 date yet but I'll work with Ted on that and I

11 think since the government's back in 

12 operation we don't have to worry about that 

13 anymore either.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Yes, Jim 

15 Neton?

16 DR. NETON: I could just add that 

17 the third issue which is related to residual 

18 contamination is going to be very quickly 

19 resolved, I believe.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Start over.

21 DR. NETON: I think the third 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

13 1 issue on residual contamination is going to 

2 be resolved very quickly. We're just 

3 waiting. We may have it already, a 

4 spreadsheet from Bob Anigstein. We want to 

5 verify his approach, and I think we're in 

6 agreement with that. So that one should be 

7 finished very quickly.

8 The longest issue's going to be 

9 comparing these MCNP input decks, but that 

10 won't take very long either. A week or two, 

11 I think, is probably sufficient. So these 

12 will all be done very quickly.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. We'll 

14 expect the similar time tables on all future 

15 efforts in other Work Groups. Paul, you must

16 be really pushing them.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think we 

18 all would like to complete this in the 

19 reasonably near future. GSI's been on our 

20 table a long time and we all recognize that.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I appreciate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

14 1 all the work you've done and that the Work 

2 Group is doing on this.

3 Okay, Henry. DuPont.

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: So what I'm 

5 going to give you is an update and a closeout

6 of our status or our review of the Site 

7 Profile for the DuPont Deepwater Works in 

8 Deepwater, New Jersey.

9 The background, for those of you 

10 who don't recall when this first came out, 

11 DuPont Deepwater Works was under contract 

12 with Manhattan Engineering from '42 to '47, 

13 and they were contracted to develop 

14 industrial scale facilities for purification 

15 of uranium from various ores, recovery of 

16 scrap, manufacture of metal and various 

17 uranium compounds, and they worked with 

18 various forms of uranium converting it to 

19 more useful forms.

20 There were two sources of 

21 exposure. External exposure was to naturally
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

15 1 occurring uranium, which they were 

2 processing, and its short-lived progeny as 

3 you can see there that internal exposures 

4 from inhalation of airborne uranium and 

5 inadvertent ingestion of residual uranium 

6 deposited on surfaces.

7 So time sequence of this 

8 particular review. In January of 2008 when 

9 we had a TBD-6001, this was an Appendix to 

10 the Battelle TBD-6001 and which provided 

11 guidance on dose reconstruction of workers at

12 this particular facility.

13 March 2011 we got a Technical 

14 Basis Document for standalone DuPont 

15 Deepwater Works, as you can see there the 

16 documentation. And I was motivated by the 

17 withdrawal of the TBD-6001 and that's how it 

18 got over to our AWE Work Group.

19 In August 2011, SC&A, after the, 

20 got assigned to us, they were assigned to 

21 develop and review the Site Profile for this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

16 1 particular DuPont Chambers Works, and they 

2 issued that review in August.

3 September, we had a meeting to go 

4 over their set of issues that they identified

5 and that had been mentioned earlier, but this

6 is the first time we had a discussion and 

7 began to look at resolving issues in the 

8 particular document.

9 NIOSH, in March of this year, 

10 issued a response to the findings which then 

11 gave us an opportunity to review and try to 

12 resolve the issues between NIOSH and SC&A, 

13 and June 6th, SC&A issued a response document

14 to their commentary and findings. And then 

15 September 27th, a couple of weeks ago, we met

16 again to, it looked like most of the issues 

17 had been resolved.

18 So external dose, there was no 

19 external dosimetry data available so 

20 exposures are based on the process knowledge 

21 and results of calculations. And exposure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

17 1 scenarios included submersion in a cloud, 

2 standing on contaminated surfaces, standing 

3 close to various sizes and types of uranium 

4 sources. 

5 And these were the types of 

6 things that the other AWE sites and the 6001 

7 protocol had begun to address. NIOSH 

8 employed the standard TBD-6000 methodologies 

9 which have been reviewed and accepted by the 

10 TBD-6000 Work Group.

11 Internal dose, again no bioassay 

12 data intake, and internal exposures were 

13 based on airborne dust loadings collected 

14 from '44 to 45, so there were 252 of those 

15 samples, and then fitting the data to 

16 lognormal distribution and assigned either 

17 the full distribution or the 95th percentile 

18 of the distribution to the workers based on 

19 potential for exposure.

20 This just shows the air sampling 

21 data distribution. You've seen some of these
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

18 1 types of normal score already in the previous

2 presentations, but this just shows the 

3 analysis for this particular site and the 

4 distribution of the samples.

5 There were seven findings, most 

6 of which we resolved. Issue 1, you can read 

7 it there. And NIOSH correctly pointed out in

8 the discussion that there was virtually no 

9 uranium handling and processing prior to 

10 1944.

11 So we closed out that issue about 

12 the use of the air sampling data for '44 and 

13 '45 when the facility really began a little 

14 bit earlier, but it really had not received 

15 and begun to process uranium until '44, so 

16 that the air sampling data was relevant to 

17 the exposure period.

18 Issue Number 2, had a concern 

19 about ingestion pathway was not modeled in 

20 accordance with approved NIOSH procedures, 

21 and NIOSH agreed that this original document 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

19 1 had been done a little bit earlier and 

2 they're going to revise the calculations.

3 And so in essence, after the 

4 discussion, the issue has been resolved. But

5 because the changing of the actual documents 

6 so that we'd have that in an updated format 

7 hadn't occurred yet and we don't have a good 

8 timeline for it, what we did is put the issue

9 in abeyance simply to keep it on our radar so

10 periodically we can remind NIOSH that this is

11 a catch-up activity that has to occur before 

12 we can fully sign off on the document.

13 Issue 3, you can see there, about 

14 that the Putzier effect was not taken into 

15 consideration when modeling the external dose

16 and there was some back and forth between 

17 NIOSH and SC&A, and came to agreement that 

18 that does not apply to the uranium processing

19 activities that took place at this particular

20 facility. And after further review, SC&A 

21 agreed with NIOSH and therefore we closed out
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

20 1 this issue as being resolved as well.

2 Issue 4 and 5 were quite similar, 

3 so for this slide we combined those two. The

4 dose rate at specific distances was assigned 

5 in the document as a distribution rather than

6 as a fixed and deterministic value.

7 But again agreed with NIOSH to 

8 repackage the material in a manner where 

9 uncertainty in the distance of the worker 

10 from the source material was assigned an 

11 uncertainty distribution, rather than 

12 assigning an uncertainty distribution to the 

13 dose rate used the distance as the 

14 uncertainty at a given distance from the 

15 source and we all agreed with that particular

16 strategy.

17 Again until the document is, the 

18 writing is actually revised we put this issue

19 in abeyance as well. There's agreement on 

20 it, and as I say it's now just a matter of 

21 having the documents catch up with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

21 1 decisions. And so that it doesn't get lost 

2 again, we'll just keep it on our list of 

3 issues to periodically look at.

4 But I think the documentation is 

5 all there so it's pretty clear as to what 

6 NIOSH can do, and it's simply a matter of 

7 when higher priority activities will get 

8 completed so that these kind of clean-up 

9 activities can occur.

10 Six and 7. Each of those issues 

11 are related to the assumption that the 

12 radiation dose rate measured using an open 

13 window survey meter at one meter from the 

14 surface contaminated with uranium dust is 

15 assigned 50 percent photon dose and 50 

16 percent beta dose.

17 NIOSH agreed with the SC&A 

18 position of 1:1 photon-to-beta ratio is 

19 incorrect and will use a 1:10 ratio. And 

20 with that switchover SC&A agreed and we all 

21 reviewed that and agreed as well. And again 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

22 1 it's having the document catch up with the 

2 decision processes, so that again is in 

3 abeyance.

4 So this basically is, we've 

5 concluded our review of this Site Profile, 

6 and the Site Profile now just needs to be 

7 revised. So with that we'd suggest that we 

8 could have the Board sign off on this review,

9 and once the documents are all updated 

10 they'll be posted again and this site should 

11 be ready to go.

12 Any questions?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any questions 

14 or comments from -- Josie? And then Brad.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Issue 2, 

16 did you send that one, after your discussion 

17 on the 27th, over to Procedures or after your

18 discussion you did something a little 

19 different? In the document that I read it 

20 showed that it was going to go over to the 

21 Procedures --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

23 1 MEMBER ANDERSON: It was going 

2 to, I don't know if it did yet. I mean we 

3 have not --

4 MEMBER BEACH: So it's still, 

5 that's the pathway?

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, that would 

7 be the pathway for that one.

8 MEMBER BEACH: For that one. 

9 Okay.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just needed 

11 clarification.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: On the years 

14 that we were looking at for this are just '44

15 through '45?

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's when the 

17 actual work was performed.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is when the 

19 work -- but those are the years that we're 

20 looking at is all?

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

24 1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: And this site 

3 is called '42 to --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: What's that?

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's when the 

6 work was actually done.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: And the ending 

8 time period for this one is '45, or do they 

9 have a residual?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't --

11 John?

12 DR. MAURO: This is a situation 

13 where there was an AWE facility to actually 

14 be the starting point to and continue, I 

15 think the end date was '45? It's up there. 

16 But the problem we had was that the data on 

17 air sampling was limited to 1944 and 1945.

18 And one of our class of concerns 

19 is they were going to assign that, use that 

20 data to reconstruct the doses for the earlier

21 years, '42, '43, or whatever the dates are up
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

25 1 there. Yes, there it is. '42 to '47. And 

2 so we were concerned that, we've often noted 

3 that in the earlier years things were not 

4 under very good control.

5 But NIOSH pointed out that when 

6 you look into the history of this site there 

7 really wasn't anything going on in the 

8 earlier years. The actual uranium work 

9 didn't really begin until around '44. And 

10 then we checked that out, went into the SRDB,

11 and we found that that's correct.

12 So in this particular case there 

13 really wasn't a lot of activity going on, and

14 therefore by using the data from '44, '45 is 

15 claimant favorable to apply it to the 

16 workers. So they are going to apply it to 

17 the workers that were there in the earlier 

18 years, but there really wasn't very much 

19 going on in the earlier years, and then we 

20 felt that that was a claimant favorable way 

21 to deal with this problem.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

26 1 MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't recall 

2 if there was a residual period. We'd have to

3 go back. I know whatever the proposal was it

4 wasn't an issue. How they were going to deal

5 with it was a pretty standard --

6 DR. MAURO: I have to admit, I 

7 don't recall why there is no issues related 

8 to residual. I'd have to go back to my 

9 records. For some reason that did not come 

10 up as an issue and I don't recall the reason.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: The dates just 

12 didn't, when reading this they didn't jibe 

13 with me. I understand what you're saying 

14 there but --

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: So the site is 

16 '42 to, you know, our major focus was on the 

17 fact that there's no biomonitoring and 

18 there's no badge measurements, and all there 

19 was was the air measurements and then with 

20 those, and they weren't at the start.

21 So we really discussed as to was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

27 1 it appropriate to use that because of the 

2 start-up usually is the most hazardous 

3 period, but they weren't handling, the 

4 materials really didn't arrive then.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

6 that. I just, usually when something comes 

7 in we usually follow it to the end, and I 

8 still don't have a clear understanding of 

9 when it stopped and what they did to take 

10 care of it, if it was in the same position.

11 DR. NETON: There is a residual 

12 period through '95 at DuPont Deepwater Works.

13 All I can recall now is that there were no 

14 findings in the SC&A review that --

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Whatever, 

16 we'd have to go back to look at the document.

17 DR. NETON: Yes, this closed out 

18 the findings that were in existence. There 

19 may have been other findings and we dealt 

20 with them earlier. I don't recall though.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. The dates 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

28 1 were a little confusing to me how they were 

2 following in, but Josie just pointed 

3 something out to me. So thank you.

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's why we 

6 have you sit next to Josie at these meetings.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, okay.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: This is part of 

9 why I wanted, when it started kind of under 

10 one auspices got reviewed, you then really 

11 have got to go through all of the comments 

12 and the data from the meetings, and that's a 

13 very laborious -

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've done 

15 Fernald, I know very well.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: So that's why 

17 we wanted to move it along quickly while most

18 of this was still in our findings as opposed 

19 to having go back to all of the discussion 

20 and refine it out of the minutes.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

29 1 questions or comments? If not, we have, I 

2 believe, a proposal from the Work Group, 

3 which would be a motion which would be to 

4 approve what their recommendations which 

5 Henry's outlined, with the understanding that

6 once NIOSH has responded to those and 

7 addressed those, which would be some time 

8 from now in terms of an updated Site Profile 

9 and so forth, that they would, you know, be a

10 follow-up on that and -- okay.

11 Any further discussion? If not, 

12 all in favor say aye.

13 (Chorus of ayes.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And on the 

15 phone? David and Bill, okay with you?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

17 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. This is 

18 Bill.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I heard 

20 you both. Okay, great. Okay, good. Next is

21 Wanda.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

30 1 MEMBER MUNN: All this fun 

2 material.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Procedure 

4 Reviews, yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Going along with 

6 our intent to keep you very informed about 

7 the scope of materials that we're dealing 

8 with in Procedures, we are going to talk 

9 about OTIB-10 and PER-0012 today. You have 

10 the slides in advance, and I hope if you have

11 any questions you'll provide them for me when

12 we're finished here.

13 We'll begin with OTIB-10, a 

14 standard complex-wide methodology for 

15 overestimating external doses measured with 

16 film badge dosimeters. We've taken quite a 

17 bit of time with this particular OTIB and its

18 review because it has bearing on many of our 

19 major sites.

20 The objective of this particular 

21 document was, first of all, to evaluate the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

31 1 degree of standardization that we were seeing

2 in standard DOE film dosimeters. We also 

3 needed to assure that we had developed the 

4 standard methodology that the dose 

5 reconstructor could use assigning doses that 

6 would be a reasonable overestimate of the 

7 organ dose.

8 This essentially was the first of 

9 the official documents that we had that was 

10 our attempt to try to process as many of the 

11 early claims as possible with a minimum of 

12 effort, time consumed. It was intended to 

13 overestimate the dose so that we could 

14 quickly evaluate the potential compensability

15 of a variety of claims that were before us 

16 which did not appear at first blush to be 

17 noncompensable.

18 It was started in 2004 when Rev 0 

19 of the OTIB was first provided. The 

20 following year we had the SC&A review. 

21 Shortly thereafter, NIOSH responded to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

32 1 concerns that SC&A had presented to us. And 

2 then we had the Subcommittee's discussion 

3 which was extensive and lasted over a period 

4 of over a year.

5 There were ten findings in all 

6 and we were successful in resolving all of 

7 those, but it wasn't always clear-cut for us.

8 Quite a bit of evaluation and consideration 

9 was given to each of these findings.

10 In June of 2006, NIOSH issued Rev 

11 1 and that Rev incorporated all of the 

12 findings that we had resolved. I'm sorry, 

13 I'm reading. I'm looking at my copy and not 

14 yours.

15 In June of 2006 -- I'm at the 

16 bottom of this slide now. My apologies for 

17 not keeping up with what I'm saying. We had 

18 Revision 1 and it did cover all of the 

19 resolutions that we had in earlier findings. 

20 It resulted in no change at all to the 

21 assigned dose, and as a result we weren't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

33 1 going to have to have a PER, a Program 

2 Evaluation Report.

3 As I mentioned earlier there were 

4 ten findings in total, and for those of you 

5 who had any interest in those specific 

6 findings even though I'll go through them 

7 very shortly, the complete histories are on 

8 the Board Review System.

9 If you care to go there and look, 

10 there is your URL for finding it. And I again

11 remind folks who are not a part of the Board 

12 that this is an internal review document and

13 it's not accessible from outside the CDC 

14 system.

15 As I mentioned earlier, the 

16 resolutions took us quite a while but we did 

17 close them all. And here we take a quick 

18 look at the summary information from what 

19 those findings involved. The first one was 

20 concern that there was no guidance on how to 

21 treat missed dosimetry data where the number 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

34 1 of zero readings was seen for less than 12 

2 cycles. Rev 1 provided the guidance on how 

3 to do that, and we closed the resolution.

4 Item Number 2 indicated that the 

5 guidance did not acknowledge when missed dose

6 was based on the level of detection that was 

7 representative of the 95th percentile and 

8 required no uncertainty.

9 Rev 1 of the new Table 2-1 does 

10 give specific instructions to the dose 

11 reconstructor on how to record that missed 

12 dose and how to calculate it and enter it 

13 into IREP.

14 Finding 3 and Finding 4 were very 

15 similar. There was a concern about the 

16 placement of information and where it 

17 appeared in the document, how much there was 

18 of it, and it was essentially a format issue.

19 We discussed those and closed them both in 

20 2008.

21 Rev 1, all that background 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

35 1 information has been moved to a different 

2 place in the document and incorporated into 

3 Attachment A so that the dose reconstructor 

4 will know where to find it and not have to 

5 wade through it before the reconstruction 

6 event actually begins.

7 Item Number 5 was concerned about 

8 addressing how the standard correction factor

9 was going to be used when dosimeter doses 

10 were greater than zero but less than the 

11 level of detection, which was identified at 

12 about 40 millirem. Rev 1 takes care of that.

13 Specifies the use of 40 mR as reasonable 

14 default for the level of detection.

15 Item 7 was a concern about the 

16 difference of instruction from OTIB-10 to 

17 Section 5 of Procedure Number 6. The one 

18 indicated that the dose reconstructor should 

19 use a standard correction factor to the 

20 dosimeter dose but didn't use uncertainty, 

21 and the other one did just the reverse. It 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

36 1 applied an SCF but didn't use uncertainty.

2 So we closed that with the 

3 agreement that PROC-0006 was going to be 

4 completely revised, and was, so that it 

5 didn't contain the guidance that was 

6 inconsistent with the OTIB. Now the OTIB is 

7 the determining factor.

8 Item Number 8 was a concern that 

9 the OTIB was not identifying the hierarchical

10 position of that particular document among 

11 the other competing procedures, and we worked

12 that out in Committee. And PROC-0006 

13 Attachment that was of concern is now 

14 eliminated and PROC-0006 Section 1.1 refers 

15 the dose reconstructor back to this procedure

16 when appropriate.

17 Number 9 was the standard 

18 correction factor of 2, which covered a great

19 many errors. It doesn't appear to be too 

20 conservative based on NRC 1989 report. And 

21 after discussion it was agreed that this SCF 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

37 1 of 2 for every recorded dose is sufficiently 

2 conservative for adequate use in providing a 

3 valid result. That's closed.

4 The final finding was the use of 

5 a default level of detection value of 40 mR, 

6 and that should be considered a highly 

7 typical value as opposed to a highly

8 conservative one. And our deliberations 

9 agreed that the 40 mR for gamma radiation is 

10 reasonably claimant favorable and that when 

11 you use it with the assumed monthly zeros it 

12 ensures that the missed dose is appropriately

13 barely overestimated.

14 That resolved the issues that we 

15 had with OTIB-10. If you have any questions 

16 we'll try to respond to them.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad, go ahead.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I need just a 

19 clarification. This OTIB-10 is one that 

20 we're using now?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

38 1 MEMBER CLAWSON: And we've gotten 

2 to the process and it's in effect now.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. For some 

5 reason I thought we weren't going to 

6 overestimate anymore, and that's why I was 

7 just kind of wondering. I know the troubles 

8 we have with overestimating stuff before, and

9 that kind of surprised me.

10 MEMBER MUNN: This procedure's 

11 only used when there are very low exposures. 

12 And I don't believe you're going to find it 

13 in frequent use at all. I think it's seldom 

14 used, but so far as I know it is still valid.

15 Is that correct, Stu?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't 

17 think it's been cancelled but I think it is 

18 rarely used anymore. Your question about are

19 we going to stop overestimating, and we, in 

20 fact, considered it and talked to our 

21 contractor about that and we reported back on
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

39 1 that.

2 The actual discontinuing of any 

3 overestimating approach has just turned out 

4 to be quite extensive because of the 

5 additional effort required to do these dose 

6 reconstructions, and so there are some things

7 we have stopped doing.

8 I know we don't do this very much 

9 anymore. I'm not sure if we use it, really, 

10 at all anymore on OTIB-10. And there's some 

11 overestimating things that we have stopped 

12 that we can stop with a little effort, you 

13 know, the more precise estimate doesn't take 

14 that much more work.

15 But when you talk about just 

16 eliminating overestimates in general, it 

17 makes dose reconstruction so much more time 

18 consuming and therefore so much more 

19 expensive, we just didn't feel like we could 

20 stop it all.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: But this one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

40 1 isn't used. I guess I'm looking at it from 

2 our dose reconstruction of when they use 

3 this, this is going to be in their workbook 

4 to let us know that this was an overestimate.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the dose 

6 reconstruction should certainly say. You 

7 know, it should be clear that this was what 

8 was used, if it's used.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And just to 

11 reiterate that we had talked to others. This

12 is one of the ten-year review issues, and so 

13 we actually have talked about this when we 

14 were talking about the follow-up on the ten15 year review.

16 Meanwhile, while Stu tries to fix 

17 the machine, Phil, go ahead.

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, using the 

19 value of 40 mR, how comfortable are you with 

20 that given the -- what was that, Number 9, I 

21 think it was here. We're using assumed LOD 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

41 1 of 40 mR for gamma. Given the history of the

2 fact that we have film badges, we have TLDs, 

3 we have some brands of film badges that 

4 weren't as sensitive as others, how 

5 comfortable is NIOSH with that value?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we think 40 

7 is a good value to use for this procedure. 

8 And remember you're using the procedure, if 

9 you use it you're using it in its entirety. 

10 So you're not just using 40 as LOD, you are 

11 maximizing the number of zero readings.

12 So you essentially, you know, all 

13 but one exchange in a year is considered a 

14 zero. So you're overestimating the number of

15 zeros, so the number of times you use the 

16 missed dose calculation, and you're also 

17 using the LOD instead of the LOD over 2, more

18 precise estimate of the missed dose.

19 So there are sufficient 

20 conservatisms built into there that we 

21 believe it is appropriate. And as an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

42 1 alternative, if you chose to use a higher LOD

2 and go back and review these claims, you 

3 know, it won't affect these cases. The only 

4 thing that would happen would the PoC would 

5 move up high enough that you could no longer 

6 use overestimating techniques and you would 

7 have to rework the case using another method.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay. 

9 Thanks.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dave?

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: On Finding 9, 

12 could you please tell us what the standard 

13 correction factor of two corrects for?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I could if 

15 I had read the OTIB recently. There are 

16 several factors that influence the 

17 uncertainty of the dosimeter, and there were 

18 estimates of how big could that uncertainty 

19 be. And when you sum them it comes to about 

20 two.

21 So I'll have to go back and look 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

43 1 at the OTIB. I don't recall, but I can send 

2 you some information about what they are. 

3 And I think they are explained in the OTIB.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'll go 

5 into the OTIB by myself.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, if you have 

7 any questions let me know because I think I 

8 can talk about it.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But I do recall 

11 there are a number of issues in film 

12 dosimetry that contribute to the uncertainty 

13 of the film dosimetry by a certain percent. 

14 And of the ones that were considered, when 

15 you add those up it came out to about two.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good. Thank 

17 you.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the OTIB is 

19 on the stuff that was handed out this time.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Should be. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

44 1 Yes, Mark?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just have one, 

3 and this still might help out here too. But 

4 just Finding 1 on the missed dose you might 

5 go through, from my memory this was quite a 

6 discussion in the early years of the 

7 procedure when I was still working on that 

8 Subcommittee, but how you determine. It says

9 you revise your approach, and it's included 

10 in the revision.

11 But how do you handle missed dose 

12 and as compared to, like, if you have records

13 where you see zeros or less than detectable 

14 or if you have blank cycles? I mean, just if

15 you can explain, I think it's worthwhile to 

16 explain. How do you fill in those blanks?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: For this 

18 procedure?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, relative to 

20 this procedure.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, relative to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

45 1 this procedure, I think what's generally done

2 is if you have a dose in a year, a recorded 

3 dose in a year, you assume that occurred in 

4 one cycle. And you take the how ever many 

5 other cycles there were that year and you 

6 consider those zero and do the missed dose 

7 for all other cycles. I think that's what we

8 call maximum zero.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that would be 

10 assigning 40 millirems per cycle basically, 

11 right, is what you're saying?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And then that 

15 missed dose number goes into as a constant 

16 because it's considered the 95th percentile 

17 level of the missed dose, and it goes into 

18 the IREP spreadsheet as constant.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: And what if you 

20 have a situation where you have, and this 

21 OTIB may not be applicable to this kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

46 1 situation, but you have records for a person 

2 but there is gaps in them so you have maybe 

3 monthly dosimetry records but you're missing 

4 occasional months?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's 

6 largely a site-specific question. And the 

7 way you can learn about what the site's 

8 practices were, whether they recorded 

9 faithfully a zero or whether they would have 

10 a zero and leave it a blank.

11 So you have to determine whether 

12 that blank means it's a zero or that blank 

13 means there's no result for that month. And 

14 if there's no result, then we have to worry 

15 about whether maybe it should be an 

16 unmonitored as opposed to a missed dose.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. And I 

18 think you're right. I think you sort of 

19 defer to Site Profile approaches and stuff, 

20 but there was discussions of looking at 

21 nearby doses, the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

47 1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are a 

2 few techniques around.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- or coworker 

4 doses or other things.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't bring 

6 them all to mind right now.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's not in this 

8 OTIB though, right. I mean this OTIB 

9 wouldn't deal with that end of it.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No, this 

11 would not deal with that.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Just 

13 wanted to be clear.

14 MEMBER MUNN: You're trying to 

15 put more on my plate than I already have, 

16 aren't you?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's right. 

18 Yes. David, do you still have another 

19 question or you're --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, pardon 

21 me.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

48 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. 

2 David Richardson or Bill Field, do you have 

3 questions?

4 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. No 

5 questions.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't 

8 either.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, I just 

10 didn't want you to feel forgotten out there.

11 Okay, then Wanda?

12 MEMBER MUNN: The two things that 

13 were assigned to do today was OTIB-10 and 

14 PER-0012. But because we in our Subcommittee

15 are just really getting started on PERs and 

16 will be expecting quite a number of them to 

17 come before you in the next few meetings, we 

18 thought perhaps it might be worth our while 

19 to take just five minutes or so to reiterate 

20 why we do PERs and how they're handled.

21 We have a very large quantity of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

49 1 -- sorry, I'm trying to change the slide for 

2 you and I'm not being -- oh, okay. Thank 

3 you.

4 The volume of guidance documents 

5 and workbooks that we now have in hand to 

6 support our dose reconstruction activities is

7 pretty daunting. And the details inside of 

8 those reconstruction documents may change 

9 fairly radically from time to time based on 

10 revisions and new information.

11 So in an attempt to respond to 

12 those revisions NIOSH wants to make sure that

13 dose reconstructions that have already been 

14 completed are not in some way changed by 

15 those revisions that occur.

16 So in a case like that originally 

17 the plan was that a Program Evaluation Plan 

18 would be issued so that we would know that a 

19 Program Evaluation Report was in the works 

20 and that activity was formally made into a 

21 procedure, incorporated in the procedure that
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

50 1 we know as PR-008. That is an activity that 

2 does not occur in that way any longer. 

3 Program Evaluation Plans seemed 

4 to be an unnecessary step in the project, and

5 after issuing only a few they have no longer 

6 been done. And partially as a result of that

7 PR-008 has been cancelled. But that's 

8 historically what the original plan was.

9 This is the slide to which Dr. 

10 McKeel referred yesterday when he said that 

11 this slide says that all PERs are going to be

12 reviewed by SC&A. I have informed Dr. McKeel

13 that what this says is what you see.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What it says, 

15 yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: The PER is subject 

17 to formal review. It does not say that it 

18 will be reviewed. There are quite a large 

19 number of PERs and we will be choosing the 

20 ones, you as a Board are the final word as to

21 which of those PERs we'll agree to undertake 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

51 1 for review.

2 Our contractor provides for us an 

3 expected list of what they will have 

4 available that they consider worthy of Board 

5 consideration and they bring those to my 

6 Subcommittee, our Procedure Subcommittee 

7 looks at those and makes the choice as to 

8 what to bring to you. You agree that we will

9 indeed proceed with whichever PERs you find 

10 to be appropriate and those are the ones that

11 are assigned to the contractor for review.

12 There are five subtasks that SC&A 

13 undertakes when we do a PER audit and they 

14 are fairly rigorous. The first subtask is to

15 take a look at the agency's evaluation of the

16 issues and what that might do to impact dose 

17 reconstructions.

18 The second task is looking at the 

19 specific methods of corrective action that 

20 NIOSH proposes to take. Subtask 3 is to 

21 evaluate what the PER's approach is going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

52 1 be and what criteria will be used for 

2 choosing the dose reconstructions that might 

3 have been affected by any reevaluation that 

4 took place.

5 Subtask 4 has two steps to it. 

6 The first is defining the number of dose 

7 reconstructions that might be affected by the

8 PER and that would therefore need to be 

9 reassessed by NIOSH so that SC&A can review 

10 those. And at that point the Subcommittee 

11 will select those cases for review and SC&A 

12 will proceed with its activity to produce an 

13 audit of the cases that were selected.

14 Subtask 5 is the supplemental 

15 report that SC&A prepares for us that will 

16 show the results of their entire review 

17 including the results of each subtask and the

18 review of the dose reconstructions that we 

19 had chosen to have them do.

20 So that essentially is the 

21 process that we go through with the PERs. If
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

53 1 you have any uncertainty or any question 

2 about that let me know, otherwise I'll go on 

3 to PER-0012, which is what we came here to 

4 do.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go on.

6 MEMBER MUNN: All right, with a 

7 little help from my friends.

8 Thank you so much. This covers a 

9 topic we've talked about a great deal in this

10 body, the evaluation of highly insoluble 

11 plutonium compounds.

12 One of the major variables that 

13 we have to consider in doing dose 

14 reconstruction for this program has been the 

15 solubility of any of the radionuclides with 

16 which we are dealing, originally considered 

17 to be fast, moderate or slow solubilities.

18 Under some circumstances, 

19 however, we have been dealing with plutonium 

20 that had been exposed to extremely high 

21 temperatures, highly fired, and therefore had
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

54 1 taken on a very insoluble form which we 

2 referred to originally as Super S, but now 

3 frequently seeing as Type SS, still referred 

4 to often as highly fired.

5 When this particular form of 

6 plutonium is inhaled it stays much longer in 

7 the lung than other forms, and because of 

8 that behavior it increases the dose to that 

9 tissue significantly.

10 The type of SS plutonium target 

11 tissue impacts was covered by OTIB-49 

12 entitled, "Estimating Doses for Pu Strongly 

13 Retained in Lung." And the assessment of 

14 that OTIB and its contents is what prompted 

15 the issuance of this particular PER.

16 We've been dealing with this for 

17 a number of years. In January of 2004 was 

18 when we first had access to the Rocky Flats 

19 plant occupational internal dose TBD. 

20 Included in that was information about the 

21 existence of SS type plutonium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

55 1 In 2007, we saw OTIB-49 which as 

2 we pointed out is the crux of our concern for

3 this PER. And just immediately following 

4 OTIB-49, NIOSH issued one of those evaluation

5 plan documents that we mentioned earlier for 

6 the evaluation of these types of plutonium 

7 compounds, so that we knew that the PER was 

8 in the works and it did appear about five 

9 months later and that's what we're looking at

10 now.

11 In 2010, our contractor submitted 

12 the draft review that they had of this PER to

13 us in the Procedures Subcommittee and to the 

14 agency. And in January of 2011, they 

15 presented findings to the Subcommittee and we

16 accepted all the findings for our overview.

17 In July of that year the agency 

18 provided a list of 50 cases from all of the 

19 potential categories that we had identified 

20 except for fecal sample monitoring for 

21 extrathoracic and GI tract.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

56 1 The Subcommittee selected nine of 

2 those dose reconstructions and that was 

3 representing eight of ten categories for the 

4 contractor's review. Their Subtask 4, the 

5 one that we mentioned earlier is done in two 

6 steps, is the one which would be most key for

7 our purposes.

8 In July of 2012, SC&A provided 

9 their draft review of the nine DRs that had 

10 been affected and that we had identified as 

11 being affected, and later that month they 

12 presented the findings to the Subcommittee 

13 and we accepted the findings.

14 First, Subtask 1, assess the 

15 circumstances that necessitated the need for 

16 the PER. While we were developing the Site 

17 Profile, NIOSH had indicated as I said 

18 earlier that highly insoluble Type S Pu was 

19 present at the site and would need to be 

20 taken into consideration.

21 And there was a problem with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

57 1 that. The regulations in 42 CFR 82 required 

2 that the dose should be calculated by using 

3 current ICRP metabolic models, but current 

4 ICRP Publication 66 models did not address 

5 this particular form of Pu, the highly 

6 insoluble form, with which we were concerned.

7 In order to account for the 

8 longer retention period of the organ doses 

9 that were expected from slowly absorbed 

10 plutonium, the agency developed the new OTIB11 49 in February of 2007.

12 The continuation, assessing the 

13 circumstances that prompted the PER, in the 

14 OTIB NIOSH developed the dose adjustment 

15 factors that generally a factor 4, the 

16 notation says.

17 They used cases from both Hanford 

18 and Rocky Flats workers that had been exposed

19 to this particular type of plutonium for four

20 target organs. Intakes were based on lung 

21 counts, air concentrations, urinalysis and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

58 1 fecal analysis.

2 This was not going to be an easy 

3 task. It was going to involve review of a 

4 significant amount of literature and a 

5 significant number of cases. So recognizing 

6 this, SC&A indicated a three-year time period

7 for developing it because it had been a long 

8 time coming but it was a very prodigious 

9 task.

10 As they reviewed the OTIB and the 

11 PEP and the consequential PER, the finding 

12 was that NIOSH had properly characterized the

13 significance of the highly insoluble Pu, and 

14 that they had complied with Procedure 8 while

15 they were developing the impacts of the 

16 programmatic changes that would affect 

17 previously completed dose reconstructions. 

18 As a result there were no findings under 

19 Subtask 1.

20 Subtask 2, then, is assessing 

21 specific methods for corrective action. When
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

59 1 a PER has a number of documents supporting, 

2 the White Papers, the OTIBs, procedures that 

3 haven't been formally reviewed, then they 

4 need to assess the scientific basis of what's

5 being used to make sure that the corrective 

6 action has the amount of credibility that's 

7 necessary for them to proceed.

8 PER-012, as we've said before, is 

9 a result of OTIB-49 being issued and had been

10 reviewed earlier in the draft report. SC&A 

11 was in full agreement with the approach to 

12 dose modeling for the very super-slow 

13 plutonium types, and the Task 2 was therefore

14 reduced to just a very brief summary and the 

15 key technical elements that were contained in

16 OTIB-49. And as was the case in Subtask 1, 

17 there were no findings in Subtask 2 as well.

18 Subtask 3 was evaluating the 

19 approach for identifying the number of dose 

20 reconstructions that required reevaluation. 

21 And in taking a look at that total 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

60 1 population, there were three specific 

2 criteria that were outlined by the PER.

3 First, they wanted to make sure 

4 that the dose reconstruction had already been

5 completed before February of 2007. We wanted

6 to see that the facilities that were involved

7 were appropriate for this type of exposure 

8 and we wanted to know that the Probability of

9 Causation was less than 50 percent. Taking a

10 look at that universe of claims, we only did 

11 4,865 potentials.

12 Tucked away in the corners of 

13 OTIB-49 there were two additional screening 

14 criteria that needed to be met. One was that

15 for Probability of Causation greater than 

16 16.97 percent of cancers other than lung and 

17 thoracic lymph node, and plutonium doses that

18 were assigned had to be intake based on 

19 monitoring. That's reducing the potential 

20 cases when you incorporate those two items to

21 1,757 cases.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

61 1 So being cautious to assure that 

2 all of the requirements of both the PER and 

3 the OTIB were met reduced the number of cases

4 to less than 2,000. This methodology was 

5 agreed to and there were therefore no 

6 additional findings under Subtask 3.

7 In Subtask 4, this is the two8 part review that we have to take a look at, a

9 recommended sample of the effective dose 

10 reconstructions that were going to be 

11 reevaluated.

12 PER-0012 indicates in those a 

13 need for dose reconstruction, a reevaluation 

14 for four different types of target tissues. 

15 The lungs and thoracic lymph nodes, the 

16 thoracic tissues and respiratory tract, 

17 tissues of the GI tract, and other systemic 

18 organs.

19 Reevaluating the dose for these 

20 four groups is effective by it has to be done

21 by one of four monitoring methods, that those
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

62 1 were the monitoring methods that were in fact

2 employed in the original dose reconstruction.

3 Air sampling, urinalysis, in vivo lung 

4 counting, or fecal analysis.

5 The contractor recommended that 

6 we choose a minimum of one case from each of 

7 ten permutations. They're shown to you 

8 there. I'll just mention them.

9 In the case of lung and lymph 

10 nodes in the thoracic cavity, reevaluation is

11 required regardless of the time interval 

12 between exposure and fecal sampling. And in 

13 the extrathoracic, GI tract and systemic 

14 organs, reevaluation is necessary only if the

15 time intervals are greater than two months 

16 between the end of exposure and the fecal 

17 samples.

18 Reviewing the sample sets of the 

19 dose reconstructions that were affected, this

20 of course is the main thrust for most of us 

21 of what this whole exercise is about, is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

63 1 actually looking at the completed dose 

2 reconstructions to make certain that the 

3 revised procedures have not affected them to 

4 the detriment of a claim.

5 The audit of the selected nine 

6 dose reconstructions was limited to just 

7 looking at the evaluating methods and the 

8 corrective actions only to the issues that 

9 were addressed in PER-0012.

10 That focus was to determine 

11 whether internal doses that were associated 

12 with the exposures to the type of plutonium 

13 we were concerned with were actually being 

14 performed accurately and that OTIB-49 was 

15 being followed.

16 The results of the audit were an 

17 approval of NIOSH's assumptions in 

18 calculating the internal doses from highly 

19 fired plutonium for all nine of the cases 

20 that were reviewed. SC&A had found in their 

21 review that each of those dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

64 1 reconstructions had been reevaluated using 

2 the proper method and guidance that was 

3 outlined in the OTIB, and as a result Subtask

4 4 had no findings.

5 The comment was made and I think 

6 well taken by the Subcommittee that the 

7 development of the workbook for that OTIB had

8 been of significant assistance in helping the

9 dose reconstructors to get the appropriate 

10 data entered, getting the missed organ doses,

11 making comparisons.

12 So we were very pleased that the 

13 implementation of the workbook had been so 

14 successful, and the Subcommittee was very 

15 pleased to accept the review of no findings.

16 If you have questions we'll try.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions? 

18 Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: All right.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

65 1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

2 Okay. We have actually a couple of quick 

3 items, and I've lost the Designated Federal 

4 Official. While we retrieve the DFO, we have

5 a couple I just want to make in terms of 

6 government funding and so forth.

7 We, I think, had a good process 

8 for the sequester last year in terms of how 

9 Stu managed it in terms of the ORAU 

10 contract. That was him. Ted, with the SC&A 

11 contract. But it does involve a certain 

12 amount of prioritization of what work we do 

13 and, you know, what Work Groups assigned to 

14 SC&A and how NIOSH is there to respond.

15 It just makes no sense in some 

16 ways to have your work by NIOSH and have no 

17 SC&A response if that's appropriate, and vice

18 versa, having an SC&A report and NIOSH not 

19 being in position to provide a timely 

20 response.

21 So given what may be continued 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

66 1 uncertainty for a while on the budget and so 

2 forth, I just ask all the Board Members, Work

3 Group chairs to sort of keep that in mind as 

4 we're dealing with this. I think it worked 

5 out well this last time, and Stu and I and 

6 Ted and others had some good conversations on

7 how to sort of handle some of the issues in 

8 sort of figuring out the timing and what 

9 could get done within the available 

10 resources.

11 But just if everybody else can 

12 sort of keep that in mind. I know we have a 

13 lot of, particularly site reviews to be 

14 resolved and pending. We have a couple Work 

15 Groups we haven't started up yet.

16 And I think we can manage all 

17 this, but just sort of keep in mind that 

18 there will be some uncertainties and we need 

19 to sort of make sure that we have the 

20 available review power, so to speak, on both 

21 ends to be able to address all these issues.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

67 1 So I don't know, Stu, if you have 

2 anything more to add to that or just want to 

3 --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Just to kind of 

5 repeat what I've said before is that we want 

6 to work in accordance with the Board's 

7 priorities on this, understanding that we 

8 can't get everything all at once. But we 

9 have no particular vested interest in doing A

10 before B, so we want to work in accordance 

11 with the Board's priorities.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I guess for 

13 Work Group chairs, you may get a question 

14 back on, well, is this really needed now, or 

15 which report is the priority when there's, 

16 you know, you've tasked SC&A with four or 

17 five different things. And I know that Stu 

18 and his staff is doing the same thing on the 

19 ORAU end in trying to figure out what to do, 

20 and it is not an easy task.

21 I think we've all learned on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

68 1 SEC's, you know, when you start an SEC review

2 predicting what will be the key issue is not 

3 very easy and our batting average is not very

4 high on that for better or worse, because 

5 there's just so much information that you 

6 have to get at. So anyway I just wanted to 

7 mention that as we're getting ready to close 

8 here.

9 Now you will have to bear with me 

10 as I do a couple of letters here. I will 

11 have to put a caveat on this. Although Jenny

12 Lin is back at work today for a very short 

13 period of time, she did a quick turnaround on

14 these letters. I think we're okay on them 

15 but there may be some minor changes to them.

16 I'm a little worried she didn't 

17 add any comments which is what usually 

18 happens, but if there are anything 

19 significant I will let you know. But we're 

20 not quite following our usual process and 

21 usually we give our counsel's office and so 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

69 1 forth a little bit more time, and usually 

2 Department of Labor is here and so forth. So

3 I think these both are okay, but I just 

4 wanted to say that ahead of time.

5 I'll start with Sandia. The 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health, 

7 the Board, has evaluated Special Exposure 

8 Cohort Petition 00214 concerning workers at 

9 the Sandia National Laboratories-Livermore in

10 Livermore, California, under the statutory 

11 requirements established by the Energy 

12 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

13 Program Act of 2000, incorporated into 42 CFR

14 83.13.

15 Board respectfully recommends 

16 that SEC status be accorded to "all employees

17 of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

18 agencies and their contractors and 

19 subcontractors who worked in any area at the 

20 Sandia National Laboratories-Livermore in 

21 Livermore, California, from October 1st 1957 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

70 1 through December 31st, 1994, for a number of 

2 workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays, 

3 occurring either solely under this employment

4 or in combination with workdays within the 

5 parameters established for one or more other 

6 classes of employees included in the Special 

7 Exposure Cohort."

8 Recommendation is based on the 

9 following factors. Worker at the facility 

10 during the time period in question were 

11 involved in operations related to nuclear 

12 weapons production.

13 National Institute for 

14 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review

15 of available monitoring data as well as 

16 available process and source term for this 

17 facility found that NIOSH lacked sufficient 

18 information to allow it to estimate with 

19 sufficient accuracy the external and internal

20 doses from exposures to radioactive materials

21 to which employees of the Sandia National 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

71 1 Laboratories-Livermore may have been 

2 subjected. The Board concurs with this 

3 determination.

4 NIOSH also determined that health 

5 may have been in danger for the Sandia 

6 National Laboratories-Livermore employees 

7 during the time period in question. The 

8 Board also concurs with this determination.

9 Based on these considerations and 

10 discussion at the October 16th and 17th, 2013

11 Board meeting held in Westminster, Colorado, 

12 the Board recommends that this Class be added

13 to the SEC, closes the documentation from the

14 Board meeting where this SEC Class was 

15 discussed.

16 Documentation includes copies of 

17 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof and 

18 related materials. If any of these items are

19 unavailable at this time they will follow 

20 shortly.

21 Any comments or -- okay. Moving 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

72 1 on quickly to Rocky Flats. The Advisory 

2 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the 

3 Board, has evaluated Special Exposure Cohort 

4 Petition 00192 concerning the workers at the 

5 Rocky Flats plant in Golden, Colorado, under 

6 the statutory requirements required by the 

7 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

8 Compensation Program Act of 2000 and 

9 incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13.

10 Board respectfully recommends 

11 that SEC status be accorded to all employees 

12 of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

13 agencies and their contractors and 

14 subcontractors who worked at the Rocky Flats 

15 plant, Golden, Colorado, from April 1st, 1952

16 through December 31st, 1983, for a number of 

17 workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays, 

18 occurring either solely under this employment

19 or in combination with workdays within the 

20 parameters established for one or more of the

21 classes of employees included in the Special 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

73 1 Exposure Cohort.

2 This recommendation is based on 

3 the following factors. Workers of this 

4 facility during the time period in question 

5 were involved in operations related to 

6 nuclear weapons production.

7 The National Institute for 

8 Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, review

9 of available monitoring data as well as 

10 available process and source term information

11 for this facility found that NIOSH lacked the

12 sufficient information to allow it to 

13 estimate with sufficient accuracy the 

14 potential internal doses from exposures to 

15 thorium, uranium-233 and neptunium to which 

16 employees of the Rocky Flats plant may have 

17 been subjected for various periods during the

18 years 1952 to 1983. The Board concurs with 

19 this determination.

20 NIOSH also determined that health 

21 may have been endangered for these Rocky 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

74 1 Flats plant's employees during the time 

2 period in question. The Board also concurs 

3 with this determination.

4 Based on these considerations and 

5 discussion at the October 16th and 17th, 2013

6 Board meeting held in Westminster, Colorado, 

7 the Board recommends that this Class be added

8 to the SEC. Enclosed is the documentation 

9 from the Board meeting where this SEC Class 

10 was discussed.

11 Documentation includes copies of 

12 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof and 

13 related materials. If any of these items are

14 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

15 shortly.

16 Gen?

17 MEMBER ROESSLER: Under the 

18 second bullet under Recommendations, right in

19 the middle there, shouldn't that be 

20 radionuclide specific? It talks about 

21 internal doses from exposures, thorium. I
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

75 1 think that should be thorium-228, and then 

2 neptunium should be neptunium-237? Am I 

3 right on that?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the thorium 

5 is -232 and -228. Yes, the neptunium would 

6 be neptunium-237, but the thorium, there are 

7 the two. It's not just the -228, it's also -

8 232.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Or which would 

11 include -228.

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: But neptunium 

13 should be -237.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It is, yes.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: And then 

16 uranium shouldn't be capitalized.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Or all three. 

18 I believe all three should be capitalized.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now I 

20 believe --

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: They should not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

76 1 be capitalized.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they should 

3 not be capitalized. Now you'll make me put 

4 the atomic mass on there?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Only if it's 

6 abbreviated.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's in the 

9 health physics bible. I am surprised, Stu, 

10 that you would --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: My health physics 

12 teacher corrected me.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

14 changes? Okay. Anything else we need to --

15 oh, yes. Thank you.

16 So we have one more item which I 

17 think we can do quickly if I can find Ted's 

18 email. That's yesterday's email. We still 

19 have the public comments from the last 

20 meeting to go over now that Ted has admitted 

21 to trying to confuse us.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

77 1 So the first set of comments were 

2 from Terrie Barrie, and these were all 

3 directed, most were directed back to the Work

4 Group and actually have been addressed, I 

5 think there's one more general comment there 

6 as part of that.

7 There was another set of comments 

8 from another party there, Joan Stewart. 

9 Again these were referred to the Work Group 

10 or to NIOSH, and actually NIOSH was already 

11 in the process of following up on one of the 

12 issues.

13 There's a comment addressed from 

14 someone related to INL. That's also been 

15 followed up on there. Another set of 

16 comments from someone, Stephanie Carroll from

17 Rocky Flats. Again, these have all been 

18 addressed mainly through the Work Group or 

19 through NIOSH responses.

20 Chris Barker, again had a 

21 question about a particular dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

78 1 reconstruction, and again I think that was 

2 referred to DOL which was really issue there.

3 There was comments from [identifying 

4 information redacted] read by Terrie Barrie 

5 at the meeting regarding the Class Definition

6 and so forth. Somewhat similar to Deb 

7 Jerison's comments of earlier here today, or 

8 yesterday, excuse me.

9 Another comment from Terrie 

10 Barrie asking for more time, but it turns out

11 she didn't need it so it worked out. Some 

12 comments from Sandra Baldridge regarding 

13 Fernald. Again, I think those were all 

14 essentially addressed by our actions at the 

15 last meeting, though there's still follow-up 

16 going on.

17 So anybody have any comments or 

18 questions or concerns based on those 

19 responses? Yes?

20 MEMBER BEACH: I'm just going to 

21 go to the one from Mound. At the bottom of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

79 1 Deb's comments and the response it says that 

2 "Mr. Johnson will provide a separate response

3 later." Do we have like a time frame on when

4 those are given out or anybody know? Okay.

5 DR. NETON: We might not have the 

6 most recent response, but I believe we 

7 provided a response to Deb Jerison's 

8 comments.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, there was a 

10 lengthy response, but then at the very end it

11 said that --

12 DR. NETON: You know, I think 

13 that probably shouldn't be there because the 

14 response was complete in itself. I think it 

15 was a placeholder until we put it in there, 

16 so that must have carried over.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, okay. I was 

18 wondering what was coming, so thank you.

19 DR. NETON: Yes. No, the 

20 response that's there should stand by itself.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, have I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Board Meeting, has been 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Advisory Board for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to 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

80 1 forgotten anything else? And I think that 

2 finishes our business for this meeting, and 

3 we will talk to everybody on the conference 

4 call in December and Kansas City end of 

5 January, unless we run into troubles, unless 

6 LaVon fails to come through as scheduled. 

7 Keep the pressure on, yes. Or yes, I guess, 

8 Congress too, yes. Who knows? Well, we'll 

9 stay optimistic. Everybody is today.

10 So anyway, thank you all. 

11 Hopefully we'll actually also have DOE and 

12 DOL back at our next meeting, and a lawyer. 

13 Okay, thanks everybody.

14 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

15 above-entitled matter was concluded at 10:01 

16 a.m.)