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

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

NOVEMBER 7, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, Wanda I. Munn, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

L. MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

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

PAGE

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

Ted Katz, DFO

Status of BRS item entry problemPERs loaded ............................... 7

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS

Lori Marion-Moss, DCAS

Localized skin exposures -NIOSH ...... 9

Jim Neton, DCAS

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS

PER-31 and PER-30

and Responses - NIOSH ..................... 32

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS

Response to PER-14 Findings - NIOSH ....... 67

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS

Jim Neton, DCAS

Matt Smith, ORAU

Kathy Behling, SC&A

IG-001, DCF values, geometry

instruction from DR - ALL ................ 142

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS

PER-20 Findings - SC&A ................... 160

Kathy Behling, SC&A

PER-11 Responses - SC&A .................. 196

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

RPRT-0053 Status Report after AWE

WG Discussion - NIOSH .................... 210

Jim Neton, DCAS

Status Reports -PERs 0033, 0025, 0038

Implementation - SC&A .................... 214

Ron Buchanan, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 4

(continued)

PAGE

OTIB-54 Responses - SC&A ................. 234

Steve Ostrow, SC&A

OTIB-34 and 83 Updates - SC&A ............ 268

Joyce Lipsztein, SC&A

Hans Behling, SC&A

Next Meeting ............................. 276

Administrative Detail - SC&A - All ....... 276

Clean recommendation list

Upcoming PER status

John Stiver, SC&A

Adjourn .................................. 291
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 (11:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning everyone 

4 who's on the line already. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health 

6 Procedures Review Subcommittee. And let's 

7 get started first with roll call.

8 Let me just say ahead of roll 

9 call, two of our Members, Wanda Munn and 

10 Josie Beach have conflicts with Hanford. I 

11 don't know that we have any Hanford business 

12 to do today, but otherwise have no prospect 

13 of conflicts with our Board Members. So just

14 to note that up front instead of them having 

15 to address that during roll call.

16 So let's begin with roll call.

17 (Roll call.)

18 MR. KATZ: The agenda and various 

19 meeting materials are posted on the NIOSH 

20 website under the Board page under today's 

21 date, and everyone I've heard here should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 have the agenda anyhow, and all of these 

2 materials.

3 And it's all yours, Wanda. 

4 Everyone please mute your phone except when 

5 you're speaking, *6 if you don't have a mute 

6 button. Thanks.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted. I 

8 have only one proposed change to the agenda. 

9 I've been notified that Joyce has a report 

10 on OTIB-83 and 34, which we would probably 

11 insert directly after our OTIB-54 responses 

12 if that is amenable with everyone here. Do 

13 we have any objection to that or any other 

14 further additions to the agenda?

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, Wanda, I thought 

16 I had that OTIB-34 and 83, is that not 

17 correct?

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. I've 

19 got 83 and 34.

20 MR. KATZ: Oh, very good.

21 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Any other changes or 

3 additions, corrections?

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's on the 

5 agenda, actually, already.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to make 

7 sure that we had it under 54 in the same 

8 order. Any other changes? I said that once.

9 I think we'll go on.

10 Our first item on the agenda is 

11 the status of the BRS entries. I've been 

12 told that Lori has gotten all of the PERs 

13 loaded, and if you filter on the Board 

14 system, a review page under Document Types 

15 for PERs, we have quite an extensive list 

16 there. I believe they're all up and running.

17 Stu, Lori, can you verify that 

18 and give us any additional information that 

19 we might need?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no. I 

21 think that Lori has worked with our TST folks
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 and have gotten, from the PER standpoint we 

2 think they're all on there now. They're 

3 either in the queue called Documents under 

4 Board Reviews called Unassigned.

5 So we worked from the list that 

6 John Stiver sent out about the identities of 

7 the PERs that SC&A has been assigned to work 

8 on and that list should coincide with the 

9 list that appears under the Documents under 

10 Board Review.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I haven't made 

12 that correlation, but thank you, John, for 

13 getting that extensive list out. It's very 

14 helpful for us, I think, to see the full list

15 in one spot.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and then 

17 the remaining completed PERs are in the queue

18 that is titled something like Unassigned or 

19 something like that.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Good. 

21 That's great. Are there any questions, any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 additions, any additional information we need

2 to have with respect to those PERs right now?

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

4 Lori.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Lori.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: I would like to 

7 add that in total, there are 46 PERs in total

8 with 23 being assigned to SC&A.

9 CHAIR MUNN: And 40, how many in 

10 total?

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: Forty six.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Forty six total, 

13 okay, 23 assigned. Got it. Thank you. 

14 Anything else? If not, next item that we had

15 carried over from last time was an 

16 expectation of a document on localized skin 

17 exposures.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

19 I think I'll let Jim Neton take that up to 

20 start.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Jim?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you muted, 

2 Jim?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Have we lost Jim?

4 DR. NETON: I am. Okay. Well, 

5 this localized skin exposure is an 

6 overarching issue and I actually went out to 

7 the database and noticed that it's not listed

8 there now, possibly because it's not 

9 associated with any finding. So that's the 

10 first thing I'd like to figure out is how 

11 we're going to track this thing because again

12 it doesn't appear anywhere in the BRS.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That is a problem 

14 because we, I don't believe that we have 

15 faced the issue of incorporating anything 

16 that wasn't specifically a finding, have we?

17 DR. NETON: These were noted as 

18 concerns in the draft, in the document that 

19 SC&A issued June 2013 where they prepared 

20 this sort of side White Paper. It was a 

21 fallout from some reviews of, I think, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 Bridgeport Brass cases or something like 

2 that.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well, it's come 

4 up in several venues, I think.

5 DR. NETON: Right. So it's truly 

6 an overarching issue, but I think it should 

7 be added to the list so that we can get those

8 relevant documents out there and track.

9 CHAIR MUNN: This is a new 

10 question, how to address the question.

11 DR. NETON: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We'll need a 

13 document of some sort and some way for us to 

14 identify it other than the document sources 

15 that we currently have stipulated. I wonder 

16 if we can, we're open to suggestion if anyone

17 has any specific ideas. We might consider 

18 taking a look at one of the documents where 

19 the question was raised whether it was a 

20 finding or not, and in some way attach it to 

21 that document. Any other ideas?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, I would 

2 worry -- this is Josie -- that it would get 

3 lost if we try to track it that way.

4 DR. NETON: Yes, Wanda, what 

5 happened is this got transferred over from 

6 the DR Review Subcommittee, I think, because 

7 it was identified in, I think it was a 

8 Bridgeport Brass review. Yes, it was.

9 And as a fallout of that DR 

10 review, SC&A, asked Ted, he agreed to have 

11 them develop this sort of position or concern

12 paper on skin doses in general. And there's 

13 a couple issues there. And like I said, the 

14 only thing that existed that I'm aware of is 

15 in the Procedures Subcommittee arena is this 

16 discussion points document that SC&A issued 

17 on June 2013.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

19 Marschke. I mean we have, or NIOSH has 

20 created this group of findings, if you will, 

21 or entries into the BRS which are identified 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 as overfinding.

2 CHAIR MUNN: And it'll go there, 

3 Steve. That's where it'll go.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: It'll go in there. 

5 So all we need to do is, you know, kind of 

6 put some kind of a document associated with 

7 it and it would be in that as over 9, and 

8 then once we got that entered as a document 

9 we would be tracking over 9 and we could put 

10 in, you know, whatever the finding was under 

11 that.

12 DR. NETON: There are no 

13 findings. That's the problem.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's the problem.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I guess we 

16 would, what comes out of that White Paper 

17 that SC&A put together --

18 DR. NETON: There are concerns.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- those are the 

20 concerns. Well, the BRS doesn't really 

21 differentiate between findings and concerns. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 That's true.

2 DR. NETON: Yes. So I mean I 

3 don't really care either way. I just think 

4 it needs to go there, and if everybody's 

5 comfortable putting it in there and 

6 recognizing it's a concern not a finding, 

7 that doesn't really matter to me.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I'll tell you what. 

9 Why don't I go back and establish at least a

10 note tying this directly to the transfer from

11 Dose Reconstruction, and then I'll work with 

12 Steve and Lori to get it into overarching 

13 issues based on, we'll get some way to 

14 reference the document so that we know where 

15 we're going --

16 DR. NETON: And one thing that I 

17 think would be helpful to NIOSH is that if

18 SC&A would review that document again and 

19 concisely issue what they consider are the 

20 concerns. Because I won't say they're 

21 vague, but they're --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 CHAIR MUNN: They're significant.

2 DR. NETON: There's two or three 

3 issues in here, I think, that are lumped 

4 together and they need broken out.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

6 would offer that it's clear what they're 

7 writing but the document's not organized with

8 Finding 1, Finding 2 and so on.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, you know, it 

11 would be helpful. We don't want, I mean, I 

12 think I could probably the write the findings

13 but I'd be paraphrasing. I think SC&A would 

14 do a better job of writing the findings 

15 because they're going to relate to the 

16 duration that the contamination remains for 

17 the model that we proposed, which is the 

18 airborne settling model.

19 So you've got a concern about the 

20 duration between cleanings, the effectiveness

21 of cleanings. There's a concern about the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 contribution from contaminated clothing and 

2 the risk basis being, you know, a fraction of

3 the total skin or the appropriate skin.

4 It seems like there's one more in 

5 there I thought of a while ago that I can't 

6 think of.

7 DR. NETON: Well, there's the 

8 magnitude of the deposition of the 

9 contamination on --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh yes, the --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it's 

13 the flakes rather than --

14 CHAIR MUNN: Hot particle, yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- airborne 

16 deposition.

17 DR. NETON: They're not really 

18 what I could call hot particles, but just 

19 sort of how much deposition can you get --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, so there are 

21 about five things, and I think SC&A could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 write them much easier than us and much 

2 simpler than us. And it could be as simple 

3 as like an Appendix that we'd stick on the 

4 same report, I think.

5 I wasn't proposing writing 

6 another report. We just need, you know, a 

7 Statement of Finding which then allows, you 

8 know, we'll enter it. We can make an entry 

9 in Overarching and use the existing document 

10 sort of as the basis for it.

11 MR. KATZ: But Stu, what is --

12 this is Ted. What is the OTIB or document 

13 related to settling that this ties in with?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's not 

15 really a settling rate question. They didn't

16 question the settling rate.

17 DR. NETON: No, this is 

18 generically related to skin dose assignment 

19 itself.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we could 

21 go back to probably a dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 review.

2 MR. KATZ: So there's no OTIB 

3 that governs how this is handled site to 

4 site?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Not yet. No, not 

6 at this time.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay.

8 MR. STIVER: Ted, this is John 

9 Stiver. This came out of the dose 

10 reconstruction, the partial, I believe it 

11 was.

12 MR. KATZ: No, it's okay, John. 

13 I remember how it is written. It is actually

14 written a number of times. This wasn't the 

15 first time this came up. It's come up before

16 too and --

17 MR. STIVER: The point being 

18 there is no technical basis for --

19 MR. KATZ: Anyway, I was just 

20 trying to pin down whether there was any kind

21 of procedural document to pin it to which 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 would be helpful, but I gather there's not.

2 MR. STIVER: One thing we could 

3 do, we could have John and Hans write the 

4 findings into the BRS, but if you would like 

5 a separate document or an Appendix that calls

6 them out for the record, we could certainly 

7 do that too.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't really 

9 care if there's a separate Appendix or not.

10 DR. NETON: No, I think just the 

11 findings as you see them as a result of this.

12 I point back to the discussion paper. 

13 That's the only thing I have on record that 

14 is sort of our marching orders will be 

15 towards.

16 MR. KATZ: So this is Ted again. 

17 Just a suggestion then for how to do this 

18 just so that everybody has clear records as 

19 well as not just in the BRS, so if they would

20 that's fine for them to do that, to write the

21 findings in for the BRS, but then just a make
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 a memo for the record saying, here are the 

2 findings that we've incorporated into the BRS

3 arising out of this White Paper or whatever. 

4 And then everybody has in their own files 

5 too a record of how these were synopsized.

6 DR. NETON: I think if we just 

7 attach the White Paper to that finding.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, just a memo 

9 following up on the White Paper. That's what

10 I'm saying.

11 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

12 Behling. Let me point out something, and I 

13 can't really be sure I remember what it is, 

14 but there was a finding associated with a 

15 document where we had skin contamination, 

16 where the model involved a daily shower and 

17 you started out with a clean slate. And it 

18 may have been either Bethlehem Steel or some 

19 other facility where people were exposed to 

20 radioactive deposition on their skin on a 

21 daily basis.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 And right now I'm at a loss to 

2 tell you which document I'm referring to, but

3 that was one of the items that we identified 

4 as a finding in that particular model.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think it 

6 was a Y-12, Hans.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Hans, if this is 

8 transferred over from DR then there was a 

9 original finding on something, otherwise we -

10 -

11 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro, 

12 just real quick. There is a link though to a

13 procedure, I believe, OTIB-17, which deals 

14 with non-penetrating radiation. It does have

15 an Appendix or an attachment to it that does 

16 talk about skin dose calculations, I seem to 

17 recall.

18 So the only reason I'm bringing 

19 it up is that certainly there is the 

20 Bridgeport Brass story that triggered a lot 

21 of this. There is the special White Paper 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that Hans and I worked on that will identify 

2 issues. And certainly we can do all the 

3 things that you folks just described.

4 But for completeness, I do 

5 believe there's also a link to OTIB-17. I 

6 believe that's the one that deals with --

7 DR. NETON: Yes, that's 

8 Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Shallow 

9 Dose.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I think in 

11 the back of it there's some material there 

12 that I read and to see the degree to which 

13 that material addressed many of the issues 

14 that, you know, we raised. And I think there

15 were places where it does not.

16 So I'm talking more 

17 programmatically. You know, it's probably a 

18 good idea to somehow to get that into link, 

19 because I think there's a connection there 

20 that we don't want to lose.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, John, I believe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that was related to the issue of the risk and

2 the fractional amount of skin that was being 

3 irradiated.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay.

5 DR. NETON: That is brought up in 

6 this White Paper.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 DR. NETON: And we talked about 

9 that a little bit at the last meeting.

10 DR. MAURO: By the way, I think, 

11 this is just as an aside, notwithstanding 

12 procedurally how we handle this is that I 

13 think the vast majority of the issues have 

14 been resolved in principle through many of 

15 our discussions.

16 And one of the ones that seems in 

17 my mind that it still sticks, so I don't 

18 think this is as looming as it might sound, 

19 certainly the clothing issue and, you know, 

20 the duration is still in play.

21 But I like to say the glass if 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 half full. I think a lot of the places where

2 we had concerns from conversations that we've

3 had during our discussions, I believe, was on

4 Bridgeport Brass in one of the cases, we're 

5 pretty close to resolving a lot of that. But

6 we do need to find a way to administer the 

7 issues and how they're being closed.

8 DR. NETON: All right.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have 

10 right off the top of their head, the Finding 

11 number from the DR Subcommittee on that so 

12 that we could check the original finding? 

13 I'll go back and check it anyway.

14 And SC&A is going to -- is it 

15 agreed, do I understand correctly? SC&A will

16 create an addition to the White Paper which 

17 will be a specific listing of more focused 

18 finding statements so that we can deal with 

19 them. Is that what we're doing?

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John. 

21 We could either do it as an addendum to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 paper or as a separate memo. I mean, either 

2 way we'll get that done. But whatever your 

3 choice is.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Whichever is easier 

5 for you.

6 DR. MAURO: Would it also be 

7 helpful that, and given the time that has 

8 passed since we've done that and the 

9 discussions we've had, SC&A has a certain 

10 understanding now of how NIOSH plans to deal 

11 with skin dose as, you know, in both the fine

12 particle settling issue and the flake issue, 

13 which we raise and express some concern 

14 about, which I believe both of those have 

15 been resolved in terms of the models and 

16 methods and approach that would be used to 

17 deal with it.

18 Now there are still some 

19 questions that need to be resolved which 

20 include this risk business and the clothing 

21 business. So I think that we could kill a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 few birds with one stone here.

2 Maybe we could sort of do a 

3 better job in structuring our findings, but 

4 also at the same time identify our 

5 understanding, and we could even cite where 

6 it is in the transcripts that I think maybe 

7 this issue has been resolved at least in the 

8 transcripts and the discussions that we've 

9 held related to the Bridgeport Brass 

10 business.

11 So anyway, I'm saying maybe we 

12 could do a little bit more than just simply 

13 create a record, but actually begin the 

14 process of saying that SC&A has, you know, it

15 is SC&A's understanding that this is the 

16 strategy that NIOSH plans to use to deal with

17 this particular issue and, you know, that 

18 will sort of help move the thing along. And 

19 it wouldn't take very much to add that in.

20 MR. STIVER: I think we could do 

21 that in the BRS and it could include links to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 whatever documents or transcript sections 

2 that we wanted to add.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: The problem I have 

4 with that is the same problem Stu had with 

5 adding, for NIOSH adding the findings on 

6 behalf of SC&A.

7 Again, if we put in our 

8 understanding of what NIOSH's approach is, 

9 we're kind of paraphrasing what we think 

10 NIOSH is doing. I think it would be cleaner 

11 if we put in the findings, NIOSH put in their

12 approach to resolving the findings, and then 

13 we go back and we put in our recommendation. 

14 Okay, we agree with that approach, and we 

15 basically are going, and we close it out.

16 I think it's just basically a 

17 cleaner approach, you know, and otherwise 

18 again, we end up trying to interpret what we,

19 or, you know, we're giving our understanding 

20 of what NIOSH is doing as opposed to them --

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, we're kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 skipping a step there.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, you're right, 

3 Steve. I think we'd be jumping over the 

4 standard protocol. You're right.

5 DR. NETON: Actually, I was kind 

6 of interested to hear what John had to say, 

7 because I don't remember some of those.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I mean you 

9 can do it offline, John. I mean --

10 DR. NETON: Yes, I think maybe we 

11 can have a status chat or something.

12 DR. MAURO: If it's okay with you 

13 folks, I could give Jim a call and just let 

14 him know my, again it would not be an issues 

15 resolution, it would simply be SC&A's 

16 understanding of what NIOSH plans to do with 

17 respect to doing these kinds of calculations,

18 and Jim could either say no --

19 DR. NETON: That would save a lot 

20 of work, I think, in the long run.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it would save 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 a lot of work and it would be the reasonable 

2 approach to it, especially in view of the 

3 fact that, I think John Mauro's comments are

4 well taken, and that most of these issues, 

5 certainly a large number of them we did 

6 address in OTIB-17.

7 And the problem as I see it is

8 just that this particular, these questions 

9 have come at us from several different 

10 directions. They're essentially the same 

11 question. They are an overarching issue, and

12 we have just simply not codified them in one 

13 spot.

14 DR. NETON: And I'm at a little 

15 bit of disadvantage because I was not privy 

16 to any of those Dose Reconstruction 

17 Subcommittee conversations that you all --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. But 

19 those are, most of them were quite some time 

20 ago. But I think we'll proceed in the manner

21 that's just been most recently suggested. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 think the first step would be for SC&A and 

2 NIOSH to have a technical call to identify 

3 precisely how we're going to move forward 

4 with this, and we'll take that as an action. 

5 Can that be done before our next meeting 

6 which won't be for several months?

7 DR. NETON: Yes. I was thinking 

8 not today, but down the line. Yes, I think 

9 that's, and I'll try to refresh my memory and

10 read what I can before we talk. It will be 

11 very helpful. Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's good.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is 

14 Kathy Behling. If you do want to go back to 

15 that Bridgeport Brass case it's in the 8th 

16 set.

17 DR. NETON: Right. I've got the 

18 email trail but I just haven't been able to 

19 pull that out. I know at one point after 

20 that whole discussion there was some 

21 recommendations that we start looking at like
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 one of the DTRA documents that John Stiver 

2 was familiar with, which I did find and it 

3 was very helpful.

4 And then apparently as part of 

5 the review of one of the cases, SC&A had 

6 outlined an approach that they thought was a 

7 reasonable way to go about business in one of

8 their responses to the DR. So there's some 

9 stuff on the table but I have not found all 

10 of that yet.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, if you folks 

12 will set up the technical call, give the 

13 Subcommittee Members a notice of when that's 

14 going to take place so that if any of us can 

15 or want to sit in we can, it would be 

16 helpful. We'll look forward for a note about

17 when that's going to happen in the 

18 immediately foreseeable future I hope. Good.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay, we've got it 

20 under advisement.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Anything 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 else to say about localized skin exposure 

2 documents right now? It would be helpful to 

3 get this moved along and have something to 

4 point to in our overarching issues with, get 

5 it added to. Nothing else to say with 

6 respect to the BRS? Thanks again.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh Wanda, I just 

8 wanted to say that we've been working with 

9 Lori and we've been, you know, working with 

10 the, and it's making good progress. I think 

11 the BRS is in very good shape.

12 You know, whenever we do have a 

13 problem with it we let Lori know and it gets 

14 fixed right away and, you know, we've been 

15 successfully using it quite often since the 

16 last meeting.

17 CHAIR MUNN: I know the DCAS team 

18 has been working pretty hard on that and the 

19 few times that I've checked in on it it's 

20 operating fine for me. But the proof of the 

21 pudding is what we have to cope with when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 we're in real-time meeting here.

2 So thanks much, Lori, and your 

3 team, and Steve too. We'll just keep 

4 tweaking it as we go along. Thanks much.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

6 I would just like to remind users of the 

7 database to be cautious with entering 

8 information into the BRS. When you do a copy

9 and a paste you run into formatting problems.

10 We're working on that but 

11 currently it still causes a problem in the 

12 system. You get a lot of strange characters 

13 that show up and things of that nature. So 

14 just to warn you that the copy and paste 

15 feature from a Word document into the BRS 

16 causes formatting problems.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one step at a 

18 time. Thank you, Lori. Appreciate it. PERs

19 0031 and 0030 and the responses, NIOSH.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu 

21 again. We have entered those responses in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 the BRS. If Steve wants to bring it up we 

2 can take a look at them. I don't remember 

3 them off the top of my head.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Which would you 

5 prefer to start with, 0030 or 0031?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

7 don't remember which is which.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I don't either.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

10 0030 is Savannah River and 0031 is Y-12.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Oh okay. Well, 

12 Steve has 0031 up. All right.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I think 

14 this one has four findings, right? Yes, if 

15 you expand on that first one you can see our 

16 response.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. 

18 Just for your information, the Live Meetings 

19 never come up for me.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Oh dear.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Has it for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 everybody else?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it worked 

4 for me.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm just too far 

6 out in the hinterlands.

7 MEMBER BEACH: It's working for 

8 me.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I did 

10 everything it said to do so I don't know what

11 to do. I'll just let you draw me pictures of

12 it in my mind.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Then I'll go into 

14 a little more detail here. The Finding 

15 Number 1 on the PER had to do with a 

16 statement that was made in the PER that 

17 changing the, this finding has to do with the

18 interpreting in vivo results from Y-12, from 

19 the Y-12 plan, and interpreting in vivo 

20 results for thorium. 

21 When you do an in vivo count for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 thorium-232, you don't actually count 

2 thorium-232 because it doesn't give off any 

3 photons. You look for a couple of, one or 

4 the other or two of the items, you know, 

5 daughters in its decay chain, either 

6 actinium-228 or lead-212. And then you 

7 have to make some judgments about what that 

8 tells you about how much thorium-232 is 

9 there. And of course there's also thorium10 228 there in that decay chain. It's a fairly

11 complicated decay chain. The 

12 statement made in the PER was that one of the

13 changes that was made to the Y-12 Site 

14 Profile was that these in vivo results at 

15 this time at Y-12 were being reported in 

16 milligrams of thorium-232 even though that's 

17 not what they were measuring. And the 

18 original Site Profile said we're going to 

19 assume that the ratio of thorium-232 to 

20 thorium-228 is 1:1, meaning that they're in 

21 equilibrium conditions.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 And then the revision to the Site 

2 Profile said, well, you know, it's not likely

3 that they're going to be in equilibrium 

4 conditions because of the complexity of the 

5 decay scheme, and so we're going to assume 

6 that thorium-228 to thorium-232 ratio will be

7 0.8:1. And the PER said that this is one of 

8 the changes that would increase the doses to 

9 people, and so it's one of the reasons why 

10 we're doing the PER.

11 SC&A's Finding Number 1, which 

12 I'm finally getting to, is that if you reduce

13 that ratio that would actually reduce the 

14 dose. It wouldn't increase the assigned dose

15 if you changed that ratio. So that was the 

16 finding. Our response was, well, 

17 yes, that's true if you take the milligram 

18 thorium-232 result at face value, meaning 

19 that that's the value you're going to 

20 consider its true value.

21 But if you know that you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 counting actinium-228 and/or lead-212 and 

2 that's what you're actually measuring when 

3 you make that disequilibrium assumption, what

4 that would cause you to do is actually 

5 increase the thorium-232 present to a higher 

6 value than what the in vivo mantra reported.

7 But regardless of how everything 

8 works out, it's really unimportant. It 

9 doesn't matter in terms of how the PER is 

10 done and if the PER is done correctly. So we

11 think that the finding can just go away. It 

12 doesn't really matter whether change in 

13 assumptions raises the dose or not.

14 So that's kind of where we are on 

15 the first. That's our response to the first 

16 finding is that, you know, there's a lot of 

17 stuff to think about in terms of, and the 

18 revised Site Profile is not very specific in 

19 terms of what does this change in 

20 equilibrium, what does that do to how you 

21 should interpret this in vivo result.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 So it's a fairly difficult 

2 interpretation and not really important to 

3 the outcome of the PER, and it's kind of 

4 going to be overcome by the response to the 

5 other findings that are coming up anyway.

6 So this one, I think, was just 

7 put in there. I don't think anybody's really

8 seen it yet but us, so I wouldn't expect 

9 anybody to rule on this. But you can think 

10 about it. If anybody has any questions about

11 that I'd be glad to answer them.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Any questions?

13 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

14 I agree with Stu on this. We discussed this

15 at the July meeting. And in regards to the 

16 SEC granted for Fernald based on the exact 

17 same chest counting methodology, and a lot of

18 these findings I think you'll see in later 

19 on, Stu's recommended that they be moved over

20 to a Work Group, a Site Work Group, and I 

21 would tend to agree with that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 There was also some discussion 

2 about what really, the interpretation of that

3 Finding 1. Clearly, if you're using the 

4 progeny to get back to a thorium intake, 

5 well, you know, any disequilibrium is going 

6 to increase the thorium-232 intake.

7 But by the same token, the 

8 progeny that would be in equilibrium would be

9 contributing less because they're downstream 

10 from thorium-228 in the decay chain. So 

11 again, I mean it's kind of an interesting 

12 technical question, but I don't think that it

13 really bears much on whether the PER is done 

14 correctly.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

16 Behling. Is Ron Buchanan on the phone?

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. I do want to 

18 state -- this is Ron Buchanan at SC&A -- that

19 the five cases we looked at, the dose 

20 reconstructor was using the milligrams of 

21 thorium to convert to the thorium-232 and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 then he was using 80 percent of that to 

2 assign the thorium-228.

3 And so that would, the way it was 

4 actually to be done in the case we looked at 

5 was decreasing the dose in three out of five.

6 The other case, they used a 40/60 

7 combination which was incorrect.

8 And so the dose reconstructions 

9 that we looked at were actually using 80 

10 percent of the thorium-232 as the thorium-228

11 intake. So the way it is being used, the 0.8

12 does reduce the intake and resulting dose 

13 compared to using a 1:1.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, it's 

15 all, I think, going to be overcome by events 

16 anyway. If you go on to the other second 

17 finding, and actually the second through the 

18 fourth findings, we listed our response as 

19 the same.

20 I'll say the second finding has 

21 to do with essentially the difficulty in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 interpreting the in vivo, thorium in vivo 

2 counts based on because you're counting those

3 progeny and the relationship of the progeny. 

4 The relative activity of the 

5 progeny to the parent is a fairly complex 

6 function that follows, depends upon how long 

7 it's been since you separated the thorium. 

8 The thorium is purified.

9 And then the other two findings I 

10 don't remember real well because I just felt 

11 like this issue needs to go. I felt like 

12 there, you know, a Y-12 Work Group needs to 

13 consider this. Because this is the exact 

14 issue that added a Class at Fernald from '68 

15 to '78, was the inability to reliably 

16 interpret the in vivo monitoring results for 

17 thorium when the in vivo monitoring reported 

18 the results in milligrams of thorium-232.

19 So since that issue arose there, 

20 and apparently at Y-12, of the Y-12 Site 

21 Profile it tends to rely on this thorium in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 vivo monitoring which seems to be the same 

2 technique, maybe not the same device but the 

3 same technique and results reported in 

4 milligrams of thorium-232, we think we need 

5 to take another serious look at that and 

6 whether we do, in fact, have a way to 

7 estimate thorium during that time or not.

8 It may be that we don't, or it 

9 may be that there's air sampling data or some

10 other method that would be used. But I'm 

11 questioning whether these in vivo results, 

12 the thorium milligram in vivo results really 

13 can be interpreted appropriately for that.

14 And if you recall, way back in 

15 the old days, Y-12 Work Group, at the time 

16 the Class was added at Y-12 through, what, 

17 1957, I believe that was largely because 

18 that's how long the petition lasted. You

19 know, the petitioner who petitioned for a 

20 Class only petitioned, I think, through '57. 

21 And I think we kind of left open the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 question that well, should this go further or

2 not. I think we kind of left that open.

3 And at any rate, there were Site 

4 Profile issues that were identified during 

5 that discussion that haven't been resolved 

6 yet either. So I think there's really work 

7 here for a Y-12 Work Group.

8 MR. KATZ: Stu, this is Ted. But 

9 I mean, by virtue of what you just explained,

10 it seems like the next step is not really 

11 assembling a Work Group but for NIOSH to 

12 grapple with this and make decisions about 

13 whether it has a method for this for Y-12 or 

14 not. Because if it doesn't, then it can go, 

15 you know, the 83.14 route and add a Class to 

16 address this problem.

17 But it seems like it would be 

18 premature to have a Y-12 Work Group come 

19 together before you'd have a chance to do 

20 your homework and sort out the path forward.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that's fair. We'll get it on our task list 

2 along with the other 80 things we have.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, these thorium 

4 chain issues are thorny whenever we hit them,

5 and they're so extremely technical that it's 

6 unlikely that anyone other than specific 

7 personnel who deal with these decay issues on

8 a fairly regular basis can even assess them 

9 very well.

10 So if we're going to undertake 

11 this issue that we have with PER-31, it 

12 appears that the point Ted has made, I think,

13 is a good one.

14 We are going to have to do it 

15 almost as, it's not an overarching issue 

16 because everybody doesn't deal with thorium, 

17 but most of the sites that do have thorium 

18 issues have some aspect of these same types 

19 of problems to wrestle with.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think 

21 there are actually a limited number of sites 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that did in vivo monitoring --

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's true.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or thorium4 232.

5 CHAIR MUNN: From information we 

6 have it is limited indeed.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are 

8 other issues with thorium too, if you don't 

9 have in vivo.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true. 

11 So doing it under this wing seems to be just 

12 as effective as doing it under any other 

13 wing.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fine with 

15 us. I think Ted was right, is that the next 

16 task for us is to sort out what, if anything,

17 we can do and what period of time we're 

18 talking about here.

19 We know that Y-12 did in fact, 

20 was a heavy user of thorium for like, 

21 starting around 1960 or just before and going
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 for awhile. I don't know how long it went 

2 for. And they probably did 

3 not report in milligrams of thorium for very 

4 long. By, well, let's see, it was by the, 

5 well, they could have for awhile. Fernald 

6 didn't switch until the late '70s, and 

7 Fernald relied to great deal on Y-12 for 

8 their, well, they relied on Y-12 for the 

9 mobile counter which is what's used.

10 MR. STIVER: Stu, this is John. 

11 I think I recall reading somewhere in one of 

12 those millions of documents that it was based

13 on a change at Y-12, but I can't tell you 

14 exactly where I found that.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't 

16 recall that. I would suspect it was the 

17 same. I suspect that Fernald took their lead

18 from Y-12 and if Y-12 may have changed 

19 somewhat earlier, but maybe not a lot.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

21 Buchanan. Fernald used Y-12's equipment and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 method and thought it was the same. So --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they used a 

3 mobile counter. I think Y-12 also had a 

4 fixed one that they used for their own.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that they 

6 received from Y-12.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Y-12 did. Y-12 

8 had a fixed counter, I believe.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, they did. Yes. 

10 They had a fixed counter and the mobile 

11 counter was patterned exactly.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: A counter they 

13 sent around to the various, not only to 

14 Fernald but to the gaseous diffusion plants 

15 as well.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, exactly.

17 DR. NETON: Hey, Stu, this is 

18 Jim. I'm looking at the PER-31 and as far as

19 I could tell it specifically only addresses 

20 this lung counting issue and the change in 

21 the equilibrium ratio. And if that's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 case I wonder if it wouldn't just be prudent 

2 for us to just maybe withdraw --

3 MR. STIVER: Did everybody else 

4 drop off?

5 DR. NETON: What's that?

6 MR. STIVER: Everything went 

7 quiet for a second there.

8 DR. NETON: Could we actually 

9 sort of withdraw this PER and go back to the 

10 drawing board and see what needs to be done? 

11 That would sort of, you know, there's no 

12 reason having these findings on the table if 

13 we're going to redo something, right? I 

14 don't know, just a thought.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we're just 

16 finding our way along here with the issues 

17 that arise from PERs, so that's certainly a 

18 suggestion that's worth considering as long 

19 as we don't lose track of the issue. That's 

20 a big deal. So how we do it is up for 

21 discussion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is 

2 Stu. I'm personally okay with just leaving 

3 them here and leaving them open. It's kind 

4 of like a sore tooth. It won't leave you 

5 alone, you'll have to do something with it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. STIVER: Maybe we should just 

8 put a note today that it's going to be 

9 considered by NIOSH in a larger sense in 

10 regards to a potential reconstructability.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, I'm going to 

12 say that NIOSH is going to revisit this, and 

13 that we'll have at least a White Paper report

14 from NIOSH as to how to proceed with this 

15 specific PER. And the thorium issues in a 

16 larger sense obviously are going to have to 

17 be resolved somewhere.

18 But if we're trying to expand 

19 this PER, which addresses specific lung 

20 exposures, we need to be careful that we 

21 don't go beyond the limits of the concern 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that generated the PER to begin with.

2 So we're going to have to rely on 

3 NIOSH, I think, to give us recommendations on

4 how we need to proceed. Any comment from any

5 of the Committee Members? Any thoughts? Any

6 suggestions?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

8 Josie. I think that's a reasonable path 

9 forward.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: And this is 

11 Ziemer. It certainly makes sense to me. I 

12 don't think we want to sort of, you know, 

13 after you go through that if you feel like 

14 you need to withdraw the PER, then I think 

15 that's your decision at that point.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. 

17 Okay with me.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right, is it 

19 clear, Jim, Stu? Clear in your minds where 

20 we're going with this?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I know what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 our next task is, is to look back to the Y-12

2 approach to what we've adopted in light of, 

3 and see if the in vivo monitoring is the key 

4 to it and if so, what does that tell us about

5 maybe an infeasibility and during what times?

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

7 good. We'll expect your report on the 

8 thorium chest count issues with PER-31. That

9 being the case can we go on to PER-30 then. 

10 And how many --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we only 

12 have two findings on this one.

13 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the first 

15 finding is comments that the PER states that 

16 there have been a number of revisions to the 

17 Savannah River Site Profile, but these didn't

18 always result in needed modifications to dose

19 reconstructions.

20 And the reason for this is that 

21 the Profile was issued and then maybe a first
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 revision or something was issued that said, 

2 that reserved certain types of exposures 

3 during certain times, during certain periods.

4 So the thought process behind 

5 publishing a Site Profile with information 

6 missing was that that missing information 

7 wasn't needed for all dose reconstructions, 

8 and so some dose reconstructions could go 

9 forward while this missing information was 

10 found or additional research was done in 

11 order to be able to fill in, essentially fill

12 in the blanks.

13 But there was some cases, do, and 

14 so those were done. But then when you would 

15 issue a revision it just added another, you 

16 know, that added a technique that hadn't been

17 available before, and it was, you know, this 

18 is to cover people who didn't have bioassay 

19 before 1960, for instance.

20 Then that revision would not 

21 change any that were already done, any dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 reconstructions that were already done, it 

2 would only make more dose reconstructions, 

3 then, available to do.

4 And there was some revisions like 

5 that and that was the explanation for why 

6 we've had a number of revisions, sometimes in

7 some cases there were revisions where there's

8 no need for a PER at all.

9 And so the finding had to do, 

10 was, do we document that in some way that 

11 that's what happened and a particular claim 

12 was documented for, you know, there was some 

13 document generated that that particular 

14 claim, or a list of claims that couldn't be 

15 done yet? And the answer is no. 

16 There was no documentation of that of the 

17 dose, you know, there are some pends. 

18 Sometimes the case will be pended. Sometimes

19 our contractor even for awhile would put a 

20 claim what they called on hold, which was 

21 their own sort of pend.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 I think we've gotten away from 

2 that now. They also have the power to pend 

3 the claim. And so when you get to a claim 

4 and there's information that doesn't, you 

5 know, so that claim can't go forward, it gets

6 pended for this technical reason.

7 Now there's some things like 

8 that, but I don't believe we have a method to

9 reconstruct the claims and find out what 

10 claims were pended for what thing over 

11 history.

12 If you look at a specific claim 

13 and look at its, I believe it's called its QA

14 history, or at least it's one of the parts of

15 NOCTS that describes the history of the 

16 claim, it will describe when the case was 

17 pended and unpended if it ever was, and it 

18 gives a sort of a one-line description of the

19 pend reason, which may or may not be very 

20 explanatory today.

21 So there's some things you need 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 to look at it, and the answer to the first 

2 finding is no, we don't have a way to 

3 document that the cases were held and held 

4 correctly and things like that. So that's 

5 our response to the first one.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, this is Ron 

7 Buchanan, SC&A and I'm the one that posed 

8 that question. I guess outside the 

9 documentation question, say you've got ten 

10 claims and you can work five of them and the 

11 other five can't be worked because they're 

12 waiting on information for that TBD.

13 Three years later that 

14 information comes available. Is there a 

15 method that pulls those other five claims in 

16 and has them worked?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, which five 

18 claims? The five that we didn't do?

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, the five that 

20 you didn't do.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that was the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 pend process I was talking about. Normally 

2 what happens is if you have a technical 

3 reason why these five claims, we can't do 

4 them yet and we say they are pended and 

5 waiting for a method to do internal dose 

6 reconstruction before 1960, something like 

7 that.

8 Say those other five claims we 

9 did, those people all hired in after 1960. 

10 So then when we have a method for doing 

11 internal dose reconstruction before 1960, 

12 then we go back and release those pended 

13 cases, the cases that were pended for that 

14 reason. So that's how then they become 

15 available to the pool to be done.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, so NIOSH 

17 does have a way to link pended cases to 

18 information when they know why it's been 

19 pended some way, and when that information 

20 becomes available they are brought back into 

21 the queue to be reworked automatically.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, that 

3 was my question and I figured there was an 

4 answer to it, but several of these PERs I've 

5 worked on I've noticed these sections were 

6 reserved and then filled in, and I didn't 

7 know if everybody was aware of how that was 

8 done. I wasn't. It wasn't obvious. And so 

9 it was a question.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there's an 

11 end report that we generate that it's 

12 marginally descriptive in terms of the 

13 categories of why things, you know, what 

14 cases are pended or how many. It doesn't 

15 necessarily name the cases.

16 But I mean, that's a current 

17 thing and we can do it current, but I don't 

18 think we can regenerate the history of it.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: I just wanted to 

20 make sure that the claims weren't sitting 

21 there not being done as later on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 information becomes available and some of 

2 them fall through the cracks.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's done 

4 through the pend process. And we've gotten 

5 better at keeping track of claims as the 

6 years have gone on, and our contractor now 

7 sends us a really detailed weekly report of 

8 how they're keeping track of the cases.

9 If you're interested, Ron, I can 

10 send you their weekly report. I mean they 

11 really keep track of the cases that they have

12 now and the issues that are keeping them from

13 moving forward.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, well, I was 

15 just looking for the general information and 

16 I figured that maybe other people would have 

17 the same question.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it's so easy to 

19 look at their reports, and if it isn't an 

20 issue that isn't pertinent to the reader then

21 sort of skip over it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 And I guess the question in my 

2 mind would be, and is the pend report 

3 reviewed by the people who have this specific

4 responsibility for generating whatever 

5 documents or whatever information is 

6 necessary to address the matter that caused 

7 the pending?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, well, the 

9 pend report is the report we generate 

10 internally off of NOCTS, and we, meaning the 

11 HP Team leaders and Jim and I, go over that 

12 once a month to make sure that it stays in 

13 our minds, anything that's pending, and 

14 nothing gets forgotten about.

15 But actually, more frequently 

16 than that ORAU, our contractor, every week 

17 publishes a report where they describe the 

18 categories of things that are preventing 

19 claims from moving forward.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And for instance, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 there are always a bunch of claims where 

2 we're awaiting for the initial response from 

3 DOE for this claim's exposure history.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's about as 

5 real-time as you can get, I think.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: There are still 

7 some claims that we don't have the CLL tool 

8 in place for because those CLL tools are site

9 specific. And we've gone through the sites 

10 with the large number of claims, but we're 

11 still finishing out all the CLL tools that 

12 are needed in order to do the CLL cases 

13 because there's some categories, there's some

14 things in that. There's some claims that 

15 we've, you know.

16 So that would be an example of a 

17 technical pend. This claim is pended until 

18 we have a CLL method for, pick your choice of

19 a small site. So those are examples of 

20 technical pends.

21 CHAIR MUNN: That's a good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 concern. Thanks for raising it, Ron, and 

2 thank you for the good answer.

3 DR. MAURO: Stu, this is John 

4 Mauro. A quick question for you. When you 

5 give your overarching summaries during the 

6 full Board meetings, very often you would 

7 present the age of some of the cases. In 

8 other words, you try to clear those backlogs 

9 of DR reviews that may have been lingering 

10 for a year or two or whatever.

11 I know there's a lot of emphasis 

12 placed on trying to get those taken care of. 

13 Is this the reason why you have some cases 

14 that are sort of sitting unresolved that may 

15 go back a year or two? In other words, I 

16 always a notice the graph and I know that you

17 speak a lot to that issue. And I guess is 

18 this like the underlying reason why some of 

19 these are sort of sitting in limbo for 

20 awhile?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The reason 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 being that there are periods of time where we

2 haven't quite resolved all the questions at 

3 certain sites. I mean certain sites are very

4 responsive and some are not. And some are 

5 periodically responsive.

6 And so I could probably think of 

7 a couple if I really spent some time at it, 

8 but there are some data captures that have 

9 gone on longer than, you know, we had hoped 

10 because of the difficulty in dealing with the

11 holder of the records. And so sometimes 

12 things have to wait until we can resolve the 

13 technical issue needed to do that claim.

14 So yes, that's what makes them 

15 stop is a technical pend of some kind. 

16 Because if we have all the information we 

17 need and the techniques we need to do a dose 

18 reconstruction we get it done in less than 

19 six months.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay, thanks.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Great. Finding 2?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I would 

2 consider that one resolved. It seems to me 

3 that Ron Buchanan, it sounds like you're 

4 satisfied with the answer.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. It was more 

6 of a question in clarification and I'm 

7 satisfied with the answer. Thank you.

8 CHAIR MUNN: So the question is 

9 now resolved, correct?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I consider it 

11 resolved.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right, any 

13 comment from any of the other Board Members? 

14 If not, Steve, can we indicate that NIOSH 

15 response was accepted by SC&A and the 

16 Subcommittee closed that finding?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we still on 

18 line? This is Ziemer.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we are.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Getting a 

21 lot of silence there and I wasn't sure what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 was happening.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, what's 

3 happening is, do you have your Live Meeting 

4 screen up? Steve is typing.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't talk and 

6 type at the same time. Is that response, for

7 people who can see the screen, is that 

8 response message acceptable?

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. 

10 Anyone unhappy with that wording?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll have to rely 

12 upon you all to say that it's correct. I 

13 cannot see it. I've downloaded Java again 

14 and it just doesn't work.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I'm really sorry. 

16 I've been in that position and it's hard to 

17 deal with. It says "The NIOSH response was 

18 accepted by SC&A and the Subcommittee closed 

19 the finding." Is that acceptable with you, 

20 Dick?

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very 

2 good. Any other comments? If not, let's 

3 move on to the next finding, Finding 2.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think 

5 Finding 2 had to do with a Rev 4 of the Site 

6 Profile changed some of the medical doses 

7 that includes some that went up.

8 And so there's a question, and 

9 the PER addressed this, additional PER 

10 concerning Rev 4 would be appropriate. Yes, 

11 what's going on with Savannah River though of

12 course is that there's a fairly lengthy 

13 discussion underway about the SEC petition, 

14 and things are being resolved and not 

15 resolved, you know, Classes being added and 

16 other approaches are being proposed there.

17 So at some point there will be a 

18 solution there, an end, when the Class will 

19 be added through whatever year it's added 

20 through for whatever exposures. The Site 

21 Profile will need to be revised to reflect 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 any methods that were revised as part of that

2 SEC discussion. And so what we're 

3 intending to do then is to do the PER at that

4 point and capture all these changes in that 

5 one PER.

6 CHAIR MUNN: It appears that this 

7 needs to be in abeyance, is that correct?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, you could 

9 put it in abeyance if you want because we, 

10 you know, we do agree that there will need to

11 be another revision to the Site Profile which

12 will then kick off the PER that will close 

13 this. So yes, we are kind of promising 

14 something later on. Savannah River being 

15 what it is that might be awhile.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Any other views on 

17 how do deal with this? Is in abeyance 

18 appropriate in the minds of the Subcommittee?

19 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Just a 

20 suggestion, but I don't know why you can't 

21 close it, because when they get through all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 that process of sorting out what should be 

2 done at Savannah River there will be another 

3 PER.

4 I mean that's a train that will 

5 come without a doubt, so I don't know. 

6 Tracking this as in abeyance doesn't really 

7 get you anywhere. I mean it doesn't add any 

8 value.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

10 It does in the sense that it alerts you that 

11 something has yet to occur. That's the way 

12 we're using abeyance in general that action 

13 to occur in the future has not yet happened. 

14 So closing it implies that everything's been

15 resolved.

16 CHAIR MUNN: That was my 

17 understanding of how we've done things in the

18 past. Josie?

19 MEMBER BEACH: I think it should

20 go in abeyance. It makes sense.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Dick?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MEMBER LEMEN: It's okay with me. 

2 I think it should go in abeyance.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

4 good. You have no objection, do you, Ted?

5 MR. KATZ: Oh no, it's fine. 

6 It's fine.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Let's just indicate 

8 that it's in abeyance, Steve. And Dr. Lemen,

9 for your information Steve is typing again. 

10 We'll have a brief pause here.

11 MR. KATZ: Just as long as we're 

12 waiting anyway, just to explain what I was 

13 thinking, but it's fine in abeyance. But in 

14 abeyance, normally we use that because we've 

15 asked for a resolution but until we see it we

16 don't know that it'll actually be implemented

17 in the way we expect it. So that's the 

18 normal process.

19 In this case there's going to be 

20 a new PER that just redoes everything and 

21 it's not like as part of this process we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 going to look at that PER to see if it 

2 implemented what we expected.

3 What's going to happen in that 

4 case down the road is there will be a new PER

5 and then it'll be reviewed by SC&A or 

6 whoever, if we have a different contractor, 

7 and then the Board will, you know, tangle 

8 with it. So it's a slightly different 

9 circumstance.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is a 

11 slightly different circumstance. The only 

12 real value that this has is keeping us aware 

13 of the fact that this hasn't actually gone 

14 away and that something else will have to 

15 happen.

16 Dr. Lemen, the final comment 

17 indicates "The Subcommittee has placed this 

18 finding in abeyance until such time as a new 

19 SRS PER is issued."

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Hearing no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 objection, we will consider that our closing 

2 comment on the PER-30 Item 2.

3 Our next issue is PER-14 

4 findings. Responses are due from NIOSH, I 

5 believe.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu 

7 again. There are a couple categories of 

8 findings here. There is Finding 1 and 3 

9 which relate to whether the 1.4 is favorable 

10 or not. I think Jim and Matt Smith might be 

11 able to talk about those more than I.

12 And then when you get down to 

13 there's some Subtask 4 findings, Finding 

14 Number 8 and it looks like 14 and 15. I 

15 might be able to talk to those. So what 

16 order do you want to do these in?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the person who 

18 feels most comfortable addressing them. 

19 Let's just address them in order unless there

20 is some pressing reason for us to lump them 

21 together in a different way.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I may start 

2 with Jim and then he may want to hand off to 

3 Matt on this 14-1 which is the adjustment of 

4 1.4, is that favorable, and it has to do with

5 construction workers maybe not working the 

6 full year.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right, that's 

8 good.

9 DR. NETON: Okay, this is Jim. 

10 And this TIB goes way, way back to 

11 Construction Worker TIB. The adjustment 

12 factor 1.4 was developed, and this was for 

13 external doses, was developed after a lot of 

14 deliberation at the Working Group level.

15 And that 1.4 came about at 

16 Hanford, and it was the only site that we 

17 evaluated out of the six sites that we 

18 reviewed at an external dose for construction

19 trades that was higher by a factor of 1.4. I

20 believe it was prior to 1960.

21 In that TIB, we went ahead and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 said okay, we're going to use an adjustment 

2 factor of 1.4 over all time for all sites to 

3 try to be very claimant-favorable and 

4 conservative. And that's what was agreed to.

5 Now this latest issue about it 

6 not being claimant-favorable to maybe 

7 construction workers who had worked, maybe 

8 the data for construction workers was only 

9 from a part-time limited basis, is a new 

10 twist and I'm not sure really applicable, 

11 because now you're trying to get down into 

12 sort of the per hour of, you know, exposure 

13 per hour scenario where we really can't do 

14 it.

15 We compared, you know, the 

16 database as it existed, which is exposures to

17 regular workers or, you know, non18 construction and then trades workers, and 

19 then developed those ratios based on the 

20 datasets as they exist, which I think is 

21 still a valid comparison.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 I think Matt had indicated, and 

2 I'm new to this part of the issue, that we 

3 may be able to go back and look at one site, 

4 which I think was the Hanford site, that had 

5 some data that were available to compare 

6 working times, and he developed a 

7 spreadsheet.

8 I don't really know what those 

9 findings were on that spreadsheet, but I 

10 suspect that they tended to support our cause

11 here. So Matt, I don't know if you're 

12 prepared to talk about that or not.

13 MR. SMITH: Sure. Excuse me, my 

14 voice is still recovering from the early 

15 onset of the cold and flu season. The site -

16 -

17 CHAIR MUNN: We're sorry you're 

18 so fortunate, Matt.

19 MR. SMITH: Well, don't worry, 

20 Wanda, it's probably coming your way.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, sooner or later 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 it'll come home.

2 MR. SMITH: Yes. But the site 

3 that actually, of the ones used for OTIB-52 

4 that have some information on employment 

5 periods would turn out to be Rocky Flats.

6 And so when people are looking at 

7 the BRS you'll probably notice there's an 

8 attachment called "Construction External 

9 Dosimetry RFP Construct CPW." I'm also, like

10 others on the phone, not able to get on the 

11 Live Meeting today due to the security and 

12 Java issues.

13 This particular Excel workbook 

14 does have the start and stop dates both for 

15 all monitored workers and the construction 

16 trade workers. And I don't know if Steve is 

17 able to --

18 MR. MARSCHKE: It's on the screen 

19 now, Matt.

20 MR. SMITH: That's great. Steve, 

21 if you could click on the tab for 1970. I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 just picking a year of the data.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: 1970 is up. 1970 

3 is up.

4 MR. SMITH: All right. If you 

5 slide the slider over so we're starting at, 

6 you know, Column A, you'll notice that 

7 Columns F and G have our begin date and end 

8 date. Now granted, not all the other sites 

9 had this start/stop information, but Rocky 

10 Flats did. You'll notice the 

11 authors in Column L are computing the 

12 fraction of year of exposure, and then 

13 further on in Column AA you'll see, if you 

14 click on that and look at the formula, 

15 they're referring back to that fraction and 

16 using it.

17 So the data that were processed 

18 for Rocky Flats did consider prorated time. 

19 And again like the other sites that were part

20 of OTIB-52, when looked at overall the Factor

21 1.4 was certainly bounding for what we found 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 for the data for Rocky Flats.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Matt, what are the 

3 units in the AA/AP/AC columns?

4 MR. SMITH: Let me scan back to 

5 it here. I moved off of it. Those are 

6 millirem.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

8 MR. SMITH: So the response here 

9 was trying to address the concern of, you 

10 know, does prorated dose or workers that 

11 worked for less than a full year, does that 

12 affect whether or not 1.4 is a favorable 

13 bounding? The Rocky Flats data would 

14 indicate that 1.4 is, in fact, still 

15 bounding. And that's what I had to throw in 

16 on that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: It's edifying to see 

18 such good data. Thank you.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

20 Behling, because I'm the person who actually 

21 reviewed PER-14 and I did have some question.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 I didn't have really a chance to look at 

2 that particular spreadsheet.

3 I looked at something else and 

4 was at a loss to figure out why or how that 

5 would provide me with the necessary data that

6 would support the fact that there was no 

7 difference between construction and all 

8 monitored workers with regard to the actual 

9 time frames in which a yearly dose was 

10 defined. And so I have to say I haven't 

11 really looked at that particular view of the 

12 spreadsheets that just came up here.

13 Let me just ask, is it reasonable

14 to conclude that based on the information 

15 which I haven't really looked at that the 

16 construction trade workers, which are usually

17 people at least from my point of view and my 

18 experience, are people who are brought on 

19 site for particular job and then terminated. 

20 They're not the equivalent of an in-house 

21 person who is expected on average to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 monitored and exposed for a full year.

2 So that when you drew the 

3 comparison between doses, annual doses among 

4 construction trade versus all monitored 

5 workers that you -- my feeling at the time, 

6 and it was speculation, as I said I didn't 

7 have the data to support it, but just based 

8 on my personal experience I always found that

9 in the utilities when you, for instance, 

10 bring in people during an outage they're 

11 there for a particular job and then they 

12 leave.

13 Some of the people may be there 

14 for a period of weeks, months or even a good 

15 part of the outage if it's a full six months.

16 But in most instances, people who qualify 

17 for the term construction trade workers are 

18 people from union halls and subcontractors 

19 that come in for a specific job.

20 And my question was, the annual 

21 dose for a construction trade worker may in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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 many instances be considerably less than a 

2 full year's worth of exposure, which would 

3 mean that comparing as you did in your write4 up there in your table of OTIB-52, when you 

5 compare the two groups of individuals you're 

6 really comparing apples with oranges there, 

7 when you realize that in most instances in8 house people or all monitored workers you're 

9 referring here are probably people who are 

10 employed at the facility as opposed to trade 

11 workers who are obviously brought in as 

12 needed. And that was my question.

13 And as I said, in general in my 

14 write-up I had, by and large, stated that 

15 this whole issue of the guidance, and I'm 

16 looking at my own write-up 2.3.1, that is, 

17 guidance for the construction workers of 

18 external penetrating dose for unmonitored 

19 CTWs involves the use of a 1.4 adjustment 

20 factor multiplier and the 95th percentile 

21 site specific coworker dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

81 1 And I concluded that that was a 

2 very, very conservative and claimant3 favorable approach to assigning dose. But I 

4 wasn't sure as to whether or not the 1.4, 

5 which you appear to show but the data is not 

6 convincing, it's at this point that the time 

7 frame for employment was not necessary the 

8 same for both the construction workers as 

9 well as the all monitored workers.

10 And as I said, if that turns out 

11 to be a comparable number then I would say 

12 this issue is closed.

13 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I think 

14 there's two things to say there. One is, 

15 until you get a chance to look at -- we don't

16 have data to do that comparison apparently 

17 except at Rocky Flats and --

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I 

19 understand. But at least --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 DR. NETON: -- Rocky Flats that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

82 1 holds. The second thing I'd point out is 

2 remember who that these doses are being 

3 applied to. These are being applied to 

4 unmonitored construction trades workers.

5 So that's in a different class by 

6 itself. I mean, you know, here we have 

7 monitored constructions trades versus regular

8 workers, we've compared them and we're going 

9 to apply, you know, the 95th percentile to 

10 the unmonitored workers who are probably 

11 more, less likely exposed than not.

12 And again, this 1.4 only showed 

13 up in before, I think, 1961 at Hanford. We 

14 saw it nowhere else in any of the other sites

15 we evaluated. So I think it's a pretty 

16 favorable adjustment.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: And as I said, I 

18 just quoted to you what I wrote. I said the 

19 use of the 95th percentile and the 1.4 is a 

20 very, very claimant-favorable approach to 

21 assigning dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

83 1 The only thing is, as I said, I 

2 would like to see some support for the idea 

3 that construction trade workers there, their 

4 annual doses were, in fact, an annual dose 

5 not a partial dose that you're comparing to. 

6 That's all.

7 DR. NETON: And I guess until you 

8 look at Matt's piece, and I don't know if 

9 that will satisfy you or not, but that's all 

10 we have.

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, yes. And I 

12 will say this. There may be instances where 

13 in days past, especially in certain areas 

14 where construction trade workers who were 

15 there for a very short time may not have been

16 monitored, because it's a very costly issue 

17 when you have to go through a whole various 

18 process involving the qualification of a 

19 worker such as rad worker training, the whole

20 issue of assigning a dosimeter, the whole 

21 issue of fitting them with respiratory 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

84 1 protection and qualifying them.

2 In many cases in days past, at 

3 least in the early years, people may have 

4 just sidestepped that whole process, and so 

5 that the unmonitored construction trade 

6 worker may not be different from those who 

7 were monitored.

8 It may be based on the fact that 

9 they were there for a very short period of 

10 time, where the employers just simply said 

11 we're not going to invest that kind of 

12 effort.

13 DR. NETON: But I would think 

14 that the 95th percentiles were the ones that 

15 were there for quite some time.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, it's 

17 possible. As I say --

18 DR. NETON: That's what I'm 

19 saying. You know, you can envision that a 

20 lot of the ones may have been short-term 

21 exposures and they would be balanced on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

85 1 low end of the spectrum, but it would be hard

2 to convince me that the 95th percentile 

3 workers were the ones that were there for 

4 weeks.

5 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, Jim, the 

6 fact is that that is lost too. When you do a

7 dose reconstruction and you find out that a 

8 claimant was a construction trade worker and 

9 then you look at his employment record, 

10 you're not going to give him the 95th 

11 percentile of a coworker model that 

12 represents a full year's worth of exposure. 

13 You're going to prorate that person obviously

14 so that that argument you just mentioned is 

15 not necessarily applicable.

16 DR. NETON: I'm not sure if we 

17 have that level of detail, Hans, but yes.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I mean if 

19 you have a claimant and he is a construction 

20 trade worker and you look at his records, 

21 you're probably going to look at the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

86 1 employment record, and if it turns out he was

2 only there a --

3 DR. NETON: Yes, if he was there 

4 a month, you're right.

5 DR. H. BEHLING: If he's there 

6 for a month he's going to get 1/12th of the 

7 annual dose of a 95th percentile coworker.

8 DR. NETON: Right. But again 

9 that 95th percentile surely was 

10 representative of cases that were there for a

11 longer period of time than a couple weeks. 

12 That's what I'm saying, if you use the 95th 

13 percentile --

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, that's 

15 good. I know that. But you're only giving 

16 him a fraction of that value. You're not 

17 going to --

18 DR. NETON: Right. But that's 

19 what he would have received if it was 

20 prorated over the year. Right. I'm missing 

21 it. If the 95th percentile is based on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

87 1 people who had long --

2 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: -- work histories for 

4 that year and you're going to prorate it 

5 based on his amount of time he was there, 

6 right.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. And so it 

8 doesn't really matter whether he was there 

9 for a week or nine months or even 11 months. 

10 The fact is you're not going to give him the

11 full 95th percentile of an annual dose for a 

12 coworker if you know for a fact the person 

13 was there for a fraction of that time.

14 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

15 listening, but when you do a dose 

16 reconstruction and you're applying your 

17 coworker model and your 1.4 and you've got a 

18 worker, okay.

19 And you look at him and you say, 

20 oh, this person was only present for three 

21 months out of one year, and you're going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

88 1 reconstruct his dose. And you know that your

2 coworker model says, well, here is, the 

3 coworker model calls for taking on, and let's

4 say you decide you take off your distribution

5 for all workers.

6 You take off the upper 95th 

7 percentile, which will give you an annual 

8 dose for a given year, let's say, that you 

9 believe to be an upper bound coworker 

10 assignment, and that's an annual dose. Then 

11 you multiply that by 1.4, and certainly you 

12 are way up there now.

13 Now what Hans just said, and this 

14 is what I heard, is that you do one more 

15 thing. You take that dose, and if it was 

16 only three months you would divide by four 

17 and that would the dose you would assign to 

18 this guy. Do you do that?

19 That is, I would have never 

20 thought about it before, but do you do then 

21 say, oh no, the guy was only there for three 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

89 1 months so therefore we're going to divide 

2 that dose that we just arrived by a factor of

3 3? And I think that that could be a problem.

4 Did you understand the question I posed?

5 DR. NETON: Yes, I understand. I 

6 think that's what we would do, yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay, so that makes 

8 it an interesting circumstance, because 

9 remember, I believe that once you constructed

10 the coworker model for construction workers, 

11 what you do is you collected all this data 

12 for all the construction workers and you sort

13 of stack them up and then you compare them to

14 all workers.

15 And you say, oh, lo and behold, 

16 it looks like the geometric mean or whatever 

17 the parameter is for the subcategory called 

18 construction workers is a bit higher. And --

19 DR. NETON: Only in one case, at 

20 one site.

21 DR. MAURO: In one case at one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

90 1 site and for one time period. And you're 

2 saying, well, I think at least under those 

3 circumstances it would be only fair that 

4 whatever the coworker model calls for we do 

5 know that construction workers, at least 

6 under those circumstances, tend to have 

7 higher exposures, and therefore you're going 

8 to multiply by 1.4.

9 I have to admit that I didn't 

10 even think about the idea that at the back 

11 end of the actual implementation that you 

12 might actually take that resulting dose that 

13 you're going to give the guy, and if it turns

14 out he's only there for -- now, if he's there

15 for a year it's not a problem.

16 But if he's there for only a 

17 fraction of a year and you're about to assign

18 the dose of that year you would prorate him 

19 down to that. And that just then throws in 

20 something that's thought provoking. That is,

21 did you defeat the original approach that you
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

91 1 used to get to the 1.4, if you see what I'm 

2 saying.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. John, let 

4 me interrupt. And I'm not opposed to the 

5 fact that a person should be prorated. If I 

6 give him or use further exposure from a 

7 coworker at the 95th level when he was there 

8 for a month, I don't mind that.

9 What I'm really questioning is 

10 the Figure 5.2 of OTIB-52 which I included in

11 my write-up, which shows that for a number of

12 years at the Savannah River site, for 

13 instance, there were a total of one, two, 

14 three, four, five, six, seven, eight years 

15 during which the construction trade workers 

16 were higher than all monitored workers. And 

17 the ratios ranged from 1.3 to 1.5.

18 Now the question I have is that 

19 if the construction trade workers' exposure 

20 had been normalized to represent at least the

21 equivalent of what the total duration of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

92 1 average all monitored workers were, or just 

2 on a reasonable presumption that they would 

3 have been there for a whole year, what would 

4 their exposure has been an on annual basis 

5 and would that graph look differently? And 

6 that's the question.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think we're 

8 both saying the same thing in a different 

9 way. I don't know the answer to this. And 

10 what, Jim, you're saying is by using the 95th

11 percentile you're sort of playing it safe. 

12 That is, that sort of accounts for this 

13 adjustment.

14 DR. NETON: Well, if the 95th 

15 percentile is those workers that worked there

16 for most of the year.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

18 DR. NETON: The workers that had 

19 the longer work histories. And so when 

20 you're doing that you're sort of then 

21 getting, I don't think that it's necessarily 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

93 1 inappropriate then to consider prorating 

2 those people. You know, what you're trying 

3 to get at is what is the average hourly 

4 exposure difference, and I don't think that's

5 a knowable answer.

6 DR. MAURO: And I agree with you. 

7 I just, no --

8 DR. NETON: Those are going to 

9 have approximations, and I think by taking a 

10 95th percentile and assuming that that is an 

11 approximation of a lengthy exposure cycle for

12 those people, you sort of get down to it. 

13 And I don't see that we can do any more fine 

14 tuning than that.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: No, Jim, you're 

16 missing the point here. I'm just looking at 

17 that one particular table, Figure 5-2, that 

18 shows the 95th percentile value for all 

19 monitored and the 95th percentile value for 

20 construction trade workers.

21 DR. NETON: I know.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

94 1 DR. H. BEHLING: And for most 

2 years in that graph you will see that all 

3 monitored workers are significantly higher 

4 than construction trade workers with 

5 exception of the eight years that I just 

6 mentioned --

7 DR. NETON: I think those are for 

8 later years, right, Hans, after the '80s?

9 DR. H. BEHLING: They start in 

10 1962 and go through 1999.

11 DR. NETON: No, no. Savannah 

12 River was higher in 1962? I don't think so.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

14 DR. NETON: No.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, for 1962 

16 the ratio was 1.3. In other words, that was 

17 one of the eight years during which 

18 construction trade workers were higher than -

19 -

20 DR. NETON: I thought there was 

21 only one time where it was higher, which was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

95 1 Hanford.

2 DR. H. BEHLING: No. Well, but 

3 the table that I'm looking at that comes out 

4 of --

5 DR. NETON: I've got to get this. 

6 Let me see if I can get this.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: OTIB-52 shows 

8 eight years for Savannah River. And like I 

9 said, if I had some reasonable assurance, 

10 even if it involves just one site, Rocky 

11 Flats, that the average employment period 

12 for construction trade workers was relatively

13 close to one year, that would satisfy the 

14 whole issue. Because I stated that the 95th 

15 percentile and assuming the duration of 

16 employment periods between the two groups 

17 were comparable, then the 95 and the 1.4 

18 multiplier would be a very, very claimant19 favorable, fair way of dealing with it. And 

20 I stand by that.

21 MR. SMITH: Well, this is Matt. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

96 1 And again that's what this response was meant

2 to do. So if you look at Figure 5-5 of OTIB3 52, we're looking at Rocky Flats.

4 And the basis of this response is 

5 that the data for Rocky Flats, we do have the

6 benefit of knowing the begin and end date for

7 the dosimetry for both all monitored workers 

8 and construction trade workers. So we're 

9 comparing apples to apples when it comes to 

10 looking at Rocky Flats.

11 DR. H. BEHLING: And that's what 

12 I'm looking at, Matt.

13 MR. SMITH: And much like all of 

14 the other sites that were analyzed in this 

15 document, it turns out 1.4, when looked at 

16 overall it turns out to be a good bounding 

17 value to choose.

18 As Jim pointed out, when we get 

19 into the modern era, and you can tell for 

20 Rocky Flats it's when we get into probably 

21 the D&D era, the shutdown period, there are a
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

97 1 few years that run a little high. Certainly 

2 for those years we're highly likely to have 

3 dosimetry from the site during that post CFR 

4 835 era.

5 But again, what you're asking for 

6 is exactly what's provided here, an apples to

7 apples comparison where we have normalized 

8 the dose based on wear time between the 

9 construction trade worker group and all 

10 monitored workers.

11 And we see the same exact trend. 

12 The file that was provided is exactly the 

13 file that was used to develop the OTIB-52 

14 data.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. And Matt, 

16 as I said, I had looked at the wrong 

17 spreadsheet in preparation for today's 

18 meeting, and the spreadsheet I was looking at

19 gave me no indication.

20 But the one that has just been 

21 pulled up here I do want to look at that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

98 1 And if it turns out that you're correct, then

2 I will just simply notify Wanda or whoever to

3 say let's close this issue out.

4 MR. SMITH: Yes, as you check 

5 through each of the yearly analyses you'll 

6 see as I pointed out in those columns where 

7 the begin and end date data are, where 

8 they've computed the fraction of the year for

9 exposure, and then further use that 

10 fractional correction when it came to the 

11 deep and the shallow dose, because this issue

12 comes up in -3 as well.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I realize 

14 that, that the third finding is basically the

15 shallow dose which has the same issue. And 

16 so if we can resolve this one, we can resolve

17 a Finding 3.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Good. So shall we 

19 leave this one as it is for the time being 

20 until Hans has an opportunity to review 

21 Matt's work?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

99 1 DR. H. BEHLING: Wanda, can I ask 

2 you how we go about this? Because it'll just

3 take me a very short time to go through the 

4 data that Matt has identified. And if turns 

5 out that I'm in total agreement, who do I 

6 contact to resolve this issue?

7 CHAIR MUNN: You can just send an 

8 email message. Send it to me with a copy to 

9 Jim Neton and to Ted.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And we will see that 

12 the other Members of the Subcommittee receive

13 your communication and that we'll incorporate

14 it into where we are with the database.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

16 I'll do that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Great. Thank you 

18 much. We'll expect that on Items 1 and 3, 

19 correct?

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Findings 1 and 3, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100 1 Hans will respond. Okay. What is the next, 

2 is it Finding 8 that Steve has up? I believe

3 that's correct. NIOSH?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Steve, do 

5 you want to expand the answers there? What 

6 the finding was, was that some of the cases 

7 that we asked to be returned, to be reworked 

8 on this PER weren't reworked.

9 And actually the statement of the 

10 finding is that, let's see what is the 

11 statement of the finding? No, that was it. 

12 The reason why they weren't all reworked was 

13 not everything we asked to get returned got 

14 returned.

15 And we've noticed this on the 

16 first, you know, couple or three times when 

17 we were doing PERs, when we would ask DOL to 

18 send these claims back sometimes we didn't 

19 get them all back.

20 And so we would check and see why 

21 didn't we get these back, and they were all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

101 1 explainable. Either the case had been paid 

2 via SEC, or that had been put in place since 

3 the dose reconstruction was done the first 

4 time, or the other common category would be 

5 that the claimant had died and there wasn't a

6 survivor who had been identified.

7 So we didn't, you know, after a 

8 couple or three of those, we didn't bother to

9 keep checking every time but we did the cases

10 that DOL sent back to us.

11 One thing to also keep in mind is 

12 that this PER goes back to the days when DOL 

13 essentially was returning every claim that 

14 might be impacted by the change and that 

15 could feasibly go over 50 percent.

16 So we reworked a lot of cases 

17 back in those days that didn't change. They 

18 didn't get a change in the outcome, 

19 compensability outcome. Now that was a 

20 fairly unpopular maneuver on DOL's and our 

21 part to reopen these claims after they had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

102 1 been closed for awhile, you know, write a 

2 letter out of the blue to somebody, hey, 

3 we're reopening your claim to take another 

4 look at it.

5 We rework the claim and we tell 

6 them once again that they're not going to get

7 compensated. So that really went down 

8 sideways.

9 And so DOL after awhile stopped 

10 that approach, and we agreed with them that 

11 from that point forward that we would 

12 reevaluate the cases first, let them know 

13 which ones looked like they were going to 

14 change compensability and then they would 

15 only reopen those.

16 So PER-14 was done in the old 

17 approach. And I think we would have closed 

18 this last time except that I got confused by 

19 the conversation that was going on in the 

20 Committee meeting when Scott Siebert was 

21 talking about what's done now in the SEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

103 1 process.

2 And he was talking about claims 

3 that, you know, things that he was doing that

4 didn't show up in NOCTS because they were 

5 sort of preliminary files and they weren't 

6 relevant, they didn't affect the outcome of 

7 the claim. And I didn't quite understand 

8 what he was talking about.

9 Well, I know what he was talking 

10 about now. So he's talking about the current

11 process not the PER-14 process. When we were

12 doing PER-14, each case got what was called 

13 an Individual Case Evaluation, or ICE form.

14 And Kathy, I think, described 

15 seeing those, in particularly one or two of 

16 the cases that she looked at there was an ICE

17 form where we said we should get the claim 

18 back but there was no dose reconstruction 

19 done after that. Well, that was the case 

20 where we asked for that claim back but it 

21 didn't get here because of the reasons I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

104 1 mentioned earlier.

2 So I'm thinking that 0014-8, I

3 think we pretty much answered last time is 

4 that we reworked every claim we got back, but

5 there were some cases that we told DOL we 

6 should rework this one and they didn't return

7 it because either/or it had been paid through

8 SEC or that there wasn't a claimant in good 

9 standing anymore.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

11 Behling. Can I ask a question here or at 

12 least maybe some suggestion?

13 I think one of the other things 

14 that we were questioning is whether there 

15 would be any indication on the NOCTS file 

16 that shows that this fell into an SEC 

17 category, or so that this doesn't continue to

18 be a reoccurring finding.

19 I was just thinking along the 

20 lines of the fact that if NIOSH sends a list 

21 of cases that they believe need to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

105 1 returned for a PER, couldn't a separate 

2 column be added for DOL where they could 

3 perhaps put in a one or two word saying yes, 

4 this case is returned, SEC, or claimant 

5 deceased, something like that that could then

6 ultimately get sent back to NIOSH and updated

7 into the NOCTS system? Is that reasonable?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

9 know. See, I don't know how DOL would react 

10 to a request like that. They might or they 

11 might not.

12 MS. K. BEHLING: Because it seems 

13 like it could be a one word in a column just 

14 so that there is a paper trail so that NOCTS 

15 is always updated and we all know why that 

16 case wasn't returned.

17 And ultimately when you go back 

18 to the case -- because as I said, it's not 

19 just one or two cases that we have 

20 encountered that have the ICE form in there 

21 that would give us the indication that there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

106 1 was a dose reconstruction done, but as Scott 

2 Siebert said, perhaps this list gets sent to 

3 ORAU, they look at all the cases. It gets 

4 sent back to NIOSH, NIOSH believes that 

5 there's going to be a rework and then DOL 

6 doesn't send the case back.

7 So it just seems a way of closing 

8 the loop. And what you'll find interesting 

9 is when I talk about the PER-20 cases, the 

10 Subtask 4 work, which will be later this 

11 afternoon, initially when the Subcommittee 

12 selected two cases for us, when I went to 

13 look at those cases there was one that was 

14 not reworked.

15 And so even NIOSH was under the 

16 impression that this was a case that we could

17 look at that was reworked, however, there was

18 no indication in the file that it was an SEC 

19 until we really dug. And then I had to come 

20 back to you and ask for an additional case so

21 that we would have two.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

107 1 So it's not like this is a real 

2 minor issue. I mean, even NIOSH seems to 

3 have been confused as to what the status is 

4 on some of these.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess 

6 when we selected cases we didn't look to see 

7 if the DR, if in fact it came back to do 

8 that. I mean, that's something we could add 

9 to that process when we select cases for a 

10 Task 4. I don't know how DOL would react.

11 And then again, once we have that

12 list, say we get a completed list from them, 

13 because they don't all, you know, typically 

14 they don't come back at once. They come back

15 over a period of weeks maybe. Once we have a

16 completed list and we have it back, then are 

17 you proposing we put it in the NOCTS record 

18 for each of the claims that were on the list?

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, all I'm 

20 saying is that I had asked last time if we go

21 into NOCTS will we see that this case fell 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

108 1 under an SEC status? And you said in some 

2 cases it will show up in NOCTS that way and 

3 in other cases it will not because DOL just 

4 doesn't send it back.

5 And so it requires us then to 

6 determine why wasn't this reworked, and we 

7 would have to go in then and revisit the SEC 

8 issue, look at the claim, be sure that this 

9 claim would have fallen under that category. 

10 But I just wondered if it would 

11 be a simpler approach that would complete the

12 paper trail and anyone who went back into 

13 that file, into the NOCTS file, would know 

14 exactly what happened with this case and 

15 perhaps why it wasn't returned. And it 

16 becomes doubly confusing when there are these

17 ICE forms in there indicating that it was 

18 reworked but it wasn't.

19 MR. KATZ: So Kathy, this is Ted. 

20 I mean we've actually, I thought we had a 

21 lot of this conversation once before. But it
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

109 1 seems like the most pertinent thing here is 

2 that the cases that are sent back, I mean as 

3 Stu has said they have pretty good certainty 

4 now that when Labor doesn't send a case back 

5 it's for good reason that they didn't send it

6 back. So they're getting the cases they 

7 should be getting.

8 And then, you know, from our 

9 discussion earlier, you know also that when a

10 case is sent back to NIOSH it has to do it. 

11 I mean because there's very good tracking of 

12 the cases that come in and they're all 

13 tracked and resolved as soon as they can. Or

14 pended if they can't be tracked right away, 

15 but they're all done and there's very good 

16 accounting.

17 So my suggestion the last time 

18 was this is not really worth looking at from 

19 an SC&A perspective. So SC&A really doesn't 

20 need to be reviewing, did they rework the 

21 cases they should have reworked, because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

110 1 that's almost an automatic fact that they're 

2 going to get reworked and then the problem 

3 goes away. I mean, we don't need 

4 DOL to be doing some more accounting for us, 

5 because it's really, all that accounting is 

6 just for the Board to convince itself that 

7 the cases that should have been reworked were

8 reworked, but there's really no way they're 

9 not going to get reworked.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I just 

11 thought if there was some easy, simple 

12 solution to ensure that the NOCTS database is

13 updated with the most current status which 

14 would be perhaps an SEC, it would make it 

15 simpler on everyone.

16 But if it's too complex and too 

17 difficult for DOL to be filling this out and 

18 then NIOSH to be reentering this data into 

19 the NOCTS, I understand. But you do 

20 understand why this question came up to start

21 with.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

111 1 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and in a 

3 similar vein, we don't get the final decision

4 letters necessarily. When a claim is filed, 

5 sometimes we get those from the Department of

6 Labor and sometimes we don't.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's 

8 unfortunate information.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, so that's 

10 why when we do dose reconstruction selections

11 now we select a bunch and then we send them 

12 over to DOL and say, if any of these aren't 

13 done yet let us know. Take them off the 

14 list.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Interesting. Well, 

16 it's unfortunate that we can't have something

17 like an ICE form in all the files. But if it

18 seems to be an unreasonable clerical burden 

19 to do so, then we don't really -- certainly 

20 your comment about not being able to impose 

21 or even request additional information from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

112 1 Labor is a reasonable one. There's not much 

2 we can do about that.

3 But if we don't have a simple 

4 internal method for letting reviewers years 

5 from now be aware of what transpired, then 

6 it's an open issue that we obviously can't 

7 resolve without unreasonable effort on 

8 anyone's part.

9 What is the consensus of the 

10 Committee Members with respect to the 

11 appropriate closure of this Item Number 8 

12 Finding?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is 

14 Ziemer. My opinion is that we should close 

15 it, unless we felt that our task was assuring

16 that DOL sent the right cases back or all the

17 cases that needed to be, and I don't think 

18 that's our task. And then I think we'd end 

19 up having to operate under the assumptions 

20 that any that didn't come back are somehow 

21 not qualified to.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

113 1 And I see two things. You know, 

2 NIOSH never receives all the SEC cases 

3 anyway, only the ones that have been changed.

4 There's probably a lot of SEC cases that 

5 Labor deals with that never do get to NIOSH 

6 because they haven't been in the category of 

7 initially being dose reconstructed.

8 So the SEC numbers are ones that 

9 sort of fall back into Labor's. If they hold

10 it back for that reason it's out of the 

11 picture.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I don't think 

14 we can monitor that DOL's done their job 

15 correctly. I mean one could be uneasy that 

16 they might not have sent everything back that

17 they should, but I don't think we can monitor

18 that.

19 CHAIR MUNN: No. We most 

20 certainly can't, in my view.

21 Richard?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

114 1 MEMBER LEMEN: I say close it 

2 out.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, with the 

5 appropriate paragraph just stating why.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's do 

7 close it.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, do you 

9 have any suggestions of words to put in here?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Let us think for 

11 just a moment before we actually start 

12 putting words together. Let us perhaps agree

13 that the wording should say possibly --

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Can't we just 

15 paraphrase what Dr. Ziemer said?

16 CHAIR MUNN: We can just close, 

17 but we have to identify in our record why we 

18 closed it.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, but can't we 

20 do what Dr. Ziemer said? Just kind of 

21 paraphrase what he said. I thought he summed
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

115 1 it up pretty well.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes. Yes, 

3 that's what I'm trying to do.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, let him do 

5 it. He's a great wordsmith.

6 CHAIR MUNN: There you are, Paul. 

7 Do you have wise words?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you know, 

9 at my age I can remember things I said many 

10 years ago, but --

11 CHAIR MUNN: But not five minutes 

12 ago.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're right.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I was 

15 coping with is that --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was just 

17 pointing out that we can't monitor what DOL, 

18 our job is not to monitor what DOL sends 

19 back. What they send back, we have to accept

20 that that's the pool of cases.

21 I understand Kathy's concern, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

116 1 I guess what I'm saying is we're going to 

2 have to rely on NIOSH if we're looking for 

3 the specific cases to monitor. I think Kathy

4 said, you ran across somewhere that NIOSH 

5 thought they were back or being dose 

6 reconstructed and they weren't, or how did 

7 that go?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me one 

9 second, Wanda, and that is correct. I do 

10 believe that this item can be closed.

11 And I think as Ted mentioned, the 

12 primary concern is the fact that we were 

13 initially questioning, is everything that is 

14 being sent back being reworked because there 

15 was some confusion with this paperwork trail 

16 and with what was posted on NOCTS.

17 But now that we can convince 

18 ourselves that DOL is sending back what they 

19 feel is appropriate to send back or the ones 

20 that need to be reworked and anything that 

21 gets sent back is definitely being reworked. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

117 1 So that's the primary issue.

2 I was just hoping we could make 

3 it a little cleaner with the paperwork, but I

4 agree with closing the finding, primarily 

5 because of what Ted indicated. That we are 

6 now convinced everything that has come back 

7 to NIOSH is being reworked.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, why don't you 

9 put a period at the end of what you have. 

10 This Subcommittee feels they cannot monitor 

11 what cases DOL returns to NIOSH, period. 

12 However -- no, no, don't. No however. Since

13 all cases returned are reworked, comma, there

14 is no reason to pursue the questions, 

15 plural, regarding those not returned.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: You've got a 

17 misspelling on the word "cases" up there 

18 earlier in the sentence there.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Same sentence, 

21 just down the line from where you are.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

118 1 CHAIR MUNN: Back, back, back.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, cases. Got 

3 you.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Period at the 

5 end of that sentence. The Subcommittee has 

6 closed the finding. Now for Dr. Lemen's 

7 benefit I'll read what Steve has written. 

8

9 "The Subcommittee feels that they 

10 cannot monitor what cases DOL returns to 

11 NIOSH. Since all cases returned are 

12 reworked, there is no reason to pursue the 

13 questions regarding those not returned. The 

14 Subcommittee has closed the finding.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Very good, Wanda.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Steve, 

17 there's a misspelling in the first 

18 Subcommittee, first line. A double I there, 

19 I think.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I see it. Thank 

21 you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

119 1 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any 

2 other comments? Finding 8 is closed. Is our

3 next finding 14? Did I have that correct?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

5 The next one's 14. This is a case in 

6 Subtask 4, one of the cases that was 

7 reworked, in the reworked dose reconstruction

8 an external dose conversion factor was not 

9 applied to the unmonitored portion of the 

10 dose only.

11 So there was, I think, a 

12 relatively short period of unmonitored where 

13 the unmonitored dose was assigned and the 

14 1.244 DCF was inadvertently left out, and 

15 that it's a fact, you know, that's a correct 

16 finding.

17 We've attached to the BRS, the 

18 attachment is to show what's the impact of 

19 correcting that. And it doesn't change the 

20 outcome, the compensability outcome of the 

21 case.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

120 1 CHAIR MUNN: For Dr. Lemen's 

2 benefit we're reading entry, the impact of 

3 Findings of 13 and 14 on Claim Outcome.

4 The recalculation of doses 

5 including the photon DCF and exposure DCF of 

6 1.244 through 1984, and deep-dose equivalent 

7 DCF of 1.00 from 1985 and later.

8 And the 1.4 CTW adjustment 

9 applied for the first eight months of 

10 employment was performed along with the same 

11 assumptions applied in the dose 

12 reconstruction. The changes in the 

13 unmonitored doses are listed below.

14 They include dose categories, 

15 unmonitored photon, unmonitored neutron and 

16 the total. For the prostate cancer, the 

17 total was 2.847, in 2001 revised to 3.293. 

18 And the notation is, the application of the 

19 organ DCF for years where unmonitored dose 

20 was assigned, and the CTW adjustment to the 

21 unmonitored dose for the first eight months 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

121 1 of the claimants' employment where no 

2 external monitoring was performed, changed 

3 the PoC from 43.24 to 43.53 when the revised 

4 unmonitored doses were applied to the 

5 original, or the 2008, dose values.

6 So the change in PoC was less 

7 than one percent, as a matter of fact, only 

8 about a quarter of a percent. All right, 

9 thank you.

10 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

11 I have a process question.

12 When we go through the PER 

13 process and a couple of cases are selected 

14 for us to review, as was just done, and we 

15 uncover a quality assurance problem in one of

16 the cases we look at, to what degree, since 

17 we're only looking at a small sample perhaps 

18 of the population of cases that were redone 

19 under the PER, and we find, let's say, this 

20 quality assurance, I'll call it a quality 

21 assurance question, where the 1.244 should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

122 1 have been applied, is there any process 

2 whereby NIOSH goes back to see if this 

3 particular problem occurred on other cases 

4 would then that had to be redone under the 

5 PER?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Stu, do you have a 

7 response to that?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

9 have a response now. I don't know of one, 

10 but that doesn't mean there wasn't something 

11 done in response to this. I don't have 

12 anything to add today.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Is that a question 

14 that we need to keep open and ask for a 

15 response next time? Any thoughts on that? I

16 guess we can ask if you would respond to 

17 John's question, seems a valid one.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

19 Lori. John, could you repeat that again?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. You know, when 

21 we go through the PER process, usually a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

123 1 couple of cases are selected for us to review

2 and to see if in fact changes that needed to 

3 be made were in fact made and closed the 

4 loop. Now what I just heard is 

5 that we did look at a case here, Kathy looked

6 at it and found that -- and correct me if I 

7 misunderstood. But Kathy found that yes, it 

8 seems that in the case that we looked at 

9 there was the need for a dose conversion 

10 factor adjustment to the 1.244, a very common

11 adjustment factor for AP geometry that was 

12 not applied in this particular case we looked

13 at. And now the question becomes, I'm 

14 envisioning that, well, there are a lot of 

15 cases that may have been redone under this 

16 PER and is there any reason to believe that 

17 this might be a problem with some other cases

18 that we didn't review that need to be looked 

19 at? 

20 Perhaps there's, you know, a 

21 particular person that handled all those and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

124 1 was not aware that you had to apply the 1.244

2 factor to those readouts that were less than 

3 detectable level.

4 So it's sort of like, is there a 

5 possibility there's a training problem here 

6 that perhaps a person didn't realize that you

7 have to do it here also. And I don't know, 

8 that's what I was thinking. Is it possible 

9 this is a systemic problem for this 

10 particular PER that needs to be checked out?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

12 I think that's a great question. And, you 

13 know, from my perspective, the first thing I 

14 would want to have done would be to see who 

15 did that dose reconstruction.

16 And if they did others I would as 

17 a starter say, okay, spot-check a couple 

18 others by that dose reconstructor. It may 

19 answer the question whether this is just a, 

20 you know, unique glitch or whether it's a 

21 systematic thing by that particular person. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

125 1 That would be a valid question.

2 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. You 

3 know, in the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee

4 we've come across what we call systemic 

5 problems, and often it's more related to a 

6 tool that might have a glitch in it more so 

7 than the particular reconstructor. But it's 

8 something that's certainly worth looking 

9 into.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick 

11 Lemen. Is there any quality control program 

12 that NIOSH, Stu, you have in place that would

13 kind of catch these kind of things, or is 

14 that --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's 

16 largely an inspection program and our 

17 response, it even says that this mistake was 

18 missed by the peer reviewer. So --

19 MEMBER LEMEN: So you did catch 

20 it?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it was not. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

126 1 It was missed by the peer reviewer. That's 

2 why it went out the way it was. There are 

3 two inspections of the dose reconstruction. 

4 There's what we call the peer review by ORAU,

5 by the contractor, and there's an HP review 

6 over here. So I'm at a loss as to why 

7 neither of those found it.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: So both of them 

9 missed this one.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Is there --

11 CHAIR MUNN: And the whole 

12 purpose in our incorporation of these quality

13 issues into the review is to identify a 

14 trigger whereby we might try to define 

15 whether there's a systemic issue involved in 

16 not catching these small things.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, would one, 

18 as suggested earlier, go back to the 

19 individuals that did the review and see if 

20 there are others that they reviewed that have

21 similar problems, or is it actually to go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

127 1 back to the person that did the original 

2 calculations to see if they're the ones where

3 the problem occurred or is it both?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean 

5 theoretically it's both. Why didn't the 

6 inspection, you know, why was the mistake 

7 made and why didn't the inspection find it? 

8 I mean, there's two questions.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, is there 

10 something that should be put in place then to

11 try and mitigate these from happening in the 

12 future, or is it --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd like to know 

14 more about how it happened before I can get 

15 down that path very far.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Maybe the Board 

17 could suggest to Stu that he put this on hold

18 for awhile and make a more thorough 

19 investigation and then report back to the 

20 Subcommittee about what future we might plan 

21 to catch these. Do you follow what I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

128 1 saying?

2 MR. KATZ: Dick, this is Ted. 

3 Let me just explain a little because you 

4 don't sit on the Dose Reconstruction Review 

5 Subcommittee. But these sort of incidents, 

6 they come up all the time.

7 I mean, so this is really not, 

8 you couldn't really classify it as a rare 

9 event. I mean, clearly I think there's no 

10 reason to believe that -- most dose 

11 reconstructions, you know, have one flaw or 

12 another, I don't mean that in what I'm 

13 saying. I'm just saying the Dose 

14 Reconstruction Subcommittee has come across 

15 lots of QA issues.

16 And when these arise in that 

17 form, you know, what NIOSH folks do is go 

18 back and look and see, is there a systematic 

19 issue here or is this just, you know, one of 

20 these one-off where, and there have been 

21 plenty where both the dose reconstructor and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

129 1 the peer reviewer and maybe even another peer

2 reviewer that, you know, if there was a peer 

3 reviewer at ORAU there's also, in effect, 

4 peer review that happens by NIOSH DCAS before

5 the dose reconstruction goes out. You know, 

6 they may all miss it.

7 And in some cases, I mean, I 

8 don't know whether the explanation for cases 

9 like this is just that there's so many 

10 details in dose reconstruction that, you 

11 know, there are some things that are just 

12 going to slip through, I don't know.

13 But anyway there's always that 

14 effort made to look and see if there's a 

15 systematic issue, or if this is just one of 

16 those where you say, you know, somehow 

17 everybody managed to miss it, this detail.

18 So I would assume that NIOSH will 

19 take every case that comes to them like this,

20 whether it comes through the Dose 

21 Reconstruction Subcommittee which is the way 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

130 1 it usually comes since they're really 

2 auditing for this sort of thing, or through a

3 PR review here but, you know, and follow up 

4 on it, because it's a little red flag that 

5 something slipped.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: I guess my concern 

7 is that since it came to a PER Review 

8 Committee to us, do we have an obligation to 

9 flag this and follow through on it or --

10 MR. KATZ: Well, I guess what I'm 

11 saying is, I mean, Paul, I think, asked that 

12 there be some sort of response at the next 

13 meeting, or I think Wanda said --

14 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine.

15 MR. KATZ: -- just to see what 

16 was learned about this. That's what happens 

17 at the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee, you 

18 know, you find these QA issues, and then when

19 they can figure it out they say, well, here's

20 what happened and we don't know why, or 

21 here's what happened and we can fix in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

131 1 workbook or what have you.

2 So I mean, I think the same kind 

3 of follow-up is appropriate here because, 

4 like I said, it occurs frequently at the Dose

5 Reconstruction Subcommittee already.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Ted, if I 

7 understand what you just said, the Dose 

8 Reconstruction Subcommittee really has the 

9 primary responsibility for finding out these 

10 things.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: And this just 

13 happened to occur to our Subcommittee because

14 we picked it as one to review and we don't 

15 have, therefore, a responsibility to worry 

16 about all the rest of the ones except the 

17 ones that we pick to review. Is that what 

18 you're saying?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. So I'm saying, 

20 you know, Stu can report back at the next 

21 meeting. Because normally we have someone on
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

132 1 who's sort of intimately involved in these DR

2 cases and he will have already reviewed that.

3 But in this case, you know, with 

4 this Subcommittee we don't have that person 

5 on, but they can follow up on that and just 

6 report back to you at the next meeting, you 

7 know, here's what we found. This is what 

8 happened with this case.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: That sounds good, 

10 but let me ask you one last question. How 

11 much of a problem would this be to the

12 individual that's trying to get compensated? 

13 In other words, this type of mistake or 

14 whatever you want to call it, how much is 

15 that going to affect a person getting 

16 compensated? A big deal or a little deal or 

17 it's not going to affect them at all, or 

18 what?

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, in this case 

20 it didn't impact the PoC beyond 50 percent so

21 it didn't change the outcome, right?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

133 1 CHAIR MUNN: It didn't even 

2 affect the PoC one quarter of one percent.

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: The problem with 

5 answering that question, Dick, is that when 

6 you say what is this type of mistake, what do

7 we mean by this type? What type is it?

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I don't 

9 know. That's why I'm asking you.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, one way 

11 to categorize this mistake was that it was 

12 one component of the dose for a limited 

13 period of time, for a very short period of 

14 time, and an adjustment was not made to that 

15 dose.

16 If that's the type of mistake 

17 you're talking about, I think there's a 

18 little opportunity for a claim to be 

19 affected, a claim outcome to be affected.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay, that's what 

21 I was asking.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

134 1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Thank you.

3 CHAIR MUNN: And I suggest that 

4 we put this particular finding in progress 

5 and make a notation that NIOSH will follow up

6 as a quality assurance question and report at

7 our next meeting.

8 And Steve is typing what I just 

9 said. Does anyone have any changes or 

10 corrections to the statement?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that all you 

12 need, Wanda?

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's all I need, 

14 Steve. That should just be quite adequate. 

15 NIOSH will follow up on the QA questions and 

16 report at the next meeting.

17 Let's go on to Finding 15. Is 

18 that the right number? Did I get that 

19 correct?

20 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

21 Behling. Maybe I can take this, because I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

135 1 believe this was an SC&A response that was 

2 required. This particular --

3 CHAIR MUNN: I can hardly hear 

4 you, Kathy.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, I'm sorry. 

6 Is that better?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, much better. 

8 Thank you.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. This 

10 particular finding had to do with the Y-12 

11 TBD and the fact that for film badges prior 

12 to 1980 they suggested that there be a 30 

13 percent uncertainty assigned to those badges,

14 and we wanted to ensure that the coworker 

15 dose was also having that uncertainty 

16 assigned.

17 And initially we thought that it 

18 was going to be a situation where the film 

19 badge would be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 

20 to account for this uncertainty, but Stu 

21 indicated last time that the way they view 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

136 1 this is that it would be the 30 percent 

2 uncertainty is a standard deviation around 

3 the central value.

4 And I asked that it be remained 

5 open just so that I could go back into the Y6 12 TBD and ensure that there was no specific 

7 instructions to the dose reconstructors to 

8 apply a 1.3 correction factor.

9 And I did that and there is no 

10 such instruction to that level. It just 

11 simply says that they want to ensure that 

12 there's a 30 percent uncertainty associated 

13 with those badge ratings. So I'm 

14 recommending that we close that after my 

15 review of the Y-12 TBD.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any 

17 comment one way or the other? If not, Steve,

18 will you close the item and indicate that 

19 SC&A has agreed the finding can be closed?

20 Any other comments with respect 

21 to either this item or others before we go to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

137 1 lunch? If not, can we take, how long are we 

2 going to need for lunch?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me, 

4 Wanda. Now I'm having a hard time hearing 

5 you.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I'm not sure 

7 why. Let me try changing phones. Did that 

8 help?

9 MR. KATZ: That's much better, 

10 Wanda.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: Wanda, you faded 

12 out.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: You're much better 

15 now.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It's obviously the 

17 phone that I was using. All right, I had 

18 suggested that we close it, SC&A having 

19 satisfied themselves that we are okay. And 

20 how long do we need for lunch?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

138 1 Josie. Do we have one more open item, Number

2 17?

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I'm relying on Steve 

5 to get me to the right spot.

6 MEMBER BEACH: And back to your 

7 original question, 30 minutes works for me 

8 for lunch.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's all I 

10 need. This is Ziemer.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right, let's 

12 take a quick look at --

13 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine with 

14 me and I'll be in and out a little bit this 

15 afternoon, but just carry on. If I don't 

16 answer you'll know I'm out. If I do answer -

17 -

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right, Finding 

19 Number 15 is now closed with the notation, 

20 "SC&A reviewed the TBD, was satisfied with 

21 the approach and" -- Steve got ahead of me. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

139 1 He's already gone. It's closed. It's 

2 adequate. It's fine. We are now at Finding 

3 Number 17.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu 

5 one more time. The finding is that there's 

6 no construction worker correction applied to 

7 the unmonitored CTW dose. NIOSH did not take

8 into account the recommendation of ORAU OTIB9 52, and the DR was revised and unmonitored 

10 internal dose was assigned without any 

11 modification intake rates to account for the 

12 EE being a construction worker.

13 This particular case, the 

14 employment in this case was in 1944, and the 

15 intakes in 1944 on this site are based on 

16 Battelle TBD-6000 rather than of the bioassay

17 coworker data.

18 And that 1.4 factor was developed 

19 for times when you have a coworker model 

20 based on all monitored workers and then 

21 you're going to apply that to construction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

140 1 workers, so it was not intended to apply that

2 1.4 to a situation where the intake is 

3 calculated in a different fashion.

4 Now in our response there are a 

5 number of other things we mention here about,

6 you know, the air data probably being higher 

7 during an operation that generates the 

8 airborne, so that's kind of what most of our 

9 response is. But the key part of the 

10 response is that OTIB-52, the adjustment of 

11 OTIB-52 is to apply to a coworker based on a 

12 bioassay approach, and 1944 intakes were not 

13 based on that approach.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: So can you explain 

15 to me, Stu, real quickly what that actually 

16 means?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can try. 

18 This person worked at Hanford in 1944 and 

19 apparently was a construction worker. We 

20 have, OTIB-52 is a technique we have adopted 

21 for adjusting construction worker internal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

141 1 exposures upward.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: If your coworker 

4 model is based on all workers, all monitored 

5 workers or in-house workers, then we've 

6 agreed the construction workers' intakes 

7 based on that bioassay data should be 

8 adjusted higher. And that was based on 

9 comparisons of bioassay data, you know, the 

10 bioassay data of construction workers where 

11 it's available compared to the bioassay data 

12 for the in-house workers.

13 So that's where that 1.4 

14 multiplier came from, and it was intended to 

15 be applied in that circumstance where you 

16 have a coworker model based on urine data.

17 And in this case, in Hanford in 

18 1944, first of all, Hanford in 1944 is in the

19 SEC so this must be a non-SEC cancer or less 

20 than 250 days of employment.

21 And so for 1944, for intakes in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

142 1 1944 at Hanford we use, would be a surrogate 

2 data approach. It would be data from other 

3 facilities where the air sampling, air data 

4 was measured at these other facilities, and 

5 those facilities were doing the same types of

6 work that Hanford was doing in 1944 at this 

7 particular time.

8 So that was the basis of the 

9 intake and that's why, since it was not based

10 on a urine bioassay coworker set, the 1.4 

11 wasn't applied.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay, thank you.

13 CHAIR MUNN: All right, and did 

14 we have a response? Did SC&A have an 

15 opportunity to look at that?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. 

17 No, I didn't look at NIOSH's response and so 

18 I really can't comment until I look at this a

19 little closer.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, as I 

21 read the response that we have in there it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

143 1 not quite as, it doesn't quite say what I 

2 thought we were going to say. So I think 

3 maybe we should have an action to put another

4 response in here and then we'll let Kathy 

5 look at that one.

6 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

7 I'll just let you know that I'm intimately 

8 familiar with TBD-6000, the dataset that 

9 builds the matrix that's being used as a 

10 surrogate for metal handling facilities, and 

11 I could speak to confirm what Stu just said. 

12 That is, the context is 

13 completely different between the issues that 

14 are raised on a coworker model and the 

15 application of OTIB-52 and the 1.4 multiplier

16 for external or any other multiplier.

17 TBD-6000 we looked at very, very 

18 carefully and it's basically internal 

19 exposure. It's default air sampling data 

20 that are being arrayed based on lots of 

21 experience in the early years, and we could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

144 1 say with conviction that they are bounding. 

2

3 And the distinction between 

4 worker and coworker model, I can't see it 

5 applying to that circumstance. We've never 

6 done it before. We've reviewed many, many 

7 cases where there are workers who were 

8 exposed in the early years to metalworking 

9 activities where there was airborne uranium 

10 dust loadings, and every case we found that 

11 that dust loading, based on a lot of data 

12 that was collected by the Health and Safety 

13 Laboratory back in those days, bounds the 

14 airborne dust loading that these workers 

15 could have experienced.

16 I agree with Stu that the concept 

17 of adjustments because of construction versus

18 non-construction just does not apply to this 

19 kind of situation.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do I hear properly 

21 that NIOSH would like to reword their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

145 1 statements?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I offered 

3 to reword it. It would be fine if you just 

4 closed it, but I offered to reword our 

5 statement to put another response in that's 

6 worded somewhat differently.

7 CHAIR MUNN: What's the feeling 

8 of the Subcommittee?

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Why don't you just 

10 close it.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: One other 

12 comment I just wanted to make, Wanda. Excuse

13 me, this is Kathy. The correction factor for

14 the internal for Hanford is 2 times not 1.4. 

15 But just for the record that internal is 2 

16 not 1.4.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

20 I don't think NIOSH needs to reword it unless

21 SC&A believes there needs to be more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

146 1 clarification. But if SC&A believes that the

2 NIOSH position is clear and concurs with it 

3 then we can close it.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Kathy, are you 

5 satisfied with the response that NIOSH has 

6 currently?

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, I have to 

8 be honest. I didn't take enough time to look

9 over that response. Perhaps I could do that 

10 during the break and then I could get back to

11 you after lunch.

12 CHAIR MUNN: That would certainly 

13 be satisfactory for me. I don't think anyone

14 would mind that. Let's leave that as-is for 

15 a half hour while we go to lunch, and we will

16 pick it up exactly there before we go into 

17 the item that was transferred over most 

18 recently from the Dose Reconstruction 

19 Committee regarding the geometry issues from 

20 dose reconstruction.

21 All right, without objection 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

147 1 let's take 30 minutes for lunch. We'll be 

2 back at what, five minutes to the hour? Is 

3 that satisfactory?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: That sounds good.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll 

6 see you then.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 1:21 p.m., and 

9 resumed at 1:59 p.m.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148 1

2

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

4 (1:59 p.m.)

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. So we 

6 have all our Board Members. And, Wanda, we 

7 can carry on.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's wonderful. 

9 Kathy, are you on line?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Then we're 

12 back in session. Kathy, have you had a 

13 chance to look at Finding 17?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I have. 

15 And I read through NIOSH's response. And I 

16 believe that it is adequate. And in fact, I 

17 did go back to our initial finding.

18 And I think in that finding we 

19 also made mention that the dose that was 

20 assigned, based on the Battelle information, 

21 was more conservative and with a higher dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

149 1 than would have been assigned to the coworker

2 anyway. But yes, that response, from my 

3 perspective, is adequate.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Wonderful. Thank 

5 you for taking the time to look it over. And

6 thank you, John, for backing up information 

7 from TBD-6000. And if I hear no objection 

8 from anyone else on the Board, then Steve 

9 already has closed in there.

10 And let's just say SC&A accepts, 

11 agrees, well accepts the NIOSH statement. 

12 And the Subcommittee has closed the finding. 

13 And that will wrap up PER-14 for us.

14 And we'll go directly to the item 

15 which has been transferred from the Dose 

16 Reconstruction Subcommittee, an overarching 

17 issue with respect to rotational geometry.

18 For those of you who are not 

19 familiar with the original finding, which was

20 being handled by the Dose Reconstruction 

21 Committee, I believe that the facility was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

150 1 Paducah, I think.

2 And the original finding read: 

3 the rotational geometry organ dose conversion

4 factors are higher than the 

5 anterior/posterior geometry for the red bone 

6 marrow. And additional corrections are 

7 required when the dosimeter was worn on the 

8 chest. It is not clear if the 

9 anterior/posterior rotational or isotropic 

10 geometry is the most applicable, based on the

11 employees' duties and work locations. 

12 However, since the reconstructed dose results

13 in a compensable decision, it is appropriate 

14 to apply the dose conversion factor that 

15 gives a lower dose.

16 For this claim, that is the dose 

17 conversion factor for anterior/posterior 

18 exposure. The use of the anterior/posterior 

19 dose conversion factor may have been 

20 inadvertent for this claim. And its use as 

21 an underestimating assumption should have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

151 1 been noted in the report for clarity.

2 And SC&A said they accepted 

3 NIOSH's response, since the case was 

4 compensated. But the geometry issue was to 

5 be addressed again in other findings. It was

6 considered to be a QA issue, saying NIOSH 

7 should have used a DCF that gives a higher 

8 dose, even when underestimating. And refers 

9 to Table 4.1(A) of IG-001 Rev 3 addressing 

10 this issue.

11 NIOSH will consider whether a PER 

12 is needed. And then in March of this year, 

13 NIOSH agreed to review the situation and 

14 determine if a PER was required. In May, 

15 NIOSH to follow-up on whether they're 

16 implementing Section 4.4 of IG-001.

17 And in August, NIOSH to follow-up 

18 in implementation. Transferred to Procedures

19 Subcommittee to determine if IG-001, Section 

20 4.4 is correctly worded. So that's what was 

21 sent to us by the Dose Reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

152 1 Committee.

2 And, excuse me. It's my 

3 understanding, based on the wording of the 

4 most recent comment in the findings section 

5 for DR folks, that it's NIOSH's ball to give 

6 us any follow-up that they have so far on IG7 001, Section 4.4.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is 

9 Stu. And I'll give it a shot.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we don't 

12 have anything new to report today. What 

13 we'll need to do is to look at this 

14 particular section. My recollection of this 

15 is that the current wording of IG-001 in that

16 section, if I'm not mistaken, is the product 

17 of a review by the Subcommittee.

18 And I have to go back and refresh 

19 my memory exactly in that history. And I 

20 haven't managed to do that yet. And then the

21 finding, you know the reason this -- I'm not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

153 1 real sure on how they sent up an overarching.

2 I think it's overarching because of this 

3 broader issue of dose conversion factors that

4 may have to be addressed at some time.

5 It's going to have to be 

6 addressed at some time, because the ICRP has 

7 published a new document that gives all these

8 new dose conversion factors for external 

9 exposures. It's ICRP 16. And they've 

10 essentially redefined the whole process, you 

11 know.

12 I mean, there used to be, there 

13 did not use to be gender-specific DCFs. And 

14 in ICRP 16, there are. There are different 

15 DCFs for men versus women, for a particular 

16 organ.

17 DR. NETON: Stu, that's 116.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: ICRP 116 also 

19 adds a lot of organ DCFs that were not in the

20 previous version, which I think might have 

21 been 74. I'd say it would be 74 or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

154 1 something. But anyway, the previous version 

2 had a certain list of organs.

3 And then when we were doing dose 

4 reconstructions from an organ that wasn't on 

5 that list, we would use one of the nearby 

6 organs as its replacement, you know, as a 

7 pretty good indicator. Since it's close, the

8 external dose would be similar.

9 Well now, ICRP 16 has a whole 

10 bunch of more, you know, has the organs it 

11 used to have, plus a whole bunch more. So 

12 there's a whole lot of stuff that could 

13 possibly be affected. And we're in the 

14 process of trying to sort out how and if to 

15 incorporate this new guidance. So that's 

16 kind of the overarching thing.

17 But the specific item I think 

18 that we can deal with, which is IG-001, I 

19 just need some more time to go back to and 

20 see why IG-001 reads the way it does now for 

21 these, there's like four target organs in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

155 1 terms of the, sort of the default geometry.

2 And the way the finding was 

3 written up, and dose reconstruction, the way 

4 I read it, was that, you know, IG-001 says 

5 that for these four target organs, red bone 

6 marrow being one of them, IG-001 says you 

7 should default to, I think it's rotational. 

8 Because that gives you a higher DCF than A-P,

9 which is what -- A-P gives you the highest 

10 dose in almost, in most circumstances. And 

11 IG-001 says if, you know, for red bone 

12 marrow, a target organ, you use rotational as

13 the default. And Doug Farver, the reviewer, 

14 has commented that, look I've seen this a few

15 times now where that rotational is not used. 

16 And the dose reconstructor doesn't explain 

17 why they departed from the default guidance 

18 in IG-001. So that was the nature of the 

19 finding.

20 So I think the key element we 

21 need to get back to is, you know, should we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

156 1 in fact have been doing, using rotational 

2 geometry for those four target organs, you 

3 know? And should we do it, should that be 

4 our default? Or was there some -- or is that

5 not necessarily the case?

6 Because intuitively, when you 

7 think of someone's work, in most work 

8 situations the predominant exposure geometry 

9 is A-P, meaning the guy, the person is facing

10 the material they're working with.

11 So it's just, you know, something 

12 we haven't gone back and figured out exactly 

13 how IG-001 got to read the way it does read 

14 now. And that's the first thing I think we 

15 have to do.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Do we 

17 have any concept of time, with respect to 

18 when we can expect that to happen?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, not really. 

20 These tasks compete with every other task 

21 for the time of our contractor and us. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

157 1 so, I don't know that it would be a terribly 

2 long process to figure out how we got to the 

3 wording we have.

4 Resolving the question of 

5 whether, does IG-001 really read correctly 

6 the way we have it now? Resolving that 

7 question might take a little more, might take

8 longer.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and it looks 

10 as though we probably are going to need to do

11 that, especially with respect to the new 

12 ICRP, and how that affects everything that 

13 this kind of basic document covers.

14 The other thing that I did not 

15 check our BRS to see is whether we've made 

16 any effort at all to include this rotational

17 geometry issue. And I didn't check to see if

18 we've included that in our overarching issues

19 already. I guess I can go to Page 7, and 

20 take a look there to see. Oh, maybe it's 

21 Page 8.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

158 1 MS. K. BEHLING: And, Wanda and 

2 Stu, perhaps I can add a little bit to this. 

3 I believe what has been happening with this 

4 IG, there was a table put in there. It was 

5 Table 4.1A.

6 And as Stu indicated, there are 

7 four: the bone, esophagus, lung, and I don't 

8 know what the fourth one was, that it 

9 indicates in there that it is more kind of 

10 favorable to use either the rotational or the

11 isotropic and apply a conversion factor to 

12 those values from the Appendix in IG-001.

13 I think what has happened is, 

14 often the Implementation Guide is more of an 

15 over -- it's not a guide, I don't think, that

16 the dose reconstructors go to each and every 

17 time they do a dose reconstruction. They 

18 perhaps would look for this kind of guidance 

19 in like a PROC-6, the external dose 

20 procedure.

21 And the fact that this got put 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

159 1 into the Implementation Guide, so often we 

2 will see on a dose reconstruction for these 

3 types of cancers, this correction factor for 

4 the rotational and isotropic, and a 

5 comparison between that and the A-P, isn't 

6 being applied. And so whether this is 

7 correct or not, or they're going to change 

8 this.

9 But what the primary reason that 

10 we wanted to look -- we see it so often, we 

11 didn't want this, if it's going to turn into 

12 a PER, to wait until perhaps, who knows, 

13 years down the road, or a year or so down the

14 road, before they make other changes to 

15 Appendix A. We wanted to call this out 

16 separate. I don't know if that provides any 

17 assistance at all.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does. 

19 That's helpful, Kathy. All right. At least 

20 for us. Or I hope, for NIOSH as well. It 

21 seems to me that until NIOSH has an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

160 1 opportunity to take a look at, to report to 

2 us what their position is with respect to the

3 existing tables and the impact that a new 

4 ICRP might have on any of this, we're kind of

5 spinning our wheels.

6 Does anyone else have any feeling 

7 one way or the other? Shall we simply put 

8 this in process and await a report from 

9 NIOSH?

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Wanda, this is 

11 Hans. I was just going to ask Stu on the 

12 issue of this ICRP 116, that I have to 

13 question again whether or not those doses 

14 will be similar to the ones that were 

15 originally used to create the DCFs in the 

16 Implementation Guide?

17 And that was the issue I raised 

18 earlier on that. It was one of my first 

19 reviews, Implementation Guide 1. And I 

20 addressed the issue of DCFs, and I found them

21 to be in error. And one of the reasons being
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

161 1 is that those tables, we usually refer to a 

2 free air dose rate, or dose measurement.

3 And what we have to do, however, 

4 is to convert a dosimeter reading, whether 

5 it's a film or TLD worn on the chest, to a 

6 conversion that involves, whether it's an A-P

7 or isotropic elsewhere, dose value to a given

8 organ. And this is where the problems came 

9 in.

10 And when I remembered, when I 

11 talked about it, the most blatant error was 

12 the PA geometry. Because you're basically 

13 measuring a dose on a film or TLD that's worn

14 on the chest on the A-P, on the anterior 

15 side. And therefore, dose values for, 

16 especially for 30 to 250 keV, no actually 

17 below 30 keV, were off by a factor of 1,000.

18 And this is why I'm just going to 

19 throw up a warning flag in saying the ICRP 

20 116 tables may very well have the same flaw 

21 in the sense where they do not consider the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

162 1 fact that we're trying to convert a measured 

2 dosimeter dose worn on the chest to a 

3 different geometry or skin on the back, that 

4 will have very little to do with a free air 

5 measurement.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I remember 

7 the discussions, yes. I don't remember where

8 we got with them.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I think 

10 what we did --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we mainly 

12 just said we=re going to use A-Ps that 

13 avoided the --

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, we used A15 P. Because that's the only legitimate value.

16 Because that's where the TLD or film 

17 dosimeter is worn. And you have to make use 

18 of what the empirical data suggests.

19 Now you could possibly modify 

20 that, if you assume that the geometry is at 

21 say is PA, and you're wearing your film 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

163 1 dosimeter on the chest. You have to realize,

2 you're seeing an attenuated dose as a result.

3 And you could possibly modify. But the only

4 thing I wanted to state here is that let's 

5 not make the mistake being made in the first 

6 place.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That 

9 should be helpful. Any other comments to be 

10 made? I have a process question for us, 

11 since we do not appear to have this included 

12 in our current list of overarching issues.

13 We have only eight, and geometry 

14 is not one of them. Should this be 

15 incorporated into our database as Overarching

16 Issue 9? Or is this to be continued to be 

17 addressed as new activity under IG-001?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

19 Ziemer. I'm not sure of the answer to that 

20 part. But I did have an information question

21 here. Was there a particular finding in IG-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

164 1 001 that this focused on? I'm sitting here 

2 looking at IG-001 on the Board's system and 

3 it looked like everything was closed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was. All of 

5 our issues were closed. This one has been 

6 transferred in from the Dose Reconstruction -

7 -

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, oh, that's 

9 right. Okay. Transferred from Dose 

10 Reconstruction.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: So Class 1 

13 doesn't show up in our matrix yet?

14 CHAIR MUNN: No, it doesn't.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's why I read 

17 the entire finding.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That was Dose 

20 Reconstruction=s Finding 195.1. And as I 

21 said, I believe that it was from Paducah, if 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

165 1 I remember correctly. But it was interpreted

2 there in that Subcommittee as being an 

3 overarching issue. One that was not involved

4 with only badge size.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

6 Thank you.

7 CHAIR MUNN: So hence, my 

8 question whether we should begin tracking 

9 this as an overarching issue? Or whether we 

10 should incorporate it as a transferred 

11 finding into IG-001.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Wanda, this 

13 is Steve. I mean, even though it touches on 

14 other sites, IG-001 is not a site-specific 

15 document. I mean --

16 CHAIR MUNN: No, it isn't.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: So if you put it 

18 in IG-001, I think it would, you know, it 

19 would affect -- I would think that that would

20 suffice.

21 CHAIR MUNN: You can certainly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

166 1 interpret that as being -- because of its 

2 complex-wide applicability, one can see that 

3 as an overarching type of document.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Exactly.

5 CHAIR MUNN: I don't have any 

6 objection to that. It seems logical to me. 

7 Is that all right with everyone else?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Fine with me.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Let me pull up IG10 001, and see how many findings we had. Shall

11 we incorporate, should this then be 

12 incorporated as a transferred finding with a 

13 new number? That seems the logical thing to 

14 me. If someone else thinks the process is 

15 better served some other way, let us know.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm okay with it, 

17 Wanda.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. What's 

19 the final finding number that we have on our 

20 closed findings, Steve?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Last number 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

167 1 appears to be 24.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Twenty-four. Then 

3 this will need to be transferred, number 25. 

4 And I think the appropriate thing to do, 

5 because of the amount of wording that's 

6 necessary, is to transfer the finding as it 

7 was worded originally.

8 And that was probably best served 

9 by -- why don't I just send that to you after

10 we're finished here? And we can incorporate 

11 this new finding, 25, following the meeting -

12 -

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Will do.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- with the original 

15 words from the Dose Reconstruction Committee,

16 if that's all right with everyone.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it's all 

18 right. It's not going to match up with the 

19 original findings, the original review 

20 documents, since it=s transferred in.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

168 1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there some way 

2 to also indicate that, I mean, the 25 won't 

3 correspond to anything.

4 CHAIR MUNN: No, it won't.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because the 23, 

6 is it 23? Yes, 25.

7 CHAIR MUNN: It's 25.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: That doesn't 

9 correspond to anything. So is there anything

10 in the database that -- I don't know what 

11 those noises are. Are you getting noises and

12 beeps?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, anyway. Is 

15 there some way to identify this that it has 

16 been transferred in, and therefore doesn't 

17 correspond with the original question used?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Paul, when 

19 you see, or if you look at Finding 24 it has,

20 you know, the finding number, an SC&A page 

21 number, and so on and so forth. That little 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

169 1 heading up there, that's editable for each 

2 finding. And we can put in there that this 

3 was transferred --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: To the 24 or 25 

5 dash transferred, or something --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, 25-1, 

7 transferred from the DR group, or something 

8 like that, yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, good.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And maybe, I don't 

11 know, when we put in, who puts in? I'm not 

12 sure when we enter the finding, you know, we 

13 can maybe enter -- instead of having it as an

14 SC&A person, maybe we'll have it entered 

15 under Wanda's name, or something like that, 

16 to kind of indicate that it's not an SC&A17 generated finding.

18 MR. KATZ: Well, it is SC&A19 generated.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: It is, okay.

21 MR. KATZ: It's the Dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

170 1 Reconstruction Review.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: That's true. 

3 That's true.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, just done from 

5 that Committee, yes.

6 MR. KATZ: I mean, you can put 

7 Doug Farver's name on it if you want.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Good.

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I will 

10 send you that finding in its complete 

11 language, so that you can incorporate it into

12 -- I'll send it to both you and Lori. And 

13 whoever is the appropriate person to enter 

14 it, can do that.

15 And we will anticipate that it 

16 will remain an open item until we have some 

17 information from NIOSH to begin the process. 

18 We'll carry it that way, if that's amenable 

19 with everyone. Any problem with that? If 

20 not, then let's go on to PER-20. And, Kathy,

21 I believe that's yours.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

171 1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, that's mine. 

2 PER-20 is, and this is the Subtask 4 portion 

3 of PER-20. And PER-20 was due to Blockson 

4 TBD revisions. The full report went out on 

5 October 15th. You should have received that 

6 on October 15th of this year. And I also 

7 sent out a presentation --

8 CHAIR MUNN: I was going to say, 

9 we do have a presentation that I believe we 

10 can follow.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. And that 

12 came out on Monday. And I'll try to be 

13 brief. But if there's questions along the 

14 way, just stop me. First of all, PER-20, as 

15 I indicated was from Blockson Chemical. And 

16 it was due to numerous revisions to the TBD.

17 Those revisions affected both 

18 internal and external dose pathways. And it 

19 increased dose in both dose pathways. The 

20 magnitude of the changes initially, there 

21 were 91 claims that, they looked at all of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

172 1 the claims that were less than 50 percent.

2 And of those, 32 were actually 

3 compensated. And so there were 59 remaining,

4 from which the Subcommittee selected two 

5 cases, that is part of the Subtask 4.

6 Now if we go on to the next 

7 slide, the complexity associated with this 

8 TBD is the fact that there were so many 

9 changes, and it changed hands. Initially, 

10 the TBD was put out by ORAU. It was ORAU11 TKBS-0002. And that was in October of 2003. 

12 There was a revision in 2004. And that 

13 revision changed the AEC contract period from

14 starting in 1952 to starting in 1951.

15 Thereafter, in September of 2006, 

16 this Technical Basis Document became the 

17 authority of OCAS, now DCAS. And so we now 

18 have an OCAS-TKBS Rev 1. In June of 2007 it 

19 was another revision. And that revision had 

20 to do with these internal and external dose 

21 modeling parameters, methodology. That's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

173 1 what initiated PER-20.

2 Now, in November of 2007, there 

3 was another change. Shortly after this Rev 

4 1, there was a Rev 2 change that required the

5 dose reconstructors to consider both Type-M 

6 and Type-S thorium in Building 55 and a few 

7 other changes.

8 And to the best of my 

9 understanding, and certainly for the two dose

10 reconstructions that I looked at, they were 

11 not completed until the Rev 2 was out. And 

12 so, as we always state that NIOSH uses the 

13 most current documentation. So even though 

14 PER-20 states that it addresses up to Rev 1, 

15 Rev 2 came out. And I believe that all of 

16 the reworked cases were done under Rev 2.

17 SC&A submitted our initial 

18 Subtask 1 through 3 report associated with 

19 the Blockson TBD in March of 2009. We had 

20 three findings that were subsequently 

21 resolved at the Procedures Subcommittee. And
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

174 1 I'll continue on here, just because, to point

2 out a few things.

3 Again then, in December of 2010 

4 there was another Rev 3 to this TBD that had 

5 to do with the SEC determination. There was 

6 a change in AWE coverage periods. There were

7 some radon issues that were affected, and 

8 doses associated with the residual 

9 contamination period. Also, some of the 

10 model=s external doses actually went down in 

11 this revision.

12 And this particular revision, Rev 

13 03, also requires a PER. That PER was issued

14 in April of 2012, that is PER-36. And that 

15 has not been assigned to SC&A yet. So that 

16 will not be part of what you're going to be 

17 hearing today. But there is another PER out 

18 there, just for your information.

19 So, as I said, you, the 

20 Subcommittee selected two re-worked cases. 

21 And that's the subject of this report. Now, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

175 1 the first, if we move on, the first re-worked

2 case is an individual that worked from 

3 [identifying information redacted] of '47 

4 through [identifying information redacted] of

5 '71. He was a maintenance worker. And he 

6 was not monitored for internal or external 

7 radiation. He was diagnosed with a bladder 

8 cancer in January of 1960.

9 Now the dose for this particular 

10 case was assigned for just the operational, 

11 for a portion of the operational period, from

12 -- and as you'll see in the table below, the 

13 initial dose reconstruction was done for '52 

14 through January of 1960, which was the date 

15 of the cancer diagnosis.

16 There was a re-work of that dose 

17 reconstruction due to the added year of 

18 operational period, which was from 1951 

19 through 1960. As you'll see in the table 

20 below, that's the DR Rev 1, done in August of

21 2004. And then, due to the PER being issued,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

176 1 PER-20, this dose reconstruction was redone 

2 again in October of 2008.

3 And you can see, I'll go through, 

4 you can see in the table, there were some 

5 significant changes to internal and external 

6 doses, which I'll explain in a little more 

7 detail as we go through this case.

8 For the next slide I will just go 

9 through, this individual wasn't monitored. 

10 And so there was modeled photon doses that 

11 were assigned. And I looked at the original 

12 in Rev 1. I compared those two, and then 

13 compared that to Rev 2.

14 So what you're seeing in this 

15 slide is my assessment of the original and 

16 Rev 1, are the re-worked one of this first 

17 dose reconstruction. In both cases, the 

18 individual was assumed to be chronically 

19 exposed to the natural uranium in the 

20 yellowcake. He was given annual doses from 

21 exposure to drums in the yellowcake, that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

177 1 were calculated based on Table 8 of the two 

2 revs of the Blockson TBD at the time.

3 Those doses were entered into 

4 IREP, and they were divided equally between 

5 the energy ranges of 30 to 250 and greater 

6 than 250, entered as a geometric mean of a 

7 log-normal distribution of 2.7. They also 

8 calculated annual photon doses from exposures

9 to contaminated surfaces. And that's based 

10 on Table 6 of the TBD.

11 These doses again were entered 

12 into IREP, equally divided between the two 

13 energy ranges, and entered as a log-normal 

14 distribution, with a GSD of 4. The resulting

15 doses -- and as you can see, it was just one,

16 the second dose reconstruction was adding one

17 year. So the doses are close.

18 And the photon dose for the first 

19 was .918 rem, and for the second, 

20 reconstruction was 1.10 rem. Now, when we 

21 compare that to what was done in Rev 2 of the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

178 1 dose reconstruction, or Rev 2 of the TBD, 

2 here again, they, NIOSH made the same 

3 assumptions that the EE was chronically 

4 exposed to the drums of yellowcake. They 

5 assigned an annual dose that was, again, 

6 based on Table 8. But this table was 

7 completely revised in this revision to the 

8 TBD.

9 The TBD recommends for photon 

10 exposures in this Rev to apply that dose, ten

11 percent for the range of 30 to 250, and 90 

12 percent for greater than 250, entered as a 

13 geometric mean of a log-normal distribution 

14 of GSD of 2.7.

15 Now, the doses from contaminated 

16 surfaces are not included in the operational 

17 period, based on guidance in the TBD, because

18 they felt that the doses assigned to standing

19 near the drum bounded any doses that would be

20 added from the contaminated surfaces.

21 Now, that's not the case for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

179 1 residual period. And we'll see that in the 

2 next case that I looked at. And then this 

3 dose resulted in a significant increase from 

4 one rem to over 28 rem.

5 The primary reason for this 

6 change, and a significant change in the 

7 external dose, was because NIOSH, in their 

8 revision, they added numerous radionuclides 

9 that were considered when you were standing 

10 close to the drum of yellowcake, inclusive of

11 thorium-232 and its progeny.

12 And this expanded list of 

13 radionuclides increased the dose rate at 30 

14 centimeters from the drum of yellowcake, by a

15 factor of about 6.6. So that's what 

16 accounted for this increase in external 

17 doses.

18 If we go on to the medical doses, 

19 I looked at both the original and the re20 worked, the Rev 1 of the dose reconstruction 

21 report. They both considered annual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

180 1 diagnostic X-rays for the operational period.

2 Those doses were pulled out of Table 9 from 

3 the Blockson TBD. That was appropriate, 

4 applicable for that point in time.

5 The only thing I will make 

6 mention of, for whatever reasons, the second 

7 dose reconstruction that should have followed

8 the medical dose guidance that had been 

9 revised in the revised TBD, would have been a

10 little bit lower than the actual doses they 

11 used.

12 For some reason they went back to 

13 the original TBD and pulled the medical 

14 doses. So the doses were -- but it would 

15 have been reduced. So it was a claimant16 favorable issue in the second revision. And,

17 as you can see, the dose was 666 millirem 

18 versus 740 millirem for the added year.

19 In Rev 2, that was prompted by 

20 PER-20, now the medical doses are pulled out 

21 of Table 10. If they resulted in 250 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

181 1 millirem, those were entered into the IREP as

2 30 to 250 keV, with a 30 percent standard 

3 deviation. And that's consistent with the 

4 guidance in the revised TBD. And we had no 

5 findings with the occupational medical dose.

6 If we move on to internal dose, 

7 again they assumed that the EE chronically 

8 inhaled a source of uranium during extraction

9 operations. They assumed a Type-M 

10 solubility. And they used a chronic natural 

11 uranium intake rate of 24 picocuries per day.

12 This was entered into IMBA. And 

13 the resultant doses were three and four 

14 millirem. We verified all that information. 

15 It's consistent with what's in the TBD. And

16 we were able to reproduce those doses.

17 Now, in Rev 2, they, NIOSH, made 

18 the same assumptions. They assumed that he 

19 is a production worker. And that the 

20 internal doses were based on the 95th 

21 percentile of the inhalation rate of 82 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

182 1 picocuries per day of total uranium.

2 Now this change, again, the Rev 2 

3 change increased the intake from 24 to 82 

4 picocuries per day for production workers, 

5 due to, again, considering additional 

6 radionuclides such as thorium-230, radium7 226, lead-210, and so on. So the dose, they 

8 also considered a radon dose in this 

9 particular case.

10 And they have a tool, a workbook, 

11 called Blockson Building 55 Inhalation Tool. 

12 And based on using that tool, the dose went 

13 up to 381 millirem. And we had no findings 

14 with the internal dose assigned. So really, 

15 for the first case that we looked at, we had 

16 no findings associated with all of the 

17 exposure pathways.

18 And if I didn't state it up 

19 front, and I hope it was obvious, because 

20 there were changes to both internal and 

21 external, we had to look at the entire dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

183 1 reconstruction for these. It wasn't a 

2 focused review like we normally do.

3 If we go on to the audit of the 

4 second reworked case that you all selected, 

5 this is a Blockson employee that worked from 

6 [identifying information redacted] of '59 

7 through [identifying information redacted] of

8 1971. He was a purchasing agent. Again, he 

9 was not monitored. And he was diagnosed with

10 a stomach cancer in June of 1969. So he was 

11 included in the entire operational period.

12 And up until the date of his 

13 cancer diagnosis in '69, from '62 to '69, he 

14 would be included in the residual period. 

15 And the table below shows the comparison of 

16 doses between the original dose 

17 reconstruction and then the revised dose 

18 reconstruction, due to PER-20.

19 Now for the modeled photon doses, 

20 again, NIOSH assumed that the chronic 

21 exposure to the drums of yellowcake. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

184 1 that information was taken, the doses were 

2 calculated based on Table 8 of the Blockson 

3 TBD. And for the operational period, as I 

4 said, from '59 to March of '62. And this was

5 in the original dose reconstruction.

6 They were again, as in the 

7 previous one, equally divided between the two

8 photon energy ranges. And entered as a 

9 geometric mean of a log-normal distribution. 

10 Exposure to contaminated surfaces was 

11 considered, as in Table 6. And again, 

12 equally divided and entered into the IREP --

13 equally divided between, 50/50, 30 to 250 

14 keV, and 50 percent greater than 250 keV.

15 Lastly, because the person did 

16 work also, or was employed through the 

17 residual exposure period, he was assigned 

18 annual doses up to the date of diagnosis, 

19 which was based on Table 10 of the TBD that 

20 was applicable at the time of the original 

21 dose reconstruction.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

185 1 And these doses were entered 

2 appropriately into IREP. And the combined 

3 dose from operations, contaminated surfaces 

4 and the residual period was 679 millirem.

5 Now, when we looked at the 

6 revised dose reconstruction, again they made 

7 the same assumptions, chronically exposed 

8 throughout the operational period. But, as I

9 mentioned before, the photon doses increased 

10 dramatically.

11 And the distribution of the 

12 energy ranges was ten percent for 30 to 250, 

13 90 percent for greater than 250, entered as a

14 geometric mean of a log-normal distribution. 

15 And that was done appropriately.

16 Here they also assigned a 

17 residual exposure period, from April '62 

18 through June of '69. And that came from 

19 Table 11 of the TBD. And as I mentioned 

20 earlier, the external exposure to 

21 contaminated surfaces is considered during 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

186 1 the residual period. And that was 

2 calculated, and entered appropriately into 

3 IREP.

4 And this resulted in a total 

5 stomach dose of 11.983 rem. And we had no 

6 findings associated with NIOSH's approach to 

7 calculating the photon dose.

8 Medical dose, similar to previous 

9 case, no findings. They used appropriate 

10 tables. They assumed an annual X-ray dose 

11 during the occupational period. And the same

12 doses resulted. And we have no findings with

13 medical dose.

14 Now, the internal dose, here's

15 where we do have a few findings. And let me 

16 just explain it. In the original, they 

17 calculated the internal dose assuming that 

18 the source was inhaled during operations. 

19 Again, as with the previous case, it was 

20 assumed Type-M solubility and used the 24 

21 picocuries per day intake rate in IMBA. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

187 1 the dose was 2 millirems.

2 In the revised, they assumed 

3 again a chronic inhalation for operations and

4 residual period. They used the Blockson 

5 Building 55 inhalation tool, and calculated a

6 dose of 27 millirem, based on the fact that 

7 he was, assuming he was a production worker.

8 Now, the three findings that we 

9 had, you'll see on the next slide. And 

10 again, when we started these findings, this 

11 is Finding 4, because in the review of 

12 Subtasks 1 through 4 we had three findings. 

13 So the first finding under Subtask 4 is 

14 Finding 4.

15 And the guidance associated with 

16 the OCAS TBD Rev 2 indicates that all cancers

17 of the gastrointestinal tract should be 

18 calculated based on the ingestion pathway, 

19 and not the inhalation pathway. So that 

20 became our first finding. Rather than 

21 calculating the stomach dose, they should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

188 1 have used ingestion.

2 Second finding -- everyone there? 

3 Okay, I'm sorry. Second finding was that, 

4 Finding Number 5, even though we believe that

5 they should have used the ingestion pathway, 

6 we decided to just go in and just verify that

7 we could recalculate or match their 

8 inhalation values that were calculated for 

9 this stomach cancer.

10 And when we went into the tool, 

11 we realized that that 27 millirem was only 

12 based on three radionuclides, rather than the

13 12 radionuclides that are identified in 

14 Tables 4A and 12A of the revised TBD. And so

15 that is what generated our Finding 5, that we

16 weren't quite sure why the inhalation tool --

17 and we were questioning if there was a 

18 problem with the inhalation tool.

19 And so we took this a little bit 

20 further in Finding 6. And because we were 

21 concerned about perhaps some systemic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

189 1 problems or some systemic issues in this 

2 inhalation tool, we started to look a little 

3 closer.

4 Now, we realized that there were 

5 no DCF values put into the tool for eight of 

6 the radionuclides that are listed in the TBD.

7 And it did occur to us that perhaps those 

8 DCFs were omitted intentionally. So it would

9 perhaps drive a dose reconstructor into using

10 the ingestion tool, which would make sense.

11 But when we looked at all of the 

12 cancer types that could be affected, all of 

13 the GI, we realized that there were DCFs 

14 entered for the lower large intestine. So it

15 didn't quite make sense, our logic, to try to

16 justify why those DCFs were not there didn't 

17 make sense.

18 So again, this Finding 6 is just 

19 questioning, is there some systemic error in 

20 the inhalation tool. And again, these GI 

21 tract cancers should not be used in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

190 1 inhalation tool at all. It should be used 

2 for the ingestion tool.

3 The only final thing I will say 

4 is, because of this, I did go into NOCTS and 

5 pull, just randomly pull a few Blockson cases

6 that had these GI tract cancers. And in most

7 of the other cases that I saw they did use, 

8 there is a Blockson Building 55 ingestion 

9 tool that's been developed. And it was used 

10 in most of the other cases that I looked at.

11 So I don't know. I don't know 

12 that it's, you know, that there was a 

13 systemic problem that they didn't use that 

14 tool. But I wanted to also verify that there

15 was an ingestion tool that's been developed. 

16 And there has been. That's it in a 

17 nutshell. I don't know if you have any 

18 questions.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. 

20 There's just so much that could be said about

21 that. But I think I probably will pass. Do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

191 1 we have comments from NIOSH with respect to a

2 couple of the questions that were posed here?

3 Any comment about the tools?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

5 We have done some research on this. And 

6 these findings aren't in BRS yet so our 

7 responses aren't there either.

8 But we, in response to this 

9 finding, talking about Finding 4 now, which 

10 would be the one about not using the 

11 ingestion pathway. Based on this finding we 

12 looked back at all the cases that had GI 

13 tract cancers that, you know, that we 

14 reworked for Blockson and found that there 

15 were six of them that had not been done 

16 correctly, that had not used the ingestion.

17 Four of those, including the one 

18 that was evaluated for the PER review, were 

19 compensated via the SEC, because the SEC was 

20 added later. Two that were not, I guess they

21 had too short an employment period during the
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

192 1 covered period. And both of their PoCs were 

2 less than one percent. So when we redid 

3 those it didn't change the outcome of those 

4 two cases.

5 So in this case we did go back 

6 and look at all the cases that might have had

7 a similar error, and found that there's no 

8 consequence from those errors.

9 Let's see, yes, the other finding 

10 about looking at the Building 55 tool, and 

11 whether it correctly calculated doses to the 

12 stomach. The inhalation tool that was 

13 included in the dose reconstruction file, and

14 it was used in this case, really wasn't 

15 supposed to be used for stomach cancers. 

16 It's part of the same mistake that occurred 

17 in the first one.

18 This was not the tool to use for 

19 the stomach cancer or GI tract cancer claim. 

20 So it was a kind of an interim version that 

21 was in place for a while to do inhalation. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

193 1 And it's no longer in use when we do Blockson

2 cases. And then, let's see --

3 CHAIR MUNN: It's sometimes easy 

4 to forget that this is all natural uranium, 

5 very small.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, these things 

7 were done like five years ago, these dose 

8 reconstructions.

9 CHAIR MUNN: And it was a wet 

10 process. It was, these are, we're talking 

11 about very, very small items here, extremely 

12 small.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: On the sixth one, 

14 you know, the one the tool is missing, one of

15 the items on that is that the tool is missing

16 thorium-231. We looked at the dose from 

17 thorium-231, and it was considered 

18 insignificant.

19 So that's why it's, you know, 

20 even though it may be listed in the TBD, it's

21 not included in the tool, because the dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

194 1 for it isn't significant. Okay, yes, the 

2 tool that was reviewed by SC&A that was 

3 available in the claim file, like I said, was

4 an interim version. And it essentially 

5 wasn't complete. Not all the organs had been

6 built into it yet.

7 And so, we have a newer version 

8 now that has, you know, that we're using if 

9 we get any more claims now, that addresses 

10 all the issues. But anyway, we do have 

11 information for the findings that we can put 

12 in the BRS after these findings are there.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me, Stu. 

14 I think you maybe just answered my question 

15 when you were talking about Finding 5. I 

16 wasn't sure if you were insinuating that you 

17 no longer use a tool, any inhalation tool. 

18 But you're saying there is an updated 

19 Building 55 Inhalation Tool? Because I could

20 not find that. I did search for that.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I probably can't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

195 1 find it either, Kathy. But I'm sure somebody

2 can.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So I can, I'll 

5 have to see. If you would like I'll see 

6 where it is and let you know.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, that would 

8 be great. Thank you.

9 CHAIR MUNN: So it would be 

10 helpful if you could provide responses for 

11 that in the BRS.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the findings 

13 aren't in the BRS yet.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: When the findings 

16 are in, then we'll put our responses in.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's good. 

18 That would be helpful. Any other comments 

19 with respect to PER-20?

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. I have 

21 a process question, which I'm sure I asked 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

196 1 before. But I forgot the answer. When we 

2 find, in this case, a case where there might 

3 have been an error made. And NIOSH follows 

4 up and looks at it and, you know, determines 

5 that yes, there was an error, redoes the 

6 calculation and says, okay, you know, we 

7 understand, and there is a change in the 

8 dose.

9 Now, does that eventually make it 

10 into the official record for this worker? 

11 Even though it doesn't change the

12 compensation decision. But somehow is the 

13 record cleaned up? That is, the official 

14 dose reconstruction? Or is this something 

15 that, just by way of what we've just done, 

16 closes the loop on this?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess in 

18 my view, it would close the loop. And I 

19 recall the specific one that was reviewed 

20 here has been paid through the SEC. And so 

21 the whole dose reconstruction effort on it is
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

197 1 kind of moot at this point.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. No, I only ask 

3 by way of process. So NIOSH's sense is that 

4 since everything has been concluded 

5 appropriately with respect to this claim, 

6 there is no need to go back and, let's say, 

7 fix up the administrative file, where there 

8 obviously is a DR report in there. It does 

9 contain an error. Maybe not significant, but

10 there is no reason, or no sense that there's 

11 a need to clean that record up.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We've 

13 typically not done that.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay. That's all I 

15 asked.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: John, this is 

17 Hans. I would question whether or not it is 

18 a moot issue. Because what happens if there 

19 were another PER that subsequently further 

20 erases that person's exposure?

21 And now you may not have any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

198 1 recall as to the fact that a previous audit 

2 of that particular dose reconstruction has 

3 raised the issue. So that he may not benefit

4 from multiple revisions to his dose 

5 reconstruction if this simply gets dropped.

6 Because at the moment it doesn't 

7 change his status with regard to 

8 compensation. But who's to say that a future

9 revision, that may involve another PER, could

10 potentially add an additional dose that 

11 could, in tandem with the original one, 

12 provide a conversion of income, of not 

13 compensated to compensated?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, each time a 

15 case is reworked for a PER, it's done with 

16 all the current directions for how to do that

17 dose reconstruction. So the changes that had

18 given rise to the pervious PER rework would 

19 be in the current guidance, assuming, you 

20 know --

21 And then you have a new change to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

199 1 that guidance and you do another PER. So the

2 technical guidance for how to do the PER is 

3 up to date, would include both changes, the 

4 one that caused the first PER and the one 

5 that caused the second PER.

6 And every time we get a case for 

7 a PER, we do it in accordance with all the 

8 most recent guidance we have. So it would be

9 caught that way.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Well in this 

11 case --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Not ever knowing 

13 whether he had a previous one or not. It 

14 wouldn't be important.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: But, Stu, in 

16 this case, this has already been subject to a

17 PER which found an error. And that error 

18 will probably be dropped, according to what 

19 you just said, because it doesn't change 

20 anything. And so if there is a subsequent 

21 PER, I think this particular change in this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

200 1 person's dose reconstruction will be lost.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well actually, 

3 the guidance that says that the way, that 

4 there was a mistake in this one, will still 

5 be the guidance the next time. So what we 

6 were saying is that we would have to make the

7 same mistake in the face of the guidance, you

8 know, counter to the existing guidance, 

9 twice.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, maybe --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: The guidance is 

12 entirely up to date on the technical document

13 that tells you how to do the dose 

14 reconstruction. So the fact that a mistake 

15 was made the first time, why should, you know

16 --

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Well --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: That indicated a 

19 mistake should be made the second, would be 

20 made the second time as well.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Maybe I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

201 1 can make a comment here. Because, Stu, when 

2 you did make mention that you had looked at 

3 this report, and then you went back, and you 

4 did see six other cases.

5 One of the things that I did note 

6 when I was going through the guidance is, and

7 in Table 4B, which is the ingestion rate for 

8 Building 55, this guidance is in a footnote, 

9 okay. And so, if there is also guidance in 

10 Section 3.2.2, but I know from a dose 

11 reconstructor's point of view, they'll likely

12 go to a table.

13 And this is just a footnote in 

14 that table. So I can understand why you 

15 found other cases like this. I don't know. 

16 Maybe the guidance isn't as -- the 

17 information is there, but maybe it's not as 

18 clear as it could be.

19 The other thing that I might 

20 mention, because I know it's a lot of work to

21 go through and make changes to these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

202 1 Technical Basis Documents again. But we 

2 talked about this at the Dose Reconstruction 

3 Subcommittee.

4 A lot of times I believe it's 

5 important to go back to specific dose 

6 reconstructors and say, you realize that this

7 mistake was made. And sometimes just a 

8 reminder to that dose reconstructor.

9 And then perhaps putting 

10 together, like we talked about at the Dose 

11 Reconstruction meeting, at the end of so many

12 meetings you put together lessons learned. 

13 And sort of pass those around to all those 

14 reconstructors, to say, this, this, and this 

15 was caught at the Dose Reconstruction 

16 meetings, or through a PER review.

17 Just as a reminder, this is only 

18 a footnote. So be sure that you realize that

19 the IG cancers need to be done with 

20 ingestion. I don't know, just to keep that 

21 clean.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

203 1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I won't 

2 argue with the wisdom of the suggestion. I'm

3 just weighing the -- in this specific case, 

4 you know, Blockson is, you know, from our 

5 view it's essentially none. It's an SEC. We

6 get maybe a few cases, I don't know if we're 

7 getting any more cases from Blockson or not, 

8 to be honest.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: No. And I 

10 agree. I understand. That's why I wasn't 

11 really trying to suggest making a change to 

12 the TBD again.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: The other 

14 complicating factor is, this was reworked. I

15 mean the reworked DR here was done like five 

16 years ago. And I think I looked and saw who 

17 did this. And he's not in the program 

18 anymore, the DR who did it. The DR just 

19 isn't on the program anymore.

20 I mean, when you're this far 

21 downstream you're kind of limited in terms of
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

204 1 not only the investigation, but sometimes 

2 even, you throw up your hands and say, well 

3 what do I do about this one?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: And I think it 

5 was appropriate, obviously, that you went 

6 back and looked at all the cases where this 

7 could have been impacted by this particular 

8 finding.

9 CHAIR MUNN: The primary concern 

10 in all of these cases, and the reason we go 

11 through most of these things, is a concern as

12 to whether or not the claimant is going to be

13 compensated. That's the bottom line for 

14 everybody, including the claimants.

15 And this, the claimant that we've 

16 seen here is, given the circumstances that 

17 existed at Blockson, which, as I pointed out 

18 earlier, these are all, these are not highly 

19 exposed individuals. This was all natural 

20 uranium. And it was a wet process. And it 

21 is far back in the history.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

205 1 The probability of some 

2 individual failing to be compensated for any 

3 kind of injury seems to be small, if not 

4 impossible. This is certainly from an 

5 objective perspective I think, would seem to 

6 have been well covered. And the 

7 responsibilities toward the claimants 

8 certainly have been kept foremost in people's

9 minds.

10 I think it's unlikely that 

11 expending a great deal of effort on these 

12 extremely low-probability exposures for these

13 obscure portions of the total dose, may not 

14 be productive for any of us. And certainly 

15 would not be productive for the client.

16 I don't think anyone is making 

17 any effort to circumvent any fairness to 

18 them. Just a process question here. And if 

19 our process is going to be reasonable and 

20 fair, in terms of our approach for the 

21 claimant, then perhaps we can let this rest. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

206 1 Unless there are --

2 MS. K. BEHLING: I agree with 

3 you. I agree with you, Wanda. This is 

4 Kathy.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'd like to add 

7 one thing. I think that the answer, the root

8 cause for the problem in this particular case

9 has been taken care of. And so I think that 

10 Hans' concern about it should -- even though 

11 in this context it's really not an issue, but

12 in the broader sense, if we do find a problem

13 with a case that needs to be fixed, and 

14 there's some level of assurance that the root

15 cause for the problem may be a poor or dated 

16 workbook, has been, you know, eliminated. 

17 And now the correct workbook is in place. 

18 Then the problem that Hans raised goes away. 

19 That is, if --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: So I think that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

207 1 really is, in my opinion, the thing that 

2 caused the problem in the first place cannot 

3 recur. If they have to revisit a case for 

4 whatever reason, that problem workbook, it's 

5 not there no more. It won't be used.

6 And the correct workbook would be 

7 used if there was an occasion to revisit any 

8 case. So I think that is what really closes 

9 the loop on this thing.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It's an 

11 internal process question really, not a site12 specific or case-specific issue here.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Can we close this, 

15 folks?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: I think so. I 

17 would suggest closing this.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Let's make a 

19 statement that SC&A and NIOSH agree that 

20 these cases have been appropriately reviewed,

21 and the Subcommittee is closing them.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

208 1 MR. MARSCHKE: Which finding are 

2 you closing, Wanda?

3 CHAIR MUNN: We're closing, we've 

4 been talking about these last three.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Closing all three 

6 of them?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Findings 4, 5 and 6. 

8 Well, I'm open to suggestions.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, I think we 

10 were just talking specifically about Finding 

11 4. Findings 5 and 6, I would really like to 

12 look at the most current inhalation tool.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Let's close Finding 

14 4, based on what we just said, and leave 5 

15 and 6 still under advisement. SC&A's going 

16 to take further look, is going to again, 

17 review the current tools.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't close them 

19 in the BRS because they're not in the BRS.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: So I'll have to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

209 1 enter them in the BRS and then close them.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We'll do that as 

3 time permits. We don't have to do it live, I

4 don't think, Steve. You know what we're 

5 doing, right?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good.

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

9 Steve, once those findings are in, could you 

10 let me know?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. He'll enter 

13 them. And we'll close 4. Very good. Thank 

14 you. We'll move on to PER-11. SC&A?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, that would 

16 be me.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: PER-11 

19 essentially deals with the K-25 TBD. And 

20 there were several revisions to the coworker 

21 model. And then OTIB-52 was issued. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

210 1 that prompted PER-11, which deals with 

2 updates to the coworker models that --

3 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, but who's 

4 speaking?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is Rose 

6 Gogliotti, sorry.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, Rose, okay. I was 

8 a little concerned. I thought it might be 

9 you. But I wasn't sure the court reporter 

10 would have you, even a guess. Thanks.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. On our 

12 first finding we were a little bit concerned.

13 The criteria used to grab claims in the 

14 potentially affected cases specifically 

15 excluded cases that were done prior to the 

16 issuance of the initial coworker model in 

17 November of 2004.

18 And we were wondering what 

19 happened to unmonitored cases in that 

20 instance. And NIOSH responded, and they 

21 looked into it by doing a screening of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

211 1 cases prior to that.

2 And they pulled approximately ten 

3 percent of the claims. And they found that 

4 five had unmonitored doses assigned at that 

5 time. And all five of those essentially used

6 very overestimating techniques to find 

7 coworker dose, when there was no coworker 

8 dose available, or model available at the 

9 time.

10 And we looked at what NIOSH did. 

11 And we agree that even though there was no 

12 formal coworker model, and inconsistent 

13 approaches were applied, they all resulted in

14 unmonitored doses, a find that were much 

15 larger, or much larger overestimates than the

16 current models would require. And so we 

17 suggest closing that finding.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry, Rose. I 

19 was shopping around in the BRS to try to get 

20 at the screen that I wanted to see. And was 

21 that Finding 1?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212 1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's Finding 1.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have, I guess 

3 we don't have -- I can't seem to expand it 

4 properly. Trying to cope here, and I'm not 

5 coping. All right. Thank you for getting it

6 up, Steve. I wasn't having any luck on my 

7 other screen.

8 Does anyone have any comment with 

9 respect to the SC&A response? Can we agree 

10 the Subcommittee accepts the SC&A comment and

11 closes the item?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Close.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I agree with 

15 that also, Wanda.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Dr. Lemen.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I agree.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Let's 

19 call it closed.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And on to 

21 Finding 2 then.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

213 1 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on just a 

2 second while Steve gets us closed properly. 

3 Richard, for your benefit this statement 

4 says, the Subcommittee agrees with NIOSH and 

5 SC&A, and has closed the finding. Now we're 

6 on to Item 2, I believe, Rose.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Finding 2, 

8 we identified a problem with the end date of 

9 the first selection criteria. They chose May

10 21st, 2005, which is actually ten days before

11 the issuance of the coworker model in 

12 question.

13 And we acknowledge it was 

14 probably an administrative oversight. But we

15 wanted to make sure that no cases were missed

16 in that ten-day window that should have been 

17 captured by the selection criteria.

18 And NIOSH looked into it. And 

19 there was a case right before, on the exact 

20 date of. And both of them had incorporated 

21 PER-11 findings. So it appears that no cases
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

214 1 were inadvertently missed.

2 But we would still like, or we 

3 would appreciate clarification regarding 

4 which date NIOSH considers the DR completion 

5 date. Because there's many dates associated 

6 with the end of each case.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Has NIOSH had an 

8 opportunity to see this response before now?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I would just 

10 offer that we would consider the DR 

11 completion date probably the date that the 

12 dose reconstructor did it. So the first, 

13 there's the date of the dose reconstructor, 

14 and the later date of the peer reviewer, and 

15 a later date of the HP review. I would go 

16 with the earliest.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The earliest 

18 date?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Wonderful. 

21 And we're find with what they did here. And
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

215 1 we suggest closing the finding.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Any comment from 

3 Subcommittee Members?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Not from me, 

5 Wanda.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have nothing.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's 

9 make a notation that NIOSH responded to the 

10 final question. NIOSH's response to the 

11 final question was accepted by SC&A.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Am I still 

13 connected?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you are. We're 

15 typing.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: All right.

17 CHAIR MUNN: We're typing, 

18 Richard. It's the joy of having instant 

19 closure for these things, makes it difficult 

20 for somebody who can't see the screen, since 

21 we're not face to face anymore.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

216 1 MEMBER LEMEN: But I can see each 

2 of your smiling faces in my mind.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So that's 

4 good. Because otherwise you'll probably 

5 never see them again. NIOSH indicated that 

6 the completion date is the date the DR 

7 finishes the reconstruction. The 

8 Subcommittee agrees with NIOSH and SC&A, and 

9 has closed the finding. Now we have Finding 

10 3.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Finding 3, 

12 we asked for clarification on what criteria 

13 NIOSH used to identify a construction trade 

14 worker claim. And we speculated that they 

15 used the PER-14 model, which we have 

16 previously reviewed, to identify the claims. 

17 But there was no information given in the 

18 PER.

19 And NIOSH responded that their 

20 claims are evaluated by an HP, based on the 

21 attributes of the claim. And there is no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

217 1 formal criteria used. And we believe that 

2 it's critical to process each claim 

3 correctly, to properly identify that a claim 

4 is a construction trade worker claim.

5 And CTW is a very subjective 

6 term. And we're concerned that without 

7 criteria established, identical claims could 

8 be processed differently, as a construction 

9 worker and as a non-construction worker that 

10 were done by different reviewers.

11 And we believe a criteria such as 

12 the one used in PER-14 is the only way to 

13 ensure that claims are identified and handled

14 consistently. And we actually came across a 

15 case in Finding 5 that we believe was missed 

16 because construction trade workers, there is 

17 no criteria to define them.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Let's skip down to 

19 Finding 5 and deal with these together, at 

20 least for the moment. Improper application -

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

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218 1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, our Finding 5 

2 we did some screenings, essentially, to see 

3 what claims were -- when we looked at the 

4 cases, it didn't appear that enough 

5 construction trade worker claims were 

6 reworked based on how many claims we're used 

7 to seeing that were unmonitored.

8 So we did a screening of roughly 

9 ten percent. And four of our claims came up 

10 meeting one of the two criteria that would 

11 require a rework. And so we identified 

12 those. And NIOSH came back to us and said 

13 that essentially none of the four would 

14 result in a PoC of greater than 50 percent. 

15 So they were not revised, or not requested 

16 for a return.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But we feel that 

19 if there were other criteria used to identify

20 a case, they should have been stipulated 

21 specifically in PER-11. And we went back and
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

219 1 looked. And we agreed that three of the four

2 cases had very little chance of a significant

3 impact based on the employment time period of

4 the cases.

5 However, one of the cases had a 

6 high PoC, and the EE was employed as a welder

7 for over 20 years. And we felt that this 

8 case could have significantly been impacted.

9 However, in the PER ICE letter 

10 there was an indication that the EE didn't 

11 qualify as a construction trade worker. And 

12 we believe that the presence of this case is 

13 an indication that criteria were needed, and 

14 cases could have been missed.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's a 

16 tough request. Has NIOSH had an opportunity 

17 to see this statement previously?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. 

19 It's in BRS. And so I guess we had a chance 

20 to see it. I personally have not looked at 

21 it a lot.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

220 1 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, we haven't 

2 looked at this one, really, any of our 

3 responses as of yet.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we just, we 

6 haven't really looked at them yet. So I 

7 don't know. This is, seems to me the most 

8 effective way to find out if a person was a 

9 construction worker or not, was to look in 

10 the claim file and see who he listed as 

11 employer.

12 But I don't know what was done. 

13 When we say, well, we used judgment to do 

14 that, that always bothers me a little bit. 

15 So we'll have to find out more about it.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds as though 

17 3 and 5 need to be looked at, thought about, 

18 and responded to, right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We haven't 

20 really addressed these responses yet.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Let's keep 3 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221 1 and 5 in process. Responses due from NIOSH.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no wonder 

3 they're not familiar, they're dated November 

4 4th.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it was just 

6 Monday.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: That's why I'm 

9 not familiar them. Okay.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Right. I can see 

11 that. And reasonably so. All right. Where 

12 are we on --

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'd like to 

14 have Rose, if possible, to provide claim 

15 numbers that you looked at.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You were already 

17 provided them when you looked at them in the 

18 responses. But we can send that again, if 

19 you like.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Thanks.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In the actual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

222 1 response, the one that I'm talking about, it 

2 was identified as well.

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: Thank you.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Steve.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that okay, 

6 Wanda?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that will be 

8 fine.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll do the same 

10 thing for 5?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, ditto 5. And 

12 call them in progress. Thank you, Steve. In

13 both cases, as we said, NIOSH will provide a 

14 reply to the latest SC&A Board Report Summary

15 entry. And now we go to --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 4 is the 

17 last one.

18 CHAIR MUNN: -- Item 4.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And Finding 4 is 

20 actually identical to PER-14, Finding 8, 

21 which I know was talked about at length 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

223 1 earlier in the day, which has to do with not 

2 all the cases that NIOSH requested were 

3 returned and reworked.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Ah, yes. So we were 

5 able --

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think that --

7 CHAIR MUNN: -- to close that one 

8 out. We can close this one.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Does 

11 anyone on the Subcommittee not accept the 

12 recommendation to close? Hearing no --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I agree.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Agreed. Josie?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I accept the 

16 recommendation to close.

17 MEMBER BEACH: I do too, Wanda.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: You have a 

20 foursome, Wanda.

21 CHAIR MUNN: That's delightful. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

224 1 We like that.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: If we were playing 

3 golf, it would be good.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That is the way we 

5 like to see them happen. The screen says the

6 Subcommittee agrees with SC&A's 

7 recommendation and has closed this finding. 

8 It's now closed. Did we have a Finding 6?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, that was all 

10 of them.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Anything 

12 else with respect to this PER? Thank you, 

13 Rose. We'll expect responses from NIOSH on 

14 Findings 3 and 5. Let's move on to RPRT15 0053, the status. NIOSH, has that been 

16 discussed in the Work Group? Do we have any 

17 feedback from that?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Jim, are 

19 you on?

20 DR. NETON: Yes, I am.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

225 1 give 53? I know there's, you know, we've 

2 talked about it. It's actually the SEC 

3 Issues Work Group, not the --

4 DR. NETON: Yes, right. That was 

5 transferred over to the SEC Issues Work 

6 Group. And I think we reported on that 

7 meeting at the Advisory Board. We are 

8 working on the practical significance issue. 

9 And we started that. We hope to have that 

10 finished by --

11 That's actually, for those who 

12 don't remember, that's adding an additional 

13 100 millirem to the cases that were between 

14 45 and 50 percent, in our NOCTS files, in 

15 determining, you know, what happens to those 

16 cases. We hope to have that done just before

17 Thanksgiving.

18 And then the second part of that 

19 was for us to develop an Implementation Guide

20 for how, or put some parameters on how to 

21 deal with coworker models in general, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

226 1 validation of the data, that sort of thing. 

2 And we're working on that. Probably sometime

3 in December is when we're expecting that to 

4 be finished.

5 There was a third part of that, 

6 which I think SC&A was tasked with doing, 

7 which was to sort of re-look at their 

8 position on OPOS, given the discussions that 

9 we've had in the last meeting or so. And 

10 that's the status of where that is right now.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

12 Stiver. We are working on the compilation of

13 all of our findings related to OPOS. And 

14 just some discussions of where we stand on it

15 and, you know, what issues we think still may

16 need to be addressed.

17 And we actually had a couple of 

18 pretty intensive internal discussions about 

19 this so far. So we should have something 

20 pulled together, probably by the end of the 

21 month, would be my guess.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

227 1 CHAIR MUNN: So I believe I'm 

2 hearing that we'll have feedback from both 

3 NIOSH and SC&A at our next meeting? Is that 

4 correct?

5 MR. STIVER: That shouldn't be a 

6 problem.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's good. 

8 And, Jim, yes, we're right?

9 DR. NETON: Yes, you'll have 

10 something. I don't know whether it will be -

11 - yes, we'll have some report.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

13 That's find. We're scheduled for a ten14 minute break. Shall we take it?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: I would recommend 

17 that we do. Ten minutes, ten minutes only. 

18 Let's get back as quickly as we can. 

19 Appreciate it. I'll see you in ten minutes. 

20 Bye, bye.

21 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

228 1 above-entitled matter went off the record at 

2 3:23 p.m., and resumed at 3:34 p.m.)

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's go 

4 ahead with the slides. Hopefully Paul will 

5 let us know when he's joined us.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, this is Ron 

7 Buchanan with SC&A.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Good, Ron, thank 

9 you.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Now, I have 

11 the slides up. But I don't have a way to 

12 flip them. John, or somebody there, are you 

13 going to change them for me?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think Steve 

15 will do it for us.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, Steve, okay. 

17 First one, we're starting off with PER-25 

18 and -33. This is a Subtask 1 through 3 of 

19 the PERs for SC&A. Evaluation of the 

20 Huntington Pilot Plant TBD revisions.

21 We submitted a report on the 18th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

229 1 of July of this year for this. And so we'll 

2 go to the next slide now. We got the PER 

3 summaries. PER-25 was issued in 2007 as a 

4 result of electron dose being added to the 

5 TBD in 2004.

6 This is one of those reserve 

7 sections where they added some information in

8 that I had asked a question about earlier. 

9 PER-33 was issued in 2011 because of several 

10 revisions in the TBD that occurred in 2008.

11 Next slide is a summary of the 

12 TBD for Huntington Pilot Plant. And as you 

13 can see, there's been three versions out: 

14 '03, '04 and '08. And so we'll look at PER15 25, and then we'll look at PER-33. PER-25, 

16 now, NIOSH's issue with that was that when 

17 the new one came out in '04 it included the 

18 electron dose, which could increase the dose 

19 for some claims.

20 So the next slide shows that they 

21 looked through the database, and they found 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

230 1 one claim that had a PoC less than 50 

2 percent. And that would be impacted by this 

3 PER. So their corrective action program was 

4 to look at those claims, which in this case 

5 was one, and do a new dose estimate.

6 And so now we look at PER-33. 

7 The issue there was that they found that the 

8 2008 revision changed some internal doses 

9 that might increase the dose. And that was 

10 that the estimated doses for the internal 

11 increased from '56 to '63. And also for the 

12 year '78 and for the year '79.

13 And another change was that the 

14 estimate went up by about a factor of ten, 

15 from 3.8 to 44 picocuries per day for 

16 inhalation for operators. And that the 

17 distribution went from a log-normal to a 

18 single bounding value, which could increase 

19 the dose. And so NIOSH's corrective action 

20 plan -- you want to go back one. Okay, next 

21 one. Okay. They found 32 cases with PoCs 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

231 1 less than 50 percent issued prior to the 2008

2 TBD revision. The corrective action plan was

3 to re-evaluate those 32 claims with the 

4 current DR method, and calculate a new dose 

5 and a new PoC.

6 Okay. So we evaluated their 

7 issues and their correction action in these 

8 two, PER-25 and -33. And the way we did 

9 this, we performed a paragraph-by-paragraph 

10 comparison of the document of each revision 

11 compared to the last one -- Revision 1 to 0, 

12 and then 2 to 1 -- to see what changes might 

13 have changed, increased the assigned dose.

14 From this evaluation we 

15 identified several items that had that 

16 potential. And this was the electron skin 

17 dose, which we previously addressed. 

18 Occupational medical dose was changed in 

19 several instances. The shallow dose to the 

20 hands and forearm, and the period of internal

21 intake and internal intake values.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

232 1 Now we'll address each item. The 

2 electron skin dose, this was brought up in 

3 PER-25 and was the reason for that issue of 

4 that PER. And so we evaluated PER-25 and 

5 found that it sufficiently addressed the 

6 issue. And we had no findings for this PER.

7 Now, the PER-33, when we did 

8 these revisions, TBD revisions, reviewed 

9 them, we found that there was cases where 

10 there might be an increase in dose because 

11 they went to using OTIB-6, as opposed to the 

12 table listed in the TBD. And they were very 

13 similar for most years, most organs, except a

14 few years for the skin, stomach and thymus.

15 And so, now, if the new DR was 

16 performed as recommended in PER-33, these 

17 items would be addressed. Same with shallow 

18 dose, there was an addition of one rem to the

19 hands and forearms for certain operators and 

20 maintenance personnel. And where before the 

21 maximum was .85, again, if this was, in these
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

233 1 cases, reworked using the new TBD, then this 

2 would be addressed.

3 Period of intakes, this is one 

4 reason the PER was issued. And the period of

5 intakes expanded. And, again, a new expanded

6 period was used. According to the PER and 

7 the revised TBD these would be addressed. 

8 Same way with the intake values that would be

9 used during this period. The increase would 

10 be incorporated in the new DR. So these 

11 would be addressed.

12 So, our Subtasks 1 and 2, we 

13 evaluated TBD changes and concur with NIOSH's

14 action plan. We found that PER-25 and -33 

15 sufficiently addressed the changes and the 

16 recommended corrective action.

17 So, Subtask 3 was the number of 

18 claims. We used the NOCTS database to verify

19 that only one claim was impacted by PER-25, 

20 and a new DR had been performed for this 

21 claim. We have not done Task 4 yet to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

234 1 evaluate that.

2 Now, next slide. All right. No, 

3 go back two slides. Okay. Yes, okay. So 

4 that was a new DR had been performed, and we 

5 would have to evaluate that. Now, next 

6 slide. Okay. For PER-33, Subtask 3, we used

7 the NOCTS database and determined that indeed

8 there were 32 claims impacted by PER-33. And

9 our recommendations I'll give in a minute.

10 And so for Subtask 4, which we 

11 haven't performed yet, the selection of the 

12 Drs to audit for PER-25, there was only one 

13 case that we recommend that we evaluate that 

14 to see that that was correctly reworked. 

15 Okay. 

16 Now, Subtask 4, a selection of DR 

17 for PER-33. This slide is outdated. We had 

18 some discussion on how to select this, cases 

19 for this PER-33. And I have sent out to the 

20 Committee, yesterday late, a revised list. 

21 And looking over there, there's four items. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

235 1 But they could all be covered by looking at 

2 two cases. And I'll read that from the 

3 proper slide. Disregard this slide that you 

4 see on the screen now. And you have that in 

5 an email, I think. 

6 Selection for PER-33 would be a 

7 case that includes internal dose assignment 

8 near 1956 through '63, and/or 1978 and/or 

9 1979. These are during the periods of 

10 increase.

11 And then a case that -- secondly, 

12 a case that would include shallow dose 

13 assignment to the hands and forearms during 

14 those same periods. That=s when the 

15 additional dose was recommended. Those two 

16 cases would include all of the changes that 

17 we thought that could have a potential for an

18 increase in assigned dose. 

19 So that is my evaluation. Any 

20 discussion?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Any comments? Any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

236 1 questions? I trust NIOSH has had an 

2 opportunity to review these recommendations, 

3 we have had those quite a while, and had an 

4 opportunity to sort of evaluate whether or 

5 not they're going to be feasible for your 

6 use.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, so 

8 far there's nothing for us to respond to, 

9 right? So far the idea is to select a couple

10 of cases for --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I was just 

13 curious. Ron, did you feel like you have 

14 enough access to the cases to do the searches

15 to select these things? Or did you want us 

16 to -- or did you say you found a couple of 

17 cases that you thought would cover all four 

18 criteria for PER-30?

19 DR. BUCHANAN: I've narrowed it 

20 down to about five cases. But I understood 

21 that I was only to give you the criteria, and
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

237 1 you'd do the selection of the cases. Now, I 

2 have not pinpointed it to two. I've narrowed

3 the list down, you know, and --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And you said 

5 you've narrowed it down to about five? 

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yeah, we 

8 can make the selections if that's what you 

9 want.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, Stu, I mean, 

11 that's the way we've done them most recently.

12 We originally, as you might recall, sent 

13 this down to the Dose Reconstruction 

14 Subcommittee to do the selections. But there

15 really is no point in that, as long as the 

16 criteria are clear. If you would just pull 

17 them, then that would be great.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll pull 

19 -- we just need to cover the four criteria in

20 30. So that could be four cases, or it could

21 be one or two cases.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

238 1 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: That would cover 

3 all four criteria.

4 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: There's only one 

6 case for PER-25. So that will be easy to 

7 select.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: So we'll have at 

10 least two of the five, right?

11 MR. KATZ: Right. Or not of 

12 those five, whatever. Oh, yeah, there is 

13 only five. Then, yes. But I thought five 

14 was a sample.

15 But, anyway, and if you could 

16 just, when you make those selections, notify 

17 SC&A, and just copy the Work Group so it 

18 knows that that's gone forward, that would be

19 great.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

239 1 Steve.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Listening to Ron's 

4 presentation, it appears that SC&A has no 

5 findings on at least this first part of 

6 either PER-25 or PER-33. Do we want to enter

7 into the BRS, like we sometimes do, a finding

8 of no findings?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. We want 

10 to identify that this has occurred, yes, in 

11 both cases.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I will do that --

13 I can do that offline.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's fine.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: If that's okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It will be okay. 

17 Steve will enter no findings for both 25 and 

18 33. All right. Good job. Thank you, Ron.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you.

20 CHAIR MUNN: If there are no 

21 further comments with respect to those items,
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

240 1 we will go on to PER-37, to request whether -

2 - what's the status of the resolution with 

3 that PER. We sent it to the Work Group. And

4 there was a question about the Ames Work 

5 Group, as I recall. SC&A, who's reporting?

6 DR. MAURO: This is John. Are we 

7 talking about PER-38?

8 CHAIR MUNN: No, 37.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is 37 on the 

10 agenda?

11 MR. KATZ: No. This is Ted. So, 

12 PER-37, as you might recall, and I thought I 

13 wrote you, Wanda, about this. It is not 

14 going forward until the Ames Work Group, 

15 which hasn't been constituted, reviews the 

16 Site Profile Review.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah. The only 

18 thing I wanted to get on the record is that 

19 an Ames Work Group is what's holding this up.

20 We don't have an Ames Work Group.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

241 1 CHAIR MUNN: Right?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to get 

4 that on the record this time.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: And we will keep 

7 that in abeyance, pending the constitution of

8 an Ames Work Group. That's what I wanted to 

9 have happen. Okay. And now PER-38.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. This is John 

11 Mauro. I'm filling in for Bill Thurber, who 

12 is not available. But I think I should be 

13 able to cover some of this, because I did 

14 work quite a bit with Bill on Hooker 

15 Electrochemical.

16 PER-38 deals with Hooker 

17 Electrochemical Facility. You should have a 

18 set of slides I'm looking at right now. 

19 Steve, did you load up those slides?

20 CHAIR MUNN: He has them up.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay, great. So 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

242 1 let's go to Slide Number 2. I'm going to 

2 quickly go through the chronology of this 

3 particular project. Originally, this Site 

4 Profile, or TBD, was one of those subsets of 

5 TBD-6001. It was called Appendix AA. It 

6 goes back to 2007.

7 As we probably all remember, TBD8 6001 was withdrawn, and the various 

9 appendices were converted into full-blown 

10 Technical Basis Documents. So our actual 

11 Technical Basis Document for Hooker was 

12 issued on April 4th, 2011, which sort of 

13 broke itself free from TBD-6001. It was a 

14 standalone.

15 What happened subsequently, 

16 another version, a revision to that TBD was 

17 issued, a Rev 1, in 2011. And as a result of

18 those two revisions, let's call them the 

19 original and this Rev 1, a PER was issued on 

20 July 24th, 2012. And then a review of the 

21 Technical Basis Document -- SC&A was asked to
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

243 1 actually review that document. And we issued

2 a report in March 2013.

3 So what happens is, what we have 

4 is a little bit of an overlap situation. 

5 Where we actually are right now in the review

6 process, from a Site Profile review, is that 

7 we do have before NIOSH a review of their 

8 DCAS-TKBS-0009, which is their latest version

9 of the Site Profile.

10 Now, that being said, the PER was 

11 issued by NIOSH to revisit the dose 

12 reconstructions, as a result of Rev 1. And 

13 we were asked to review, do a PER review. 

14 And that's what I'm reporting on now. I'm 

15 reporting on the review that SC&A performed 

16 of Rev 1 of the Site Profile.

17 And the next slide, Slide Number 

18 4, basically says that they have 53 claims 

19 that meet the screening criteria for review. 

20 It turns out that 33 of these claims were 

21 eliminated from consideration, Probability of
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

244 1 Causation recalculated. And as a result, 20 

2 of those were recalculated. So that 

3 constitutes the set of cases that were 

4 revisited because of the issuance of Revision

5 1. The outcome of all of that was all the 

6 PoCs that were recalculated were below 50 

7 percent.

8 So, notwithstanding the revisions 

9 to the Site Profile or the TBD or the 

10 Exposure Matrix, various names given to these

11 types of documents, there was none that were 

12 found by NIOSH to be compensable. So we'll 

13 move on to Number 5. We're going to go 

14 through this very quickly.

15 SC&A agrees with the screening 

16 criteria. And it also agrees that all of the

17 revisits, the re-dos, were done in accordance

18 with Revision 1 of the Site Profile. So, 

19 from a PER perspective, everything is fine. 

20 We have no findings.

21 But we do have an unusual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

245 1 circumstance. As I mentioned earlier, we did

2 review Revision 1 on its own merits. And we 

3 issued on Revision 1 a report on our review 

4 of that document dated March 2013. So what 

5 we have here is a favorable finding, from a 

6 PER perspective, regarding Revision 1. But 

7 we also have, at the same time, comments on 

8 Revision 1. In fact, we have six findings. 

9 And they were issued for the Board's 

10 consideration on March 2013. And that's 

11 before the Board.

12 Now, what our situation, then, we 

13 believe, is we're at a point in the process 

14 where we've completed our PER process review 

15 in a favorable way for Revision 1. But we 

16 also believe that Revision 1 does have some 

17 issues, six of them, that need to be put in 

18 the queue for review by, I guess, the AWE 

19 Work Group.

20 And the process needs to begin to 

21 resolve the issues that we have raised in our
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

246 1 review of that Revision 1. And so after 

2 we've finished that review, it may turn out 

3 that all issues will be resolved in NIOSH's 

4 favor, and that will be the end of the story.

5 If it turns out there are issues 

6 whereby the Site Profile needs to be revised,

7 well, in theory, that might trigger another 

8 PER. So, I guess, in a nutshell, that's 

9 really the story we have. Favorable 

10 regarding the PER. But it does open a new 

11 door that would cross us over to, I believe, 

12 the AWE, Henry Anderson's Work Group, whereby

13 this latest version of the Site Profile and 

14 our findings need to be discussed.

15 MR. KATZ: That's correct, John. 

16 It does belong with the Uranium Refining AWE

17 Work Group. And we put that on their plate. 

18 And it just takes a meeting for them to 

19 begin the discussion with NIOSH.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, that was 

21 easy enough.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

247 1 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, that's good. 

2 My only question is, I haven't checked our 

3 database to make sure that we show that 

4 transference to the Work Group, and that 

5 we're in abeyance. Do we have even the 

6 findings listed yet?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: There are no 

8 findings, Wanda.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah, let me help out 

10 here. No findings from the PER perspective. 

11 So, really, I guess it's off your table. 

12 The findings that we do have are from the 

13 Site Profile perspective, which should be --

14 you know, goes over to the AWE Work Group.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well that is --

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry, Paul, you 

18 were very broken. I didn't hear what you 

19 said.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I said I 

21 don't think we're transferring anything.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

248 1 CHAIR MUNN: No, we're not 

2 transferring anything. The responsibility is

3 going to Hooker. My question is how we need 

4 to -- I mean, is going to the Work Group. My

5 question is how we address our BRS entry, 

6 what we need to say.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: For 38, Wanda, I 

8 would say, basically, as I understand what 

9 John said, there's no findings on 38.

10 DR. MAURO: Right.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So that would be a 

12 finding of no findings. And then there may 

13 be a potential for a PER in the future. But 

14 that would be another number. And in --

15 CHAIR MUNN: No, that won't, 

16 that's not the --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: That's not going 

18 to effect our finding of no finding on 38?

19 CHAIR MUNN: No.

20 DR. MAURO: Exactly. I agree 

21 with that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

249 1 CHAIR MUNN: We just want to get 

2 38 clean for our purposes here on the BRS.

3 DR. MAURO: Finding of no 

4 findings. And I think that concludes it.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, exactly. And I 

6 guess we, where is PER -- I'm trying to 

7 search on my other screen for them, for what 

8 we have. And I'm not coming up with what I 

9 wanted to see. Okay. Can we enter a finding

10 of no findings? We can do that offline too, 

11 if you don't mind doing that, Steve?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I'll get that 

13 right on there after --

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Okay. 

15 Let me know when that happens.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Any other comments 

18 with respect to PER-38? Thank you for 

19 presenting, John, we appreciate it. Let's go

20 on to OTIB-54.

21 DR. OSTROW: Hi, this is Steve 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

250 1 Ostrow. I'll be presenting for SC&A.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

3 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Good 

4 afternoon, everyone.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Good afternoon, 

6 Steve.

7 DR. OSTROW: Okay. A little 

8 background. OTIB-54 presents a methodology 

9 to assign doses to workers exposed to fission

10 and activation products where only gross beta

11 or gamma measurements are available. So, in 

12 order to assign a dose, you need to know the 

13 radioactive inventory, the ratio of the 

14 different isotopes. And this OTIB provides a

15 methodology to do that.

16 A little bit of history. Rev 0, 

17 first issue of the OTIB, came out in 2007. 

18 SC&A reviewed it in 2008. Subsequently, in 

19 June 2013, NIOSH came out with a revised Rev 

20 1 of the OTIB. And that was -- we talked 

21 about that at the last Subcommittee meeting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

251 1 on July 18th, 2013.

2 And we decided that since it was 

3 such a major revision of the OTIB, that the 

4 original comments that we had made on Rev 0 

5 were moot now. So we decided to go ahead and

6 we were authorize to perform a full review of

7 Rev 1. 

8 We just have up on the screen 

9 now, this is the draft report that we issued 

10 on Monday. I apologize to everyone concerned

11 that it took us a long time to get this out 

12 of our internal review. We would have liked 

13 to have gotten this out at least a few days 

14 earlier so people would get a chance to 

15 digest it. But it didn't happen. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Hope you're okay 

17 there, Steve. Is that your sirens in the 

18 background?

19 DR. OSTROW: Yeah, there's a 

20 firetruck going up Park Avenue in Manhattan.

21 CHAIR MUNN: That's always a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

252 1 concern.

2 DR. OSTROW: As long as it 

3 doesn't stop in front of my building, it's 

4 okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's good.

6 DR. OSTROW: Right. Anyway, the 

7 OTIB is quite complicated. It's one of the 

8 more complicated ones we've ever looked at. 

9 A lot of analysis here. And we divided it --

10 or it's divided into three parts for 

11 convenience.

12 The first part deals with reactor 

13 modeling, where NIOSH looked at different 

14 reactor types and did runs with the ORIGEN 

15 code to calculate radioactive, radionuclide 

16 inventories for a bunch of different reactor 

17 types.

18 The second part of the OTIB is 

19 concerned with internal dosimetry. So, given

20 the radioactive radionuclide distributions 

21 for different reactors types, and a few 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

253 1 different situations, how do you calculate 

2 the internal doses?

3 And the third part of the OTIB 

4 gives actual practical guidance, which is 

5 only a couple of pages long, for the dose 

6 reconstructor to how to use the OTIB tables 

7 to reconstruct the dose. And very helpfully,

8 NIOSH provided three sample problems that 

9 people can work through just to try out the 

10 OTIB and make sure they know how to use it. 

11 That was a good thing.

12 Our overall assessment of the 

13 OTIB, which appears on Page 22 -- whoever is 

14 working the slides, please go to Page 22. 

15 Okay, one back. Okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: There it is.

17 DR. OSTROW: Okay, there we go. 

18 Just above Section 1.4, that's our 

19 conclusion. We think the guidance that is 

20 given by the OTIB is claimant-favorable all 

21 together, overall. And except for a few 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

254 1 possible issues, we think the protocol given 

2 is reasonable and claimant-favorable.

3 All in all, we came out with ten 

4 findings. Now, whoever is controlling it, go

5 back up to Page 8. And keep going to Page 8.

6 And I'm sorry we didn't -- we should have 

7 prepared slides based on this. But we sort 

8 of ran out of time. Okay, there we go.

9 This summarizes Table 2, the 

10 review findings. And we referenced where in 

11 the report that they come from. The findings

12 -- like I said, we have ten findings. The 

13 first four have to do with reactor modeling. 

14 The next four have to do with the intake 

15 fractions. And then there's two other 

16 miscellaneous ones at the end.

17 Unfortunately, I don't suppose 

18 NIOSH had a chance to really address any of 

19 these things, since I just gave it to them. 

20 But if people want, I can run down them 

21 quickly and just summarize what our findings 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

255 1 are.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I think that would 

3 be wise, Steve.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Because I don't 

6 think anyone has had an opportunity to really

7 absorb what's in these findings.

8 DR. OSTROW: No, I wouldn't 

9 expect that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to have 

11 to incorporate them, of course, into the 

12 database as well. And so, yes, if you would 

13 just very quickly review what those findings 

14 are.

15 DR. OSTROW: I'll give a quick 

16 review. And I think the next step after this

17 is, NIOSH has to take a look at our comments 

18 and get back on it. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 DR. OSTROW: I just want to say, 

21 most of the comments -- we didn't find 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

256 1 anything incorrect in it whatsoever. Most of

2 our comments had to do with a lack of 

3 explanation. So we couldn't always 

4 understand or sign off or see the reason 

5 certain things were done. So it's mainly in 

6 the way of amplification. Okay. That's 

7 that.

8 As I mentioned, NIOSH or ORAU 

9 began by doing ORIGEN2 runs on the reactors. 

10 They picked five reactor categories to 

11 represent different types of reactors, and 

12 seven representative real reactors to look 

13 at. And there's a list of those.

14 They used the ORIGEN code, which 

15 is an isotope generation and depletion code 

16 that calculates isotopic inventory. And they

17 ran it for all seven reactor cases, and 

18 eleven different runs total. And they did it

19 for different decay times afterwards. 

20 So our finding was -- Finding 1 

21 is that we don't have any quarrel with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

257 1 anything, but we're not able to evaluate the 

2 appropriateness of the input parameters that 

3 NIOSH used for the ORIGEN runs, since they 

4 don't specify or reference it in the OTIB.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, right. We see 

6 that whole first group there is essentially -

7 -

8 DR. OSTROW: That's right.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Need more 

10 information. And NIOSH will be able to 

11 evaluate those and respond to each of the --

12 DR. OSTROW: That's 1, 2 and 3 

13 Findings are basically on that. Interesting,

14 Rev 0 of the OTIB went on and on and on, in 

15 great length and great detail about all the 

16 modeling that was done, which may have been a

17 little bit overkill.

18 I'm an actual nuclear engineer. 

19 So to me it was actually interesting. But 

20 Rev 0 eliminated most of that. Rev 1 

21 eliminated most of that material. And it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

258 1 might be helpful if NIOSH, you know, 

2 responded with a little bit of information 

3 about how they picked the input values for 

4 the ORIGEN runs.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'm sure 

6 they'll be able to do that without too much 

7 trouble, once they --

8 DR. OSTROW: If they ran it they 

9 would know how, you know, where they got the 

10 values from. Number 4, Finding 4, is also 

11 related for the trigger reactor cases. 

12 There's actually two trigger cases, one with 

13 stainless steel-clad, and one with aluminum14 clad fuel.

15 And when NIOSH did its down16 select from the original number of cases, 

17 down to the final four, they didn't say 

18 whether they used the stainless steel or the 

19 aluminum trigger.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 DR. OSTROW: That's a minor 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

259 1 thing.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, easy. Okay.

3 DR. OSTROW: Beginning with 

4 Number 5 through 8, those are the internal 

5 dosimetry ones. And this had a large 

6 contribution by Joyce Lipsztein. She's the 

7 expert on internal dosimetry. I did the 

8 reactor part. And she had a bunch of 

9 findings on this.

10 Well, one finding, Number 5, I 

11 think John Mauro also provided this one. I 

12 don't know if it's a nitpick or not a 

13 nitpick. But the OTIB starts out with the 

14 isotopic inventory in spent fuel, reactor 

15 fuel.

16 However, depending on what a 

17 worker is doing, very often he's not exposed 

18 to the reactor fuel inventory. But he's 

19 exposed instead to the gas gap activity. 

20 That means what's actually escaped from the 

21 fuel and gets into the air.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

260 1 And we're not sure, in some 

2 cases, that using the reactor fuel inventory 

3 may not be the appropriate thing to do. 

4 Maybe you have to use the gas gap. And this 

5 should be discussed a little bit. 

6 John, do you have anything to say 

7 about this? I think this was your finding.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I found this to 

9 be something that needs to be explored. 

10 Visualize a person working, you have a guy 

11 that's working in a facility that's either 

12 working with a reactor, or working with fuel 

13 from a reactor.

14 And you have bioassay data that 

15 says, here's his gross beta or gross gamma 

16 activity in urine. And you want to say, 

17 okay, what percent of the activity is cesium,

18 strontium, and all the other fission and 

19 activation products that might be of 

20 interest?

21 It's important to point out, by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

261 1 the way, the scope of this OTIB is limited to

2 reactors and places that might be handling 

3 fuel, and not places where you're dealing 

4 with separated material, you know, where a 

5 person has chemically separated out strontium

6 or cesium, and doing that special work.

7 This is really basically a 

8 reactor situation. Or, I believe, a place 

9 where you're handling fuel. So your real 

10 starting point is, okay, well, what's the mix

11 of radionuclides that's in fuel? And the 

12 rock that they built their house on here is, 

13 what is the inventory, the relative, the 

14 isotopic inventory in fuel?

15 And, as Steve pointed out, 

16 there's, you know, there's a lot of 

17 difference. The inventory can change quite a

18 bit depending on the type of fuel, depending 

19 on the age of the fuel. These are the two 

20 big drivers that determine the mix of 

21 radioisotopes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

262 1 Now, I've done a lot of work in 

2 deriving the doses to workers who work at 

3 reactors. Some people work in the rad waste 

4 building, some people work in various 

5 maintenance activities. Some people handle 

6 the spent resins. There's a lot of different

7 things in a reactor operation.

8 And I say, well, you know, my 

9 experience is that it's the mix of 

10 radionuclides that's in the gas gap. This is

11 a gas base inside the fuel. Not the fuel 

12 itself, but in the gas gap. And that makes 

13 it very different in the gas gap. And, also,

14 in the primary coolant, which leaks, and it 

15 contributes to the airborne activity.

16 There's also work where you're 

17 working with spent resin from various waste 

18 water treatment systems that have their own 

19 mix. So my question is really, you sort of 

20 step back and say, given that the context 

21 within which a worker at a reactor might be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

263 1 involved in, the kinds of things he's doing, 

2 and the kind of -- you know, could very well 

3 affect the mix that he's dealing with.

4 Now, what NIOSH did in order to 

5 try to deal with that, is to say, well 

6 listen, we're going to start with the fuel. 

7 And then we're going to assume that the mix 

8 that could become airborne -- so like the 

9 first step. Say, okay, we got to go from 

10 what's in the fuel to what's airborne, 

11 because that's the stuff that is going to be 

12 inhaled and find its way into urine.

13 And they used a very conventional 

14 standard that goes way back in time, which 

15 assumes 100 percent of the noble gasses, 50 

16 percent of the iodines, and one percent of 

17 the particulates is the release fraction.

18 This is the fraction of the 

19 inventory that's in the fuel, that becomes 

20 airborne. It's a very crude way of trying to

21 say, what's going to end up airborne? And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

264 1 that's your starting point for the mix of 

2 radionuclides that might be airborne to which

3 a worker might be exposed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's pretty 

5 broad.

6 DR. MAURO: It's pretty broad. 

7 It's very crude and very broad. And it might

8 work. It might work. But it may turn out, 

9 it may not work -- I'm not sure.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'm sure NIOSH 

11 will be able to take a look at the finding.

12 DR. MAURO: There it is, and 

13 that's --

14 CHAIR MUNN: And give you a good 

15 feeling for --

16 DR. MAURO: Exactly. And that's 

17 really the only thing I had to offer, whether

18 or not it was too much of a leap of faith to 

19 make that jump. Or whether there should be a

20 little bit more granularity in thinking about

21 what might be airborne in a reactor.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

265 1 DR. H. BEHLING: John, I want to 

2 really comment on this. I think your step 

3 was a step in the right direction. But it's 

4 not even a complete one. What you find in 

5 the air gap in a fuel pellet, it's only the 

6 beginning. You have multiple barriers to 

7 breach beyond that: the cladding, the water, 

8 the reactor vessel, and then numerous others.

9 And the bottom line really here 

10 is it seems like what you just explained 

11 about the release fractions, that's really a 

12 crude, crude model. And it was never 

13 intended to be used for anything other than 

14 accident scenarios.

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that's how I 

16 used it.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: And what really 

18 needs to be looked at, and this is really 

19 where the rubber meets the road, is the air. 

20 In the end, a person who is a reactor 

21 operator, who goes into containment, he is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

266 1 subject to an air concentration of 

2 radionuclides that have weathered the 

3 screening process of escaping from the fuel 

4 matrix, of escaping into the headspace of the

5 fuel pellet, of being released from 

6 microfissures in the fuel cladding.

7 Then it has to get through the 

8 water, the primary coolant. And from there 

9 it may even have to enter the secondary side 

10 of a PWR. And then it has to release in the 

11 air. So, in the end, the true value of doing

12 all this really rests with the ability to 

13 monitor the air.

14 If you have an air sample that is 

15 monitored for a gross alpha/gross beta, and 

16 then identifies the radionuclides, you have 

17 all the answers without going through a lot 

18 of these modeling parameters that are, at 

19 best, guesses. And crude guesses at that.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, I agree. If you 

21 have air sampling data for a given reactor, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

267 1 you go straight to that. I didn't even --

2 NIOSH --

3 DR. H. BEHLING: And I can't see 

4 why you wouldn't have that. I mean, that is 

5 the most common practice in a power reactor 

6 or a research reactor is to constantly 

7 monitor the air.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Of course, of 

9 course.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: In which case, 

11 you have that data available.

12 CHAIR MUNN: You're talking about 

13 CAMs everywhere when you're talking about 

14 reactor facilities.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: And NIOSH will be 

17 able to, I'm sure, respond to the issue. 

18 It's just that we need to give them a chance 

19 to respond to it. And it's pretty clear, I 

20 think, from the finding itself, what we're 

21 asking of them.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

268 1 Let's just go on and try to get a 

2 feel for what these ten findings cover, so

3 that we can do a few more things before we 

4 have to -- before everybody gives up and 

5 leaves. Thank you.

6 Steve Ostrow, you were going to 

7 give us a quick -- that you said that you 

8 viewed these as three different categories. 

9 And we've covered the first two, I think.

10 DR. OSTROW: Right. Well, 

11 Finding 6 is also an internal dosimetry one. 

12 This has to do -- and I'll just summarize it

13 quickly. People can read it. But this has 

14 to do with effective dose conversion factors.

15 The OTIB starts out with hundreds 

16 of radionuclides, many hundreds. I don't 

17 know the number, but close to 1,000. They do

18 a first cut and reduce that to 36 

19 radionuclides, by various methods. And then 

20 they do a second cut and reduce that to a 

21 final set of 17 radionuclides. That's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

269 1 basic thing.

2 Finding 6 has to do with 

3 effective dose conversion factors. And the 

4 comment is -- these are based on whole body 

5 doses, since the DCFs relate to effective 

6 whole body dose. And that's good for 

7 screening purposes. But it may not, if 

8 you're going to reconstruct whole body doses.

9 But it's not necessarily claimant-favorable 

10 if you're just looking at organ doses.

11 And to just give an example, a 

12 radionuclide that doesn't contribute 

13 significantly to the whole body dose could 

14 still be an important contributor to an organ

15 dose that might be eliminated.

16 This whole purpose of reducing 

17 the number of radionuclides may inadvertently

18 throw out some radionuclide that happens to 

19 be particularly important for a particular 

20 organ, but may not contribute much to a whole

21 body dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

270 1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we have at 

2 least two with respect to organ doses of 

3 concern. And then isotropic assignments in 

4 Number 8.

5 DR. OSTROW: Okay, 7 is also with 

6 intakes and organ doses. Number 8, the OTIB 

7 did recognize that some of the methods that 

8 it uses would miss certain radionuclides, 

9 such as radioiodines, to give an example.

10 And they claim it's not a problem 

11 because the seventeen radionuclides that they

12 finally end up with are representative, and 

13 they're the biggest contributors. And this 

14 sort of goes back to what we were discussing 

15 a few minutes ago.

16 This is reasonable, except if a 

17 large fraction of the activity is lost during

18 the analysis of the urine samples, that, you 

19 know, some of it disappears, volatilizes, 

20 whatever. And which may end up with an 

21 underestimation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

271 1 The OTIB mentioned that this was 

2 important at the Savannah River Site. I'm 

3 not familiar with the SRS particularly. And 

4 the OTIB notices that a separate protocol was

5 used in the SRS Site Profile.

6 And we're saying that we'd like 

7 some more discussion of this. How the dose 

8 reconstructor deals with situations where the

9 airborne mix of radionuclides doesn't relate 

10 really to the mix of radionuclides in the 

11 fuel.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

13 DR. OSTROW: So, we want 

14 elaboration on that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

16 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Getting near 

17 the end here. Finding 9. Oh, this is a 

18 little one. We actually went ahead. There's

19 a workbook on the computer system that ORAU 

20 and NIOSH used to actually work out this 

21 OTIB. And we worked through one of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

272 1 problems. And given the input, correct 

2 input, we could get the same output. So we 

3 sort of verified, for one case at least, that

4 the workbook works. Except the workbook is 

5 really -- is obsolete.

6 Because the current workbook was 

7 for Rev 0, and the methodology now is Rev 1. 

8 So that's just a note sort of in our 

9 finding, that NIOSH/ORAU has to revise their 

10 workbook before any dose reconstructors 

11 actually use it.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

13 DR. OSTROW: And that's a simple 

14 one. Number 10 is long. But it's fairly 

15 simple. It's really in two parts. And this 

16 is sort of reiterating, and I have it in bold

17 there.

18 In the process of developing the 

19 protocol, indicator radionuclides used to 

20 derive intake values of dosimetrically 

21 significant radionuclides. But they don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

273 1 necessarily relate to the real intake and 

2 excretion rate for the worker. We don't know

3 how much conservatism is built into this.

4 This is a little bit of a 

5 philosophical problem that we believe that 

6 the doses calculated to the workers are 

7 probably conservative. But how real are 

8 they? You know, did they bear any relation 

9 to actual doses that people are getting? And

10 this requires some discussion.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And as I said, 

12 when we have a NIOSH response to it, that's 

13 the appropriate time for us, I think, to give

14 it considerable attention and discussion 

15 time.

16 DR. OSTROW: I think this issue 

17 has come up in relation to other things that 

18 we reviewed over the years also. That the 

19 whole thing about, is it good, is it 

20 sufficient that something is really 

21 conservative? Does it have to actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

274 1 reflect reality, though? I'm not sure where 

2 this falls into.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We will see 

4 what NIOSH has to say when they respond to 

5 each of these findings. We'll get them 

6 posted as they need to be posted. And we'll 

7 expect responses as they come. Hopefully, 

8 some at our next meeting.

9 Anything else we need to cover? 

10 Other than I was anxious to see that the 

11 findings were mentioned, and that we get them

12 appropriately recorded in our database. 

13 Other than that, we'll just keep them in 

14 progress for NIOSH. Any other comments with 

15 respect to OTIB-54 before we move on?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve. 

17 Again, I'm just scrolling through the BRS 

18 here. And I noticed that there were a number

19 of comments on the old Rev 0 of 54 and that 

20 are still identified as being in progress.

21 Now, Steve Ostrow mentioned early 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

275 1 in his talk that, you know, they were moot. 

2 And so I guess the question is, should the 

3 findings that are still in progress, the 

4 findings on Rev 0 that are still identified 

5 as being in progress, should they all be 

6 closed systematically?

7 CHAIR MUNN: I think what we need 

8 to have, if so, we need to have a 

9 recommendation from SC&A, a specific 

10 recommendation for each of those saying as 

11 much.

12 And so if we do in fact have 

13 those recommendations in writing for each of 

14 the current in-progress notations that we 

15 have on OTIB-54, Rev 0, then we can, at that 

16 time, take action on them. We have that 

17 actually in front of us.

18 I don't believe we should, at 

19 this time, try to go through and identify 

20 them. I don't know whether Steve Ostrow's 

21 ready to do that on each of these.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

276 1 DR. OSTROW: Well, I am, but I 

2 didn't do it in writing. But I thought that 

3 at our July 18th Subcommittee Meeting, that 

4 we had decided that we were going to close 

5 all of the Rev 0 comments and start over 

6 again. Maybe we never wrote it down 

7 formally. But I thought that was part of the

8 discussion we had in July.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I'll check 

10 the minutes.

11 DR. OSTROW: I mean, if not, we 

12 could easily enough just, you know, send a 

13 memo.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, no. What we 

16 do, Steve -- I think what I would suggest 

17 doing is that we just basically make an 

18 annotation in the BRS saying that, with the 

19 issuance of Rev 1, this comment is moot and 

20 we recommend it be closed.

21 And then the Subcommittee, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

277 1 know, the next time we meet we can go through

2 them and we can close them out rather 

3 quickly.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay. But how would 

5 you then input the ten new ones we have?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Put them right on. 

7 They would start with -- it would start with

8 -- actually the finding, you should have re9 numbered them. Your Finding 1 is really 

10 Finding 27.

11 DR. OSTROW: Oh, lord.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's all 

13 right. We can do that. That's not a 

14 problem. We'll just make a notation of what 

15 we're doing, and do it. But for the time 

16 being, what I would like to have is a written

17 note from SC&A identifying each of the 

18 findings that we are closing, okay?

19 DR. OSTROW: Okay. No problem.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And if we do that, 

21 then I think we can move forward. When we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

278 1 get that, then we can incorporate it into the

2 BRS. And we will look forward to NIOSH 

3 responses to these ten new ones in the 

4 future. Okay?

5 DR. OSTROW: All right. We'll do 

6 that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: For the moment, 

8 we're expecting specific documents from SC&A 

9 closing each of these items that we have 

10 currently on our system. 

11 Okay? Very good. Do we need 

12 anything else addressing OTIB-54 before we go

13 to Joyce, whom I'm assuming is on right now.

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Hi. May I --

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda? I'm 

16 sorry, Joyce --

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

19 Behling. Can I very quickly ask a question 

20 about going back to PER-38? Unless Joyce is 

21 pressed for time here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

279 1 It sounded like there were no 

2 findings. Are we going to select cases 

3 associated with PER-38? I mean, we can do 

4 that later. It's just something I didn't 

5 want to fall through the cracks under Subtask

6 4 for the Hooker PER.

7 CHAIR MUNN: The only notation 

8 that I made was that NIOSH was going to 

9 select the SRS items. I didn't make any 

10 notation about the cases from Hooker.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Right. Because 

12 I know there were no findings associated with

13 Hooker. And I just wanted to be sure we just

14 completed the Subtask 4 portion of that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. As well you 

16 should. Yes. Now, what do we need to do, 

17 Kathy?

18 MS. K. BEHLING: I think there 

19 were -- John Mauro, correct me if I'm wrong. 

20 But were there 30-some cases that were still

21 reevaluated? And we need --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

280 1 DR. MAURO: Yes, the number? 

2 Yeah, it's in one of the slides. I'd have to

3 open it up again.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: I think what we 

5 need to do is present some criteria to the 

6 Subcommittee and to NIOSH, as to, you know, 

7 what criteria we want them to use to maybe 

8 select a few cases for that PER.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: But, remember, our 

11 finding was -- let me -- hold on, hold on. I

12 think Bill looked at all of the fifty, or 

13 whatever there were. In other words, I wish 

14 I had better information for you.

15 But I think Bill concluded that 

16 everything was done correctly. And almost 

17 like -- perhaps he jumped ship on this one 

18 and quickly looked at them. It may have been

19 of such a nature, the nature of the work was 

20 such that it didn't take much -- I can't 

21 speak to that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

281 1 Maybe the right thing to do would 

2 be to check with Bill. In other words, does 

3 Bill feel that, in order to close out Rev 1 

4 PER, is it necessary for us to go ahead and 

5 pick some cases?

6 Or is he comfortable that he's 

7 looked at enough of them in the process of 

8 doing what he did, that he feels that, you 

9 know, there's no need to go through that 

10 step? This is a bit unusual, I have to say.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, okay. And I 

12 apologize.

13 DR. MAURO: No. And you might be 

14 right. I'm glad you brought it up, because 

15 I'm not sure.

16 MR. STIVER: John, this is 

17 something that kind of fell through the crack

18 in getting these presentations together. 

19 But, yes, we'll definitely need to get with 

20 Bill.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

282 1 MR. STIVER: And see whether or 

2 not that he feels that this is really 

3 necessary.

4 CHAIR MUNN: The indication was 

5 we only had one claim that would be 

6 applicable to PER-25.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: But I thought 

8 for 38 there might be some --

9 DR. MAURO: There might be. But 

10 I'd like to talk to Bill about it first.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: In other words, does 

13 he feel that, yes, we should go through and 

14 pick a few, and check them? Or has he 

15 already done that? You know, sometimes these

16 exposures, these aren't like complex sites. 

17 We're talking about fairly simple exposure 

18 matrices for inhalation of uranium, for 

19 example, or external exposure to uranium.

20 He may very well have checked it. 

21 I'm not sure. But it's probably best. Very
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

283 1 quickly. I think Bill will be available 

2 tomorrow and we could get clarification from 

3 him, and get back to you quickly.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So what we're 

5 going to hear from you is whether or not we 

6 actually need to select cases, or whether --

7 in which case we'll need the criteria.

8 DR. MAURO: Right.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Or whether the 

10 current review has been detailed enough to 

11 assure that it isn't necessary, right?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Then 

14 I'll expect to hear back from you after 

15 you've had a chance to check. All right.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Now, we were going 

18 to hear Joyce, right?

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I was 

20 going to talk about 54 again. I did the part 

21 of the internal dosimetry that=s the part 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

284 1 after you have the list of radionuclides. 

2 Then you have the beta and gamma, gross beta 

3 and gross gamma in urine excretion rate.

4 And I think we agree with SC&A. 

5 We agree with everything that NIOSH did. We 

6 just need some minor explanations why, when 

7 they calculated the intake, they reduced the 

8 list further from 36 to 17 radionuclides that

9 Steve already talked about here.

10 But otherwise, all the complaints 

11 that we have is Revision 0, on this part of 

12 internal dosimetry, they were covered by 

13 NIOSH. So we're happy with it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you.

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Thank you.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Then, Joyce, were 

17 you also going to talk to us a little bit 

18 about OTIB-34?

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, 83. I think 

20 34 is Kathy.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. I had had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

285 1 a note that you were going to say something 

2 about -- was it 83 or 34? I mean 83 or 38?

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Eighty-three.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I made a mistake 

5 in that note to you, Wanda. It should be 

6 Hans who would talk about 34. And Joyce will

7 talk about 83.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good. 

9 Then, Joyce, as long as you're on, we're 

10 expecting a report from you right now after 

11 54. So, this is a good time.

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I'm almost 

13 finished with the review of OTIB-83. In 

14 reality, OTIB-83 is the same document that 

15 was given before as a White Paper from NIOSH 

16 but was directed to Special Exposures at 

17 bound. And now this is a generic document. 

18 So I'm reviewing it. I'm at the 

19 end of reviewing it. And I think NIOSH 

20 should expect in about one week the complete 

21 review of the document. Most of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

286 1 technical part that related to Mound we 

2 already have discussed a lot.

3 And then there is the 

4 applications for, you know, general 

5 application, which I -- I'm advancing it, but

6 I really didn't understand well how this is 

7 going to be applied to other installations. 

8 But, anyway, the review is almost at the end 

9 and you should expect in about one week, ten 

10 days, the complete review.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Excellent. 

12 We'll look forward to that. And you said --

13 did I understand correctly, now, that Hans is

14 going to cover 34?

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, just a 

18 couple of pieces of information as 

19 background. The ORAU OTIB-34 is defined by 

20 the title, "Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data 

21 for X-10." Now, the original OTIB-34 was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

287 1 issued back in December of 2005. And SC&A 

2 reviewed that particular original Rev 0, 

3 OTIB-34, back in -- let's see here, that was 

4 in October of 2007.

5 Since that time the OTIB-34 was 

6 revised. And as a result of that revision we

7 were asked to once again review it. And the 

8 changes from between Rev 0 and Rev 1 involved

9 a limited number of changes that, by and 

10 large, involve three things.

11 There was an expansion of Table 

12 55, which is plutonium-239 Type-S, that in 

13 Rev 0 only incorporated a single time span 

14 for the entire years of '51 through 1988.

15 As a result, I believe, of our 

16 review of that particular Rev 0, we were 

17 critical of the fact that the entire period 

18 of '51 through '88 was lumped into a single 

19 time period. And as a result of one of the 

20 three changes that occurred in Rev 1 was the 

21 expansion of the time span into six different
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

288 1 segments.

2 The second one was the addition 

3 of the 95th percentile intakes for all of the

4 radionuclides, which involves strontium, 

5 uranium, plutonium and americium.

6 And then the third one was the 

7 amending of the tables in Attachment A to 

8 include information with regard to the number

9 of samples that were assessed for each of the

10 years between '51 and '88, as well as the 

11 number of employees that represents those

12 particular samples. And so those were the 

13 three major changes that were incorporated in

14 Rev 1.

15 And as a result, since this was 

16 really a review of a revision, the Board 

17 asked us to make this a focused review. So, 

18 what you are about to receive, as soon as I'm

19 done with my review, is essentially a focus 

20 review that addresses only those three 

21 amended changes between Rev 0 and Rev 1.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is 

subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289 1 And right now I'm pretty much 

2 done. I still have to clean up a few things,

3 and also then forward it to Stiver, John 

4 Stiver, and John Mauro, and a couple of their

5 internal reviews. And I suspect the time 

6 frame for getting it out to you is probably 

7 somewhere around ten days to two weeks.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. So we 

9 can look forward to your review of Rev 1?

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I'm just going 

12 to say for my own notes, coming soon. We'll 

13 look forward to that and we'll have that 

14 added to our agenda next time, so that we can

15 cover both 34 and Joyce's work on 83. That 

16 will be good.

17 Any other comments with regard to 

18 those two before we go to our administrative 

19 details? If not, then, before Josie gets 

20 away -- are you still with us Josie?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I am, for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

290 1 just about another ten minutes, Wanda.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's why I 

3 wanted to make sure before you went 

4 somewhere. Do we have Richard on still? Are

5 you there Dr. Lemen? 

6 (No response.) 

7 I had hoped to be able to catch 

8 us all. And before we do any --

9 MEMBER LEMEN: I am here.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I am here. My

12 mute was on, so --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Before we do 

14 any of our other administrative things, let's

15 see if we can find a January date that is 

16 toward the end of January that we can, that 

17 won't -- no, it's better do it early 

18 February, after the Kansas meeting. Early 

19 February meeting, where we can pick up where 

20 left off here. Is the first full week in 

21 February a good time for us to be looking at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

291 1 a potential call?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, this is 

3 Stu. I don't know if I matter or not, but 

4 I'm on vacation that week.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, how about -- 

6 yes, I think you matter, Stu. How about the 

7 following week? What about Thursday the 13th

8 of February?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I have --

10 February is a little difficult for me right 

11 now because I am on notice that there will be

12 an agency and advocates meeting in Denver in 

13 mid to late February, but I don't have a date

14 yet. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I hate to do 

16 that too early in the week that you just get 

17 back from vacation, in any case.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know when

19 I'm going to Denver either.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah. As of right 

21 now, 13th of --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

292 1 DR. BUCHANAN: Early part of 

2 February is best for me, because I'm going to

3 be in Germany the last part.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, then let's --

5 does anyone have objection to the 13th?

6 MEMBER BEACH: No.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have one 

8 today.

9 CHAIR MUNN: For the time being, 

10 let's identify the 13th as being our good 

11 time for our next meeting.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: February 13th, 

13 right?

14 CHAIR MUNN: February 13, a 

15 Thursday.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: And can we start at 

18 this same time, 11 o'clock your time? Okay?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I don't hear any 

21 objections, so let's say that's when we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

293 1 going to have our next Procedures Review. 

2 Okay. 

3 Now, that done, before everyone 

4 leaves, there are a couple of things. Thanks 

5 to John Stiver and others for getting a 

6 cleaned up PER lists to us so that we can 

7 have a better feel for where we are and what 

8 needs to be done.

9 It's not clear to me exactly how

10 we need to proceed with respect to not just 

11 the presentations of the PERs to the full 

12 Board, but the general presentation of 

13 material to the full Board. But Ted has told

14 us that it would be wise for us to broaden 

15 our scope of what we were looking at in terms

16 of presentations to the Board.

17 And I guess what we've been 

18 presenting to them is adequate, but not fully

19 covering what, apparently, they'd like to see

20 and hear from us. I'm not sure exactly which

21 of our original potentials are even still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

294 1 viable, in view of the fact that most of them

2 have been closed for quite a while now.

3 And we did not have, when we took 

4 a look at what the Subcommittee Members 

5 thought were our best choices for 

6 presentation, we had only one vote in each 

7 case for most of the others that we have not 

8 yet covered. So, we have not added anything 

9 to that list, including the PERs that we've 

10 been working with and others that we may have

11 closed in the interim. It's been more than a

12 year since we did that.

13 So, I guess one of the things I'd 

14 like to hear, Ted, do you have any specifics 

15 as to the type of presentation that we can 

16 look to help meet the desires of the full 

17 Board?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, Wanda. 

19 I mean, really what I'd talked about is not 

20 broadening the scope, but not what we decided

21 after the last Board Meeting. And we got a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

295 1 good bit of feedback about those 

2 presentations from several Board Members, was

3 just not presenting -- and I've discussed 

4 this with SC&A in a sidebar during that 

5 meeting with John Mauro. But not presenting 

6 Procedure Reviews where the Procedure Review 

7 has no findings, or essentially no findings, 

8 no real great substantive matters that had to

9 be resolved. Not presenting those in any 

10 detail to the Board, but rather just 

11 summarizing, you know, the group of 

12 procedures for which there were essentially 

13 no findings to be resolved. Summarizing that

14 have been resolved by the Subcommittee with 

15 no findings.

16 So more selectively picking 

17 procedures for presentation that had real 

18 substance to resolve. That was the only sort

19 of new guidance related to how we select 

20 those procedures that are already, you know, 

21 completed by the Subcommittee and ready for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

296 1 presentation to the full Board.

2 CHAIR MUNN: And it seems to me 

3 the first step in doing that is to get a new 

4 updated list of exactly what those procedures

5 are, since they've changed radically since we

6 were looking at them last. Is that going to 

7 be possible for us to do, SC&A?

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think we can 

9 do that. You know, I think some of those we 

10 picked because they were -- I know one of 

11 them was a PER. And mainly we picked that 

12 one because it was the first one that 

13 actually had been seen through to Subtask 4 

14 completion.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

16 MR. STIVER: Turns out there were 

17 no findings.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. STIVER: But, you know, I 

20 certainly, for in the future, we can try to 

21 find some that had more substantive 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

297 1 discussions, and give that some --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Let's see if we can 

3 generate a list that gives us all of the 

4 potentials, and includes the notation those 

5 that had no findings.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, we could rate 

7 them by level of complexity or, you know, we 

8 can come up with some kind of an index to 

9 that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well, I don't 

11 know. From my perspective, it isn't 

12 complexity so much. It's just that if we 

13 have a list of those that we've closed with 

14 no findings, then, as Ted had mentioned, we 

15 can lump those together in one presentation.

16 And in the meantime, though, we 

17 need the broader scope of all that are 

18 potential, so that we can rate them again in 

19 the Subcommittee and see if we can go from 

20 there. 

21 So first up, I think, is the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

298 1 list. If we can get that, then we'll work 

2 offline in the Subcommittee to make some 

3 selections.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. Steve and I 

5 can work on that list and get back with you. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Good. I'd 

7 appreciate that. Thanks much. 

8 The upcoming PER status. You 

9 sent us a list of what you're working on. Do

10 you want to --

11 MR. STIVER: I'm trying to get 

12 control of the meeting here.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, if you can.

14 MR. STIVER: I can't seem to do 

15 it.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Then let's see what 

17 we can do with the PERs.

18 MR. STIVER: Well, I can just 

19 kind of give the talk here. Wait, that's 

20 right, I've been given control, great.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Good. It's all 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

299 1 yours.

2 MR. STIVER: If I can figure out 

3 how to share this thing.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'm seeing the 

5 Board list right now.

6 MR. STIVER: I have to realign 

7 this every time I do it. I'm trying to find 

8 the sharing button here.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Is it under content 

10 up there?

11 MR. STIVER: Well, I'm not even 

12 seeing the option for content.

13 CHAIR MUNN: In the very far left 

14 upper corner.

15 MR. STIVER: Yeah, all I've got 

16 is attendees and voice and video.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, you don't have a 

18 content? You must not be logged in as a real

19 person.

20 MR. STIVER: Yeah, I guess I must 

21 not be. But in any case, I could talk to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

300 1 this. I sent around a short document. 

2 Basically there were two tables.

3 The first table was two PERs that 

4 had not been assigned to SC&A. And the 

5 second was related to the PERs had been 

6 assigned, but for which Subtask 4 dose 

7 reconstructions had not been performed yet.

8 And I believe there were six or 

9 seven of the new PERs. And we went through 

10 and did kind of a preliminary evaluation --

11 not really an evaluation, just kind of a 

12 summary of what each of them are -- and 

13 recommended possible prioritization for 

14 review.

15 On my way into work today I was 

16 just was thinking, you know, we had tried to 

17 run these to ground in the Subcommittee 

18 meetings before. And because none of us had 

19 really looked at them in enough detail to 

20 make judgments as to whether they warranted 

21 for reviews, we spent a lot of time going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

301 1 through some that maybe weren't really even 

2 worth looking at. So I think that maybe the 

3 best approach would be --

4 CHAIR MUNN: This is a great 

5 list.

6 MR. STIVER: Yeah. Thinking the 

7 same type of approach we did with the OTIBs. 

8 And just look at them all, and do kind of a 

9 pre-review.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think that's 

11 great, John, thanks.

12 MR. STIVER: And then just go 

13 ahead and decide, you know, is there a one or

14 two here that really weren't full reviews? 

15 And if not, then the others may just be not 

16 worth reviewing, or just a really short 

17 summary. So I thought we might to progress 

18 that way.

19 CHAIR MUNN: I think that would 

20 be wise. Good suggestion. And great list. 

21 Much appreciated.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

302 1 MR. STIVER: Yes, thank you. 

2 Yeah, before everybody leaves, I'd like to 

3 take a look at the Table 2. There were 

4 basically two of the PERs that we thought 

5 we'd like to prioritize for Subtask 4 review.

6 And that's PER-9, which is the target organs

7 for lymphoma, and then -18, which is Los 

8 Alamos TBD revisions.

9 And we felt that those might be a 

10 higher priority because of the complexity of 

11 selecting a rework in the claims that were 

12 associated with PER-9. And also the number 

13 of affected claims associate with PER-18.

14 And since we have Hans online, he 

15 could probably provide the selection criteria

16 now. So we might be able to get Stu and his 

17 crew working on picking some cases.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: You're catching 

19 me off-guard here, John.

20 MR. STIVER: Oh, did I catch you 

21 off-guard? I'm sorry.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

303 1 DR. H. BEHLING: You know, 

2 actually the person who is looking at them 

3 more closely is Kathy. And I'm not sure, 

4 Kathy, do you have any comments regarding 

5 which PERs you might want to suggest?

6 MS. K. BEHLING: I don't at the 

7 moment. But we can provide a memo within a 

8 day. I did not go to that level. I 

9 apologize. But, yeah, I did look at that.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: We have a good 

11 situation here where we can blame each other 

12 here.

13 (Laughter.)

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's the best of 

15 all possible worlds. I don't think we need 

16 it right now. But I do think we need it 

17 before our next meeting.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Yeah, I thought 

19 that that was one of the two PERs that we've 

20 already done. And maybe complete the Subtask

21 4 portion of that. And that is a more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

304 1 complex one. And that's why I'm not willing 

2 to just off-the-cuff give you some criteria. 

3 But we'll have to sit down and revisit that.

4 CHAIR MUNN: If you do that in 

5 the foreseeable future, it would be most 

6 helpful to us, and we could go forward from 

7 there. I think if we get a good feel for 

8 what we have coming down the pike with 

9 respect to the PERs, and if we have the list 

10 that John said he could get us of all the 

11 potential presentations that we need to be 

12 making, then we can kind of kill two birds 

13 with one stone.

14 We can get a full view of 

15 everything we have on our plate and kind of 

16 address it more appropriately. I think right

17 now it's hard to do because nobody has looked

18 at it close enough to make those findings. 

19 Fine. We'll look forward to 

20 hearing something from you with respect to 

21 that. And, John --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

305 1 MR. KATZ: Can I, Wanda, before 

2 you close --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Can I just raise 

5 another issue that I've been wondering about,

6 which is, you know, we used to sort of circle

7 back around at the end of meetings and see 

8 how we're doing on the overall list of 

9 procedures. Let's put aside PERs for a 

10 moment, but everything else, OTIBs and so on,

11 in terms of closing them out. And we haven't

12 done that in a while.

13 And I'm just wondering whether we 

14 have some OTIBs, what have you, where there 

15 are findings in progress, and yet we may not 

16 even be addressing them because they are not 

17 showing up on our agenda?

18 CHAIR MUNN: We have not done an 

19 in progress search. We have not done an open

20 items search.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

306 1 CHAIR MUNN: And I'm quite aware 

2 of those. I have not made a list of them. 

3 But Steve has just pulled up the summary 

4 report. And if we get down to the bottom of 

5 it, we can see where we stand in terms of 

6 overall.

7 MR. KATZ: Yeah, well, I mean, 

8 what I was just going to suggest is that we 

9 have SC&A sort of call that, than rather than

10 just the PERs, what hasn't been assigned.

11 But I'm more interested in what's 

12 already in progress that may be just sitting 

13 on the sidelines because we haven't included 

14 them in our agendas. So we can get a handle 

15 on that, and maybe get things moving forward 

16 if there are some items on the shelf like 

17 that, which I suspect there are.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there are 

19 some. And, especially, I am concerned about 

20 open items from any entries that we have that

21 are really quite old, that we haven't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

307 1 identified yet, that we haven't released.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. Either open or 

3 in progress, either way.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Then there's -- as 

5 you can see from the screen that Steve has 

6 up, of the first set that we had, there's 

7 only one open item that has not started. But

8 we need to be addressing that. And then the 

9 second one, we have three in progress items 

10 that are still open.

11 So those were both, in both 

12 cases, very early procedures that we were 

13 looking at, that we clearly have not done 

14 what we would like to do in terms of calendar

15 events yet.

16 And in the third set, notice we 

17 have 19 in progress and 19 open, which is 

18 pretty big, but not nearly as old as the 

19 other ones. It's easy to take a look at 

20 those.

21 And I have not, deliberately, not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

308 1 put them on our agenda to look at in the 

2 Subcommittee, simply because we've been 

3 having these other things to the full extent 

4 of the time that we have available.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. But, I mean, 

6 we keep -- we were adding PERs for review. 

7 But I think that these fundamental documents 

8 are, in a way, more important to get behind

9 us.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's true.

11 MR. KATZ: So, I think it would 

12 be good to start focusing on these and see 

13 how we can knock some of them out.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. You're not 

15 going to get any argument from me. And if 

16 it's a preference of other Members of the 

17 Subcommittee as well that we clearly take a 

18 look at those, then I'll just set aside 

19 agenda time for our February meeting when we 

20 will in fact just spend some time looking at 

21 open items.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

309 1 MR. KATZ: Right. So what I 

2 would suggest, just knowing what is required 

3 to actually move forward with these, is if we

4 can get sort of a listing of what's out there

5 that needs addressing, and get that out, not 

6 just for SC&A's consideration, but also for 

7 NIOSH's consideration. Because, you know, 

8 they have to prioritize what they can address

9 at any given time, given their resources.

10 And if they have a time to think 

11 about that before the meeting and speak with 

12 ORAU about that, then they can actually come 

13 to the meeting able to say, you know, these 

14 are the procedures in progress, what have 

15 you, that we can do some work on, or get some

16 work on by X date, whatever it is.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, that's true. 

18 I really don't have as much concern about the

19 in abeyance items as I do about the open and 

20 in progress items. I think they're the ones 

21 that are easiest to slip in the crack.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

310 1 MR. KATZ: Right, right. In 

2 abeyance is not an issue. It's these others 

3 that we would like to put behind us.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let's agree 

5 that we will look at -- we'll get a list of 

6 the open and in progress items, and see if we

7 can't address those next time. All right.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Any other concerns 

10 or actions that we need to be looking at that

11 we're not currently addressing? 

12 If not, then I thank you all for 

13 a very good meeting. Unless you hear from me

14 to the contrary, or unless Stu decides that 

15 he's going to another meeting instead, we 

16 will anticipate the middle of February for 

17 our next meeting. And you'll be hearing from

18 us on these other items that we've discussed 

19 today. Thank you. And we're 

20 adjourned.

21 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

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

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, 

has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee 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

311 1 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

2 above-entitled matter was adjourned at 4:57 

3 p.m.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19