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

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

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

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

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

change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

FEBRUARY 13, 2014

+ + + + +

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

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

MATT ARNO, ORAU Team

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

ROBERT BURNS, ORAU Team

DeKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

TOM LaBONE, ORAU Team

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, 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 (202) 234-4433

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

Welcome and Roll Call ..................... 4

Status of BRS - Any changes or additions .. 5

Localized skin exposures White Paper

follow-up ................................ 22

PER-31 - Report on Review ................ 58

PER-30 - Selection of two cases - status . 55

Response to PER-14 Findings 1, 3, 14 ..... 59

Verify wording of IG-1 new Finding 25;

status of others ......................... 88

PER-20 Finding 4 - check BRS status; 5 & 6

response ................................ 101

OTIB-83 - Findings Report ............... 115

OTIB-34 Rev 1 status .................... 144

PER-11 responses, 3 and 5 ............... 181

Status - PER-33, 25, and 38 - no Findings

entered? ................................ 193

PER-37 status of Ames WG? ............... 197

OTIB-54 - 10 Findings response .......... 209

Administrative detail-upcoming PER status

and PER-37 .............................. 234

Administrative detail-Next meeting ...... 266

Adjourn ................................. 269
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

(11:01 a.m.)

MR. KATZ: So, Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Procedures 

Review Subcommittee, and let’s get started. 

The agenda for the meeting is online on the 

NIOSH website under the Board's section of 

the DCAS website for today.

And some of the items are also 

posted there, although last I looked several 

of the documents for SC&A review and 

response to it and one of the TIBs is not 

there yet.

So not everything is there, but 

most of it. Let’s do roll call. We'll 

forego the conflict of interest and just go 

roll call of Board Members.

(Roll Call)

MR. KATZ: Okay then, Wanda, it's 

your agenda.

CHAIR MUNN: Did I hear Steve 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Marschke or not?

MR. KATZ: He didn't sign in. 

John, are you expecting Steve?

MR. STIVER: Yes, I am. Let me 

give him a call and see if there's a problem 

here.

MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I appreciate 

that because I have assumed that he may, 

perhaps John's prepared to talk about the 

BRS, but I had assumed Steve and Lori would 

do that.

MR. MARSCHKE: I'm here.

MEMBER ZIEMER: He is signed in 

on Live Meeting.

MR. MARSCHKE: I'm here.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good. Okay, 

that's good.

MR. MARSCHKE: It took me awhile 

to sign in on Live Meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well I'm, my 

computer keeps kicking me, my government 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

laptop is kicking me on and off of Live 

Meeting, so I'm having to get back in again.

There is only one minor change in 

the draft agenda that's been brought to my 

attention that did not appear on the agenda 

that was published and that is shifting of 

the first two items after lunch in order.

That shouldn't be any problem for 

anyone. If it is please speak now and we'll 

see what we can do about that conflict. 

Otherwise, does anyone else have any 

corrections or changes to the agenda?

If not then we have several 

things that we need to be aware of with 

respect to the Board Review System and we 

have input from both NIOSH and from SC&A.

In that regard who would like to 

lead us off in that?

MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu and 

I'll start the meeting by saying that we had 

a server crash overnight and our guys have 

been working since 7:00 this morning to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

restore it, and that is the server that 

hosts the Board Review System as well as 

many of our activities, our applications 

here.

And so it's not available and it 

won't be available until this afternoon at 

the earliest. It may not be available all 

day.

CHAIR MUNN: Well we'll keep our 

fingers crossed and hope that it gets there. 

Since we don't have that, do we have, can we 

perhaps at least discuss very briefly or at 

least go through the changes that were made 

since we last saw the review system online?

We have, Lori and Steve both sent 

us a couple of notations about changes that 

had been made. If we need to touch base 

with those I think we should probably do so 

now.

Steve, would you like to give us 

a verbal rundown of what you've provided for 

us in print?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I can. 

Mostly the reason I gave it to you this time 

as opposed to other times was because we had 

a lot of action items from the last meeting 

that were BRS related and I just wanted to 

go through, for my own, make sure that I got 

everything that, you know, that I committed 

to doing that I have done and I think I've 

done that.

So that's the main reason why I 

went through all this documentation this 

time.

CHAIR MUNN: Well it's 

appreciated because you're right, we did 

leave you an awful lot of things to be done 

offline, so we appreciate it. Thanks.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. The first 

two, OTIB-83 review and OTIB-34 review, 

those were not part of the last, those were 

not issues, the SC&A review of those two 

documents were not issued before the last 

meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So what happened was after the 

last meeting, I think it was either later in 

November or in December, those two documents 

were, the review of those two documents were 

issued by SC&A and I think it was just 

yesterday I got around to entering the 

findings into the BRS for those.

In 83 we had 14 Findings and in 

34 we had four new Findings on Revision 1, 

83 was a new review of a, or review of a new 

document, it was the first time we reviewed 

it. Thirty-four was a focus review and we 

had previously reviewed Revision 0 and now 

we're reviewing Revision 1.

And we had four new Findings on 

Revision 1 and we had a recommendation to 

close one of the Findings that was leftover 

from Revision 0.

So those were kind of like the 

new things that didn't come out. Most of 

the other stuff that's in here came out of 

commitments that were made at the previous 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

meeting.

The next one is OTIB-54. We did 

two things on OTIB-54. I think it was, 

again, later in November of last year, after 

the last meeting, Steve Ostrow sent around a 

memo to Wanda and the Subcommittee saying 

that all the remaining open, or non-closed 

Findings that were associated with Revision 

0 were now moot because of Revision 1 and we 

recommend that they all be closed.

So we added that, I think there 

was nine closed revisions, zero Findings, 

and we added Steve's recommendation that 

they be closed to the BRS. And then we did 

add the review of Revision 1, resulted in 

ten new Findings and so we added those ten 

new Findings to the BRS.

Now we come down to the next one 

which was IG-01, which during the last 

meeting there, I guess there was a Finding 

that came up during the Dose Reconstruction 

Committee during the dose reconstruction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reviews and I guess it was DR Finding 195.1 

and the Reconstruction Subcommittee felt 

that this was, should be sent over to the 

Procedures Subcommittee and we thought the 

appropriate location of it was in IG-01.

So what I've done, what we did, 

or we agreed to do last time, was to add a 

new Finding to IG-01, which is now Finding 

25, and so we have added Finding 25 to IG01.

The next item is the, one of the 

overarching issues, I guess SC&A and John 

Mauro has been bringing this up, it says 

about the skin exposure findings or skin 

exposure pathway, and there are three of 

those Findings.

NIOSH has added, gave us the 

capability to, they set up overarching Item 

Number 9 and then I went in and added the 

three Findings for the, that had been posed 

by SC&A, John Mauro, under overarching Issue 

Number 9.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I did make a note that these are 

more concerns than they are Findings. I 

think Jim Neton expressed that at the last 

meeting and so when I have a Finding number 

I do identify it as being a concern, so 

that's something there.

CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

appropriate and I think it's important that 

we make sure that distinction is called out 

in our final commentary, yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: The next three, 

PER-25, 33, and 38, we talked about these 

three PERs in some detail during the last 

meeting.

SC&A gave their reviews of these 

three PERs at the November 7th meeting and 

basically during, the SC&A reviews really 

didn't come up with any Findings.

And so what we had agreed to do 

at the last meeting was enter a Finding of 

no Findings and so that's what I have done 

with these three PERs, that's 25, 33, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38.

Now 25 we have gone on to 

basically, we did an audit of one of the 

cases, which is the Subtask 4, and during 

the Subtask 4 case audit we did come up with 

one Finding, and so that has also been added 

to PER-25.

The last thing we had was PER-20. 

We did enter three Findings. They were 

Findings 4, 5, and 6, have been entered into 

the BRS.

Finding 4 was entered and it was 

closed at the last meeting and what we've 

done is we've entered the rationale, I guess 

was primarily given by Stu at the last 

meeting and when we went to the transcript 

and took a, you know, copied and pasted some 

of the information that is provided in the 

transcript, or some of the rationale for 

closing the Finding 4 that was provided in 

the transcript by Stu.

And so we have that -- rationale 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

has now been captured in the BRS. And so 

those are all the updates and changes that 

we made, that SC&A has made to the BRS since 

the last meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very much, 

Steve, I sure appreciate it. Sorry we can't 

look at those in real time because a couple 

of them I think we'd like to see very much, 

but perhaps we can keep our fingers crossed 

that sometime this afternoon we can get the 

system up. If it's up then we can check it.

Not having verified these one by 

one in the transcript my vague memory and 

scanty notes from last time indicated to me 

that these were covered, all of the 

notations that I had made. I hope that's 

correct. Thanks again.

MR. MARSCHKE: You're welcome.

CHAIR MUNN: And, Lori? Or 

someone at NIOSH --

MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm here.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good, okay. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

didn't know for sure. I thought I had heard 

you before.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. First of 

all I'd like to thank Steve, thank you for 

your patience with getting the BRS, getting 

the Findings and responses in, letting me 

know what you guys were experiencing over 

there in terms of working with the system. 

I appreciate your patience.

MR. MARSCHKE: No problem.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay, just 

basically to reiterate what Steve discussed 

in his presentation here, we were able to go 

in and actually add an item, and overarching 

item, for the localized skin issue.

And basically what we did was 

we've used John Mauro's memo as the 

document. So you'll see once you go in and 

actually get to the overarching section of 

the BRS you can click on the title of the 

overarching issue and you will find John 

Mauro's memo.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And from there, like Steve 

mentioned, he has listed the concerns. So 

we do have that in the BRS as you instructed 

us to work toward, Wanda.

In addition to that we actually 

provided responses to OTIB-34, which I 

believe that's the internal coworker for X10. We were able to provide responses to 

that, to SC&A's review for Findings 1 

through 3 relative to Revision 1.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Pardon me?

CHAIR MUNN: I was just muttering 

approval, sorry.

MS. MARION-MOSS: And for Finding 

4 we, I've uploaded to BRS to indicate that 

we need additional time to do further 

investigation for that particular Finding.

Relative to OTIB-54, we actually 

went in, provided responses to the ten 

Findings that were wrote up against Revision 

1 of that document, so we did upload 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

responses.

We actually went in for PER-14, 

which is the construction tradeworker PER, 

we provided a response to Finding 14, which 

is relative to the Subtask 4 Finding for 

that particular PER.

We do have responses to Findings 

1 and 3, but they were based off of Hans's 

memo that he wrote in his efforts to review 

the current responses that are in the BRS 

for Findings 1 and 3.

But because Hans's memo had not 

been added to the BRS we did not provide a 

response, but we do have that information 

that can be discussed if need be.

Relative to PER-11, we had an 

action item to respond to Findings 3 and 5, 

to get an update, and I actually went in and 

updated those Findings to indicate that we 

need additional time as well to prepare a 

response.

CHAIR MUNN: All right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MS. MARION-MOSS: I didn't get 

the opportunity to add to our list that we 

do have a response for PER-25 for the one 

Finding that was issued here recently.

So right now, Wanda, those are 

the changes that have been made since the 

last meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: That's great. So 

when we come to PER-25 on our agenda we'll 

have something to respond to, right?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: Good. All right. I 

appreciate that, Lori?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Question here, 

Ziemer speaking. So Lori just mentioned 

that on PER-11 that NIOSH needs additional 

time. I noticed that on the agenda that's 

one of the agenda items, so does that mean 

we will not have anything to discuss on that 

afternoon item, PER-11?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: It sounds that way. 

Are we hearing that right, Stu?

MR. HINNEFELD: I think I'll 

leave that to Lori. Lori, is that --

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, that's 

correct.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we 

essentially won't have any time committed to 

PER-11 tonight, this afternoon.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

MEMBER ZIEMER: And then on PER14, are those responses going to show up on 

Live Meeting or will we be able to consider 

them this morning?

CHAIR MUNN: I don't think. I 

think that depends on whether or not we're 

going to have the BRS up, isn't that 

correct? If we don't have that up then, 

unless someone has them in printed form that 

can control the screen for us?

Actually I can't get back into 

the meeting right now, personally, on my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

screen. I don't know what that's about.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I guess we 

face that when we get to that point, it's 

coming soon though.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it will come up 

on us very quickly. I guess I might call 

upon folks who are the originators, or at 

least the most immediate handlers of the new 

responses and comments.

If you have them in some format 

other than, some printed format that is 

amenable to being used in Live Meeting so 

that we all can see them, assuming Live 

Meeting's working for us.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

Lori. Since I received word that the system 

was down I'm working right now to put 

together a PowerPoint for our responses that 

we've done, hopefully I can use those.

CHAIR MUNN: That would be most 

helpful, Lori, yes. Thank you very much. 

We'll just, I don't know whether we have any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

written items from SC&A which we will have 

in a format other than just on the BRS or 

not.

We'll keep our fingers crossed 

and hope that it works well.

MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, a couple of 

things. I do have for the skin exposures, 

the first one up here, I do have the John 

Mauro memo which we can put on the Live 

Meeting.

And I also have for OTIB-83, I 

have the reports where we can basically look 

at the, you know, we have the Findings as 

they are listed in the report itself that we 

prepared.

And, similarly, I guess, well 

OTIB-83, Joyce prepared that report, and 

OTIB-34, we also have the report that Hans 

prepared so we can put that up on Live 

Meeting, so those we can look at.

CHAIR MUNN: Good.

MR. MARSCHKE: And as far as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

OTIB-54 goes, it so happens I printed out 

all of the Findings, including the NIOSH 

responses yesterday for my own purposes.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, what 

serendipity.

MR. MARSCHKE: And it's not very 

elegant, but, I mean, we can put that up. 

It includes the SC&A findings and the NIOSH 

responses for the ten that are in question.

CHAIR MUNN: Well elegant is 

secondary, legible is primary, so that's 

great. Thanks, Steve.

COURT REPORTER: This is the 

Court Reporter. Could the previous speaker 

please identify himself?

MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke.

COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

Ziemer again. I think the other document 

that Steve just mentioned, we already have I 

think all of those. The memo responses from 

John and the other documents from Hans 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Behling and Ron Buchanan, we have all of 

those I believe.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we all have 

them, but whether or not we have them out in 

front of us is something else again. So, 

yes, that's good to know. Thank you all.

We were going to hear from SC&A 

on the localized skin exposures follow up, 

is that correct?

DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

prepared to discuss that if that's what 

you'd like. I am not looking at Live 

Meeting, but, you know, I could speak 

conceptually about the issues, and I guess 

Jim is there to respond?

CHAIR MUNN: I assume so. Jim or 

Stu?

DR. MAURO: Or Stu, yes. Should 

I begin?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, would you 

please, John. Thank you.

DR. MAURO: Okay. And, Steve, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

guess you have, you may have to help me a 

little because I don't have Live Meeting and 

I don't have my report. I guess I could 

open my report and look at that. I'd have 

to go run that down.

But I seem to recall the basics 

of it, and as I'm speaking, Steve, if you 

could sort of steer me, make sure I'm moving 

in the right direction that might be helpful 

and help me not go over things that we've 

already gone over and closed out.

I'm speaking from memory because 

I didn't prepare that too long ago. So I'll 

just kick this off and then we'll make sure 

I stay on track.

MEMBER ZIEMER: John or Wanda?

DR. MAURO: Yes?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer again 

here. I think his paper is showing on Live 

Meeting now, but whoever has put it up could 

you reduce it from 130 percent to 100 

because it's bigger than the screen?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. This is 

Steve.

CHAIR MUNN: While we're 

struggling with not being able to, some of 

us, I personally am having trouble getting 

back onto Live Meeting. I was kicked off 

for some reason and now it tells me that 

that domain is not available to me.

But, yes, I hope that's been, has 

the size been accommodated now so that it's 

legible for people?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it looks 

better now.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's good, 

because I can't see it. All right, fine. 

Go ahead, please.

DR. MAURO: Okay. I guess I'll 

pick it up as best I can, and as I said, 

Steve, help me out a little bit as I go 

forward.

CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, John.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: The skin dose has 

some history as you know, and it really came 

down to three issues, conceptually, and as 

we're speaking I think they should map back 

onto the material you're looking at.

The first has to do with the fine 

dust. Historically it was not standard 

practice for NIOSH to calculate the dose of 

the skin because fine airborne particulates 

might have settled on peoples skin and 

clothing.

I believe it has been agreed, and 

we have recommended closeout of issues 

related to that particular exposure 

scenario. I think that it's agreed that 

NIOSH will be, under the circumstances when 

it's plausible, for there to be airborne 

dust, fine dust of uranium oxide settling 

out on skin.

There is a protocol that we've 

all reviewed and we all agree with. That is 

a good way to do it and it includes the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

deposition directly on skin where there's no 

attenuation by clothing and also provisions 

for attenuation by clothing.

So I think that aspect of the 

skin dose scenario for airborne uranium dust 

and the beta exposure to skin, it has been 

resolved, but there are a couple of areas 

for discussion, and maybe that's the 

commentary that I believe Steve is referring 

to.

And we are generally, what we 

have here is, you know, once the dust 

settles on skin and you calculate the dose, 

the way it's going to be as I understand is 

that you calculate the deposition, the 

accumulation, you get a certain number of 

becquerels per centimeter squared, and you 

calculate the dose to the skin over an 8-

hour period during the work time, as in the 

accumulation, and then the person showers

and it goes away.

Then you go back to work the next 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

day and you're staring all the cleaning 

again. And the only thing that we raise, 

and Hans was talking about this is that, you 

know, there was some discussion made I 

believe by Stu and Jim that well, our 

experience, SC&A's experience is mainly, 

well heavily at least in my case, with 

regard to Marshall Islands, and the material 

didn't come off so easy, you know, 

especially in the hair and things like that.

But as in NIOSH's experience no, 

it comes off pretty good, because in one 

case we're dealing with fresh fallout or 

aged fallout and the other case is dealing 

with uranium.

And so I think one of the items 

that was sort of left of concern that I 

guess we were hoping to hear a little bit 

more about is justification for why yes, at 

the end of the day the guy, we certainly 

agree the guy's going to take a shower and 

change his clothes and, you know, and if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there's some type of evidence that it goes 

away that'll be great.

By the way, Steve, am I on track 

so far?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's 

correct.

DR. MAURO: Okay, good. And now 

I now, at this point maybe I could turn it 

back over to Stu. Have you folks looked at 

that particular area of concern?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well Jim's looked 

at it a little bit and there's not a lot of 

documentation of that because, you know, 

people were surveyed and were, after a 

shower.

When they are surveying discard 

after showers, people surveying were clean 

and, you know, nobody thought to write up a, 

and I don't know of any studies that were 

written up along that effect or if someone 

was found to be contaminated and you washed 

them with, you know, soap and water, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you'd clean it up and you were done.

So I don't know of any particular 

studies were written up that would document 

that.

DR. MAURO: Well, you know, in a 

way it's sort of a common sense argument. 

The only reason we brought it up was that, 

and the same story you just told, when they 

did that with Marshall Islanders they 

couldn't get the stuff off, especially out 

of the hair.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I understand 

that.

DR. MAURO: And that was like a, 

maybe that was a, you know, and that's the 

only reason we brought it up. I am not the, 

you know, if there are records that show 

yes, the de-con works and we can't detect 

anything after a couple of washings then 

maybe that's all we really need with regard 

to skin.

That was the only reason we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

brought it up.

DR. H. BEHLING: Well, John --

This is Hans.

DR. MAURO: Sure, go ahead.

DR. H. BEHLING: I'm not so sure 

I'm quick to dismiss it. My experience goes 

beyond the Marshall Island issue, but having 

spent multiple years at the Three Mile 

Island facility, and we did have these 

decontamination events on a routine basis, 

and anytime a person is perspiring heavily, 

and there are often times involving the 

people who are left out in inside 

contamination, but there's always exposed 

tissue, and hair, and facial areas that are 

frequently contaminated.

And basically my experience is 

that it is a very real effort to

decontaminate and that is a focused 

decontamination. We're not talking about a 

casual shower where a guy goes in, grabs his 

bar of soap without having any knowledge 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that he might be removing some of the 

contamination he came home with.

Even when that issue is a focused 

issue, where a guy walks through a 

contamination or a frisker and finds out 

that he is contaminated. A focused attempt, 

meaning that you're scrubbing that area 

where there is an obvious sign of 

contamination.

It's not easy to decontaminate 

it, and so I will differ with you on the 

issue that a casual shower will take care of 

the problem because not --

DR. MAURO: Yes, and let me add, 

and, Hans, I think you sort of refreshed my 

memory, too. We're talking about a scenario 

where, we're going back, with the genesis of 

all this, of course, as you know, is that 

you have old AWE scenarios where there was a 

lot of airborne dust generated.

And the first, and it's not that 

the person was detected that has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

contamination and they sent him off to a 

shower and they scrubbed him the way Hans 

just described, now this is more along the 

lines of listen, the guy probably did get 

some surface contamination because of all of 

the dust and dust loadings that we're, of 

course, all familiar with, probably did, you 

know, accumulate some on his clothing and 

his skin.

But then, of course, he would 

shower at some point along the way, whether 

at work or at home, but not a concerted 

effort to decontaminate. It would just be 

the normal showering.

And I guess that's a little 

different, Stu, than the idea that well, 

when we saw, when you saw contamination at 

Fernald, for example, you know, we would go 

in and de-con the guy and he didn't leave 

until we cleaned him up. So it's a little 

bit different scenario.

DR. H. BEHLING: And also the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

other issue is clothing, John. We know for 

a fact, even in our own laundry system that 

we had at Three Mile Island, where people 

would obviously come out of the contaminated 

area and disrobe and remove their anti-Cs.

And we had a laundry and we had, 

obviously, monitored after the anti-Cs were 

properly washed and actively tried to 

decontaminate and we always realized we had 

to actually monitor those clothing.

So that a very intense washing, 

and now let’s also go back to the timeframe. 

We're talking about back in the late '40s 

and '50s that we're talking about when 

washing machines were the old-style thing 

that had a wringer to it and, again, you 

know, people didn't necessarily wash their 

clothing every 24 hours, so they showed up 

at work with brand new clothing that had 

been previously washed.

People would probably routinely, 

because, I think it'd be the case, wear the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

clothing from Monday through Friday without 

even attempting to wash it and let alone 

assume that every washing removes all of the 

contamination.

So those are the issues that I 

think that I had raised on behalf of this 

whole issue.

DR. MAURO: And one last 

statement I'd like to make for perspective, 

the reason we're making a bit of a fuss over 

this is these skin exposures are probably, 

and the way in which in they're done, are 

probably the only way in which a site that 

has an SEC where you have workers that 

aren't covered, includes the skin folks with 

skin cancers.

And I guess we're looking to make 

sure that everything's, that we bend over 

backwards to make sure we give them every 

millirem we can and not, you know, to be as 

claim to favorable as possible and I think 

you can see why.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And this may be a difficult thing 

to come to grips with, I agree, I mean how

do you come to grips with this? But therein 

lies our concern.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well I know Jim's 

done some, quite a lot more thinking about 

this than I have and he might have some more 

comments he wants to make.

I think we want to be a little 

careful when we start thinking it's our job 

to bend over backwards to give people in an 

SEC Class who don't have SEC cancers as much 

dose as possible.

The regulation and the preamble 

of regulation, it just says that, you know, 

if it's in response to a question about the 

proposed rules is what are you going to do 

about these people who aren't, don't have 

SEC cancers, but who are in the SEC area and 

you can't reconstruct their dose.

You determine that dose is 

infeasible. And we said well, we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reconstruct what we can.

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so I think 

when we said that we didn't go out of our 

way to say well, we'll do it, you know, we 

said if there's something that 

reconstructable we'll reconstruct it.

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: So while I'm not 

necessarily arguing against what you said, I 

think we need to guard against that mindset 

that we're, it's our responsibility to do as 

much as we can.

We should reconstruct, you know, 

what we're able to reconstruct in a 

reasonable fashion.

DR. MAURO: Yes, fair enough. 

Fair enough.

DR. NETON: This is Jim. I have 

looked at this a little more and I have a 

couple thoughts on this. The first thing is 

we need to be careful as to how we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reconstructing the dose.

If we're using TBD-6000 for 

example, it's a very generous exposure 

model. In fact we're assigning 25 rem skin 

dose to hands and arms of workers on an 

annual basis and something, a little less 

than that, at a foot distance.

The point where we're assuming a 

20 mR per hour exposure to all skin for the 

whole entire duration of the year. I think, 

no, 10 mR per hour. These are pretty 

generous exposure numbers.

I mean the first one assumes that 

a person's in direct contact with the 

uranium 50 percent of the time. So I think 

I, right now it seems to me that TBD-6000, 

which covers a large number of sites that 

don't have personnel monitoring, I think 

that it's adequate.

I think it's built in there, 

maybe not intentionally built in there, but 

I think it's a bounding exposure scenario.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: Yes, Jim, let me say 

this. I have to, without jumping the gun 

for the decision-making process, I 

understand what you're saying and TBD-6000, 

especially this 50 percent, contact, I mean 

when you think in terms of it, contact is to 

a uranium slab is a lot worse than a fine 

dust that might accumulate and I could, 

intuitively and heuristically, your argument 

is very sound regarding TBD-6000.

I guess my, our commentary went 

more toward the film badge readings, you 

know.

DR. NETON: Exactly, and that's 

where we have to do some work yet. I've 

looked at the film badge readings and 

they're, as you can imagine, they're 

variable depending on the site.

One thing, I'll take some 

exception to Hans's concern is that I think 

when you're dealing with low specific 

activity material like uranium where your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

measuring in terms of milligrams, I think 

the washing and cleaning is a lot more 

efficacious than the very high specific 

activity things like you would see in a 

power plant, fission activation products.

I think there's a big difference 

between those two types of exposures. So I 

don't think it is as tenaciously bound to 

the skin and clothing as Hans's experience 

has been.

Nonetheless, I do think that 

there is some room for addressing strict 

contamination levels. And aside from the 

deposition model I've done some research and 

there are some data out there related to 

clothing contamination and some skin 

contamination I've been looking at.

And I'm working towards maybe 

putting together a more unified approach 

here recognizing though that it would have 

to be graded some how in relation to the 

amount of material and contamination that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

was present at the site.

I'm somewhat reluctant to develop 

a universal value and apply it to all these 

sites, because, as you know, some of these 

AWEs processed a few rods, some did a lot 

more work.

So we need to be careful how we 

assign these, but I'm working towards that 

and, you know, we'll have something to 

address this in the near term. That's all I 

really have to say on that.

CHAIR MUNN: How near term do you 

think is near term, Jim? Should we continue 

to carry this for next time?

DR. NETON: Oh, yes. Yes, 

absolutely. This is going to be a little 

while on. I think this is, as John 

acknowledged, it's a fairly thorny issue and 

it's hard because there aren't a lot of data 

and in fact you're almost developing 

scenarios and you want to make sure that the 

scenario you develop has some basis in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reality not, you know, just to throw a high 

number or something because these people are 

not in the SEC.

I think that's inappropriate as 

Stu suggested. So, it's going to take a 

little while, but we're working on it.

CHAIR MUNN: All right, good. 

Thank you. We'll continue to carry it and 

further the discussion next time.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Question.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer, 

and I'll ask Jim and John both, so what we 

just talked about with the fine particles, 

is the answer basically the same for the 

flakes the same, Jim, do you have the same 

idea that you'll cover both of these issues 

and --

DR. NETON: Well with the flakes 

it's a slightly different issue and the 

concept of --

MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

asking.

DR. NETON: It would have a much 

more dose, you know, per deposition and I've 

looked into that a bit and it turns out 

there is some data available.

Julian Apostoaei and David Kocher 

actually did some work for DTRA where they 

generated a lot of work on skin dose for the 

DTRA people.

And there's some data out there 

that indicates that the larger particles 

have a much shorter residence time on skin 

than fine particles and, in fact, there's 

some other data in HASL-58 I've been looking 

at that talks about how, you know, the large 

particles just don't stick around very long.

So I'm looking into that and 

we're going to address that as a separate 

issue though because it is in a separate 

category in my opinion.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, agreed, but 

you're looking at both of them is what I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

getting at, so both parts of it have to be 

extended then?

DR. NETON: Right, correct.

DR. MAURO: Paul, there is a sort 

of a brain teaser issue that I also brought 

up that's related to the subject we just 

talked about and I think Jim will know 

exactly what I'm referring to.

Let’s say you get to the point 

where we agree yes, there are circumstances 

where fine, well particles, larger particles 

of uranium, that is a plausible scenario, 

remember one of the things we talked about, 

one of the issues was really was it 

plausible that you could get these large 

flakes.

And I think that issue is still 

before us, whether or not, I think there was 

a, the sentiment went both ways. Some folks 

felt that well, you know, like snowflakes 

falling from the sky landing on your skin, 

whether or not that's a plausible scenario.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And if it is, let’s say just for, 

I'm not sure where we are on that because 

there was some sense that, you know, maybe 

it does occur, but Jim just pointed out 

well, if it does, you know, it's not going 

to hang around that long, I mean that that 

would be important.

So wherever that ends up, that's 

going to fall out on the process it sounds 

like that Jim's working on, the degree to 

which it might occur and if it does occur, 

you know, really how long does a particle, 

and this will be a large part, millimeters, 

you know, in that order as opposed to 

microns.

The first subject was five micron 

particles settling as invisible dust 

virtually on skin. Now we're talking about 

micron, not micron, but millimeter sized 

particles falling on the skin.

And when you start to get into 

that range, that size, the theoretical dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

underneath the particle to the skin could be 

as high as, you know, a couple of hundred 

millirem per hour.

So all of a sudden it's not 

insignificant, but it's only underneath the 

skin where the particle fell. And here's 

where the brain teaser comes in that I think 

I'm comfortable with and I think Jim has 

explained it to me in a way that makes sense 

to me.

And that is when you do a PoC, 

and you have skin dose, let’s say we have a 

record of skin dose from an open window film 

badge and it says certain number of 

millirem, you know, from the darkening of 

the film badge.

Well that's treated as if the 

whole body was uniformly exposed to this 

beta field, the beta radiation, from at a 

distance. So it's a whole body deal, all of 

the skin, and when you do a Probability of 

Causation what you're saying is well, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

need to know what the baseline is.

Well if the person didn't get the 

exposure, what's a person's normal 

background risk of getting a cancer anyway. 

And, again, that's a whole body deal. So in 

a way everything is working real well.

That is the exposure scenario, 

you're basically incrementally increasing 

the amount of entire body skin exposure over 

and above, in such a way that you're, you 

know, you're looking at your excess relative 

risk within the context of IREP.

But now we're talking about 

something a little different. We're talking 

about a little particle, maybe a few 

millimeters that falls on the skin, and I 

was struggling with the idea that well, you 

would dilute that dose, now there's, 

whatever that, let’s say it's 230 millirem 

per hour underneath the particle, this 

little tiny dot on the skin.

Well if you're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

calculate, let’s say you agree that's a 

scenario that could occur and now let's say, 

you know, it happens only one hour, that's 

it, you know, so you get 230 millirem per 

hour, you got one hour's worth and it's 

gone.

I'm just making this up so we can 

sort of visualize it. And then so you say 

all right, we're going to throw that in as 

part of the PoC calculation. I say I'm able 

to withhold the presence of what are you 

going to throw in?

Do you take the 230 and then you 

dilute it over the entire body, because 

remember the baseline risk that you're 

working from is the whole body skin.

So you take that little, that 

dose to the localized skin and dilute it 

over the, I forget how many thousands of 

square centimeters the body skin is, and Jim 

explained to me no, and I think it's 

important that what I'm about to say that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there is general agreement that I got it 

right.

I think I do and Jim certainly, 

correct me if I got it wrong and then, 

because I think this is important, the way 

of thinking about it.

Just know the way to deal with 

this problem is, and I believe this, the 

general agreement at SC&A is that if we have 

a person that we know was contaminated on 

the neck, on the ear, because he was, he had 

to go through some decontamination process 

and it's on his record, so we got legitimate 

reason to believe yes, this guy was in fact 

contaminated because it says so, and his 

CATI and on his record and they had to 

decontaminate him, and it was on the head 

and face, or neck or ear, or whatever.

And we also have that boomph, 

this guy happens to have a skin cancer on 

the face, head, neck, ear, whatever. Well 

then what happens is when you run IREP you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

put in, let’s say we assume that the 

localized dose from that incident is 240 

millirem right under the spot.

Well that's the number you put in 

when you run IREP, you don't dilute it, and 

because, in effect, for all intents and 

purposes and here's where the brain teaser 

comes in, it might as well have been on his 

whole body, I mean the flake that fell, 

because effectively it's working out the 

same way.

Because you do know that that's 

where he got his cancer and it's a very good 

chance that the cancer occurred underneath 

that flake and if that's the case then 

that's how you run IREP.

Now if you don't believe that 

scenario occurred, that is there's no 

evidence that the person did experience 

these large flake falling where they had to 

decontaminate, then that scenario doesn't 

happen.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

In other words it's not 

considered to be a plausible one. You don't 

just automatically assume some guy that 

happened to work at Bethlehem Steel or 

Simonds Saw or one of these other old-time 

AWEs, did in fact have, let’s say he had a 

skin cancer on the neck, and a lot of these 

folks do.

Unless there's something in the 

record that shows that yes, we've detected 

it, we had to remove it, that scenario is 

not going to be applied.

And my sense, and we didn't talk 

about it too much at SC&A, but I think it's 

important we talk about it now, is that we 

agree that you're not going to just 

automatically assume everybody that worked 

Simonds Saw or Bethlehem Steel or any of 

these old-time places where there was a 

considerable amount of dust, all of them got 

one of these flakes, and we delivered, we 

calculate that dose, no.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

My sense is that we have to 

strike a balance of reasonableness here and 

you only do that when there is some evidence 

that the person was in fact, did in fact 

experience such a flake type exposure based 

on his records.

That's my sense and this might be 

the very first time where we actually talked 

about it, you know, from cradle to grave, so 

to speak, the whole story, and my sense is 

if that's the way NIOSH plans to do, to 

approach this problem I'm okay with it.

DR. NETON: Yeah, John, this is 

Jim. I mean you got it exactly right, 

that's what we do and that's the process 

that's actually outlined in TIB-17.

If you know it was there, if you 

know the contamination is there and a skin 

cancer happened there then you use the dose 

exactly as you calculated it and if it, it's 

a result of the fact that the baseline 

incidence is proportional, you know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Your baseline incidence is 

dependent upon the size of the area, so they 

kind of canceled out in the calculation. I 

actually went and requested SENES to review 

this logic and I've got a report that I'll 

load into the, as our response into the 

database, and they agree with us that this 

is appropriate to do.

With one caveat, which is 

interesting, and there's nothing we can 

really do about it and I think we talked 

about this at the last meeting that the 

baseline incidence of cancer is uniform 

throughout over the body and, in fact, it's 

probably not.

We have no, and SENES could not 

come up with any data, of any good data to 

address that issue. For example, the 

baseline incidence of cancer is typically 

higher when you, for the areas of the skin 

that are routinely exposed to sunlight.

DR. MAURO: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. NETON: So, you know, your 

hands and your neck and your face and such. 

It's probably lower in areas that aren't 

exposed to sunlight, but there are no good 

data for us to use to adjust those models so 

we are, we have to assume at this point that 

the baseline incidence of skin cancer is 

uniform over the body.

DR. MAURO: Right.

DR. NETON: That's the only 

caveat.

DR. MAURO: Yes, and there's 

nothing that can be done about that, I 

understand. I was aware of that when I was 

looking into this and I was reading IREP and 

thinking about it, to parse it out. It's a 

fundamental structural change, now you've 

come out to the skin problem for this IREP 

and I don't know if you have the wherewithal 

that you'd even be able to do that if you 

wanted to.

DR. NETON: Well SENES looked at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

it and they say that at this time we can't, 

you know, there don't seem to be enough 

data, but, you know, we'll continue to look 

at it.

At some point if the data become 

available we can start to refine the model, 

but right now it's not possible.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

DR. NETON: That's it.

MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

Hinnefeld, if I can just interrupt here. I 

got an email from our server guys that the 

server's back up, so I opened another, a new 

window in Explorer and found it, the 

applications, and it did open for me.

So if you, I think we, Steve, 

should be able to get on BRS to show us all, 

but what you want to do is be careful when 

you close or you might close yourself out of 

Live Meeting, so open an additional window 

in Outlook or whatever you use and then you 

can go to our applications page and pick BRS 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the way you normally would.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's good, 

because your Chair is trying to get back on 

on my private computer and in all sense I'm 

having all kinds of difficult with the CDC 

one.

We'll just see what we can do and 

it's great to have it back up. For those 

who have it there that's wonderful.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Steve has it 

on the screen and it's showing it on Live 

Meeting, so anybody on Live Meeting can see 

it now.

CHAIR MUNN: That's great. I'll 

continue to try to get on one way or the 

other. Do we have anything else to say with 

respect to PER-31? If not then let’s move 

on to PER-30 and notes from John Stiver 

regarding PER-30.

And I think that we'll go ahead 

and start with that. NIOSH, I have you 

charted as being the status maker on this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MS. MARION-MOSS: Hi, Wanda, this 

is Lori. If I recall, PER-30 is Savannah 

River and I believe we were addressing case 

selection?

CHAIR MUNN: No, Subtask 4 was 

the topic I believe.

MS. MARION-MOSS: And I believe 

there was an email traffic where there was 

some discussion where I informed Ron that 

there was no case existing that met all four 

criteria that was spelled out in the PER.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. Well I 

had a note from Ron earlier today saying 

that he was going to be on. I don't 

remember if I heard him. Ron? Is Ron on?

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm here. 

Yes, Wanda, on PER-30 the question was we 

had selected two cases would meet the 

criteria that we could review for Subtask 4.

However, Wanda, you had mentioned 

that since the TBD Revision 1 was used, it 

came out several weeks after Revision 0 was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

issued, and so the cases were all based on 

using Revision 01.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. BUCHANAN: Should we go ahead 

and go through the formality of auditing 

these two cases, and so that was delayed. 

We had the cases selected and I was ready to 

work on them, but we delayed that until the 

Work Group decided whether we wanted to go 

through the formality of that or not.

CHAIR MUNN: And perhaps that's 

the reason I had expected a, I don't know 

what further discussion we can have other 

than what we had last time.

I guess my only question would be 

if whether we had a possibility to consider 

that in the meantime and whether there are 

any new thoughts in that regard?

It seems logical that we should 

work from Rev 1 since anything we do with 

the prior Revision is going to require a 

second look anyway. Is there any negative 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

thinking about that position? Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't have 

any negatives there. That sounds 

reasonable, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: Rev 1, Paul, what 

are your thoughts?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm okay on 

that.

CHAIR MUNN: Then it appears to 

me that we have consensus among the Board 

Members anyway that the logical thing is to 

begin with Rev 1.

DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So if NIOSH 

will send the two case numbers and the 

associated material I will review those and

do Subtask 4 for those.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

CHAIR MUNN: Action NIOSH, send 

the case numbers and we'll have a look at 

those next time hopefully.

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, and this Ron 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

again. We skipped the PER-31 I think on Y12. NIOSH is going to have some information 

on thorium test counts, isn't that right?

CHAIR MUNN: I hope so.

DR. BUCHANAN: That was supposed 

to take place before PER-30. Did we get it? 

Did I miss something?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think we 

said earlier, Lori, didn't we, that we don't 

have anything ready for that yet?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, we don't. 

We don't have anything. I didn't list that 

on my list.

DR. BUCHANAN: You don't, okay. 

All right.

MS. MARION-MOSS: But we need 

further time to investigate a path for it 

there.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that was the 

last word that I had.

DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I missed 

that, sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Next time for 

31 as well I believe. Then that brings us 

to PER-14 and the three Findings that were 

outstanding there. I believe it's NIOSH's 

ball.

MR. SMITH: Well this is Matt 

Smith with ORAU Team and I'll be happy to 

talk to this one. I'll also share that I'm 

having issues with getting on the Live 

Meeting myself due to the security setting, 

so --

CHAIR MUNN: If it's not one 

thing it's another. Sorry about that, Matt.

MR. SMITH: Yes. I'll go ahead 

and read what was put in, I'm not sure 

what's up on the screen right now, but I'll 

just go ahead and read the submission.

Basically I'll just preface this 

by saying the response is basically the 

same. "The Rocky Flats data was analyzed by 

adjusting for employment periods of less 

than one year for both the construction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

trade workers and the all-monitored worker 

groups."

"The partial year employment data 

reviewed in the SC&A memo was specifically 

used in Column AA of the respective yearly 

data sheets," so I'll stop right there for a 

minute and just note that in the SC&A memo 

they took a look at the partial year data.

If you jump into the Excel file

that's attached to this finding, and just 

for the purposes of showing something, if 

you go to the year 1977, in other words the 

datasheet in the workbook for 1977, in 

Column L you will see the fraction of year 

employed data that's also shown in the SC&A 

memo.

What happens with that data, it's 

further used in Column AA, and I think we 

mentioned this last time that we then take 

the dose for this construction worker and 

adjust it based on the fact that they worked 

only nine-tenths of the year or seven-tenths 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of the year and prorate that so that we can 

compare it to the all-monitored worker data, 

which was also prorated.

The data for all the workers was 

originally analyzed for OTIB-58 and then the 

contents of OTIB-58 were then just absorbed 

into the Rocky Flats TBD, but the data is 

the same.

So the comparison of these two 

groups at Rocky Flats, both adjusted for 

partial year exposures, illustrated that the 

overall recommended construction trade 

worker factor of 1.4 was claimant-favorable.

And, again, what we're saying 

there is of all the different sites that 

were looked at Rocky Flats was one where 

both the construction trade workers and the 

all-monitored worker population, we have the 

ability to adjust for partial year exposure 

and we did that.

And the results reflect the same 

trend that we saw with the other sites in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that a factor of 1.4 is bounding as a factor 

to use for construction trade workers as an 

adjustment.

We certainly weren't arguing that 

there wasn't potential for a partial year of 

working, the argument here is that Rocky 

Flats took that into account and we showed 

with Rocky Flats that 1.4 is certainly a 

bounding factor. Any questions?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I get 

that, I'm not sure I've seen that data. 

What I did in my memo was to simply assess 

the fraction of year that construction trade 

workers were actually monitored.

MR. SMITH: True.

DR. H. BEHLING: And like I said 

in my memo I identified the year as 1970, 

which for 1970 does in fact show that 

construction trade workers were actually 

employed there for 90.8 percent of the time, 

meaning that you could easily conclude that 

that was very similar to all-monitored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

workers, in-house workers.

But for the years, and I only did 

it for years '77 and '78, the percentage of 

fraction of time that construction trade 

workers were employed were obviously much 

reduced, especially when you realize that 

those particular years, in addition to the 

fraction, the number of construction trade 

workers skyrocketed.

For 1970 there were only 60 

construction trade workers employed for that 

year. For the 1977 there were 665, so that 

it's much like a situation in the utility 

where you have an outage where you bring in 

huge numbers of people, but they're not 

there for the whole year unlike in-house 

employees who would be there for, 

essentially, the entire year.

And the same thing I observed for 

1978. Again, for 1978 the total number of 

construction trade workers were 855, and 

there the weighted average employment for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

those individuals was less than 50 percent, 

or 47.4 percent.

Now I did not do the same thing 

for all-monitored workers to know what 

fraction of the year they were. I just 

assumed that they would've been oddly more 

likely to be there for most of the year if 

not all the year for all-monitored workers.

Unless, of course, and this is 

one of the other issues that I had some 

criticism about, for some of that variation 

that was in PER-14, or OTIB-52, the 

construction trade workers were included in 

the all-monitored workers, which in itself 

becomes a liability when you have a huge 

number of construction trade workers flowing 

into all-monitored work, they were not 

segregated.

So, as I said, I did not assess 

the fraction of year for all-monitored 

workers for 1977 and '78, so I really don't 

know what that fraction would've been, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you're telling me that they're identical to 

the construction trade workers, is that 

correct?

MR. SMITH: Identical in the 

sense that both sets of data have been 

prorated and we pointed this out last time 

that if you scan over to Column AA of any of 

the yearly worksheets in this Rocky Flats 

workbook you'll see that on an individual 

worker basis their prorated time for the 

year is taken into account.

So if they didn't work the whole 

year their dose gets boosted up. The 

prorating that occurred for all-monitored 

workers is probably described in the text 

that carried forward to the Rocky Flats 

workbook when OTIB-58 was removed.

The bottom line here is what 

we're saying is we're comparing likewise 

populations in terms of how they were 

treated with respect to prorating in terms 

of partial year exposure.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And certainly even among the allmonitored workers there were folks that 

didn't work a complete year and those 

adjustments were made. And when we do a 

coworker study we certainly try to do that 

at all times when the data is available.

If we have the beginning and 

ending date for the dosimetry periods we 

certainly take that into account and prorate 

it in order to normalize things to what 

would it have been for the year.

Again, the point here is that we 

looked at the construction workers, prorated 

that in order to compare it to all-monitored 

workers who were also prorated, and we saw 

this same trend with respect to 1.4 being a 

bounding value with respect to the trade 

workers.

DR. H. BEHLING: I guess I'm 

really not sure what, I was not privy to 

what you've done here, but it's just, to me, 

it's not intuitive that all-monitored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

workers have the same amount of employment 

periods as construction trade workers.

DR. NETON: Hans, that's not 

relevant.

MR. SMITH: That's not what we're 

saying. We're saying we've adjusted for it 

on an individual basis in fact.

DR. NETON: Annualize the doses, 

Hans, to annual employment. If a guy worked 

a month he's going to get 12 months’ worth 

of exposure and then they annualize them all 

and then you can compare annual exposure to 

annual exposure between the two populations.

MR. SMITH: I don't know if it's 

possible to bring the Excel file up onto the 

Live Meeting screen?

MR. MARSCHKE: Isn't it on there?

MR. HINNEFELD: It's on there.

MR. SMITH: Okay. Go ahead and 

just choose 1977 as an example.

MR. MARSCHKE: It's up there. 

This is Steve Marschke.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. SMITH: All right. And just 

take a look, scan it so it's showing Column

L and you'll see the fractional numbers, you 

know, for those workers there.

And as we look at Hans's memo 

you'll see that he's, you know, done a good 

summary of how many people fell into the 

category of having a fraction of year of 

0.9178.

Where does that fraction of a 

year get used? If you would scan over to 

Column AA and just click on any one of those 

cells in Column AA and you'll see at the 

very end of the formula bar there that we're 

taking a value from cells, I'm sorry, Column 

3 for any particular role, which is the dose 

that was recorded, and we're dividing it by 

the value for that row in Column L.

In other words, the fraction of 

the year that they worked. This was the 

same process used for the all-monitored 

workers for Rocky Flats.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So, again, we're prorating the 

dose in the same way for both populations. 

That wasn't always possible for all the 

different data sets looked at in OTIB-52, 

but we've, it was possible for Rocky Flats.

The results again from Rocky 

Flats were in line with what we saw with 

everybody else.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I'm going 

to have to look at it, but at this point if 

that was done then I guess 1.4 seems to be 

appropriate.

I was just under the impression 

that when we looked at all-monitored workers 

that it really represented people who were 

mostly monitored 12 months out of the year, 

meaning that they would have a yearly dose 

that truly represents a full year as opposed 

to a partial year.

MR. SMITH: Well, fortunately 

with Rocky Flats we were able, like I said, 

again, to adjust it per the actual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

employee’s time on dosimetry.

MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling, if I could interrupt for just one 

second. Can someone send me a link for Live 

Meeting because I didn't get that link?

I am on the BRS right now and we 

are looking at the same information as 

Matt's talking about, but I would appreciate 

being able to get on BRS, or get on Live 

Meeting, I'm sorry.

DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

Buchanan, same here. I didn't get an 

invitation to join the meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

can do that.

MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you.

DR. BUCHANAN: Thanks.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, thank you, Stu.

DR. H. BEHLING: And I guess I do 

have a quick question here with regard to, 

and I'm talking about OTIB-52 and you had in 

OTIB-52 a Figure 5-2 as well as Table 5-1. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Are those data normalized?

MR. SMITH: I don't have OTIB-52 

up in front of me. Are they -- if those are 

tables and graphs --

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MR. SMITH: -- for Rocky Flats 

the answer would be yes, normalized --

DR. H. BEHLING: Actually this is 

for Savannah River Site. 

MR. SMITH: For Savannah River 

Site I, at this point, couldn't speak to if 

those are normalized to one year or not.

DR. H. BEHLING: I mean those are 

yearly dates obviously starting for Savannah 

River Site in 1963 through 1997 and you have 

two curves, one involves construction trade 

workers and the other were all-monitored 

workers, and I just assumed that those were 

data that represent yearly exposures to both 

of those groups.

And also in Table 5-1 again these 

were tabulated numbers for construction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

trade workers and all-monitored workers on a 

yearly basis and I just came to the 

conclusion that they were probably not 

normalized with the assumption that 

construction trade workers were there for 

the same time period, 12 months out of the 

year, as all-monitored.

MR. SMITH: I'm a little bit off 

the top of my head on this for Savannah 

River coworker data, in other words the data 

that was published in the coworker OTIB --

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MR. SMITH: -- those would have 

been prorated and normalized to an annual 

exposure. For the construction trade worker 

I am not sure that we had begin and end 

dates for the dosimetry.

I know we did have it for Rocky 

Flats and that's why I used that as a 

comparison, it was kind of the keystone to 

see if it was making sense.

And also, more work has been done 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

with Savannah River in terms of construction 

trade worker population and that data's 

being looked at right now.

But the quick answer would be yes 

for all-monitored workers, yes, in terms of 

being prorated to an annual exposure.

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I guess 

what I would, before I fully concur or 

concede to the issue, I would like to look 

at the data just to be sure that I'm not 

giving away the farm here.

And as I said I would've agreed 

with the data if, for instance, one can 

start out with the assumption that these two 

groups are comparable in terms of employment 

period.

MR. SMITH: And I think we've 

shown that for Rocky Flats.

DR. H. BEHLING: Pardon?

MR. SMITH: I believe we've shown 

that for Rocky Flats.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, for Rocky 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Flats.

MR. SMITH: We may not always 

have the begin and end date data for 

dosimetry for the other construction trade 

worker subgroups at the other sites that 

were analyzed in OTIB-52.

But given that Rocky Flats, 

again, has a pretty long history to it in 

terms of things going on through the history 

of the site and as you noted in the groups 

of construction trade workers going up and 

down, it seemed like a pretty good test of 

whether or not the prorating on the 

impactful issue with respect to the 1.4 

factor, 1.4 seems like a very favorable 

bounding number.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. Well 

let’s let it go. I want to take a look at 

the data, which as I said I didn't really 

have access to at the time I wrote my memo 

and depending on some time that I'll spend 

on this I will get back to you and let you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

know whether I concur with it.

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

Josie. I think it's appropriate to give 

Hans that time to look at that response.

CHAIR MUNN: I can see no reason 

why not. We can address this next time if 

that's what's required. Is there any 

objection to that?

MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's fine 

with me. It appears that we're okay on 

this, but just to make sure that SC&A is 

comfortable with it then why not.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll 

expect SC&A to report to us next time on 

PER-4 factor. Response, all right. Next, 

that was, we were on Finding, I'm sorry, 

working blind without the Live Meeting is a 

little difficult.

MEMBER BEACH: Finding 1, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: That was Finding 1 

was it not?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: And so we are now 

ready to move to Finding 3?

DR. H. BEHLING: That's 

identical, Wanda, so whatever applies to 1 

applies to 3, it's just a --

CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry I can't 

quite hear you.

DR. H. BEHLING: Finding Number 3 

is identical to Finding 1. It's basically 

just the --

CHAIR MUNN: So essentially we've 

just covered the same material?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: Finding 14?

DR. H. BEHLING: There wasn't any 

14.

CHAIR MUNN: No?

DR. H. BEHLING: No.

CHAIR MUNN: There was a notation 

that I had to myself and I didn't check it. 

That's my fault.

DR. H. BEHLING: No, there were -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

-

MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

Marschke. There's a Finding 14.

CHAIR MUNN: I think there's a 

Finding 14 and I think a response to it was 

entered by NIOSH just this last period. Am 

I incorrect?

MS. MARION-MOSS: You're correct. 

The response we put in Scott can lead you 

through this response.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, I'll 

be happy to walk through it. It's a 

relatively lengthy response if you open up 

the attachment, but I can just walk you 

through it.

The background is, unfortunately 

I was not on the last call in November, I 

was in Africa. Sorry, we could've probably 

gotten this cleared up back then.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Steve, that's 

not the attachment. We should be further 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

down in the BRS with Scott's --

MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, there it is.

MR. SIEBERT: Thanks, Lori.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: Wait for that to 

come up. Okay. And basically issue, we all 

agreed at the last call that the Finding 

itself and the issue has been resolved.

We agreed with the fact that the 

DCF not being applied to the coworker for a 

short amount of time. The question that 

came up at the last meeting was a question 

of quality assurance of how can we ensure 

this didn't affect other claims.

Was it the dose reconstructor's 

fault? Was it a tool issue? So I've gone 

back and dug a little further into all that 

information and here's what I found.

The first portion of it is the 

fact that at that time, this is for LANL, 

the LANL external tool did not have the 

coworker, external coworker values directly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

in the tool at that time so the dose 

reconstructor had to do the calculations off 

to the side.

That's since been updated. Most 

of our tools with verified and approved 

coworker studies now include dose so the 

dose reconstructor can just pull it right up 

in the tools, but at that time it did not.

Looking at it, since the tool 

wasn't used to pull in the information that 

obviously was not a tool issue, so from a 

systemic point of view we at least know it 

was not a tool issue for that, which was 

good to know. So that's the first portion 

of it.

The next question was the dose 

reconstructor themself, is this an issue 

that the dose reconstructor may have been 

making this same mistake other places, in 

other words a training issue of some sort.

I went back and pulled all the 

dose reconstructions that were done by this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR, there were eight of them, one of them 

was obviously this claim that generated the 

response, six of them were done around the 

same timeframe in 2008, one was in 2006 and 

one was in 2010.

Five of the claims used the same 

external organ, which is the bladder, and 

that's important because the bladder is one 

of the few where the DCF is greater than 

one.

So if it had been left out on 

other organs it would've been claimed in 

favorable, still an error, but it would've 

been claimed in favorable.

So luckily there were a bunch of 

them that I could look at, yet the bladder 

was the organ of interest to determine if 

this was an issue. For most of them, six 

out of eight, there was no coworker used.

The person was fully monitored, 

but there was one additional, one left over 

other than this single one that started the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Findings, so there was something that I 

could compare to.

In that case there was a longer 

period of time where coworker was needed, so 

what the dose reconstructor did, and it was 

about a month after the first claim was 

done, they put those coworker values into 

the tool itself along with later monitoring 

they had and allowed the tool to apply the 

dose conversion factors themselves.

So after looking at all of the 

LANL claims that this individual did it 

doesn't seem to be a repeatable issue for 

not applying the dose conversion factors for 

the dose reconstructor.

The final point was looking into 

peer review. That was the final QA question 

that we talked about at the last one. So I 

also pulled for the peer reviewer all the 

claims that that individual had peer 

reviewed.

Interestingly enough they also 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

peer reviewed the one that I just talked 

about where they took the tool, the 

information and put it into the tool as 

well, so they not only reviewed the one that 

had the error but they also reviewed the one 

that was done correctly as well.

I also looked at any other peer 

reviews that that individual did for LANL 

during that same year, there were 17 of 

them, and I looked through all of them and 

everything was done appropriately for all 17 

of those as well.

So I think the bottom line is, 

with a lot of digging to ensure, it seems it 

was a one off issue where the dose 

reconstructor did not apply it in a 

spreadsheet off to the side and the peer 

reviewer didn't catch it.

CHAIR MUNN: Any comments?

MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling. This, I have to say I wasn't quite 

prepared for this. Rose actually did this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

portion of the review, the Subtask 4, and 

she's not with us this morning.

CHAIR MUNN: You're sounding very 

distant to me, Kathy.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I'm 

sorry. Is that any better?

CHAIR MUNN: Much better here.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I'll 

start over. Like I said I did this review 

and Rose actually did the Subtask 4 report. 

I reviewed her work. Everything that 

Scott's saying sounds reasonable.

I'm just hoping that maybe we 

could look at his response a little bit 

closer. I didn't have time to do that and 

perhaps Rose and I can look that over, but 

it sounds reasonable but, again, could we 

just get a little bit of time to read 

through the report that they're showing on 

the Live Meeting?

CHAIR MUNN: Any problem with 

that from anyone?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: No.

MEMBER ZIEMER: That seems 

reasonable to me.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then 

we'll address that Item 14 next time when 

Kathy's had an opportunity to look at it, 

right?

MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

Josie. I also noted from our last meeting 

that Finding 17, that NIOSH and SC&A needed 

to do some review on that Finding. 

Unfortunately I can't pull it up so I was 

wondering if Steve could look at that one?

CHAIR MUNN: I can't. I'm not on 

Live Meeting and --

MEMBER BEACH: No, no, I said 

Steve, Steve's on.

CHAIR MUNN: I can't get on my 

CDC computer, but --

MEMBER BEACH: And that one was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

closed. It looks like it was closed, I'm 

not sure why I noted that, so thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Can someone verify 

for us, someone who has access to the BRS, 

it is closed?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it --

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, Wanda, it 

is closed. We just --

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Okay, very 

good. So informative note, but wrong. I do 

that quite frequently, Josie.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

Lori.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Lori?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Kathy, I would 

like to remind you and the Committee that 

with Finding 14 that that was a particular 

issue that John Mauro asked that we look, it 

was a QA issue associated with leaving off 

the DCF for this particular LANL claim.

So that might be why it doesn't 

ring a bell to you as well, but John did ask 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that we go and take a look at some of the 

claims that were performed by the particular 

--

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that same 

reviewer.

MS. MARION-MOSS: -- reviewers.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MS. MARION-MOSS: So that might 

be why it doesn't ring a bell to you.

CHAIR MUNN: Which is what Scott 

tells us he did.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

Thank you. And like I said, Scott's 

explanation seems very reasonable. I would 

guess, in fact I can get back to you after 

lunch if you'd like.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think the 

key for this is it was a one off and so, 

yes, if it doesn't take more study than that 

then that would be great.

Anything that we can close out 

now is wonderful, Kathy. Thank you. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

appreciate your looking at that.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: And lunch is not too 

very far away. So any further comments on 

PER-14?

DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

again. I just wanted to apologize for when 

I said there was no Finding 14 because I was 

the person who reviewed PER-14 and mine 

stopped at Finding Number 6 and I wasn't 

aware that dose reconstructions had been 

audited and they were simply added to those 

Findings that starts with Number 7 and so 

forth, so I apologize for that comment.

CHAIR MUNN: No apology 

necessary, Hans. We want to be as thorough 

as we possibly can, better to look at it in 

extreme detail than to miss something, 

thanks.

Next item is IG-1, new Finding 

25, the wording is it appropriate and the 

status of the other Findings? I have NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

as being responsible for that, am I correct?

MR. MARSCHKE: I think I was, I 

put in the Finding. This is Steve Marschke.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: I entered the 

Finding and I basically, and it's up on the 

Live Meeting now, which you can't see, 

Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: No, I can't.

MR. MARSCHKE: But the other 

maybe, the other, what we did was we took 

from the transcript some of the words that 

you said and entered it into as the basis 

for the Finding.

And like I mentioned earlier 

today it's basically just a transfer of 

Finding 195.1 from the DR Subcommittee over 

to this Subcommittee.

CHAIR MUNN: For the sake of the 

few of us who are not on Live Meeting could 

you read it? It's not that lengthy is it, 

Steve?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: No, it's up on the 

screen. The DR has a, let’s see, "the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee transferred 

Finding 195.1 to the Procedures Review 

Subcommittee during the November 7, 2013, 

Procedures Review Subcommittee meeting."

"Chair Munn read the following 

into the record. And the original Finding," 

and then I put in brackets "Dose 

Reconstruction 195.1" read, "the rotational 

geometry organ dose conversion factors are 

higher than the anterior posterior geometry 

for the red bone marrow."

"And additional corrections are 

required when the dosimeter is worn on the 

chest. It is not clear if the anterior 

posterior rotational or isotopic geometry is 

the most applicable based on the employees 

duties and work location."

"However, since the reconstructed 

dose results in a compensable decision it 

was appropriate to apply the dose conversion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

factor that gives a lower dose."

"For this claim that is the dose 

conversion factor for anterior posterior 

exposure. The use of the anterior posterior 

dose conversion factor may have been 

inadvertent for this claim and its use as an 

underestimating assumption should have been 

noted in the report for clarity."

"And SC&A said they accepted 

NIOSH's response since the case was 

compensated, but the geometry issue was to 

be addressed again in other Findings."

"It was considered to be a QA 

issue saying NIOSH should have used a DCF 

that gives a higher dose even when 

underestimating and refers to Table 4.1(a) 

of IG-001, Rev 3 addressing this issue."

"NIOSH will consider whether a 

PER is needed and then in March of this year 

NIOSH agreed to review the situation and 

determine if a PER is required."

"In May, NIOSH to follow up on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

whether they implemented Section 4.4 of IG001, and in August, NIOSH to follow up in 

implementation transferred to Procedures 

Subcommittee to determine if IG-001, Section 

4.4 is correctly worded."

And that's the end of the quote. 

And then it continues on, the Finding 

continues on. "Finding 195.1 was discussed 

in some detail during the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting of 

February 4, 2013, see transcript pages 228 

through 236."

"During the November 7, 2013, 

Procedures Subcommittee meeting it was 

decided that DR Finding 195.1 should be 

incorporated into the BRS as Finding IG-001-

025 as an open item until we have some 

information from NIOSH to begin the 

process." And that's Page 170 of the 

November 7th transcript.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Steve, 

and my apologies, my lack of having the data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

in front of me made it necessary for you to 

read the same thing I read last time. I'm 

sorry about that.

But my note, therefore, impinges 

on what you just read, which was I was under 

the impression that we were going to get 

some response from NIOSH to that Finding. 

No, not this time?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Jim, do you 

have any?

CHAIR MUNN: We had said earlier 

that we might have a new response --

DR. NETON: The first, I think 

IG-1 has been revised, I believe.

CHAIR MUNN: I think so, too.

DR. NETON: I don't know why it's 

not been transferred over here for review 

because I know that we're doing dose 

reconstruction -- the wording was changed 

basically to indicate that the rotational 

was not the default or you'd have to, you 

would use AP as the default unless you felt 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

otherwise there was indications that 

rotational should be used.

CHAIR MUNN: It was my, in my 

memory, which is not all that reliable I 

suppose, but nevertheless, I had thought IG1 had at least three revisions, I thought 

the third revision was --

DR. NETON: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: But in any case --

DR. NETON: Well, unfortunately, 

I don't know any more than that.

CHAIR MUNN: I'm quite sure it 

is, I'm sure it has been revised. So the 

question becomes, can we have a report from 

NIOSH next time?

DR. NETON: If it's been revised, 

sure.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

DR. NETON: But I think we can 

either way.

CHAIR MUNN: I'll say check 

revision and carry over. All right, very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

good. We're about ten minutes early, but 

it's approaching lunchtime.

Is there any objection to our 

breaking for lunch now? If not, can we take 

exactly one hour and be back here?

DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim. 

I had a question.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

DR. NETON: At the beginning you 

indicated that we were going to swap a 

couple sessions --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

DR. NETON: Which were those?

CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-83 and PER-20.

DR. NETON: Okay. I just got an 

email while we were talking that due to 

weather in other parts of the Country my 

conflict has been resolved. I'm available 

now at 1:45 if we want to keep the same 

schedule.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let’s --

DR. NETON: I was the only one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

causing that.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Oh, there's one 

other person, Jim. This is Lori.

DR. NETON: Okay.

MS. MARION-MOSS: So he can't 

make it in until 2:00 and that's LaBone.

DR. NETON: Okay, then let’s just 

keep it that way because Tom is obviously, 

or Tom is definitely relevant for this 

discussion.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. All 

right then we will address PER-20 an hour 

from now and following that we'll do --

MR. HINNEFELD: Just a minute. 

Jim, does Tom -- you talked to Tom and his 

power was off, does he expect to be able to 

get on today?

DR. NETON: I have not talked to 

him today, but Lori must have because --

MR. HINNEFELD: Lori, did you 

talk to him today or yesterday?

MS. MARION-MOSS: No, not today 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

or yesterday. Scott --

MR. HINNEFELD: Scott, do you 

have any, or anybody from ORAU have you 

heard anything about Tom's situation.

MS. BRACKETT: No. This is Liz 

Brackett. I'll try getting in touch with 

him to see what's going on.

MR. HINNEFELD: I was just 

concerned because Jim apparently talked to 

him yesterday and he was --

DR. NETON: I had an email 

conversation with him yesterday and his 

power was out at the time.

MS. BRACKETT: Right.

DR. NETON: That's all I know. 

That's the last I've heard from Tom.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Oh, okay.

DR. NETON: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Well we hope that's 

either been resolved or that there's a very 

powerful battery involved.

DR. NETON: Why don't we still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

leave it at 2:30 if it's not a problem to 

change that and if Tom's available fine, if 

not, you know, we'll proceed anyway.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

good. Then we'll see what the situation is 

when we come back.

DR. NETON: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: And in the meantime 

I trust someone will attempt to contact Tom 

and see if he's going to be with us or not. 

That'll have some bearing on what do.

In any case, 20 minutes to the 

hour, is that correct? We'll see you 20 

minutes to the next hour, all right? 

Thanks. Have a good lunch.

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 12:37 p.m. and went 

back on the record at 1:42 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

(1:42 p.m.)

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Do we 

have the folks we need for OTIB-83, the 

findings report for SC&A?

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton, 

I'm on.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Do we need to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

start with PER-20? Or can we start with 

OTIB-83?

DR. NETON: I don't know. Tom 

LaBone was trying to get on. But I don't 

know if he's going to be here or not.

MS. BRACKETT: Yes, this is Liz 

Brackett. His power's still out. And it's 

also out at his office. But he did text me 

and said he would try to be on at 2 o'clock, 

because that's when you had said you wanted 

him.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's very 

good. Then let's, then we need to start 

with OTIB-83, correct? I mean, PER-20.

MS. BRACKETT: Correct.

CHAIR MUNN: Right. All right.

DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim. 

Before we get started I want to correct 

something that we talked about earlier.

CHAIR MUNN: All right.

DR. NETON: It turns out that IG001 has not been revised.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, it hasn't?

DR. NETON: No. But, and the 

reason, and this is why I shouldn't talk 

without checking first. The reason was, I 

think there were some fixes put in place 

that would accomplish the same thing without 

revising the procedure, or the guide.

Because the guide really wasn't 

wrong. It was, we were not following the 

strict interpretation of the guide. And I 

think there's been some other fixes put in 

place.

And we'll note that in our 

response, and talk about it the next time. 

But I just wanted to let you know that IG001 has not been revised.

CHAIR MUNN: I did not remember 

that resolution. I know we worked with IG001 for a number of meetings.

DR. NETON: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: But, until you said 

that it was, I had in mind that we had made 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

revisions to the --

DR. NETON: There are reasons to 

revise IG-001, but you responded in --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. I 

remember now that we decided to close the 

findings, simply because they were cared for 

in another document.

DR. NETON: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Thank you, 

Jim. I appreciate that very much.

DR. NETON: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Then who's taking 

the lead on PER-20?

MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling. I can start with PER-20 if you'd 

like. But before we do that I want to make 

just a few other comments. Can you hear me 

all right?

CHAIR MUNN: You're very soft, 

Kathy. But I can hear you, barely.

MS. K. BEHLING: All right. 

First of all, you know, let me also add a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

comment that we've talked about so many 

times with the IG-001.

Again, one of the issues that we 

want to be sure of is, there's a table in 

there, as we've talked about, 4A I believe 

it is, that is not being used by the dose 

reconstructors. And we see it routinely in 

the dose reconstructions.

And one of the things we were 

wondering is if you needed to go back and 

perhaps to a PER for cases associated with 

bone marrow, bone surface, esophagus and 

lungs, since this guidance has been put into 

IG-001.

So just to be sure that NIOSH 

realizes all aspects to the IG-001 issue. 

And I think Stu's been part of all of this. 

And we've mentioned it many times.

But I think one of the questions 

we really have is whether a PER needs to be 

issued for previously completed cases. Now 

also, before lunch I was asked, I said, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

promised I would look at Finding 14 for PER 

--

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

MS. K. BEHLING: PER-14, yes. 

And I did read through again Scott's write 

up. And as he usually does, he has done a 

very thorough job of going back and looking 

at all of the previous cases.

And not only did he look at the 

previous cases associated with LANL, he also 

looked at, he probably mentioned, I was sort 

of scrambling at the time, that he looked at 

the PER, the peer review process. And I 

think he's done a thorough job.

And I think what John Mauro's 

comment had to do with is, as he had 

mentioned, as Scott mentioned that we wanted 

to be sure that there was no tool issue, PER 

tool issue. And also that this didn't 

affect other cases.

And based on what Scott wrote up 

there I feel confident that that issue has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

been resolved and there is nothing else that 

needs to be done. And there were no other 

cases impacted. So I think we could, I 

would recommend we could close that finding.

CHAIR MUNN: Board Members, any 

comment or any concern with closing Item 14 

on PER-14 at this time?

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

I have no problem with that. I think we had 

only delayed it so Kathy could review it. 

And if she's comfortable with it, I think we 

should close it.

CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I agree with 

that also, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Steve, 

can you close Finding 14 on PER-14? 

Indicate that the Subcommittee found that it 

was resolved and could be closed.

MS. K. BEHLING: And one more 

issue before I start with PER-20 is, Hans

and I made this a working lunch. And we did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

look at the spreadsheet that Matt Smith had 

pointed out. And I'll let Hans --

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. We looked 

at a sufficient number of all monitored 

working data. And we obviously concur now 

that those data have been standardized.

That takes into account the 

period and given year during which the 

person was monitored. And as far as I'm 

concerned, this issue should now be closed 

out.

CHAIR MUNN: Is that one finding 

or two?

DR. H. BEHLING: Well, it is 

Finding 1 and 3.

CHAIR MUNN: One and 3, is it 

not?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: And so --

DR. H. BEHLING: I will say this, 

had that issue been acknowledged in the 

write up of PER-14 this would have never 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

come up. It was just my intuitive 

assumption that construction trade workers 

usually do not work a full year.

And under that circumstances my 

assumption was that data that had been 

presented in OTIB-52 were in fact just any 

old doses, without the standardization or 

normalization that would have been taken 

into account, both to be all monitors as 

well as construction trade workers, that 

their data would have had to been mobilized 

in order to make a fair comparison.

As it turns out, Matt obviously 

told us what to look for. And as far as I'm 

concerned that was done. So the issue goes 

away.

CHAIR MUNN: Understood. So I 

believe I'm hearing that SC&A is 

recommending all three of the currently 

outstanding findings on PER-14, that is 

Numbers 1, 3 and 14, can now be closed. Is 

that what I'm hearing, Hans?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. H. BEHLING: That's, you're 

hearing correctly.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

good. Steve, can we do that?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. Actually I 

was, actually I jumped the gun, Wanda, and I 

started closing it out.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's fine. 

That's just dandy. You're ahead of me. And 

that's a good place to be as far as I'm 

concerned. I can follow you. That's good. 

Any objection from Board Members? Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: No. I don't have 

any objections, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Paul?

MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I agree.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then the 

statement should read in all three cases 

that SC&A is recommending, considers these 

issues resolved. And the Subcommittee 

concurs. Close them as of today. Thank 

you, Steve. Now, PER-20. I believe it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

yours, Kathy?

MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Even 

though we have NIOSH written there, I think 

I can address these issues. We initially 

had four findings, I'm sorry, three findings 

associated with our case review for the 

Blockson TBD.

And just to give you a very brief 

background, the first finding, which was 

Finding Number 4, and as Steve mentioned 

earlier today we did close out. And that 

had to do with the fact that the cancer type 

was a stomach cancer.

And they used the inhalation 

pathway dose to calculate dose, rather than 

the ingestion pathway, which is specified in 

the Blockson TBD. And so Stu had indicated 

during our last meeting that they were able 

to go back and look at all the cases.

And they, in fact, I said, I

guess found several other cases that were 

done improperly. The base, that had been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

corrected. So we closed this Finding 4.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

MS. K. BEHLING: And in Finding 

5, even though we realized that this -- I 

felt that this stomach cancer should have 

been calculated using the ingestion dose, we 

did go in and calculate the dose based on 

the inhalation pathway, as had been done.

And we realized that they only 

considered intakes from three of the 

radionuclides that are listed in the table. 

I guess it's at Table 4A and 12A on the 

Blockson TBD. So we were questioning why 

that had happened. And we realized there 

may be a problem with the inhalation tool.

And our Finding 6 also has to do 

with, we dug even deeper in that Building 55 

inhalation tool, and realized that there 

were some DCFs that weren't included. And 

so since then Lori has sent me the updated, 

the revised Blockson Building 55 inhalation 

and ingestion tool.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

In fact, during my review of this 

case I didn't even have access to that 

ingestion tool. I couldn't find it. And 

she did send me both of those, along with 

the tool instructions file.

And both Rose and myself went 

through the tool, looked at everything, 

compared it to the TBD, the Blockson TBD. 

And we feel that it is, it looks, it 

reflects what was stated in the Blockson 

TBD. So we don't have any issues with that, 

with the two new tools that we were sent.

The only thing I did take notice 

to is, in the instructions that were sent 

along with the tools it still does give, and 

let me see here. It gives in Table 1 of 

those instructions the dose reconstructor 

the option to use either the inhalation or 

ingestion for issues of the GI tract.

And that's inconsistent with 

what's stated in the TBD. So my only 

recommendation would be, is that that table 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

be revised to instruct the dose 

reconstructors to only use ingestion for the 

GI tract issues. And otherwise, I think 

Finding 5 and Finding 6 can be closed.

And I believe that I can say, and 

maybe Stu or someone from NIOSH can confirm 

this. The fact that you did look back at 

all of the other cases under our initial 

Finding 4, I assume I can feel confident 

that there's no cases that were, that 

slipped through the cracks, that weren't 

looked at after this revision to the 

inhalation and ingestion tool was published.

Am I correct? Is it safe to say 

that all of the previous cases that were 

done were looked at, that were, that they 

used previous versions of the inhalation and 

ingestion tool?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Thank 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you, Lori. With that being said then, I 

feel we, I'm suggesting that we can close 

Finding 5 and Finding 6. Because the tool 

does accurately reflect everything that the 

Blockson TBD indicates it should.

CHAIR MUNN: Does NIOSH have a 

response to the expectation of revision of 

this tool language?

MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I'm not 

familiar with the language. So we'll have 

to take a look and work it out. I would 

expect we would change it if it sounds the 

way that, if everything is as 

straightforward as it seems. Let us have a 

chance to go talk it around, see what it 

makes for --

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So next time 

we will need only to check for your response 

to the wording change in the tool. And 

assuming that that's agreeable with you, we 

can then close Items 5 and 6 at our next 

meeting. Am I understanding that position 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

correctly, Kathy?

MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. And what I 

was referring to is, there was a file called 

the Blockson Tool Instructions TBD Rev 3. 

And as I indicated, there's a Table 1 in 

there that to me was misleading, and is 

giving the dose reconstructor an option for 

inhalation or ingestion for the GI tract 

issues.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Use 

ingestion. Very good. So, closed. Any 

comment? Any questions?

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

I agree with that. It wouldn't occur to me, 

and I haven't seen the tool. But of course, 

in inhalation you do have some clearance 

through the GI tract directly, where there's 

nasal deposition and subsequent swallowing.

So I don't know if that's part of 

this. Or whether it's as clear cut as Kathy 

had indicated. And it's not, because I 

don't have any idea what the tool looks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

like.

CHAIR MUNN: No idea.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Paul, that 

was why I hesitated. Because what should be 

done is the intake avenue that originally 

leads to the highest dose is the one you 

should choose. And so I think that's what 

should be done.

Of course in Blockson there's 

always this discussion too about was Class Y 

even feasible there. So I'm not, I don't 

know enough about it today to really say 

anything more definitive. But we'll look 

into it and see if there's a reasons why 

that --

CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully, it will 

be a simple --

MR. HINNEFELD: -- should not be 

changed --

CHAIR MUNN: -- suggestion and 

change.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- as the way 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Kathy described it.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Any other 

comments?

MEMBER BEACH: So this is Josie, 

Wanda. We're going to leave those open 

until the next meeting. And those can be 

verified. Is that okay?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. The intent is 

leave 5 and 6 open, to verify what, NIOSH's 

response to the suggested wording change. 

If there's no concern about that then we 

will close them next time, both 5 and 6.

MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Item 4 is officially 

closed, yes. Any other comments with 

respect to PER-20? If not, it's almost 2 

o'clock. Are we okay to begin OTIB-83? Has 

Tom joined us? Don't hear a response.

MR. ARNO: Well this is Matt

Arno.

CHAIR MUNN: Do we need to wait 

further? Or are we --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KATZ: I missed it if you 

guys were chatting before the start time. 

Did someone get a hold of Tom over lunch 

break?

MS. BRACKETT: Yes. This is Liz 

Brackett. I talked to him, and his power is 

still out. But he said that he thought he'd 

be able to call in at 2 o'clock.

MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Okay, good. 

Thanks, Liz.

MS. BRACKETT: There's still a 

couple of minutes. I just texted him to see 

if --

MR. LABONE: I'm here.

MS. BRACKETT: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, very good. Talk 

about the nick of time. Sorry about your 

power, Tom.

MR. LABONE: Yes. You don't know 

what you're missing till it ain't there.

CHAIR MUNN: That makes it a 

little difficult, doesn't it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. LABONE: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: Are you on deck and 

ready to address OTIB-83?

DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim. 

I'm going to do the heavy lifting here. I'm 

just relying on Tom for some moral support.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. All 

right. And, Jim, you have the floor.

DR. NETON: Well, I thought, this 

is a new item that's been added. And I 

didn't know whether SC&A would want to first 

go through and point out the issues that 

they've --

CHAIR MUNN: It might be 

expedient to do that.

DR. NETON: Well, there are a 

number of findings. Although in my mind it 

really comes down to a couple of issues. So 

either way, I mean, I'm --

CHAIR MUNN: How many findings 

did we have total?

MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Steve Marschke. There's 14 findings total. 

Actually, Joyce Lipsztein did the review. 

But Joyce is unable to be with us today. I 

don't believe she's with us. And so I was 

going to try and pinch hit for her.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's great.

MR. MARSCHKE: But I'm not sure 

how, you know, I can't get into the level of 

detail that of course Joyce could if she was 

here. But I kind of agree with Jim that 

there are 14 issues. But it kind of boils 

down to a couple of really little points.

DR. NETON: Yes. And maybe I 

could just do that. And maybe SC&A can 

chime in if I'm not covering the main bases.

CHAIR MUNN: That would be 

wonderful. I'm pleased to report that I 

have been --

DR. NETON: It might speed things 

up.

CHAIR MUNN: -- successful in 

getting Live Meeting on a screen. Not the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

screen I intended, but a screen. So if we 

can follow the findings point by point as 

you go through them, Jim, it would be very 

helpful. Thank you both. Go right ahead, 

Jim.

DR. NETON: I'll do them point by 

point. I didn't know that, well --

CHAIR MUNN: Well, no --

DR. NETON: See, I thought they 

were better.

CHAIR MUNN: I'm not instructing 

you to do so. I'm just asking Steve that we 

be able to see the finding as you're talking 

about them.

DR. NETON: Oh, all right.

CHAIR MUNN: That's all.

DR. NETON: Okay. Well, I can go 

through these. I mean, the first one is 

simple. It's the applicability of target 

audience is not well defined. And I think 

that's sort of a, not a cosmetic, but an 

administrative finding that we can address.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And I think it is fairly clear. 

But that's not a big issue for us. And 

we'll be happy to address these 

administrative findings, you know, as 

appropriate.

The key ones though, when we get 

into Finding 2, which is this issue about 

not demonstrating that Type A plutonium 

would rarely be encountered in the 

workplace.

I'll start by refreshing people's 

memories that, or maybe not refreshing them, 

but letting you know that this TIB is 

actually a fallout, or a re-assemblage of 

the discussion that took place at the Mound 

Site Profile review. Mound worked with 

plutonium 238 to a large, to some degree. 

And there were various exposures there.

And SC&A correctly pointed out 

that plutonium 238 does not decay, has been 

demonstrated in certain instances to not 

behave according to typical clearance 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

classifications that are identified in ICRP66.

There is a non-monotonically, or 

actually the exposure tends to increase, or 

the solubility increases over time after 

exposure. And then clear off with a 

monotonically decrease from the exposure, or 

clearance rate. And that has more, has 

something to do with the high specific 

activity of plutonium.

I won't get into specifics. But 

at any rate, NIOSH does acknowledge that 

there is a unique type of plutonium 238 

clearance pattern at facilities like Mound. 

And that's what TIB-83 is intended to 

address.

The Type J plutonium that is 

referred to in this finding though, has 

really, to your knowledge, only been 

observed at Los Alamos. And in particular 

has to do with a clearance of a material 

known as a cermet.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

It's a composite of plutonium. 

It was specifically made into this composite 

material. To my understanding it was to 

withstand burn up from the atmosphere. 

Because these plutonium 238 sources are used 

in, as power generators for satellites.

CHAIR MUNN: That explains my 

lack of understanding of Type J.

DR. NETON: Right. And so Type J 

is, when you incorporate plutonium into this 

ceramic matrix material it behaves quite 

differently than regular plutonium.

In fact, there was an incident 

that was observed at Los Alamos, that 

exhibited some fairly lengthy, a fairly 

protracted period of increasing solubility 

over time, and then it decreased.

And SC&A's comment here was, 

well, we didn't demonstrate that Type J 

actually occurred at Mound. And to our 

knowledge, even though we acknowledge that 

cermet type material was present at Mound, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

we know of no instances where there were 

inhalation exposures.

The incident that happened at Los 

Alamos was under some very rigorous, or very 

violent type test procedures, to try to get 

the material to sort of simulate the reentry of a satellite in the atmosphere. And 

it ended up disintegrating the source.

And when they opened it up it 

exposed the workers. We're not aware of any 

situation like that, that happened at the 

Mound facility. That's more than likely 

going to be our re-statement of the issue 

at, for TIB-83.

I mean, we're happy to include it 

in dose reconstructions as appropriate. But 

it's not certainly going to be a default, 

which is sort of the implication of the 

finding.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

DR. NETON: This next finding is 

not on the screen right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: I messed up.

DR. NETON: I know you're trying 

to get a hold of some pictures for me.

MR. MARSCHKE: I was trying to 

get a hold of what we were writing.

DR. NETON: So that's Finding 2. 

Finding 3, it gets down to the issue of 

this, what we call Type L. NIOSH, Tom 

LaBone specifically and Lynn had modeled, 

developed a model for some plutonium 

exposures at Mound, based on a very discrete 

incident that occurred of exposure to 

plutonium dioxide.

And when they developed that 

model it was based on five individuals that 

were exposed, and followed over time with 

bioassay. And indeed, this model exhibited 

that type of behavior that I just talked 

about, which is a increase in solubility 

over time, to about 100, 150 days.

And then it decreased, an 

exponential type decrease, like you'd 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

observe for most materials. SC&A's issue 

with this model was that it was based on a 

single incident at Mound.

And it didn't cover the 

waterfront of all potential exposure 

scenarios that could have existed there. 

And evidence, graphs were presented of other 

cases that exhibited similar type clearance.

And in fact, they identified one 

particular case that appeared to have a 

longer clearance time than the five cases, 

or a longer buildup and then clearance. 

Sort of in between a Type L and Type J 

exposure.

It seemed to be the case that it 

basically indicated that the Type L model 

was not necessarily sufficiently claimantfavorable and conservative. We've looked at 

that particular case in some detail. And 

there's some issues with that.

Well, first of all I would, we 

have to understand that these models that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are developed on individual cases have 

variability in and of themselves. And in 

fact, the five cases that were used to 

construct the Type L model had individual 

bio-variability.

And so, you know, that does 

happen. To pick one case sort of out of the 

pool and say, this one does not fit your 

model exactly, I think is not exactly a 

definitive finding that the model's 

inappropriate.

The other issue with the, and 

they don't call it a model, but the exposure 

clearance pattern that they observed, which 

they called I think Type L1 maybe, or 

something like that.

That worker was not taken out of 

the workplace for like over six, almost six 

months or more after his original exposure 

occurred. And you can't rule out in this 

particular case that there wasn't a chronic 

exposure scenario ongoing at the time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So we're not comfortable with 

SC&A's assertion that that model 

demonstrates that the Type L model is not 

appropriate, and does not appropriately 

bound exposures. And we'll be working that 

up and describing our response in writing, 

you know, as we develop it. But that's sort 

of it in a nutshell at this point.

Finding 4 is very similar, did 

not demonstrate that Type L was commonly 

found in the workplace at Mound or any other 

facility. I'm not sure what the issue here 

is.

The TIB actually instructs the 

dose reconstructor to use Type L under 

certain circumstances where it was 

identified that Type L would be, would 

actually have a higher, increase the dose to 

the workers. So I'm not exactly sure where 

that finding is coming from.

MR. MARSCHKE: Jim, this is Steve 

again. I think some of it has to go back to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the first finding where basically we said, 

you know, we didn't know exactly, identified 

who the audience, the target audience for 

this was.

If it's, we're looking for, if 

the target audience is just for dose 

reconstructors who are doing the Mound 

facility, then it's one thing.

The other thing is, but is this a 

generic OTIB, which is going to be applied 

to different types of facilities across the 

DOE, you know, landscape?

And, you know, if so, you know, 

we don't know that this, that's why we say 

that it's not demonstrated that this Type L 

is common across, you know, at other places, 

other than Mound. So I think that's what 

we're --

DR. NETON: We can address that. 

I understand what you're saying. It 

certainly was plutonium dioxide, this 

particular exposure case. And I would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

surprised if it wasn't applicable to 

plutonium dioxide exposures. But 

understood. We'll make sure we address that 

issue.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. You'll 

respond?

DR. NETON: Yes, we'll respond.

CHAIR MUNN: Good.

DR. NETON: This 5 is, NIOSH does 

not demonstrate exposures to Mound plutonium 

238 that show non-monotonic absorption to 

the lungs may be well characterized. Again, 

at all times and at all areas. Again, this 

has to do with model development and how 

many cases you need, and what's appropriate.

And we're going to respond to 

that. I think, we feel like we have done 

that to, we've accomplished that. And we'll 

address that finding.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

DR. NETON: This Finding 6 is 

similar to what Steve just mentioned. Does 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

not state whether the technical --

MR. MARSCHKE: Sorry.

DR. NETON: I don't know where to 

go. Yes, whether the technical calculations 

are derived or limiting this solution type, 

which the standard examples or similar 

calculations can be referred to other 

facilities. We'll have to address that, how 

--

To me it's implied in 83 that 

it's at other facilities. But I would agree 

that we haven't done a good job describing a 

basis for its use in other facilities. So 

we'll address that issue.

NIOSH has not compared organ, 

this is Finding 7, organ doses from acute 

intakes of L with chronic intakes of Type M 

and S materials, plutonium 238 materials. I 

believe we've done that. I'm not sure why 

that's a finding.

I mean, there's a lot of work 

done in 83 to demonstrate under the chronic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

and acute intake scenarios which was a 

limiting dose, based on an organ by organ 

basis. Should discuss limiting solution 

types for acute intakes of Type L versus 

chronic. Yes, again, I think, I would argue 

that we've done that.

MR. MARSCHKE: There is more --

again, the findings themselves are kind of a 

synopsis of the bigger discussion which is 

in the report. So there may be more 

information in the report itself to help you 

better discern what the concern is, than 

just --

DR. NETON: I've read the report 

several times. I guess I'm just cutting it 

a little short here maybe. But we will 

certainly address the findings that are 

identified in the report, and in the context 

in which they were made.

Finding 8, in Section 4 we 

defined, NIOSH defined the parameters for 

Type L exposure amount, compared to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

solution curves with Type J and S, but does 

not demonstrate that Type L is typical of 

Mound exposures. Again, it's a similar type 

thing.

It gets to the point, well how do 

we know Type J didn't occur at Mound? And 

how do we know that the Type L model is 

adequately bounding. And again, that will, 

we'll have to discuss that and demonstrate 

that in our response.

Finding 9 is, the purpose of 

Section 4 is not well defined in relation to 

other exposures. At plutonium 238 they show 

non-monotonic behaviors at Mound and at 

other sites. Again, I'd have to go back 

again and rehash my memory on this.

But it seems to be a similar 

finding to the other ones. How do you know 

that Type L is representative of these other 

sites, other exposure scenarios?

And Finding 10, there is no 

guidance in the TIB, actually the Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Profile or TIB-83, on which areas of Mound 

and in which time period Tables 2-1 and 2-2 

should be used. The lack of such guidance 

indicates the table should be used at all 

areas, at all times to interpret Mound --

Well that's true. That's how 

they're going to be used. It is not NIOSH's 

intent, either then -- if this was not 

NIOSH's intent, then it should be modified 

to specify when tables are to be used.

It's pretty specific in there, 

when the dose reconstructor is doing the 

dose reconstruction, that they would use the 

guidance in those tables.

MR. MARSCHKE: So really the 

answer is, basically it is for all areas and 

all times.

DR. NETON: It's for all 

plutonium intakes, yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: I believe that's 

what I heard.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: So if that's the 

case, then it is NIOSH's intent. And I've 

seen the statement to that end will be a 

part of your responses to it.

DR. NETON: Well, I'll have to 

rephrase that. I mean, I guess I need to go 

back and make sure, at all areas and all 

times when these plutonium materials were 

being used at Mound. I mean, we certainly 

wouldn't use them if there was, if the 

profile indicates that they weren't on site.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. NETON: You know what I'm 

saying?

MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. NETON: I'll give it that 

caveat.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

DR. NETON: But as long as they 

were there, and they were working with this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

material, it would be used. Okay, Finding 

11, for sites other than Mound were nonmonotonic lung dissolution of plutonium is 

observed, plutonium 238. There is no 

assurance that the 238 at the site will 

correspond to Type L, plutonium 238.

Okay. This goes back to that 

same finding that we just talked about, 

which is, how do we know that this would 

apply to other sites, other sites than 

Mound. And again, we're going to have to 

address that in our response.

TIB-83 is difficult to follow and 

understand. The sections do not follow a 

natural order. NIOSH's Type J and Type L 

plutonium 238 compounds are only introduced 

in Section 4. And my screen just timed out. 

Bear with me here.

Type L compounds, plutonium 238 

compounds are only under Section 4, although 

they're used in Section 1, 2 and 3. I 

acknowledge that it could undergo some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

better organization. And we'll take that 

under consideration as we're providing these 

responses.

And 13 is, TIB-38 is essentially 

the same document as the White Paper 

modeling intakes of plutonium 238 at Mound. 

That is true. ORAU TIB-83 is only clear for 

those that participated in discussion 

regarding Mound plutonium 238 exposures at 

Mound.

Again, the same, essentially the 

same finding as the one a couple of times 

ago, which is how do we know that this 

applies, this Type L material could apply at 

facilities other than Mound?

MR. MARSCHKE: No, this is not 

that. This is basically saying that the, 

this is more editorial I think, and the 

clarity of the way the document is written. 

It says --

DR. NETON: Oh, I see, yes, yes. 

It's only clear for those that participated. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Well, I'm not sure about that. That is an 

editorial comment. You're right.

CHAIR MUNN: That's not really a 

finding. That's an observation.

DR. NETON: I would call that an 

observation.

CHAIR MUNN: I would as well.

DR. NETON: I mean, I don't know 

how to address that other. We'll try to 

take that into consideration, and we'll 

respond. But I had really not thought this 

one out yet. But again, it's really not a 

technical issue.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. NETON: It's an 

administrative, editorial type issue.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

DR. NETON: And then 14, the last 

one is, 83 does not discuss existence of 

other non-monotonic forms of plutonium at 

Mound. Nor present any research done. L is 

the only appropriate form of plutonium 238 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to be included in the calculation.

Well, this kind of gets into that 

proving a negative issue that we run up 

against a lot. I think that the 83 does a 

pretty good job demonstrating in one of the 

sections, I forget which one it is, where it 

discusses the Los Alamos incident, why this 

is not a, not considered to be a reasonable 

type of incident that could have happened at 

the Mound facility.

And we'll just have to reiterate 

that, and maybe do a better job of 

convincing SC&A at least that these cermet 

materials that were handled in a such a 

manner at Los Alamos to generate airborne, 

did not occur that way at Mound.

I mean, cermets themselves are 

inert, not inert, but they're very hard to 

break apart by the nature of their design. 

So unless you go to great length to try to 

do that, like they did at Los Alamos, we 

don't see a reasonable exposure scenario for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this at the Mound facility.

Although, we're going to take a 

re-look at that, and make sure that that 

statement is true. I'm pretty sure it is. 

I've gone through a lot of documents. I've 

not seen any evidence that such a campaign, 

or such an experimental protocol was 

followed at Mound with these cermets. So 

we'll try to address that last one as well.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

DR. NETON: But that's it in a 

nutshell. These really boil down to this, 

you know, Type L, and its universal 

applicability to plutonium 238. And then 

the Type J and Y, that's not universally 

applicable across the site. To me those are 

the two huge issues that were identified 

here, that we need to deal with.

MR. MARSCHKE: I agree with Jim 

on that. I mean, I participated with Joyce 

on at least doing the review of this. John 

Stiver and myself were involved in reviewing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this. And so I think -

But that's really the, I mean, my 

impression of this, of Joyce's concerns is 

very much the same as Jim's. Is the 

universality of Type L and, you know, at 

other facilities.

DR. NETON: Right. And, you 

know, we may actually respond in a couple of 

sections like that. And then point to the 

fact that this addresses these four or five 

findings, you know, or something like that. 

It will make it easier than just restating 

the same thing several times.

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I --

MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I 

agree with Steve on this. Personally I 

didn't remember seeing anything in my review 

with Joyce about the destructive testing of 

the cermet material at Los Alamos. But 

certainly a good point to make that it may 

be --

DR. NETON: That's covered in 83.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. Okay. I 

have to go back to the review and refresh my 

memory on that.

DR. NETON: Okay. But, you know, 

we'll put together our responses, and get 

them on the database here. And, you know, 

It's just going to be a little while. It's 

going to take some time. It probably won't 

be the next Working Group Meeting, or 

Subcommittee meeting. But it won't be until 

the next, maybe couple of months, we'll have 

something out on this.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Well, no 

staff. And I think your stated approach 

with respect to perhaps responding in a 

block manner may be more advantageous than 

trying to address one at a time. It seems 

logical, given what we've seen today. All 

right. I don't believe that this has been 

seen by anyone other than NIOSH and SC&A, 

has it? I don't believe I've seen it.

MR. MARSCHKE: The, yes --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Did that report go 

out to us?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it went out.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, we got the 

SC&A report fairly recently.

CHAIR MUNN: I must have somehow 

missed OTIB-83. I thought I --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim's comments 

were very helpful I think. So we have a 

pretty good idea of what the responses are 

going to look like. And I think they’ll be 

satisfactory to both SC&A and to the Work 

Group. But we'll just have to wait until 

they come.

CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

DR. NETON: Yes. The review by 

SC&A was issued in December of 2013. So 

just a couple of months ago.

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I think it 

went out actually -- Yes, here it is on the 

-- If I recall it went out on the 24th.

DR. NETON: Right. During the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

end of, you know, almost during the holiday 

period.

CHAIR MUNN: All right.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

That's the date on mine, 12/24.

CHAIR MUNN: That may be what 

happened in my file.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, you were 

thinking holiday, you were on holiday.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there it is. 

All right. Well, I'll pull that up and take 

a look at it myself. Thank you. And we'll 

anticipate the NIOSH report, not next time, 

but probably the meeting following that.

DR. NETON: I hope we'll have 

something.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll 

take that for the agenda at that time. And 

do we have any other comments, thoughts with 

respect to OTIB-83? If not, the only 

comment that occurs here is with respect to 

the finding that appears to be an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

observation rather than a finding.

I'm not sure we've encountered 

this particular situation before. We've 

encountered the other finding, the other 

situation where we've decided to keep track 

of observations, because of their impact on 

other aspects of what we were looking at for 

some particular document.

But I don't think we've come 

across an item before which was shown in the 

SC&A report as a finding, which is not by 

definition truly a finding, it's an 

observation.

I hope that when we address these 

findings for closure that we can agree to 

simply make that statement at the time of 

closure. And not have to beat that horse to 

death, particularly.

MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda --

CHAIR MUNN: I don't know how 

others feel about that. Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: I added the word 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

observation after the OTIB-83-13 number. 

And what I will do is, you know, when we get 

off line here I will add a little bit of 

discussion that, you know, that you, that 

the Subcommittee has instructed us that this 

is really, that they consider this, as well 

as NIOSH considers this to be more of an 

observation than it is a finding.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think mine 

was the only voice that's been raised in 

that regard. We probably should hear from 

Josie and Paul before we make that --

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: -- concrete 

statement. Paul?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think 

it's probably an observation. I don't 

object to it being carried for the time 

being as a finding, just so we formalize 

what we're doing. But if everybody's 

agreeable to call it an observation now, 

that's fine.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: It certainly seems 

so to me. Thank you, Paul. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I see no reason 

why we shouldn't leave it as a finding until 

we get NIOSH's report. But --

CHAIR MUNN: Fine. And at that 

time, Steve, we'll do exactly what you 

suggest here, hopefully. Thank you all. 

Now, can we move to OTIB-34?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, we can. 

I'm going to ask you, do you have my report 

that's dated November of 2013 available for 

the screen?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We have the, 

hold on here.

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I'm just 

going to be referring to a bunch of pages, 

so that --

MR. MARSCHKE: We have the 

report. And we also have the findings on 

the BRS.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. Okay, are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you, can I start then?

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. Well, as 

Steve already mentioned earlier, this is a 

focus review of ORAU OTIB-34, with the title 

of "Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X10". And this focus review of OTIB-34 

essentially addresses those changes that 

were introduced under Revision 1.

And let me just briefly identify 

what the three revisions were. The first 

revision is that the intakes of plutonium 

239 Type S, in Table 5-5, were revised and 

expanded to include bioassay data for all 

years.

And if you go to, Steve, if you 

go to Page 8 of the report you will see 

Table 1 and Table 2. And what Table 1 has 

was that in the original version of OTIB-34, 

they had by and large a single value for all 

years between 1951 and 1988. And only the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50th percentile value of the GSD for dpms 

per day intake.

And of course that was one of the 

findings in our first audit of OTIB-34 under 

Revision 0. And what you see in Table 2 

below, by now the revised values for the 

50th percentile, as well as the 95th 

percentile that's used has also been 

included.

And you see, of course, the major 

difference for the years 1951 and '52. You 

go from 4.15 dpm per day to 1,489. You're 

talking about a 350 fold increase. For 

other years, obviously, you see in Table 2, 

the significant higher values that are 

defined as dpm per day for those years.

And obviously we have a total of 

five time periods from the first one. After 

'51, 52, you have '53, '59, and so on. So 

we by and large agreed with all the dose 

values. And we concur with the numbers.

But one of the things that I also 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

looked at, in ORAU's TKBS-0012-5 we also, we 

don't expect, there's no reference to 

plutonium Type Super S. And if you look at 

the TKBS-0012-5 you find that -- no, 

actually it's OCAS' PER-12 that identifies 

that X-10 should have also included Super 

Type S.

And so that was Finding Number 1. 

We agree with the changes in, from Table 1 

to 2. But what we also realize is that the 

acknowledgment of plutonium Type Super S was 

not considered in OTIB-34 as part of the 

coworker model.

And of course, the inclusion of 

Super Type S would certainly increase the 

dose associated with any consideration that 

the plutonium might have been Super S. So 

that's Finding 1.

The second change that occurred 

in Revision 1 was the addition of the 95th 

percentile for all radionuclides. And on 

Page 10 of my write up you will see, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

obviously, how the 95th percentile is 

defined under Equation 4.

And what I did in review of all 

these tables, Table 5-1 through 5-6, I tried 

to identify the 50th percentile value with 

what the 95th percentile value was. And I 

was able to match every one of them, except 

in Table 5-5 that there were three out of 

six values that I would devise different, 

higher numbers, as you see in that 

particular table.

I don't have a number for that 

table. But it's on top of Page 11. You see 

the NIOSH data on the second column, and 

SC&A data. And for 1951 to '52, NIOSH has 

devised the value of 7,178 dpm per day. And 

according to my equations, and use of 

Equation 4, I came out with a value of 

9,073.

And also, for the other two 

values mine turned out to be slightly higher 

than those that were identified by NIOSH. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And so that is Finding Number 2, that 

someone may want to look at those three 

numbers and see if they were in error, or if 

there's another explanation.

As I go on, mid page of Page 11, 

I stated the following, "Of greater concern 

to SC&A is why the 95th percentile values 

were added, since OTIB-34, Rev 1 offers no 

guidance for their use." And I'm not going 

to go through the entire citation that I 

quoted from other documents.

But it seems to me that when you 

have a 95th percentile value, that's usually 

reserved for the high exposure groups, such 

as operators, or anyone else who would be 

considered a maximally exposed individual.

And yet, when you read the 

quotation, as I stated here in OTIB-35, you 

see the following, "For each radionuclide 

the 50th and 95th percentile intakes and 

GSDs are provided in the tables." And then 

it says, "In most cases doses for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

individuals who were potentially exposed 

routinely should be calculated from the 50th 

percentile intake.

To me that phrase, individuals 

who were potentially exposed routinely. 

It's usually for other NIOSH documents, 

reserved for those individuals who are 

generally considered high end exposed 

individuals, who, under different 

circumstances, and different documents that 

NIOSH has published, are usually given the 

84th or the 95th percentile value.

So the question is, how do you 

make that differentiation when the dose 

reconstructor looks at that and says, for 

most people who were potentially exposed 

routinely? That to me would suggest every 

day when they show up for work they may be 

exposed. That pretty much is a high end 

exposure person.

And in the absence of any 

official guidance, when does the person take 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the liberty to make a judgment call to say, 

do I give that individual the 50th and the 

95th percentile? And I think it goes back 

to one of the issues that I've raised on a 

number of previous instances.

I'd like to see a very 

prescriptive process, so that the dose 

reconstructor is not necessarily tasked with 

a situation where he has to make a judgment 

call that may or may not be shared by other 

dose reconstructors who might end up 

encountering the same situation, and lets 

you use the 50th, while the other person may 

elect the 95th percentile.

And so, what it comes down to, 

I'll skip all of the additional information 

I've provided, and I'll go to Page 13. And 

so under Finding Number 3 I said, "For the 

X-10 internal coworker model, as well as 

other internal", because I quoted other 

internal models, "guidance for the 

assignment of 95th percentile intake values 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to unmonitored workers is currently 

inadequate in this particular document, and 

possible in others."

Because I quoted other documents 

that said there may be unusual circumstance 

of it. But those are very, very subjective 

statements. And again, for consistency 

purposes I would like to see a more either 

defined or prescriptive approach as to when 

you use the 95th percentile, versus the 50th 

percentile. So that's Finding 3.

The third edition to this 

particular revision of OTIB-34 involves the 

expansion of statistical summary tables in 

Attachment A. And one of the things that --

I'm on Page 13 for those who are following 

me on the screen.

In Section 2 of OTIB-34 I quote 

the database that was cited there. Results 

are in units of disintegrations per dpm for 

24 hours. And then it says, all results 

were assumed, and I underlined the word 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

assumed, to be representative of a full day, 

24 hour urinary excretion.

When you look at Example 1, not 

Example, Exhibit 1, which I have enclosed on 

Page 16. So, Steve, if you can possibly 

identify Exhibit 1 on the screen? You will 

see obviously, a page here that has multiple 

columns of the, one, two, three, four, five, 

six -- Column Number 6 shows dpm per sample.

And then there's next to it also 

dpm per, I believe it's sample, but I'm not 

sure what SMGL stands for. And then in the 

very far right hand column you see dpm per 

24. And I assume that's 24 hours.

And when you look at the numbers, 

the difference between dpm per sample and 

dpm per 24 is a factor of 10 difference. 

And so my question that I had, what were the 

original, these are obviously not original 

data that were obviously --

Exhibit 1 represents a 

compilation of all data by NIOSH. And I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

starting to, or I wanted to sort of have a 

couple of open ended questions for NIOSH as 

to what these data in Exhibit 1 really 

represent?

If you assume that the dpm per 

sample and dpm per 24 hours, which vary by a 

factor of 10, which one of these data points 

was in fact the original data? And to what 

extent would you have both of them?

Because if you have a dpm per 

sample, a dpm per 24 hours, and they vary by 

a factor of 10, and you assume that a dpm 

per 24 hours represents 1,400 ml of urine 

per day excretion, then dpm per sample would 

presumably then represent a constant sample 

value of 140 ml for analysis.

And I was just questioning to 

what extent, when you use the word it was 

assumed, as I stated on Page 13, all samples 

were assumed to be representative of a full 

day, 24 hours, I'm not sure I know what that 

means.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And I'm asking NIOSH to offer 

some clarification as to what that statement 

represents. And also perhaps get some 

clarification on what the numbers in Exhibit 

1 represent, when we talk about dpm per 

sample, and dpm per 24 hours.

And that basically defines my

Finding Number 4, which is stated on Page 

14. It says, "Pending answers to the 

aforementioned questions, NIOSH's assumption 

of when and how bioassay data is represented 

with full day, 24 hour units is subject to 

question."

Those, by and large, are my 

questions. If there is a clarification for 

what the data on Exhibit 1 shows, it might 

answer the finding.

MR. MARSCHKE: Hans, this is 

Steve.

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: There's one other 

thing I think we should mention to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Subcommittee, that you mentioned early on, 

when you talked about the Rev 0 findings.

And you made a recommendation 

back on Page 7 regarding Finding Number 3, 

which I think is probably based upon, you 

know, some of the stuff you just talked 

about. But basically you say, you make a 

recommendation that the Finding 3, the 

status be changed from in abeyance to 

closed.

DR. H. BEHLING: Let me see. 

Where are we, Steve, here?

MR. MARSCHKE: The top of Page 7.

DR. H. BEHLING: Top of Page 7, 

okay. Oh, yes, okay. I see it. Yes. I 

would assume, if everyone agrees, that the 

bioassay data that defines the change, as I 

have mentioned to you in Table 1 and 2 on 

Page 8, seem to obviously address that 

issue.

In other words, in Table 1 that 

was in Rev 0, they had a single dpm per day 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

value at the 50th percentile for years 1951 

through 1988. And those were changed to a 

total of seven time, no six time frames as 

defined in Table 2.

And I just briefly had mentioned 

that that change involves a 350 fold 

increase for years '51, and clearly 

something like a 30 to 40 fold increase for 

other years.

So the issue that was identified 

in the first review, and is now, was in 

abeyance, should really be closed, given 

what I believe was the proper response to 

that finding. What it comes down to, Steve, 

is that Finding Number 3 was addressed as 

one of the changes that --

MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I agree with 

you, Hans. I just wanted to make sure that 

the --

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: That the 

Subcommittee is aware that we are now making 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the recommendation --

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: -- to change the 

status of that one finding.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for 

getting the items up on the screen, Steve. 

I appreciate that. There's certainly no 

objection here to closing that item, that 

recommendation of SC&A. Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I have no 

objection to that either, Wanda. Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I agree that 

should be closed. They've provided what was 

needed there.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Steve, 

you can identify that the Subcommittee 

accepts SC&A's recommendation. The item is 

now closed.

DR. H. BEHLING: I'm not sure if 

we were waiting for a response from NIOSH on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

some of the other findings.

CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't believe 

so. I think they will need some time to 

respond to those. I --

MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda --

CHAIR MUNN: -- don't think I'm 

speaking out of turn. Yes.

MS. MARION-MOSS: We do have some 

responses to a couple of Hans' findings.

CHAIR MUNN: That's very good.

MS. MARION-MOSS: But before we 

do that I would like to ask Hans and/or 

maybe Steve, what's the status of Finding 2 

in this document, for this document, for Rev 

0? I see that NIOSH and/or at the time OCAS 

had provided a response to Finding Number 2 

for Rev 0.

MR. MARSCHKE: I'm sorry, Lori, I 

was trying to, I've messed up things here. 

I'm trying to get this finding changed, and 

I changed it the wrong way. So now I'm 

trying to get it closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's 

have a two minute hiatus here, while Steve 

types, so that we can close this one item 

appropriately. And then we'll go on to the 

question that Lori's raised.

DR. H. BEHLING: Wanda, this is 

Hans. While we're waiting on Steve --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

DR. H. BEHLING: This is supposed 

to be a focus review. So I did not really 

choose to address the issues, other than 

Finding 3. Because it became one of the 

issues that was evaluated under the revised 

OTIB-34.

But I did not attempt to really 

deal with anything, other than to state, as 

we have just mentioned a few minutes ago, 

that the change in terms of the different 

time frames for the Type S intakes satisfies 

the Finding Number 3 that was identified in 

the first part.

But as far as the other findings, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I did not want to address it. Because as we 

were told, this is a focus review. And I 

was not going to address those things --

CHAIR MUNN: Right. Understand. 

Thank you, Hans. I think that's 

appropriate. And now Steve has finished his 

entry for us. And we'll go back to -- Lori, 

do you want to repeat your question for 

Steve?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, Hans 

basically answered my question with his 

comment he just made.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

MS. MARION-MOSS: That --

CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to make 

sure that it was covered.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. That this 

was predominantly a focus review for Rev 1.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

MS. MARION-MOSS: So --

MR. MARSCHKE: Let me, I mean, it 

looks like the last entry into Finding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Number 2 was a NIOSH entry. And so from 

that point of view it looks like Finding 

Number 2 is now in, should be in SC&A's 

court, I guess.

And we should probably evaluate 

the NIOSH response, and determine whether or 

not, and make a recommendation as to whether 

or not we accept it or not. The thing is, 

this has happened so long ago, in 2009, I'm 

not sure.

And the status, usually when we 

have a NIOSH response and we've talked about 

it at the meetings here, we usually change 

the status to in progress. And it's still 

showing it's open. So I'm not sure whether 

or not we've ever talked about the fact that 

NIOSH has provided us a response in here. 

And so I think --

CHAIR MUNN: It may be a clerical 

error that we're just now catching.

MR. MARSCHKE: It may be a 

clerical error that we're just now catching. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

But anyway, I think it's basically, SC&A 

should take a look at the NIOSH response 

here for Finding Number 2, which again, it 

wasn't -- And Hans is chartered to do that.

CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, Hans 

was looking at the Rev 1 and seeing what the 

impact of Rev 1 had.

And probably the same thing is 

true for Finding Number 4. So again, we 

have a response here, again, in August of 

2009 from NIOSH we have a response to the 

finding. It's in the BRS. I don't know if 

we've ever talked about it in meetings, or 

what.

But I think maybe we should, SC&A 

should take an action item to look at those 

two responses, and see whether or not -- or, 

I guess we could, I don't know if you want 

to do it on the fly today. Or if we just 

want to take our time and look at it kind of 

off line, and get back to what our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

recommendation is for the next meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: Because whatever has 

happened has been in a time frame which is 

outside our recent memories. It appears 

wise to take the action to look at it 

carefully, and ascertain that more than 

likely what has happened here is that we've 

failed to change a category appropriately, 

so that we sort of lost track of what was 

going on.

We would, it would be my request 

for SC&A to check both these items for their 

status, to make sure that it is in fact 

time, past time for us to be reviewing those 

on an up to date basis. Let's do our best 

to try to clear these if possible. And it 

would be beneficial for us if you take that 

action please, Steve.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: We'll see what we 

can do to obtain a response for those two. 

And it will change the status as it should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

be changed. Perhaps we can change this 

status today. That seems to be in order. 

Is there any objection to that?

MEMBER BEACH: None here, Wanda.

MEMBER ZIEMER: What is it? You 

want to change the status?

CHAIR MUNN: We're changing the 

status, because it's shown as open, and it 

already has a NIOSH response.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I see. Then 

change it to in progress.

CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Oh 

sure. That's fine.

CHAIR MUNN: And have SC&A check 

on it --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: -- another time to 

see if they have a response available next 

time for Findings 2 and 9.

MR. MARSCHKE: Can you see the 

response on the --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It looks fine 

to me.

MR. MARSCHKE: -- screen?

CHAIR MUNN: Not hearing any 

objections.

MEMBER ZIEMER: No objections.

MR. KATZ: Well, is anyone having 

trouble listening, hearing?

CHAIR MUNN: I'm having trouble 

hearing Hans and Kathy. I don't know 

whether it's their line or mine. I'm 

hearing other people all right.

DR. H. BEHLING: Let me ask you 

now, can you hear me now, Wanda?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I can hear you 

now, Hans.

MR. KATZ: Okay, yes.

DR. H. BEHLING: I mean, I'll 

just have to speak louder.

CHAIR MUNN: These soft spoken 

people.

DR. H. BEHLING: No, I'm normally 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

not all that soft spoken, Wanda. I think 

you should talk to Kathy on that one.

CHAIR MUNN: All right, good. Do 

we have anything else that needs to be 

covered on OTIB-34 at this time?

DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I guess we 

were still thinking that Lori may have some 

responses to the other findings that I had. 

I'm not sure.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. This is 

Lori. Thanks again for clearing the other 

issue up for me, Steve and Wanda. Finding 

Number 1 for Rev 1, we have Matt Arno on the 

line. Matt, are you there?

MR. ARNO: Yes, I am.

MS. MARION-MOSS: And he's going 

to facilitate our response.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Matt.

MR. ARNO: I guess with regard to 

Finding Number 1, since this review of 

Revision 1 there has been a Revision 2 of 

this document issued.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And in the Revision 2 we did add 

some explanation and instruction to the dose 

reconstructors, that they do need to 

consider Type S solubility for plutonium. 

That is in Section 5.2 of Revision 2 of 

OTIB-34. I guess --

MR. MARSCHKE: We can get a copy, 

can we, is that up on the website that we 

can get a copy of Revision 2? I don't know 

that we have a copy of Revision 2.

MR. ARNO: That would be --

MR. MARSCHKE: And then we can 

basically, you know, just look at Section 

5.2 and, you know, see what we think.

CHAIR MUNN: And that has all the 

answers --

MR. MARSCHKE: -- use by dose 

reconstructors --

CHAIR MUNN: Is it up? It is 

easily accessible?

MR. ARNO: I don't know what 

documents you all have access to. These are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

accessible to the dose reconstructors.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

Siebert. Yes, it's up on the NIOSH website, 

Rev 2. I'm sorry --

MR. MARSCHKE: I see it. I see 

it. So we can get that and, I guess, you 

know, Hans can look at it and, you know, 

make a recommendation.

DR. H. BEHLING: Well, you know, 

I will look at it. But if it acknowledges 

that issue, then obviously we may resolved

the issue here.

MR. ARNO: The language used is 

the same as the language that was used for 

OTIB-80 and 81. So it's standard language 

that you should have seen on, with other 

documents.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's nothing 

new that requires real analysis there.

MR. ARNO: No. It's just another 

statement to the dose reconstructor, don't 

forget Type Super S.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Right. All right.

MR. ARNO: For Finding Number 2 

Hans' observations were correct. What 

happened in that instance was that the 95th 

percentile values in Revision 1 were based 

on geometric standard deviations of less 

than three in those three particular 

instances.

In Revision 2 we recalculated 

those based upon a minimum geometric 

standard deviation of three. And our values 

agree with the values calculated by Hans. 

So, you know, subject to their review, that 

finding should be readily closable.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. And I 

guess finding, I was really struggling with 

the idea of whether or not to make Finding 

Number 3 a finding or a recommendation. And 

this is obviously something that has been on 

my mind for a while.

And I always feel badly for the 

dose reconstructor when he is put into that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

uncomfortable position to make a judgment 

call as to which to use. And you can 

understand where the need for consistency is 

really imperative in dose reconstruction.

You don't want to, as I'd always 

pointed out, rely on a method that's flawed 

for getting a dose reconstruction that 

identifies a PoC value that may in fact be 

governed by a objective decision.

And so when I look at the issue 

here, and I quote on Page 11 a couple of 

instances where NIOSH has made reference to 

the use of the 95th percentile. But in a 

very subjective manner that really puts the 

onus on the dose reconstructor, that I 

believe should not be.

MR. ARNO: I guess, in addressing 

Finding Number 3 we have added additional 

guidance in Revision 2 on how the dose 

reconstructor should go about, or when they 

should assign the 95th percentile.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. ARNO: The language we 

inserted was the language that is present in 

many of the other coworker studies. That 

language is still qualitative. And does 

still leave some of, most of the judgment up 

to the dose reconstructor, in terms of 

ensuring consistency and approach.

We do have to recall that it's 

not a single person making this judgment in 

a vacuum. The report is subject to a peer 

reviewer, and then also subject to review by 

a DCAS reviewer. So you have three people 

basically agreeing that, you know, the 

appropriate percentile has been assigned.

And the multiplicity of people at 

various levels within the dose 

reconstruction preparation process will also 

serve to increase the amount of consistency 

between individual dose reconstructions.

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. One of the 

things that I just wanted to make aware of. 

When you look at coworker models that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

involved external dose as opposed to 

internal, the use of when, you know, you 

read things, that a person who was 

potentially exposed routinely for external 

usually defaults to the very higher 

percentile value, other than the 50th. It's 

either the 84th or the 95th.

And I was just questioning why 

there would be a difference between internal 

and external coworker models, and the 

recommendation for the percentile value that 

should be assigned.

Because if you look at some of 

the other documents for external, you 

usually see a use of a higher percentile 

value for people who were routinely exposed.

MR. ARNO: There are a lot of 

differences between how the internal and 

external coworker studies are created. The 

external coworker studies are typically 

based upon a far larger number of workers, 

and far larger amounts of independent data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

for each of those workers. Each badge cycle 

being an independent data point.

And that does not apply to the 

internal coworker studies. And that same 

greater amount of data for the external 

allows them to do additional analysis in 

terms of looking at job descriptions, and 

things of that nature, to define the 

guidance a little bit better about 50th, 

84th and 95th.

For internal dose estimates we 

don't have that data to break things down as 

finely. So we have established the 50th 

percentile, and then the 95th percentile, 

basically skipping over the 84th.

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MR. ARNO: And where, perhaps an 

external study might assign the 84th, 

internal coworker study, we jumped to 

assigning the 95th percentile.

DR. H. BEHLING: On the other 

hand, when I recall, for instance, for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Ames Site Profile, we do segregate or 

stratify exposures based on whether or not 

you're an operator, supervisor or some other 

assigned task.

And so the stratification does 

exist that it would allow you to say, well, 

what is your job function? And on that 

basis you assign the higher values for an 

operator as opposed to a supervisor, as 

opposed to a clerical type person. And that 

was my point here.

I said I would like to see a less 

subjective need for assigning the 95th 

percentile value that would eliminate some 

of the difficulty for dose reconstructors to 

make a decision based upon whatever he may 

have available to himself.

MS. K. BEHLING: He or she.

DR. H. BEHLING: He or she, okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, I can't hear 

that at all, whoever spoke.

DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, that was my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

wife correcting me.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh.

DR. H. BEHLING: Because dose 

reconstructors do involve --

MS. K. BEHLING: I said he or 

she. This is Kathy.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy.

MS. K. BEHLING: Referring to 

dose reconstructors as he.

CHAIR MUNN: Appreciate that.

DR. H. BEHLING: I'm just --

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

Siebert.

DR. H. BEHLING: -- an old 

fashioned guy.

MR. SIEBERT: I want to make one 

slight clarification there. It's minor. 

But we don't use the 84th percentile to 

assign anything, either external or 

external.

That's only used for generating 

the GSDs in the internal dosimetry coworker 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

study. So I just wanted to clarify that, 

since we were throwing it around.

DR. NETON: Thanks for 

clarifying, Scott. This is Jim. I was 

frantically looking through the documents to 

see where we ever did that. Thanks.

DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I guess 

that leaves us with Finding Number 4, if 

there's any feedback on that issue about the 

25 urinary excretion data.

MS. MARION-MOSS: At this point, 

after talking with some of our HPs, we would 

like to have the opportunity to look further 

in that, at the data for this particular 

site. So we would like to carry that one 

over, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

good. You're carried over until next time 

on Rev 1, Finding 4. Okay, very good. 

Anything else on OTIB-34?

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

Just for clarification, are we carrying 3 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

over then, as well?

CHAIR MUNN: I believe --

MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, it sounds 

like NIOSH believes that they have clarified 

the issue. I wasn't sure. Originally, I 

thought that Hans' question had to do with 

whether a higher exposure, or whether a 

regular sort of what we would call a high 

exposure person was in the 50th or 95th 

percentile.

But now it seems like the 

judgment has to do more with whether or not, 

or what their job actually is. Not whether 

it's a continually exposed versus a higher 

exposed, but what job description fits them 

in one of those groups. But it wasn't clear 

to me whether we've resolved Hans' question.

MR. ARNO: Well, there's been 

some additional guidance added. I guess 

there's a need for SC&A to look at that 

guidance and --

MEMBER ZIEMER: So that one's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

still open then.

CHAIR MUNN: Well --

MR. MARSCHKE: We can either --

CHAIR MUNN: -- I guess it's in 

progress.

MEMBER ZIEMER: In progress.

MR. MARSCHKE: Five, six and 

seven can either be left in, they should 

probably be changed to, all three of these, 

which NIOSH has responded to, five --

Well, Rev 1, Finding 1, 2 and 3, 

which I'm following, you know, they can, we 

can probably change the status of these to 

in progress. And basically, if that's, you 

know, if that's the desire of the 

Subcommittee.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think that's 

appropriate as long as you have an actual 

response. When the response is, we need 

more time, then that's a different thing. 

And it's still open. But any time we have a 

response that seems acceptable, then it's in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

progress.

DR. H. BEHLING: Just another 

couple of statements here. Because one of 

the things that triggered my concern about 

this whole issue of the 50th for most 

people, and if there's some unusual 

circumstance that might cause that dose 

reconstructor to give it, assign the 95th, 

was really driven by the huge value of the 

geometric standard deviation.

As I stated on top of Page 12, I 

looked at those. And when you realize that 

for some of the tables the GSD values are up 

to 10, suggested very definitely a fairly 

heterogeneous population of workers.

And given that high value, GSD 

value of ten or greater, you would realize 

that perhaps you need to stratify the 

workers to some degree. And then make use 

of the 95th percentile value under those

circumstances, when you realize that this 

person is at the very, very high end of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

spectrum.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I'm following 

Steve's work here on the screen. But 

fortunately he's moving rapidly enough that 

I'm not following very well. Thank you,

Steve. It's very helpful for us to be able 

to get those moved forward as we do them.

MR. MARSCHKE: We just basically 

added a statement that NIOSH has provided a 

response to the findings. And the status 

has been changed to in progress. And SC&A 

has been asked to review the NIOSH response.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we said that.

MR. MARSCHKE: Essentially the 

same blurb that we have put in for 2 and 4.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And we have 

the status change. That's the --

MR. MARSCHKE: And we have the 

status change.

CHAIR MUNN: -- key for us. We 

don't want to repeat our mistakes of 

earlier. Anything else now on OTIB-34? If 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

not, then as I recall earlier today we were 

told that NIOSH needed more time for PER-11. 

Is that correct?

MS. MARION-MOSS: That's correct.

CHAIR MUNN: So we will mark that 

off of our agendas today. And we'll see 

that next time. RPRT-53 status report. Oh, 

this is one of those things that I'm 

carrying primarily to remind us that we're 

waiting for somebody else to do something.

Do we have any further 

information with respect of whether or not 

there's going to be, how, what Work Group is 

going to take 53, and how it's going to be 

handled?

MR. STIVER: Wanda, this is John 

Stiver. Joyce was working on a number. I 

think it was back in the July 18th meeting, 

we determined in that discussion that 

there's some big, kind of overarching meta 

issues, if you will --

CHAIR MUNN: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: -- better addressed 

in the SEC Work Group. And in the meeting 

we had in the SEC Work Group, I believe 

towards the end of September, both NIOSH and 

SC&A were tasked to look at two different 

aspects of RPRT-53.

We were tasked to look at the 

OPOS approach. And then NIOSH, I believe, 

was tasked to look at a lot of the comments 

that we had about the statistical 

methodologies that were used. And at this 

point I can tell you that our report has 

been sent off to DOE for review.

And so it should be back to the 

Work Group as soon as that's done. And any 

last minutes edits are made. I can't speak 

for NIOSH's point. Maybe Jim or Stu could 

weigh in on where they stand.

CHAIR MUNN: So why --

DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim.

CHAIR MUNN: -- can't directly, 

the SEC Work Group is working on it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. NETON: Yes. The SEC Issues 

Work Group has --

CHAIR MUNN: I thought I had 

reported that at our Board meeting. And 

something that was said at the time made me 

think that perhaps I was in error.

DR. NETON: No.

CHAIR MUNN: But it was an 

offhand comment.

DR. NETON: Unless something 

happened that I don't know about.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good.

DR. NETON: We pretty much stand 

where I reported, as to what I reported at 

the Board meeting, which is, I gave that 

brief summary of our review of what we call 

practically significant dose.

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. NETON: That original 

analysis is done. I have a draft report in 

my computer. And we hope to get that out in 

the next week or two.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: All right.

DR. NETON: With some 

recommendations of how we're going to move 

forward to further evaluate that.

CHAIR MUNN: Should I continue, 

is it your feeling that we should continue 

to carry this on our agenda as a heads up, 

this is supposed to be working somewhere 

else?

Or shall put it aside and 

anticipate that the Work Group is likely to 

give us a report back? Do you have any 

feeling about that one way or the other? If 

there's direction that's involved here, 

please do pass it along.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Yes, I 

don't see any reason to carry that on an 

agenda until they report back. It's not, 

it's definitely more than one meeting away 

that that's going to happen.

And you're talking more too, 

because we'll get reports at the full Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

meeting. We can put it back on the agenda 

if there's anything left for the Procedures 

Subcommittee to wrestle with, after the SEC 

Issues Work Group has finished.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's very 

good. I'll anticipate doing that.

MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 

Steve again. We have eight findings on 

RPRT-53 in the BRS. And they're being 

identified as open. Now, since the SEC Work 

Group is actually working this document, if 

not these findings, I mean, do we want to 

change the status of these to transferred, 

or --

CHAIR MUNN: It appears that we 

should do that, so that the BRS carries the 

appropriate notation on it. Any other 

thoughts in that regard?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is 

Ziemer. If they're not working the site --

CHAIR MUNN: We lost you, Paul.

MEMBER ZIEMER: My mute went on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

If they're not working the findings, then I 

don't know why we would not keep it here, in 

terms of tracking.

MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not privy to 

what's going on in the SEC Work Group. So I 

don't know if they're working these exact 

findings, or if they're working, how they're 

working RPRT-53.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm not 

aware that they're working findings. We're 

looking, we've been looking at significant, 

you know, significant dose and things like 

that. Jim, you can add to that. But I 

don't think that we've looked at any 

findings.

DR. NETON: Well, I think that 

these findings are sort of a subset of the 

arms length issue that we're looking at 

right now. Because a number of these 

findings have to do with the power of the 

analysis, and that sort of thing.

And that's what spawned this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

practically significant dose. Because 

several of the findings commented that, 

well, you can't see very large, you know, 

you have to have large differences to be 

able to have any statistical significance. 

And that's true.

So, you're right that we're not 

exactly -- we did go over these findings. 

But at this point we're not exactly 

addressing these on an individual basis. I 

think we're taking a more open --

So I don't know the answer. 

That's sort of a wishy-washy answer. But 

that's where we are.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, no, it's not 

really wishy-washy, it's the way things are. 

And this raises another one of the clerical 

issues that we encounter when we're building 

something like the Board Reporting System. 

We keep encountering these situations that 

we haven't encountered before.

This is another one of those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

where we cannot appropriately proceed until 

other groups have completed their work. But 

it's not a true transfer of our 

responsibility. So we haven't truly 

transferred the question of the findings. 

We simply must withhold those.

And at this moment, unless 

there's some facility involved in the BRS 

with which I'm not familiar, then we have a 

situation where we have these open items 

hanging out in left field. And the only 

real record that we have, the only written 

record that we have where they go is in the 

minutes and transcripts of this 

Subcommittee's work.

So that essentially this is on 

hold for us. I hesitate to say in abeyance, 

it's not. But it's on hold for us until 

someone else completes their work. The 

place that that's being kept track of is in 

your Chair's agenda list. And that may or 

may not be an adequate spot to put it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I think that's the real question 

with respect to this type of group of 

findings. So I guess for the time being we 

probably, the suggestion is taken that it 

must be open for us, because it truly is 

open.

MEMBER BEACH: But you do --

Wanda, this is Josie. You do raise an 

interesting point. That status filter, 

there's really not a place there either.

CHAIR MUNN: No, there isn't. 

And it's one of the reasons why I carry, 

continue to carry this one. And things like 

30, you know, there are things that I carry, 

and keep asking about every time, even 

though I don't really anticipate a report. 

Somebody else is doing it.

But I hesitate to completely take 

it off my agenda. I guess perhaps we could 

institute a new process of making a note at 

the bottom of our agenda, with respect to 

things that fall into this category of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

activities that we have findings for, but 

for which other groups must complete work 

before we can address the findings properly.

Yes. We might try that. Let me 

try that next time, before we let this fall 

completely by the wayside. In that way we 

will at least touch those, so that if 

there's any report that needs to be gleaned 

from someone else, that we've failed to make 

contact with, it will alert us to the fact 

that we still have something hanging. I'll 

try that next time, without objection. Any 

objection?

MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That makes 

sense.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. We'll 

try that. And we'll move on from there. We 

have scheduled a break for 15 minutes. Are 

we amenable to that now? Or would you like 

to press on?

MEMBER ZIEMER: I'd just as soon 

press on.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Anyone need a break?

MEMBER BEACH: No. I'm fine with 

pressing on if everybody else is. This is 

Josie.

CHAIR MUNN: If we don't need a 

break, I'm not hearing from anyone else. If 

we don't need it then let's move on, see if 

we can get through this agenda and get 

everybody out into the cold and the wet. 

Status on the PERs 33, 25 and 38, and 

whether there are findings entered. Who has 

the --

MR. MARSCHKE: No, it's just 

basically, those three PERs were discussed 

at the last --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: -- meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: We talked about 

them. And you were going to deal with them.

MR. MARSCHKE: And I was going to 

enter a finding of No Finding. And you can 

see on the screen now, this is what I did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

for PER-25. I added this finding of No 

Findings. And you can see the wording 

that's there.

CHAIR MUNN: Acknowledged.

MR. MARSCHKE: And now, for 25 

there's, basically we have made a little 

progress. As I mentioned first thing this 

morning we made some progress. I think Ron 

has gone through and reviewed the Subtask 4, 

and review audited the case, one case I 

guess it was.

And there was a finding that came 

up. And so basically that has been added in 

here as well as, and I think that was very 

recently added.

CHAIR MUNN: And I think so --

MR. MARSCHKE: Ron's already --

CHAIR MUNN: We had your reports 

on both 25 and 33. And, yes.

DR. BUCHANAN: And it looks like 

NIOSH has replied.

MR. MARSCHKE: Right. NIOSH has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

replied --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: -- already.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: So I guess we're 

in agreement. We agree with NIOSH and NIOSH 

agrees with us. And so I guess it's, what 

did we recommend here?

CHAIR MUNN: The Subcommittee on 

that basis should direct these findings to 

be closed. Any discussion? Any Board 

Members have a problem with any of that? I 

trust you've had a chance to look at the 

reviews that were done.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I agree.

MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I 

agree also.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then we 

can make the statement that the most recent 

report has resolved the issues. And the 

Subcommittee has directed that these 

findings be closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. That's it 

for PER-25. PER-33, basically it has the 

same finding of No Finding, same wording.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: And PER-38, the 

same thing again.

MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is 

Kathy Behling.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Kathy.

MS. K. BEHLING: The one thing I 

believe that we still needed to resolve with 

the PER-38, it was discussed last time. And 

we did indicate that there were no findings.

But at the time I believe John 

Mauro was presenting on behalf of Bill 

Thurber. And he wasn't sure if Bill had 

looked at some representative cases for PER38.

And since the last meeting Bill 

Thurber has indicated that he has not looked 

at any cases. So it may be something we 

want to consider for the Subtask 4 portion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of this report, in selecting maybe some 

cases.

CHAIR MUNN: That is something we 

do need to clear up.

MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

Stiver. Bill had sent an email highlighting 

some basic aspects of the PER-38. And he 

did suggest that there are 20 cases that had 

been worked on within the criteria of 

interest.

And he recommended selecting 

about three. And I put this in, this is 

kind of jumping ahead, but the PER update 

tables that we sent around earlier --

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

MR. STIVER: -- a couple of days 

ago. Table 3 has a list of all those PERs 

for which Subtask 4 has not been completed 

yet. And that's with, PER-38 is part of 

that grouping.

CHAIR MUNN: Since we're, since 

with this action I believe we are completing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33 and 25, that leaves for this item only 

PER-38 that hasn't been addressed, that Task 

4 hasn't addressed, I believe.

I can see there appears to be no 

reason why we shouldn't proceed with --

you've selected three of the available 

findings, of cases, correct?

MR. STIVER: We haven't selected 

them. We just, Bill recommended that NIOSH 

just take three of those 20 that were, you 

know, basically within the PoC that was 

close to 50, like 45 to 50 percent.

But other than that he didn't 

recommend any particular criteria, other 

than just to randomly select a couple of 

cases among those 20.

CHAIR MUNN: Can the Subcommittee 

request that NIOSH do that?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: All right, please 

select three. Josie?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I agree with 

that also.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. Please, 

and we'll continue to carry PER-38 as 

awaiting Task 3, I mean 4. Very good. Are 

we good with 33 and 25? I assume that we're 

completely closed now. I didn't check that 

before we left that screen. I'll have to do 

that later.

We'll just assume that's been 

done. And that 38 now carries the request 

to NIOSH to provide the three selections for 

case review for Task 4, for SC&A next time. 

Anything else on PER-38? Since there were 

no findings, there really shouldn't be.

Move on to PER-37. This is 

another one that falls in that category we 

were discussing earlier, about where shall 

we track it. If it is amendable to other 

Members of the Subcommittee, I would suggest 

that I incorporate that one in the same 

category as RPRT-53. And that it be carried 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

on our agenda at the bottom, as awaiting 

action by others, or by some other Work 

Group.

So far as I know, there has been 

no action with respect to appointment of a 

Work Group for Ames. That's the most recent 

information I have.

And if that's the case then this 

can't continue under our current 

circumstances until Ames has some attention 

from a Work Group, or other resolutions are 

made of that issue. Am I correct? Does 

anyone know of any other material 

information that might apply to PER-37's 

status?

DR. NETON: No, that's correct.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. That's 

fine. I don't think anything's happened 

since our last meeting.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. I will 

continue to carry that and RPRT-53 on our 

list only.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda --

CHAIR MUNN: Now --

MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me, 

Wanda, this is Kathy Behling again.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Kathy.

MS. K. BEHLING: Since we're 

talking about the Ames Work Group, I'm 

wondering if it's appropriate at this point 

in time to also discuss, Hans just recently 

reviewed the PPG, the Pacific Proving 

Grounds Site Profile. And we also have an 

upcoming dose reconstruction associated with 

that.

And in preparation for the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting we had 

wondered if it wouldn't be best to hopefully 

discuss this PPG Site Profile review, prior 

to discussing the dose reconstruction audit.

And I guess a question came up as 

to whether that should be, a review should 

be done under the Procedures Subcommittee, 

or should there be a Work Group established?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: That's a 

particularly good question. And, as a 

matter of fact, I have a note to myself 

listed under the administrative detail here 

to bring up the question of whether or not 

we're going to have a PPG Work Group.

That's another one of those 

unanswered questions that I don't think we 

can do anything about in Subcommittee. But 

your concern is certainly well founded. I'd 

welcome any information from any source that 

would shed any light on that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is 

Stu. I don't have any information on that. 

But I think the chances of a PPG Work Group 

are relatively small. Because the site is 

an SEC for the entirety of the testing 

period.

So the only issues are going to 

be the dose reconstructions for nonpresumptive cancers being done 

appropriately, which is the focus of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

review of the Site Profile that we got. So 

I would suggest that there will be little 

emphasis in the Board for creating a PPG 

Work Group, which may mean that lands here 

with this Subcommittee.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well, and I, 

just right off hand nothing comes to mind as 

an appropriate other spot for it to land.

DR. H. BEHLING: Wanda, I just 

want to make a comment here. Because I 

personally reviewed the PPG Site Profile.

CHAIR MUNN: And I can hardly 

hear you.

DR. H. BEHLING: And I also, I'm 

the person who audited the PPG Site Profile.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

DR. H. BEHLING: And one of the 

concerns I have is that there are quite a 

few people that, unexpectedly, I looked at 

the number of people who might have filed 

claims with skin cancers. And there are 

quite a few of those.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And one of the major issues that 

I identified with my review was that the 

beta dose was potentially grossly 

underestimated, based on what may have been 

assumed as the way to calculate the beta 

dose from gamma dose, based on NTS guidance.

Anyway, it is something that is 

going to involve quite a few claimants, much 

more than I would have thought. And so, I 

think it would be extremely helpful to at 

least have some understanding of where we 

stand on the issues that surround the Site 

Profile, before dose reconstruction audits 

of PPG claimants takes place.

MR. KATZ: Wanda, this is Ted. 

Can I make a suggestion?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'd certainly 

appreciate one.

MR. KATZ: I mean, since, well I 

don't know if Hans is ready now, or it needs 

to be at next meeting. But if Hans is ready 

now, that's fine. I don't see any reason 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

why a discussion can't be started now with 

the Procedures Subcommittee.

You guys can report to the Board 

that we've opened up this discussion, 

because there is no Work Group right now. 

If the Board wants to establish a Work Group 

it can. But in the meantime I don't see any 

problem with getting the ball rolling.

DR. H. BEHLING: Well, Ted, there 

are some very, very complex issues, as Stu 

had mentioned. We're talking about a very 

long time period, and the evolution of 

radiation safety protocols that define 1946 

through the late '50s or early '60s. 

There's some really complex issues.

And specifically, I'm not really 

in a position to address the complexity of 

those issues now. But I did want to mention 

that in spite of the SEC, there are quite a 

few number of claimants with skin cancers.

And one of the key issues that I 

identified was the beta to gamma conversion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

values that are defined in the Site Profile. 

And are doses that reflect the NTS site, 

where we had conversion values of one to one 

under select circumstances.

In other words, defining your 

beta dose from a gamma exposure, a 

documented gamma exposure that can range 

from, everything from one to one, all the 

way to 60 to one, or even higher.

And given the fact that these 

skin cancers are obviously the prominent 

ones that may require evaluation, based on 

the fact that they're not included in the 

SEC, this is a very important issue.

MR. KATZ: That's fine. This is 

Ted. That's fine, Hans, if it's complex, 

and it's not something that's, you know, 

addressed now, then we can raise it.

We'll have a Board teleconference 

in March, which will probably precede the 

next Procedures Subcommittee meeting. And 

we can raise it there, and the Board can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

decide whether it's to occur with the 

Procedures or with a Work Group, either way.

DR. H. BEHLING: I'm sorry. I 

would appreciate it we could postpone it.

MR. KATZ: Yes, yes. That's 

fine. And we'll raise this at the next 

Board teleconference. And get this settled 

as to what are the results.

CHAIR MUNN: And our plan will be 

for us to include in our report, in our 

standard report at the teleconference a 

request for instructions and direction 

regarding the Pacific Proving Grounds.

And how to proceed with the 

findings that are likely to be fallout from 

this, especially in view of the fact that so 

many of these cases will not be included in 

the SEC. Am I hearing that correctly?

MR. KATZ: That sounds good. I 

mean, I think it's fine, Wanda, for you to 

report and raise it there. And then the 

Board can decide.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: That's what we'll 

do. And the question then comes to mind of 

whether -- Hans, do you have a document from 

your review that is available for the Board 

Members to see?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. My review 

of the PPG Site Profile was submitted, I 

believe -- I'd have to look. Because 

usually when I get finished with it, it goes 

through a whole series of reviews in-house.

And then also to one of our 

people who make sure that there's no Privacy 

Act issues that need to be addressed. So 

I'm not sure exactly when it was forwarded 

for a review by NIOSH. And --

CHAIR MUNN: That's all right. 

It was just a request on my part, not 

necessarily to you, but to the great world 

out there, whether your review is now 

available for others to review.

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: It was actually 

released on October of 2013.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

There was also a Revision 1. And that was 

released the following month on November 

20th.

MR. KATZ: Right. No, the only 

other thing I would add, that it's another 

nice piece of information to have, other 

than Wanda's report. But if this issue 

needs a home, it would be good to get this 

from NIOSH for the teleconference. Just the 

information as to where and at what point 

will they be ready to address.

Because they have the report. 

And they, of course, have to make 

priorities. And they're under sort of a 

constrained contract situation right now 

still. So we'll need some information from 

NIOSH as to when they're ready address this.

Because if we wanted a Work Group 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there's no point in hurrying about a Work 

Group if NIOSH is six months away from being 

able to address it.

CHAIR MUNN: May I ask Stu or Jim 

to think about that, and let me know well in 

advance of our next teleconference, so that 

I can incorporate that? Or have one of them 

available to comment on that at the time I 

make my report. Either would be fine.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well I'm, this is 

Stu. And I'll speak to the Board if you 

want me to. But I can almost say with some 

certainty that it's going to be difficult to 

slot this in the near future.

CHAIR MUNN: I understand.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's going to be, 

probably going to be out a ways. I read 

Hans' review. I think there are a lot of 

things that need to be addressed. And it's 

going to take some effort to do that.

So it's probably going, you know, 

probably going to have to be a contractor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

effort, rather than an in house effort. And 

it's going to be, it's got to be slotted 

into all the other things we're trying to 

accomplish.

CHAIR MUNN: Right. I 

understand.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

we're going to be ready in the near term in 

all likelihood.

CHAIR MUNN: I'll just 

incorporate in that in comments when we're 

making the report, if that's okay with you?

MR. HINNEFELD: Fine by me.

CHAIR MUNN: That's very good. 

Anything else with respect to PPG? If not, 

then -- now, OTIB-54. Do we have a response 

to those findings?

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, we do, 

Wanda. Is Bob Burns on the line?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

MS. MARION-MOSS: Bob is going to 

facilitate our responses for OTIB-54-1.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Thanks. 

It's all yours, Bob.

MR. BURNS: Okay. Are we going 

to go through these one at a time?

CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

probably the logical thing to do.

MR. BURNS: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Is there anything 

that's open?

MR. BURNS: Okay. Well, I 

believe there is, I've forgotten actually. 

I think there's nine that are open right 

now.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, when I say open 

I mean open in progress. You know what I 

mean. I mean, anything that isn't closed.

MR. BURNS: Right. The first 

four comments essentially, as far as I'm 

concerned, pretty much have the same 

response. Again, I don't know.

In the past when I've been on 

these meetings we would read through the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

comment, and then read through the other 

response, and there would be discussion. I 

don't know if that's still the protocol, or 

--

CHAIR MUNN: That's pretty much 

the way we operate. We try to keep it as 

low key as possible. Because --

MR. BURNS: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: -- it gets sticky.

MR. BURNS: Sticky? Is that what 

I heard?

CHAIR MUNN: I said, go for it.

MR. BURNS: Oh, you want me, 

okay, so you want me to read the comments 

and the responses?

CHAIR MUNN: Just, I think we 

can, Steve will have the comments, will have 

the finding on the board, right? It's up 

for us to read, those of us who have Live 

Meeting. And if you just simply refer to 

the finding, make sure we have the correct 

finding on the screen, and then give us the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

response.

MR. BURNS: Okay. I'll start 

with, these are all pertaining to Rev 1. So 

it's Rev 1, Finding 1, which was a comment 

on the -- well, again, I won't read through 

the comment. But like it says, the response 

to the first four is essentially the same.

There's a document that's in 

progress that I think presents all the 

reactor modeling that was done, not only for 

OTIB-54, but also for some modeling that was 

done for another site, for Savannah River 

Site, that's the subject of another 

document.

So the original OTIB-54, the 

discussion of the ORIGEN modeling that was 

done, that led to the selection of the four 

representative reactors. That's simply 

going to appear in this other document. But 

the point being, there's been no change to 

that.

You're saying that original 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

modeling was not changed in any way in the 

revision. So it's simply a list and laying 

into this, which now is going to be a 

separate document.

And we didn't want to encumber 

OTIB-54 with a bunch of reactor modeling 

discussions. So it just made sense to 

remove that information, and put it in this 

other document. Again, the point is, that 

hasn't changed.

DR. OSTROW: Excuse me.

CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

expectations of when that document will be 

available?

MR. BURNS: It's in progress. We 

have a tentative date, which I believe is 

for early April.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So some, 

later this year. That will do it. Okay, 

thanks.

DR. OSTROW: This is Steve 

Ostrow. I have a question on this, Bob.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. BURNS: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: I've made the 

comment that, you know, Rev 0 of the OTIB 

had all the reactor modeling information, 

which you took out in Rev 1. Did you do 

anything different for Rev 1 than you did 

for Rev 0, you know, with your reactor 

modeling?

MR. BURNS: Yes and no. For the 

initial reactor modeling, the modeling that 

was done, the ORIGEN2 modeling that was 

done, where we took the original 11 cases.

And then based on the vision 

activation product inventory data from 

those, that led to the selection of the four 

representative reactors. There is no change 

to that modeling whatsoever.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Then I see 

you also ran, this time you ran ORIGEN as 

also the scale model.

MR. BURNS: That's correct.

DR. OSTROW: And that would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

new, right?

MR. BURNS: That is new. And 

that's also, and that's what led to the 

original modeling being pulled out. Because 

that's going to be the subject of this other 

document. And it's going to be rather 

voluminous. And we just didn't want to 

encumber OTIB-54 with that information.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. So I 

understand, from looking at your responses, 

and from my original findings, the first 

four findings all have to do with reactor 

modeling. So basically, you're going to 

address this in your report that you're 

working on.

MR. BURNS: That's correct. It's 

probably, you've made one comment about the 

cladding selected for the trigger reactor. 

And I, so that will just, I'll have that, I 

forget what the table number was. But we'll 

add that to OTIB-54.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, okay. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

either aluminum or stainless steel?

MR. BURNS: Right.

DR. OSTROW: Right.

MR. BURNS: Yes, it's stainless 

is the answer.

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MR. BURNS: And we'll reflect 

that in the table.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. Very good.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

Siebert. That's Table 5-2.

MR. BURNS: Okay. Thanks, 

Scott. Okay. So I believe that addresses 1 

through 4. Comment 5 pertains to the 

fission and activation project modeling 

addressing the fuel as a whole, as 

pertaining to what might appear in the clad 

gap, or something, or in filtration systems, 

or something along that line.

But as the responses, you know, 

my view was that, you know, limiting the 

radionuclides produced. In doing that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

would limit yourself to the volatiles or the 

semi-volatiles. And I think you would be, 

overall you would be understating doses if 

you did so.

And plus, given the nature of 

operations with the separations plant, it 

seemed to make more sense to consider the 

fuel as a whole.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. We have to 

think about this a little bit. John Mauro, 

are you on the line? No, apparently not. 

That was John's comment to this. Well, 

okay, we'll have to respond, look at this 

and respond to it separately.

MR. BURNS: Okay. All right, 

Finding 6 pertained to the use of the 

effective dose conversion factor. And 

getting from the intake fractions in Table 

D-1 to Table E-1, which is, the point of 

that was to reduce the number of 

radionuclides considered from 36 in Table D1, down to I believe 17 in E-1, just to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reduce the calculational burden, if you 

will, on the dose reconstructors.

DR. OSTROW: Is it, does it 

actually reduce the burden significantly? I 

assume it's all computerized, or 

spreadsheet, or something that you have this 

on.

MR. BURNS: I think, the tool I 

believe, the current version of the tool I 

believe is more functional than it was in 

the past, without --

There's two issues there. One is 

validating. If you have, you know, the 

process of validating that tool, doing the 

hand calculations that are required to do 

so, that is highly cumbersome.

So it's beneficial from that 

standpoint to have, to reduce the number of 

nuclides. But also just the calculations 

and everything the tool does is 

computationally intensive, to the point 

where it's really resource loading.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So if we went with 36 nuclides, 

for instance, you know, we might end up 

having to have, you know, 64 bit operating 

systems, and 32 gig of RAM to run the tool. 

So there's value in reducing the number of 

nuclides.

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

MR. BURNS: And there's, you 

know, continuing that point, the reason the 

effective dose was used was that was a 

comment we received from, I guess from the 

Subcommittee, on the original version of 

OTIB-54.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. We'll have to 

look at that, and comment on that later.

MR. BURNS: Okay. And then 

Finding 7 I guess is really continuing on 

the same themes.

DR. OSTROW: Yes, I saw you 

reduced the number of nuclides from 36 to 

17.

MR. BURNS: Right. Moving on to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Finding 8. I guess there's two issues 

there. One pertaining to the radioiodines. 

And then the other pertaining to just the 

radiochemistry in general and chemical 

recovery.

There might have been some 

misunderstanding what the OTIB said about 

the radioiodines that we -- The reason we, 

you know, we assumed the radioiodines were 

not reflected in the excretion results as a 

claimant favorable assumption is because of 

the short decay times.

If you include the iodines, and 

because everything is normalized, what you 

end up doing is squeezing out the, you 

really reduce the strontium 90 and the 

cesium 137, the indicator of radionuclides. 

So by including the iodines it certainly, or 

by excluding iodines it's claimant favorable 

to do that.

DR. OSTROW: Okay. We'll have to 

look at this and get back to you also.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. BURNS: Okay. Finding 9 

pertains to the tool. Just, I believe the 

comment was that the tool needed to be 

revised. And that has been done. That was 

put into use in November of 2013.

DR. OSTROW: All right, that's 

good. I assume that since we took at look 

at the tools for, that you had before. We 

commented it wasn't the up to date version. 

We should, well, we note that you updated it 

now.

But we should also take a look at 

the tool to check it out. We're running a 

sample problem just to check it out. So I 

think we'll re-run it to make sure that it's 

functioning okay.

CHAIR MUNN: So that means I'll 

expect a response from you next time, right?

DR. OSTROW: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: Good.

MR. MARSCHKE: Well, does that 

mean --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: There's a couple of 

issues here that SC&A has to look at. So I 

think what we'll do is like, you know, after 

this meeting, the next couple of days we'll 

take a look at some of them and, you know, 

write you a memo, or something, of what we 

think about it.

MR. MARSCHKE: Steve, this is 

Steve Marschke. Do we have the tool we 

need, or do we need NIOSH to give us a copy 

of the tool?

DR. OSTROW: I'm not sure how we 

got it last time. I think we found it, just 

used it on line last time. I think NIOSH 

gave it to us.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

DR. OSTROW: Well, we'll look for 

it. If we can't find it, we'll ask NIOSH, 

you know, how to access it.

CHAIR MUNN: The revised one, 

yes.

MR. BURNS: Okay. And then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Finding 10 pertains to this question that's 

come up in the past about the, I guess the 

representatives, if you will, of the fine 

radionuclide mixtures, with respect to 

specific workplace scenarios.

So our response to that is, you 

know, what it's always been, you know. We 

never intended OTIB-54 to be, you know, this 

precise list. Rather, it was just, you 

know, the intent was to cast a wide net, and 

assign doses that we believe to be, believe 

to always be favorable to the claimant.

DR. OSTROW: I agree. Generally 

we, SC&A agrees that the methodology you're 

using ends up with claimant favorable 

results. But, and I know we've discussed 

this in other forums related to other 

documents and methods.

And this is the whole business 

about how realistic are these doses? I 

mean, it's sort of easy to make the doses 

such that they're guaranteed to be claimant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

favorable. But then they're not, you know, 

representative or reasonable anymore.

So I'm not sure where this 

particular OTIB falls in, whether the doses 

are still reasonable. That's where we 

thought there should be a little more 

discussion on it. You know, on how 

reasonable the end results are.

CHAIR MUNN: So, Steve, I'm 

gathering that you'll need to respond to 

this --

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: -- with the --

DR. OSTROW: There's two items we 

have to respond to, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: Right. Okay. My 

current list says Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 

and 10 you are going to --

DR. OSTROW: Well, the first four 

items, 1 through 4, where I guess it's in 

abeyance, we're waiting for NIOSH to come 

out with their report on reactor modeling.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

DR. OSTROW: Whenever they come 

out. And the other ones, we'll respond to, 

you know, NIOSH's recent postings on the 

BRS.

CHAIR MUNN: All right.

MR. MARSCHKE: I think, yes, 

basically, I don't think that 1 through 4 

should be in abeyance.

DR. OSTROW: Well, whatever you 

want --

MR. MARSCHKE: It all should be, 

1 through 10, all ten of the new ones here 

should be changed. That's why I was going 

to get this to talk to Wanda about.

These are, and my recommendation 

to the Board, I guess, would be to change 

all these statuses from open to in progress, 

just like we did on the other, I don't know 

what it was, the other OTIB.

And because, you know, basically 

NIOSH has given us a response. And we are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

basically at this point tasked to review 

that response, and see whether or not we can 

make a recommendation to close any of these, 

or to, or what the next step should be.

CHAIR MUNN: You're correct, 

Steve.

MR. MARSCHKE: And then there 

are, like Bob started talking about. There 

are also nine findings currently listed. 

For example here, Finding Number 26 from the 

old Revision 0. They're currently being 

carried in the BRS as being in progress.

Steve Ostrow sent a memo around 

back, I think it was back in November. It 

was after the last meeting, you know, making 

a recommendation that because Rev 1 has been 

issued, all these nine Rev 0 findings are 

now moot. And we recommend that they should 

be closed.

And if you see on the screen 

there now, we've entered that recommendation 

from Steve into actually each one of these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

findings. So, I mean, it's up to the 

Subcommittee if they want to instruct us to 

close those nine findings.

DR. OSTROW: This is Steve 

Ostrow. I would strongly recommend that the 

Subcommittee close the 26 findings.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well we, this is 

Ziemer. You need to make sure that if we 

close them that the implication is not 

they've been resolved necessarily.

If we're closing them just 

because they're going to be covered in the 

revision, then it seems to me we handle it 

somewhat differently. But the issue of 

closing implies that the issue's been 

resolved, in my mind.

MR. MARSCHKE: Well the statement 

there, Paul, says that since the finding has 

been rendered moot by the issuance of Rev 1, 

that's why we're basically closing it. Now, 

I don't know --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm asking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

whether it's really moot in every case. I 

don't know that it is or isn't. But moot 

means that the finding sort of has gone 

away. Has it really gone away? Or does it 

reappear? That's what I'm really asking.

DR. OSTROW: Well, Rev 0 of the 

OTIB doesn't apply anymore. It's been 

superseded by Rev 1.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I hear 

that. But is Rev 1, if that pattern's the 

same issue on any of these, then that issue 

has not really been closed. So that's what 

I'm kind of asking. I don't --

Have you gone through them and 

determined that they are actually moot? 

That they simply have gone away? Or do they 

still exist in the next revision in some 

form?

DR. OSTROW: We're certain that 

they've all gone away. Because we did a 

clean review of Rev 1. We started out fresh 

on it. And these ten findings we came to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are the ten finding on Rev 1. And those are 

the findings.

MEMBER ZIEMER: And none of them 

are the same as Rev 0? That's what I'm 

asking. Because I don't know the answer to 

that. I haven't laid them side by side.

DR. OSTROW: Yes. I think the --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you see what 

my point is? In other words --

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

MEMBER ZIEMER: -- if it's a 

finding it says to be closed, and then it 

shows up again, then --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you certainly 

have a point, Paul. However, we do have a 

category that these probably fall into. 

We've not done a wholesale closure of this 

kind before that I can remember. So this 

hasn't come up in quite the same form.

But recall, we do have a category 

that is covered in some other finding. And 

in cases where we have a revision which, as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Steve Ostrow has pointed out, actually has a 

tendency to make moot the preceding problems 

that were a problem with the original 

document.

Then it would appear that the 

appropriate place for dispensing with that 

particular original Rev 0 finding would be 

in the, covered by other finding notation. 

Would it not be? It appears logical to me.

MR. MARSCHKE: I guess the 

question to ask Steve Ostrow then is, are 

any of the new findings a repeat of any of 

the current, the old Revision 0 findings?

MEMBER ZIEMER: That's sort of 

what I was asking.

DR. OSTROW: I don't believe so. 

But it actually, since you actually asked 

the question I would have to look through 

them.

MR. MARSCHKE: Because that might 

change the status, the way we close the 

status. I would change.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. OSTROW: We didn't 

deliberately carry any over. And I don't 

think we have any duplications. But I'd 

have to check, you know, in detail just to 

make sure.

CHAIR MUNN: Since the object of 

our efforts here is to assure that any 

person who has a claim that would have been 

changed by a new revision has not been 

overlooked, then essentially Rev 0s do 

become of little consequence in the 

resolution process.

If, any claim that was processed 

under that revision is going to be reprocessed under the new revision, in any 

case. So the fact that we had a problem 

with the original revision would not 

necessarily be something that we need to run 

down to ground, for the purposes of why 

we're looking at these to begin with. If my 

concept of where we're going with this is 

accurate.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So the question that's posed here 

is, are we okay in closing all of the Rev 0 

findings, by reason of the fact that 

subsequent revisions would either 

incorporate the problem that was addressed? 

Or are not reasonable because the claim 

would be re-processed under something other 

than Rev 0 in any case? So now we have --

MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

I guess I go along with both of them in that 

action, as long as the narration in the 

closing statement indicated that they were 

closed in deference, or something to that 

sort.

CHAIR MUNN: Perhaps if our 

primary question is one of language here, 

may I suggest that I can work with Steve 

Marschke and Steve Ostrow on wording to send 

around to Board Members, to see if that 

wording is satisfactory, and covers the 

waterfront for you.

And with the expectation that if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the wording, once the wording is appropriate 

we can consider closing these. We can keep 

that open until next time.

MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine with 

me. I don't think I need to see the 

wording, as long as you guys agree to it.

CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

MEMBER BEACH: I agree with Paul 

on that one.

CHAIR MUNN: All right.

DR. OSTROW: Wanda? Steve 

Ostrow. So how about if Steve Marschke and 

I come up with some wording, then send it to 

you in an email?

CHAIR MUNN: That would be just 

fine, Steve. That would be fine.

DR. OSTROW: Great.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. I'll 

look forward to that.

DR. OSTROW: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Any other questions, 

with respect to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Oh, Wanda, this is 

Josie. The suggested language in the email 

that was sent out by Steve referenced that 

Rev 1 would substantially change the 

methodology and the generation by SC&A. So 

I think maybe it's the moot that is the 

issue. That in Rev 0, Rev 1 says they're 

all moot now.

CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes. And they 

actually are moot, except for the fact that 

what this statement does not incorporate is 

the fact that any -- it refers to the 

findings here. The current words --

MEMBER BEACH: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: -- refer to the 

findings, rather than to the end result, 

which the end result we need to incorporate 

here is that any claim which would have been 

affected by Rev 0 would, in any case, be --

DR. OSTROW: Reworked.

CHAIR MUNN: -- reworked.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

understand. Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's the 

whole point in the new words.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me add a few 

more words to this, and I'll be satisfied 

with that.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's the 

real point here is to make sure that any 

reader is very clear on the fact that it 

doesn't matter whether this finding was 

fully closed in terms of everybody agrees on 

it. Because it's not going to be used. 

Okay? Good. Then I'll expect to see an 

email --

DR. OSTROW: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: -- from Steve and 

Steve.

DR. OSTROW: Right.

CHAIR MUNN: Anything else? Any 

other comments with respect to OTIB-54?

MR. MARSCHKE: So you want me --

Wanda, this is Steve Marschke again. I will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

go through and close these ten, or not close 

them, I mean, change these ten to in 

progress?

CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I can, I 

don't know, I can start that now?

CHAIR MUNN: I think so. I 

believe that we're not going to be beating 

up on you much in the next few minutes. I 

think we're going to talk about the PER 

status. But stop us if we get ahead of you.

MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: And we'll go from 

there. If there is nothing further with 

OTIB-54 for this meeting, then let's move on 

to the next item on the agenda, which is 

upcoming PER status.

And I'm assuming that all of you 

have received John Stiver's new listing of 

where we are with each of the PERs. Does 

everyone have that in hand? Or have it 

available to you? Who needs it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Wanda.

CHAIR MUNN: Good. Are you okay, 

Paul?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'm looking 

at John's email here. Let's see, 

attachment? Or wait --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was an 

attachment with him.

MR. MARSCHKE: Paul, do you have 

--

CHAIR MUNN: His updated table.

MR. MARSCHKE: -- Live Meeting? 

I've got it pulled up here.

MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm looking at 

the wrong one. Hang on.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good.

MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm looking at an 

older John Stiver email.

CHAIR MUNN: And I need to 

comment that we've received a query with 

regard to the status of PER-24, General 

Steel Industries.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm not sure I 

got John's, what was the date on that one?

CHAIR MUNN: Fairly recent. This 

last week, I believe. John, do you have the 

date that was sent?

MR. STIVER: Hang on just a 

second. I can just re-send it here.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I may not 

have put it in my Procedures review. Maybe 

it's still in my inbox. Let me look in my 

in box.

MR. STIVER: Okay.

MEMBER ZIEMER: What was, if you 

can tell me the date I can pick it up real 

quick.

MR. STIVER: I'm trying to 

remember. It's just I've sent so many 

emails out.

CHAIR MUNN: I think Ted may have 

forwarded it.

MEMBER ZIEMER: So I should look 

for Ted's name?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: I think he may have 

forwarded it.

MR. KATZ: I'm looking. But it 

was more recent than a week ago. It was, 

I'm looking for it.

CHAIR MUNN: Did I say last week? 

I meant this week. Because it was just a 

few days ago.

MR. KATZ: Right. Oh, yes, in 

fact, it was yesterday. That's recent 

enough.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I've got 

February 11th here on my -- Okay.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I wanted 

to --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I think I've 

got it here. Here it is. No, that's not 

it. That's the agenda you sent out 

yesterday. Hang on. Oh, here it is, PER, I 

got it, PERs not assigned. Is that the one? 

Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: That's the one.

MR. STIVER: So I'll give you a 

minute to pull up everything.

CHAIR MUNN: And then to repeat, 

I had an inquiry about the PER-24, General 

Steel Industries. And I responded to that, 

indicating that --

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I saw that 

one.

CHAIR MUNN: -- it was deferred.

MR. STIVER: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Because it might be 

coming up again. But couldn't identify a 

date at this time.

MR. STIVER: Okay. Yes, this 

Table 1 is really, hasn't changed since the 

November 7th meeting. So it's just there 

for completeness. Just to refresh 

everybody's memory as to why all these PERs 

were not assigned in the column entitled 

notes, there's a little blurb about each one 

of those, and the reasons for not being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

assigned. On Table 2, if you go on Page 3, 

there's seven PERs that have not yet been 

considered for review.

And if you recall, at the last 

meeting we had some discussion about how 

best to approach this. And I believe the 

consensus was the best thing for us to do

would be to do these little pre-reviews up 

front. Take a look at all of them.

You know, some you'd be able to 

tell that they don't need a review at all. 

Others might just need a really short 

review. And others may need a more in depth 

review. But because of the contractual 

timing, because we're coming to the end of 

the contract, we will, we're tasked to go 

ahead and do that.

And so, all I can say at this 

point is we're still not quite -- we have 

the second extension. So there should be an 

answer on the upcoming contract within the 

next couple of weeks, I would think.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

But at that point if we're 

successful in winning, we can go ahead and 

begin doing these pre-reviews, if that would 

be acceptable to the Subcommittee.

CHAIR MUNN: So we have suggested 

Baker-Perkins, Occupational Medical X-ray 

Procedures.

MR. STIVER: Yes, 42 --

CHAIR MUNN: Linde --

MR. STIVER: Reinforcing.

CHAIR MUNN: Internal --

MR. STIVER: In 46 and 47.

MEMBER ZIEMER: John, this is 

Ziemer. Can you remind us what, kind of the 

composition of the pre-review, and the time 

and effort involved?

MR. STIVER: A pre-review is 

just, basically we take a look and just kind 

of get an idea of whether it needs a full 

review or not.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I understand 

that. I just was trying to get a feel for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

what it takes. So are we talking about, you 

know, like an hour review, a ten hour 

review, a week review? What does this 

involve?

MR. STIVER: The past experience 

is that these things don't take more than 

about a day's worth of effort. Some won't 

take more than about 20 minutes. If you can 

take a look at it you can see right away 

that, you know, this thing doesn't need to 

be reviewed.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

MR. STIVER: Rather than try to 

do that in the Subcommittee, which was kind 

of awkward in the past when we tried to do 

that. We thought that we could just go 

ahead and do these pre-reviews with a 

minimal amount of effort.

And then bring this back to the 

next meeting. Or even do it through emails, 

and say, look here's the results of our prereview. This is what we, these are our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

recommendations for further action.

CHAIR MUNN: You didn't provide 

us with recommendations for the MatLab. I'm 

assuming that there's a reason for that.

MR. STIVER: That actually should 

be in there. It should be recommended for 

pre-review. That just didn't make it in for 

whatever reason.

CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay.

MR. STIVER: Yes, that I just 

forgot.

CHAIR MUNN: I'll just make that 

note, Page 5. Okay.

MR. KATZ: So, this is Ted. 

There are sort of two elements to what we do 

before -- because really these, I mean, we 

have tasked PERs at the Subcommittee level 

at the request of the Board.

But they're really, they're 

procedures. And the Board does the tasking 

of these normally. Though there's two 

elements that I think need consideration. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

One, of SC&A looking at these and seeing, 

you know, whether they make sense. And the 

other side of it is NIOSH.

Because we've had this experience 

with several of these, where NIOSH realized 

for one reason or another, there was not 

much point in the review at this time for an 

element.

So we also, I think, need NIOSH 

input where they may have input, not 

necessarily that they will. But about the 

appropriateness of a particular PER for

review at this point.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well that's --

MR. STIVER: It sounds, that's a 

good idea.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- this is Stu. 

Since you gave me an opening I will say that 

Baker-Perkins had a five day covered period, 

and we've had a total of nine claims on it.

MR. STIVER: So that would 

probably not warrant much more than a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

paragraph or so, off the cuff.

MR. KATZ: So anyway, Wanda, if 

it's, you know, if it's fine with the 

Subcommittee, I think it's fine for them to 

put this on their plate to scan these 

things, and sort out whether there's a need 

for review, or whether these are strong 

candidates.

I mean, I think what they've done 

in the past is actually not just that, but 

sort of prioritized them, for whatever 

reasons are relevant to the particulars, as 

to which are the most important to review. 

I think that's nice preparatory work for the 

Board then to decide which PERs it wants to 

task, if that's okay with the Subcommittee.

MR. STIVER: But, Ted, would it 

be amendable to you and to the other 

Subcommittee Members if we kind of do this 

with the NIOSH back and forth off line?

Kind of say, here's our 

preliminary list, and send it to Stu? And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

then he can kind of comment on it. And then 

we could bring that up for the Board 

teleconference.

MR. KATZ: Yes, I think that's 

perfectly appropriate, yes.

MR. STIVER: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: It would be helpful 

I think for the Subcommittee to provide any 

comments that we might have at this time. 

My personal reading of this leads me to 

recommend that we drop PER 39, and that we 

drop PER 48 from the recommendation for prereview. Primarily because of the final 

comment in the description column of each of 

those.

But that would leave PER 41, 42, 

43, 44, and 45 that would be agreeable for 

pre-review by SC&A and NIOSH for potential 

inclusion. Any other comments from the 

Subcommittee?

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, I agree 

with that, dropping those two, and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

going from 41 to 45. Good path forward, or 

48, excuse me.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Any comment, 

Paul?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I think I 

heard what you said, just exactly go ahead 

with that, sounds fine to me.

CHAIR MUNN: All right. So we'll 

anticipate then that those, let's see, one, 

two, three, four, five, that the five that 

were recommended here be pursued by both the 

agency and the contractor as potential PERs 

for further discussion. Is that amenable 

with all?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: Hearing no negative 

comments, that's fine. John?

MR. STIVER: Okay. We will take 

our marching orders.

MR. KATZ: Thanks, John. And, 

John, if you would just then, once that's 

finished and you've had your back and forth 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

with NIOSH on them too, if there is any back 

and forth to be had, needed, if NIOSH has a 

comment.

But if you'd just put that 

together in a memo then, and send that back 

to the Subcommittee Members, they can look 

at that in advance of the Board 

teleconference. And then they'll be 

informed enough to, you know, speak with the 

rest of the Board about this.

MR. STIVER: Okay. We'll go 

ahead and do that.

MR. KATZ: Thanks.

CHAIR MUNN: Very helpful. Any -

-

MR. MARSCHKE: There's one other 

thing, is Table 3. And this is, we referred 

to this earlier with regard to PER-38. It 

would be a subtask for a case review. And 

you can see there's several PERs here, 1, 2, 

3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 29, 30 and 38 for which -

I mean, Subtask 4 hasn't been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

completed, and in most cases hasn't been 

begun, except for 38, which we talked about 

a little earlier. Also, I would note that 

PER-29 has been transferred out. And a note 

there to the Hanford Workgroup.

So I know Hans and Kathy were 

heading up, did the heavy lifting in all 

these early PERs. And one that we talked 

about a little bit last time was PER-18. 

And so I'd asked Kathy if they had time, if 

her and Hans could put together --

She did indicate that they had 

some fairly detailed criteria for PER-18. I 

thought if you are ready to talk about that, 

maybe we can talk about it now.

CHAIR MUNN: That would be fine.

MS. K. BEHLING: Actually, I have 

to dig that out. In the initial review of 

the -- That's the Los Alamos National Lab's 

PER review under our Section 5. But it was 

Subtask 4. We had some very specific 

criteria with regard to selecting cases.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And I think there were five major 

changes to the external dose portion of that 

TBD that we were saying, if we could select 

one case from each of those five areas, that 

might be appropriate for the case selection. 

And I, to be honest I have to --

MS. MARION-MOSS: Kathy, I can't 

hear you.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, I'm sorry. 

Is that better?

CHAIR MUNN: Much.

MR. MARSCHKE: Much better.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. But what 

I was saying is, we put some very clear 

criteria in the review of the Los Alamos 

National Lab TBD review, PER-18 review. And 

we were suggesting selecting five cases, one 

associated with each of the major revisions 

to, I believe it was the external portion of 

the dose.

My desk is a mess. And I can't 

come up with all of the criteria. But I can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

send that out to you. And it is part of the 

initial PER-18 review. It's under Section 

5, Subtask 4 work. I know it's here 

somewhere. And I apologize. But it is, oh 

here we go.

Yes, we're just suggesting that 

maybe selecting one case, or five revisions 

associated with the TKBS-0010-6, which is 

their external. One would be a claim 

involving a target organ, such as a skin 

cancer or breast cancer. And that the 

individual associated maybe with the PA-53 

area.

And then maybe four individual 

claims involving workers not monitored for 

neutrons, but whose employment records show 

work assignments in one of the following 

areas, which would be plutonium facility 

associated with plutonium 238, plutonium 

facility associated with Pu-239, criticality 

experiments, and other operations associated 

with neutron exposures. So that's what we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

had laid out in our review of PER-18, under 

Subtask 4.

CHAIR MUNN: Kathy, you faded off 

there again. And I think what I heard was 

you're looking for one case that involves 

target organs, four cases covering workers 

not monitored for neutrons, and what did you 

say after that?

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, this is 

Hans. One case involving plutonium 

facilities associated with Pu-239. Another 

one with plutonium facilities associated 

with plutonium 238. A third one with a 

person who may have been part of the 

criticality experiments.

And the last one, other 

operations associated with neutron 

exposures. And there were others. Those 

are the four criteria, in addition to the 

one involving target organs such as skin or 

breast cancer.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. For a total 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of --

DR. H. BEHLING: A total of five.

CHAIR MUNN: -- a total of five.

DR. H. BEHLING: A total of five. 

Those are basically the, we had discussed 

this with Ted before. He would like always 

to have certain permutations that are driven 

by the PER. And we will agree that one of 

each of the five.

CHAIR MUNN: That's all given the 

wide scope of the various site facilities 

that we have to deal with then. And those 

five appear reasonable.

MS. K. BEHLING: And we could put 

a memo together, or send something out if 

you and NIOSH would like us to do that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Kathy --

CHAIR MUNN: That would be --

MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. 

Kathy, you said the criteria are in the PER18 review that you've already given us, 

right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

MS. K. BEHLING: Correct.

DR. H. BEHLING: And that was 

issued in October 20th, 2010. And it's in 

Section 5. And Section 5 is entitled 

"Subtask for Selection Criteria for Sample 

Set of Dose Reconstruction".

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll use 

that criteria. And if we have trouble we'll 

get back to you. But it sounds like we 

should be able to figure out that. This 

might be a little bit of a difficult search 

on our part. But we can search and see what 

we can, and look for claims that fit that 

criteria.

MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Very 

good. Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Anything else with 

respect to selections that need to be made?

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

Josie. Kathy suggested putting a memo 

together with that. And I think that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

be a good idea.

MR. KATZ: Josie, the memo was 

just to lay out just what Stu was mentioning 

--

MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay.

MR. KATZ: It was part of the 

report.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That's 

fine.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

MR. STIVER: Would it be helpful, 

this is Stiver. Would it be helpful to the 

Subcommittee if we were to expand this Table 

3, and maybe provide a column that has the 

criteria?

I know some of these are old, and 

have been kind of in kind of a holding 

pattern for quite some time. To the point 

where I think a lot of us have kind of lost 

the institutional knowledge.

So it may be worth our time and 

trouble to kind of go back and take a second 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

look at these and see which are currently 

relevant. And it might actually warrant 

some Subtask 4 cases.

CHAIR MUNN: John, given the 

effort that goes into establishing those 

criteria for the various sites to begin 

with, that seems to be an excellent 

suggestion.

It would be very helpful for most 

of us, I think, if you did have an 

additional column identifying when we have 

identified specific criteria that have been 

established. It's nice to be able to see 

those as well. That would truly round out -

-

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, actually --

CHAIR MUNN: -- that table.

MR. STIVER: Okay. We'll go 

ahead and take that as an action item.

CHAIR MUNN: Thank you so much.

MR. STIVER: Okay. That's all I 

had to say about the PERs, unless anybody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

else has some comments they'd like to 

suggest.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is 

Stu. And I just want to be clear. So now, 

going out of here today what we will do is 

to try to select cases for review for PER18, Task 4, right?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. STIVER: Correct.

MR. HINNEFELD: That's the one 

assignment we got from this part of the 

discussion?

CHAIR MUNN: Well, except of 

course that the, except for the back and 

forth that's going to go on with not yet 

considered for review PERs.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes, okay. 

Right, right.

CHAIR MUNN: But from the Table 3 

discussion, yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, from the 

Table 3 discussion, that's our one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

assignment.

MR. STIVER: Yes. Well, there 

was a PER-38 also, from earlier.

MR. HINNEFELD: So we also want 

to do a selection of PER-38? Okay.

MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. I jumped -

-

MR. STIVER: Right.

MS. K. BEHLING: I jumped the gun 

on that one. I apologize. Because we 

discussed that when we were talking about 

findings associated with PER-38. So yes, we 

did decide that there would be three cases 

selected under PER-38 also.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we discussed 

that earlier in the -- select three was what 

we had said earlier in our discussions, 

before we got to this table.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Any other comments? 

Any other material that needs to be 

addressed, that we have not yet covered?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda?

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

Marschke.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, sir.

MR. MARSCHKE: At the last 

meeting we had, towards the end of the last 

meeting we had, Ted kind of brought up a 

concern about in the Procedures world, some 

of these reviews have opened findings. And 

they've had open findings for quite some 

time.

And we was looking to see whether 

or not there was any way we could prioritize 

or figure out, you know, prioritize I guess 

the resolution of some of these findings.

So, I mean, what I've got, I 

guess, I hope it's on the screen in the Live 

Meeting, is basically the BRS. And they're 

sorted by the number of, total number of 

active findings.

And you can see basically that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the ones which have the most, and the first 

page obviously has the most, has the ones 

that had the most active findings. Some of 

them have, like the Hanford TBD -- Oh, 

that's the PER, I'm sorry, it's a PER.

There's a OTIB-58, which is the

external, Rocky Flats external dose coworker 

dosimetry OTIB. And it has ten findings, 

and they're all open. I don't know if we 

want to, somehow if we can prioritize, use 

this method to prioritize, and start looking 

at some of these.

And I think the OTIB-58 review 

was done in the third set, which was I think 

in 2007. So, you know, it's been around for 

quite some time without anything active on 

it.

Again, you go down to OTIB-39, 

there's another Hanford one, which looks 

like it's never been touched. Because it 

has eight total findings and eight open, 

eight active findings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So, you know, again, and then 

there are a bunch of PROCs on the outreach 

program. And then the CATI process, which 

again, I don't know if those are still valid 

or not.

So, there may be some, you know, 

to kind of like address what Ted was talking 

about at the last meeting. You may be able 

to use this to somehow prioritize some of 

these OTIBs, just to try and work off the 

backload, I guess.

CHAIR MUNN: It's the intent to 

do that, actually. However, I'm not at all 

sure that what we're looking at is one of 

the things that's of major concern.

And the reason I say that is 

because, for example, OTIB-58, I know 

there's been a great deal of work done 

there. And I'd be very surprised if all ten 

of those findings were actually open. It's 

just, I would imagine that most of them are 

probably in progress. But --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

Ziemer. And I notice TBD-6000 is on here. 

And I don't know if that's, it looks like 

it's Appendix BB but those are all closed 

now, too.

CHAIR MUNN: Right. So I guess 

what I'm saying here is that the filter is 

looking at something other than what I think 

we need to look at. You're absolutely 

correct, Steve. This is the method that 

would be most efficient to approach the 

issue.

And it is the intent of the Chair 

to sort these in terms of how many have 

been, how many are open, in such a way that 

they have not been addressed at all. And 

how many are open and in progress. In 

progress is an entirely different thing, 

which, you know, we're working on those 

assiduously.

And those certainly, those two 

categories certainly need to be prioritized. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Something I think we really need to do. And 

thank you for calling it to our attention. 

We've not had an opportunity, I think, to 

have enough time in our one day meetings of 

Procedures to address those kinds of issues.

I think it's been primarily a 

time issue more than anything else for most 

of us. But certainly as an action item that 

is impending. Especially given the amount 

of closures that we're seeing coming off of 

our current agenda.

One would anticipate that this is 

precisely what we need to do. If not for 

our next meeting, then certainly for the one 

thereafter. Any other thoughts with respect 

to what Steve has brought to our attention 

again?

MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, how do we 

close these for other Work Groups that 

worked on that, like the TBD-6000? Do we 

just report back to you the status, and then 

close them, or what?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: We should be 

bringing them up on our agenda here. And 

they should be, they should have been closed 

then by the action of the Work Group, Paul. 

And what we need to do is to put them on our 

schedule for the next agenda, so that they 

can be closed appropriately.

MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. Right now 

for the TBD-6000, they're being carried as 

being transferred.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: Not actually as 

open. And obviously not as closed, but as 

being transferred.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And --

MR. MARSCHKE: So if Paul's Work 

Group has really closed these, then we 

should, you know, get some documentation and 

close them ourselves.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's 

exactly what we need to do. And they need 

to be transferred back to us now that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

they're closed. We need to be informed that 

each one of them has been closed.

So that's essentially all we'll 

need to do. I'll have it on next month's 

agenda. And if there's anything else, 

please speak now.

MR. MARSCHKE: If you want, 

Wanda, I can take an opportunity to look at 

this, and kind of expand this table more 

into the active. And look and see what, 

when they say active, what do they actually 

mean, open, in progress, or transferred, or 

something like that. More along the lines 

of the traditional, what we call the Summary 

Table here, or the traditional, what we call 

the Wanda Table.

CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

MR. MARSCHKE: But the trouble, 

the only problem, we'd have to expand like 

the third group. And the first group and 

the second group, we don't really have them 

broken down by individual documents.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Right.

MR. MARSCHKE: I can --

CHAIR MUNN: But the first three, 

my guess is that the first three columns are 

what one needs to focus on as being those 

that are still open. Anything that's in 

Columns 4, 5 or 6 are all, so far as we're 

concerned, closed. That is, we're not 

actively following them.

The transferred ones, of course, 

wouldn't be closed, because we don't have 

the final feedback from the Work Group. 

Just the sort of thing Paul was talking 

about with respect to TBD-6000. As those 

come back to us, they'll be closed, probably 

en masse. They won't be there at all.

MR. KATZ: Right. So, this is 

Ted. So, for example, Paul, with TBD-6000, 

some are closed, but many of them are in 

abeyance. And it seems to me that the right 

way to do this is just wait until they're 

actually fully all closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And then that Work Group could 

just report back in full that these are all 

closed. And you can, and Steve can reflect 

that in the BRS at that point.

CHAIR MUNN: We believe that that 

was our original thinking.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

CHAIR MUNN: When the Work Group 

had completed its work, then they'd let us 

know.

MR. KATZ: Okay.

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. With 

that in mind, we know what we'll be seeing 

on the agenda next time regarding some of 

these open items, and how we might address 

them to move them forward.

Our next meeting we will need an 

estimation, at least six weeks. That would 

put us into April the 2nd, which sounds like 

a pretty good time. That's still three 

weeks away from the Augusta meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: I am on vacation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that week. And Jim is on travel that week.

CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Is the 9th 

then getting too close? The 9th is still --

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, how's the 

10th look? I'm tied up on the 9th.

CHAIR MUNN: The 10th is fine for 

this calendar. How's the 10th look for 

everybody else? Anyone who can't make April 

10th?

MR. KATZ: Yes. Can I ask 

separately, how is that time frame for 

getting a reasonable amount of work done 

too?

CHAIR MUNN: Well, we've said in 

the past, we need at least six weeks. That 

gives us seven. So unless we're changing 

our concept of what we need --

MR. KATZ: I mean, we've gone 

much more than six weeks many times. But, I 

mean, again, I mean, NIOSH is operating in a 

constrained world right now. And to some 

extent so is SC&A. So I'm just asking the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

question whether that's long enough or not?

CHAIR MUNN: I'm not hearing any 

negatives.

MR. KATZ: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's a 

little hard to judge, Ted, you know. You 

can try, we'll try to do some stuff in six 

weeks. But it's a little hard to judge on 

the phone what that means to our contractor, 

and what they can get done in six weeks.

And the fact of the matter is, 

you know, these meetings could be shorter. 

We're not traveling across the country. So 

there's no requirement to be meeting six or 

seven hours at a time.

MR. KATZ: That's true. That's 

true. So, on that note, I think that's fine 

then.

CHAIR MUNN: 11 o'clock, April 

10th?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, you 

know, the 10th isn't great for Jim and me. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

But --

MR. KATZ: Are you just getting 

back then?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, 

it's our first week back.

MR. KATZ: So, let's just make it 

the 17th. What about the week later?

CHAIR MUNN: That's putting them 

pretty close to Augusta.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but -- Did 

you say the 16th? I'm trying to --

MR. KATZ: Well, we'll just --

MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine with 

me.

MR. KATZ: The 16th is fine, the 

Wednesday.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Fine with me, 

Ziemer.

MEMBER BEACH: That's fine with 

me too. Josie.

CHAIR MUNN: 11:00 a.m. eastern 

time, April 16th. Anything else for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

good of the order? If not, thank you all. 

Try to stay warm. And don't slip down, 

whatever you do. We'll look forward to 

talking with you, probably before then, but 

certainly by April 16th. Have a nice 

evening, everyone.

MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

CHAIR MUNN: Bye, bye.

(Whereupon, the meeting in the 

above-entitled matter was concluded at 4:39 

p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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