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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

JULY 18, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened at 8:30 

a.m., Mountain Daylight Time, in the Shilo 

Inn, 780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 

Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A*

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

STEVE MARSCHKE, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team*

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

AGENDA

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

Stats of BRS Items......................... 7

PER 0031 and 0030......................... 74

Response to PER 0014 Findings............ 136

PROC 0044 Status Response................ 178

PER-0020 Findings........................ 211

PER 0011 Responses....................... 212

RPRT 0053 Status......................... 221

OTIB 0055-04 Status Report............... 230

OTIB 0037-02, 03, 04

TBP Closure Status ................. 235

Status Reports

PER 0033 and 0025 .................. 238

PER 0037 ........................... 238

PER 0038 ........................... 242

OTIB 0054 Status Report on Revision...... 242

IG-003 Rev.1............................. 256

Administrative Detail.................... 260

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 (8:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everybody 

4 on the line and in the room. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

6 Subcommittee on Procedures Review.

7 Roll call.

8 So conflicts of interest, we're 

9 not speaking about any sites where any Members 

10 here have conflicts, so you don't need to 

11 speak to conflict of interest. Let's just do 

12 attendance.

13 Wanda Munn is here to my right and 

14 Josie Beach to my left and Paul Ziemer's on 

15 the phone. And I'll just check and see if 

16 Dick Lemen's on the line. I don't expect him 

17 but, are you there, Dick?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. No Dick, but we 

20 have a quorum, we have three. So then let's 

21 just go on with role call with the NIOSH ORAU 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5 1 team.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 

3 NIOSH.

4 DR. NETON: Jim Neton from NIOSH.

5 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH ORAU on the 

6 phone?

7 MS. THOMAS: This is Elyse Thomas, 

8 ORAU team.

9 MS. BRACKETT: Elizabeth Brackett, 

10 ORAU team.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the 

12 ORAU team.

13 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

14 team.

15 MR. SMITH: Matt Smith, ORAU team.

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome all of you.

17 SC&A team?

18 MR. STIVER: SC&A, John Stiver.

19 MR. KATZ: And on the phone, SC&A?

20 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6 1 SC&A.

2 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: Hans Behling, 

4 SC&A.

5 MR. KATZ: Very good. Welcome to 

6 all of you.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: And --

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, who is that?

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Lori Marion10 Moss, NIOSH.

11 MR. KATZ: Oh, Marion (sic). Lori, 

12 I mean. Lori Marion-Moss.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I was just going to 

14 ask about you, Lori. Thank you.

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome federal 

16 officials, contractors to the feds, this is 

17 Ted Katz, the Federal Official for the 

18 Advisory Board.

19 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

20 MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

21 members of the public on the line that want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7 1 register their attendance?

2 (No response.)

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

4 your agenda.

5 CHAIR MUNN: We anticipate 

6 following the agenda that's been posted fairly 

7 closely, if we can. I'm going to rely on 

8 those of you who are out there on the 

9 telephone, please tell us if you cannot hear 

10 us. Because of our audio situation here, we 

11 want to make sure that we are adequately 

12 covered. And if you're having any trouble 

13 with any of the electronics or LiveMeeting, we 

14 need a report-back from you on that as well.

15 I believe that we're going to 

16 start today with Stu Hinnefeld. He's going 

17 to, I hope, bring us up to date briefly on any 

18 progress that's been made with respect to how 

19 overarching issues are going to be recorded or 

20 if there's any new thinking about how we can 

21 follow through with the BRS and overarching 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8 1 issues, and anything that's transpired since 

2 our last meeting. 

3 Stu?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'll try and 

5 give this, and if I mess it up, Lori can 

6 correct me.

7 With respect to the overarching 

8 issues, one of the things we wanted to do was 

9 make sure we identified what we call an origin 

10 document; where did it originate from? And we 

11 have done that, Jim actually had done that 

12 before. And so we've got what we call an 

13 origin document, and we just -- by that, we 

14 know that that was a review or something that 

15 brought that issue up. It may not have been 

16 the first one, but it brought it up early on. 

17 We think it's the first time.

18 So we have -- you know, frequently 

19 this will be a review of a Site Profile or a 

20 TIB or something like that. So we're adopting 

21 conventions for how to enter these because we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9 1 have certain conventions like when -- in the 

2 BRS, when you have a review of a TIB, there's 

3 a PDF of that TIB up there that you can review 

4 back to. For these overarching issues, it's 

5 not quite as easy to have one put out there. 

6 And so we're putting up -- I don't know if 

7 this is done yet, but we're going to put up 

8 like the review.

9 The issue first arose in an SC&A 

10 review of a Site Profile, then that review 

11 will be in the PDF that's stuck out there 

12 because that's where it originated, where the 

13 finding originated from.

14 So that was one of the things we 

15 were going to do.

16 Other than that -- and I don't 

17 know if this has all been populated yet in 

18 terms of all these source documents, whether 

19 they've all been identified and entered in the 

20 database yet, but we will be proceeding and 

21 doing that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10 1 Lori, can you give more of an 

2 update than that?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

4 Ziemer. Very hard to understand Stu. Am I 

5 the only one having that problem? Is it where 

6 he's located relative to the speakers?

7 MR. KATZ: He's actually right by 

8 the speaker.

9 DR. MAURO: This is John. I 

10 agree, I'm having a little difficulty, I'm 

11 having to strain. I'm following it, but it's 

12 a bit of work.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Let's talk into 

14 the mic.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Can you hear me 

16 any better now?

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, for me.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, that sounds 

19 better.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So I have a 

21 microphone that is not a very good one, then.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11 1 I'll try to go back through my 

2 update here.

3 For the overarching issues and 

4 entering them in the database, we have -- I 

5 think we have most of the issues entered. And 

6 the origin document, in other words, the point 

7 of origin of that particular overarching issue 

8 Jim had identified already, and we have that 

9 list and we're entering those origins into the 

10 database so we know where this particular 

11 issue arose, we believe, the first time it 

12 came up.

13 In terms of, you know, putting 

14 things in the database similar to other 

15 findings, when we do -- when there is a review 

16 of, say, a TIB or something, and we enter 

17 those findings in the database -- SC&A 

18 actually enters them -- we have a link to a 

19 PDF of the TIB that was reviewed. And for 

20 these overarching issues, that's not -- you 

21 don't have the same sort of analogue; you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12 1 don't have a TIB to put there. So what we've 

2 decided we would do to start would be to put a 

3 link to the document that originally -- the 

4 originating document for the overarching 

5 issue. It might be an SC&A review of a Site 

6 Profile, for instance.

7 So that is the progress we've made 

8 so far. And I don't know exactly how far 

9 along we are on populating it. We made these 

10 decisions to make those entries to the 

11 database, but right now I'm not so sure how 

12 far along we are. And I wondered if Lori 

13 could give more of an update than that.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori.

15 What we've done so far since the 

16 last meeting is basically we've populated 

17 Jim's matrix that he provided to us at the 

18 February meeting. And if you go to each 

19 overarching issue that's in the BRS and you 

20 actually click on the document title, you will 

21 see that matrix come up. And in that matrix, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13 1 like Stu just mentioned, it basically talks 

2 about the overarching issue, where it was 

3 first identified, and what has been done, the 

4 status of that issue. So you'll see that for 

5 each one of them, each of the overarching 

6 issues.

7 So far, that's all we've done 

8 since the last meeting.

9 CHAIR MUNN: So Lori, I'm looking 

10 at my document list here under the BRS. And I 

11 see under total findings only two postings. 

12 There are two findings under oronasal 

13 breathing and one finding under workplace 

14 ingestion. And the other items don't appear 

15 to be populated. Am I looking at the wrong 

16 thing? Where can I go to find the matrix that 

17 you mentioned?

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: You actually 

19 have to go, Wanda, to the overarching filter, 

20 which will pull up all seven, I believe, 

21 overarching issues.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14 1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I can find 

2 them, they're all together on the primary list 

3 anyway. So I'm looking at that here right 

4 now. And all I see, the only entries that are 

5 showing on the primary listing are two 

6 findings under oronasal breathing and one 

7 under workplace ingestion. And I'm just 

8 wondering whether there are more that have 

9 been populated that are somehow not 

10 translating to this main list.

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, those are 

12 the only ones we've done so far.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good. That's 

14 what I wanted confirmation of. Thank you very 

15 much.

16 Anyone else?

17 (No response.)

18 CHAIR MUNN: Any questions, 

19 comments or additions?

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Just a quick 

21 question about the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15 1 MR. KATZ: Wait, we can't hear you 

2 very well. Can you speak closer to your 

3 phone.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Is that 

5 any better?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: That's better. Thanks. 

8 Okay.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Just a 

10 quick question. Recently I had gone into the 

11 BRS and I was actually trying to, I guess, get 

12 a list of the PERs that we have been assigned 

13 to review.

14 MR. KATZ: Kathy, can you speak 

15 up? I don't know if you're using a speaker 

16 phone, but it's -- you're fading away again.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, hold on one 

18 second.

19 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Is that any 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16 1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Much, yes.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I guess I 

4 was curious as to why -- or when you go about 

5 putting something into the BRS system, I was 

6 going to go into the system to look for a list 

7 of the PERs that SC&A has been assigned 

8 throughout the years. And I believe Steve 

9 Marschke indicated to me that just because 

10 it's in the BRS system doesn't necessarily 

11 mean we've already been assigned to do that.

12 And so what drives you to put 

13 something in the BRS system, the PERs?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: What drives us to 

15 put something in the BRS? Normally, I think 

16 what the process is supposed to be is that 

17 when it gets assigned for review, it gets 

18 placed in the BRS. Alternatively, there is a 

19 place to put things that are available for a 

20 review but not yet been assigned. 

21 So I don't know. I'm not exactly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17 1 sure which category of PER you're talking 

2 about.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Because 

4 what I was trying to do is get a full list of 

5 those that have been -- where we have been 

6 tasked to review them. And I thought that 

7 would be the genesis of them being entered 

8 into the BRS system. But at least Steve 

9 Marschke said to me that that's not 

10 necessarily true, that there could be other 

11 PERs out there that, you know, have been 

12 issued but that we have not been assigned to 

13 review.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, I would think they 

15 would only go on the BRS, Kathy, after we 

16 receive a review from SC&A, right? I mean, 

17 not when they're tasked?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think 

19 that's true, Ted.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18 1 Marschke.

2 I think, basically, if you look at 

3 the BRS and you check on total findings, 

4 there's a number of documents in there that 

5 have no total -- no findings against them, 

6 many more-so than documents that were -- SC&A 

7 reviewed and had no findings against them.

8 I think at one point -- correct me 

9 if I'm wrong, Lori, but at one point, I think 

10 NIOSH linked a bunch of -- you know, basically 

11 all the documents that they had in their 

12 system, they linked them into the BRS. So the 

13 documents are -- the documents show up in 

14 there, but it does not necessarily mean --

15 like, there's 145 documents in the BRS right 

16 now. 

17 And as I recall correctly, we've 

18 only reviewed a little over 100 and maybe a 

19 few more PERs, I don't know, maybe a dozen or 

20 so more PERs. So we're talking maybe no more 

21 than 120 documents that we reviewed. So 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19 1 there's a number of documents in the BRS which 

2 I don't think have any -- have been reviewed 

3 by SC&A.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I think you're 

5 correct, Steve. Certainly the most recent 

6 PERs that have been assigned, I believe, are 

7 showing on page 8 of the Board Review System, 

8 and none of them have any findings as yet, 

9 which we wouldn't anticipate until we get the 

10 SC&A report. 

11 So I'm not sure how to answer 

12 Kathy's question. I'm not sure what triggers 

13 the inclusion of a PER.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

15 Kathy, I think the answer to your 

16 question is, currently, there is no report 

17 that will give you a list of the PERs that 

18 have been assigned to the committee for -- or 

19 SC&A for review as of yet. That's something 

20 that we may need to -- if that's something you 

21 guys would like to see, what have you, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20 1 committee agrees to do, we can work on doing 

2 that.

3 Right now, my understanding --

4 Steve was basically correct, we were just 

5 trying to get all the documents into the 

6 system. So to answer your question for now, 

7 no, there's no listing of all the PERs that 

8 have been assigned to SC&A for review.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Because I 

10 was wondering, those that didn't have any 

11 findings associated with them, perhaps we were 

12 tasked to do them and we just hadn't presented 

13 the report yet or there were no findings or 

14 something along those lines. 

15 But you're telling me that, no, 

16 there are documents out there that we have not 

17 been tasked to review yet, so it was just --

18 you know, a question I had because I was 

19 trying to get a complete tally of the PERs. 

20 But obviously, that's not appropriate to go on 

21 the BRS system for SC&A to do that. I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21 1 it would be nice if we were able to but, you 

2 know, I'm not trying to burden anyone with 

3 additional, you know, items on the BRS system.

4 MR. KATZ: But Kathy, all of the 

5 PERs, if you wanted, say, a complete list of 

6 the PERs that have been done, those are on the 

7 NIOSH website.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: That I was aware 

11 of.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: I was just trying 

14 to go back and in time and be sure I had a 

15 full understanding of all of those that had 

16 been assigned to SC&A.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay. I mean, 

18 otherwise, I have that information and John 

19 Stiver should have that information, because 

20 we tracked what we tasked to SC&A. So you 

21 should have that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22 1 MR. STIVER: Yes, I've been 

2 keeping track of that. And I guess the point 

3 being, I mean, I'd be able to give a summary 

4 table out of BRS.

5 CHAIR MUNN: It certainly would.

6 MR. STIVER: Some of those without 

7 findings, I haven't decided where they're at, 

8 so we'll have to backtrack and look through 

9 those. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

11 If I can offer one thing, remember 

12 the documents in the BRS, there are two large 

13 categorizations. There's the unassigned group 

14 --

15 MR. STIVER: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the 

17 assigned group. You know, we could make it a 

18 convention that, when it is assigned for 

19 review, regardless of whether or not there are 

20 findings, you move it into the under Board 

21 review. And if you've got a review with no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23 1 findings, you could write essentially a 

2 finding that says no findings.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Or something like 

5 that. So that it -- that way you know that 

6 it's there, and it's been reviewed and there 

7 were no findings on it.

8 Whereas, if something hasn't been 

9 assigned to you then you know it hasn't been 

10 reviewed, or assigned for review.

11 MR. STIVER: As long as we have 

12 something we can --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That will fall to 

14 us. I mean, we can manipulate that. In fact 

15 --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve.

17 And in fact, Stu, if you'll just 

18 basically -- as I mentioned before -- I'm 

19 looking at the BRS now. And as I mentioned 

20 before, there was 145 documents in the BRS. 

21 There are only 139 of them which are for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24 1 Procedures Review Subcommittee. So that may 

2 be -- you know, maybe if -- I don't know why 

3 those -- there were six documents that were 

4 filtered out and -- from the total inventory 

5 when it went through the procedure review 

6 committee. And I don't know what the --

7 exactly why they were filtered out. But they 

8 -- if they haven't been assigned to the 

9 Subcommittee yet. But you know, maybe if --

10 Kathy, maybe if you just look at the Work 

11 Group filter, there's 139.

12 Now again, I wouldn't guarantee 

13 that all those have been assigned for review, 

14 but we can -- but somehow they're filtering it 

15 the way -- kind of like the way Stu said. I 

16 mean, there's -- the number that is assigned 

17 to the Procedures Subcommittee is fewer than 

18 the total number in the system.

19 MR. STIVER: Steve, this is John.

20 If you filter by those in the 

21 Subcommittee on procedures, you get the exact 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25 1 same numbers in all the groups. So I'm not 

2 sure that's --

3 CHAIR MUNN: But certainly from 

4 this Subcommittee's point of view, I think 

5 what Stu suggested with respect to PERs that 

6 are assigned is the appropriate path for us to 

7 take. Because of whether or not unassigned 

8 ones are applicable from the BRS point of 

9 view, I guess it's still in my mind an open 

10 issue. But certainly anything that's been 

11 assigned seems to me should appear on this 

12 list.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Then I'd 

14 like to suggest this. Ted, will you send Lori 

15 and me a list of the PERs that have been 

16 assigned?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And we will verify 

19 that those are in the reviewed, under Board 

20 review part.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26 1 MR. HINNEFELD: And John, if you 

2 could let us know of any that were reviewed 

3 without findings?

4 MR. STIVER: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We will gin up a 

6 no-findings finding or something and write it 

7 in there, closed. If the Subcommittee's okay 

8 with that, we'll enter that as closed.

9 And so then we will bifurcate PERs 

10 between ones that have been assigned for 

11 review and the ones that have not been 

12 assigned.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Right, yes.

14 MR. KATZ: That's easy. And John, 

15 if you'll just send me a list and I'll check 

16 it against mine and then -

17 MR. STIVER: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: -- I'll carry through.

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Thank you.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do the other Members 

21 of the Subcommittee have any comment on that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27 1 course of action?

2 MEMBER BEACH: No, it sounds good.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, yes, that's 

5 fine.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right, fine. Then 

7 we'll anticipate that for our next meeting.

8 And do we have any other 

9 information or any other discussion that's 

10 necessary on the review system right now?

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. I 

12 would like to present a new feature --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- that the BRS 

15 offers.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Show us. Please do, 

17 Lori.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: I guess I could 

19 better demonstrate it. But --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have access 

21 under LiveMeeting?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28 1 Steve, does she -- do you know 

2 whether --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Someone is sharing 

4 something on LiveMeeting.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think what you're 

6 seeing, I don't know, I have my screen up on a

7 LiveMeeting. I don't know, I hope that's what 

8 you're seeing.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right now we've got -

10 -

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that yours, 

12 Steve?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, and now 

14 somebody else has taken over.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine. That 

16 should be Lori.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I hope so.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me, Ted, 

19 this is Kathy Behling. I did not get an 

20 invitation to the LiveMeeting.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, dear. Can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29 1 someone send a copy of the invitation to 

2 LiveMeeting --

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll forward mind.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone else need 

5 that information that doesn't have it?

6 (No response.)

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Jim and 

8 Kathy, I guess.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

10 Can you see my desktop?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We're looking 

12 at evaluation of the effect of adding 

13 ingestion intakes at Bethlehem Steel. That's 

14 the first item on the document title. Is that 

15 your screen?

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: I believe so.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. I just sent it 

19 to you and Kathy. So you can just click on 

20 the link from my forward.

21 I just forwarded it to you, Kathy.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30 1 MS. K. BEHLING: All right, thank 

2 you.

3 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John. I'm 

4 still linked into yesterday's LiveMeeting.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's a 

6 different one. You just need to --

7 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. That's 

8 closed. That's why I'm -- okay, so I have a 

9 different --

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I'm just going 

11 to forward you mine, John. So just use mine.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you.

13 MR. KATZ: I'm sending it to your 

14 CDC address.

15 DR. MAURO: That's fine. Gone. It 

16 should be there in a second.

17 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

18 I hate to bother you. Can you send it to me 

19 also?

20 MR. KATZ: No, of course. That's 

21 not a bother.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31 1 DR. OSTROW: Thanks a lot.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So Lori, is that your 

3 control on OTIB-37?

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. That's me.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: One of the new 

7 features that our IT group has provided, and I 

8 do believe, Steve, this was a result of one of 

9 your previous requests. But up in the 

10 document title section, where my pointer is 

11 here, you're going to see something new which 

12 is a printer icon which was not there 

13 previously.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: If you click on 

16 that printer icon, another window should 

17 appear which gives you a total, a listing, a 

18 PDF of all the findings that we have in the 

19 BRS for this particular document.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's excellent, 

21 Lori. That's excellent.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32 1 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. Just 

2 remember that the icons that appear under each 

3 finding will only list the responses for that 

4 particular finding.

5 CHAIR MUNN: That one, right.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Not all the 

7 findings.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Got it. But that 

9 will be -- I'm sure that several of us will 

10 stumble with that one, differentiating that. 

11 But thank goodness for the ability to list all 

12 the findings. That's very helpful.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Steve, is it to 

14 your liking?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's great. 

16 I think that's -- that will be very handy.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Especially for those 

18 of you who are manipulating this system. Now 

19 that's extremely good. Thank you so much, 

20 Lori. Gold star for that one.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Lori, can you go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33 1 back and try all the output? Yes, try that. 

2 Yes. And then -- okay, we have finding one. 

3 Can you scroll down? Four pages. Yes, 

4 finding -- yes, great. And three --

5 CHAIR MUNN: That's terrific.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: That's great. Yes, 

7 that's exactly what we need. That will help 

8 out a lot.

9 CHAIR MUNN: And I'm assuming it 

10 will print, even. How wonderful. Very good.

11 All right. So is that fully 

12 operable now for all of the listings on the 

13 BRS, Lori?

14 Lori?

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: That's it.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So that's now 

17 fully operable for any item that we pull up, 

18 right?

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, you've populated 

21 the whole thing. Thank you very much.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34 1 Any others?

2 (No response.)

3 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then let's 

4 move on to our next item under the system of 

5 the findings. And that's the -- our folks at 

6 SC&A are going to -- I think John Mauro is 

7 going to talk to us about the new document, 

8 estimating doses for localized skin exposures. 

9 John?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'd be glad to.

11 I assume everyone has a copy of 

12 the report that's dated June 13th dealing with 

13 the subject. It's relatively brief. And Hans 

14 and I both worked on it. And I'll give you an 

15 overview of it.

16 As you may recall, this issue 

17 regarding the direct contamination of skin, 

18 that's the issue, and calculating the doses 

19 from that exposure scenario actually 

20 originated at the DR Subcommittee level, and 

21 it was transferred over as an overarching 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35 1 issue to the Procedures Subcommittee. So 

2 that's why it's here.

3 And the issue has to do with when 

4 we were reviewing a case, Bridgeport Brass and 

5 Harshaw, the two of which are AWE facilities, 

6 that are old ones. And one of the issues that 

7 came up was a recurring theme was surfacing 

8 during these DR reviews and these old Site 

9 Profile Reviews for these old AWE facilities 

10 that go back to the 1940s, early 1950s, where 

11 folks were machining, rolling, handling 

12 uranium metal, generating lots of uranium 

13 dust, uranium oxide fine particles, perhaps 

14 some uranium oxide flakes becoming airborne.

15 And what we noted, one of the 

16 comments that I've had for quite some time now 

17 is that the dose reconstructions themselves of 

18 these workers, when they do the -- let's say 

19 it's working with skin cancer. What's usually 

20 done is, an estimate is made of the radiation 

21 exposure to the skin of a person with a skin 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36 1 cancer. Based on two methods, one of two 

2 methods, one if the person was wearing film 

3 badge and had an open window reading, you'd 

4 have data on the open window reading, you'd 

5 get a non-penetrating dose and you reconstruct 

6 the dose using OTIB-17.

7 The other method is a calculation 

8 where, for example, we know that if you're 

9 dealing with uranium and you're standing close 

10 to it, you know, nearby, your skin will be 

11 exposed to both the photon exposures, much of 

12 which is Bremsstrahlung, but also there's 

13 quite a bit of beta coming off that could 

14 reach a few feet out. And you could 

15 theoretically calculate what the dose is at a 

16 distance to the skin from, let's say, a slab 

17 of uranium or an ingot. And NIOSH routinely 

18 reconstructs skin dose that way.

19 The question that I've raised on a 

20 number of occasions is, at least in the very

21 old AWE facilities, there's lots of evidence 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37 1 that there was a heavy dust loading and also 

2 that there was reason to believe that some of 

3 these were flakes, not just fine particles 

4 like a five micron AMAD particle. But they 

5 were flakes. I think of them as snow coming 

6 down. It may not be that bad but, you know, 

7 the way -- when you read about Bethlehem Steel 

8 and Simonds Saw and these facilities, you get 

9 the sense that they were actually visually 

10 impaired in some cases from the heavy loading, 

11 airborne loading of this material.

12 So one of my comments or findings 

13 for these dose reconstructions for people, 

14 real people with skin cancer is, did you take 

15 into consideration the fact that they -- that 

16 the skin could also be exposed from direct 

17 deposition of this uranium oxide dust and 

18 flakes? And the answer is that they -- well, 

19 I can tell you that I've done about 100 of 

20 these dose reconstructions and I've never seen 

21 that scenario modeled. And that was my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38 1 commentary at the DR Subcommittee meeting.

2 At the time -- I forget if one of 

3 the NIOSH or contractor folks presented an 

4 approach for saying, you know, you're right, 

5 we don't do that, but we're going to come up 

6 and make an offering of an approach for doing 

7 this type of calculation. And I actually have 

8 in the report, this June 2013 report, quoted 

9 directly out. This is the method that NIOSH 

10 is planning to use for reconstructing those 

11 types of doses.

12 I'd like to point out that this is 

13 a lot different than what people often refer 

14 to as the hot particle dose, where you're -- I 

15 know that Hanford has had issues where some 

16 high specific activity particle, ruthenium or 

17 cobalt might fall on a person's skin and 

18 deliver a very high dose locally.

19 This is different. This is more -

20 - this is a uranium flake which has a very low 

21 specific activity. So we're not talking about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39 1 enormous localized doses, but we are talking 

2 about doses that are not insignificant and, in 

3 our opinion, we felt that should be addressed 

4 in the DRs for these workers at these old 

5 facilities.

6 Now during the DR Subcommittee 

7 meeting, a discussion broke out that --

8 whether that was a plausible scenario. There 

9 were folks both on the Board and with NIOSH 

10 and their contractors that felt, well listen, 

11 we don't think it's that realistic that the --

12 at least these large flakes. Perhaps the fine 

13 dust, you know, these five-micron very fine 

14 dust that's airborne will settle out, land on 

15 a person's hands and face, skin, ears. But 

16 this idea of a flake falling and sitting on a 

17 person, let's say a one centimeter flake 

18 falling and sitting didn't seem to be too 

19 plausible.

20 Now all I can say is that, I don't 

21 know how plausible that is. But from reading 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40 1 a lot of the AWE old literature, at least at 

2 these very old facilities, it didn't sound to 

3 be implausible. Because, visualize grinding 

4 and dragging a roller where there's all the 

5 sparks, if folks have a part of the Bethlehem 

6 Steel, which goes back to 2004, you may be 

7 remember the rolling operation and roller 

8 number one and the sparks were flying and the 

9 flakes were coming off. So it was -- at least 

10 conceptually in my mind, it seemed plausible.

11 But there is this question before 

12 us now, is that a plausible scenario? Many 

13 folks claimed during the meeting that, well, 

14 it might have been plausible then, but it's 

15 certainly not plausible now because workers 

16 are protected, they're covered in hoods, they 

17 cover their face and skin. They're surveyed 

18 when they leave and they're decontaminated 

19 when they leave, and they shower and they make 

20 sure that the person is -- does not have any 

21 substantial contamination on the hands, face, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41 1 skin, et cetera.

2 So I would -- so our position is 

3 that certainly is reasonable, that that 

4 scenario perhaps is not plausible today, or 

5 even maybe in the '80s or the '70s. But I'm 

6 talking about the large number of workers that 

7 fall in the category of what I call old AWE 

8 facilities, many of which have gotten SECs for 

9 a variety of reasons. And what we have here 

10 is old facilities with SECs, they're 

11 compensating everyone except people with skin 

12 and prostate cancer. So they do a partial 

13 dose reconstruction for skin cancer, let's 

14 say. And a partial dose reconstruction 

15 currently does not include the direct 

16 deposition of the uranium oxide dust and 

17 flakes on skin. Sort of sets the stage for 

18 the issue.

19 And why it's an overarching issue, 

20 because it applies to a broad number of sites, 

21 at least a dozen sites that I could name, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42 1 where that type of scenario may very well have 

2 occurred. 

3 And so the first issue that we're 

4 bringing up before the Subcommittee is the 

5 issue of plausibility. Is this a scenario 

6 that needs to be explicitly addressed in the 

7 dose reconstruction? I think there's 

8 agreement, and certainly NIOSH, please weigh 

9 in, that yes, the fine-particle scenario where 

10 you have these small, let's say five-micron 

11 AMAD dust particles that are airborne, 

12 settling down on surfaces, and they could also 

13 settle down on a person's, not only his 

14 exposed skin, but also any part of his 

15 clothing.

16 And I think there's agreement that 

17 that is a plausible scenario, and certainly 

18 should be included as part of the dose 

19 reconstruction for a worker with skin cancer.

20 The question that I think is still 

21 a little bit up in the air from a plausibility 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43 1 point of view is, what about this large-flake 

2 question? You know, is that -- let's say for 

3 example, a person has skin cancer on the ear 

4 and neck which, by the way, is extremely 

5 common primarily because of the sun. We know 

6 that. But nevertheless, we have a worker, 

7 he's a claimant, he has a skin cancer on the 

8 neck or the face or the ear, and you're 

9 reconstructing his dose for that scenario. The 

10 question is -- and it's one of these old AWE 

11 facilities. Do you try to reconstruct the 

12 dose to the skin underneath the flake?

13 Now we've done enough parametric 

14 analysis of different size/thickness flakes. 

15 And the bottom line is, it's certainly -- if 

16 it was a flake that could fall and it's on the 

17 order of, say, a centimeter, and it's 

18 relatively thin but, you know, not five 

19 microns, that thick, you can deliver 240 

20 millirem per hour to the skin, the basal cell 

21 epithelial, right underneath the flake. Okay?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44 1 So that is something that's easy 

2 to calculate but that's not the problem. The 

3 problem is, do you believe that that could 

4 occur and -- as a real scenario? And then the 

5 question becomes, if you do believe it could 

6 occur, what do you put into IREP? You know, 

7 so where we -- so we wrote this report -- I'm 

8 sort of setting the big picture so you can 

9 almost visualize it. 

10 I'd like to zero in now and talk 

11 about two different scenarios that we address 

12 in our report. One is the one where you have 

13 these very fine particles that are falling on 

14 a person. And I think we all agree that 

15 that's a real scenario. And you could 

16 actually calculate over the course of, let's 

17 say, an eight-hour day, if you know some 

18 estimate of the airborne dust loading, and 

19 which we usually do from TBD-6000 that gives 

20 us that information. 

21 So we have that, and we all agree 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45 1 that we have a pretty good handle on the 

2 deposition velocity of .00075 meters per 

3 second. And we also know that the -- you 

4 know, it will build up over time. The 

5 question is, how long does it build up? Well, 

6 one could say it builds up during the course 

7 of the day, and here's where the discussion 

8 starts.

9 And I think Hans could come in 

10 here and help out a bit.

11 The question is, sure you could 

12 allow it to build up for, let's say, eight 

13 hours. And then you assume it's washed off. 

14 And you calculate what the dose is to the 

15 skin, the exposed skin, from that buildup of 

16 fine uranium dust on the skin over that eight17 hour period. Then it's washed off because it 

18 goes home, takes a shower or whatever, or 

19 showers at the end of the day at work. And 

20 then comes back to work the next day and it 

21 happens again. And so you start off with that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46 1 zero dose again.

2 Well, that's, I think, our first 

3 issue, that way of thinking about the fine 

4 particle exposure scenario. And Hans has 

5 written up a very nice piece as the heart of 

6 our report describing why we think, that's 

7 what I call that relatively simplistic 

8 approach to estimating the dose to the skin as 

9 adopted by NIOSH in their write-up that's in 

10 our report, we quoted it, why there may be 

11 some problems with that.

12 Hans, if you wouldn't mind, do you 

13 want to take it from here and explain why that 

14 scenario, the way NIOSH is approaching the 

15 dosimetry might have some flaws?

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. The issue 

17 really is one from -- that comes from personal 

18 experience. I spent a number of years in a 

19 nuclear power plant as the manager of rad 

20 health. And one of the recurrent problems 

21 were obviously, among other things, skin 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47 1 contamination. And whenever we had a skin 

2 contamination that was verified by research on 

3 the way out of the RWP area, every attempt was 

4 made to obviously eliminate that contamination 

5 as quickly as possible and as efficiently as 

6 possible. And there were many, many times 

7 when a contamination required many, many 

8 washings, and these are washings that are 

9 obviously focused washings. 

10 We're not talking about taking a 

11 shower with your Ivory soap in hand without 

12 any concern about scrubbing one particular 

13 area of the body that's obviously contaminated 

14 but you don't know it. So there's the issue 

15 of the concept that every day, after an eight16 hour shift, a hundred percent of any 

17 contamination is removed. 

18 And I also, if -- on the 

19 assumption that you may have had a chance to 

20 read John's and my write-up on this issue, 

21 also John and I have spent years in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48 1 Marshall Islands, and of course there the 

2 unique aspect was the activity from fallout 

3 that people were subjected to that included

4 the people, the indigenous people of the 

5 Marshall Islands. And of course, the one area 

6 that John and I studied extensively was Shot 

7 Bravo on March 1, 1954 and the consequences of 

8 fallout that the people were subjected to as a 

9 result of Shot Bravo on Rongelap.

10 And I looked at all the testimony 

11 that were documented in behalf of that 

12 particular event, and these people were 

13 routinely washed over and over and over again. 

14 Their hair were -- body hair were shaven off, 

15 et cetera, et cetera. And it took many, many 

16 attempts to decontaminate people. And I 

17 provided some of that information that comes 

18 out in one of our reports that John and I 

19 wrote in behalf of the Nuclear Claims 

20 Tribunal.

21 The other issues -- and so what it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49 1 really comes down to is the idea that, every 

2 day, somebody walks into his job at a rolling 

3 mill station at Bethlehem Steel and then gets 

4 contaminated for eight hours. And then he 

5 leaves and goes into the shower and a hundred 

6 percent is removed is an unrealistic 

7 assumption. We know that from experience.

8 The other thing is that the 

9 assumption was based upon only contaminated 

10 skin that was not covered by clothing. And I 

11 also quoted one of the documents that said --

12 NIOSH documents where an assessment was made 

13 as to how much potential mitigation clothing 

14 does to a surface contamination on clothing. 

15 And they concluded that only about 20 percent 

16 is removed, meaning that, if a person is fully 

17 clothed as we would expect them to be, with a 

18 minimum of like a T-shirt and perhaps a pair 

19 of pants, the contamination that would deposit 

20 on the clothing is not zero in terms of the 

21 skin doses underneath that clothing. But it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50 1 would, in effect, be about 80 percent.

2 Now here's the other thing about 

3 clothing. Unlike work that it's reasonable to 

4 assume that a person who works at a very hot 

5 facility, hot meaning temperature-wise, 

6 obviously these rolling mills were either --

7 locations where air conditioning was not a 

8 part of their environment, the work was heavy, 

9 they were probably very sweaty, et cetera.

10 A person would, in all likelihood, 

11 take a shower at least once at day whether 

12 it's at work, assuming the facility was there 

13 that would allow them to do that, or if he 

14 can't, came home and probably took a shower 

15 before he had dinner, or, worst case, next 

16 morning before he goes off to work. So the 

17 timeframe for removal of contamination that 

18 would be a hundred percent, of course, would 

19 at least be on a daily basis.

20 When you talk about clothing, and 

21 I went back and I thought about my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51 1 experiences. I am at this point 70 years old 

2 so I'm old enough to know what kinds of 

3 washing machines existed back in the days when 

4 these facilities are in question. We're 

5 talking about the late '40s, early '50s. 

6 And I remember one of the washing 

7 machines my mother used, was a top -- open8 ended unit that had wringers attached to the 

9 side. And these things had a very small 

10 volume. And women in those days probably only 

11 washed once a week. So it's possible that the 

12 person who may have had contaminated clothing 

13 may not have had a change of clothing for a 

14 whole week, meaning that the exposure from 

15 contaminated clothing that he might have worn 

16 over and over on multiple days would remain on 

17 the clothing and therefore continue to expose 

18 them. 

19 And only being washed maybe once a 

20 week, meaning that the 80 percent dose he 

21 would receive on the contamination having 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52 1 settled down on clothing would be offset by 

2 the fact that his clothing wouldn't be washed 

3 as frequently as his body would be.

4 So for simplicity, I would say the 

5 issue of whether or not the area of the body 

6 that may have a cancer is clothed as opposed 

7 to bare skin, such as the face, neck or 

8 forearms, et cetera, the truth is these areas 

9 of the body should be considered exposed to 

10 contamination based on the fact that 

11 contamination that's airborne settles on 

12 clothing would result in exposure that was, in 

13 essence, covered. So that's pretty much what 

14 we concluded.

15 Also again, I went back to the 

16 issue of the Marshall Islanders exposed to 

17 Shot Bravo, and one of the key elements that I 

18 concluded was the military's attempt, when 

19 they were relocated from Rongelap, to quietly 

20 decontaminate their physical bodies, they also 

21 confiscated their clothing. You can read in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53 1 the write-up, multiple attempts were made to 

2 decontaminate clothing to give it back to the 

3 people from whom they were taken, and it took 

4 many washings and inclusive of special 

5 treatments such as acid to remove the 

6 contamination.

7 So to give an understanding of the 

8 complexity of trying to derive a skin dose 

9 that involves open areas, uncovered areas as 

10 opposed to clothing areas, and as far as I'm 

11 concerned, one could probably assume that 

12 there really isn't any significant difference 

13 based upon what I just told you about the 

14 likelihood of clothing being worn multiple 

15 days. And the difficulty of removing 

16 contamination, not just from the scene but 

17 from clothing as well.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

19 And I'd just like to offer one 

20 thing.

21 I'd like to talk for one thing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54 1 with respect to what Hans just said.

2 As a person with many years 

3 experience with uranium processing plant, I 

4 don't know if --

5 MR. KATZ: Hold on.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

7 everyone can hear this echo, but it's very bad 

8 on our end.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: It is here, too.

10 Okay. The point I was going to 

11 make in response to the previous discussion 

12 was, as someone with many years of experience 

13 as a RadCon manager at a uranium processing 

14 facility, I can't recall any instance when it 

15 was difficult to wash uranium off of intact 

16 skin. And I would relate that to the 

17 difference in specific activity and probably 

18 chemical affinity from some fission products 

19 for adhesion to skin and hair that uranium 

20 doesn't share. 

21 So other than that, I mean the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55 1 clothing issue, I believe there's some weight 

2 to that. But to me, the washing and the 

3 incomplete washing I don't believe is relevant 

4 for a uranium facility.

5 DR. NETON: Can I chime in too?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Absolutely.

7 DR. NETON: This is Jim.

8 I agree with Stu's first comment, 

9 first of all, but I'd like to talk about the 

10 other two -- two of the other issues that were 

11 brought up. The first one is the issue of the 

12 large flakes. I am of the opinion that it's 

13 not really plausible for these large flakes to 

14 remain on the skin for any length of time. And 

15 I recall, for some reason just recently I was 

16 reading, I believe it was a RESRAD-type 

17 document that actually did an analysis of 

18 residence time, or likely residence time on 

19 skin as a function of particle size. I can't 

20 recall exactly where I read it, but I think 

21 that's something that is worth looking into 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56 1 because I do believe, as the particles get 

2 larger and larger, it's less likely that 

3 they're going to remain, you know, on the 

4 skin. If somebody is moving around and just 

5 air currents and such, it's just not possible, 

6 or not likely in my mind. So I think that's 

7 something to look into.

8 The third issue about clothing 

9 contamination: we have dealt with this in the 

10 past. If you recall, way back in the 

11 Bethlehem Steel TBD, the workers were adamant 

12 that they wore very dirty clothing and wore 

13 that clothing for up to two weeks without 

14 cleaning. And I just brought up the Site 

15 Profile for Bethlehem Steel and we did account 

16 for that in that particular TBD. And it was 

17 based on the dose rate measured coming off of 

18 contaminated clothing at Mallinckrodt. And it 

19 was about -- I think we ended up at something 

20 like one and a half mR per hour. So that's 

21 something else to look into in that area. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57 1 we can't obviously address these issues at 

2 this meeting.

3 But I do agree that clothing 

4 contamination, to some degree, you know, has 

5 some traction. And we have dealt with it in 

6 the past, maybe not consistently. That may be 

7 a valid point.

8 CHAIR MUNN: So can we work on the 

9 -- are you hearing me all right, James?

10 Can we work on the assumption then 

11 that NIOSH will have specific responses to 

12 some of these comments next time?

13 All right. We will look forward 

14 to that.

15 Anything else from SC&A?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John.

17 There is a couple of more bits of 

18 this that I'd like to address, and this is 

19 where I could certainly use some help in 

20 NIOSH.

21 Let's for the moment --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58 1 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on just a 

2 moment, John.

3 DR. MAURO: Sure.

4 CHAIR MUNN: We're having trouble 

5 with the pickup from the phone.

6 Okay, that's good.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So now, John, 

8 you can carry on.

9 DR. MAURO: Are we good?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: I think we're good.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. The other part 

13 of the question that I'd like to just put on 

14 the table, and it has -- actually has more to 

15 do with IREP than it does with this dose 

16 scenario, and understanding IREP and how it 

17 works.

18 In your example that was run for 

19 the Bridgeport Brass, what was done was, it 

20 turns out that the scenario was, okay, the 

21 person's face, arms, neck was exposed and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59 1 received and had fine deposited uranium. And 

2 the dose was calculated to the skin which 

3 turned out to be about some percentage, 14 

4 percent, whatever the number was -- I forget 

5 the exact number -- of the total surface area 

6 of the skin, okay?

7 And in order to do the Probability 

8 of Causation, they said, well, if only 14 

9 percent of the skin is exposed, what we're 

10 going to do is we're going to -- and you get a 

11 dose, I think it was 16 millirem per hour from 

12 that -- I think it was -- or per day. The 

13 actual absolute numbers are really not 

14 important; it's the concept. And let's say 

15 it's 16 millirem per day. But you're saying 

16 that, but that's only to a portion of the 

17 skin, 14 percent of his skin.

18 So what NIOSH did is they took 

19 that 16 and divided it by eight, you know, and 

20 brought it down to two millirem per day as if 

21 all the skin of his body now was exposed to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60 1 two millirem per day. And that was the input 

2 into IREP. Because, as I understand, your 

3 baseline that, when you're doing excess 

4 relative risk or you do your Probability of

5 Causation, you're basically comparing the risk 

6 of cancer from the radiation exposure relative 

7 to the baseline risk of getting cancer to the 

8 skin anyway from all other causes.

9 So in effect, you had to normalize 

10 the skin exposure to what it would be if it

11 was whole-body exposure, I mean all the skin 

12 was exposed. And in one respect, I understand 

13 that. But in another respect, I'm troubled by 

14 it. And I'm not saying I have the answer, but 

15 I'll tell you what my trouble is. The way I 

16 look at it is, if you have a partial exposure 

17 of the skin that, let's say, 16 millirem per 

18 day to 14 percent of the skin. Now isn't the 

19 real question the Probability of Causation or 

20 the excess relative risk, doesn't your 

21 baseline then have to be changed? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61 1 In fact, for the skin cancer, 

2 doesn't it have to be reduced? Doesn't the 

3 denominator in the PoC equation have to go 

4 down, thereby increasing the PoC? Because in 

5 effect, your baseline is not the risk of 

6 cancer to the entire skin of the body, it's 

7 the risk of cancer to only the portion of the 

8 skin of the body.

9 Now it's a bit of a brain teaser, 

10 but -- so it seems to me -- I understood what 

11 you did and why you did it. But then I asked 

12 myself, no, no, no, the baseline skin cancer 

13 that should be in the calculation should be 

14 the baseline for that portion of the skin, so 

15 it should be smaller. It can't be the full 

16 number, the baseline has to be lower. And of 

17 course, if you're going to lower the baseline 

18 you have -- that means you're going to 

19 increase the Probability of Causation.

20 So I could see by the approach 

21 that you folks have used, you're going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62 1 underestimate the PoC, because first of all, 

2 you're reducing the dose when, in fact, if you 

3 -- what I would have done is say, no, no, you 

4 don't reduce the dose, you leave the dose what 

5 it is, but you reduce the baseline which 

6 increases. So the dose stays the same, 16, 

7 and the baseline goes down because it's only a 

8 portion of the skin that you're judging your 

9 dose against.

10 And that has been sort of a 

11 troubling knotty problem in my mind, and I'd 

12 love to hear -- in fact, I called David Kocher 

13 about this because David is one of the world's 

14 experts on the subject. And I have to say 

15 that I'm still confused whether or not the 

16 problem that I'm having conceptually with the 

17 approach, whether it's valid or not. And I 

18 guess I'm looking to Jim and Stu -- can you 

19 help?

20 DR. H. BEHLING: John, can I say, 

21 that's something that I wrestle with, too.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63 1 DR. MAURO: Sure. Sure. 

2 DR. H. BEHLING: And given what we 

3 just talked about, and I gather from Stu in 

4 his comments that they're willing to accept 

5 the notion that perhaps the skin underneath 

6 the clothing is probably impacted by 

7 contamination as fair skin which would obviate 

8 the need for this whole discussion that you're 

9 engaging in. In other words, all the skin is 

10 now exposed.

11 DR. MAURO: I agree. But it 

12 doesn't go away when it comes to this flake 

13 issue. If the flake issue goes away, and it 

14 sounds like maybe it will as a plausible 

15 scenario, then maybe this is a moot point.

16 But you can understand whether 

17 it's a moot point or not, all I can say is 

18 that I find it a conceptual problem with IREP 

19 that, given that it's a real scenario, that 

20 it's a partial skin exposure, not the whole 

21 body, the whole skin surface. The way in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64 1 which you come at the problem to do the PoC, 

2 and the way that it was done in the example 

3 problem for Bridgeport Brass did -- you know, 

4 Hans, I understand you're right, that might go 

5 away. 

6 But let's say it doesn't go away, 

7 okay? Am I thinking about this incorrectly, 

8 how you do PoC under those circumstances?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: John, this is --

10 DR. H. BEHLING: That's something 

11 with regard to the issue of what may have been 

12 done to David Kocher. The fact of the matter 

13 is, if you were to do a revised baseline for 

14 cancer, it would probably not be proportional 

15 to the surface area of the skin. Because I 

16 believe that if you look at empirical data 

17 involving the medical data that may be 

18 available out there on skin cancer, the 

19 overwhelming majority of cancer is probably in 

20 the natural population that has nothing to do 

21 with radiation. It's probably the result of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65 1 sun exposure, and those skin cancers would 

2 probably ultimately be confined to the areas 

3 that are naturally not subject -- that are not 

4 covered, namely the hands and arms, the face, 

5 the ear lobes, the neck, et cetera, et cetera.

6 So it would probably not be a 

7 proportional percentage value of total skin 

8 because, as I said, if you look at baseline 

9 values in the natural population, those skin 

10 cancers would probably be dominated by areas 

11 of skin, not just the nose, face, ears, neck 

12 and hands.

13 MR. KATZ: John, can I jump in for 

14 just a second? Jim Neton wanted to say 

15 something and he hasn't had a chance to weigh 

16 in yet.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John.

18 DR. NETON: Thank you. Hans was 

19 actually making the same -- having the same 

20 discussion that I was going to make about the 

21 baseline risk. And I actually think it may be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66 1 unknowable, the data --

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 DR. NETON: -- probably aren't 

4 even there.

5 But getting back to John's 

6 original point, it still would apply even if 

7 we did accept clothing contamination, because 

8 there -- it's possible you'll have instances 

9 where you'll have measurements of skin 

10 contamination on a person that you could use 

11 in a dose calculation. And in that case, if 

12 you look at our TIB-17, it actually provides 

13 three alternatives to doing a skin dose 

14 calculation.

15 The first situation is, if the 

16 contamination is directly deposited on the 

17 site where the skin cancer occurred, then we 

18 would not adjust the risk value for the very 

19 reason that John mentioned. Is that we 

20 believe there was competing -- a competition 

21 between the background incident rate and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67 1 risk value being reduced. Those two offset 

2 each other roughly. We don't know if that is 

3 really true, but it made some common sense to 

4 us way back when we wrote TIB-17. So in that 

5 case, I think we're doing the best we can for 

6 the claimant in that scenario.

7 In the case where the skin 

8 contamination was known to be not over the 

9 site of the skin cancer, then we would 

10 obviously assign a PoC of zero because they --

11 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

12 DR. NETON: -- received no dose.

13 Now in the case where you have 

14 skin contamination with a cancer of an unknown 

15 location, in other words you don't know 

16 whether the cancer was covered -- was directly 

17 under the contamination or not, the TIB 

18 provides for a distribution to be assigned. A 

19 log-normal distribution with the central 

20 estimate being the adjusted risk value, that 

21 is divide the risk value by the percentage 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68 1 ratio, the percentage of the skin that's 

2 contaminated to the whole body. And the upper 

3 end of that distribution would be the full 

4 dose making no adjustments. And that's the 

5 way it's currently done.

6 So it seems to me that the one 

7 that you reviewed, John, may have been done

8 improperly, even according to our own 

9 procedures.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 DR. NETON: So that's where our 

12 current position stands. I do agree that 

13 there's room for discussion and further 

14 analysis of this. I intend to take this up 

15 with SENES to some degree, because they are 

16 our experts in this area, we're not. And you 

17 know, ask some basic questions, you know, like 

18 first of all, even if you were to adjust for 

19 baseline cancer risk of areas exposed, is that 

20 even doable? And if not, then what are your 

21 other options.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69 1 DR. MAURO: Hey Jim, thank you.

2 My main goal here today was 

3 typically to communicate what was on our mind, 

4 the things that were troubling us, not that we 

5 had answers. We just didn't understand 

6 completely and -- whether or not -- you know, 

7 and it sounds like you folks understand our 

8 concerns. And it sounds like you are going to 

9 address them. And for the -- and then we'll 

10 all hear a little bit more about, you know, 

11 how to deal with -- right now, I guess you do 

12 have your procedure and the -- there's a part 

13 of that OTIB-17 that talks about some of the 

14 things you mentioned.

15 And my concern was this business 

16 of the baseline and the -- and how do you deal 

17 with that. And of course, the point that Hans 

18 made regarding the clothing. I think that 

19 once that's on the record, that is, you folks 

20 take a position and answer our concerns, for 

21 example, document why you feel the wash-off 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70 1 will work, the -- and the degree to which you 

2 can address the accumulation in the clothing, 

3 I think we get that on the record and then we 

4 move on. 

5 But this has been very helpful and 

6 thank you for all the time you gave us on 

7 this.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And it's our 

9 assumption that we'll have a report from NIOSH 

10 responding to this paper at our next meeting, 

11 right? Is that --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, could I ask 

13 another question on this? And I was going to 

14 make a comment.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Certainly, Paul.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: One thing about --

17 and this is Ziemer, Court Recorder.

18 For an argument about skin, which 

19 is, in many respects sort of different from 

20 the rest of the body, because it's all over 

21 the place, it's very easy for us to think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71 1 about stochastic effects such as in the 

2 Marshall Islands where there is, you know, a 

3 one-to-one relationship where the fallout hits 

4 the skin and you've got skin burns. 

5 But where you have non-stochastic 

6 effects -- I got it reversed here.

7 DR. MAURO: Reversed, yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I reversed it. 

9 But where you had non-stochastic -

10 - or where you have stochastic effects, and 

11 the skin is an organ, to what extent you're 

12 going into a one to one relationship between 

13 the base is actually delivered versus where 

14 the cancer is? The skin is actually not just 

15 a surface that has some depth and so there's a 

16 volume there as well.

17 And is there any good research 

18 that shows that the cancer would appear in the 

19 immediate vicinity of where the dose is 

20 delivered for a stochastic effect on the skin?

21 DR. NETON: Paul, this is Jim.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72 1 MEMBER ZIEMER: The skin of the 

2 whole body is an organ --

3 DR. NETON: I think there's 

4 probably some very good animal data on that. 

5 They've done research for years with pigs and 

6 radiation, localized radiation. And I'm not 

7 aware of what's called, I guess, these 

8 abscopal effects where cancers pop up 

9 somewhere else other than the radiation site. 

10 And I don't --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then that --

12 there's sort of an argument it could be 

13 cancers crop up somewhere else from where the 

14 dose is delivered.

15 DR. NETON: And I don't know, but 

16 my guess would be that I don't think that 

17 there's very -- a good body of evidence that 

18 would support that. But it's something that 

19 would have to be looked at in more detail.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. And with 

21 regard to the Marshall Island experience, skin 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73 1 cancer was really not the major issue there. I 

2 think the doses were in the thousands of rads.

3 And most of those, the approach 

4 was they were in contact with the 

5 contamination on their feet. And they don't 

6 wear shoes most of the time --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, those are 

8 direct burns and so on.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Somewhat different 

10 circumstance than what we're facing with the 

11 current question.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, yes, I just 

13 wanted to ask. You know, intuitively, we 

14 should -- there should be a one to one 

15 relationship between where the dose was 

16 delivered and where the cancer occurred. But 

17 I always have trouble on the skin, you know, 

18 as an organ, and that also goes to this issue 

19 of whether you approximate it or not in the 

20 way that John was describing.

21 DR. NETON: Paul, you raise a good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74 1 point. And it's always interesting. We treat 

2 all skin cancers as independent events, and 

3 we've had independent primary cancers, we've 

4 had I think -- I don't know Stu might know 

5 better, but I think there's cases where we've 

6 had 100 or more individual skin cancers all 

7 treated as individual primaries. 

8 And of course, at each iteration, 

9 the PoC, the dose required to get to a PoC of 

10 50 percent goes down substantially as you go 

11 up and up.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But we don't 

13 really do that with other organs.

14 DR. NETON: Well, we do --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe we do with 

16 blood --

17 DR. NETON: You can have multiple 

18 cancers in the same organ. And if they're 

19 listed individual -- as primaries, you can 

20 have two primary colon cancers, for example, 

21 quite easily.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75 1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right.

2 DR. H. BEHLING: But I think 

3 coming back, using a parallel relationship 

4 between radiation and sun exposure, abscopal 

5 effects involving sun exposure and skin cancer 

6 is not likely because, in most instances, when 

7 you do have skin cancers, I've had multiple 

8 skin cancers removed and they all happen to be 

9 in areas that were maximally exposed to 

10 sunlight. And so I believe that, you know, a 

11 sun exposure and radiation exposure probably 

12 would be very parallel in terms of which cells 

13 are affected and which ones are most at risk.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith 

16 with the ORAU team.

17 For Dr. Ziemer's question, there's 

18 information in the IREP technical document. So 

19 that's one of those baseline documents back 

20 from the 2002 timeframe. Page number is 8, 

21 and this is where it is discussed that skin 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76 1 cancers tend to occur within the field of 

2 radiation exposure. The citations there are 

3 based on studies of situations where people 

4 were exposed under medical exposure 

5 conditions.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Matt. 

7 That's helpful.

8 MR. SMITH: So there's about, I 

9 think, three or four citations there.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

12 MR. SMITH: You bet.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Does that satisfy 

14 your question, Paul?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think so.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Then any other 

17 questions before we return to the question of 

18 when we might have a response from NIOSH?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we're -- I 

20 don't think I can give you a schedule today. 

21 We'll have to work this into the resource 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77 1 loading with the rest of the tasks on the 

2 project and weigh it against the resources 

3 available.

4 CHAIR MUNN: We'll continue to 

5 carry it on the agenda then.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. And we'll 

7 let you know if we have anything to say as the 

8 next meeting approaches.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Good. Thank 

10 you much, Stu.

11 Any other comment or question with 

12 respect to this particular issue?

13 (No response.)

14 CHAIR MUNN: If not, thank you 

15 all. Thank you SC&A for the paper. And thank 

16 the rest of you for the discussion and the 

17 additional information. Thanks, Matt.

18 The next item on our agenda is 

19 PERs 31 and 30. We were going to have a 

20 report from SC&A on our status?

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, Wanda. This 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78 1 is Kathy Behling.

2 And this -- I'm going to start 

3 with PER 30, and that was sent to Subcommittee 

4 on July 1st of this year. I hope you'll have 

5 that report. And I'll just preface this that 

6 that report was done by Ron Buchanan and he 

7 was not available to be on the line with us 

8 today. So I'm going to try to walk you 

9 through that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And just 

12 as a reminder, obviously our PER process 

13 considers five sub-tasks. But this initial 

14 report, we only include three sub-tasks. And 

15 I will try to walk through those.

16 PER 30 was issued as a result of 

17 the Savannah River Site Technical Basis 

18 Document revision. The report was initially 

19 put out in July of 2003, and as of April 2005 

20 there were three revisions. 

21 And then on the -- on December 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79 1 18th of 2007, PER 30 was issued because of 

2 changes to those revisions that would cause an 

3 increase in dose.

4 I will mention also that there is 

5 a -- there was a change to the occupational 

6 medical dose section in 2009. Just that 

7 particular section, which would constitute a 

8 Rev 4. And as part of this review, we'll 

9 discuss a little later, we looked at that 

10 also.

11 So to start with, the issues that 

12 changed in the revisions and increased dose, 

13 there were four separate issues. And 

14 primarily those issues in summary, between Rev 

15 0 and Rev 1, for the urine sample data, 

16 generally the guidance in Rev 0 was to assume 

17 a daily rate of 1.4 liters per day for the 

18 urine sample. However, many of the actual 

19 samples that were submitted, where the 

20 activity was listed as 1.5 liters per day. So 

21 it was assumed that, if it was 1.4 liters, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80 1 that would result in a lower assigned intake. 

2 And as I said, that was corrected in Rev 1.

3 The second issue has to do with 

4 environmental data. And the environmental 

5 plutonium intake in Rev 0, if you assigned a 

6 type-M plutonium, you would -- Rev 0 would 

7 have a value that was actually too high. And 

8 if the values were assigned as a type S 

9 solubility, the values were listed -- that 

10 were listed initially in Rev 0 were too low.

11 So this requires that NIOSH go 

12 back and reassess all the DRs that use the 

13 type S solubility for plutonium between Rev 0 

14 and Rev 1.

15 The third issue, also an 

16 environment issue were -- had to do with the 

17 work hours that were assumed. In Rev 0, it 

18 was assumed that there were 2000 work hours 

19 per year, and in Rev 1 that changed to 2500 

20 hours per year. That's environmental also.

21 And then finally, the fourth issue 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81 1 that created an increase in dose was, again, 

2 environmental ambient intake. There was a 

3 table in Appendix B of the Site Profile where 

4 the maximum site-wide ambient intakes, that 

5 the headings between the plutonium and the 

6 uranium were transposed. And so again, that 

7 was corrected in Rev 1. 

8 But in addition to that, there was 

9 a dose reconstruction tool that was issued 

10 about ten days after the Site Profile was 

11 issued. And the tool, the workbook was 

12 correct. But NIOSH did go back and look at 

13 all of the cases that were done under Rev 0, 

14 even though the workbook would have corrected 

15 that.

16 If we move on to our sub-task 2, 

17 which is in Section 3 of our report, here is 

18 where we look at the specific methods for 

19 corrective action that were taken.

20 Now in the case of Savannah River 

21 Site Profile, SC&A has reviewed the Site 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82 1 Profile in the past. There was a PER 2 that 

2 was put out back in 2003 that corrected an 

3 error regarding surrogate organs assigned for 

4 the medical dose. And we looked at that, we 

5 reviewed that, that PER 2, and we found it to 

6 be adequate. 

7 We also did a review of Rev 2 of 

8 the TBD in 2005 and, in fact, Ron included an 

9 Attachment A to this PER review that just 

10 summarizes our findings. They really are 

11 outside of the scope of this PER 30. 

12 We also looked at a paragraph-by13 paragraph comparison between Rev 0 and Rev 1, 

14 and so on, and we did not find any other 

15 issues or any other items that might increase 

16 the dose. So we agree with NIOSH in the fact 

17 that these four issues that were addressed are 

18 appropriate.

19 I'm going to move on to our first 

20 finding and I'll come back then to our fourth 

21 evaluation here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83 1 But our first finding has to do 

2 with something that was stated in PER 30, and 

3 it's maybe just a cautionary issue in and a 

4 documentation issue. But NIOSH stated in 

5 there that there were placeholders or reserved 

6 -- pages that were reserved where they did not 

7 do certain dose reconstructions if they found 

8 that they didn't have a methodology for doing 

9 those reconstructions at the time. So they 

10 were -- those particular cases were set off to 

11 the side and not done until there was a 

12 methodology.

13 And I guess the first question 

14 that we have, phrasing a concern is, is there 

15 documentation available to verify that those 

16 claims were held in reserve and were not 

17 completed? And just so that we can convince 

18 ourselves that none of these cases slipped 

19 through the cracks. That was our first 

20 finding.

21 Now I'll go back and, as I said, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84 1 this may go a little bit beyond what -- the 

2 extent of PER 30. But we also looked at this 

3 final revision to the medical dose. And like 

4 I said, that was done before in 2009. And in 

5 looking at that, we realized that there were a 

6 lot of changes being made, significant changes 

7 that would increase the dose.

8 And our second finding, which 

9 you'll see on page 11 of our report is just to 

10 be sure that there will be a PER issued to 

11 cover the increase of the dose associated with 

12 the occupational medical section that was 

13 revised in 2009. And Ron has listed here 

14 several of the issues that were changed and 

15 that could increase the dose.

16 In the past, previously NIOSH, in 

17 their publication records section up front in 

18 the -- their Site Profiles, they used to 

19 include a statement in there when there was a 

20 change made that would prompt a PER. They 

21 included that kind of a statement, that there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85 1 was training required and that this change 

2 would increase dose, perhaps, and that a PER 

3 would be issued. But that statement is no 

4 longer always being included, and it was not 

5 included in this 2009 revision. So we're not 

6 sure -- we believe that there should be a PER, 

7 but we just -- we're not sure that that's been 

8 initiated yet. I don't believe it has been 

9 initiated yet, and we wanted to make sure that 

10 that does happen.

11 And then finally, we looked at the 

12 corrective action plan and Ron went through 

13 each one of the four corrective actions. And 

14 for each of the four issues, we concur with 

15 NIOSH's approach, and we didn't find any 

16 additional errors as we cited on page 12 under 

17 Section 3.2.1.

18 Finally, we look at the -- how 

19 NIOSH identified a number of cases that need 

20 to be evaluated. And that's done under sub21 task 3, under Section 4 of our report. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86 1 what Ron did is he also went and he did a 

2 search. And his search looking at the 

3 Savannah River Site cases, anything less than 

4 a PoC of 50 percent, and looking at cases 

5 prior to Revision 1, he initially identified 

6 from that search 57 claims. And then he did a 

7 little bit more detailed manual search and 

8 identified another three.

9 So because that number differed 

10 from the 54 claims that NIOSH indicated, said 

11 needed to be reassessed, we went and looked a 

12 little bit closer at those, and it was 

13 determined that three of our sixty claims were 

14 returned to NIOSH for other reasons and were 

15 reworked using the Rev 01 and didn't need to 

16 be reassessed. And three of the other claims 

17 were -- oh, and they were reworked also. They 

18 used the 2500 hours per year for the ambient 

19 dose, and it was a hypothetical internal that 

20 was used for the assessment. So none of the 

21 other issues were identified under PER 30 were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87 1 of a concern for those cases.

2 So bottom line was, we did agree 

3 that there were 54 cases that should be 

4 reevaluated.

5 The only cautionary statement I 

6 will make, because one of the things that we 

7 have seen and we mentioned before in our 

8 review of these PERs is that there have been 

9 times where we've looked back and it looked as 

10 if the claims should have been reworked 

11 because of being pooled for another reason. 

12 And when we go into the actual file, there may 

13 even be a PER form in there indicating that it 

14 was reevaluated.

15 But we have seen in cases, some 

16 cases, that that hasn't happened. In fact, it 

17 was something that we recognized under PER 14, 

18 which was the construction trade worker. And 

19 actually, right now I'm working on the 

20 Blockson PER 20 case reviews, and there was a 

21 case in there that was selected, however the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88 1 review was not done, and we're not quite sure 

2 why that is.

3 So just a cautionary note that I 

4 think we really need to look at those cases 

5 also that seem to have been pulled for other 

6 reasons, just to ensure that they actually 

7 were reworked.

8 And that's the summary of PER 30. 

9 If you have any questions, I'll try to answer 

10 them.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy.

12 Does anyone have any questions 

13 before -- I believe Stu has some comment to 

14 make. But question before that?

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIR MUNN: If not, Stu?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not real sure 

18 what I can add. Lori, have we prepped 

19 responses to these findings yet?

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, we haven't.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Just in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89 1 reaction to this -- all you'll get is my 

2 reaction. The phased implementation of TBDs 

3 as finding number one was something we did 

4 overtly because, you know, this -- these 

5 changes date back to the years 2003 and 2004 

6 when we had 10,000 claims in our inbox, okay? 

7 And so we were doing what we do to get some 

8 cases moving, and that included doing this 

9 reconstruction that we could do before we 

10 completed everything. So you know, there's no 

11 -- you know, I'm not going to complain about 

12 the phased implementation, that was something 

13 we had to do.

14 The question about, is there some 

15 sort of documentation of it, and I don't know 

16 the answer to that question. If this 

17 situation were to occur today, in all 

18 likelihood the cases that could not go forward 

19 would be pending. And there would be a "pend" 

20 on that case today. I don't know if we were 

21 sophisticated in 2003/2004 with the use of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90 1 "pends" and whether we did it at that time or 

2 not. So I don't know if there's a document, 

3 we'll have to figure that out.

4 There's a comment in here, I think 

5 it had to do with the medical X-ray revision, 

6 TIB 4, changes to medical X-ray, and on the 

7 record, change record page, whether -- you 

8 know, at one point there was a notation on the 

9 change record page, "this change requires a 

10 PER." 

11 And we intentionally stopped 

12 putting that in there because the document was 

13 not given sufficient review at the time that 

14 page change was prepared to really know 

15 whether you needed a PER or not. And so given 

16 -- so the fact of the matter is, there were 

17 things that came over that said "PER required" 

18 when, in fact, there was no PER required.

19 So because of the situation we 

20 were facing we said, look, we're not going to 

21 get into this, we're just -- we don't put that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91 1 statement in there. That decision will be 

2 made later, not when we write the document 

3 decision. So that was an overt decision on 

4 our part.

5 MR. KATZ: And we talked about 

6 that at the last meeting, actually.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Did we?

8 MR. KATZ: This came up at the 

9 last meeting.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So other than 

11 that, though, I don't know that I have much 

12 else to add, and will be -- we'll prepare 

13 responses to the findings in the normal 

14 fashion.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

16 Yeah, we had talked about this the 

17 last time, but we've been going to -- putting 

18 a notion as to whether there was going to be a 

19 PER or not. The only thing it does to us is 

20 we don't know if that process has been 

21 initiated. So that's why it has come up in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92 1 this particular document. Just because it 

2 used to be that we could say, we're 

3 considering a PER so we don't have to identify 

4 that as an issue. But we don't know that 

5 anymore.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you again, 

8 Kathy.

9 Anyone -- any further question?

10 (No response.)

11 CHAIR MUNN: If not, are you going 

12 to do 31 as well, Kathy?

13 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm going to have 

14 Hans do 31.

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Because 31 is 

17 quite complex.

18 And let me also ask a question. I 

19 hope that everyone has PER 31, because I think 

20 it's going to be very necessary to be looking 

21 at some graphs and some information that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93 1 provided in PER 31. 

2 And I -- Ted, thank you for 

3 sending me the link. When I tried to get onto 

4 LiveMeeting, it says that the meeting is full. 

5 So I'm not sure if that document can be pulled 

6 up so that everybody can view it or if you all 

7 have your copy and Hans can proceed.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Kathy, this is 

9 Steve.

10 When was it sent out?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: It was sent out 

12 on Monday the 15th. So I'm sure no one has 

13 had an opportunity to look at this in light of 

14 the full Board meeting this week. It was sent 

15 out on the 15th.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: PER 31, okay, I've 

17 got it.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: And this is Hans.

19 I'm really hope that, because of 

20 some of the complexities that surround this 

21 particular PER, that I could get people's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94 1 attention to focus on figures A, B and C that 

2 are part of the write-up. Because it's very 

3 important for me to identify certain elements 

4 of those figures in order for them to 

5 understand the findings that were raised by 

6 Ron Buchanan in his write-up.

7 CHAIR MUNN: We do have the 

8 document up on LiveMeeting screen. And if 

9 you'll make sure that you identify which 

10 graphic you're wanting, Hans, as you're 

11 speaking?

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I will.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: And I guess if I 

15 may ask a quick question here, we've been on 

16 the phone for about two hours. Is there any 

17 reason for us to take a break at this time? 

18 Because it may take a while for this 

19 discussion to go through the whole spectrum. 

20 If so, if you want to take a break now or 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95 1 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for your 

2 thoughtfulness. Yes, we were scheduled for a 

3 break in another 15 minutes or so, a little 

4 more than that. But if this is going to be a 

5 long discussion, it's probably well advised to 

6 take a brief meeting break right now.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah. It could 

8 be longer, it can be shorter, it's really --

9 and the reason I say this is because I was 

10 brought onto this whole issue a couple days 

11 ago when we were informed that Ron wouldn't be 

12 able to support this meeting. 

13 And it's been a lot of back14 pedaling on my part to try to actually 

15 understand the issues that many of you are 

16 probably very, very well aware of based on the 

17 fact that the issue of chest counting and 

18 thorium was a major issue regarding the 

19 Fernald situation. And I listened-in to the 

20 discussion yesterday. 

21 So it's a question of how much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96 1 information do we need to discuss based on 

2 what you already know about the issues 

3 regarding chest counting for Fernald persons 

4 at the Y-12 facility.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, as you well 

6 know, we've had a lot of intellectual exposure 

7 to thorium recently. But perhaps it would be 

8 wise of us to take that 15-minute break now. 

9 And we'll make that decision about how deeply 

10 we want to go into the weeds on this when we 

11 take up our discussion as we come back, if 

12 that's okay with all concerned. Is that good 

13 with you, Paul?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's fine.

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

16 good. We'll go offline for 15 minutes. We'll 

17 be back at 10:30 Mountain time.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 10:17 a.m. and 

20 resumed at 10:31 a.m.)

21 CHAIR MUNN: It's 10:30, we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97 1 back online. 

2 I believe I heard you, Paul, 

3 verify you're on?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm here.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And Hans, I just 

6 heard you, so I know you're on.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I'm on.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We're 

9 back in session.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. And so 

11 everybody who needs to be there is there?

12 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, hold on just a 

15 moment. John Stiver's not here. I just 

16 realized.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, but I think we 

18 can go, we've got plenty of SC&A 

19 representation.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I believe we can, 

21 too. I think John probably is familiar with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98 1 what we're doing anyhow. Let's go ahead, 

2 Hans.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: I can start then?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks Hans.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Go right ahead.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. And I do 

8 want to ask you, Wanda, when John Stiver comes 

9 back, I was actually going to inform him that 

10 he might want to step in at times, because I 

11 realize he was very, very actively involved in

12 the issue of chest counting, and he's also co13 author of the White Paper that was written 

14 back in April of 2012 that was authored 

15 between Joyce Lipsztein and John. So he may 

16 be in the position to answer certain issues or 

17 respond to certain things that I'm probably 

18 not as familiar with as he is. So when he 

19 comes back, would you inform him of the fact 

20 that I might call on him, or that he should 

21 interrupt in areas where he might feel he has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99 1 something to add?

2 MR. KATZ: Right. We'll tell him 

3 that. But somebody maybe is not off -- is not 

4 on mute, and we're getting a lot of static 

5 from one person's line. So everyone but Hans, 

6 can you mute your phones?

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: No, we still have it so 

9 maybe it's someone else. Someone else not 

10 have their phone on mute?

11 Okay, that's good. Whoever just 

12 went on mute, that fixed it. Thanks.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And Hans, John is 

15 back in the room now. I'll relay your message 

16 to him, and you can go ahead with your 

17 presentation.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. All right.

19 As Kathy already told you, both 

20 PER 30 and 31 were actually authored by Ron 

21 Buchanan who, unfortunately, is not able to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100 1 make it today because he's closing on a house. 

2 And as I'd indicated before, I hope everyone 

3 has had a chance to pull up the write-up for 

4 PER 31 that John -- I mean, that Ron Buchanan 

5 authored on your screen, so when I ask you to 

6 please consult Figure A, B or C, that you're 

7 in a position to do so because some of the 

8 comments I'm going to be making will ask you 

9 to look at certain specific items that will 

10 help you understand the issues that are being 

11 discussed.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We do have the 

13 document up on our LiveMeeting screen.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, great.

15 In areas, as I said, because this 

16 has been a subject of discussion with the 

17 Board as a whole and with various 

18 Subcommittees, I'm sort of at a loss to 

19 determine exactly how much depth I should go 

20 into. But at any time, if somebody feels that 

21 you're being bored or you're being insulted by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101 1 these comments, please step in and give me the 

2 heads up so we can reduce the discussion by 

3 some measure if it turns out that people are 

4 too familiar with this, or even more familiar 

5 than I am. So please let me know.

6 The particular PER 31 was issued 

7 back at a time when there were revisions to Y8 12. And the revision, if you go to page 8 of 

9 the report in question, involved a change to 

10 the occupational internal dose that occurred 

11 on December -- no, January 12th, 2006. And 

12 that singular revision is the justification 

13 for PER 31. 

14 And that particular revision 

15 really involves the single change, and that 

16 change is the assumption that thorium-228 and 

17 thorium-232 are not to be assumed to be in 100 

18 percent equilibrium but were changed to 80 

19 percent equilibrium. And so in essence, this 

20 is the core of the change that prompted PER 

21 31. And I'll just read the very statement 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102 1 that appears in PER 31 in Section 2, that 

2 reads as follows:

3 "After evaluating the Y-12 

4 documentation, one issue did arise that could 

5 increase the dose estimates for some claims. 

6 The equilibrium ratio of thorium-228 to 

7 thorium-232 was changed from assuming 100 

8 percent equilibrium to assuming 80 percent 

9 equilibrium. Incorporating this change, 

10 however, would increase does estimates for 

11 patients containing a thorium intake 

12 determined from chest count data."

13 So that's really the sum total of 

14 what constitutes PER 31, a change of 

15 equilibrium from an assumption of 100 percent 

16 to 80 percent.

17 And you can see that those dates 

18 on page 8 of the write-up, and as a result of 

19 that PER, PER 31 identified that they were a 

20 total of 693 claims that had been completed 

21 prior to December 18, 2007, which was the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103 1 issuance of PER 31, with PoCs of less than 50 

2 percent that could be affected. In other 

3 words, this is a very global number which has 

4 not yet been, as far as I can tell, been 

5 looked at by NIOSH to determine how many of 

6 those 693 claims that had been completed prior 

7 to the issuance of PER 31 would be affected. 

8 Because they would obviously have to have 

9 something to do with thorium exposures and 

10 chest counting in Y-12. So this number is 

11 obviously a global number and would probably 

12 have to come down if NIOSH takes a very close 

13 look at this.

14 On page of the write-up from Ron 

15 Buchanan, he identified a total of four 

16 issues. And the first issue of finding 1 

17 states the following. And he summarizes those 

18 findings both on page 12 of the write-up as 

19 well as on page 17. The more comprehensive 

20 definition of finding 1 is found on page 17, 

21 which I'll just quickly read to you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104 1 "The change in thorium2 228/thorium-232 ratio, one-to-one to zero3 point-eight-to-one would actually reduce the 

4 assigned dose, not increase it if thorium body 

5 burdens are based on chest count."

6 That's a very profound statement. 

7 And he goes on to say, "the only incidents 

8 where a thorium-228/thorium-232 ratio of zero9 point-eight-to-one would increase overall dose 

10 is if only the counts from lead-212 were used 

11 to determine thorium-228 body burden then the 

12 thorium-232 burden would divide from those 

13 results."

14 That is basically a contradiction 

15 of the very issue that defines PER 31, which 

16 Ron has stated that the conversion of 100 

17 percent equilibrium to 80 percent equilibrium, 

18 rather than increase the dose would actually 

19 decrease the dose. With the exception of one 

20 situation, and that is if the analysis 

21 involves the use of lead-212 as the indicator 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105 1 of radium.

2 I'm going to ask everyone if that 

3 is something that you have heard before, has 

4 been discussed before, or if you actually 

5 already understand the concern that was raised 

6 in issue one. Among the three Members, or 

7 anyone else, can I have a response?

8 MR. STIVER: Hans, this is John 

9 Stiver.

10 We went through this very same 

11 issue in considerable detail regarding 

12 Fernald. And the problem, as I recall, NIOSH 

13 was planning to use lead-212 instead of 

14 actinium-228 in order to get back -- based on 

15 presumed equilibrium to get back to a thorium16 232 intake.

17 The problem wasn't necessarily 

18 with that approach. It was that the empirical 

19 formula they used to get from the count data 

20 back to milligrams thorium was just found to 

21 be inadequate all the way around.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106 1 Later on -- I don't know if this 

2 was true for Y-12, but at Fernald in 1979, 

3 they went from reporting milligrams thorium to 

4 actual activity of lead-212 in the actinium5 228. And we were able to show that, by 

6 reviewing that data, you know, it is possible 

7 then to get back to a thorium intake, a 

8 plausible thorium intake, and place it up or 

9 down.

10 But this is kind of a moot point 

11 in that it doesn't really make much of a 

12 difference because they're never really 

13 measuring the activity level to begin with in 

14 that earlier period. There may be some --

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, and this is 

16 why I asked you to step in. 

17 Anything that you've been -- that 

18 somebody doesn't understand why that -- or why 

19 Ron came to that conclusion, it should be very 

20 obvious. And I was just simply going to go 

21 quickly through that whole issue because of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107 1 the fact that, when you report the body burden 

2 in terms of milligrams thorium, what you're 

3 really measuring, or what you're really 

4 dealing with is a milligram quantity of 

5 thorium-232. 

6 And then that's obviously 

7 something that you can conclude based on the 

8 Radon half-life. You could determine half9 life for thorium-232 versus obviously thorium10 228. And on the basis of activity, you 

11 realize that if we're talking about, let's 

12 say, the recorded quantity for thorium was two 

13 milligrams, that that is almost 100 percent 

14 thorium-232.

15 And then using, obviously, 

16 activity which indicates a third of 232, 

17 defined by zero-point-one-one nanocurie per 

18 milligram, you can obviously convert the 

19 milligram into nanocuries and realize you have 

20 the value for thorium-232. If you then say 

21 they're in full equilibrium of that same 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108 1 quantity of activity would now also have to be 

2 assigned to thorium-228. If you now convert 

3 to only zero-point-eight, you would obviously 

4 reduce the dose associated with thorium-232, 

5 which in combination with the revised 

6 equilibrium fraction would give you a lower 

7 number.

8 So it's obviously clear to me when 

9 you deal with milligram quantities of thorium, 

10 you're talking about 232. And if you 

11 therefore reduce the equilibrium from one-to12 one to zero-point-eight-to-one, you obviously 

13 reduce the dose. So I'm not sure whether or 

14 not that issue remains an issue or has been 

15 looked at.

16 MR. STIVER: This is John again.

17 I think the problem we have is 

18 that, you know, the PER is really looking at, 

19 if we made this change, these are the results 

20 that would occur, these are the number of 

21 claims that would be affected.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109 1 But the bigger issue is that that 

2 approach has been found to be not a reliable 

3 dose reconstruction method to begin with.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah. And as I 

5 said, I'm only following --

6 MR. STIVER: Right. You're just 

7 going to go through and give --

8 DR. H. BEHLING: -- that's really 

9 the next issue that Ron identified. And that 

10 obviously involves the issue that were -- or 

11 issues that were identified in the White Paper 

12 that you co-authored with Joyce Lipsztein back 

13 in 2012.

14 MR. STIVER: I guess you just have 

15 to keep in mind as you go through this, the 

16 historical nature of the document. This was 

17 all taking place, you know, before we came to 

18 these conclusions, you know, regarding 

19 Fernald, which are applicable. So maybe the 

20 thing to do is just kind of go through and 

21 summarize what the findings are and --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110 1 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah. Okay. So 

2 the first finding is that, according to that 

3 methodology, the milligram quantities that are 

4 obviously supposed to be defined on the 

5 contribution of thorium-232, you end up with a 

6 lower dose based on the reduction of those 

7 assigned to 232. That is no longer now one8 to-one but point-eight-to-one to those 

9 contributed from the thorium-232.

10 So again, that what it turned out 

11 to be. And you know what was the strange 

12 thing is that the actual defined TBD makes a 

13 statement to that effect. And if I read on 

14 page 31 of the original revised TBD for Y-12, 

15 they talked about the issue of revising the 

16 equilibrium ratio from one-to-one to zero17 point-eight-to-one. And in the process, the 

18 statement on page 31 gives you the following. 

19 "It was reported in 1965 that when 

20 Y-12 was processed less than one year after 

21 purification by the supplier, and as a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111 1 consequence had only about ten percent as much 

2 radium-228 as radium-224." And they give a 

3 reference. "This means that the maximum dose 

4 conversion factor per milligram of thorium-232 

5 would be less than that for thorium-232 in 

6 full equilibrium with its progeny."

7 So I'm having a tough time 

8 understanding how we can reconcile that 

9 statement as it appears in a revision of 

10 Section 5 of the Y-12 TBD with the PER 31 that 

11 says, we would actually raise the actual dose 

12 assigned to the individual based on this 

13 change from one-to-one to zero-point-eight-to14 one. I'm having a tough time understanding

15 how that PER came to be.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Stu?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, Jim and I 

18 were having a bit of a sidebar conversation. 

19 What's the question exactly here?

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, as I said, 

21 PER 31 -- and I read the exact statement --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112 1 says that when we convert from a equilibrium 

2 ratio that was only used from one-to-one, full 

3 equilibrium between thorium-232 and 228, and 

4 we change that equilibrium ratio from fully a 

5 hundred percent to eighty percent, where 

6 thorium-228 is only eighty percent of thorium7 232, we would actually increase the dose. And 

8 yet -- and that's the sum total of PER 31. 

9 Yet, when I look at the revisions 

10 to the Y-12 TBD, and there were multiple 

11 revisions that respond to that change in 

12 assumed equilibrium, inclusive of the most 

13 recent version that came out in 2012. But 

14 I'll read to you the original version that 

15 came -- that was the genesis of PER 12, and it 

16 states the following:

17 "It was reported in 1965 that 

18 thorium Y-12 was processed less than one year 

19 after purification by the supplier, and as a 

20 consequence had only about ten percent as much 

21 radium-228 as radium-224." And they give a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113 1 reference as 1965, page 18.

2 "This means that the maximum dose 

3 conversion factor per milligram of thorium-232 

4 would be less than that for thorium-232 in 

5 full equilibrium with its progeny." Meaning 

6 that you would reduce the dose if you go from 

7 one-to-one to zero-point-eight-to-one. And 

8 that is stated in the actual revised TBD.

9 And therefore, I cannot reconcile 

10 the actual genesis of this particular PER 

11 because, contrary to what the PER says you 

12 would rate the dose, it's stated here in this 

13 TBD that it would reduce the dose.

14 DR. NETON: Hans, this is Jim.

15 I think there's two separate 

16 issues here. You would reduce the dose per 

17 unit intake because there -- you know, all of 

18 those source terms are individual intakes to 

19 start with. You would intake so much thorium20 232, so much thorium-228, so much radium. And 

21 if it's a 50 percent equilibrium, the dose per 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114 1 unit intake of that mass of material has to 

2 be, by definition, lower because you have less 

3 intake of the daughters at the first 

4 inhalation.

5 But the dose will go up, because 

6 if you adjust -- and I say, if there's 50 

7 percent equilibrium of thorium-228, the mass 

8 of thorium-232 that was measured is going to 

9 go up by a factor of two. So you have a 

10 double intake. But the dose per unit intake 

11 of that intake is going to be less, because 

12 your source term has a different composition. 

13 So they're not --

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, that is not 

15 too obvious, because I mean, I look at -- for 

16 instance, in the case of Ron's write-up on 

17 page 15, he cites a table where he looked at 

18 the total of five dose reconstructions and 

19 their methodology and four of the five 

20 reported thorium in terms of milligrams. And 

21 again, when you just assume that that number 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115 1 remains a constant, unless you actually now 

2 revise those milligram quantities, according 

3 to what you're saying.

4 DR. NETON: Yeah, you would have 

5 to. I mean, by definition, you have to 

6 increase the amount of thorium because you're 

7 assuming that you had less equilibrium. So if 

8 I have 50 percent equilibrium thorium-228, I'm 

9 going to underestimate the amount of thorium10 232 by half, right? Because it's --

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, I 

12 understand that.

13 DR. NETON: And so if I know -- if 

14 I know it's less equilibrium, though, I would 

15 double the amount of thorium that's there.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. This goes 

17 -- I'll be back to the issue that, at one-to18 one equilibrium, a working level might be 

19 defined by two-point-nine nanocuries of 

20 thorium-232. If you go --

21 MR. KATZ: Hey, Hans --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116 1 DR. H. BEHLING: -- to 80, it 

2 rises to 3.2. And then if it goes to ten 

3 percent equilibrium, it raises it to twelve4 point-some nanocuries of thorium-234. Is that 

5 what you're referring to?

6 DR. NETON: No. No, not at all.

7 MR. STIVER: The thing is, what 

8 we're trying to get back to here is an intake 

9 of thorium-232. And obviously if you're at 50 

10 percent equilibrium, you've doubled the actual 

11 thorium intake. 

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah.

13 MR. STIVER: Now the dose that you 

14 get from that, because it is this equilibrium, 

15 there's fewer daughters. So over the course 

16 of that year or so, you have a lower dose. 

17 You're looking at two separate issues right 

18 there.

19 What we're trying to do is get 

20 back to the thorium-232 intake, based on 

21 measuring these daughter products.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117 1 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, and I get 

2 this, it was not really called out in this 

3 particular write-up.

4 MR. STIVER: And yeah, if there 

5 are a lot of different documents, a 1965 West 

6 paper is kind of the seminal one. But there's 

7 a lot of others. We had to go back through it 

8 to try to piece together exactly how they got 

9 to milligrams thorium from --

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah. And this 

11 really brings me back to the White Paper that 

12 you and Joyce authored back in 2012. And I 

13 realize that, in reading that, it sort of 

14 answers most of the issues that were 

15 addressed. And that is namely one. Lead-212 

16 was apparently never properly assessed in 

17 terms of the spectral analysis of chest 

18 counting, or there's no documentation. And 

19 therefore, all of the assumptions that were 

20 made about what these numbers really mean have 

21 raised the question including the MDA that was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118 1 assumed somewhere around 6 million grams is 

2 now reduced to microgram, according to the 

3 process you had written, and so forth. 

4 These are all the issues that were 

5 really raised by Ron as well. How you convert 

6 milligrams -- how were milligram quantities 

7 devised? And obviously it involves a 

8 procedure that was raised in question that was 

9 initially cited in behalf of Scott in 1966. 

10 And the other person, West, 1965. And 

11 according to what I recall reading in the 

12 White Paper, those have been obviously 

13 discarded as perhaps not valid. Am I correct?

14 MR. STIVER: So I've got a 

15 question for the work in general here. How do 

16 we want to proceed on this? I mean, here we 

17 have a PER based on a methodology that's no 

18 longer considered valid for dose 

19 reconstruction. Is it really something we 

20 want to pursue, in terms of going back and 

21 looking at the number of cases affected? Or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119 1 it seems like at this point, it would be time 

2 to revise the Y-12 TBD somehow, or you know, 

3 go down a different route.

4 It seems like we're kind of in the 

5 same situation we were in with PER 14, about 

6 the -- you know, the construction workers 

7 based on old methodology that's no longer 

8 really applicable.

9 CHAIR MUNN: I do think we need to 

10 hear from NIOSH.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu.

12 And I think that, to John's point, 

13 I see little point in carrying through the PER 

14 and filling out claims and checking them. The 

15 key issue here is to go back to the Y-12 Site 

16 Profile, as you said, and see what kind of 

17 interpretation, if any, can be made from this 

18 MDA data. If thorium data is the only method 

19 for those reconstruction for thorium for some

20 years, you know, take a look at it in light of 

21 discussions that have occurred in other Work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120 1 Groups fairly recently. So I think that is 

2 the logical pathway to go here.

3 I think in terms of interpreting, 

4 you know, I would have to know more about what 

5 the Site Profile says about how do you 

6 interpret this number that comes out of the in 

7 vivo counter, what do you do to it? Because 

8 it seems --

9 DR. H. BEHLING: It really does 

10 not. I looked at it.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't say?

12 MR. STIVER: This is exactly the 

13 issue we went through. It's the exact same 

14 methodology as Y-12.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. In order 

16 to even write the PER, there must have been 

17 some understanding that, when you're doing the 

18 counting, you're counting these decayed 

19 products. And so the milligram thorium number 

20 that prints out has to be adjusted because of 

21 the equilibrium. That has to be part of it, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121 1 otherwise the PER would never have been 

2 written.

3 So beside that --

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Well --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Wait a minute, 

6 Hans, let me finish.

7 Besides all that, I think the 

8 action going forward would be, for this, you 

9 know, with this issue presumably would go to a 

10 Y-12 Work Group if there is or was one. But 

11 aside from that, it's incumbent on us at NIOSH 

12 to take a look at this document, in light of 

13 decisions, program decisions that have been 

14 made recently.

15 MR. STIVER: Just to add on to 

16 that, an issue that would be important is, at 

17 what point in Y-12 did the stop reporting 

18 milligram thorium and start going to actual 

19 activity?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Exactly. 

21 It sounds to me like we're going to have an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122 1 analog to the Fernald discussion.

2 MR. STIVER: It will be almost 

3 exactly --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And so it sounds 

5 to me like it's going to be an analog to that, 

6 and we'll just have to determine where to 

7 proceed.

8 DR. NETON: You raise a good 

9 point, Stu. There is a Y-12 Work Group that 

10 has been idle for quite some time now. And 

11 the intent was to get back and close out those 

12 Site Profile issues, I thought. There was. I 

13 mean, that's how we -- it was Mark Griffon, I 

14 think, wasn't it?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I think --

16 DR. NETON: And you know, after we 

17 -- after the SEC Classes, then like all other 

18 Work Groups, one would think you'd go back 

19 and, you know, close out the Site Profile 

20 issues. But I don't think it ever -- it has 

21 not convened since the SEC was added.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123 1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let me suggest 

2 at the outset that, clearly, we haven't had 

3 enough opportunity for NIOSH to actually 

4 review these findings, and to respond to them 

5 in any way. It appears that the best first 

6 step would be to have Hans very briefly go 

7 through the other couple of findings that we 

8 have here, just to say what they are more than 

9 anything else. And then we're going to have 

10 to give NIOSH time to adequately review the 

11 content of the -- the deeper content of the 

12 findings, and to respond one way or the other.

13 Personally, I would like to 

14 postpone any further real discussion here 

15 until we simply look, for the record, at what 

16 the findings are here and ask for a NIOSH 

17 response when they can respond to that. At 

18 that time, I would like to see us make the 

19 decision as to whether or not we can close 

20 these issues out here or whether it needs to 

21 be referred back to the Y-12 Work Group.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124 1 Is there any problem with that 

2 path of action?

3 Josie?

4 MEMBER BEACH: No, that sounds 

5 reasonable.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Paul?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: That seems 

8 logical. I do feel at some point we've got to 

9 get the Y-12 Work Group involved in this, 

10 though, as to the particular site.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well let's -- unless 

12 we have some response, however, to these 

13 findings, even if it's just we see those and 

14 we're not ready to say anything yet. It seems 

15 to me we have to have -- allow NIOSH to 

16 formulate a document in response.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah. I think we 

18 also need to know whether SC&A has interpreted 

19 NIOSH's approach.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Fine. Is that all 

21 right with you, Hans? Just briefly --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125 1 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, I am 

2 somewhat away from this whole issue. But my 

3 gut feeling tells me that the very issues that 

4 are being raised here by Ron have been raised 

5 by others, as in the case of Fernald.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. This is not the 

7 first time we've seen these --

8 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: -- and probably won't 

10 quite be the last. But we'll try to strive 

11 for that.

12 If you'll just very briefly go 

13 through --

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah, okay.

15 CHAIR MUNN: -- a listing of what 

16 the other issues were. And then we'll rely on 

17 NIOSH to give us some documented feedback when 

18 they can.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yeah. The second 

20 issue I'm sure has also been discussed in 

21 Fernald, and that is how were these numbers, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126 1 when they were reported in milligrams derived? 

2 And what assumptions were made? And I think 

3 it goes back to what they referred to as the 

4 empirically contrived division factor which 

5 summed the ratio of counts in the case of the 

6 240 KeV lead-212 and the two actinium-228 

7 gamma energy peaks. And then subtracting them 

8 out, and that was based on 1100 individuals 

9 who were considered not exposed.

10 And among the assumptions that 

11 were incorporated into that whole model, that 

12 includes a equilibrium fraction between 

13 actinium-228 and thorium-232, of having a 

14 value of zero-point-six. 

15 And according to Ron, and if you 

16 look at the particular figure in his write-up, 

17 if you look at the figure B on page 14, that 

18 equilibrium ratio between indicator 

19 radionuclides, which for thorium-232 happen to 

20 be actinium-228. Or you can also look at the 

21 radium-228 as well, because the two of them 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127 1 are linked to each other. That ratio only 

2 occurs after about eight years of time.

3 And so that would be one of the 

4 key issues that does not -- is not consistent 

5 with the other assumption that we're dealing 

6 with a disequilibrium between the two thoriums 

7 that is only limited to zero-point-eight, 

8 because that would occur within the first 

9 year. So the ratio that apparently was 

10 incorporated into this impurity devised 

11 conversion factor, they used a ratio between 

12 the indicator radionuclide, actinium-228 and 

13 thorium-232 of zero-point-six. And so we have 

14 a discrepancy here in the equilibrium fraction 

15 that, in one case involves point-eight for the 

16 thorium, and in the case of actinium-228 and 

17 thorium-232. The assumption was the 

18 equilibrium of point-six which doesn't occur 

19 for a period of eight years after the physical 

20 separation of thorium from ore.

21 And so I assume that that was an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128 1 issue that was raised for the issues set 

2 around the model, and that was the core of the 

3 finding number 2.

4 The finding number 3 again was a 

5 statement that he made regarding the different 

6 solubility of thorium decay products. And 

7 what he was really referring to here in this 

8 case was the issue of assumptions that can be 

9 made with regard to equilibrium between the 

10 indicator isotope in each of the two thoriums. 

11 And there are obviously two potential problems 

12 here.

13 But the one that I think really 

14 needs attention is the issue of separating 

15 radium between thorium-232 and actinium-228, 

16 because the intermediate product is radium17 228. And that has a half life of five-point18 seven years.

19 So if you start out with, let's 

20 say, a full equilibrium between thorium-232 

21 and radium-228 and actinium-228, based on the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129 1 short half life between radium and actinium, 

2 you can always assume there's equilibrium. But 

3 what you cannot necessarily tell is 

4 equilibrium between thorium-232 and radium-228 

5 as it goes into the system as a function of 

6 time after separation. 

7 We assume that thorium is very 

8 soluble in the lung and it may not be the case 

9 for radium-228. And what he's raising here is 

10 that, on the assumption that radium is removed 

11 from the lung at a more rapid rate than would 

12 be expected for thorium-232, the consequence 

13 of that more rapid removal of radium-228 would 

14 potentially reduce the amount of actinium-228 

15 that you're using as an indicator of 

16 radionuclide for actinium-232. Meaning that 

17 you would underestimate the actual quantity of 

18 thorium-232 if radium were to be removed 

19 differentially from the lung as opposed to 

20 thorium-232.

21 For the other radium-228 that is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130 1 the decay product of thorium-232, given the 

2 half life of that particular radionuclide of 

3 only three-point-six-four days of half life. 

4 And of course within seconds, it ends up being 

5 transformed to lead-212. That is not an 

6 issue, and I think looking at that decay 

7 chain, the indicator radionuclide lead-212 

8 could reasonably be assumed to be a hundred 

9 percent in equilibrium with thorium-228, based 

10 on the very short timeframes during which 

11 radium could be leached out or removed at an 

12 accelerated rate as opposed to thorium-228. I 

13 think that is really the issue here for 

14 finding 3. I don't know if that was discussed 

15 in Fernald, Stu, or John Stiver, if you'd 

16 comment?

17 CHAIR MUNN: I think we'll give 

18 them an opportunity to respond to that 

19 formally, since that's -- we're running out of 

20 time for the morning. And let's just assume 

21 that both this item --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131 1 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- and finding number 

3 4, which --

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Number 4 is the 

5 issue of the MDA or LOD value. And apparently 

6 West in 1965, and Scott '61 had come up with a 

7 method by which they assumed that the MDA 

8 value would be somewhere around point-six 

9 nanocuries for thorium-232, which corresponds 

10 to a weight of about five and a half to six 

11 milligrams.

12 And then I read, obviously, the 

13 White Paper that John Stiver and Joyce 

14 Lipsztein authored, and they obviously contest 

15 that and make some strong statements that the 

16 actual levels would be anywhere between two to 

17 three orders lower in terms of the natural 

18 instance in total whole body or lung burden, 

19 based on the values that they cited, rather 

20 than approximately point-six nanocuries 

21 corresponding to about six milligrams. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132 1 The real natural level in people 

2 unexposed would be about three micrograms for 

3 the lung and thirty micrograms for the whole 

4 body. That would mean that the sensitivity of 

5 this whole chest counting system may be off, 

6 and the uncertainty may be off by a factor of 

7 100 to 1000. And I assume that has been 

8 resolved in the previous discussions regarding 

9 Fernald.

10 MR. STIVER: Hans, this is John.

11 All of those issues have been 

12 discussed in depth and resolved, regarding 

13 Fernald. 

14 I was just looking through the 

15 DCAS website, and it looks like there never 

16 was a Y-12 Work Group.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: There was one, 

18 once.

19 MR. KATZ: Well, it's -- okay,

20 there may have been one, but it was -- I don't 

21 know when it was, because it wasn't in my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133 1 time. And it wasn't even shown as a closed 

2 one in my time, those ones listed as closed. 

3 So it must have been a very early Work Group 

4 before things got formal.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. I was 

6 there, there was a Y-12 SEC and a great deal 

7 of work was done on Y-12. That Work Group, 

8 though, I think was dismantled -- if that's 

9 the right word -- once all of the complex SEC 

10 issues were resolved. Arjun was very much 

11 involved. 

12 And I think there were -- I 

13 remember there were some still residual Site 

14 Profile issues that it was every intention to 

15 regroup and address. So you're right, at the 

16 present time, there is not an active Y-12 

17 group. There was at that time, and I remember 

18 participating.

19 MR. STIVER: Actually, the latest 

20 edition of the SEC was in 2011. Now there 

21 must have been a Work Group at that point.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134 1 MR. KATZ: No, there wasn't. So 

2 this was all done through the Advisory Board?

3 MR. STIVER: No.

4 MR. KATZ: No, again, if there was 

5 a Work Group, I believe there was a Work Group 

6 because people wouldn't have been there and 

7 see it and all that. But I mean, it predates 

8 2008. So it's long ago, and it's -- and 

9 nobody remembers at this point. I'm sure 

10 somebody could reconstruct who the Members 

11 were. 

12 But anyway, it's disbanded and we 

13 have to set up a new Work Group.

14 MR. STIVER: We'll go back through 

15 the transcripts, I guess.

16 DR. MAURO: Wanda, could I have 

17 one minute of process issue that has been on 

18 my mind? I'll be brief before you break.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

20 DR. MAURO: Is this the 

21 appropriate time?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135 1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

2 DR. MAURO: What we're looking at 

3 is what I've been calling the stovepipe 

4 problem that we've all been struggling with. 

5 And Wanda, you know that, I think we've come 

6 to a way in which to deal with the 

7 relationship between the DR Subcommittee and 

8 the Procedures Subcommittee?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we don't have a 

10 problem.

11 DR. MAURO: What we're seeing now 

12 is the relationship as it might connect to 

13 some of the Site Profiles. What I'm saying 

14 is, here we're running into a stovepipe issue 

15 or DR process between the time the DR was done 

16 and the time it comes before the Procedures 

17 Subcommittee, so much has occurred on Fernald 

18 that it has a direct bearing on this.

19 What I would suggest is, the 

20 reason we're able to deal with this type of 

21 stovepipe issue is on an ad hoc basis. You 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136 1 know, John Stiver is sitting there in the 

2 room, as is many of the other folks who have 

3 been very close to Fernald. So we're able to 

4 address this, I would say, in an ad hoc way, 

5 and it's working. 

6 But I would also say that it's 

7 only ad hoc, and if you have the right people 

8 in the room at the right time, you're going to 

9 be able to deal with it. 

10 There may be a way, and that which 

11 we should consider part of the process, 

12 instituting a process that, before we meet 

13 like this, this would be a good example, that 

14 something by way of looking at the issues and 

15 a cross pollination between the different 

16 activities that have been going on between the 

17 time the PER was reviewed and today, for 

18 example. What has happened on the program 

19 that might influence some of the work that, in 

20 this case, Ron has done?

21 I think this is needed on every 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137 1 Work Group so that we try to break the 

2 stovepipe, and not depend on, I guess, 

3 institutional knowledge that might or might 

4 not be present at a given Work Group meeting 

5 or at a given Subcommittee meeting, so forth. 

6 This is just something to -- I'd 

7 like to throw on the table to think about,

8 because we're going to run into this more and 

9 more.

10 MR. STIVER: Hey, John, remember 

11 when we were talking about doing that straw 

12 man type summary for GSI, as an example, is 

13 how we could --

14 DR. MAURO: Yes.

15 MR. STIVER: -- approach that.

16 DR. MAURO: And that would go 

17 toward -- if there was actually a running 

18 account of each Work Group that's maintained 

19 of where we are now, and maybe updated once a 

20 month or once every few months, whenever it's 

21 essential. And that it becomes a resource to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138 1 everyone. You know, we're -- what's happened 

2 on Fernald that might have influenced this? 

3 And it was -- all I'm saying is that, I think 

4 it's important that we break the stovepipe, 

5 and not in an ad hoc way that we're doing 

6 right now and is working, but in a way that we 

7 explicitly try to deal with it.

8 MR. STIVER: I think the time to 

9 do that might have been yesterday or the day 

10 before during the full Board meeting. But, 

11 you know, we can certainly look forward to 

12 that in the future as something to --

13 DR. MAURO: Well, I can tell you 

14 right now, it's going to happen. When we talk 

15 about PROC-44, luckily enough I was listening 

16 in to the surrogate data meeting. And then 

17 the Board's discussion of it yesterday, I 

18 believe it was. And by happenstance, you 

19 know, I happened to be listening in. 

20 But, you know, in reality is --

21 the ideal circumstance is that when there is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139 1 this cross-connection between activities that 

2 is a way to capture it to a process that 

3 instituted it to the program. And all I'm 

4 doing is, I want to alert folks to this, 

5 because I think this is important.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

7 Behling.

8 This is where I believe the BRS 

9 system could be our avenue. If all of the 

10 Work Groups were to feed their information 

11 into that BRS system, that would certainly be 

12 the first step to resolving these types of 

13 issues, I believe.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree.

15 MR. STIVER: That process is 

16 underway, too, I might add.

17 CHAIR MUNN: The comments that are 

18 made with respect to stove piping are 

19 certainly understood and accepted as quite 

20 valid.

21 At this precise moment, however, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140 1 it seems that we do have a process which 

2 hasn't been followed yet. And we are perhaps 

3 making too much of an issue out of issues that 

4 have been covered, as you said, in other areas 

5 which are not of record at the time we sit 

6 down to look at these things.

7 But our process is to have NIOSH 

8 respond to these. And my gut-level feeling is 

9 that NIOSH's responses to these findings could 

10 be very straightforward and based on the fact 

11 that they've been looked at in another venue. 

12 And that's our common thread here, is that 

13 NIOSH processes the concerns that are brought 

14 to them.

15 If this has already been looked 

16 at, and it appears that it has been very 

17 thoroughly, certainly we've had enough 

18 discussion on it in the last week, week and a 

19 half, in other Work Groups and in the full 

20 Board itself, then this is not going to turn 

21 into a monumental issue once we have an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141 1 opportunity for this process to work itself 

2 out. Until NIOSH can say, "this has been 

3 taken care of and this is where it's been 

4 taken care of," then we're just spinning our 

5 wheels.

6 So for the good of the order, 

7 unless anyone has any objection, I would 

8 suggest that we move on with our agenda. And 

9 that we -- NIOSH has already accepted the fact 

10 that they will have responses to these 

11 findings. Let's see what happens when the 

12 findings come back. They may clarify the 

13 entire process for everyone. Any objection to 

14 that?

15 Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no 

17 objection. I have a point of information.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm looking at the 

20 Work Group minutes from January 5th, 2006, for 

21 the Y-12 Work Group. It was chaired by Mark 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142 1 Griffon, Members were Wanda Munn, Mike Gibson 

2 and Robert Presley.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, which accounts 

4 for some of the --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: SC&A was John 

6 Mauro, Kathy Demers. So that's 2006, but 

7 there was a Y-12 Work Group.

8 CHAIR MUNN: We had a lot to say 

9 about many of these things at that time. All 

10 right. Thank you very much, Paul. That's 

11 most illuminating, and very pleasant to have 

12 on our record.

13 If we have no further comment with 

14 respect to these particular PERs, then we'll 

15 go on to ask NIOSH if they have response to 

16 the PER 0014 findings available?

17 Before we start that, also, who is 

18 manipulating the documents on Live Meeting? 

19 Steve?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, that's me, 

21 Steve Marschke, yeah.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143 1 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. Very good. 

2 I was having trouble moving it from one screen 

3 to the other and wasn't seeing what I wanted 

4 to see on the Live Meeting screen while Hans 

5 was discussing the findings. Thanks.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Sorry.

7 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

8 right. I just wanted to know who was doing 

9 it.

10 I'm sorry, Stu. It's your 

11 platform.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is 

13 Stu, I'll start this. I've been briefed on 

14 this but there's been a Board meeting in 

15 between, so we'll see how much I remember. But 

16 Lori can probably correct me if I mess this up 

17 very much.

18 The responses were submitted to 

19 the Subcommittee on -- oh, there it is --

20 Wednesday. That would be yesterday. Lori

21 sent an email to the Subcommittee Members 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144 1 titled "Procedures Subcommittee BRS update." 

2 And attached to that are two files, one of 

3 which is the responses to the PER 0014 

4 findings from the case review. As I recall, 

5 the PER had, you know, like six findings from 

6 the review of the PER that are in BRS. And 

7 then there were several additional findings 

8 that came out from the review of the selected 

9 cases, seven through, I don't know, fifteen, 

10 or something. And those are not yet loaded in 

11 BRS, or at least they weren't recently. And so 

12 our responses were written on this Word file 

13 and distributed yesterday.

14 So I can walk through them real 

15 quick.

16 CHAIR MUNN: If you would go 

17 through them very briefly, since we haven't 

18 had time to absorb them. And I just want to 

19 know what's been responded to and roughly 

20 what's been said.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. The first 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145 1 finding, which is finding number 7 because the 

2 enumeration follows the numbering of the six 

3 findings that were done on the PER itself, was 

4 that SC&A questions why cases that did not 

5 meet the selection criteria were included in 

6 the set of cases requiring reevaluation. This 

7 PER I believe had a selection criteria that 

8 said that there's no point in reviewing cases 

9 that have a PoC less than this value because 

10 the amount of change can't possibly raise them 

11 up to compensability. So it's a way to kind 

12 of have a smaller set of cases to look at. 

13 But the PER also said that, for 

14 cases that are under that threshold, we will 

15 look to see if those could have been affected 

16 by additional PERs or additional changes so 

17 that we can do all those reevaluations at 

18 once. Because when you start adding 

19 additional PERs, then your threshold doesn't 

20 matter anymore.

21 So the reason why cases below the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146 1 selection criteria were selected was because 

2 they were looked at as judged that they might 

3 be affected by another PER, and so we'd better 

4 look at this one too. So that's why the 

5 additional cases were selected.

6 The next one is not all cases 

7 returned for PER 14 were reworked. I think 

8 what actually the situation is, is not all the 

9 cases that were requested to be returned were 

10 returned. You know, because when we get a 

11 case back, we do a reworking. The reason why 

12 we might request a case back and we don't get 

13 it back; there are essentially two main 

14 reasons why that would occur. 

15 One is that the claim has been 

16 swept into an SEC in the meantime, and so a 

17 dose reconstruction is no longer necessary. 

18 And the second is that the claimant has died 

19 and there is not a survivor and so the case is 

20 no longer active. It's pulled. So those are 

21 the two cases. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147 1 And when this first time when we 

2 started doing PERs and we had an occasion like 

3 this, when we would request cases and we 

4 didn't get them back, we went back to DOL and 

5 we said, "why didn't we get these back?" And 

6 they told us, in every case, why we didn't get 

7 it back. So after a couple or three times of 

8 doing that, we didn't check on them anymore. 

9 So that's the situation on these. There's no 

10 record of us going back and forth with DOL on 

11 these other PERs.

12 Okay. The next grouping, there 

13 are several findings that are essentially the 

14 same finding for different sites. This is 

15 findings 9, 10, 11 and 16. And the finding 

16 here is that the reviewers couldn't 

17 conclusively confirm that the CTW adjustment 

18 factor was built into the TIB or Site Profile 

19 document where the CTW adjustment was 

20 incorporated. The reason being that not all 

21 the raw data, in terms of the -- you know, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148 1 bioassay or measuring data as it is printed, 

2 and the number exchanges. You have 

3 essentially two sets of data. They weren't 

4 individually provided so that the two could be 

5 combined and figure out, did we generate a 

6 correct combined table? All we provided in 

7 these documents was a combined table.

8 Our view is that these documents 

9 really should be reviewed for that aspect as 

10 the document review out of the PER review. We 

11 think we did them right. Several of these 

12 technical documents have been reviewed by this 

13 Subcommittee. And so we think that that issue 

14 would have come up in those. And we believe 

15 that review should occur in that forum rather 

16 than for the site -- first of all, the 

17 Procedures Subcommittee has done some of that 

18 review of those documents. And, secondly, if 

19 it's a Site Profile, we can maybe pass that to 

20 the Site Profile, or to the site Working 

21 Group. But it just doesn't seem an action for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149 1 PER review. That's our opinion on those 

2 findings.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Before you go on, 

4 Stu, a format question from the Chair. In our 

5 desire to hear these responses, I don't want 

6 to lose track of the fact that we are 

7 responding to issues that have been raised by 

8 SC&A. And I'd like to have a feel from the 

9 Subcommittee as to whether or not you would 

10 like to look at these individually, and ask 

11 for a response, immediate discussion from SC&A 

12 whether or not we might be able to close --

13 whether any of the responses are acceptable as 

14 given, whether we can clear any of these items 

15 now.

16 I personally would like to have 

17 that done, if it's possible to do that. But 

18 I'll follow the Subcommittee's reaction to 

19 that.

20 Josie?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I think some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150 1 of them may be able to be answered on the 

2 spot, but I don't want to speak for John. So 

3 --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's my 

5 point. If we can close them here today then 

6 that's fine. If we can't, then that's a 

7 different issue at all.

8 MEMBER BEACH: And I'm fine with 

9 that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'd be 

12 willing to do that. I guess we need to -- if 

13 there's any particular heartache from SC&A, we 

14 need to do that, but otherwise it looks fine 

15 to me.

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine.

17 MR. STIVER: Let's just go through 

18 this list. This is John. And the ones we can 

19 close, we'll close.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's do 

21 -- then before we go any further, let's go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151 1 back to finding 7 and see if this is a 

2 sufficient response to the finding as it was 

3 written.

4 John? Do you have a response?

5 MR. STIVER: I have no problem 

6 with the response. It provides the 

7 explanation we were looking for, unless Kathy 

8 has some more information or has an opinion 

9 she'd --

10 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm on the line. 

11 I have no problem with the response to finding 

12 7.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Then can we assume 

14 that finding 7 will be shown as closed by 

15 action of the Subcommittee, when it is 

16 uploaded? Is that acceptable?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I have two yeses and 

19 my yes. At the time that we populate the BRS, 

20 we can show that the Subcommittee closed this, 

21 that SC&A accepted the response this date.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152 1 And now finding 8?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy.

3 I would prefer to look a little closer at 

4 this, because -- and again, I presented this 

5 and I know Rose was the initial author.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Kathy, I'm on the 

7 line as well.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, okay, Rose. 

9 Very good, you can maybe interject here.

10 But I would almost like to keep 

11 this particular finding open to look at it a 

12 little closer, because -- and Rose, correct me 

13 if I'm wrong, but I think we were actually 

14 looking at cases that had a form in the file 

15 that indicated, yes, this was reevaluated, but 

16 it wasn't. And perhaps that was because of an 

17 SEC, I'm not sure. But I just feel we need to 

18 look a little closer at that.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree with you.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Kathy, this is 

21 Lori. I have a question. Could you clarify 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153 1 where you're saying that the case was not 

2 reevaluated? What are you basing that on? A 

3 reworked DR or --

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, a reworked 

5 DR.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: In other words, I 

8 will go into a file and I will see an 

9 individual case evaluation form in there. It 

10 will have a letter in there either stating 

11 that it was not necessary to reevaluate this 

12 because it was pulled for another PER, PER 

13 0012 or whatever. But in some of these cases, 

14 there was a form in there that said, "this 

15 case was pulled for this PER and it was 

16 reevaluated under this PER," but there's no 

17 reevaluation in the file. I can give you 

18 several examples of that.

19 And, again, now, maybe I should 

20 have dug further to see if it fell under an 

21 SEC. I have to look at that, I don't believe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154 1 I did that.

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Thank you.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert. 

4 I think I can clarify this 

5 slightly, if Stu would like me to?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. When we're 

9 talking about those ICE forms in PER, then I 

10 can speak specifically to the ones that ORAU 

11 does for DCAS. I believe their system is the 

12 same. When we get the list of claims to 

13 review under a PER, we do the assessment and 

14 review on our side and give the results to 

15 DCAS. 

16 Those files are not uploaded to

17 the system because they are interim files. 

18 They are not a reassessment. Once DCAS has 

19 the decision and reviews that, that is when 

20 the ICE form is created by Dave Allen that 

21 states we have reviewed. So we actually have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155 1 reviewed that claim, and that is when we 

2 request it back from DOL. And as Stu has 

3 said, we have no control as to whether DOL 

4 returns it or not.

5 So there may not be a full dose 

6 reconstruction listing it in the record when 

7 the ICE form comes out because we are not 

8 required to do a full dose reconstruction 

9 until DOL returns the claim.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And what 

11 kind of a timeframe are we -- but, ultimately, 

12 once you've reevaluated the claim, that claim 

13 will go into the case files and we can look at 

14 that on our system, is that correct?

15 MR. SIEBERT: That information --

16 I defer to Stu for sure. But I do not believe 

17 that information is an interim step. So I 

18 can't -- go ahead.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

20 I can't really shed a lot of light on this, 

21 but we will look into exactly what's being 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156 1 done here. I have an idea about how I think 

2 things are working, but it could be completely 

3 wrong, and I just need to go find out.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Can we --

5 MS. K. BEHLING: That said, I just 

6 think that it should remain open.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It's an open 

8 item. And NIOSH has the action on it.

9 And now we'll take up where we 

10 left off with your report, Stu. With findings 

11 9, 11, 16, et cetera.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I was kind 

13 of done saying what I was going to say. These 

14 documents, several of them have been reviewed 

15 by the Subcommittee and some of them are Site 

16 Profile documents. And so, in our view, the 

17 continuation of these -- you know, the 

18 resolution of these findings, A, they may have 

19 already been looked at in the in the TIB

20 review, or in the Site Profile review. I 

21 don't know that sitting here, but they could 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157 1 have been. I would think that the TIB review 

2 would have looked at that.

3 And, alternatively, if it hasn't 

4 been, I would suggest a different assignment 

5 to actually look at that, if it's done 

6 correctly. It just seems like we're getting 

7 far kind of afield of what I thought a PER 

8 should be doing in this instance.

9 MR. STIVER: This is John. I'd 

10 just say that Rose and I and Kathy checked 

11 those values, based on the assumption that the 

12 right number is applied and just algebraically 

13 checked to see what we'd get.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

15 MR. STIVER: And it all came out 

16 as planned.

17 I guess the concern was you could 

18 have any combination of adjustments that could 

19 together to yield the value of the table.

20 Rose, did you want to say anything 

21 more about that? I know you spent a lot of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158 1 time looking at this.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, essentially, 

3 we were tasked with making sure that these 

4 were appropriately executed. But unless you 

5 have access to the raw data, you can't confirm 

6 that, you can only make assumptions based on 

7 the information we have, which appear to be 

8 done correctly.

9 MR. STIVER: This is John again.

10 I would say that, you know, I like Stu's idea. 

11 It really is -- if it's going to be an issue 

12 and it's going to be pursued, it's probably 

13 more appropriate to do it in Site Profile than 

14 PER.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

16 again.

17 The only comment I would make here 

18 is, yes, we have a Site Profile process, we 

19 have a Procedures process. But it's not until 

20 we get to the dose reconstruction review 

21 process that we're actually able to confirm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

159 1 that everything that is done and decided in 

2 the TBDs and Procedures and so on, is the 

3 final step to confirming that everything is 

4 being implemented correctly.

5 And I believe that's what Rose is 

6 trying to do with this particular case is get 

7 the raw data to verify that. And so although 

8 I understand what you're saying, and I agree, 

9 I don't want to duplicate efforts here, but 

10 you do have to remember the dose 

11 reconstruction is the final, where we put this 

12 -- where we are actually applying everything 

13 that we have, hopefully, put into these 

14 procedures. And so I don't want to discourage 

15 us from sticking to these.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: The thought just 

17 occurs to me, I did not do this, but I wonder 

18 if anyone looked at the dates of the most 

19 recent review of these TIBs versus the dates 

20 of the TIBs that contain this combined data 

21 set? If it has been reviewed since the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

160 1 combined data set has been added, then it 

2 would seem to me that the review of this 

3 documents has been done and there's no need to 

4 pursue it.

5 If it has not been reviewed, if it 

6 was an earlier version of this TIB that was 

7 reviewed, then it would seem that -- well, A, 

8 it would have seemed that the revision would 

9 have been reviewed, because that's kind of 

10 what we do. But maybe not.

11 So, I mean, the history of it is 

12 kind of relevant to is there more work to do 

13 here or not? But, again, it's --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

15 Marschke. 

16 I just want, a couple things 

17 pointed out. One of them, which is what Stu 

18 was just talking about, is I know that when 

19 Ron Buchanan did some reviews way back when we 

20 did the third set of reviews -- I'm not sure 

21 when that was, but that was 2006, 2007.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

161 1 MR. HINNEFELD: I was a young man.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: He did -- he 

3 checked some of these adjustment factors. So 

4 if you go back and look into that document, 

5 there was some checking at some sites, two or 

6 three, maybe, that Ron Buchanan did back in 

7 that day.

8 The other thing, as far as I'm 

9 concerned, my own personal opinion is, you 

10 know, I think the purpose of the PER, the 

11 purpose of our checking the PER is to make 

12 sure that the calculations were done 

13 correctly. And, really, the only heavy 

14 calculation that is done here that is done 

15 differently is the calculation of the 

16 adjustment factor. 

17 One of the reasons for looking at 

18 the specific cases is to make sure that, you 

19 know, the change in the calculation hasn't 

20 resulted in errors being made. Because, you 

21 know, really, there's no change in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

162 1 calculation, there's just a change in the 

2 number that you use in the multiplier for the 

3 dose reconstruction itself. Really, the 

4 change in the calculation occurs in the 

5 calculation of the adjustment factor or the 

6 calculation of the construction trade worker 

7 default doses.

8 So I see the calculation of these 

9 construction trade worker doses as really the 

10 critical check.

11 MR. STIVER: Yeah, this is John.

12 I tend to agree with you, Steve. I understand 

13 what Kathy's saying, and this is really --

14 everything feeds into dose reconstruction and 

15 we really need to use the PER process to make 

16 sure that things that were intended to be done 

17 were, indeed, done according to plan or are 

18 actually in use.

19 But in this situation, I think we 

20 have pretty good empirical evidence that the 

21 right values are in those tables, and I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

163 1 know whether it would really be worth our time 

2 and the effort required to go back and check 

3 each and every one of them, check the source 

4 data. You know, Stu's comment that we might 

5 look at the review dates and at least see 

6 which ones have been reviewed more recently of 

7 those ten different locations might worth 

8 taking -- it might be worth it to do that to 

9 kind of narrow down a list of possible 

10 reviews. But my personal opinion is that I 

11 don't see that this is really going to buy us 

12 much.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: John, I can't hear 

14 you.

15 MR. STIVER: Steve, can you hear 

16 me now?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay, I was a little 

19 too far from the mic.

20 Basically, to restate everything, 

21 I kind of agree with you. I understand 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

164 1 Kathy's concerns. But I just don't think that 

2 the effort required would really justify what 

3 we would find. I think that our preliminary 

4 checks of those tables indicate that the right 

5 values were used. It would be a big project 

6 to go back and go through all the source data 

7 to confirm that.

8 And if that were to be done, I 

9 think it should be done, you know, at the Site 

10 Profile level.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So you recommend 

12 close?

13 MR. STIVER: I recommend closing, 

14 yeah.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

16 objection from anyone with respect to closure 

17 of these items?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree with 

19 closing them.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Then, 

21 please, when they are uploaded, will you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

165 1 indicate that SC&A has accepted the NIOSH 

2 response and that these three items are now 

3 closed?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it's four 

5 here.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Four. Four, sorry. 

7 My eyes are not wide enough, I guess. Nine, 

8 ten, eleven and sixteen. 

9 Now finding 12, Stu?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think our 

11 response is fairly straightforward here. This 

12 is a finding about one of the particular cases 

13 identified as being requested to be returned 

14 and not having another rework. Well, the fact 

15 is, it didn't get returned. Probably it's 

16 from a site that's been added to the SEC and 

17 probably was swept up into the SEC. So that's 

18 12.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Is that acceptable to 

20 you, John?

21 MR. STIVER: How hard would it be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

166 1 to check and see?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It will take me a 

3 little time because of the clunkiness, but I 

4 can do it at lunchtime.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. Why don't we 

6 just hold that in abeyance until then?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Or maybe I can do 

8 it at lunchtime.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We'll set aside 

10 finding 12 for a response after lunch.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Hello, this is Scott 

12 Siebert, am I off mute?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, sorry about 

15 that.

16 Stu, we actually did check on that 

17 at the last meeting and it's in the transcript 

18 of the last meeting. And we did verify that 

19 it is an SEC claim and that's the reason it 

20 appears it was not returned.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let's close it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

167 1 then.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks, Scott.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Sure.

4 CHAIR MUNN: In that case, I'm 

5 presuming we can close this finding?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Correct?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: See, you don't 

9 have to be that smart if the people working 

10 with you are smart.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's very good. 

12 That's the whole purpose in hiring them, 

13 right?

14 And Paul?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah. Oh, yeah. 

16 Close it.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good. 

18 When it is uploaded, indicate that the 

19 response is acceptable and it was closed by 

20 the Subcommittee on this date.

21 Finding 13.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

168 1 MS. K. BEHLING: Can I just 

2 interject here? This is Kathy.

3 One question, and maybe I'm asking 

4 a very naive question, maybe I should know the 

5 answer to this. But when we go onto NOCTS, 

6 will you be able to see that a particular case 

7 was part of an SEC? Because I just a question 

8 it, and then we wouldn't have these -- such 

9 findings.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is Stu. 

11 And I don't think from NOCTS there is a 

12 definite way to say -- to know that. On --

13 there will be --

14 MS. K. BEHLING: I realize that if 

15 we were to get into the case and look at this, 

16 the cancer and so on and so forth, and go back 

17 into the SEC process to see who qualified, we 

18 could dig that out. I just wondered if there 

19 was an easier way for us to be able to confirm 

20 that and then not have these types of 

21 findings.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

169 1 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not 

2 universally -- you're not universally able to 

3 do that. There would be some cases we had 

4 with us that were waiting for dose 

5 reconstruction when a Class was added. And 

6 its status, that case's status will be "SEC 

7 pulled." So that's a pretty good indication 

8 that the case was in the SEC. That means we 

9 sent it back to DOL without working a dose 

10 reconstruction because it looked to us like it 

11 was going to be in the SEC.

12 However, a case that we had done a 

13 dose reconstruction on and then it went back 

14 to DOL. And then while it was back at DOL, it 

15 was swept into an SEC, there will be nothing 

16 in our claim file that would indicate that 

17 that happened. We would have to make that 

18 judgment based on the cancer and the 

19 parameters of the SEC.

20 MR. KATZ: So, Stu, I'm just 

21 wondering, is there -- when they send -- when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

170 1 DOL sends cases back to you in response to a 

2 PER, is there a master list that's sent back 

3 to you of the cases that are returned?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

5 MR. KATZ: Because that would be a 

6 way to cut out all this nonsense. Because 

7 then SC&A would know what was returned, and 

8 they would do the same thing you would. They 

9 would assume that DOL did their job and --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think DOL 

11 sends us a master list.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. And you don't 

13 make a master list, either, of what was 

14 returned?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I mean, they 

18 only show up once.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see. They just -

20 -

21 MR. HINNEFELD: They come in as 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

171 1 they come in, because they're coming in from 

2 four different district offices.

3 MR. KATZ: Got it.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And a given 

5 district office probably doesn't send all 

6 theirs at once.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you, Stu.

9 I was just hoping that we could avoid this 

10 type of finding in the future.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Understand. 

12 Understand.

13 Okay. So are we ready for finding 

14 13?

15 CHAIR MUNN: We are ready for 13.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is a 

17 finding that in one particular case we did not 

18 apply the construction trade worker adjustment 

19 to someone who had a job title that fit in the 

20 construction job title. When we generate the 

21 list of construction job titles for -- I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

172 1 we did it for this PER -- we wanted to make 

2 sure we caught everybody so we made a broad, 

3 you know, list that we thought would encompass 

4 all construction job titles.

5 There are also in-house workers 

6 who use those job titles. There are many 

7 construction trade workers jobs where the in8 house contractor will also have people in that 

9 job title. And that was the case in this 

10 case. I won't get into job titles for giving 

11 out information and stuff, but it's in our 

12 response.

13 And this person had a job title 

14 that was on the list, but in reading his CATI 

15 where he describes his work, it seemed pretty 

16 clear from the description of the work that he 

17 was an in-house employee, not a construction 

18 contractor.

19 So based on that, that's the 

20 reason why the CTW adjustment wasn't applied 

21 in this case.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

173 1 MR. STIVER: So basically you have 

2 additional information and you go ahead and 

3 use that and determined --

4 MS. K. BEHLING: John, if you're 

5 talking to me, I can't hear you.

6 MR. STIVER: Sorry, I keep 

7 forgetting to turn the microphone on here.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, I could just 

9 barely hear someone in the background, and I 

10 don't even know if you were speaking to me.

11 MR. STIVER: I was responding to 

12 Stu. I was just saying that in a situation 

13 where you have somebody in that job title, for 

14 whom you have additional information, like 

15 this guy here, you'd go ahead and make that 

16 determination. But say if you didn't have 

17 that, you would have just gone ahead and given 

18 him, you know, the claim in favor of 

19 adjustment factors.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I mean, if 

21 we don't have indication that he's not a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

174 1 construction worker --

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, then he falls 

3 back in --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- then he would 

5 be a construction worker, right.

6 MR. STIVER: Yeah. I see nothing 

7 wrong with that. I think we can close that 

8 particular finding out.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We will, when we 

10 upload this, indicate that the response has 

11 been acceptable and it was closed on this 

12 date.

13 Finding 14?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Finding 14, we 

15 have not prepared a response for yet. We will 

16 provide a response at a later date.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Carried over.

18 Finding 15?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm going 

20 to try to remember this one.

21 This is a finding about the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

175 1 medical dose. And a 30 percent uncertainty. 

2 The finding was that there should have been a 

3 30 percent multiplier on the medical dose, and 

4 then -- as part of the rework. The addition 

5 of 30 percent to medical doses is a technique 

6 that has been used at some time as essentially 

7 a way to avoid using the distribution. You 

8 add 30 percent to the medical dose and enter 

9 that value as a constant. So that's used on 

10 occasion.

11 But the best estimate is to enter 

12 the medical dose, as it's determined, as a 

13 normal distribution with the 30 percent 

14 standard deviation. So the addition of the 30 

15 percent is not a required part of doing 

16 medical dose. It's a shortcut if you're 

17 entering it as a constant, which I don't 

18 believe was done in this case.

19 MR. STIVER: That sounds 

20 reasonable.

21 Kathy?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

176 1 MS. K. BEHLING: And maybe, Rose, 

2 you could help me out here. For some reason I 

3 thought this -- I didn't think this finding 

4 had to do with medical dose.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I completely agree 

6 with you, Kathy, I'm very confused.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Yeah. I keep 

8 looking at this finding, and, no, this had to 

9 do with an uncertainty not being applied to a 

10 coworker dose, a construction trade worker 

11 coworker dose, not a medical.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's --

13 let me see what I can find out about it. Hang 

14 on a minute.

15 (Pause.)

16 MR. HINNEFELD: It will take me a 

17 while to chase this down, so --

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I'll have to --

20 unless someone on the phone can correct my 

21 mistake there?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

177 1 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll 

2 talk about this one after lunch? Or not?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I'm sorry, this 

4 one wasn't medical. Thirty percent is the 

5 uncertainly on a badge reading. It's not 

6 medical. The 30 percent uncertainty is the 

7 standard uncertainty on the badge reading. And 

8 so it would be the badge reading that would --

9 is being suggested by the findings should have 

10 been multiplied by one-point-three.

11 Our view is that it's not, you 

12 don't do that. The 30 percent uncertainty is 

13 the standard deviation around the central 

14 value. So it's entered as -- it's treated as 

15 a normal distribution. Yeah, it's not a 

16 medical dose, it's the badge measured dose 

17 that has that 30 percent uncertainty 

18 associated with it.

19 MR. STIVER: So in IREP you just 

20 put in the adjusted reading and then the 

21 normal distribution --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

178 1 MR. HINNEFELD: And the 

2 uncertainty value around it. You don't 

3 multiply the --

4 MR. STIVER: Yeah, right. Okay.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: I agree. I just 

6 -- can we keep this open so we can go back and 

7 just look at this?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you, Wanda.

11 CHAIR MUNN: You bet. We'll leave 

12 15 open and carry over.

13 And finding 17?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 17. This 

15 one is less familiar to me. Apparently the 

16 1944 Hanford intakes -- interesting because 

17 that's now a Class -- are based on Battelle 

18 TBD-6000 rather than the coworker data set, 

19 because we don't think we had enough data for 

20 a coworker data set in 1944.

21 CHAIR MUNN: I'm reading through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

179 1 the response here that we haven't absorbed 

2 yet.

3 MR. STIVER: Kathy, have you 

4 encountered this type of thing before?

5 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm not sure that 

6 I have. Rose, do you have any comments?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think that when 

8 we looked at this we weren't sure what should 

9 have been done because it was somewhat 

10 ambiguous in the text.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I 

12 would propose that we enter our response, you 

13 know, the findings will be entered, our 

14 response entered, in another -- you know, I 

15 think maybe I'd take another look at it. Like 

16 I said, I got briefed on this before the Board 

17 meeting, and I can't retain things that long.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Let's 

19 enter the response and it will remain open.

20 Findings 18, 19, 20 and 21?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

180 1 again, multiple. It's site specific. It 

2 relates to the four different sites that were 

3 caught up in this, included in the PER, claims 

4 from those four different sites.

5 And so in each case the finding 

6 was that it would be -- you know, the Site 

7 Profile would be pretty -- it would be helpful 

8 if the Site Profile pointed you to the 

9 construction worker TIB while you were going 

10 through the Site Profile. Yeah, that's true.

11 Our dose reconstructors, though, 

12 typically work from tools rather than from the 

13 Site Profile. You know, the DR tools. And 

14 those are built and put in place for the dose 

15 reconstructor to use on the construction. 

16 So rather than embark on a path of 

17 revising all those Site Profiles to point 

18 people to OTIB-52, the OTIB-52 requirements 

19 are built into the dose reconstruction tool 

20 the dose reconstructor uses.

21 MR. STIVER: It makes sense to me. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

181 1 I'm fine with that.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Accepted --

3 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. 

4 I'm sorry to interrupt.

5 I guess that our task was, if we 

6 didn't have a case to look at, and I believe 

7 in these four findings we did not actually 

8 have a case to look at. And what we were 

9 tasked to do is to find out if the technical 

10 documentation had any discussion about the 

11 OTIB-52. Although I guess we were going to 

12 look at the workbooks also. 

13 And so I agree, if the data is in 

14 the workbook and that's how it's being 

15 implemented, I would say that's fine, as long 

16 as it's not being missed. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Acceptable by SC&A.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, it is.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The point on this 

20 one, though, was that it was internal dose, 

21 and Hanford is the only place that has that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

182 1 internal dose correction for trade workers.

2 MR. STIVER: That's correct.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: That's on 18, and 

4 I think the remainder are for the -- that's 

5 true, there is no documentation for the 

6 internal at Hanford unless it's, again, in the 

7 workbook.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Excuse me. So we're 

9 agreed that SC&A is accepting the response?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, SC&A accepts the 

11 response.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We will show it as 

13 accepted and closed as of this date.

14 MS. K. BEHLING: I think that --

15 let's go back to that one just one more time. 

16 Because this is an internal, and the external, 

17 I can understand it being built into the 

18 workbook.

19 Now, is there something built into 

20 a workbook for it, the very first one, 18 that 

21 we discussed? Rather than grouping them 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

183 1 together, let's just -- I just want to verify 

2 what Rose is pointing out here. 

3 Is there something in place for 

4 the Hanford internal guidance that the dose 

5 reconstructor will know to apply this to OTIB6 52 coworker dose, or correction factor?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I'll defer 

8 to Scott, since I don't do dose 

9 reconstruction. Maybe he can fill in or -- I 

10 don't know if he's a Hanford guy or not. Or 

11 somebody else on the phone?

12 MS. K. BEHLING: Because --

13 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry. I'm just 

14 fighting with my new keys.

15 I don't recall whether it's 

16 specifically in any of the Hanford-specific 

17 guidance. But as you say, OTIB-52 was clear 

18 about it, and trust me, everybody knows that 

19 that's the issue that they need to be working 

20 through.

21 I'd have to check the tools to see 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

184 1 if it's specifically implemented in the tools 

2 or not. But, I mean, the bottom line still is 

3 that OTIB-54 is the operative document, and 

4 dose reconstructors know that.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: I guess my 

6 feeling would be I'd be willing to close 19, 

7 20 and 21, I guess. But 18, I think, this 

8 Hanford internal one, let's look a little 

9 further at that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Is that agreeable 

11 with the Subcommittee?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: We'll carry over 18.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, that's fine 

15 with me.

16 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A has the action 

17 to look further.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Any other items that 

20 need to be addressed on PER 14?

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

185 1 Lori.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Lori?

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm looking 

4 through OTIB-52, and it states apply a factor 

5 of two for Hanford claims.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: On the internal 

8 section 6.2.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: Yeah, Lori, the 

11 comment was about how is that carried into the 

12 specific direction to Hanford? You know, the 

13 Hanford Site Profile, does it point to TIB-52 

14 or does the tool or -- you know, Scott has 

15 told us, look, everybody knows that. So it's 

16 not a question of whether it's in TIB-52, it's 

17 a question of, does something about Hanford 

18 make sure you know that you have to look at 

19 TIB-52? So the fact that it's in 52 doesn't 

20 really matter.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

186 1 misunderstood what Kathy stated.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone else?

3 (No response.)

4 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then let's 

5 move on to our next agenda item, which is 

6 PROC-44. 

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: One other thing. 

8 This is Lori. Do we want to go back and visit 

9 the in-progress findings we had in the BRS for 

10 PER 0014?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, PER 0014 will 

12 show up as a specific item on our next agenda. 

13 Are you asking whether we intend to cover them 

14 today?

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct. I 

16 mean, what we just looked at what as PER 0014, 

17 right?

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. We 

19 did.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: And we have two 

21 other findings in the BRS if you want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

187 1 address those today.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Are they currently 

3 open? Do we have responses to them?

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, we do.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then we 

6 certainly should address them. I'm sorry, I 

7 thought all of the information was on that 

8 list that we just received. Sorry about that, 

9 Lori. Why don't you take us to the first such 

10 item, and we'll address that finding. Which 

11 finding are we looking at for PER 0014?

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: We have finding 

13 1 and it's in progress.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And our response to 

15 it?

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: It's entered 

17 into the BRS and we have Matt on the line to 

18 respond to it.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. Matt?

20 MR. SMITH: Repeat all that one 

21 more time, which one are we on?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

188 1 CHAIR MUNN: PER 0014, item 1, 

2 finding 1.

3 MR. SMITH: This was the item I 

4 believe where there were questions about 

5 prorating, correct?

6 CHAIR MUNN: I have been trying 

7 for five minutes to get the proper thing on my 

8 screen. And I'm not getting it there. But, 

9 yes, it's deep dose adjustment factor may not 

10 be claimant-favorable. That's the finding.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's it, Matt.

12 MR. SMITH: On this one we went 

13 back into the raw data for the Rocky Flats 

14 analysis. That was one of the data set where 

15 prorating was possible. On the other data 

16 sets, there was not sufficient data in those 

17 to accomplish any kind of prorating, but with 

18 Rocky Flats we were able to.

19 And when we looked at the 

20 comparison between what we saw with the other 

21 sites, the prorating did not result in us 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

189 1 seeing that the 1.4 factor was not sufficient. 

2 The bottom line is the Rocky Flats is prorated 

3 per the concerns that came up, but 1.4 turned 

4 out to be actually a bounding result.

5 And, there, Wanda has brought up 

6 the spreadsheet where we went back and looked 

7 at that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Matt.

9 MR. SMITH: Yeah, this is 

10 something we did a while ago.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Any reaction from 

12 SC&A?

13 MR. SMITH: I recall we discussed 

14 this a meeting or two ago.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I recall it.

16 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

17 I recall that discussion.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I do, too. Bits 

19 and pieces of it. Do we find that answer 

20 acceptable?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a lot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

190 1 here. I mean, if SC&A would -- you know, they 

2 might need a little key to the spreadsheet. 

3 You know, how to interpret this spreadsheet, 

4 and how this spreadsheet supports it. And 

5 although maybe it's apparent, there's a lot of 

6 data on that spreadsheet. So maybe if you did 

7 have a chance to look at it. I think you're 

8 asking them a lot to ask them to recommend a 

9 closure here, because there's a lot.

10 MR. STIVER: Yeah, I kind of 

11 missed a little bit of the discussion.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think 

13 there's a -- the spreadsheet is -- probably if 

14 you spend some time looking at it, I think you 

15 can probably understand it. I've just glanced 

16 at it and kind of intimidated by its size. But 

17 if you need any help, let us know. If you 

18 need some interpretation, let us know. And 

19 because that's supposed to contain the 

20 supporting information that allows us to 

21 conclude that partial year doses don't require 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

191 1 a different adjustment factor.

2 MR. STIVER: Yeah. Let's go ahead 

3 and keep that open for now, and we'll go ahead 

4 and look through it and make any 

5 recommendations if we think that it needs some 

6 sort of a key.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 1 will remain 

8 open in progress. Action next time is SC&A's.

9 Then we have -- am I correct, Lori 

10 -- finding 3?

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right. And 

12 finding 3 says a shallow dose adjustment 

13 factor may be required. Annual shallow doses, 

14 like penetrating doses received by CTWs, may 

15 have been understated. In the event NIOSH --

16 I don't need to read that.

17 And, Matt? Do you want to -- the 

18 last item that I show with finding 3 is a 

19 response from Matt last October. So since we 

20 are carrying over finding 1, we can assume 

21 that finding 3 also will be addressed in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

192 1 response to finding 1. Is that correct, John?

2 MR. STIVER: That is correct.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Three is 

4 a carryover, action SC&A.

5 And then is that all of them?

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: That's it, 

7 Wanda.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

9 good. Thank you, Lori.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

13 Siebert.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: I just wanted to 

16 point out, on number 18, which was back in 

17 Hanford, while you were doing this I was 

18 frantically doing some searching.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: The internal 

21 dosimetry coworker tool for Hanford does have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

193 1 the construction trade worker information in 

2 it, and it actually defaults to assuming that 

3 the employee is a CTW unless the dose 

4 reconstructor changes the toggle to a non-CTW 

5 individual. 

6 So we do have that information 

7 directly in the tool itself.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good. Does that 

9 make everybody feel better?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Does that, in fact, 

12 make it possible for us to close this?

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

15 MR. STIVER: SC&A agrees, go ahead 

16 and close it.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John. When 

18 we post item 18, we'll show as it was accepted 

19 and closed as of this date.

20 Anything else on PER 0014?

21 (No response.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

194 1 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for calling 

2 the in-progress items to my attention, Lori, I 

3 appreciate that.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: No problem.

5 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then we'll 

6 move on to PROC-44. Status is, I believe John 

7 Mauro is going to give us that. John?

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here. And 

9 the PROC-44 report, I have a copy of it here, 

10 I don't know if you folks have it in front of 

11 you. But basically we already prepared a 

12 procedure, it's called the original PROC-44 

13 Special Exposure Cohort. It basically is 

14 guidance that ORAU gives to its -- well, to 

15 its SEC petition reviewers on the process to 

16 use. That effectively is done to comply with 

17 the requirements of Part 83. And we were 

18 tasked to review that procedure, and the 

19 report that you have in your hand is dated 

20 October 15th, 2012.

21 What our report really boils down 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

195 1 to, it has three elements to it. They're a 

2 bunch of findings, but I think it's better we 

3 start with the macro. The three classes of 

4 investigations that we did that resulted in 

5 these findings are -- the first one is, there 

6 -- it turns out that NIOSH issued their own 

7 procedure relatively recently, more recently 

8 than this original PROC-44. I think it was 

9 called 004, it's a DCAS procedure. So which 

10 basically -- so you can always think of it 

11 like there's like a hierarchy of documents. 

12 There is Part 83, which is the regulations for 

13 what needs to be done to evaluate and make a 

14 decision regarding sufficient accuracy 

15 ultimately for an SEC.

16 Then underneath that are --

17 feeding into that, implementing that 

18 regulation is a DCAS-PR-004. Yes, DCAS-PR19 004. And then below that is a hierarchy of 

20 guidance. ORAU has its procedure that it 

21 follows. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

196 1 Now, what happened here is that we 

2 were asked to review the ORAU PROC-44, which 

3 was written a while ago before DCAS-PR-004 was 

4 written. So one of our first classes of 

5 findings is what I would call more 

6 administrative, in that we had six findings 

7 that there seems to be incompatibilities 

8 between the flow of direction and instruction 

9 given. Starting with the Part 83, flowing to 

10 DCAS-PR-004 and then flowing down to PROC-44. 

11 And there were six of those.

12 So let's first see if we can --

13 and there was a response that was provided in 

14 writing by NIOSH related to the first -- well, 

15 I'll call it six findings which deal with this 

16 administrative incongruity. So I'll call it 

17 that. And there was a response to each of 

18 those.

19 And Steve Ostrow, who I believe is 

20 on the line --

21 DR. OSTROW: Yeah, I'm here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

197 1 DR. MAURO: Great, thanks, Steve.

2 He could relate to you -- he 

3 looked at those responses and what the plans 

4 are to deal with the concerns we raised. 

5 And, Steve, if you could summarize 

6 our recommendations regarding closure of one 

7 through six?

8 DR. OSTROW: Well, the 

9 recommendations basically on NIOSH, the last 

10 time I looked at the Board Review System, all 

11 of them begin "ORAU is currently revising 

12 ORAU-PROC-44 to match the applicable content 

13 in DCAS-PR-004, Rev 1." So it's basically 

14 that their revised procedure, the ORAU-PROC15 44, the revised one when it comes out, will 

16 address all of these issues.

17 A lot of those issues arose 

18 because there was mismatch between the ORAU 

19 PROC and the DCAS-PR-004. And, of course, 

20 there's five or six years' difference in the 

21 issue date between the two. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

198 1 So the first -- all six of the --

2 the first six of the findings are all, I 

3 guess, in abeyance until we see the new 

4 procedure.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, wait a 

6 minute. This is Steve Marschke.

7 We recommended they be put in 

8 abeyance. The Subcommittee hasn't put them in 

9 abeyance.

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay, yes. And can 

11 we recommend the six going in -- the one 

12 through six go in abeyance until we actually 

13 see the revised PROC-44?

14 CHAIR MUNN: If we put this into 

15 abeyance, then from our standpoint, SC&A has 

16 accepted the proposals that have been made 

17 with respect to changes.

18 DR. OSTROW: Well, Wanda, the 

19 proposals, at least if I'm reading it 

20 correctly, that NIOSH has made is basically 

21 they're saying they're going to incorporate, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

199 1 you know, in the revised PROC.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 DR. OSTROW: Until we see it, 

4 though, we can't actually comment on it, at 

5 least not detailed. They're saying, yeah, 

6 we're agreeing that we'll take care of it.

7 I mean, does NIOSH disagree with 

8 that assessment?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, when the 

10 review came up, we recognized that the ORAU 

11 procedure was badly out of date and needs to 

12 be revised. And so it will be revised to make 

13 it consistent. I mean, I don't see the issue. 

14 I mean, almost every other time when we've put 

15 something in abeyance, before we end up 

16 closing it, you know, the Subcommittee takes 

17 another look at how the change was actually 

18 made. And did we make the change in 

19 accordance with what was expected.

20 DR. OSTROW: Yeah.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So I don't see the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

200 1 issue here.

2 DR. OSTROW: I think we agree with 

3 you.

4 DR. MAURO: I think this is really 

5 a matter of catch-up. Making sure that 

6 everything lines up. And there's really 

7 nothing -- certainly it would be good for --

8 certainly an abeyance. When the new version 

9 comes out, we can just tick off, oh, yeah, 

10 they revised it. Revised it. But we have no 

11 doubt that it's a straightforward process, 

12 just to update PROC-44.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I'm glad this 

14 encompasses all six findings.

15 DR. OSTROW: Yes, the first six.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: The first six.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Then we'll make that 

18 notation and place it in abeyance, if that's 

19 in conjunction with --

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, we'll go ahead 

21 and place it in abeyance, the first six.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

201 1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Ted?

2 MR. KATZ: Yeah. Just -- and I 

3 think we talked about this, but the slip-up 

4 here was just, as a whole, everybody, however 

5 it worked out, which we want to do better is 

6 that, if we had understood better the 

7 situation with PROC-44, we would never have 

8 assigned this. Because it was silly to assign 

9 SC&A to spend their time doing something when 

10 it was really just an out of date document 

11 that was recognized already was out of date.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection or any 

13 comment from the Committee Members? Josie?

14 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection.

17 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

18 Can I just ask a question of NIOSH?

19 What's your schedule? When do you 

20 think you'll actually issue the Rev 1?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

202 1 have that on a schedule, unless ORAU wants to 

2 offer anything. I don't know of a schedule 

3 date for it.

4 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: I could -- should I 

6 continue now going on to the -- what I would 

7 call now the more technical comments?

8 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so. Please.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, there are, 

10 I believe, three technical comments that have 

11 come out. And I think it's 7, 8, 9, maybe a 

12 10 -- 7, 8, 9 and 10. And, again, we need to 

13 group these -- and, Ted, in this case, I would 

14 agree regarding the fact that we maybe jumped 

15 the gun on 44, except that I think that some 

16 of the things that we had to say in findings 7 

17 through 10 add some value and are timely. And 

18 the reason I say that is -- I'll explain.

19 You know, we could go through each 

20 one, but it's more important to talk about it 

21 conceptually. The way in which PROC-44 reads 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

203 1 is the emphasis -- and this is staring with 

2 finding 7, but they also pull together -- the 

3 emphasis is on going back to Site Profile. 

4 And, in effect, the Site profile becomes the 

5 prime document that's used to evaluate the SEC 

6 petition and prepare the Petition Evaluation 

7 Report.

8 And, in addition, the way that 

9 PROC-44 is written, it emphasizes that the 

10 dose reconstructions that already were 

11 performed as this is how you -- where you 

12 start.

13 Our concern is really on two 

14 levels. One, I think the place that you start 

15 your review of an SEC petition is not with the 

16 Site Profile or previously performed cases. It 

17 should go back to the original data. And I 

18 don't think the Site Profile, the kind of 

19 words that are used in the write-up, was never 

20 intended to be the protocol for reviewing SEC 

21 petitions. And the kind of information that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

204 1 there were developed as works in progress and 

2 are useful to the dose reconstructor.

3 But it really doesn't go to the 

4 issues related to data completeness, data 

5 inaccuracy and data sufficiency. And so I 

6 would -- one of our findings is that there's a 

7 need to give more explicit direction to the 

8 people doing the SEC Petition Evaluation 

9 Report on the process you go through to check 

10 data completeness, data accuracy and 

11 sufficiency. And in a funny sort of way, 

12 that's exactly what SC&A does when we are 

13 asked to review an SEC.

14 We go in and we dive into the 

15 data. Do you have measurements of this and 

16 of that by different categories of workers, et 

17 cetera, et cetera, it goes on. And to a 

18 certain degree, the current version of PROC19 44, the old version we reviewed, has some of 

20 that language, but that sort of comes toward 

21 the end.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

205 1 And so the findings we have I 

2 would say are more along the lines of 

3 suggestions. The finding is something where 

4 we found something that was incorrect. And 

5 I'm not saying there's anything incorrect

6 here. There's nothing about what was written 

7 here that it could really be said is 

8 incorrect.

9 What we are really, quite frankly, 

10 trying to do is that, SC&A has benefitted from 

11 ten years of reviewing -- well, yeah, ten 

12 years of reviewing about 34 SEC petition and 

13 Petition Evaluation Reports. And we've 

14 encountered so many different kinds of 

15 circumstances, each one is unique. There's no 

16 doubt about it.

17 But it always goes toward the 

18 completeness of the data, the accuracy of the 

19 data, the adequacy of the data, and whether or 

20 not there's an issue-related data 

21 falsification. You know, if the data upon 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

206 1 which everything is based can pass the test, 

2 those tests, and we come out of this -- SC&A 

3 comes out of it saying I think you've got 

4 solid data and is complete and accurate and so 

5 forth. 

6 But you see that the emphasis goes 

7 toward the data. And in each case what we do 

8 is really creative. We sit down with the data 

9 and we say, what do we have to do to convince 

10 ourselves that you have enough trade worker 

11 data, that you have -- you know, I would say, 

12 the flagship of lessons learned in terms of 

13 process would be Fernald. In terms of what we 

14 just went through, as everyone's experienced 

15 over the last couple of days.

16 So I guess all I'm really saying 

17 here with my comment is that to get to data 

18 completeness, data accuracy, and it turns out 

19 I was listening to -- I was part of the group 

20 listening to the original sufficient accuracy 

21 Work Group meeting a week or so ago. And then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

207 1 again I listened to the discussion, and the

2 slides that were, you know, put up that NIOSH 

3 prepared. It was yesterday or day before 

4 yesterday. And I would say that those, the 

5 slides, those three pages of slides were right 

6 on target.

7 So I guess where I'm headed is 

8 some of the concept suggestions concerns that 

9 I wrote up and we wrote up in findings 7 

10 through 10 are answered. They're answered 

11 primarily with the three-page checklist or 

12 outline that -- when I looked at it I said, 

13 bingo, that's it. That's what -- that's the 

14 answer. And it was the checklist or outline -

15 - and maybe Stu could address, you know, what 

16 the intent was of that.

17 But what I saw there was exactly 

18 the direction that I felt PROC-44 should be 

19 based on. That type of approach.

20 So, in my mind, I think that a lot 

21 of my concerns that were raised in 7 through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

208 1 10 have been resolved with regard -- by just 

2 looking at that three-page checklist. That is 

3 exactly the direction that I feel needs to be 

4 taken.

5 So these are kind of funny, these 

6 findings 7 through 10, because they're more 

7 like suggestions as opposed to findings. And 

8 I think you folks are already working PROC-44, 

9 you just heard. And the extent to which you 

10 expect PROC-44, the next version, to start to 

11 look a little bit more like that outline that 

12 was presented during the full Board meeting, I 

13 think these issues can be put in abeyance.

14 We'd like to see them, of course, 

15 when they come out. I think those findings --

16 that goes a long way toward resolving some of 

17 the concerns I have.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Any thoughts or 

19 comments with regard to those three or four --

20 no, just three, right?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Seven, eight, nine, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

209 1 ten. I think they were --

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Ten is a little bit 

4 different, I think. Ten -- you had 

5 recommended ten be put in abeyance.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Let's do--

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Seven, eight and 

8 nine, you had recommended they remain in 

9 progress.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, 10 was 

11 referring to surrogate data.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. And I think 

14 that that was one of the items in your 

15 checklist. I don't know, Stu, if you're 

16 there, if I recall, when I was looking at your 

17 checklist, I think surrogate data was one of 

18 the items in it.

19 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim.

20 It is in the list. That checklist, by the 

21 way, is going to be developed, eventually, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

210 1 think the concept is sort of an implementation 

2 guide of sorts. That was really presented to 

3 the Board as a concept as to what might go in 

4 such a document.

5 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Well, I mean, 

6 to me, that is exactly what PROC-44 is about. 

7 The guidance on what do you -- you know, how 

8 do you go about evaluating data and records, 

9 you know, to determine the degree to which you 

10 meet the test of sufficient accuracy. And 

11 you've laid it out, the elements of it.

12 And so I guess all I have to say 

13 is that those elements were what I was looking 

14 for in PROC-44. Which I felt really weren't 

15 there, and are not developed the way they were 

16 developed and maybe will be developed as you 

17 work through the sufficient accuracy process.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And that's --

19 DR. MAURO: This is another 

20 example of trying to break down the stovepipe. 

21 It sounds like some great things going on, on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

211 1 sufficient accuracy, which has a direct 

2 applicability to a procedure review.

3 CHAIR MUNN: True. So the bottom 

4 line is we are carrying over 7, 8, 10, 

5 correct?

6 DR. MAURO: Well, let me ask --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: No.

8 CHAIR MUNN: No?

9 DR. MAURO: Let me ask the 

10 Subcommittee. As far as I'm concerned, given 

11 what I saw the other day related to sufficient 

12 accuracy presentation to the Board, I think 

13 all these findings are in abeyance if that, in 

14 fact, is a commitment that NIOSH is prepared 

15 to make when they revise PROC-44.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sure, we'll 

17 do that.

18 CHAIR MUNN: So that means they 

19 are all in abeyance?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: We haven't got that 

21 commitment from NIOSH at this point, have we?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

212 1 CHAIR MUNN: They just did, 

2 verbally.

3 DR. MAURO: And I have to say, I'd 

4 really like to see it when it's done, because 

5 this is about as tough as they come, you know, 

6 to try to give these kinds of guidance. But, 

7 yeah, as far as my recommendation, given that 

8 commitment, I think you should put it in 

9 abeyance.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Any comment from any 

11 Subcommittee Members?

12 MEMBER BEACH: No, I agree.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

14 do also question whether we would really call 

15 them findings. I think that we certainly 

16 would like NIOSH to respond to the 

17 recommendation in terms of if they are --

18 they're not --

19 CHAIR MUNN: You're breaking up, 

20 Paul.

21 DR. MAURO: You're breaking up, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

213 1 Paul. Yeah.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, I'm on a 

3 cell phone, that's part of the problem. But, 

4 anyway, I think they are recommendations, is 

5 what they are.

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because, as you 

8 say, you're not identifying errors or not even 

9 really identifying shortcomings so much as 

10 identifying ways to improve and expand what's 

11 being done.

12 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I think it has 

14 to be tracked, and I think it's important. 

15 That may just be a technical thing. Maybe 

16 it's just as easy to call it a finding and 

17 track it that way. But the implication is 

18 there's an error that's made, that's what 

19 concerns me.

20 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's really more 

21 of an observation than a finding --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

214 1 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- as we've treated 

3 things in the past. But if we want to 

4 continue to have them appear as we have them 

5 already loaded on the database, then that's 

6 fine. Or we can change them to observations, 

7 if that's -- I think either way they'll be 

8 tracked.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I'm not sure -

10 - it's not as clear at this point exactly what 

11 NIOSH is committing to in this case, except as 

12 a general concept. I think we all kind of 

13 what to see what it looks like at the other 

14 end.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's 

16 understood. And in fact, if in fact the 

17 sufficient accuracy guidance gets written into 

18 an IG, you know, that would be essentially --

19 that could be incorporated by reference to the 

20 procedure. The procedure could just refer to 

21 the IG.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

215 1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, it's an 

3 evolving -- the sufficient accuracy discussion 

4 is evolving process and so we can't commit 

5 today to what we're going to say.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah. We will place 

7 it in abeyance.

8 DR. MAURO: Before we leave the 

9 subject, there is a third element regarding 

10 our report that I just wanted to alert 

11 everyone to.

12 One of the things we did here is 

13 included in an attachment. And this is 

14 certainly again another suggestion; it's 

15 certainly not a finding by any means. What we 

16 found was -- in fact, we've done a lot of 

17 this, in light of -- you know, on the program.

18 Every time we encounter an SEC 

19 that becomes a struggle, such as Fernald and 

20 Mound and General Steel, and every one of 

21 these poses a unique problem. Nevada Test 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

216 1 Site. But they start to fall into classes of 

2 problems. They almost like self-organize. And 

3 you can actually start with examples.

4 What I mean by that is, here's an 

5 example of a place where we did not have 

6 enough data on tritium. Here's another place 

7 where the actual data we had, the tritium 

8 might be something like the tritide issue that 

9 we encountered on Mound and how it was solved 

10 or not solved.

11 Another case may be where there is 

12 -- the data you do have, chest count data for 

13 thorium, where you have lots of data, or DWE 

14 data, you know, beautiful example there. What 

15 I'm getting at is we collectively have been 

16 through the wars, so to speak, for ten years, 

17 you know, dealing with the most difficult of 

18 problems that you could possibly deal with, 

19 and did a lot of examples.

20 Now, we included in a few examples 

21 an Attachment A of strategies that we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

217 1 used to try to make a judgment and a 

2 recommendation to the Board related to 

3 sufficient accuracy. You know, I didn't call 

4 it -- whether we think we have complete data 

5 or adequate data.

6 I think that -- and we have a lot 

7 of this already ourselves, and I'm sure NIOSH 

8 and their contract have it also. But these 

9 examples could be collected and almost be 

10 tutorial in nature for someone that is 

11 struggling with coming up with a strategy that 

12 would meet -- where we would agree when we see 

13 it -- the test of sufficient accuracy. And I 

14 think examples could be helpful.

15 So all I'm doing now is making the 

16 suggestion that a compendium of that sort 

17 trying to capture how issues were dealt with 

18 in the past could very well be an attachment 

19 to a procedure like this. But it would be 

20 helpful. And I think -- and the reason I've 

21 given a lot of thought to this is we recognize 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

218 1 that the cost and the time that this program 

2 has been burdened with -- and rightly so --

3 has to do with issues resolution related to 

4 complex SEC Petition Evaluation Reports.

5 And I think a lot of the 

6 disagreements and the site visits and the data 

7 captures and the interviews went toward 

8 filling in what we felt were apparent gaps. 

9 Not in all cases did we agree, certainly, but 

10 there was a process we went through.

11 I think if somehow that process, 

12 with examples, could be captured and written 

13 up, it would shorten the issues resolution 

14 process. That is, your SEC Petition 

15 Evaluation Reports, in my opinion, would be 

16 improved. The ones that we found that were 

17 problematic, there are others that were fine, 

18 but some we at SC&A found problematic.

19 I think, you know, by having 

20 examples like that, we may be able to clear 

21 SEC Petition Evaluation Report reviews much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

219 1 more quickly if some of -- you know, if a 

2 little more thought -- it sounds like I'm 

3 being critical of you guys, but I don't mean 

4 to be. I'm just trying to say, I stand back 

5 and I look at the ten years, I say, gee, look 

6 at what we learned. Look at what we learned 

7 on Fernald, for example.

8 The last time, and I'll stop 

9 talking, is you may want to think about 

10 putting together a compendium of examples that 

11 would be helpful to your reviewers to draw 

12 upon. And part of your training program, like 

13 when you put people through training, and when 

14 you put your people through training for SEC 

15 Petition Evaluation Report reviews, examples 

16 of precedent established through ten years of 

17 experience might be very helpful.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John. Any 

19 comments with respect to those observations?

20 (No response.)

21 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then we're at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

220 1 a point where we're a little past due for 

2 lunch. I think we need to break now. We had 

3 originally programmed our lunch for 45 

4 minutes. I'd like for us to try to stick to 

5 that if we possibly can, but I don't know if 

6 we can. We'll make an effort to be back at a 

7 quarter after the hour, if that's adequate, 

8 and we'll see what the best thing is that we 

9 can do in 45 minutes. We'll be back online at 

10 a quarter after.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

12 matter went off the record at 2:31 p.m. and 

13 resumed at 3:37 p.m.)

14

15

16

17

18
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

221 1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 (3:37 p.m.)

3 CHAIR MUNN: We now have our three 

4 Subcommittee Members available and we're ready 

5 to take up where we left off on our agenda, 

6 which is PER 20.

7 Kathy?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. PER 20 is 

9 Blockson. And we are at the process of sub10 task 4 which is --

11 MR. KATZ: Kathy, we're having a 

12 hard time hearing you. 

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Can you hear me?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah.

15 MR. KATZ: That's a little better.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Come closer.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, much better. 

19 Thank you.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm sorry.

21 Let me start over. PER 20 is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

222 1 Blockson, and we are now at the process of 

2 sub-task 4, which is the review of two cases 

3 that were selected by the Subcommittee back in 

4 February.

5 I had thought that I was going to 

6 have that report completed by this meeting, 

7 but unfortunately I was not able to do that, 

8 and I apologize. So I really don't have

9 anything to report, and I will promise to have 

10 that report ready for the next meeting.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Fine, 

12 thank you, Kathy. Appreciate it.

13 PER 11 response? NIOSH?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is Stu, 

15 and I am struggling to get my computer going 

16 so I can read our response. It was 

17 distributed on the same email that I mentioned 

18 a while ago with PER 14, it was sent 

19 yesterday. And there is an attachment.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. 

21 Steve, I just sent you and Stu an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

223 1 update to the PER 11, because the findings are 

2 not in the BRS I've sent a version of that, of 

3 our responses with the findings attached.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, I got that 

5 note that you sent out at 2:26 this afternoon?

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. That's what 

8 I have up on my LiveMeeting now, the one that 

9 you sent today.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, we see it now, 

11 Steve. Thank you. Stu is just getting his 

12 electronic equipment in the right place at the 

13 right niche.

14 If you want to trust my screen, 

15 Stu, I'd be glad to give it to you here.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me try one 

17 more thing here.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Just come join 

19 me. You can even have the chair, since you're 

20 going to be the speaker.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

224 1 Okay. This is Stu, if -- other 

2 people, I think, can see LiveMeeting and the 

3 response that Steve is, I guess, displaying. 

4 This is a fairly extensive response, and so I 

5 think we have an explanation for the cases, 

6 and the particular issue of the finding.

7 I don't know that I need to -- I 

8 think I can explain more than what's written 

9 there, so I'd just say that, you know, this 

10 response which we just provided, there's 

11 really not much point in a discussion of it. I 

12 think we'll get it in the system and then 

13 SC&A, after this, can go ahead and follow up, 

14 okay?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Has SC&A even had an 

16 opportunity to take a look at what the finding 

17 is?

18 MR. STIVER: Excuse me, I couldn't 

19 hear you, Wanda.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I was inquiring 

21 whether SC&A has even had an opportunity to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

225 1 look at this --

2 MR. STIVER: No, we haven't.

3 CHAIR MUNN: -- at these 

4 responses.

5 MR. STIVER: This is the first 

6 we've seen them.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

8 So at a -- just a quick reading, 

9 any comments or just prepare a response next 

10 time?

11 MR. STIVER: I feel more 

12 comfortable getting a more in-depth look at it 

13 and preparing responses.

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

15 good. For each of the findings or --

16 MR. STIVER: Well, I haven't read 

17 it, so I can't really --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I mean, some 

20 of these things are -- I mean, they just got 

21 it. I mean, the second one is a typographical 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

226 1 error that was made in a couple of places, 

2 it's supposed to say "May 31st" instead of 

3 "May 21st," or the other way around. It made 

4 it look as if there were a ten-day gap that 

5 may not have been considered. But in fact, 

6 the actual decisions were made based on the 

7 correct date. So the typographical error 

8 didn't affect the selection in cases.

9 We've looked at those but, you 

10 know, if you want to take an additional look 

11 and verify that, that would be something --

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. The 

13 total number of responses we have here is, for 

14 finding four. And further than that.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Finding 4 

16 was the finding that we talked about earlier 

17 that, you know, we may ask for a claim back 

18 that we don't get back. Everything we get 

19 back, we do. But sometimes we ask for claims, 

20 we don't get them back. I talked about that 

21 and the reasons why, when we were talking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

227 1 about PER 14.

2 MR. STIVER: Yeah, that's similar 

3 to the previous finding. I think we can 

4 probably close that one.

5 MR. KATZ: I have a question.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

7 MR. KATZ: I was just wondering, I 

8 mean, I know Kathy wants to review these. But 

9 I wonder if the Subcommittee can't just take 

10 it on faith that they do all -- that they do 

11 all the reworks that they receive, and that 

12 not be an issue for having --

13 CHAIR MUNN: We will probably be 

14 able to do that once we are assured that 

15 SC&A's had an opportunity to even see the 

16 responses. The responses probably will be 

17 self-explanatory in most cases. But --

18 MR. KATZ: No, I just mean on this 

19 issue of this specific question of, did DCAS 

20 do all the reworks that they were supposed to 

21 do? I think -- I don't know --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

228 1 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 4 

2 specifically, let's take a moment --

3 MR. KATZ: This came up elsewhere, 

4 and again we have a problem with -- I mean, 

5 SC&A's in a bad position to be able to 

6 actually identify. And then the answer, of 

7 course, ends up being that, yeah, they've done 

8 -- they did everything they got, but they 

9 didn't get everything that they asked for 

10 because of -- we all understand those reasons. 

11 So I'm just wondering whether it's worth SC&A 

12 spending time looking at that question, even.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, SC&A posed the 

14 question, and so they may --

15 (Laughter.)

16 MR. HINNEFELD: This is for an 

17 action going forward. I mean, this is -- Ted 

18 is talking about going forward, there is no 

19 need to bring this up again.

20 CHAIR MUNN: No, no.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: All these things 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

229 1 that we've talked about so far were written 

2 before we had any discussion about it.

3 MR. STIVER: Exactly. So we're 

4 going to see the same kind of finding pop up 

5 again, and you know, we've cleared it. In the 

6 future we won't -- we have an explanation now, 

7 and I think that's satisfactory.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. It's 

9 probably all you need --

10 MS. K. BEHLING: I think there's 

11 one thing that we haven't addressed, though, 

12 is that in future files or PER cases, it says 

13 that the claim was reworked in the main 

14 documentation, and that's not actually the 

15 case.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I think 

17 what's happening is that there is the 

18 invitation. If the claim came back, it's been 

19 reworked, I'm absolutely confident of that. 

20 And so there may be a statement that this 

21 should be reworked or it will be reworked, or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

230 1 there are -- sometimes in the PER process, 

2 there will be statements that this claim was 

3 reevaluated. And for some reason -- you know, 

4 and part of that reevaluation has to do -- you 

5 know, the reevaluation indicated that there's 

6 no need to give it back.

7 And so that's one of the items I 

8 was going to check on from our discussion 

9 earlier is, exactly what is that process and 

10 where is that information kept? Because the 

11 way that SECs -- or the PERs work now is that, 

12 DOL does not return the claim unless the 

13 decision, the compensation decision is going 

14 to change. And we evaluate it beforehand. We 

15 apply the -- you know, we take the PER, we 

16 reevaluate the claim with respect -- you know, 

17 in light of the new technical direction that 

18 gave rise to the PER. And if the outcome does 

19 not claim -- does not change, if the 

20 compensability outcome does not change, then 

21 DOL does not send it back, okay?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

231 1 So a claim can -- we might say a 

2 claim was reevaluated. That doesn't mean 

3 another dose construction was done. It means 

4 it was evaluated, given the new technical 

5 direction and it didn't change. And so -- but 

6 I'm going to have to see what those forms say, 

7 because I kind of lost track of the process 

8 and what's actually being written on those 

9 forms.

10 CHAIR MUNN: So as I suggested 

11 originally, do we have any problem with 

12 placing all of these as an action item for 

13 SC&A review next time?

14 MEMBER BEACH: No.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any 

16 problem with that, Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No problem with 

18 that.

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good.

20 Responses for SC&A next time.

21 MR. STIVER: We will take that as 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

232 1 an action.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John.

3 Let's move on to the next agenda 

4 item which is PER 11.

5 MEMBER BEACH: That's what we just 

6 did.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, that's what we 

8 did. RPRT-53, I did see that. NIOSH.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, give me a 

10 minute.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Again, if you want to 

12 be here, that's fine.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd rather get 

14 this one going.

15 Report 53, Jim, is that you?

16 DR. NETON: Report 53?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh.

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, that's the one 

19 we just talked about at the Board meeting, 

20 right?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. The stratified 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

233 1 coworkers.

2 DR. NETON: Yeah. Well, I'm not -

3 - I don't know what's more to say about it, 

4 other than what we discussed at the meeting. 

5 And Dr. Melius has decided that the --

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Jim, I can't 

7 hear you.

8 DR. NETON: All right, I didn't 

9 have my microphone on.

10 I'm not sure what more to say, 

11 other than what I presented at the Board 

12 meeting, or we discussed at the Board meeting, 

13 and that Dr. Melius has decided that the 

14 issues are going to be discussed at a SEC Work 

15 Group meeting in the near future.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Shall we compose such 

17 a response for at least Item 1?

18 DR. NETON: What's item 1? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: We have --

20 DR. NETON: My computer's locked 

21 down, I can't get into it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

234 1 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I'm sorry.

2 DR. NETON: That's okay.

3 MR. STIVER: Can you scroll us 

4 down a little bit so we can be on LiveMeeting 

5 so we can see Item 1?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Let us know --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Steve, can you 

8 scroll us down a little bit so that we can see 

9 53-1 on LiveMeeting, the text of it?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Sure.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's all there is.

12 DR. NETON: Item 1, our square 

13 doesn't appear anywhere in report 53. So I'm 

14 not sure where that's coming from. It's not 

15 mentioned at all.

16 It has been a convention that has 

17 been used in -- it has been used in other 

18 datasets and other reports, but it's not used 

19 in 53.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And it's hard for us 

21 to define where -- how the finding was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

235 1 identified. Does SC&A have any --

2 MR. STIVER: This is John.

3 I'd asked Harry to call in. He is 

4 the reviewer of this report, and our 

5 statistician who is in the best position to 

6 comment on this.

7 Harry, are you online?

8 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I am.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, great. Could 

10 you kind of lead us through finding 1?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Tell us where that 

12 came from?

13 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Yeah. The --

14 basically it comes out of the report, the 

15 PROC-0095, and then again in report 44, both 

16 of which are incorporated by report 005.

17 MR. STIVER: Yeah.

18 DR. CHMELYNSKI: And I have to 

19 admit, yes, I don't see where ours was quoted 

20 on any of the graphs. We used to always be on 

21 the graphs. They don't provide much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

236 1 information in the way it fits. And I --

2 MR. STIVER: And this --

3 DR. CHMELYNSKI: I know what we're 

4 asking for here is, we'd like to know how you 

5 intend to measure the degree of it.

6 DR. NETON: It's really a matter 

7 of professional judgment, a person looking at 

8 the curve. I mean we -- this has been a 

9 finding before, I think when 95 was reviewed. 

10 And we went around and around about this, and 

11 we acknowledged that the R-square value is 

12 biased towards higher correlation because it's 

13 ranked. But you know, it comes down to just 

14 reviewing the dataset, looking at it and 

15 getting a judgment call, professional judgment 

16 that the data are adequately represented by 

17 that fit.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in view of the 

19 fact that this particular report does not 

20 specifically refer to the R-square 

21 application, then is this still an appropriate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

237 1 finding for this report? John?

2 MR. STIVER: I'll have to defer to 

3 Harry on this. What do you think, Harry?

4 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Well, I don't 

5 think this is that at all. The earlier 

6 reports were -- it was included, and now it's 

7 not included in this, but nothing has replaced 

8 it.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I personally am 

10 hard pressed to try to identify how we can --

11 at least given the current wording, I don't 

12 see how we can apply the finding to the

13 existing report. 

14 There is a question in my mind 

15 whether it's appropriate for this particular 

16 report review.

17 MR. STIVER: Could possibly 

18 consider transferring it to one of the other 

19 reviews and -- I'm not completely -- it sounds 

20 like we've talked about this before.

21 DR. NETON: I'll tell you what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

238 1 I'll do. I'll go back and resurrect the --

2 how this issue was discussed in reviews of the 

3 other documents. We put this issue to bed, I 

4 mean, this is not a new finding. We continued 

5 to use 95, it's been reviewed, and we 

6 definitely acknowledge that the R-square value 

7 was biased toward high correlation.

8 So I'll take that on as an action 

9 for NIOSH, to find out how that was eventually 

10 resolved in the other reviews.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And perhaps all we 

12 need is just a statement that it was resolved 

13 in the other reviews, and it is now --

14 DR. NETON: Yeah, I'll verify 

15 that. I mean, I'm pretty clear on this was a 

16 long time ago, but I was very involved in 

17 those discussions.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, if we could 

19 have a clarification, where and when it was 

20 resolved, then we can close it here for that 

21 purpose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

239 1 DR. NETON: Yeah. With regard to 

2 the remainder findings, I'm not sure at this 

3 point I really would -- it would be beneficial 

4 to get involved in a point/counterpoint

5 discussion of these very detailed technical 

6 issues. We have prepared a draft response 

7 that I am reviewing that we will provide. And 

8 it would be better, I think, to speak from 

9 that once SC&A has the draft response. 

10 Although again, I'm a little bit concerned 

11 because we're going to be discussing these 

12 outside of this Work Group at the SEC Work 

13 Group level. So I'm not sure how we really 

14 want to proceed.

15 MR. STIVER: Yeah, this is John.

16 It appears that there's going to 

17 be some duplication of effort here.

18 DR. NETON: Yeah. So I don't --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Can we simply defer 

20 it? Let's defer it.

21 DR. NETON: I think it might be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

240 1 best. Because I don't -- having had the 

2 discussion at the working -- at the Board 

3 meeting, yesterday, I talked to our 

4 statisticians, and they already want to revise 

5 some of our responses based on what they're 

6 heard. And so I think -- yeah --

7 MR. STIVER: Maybe deferral is the 

8 best option until we see how this all plays 

9 out, and then we can decide what to do. 

10 Because I think --

11 DR. NETON: We'll be meeting 

12 within the next several months at the SEC Work 

13 Group level to convene this.

14 As much as I'd like to engage in a 

15 spirited discussion here --

16 (Laughter.)

17 DR. NETON: -- I think it would be 

18 -- I would be better served to --

19 CHAIR MUNN: That's just as well. 

20 We can defer that for -- do we have any --

21 when is the Work Group going to convene?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

241 1 DR. NETON: That hasn't been 

2 scheduled. But it will certainly be before 

3 the next -- the Board's conference call in --

4 no, not the conference call, the Rocky Flats 

5 meeting in October. So I suspect it would be 

6 either late August, early September.

7 MR. KATZ: Although it's going to 

8 take more than one meeting to resolve it --

9 DR. NETON: It may, yeah.

10 MR. KATZ: -- at that level. It

11 does make sense to have this revised issue 

12 addressed first before we plow through the 

13 details at this level.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, it does. Good. 

15 We'll defer it with the hope that we might 

16 have some report next -- at our next meeting. 

17 But since we don't know when that is yet, 

18 we'll just say it's deferred.

19 Next item on the agenda is OTIB20 55, specifically finding 4. We're going to 

21 have a status report from SC&A.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

242 1 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, we looked at 

2 that. That was -- I'm trying to pull it up 

3 here now. That was about the conversion 

4 factor or quality factor. And it was just 

5 basically they were going to -- NIOSH was 

6 going to change a reference on a historical 

7 quality factor to a different document. And 

8 at the last meeting of SC&A, we wanted to go 

9 back and check and make sure that, you know, 

10 that we could find in that reference the 

11 appropriate number. And I did that.

12 And BRS does not seem to be timing 

13 here, but -- and so we're ready. Our 

14 recommendation has been put into the BRS, that 

15 finding 4 will be changed to "in abeyance."

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well --

17 MR. SMITH: This is Scott. ORAU 

18 team, that sounds good, and we'll go ahead and 

19 do that update, then.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And you tell me, did 

21 you Steve, that it's already been uploaded? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

243 1 Since we're not seeing it on the screen, we 

2 don't know.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: It's been uploaded 

4 and -- yes, it has been uploaded.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I guess -

6 -

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It would seem the 

8 computer has let me down here.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Steve, we're having 

10 the same trouble here.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, ditto that. 

12 I can get online laboriously. CITGO seems 

13 like it's going to take me there but it 

14 doesn't. You can open CITGO, you click on 

15 virtual desktop, and you don't go anywhere. Or 

16 I got a failure.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Jim hasn't been 

19 able to get on since after lunch.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. I'm in the 

21 in the BRS, but it won't go off of report --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

244 1 it just won't move on from report 53.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: So but it is in 

4 there, and basically we do recommend that it 

5 be changed to "in abeyance." And that, you 

6 know -- so I guess it's up to the Subcommittee 

7 if they accept our recommendation. And then 

8 we can change it to "in abeyance" when we get 

9 a chance.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Of course, it is our 

11 tendency to agree with you when you say it's 

12 in abeyance. It's a little difficult to be 

13 happy about not being able to see what we're 

14 agreeing to.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. Well you 

16 know --

17 CHAIR MUNN: There's nothing we 

18 can do if the system is behaving as it is.

19 Assuming -- can I ask my other 

20 Subcommittee Members if you could make a 

21 notation to check the database yourself 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

245 1 offline when we have an opportunity to do 

2 that? And look at the specific item to see if 

3 you have any problem with it. And barring 

4 that there's no problem with it, can we assume 

5 that it's going to be closed -- I mean, in 

6 abeyance as suggested?

7 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? Unless we hear 

9 from you to the contrary, we're going to 

10 assume that we're -- that the response is 

11 acceptable to all and that it's going to be in 

12 abeyance pending the expected action.

13 Paul, okay with you?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Fine.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was on mute 

17 there. Very good.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. If we don't

19 hear from you, then it will remain as is 

20 currently on the database that we can't see.

21 The next --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

246 1 MR. MARSCHKE: It will remain --

2 right now it's in progress.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Then it will be 

4 changed to "in abeyance" as of this meeting, 

5 okay?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: As of this meeting?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Steve.

10 OTIB-37, TBD closure status, SC&A?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: We recommend that 

12 all three of them be closed. The other day, 

13 Tuesday I sent an email to Wanda and the 

14 Subcommittee. It was a little couple sheets 

15 of paper that Joyce sent to me. And in it, it 

16 contained -- there were three open findings, 

17 2, 3 and 4. And it -- if you -- under each 

18 finding, Joyce has a little blurb at the end 

19 where she says, you know, basically that we 

20 recommend that the item be closed. The 

21 information that was in OTIB-37 has now been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

247 1 moved, I think, into the Site Profile. And 

2 Joyce went back and looked in the Site 

3 Profile, and she says that that has taken care 

4 of her concerns.

5 CHAIR MUNN: So SC&A concedes that 

6 the concerns voiced in the findings 2, 3 and 4 

7 have been met, and recommends closure. Is 

8 that acceptable to my Subcommittee Members? 

9 Josie?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

11 Josie. 

12 I thought -- Steve, didn't you 

13 just say that that paragraph had been to the 

14 BRS system? Because the last response I see 

15 was from Wanda last year, July 31st. I don't 

16 see Joyce's in there.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not in the BRS 

18 system. I tried --

19 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we had a problem 

21 with the BRS when I tried to put them in. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

248 1 I think it's been taken care of at this point.

2

3 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I 

4 misunderstood.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: So when I get a 

6 chance, I will put them in, I'll put Joyce's 

7 responses in. But when I tried to do it the 

8 other day, it -- there was a hiccup and it 

9 wouldn't work.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thank you. I 

11 just misunderstood you.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. You okay 

13 then, Josie?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay by me, yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Accept closure? Very 

18 good.

19 And Steve's going to make sure 

20 that the database reflects --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll do -- yeah.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

249 1 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: what I will do on 

3 the database is I will incorporate Joyce's 

4 responses, and then I will make a note that, 

5 if you're in the meeting today, the 

6 Subcommittee has closed these three findings.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you.

8 Next item on the agenda is status 

9 reports for four of the PERs that are working. 

10 Begin with PER 33, please?

11 MR. STIVER: It's John Stiver. I 

12 can give you an update on that.

13 Combined PER 33/25 for Huntington 

14 Pilot Plant was delivered I believe this 

15 morning. We just finished it up and so we 

16 will prepare a presentation for the next 

17 meeting.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Both 33 and 25?

19 MR. STIVER: Thirty-three and 

20 twenty-five are both for the Huntington Pilot 

21 Plant, so we combined them into one review.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

250 1 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

2 MR. STIVER: PER 37 is Ames. We 

3 have -- it was continued upon review of the 

4 latest Site Profile, and that has been 

5 completed. And I believe Hans is in the 

6 process of working on PER 37.

7 MR. KATZ: For Ames the deal was, 

8 until we -- can't hear you, Kathy. But --

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, I'm sorry.

10 All I'm saying is that the Ames 

11 review has been completed. And Nancy has sent 

12 it off to DOE to accept, so you should be 

13 receiving that shortly. 

14 MR. KATZ: Right. And all I'm 

15 saying is that the agreement at the Board 

16 level was that we would not proceed with the 

17 PER review until the Ames TBD review, the Site 

18 Profile review, was reviewed by the Work 

19 Group.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, that's 

21 correct. Yes. I'm sorry if I interrupted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

251 1 you.

2 MR. KATZ: It's okay. I just 

3 wanted to make sure that was clear. That's 

4 all.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Yeah, that's 

6 correct.

7 CHAIR MUNN: So for our purposes, 

8 do we need to identify on the review that this 

9 is in abeyance pending action by the Work 

10 Group?

11 MR. KATZ: Or it's really just all 

12 deferred.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: I mean, SC&A is not 

15 going to proceed with doing it until the TBD 

16 has been resolved.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, I cannot hear 

18 Ted.

19 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. I'm just 

20 answering -- Wanda and I are sharing a mic.

21 But anyway, I was just explaining 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

252 1 what you already know, which is that the Site 

2 Profile will get resolved, and we'll just 

3 defer SC&A doing this until the Site Profile 

4 is resolved.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. But that 

6 leads to a question that I have.

7 Now the Site Profile review was 

8 initiated because of this PER. When -- now 

9 it's my understanding that there is -- has 

10 been an Ames Work Group established. Am I 

11 correct?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, you are correct, 

13 there is one. It hasn't actually been peopled 

14 yet, but there is -- I mean, there is a 

15 decision that we'll have one.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Because we 

17 -- I was trying to make a decision as to who 

18 should be getting a copy of this, and I 

19 thought that there was already an Ames Work 

20 Group established. But when we know who that 

21 is, we'll -- Nancy will certainly forward 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

253 1 this.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. Well the Site 

3 Profile review goes to the whole Board anyway.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: So that will be fine.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Very good. I'm 

7 sorry.

8 MR. KATZ: No, that's good. 

9 Thanks.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We're 

11 likely to hold that for a little while.

12 PER 38?

13 MR. STIVER: This is John.

14 Per 38 is Hooker. It was recently 

15 delivered. We will prepare a presentation 

16 along with Huntington for the next 

17 Subcommittee meeting.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All righty. And in 

19 the meantime, I'm assuming that magic is going 

20 to happen with the BRS, and that these items 

21 are -- these PERs are going to be peopled, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

254 1 right? Someone reassure me?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the BRS will 

3 be working and we'll keep talking to Steve and 

4 make sure that it works and that he is able to 

5 enter findings.

6 CHAIR MUNN: That's very good. 

7 Next time, SC&A.

8 The next item on our agenda is 

9 OTIB-54. The status report on the revision.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: The revision was 

11 published on the K: drive on June 25th.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Do we need to do 

13 anything other than to just close out the item 

14 on the BRS?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I suspect 

16 there are findings in abeyance, correct?

17 CHAIR MUNN: I would imagine.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I haven't looked 

19 at BRS.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, they are. 

21 We've put in our responses and waiting SC&A's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

255 1 review.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this is Steve 

3 Marschke again.

4 When we saw that OTIB was -- had 

5 been revised, I asked Steve Ostrow if he was 

6 the primary reviewer of it. And I had asked 

7 him to actually take a look at it and see how 

8 well it responded to our open findings or 

9 findings that hadn't been closed yet. And 

10 Steve put together a little information on 

11 that.

12 And what he hasn't -- he didn't 

13 have the benefit at that time of what Lori has 

14 just updated on Monday on the NIOSH responses. 

15 But if -- Steve, if you want to kind of 

16 summarize?

17 DR. OSTROW: Oh, yeah, I just got 

18 on the phone, I see we reached up ahead in the 

19 agenda.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we've been 

21 going -- working our way through. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

256 1 DR. OSTROW: Really?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yeah. But you're 

3 next. Yes, we are further along than the time 

4 shows on the agenda. My apology, Steve. We 

5 consider that a good thing.

6 DR. OSTROW: Quite all right. 

7 Quite all right.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I was just 

9 explaining -- I don't know how much you heard, 

10 but I was just --

11 DR. OSTROW: I just dialed in.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: All right. I was 

13 just explaining that when we found out that 

14 Revision 1 had been issued, I had asked you to 

15 take a look at it to see how well it addressed 

16 any of the outstanding findings that we had, 

17 or findings that hadn't already been closed. 

18 And you have done that, but without the 

19 benefit of the NIOSH responses that Lori had 

20 put up on the BRS on Monday. So I don't know 

21 -- you know, we would take a look at those and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

257 1 see how they would influence, I guess, what 

2 you've determined.

3 And so if you want to go through, 

4 I guess, and brief the Subcommittee on, you 

5 know, what -- how you think Revision 1 

6 addresses the -- I guess mostly "in abeyance" 

7 findings. And I guess there were a couple 

8 that were still in progress.

9 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Just hang on 

10 one second.

11 Okay. This is Steve Ostrow.

12 We had originally -- hang on.

13 Okay. This OTIB-54 was originally 

14 issued in 2007. 2008 SC&A -- March 2008, SC&A 

15 did a review and made 26 comments. Of the 26 

16 original comments, 10 -- there's a subsequent 

17 Work Group meeting on January 5th, 2011. And 

18 right now there -- of the original 26 

19 comments, 10 have been closed. Seven are 

20 stayed, and nine are in progress. 

21 NIOSH issued Rev 1 of the OTIB on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

258 1 June 13th, 2013, just a month ago. And SC&A 

2 was told not to do a complete review of it, 

3 but to do a -- just a quick look to see if any 

4 of the items could be dealt with at this 

5 point. 

6 So we did do a quick look, and 

7 primarily at the end of the items, first I'll 

8 note that the revision of the OTIB was a 

9 complete revision. And NIOSH felt that the 

10 revision log at the beginning of the 

11 procedure, they basically rewrote the whole 

12 thing, read -- they created new models. And 

13 have new tables and new results.

14 We haven't reviewed any of that at 

15 this point, but we looked at the "in abeyance" 

16 ones, which are comments number 1, 8, 11, 12, 

17 13, 20 and 22. And our feeling of that was 

18 that the -- since the OTIB underwent the 

19 complete rewrite from Rev 0 to Rev 1, most of 

20 our -- in fact, I think all of our original 

21 "in abeyance" comments are now moot. They no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

259 1 longer apply. We made comments, but they 

2 don't apply to the new revision.

3 So that basically summarizes what 

4 we did in just a couple of days' time.

5 CHAIR MUNN: So am I interpreting 

6 correctly that your -- it appears from your 

7 current position that the findings are, as you 

8 said, moot, due to the new version of the 

9 OTIB?

10 DR. OSTROW: Yeah, NIOSH 

11 fundamentally rewrote the OTIB. They didn't 

12 rewrite the English, but they actually changed 

13 the model, did new computer work, et cetera. 

14 And we feel -- as discussed with John Mauro 

15 who also looked at it, at this point, that 

16 SC&A really has to do a relook at the Rev 1 

17 OTIB and make new comments. Go through it 

18 again.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So I'm -- if 

20 I'm interpreting again, correctly, then we're 

21 -- we anticipate that these probably will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

260 1 close automatically. But SC&A is taking a 

2 look to make sure that's the case, is that 

3 correct? No? I'm hearing something wrong?

4 DR. OSTROW: We want to actually 

5 re-review the --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you're re7 reviewing it.

8 DR. OSTROW: -- OTIB.

9 MR. STIVER: I think the issue 

10 here is -- Stiver -- that we would like to re11 review the revision, but we haven't been 

12 tasked to do that at this point.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

14 MR. STIVER: But for the findings 

15 that were in abeyance that Steve looked at, 

16 they're essentially closed. They're no longer 

17 relevant.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 DR. OSTROW: They're not relevant 

20 anymore.

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. And we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

261 1 are going to close these, or are we going to 

2 hold this in abeyance until you --

3 MR. KATZ: Close them. They're 

4 not --

5 CHAIR MUNN: They're done. And 

6 the only remaining question then is, are you 

7 going to be given a request to review the new 

8 revision? Is that --

9 MR. STIVER: That is correct, yes.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Thank 

11 you.

12 Steve, can we close the 

13 outstanding finding then?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, okay. I just 

15 had a question, I was looking at the -- Steve 

16 talked about the "in abeyance" findings being 

17 moot. The question comes, there were a number 

18 of "in progress" findings. Are they also 

19 considered to be moot, and should we close 

20 them as well?

21 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

262 1 We didn't look into that at this 

2 point.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: So what we're --

4 DR. OSTROW: Because they require 

5 -- the in-progress ones require us to do by 

6 review of the Rev 1.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, Wanda, I 

8 would suggest we close the "in abeyance" ones 

9 since they apparently are moot anyway. And 

10 then the rest of them which are in progress 

11 can be consumed by whatever we decide to do, 

12 whether to continue the review or to review 

13 the revision.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we have quite a 

15 number still. If I am reading what I think 

16 I'm reading on my screen, we have a number of 

17 the 26 that are still in progress. Which --

18 DR. OSTROW: Yeah, we have nine 

19 that are in progress, seven that are in 

20 abeyance, ten that have been closed already.

21 But the point is, though, in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

263 1 addition to looking at the in-progress ones, 

2 since NIOSH went ahead and changed the model 

3 for the better, we assume, and did new 

4 computer runs, we -- in looking at the 

5 Revision 1, we may find that a number of the 

6 in-progress ones no longer apply, because 

7 they're not using that model anymore. That we 

8 originally commented on.

9 In addition, when they find 

10 additional items to comment on, since there's 

11 new material.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right, thank you, 

13 Steve. 

14 Just at random, I went down to 

15 select the last of those findings, finding 26,

16 and I see that it reads, to this reader, 

17 almost as though it falls in the same category 

18 as others, as the "in abeyance" group that you 

19 were looking at. It still looks like the 

20 revision is going to cover it. So --

21 DR. OSTROW: It's possible.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

264 1 CHAIR MUNN: I guess the question 

2 is, are we -- do we as a Subcommittee need to 

3 look at each of these "in progress" findings 

4 to see where we are with them? Because since 

5 they're not covered under the review that's 

6 taken place so far, if we don't check them --

7 I'm unsure of even who has the action with 

8 respect to each of those findings.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

10 Marschke.

11 I guess if -- I think if I'm 

12 hearing Steve Ostrow correctly, what we would 

13 do is, if you give us the green light to go 

14 ahead and do a thorough review of Revision 1, 

15 we would probably include as part of that 

16 thorough revision of -- review of Revision 1, 

17 we would include a recommendation as to the 

18 findings that are currently in progress. But 

19 and in all likeliness, like you just pointed 

20 out, Wanda, the -- we would probably find that 

21 a number of them are also moot and could be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

265 1 closed. But we really haven't gone through 

2 that exercise at this point in time.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So the only thing I'm 

4 hearing from SC&A is that, absent authority to 

5 review the new revision, we don't have a clear 

6 path forward with respect to our in-progress 

7 findings?

8 DR. OSTROW: That's correct.

9 DR. MAURO: This is John.

10 Would it be fair to say if, for 

11 some reason, NIOSH said, well, we're replacing 

12 the old one with the new one, with a different 

13 number, let's say write out 54, let's say they 

14 withdrew 54 and added a new number, what would 

15 we do? I mean, in effect that's --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: We would do the 

17 same thing, John.

18 DR. MAURO: We'd do the same 

19 thing. Okay.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically they've 

21 done that before. They've replaced -- like on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

266 1 OTIB-37, they replaced the OTIB, not with a 

2 new OTIB but with a Site Profile, as a part of 

3 the Site Profile.

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, I get you.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: So I mean, we've 

6 always interpreted our charge to follow the 

7 finding wherever it may go.

8 DR. MAURO: All right.

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right, thank you.

10 What's the feeling of the 

11 Subcommittee Members with respect to 

12 requesting SC&A to review the current revision 

13 of OTIB-54?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that was 

15 one simple -- of the ones "in abeyance" --

16 CHAIR MUNN: You're breaking up 

17 again, Paul. We're not hearing you.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, let me try 

19 again. Are you hearing me now?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I am.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I think as 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

267 1 a first step, why don't we just go ahead and 

2 close the ones that were in abeyance. They've 

3 already looked at them, they agree that 

4 they're all moot, let's get them out of the 

5 way. They haven't looked at the in-progress 

6 ones, and that has to be done as part of an 

7 ongoing review if we want to do that as a 

8 second step. I'd just like to see the other 

9 ones moved out of the way.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I don't think 

11 we have any problem closing the "in abeyance" 

12 ones. But the question that we have posed 

13 before us right now is, are we authorizing 

14 SC&A to proceed with the review of the new 

15 revision?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Josie says yes.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, I think 

19 that's appropriate.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Without 

21 any comment to the contrary, we will request 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

268 1 SC&A to proceed with that review. And please 

2 do keep in mind that we would like you to 

3 specifically look at the findings that are 

4 still showing on our reports as "in progress" 

5 to assure yourselves that the new revision is 

6 adequate to address them.

7 DR. OSTROW: Yes. And we'll 

8 address the old -- the existing old comments 

9 that we have now.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Then this will 

11 carry forward with SC&A responses anticipated.

12 The item that we've been looking 

13 at for quite a while is where did the IG-003 

14 Rev 1, how did that get on our BRS? And I 

15 have done a considerable amount of looking to 

16 try to identify in previous transcripts where 

17 this might have come from. And in view of the 

18 fact that I don't see any evidence of an SC&A 

19 review where any findings would have appeared. 

20 So I'm not sure exactly -- I'm wondering if it 

21 might have been a typographical error in my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

269 1 transposition of some of the old, old 

2 activities from five years ago. Nothing else 

3 seems to make sense.

4 I've been -- bottom line, I've 

5 been unsuccessful in identifying how we came 

6 to begin to carry that on our BRS. And if 

7 anyone has any light to shine on that, I would 

8 be delighted to hear it.

9 I have never seen any indication 

10 of findings, and so that being the case, it is 

11 my expectation that we will remove that item 

12 from the BRS. I don't see any basis for 

13 carrying it.

14 Any comment?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: One, I'm just --

16 it's just kind of -- does this fall into the 

17 same category we kind of talked about this 

18 morning, when Kathy brought up how do the --

19 how do the documents that are in the BRS get 

20 in the BRS?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, that's one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

270 1 of the things. But you see, we've been 

2 carrying this since before the BRS was 

3 established. We had this on our carrying list 

4 as a placeholder.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: And I'm very fearful 

7 that I just simply made a typo when I was in 

8 the process of putting together some of the 

9 early lists that we used for the BRS 

10 groundwork.

11 So since I can't find any 

12 indication of any findings from you folks, 

13 then --

14 DR. MAURO: This is John.

15 Boy, I've got to tell you, 

16 reaching back now, and I seem to remember 003 

17 being something that was maybe asked for. And 

18 we then went back and said, there is no reason 

19 for us to review it. And I haven't seen it on 

20 a list. It may turn out that this is one that 

21 we were asked to review, and once we started 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

271 1 our review, we realized it's not something 

2 that we should be reviewing.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I think that's 

4 possibly the case. Because --

5 MR. KATZ: It is.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, now, Ted says 

7 that is the case. Because I could find no 

8 indication of any findings that would give us 

9 a reason to continue to carry this on the BRS.

10 So if I may request that we remove 

11 IG-003. I would appreciate it. I have done, 

12 I think, a fairly thorough search of any --

13 looked for any findings. Thanks.

14 We have surprisingly covered the 

15 information on the agenda. I had indicated 

16 that there was a request from SC&A with regard 

17 to potential reviews that we might be looking 

18 at for them in the future. John, are you 

19 going to address that for us?

20 MR. STIVER: I'm going to have to 

21 defer to Steve on this. I've spent the last 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

272 1 three weeks immersed in the proposal, and I 

2 did not have time to make any substantive 

3 reviews of the basis documents. 

4 So Steve put together a list of 

5 prospective documents that he thought SC&A 

6 might review and might benefit from a review, 

7 but as is usually the case, what we'd like to 

8 do is kind of a high-level pre-review to begin 

9 with just to see if it really merits a full 

10 review. That would be the first step that 

11 we'd want to take.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. That was 

13 on your CDC mail on Tuesday, I guess. Anyhow, 

14 the Subcommittee Members should have a copy of 

15 it, if you want to pull it up. And Steve, 

16 would you like to go through it for us?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Before I do 

18 that, I do want to point out one thing. BRS 

19 has decided to work with us now, and if you 

20 wanted to go back to 55-04, OTIB-55, finding 4 

21 and see that little statement that I added 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

273 1 basically saying "SC&A has confirmed that NCRP 

2 20, table 2 provides the RBE of three 

3 different thermal neutrons and recommends the 

4 status of this item be changed to in abeyance 

5 until such time as NIOSH modifies TIB-55, 

6 table 3-1."

7 So that was just to finish up that 

8 little piece of outstanding thing there, when 

9 we couldn't get the BRS to work.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Steve. And 

11 thank you for getting it up on the screen. 

12 That certainly is reasonable to me. Josie?

13 MEMBER BEACH: I'm fine with that.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Is that acceptable, 

15 Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. And if 

18 you will make that change to "abeyance" then 

19 we would appreciate it. Thanks, Steve. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I will do that.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

274 1 MR. MARSCHKE: I put up on the 

2 screen now, I guess this is the attachment 

3 from my email. I notice that the formatting 

4 is not very well, I don't know what's going on 

5 with the formatting here. I can't even see --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it looks like 

7 everything else on my screen. So we'll read 

8 through it if you will.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I can't even 

10 see what --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Two, It looks like. 

12 Well, there's a report 2.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: DCAS report 4, yeah, 

14 I don't know what's going on. Hang on just a 

15 sec.

16 Well, it's not really on the 

17 original email, that's what's on your little 

18 screen. I have this whole email, it's 

19 supposed to look like that. It's all --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Over-printing.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- over-printing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

275 1 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically it's a 

3 DCAS report 4, and we thought that this was a 

4 potential candidate. It's chronic lymphoma, 

5 leukemia, those conversion factors. What I 

6 think is one -- NIOSH has developed some of 

7 those conversion factors for lymphoma, 

8 leukemia, CLL. And that is a very technical 

9 one. It's a potential, it probably should be 

10 reviewed. 

11 I guess the problem we see, as we 

12 see it is that, to do a full review on that 

13 would probably take beyond the end of the 

14 contract. So but we could do a pre-review on 

15 it and look at it. But that's what the first 

16 one was.

17 DR. MAURO: Steve, this is John.

18 I don't know if Jim, is he there 

19 with you folks in the room?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, he is.

21 DR. MAURO: This was a major 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

276 1 undertaking by NIOSH. They reported on it, if 

2 you recall, during the full Board meeting --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: -- where I believe 

5 they actually finished the work then had a 

6 review done by six individual really world 

7 class, internationally recognized scientists, 

8 on how they came to this particular problem, 

9 and how they reconstructed those in to the 

10 complex set of organs that would be embraced 

11 by chronic lymphocytic leukemia. And as a 

12 result, this would be one of those big ones.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah.

14 DR. MAURO: And actually, it might 

15 transcend again largely into the medical 

16 field. It could be that -- I know it's all in 

17 discussions, the Science Group, on matters. So 

18 just keep in mind that we're talking about a 

19 very unusual, unique and major new addition by 

20 NIOSH that took quite some time to do.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: That's what we just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

277 1 said, yeah.

2 I mean, it is a document that is 

3 out there, it's very technical in nature. It's 

4 -- you know, I don't know. You say it's been 

5 reviewed by outside peers. But whether the 

6 Board wants their contractors also to do a 

7 review on it, but it's probably not something 

8 -- you know, it's not something we would 

9 probably want to -- you know, we have to keep 

10 in mind that we have a limited timeframe, I 

11 guess, at this point, with the contract coming 

12 to an end at the end of the year, I guess, is 

13 my understanding.

14 DR. NETON: I might want to 

15 correct -- this is Jim. I might want to 

16 correct something.

17 The concept and the methodology 

18 that we adopted was certainly reviewed by a 

19 bunch of our -- a series of -- a number of

20 peer scientific experts. But I think -- I 

21 don't have my computer, but report 4 is really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

278 1 sort of the technical implementation of those 

2 concepts. You know, it's to take the 

3 calculation and mechanize it, essentially, and 

4 how you actually do this in principle based on 

5 the concepts that we vetted with the 

6 scientific experts.

7 And you're right, it was a 

8 tremendous amount of work, and it would be --

9 it would take some time to review how we 

10 approached that.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the initial 

12 reaction to the information is that this 

13 particular report is of a quality and of a 

14 magnitude that that type of authorization 

15 would need to come from the Board rather than 

16 from this Subcommittee. That's just my first 

17 blush reaction.

18 Paul, what do you think? Do you 

19 have a thought?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, first 

21 of all, I don't think we want to estimate --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

279 1 or review the science of it.

2 So, as Jim suggested, the 

3 implementation part of it could be part of 

4 what is -- I guess is what's in this 

5 particular document, is that correct?

6 DR. NETON: I believe that's the 

7 case, although I have not looked at this most 

8 recently. I know that we were writing it, I 

9 don't recall -- Stu's bringing it up so I can 

10 take a look at it. My computer is blocked. 

11 It's getting there, I think.

12 MR. KATZ: Well, while they're 

13 looking this up, Paul, can you hear me? I 

14 think this is working.

15 I mean, generally our procedure 

16 is, we've tasked Procedures anew at the Board 

17 level and not at the Subcommittee level. So 

18 the Subcommittee -- I mean, the Board has 

19 sometimes said, for example, take this set of 

20 PERs and decide which ones to do, for example. 

21 They've done that. But I don't think we've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

280 1 done a lot of original, you know, de novo 

2 tasking of procedure reviews at the 

3 Subcommittee level.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: So I'm a little 

6 concerned about sort of taking over that 

7 function without the Board's authorizing the 

8 Subcommittee to do so.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Regardless of the 

10 content of this particular report, which I 

11 think everyone who's been involved --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think maybe what 

13 we've done in the past is bring to the Board 

14 our recommendations from the list or something 

15 like that.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is what 

17 we've done. Yes.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Rather than task 

19 it outright. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I don't think 

21 that -- I've never felt -- yeah, I think so, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

281 1 too.

2 MR. STIVER: This is John.

3 So this would be something that 

4 would be tasked at the earliest in the Denver 

5 Board meeting or the teleconference 

6 beforehand? Yeah, so it would be September?

7 CHAIR MUNN: It would --

8 MR. STIVER: So we have to be 

9 mindful that we'll have a task which would 

10 have to be complete within three months?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: So Wanda, what I'm 

13 wondering, because I haven't had a chance to

14 absorb this, I think I just got this a day or 

15 two ago.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you did.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I'm wondering 

18 if we could have a chance to go through it and 

19 then feedback to you sort of our priorities. 

20 And then we could probably do this by email

21 even, between the three of us or the four Work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

282 1 Group Members, and compile a list of the ones 

2 that we think are the ones that should be 

3 looked at provisionally. And then the Board 

4 can take action maybe at the phone call 

5 meeting.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

7 probably true. This is not a long list that 

8 SC&A has provided for us, and I think that 

9 perhaps I might schedule --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are they all 

11 doable or just the list from -- I don't have a 

12 feel for it.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, they -- there's 

14 quite a gamut. But there's also very 

15 technical documents here that are being 

16 suggested. And certainly a great deal to do 

17 with -- there's a suggestion for OTIB-82, 

18 which is dose reconstruction for chronic --

19 that's not what I wanted to see. That's what 

20 we were just talking about.

21 But yes, they are highly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

283 1 technical, and perhaps -- I will suggest that 

2 what I will do is make sure that we've cleaned 

3 this format up a little bit so that you can 

4 read it when you download it from your email. 

5 And I will contact the Subcommittee Members 

6 with -- we will transmit this cleaned-up list 

7 to you when SC&A provides that to us. And I 

8 can get your comments by email as to whether 

9 or not you think each of these individually 

10 should be presented to the Board as 

11 possibilities for future work.

12 If that's amenable -- is that okay 

13 with you, Paul?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'm 

15 wondering, aside from the first one which was 

16 suggested, that would be a really extensive 

17 effort. Are the others doable within the 

18 existing contract timeframe, if they were all 

19 passed?

20 MR. STIVER: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

21 John Stiver.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

284 1 I think we would need to do a 

2 cursory kind of very high-level pre-review of 

3 them to see if we could get them done in three 

4 months. And then we'll have a revised list. 

5 Obviously, the first, the really big on here 

6 is going to be off that list. But then we'll 

7 submit that to Wanda who can then distribute 

8 that among the Subcommittee Members.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think that 

10 would be appropriate.

11 We have others that look 

12 technical, but not that -- not that involved. 

13 There's some internal dosimetry data, and 

14 there's dissolution models for insoluble 

15 plutonium. It's one of those that was 

16 requested.

17 So yes, John, if you will clean 

18 this up so that we have a revised list, then I 

19 will circulate it. That okay with you, Josie?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, that was 

21 going to be my suggestion as well.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

285 1 CHAIR MUNN: And we'll take 

2 opinion of the Members of the Subcommittee as 

3 an action to present -- suggest that we 

4 present this to the Board at -- during the

5 teleconference meeting.

6 MEMBER BEACH: And how many are we 

7 looking at, Wanda? Just two? Are we decided? 

8 Or more?

9 CHAIR MUNN: There are about four.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Four.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Four, five on this 

12 list.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I think there's 

14 six.

15 MR. STIVER: Yeah, there are six, 

16 but we're going to have to review them for the 

17 time attention.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, they'll clean 

19 them up. So good.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I apologize about 

21 that, Wanda. It looked okay when I sent it, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

286 1 but then it didn't look so good when I 

2 received it.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there's 

4 something that happens when it comes through 

5 my computer, regardless of source, that seems 

6 to turn it to mush half the time.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Steve, on that 

8 Word file, if you can try highlighting like 

9 the top two rows, it will only highlight the 

10 overwritten part, and then cut that and paste 

11 it down below. I think you'll be able to read 

12 it.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, thank you.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Our next 

15 meeting, we need to take a look at when we're

16 going to see this next -- if you have 

17 calendars, given what we've just heard in 

18 terms of what's on the plates already, it 

19 seems unlikely to me that we're going to have 

20 a great deal of opportunity to pursue 

21 outstanding issues prior to the September 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

287 1 Board meeting. Although -- yeah, I know. I 

2 know. 

3 So October is -- how is the first 

4 full week of November for our next meeting? 

5 Say something like Thursday the 7th?

6 MR. KATZ: That's clear on my 

7 schedule. I don't have any -- there are no 

8 holidays then.

9 CHAIR MUNN: No, not that week. 

10 It's election day that week, but no holidays.

11 MR. KATZ: So November 7. How 

12 does that work for you, Paul?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: That will work for 

14 me.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

16 MEMBER BEACH: That's okay for me.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, Josie. And we'll 

18 let Dr. Lemen know that.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, very good. 

20 MR. KATZ: Is that good for NIOSH?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Right now it looks 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

288 1 okay.

2 MR. KATZ: And SC&A, that's good?

3 MR. STIVER: As far as I can see 

4 into the future, that's --

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. November 7 it 

6 is, then. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll 

8 send you the details with respect to that 

9 meeting.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And after we've 

12 talked with Dr. Lemen. 

13 Does anyone else have anything for 

14 the good of the order?

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIR MUNN: Any suggestions, 

17 complaints?

18 (No response.)

19 CHAIR MUNN: Openings for the 

20 Hallelujah Chorus?

21 (No response.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

289 1 CHAIR MUNN: If not then we stand 

2 adjourned. Thank you all very much. This is 

3 not easy for me, and I know it's not easy for 

4 a lot of you as well. Thank you for sticking 

5 with us and we're going to make this work one 

6 way or the other.

7 Thanks so much. Bye-bye.

8 (The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 

9 p.m.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19