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

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

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

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

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

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

APRIL 25, 2013

+ + + + +

 The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference, at 10:30 a.m., Wanda I. Munn, 

Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT: 2

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

MIKE KUBIAK, ORAU

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

MUTTI SHARFI, ORAU

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, 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

3

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

WELCOME: 

Ted Katz, D.F.O. ..................... 6 

ROLL CALL: ................................. 6 

BRS STATUS: 

Stuart Hinnefeld, DCAS .............. 12

PER-11 & 30 FOLLOW-UP: 

John Stiver, SC&A ................... 26

PER-14 CASE REVIEW: 

Kathy Behling, SC&A .............. 36/47

 Finding 1: ........................ 55

 Finding 2: ........................ 56

 Finding 3 (Savannah River): ....... 58

 Finding 4 (X-10): ................. 61

 Finding 5 (Portsmouth): ........... 64

 Finding 6 (Los Alamos): ........... 65

 Finding 7: ........................ 73

 Finding 8: ........................ 74

 Finding 9: ........................ 76

 Finding 10 (Hanford) .............. 76

 Finding 11: ....................... 78

 Finding 12: ....................... 79

 Finding 13 (Kansas City): ......... 79

 Finding 14: ....................... 80

 Finding 15 (Weldon Spring): ....... 80

Questions/Discussion: ............... 83

PER-17 CASE REVIEW: 

Kathy Behling, SC&A ................. 93

Questions/Discussion: .............. 98

PROC-44 RESPONSE TO FINDINGS: 

Mike Kubiak, ORAU .................. 114

PER-20 STATUS UPDATE: 

Kathy Behling, SC&A ................ 134

PER-11 STATUS UPDATE: 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

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

Kathy Behling, SC&A ................ 135
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

PER-11 UPDATE (Continued): 

 Section 2.2: ..................... 139

 Section 3: ....................... 140

 Section 4: ....................... 143

 Section 4.2: ..................... 147

DRAFT REVIEW OF RPRT-0053: 

Stephen Marschke, SC&A ......... 154/164

Harry Chmelynski, SC&A ............. 157

Questions/Discussion: .............. 167

PROC STATUS: 

Stephen Marschke, SC&A

 PROC-31: ......................... 188

 PROC-61: ......................... 193

OTIB STATUS: 

Stephen Marschke, SC&A

 OTIB-20: ......................... 193

 OTIB-5: .......................... 194

HANFORD PERs: ............................ 194

OTIB-55 RESPONSES: 

Matthew Smith, ORAU

 Finding 1: ....................... 198

 Finding 2: ....................... 203

 Finding 3: ....................... 215

 Finding 4: ....................... 222

PER STATUS REPORTS: 

John Stiver, SC&A

 PER-33 & 25: ..................... 227

 PER-38: .......................... 227

 PER-37: .......................... 228

OTIB RESPONSES: 

Lori Marion-Moss, DCAS

 OTIB-37: ......................... 233

 OTIB-54: ......................... 237

IG-003 STATUS: 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

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

Wanda Munn, Chair, ................. 237
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

PER-27 STATUS: 

Wanda Munn, Chair .................. 237

ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL: 

Wanda Munn, Chair .................. 237

ADJOURN: 

Wanda Munn, Chair .................. 252
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 8 1 

2 10:31 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let's get 

4 started. This is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health. This is the 

6 Procedures Review Subcommittee. Welcome, 

7 everybody, and let's do roll call, beginning 

8 with the Board Members.

9 And conflict of interest. We have 

10 Hanford; two Members, Josie and Wanda, are 

11 conflicted at Hanford. We are going to do a 

12 transfer related to PER on Hanford. But 

13 otherwise, I don't -- we don't have any 

14 conflict issues with our Members, so we don't 

15 need to address those specifically at all.

16 So let's go with Board Members.

17 (Roll call.) 

18 MR. KATZ: Everyone, the agenda for 

19 the meeting is posted on the NIOSH website 

20 under the meetings page for today's date.

21 And, Wanda, it's your agenda.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 9 1 

2 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Wanda, for 

3 one second. This is Kathy Behling and I 

4 apologize, but I was trying to log on to Live 

5 Meeting and I must be doing something wrong 

6 here, because what I'm looking at on my screen 

7 it says that this is the TBD-6000 Live Meeting 

8 Practice. And I'm not sure what I'm doing 

9 wrong here.

10 MR. KATZ: So, Kathy, you must be -

11 - you have the wrong invite, I think, if you 

12 are getting that message.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

14 MR. KATZ: So you should have a 

15 calendar invite for this meeting today. And 

16 if you -- I don't think you should get that 

17 response if you are using that.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It wasn't sent until 

19 this morning, Kathy.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

It has been resent this morning, Wanda. 10 1 

2 CHAIR MUNN: It was not received 

3 here. If it wasn't received here, it may not

4 have gone other places as well.

5 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Can someone 

6 resend that to me?

7 MS. BURGOS: This is Zaida. I will 

8 send it.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. I'm 

11 sorry.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, that's all right. 

13 Okay. So carry on, Wanda.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We are 

15 happy with roll call now. We are all squared 

16 away.

17 The first item on our agenda is our 

18 review of what has transpired with the BRS 

19 since our last meeting. When we left that, 

20 there was going to be some internal 

21 discussions with NIOSH as to how we were going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to be able to handle, especially, the 11 1 

2 overarching issues and the differing kind of 

3 information that we were going to be providing 

4 for the system.

5 It did differ in a number of ways 

6 from what we do with our normal documentation. 

7 And I'm hoping that Stu and the folks from 

8 NIOSH have some report from us -- for us on 

9 that particular issue. Stu?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

11 I'll provide what I can here. We did have a 

12 discussion about what to do here and we 

13 decided that the current method where we 

14 listed them as an overarching issue, sort of 

15 as a document-type, is probably the easiest 

16 way to continue to proceed.

17 And so what we are trying to do now 

18 is find the source for the particular issues, 

19 the particular overarching issue and then sort 

20 of paraphrase a finding from that source.

21 For instance, a couple of items 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

the overarching list; one is Super S 12 1 

2 plutonium.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Another one is 

5 incomplete badge wearing, you know. You know, 

6 what happens when somebody says they didn't 

7 wear their badge all the time or they -- you 

8 know, to avoid bumping into a limit or 

9 something.

10 And I did find out, I don't know if 

11 it's the actual origin, but I found an early 

12 document that raised those two issues and that 

13 was the SC&A review of the Rocky Flats Site 

14 Profile, which goes back to 2005, I think.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Mm-hmm.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: So that seemed --

17 you know, that is pretty early, so that seems 

18 like a pretty good place to identify that. 

19 And then what I have to do then is sort of 

20 paraphrase the finding, make sure I refer to 

21 the page and section, so that people can find 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the write-up as the finding entry, because we 13 1 

2 don't -- you know, for most of our procedures, 

3 review is based on a document where a document 

4 is reviewed and then you have several findings 

5 tagged onto that document.

6 In this case, what we have is sort 

7 of a document called "Super S Plutonium." You 

8 know, because it went in in that fashion. And 

9 so what we are doing now is trying to find 

10 those. So I found those two origins. Two of 

11 the overarching issues already before last 

12 meeting had an origin in there. They were 

13 taken off of other procedure findings that had 

14 already been entered into the procedure 

15 documents.

16 And I'm pretty confident I'll be 

17 able to do this once we get to the point where 

18 the BRS will let me add a finding. I have 

19 tried to do that, I guess, either Monday or 

20 last week and it didn't work. PST worked on 

21 it in the meantime, had me try it 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

morning, I still get a message about issue 14 1 

2 with adding information when I try to add a 

3 finding.

4 So you know, whether I'm doing 

5 something wrong or whether there is an issue 

6 with the system, we are still working it out. 

7 That's where we intend to be.

8 And then once we put those in, for 

9 instance, for Super S plutonium, we think 

10 that's pretty much resolved by issuance of an 

11 OTIB. I don't remember the number. And which 

12 that OTIB itself has now been reviewed and I 

13 think we are through that.

14 So I think we can kind of -- once 

15 we get the finding in there, we will put in 

16 our conversation, you know, probably just one 

17 entry box about what has been done.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And complete it and 

20 then, at some point, presumably the 

21 Subcommittee would be able to come through 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

close, at least, that one anyway. And I think 15 1 

2 more of them.

3 CHAIR MUNN: My memory is that the 

4 hot particle issue came from several different 

5 site reviews.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I did want to talk 

7 about the hot particle issue a little bit, 

8 because, in my view, there are kind of two 

9 things we have talked about as hot particles. 

10 There is the hot particle issue which has come 

11 up at Hanford, and I think it came up maybe in 

12 2010 or somewhere around there with respect to 

13 Hanford, which is a period of time, I guess 

14 during the Green Runs, where there was a 

15 pretty good potential for a hot particle 

16 issue.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Mm-hmm.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And then the other 

19 time we have talked about something that we 

20 called a hot particle, which really isn't in 

21 my view a hot particle, which is the uranium, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

potentially for uranium skin contamination, 16 1 

2 unidentified uranium skin contamination at 

3 some of the uranium processing plants, like 

4 the gaseous diffusion plants or Fernald, for 

5 instance, where there were rules -- there was 

6 not any contamination monitoring. There were 

7 rules about showering at the end of the day 

8 and things like that. But there could, you 

9 know logically, have been during the day some 

10 skin contamination occurring there, because 

11 there wasn't the attention paid to avoid skin 

12 contamination at uranium plants until much, 

13 much later.

14 So that's the second. It's kind of 

15 the second thing. To me, the two issues are 

16 different on several respects. And so there 

17 might be another one we may need to -- and I'm 

18 not real clear on what this hot particle issue 

19 on the overarching issues was supposed to 

20 capture.

21 Was that supposed to capture 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

Hanford situation or was it supposed to 17 1 

2 capture the uranium plant situation?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and that there 

4 is another aspect of that question, too, that 

5 I don't think we have actually addressed and 

6 that is whether we need to have multiple 

7 findings factored in. We indicated that we 

8 were aware that, simply by definition, being 

9 an overarching issue, we were likely to have 

10 this show up in more than one site review.

11 And whether we were going to 

12 attempt to regard all the places where it had 

13 been identified or whether we were going to 

14 simply accept the earliest one that we could 

15 find and acknowledge as being the origin is 

16 not, I think, something that was clearly 

17 defined at our last meeting.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think, as 

19 you mention that, you're right. We could just 

20 enter two findings under hot particle. One 

21 would be the Hanford situation and one would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

be the uranium situation, because nothing 18 1 

2 prevents us from putting two findings under 

3 any of these overarching issues.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Right. I guess it's a 

5 question that probably should be addressed 

6 here, so that it would save you a considerable 

7 amount of time if the decision were made that 

8 one finding would be adequate.

9 Paul and Josie, what are your 

10 thoughts on that?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

12 Keep in mind that part of all this is to 

13 assure that we are being consistent in how we 

14 treat these issues from site to site, within 

15 whatever -- there may be differences in some 

16 of the parameters, but we want to be able to 

17 identify not only where these occur, but the 

18 level of consistency, for example, in how we 

19 handle hot particles from one site to the 

20 other.

21 How we handle, let's say, oro-nasal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

breathing from one site to the other, so 19 1 

2 insofar as we populate this with information 

3 that will help us confirm the level of 

4 consistency, I think, that would be the 

5 important issue.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Paul. 

7 Josie?

8 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing I 

9 have is I agree that having it in the section 

10 that Jim was just talking about would make it 

11 easier to come back and find. But I do have a 

12 question.

13 Jim, you talked about going back 

14 and looking at earlier documents. Will you--

15 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, 

16 actually. Jim has the list.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay, I'm sorry.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu doing 

19 the report.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Stu, so will you go 

21 back and look for all earlier documents to try 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to populate that system? 20 1 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Now what I intended 

3 to do was find a document, an early document, 

4 where the finding came out, where the issue 

5 came up. And so from that then, I don't 

6 propose that we would search all early 

7 documents. I think we have some probably 

8 memory of where they are likely to be. And 

9 they probably came up primarily in one place.

10 I think that it was not my intent 

11 to search all early documents.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I was just 

13 going back to the consistency that Paul 

14 brought up.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand. I 

16 understood your comment once I started 

17 talking. And I think that it will be fairly 

18 clear, at least in the ones I'm thinking of, 

19 which ones they are to deal with, because I'm 

20 pretty sure, for instance, the indications 

21 that the badges may have been taken off 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

not worn all the time. Rocky Flats was not the 21 1 

2 only place we heard that. There are other 

3 places.

4 CHAIR MUNN: No. We heard a lot of 

5 that from NTS.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I think it 

7 has been addressed individually at several 

8 places. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: I think you are 

10 correct.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So we can probably 

12 do that as part of the conversation that we 

13 include under a finding if it's only going to 

14 be one finding. As I thought about this, if 

15 it's okay with the Subcommittee, I think the 

16 easiest thing for us to do with respect to the 

17 specific question I asked about hot particle 

18 items is to list two findings under the 

19 overarching issue of hot particles, one of 

20 which would be the Hanford situation. And one 

21 of which would be the uranium plant situation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 And then in the conversation under 22 1 

2 the uranium plant, we would describe if and 

3 how we are going to do anything about that or 

4 the various, you know, uranium sites, and kind 

5 of name the DOE sites and then there would be 

6 some -- may be some consideration for AWE 

7 sites that used uranium as well.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That sounds reasonable 

9 to me. My instinct is to go for the simplest 

10 solution, which is to identify an early 

11 incident of this type of overarching issue 

12 that we are addressing. And then, as Stu has 

13 suggested, in the text itself perhaps indicate 

14 when there is knowledge of more than one site 

15 where this might have occurred.

16 But I certainly take your point 

17 well, Paul, but it seems to me that getting to 

18 the information to verify how it was treated

19 in any given case is adequate for bolstering 

20 our desire for equity. But I could be 

21 persuaded otherwise. That's just looking 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

the simplest solution. 23 1 

2 Paul, do you feel that we really 

3 should try to track down each incident or 

4 should we be -- should it be adequate for us 

5 to have this resource available for us to 

6 identify how the issue was addressed 

7 originally?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think some 

9 of these will pop up going forward actually. 

10 SC&A runs across this from time to time and I 

11 think they typically also look at how things 

12 were treated in the past. And maybe in a 

13 sense this also helps them going forward to 

14 say okay, what was done the last time we dealt 

15 with this particular issue.

16 John Stiver, John Mauro, may want 

17 to comment on that, but I think it's just a 

18 tool for helping us remember what was done in 

19 the past. Maybe we populate it as we go. I 

20 don't know.

21 DR. MAURO: I have a thought 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

this. This is John. Very often these kinds 24 1 

2 of questions come up during a DR review. It 

3 could be a Site Profile Review or procedure 

4 review, but they often come up during a DR 

5 review, at least in my case, with regard to 

6 uranium.

7 Now, the way I look at it is all we 

8 are is sort of -- we're sampling DRs. We are 

9 looking at it at about 1 percent. And when we 

10 identify something, like in my case, I could 

11 speak not to the Hanford, but to the uranium. 

12 Whenever I see that, it looks like there's a 

13 place where maybe we should have looked at 

14 uranium doses to the skin, on the face, for 

15 example. And I put that in as a finding.

16 Now, the reality is all that has to 

17 be done is once, because now it becomes an 

18 issue that needs to be addressed, whether --

19 in this case, it will be by a DR Committee. 

20 It could be kicked over to an overarching 

21 scientific issue, but it's in the system.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And I think that's all that is 25 1

2 important. I don't, I mean I, for one, see 

3 the need to track every single one of these 

4 because I could tell you when it comes to 

5 uranium, none of them have been calculated in 

6 a way where you give a localized dose.

7 I can't say that for sure, but even 

8 if it is, let's say it turns out some did and 

9 some didn't, when it eventually becomes a PER, 

10 it then becomes NIOSH's role to go run it down 

11 and say okay, in how many cases? Once it is 

12 decided yes, this is the protocol we should 

13 use for doing hot particle like the one that 

14 occurred at Hanford or yes, it is agreed here 

15 is the protocol we should use when we think 

16 perhaps the uranium dose for the face particle 

17 is an issue.

18 And that's a judgment that is made. 

19 Well, I'm just presuming that that would 

20 trigger a PER process where then NIOSH would 

21 have to go back and search in what cases 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

were done in the past that might need to be 26 1

2 looked at.

3 So, to me, the exercise of going 

4 back every time it is discussed and in what 

5 venue it was discussed seems to be something 

6 that might not be necessary.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I would agree. Do you 

8 have any thoughts, John Stiver?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, I tend to agree 

10 with John on this. I mean, we've got to look 

11 at it. I think Stu's approach of kind of 

12 looking at it as kind of an overarching 

13 problem common to, you know, whatever, however 

14 many sites there may be as more of an approach 

15 and then cannot, you know, take a look at that 

16 and see what the effects are.

17 And, you know, as John said, if it 

18 turns out that this is going to make a new 

19 exposure pathway that is going to result in 

20 increased doses, the PER process should be 

21 able to capture the number of 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

individual cases. And so there really would 27 1 

2 be no need to try to track every single 

3 individual case that might come up.

4 I like this proposal. It's a good 

5 idea.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Are we all on 

7 the same page or do we have a disagreement 

8 here? I think what I'm hearing is: identify 

9 the earliest one that's reasonable to try to 

10 identify and flesh out the information in the 

11 text as we go along. Is that what I'm 

12 hearing?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that's a 

14 good start. I'm okay with that. I'm fine 

15 with Stu's suggestion.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I'm 

18 okay with that as well.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Good. All right. 

20 Anything else we need to say about that? Any 

21 other issues that come to mind or, Stu, 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

there any concern on your part as to where we 28 1

2 are going with this?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We will be 

4 farther along once we figure out what is going 

5 on. I think I must be -- everybody can add 

6 findings on our site, but me, so it must be 

7 something I'm doing.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, my, well, not 

9 necessarily. Blame the system when you can.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 I would, except I have experienced 

12 my ability to use computers, so that's where 

13 the problem probably lies.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Stu. If we 

16 are finished with that one, let's move on to 

17 our next agenda item, which is a couple of PER 

18 follow-up items from NIOSH.

19 I believe that we had some 

20 communication shortly before the meeting 

21 indicating that we would like to substitute 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PER-31 for PER-11 and vice versa because of 29 1

2 the timing of the two. Apparently, we have 

3 completed the PER-11 reviews and 31 perhaps is 

4 not quite done yet. So let's take a look at a 

5 quick follow-up item status for PERs 31 and 

6 30.

7 Who is doing them?

8 MR. STIVER: Actually, I think what 

9 we are going to do is we had originally 

10 scheduled 31 and it turns out that there has 

11 been some thorny issues in resolving some 

12 details regarding thorium disequilibrium and 

13 so that one is not ready. We are probably 

14 going to be about two weeks out, but we were 

15 able to get PER-11 done.

16 And so what we wanted to do is 

17 rather than discuss PER-31 today, we will 

18 discuss PER-11.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. Is there 

20 anything on PER-30?

21 MR. STIVER: Excuse me? This right 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

here has some follow-on actions regarding the 30 1

2 universe of cases that was being developed 

3 that were identified for PER-11 and 30. And 

4 because we are discussing PER-11 today, Kathy 

5 is going to present that. It may be better to 

6 talk about this universe of claims during that 

7 discussion.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Whatever 

9 is best.

10 MR. STIVER: PER-30, this was the 

11 situation at the Savannah River Site. A TBD 

12 and TIB revision PER that Ron Buchanan is 

13 currently working on. An issue that came up 

14 was that there were 54 claims that were 

15 identified that could have been impacted by 

16 this PER.

17 And, you know, the question that 

18 often comes up is well of those, how many were 

19 actually impacted and have dose 

20 reconstructions redone, reworked and what 

21 would be the distribution of the PoCs within 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that, which then allows us to go in and 31 1

2 identify which cases we would like to select 

3 for review under Sub-task 4.

4 And I know that I saw that NIOSH 

5 had posted a couple of spreadsheets regarding 

6 the PER-11 and PER-30. Now, taking a look at 

7 that, Ron, have you had a chance to look at 

8 that spreadsheet that NIOSH had put up there 

9 yet?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron 

11 Buchanan. Yes, I looked at the spreadsheet 

12 and then I went back and did a query of my own 

13 and came up with similar numbers. I was just 

14 in the process of cross-referencing the two XL 

15 spreadsheets.

16 See, there are a few cases I came 

17 up with and they didn't and they came up with 

18 a few cases I didn't, so I'll have to go back 

19 and reconcile that. But at this point, I'm 

20 still evaluating the basis of PER-30 as far as 

21 content. And then the cases to address, 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

guess, in my initial report I'll put in what I 32 1

2 think would be a reasonable approach to go in.

3 And since there is 48 cases that 

4 would be subject to auditing, you know, that 

5 would be too many probably to do, I would 

6 select some criteria to look at, say, 10 of 

7 those and see if they look like cases that are 

8 good candidates and then see if they do or do 

9 not meet the criteria.

10 I believe that NIOSH came up with a 

11 final evaluation that none of them met the 

12 PER-30 requirements.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have a response 

14 from NIOSH?

15 MR. STIVER: Do we have a response 

16 from NIOSH? Maybe Scott could kind of 

17 elaborate on the selection process that you 

18 guys went through.

19 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's a 

20 NIOSH question, not me, sorry.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, 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

Ziemer. Which one are we talking about now, 33 1

2 11 or 30?

3 CHAIR MUNN: We are talking about 

4 30.

5 MR. STIVER: We are talking about 

6 30.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully.

8 MR. STIVER: The Savannah River 

9 Site.

10 CHAIR MUNN: And I'm assuming, 

11 since we have no findings, we probably have 

12 nothing on the --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, nothing new, 

14 yes.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is a PER 

16 that is currently under development.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

18 MR. STIVER: So this was just 

19 something that came up in our discussion about 

20 -- remember, there were several PERs that we 

21 had not started working on and at 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

meeting, I gave like a little summary 34 1

2 presentation of why we thought that -- you 

3 know, what the limitations might be in 

4 completing a full PER on those cases.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think we had 

6 thought we might be one step further along now 

7 than we seemed to be.

8 MR. STIVER: And this was really a 

9 question of: has the universe of cases been 

10 fully identified within that universe of the 

11 cases that could potentially have been 

12 reworked and that we would want to look at? 

13 So it's to the Sub-task 4 case selection.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And 5.

15 MR. STIVER: And we are kind of 

16 getting -- trying to get ahead of ourselves. 

17 We gained a little bit on that.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right. So the 

19 question really hasn't been formally posed to 

20 NIOSH yet.

21 MR. STIVER: Exactly. To put it 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

simpler terms, that's true. It just hasn't 35 1

2 been posed at this point.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That's 

4 good.

5 MR. STIVER: But we're trying to do 

6 that a little bit farther out in advance in 

7 hopes that -- so we don't have a long waiting 

8 period after we complete the Sub-task 3 review 

9 while we are waiting to do the case reviews. 

10 That has happened in the past.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. I'm 

12 gathering from the previous information, what 

13 was just said, that we will probably have --

14 we will definitely have PER-31 next time?

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think we are 

16 probably about two weeks from getting a draft 

17 review ready to go on that.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And probably will 

19 present something formally to NIOSH in the 

20 interim, so that perhaps NIOSH may have some 

21 response to PER-30 for us next time, maybe, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

right? 36 1

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

3 Lori. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm a little 

6 confused here. Exactly what is it that we 

7 need to respond to for PER-30? What are --

8 what is the Board looking for here?

9 CHAIR MUNN: If I understand it, 

10 SC&A has some questions with respect to 

11 whether or not the universe of potential 

12 claims has been adequately surveyed. Am I 

13 counting that correctly, John?

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. We got the 

15 spreadsheet. Out of 54 claims, there is 48 

16 identified for -- there was no return. And 

17 six identified they were not evaluated. And I 

18 was just hoping if you guys could kind of 

19 elaborate a little bit on the meaning of those 

20 different terms.

21 What did you actually find when 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

went in and looked at those? Because we were 37 1

2 really trying to identify, you know, of the 

3 54, which have been reworked that meet the 

4 four criteria under PER-30 that we could then 

5 possibly work into our Sub-task 4 case review?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Ted presented that 

7 question to you formally, yes. All right. 

8 MR. KATZ: This is Ted, Wanda. Can 

9 I make a suggestion for John and Lori with 

10 these? I understand what the issue is. And I 

11 know, John, SC&A -- you know, part of your 

12 process is to review whether, you know, all 

13 the cases that should have been reviewed under 

14 PER were reviewed under the PER, that's sort 

15 of an element of your review.

16 I would suggest, I think you can 

17 have a discussion with DCAS off-line on each 

18 of these PERs as you get into it, as Ron has, 

19 and you have questions about, you know, why he 

20 keeps coming up with a different potential 

21 universe of claims that might have -- should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have been reworked -- DCAS actually reworked.38 1

2 I think we can just go ahead and 

3 have a conversation with them to get clarity 

4 as to what they did, why, and then about your 

5 own thinking and then you can just cover it in 

6 your report accordingly.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Yes, that's 

8 going to be a better use.

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

10 to use, you know, Subcommittee time really to 

11 get this. You are welcome to just call them 

12 and pursue that question and then address it 

13 in your report.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay. So, Ron, I 

15 guess the best thing to do is just to work 

16 with Lori on getting this resolved as we get 

17 close to the Sub-task 4 part of the review.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I'll do that.

19 MR. STIVER: All right. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I'll probably still 

21 have that item on the draft agenda when I send 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

it out the next time, whenever that is. And 39 1

2 one of you can correct me if I'm wrong on its 

3 assignment.

4 The next item on our agenda is the 

5 PER case reviews for PER-14 and PER-17. I 

6 believe Kathy was going to do that for us?

7 MS. BEHLING: Correct.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Morning.

9 MS. BEHLING: Yes, good morning. 

10 This is Kathy. First of all, before we start 

11 this discussion, Wanda, I'm wondering if PER12 14 is the first Sub-task 4 review that we have 

13 done where we have actually had some findings? 

14 And I don't believe, at this point in time, we 

15 have a method of putting that information on 

16 the BRS, or has that been resolved?

17 I thought what we might want to 

18 talk about is how you are going to go about 

19 putting that information on the BRS, because 

20 we have separate findings for PER-14 review, 

21 which is construction trade worker, and now 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this is the case review portion Sub-task 4 of 40 1

2 our protocol.

3 CHAIR MUNN: You are right. We 

4 have not gone to that depth up to this point. 

5 And PER-14 is probably the ideal place to do 

6 that, given that kind of attention that PER-14 

7 has.

8 Has there been any discussion 

9 behind the scenes about how that might be 

10 done? Steve?

11 MR. SIEBERT: No, not as far as I 

12 know, Wanda. I was just assuming that they 

13 would tag them onto the end of the -- I guess 

14 right now there are six findings in PER-14 on 

15 the PER itself.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: I would just assume 

18 that you would tag the sub -- the Part 4 

19 findings on the audit, I guess, you know, just 

20 make them from Finding 7 and onwards.

21 CHAIR MUNN: I had thought 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

might be the case, as long as they are 41 1

2 identified.

3 MR. SIEBERT: And you, yes, can 

4 identify them in the text or something like 

5 that or maybe -- I don't even know. You know, 

6 I am not sure in the -- in how you set up the 

7 finding number.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Can we take a look at 

9 the findings, the active findings that we have 

10 right now?

11 MS. BEHLING: I believe that all of 

12 the findings for PER-14 should have been 

13 closed, but, you know, there will be 15 new 

14 findings for Sub-task 4. I didn't know if you 

15 wanted to have a separate document title that 

16 would say "PER-14 Sub-task 4" and then the 

17 numbering could reflect that this is Sub-task 

18 -- Finding 1-Sub-task 4 or something along 

19 those lines or if you just wanted to tag it 

20 onto the --

21 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, I would 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

tag it onto the existing PER box and then the 42 1

2 numbering scheme is flexible. I mean, you can 

3 put in whatever number you want. And if you 

4 want to put in PER-014-04-01 to indicate that 

5 it is, you know, a Sub-task 4, you can do that 

6 in the numbering scheme the way you number the 

7 findings.

8 CHAIR MUNN: My instinct would be 

9 to not do that because we get confused enough 

10 already with the different numbers between 

11 SC&A's numerics and our own, sometimes.

12 My suggestion from the point of 

13 view of an outside use, essentially, is to 

14 continue the numeration that has been started 

15 and is a part of the heading of that 

16 particular item, address it as being Type 4.

17 MR. SIEBERT: We could do that as 

18 well, Wanda. That's perfectly fine.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That seems logical to 

20 me. Other users who don't become involved in 

21 how we put this together, if you are 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

look for it, Paul and Josie, what's your 43 1

2 feeling with respect to what you would expect 

3 to see and where you would expect to see it?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

5 think as long as it's under the PER-14 or 

6 whatever the number would be for a particular 

7 situation, that's where you would want to look 

8 for it.

9 I think you do want to identify it 

10 as the Sub-task 4 in some way, but that could 

11 be done in either the title or something like 

12 that. In other words, right now, on this 

13 particular one, on 14, how many findings do we 

14 have, Steve?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Right now we have six 

16 findings. And Kathy just said that we had 15 

17 findings on the Sub-task 4. So, you know, the 

18 first Sub-task 4 one would then be, you know, 

19 Finding 8.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That would --

21 MR. SIEBERT: We would start 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

8. 44 1

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- be 8. Finding 

3 8.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I thought we only 

5 had seven? I thought we only had six. We 

6 have seven?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Maybe we have --

8 maybe you're right, Wanda.

9 CHAIR MUNN: So this would be 

10 Finding 7.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Then this would be 

12 Finding 7.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Correct?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, whatever it 

16 is, is there a way that we can go to the 

17 system and pull out the findings for Sub-task 

18 4s? Is that a sort possibility or is it not 

19 important that we be able to do that?

20 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think it's a 

21 possibility now, as I know 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

MR. MARSCHKE: Right now, I don't 45 1

2 think it's a possibility, Paul. Yes, I agree 

3 with Wanda. I don't think it is.

4 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I 

5 agree with Paul. I think it would be -- in 

6 the future a year from now, if I'm going to 

7 want to look at Sub-task 4, then I'm going to 

8 want to search for the PER-14 Sub-task 4. And 

9 I guess if it comes up and directs us to those 

10 findings, but in the search criteria that 

11 would be important.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, in the search 

13 criteria, you are going to go -- if you know 

14 you are in 14, that's why -- I mean, if you 

15 know you are PER-14, that's why I think it is 

16 important to put all the PER-14 stuff

17 together so you know that, you know, you have 

18 gotten everything in one spot, so when you are 

19 looking for PER-14 -- and then when you get to 

20 this screen here that I'm looking at now, if 

21 it is a Sub-task 4, it would be right 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

heading there, basically, where it says, you 46 1

2 know, PER-14-1, the deep dose assessment 

3 factor, we would say Sub-task 4 and then, you 

4 know --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Finding whatever.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: -- finding, yes, 

7 whatever. We would prefix this little heading 

8 here and you would have to just scroll down. 

9 There is no way to -- as I understand it and, 

10 Lori, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but as 

11 I understand it right now, there is no way to 

12 search on and pull up individual findings.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: You're correct, 

14 Steve. Right now, I agree with you. Due to 

15 search mechanism, if we keep all findings to a 

16 particular document in one location, we will 

17 be better off.

18 A user would just have to know

19 that, you know, they would need to read the 

20 title of each of the findings.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 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

a practical matter, the Sub-task 4 items are 47 1

2 always going to be tagged onto the end, I 

3 think, right?

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: So one would know 

6 that if you want a Sub-task 4 item, you would 

7 just go to that set of findings and look, 

8 scroll down until you get to those particular 

9 ones. So I would be all right just tagging 

10 them on and just to verify as Sub-task 4 

11 items.

12 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

13 guess my question then is: in our report 

14 currently our findings are numbered 1 through 

15 15. And so you are going to have -- unless we 

16 go back in and change our report to start our 

17 numbering with 8, we can do that, I was just 

18 wondering if we couldn't make these findings--

19 from Sub-task 4, findings 4-1 and then 4-2? 

20 Could we --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Wanda didn'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

want to do that, Kathy. 48 1

2 MS. BEHLING: Oh, I see. Okay. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: And so I mean, I 

4 would suggest that we -- you know, again like 

5 Paul said, we already know which ones are 

6 going to be fixed from the PER review. We 

7 either have six or, you know, however many 

8 findings we have. And then when you guys 

9 start doing your Sub-task 4 review, you pick 

10 up the numbering scheme from there in the 

11 future.

12 And for this one in PER-14, we can 

13 take care of it when the findings are entered, 

14 we can make a little note saying that, you 

15 know, Finding 7 is identified in the Sub-task 

16 4 report as Finding 1 or something like that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: But I would suggest 

19 that when SC&A in the future makes a Sub-task 

20 4 report, that they, you know, continue the 

21 numbering scheme from the review of the 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

itself. 49 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: And this is Ziemer. 

4 You could just indicate in the report itself 

5 that that's what you are doing, so that, you 

6 know, if you say, okay, we have 10 findings 

7 and the first one is finding number such and 

8 so, just indicate that it is a continuation of 

9 the previous set of findings--

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for that 

12 particular --

13 MS. BEHLING: And then my final 

14 question on this issue is: would you like us 

15 to reissue this report changing the finding 

16 numbers?

17 CHAIR MUNN: I personally would 

18 not. I think we can accommodate it with the 

19 entry that we make into our BRS.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: I think as long as 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

say something in the entry that we make, it 50 1

2 should be clear to anyone who picks it up.

3 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Kathy, if 

4 it's easy to do to renumber the report though, 

5 just to accommodate, then great. But by all 

6 means, don't hesitate to do that because I was 

7 just thinking down the road, it does get a 

8 little bit tiresome when you have to refer 

9 from one number to another and so on.

10 If it's easy to do and quick to do, 

11 by all means. Otherwise, you know, follow 

12 Wanda's guidance.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. It should not 

14 be a problem to redo that. That's not a 

15 problem. So we will reissue the report and we 

16 will start our finding numbers with number 7, 

17 correct?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Kathy.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. All right. 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

am ready to talk here about PER-14. I assume 51 1

2 -- I'm going to assume that everybody has the 

3 document. It was sent to you on April 12, 

4 2013.

5 Now, I also had marked up a PDF 

6 copy that I was going to show. I don't know 

7 if that's necessary on the Live Meeting, but 

8 I'm not able to get in, because it's full. It 

9 doesn't matter to me. If you all have a copy, 

10 it may not be necessary. It's up to you. If 

11 you would like me to just go through it, if 

12 everyone has a copy in front of you, I can 

13 talk right from the hard copy.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, if we don't, we 

15 can go back to your original transmission and 

16 get it, Kathy.

17 MR. KATZ: Kathy, if you want me to 

18 drop out, I can drop out right now. Okay?

19 MS. BEHLING: It doesn't matter. 

20 Whatever the Subcommittee wants. Okay. 

21 MR. KATZ: If you want to do it 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

line, that's fine. 52 1

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Do the Members 

3 of the Subcommittee have the report?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Kathy, this is 

5 Josie. I have the report in front of me.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and I have it.

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

9 have the report also.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. All right. I

11 will just -- in one second here, I will try to 

12 get patched in and put it up on the screen, 

13 but it sounds like everyone does have it. 

14 Hang on one second.

15 Because I have highlighted a few 

16 things and I will tell you up front, this is--

17 this report was originally done by Rose 

18 Gogliotti of SC&A and John and I have reviewed 

19 it.

20 And it is a lengthy report. And as 

21 I have stated, there are 15 findings. And 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

I do think it is important that I walk us 53 1

2 through the entire report. If we didn't have 

3 any findings, like you will see on the PER-17, 

4 I think I could do more of a summary type 

5 thing. But in this case, I believe we do want 

6 to maybe walk through. I'll try to be as 

7 brief as I can and if you have any questions 

8 along the way -- and I think Rose is on the 

9 phone also and so if there's something I can't 

10 answer, I'm sure she can.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I am trying to 

13 get on here. Just one second. I'll see if I 

14 can and if not, I won't hold things up here 

15 and I'll just start.

16 MR. STIVER: Kathy, this is John. 

17 I do have the 14 documents. If you can't get 

18 in, I could go ahead and put it up there for 

19 people to look at.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 MR. STIVER: But it sounds like 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

have an annotated version that you want to 54 1

2 use.

3 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I just have some 

4 things highlighted to bring to everyone's 

5 attention.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, this is Ted. I've 

7 dropped off.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

9 MR. KATZ: You should be able to 

10 get in.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Still looking. 

12 Okay. There we go. Okay. One more second 

13 here. It's still thinking about it.

14 What I'll do while this is -- while 

15 I see if I can bring this up, I'll start and 

16 I'll start here and just remind everybody --

17 hold on one second, it's asking me to do 

18 something here. Maybe I can bring it up.

19 Well, I'll get started. Obviously, 

20 PER-14 was the construction trade worker PER 

21 and it was initiated because of the issuance 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of OTIB-52, which are parameters to consider 55 1

2 when processing claims for construction trade 

3 workers.

4 And on March 16, 2012, SC&A 

5 submitted our review of PER-14. And at that 

6 time, we -- I think there were -- I was going 

7 to say that there were six findings. I 

8 believe those findings have been closed. And 

9 we were now asked to go in and do Sub-task 4, 

10 which is the review of specific cases.

11 We suggested to the Subcommittee 

12 that we select at least 10 cases because there 

13 are 10 sites that were affected by PER-14. 

14 And, in fact, in Table 1.1 you can see the 

15 listing of those 10 sites.

16 The initial universe of claims --

17 okay, hold on one second here. I think I may 

18 be able to pull this up on the screen now. 

19 Let's see. Hold on a moment.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's showing on 

21 mine. This is Ziemer. It's now showing 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

your -- on the desktop. 56 1

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. John must have 

3 put it up there.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I got it. Actually, 

5 this is Steve. I got it up.

6 MS. BEHLING: You have it up. 

7 Okay. Thanks.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 MR. STIVER: Steve, could you 

10 possibly reduce the magnification? It's at 

11 130 percent right now and a lot of it is kind 

12 of trailing off the edge of the screen.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Then I won't 

15 put mine up, because like I said if yours is 

16 already there, then I'll have Steve just maybe 

17 scroll down as I'm talking and I'll tell you 

18 what page we are on here. We are on page 7 

19 and below Table 1-1.

20 There were initially 977 potential 

21 cases that were identified by doing a keyword 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

search of 31 different construction trade job 57 1

2 functions. And then those -- the criteria --

3 we followed up with the criteria that those 

4 construction trade workers had to have 

5 external coworker dose assigned. They had to 

6 involve the definition of the construction 

7 trade worker.

8 And for all of the sites but 

9 Hanford, they had to have a PoC of less than -

10 - I'm sorry, a PoC was triggered if it was 

11 36.8 percent and 29 percent for Hanford. 

12 Hanford has those internal and external 

13 component to it.

14 And we had to verify that there 

15 were no other PERs affected by this claim. 

16 Those were the criteria that were used. And 

17 based on that criteria, the 977 cases were 

18 reduced to -- it eliminated 925 of the cases. 

19 And you can see which were -- what -- how that 

20 happened in our Table 2.1 on page 10. And so 

21 there were only 52 cases that were actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

returned to NIOSH. 58 1

2 Now, as with regard to our approach 

3 when we do a Sub-task 4 review, a case review 

4 as we have been tasked, the SC&A only verifies 

5 the methodology and the correct -- you know, 

6 the reworked portion of these cases that is 

7 associated with PER-14.

8 And so in this case, we are only 

9 going to look at the external dose for all of 

10 the sites -- for the construction trade 

11 worker/ coworker dose portion of the external 

12 for all of the sites except for Hanford, it 

13 would be the external and the internal 

14 portion.

15 We will also in this case, because 

16 we recognize that some of the sites did not 

17 have any cases that we could review, so we 

18 were given the opportunity to go in and say 

19 this may have been -- there may be some cases 

20 that were pulled because of another PER that 

21 were already corrected for PER-14. And so if 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

we could find a case like that, we would use 59 1

2 that case and do our PER-14 reevaluation.

3 And lastly, if there were no cases 

4 for one of the 10 sites, we were just asked to 

5 look at the technical documentation, the TBDs, 

6 any workbooks, any OTIBs that may have been 

7 created that incorporated the OTIB-52 

8 recommendation.

9 So to start with our first finding 

10 on page 10. What we were just questioning 

11 whether -- the application of the selection 

12 criteria, because there were quite a few cases 

13 that were selected or that were brought out 

14 that did not clearly require a rework, because 

15 they didn't meet the requirements of the 

16 selection criteria.

17 And we used an example there of the 

18 Kansas City plant. There were five cases that 

19 were included in the 52 and none of these had 

20 a PC greater than the selection criteria 36.8 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So our first finding has to do 60 1

2 with, you know, were the selection criteria 

3 applied appropriately? 

4 Now, if we go on to Finding 2, this 

5 is also a finding associated with selection 

6 criteria and the fact that we came to realize 

7 that, obviously, when you go into these files, 

8 there is a form, it is called an Individual 

9 Case Evaluation form, it's an ICE form, that 

10 is usually included in the file.

11 And if, as I mentioned, this case 

12 was already pulled for a PER within a 

13 reasonable time frame or a time frame where 

14 the other documentation, such as the OTIB-52 

15 was already issued, NIOSH said we do not need 

16 to reevaluate this for PER-14, because it has 

17 already been pulled for another PER.

18 For example, I went into the 

19 database and I just selected one of the 

20 Hanford cases that was pulled for evaluation 

21 under PER-14 and there was an ICE form 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

was dated April of 2008 in the file. And it 61 1 

2 indicated in this form that the case was 

3 reevaluated under PER-14.

4 There was also a second ICE form in 

5 there that was for PER-29, which I believe we 

6 -- I thought we were going to cover. No, 

7 that's -- we are not going to talk about that 

8 today, but that has to do with TBD changes to 

9 the Hanford Site Profile.

10 And it indicated on PER-29 that 

11 there was no need to reevaluate the case under 

12 PER-29 because it had already been reevaluated 

13 under PER-14. And when you do a reevaluation, 

14 you use all of the most current guidance 

15 documents.

16 However, that did not happen in 

17 several of the cases that we looked at, so we 

18 are questioning if some of these cases are not 

19 being reevaluated under all of the PERs 

20 inadvertently because NIOSH is under the 

21 impression that it has already been looked 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

under 14, so it was being taken care of by the 62 1

2 other PERs that were issued in a similar time 

3 frame. So that is our Finding 2.

4 Now, if we go into Section 3, we 

5 are going to now go into each of the 10 sites 

6 and I'll try to be brief as to what we looked 

7 at. And like I said, all reviews only are 

8 assessing the coworker dose in accordance with 

9 PER-14.

10 So for the first site, for Savannah 

11 River, there were initially 162 claims that 

12 were potentially impacted by OTIB-52. Only 

13 five were sent back to NIOSH. We randomly 

14 selected one and looked at what was done for 

15 the coworker model.

16 In this particular case, the 

17 individual works from 1952 to 1953 and he was 

18 not monitored prior to 1959. NIOSH, and you 

19 can look in our Table 3.1 and although we list 

20 everything, the only thing we really paid a 

21 lot of attention to during this review 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

external coworker dose. And you can see 63 1

2 previous dose was 12.862 rem and the revised 

3 dose is 13.998 rem.

4 In the original dose 

5 reconstruction, they broke the unmonitored 

6 period down into two different periods: 1952 

7 to 1955 and 1956 to 1959. The first time 

frame they assigned a 50th 8 percentile coworker 

9 dose model and in the second time frame they 

assigned a 95th 10 percentile coworker model.

11 In the rework, they also broke it 

12 down into two sections, into two time periods. 

13 And for the '52 through '55, they assigned a 

50th 14 percentile construction trade worker/ 

coworker model and they did the 95th 15 percentile 

16 again for the '56 through the '59, same as the 

17 original.

18 If you go on to page 14, we also 

19 looked at the technical documents. Now, when 

20 we went into the Savannah River Site external 

21 coworker OTIB, which is OTIB-32, we realized 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that the data that is in the -- the coworker 64 1

2 data that is in that OTIB is a combination of 

3 missed and measured dose.

4 And if you look at the guidance in 

5 OTIB-52, the guidance specifies that you apply 

6 a correction factor of 1.4 to the measured 

7 coworker data. And so we were not -- we had 

8 asked during the review if we could get a 

9 breakdown of the missed and measured and we 

10 were not provided that while we were doing 

11 this review.

12 So we looked -- we tried to 

13 determine our missed and measured based on an 

14 equation with two unknowns and based on the --

15 what we could determine or what we assumed 

16 from the different tables in OTIB-32, we were 

17 -- it does appear that the 1.4 correction 

18 factor was applied to the measured dose for 

19 the construction trade workers, but we can't 

20 be sure because there is any combination of 

21 correction factors that could have 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

applied that could have given us the same 65 1

2 results. So that's our Finding 3.

3 We believe they have done it 

4 correctly, but until we actually have the 

5 data, the source data, we can't confirm that 

6 they applied the 1.4 to only the measured 

7 portion.

8 Okay. But with regard to this 

9 particular case, we think that NIOSH -- we 

10 agree with their assumptions. We thought that 

11 their approach was -- that it did follow the 

12 OTIB-52 guidance and their approach was 

13 claimant-favorable and appropriate.

14 Now, if we go on to Section 4, this 

15 is the X-10 case. In this particular case 

16 that we selected, the individual had also 

17 worked at the Y-12 and the K-25 facility. The 

18 individual was not monitored for internal or 

19 external prior to 1980. He actually worked 

20 between 1962 and 1997.

21 It was -- as you can see in Table 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

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, the external coworker dose went from 66 1

2 30.422 rem to 13.438 rem.

3 In the original dose reconstruction 

from 1962 to 1979, a 95th 4 percentile coworker 

5 dose was applied for all three sites. It was 

6 difficult to determine -- there was nothing in 

7 the record that you could really determine 

8 which particular site he was at.

9 So they did a comparison of all 

10 three sites and then they selected the highest 

11 annual dose for each of the years to assign 

12 for the original.

13 In the reworked dates, 1962 through 

1979, and rather than using the 95th 14 percentile 

value, they compared the 50th 15 percentile values 

16 from each of the sites and assigned the 

17 highest annual dose.

18 We also looked at the technical 

19 documents associated with X-10, the K-25 and 

20 the Y-12. And again, in each one of those 

21 guidance documents -- for X-10 it is an OTIB-
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

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 that incorporates the construction trade 67 1

2 worker data. Again, the missed and measured 

3 doses were reported as a single value and so 

4 we were not able to 100 percent confirm that 

5 the 1.4 correction factor was applied to just 

6 the measured portion.

7 The same with K-25 and the same 

8 with Y-12. And so that's our Finding 4. It's 

9 the same as the previous finding, Finding 3.

10 You will see that come up in 

11 several additional findings. And I separated 

12 them out because I assumed that perhaps this 

13 type of finding would be something that would 

14 be transferred to a specific Work Group where 

15 I didn't mean to have so many findings of the 

16 same type, but I wanted to separate out the

17 various sites so that it could go to the 

18 appropriate worker if that's where it 

19 ultimately ends up.

20 Okay. We are going to go to 

21 Section 5, which is the Portsmouth case. 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

again, we selected -- it was 112 Portsmouth 68 1

2 claims potentially impacted. Only four were 

3 sent back to NIOSH. We randomly selected one. 

4 It was a laborer and had to have six skin 

5 cancers. 

6 In Table 5.2, the unmonitored 

7 external dose went from 2.495 dose -- rem to 

8 0.909 rem.

9 The original assigned -- the 

10 individual actually worked for one year, 1954, 

11 and in the original he was assigned the '91 

12 with coworker penetrating and non-penetrating 

13 dose. And in the rework, he was assigned a 

50th 14 percentile construction trade worker/ 

15 coworker dose for photons only.

16 We looked at the technical 

17 documents associated with Portsmouth and 

18 again, the OTIB-40, which is the document that 

19 incorporates this coworker dose to the 

20 construction trade worker combines the missed 

21 and the measured into a single value. 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

again, we have the same finding under Finding 69 1

2 5 that applies to Portsmouth.

3 There was also an observation, this 

4 is our first observation at the bottom of page 

5 21. There is -- there was supposed to be a 

6 photon dosimeter correction factor of 1.165 

7 applied to -- well, it was applied and we are 

8 questioning whether it should have been 

9 applied to the entire construction trade 

10 worker/coworker dose, because again, this is a 

11 combination of missed and measured, so this 

12 would actually be an overestimation of the 

13 dose as it was applied to both the missed and 

14 measured portion.

15 We have no other findings 

16 associated with the rework of this Portsmouth 

17 case.

18 Section 6, this is a Los Alamos 

19 National Lab case. There were initially 49 

20 claims, but there was only one that was sent 

21 back and this was not updated. I guess 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

the first finding here, Finding No. 6, we were 70 1

2 questioning whether NIOSH was planning on 

3 revising this particular case because it did 

4 look to us like it was a construction trade 

5 worker that should have been updated and we 

6 weren't quite sure why this case hasn't been 

7 updated at this point in time, so that's our 

8 Finding 6.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So this is Stu. I 

10 hate -- I didn't want to interrupt, but I just 

11 wanted to offer a comment. When you said the 

12 case you said here and I think you said in 

13 Finding 1 the cases were returned, but not 

14 reworked. Is that what you said?

15 MS. BEHLING: That's correct.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Could it be that 

17 the case was on the list to be requested to 

18 get returned and didn't actually get returned? 

19 Because if it were returned and not reworked, 

20 it would be sitting in our inbox and I don't 

21 recognize cases from that year as still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

sitting in our inbox to be done. 71 1

2 MS. BEHLING: Rose, I don't know if 

3 you can add anything here. I don't know. I'm 

4 not sure why it was not --

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe this one 

6 has an ICE file indicating that it was sent 

7 back for PER-14, but it wasn't --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: But was the ICE 

9 file saying well, it is back or that it meets 

10 one of the criteria and it should be sent 

11 back? I'm a little confused on what the ICE 

12 thing did.

13 MS. BEHLING: I'm not sure, Stu. 

14 It's a good question. I can go back and look 

15 at this a little further. In some cases, I 

16 did actually print out some of the ICE forms 

17 and generally it will say on the top returned

18 to NIOSH and it will give you the PER number 

19 and say that a dose reconstruction for this, 

20 you know, particular case was reevaluated in 

21 accordance with the referenced 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

That doesn't always happen. In 72 1

2 fact, in my Finding No. 2, I'm looking at 

3 exactly that example from the Hanford Site, 

4 but I can go back and look at this closer, 

5 because we were just questioning whether this 

6 particular case is going to be revised or not.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Are the claim 

8 numbers in the report, in your report so we 

9 can find the claim number?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This claim number 

11 is in our report.

12 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it is.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm looking at it 

14 right now. And it was revised in 2006, but 

15 that's before this PER was issued.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Mm-hmm.

17 MS. BEHLING: Yes, the claim number 

18 is in the report.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We can do 

20 some checking on those. If the case was 

21 actually returned to us, then it should have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

gotten another dose reconstruction, because 73 1

2 that's the only way we can get it out of our 

3 inbox.

4 It happens on occasion with a PER 

5 that we will identify a case and ask DOL to 

6 return it because it meets one of the PER 

7 criteria and they don't return it because, for 

8 instance, it meets the criteria of an SEC 

9 Class that has been added since that dose 

10 reconstruction was done.

11 And sadly, it happens that the 

12 claimant has died in the interim and a 

13 survivor has not been identified. So those 

14 are kind of the two main categories of cases 

15 where we -- if this happens that we will ask 

16 for a case back and we don't get one back from 

17 the Department of Labor and when we have 

18 looked into it early on in these cases, it 

19 almost always fell into one of those two 

20 categories.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. We can look 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

this a little bit closer, but as I said, our 74 1

2 first two findings did question the selection 

3 criteria and the fact that some of these were 

4 not reworked. And then again, what impact 

5 that has on other PERs that are issued around 

6 the same time and that, you know, you are 

7 under the impression that it was reworked. 

8 And inadvertently, these may not all be looked 

9 at with the most current guidance again.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

12 Siebert. Stu, I looked at this specific claim 

13 number, since it's in the report, and, yes, 

14 this is exactly the case. It was requested 

15 back and DOL did not ever return it for 

16 whatever reason.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thanks, 

19 Scott.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Sure.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yes, thank 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

you, Scott. Okay. And I guess you don't 75 1

2 follow up or you don't have any reason to 

3 follow up with DOL as to why it wasn't sent 

4 back?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Early on, when we 

6 were doing this, we did, we checked up with 

7 DOL on cases we had asked for and we didn't 

8 get back. And in every case, they had an 

9 explanation of why it didn't come back. And 

10 it always fell under one of the two categories 

11 I told you.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And so after a 

14 while, we didn't do that anymore. We, 

15 essentially, considered it sort of a QC on 

16 DOL's work and they seemed to be doing -- you 

17 know, when we checked on it, everything was 

18 okay. And then we didn't continue following 

19 up on every case because these were some --

20 you know, lots of numbers. You know, over the 

21 years it was a pretty big group of 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

MS. BEHLING: Of course. 76 1

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott again. 

3 My guess would be on this one since we are 

4 talking LANL, it probably qualifies as a LANL 

5 SEC and they determined not to return it 

6 because of that.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is there anywhere 

8 that it is documented that DOL did not return 

9 it?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No, they don't tell 

11 us why they don't -- they don't give us our 

12 list back and say we didn't return these for 

13 this reason. They do not do that. They just 

14 -- of the list we send, they return the ones 

15 that should be returned and if there is a 

16 reason not to return it, we don't hear about 

17 it.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Okay. Are you 

19 ready for me to continue?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I am.

21 MS. BEHLING: All right. 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

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please, Kathy, go 77 1

2 on.

3 MS. BEHLING: All right. Thank 

4 you.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks.

6 MS. BEHLING: We were on Section 6 

7 and as I indicated, there were no claims that 

8 -- of the 49 that were done, specifically 

9 because of being pulled for PER-14.

10 However, we were able to find one 

11 that was updated with the most current 

12 guidance documents that were pulled for 

13 another reason.

14 In that case, the individual worked 

15 from November of '63 through June of '99 and 

16 then there was also dosimetry dated that 

17 indicated he worked -- there was -- that he 

18 was monitored in 2001 and 2002.

19 In Table 6.1, you can see that the 

20 unmonitored dose went from 1.65 rem to 2.847 

21 rem. And just an overview of the original 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

the rework, the original used the -- for the 78 1

unmonitored period used a 50th 2 percentile that

3 was, at the time, based on OTIB-20 and it was 

4 based on a compilation of coworker studies 

using a 50th 5 percentile.

6 In the rework, they used the 

7 coworker data only for prorated months and you 

8 can see that table or that information in 

9 Table 6.2. They went in and determined when 

10 he -- just what month he was not monitored.

11 It was modified for a coworker 

12 dose, but it was not modified in this 

13 particular case for the construction worker --

14 trade worker adjustment factor of 1.4.

15 And so our finding 7 indicates that 

16 it doesn't appear that this particular case 

17 has the 1.4 adjustment factor applied to the 

18 coworker values.

19 In addition, Finding 8, they do not 

20 apply a DCF or a Dosimeter Correction Factor 

21 to the coworker dose for this particular 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

so that was another finding that we had. 79 1

2 And then there is an Observation 

3 No. 2 on page 26 and let's see here, okay, 

4 PER-14 makes the assumption that cases are 

5 returned and will be updated with the most 

6 recent technical guidance. But in this 

7 particular case, the most technical -- the 

8 most recent guidance was not incorporated as 

9 we indicated in our previous findings.

10 The OTIB-52 guidance was not 

11 applied in this particular case. Okay. And 

12 that's what we were indicating in our two 

13 previous findings.

14 Okay. Moving on to Section 7. 

15 This is the Y-12 Plant case. Again, there 

16 were 159 potentially impacted claims and 10 

17 were sent back. We selected one at random for 

18 an individual who worked from '44 through '72 

19 and Table 7.1 shows the external coworker dose 

20 of 8.237 and it was revised to 19.802 rem.

21 In the original construction from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1949 through 1960 and then again in 1962, a 80 1

2 coworker dose was assigned and this was based 

3 on OTIB-13, which is a Y-12 dose adjustment 

4 procedure, specific, you know, for Y-12.

5 In the rework, the rework was done 

using the 50th 6 percentile gamma coworker dose 

7 for construction trade workers from OTIB-64. 

8 We looked at the technical documents and 

9 although there were no -- we didn't find any 

10 workbooks that specifically allowed the dose 

11 reconstruction to apply to the coworker model 

12 for the construction trade workers, there is 

13 an OTIB that has been updated, OTIB-64 as I 

14 mentioned, Table 7.2, with the guidance from 

15 OTIB-62.

16 And lastly, for this particular 

17 case, Finding 9, there should have been a 

18 dosimeter uncertain factor applied to the 

19 construction trade worker/coworker dose and 

20 that was not applied. It is recommended that 

21 1.3 or 30 percent uncertainty and that was not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

included in this particular dose 81 1

2 reconstruction. Everything else was in 

3 accordance with the OTIB-52 guidance.

4 I'll get on to Hanford, Section 8. 

5 In this particular Hanford case, as I 

6 mentioned, Hanford's both external and 

7 internal dose is impacted by OTIB-52. We 

8 selected a case where the individual worked 

9 for one month in 1954 -- I'm sorry, 1943 and 

10 for nine months in 1944. This case again was 

11 selected by random.

12 There were two skin cancers and as 

13 you can see in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, the 

14 external dose for the one skin cancer went 

15 from 2.718 to 2.586 and in the second skin 

16 cancer it went from 2.718 rem to 2.279 rem.

17 An overview of the original versus 

the rework. The original used the 95th 18

19 percentile of the coworker model for 1944, for 

20 that year only for the deep dose. It didn't 

21 consider the one month in 1943.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

The rework did a partial dose 82 1

reconstruction due to the SEC, but a 50th 2

3 percentile photon and electron prorated to the 

4 nine months of 1944 was calculated was neutron 

5 dose is prorated to seven months for the time 

6 period that he was in the 300 area.

7 Again, in this particular case, we 

8 looked at the guidance document, which is 

9 OTIB-30, for Hanford, and the missed and 

10 measured doses are reported as a single value 

11 again. So the same finding as in Finding 3 

12 and Finding 4 applies to Hanford that we 

13 weren't able to absolutely ensure that 1.4 

14 factor was applied only to the measured 

15 portion of the dose.

16 The technical document review for 

17 Hanford, we -- the Hanford Best Estimate 

18 Workbook, let's see here, the TBD was updated 

19 and the Best Estimate Workbook was updated to 

20 include the OTIB-52 information. So that was 

21 taken care of for the external portion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Now, on the internal portion also, 83 1

2 the original dose reconstruction used a 

3 hypothetical internal dose, actually through 

4 OTIB-2, to maximize his internal dose.

5 In the rework, the Hanford TBD 

6 specifies that you should use the Battelle 

7 TBD-6000 guidance and that was done in this 

8 particular case. We were able to verify that 

9 that was done appropriately.

10 However, there was no, as shown in 

11 Finding 11, there was no correction factor for 

12 the construction trade worker applied to this 

13 unmonitored internal dose. So as indicated on 

14 page 34, OTIB-52 specifies that the coworker 

15 dose should be multiplied by a factor of two 

16 and that wasn't done in this case.

17 Also, under Finding 12, we could 

18 not find any documentation that made the 

19 change for the internal portion of the 

20 coworker dose. The technical guidance didn't 

21 reflect 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

Okay. Moving on to 9, I knew this 84 1

2 was going to be lengthy. Section 9 is the 

3 Kansas City Plant. In this particular case, 

4 there were no cases that we could identify to 

5 evaluate. Therefore, we limited our 

6 evaluation just to the review of the technical 

7 documentation.

8 And as Finding 13 indicates, we 

9 could not find where the guidance from OTIB-52 

10 was updated into any of the Kansas City Plant 

11 technical guidance documents or workbook.

12 Section 10 is Pantex and that is 

13 the same situation. There were no cases to 

14 evaluate, so we simply looked at the technical 

15 guidance.

16 And under 14, again, we were not 

17 able to find where the TBD was updated. There 

18 was a new OTIB generated or workbook included, 

19 so again, Finding 14 indicates that there --

20 the guidance documents were not updated to 

21 include the OTIB-52 guidance 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

construction trade workers. 85 1

2 Section 11, that's Pacific 

3 Northwest National Laboratory. The 

4 individuals at this facility follow all the 

5 same guidance as at the Hanford Site and so we 

6 didn't feel the need to evaluate any claims, 

7 since we had already looked at the Hanford 

8 claims, plus we looked at the Hanford 

9 technical guidance.

10 And then finally under Section 12 

11 is the Weldon Spring Plant. Again, this is a 

12 situation where there were no cases to 

13 evaluate. Again, we looked at the technical 

14 guidance document and it doesn't appear that 

15 there has been any updating to that guidance 

16 document to reflect OTIB-52.

17 So in summary, we had 15 findings 

18 and we also have a third observation on page 

19 41. First of all, although OTIB-20 is outside 

20 of the scope of this, we did take notice that 

21 correction factors and uncertainty factors, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dosimetry correction factors, as I have 86 1

2 identified in several of the findings, were 

3 not always applied as specified in OTIB-20.

4 And so we just felt that maybe 

5 OTIB-20 guidance should be looked at in behalf 

6 of the three particular cases at LANL, at PGDP 

7 and at the Y-12 facility.

8 And then finally, the other thing 

9 that we did notice is a lot of times in the 

10 original case, and I realize it's a more 

maximizing approach, there was -- the 95th 11

12 percentile of the coworker dose models were 

13 used.

14 And in the rework often they would 

select the 50th 15 percentile model.

16 And again, the guidance in OTIB-20 

17 seems to indicate that if it's an intermediate 

18 low level external radiation exposure, then 

50th 19 percentile applies. However, for routine 

exposure it's suggesting to use the 95th 20

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And in fact, it brings that out 87 1

2 especially for pipefitters. And we are just 

3 thinking that maybe some clarification on --

4 and I don't know if you can do it by trade, 

5 but there could be some clarification maybe 

6 put into either OTIB-20 or into the specific 

guidance as to who should be assigned the 95th 7

and who should be assigned the 50th 8 .

9 And I know this is a discussion we 

10 have and we talk about it all the time and I 

11 know it's a professional judgment, but it's 

12 just something that came out as a result of 

13 our review of all these cases. So that's it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you so much for 

15 that thorough review.

16 MS. BEHLING: Well, I'm sorry I had 

17 to go on and on, but --

18 CHAIR MUNN: No, you didn't. You 

19 really had to go on and on. We can't possibly 

20 cover this many sites and this many trades 

21 without doing it, Kathy. And thanks 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

and Rose for that exhaustive review. It was 88 1

2 necessary and it's much appreciated.

3 MS. BEHLING: Thank you.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

5 specific questions right now or are we going 

6 to wait for NIOSH's response?

7 DR. MAURO: This is John. Could I 

8 make a statement about what we just heard?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

10 DR. MAURO: As I'm listening to 

11 this, I sort of listened to -- you know, you 

12 get into the weeds and you hear the fine 

13 structure of what is going on. And I always 

14 ask myself, you know, I thought I'd step back 

15 and say okay, we are collecting information on 

16 this PER process.

17 Now, we have been through a large, 

18 a significant number of them. And I would 

19 like just to make a statement.

20 I think the PER process is the 

21 single most important process next to the SEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that is going on in this program, in terms of 89 1 

2 where the Board can step in and make a 

3 statement about the health of the program. 

4 Now, I'm making some, I guess, broad 

5 observation.

6 See, what we have here is when you 

7 go to -- see, because unlike when we do a Site 

8 Profile Review, where we're in a stovepipe. 

9 You know, we are in a stovepipe. We are doing 

10 DR review, a Site Profile Review, a procedure 

11 review.

12 But here we are not in the 

13 stovepipe. Here we are crossing all 

14 boundaries. We are first checking -- you 

15 know, we are looking at the PER from several 

16 levels. You know, when you go to the four 

17 sub-tasks, for example, we are asking 

18 ourselves questions that go across the board.

19 You know, did this PER capture the 

20 sense of the concerns that were raised in some 

21 Site Profile or some procedure correctly? Did 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

NIOSH then, you know, understand capture and 90 1

2 incorporate that and then go find all of the 

3 cases, whether it's a particular site or 

4 across the boundary of many sites, as we did 

5 here?

6 And ask themselves the question: 

7 did we go capture all of those or did we miss 

8 something important? Did we miss any? 

9 Another question that is outside the 

10 stovepipe. Then we go ahead and we review 

11 cases where there effects is, you know, being 

12 made. And we ask ourselves the question well, 

13 did they fix it?

14 So in a way I'm sort of offering up 

15 to the Subcommittee the idea to treat the PER 

16 as a very special category of work being done 

17 by the Board that somehow -- now within the 

18 BRS now, we are capturing information, but I 

19 would like to offer that we should be able to 

20 go in and capture information from the BRS, 

21 with regard to PERs now, that are of a very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

lofty nature, because what it does is it 91 1

2 closes the loop where we get out of our 

3 stovepipe and we are crossing the boundary. 

4 The very thing that I think Dr. Melius has 

5 expressed concern about, about the work we are 

6 doing.

7 It just dawned on me the P -- and 

8 it may have dawned on you also. I might have 

9 been slower than the rest of you, but it just 

10 dawned on me how important this is. And I 

11 wanted to make that statement so that if 

12 you're not thinking of it that way, I think we 

13 should be thinking of it that way.

14 And given that when we report back 

15 to the secretary, I think this particular type 

16 of evaluation should have some primacy, 

17 because it is very important.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for that, 

19 John. Some of us agree with you 

20 wholeheartedly. Some do have the view that 

21 this is the most broad type of programmatic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

review that we possibly have undertaken or 92 1

2 even could undertake. And for that reason, 

3 it's one of the few times that Board Members 

4 really do get down in the weeds, even more

5 than we do in the ordinary course of events.

6 It is much appreciated that we are 

7 undertaking it in that fashion. Thanks. 

8 Anyone else have anything to say before we 

9 check to see about PER-17?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 

11 Steve.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I have a question.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Steve. And thank 

15 you by the way, you are a lifesaver.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. On this PER17 14, Kathy and Rose have three observations. 

18 Now, the BRS has no ability to, you know, 

19 specify an observation or differentiate 

20 between an observation and a finding. It 

21 basically puts in one thing. There is 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

one class of items that can be entered into 93 1

2 the BRS.

3 And I guess the question is how 

4 does the Subcommittee want to track the 

5 observations in the BRS as additional findings 

6 or do we not want to put the observations into 

7 the BRS? And if we don't, then we, you know, 

8 can either track them by hand or we might lose 

9 them. 

10 So I guess the question is how do -

11 - I mean, the BRS does not differentiate 

12 between findings and observations. So how do 

13 you want to handle this from a BRS point of 

14 view?

15 CHAIR MUNN: My personal position 

16 has been from the outset that observations 

17 were determined from the outset. From early 

18 on, we made the statement that observations 

19 are appreciated. They are not necessary 

20 tracking items. They are precisely what their 

21 name is, an observation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

It is not a finding. It does not 94 1

2 require action. It's simply an observation 

3 with respect to whatever activity was under 

4 surveillance at the time. For that reason, my 

5 position remains that we should list them in 

6 our BRS as observations, but by their very 

7 name indicated that no action is necessary or 

8 will be taken.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: So we enter them 

10 basically as a closed finding?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any other 

14 feelings?

15 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

16 Josie.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

18 MEMBER BEACH: I have a comment on 

19 that, because I was going to comment earlier 

20 on the, I believe it is, observation that we 

21 look at OTIB-20 and suggestion that we 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

that OTIB, that was one of the observations. 95 1

2 Is that correct, Kathy?

3 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it is.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

5 MS. BEHLING: In fact, Josie, you 

6 are touching on something I was just going to 

7 mention.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I just -- and 

9 just to -- I don't want to miss that 

10 observation by closing it, because I think it 

11 is important that we --

12 MS. BEHLING: Well, I agree.

13 MEMBER BEACH: -- follow through.

14 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I agree with 

15 you. In fact, what I was about to say is 

16 really I think the first two observations 

17 there are findings that capture those 

18 observations. 

19 What we struggled with was the last 

20 observation and, in fact, we talked among 

21 ourselves whether we should make this 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

finding because it has to do with OTIB-20, we 96 1

2 weren't quite sure if it was appropriate to 

3 make it a finding.

4 However, I have to say in 

5 retrospect I think we should have, because it 

6 is something that came out of this review. It 

7 was something based on our looking at all of 

8 these cases, it came to our attention. And so 

9 I believe that that Observation 3 perhaps 

10 should have been a finding, because I also 

11 think that it is one of those -- it's 

12 something that should be looked into a little 

13 bit further.

14 CHAIR MUNN: You are correct, 

15 Kathy. If there's anything that requires an 

16 action, as this clearly does --

17 MS. BEHLING: Can I suggest this, 

18 that when we do -- when I resubmit this 

19 changing these finding numbers, that I make 

20 that observation into Finding 16 or it will 

21 become No. 22 or whatever.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 97 1

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely.

4 MEMBER BEACH: That's what I was 

5 going to suggest as well, so that's great.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Do you have any 

7 objection to that, Paul?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. In fact, 

9 conceptually, Wanda, I agree with what you 

10 said about observations. It seems to me if 

11 it's a true observation, the burden is on 

12 NIOSH to do with it what they wish. It's not 

13 something that we should track. If it's 

14 important for us to track it and close it, 

15 then it should, indeed, be a finding.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Any objection 

17 one way or the other? If not, we will request 

18 that SC&A at their reissuance of the 14 see 

19 that what is now categorized as Observation 3 

20 becomes a finding. Any other comments?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

again. Early on there was -- somebody 98 1

2 suggested that we think about parsing these 

3 out by site, but it seems to me in the cases 

4 that we have indicated here, where there is a 

5 common sort of problem at one plant, 

6 typically, which occurs over and over again, 

7 it seems to me something like that should just 

8 stay with us here.

9 It's something that NIOSH can deal 

10 with sort of across the board as opposed to 

11 having each site try to deal with that same --

12 it's the same issue in every case. I think it 

13 just shows up in different sites.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Parsing out segments 

15 of a PER seems to be unwieldy administrative 

16 onset to that. It's not attractive to me.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone have any 

19 objection to our dealing with -- or continuing 

20 to deal with the PER-14 in this Subcommittee? 

21 If there is not, we will continue to do 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

One quick question. Kathy, I'm 99 1

2 assuming -- are you going to report on PER-17?

3 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

4 CHAIR MUNN: And is it a lengthy 

5 report?

6 MS. BEHLING: No.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That's 

8 good. Let's anticipate that we will take a 15 

9 minute break after Kathy completes PER-17.

10 MS. BEHLING: Great.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead, Kathy.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. One more 

13 comment that I wanted to make on PER-14. If 

14 anyone from NIOSH or ORAU would like to 

15 contact either Rose or myself with regard to 

16 giving you some examples of cases that we 

17 found under Finding 2, we would be happy to do 

18 that. We can, you know, clarify whether that 

19 is a problem or not.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thanks, 

21 Kathy. We are going to have to work out 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

our side when and if we can get to this, so it 100 1

2 might not happen immediately.

3 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: But thank you for 

5 that.

6 MS. BEHLING: Okay. All right. 

7 Again, I was going to try to -- I had 

8 highlighted -- I was so proud of myself here. 

9 I had highlighted all the key sections in PER10 17 Sub-task 4 also and I was going to pull 

11 that up on the screen, but for some reason 

12 it's not allowing me to do that.

13 Steve, do you happen to have PER17? This was issued on April 1st 14 , I believe, 

15 of 2013.

16 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Kathy, why 

17 don't you just email it to Steve and he can 

18 put it up?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. I 

might have it. April 1st 20 , I might have it, 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: This is John. I've 101 1

2 got it. I can open it up here.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. I thought 

4 Kathy had hers annotated or highlighted.

5 MR. STIVER: Oh, okay. Okay. 

6 MR. KATZ: But no --

7 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it's actually 

8 fairly brief, because there are -- were no 

9 findings on this particular one.

10 CHAIR MUNN: We like that a lot.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. Can everybody 

12 see it? I just pulled it up.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. It's great. 

14 Thanks, Steve, or John.

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm actually 

16 having trouble.

17 MR. STIVER: The other Steve.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Actually, PER20 17, as a reminder, is the evaluation of 

21 incomplete internal dosimetry records at Idaho 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

INL, Argonne National Labs-East and Argonne 102 1 

2 National Labs-West. And we completed a review 

3 of PER-17 on May 15, 2012 and the report that 

4 you are looking at is our Sub-task 4 or the 

5 review of cases.

6 Now, initially, if you go to page 

7 6, this PER was initiated because NIOSH 

8 identified that when they were looking at --

9 had records they had requested internal 

10 dosimetry records and they realized when they 

11 were getting the requests back from -- or the 

12 information back from DOE, sometimes there 

13 would be no internal dosimetry records and 

14 there would sometimes be handwritten notes, 

15 sometimes it would be included with the INP16 004 form which is a request for personal 

17 exposure form. And it would be marked as 

18 dosimetry -- Internal Dosimetry Records not 

19 readily available or no internal or recorded 

20 dose.

21 And because of spotting that, which 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

was very good, they assumed that perhaps there 103 1

2 were people out there that actually had 

3 internal monitoring records and they weren't 

4 repeating them.

5 And that was the case. NIOSH went 

6 back and they had identified 223 cases and it 

7 ended up that there were -- once they looked 

8 at all the criteria, they identified that 

9 there were 83 cases where they actually got 

10 data back from DOE regarding the internal 

11 dosimetry records for 83 different 

12 individuals.

13 62 of those were from the INL site, 

14 14 were from the Argonne National Labs-West 

15 and 6 were from Argonne National Labs-East.

16 We recommended that we select three 

17 cases from INL, two cases from Argonne 

18 National Labs-West and one case from Argonne 

19 National Labs-East.

20 We got those records. NIOSH 

21 identified those cases, those six cases and 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

went through and I'm not going to go through 104 1

2 each of the six because I can just tell you in 

3 summary, unless you want me to go through 

4 them, but if we go to page 23 in the summary, 

5 I found that in each case NIOSH did submit a 

6 second request. DOE provided bioassay 

7 records. Those records were used to 

8 reevaluate all six claims.

9 I thought, you know, in some cases 

10 the data was, you know, data that was 

11 evaluating the values for the urinalysis or 

12 whatever and so I think there was one case 

13 where they maybe used that as internal, so --

14 but they did at least consider all of the 

15 internal records.

16 I agreed with their approach and 

17 their assumptions. I felt that all the cases 

18 were done in a claimant-favorable manner. And 

19 I had no findings with any of the six cases 

20 that I reviewed.

21 There was only one observation 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

I know this is something of a reoccurring 105 1

2 theme, but at the very end on page 23, I do 

3 make an observation that five of the six 

4 claims, the CATI report indicated that there 

5 was bioassay data.

6 And, obviously, when the energy 

7 employee fills it out, you know, they will 

8 certainly know, but in some of these cases 

9 even survivors indicated that there was --

10 there should have been bioassay data. I'm 

11 sure when you have to bring a bottle home, you 

12 know, everyone in the family knows about it.

13 But I just -- it occurred to me 

14 that perhaps if they had looked at the CATI 

15 information a little bit closer, maybe they 

16 would have identified this as a problem at 

17 those particular sites a little bit earlier.

18 The other thing that occurred to me 

19 is I wondered if, especially for maybe best 

20 estimate cases, there couldn't be maybe like a 

21 tracking system that compared, and I know 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

have enough work, but, what is in the CATI 106 1

2 report, did you expect to get bioassay data 

3 and did you actually get any? Maybe even just 

4 for best estimate cases.

5 And again, this is just an 

6 observation and I didn't think it warranted a 

7 finding. It's just something that I wanted to 

8 mention. And that's it for PER-17.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for those 

10 comments, especially with respect to the 

11 potential observation. It sounds all right as 

12 an observation. The question is: shall we 

13 insert it as such in the BRS?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, how do we 

15 know that there is no findings? Do we simply 

16 accept the report?

17 CHAIR MUNN: In my memory, we have 

18 had only one such and I believe we entered a 

19 statement to the effect that there were none. 

20 Am I correct, Steve? Am I remembering 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: No, essentially what 107 1

2 we have done, in the past, if we have a 

3 document, PER-17 -- well, we already have PER4 17, don't we already have it?

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think we do, 

6 yes.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: And so some time we 

8 enter a finding. We can enter a finding of no 

9 finding and that's exactly what we have done.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I thought that's what 

11 we had done.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Later this 

13 afternoon, we'll talk about some cases where 

14 we have actually done that just recently. And 

15 we can, you know, do it that way. Sub-task 4 

16 was performed and the finding was no findings.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: We could elaborate 

19 on the observation and say, you know, there 

20 was no findings, but we did make one 

21 observation or if you wanted to -- if we want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to do that. 108 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I would 

3 choose to do, actually.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: And then we could--

5 you know, once we enter that, we could 

6 immediately close it and say -- so there is 

7 really nothing for NIOSH to do, but it is then 

8 in the BRS, so it's part of the record.

9 CHAIR MUNN: It's my personal 

10 position that any time we have had an effort 

11 to review any of the PERs under Sub-task 4, we 

12 should have a heading to that effect, so that 

13 anyone who is interested in checking can find 

14 years from now that this was, in fact, given 

15 the appropriate review.

16 DR. MAURO: Can I jump into the 

17 comment on this particular observation?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: I think when I review a 

20 case and I see that the CATI says there were 

21 data, but the DR, you know, uses some kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

surrogate model where they did not use the 109 1

2 data, I usually make that a finding. The 

3 reason I say that is if there is affirmative 

4 evidence by way of a CATI, yes, urine samples 

5 were collected, I would be looking for the 

6 reason why whether or not an effort was made 

7 to confirm that no -- notwithstanding the fact 

8 that the CATI says there were, we really were 

9 not able to find any.

10 In other words, it's almost as if 

11 you might go the extra yard when someone says, 

12 especially if it's the claimant or the person, 

13 the worker, no, I had bioassay data collected. 

14 I would be looking for some discussion of the 

15 effort made to find it.

16 But in this particular case for 

17 some reason they couldn't find it, it seems to 

18 me that leaves the door open a bit. And I 

19 hate to leave the door ajar in a situation 

20 like that. So all I'm saying is that I can 

21 understand, Kathy, why you would call it 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

observation. 110 1

2 But at the same time, I can see 

3 someone saying wait a minute, you know, what 

4 does NIOSH do when they encounter a 

5 circumstance like this?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. 

7 And I'll offer up something. And somebody can 

8 correct me if they want.

9 For someone who worked at a DOE 

10 facility, we have one place to look for their 

11 bioassay records and that's the DOE. And we 

12 have a point of contact for each of these 

13 places and that's where we make our request 

14 to.

15 We have done it on occasion where 

16 people would say I had bioassay and we have 

17 made a second request and we get back the same 

18 thing we got the first time, you know.

19 DR. MAURO: So you do go that extra 

20 yard? I mean, that's --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: About 100 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of the time. 111 1

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: About 100 percent 

4 of the time we do. 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- on occasion, 

7 but, you know, it's not like we have 

8 alternative places to look.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, we ask 

11 the place. I guess on occasion we have asked 

12 again and it -- but the answer generally comes 

13 back the same. I don't know of any cases 

14 where by asking again DOE kind of, you know, 

15 thumps their forehead and said oh, wait, what 

16 was I thinking here it is.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It just seems to--

19 you know, for whatever reason it happens that 

20 people say there were in a bioassay program 

21 and the DOE has no record of their bioassay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. MAURO: No, and I appreciate 112 1

2 the answer. And, you know, I guess that's 

3 what I was looking for that it is of concern, 

4 but there really is not too much you can do 

5 about it. And I understand that.

6 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. Maybe 

7 there is another way to kind of alleviate some 

8 of the uncertainty in part of the dose 

9 reconstruction, just a statement in the dose 

10 reconstruction report, you know, we recognize 

11 that the claimant did indicate that they were 

12 bioassayed, but we were not able to find any 

13 record of it, although we searched various and 

14 identify where the searches took place. I 

15 think that would kind of help clarify it for 

16 our reviewers certainly.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree with that. 

18 A little language to that effect might be very 

19 helpful.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's a 

21 difficulty also simply because as was pointed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

out you have one source and one source only 113 1

2 and that source has been contacted with 

3 respect to --

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: -- what is there. 

6 It's hard to identify what else could be done.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: But then check the 

9 single source you have.

10 DR. MAURO: And that's being done. 

11 I understand it may not be done in an entire 

12 consistent way, but you could see why -- you 

13 know, someone looking back on this, I'm posing 

14 myself as a claimant, gee, he said he had it, 

15 but, you know. I want --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well, he didn't say he 

17 had it.

18 DR. MAURO: -- I would like to get 

19 to the issue where NIOSH is bulletproof. You 

20 know, someone raises the question, the CATI 

21 report, no, we are aware of that and we did 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

take certain steps as we have in the past, but 114 1

2 unfortunately, you know, the data just is not 

3 available to us, if it's out there.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

5 Josie. Some of those bioassays come routinely 

6 and the worker would know that, but the spouse 

7 or survivors may not know that it comes once a 

8 year or whatever the routineness is of it.

9 MR. STIVER: There might be a way 

10 to just kind of be more open with the 

11 claimants and then provide them all the 

12 information to where there is no confusion on 

13 their part.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I think they have 

15 access to most of the information.

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. One 

17 thing I do want to add on to what Stu said, 

18 which I agree entirely, we do request that 

19 information if there is something else in the 

20 file that indicates the person may have been 

21 monitored as well and we will request 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

data. 115 1

2 Now, I'm going to back up Stu that 

3 we very rarely have gotten anything different, 

4 but, yes, pretty much to be on the safe side, 

5 we will request that information from DOE 

6 again and point to them which parts of the 

7 file where we see the information that gives 

8 us pause. So we are trying to do that due 

9 diligence.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know what else 

11 we can do.

12 DR. MAURO: And that's very 

13 assuring and I'm glad to hear that.

14 CHAIR MUNN: It seems the 

15 observation is a valid observation, but given 

16 the fact that there really is no potential 

17 action, I don't know why we should make any 

18 further effort with it than what we have here. 

19 Record it and leave it so. If we record this 

20 observation in the database, there is little 

21 else that can be done.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Shall we ask Steve to identify the 116 1

2 observation in the database and let us know 

3 what he said? Not necessarily a requirement 

4 to do that right now on-line, given our 

5 unusually difficult circumstances. Agree?

6 MEMBER BEACH: I would agree with 

7 that, Wanda. This is Josie.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Steve, will 

9 you, please, if you would like, off-line to --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll see if I can 

11 get back into the BRS here.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's quite all 

13 right. If you will just -- we don't need to 

14 do it in an on-time manner.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: We can do that 

17 afterwards.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I have a note 

19 to myself to that effect, Wanda.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Give me an 

21 email telling me what you have done. 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

will see if the Subcommittee Members have any 117 1

2 concern with your effort and we'll just do it. 

3 Good. No objection, we'll need to take a 15 

4 minute break now. Right?

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Wanda, this is Ron 

6 with SC&A. Are we going to discuss PER-31 or 

7 29? I need to know whether I need to stay on 

8 the line or not.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We are going to 

10 discuss -- 31 has been postponed for next 

11 time.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: 31 is going to be 

13 postponed?

14 CHAIR MUNN: That was my 

15 understanding. Am I correct?

16 MR. STIVER: That's correct. 31 is 

17 not complete, has not been through our 

18 internal review process and is not complete.

19 CHAIR MUNN: We are going to take 

20 up 11 in its stead.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Are we going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to discuss PER-29 this afternoon? 118 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: It is my expectation 

3 that we will talk about it, but I believe what 

4 has been decided is that both of those PERs 

5 are going to be referred to the Work Group, 

6 the Hanford Work Group. Am I correct?

7 MR. STIVER: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Ron, this is Ted. So 

9 you don't need to hang in for those. It's 

10 just administrative. We are just transferring 

11 those to the Hanford Work Group to look at 

12 them.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Good. 

14 Thanks. I needed to know that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: You're very welcome. 

16 All right. 

17 MR. STIVER: And before we close, 

18 this is John. I'm going to have to step away. 

19 I'm heading out to another meeting that I 

20 committed to, but when you get the PROC-44, 

21 which is one of the ones I was on, while I 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

on the line, I have already spoken to Steve 119 1

2 Marschke and I believe Steve Ostrow is on the 

3 line and Bob Barton, so I'm going to step 

4 away, but anything that might come up where we 

5 may need to weigh in, you know, we have our 

6 folks there, but I won't be able to join you.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John. I 

8 appreciate that.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: We will address that 

11 after the break. Thanks so much. We will see 

12 you back in 15 minutes, folks, by my clock 

13 that will make it ten minutes after the half 

14 hour. Correct?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All righty. Bye-bye. 

17 We're off for 15.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 12:26 p.m. and 

20 resumed at 12:42 p.m.)

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 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

back. One question that I have before we take 120 1

2 up the rest of our agenda, which was supposed 

3 to be -- going to be our morning agenda, is 

4 whether either of the items that we have are 

5 time-sensitive in terms of personnel, either 

6 PROC-44, PER-20 or PER-11? Do we have a time 

7 card on any of those as far as our personnel 

8 are concerned?

9 If not, then let's try to take them 

10 in order. PROC-44, I think NIOSH was going to 

11 respond to the findings.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Lori, are you going 

13 to lead this or are you going to have--

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. Wanda, this 

15 is -- we have Mike on the line. Mike, are you 

16 there, from ORAU?

17 MR. KUBIAK: Yes, I am. Yes.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Mike will be 

19 responding to PROC-44 for us.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Good. All right. Go 

21 right ahead, Mike. It's all yours.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KUBIAK: Okay. Thank you, 121 1

2 Lori. My name is Mike Kubiak. I'm with the 

3 ORAU Team's SEC Group.

4 The ORAU Team's procedure on 

5 evaluating the SEC's Procedure-44 is already 

6 under revision and we have reviewed the -- I 

7 believe there is 10 findings total from the 

8 SC&A review. And they are all quite helpful 

9 observations.

10 And our position is that we can 

11 insert text into the Procedure-44 that is 

12 currently being revised to address all the 

13 observations.

14 I wasn't sure if you wanted to go 

15 through each one of them individually or if 

16 the Subcommittee's intention was to wait until 

17 the procedures arise?

18 CHAIR MUNN: If you have the 

19 revisions in-hand, then it would be nice to 

20 know at least where you are in those revisions 

21 and whether or not -- and when you anticipate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

completion. 122 1

2 MR. KUBIAK: All right. Okay. 

3 Well, in a general sense, the revision is a 

4 total rewrite. It has been underway since 

5 DCAS revised their procedure, I believe, in 

6 October of '11. And the rewrite to our 

7 procedure it won't look at all like the 

8 current procedure does that SC&A reviewed.

9 We are patterning it after, both in 

10 content and in flow, the 2011 revision to the 

11 DCAS procedure. So the way of handling all 

12 the SC&A comments is essentially to insert 

13 text into the applicable sections that we are 

14 taking out of the DCAS procedure.

15 And the revision is underway. It 

16 has not undergone our internal review yet, so 

17 we don't have any actual published text to 

18 present. I can go through each individual 

19 item, and really all I would be saying for 

20 each of them is that we are going to insert 

21 text to resolve the SC&A comments 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

applicable sections. They don't even have 123 1

2 real section numbers that correlate to 

3 anything that anybody has seen, other than 

4 internal review on our side.

5 CHAIR MUNN: So essentially, you 

6 are going to have to give us another document, 

7 in any case, giving us responses to the 

8 specific requests that are before you with 

9 respect to the individual items on the BRS.

10 So without any -- we can't pass 

11 judgment on something we don't have. I guess 

12 that's what I'm saying.

13 MR. KUBIAK: Yes, that's the way I 

14 understood it, that if the procedure is still 

15 being revised, that often the final closure, 

16 obviously, is held off until you can review 

17 the finished product and the finished wording.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any 

19 concept at all time-wise?

20 MR. KUBIAK: Our schedule has us 

21 getting it to NIOSH for their initial 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

in June. 124 1 

2 CHAIR MUNN: In June?

3 MR. KUBIAK: It's the schedule that 

4 I'm working toward with current resources.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So we can 

6 anticipate that our request for NIOSH to give 

7 us feedback is going to be some time well 

8 after June.

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I just 

10 want to jump in here because I have sort of a 

11 larger process question for what has occurred 

12 here. So I'm just trying to understand, Mike, 

13 or maybe, Stu, I mean, when we have SC&A 

14 review this, it's not like even at that time 

15 maybe this procedure was under revision. Or 

16 was already decided to go under revision?

17 I'm just trying to understand why, 

18 because we had SC&A do this work and then it's 

19 all being revised. So I'm trying to 

20 understand why we had SC&A do this review at 

21 this 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

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. 125 1

2 I guess perhaps we didn't speak up loudly 

3 enough at the time it was selected. You know, 

4 our procedure about SEC was revised a while 

5 ago and we have known since then that the 

6 revision of our procedure should prompt 

7 revision to the ORAU procedure.

8 Now, that doesn't necessarily mean 

9 that that revision would have captured all the 

10 observations or findings that SC&A made in 

11 their review.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we have the 

14 additional feedback from SC&A now, based on 

15 their review of the old one. And what Mike 

16 has said is that he considers those all 

17 valuable findings and we will incorporate a 

18 response to those findings in the revision, 

19 which those particular items may not have been 

20 incorporated, you know, absent this, SC&A's 

21 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

So by my way of thinking here, the 126 1

2 situation where we have a list of findings, we 

3 have said we agree with this finding and we 

4 will revise the document to incorporate it.

5 So, to me, it seems like all these 

6 findings can be placed in abeyance and then 

7 when the revised procedure is available, then 

8 there can be the review to determine if we 

9 adequately addressed the finding that SC&A 

10 raised.

11 MR. KATZ: Right. And this is Ted. 

12 And I was thinking, when I looked at a number 

13 of the findings it seemed like they were -- it 

14 was the case that, in fact, it just said, ORAU 

15 procedure wasn't yet in sync with DCAS, and 

16 that was sort of part of the nature of the 

17 finding from SC&A. And so that's why I'm just 

18 sort of raising the question.

19 I'm not trying to make a big deal 

20 of it. I just don't want to be in a situation 

21 where we are getting SC&A to review something 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that is in process already, because really 127 1

2 it's more efficient then for them to wait and 

3 see what their final procedures are.

4 I mean, I know in a way it is more 

5 efficient for you to hear input then, but when 

6 they're commenting on matters that you're 

7 going to fix anyway because they are out of 

8 step with DCAS, I guess, there is some 

9 inefficiency in that.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Understood.

11 MR. KUBIAK: This is Mike Kubiak 

12 again. I do want to support what Stu said 

13 also. There were a lot of very good comments. 

14 There were three or four of them on subjects 

15 which would have remained, you know, less 

16 thoroughly addressed in my previous revision. 

17 So there is definitely some improvements made 

18 either way.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. Thanks. And I 

20 understand there is some value added 

21 nonetheless. Thanks, Mike.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Mike, we have not 128 1

2 received any information from you. We, being 

3 the Board Members, have no information from 

4 you, correct? I'm just seeing for the first 

5 time what you have submitted. Am I correct in 

6 that?

7 MR. KUBIAK: Well, yes, I believe 

8 that was uploaded to your tracking system.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. It's on 

10 the tracking system.

11 MR. KUBIAK: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: But we have not 

13 received any -- I didn't have an email notice 

14 that it had been or anything of that sort, 

15 right?

16 MR. KUBIAK: Quite honestly, I'm 

17 not the one on our site that handles that, so 

18 I'm probably not prepared to answer whether 

19 there was or was not.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I guess my 

21 concern, again from a procedural point 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

view, is I suspect that what has already been 129 1 

2 said is accurate, that it is incorrect for us 

3 to continue to carry this as an open item, 

4 that we ought to be carrying it as either in 

5 abeyance or -- but in order to do that, we 

6 need to insert some kind of a statement.

7 And your statements are fine, but 

8 we need to say as a Subcommittee, yes, we see 

9 that those are good statements and, yes, we 

10 accept that and make our judgment as to 

11 whether it's in abeyance.

12 MR. KUBIAK: Well, to answer your 

13 question though, Lori did send out notice 

14 about the changes, about the responses.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I thought I saw 

16 Lori's email.

17 MR. KUBIAK: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: But somehow I missed 

19 PROC-44.

20 MR. KUBIAK: Okay. It's in there.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Then am I 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

only one who has not read those documents or 130 1

2 is this Subcommittee, like me, wanting to wait 

3 until our next meeting so that I have an 

4 opportunity to at least look at these and make 

5 some judgment as to what our statement should 

6 be and what its status should be?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

8 did look at these. I think they were on 

9 yesterday, at least I looked at them. And it 

10 looks to me like NIOSH has accepted all of the 

11 issues.

12 And I mean, basically, they are all 

13 saying we are revising this and we are going 

14 to take these issues into consideration.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Where they are 

16 revising them might be an issue when we 

17 identify them in our data and how we identify 

18 them in our data.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Wanda, this is 

20 Josie. I did review them also a couple of 

21 days ago and I think Paul is correct, they did 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

show that they were going to revise the 131 1

2 current procedure. 

3 There was a couple of them that had 

4 more information on them and I would have to 

5 go back and look at them. I wonder if NIOSH 

6 or ORAU needs any clarification from SC&A?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my guess is they 

8 --

9 MEMBER BEACH: And I believe --

10 CHAIR MUNN: -- probably don't 

11 simply because they have their process under 

12 way, but our question that is before us right 

13 now is do we carry this over to next time or 

14 do we try to make some definitive judgment 

15 about each of these findings right now?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I believe we should 

17 carry them over.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, I would carry 

19 them over.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't 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

anywhere where NIOSH has disputed the finding 132 1

2 and that something needs to be resolved before 

3 they proceed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I don't --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think 

6 anyone disputes the findings.

7 CHAIR MUNN: No.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was that your 

9 impression?

10 CHAIR MUNN: That -- my impression 

11 is that that is not a dispute, that our 

12 problem now is tracking where these 

13 corrections are going to be made and the 

14 timing that they are going to occur and how we 

15 should be carrying our item on the BRS. I 

16 don't want to --

17 MEMBER BEACH: It feels like it 

18 should --

19 CHAIR MUNN: -- call these open any 

20 longer than we need to, if they are, in fact, 

21 all being resolved. But unless we address 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

them individually, I don't think we can do 133 1

2 that. And my preference would be that we 

3 address them individually at our next meeting 

4 and not at this one.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 

6 Steve.

7 MEMBER BEACH: I believe -- oh, go 

8 ahead.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 

10 Steve. I just want to -- you know, I spoke, 

11 as John mentioned, with John earlier this 

12 morning and I, you know, was anticipating that 

13 he would be on the call, so I wasn't paying a 

14 lot of good attention, but I do know he had 

15 some reservations about the degree with which 

16 NIOSH is going to address some of these 

17 comments.

18 So I think, you know, in general 

19 what you say, yes, NIOSH has agreed with the 

20 comments and they are going to make some 

21 changes to the document to reflect 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

comments or the findings, but I'm not sure 134 1

2 that -- you know, we get the impression from 

3 the statements that are made here that they 

4 are going the -- as far as we had anticipated 

5 or hoped that they would go.

6 So I would like -- you know, I 

7 would vote for putting it off until the next 

8 meeting where we can have John Mauro's, you 

9 know, direct input into the, you know, 

10 changes. Whether they are going to be changed 

11 --

12 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's the 

13 wise thing to do.

14 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver 

15 and I have also spoken with John and Bob 

16 Barton and also Steve Ostrow about this. Yes, 

17 it becomes a question of the degree to which, 

18 you know, the intent of the finding to 

19 actually be incorporated into the new 

20 revision. And, you know, until we see that, 

21 they really don't have any basis for passing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

judgment. 135 1

2 You know, we say that based on 

3 these statements that are in the BRS, it does 

4 look like there may be not quite what we 

5 really expected, but we can't tell the final 

6 product.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: Well, Wanda, this is 

9 Josie. I was going to say that this needs to 

10 go in abeyance until SC&A has the -- is able 

11 to re-review the latest document that ORAU 

12 releases.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there is no 

14 document.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you want to put 

16 it in abeyance or in progress?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we wanted to --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Can I comment on 

19 that?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

usually when we go in abeyance, we have agreed 136 1

2 to what the final thing is going to look like 

3 and it just has to be incorporated.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think we 

6 know, at this point, what the final thing is 

7 going to look like. So I would keep it in 

8 progress.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We do not even know 

10 yet unless we group -- unless we make the 

11 decision right now to do that, we don't even 

12 know that each of these needs to be in 

13 progress. And that's what I -- that's why I'm 

14 requesting a possibility to --

15 MR. STIVER: Oh, keep them open.

16 CHAIR MUNN: -- postpone it until 

17 next time, with a minimum of 30 minutes 

18 applied to it next time, probably more than 

19 that, so that we can look at each of these and 

20 make the assessment. I anticipate they will 

21 all be in progress, but we don't know 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

unless we make the decision now. 137 1

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay with that. 

3 This is Ziemer.

4 MEMBER BEACH: I'm okay with that 

5 also.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Someone was 

7 trying to say something?

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, this is Ted. I'm 

9 just a little bit baffled by this conversation 

10 just because we have Mike on the phone, and 

11 John who has indicated that he brief John 

12 Stiver and others about his issue and 

13 concerns, and they are in the process of 

14 revising the document. And rather than come 

15 out then with a document where you would see 

16 whether they addressed the concerns fully or 

17 not, why not now have a discussion of those 

18 issues that John indicated to John Stiver he 

19 has some concern about the depth to which the 

20 response is going?

21 Why not have that discussion now, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

so that Mike and his team can do a complete 138 1

2 job on the revision, rather than having them 

3 produce something that maybe doesn't address 

4 all the points to the depth that SC&A's 

5 concerns reach?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent point, Ted. 

7 Does anyone have any objection to undertaking 

8 PROC-44 today?

9 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I would have preferred 

11 to postpone it until next time, but that's all 

12 right. It's not necessary. If we need to do 

13 that, we can do that.

14 MR. STIVER: Well, this is John 

15 Stiver and, you know, I've got to tell you, 

16 like Steve, I have talked to John and I don't 

17 feel like I'm in a position to be able to 

18 speak for him. He had some fairly detailed 

19 things that he wanted to talk about. And so I 

20 would prefer to wait on this.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Maybe we could -- 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this is Steve again. Sorry for interrupting 139 1

2 you, John, but maybe we can get John to write 

3 down his concerns and we can get them to NIOSH 

4 and get them to Mike, not waiting until we 

5 have the next meeting, but --

6 MR. STIVER: Right. We could --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- try to get that 

8 to him in a more timely fashion. It's really 

9 unfortunate that John had this commitment that 

10 he had to get to, but --

11 MR. STIVER: That would be the best 

12 way to do it, I think, would be to -- I 

13 wouldn't want to go ahead and make 

14 pronouncements that were a little off base 

15 from what John had really intended.

16 MR. KATZ: And that's fine. This 

17 is Ted. And I don't mean to be too tart about 

18 this, but, I mean, we do schedule these well 

19 in advance and John Mauro knows when they are 

20 and he knows the agenda item, so, I mean, I'm 

21 not that tolerant of the idea of just putting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

it off for another two months. 140 1

2 So I think that is a good idea to 

3 have John send, if he has more elaborate 

4 concerns that are captured in the actual 

5 review, by all means send those to DCAS, so 

6 that they can, you know, do their revisions, 

7 you know, fully in one piece, rather than 

8 having to sort of wait and be delayed like 

9 this.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Can we agree we will 

11 have off-line communications and that we will 

12 address this entire issue of PROC-44, each 

13 individual one, next time we meet? Is this a 

14 major inconvenience to you, Mike?

15 MR. KUBIAK: No, ma'am, not at all. 

16 No. I would be -- by that time, I think, we 

17 would have draft text that would have been run 

18 by DCAS --

19 CHAIR MUNN: And you could have had 

20 some communication with our contractor with 

21 regard to some specific concerns that they 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have regarding your current responses. 141 1

2 MR. KUBIAK: Right. I suspect that 

3 is the most efficient use of your time, for 

4 sure.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

6 Lori. Let me ask this. Will John be putting 

7 his concerns in the BRS, or all this will take 

8 place off-line?

9 CHAIR MUNN: It was my expectation 

10 that it would take place off-line.

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, well, actually, let 

14 me just -- I think it could be in a memo from 

15 SC&A. I mean, we do these written content and 

16 when we have review concerns, so it definitely 

17 doesn't need to be in a teleconference or 

18 whatever. It can just be an email from John 

19 with whatever elaboration he didn't make in 

20 the review itself.

21 MR. KUBIAK: Okay. I'll get 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

line with John and indicate what he needs to 142 1

2 do and he will put together --

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

4 MR. KUBIAK: -- a memo with 

5 particular detailed items highlighted.

6 CHAIR MUNN: We will anticipate a 

7 significant time block at our next meeting for 

8 PROC-44.

9 The next question is PER-20, a 

10 status update. And, Kathy, are you on-line 

11 and are you up for this?

12 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm on-line. 

13 This will be brief because PER-20 is the 

14 Blockson TBD review. And we were assigned two 

15 cases that we are going to evaluate under Sub16 task 4, the one case that was assigned --

17 actually was not revised and so I requested 

18 that we get another case, which we did.

19 I have just really started on that 

20 review, but I will certainly have it ready for 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Very good. That's 143 1

2 great. And that brings us to PER-11 and that 

3 should be an extensive review, as I understand 

4 it. And are we ready for that, John?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, we are. Kathy, I 

6 believe is going to lead the show on that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

8 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I'll try. 

9 Again, PER-11 was just sent to you yesterday. 

10 We worked to try to get this out. We were 

11 still going through some peer review process. 

12 And again, Rose did the initial review and, 

13 Rose, are you still on the line?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I am.

15 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And John and I 

16 again did the peer review, but I'll try to go 

17 through this as, you know, best I can. We did 

18 have five findings, but let's start. 

19 If we pull it up and we look at 

20 page 8 -- let me see, did I jump ahead? No, 

21 page 8 is fine.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PER-11 has to do with the K-25 Site 144 1

2 and the changes that had been made or 

3 introduced into the issuance, I guess, of the 

4 external dose TBD, which is TKBS-0009-6. 

5 There were also two OTIBs that affected this 

6 particular site. And so all of those were 

7 incorporated into PER-11.

8 Some of the changes, it was 

9 written, were going to be an increase in the 

10 dose and others were going to decrease the 

11 dose. And so it -- let me, first of all, just 

12 give you a chronology of what happened here.

13 First of all, in November 24, 2004, 

14 that was the issuance of the external dose 

15 section of the K-25 TBD. There was no 

16 external coworker model included in the K-25, 

17 in this TBD. On May 31, 2005 --

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Kathy, can I stop 

19 you?

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There was 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

coworker model. 145 1

2 MS. BEHLING: There was? Okay. 

3 Yes. I'm sorry. And I see that -- that we 

4 have to make a change here. There was a 

5 coworker model included. Okay. We have a 

6 wrong word here.

7 On May 31, 2005, OTIB-26 was 

8 issued, which actually replaced the coworker 

9 guidance in the external dose TBD. And it 

10 added a dose to account for the missed portion 

11 of the external dose.

12 And in July 29, 2005, OTIB-26 was 

13 revised and some of that missed dose was --

14 they reduced some of the missed dose that was 

15 added in the original TBD-26.

16 On November 15, 2006, there was 

17 another change made to OTIB-26 and this change 

18 incorporated the construction trade worker 

19 guidance from OTIB-52.

20 In looking at this PER, the PER was 

21 fairly vague as to what to expect, so 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

Rose did is she went in and she made a 146 1

2 comparison, a yearly comparison of all of the 

key penetrating dose models and -- for the 95th 3

percentile and for the 50th 4 percentile. And 

5 you see those in the year 2-1 and 2-2.

6 Also, because coworker dose is 

7 dependent on the length of employment, the 

8 time of employment, cancer location and job 

9 description, she looked at the annual percent 

10 change between historical and the current 

11 coworker guidance documents. And that you can 

12 see depicted in Figure 2-3 and 2-4.

13 Table 2-1 also -- and all of this 

14 data is included in Appendices A through C. A 

15 summary is provided for you in Table 2-1. And 

16 what that is showing is that on average the 

17 coworker dose that was calculated using the 

18 original TBD underestimates the coworker dose 

19 calculated by our most current method in OTIB20 26.

21 Historically, however, if we go 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

to page 11, the shallow dose overestimated the 147 1

2 coworker dose, except for a few years. 

However, for the 50th 3 percentile, for the nonpenetrating. However, the 50th 4 percentile for 

5 the penetrating dose was overestimated. So 

6 one just about cancels the other out. And so 

7 it can become an issue.

8 If we move on then to Section 2.2, 

9 we had to look at two different sets of data 

10 just for the coworker data and then the second 

11 set of data that we looked at was for the 

12 construction trade worker.

13 And again, the construction trade 

14 workers are supposed to receive 1.4 times 

15 greater than the measured coworker dose. And 

16 Rose also went in and made a comparison 

17 between the historic and the current 

18 procedures and that data is included in 

19 Appendix D and it's summarized in Table 2.2.

20 And basically what Table 2.2 is 

21 telling us is that the historic coworker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

models underestimate the construction trade 148 1

2 worker/coworker dose during most -- for most 

3 of the years prior to 1975.

4 And if we go on to Section 3, this 

5 is Sub-task 2, which is looking at the 

6 approach and the methods to take it for 

7 corrective action. Listed there are three 

8 sets of criteria. Obviously, the claim has to 

9 be from employment at the K-25 Site.

10 The claims were completed between 

11 the date of the initial coworker model, which 

12 is November 24, 2004, and the date of the 

13 issuance of the OTIB-52, which is August 31, 

14 2006. And that the claim had a PoC of less 

15 than 50 percent.

16 Initially, there were 432 cases 

17 that were identified that were potentially 

18 impacted by these changes. And I guess the 

19 first question that we had is, or the first 

20 finding, and this is conditional because when 

21 we started to look at the data, just a random 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

search, we again identified some cases that 149 1

2 were completed prior to the issuance of the 

3 TBD, where there was unmonitored dose assigned 

4 and in some cases where was ambient external 

5 dose assigned.

6 Now, I realize that this is a 

7 finding that was also identified when we did 

8 the initial review of PER-11. And it was 

9 closed based on NIOSH's statement that 

10 unmonitored dose for claimants that they felt 

11 needed to have coworker dose model, they held 

12 those cases and they were pending a coworker 

13 dose model.

14 However, just at a glance, you 

15 know, randomly selecting some of these cases, 

16 we just wanted to verify that, because we were 

17 just questioning -- what we would really like 

18 to know is what was the methods that NIOSH 

19 used in calculating those monitored dose? 

20 Perhaps they are overestimates and it will 

21 satisfy our question.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Perhaps also there were some 150 1

2 ambient dose that was identified -- that was 

3 just listed because -- that they should have 

4 been assigned a construction trade worker/ 

5 coworker model.

6 So we are trying to get a better 

7 understanding of those cases that were done 

8 before the issuance of the K-25 coworker 

9 model.

10 Let's see here. There was also --

11 let me see here, okay, that answers that. 

12 That was that particular one. We were also 

13 questioning -- oh, the end date of August 31, 

14 2006, there is a gap between the issuance of 

15 OTIB-52 and the issuance of OTIB-26. And that 

16 gap is a several month period between August 

17 and November of 2006.

18 And we are just wondering if the 

19 dose reconstructor actually did know that 

20 OTIB-52 was out there and applied the 

21 construction trade worker correction factor 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

those particular cases. And there may not be 151 1

2 many cases involved in this.

3 We did look at a few cases and we 

4 did realize that, again, the missed and 

5 measured dose was combined and so for the 

6 cases that we looked at, although the question 

7 factor was applied, it was really an 

8 overestimate of the dose because it was 

9 applied to both the missed and the measured 

10 portion of the coworker dose.

11 Okay. And going on to Section 4, 

12 Sub-task 3. Okay. NIOSH requested a return 

13 for the following two reasons: On page 15, 

14 claims that were completed before May 21, 2005 

15 using an external coworker model, and claims 

16 between May 21, 2005 and August 31, 2006.

17 Our second finding here is there is 

18 some date inconsistency. There is a 10-day --

19 let's see here, the selection date is 10 days 

20 prior to the issuance of OTIB-26. And maybe 

21 this was just an administrative oversight, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

maybe there were no cases listed, but we just 152 1

2 thought that NIOSH should further investigate 

3 to be sure no cases were evaluated between 

4 that 10-day window.

5 Moving on then to --

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Kathy?

7 MS. BEHLING: Yes?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Also we requested 

9 clarification in that, because it lists the 

10 completion date, but there is no -- we are not 

11 sure what the completion date is in the case.

12 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. Yes. 

13 Yeah, when we look at a dose reconstruction 

14 report, the cover identifies several dates. 

15 There is a dose reconstruction completion 

16 date. I think, in fact, now it may be called 

17 a calculation completion date. There is a 

18 peer review completion date and then there is 

19 a dose reconstruction approved date.

20 And so I guess this has brought to 

21 mind what does NIOSH consider the completion 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

date? To us, it would seem like it would be 153 1

2 the calculation date, but we really need 

3 clarification on that. Okay.

4 Now, if we move on to page 16, 

5 Finding 3, we were not sure, because it wasn't 

6 specified as to what the methodology was used 

7 to identify the construction trade workers in 

8 this particular case.

9 We assume that they used the same 

10 criteria as PER-14. However, it wasn't 

11 specified and we just wanted to verify that 

12 they did use this keyword search on 31 

13 different job types, because it wasn't 

14 specified in PER-11.

15 Now, if we move on to Section 4.2, 

16 you can see there were -- of the 432 claims 

17 that were potentially impacted, there were 94 

18 that were returned to NIOSH. And here, again, 

19 we are going to get into some confusion from 

20 our part as to 69 of the claims were reworked 

21 of those 94, and 25 were marked -- they 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

not revised and there was no documentation in 154 1

2 those 25 claims indicating that they weren't 

3 revised. So that was one issue.

4 And again, we are going to go back 

5 to the same issue that we had on PER-14 where 

6 we're wondering if, for the cases that were 

7 returned but not reworked, there was data in 

8 the file. 

9 I have found an example again where 

10 there was an ICE memo for PERs stating that 

11 the dose reconstruction was completed and it 

12 was reevaluated under PER-11. And that was 

13 not an accurate statement, because the dose 

14 reconstruction had not, at least as of the 

15 last time we looked at it, which is a few days 

16 ago, been revised. 

17 And there was also an ICE memo for 

18 PER-14 which indicated no evaluation was 

19 performed, because the claim was returned for 

20 another request, for another PER.

21 So again, we are questioning 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

whether -- since it's not being revised under 155 1

2 PER-11, is it not being revised under PER-14 

3 either? And there may be some cases that are 

4 falling through the cracks and not, at least, 

5 being revised using most current 

6 documentation. And that was the same finding 

7 as we had in PER-14.

8 We went on and because we thought 

9 there were -- we were surprised by how few 

10 cases were actually returned. We went in and 

11 conducted our own screening and we did the 

12 keyword search and we identified 162 claims 

13 and within that subset -- or within those 162 

14 claims, we realized that a subset of 73 

15 indicated that no return was necessary.

16 We selected seven of those cases 

17 and looked at them and you can see the break18 down. Two of the cases were construction 

19 trade workers were monitored and no dose was 

20 assigned. And in one case, the construction 

21 trade worker was not monitored and no coworker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

dose was assigned. 156 1

2 In two cases, the construction 

3 trade worker was unmonitored and assigned 

4 coworker dose for K-25. And in two other 

5 cases, again, they were employed at other Oak 

6 Ridge facilities and they were assigned 

7 coworker dose.

8 So, from that, we thought that 

9 those four cases should have been revised and 

10 we are questioning, again, based on that 

11 evaluation, why they were considered that they 

12 didn't -- that no return was necessary. 

13 Perhaps PER-11, because it was somewhat vague, 

14 maybe there was more restrictive selection 

15 criteria used that wasn't documented, but we 

16 just thought that that should be looked into 

17 further.

18 And finally, as we indicated, there 

19 were 69 cases that were reworked on behalf of 

20 PER-11. However, we are recommending, at this 

21 time, that it may be premature to select any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

cases or to even recommend selecting any cases 157 1

2 until we resolve these findings.

3 Also, based on our questions, we 

4 are just wondering if there might be more than 

5 69 cases involved in the -- that needed to be 

6 reworked under PER-11, and so that may change 

7 our recommendation as to how many cases should 

8 be reviewed under the Sub-task 4.

9 At this point, if the 69 claims 

10 stands, we are recommending that we look at 

11 maybe two claims for external coworker model 

12 and two claims associated with the 

13 construction trade worker cases. And that 

14 sums up PER-11.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very much, 

16 Kathy.

17 MS. BEHLING: Rose, do you have 

18 anything else to add?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Is 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

- do we want to undertake discussion of this? 158 1

2 Is our discussion going to take long? Is 

3 everyone there starving to death?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, this Stu. I 

5 think we would be pretty handicapped in having 

6 any discussion about this. We just received 

7 it yesterday --

8 CHAIR MUNN: I would think so. So 

9 that's one of the reasons why --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we have 

11 nothing to offer.

12 CHAIR MUNN: -- I'm asking the 

13 question, because it doesn't seem to me that 

14 discussion can go very far until you've had an 

15 opportunity to absorb this.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. We have to

17 take the findings under advisement and see 

18 what we can learn about this.

19 CHAIR MUNN: It was only scanned 

20 here, I'll tell you, and not really absorbed. 

21 I have to go back and do 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

MR. STIVER: Yeah, this is John. 159 1

2 This was our intent, really, today, given the 

3 short notice, was to give it an overall 

4 presentation.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. STIVER: With the understanding 

7 it would take some time for it to be absorbed.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I appreciate that. Is 

9 the Subcommittee happy with the premise that 

10 we will have this on our calendar for next 

11 time and that, in the interim, both NIOSH and 

12 ourselves will have an opportunity to observe 

13 this a little better and formulate our 

14 positions with respect to the recommendations?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

16 Ziemer. Definitely, NIOSH needs to look at 

17 this and respond. I think there is some 

18 interesting findings here that we need to 

19 learn a little more about at least.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that.

21 CHAIR MUNN: 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

MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. 160 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Then that being 

3 the case --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Wanda, I'm 

5 sorry.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

8 Siebert. I just had a quick question for 

9 SC&A. When I look through this, I don't see 

10 claim numbers associated with, like, those two 

11 cases where a coworker was monitored and no 

12 coworker was assigned, things like that. Is 

13 that available or I'm just missing it because 

14 I'm going through this quickly?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They are not in 

16 here, but we can provide them.

17 MR. SIEBERT: That would be key for 

18 us addressing this. Thank you.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they were 

20 redacted. I think they -- weren't they in the 

21 original? The top one I'm looking at 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

redacted. 161 1

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Some were redacted 

3 and we omitted some.

4 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, so we can 

5 provide those ID numbers, yes. The other 

6 thing I was going to ask is would you like for 

7 me to resubmit this changing -- I guess we 

8 will want to change the finding numbers. And 

9 I'm not sure, Steve, do you know how many 

10 findings there were on the -- oh, no, no, I'm 

11 sorry. I'm ahead of myself. This is not Sub12 task 4. This is the original. Never mind.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Okay. Good. So 

14 the finding numbers you have are going to be 

15 the finding numbers we see on the BRS.

16 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Okay, sorry.

17 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

18 right. Are we good to go, then? If so, I 

19 suggest you all take 45 minutes to have lunch. 

20 And we will meet back here again at 15 minutes 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: Sounds good. 162 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: Is that agreeable?

3 MR. STIVER: Yes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. We will see 

5 you at, I guess, 1:15 your time. Right? Good. 

6 All right.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 1:26 p.m. and 

9 resumed at 2:15 p.m.)

10
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 163 1

2 2:15 p.m.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Picking up 

4 with our Subcommittee Procedures agenda with 

5 our after lunch schedule. The first item 

6 being Draft Review of RPRT-0053. Who is 

7 taking the lead on this, John?

8 MR. STIVER: Steve, do you want to 

9 go ahead and --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll put the thing 

11 up. Let's see, we just issued this draft 

12 report. When was it? It was a couple of days 

13 ago. And it has been -- you can see by the 

14 list of authors, it has been quite a joint 

15 effort and it has been quite a while getting 

16 this thing out.

17 And we did have -- you know, 

18 basically what this is, it's the -- NIOSH has 

19 proposed in 053 a methodology for splitting 

20 the universe of bioassay results into two 

21 strata, and only two strata.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And so what we did was we did a 164 1

2 review primarily on RPRT-53, but in order to 

3 get some additional insight into, you know, 

4 how it is going to be used and its impacts, we 

5 also looked at RPRT-55, -56 and -58 to see how 

6 NIOSH is applying RPRT-53.

7 One of the significant changes from 

8 the old methodology, in addition to basically 

9 stratifying the sample into two strata, 

10 another significant change is the concept of 

11 the one-person-one-sample statistic whereas in 

12 previous incorporations of this coworker 

13 model, we basically were based upon the full 

14 spectrum of bioassay results.

15 And what it did was it took 

16 everybody's bioassay results for that year and 

17 piled them all up into one distribution, log18 normal distribution. What they have, NIOSH, 

19 now has proposed to do is this concept of one20 person-one-sample. And so, in any one year, 

21 any one person is represented by only 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

sample and that way you get more of an equal 165 1

2 weighting between workers, I guess. I think 

3 that's the concept, anyway.

4 And so those are really the two 

5 significant areas of change that were, you 

6 know, incorporated in this RPRT-53.

7 And I think I'm going to pass it 

8 off. If Harry is on the phone, I think I'm 

9 going to pass it, because a lot of these where 

10 you're talking about the statistics are not in 

11 my area of expertise. And I would feel more 

12 comfortable if Harry, if you are on the phone, 

13 when we get into talking about these different 

14 findings, particularly Finding 1 where we talk 

15 about the R-squared for the ROS does not have 

16 the usual interpretation.

17 Well, I don't -- I'm not the one to 

18 talk about that, let's put it that way.

19 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Yes, I'm here, 

20 Steve.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Could you pick 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

for me, Harry, and carry the ball here and 166 1

2 correct anything that I've said wrong so far?

3 DR. CHMELYNSKI: I don't see any 

4 problems with what you said so far. I will 

5 pick up with Finding 1.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

7 DR. CHMELYNSKI: As you suggested.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, before you 

9 pick up, Harry, let me just say one other 

10 thing. Just a point for administrative 

11 detail, we have not uploaded these findings 

12 into the BRS at this point in time. Now that 

13 the document has been issued, we will do that 

14 probably in the next day or so. Okay. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, that's good. 

16 Thanks. Thanks very much, Steve, I appreciate 

17 your populating it for us. Thanks

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Harry, it's 

19 all yours.

20 DR. CHMELYNSKI: Great. Thanks. 

21 The first finding has to do with regression 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

order statistics. And our concern there is 167 1

2 basically with the words statistics.

3 These are order statistics. We 

4 take the data and we put them in order and 

5 it's well-known that once you do that, these 

6 data are auto-correlated and heteroskedastic. 

7 In particular, the min and the max have higher 

8 variances and as you go closer to the middle, 

9 the variances get lower.

10 Unfortunately, this procedure has 

11 become quite popular, not just with NIOSH, but 

12 I don't think people thought much about how do 

13 you decide whether ROS gives you a good fit. 

14 We are told what the R-square is. R-square 

15 doesn't mean anything really here because they 

16 are so auto-correlated.

17 In other words, if you go to the 

18 right and you look at the next data point, 

19 it's always higher than the one on the left. 

20 And we know that isn't happening in regular 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

We also can't use the t-statistics, 168 1

2 which would tell us something about how well 

3 we know the parameters. So what I'm wondering 

4 is how do we know whether we have a good fit 

5 with the ROS procedure?

6 And everything I said so far 

7 doesn't even introduce the question of non8 detects. As soon as you bring those in, it 

9 becomes even more complicated as to what the 

10 R-squared means and whether we have estimated 

11 the coefficient for the GM and the GSB 

12 properly. So that's our discussion on ROS.

13 The second statistical problem that 

14 we see is the use of a hypothesis test with a 

15 high confidence level of 95 percent, when 

16 testing the hypothesis that there is no 

17 difference between the two groups.

18 In retrospective kind of analyses, 

19 like we are doing here, just knowing that we 

20 are using a powerful test doesn't really tell 

21 us how powerful it is. The problem is 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

the real power of the test depends on the 169 1

2 variability of the data and the sample sizes 

3 that are available.

4 When we looked at this question, 

5 for example, looking at the neptunium data 

6 from SRS for the coworkers and the -- I'm 

7 sorry, for the construction workers and the 

8 other workers, some of the comparisons are 

9 done with sample sizes as small as maybe a 

10 handful, 10, 15, with the construction worker 

11 data. And a lot of those sometime are non12 detects.

13 So what we did was do some 

14 simulation to see how powerful this test would 

15 be and really the question here is how far 

16 apart do they have to be before the tests will 

17 say they are different?

18 And we did some simulation work 

19 that says, well, maybe if they are a factor of 

20 four apart, we might be able to see the 

21 difference. In some cases, it might 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

something as high as a factor of 10 before the 170 1

2 test will show us any significant difference.

3 Now, that doesn't seem to be a very 

4 powerful test, in our view, and we would like 

5 to see some calculations as to what is the 

6 power when this is applied. In LO-53, we are 

7 talking about the methodology, so what we 

8 would like to see on these two issues is 

9 discussion of how do we measure the goodness 

10 of fit for ROS and how do we measure the power 

11 of the hypothesis test?

12 And I would like to see some 

13 discussion of that in the report and some 

14 instructions for exactly how large a sample is 

15 needed to detect the kind of differences we 

16 are looking for.

17 Now, that brings up another 

18 question, which is how big of a difference are 

19 we looking for? NIOSH has decided to, what I 

20 think, turn the cart around and put the horse 

21 in the back. They say we have to look 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

significant differences and when we will 171 1

2 decide whether they mean anything.

3 Well, you really can't tell whether 

4 you have any significant differences unless 

5 you decide what difference it is that you are 

6 trying to look for.

7 So I think you really have to 

8 design the problem from the beginning, saying 

9 I have two populations; I want to know whether 

10 they are a factor of two apart or a factor of 

11 three apart and then say, well, what sample 

12 would I need to do that?

13 And if you do it that way, you'll 

14 probably find out you're going to need, like 

15 it says in the report, at least 30, maybe 

16 more. It depends on the variability. And I 

17 guess that's it for our statistical questions.

18 The final topic, I think, that 

19 Steve has already introduced, is the idea of 

20 OPOS, O-P-O-S. And since I'm a statistician, 

21 I think about the statistical aspects of OPOS, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

but there is a lot more thinking here in terms 172 1

2 of the modeling and the exposures that have to 

3 be considered.

4 So all I can say is, well, let's 

5 remember that the last S there doesn't really 

6 mean sample. It means a sample statistic. 

7 And again, since it's a statistic, it has 

8 uncertainty and a lot of times what we call an 

9 OPOS is really just an average of a single 

10 value. Other times it might be an average of 

11 20 values.

12 Some of them are known very 

13 imprecisely. Some of them are known better. 

14 That's all ignored when we put them under 

15 regression. So we would like to see again 

16 some rules, in a sense, for exactly what is 

17 the sample size you need to get at the one18 person-one-sample approach. And do those 

19 sample sizes have to be similar within the 

20 group and across groups?

21 And I guess I'll leave it 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

because I think OPOS is a conversation that, 173 1

2 really, health physicists should have, rather 

3 than a statistician. So are there any 

4 questions?

5 CHAIR MUNN: I think we are all 

6 stunned.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: We did look into 

8 some, just to pick up on what Harry said, we 

9 did look into some OPOS and we did -- I think 

10 we mentioned at one of the previous meetings 

11 that we were going to try and run some -- make 

12 some IMBA runs. I-M-B-A --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- runs with OPOS 

15 and compare some OPOS/IMBA runs to some IMBA 

16 runs that were made with actual measurements 

17 for actual cases. And we did that but we 

18 decided not to put that into this report, 

19 because we thought it was just tangential to 

20 the problem and it would just, basically, 

21 maybe confuse or distract people from 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

the focus of RPRT-53. 174 1

2 So I can, you know, give you a 

3 summary of what I thought were the pertinent 

4 points from that little study that we did, but 

5 again, like I said, we decided that, you know, 

6 it was really tangential to RPRT-53 and we 

7 decided that we should not put it into this 

8 report.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I personally 

10 would like to hear it. I don't know what 

11 Josie and Paul feel, but I would like to hear 

12 your take.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: My take is that, in 

14 most cases, when you average all the sample 

15 data that you have, or the various samples 

16 that you have, in the half or dozen or so 

17 cases that we looked at, in most of those 

18 cases, the OPOS resulted in larger intake. 

19 Let me see, let me back up.

20 CHAIR MUNN: How significantly 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. MARSCHKE: Not terribly 175 1

2 significant. Let me back up. What we did was 

3 we looked at actual sample data and we took 

4 some cases that NIOSH had actually performed 

5 the IMBA runs on and then we calculated an 

6 equivalent OPOS for that data and re-ran IMBA 

7 and compared the continuous intake rate that 

8 was calculated from the OPOS to the continuous 

9 intake rate that was calculated in the NIOSH 

10 actual claimant run.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And you did it on five 

12 or six?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And we had five or 

14 six of those, yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, okay.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: And in most cases, 

17 like I say, the OPOS came up with larger 

18 continuous intake than the actual data did. 

19 And I think it has to do with the way IMBA 

20 does its curve fitting, because it actually 

21 doesn't do -- I don't know it does its curve 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

fitting. 176 1

2 I mean, I don't think it really 

3 tries to fit the curve because it factors in 

4 biological responses as well. So the IMBA 

5 results do not really -- when you compare the 

6 IMBA results from an actual case, they do not 

7 track the actual bioassay data all that well. 

8 Let's put it that way, I guess.

9 MR. STIVER: Steve, I know Joyce 

10 had had some concerns regarding the OPOS 

11 methodology and some of the situations that 

12 might arise, like when you have a radionuclide 

13 that is a relatively long-lived or retained 

14 for long periods of time in the body and yet 

15 may -- you may have situations where you have 

16 a short-term incident-related intake as 

17 opposed to a continuous intake.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry, I didn't 

19 hear that last part of your sentence, John. 

20 Your voice is getting very soft.

21 MR. STIVER: I'm sorry. I am still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

recovering from laryngitis that I had a few 177 1

2 months ago. I don't know if I'm going to ever 

3 get my voice all the way back.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry to hear 

5 that. We don't want to push you, but maybe 

6 just a little closer to the microphone.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, I'll just try to 

8 get a little bit closer to the mic. Joyce, 

9 are you out there, at this point?

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I am. I am. 

11 The problem with the OPOS is that there is no 

12 real definition, because the OPOS is that if a 

13 worker had a lot of bioassay results, then one 

14 way that NIOSH proposes to deal with it is to 

15 take all those bioassay results, probably 

16 because it was related to an accident or 

17 because there was a special procedure that 

18 they had to follow, but this worker had a lot 

19 of bioassay results and what NIOSH says is it 

20 is being put together with the data from the 

21 other workers that have just one result.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

There are going to be a distortion 178 1

2 on the coworker model because the coworker 

3 model uses the data from many workers. So if 

4 you have one worker that had an accident and 

5 has a lot of high results and the other 

6 workers don't have this problem, when you put 

7 all the results together in this same log8 normal distribution, then all those results 

9 are going to distort the curve, which is true.

10 So before the idea of the OPOS and 

11 the coworker model, what NIOSH used to do 

12 when there was a case of an accident, they 

13 would take all the data off and wouldn't 

14 consider it.

15 So this time, we say, now we are 

16 going to take all the data from this worker, 

17 but we are going to use just one result for 

18 this worker, which would be the maximum 

19 possible result for this worker.

20 The problem that I see with it is 

21 that you -- NIOSH doesn't really define 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

interval of time they are going to apply the 179 1

2 OPOS. Is this just for that accident, just 

3 the results that are around this accident or 

4 are they going to apply it for the whole year 

5 or for a quarter of a year? It doesn't say 

6 what is the period of time.

7 And then there are some other 

8 documents that use the 53 results, like when 

9 they are applying it to --

10 CHAIR MUNN: Are you still there, 

11 Joyce?

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. Can you 

13 hear me?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I thought you were 

15 breaking up. I heard -- after 53, I lost you. 

16 I don't know whether other people did.

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh, I'm sorry. 

18 Where did you lose me?

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you had just 

20 finished emphasizing that no period of time 

21 had been identified 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

DR. LIPSZTEIN: Exactly. 180 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- you started to say 

3 something else, something further and I lost 

4 you.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Ah, oh, okay. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Did anyone else lose 

7 her? Was it her phone or was it mine?

8 MR. STIVER: I think it was her 

9 phone. This is John. I had her cut out as 

10 well.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. Good.

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh, okay. I'm 

13 sorry.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

15 right. It's not you. It's your phone.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. So I'm 

17 repeating it.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine.

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Please interrupt me 

20 if I'm going too fast or if you can't hear me. 

21 So there was some applications of 53 that 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

saw. For example, it was applied for 181 1

2 neptunium at Savannah River Site. And the 

3 interval that was used was one year for all 

4 the workers. So what happens?

5 If the idea is one result for the 

6 worker, so if you have one year, suppose you 

7 have one worker that has like a routine 

8 monitoring result, but it's very low. And 

9 then he has another result two months after 

10 and it's very low. And then he has the high 

11 number of results related to some special task 

12 that he was doing.

13 And then, again, maybe he was 

14 monitored again and had a low result. Let's 

15 suppose that it was a nuclide that was very 

16 fast released from his body. So he will have, 

17 after those high results, he'll low results 

18 again.

19 So when you take the mean for all 

20 those results, the small ones, together with 

21 this very big one to represent the accident, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

but when representing the intake of the 182 1

2 worker, his intake is distorted. You don't 

3 see the time pattern of the intake and what 

4 happened.

5 And if you had, you know, many 

6 workers that had the same pattern as him, 

7 everyone on the same month, you don't see that 

8 when you do just one result for the whole 

9 year. Essentially, you don't see that, for 

10 example, in the month of -- though there was 

11 something that made the intakes, there was 

12 some special work that made the workers have 

13 the high results.

14 Then you were comparing one 

15 distribution of workers with another 

16 distribution of workers. And the other 

17 distribution of workers may not have had that 

18 kind of accident or may -- he just had this 

19 other group of workers that just had routine 

20 intakes and so just had routine results.

21 And then maybe when you compare 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

distribution because you reduce that then to 183 1

2 just one result mixed with routine results, 

3 then when you compare the two groups, the two 

4 groups might give similar results like if 

5 there were two identical group of workers. 

6 And in reality, it wasn't.

7 So the problem is that it distorts 

8 and I think it needs more work on this.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Joyce. 

10 That, I think, captures pretty well any 

11 concerns that one might have with this 

12 particular type of approach.

13 The question that rises to mind 

14 when thinking about this is the one that I 

15 have already broached with Steve and don't 

16 have an answer to, which is how significant do 

17 these variances turn out to be in the real 

18 world? We can imagine all kinds of things

19 that would make them either very small or very 

20 large. But I still don't have a feel in my 

21 own mind of how seriously affected 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

results is by this kind of statistical 184 1

2 analysis.

3 And, so far, I haven't heard anyone 

4 tell me that.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: It's a very 

6 difficult question to respond to, Wanda, 

7 because it's very dependent upon the 

8 radionuclide that is in question. As Joyce 

9 mentioned, how long it stays in the body and 

10 so on and so forth. And it also depends upon, 

11 you know, the number of people that you have 

12 in your sample and how many samples they have 

13 and, like Joyce mentioned, whether or not you 

14 would have people in there that have had 

15 experience with, you know, accident samples, 

16 post-accident sampling.

17 So it's very much dependent upon 

18 the problem that is being looked at. And I 

19 don't know whether or not -- you know, in some 

20 cases, I think the OPOS would work well and in 

21 some cases it's not going to work so 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

 Again, and the other thing is I'm 185 1 

2 not exactly sure how much data editing NIOSH 

3 does when they actually make an OPOS or how 

4 much data editing they do when they, you know, 

5 used to use a coworker model.

6 Do they hunt out the outliers on 

7 the bio-samples and try to, you know, not 

8 include them or handle them differently? And 

9 so, again, before we can answer your question, 

10 there is a lot of things that need to be 

11 known.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one understands 

13 the number of variables is in itself variable. 

14 But without having some feel, or at least some 

15 range, it's difficult to think about the 

16 advantages and disadvantages to this type of 

17 approach, I would think.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: May I try to 

19 explain a little bit more? NIOSH has used 

20 OTIB-53 to compare construction workers with 

21 workers from the -- with normal workers. 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

in some of the documents, they say, well, the 186 1

2 construction workers were mostly monitored 

3 when they were doing some -- when they had an 

4 accident or in special situations when they 

5 were dealing with very high radioactivity.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So suppose there

8 was a construction worker, he was monitored. 

9 Let's say he began working at the installation 

10 and he was monitored just before starting the 

11 work in that place, so he had the background 

12 on his urine sample.

13 Then he does this special work and 

14 he has a lot of the data, very high data 

15 because he was working in this special place. 

16 And the nuclide, let's suppose, didn't have a 

17 long half-life. It was very fastly excreted. 

18 So he had the peak in one month, the month 

19 that he worked very hard there. And he was 

20 monitored, let's say, two times a week, so he 

21 had eight monitoring results during 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

month. 187 1

2 And then he had a very high result 

3 there, very high results there. Okay. Eight 

4 very high results. And then he was monitored 

5 after that because the radionuclide had a fast 

6 half-life and it was a small half-life, he 

7 decreased very rapidly to background. And he 

8 was monitored again.

9 So when you take all the data for 

10 the whole year together, his result is going 

11 to be relatively small because he had some 

12 results after that work that were nearly 

13 background, and before the work also nearly 

14 background, and then he had the high results 

15 during his work.

16 So when you take the mean, many of 

17 them, some results above the background, the 

18 final mean will be small. And then you have 

19 the normal worker that was doing routine and 

20 was routinely working. He would only have 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So then you have -- and this will 188 1

2 take, you know, many workers like that from 

3 the construction site and workers, normal 

4 workers on the other site that just have the 

5 routine monitoring results, small group 

6 monitoring results.

7 When you compare the two 

8 distribution, you might end up thinking, oh, 

9 the inspection workers and the non10 construction workers had similar results, but 

11 that's not true. That was masked by, you 

12 know, the OPOS on the non-construction 

13 workers.

14 Do you understand what I'm saying?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I understand.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

18 MS. BRACKETT: This is Elizabeth 

19 Brackett.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good.

21 MS. BRACKETT: I have a comment 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

that. That's true, but we have not done any 189 1

2 coworker studies on anything with short half3 lives, other than tritium, which is not 

4 handled in the same way. That we would 

5 actually assess the dose if we would use all 

6 of the bioassay results and do actual dose 

7 assessments.

8 But all of the rest of the coworker 

9 studies have been done only on uranium, 

10 plutonium --

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: But, Liz, if you 

12 have Type-F uranium, it's the same thing. It 

13 doesn't matter.

14 MS. BRACKETT: No.

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: You know, it was 

16 just an example. If you have Type-F uranium 

17 would happen the same thing.

18 MS. BRACKETT: No. It still comes 

19 out in the urine though. It continues to come 

20 out in the urine.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but it fastly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

goes out. It decreases a lot very fast. The 190 1

2 problem is, Liz, I think what we need and I 

3 couldn't find, you know, in OTIB-53, is a 

4 definition of what time period if the OPOS 

5 being applied? Is this applied just for the 

6 month of the accident or is this applied for 

7 the whole year always? I don't know.

8 MS. BRACKETT: Well, it's normally 

9 done for a year at a time. It depends on the 

10 amount of bioassay data. But going back to 

11 your scenario, it still would not be the case, 

12 because you wouldn't sample somebody weekly or 

13 biweekly or even monthly for long-lived 

14 nuclides. You would have just a couple of 

15 results for the year. 

16 So if they were in an incident, you 

17 would have those results and probably not a 

18 lot after that. And it would continue to be 

19 positive, even if it were Type-F. But you 

20 wouldn't continue to sample a person after 

21 their results dropped very low. Most people 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are on, say, an annual sampling period for 191 1

2 these longer lived nuclides.

3 So you don't get --

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Suppose you have 

5 uranium Type-F, or even Type-M is the same, 

6 even after the weekend it drops a lot. So you 

7 have a period of time that the person was not 

8 working, that drops a lot. So I'm not saying 

9 it goes -- you know, just if it goes to a 

10 small number after, you know, a peak and the 

11 other curve just has a big constant. You 

12 know, just has the small ones, it may end up 

13 with two distributions that they say are the 

14 same. And they're not really are the same, so 

15 it's --

16 MS. BRACKETT: So I think we have 

17 to look at the individual data, because I 

18 don't believe your concern is a valid one. I 

19 think we would have to look at the specific 

20 data and show that this is not the case, what 

21 you are saying.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. LIPSZTEIN: But if you think 192 1

2 about Type-F, and even Type-M, but mostly 

3 Type-F, if take uranium, if you take a sample 

4 before the weekend and after the weekend it 

5 just drops so much. So it's --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I don't think 

7 that has anything to do with the OPOS. I 

8 don't think that -- I kind of agree with Liz 

9 on this.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I have to ask, 

11 are these concerns you feel well-captured in 

12 the findings and in the report that we have 

13 before us? Do you think there is some other 

14 aspect of the concerns, other than those that 

15 are set forth in the findings as we have them?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I think the findings 

17 basically -- these concerns are in the 

18 findings. Maybe we are going into a little 

19 bit more detail in this discussion than what 

20 the findings -- but I think the findings can 

21 lead us to -- will lead us to the 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

discussion if we look at the findings. 193 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my point is that 

3 until NIOSH has an opportunity to respond to 

4 the findings --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

6 CHAIR MUNN: -- perhaps our 

7 discussion here is illuminating for some of us 

8 as Board Members, but it may not get us very 

9 far in terms of resolving the issues 

10 themselves.

11 MR. STIVER: This is John. If I 

12 could step in for a second?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. STIVER: I second that. In a 

15 very large way, this was a very complicated 

16 review. There is a lot of statistical tests 

17 who were analyzed. I followed most of it. 

18 Well, I'm actually reading it. Unlike Harry, 

19 I probably couldn't give you an impromptu 

20 discussion of significance on a lot of it, but 

21 all of that is in our 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

And it is a lot to digest. I would 194 1

2 think that NIOSH would certainly want to take 

3 some time and read it very carefully and 

4 formulate their responses to where we could 

5 have this kind of detailed discussion where we 

6 all really kind of have our positions staked 

7 out maybe a little bit more clearly than we do 

8 right now.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I couldn't agree 

10 more, especially in light of the fact that 

11 this kind of discussion becomes very esoteric 

12 very quickly. And in any case, once it stops 

13 being particularly illuminating for those of 

14 us who are not involved in the actual 

15 calculations, then we have misplaced our 

16 priorities for our meeting here.

17 So I want to make sure, that's why 

18 I asked the question are all of the concerns 

19 adequately covered in the findings themselves? 

20 And if everyone here is comfortable with the 

21 fact that those findings are, in fact, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

illustrative of what we need to be doing, then 195 1

2 we will ask for your agreement that we hand 

3 this into NIOSH review for their consideration 

4 and ask them the question whether there is a 

5 possibility that we need to keep this on the 

6 agenda for next time or will we be 

7 anticipating a longer period for response?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu and I 

9 hate to estimate really any deliveries going 

10 forward. I think our best shot would be to, 

11 as we did this time, communicate with Ted in 

12 advance of whenever the next scheduled meeting 

13 is about what we will be able to -- whether we 

14 think we will be able to have something to 

15 talk about.

16 CHAIR MUNN: We will hold it as a 

17 carryover, Stu, and expect for a status 

18 meeting next time.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we can either 

20 -- you know, I would suspect that some time 

21 before the next meeting, we will know whether 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

or not we are going to have anything to say 196 1

2 about it at the next one.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. That's 

4 good. All right. Thank you all for the 

5 presentation and for the mental stretch after 

6 lunch, that's good. Does anyone have any 

7 comments or any concern with our procedure 

8 going forward here?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is 

10 Ziemer. I don't have a concern, but I have a 

11 comment or a question.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm wondering, and 

14 maybe I'll ask Liz this question, as you guys 

15 review this, would it be feasible to provide 

16 some sort of a sensitivity analysis that would 

17 address some of the -- I think some of the 

18 things Joyce was describing were sort of 

19 extremes of what might happen in special 

20 cases.

21 And maybe some sort of sensitivity 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

analysis could be included as you address the 197 1

2 issues that are framed out, that's sort of the 

3 question or comment.

4 CHAIR MUNN: It believe it would be 

5 helpful to some of us, Paul.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other thing 

7 was, and maybe just for clarity, when you talk 

8 about the OPOS methodology where you have one 

9 sample representing one person, or one tag 

10 representing a person, does that multiple 

11 samples for, say, a year, does that still 

12 count as one towards say, the 30 samples that 

13 would be needed, for example, to reach a 

14 statistical decision, or is it just one?

15 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, I can -- the 

16 second question I can answer easily. Yes, the 

17 one sample just counts as one, regardless of 

18 how many results went into that. So we would 

19 need 30 people, 30 individuals in a year.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I just 

21 wanted to check 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

1 MS. BRACKETT: And as to the fi198 rst 

2 question, we have statisticians that would be 

3 far better qualified to look at that. We will 

4 have to have them look at -- well, Tom LaBone 

5 and the statistician, they are the ones who 

6 did the work on OTIB-53 and would be able to 

7 address your first question.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Josie, you 

10 have any comments or concerns?

11 MEMBER BEACH: No, I don't at this 

12 time. Thank you.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Anyone 

14 else? Not hearing anything, we will look 

15 forward to a status report next time on RPRT16 53. And we will move to the next agenda item, 

17 reviewing the status of, to begin with, PROC18 31.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Wanda, these 

20 were -- I believe what these were were four 

21 reports that we -- or four documents that 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

looked at and we did a pre-review and back in 199 1

2 January when we sent the Subcommittee a report 

3 which indicated that they found out these four 

4 documents had been reviewed or revised two or 

5 more times since SC&A did the review of these 

6 documents.

7 And so we did a pre-review to see 

8 whether or not the revisions had significant 

9 technical changes to the documents that would 

10 require there being a full re-review of these 

11 documents.

12 And in January of this year, we 

13 sent a report to the Subcommittee saying that 

14 the results of these pre-reviews of these 

15 documents do not require a full re-review.

16 And what we did, we talked about 

17 this in the February meeting, and I believe 

18 the reason these are on the agenda was that I 

19 had an action item to add to each one of the 

20 four documents a finding of no finding into 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And what we can see -- I guess you 200 1

2 can see it on your screen now if you are 

3 looking at the shared screen?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Is this the pre6 review finding that I have added, and so has 

7 Steve Ostrow, I added it in Steve Ostrow's 

8 name, stating that, you know, basically just 

9 saying what I just said. And so I have added 

10 these four or similar four statements to each 

11 one of these four documents, or a similar 

12 statement to each one of these four documents.

13 And the only problem that I have 

14 had, and I might have to get some help from 

15 Lori, is I cannot, for some reason, change the 

16 status to closed.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, really? That's not 

18 good.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I've been trying to 

20 change the status to closed and I just can't 

21 do that. I was able -- I had better luck than 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Stu. I was able to add the findings, but I 201 1

2 can't change the status on the findings. Once 

3 I add it, I can't change it. So that's --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Have we encountered 

5 this before, Lori?

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Not that I'm 

7 aware of, but I'm working on it as we speak.

8 CHAIR MUNN: This sounds like a new 

9 glitch. It would be wonderful if Lori could 

10 close them for us from her lofty perch.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. So right now, 

12 you know, each one of these four documents, 

13 PROC-31 and PROC-61, OTIB-20 and OTIB-5, I 

14 have added, you know, a finding like this and 

15 they need to be closed.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Let us just for the 

17 record look at each of them, and as we do, let 

18 me make sure that the Subcommittee agrees that 

19 the only action that we have left here today 

20 is to see that these are changed to closed in 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 202 1

2 Josie. I do have one quick question or 

3 comment.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

5 MEMBER BEACH: We talked earlier 

6 during the 014 that we would like a review of 

7 OTIB-20 possibly. Is this the same document 

8 that we are discussing now?

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. This is the 

12 same OTIB-20.

13 MEMBER BEACH: That might bear some 

14 discussion because Kathy was going to make 

15 that a finding that we review that document.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And that would 

17 be, you know, if we decide that that document 

18 has to be revised or reviewed with the new 

19 light that Kathy had, I think that that's 

20 almost independent because what we looked at 

21 before was, again, it was summarized 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

January report. 203 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I see that as a 

3 separate item, personally. And we will 

4 continue to carry PER-20, definitely.

5 MR. STIVER: And I think the 

6 important thing to note is that our 

7 recommendation was based on the substantive 

8 changes in the revision --

9 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

10 MR. STIVER: -- require another 

11 pass on it, but what Kathy has come up with is 

12 completely from another angle. So I agree 

13 with Steve, they are independent in a way.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That's all I 

15 wanted to clarify. Thank you.

16 CHAIR MUNN: You betcha. Now, 61?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm looking at 61 

18 here now and that was -- again, I put it up in 

19 Harry Pettengill's name and it is very 

20 similar. It should be -- basically, I think I 

21 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

CHAIR MUNN: The wording looks fine 204 1

2 to me. Open and change to closed. No other 

3 action, from my point of view. Subcommittee?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I agree. 

5 Actually, I'm all for these. If the wording 

6 is in there, we can close them all.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's my intent. 

8 I just wanted to have in the record that we 

9 looked at them one at a time and verified that 

10 they were all of the same nature, the wording 

11 is accurate, they can be closed.

12 If we can take a look at OTIB-20, 

13 to see it? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: There it is. And 

15 that was the one, I think, that we did the 

16 pre-review on, OTIB-20.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

18 Change to closed. Any comments from the rest 

19 of the Subcommittee?

20 MEMBER BEACH: No, I agree.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just one question 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there. I see you have a January 25 205

th 1 date for 

2 the action and the meeting was actually in 

3 February.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we actually 

5 responded to the Subcommittee. That's the 

6 date of our report.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: The last one is 

11 supposed to be the report. I don't know where 

12 that is showing up. I thought it was being 

13 attached. I'm not so sure how the attachment 

14 shows up, but --

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but that's the 

16 response date.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's right. 

18 Okay.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: But that's where I 

20 was -- that's what I was referring to, Paul.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, our action was 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

February, but their -- we agreed to it in 206 1

2 February, but --

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- it was a response 

5 date. 

6 And the last of them is OTIB-5.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: There it is, OTIB-5.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll mark 

9 it closed. With no concern from the rest of 

10 the Subcommittee Members, we will remove that 

11 item from our agenda. Thank you very much, 

12 Steve, for seeing that it happened. It's 

13 appreciated.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: No problem.

15 MR. KATZ: In the interim, for 

16 whoever just cut out, please don't do that 

17 again, whether you put us on hold or whatever. 

18 Thanks.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks. Our next item 

20 then has to do with the Hanford PERs and I'm 

21 going to drop out of the conversation. 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

portion of it will be chaired by Dr. Ziemer, 207 1

2 because I'm conflicted on all matters that 

3 have to do with the Hanford Site, as is Josie, 

4 I believe. And so we will not participate in 

5 this brief portion of the proceedings today. 

6 Go ahead, Paul.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we already 

8 agreed, administratively I think with the --

9 with our Designated Federal Official that it 

10 is appropriate to transfer these to the 

11 Hanford Work Group, and it sounds like I can 

12 make the motion, second it and vote 

13 unanimously to do that.

14 In any event, since we are not 

15 actually doing an action on Hanford, I'm not 

16 sure it matters whether the other two are 

17 involved or not, Ted. All we are doing

18 is --

19 MR. KATZ: Right, right. I think, 

20 Paul, we can just handle this. We don't need 

21 to vote or do anything. I'm happy to send 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

Chair of the Hanford Work Group and let them 208 1 

2 know that -- let him know, because I think 

3 that is Dr. Melius, that we are transferring 

4 these two items, these reviews for him to 

5 handle in his Work Group.

6 So I'm happy to do that, and then 

7 we can carry it forward with that Work Group. 

8 I think he is planning to convene that Work 

9 Group before the July meeting, in any event.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Then there is no 

11 further action necessary for anyone in this 

12 group, as I understand it, correct? That 

13 being the case, that item is also dropping off 

14 of our agenda.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: My phone cut out 

16 there, so I'm back. I don't remember where we 

17 were.

18 MR. KATZ: Sorry, Paul. So I just 

19 said -- I didn't realize I had lost you, Paul.

20 So I'm happy to send the Chair of 

21 that Work Group, which is Dr. Melius, 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

missive about this and ask his Work Group to 209 1

2 take this one, these two PERs up, the reviews.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you much. Now, 

5 we have the interesting OTIB-55 up for us. 

6 And we are anticipating responses from NIOSH 

7 for the multiple findings that we have had in 

8 the past on the NCRP report and this is for 

9 quality factors. Matt, do I understand 

10 correctly you are leading this?

11 MR. SMITH: Yes, I sure can.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Please do. 

13 It's all yours.

14 MR. SMITH: Okay. All right. Then 

15 I'm not doing anything with my desktop, but I 

16 see that the response is up on the screen.

17 The first comment was on using the 

18 most recent ICRP recommendations for weighting 

19 factors. The response here is that IREP 

20 itself uses ICRP-60 weighting factors as does 

21 the DOE complex, at this time. Around 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

2010 time frame, all the DOE sites basically 210 1 

2 switched over to using ICRP-60 as weighting 

3 factors for neutrons.

4 So because IREP was using ICRP-60 

5 to convert the dose into rad, it really would 

6 not make any sense to jump to ICRP-103 

7 weighting factors. Doing so would cause us to 

8 have to -- would cause a change in IREP. And 

9 in addition, the reporting that we are getting 

10 now from DOE is in compliance with ICRP-60.

11 So that's the response on that one.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have a 

13 comment with respect to the NIOSH response? 

14 SC&A, what's your take?

15 MR. STIVER: This is John. It 

16 seems reasonable from an implementation 

17 standpoint. Steve just put that out there to, 

18 I believe, to indicate that, you know, this is 

19 kind of a continuing -- continually evolving 

20 process and that the concern was whether the 

21 program was keeping up with the latest 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

scientific guidance. 211 1

2 But given the problems we have and 

3 the lag in adoption by the various agencies 

4 and the use of IREP and so forth, I would 

5 consider that to be a reasonable response. I 

6 don't know if Steve has any comments regarding 

7 that.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: No. I think that I 

9 would agree with that. Again, it was more for 

10 the sake of completeness. I put this in and 

11 it was, you know --

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's very good.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: If I recall 

14 correctly, ICRP-60 factors were -- where they 

15 differed from the ICRP-103, the ICRP-60 are 

16 more conservative or more claimant-favorable.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's my 

18 recollection, too, that it's actually lower on 

19 some organs for ICRP-103.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So any question or 

21 comment from 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

MEMBER ZIEMER: No comment here. 212 1

2 I'm satisfied with it.

3 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. 

4 Same, I'm satisfied.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Fine. SC&A accepts 

6 the recommendation and the Subcommittee 

7 considers this item closed. Can the -- do we 

8 have enough flexibility for you to update that 

9 now, Steve?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we can give it 

11 a try. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Let's see if we can do 

13 this on this cumbersome process.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I wasn't able to do 

15 it for the other ones. I don't know if --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Perhaps Lori has 

17 worked magic for us in our lag time.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Not yet.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thanks for 

20 trying.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I had to put 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

phone down to type, so -- 213 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

3 right.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Let's see if it 

5 works. No. That's the error message I get 

6 when I try to -- Lori, if you are looking at 

7 the screen, when I try to change a status, 

8 this is the error message I get.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, I see it.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Lori, do you have the 

11 ability to close it?

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: No. It doesn't 

13 work for me either. There has been a change. 

14 I recognize what the change is, so I'll have 

15 to get with our IT Group.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I hope you 

17 are making notes, so that you can go back 

18 after we are off the air here and close all of 

19 these that we are attempting to close real20 time.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Now, 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

how to get back to the -- I'm lost. 214 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: That should take you 

3 back.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Back to OTIB-55.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: And what I'll do, 

7 Wanda, is I'll just make notes here as to what 

8 status changes we decide upon and then when 

9 Lori gives me the green light, I will make the 

10 changes, if that's okay with you.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine, yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Just keep the 

14 Subcommittee updated to ensure that that 

15 happens. Are we ready for Finding 2?

16 MR. SMITH: Sure. Finding 2 was 

17 commenting on the difference in 

18 recommendations for a situation where you 

19 don't necessarily know exactly what the 

20 neutron spectra was for the energy employee.

21 IG-001 was written at the birth 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

the program and, of course, this TIB followed 215 1

2 that. And then after this TIB followed 

3 several TBDs, so as time was going on, we have 

4 gotten more and more information about what 

5 exactly the neutron spectra is at given sites.

6 In the IG-001, though, going all 

7 the way back to that, there is no mandate in 

8 there with any language like "should" or 

9 "shall." We use the information that is in 

10 Table 2.2, there is some examples in Table 2.2 

11 of different exposure scenarios and the 

12 weighting factor that would go along with 

13 those different types of scenarios.

14 When OTIB-55 came along, the 

15 emphasis there was to kind of take something 

16 that would be workable for any situation and 

17 certainly the 0.1 to 2 MeV energy range turned 

18 out to be the most claimant-favorable choice, 

19 both in terms of the weighting factor 

20 correction and also in terms of Probability of 

21 Causation that ends up being calculated 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

IREP. 216 1

2 So that's the historical flow. You 

3 know, the 0.1 to 2 MeV is kind of the 

4 claimant-favorable suggestion made by the 

5 OTIB. And then subsequent to that, as written 

6 in the response, the TBDs, you know, fleshed 

7 out the picture for each site as each site was 

8 developed.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Matt. 

10 John, is SC&A inclined to respond --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, we have discussed 

12 this aspect of IG-001, I believe, at the last 

13 meeting. Kind of looking back in time as to, 

14 you know, how it was intended and a lot of 

15 these aspects were fleshed out and the TBDs 

16 were detailed with specific guidance for the 

17 different sites on these issues.

18 I am personally satisfied with Matt 

19 Smith's response.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: What I would 

21 suggest, this is Steve, is, you know, that 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

put as this kind of -- I mean, I would like to 217 1

2 get the two documents saying the same thing. 

3 Not that they are, you know, necessarily 

4 contradicting each other right now, but they 

5 are not saying the same thing.

6 And one person could go, you know, 

7 to one document and get one direction and get 

8 another. So what my recommendation would be 

9 is to put this kind of like in abeyance status 

10 and just put a -- on the next time that IG-001 

11 gets changed or if it ever gets changed, put 

12 it on the list of changes to be made, is to 

13 make sure that it is -- that this portion of 

14 it is consistent with what is in OTIB-55.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hang on a second. 

16 This is Ziemer. Isn't IG-001 the document 

17 that is never used in dose reconstruction?

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's pretty much it, 

19 yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: We went through 

21 this before. It's a general guidance 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

document. It is never used in dose 218 1

2 reconstruction.

3 MR. STIVER: That's my 

4 understanding of it as well. And it is never 

5 used in dose reconstruction. I don't know 

6 that we gain much by going back and --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: It probably won't 

8 be revised either.

9 CHAIR MUNN: My concern is more 

10 with -- as I interpret what Matt has said in 

11 this particular finding, he is saying that the 

12 guidance in the Site Profile documents are the 

13 documents of concern when they are doing this 

14 type of calculation.

15 And if that's the case, then there 

16 should be, in my mind, more concern with how 

17 OTIB-55 relates to the Site Profile document 

18 instructions than it does with IG-001, because 

19 we have discussed that many times and I think 

20 that is thoroughly understood by all of us.

21 If there is differing instruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that exists in the Site Profile documents than 219 1

2 in OTIB-55, then this is undoubtedly the right 

3 place to address that. I don't know the 

4 answer to that. Are there differing 

5 instructions in the site documents?

6 MR. SMITH: In general, the answer 

7 to that would be no. If anything, the site 

8 documents will go into more detail. The site 

9 documents are going to be presenting whatever 

10 data can be found to show what the neutron 

11 spectra was around the facilities where 

12 neutron exposure was possible.

13 CHAIR MUNN: But it would not be in 

14 conflict with OTIB-55?

15 MR. SMITH: No. It's going to be 

16 using the data from -- yes, it's going to be 

17 using the data from OTIB-55.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

19 MR. SMITH: The TBD is built upon 

20 OTIB-55.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, OTIB-55 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

1 ICRP-60 recommendations are actually hard220-

2 wired into IREP to begin with.

3 MR. SMITH: Correct.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Then perhaps what is 

5 needed here is a slight revision in the 

6 wording of the response here, so that it might 

7 say, ultimately, both documents are superseded 

8 by more detailed guidance in the Site Profile 

9 documents, rather than leaving the inference 

10 that there is disparate ability.

11 Or in some other way clarify that. 

12 I think that's what I heard, that there is not 

13 conflict instructions. It's just that the 

14 more detailed one appears in the Site Profile 

15 documents than in OTIB-55, simply because the 

16 Site Profile documents can't afford to be more 

17 specific.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, this is 

19 Ziemer again. This one, though, is a 

20 Technical Basis Document as opposed to a 

21 guidance document, so I don't think 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

superseded. The guidance isn't really 221 1

2 superseded either. It's just general, has 

3 nothing to do specifically with dose 

4 reconstruction.

5 This is a Technical Basis Document 

6 which really deals with the conversion 

7 factors. Isn't it? I'm pulling it up here.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I think so. I'm going 

9 to let you do the work.

10 MR. SMITH: Just a short statement 

11 while that's being pulled up. That's true, 

12 that the TBDs are basically going to be citing 

13 the technical information in OTIB-55.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. SMITH: For example, the 

16 fraction of a given neutron source that falls 

17 into the 0.2 to 2 MeV range, the TBD is going 

18 to be recommending this factor of 2 to correct 

19 for the weighting factor difference.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So the point I'm 

21 trying to make is the only issue 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

here in the Subcommittee right now is a 222 1

2 semantics issue, correct?

3 MR. SMITH: Right. The response 

4 was addressing the comment that TIB-55 was not 

5 in total agreement or saying the same thing as 

6 IG-001.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes, right, yes. 

8 And we have already addressed the IG-001 

9 issue. We are quite familiar with that and 

10 understand the difference between the guidance 

11 document and the directive document. The 

12 issue that remains is semantic and related 

13 only to whether or not "supersede" is the 

14 appropriate word to be using here.

15 I guess, alternatively, we could 

16 create yet another entry as we close it out, 

17 if we agree that we can, in fact, close it out 

18 given this information and we could address 

19 exactly what our discussion has been here and

20 close it. Is there any problem with that?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: If there is no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 changes to either the document itself, OTIB223-

2 55, or any of the Site Profile documents, that 

3 it's just a wording change in the response, 

4 then I think it is -- you know, I think we 

5 should -- our recommendation would be to just 

6 close it.

7 MR. STIVER: I would tend to second 

8 that. I don't see any point in changing it 

9 unless we are going to have a continued 

10 discussion. We have all agreed that it can be 

11 closed.

12 CHAIR MUNN: And we certainly do 

13 want to get it off the books and stop taking 

14 up everybody's time with it, if we have 

15 reached an agreement.

16 Is there any problem with our 

17 saying that this is accepted and we close it 

18 out?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good with that.

20 MR. STIVER: I'm fine with it.

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: I'm good with that 224 1

2 also.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. You have 

4 your marching orders, Steve. Let's see if we 

5 can do it.

6 MR. SMITH: All right. Do you want 

7 me to move on to No. 3?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was hoping 

9 that Steve could go ahead and --

10 MR. SMITH: Oh.

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- close it out. 

12 Well, do everything except the closed part..

13 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not going to 

14 allow me to do anything, Wanda.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I know, but if we 

16 -- if you go ahead and put the words in that 

17 we have just used before, everybody agrees, 

18 and it's closed. And then we will let Lori 

19 close it for us after we have gone away and 

20 everybody is sleeping.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't put any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

words in. I can't make any modifications for 225 1

2 this one yet.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, it won't let you in 

4 to do it for No. 2?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, wait a minute. 

6 Maybe I can -- oh, you want me to edit Matt's 

7 --

8 CHAIR MUNN: No.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think I

10 can --

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. I wanted you 

12 to add a statement as we did in Finding 1. 

13 Just add --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we didn't add a 

15 statement in Finding 1. It wouldn't let me 

16 add a statement.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, that was the 

18 problem, we couldn't get in to make changes in 

19 Finding 1.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. All right. 

21 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

MR. MARSCHKE: We tried to do it, 226 1

2 it just -- yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Even though we saw you 

4 type it in, it wouldn't even accept that?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Even though you saw 

6 me type it in, it just --

7 CHAIR MUNN: It wouldn't accept it?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: It went into the bit 

9 bucket.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. All right. 

11 I thought the only thing it would not let you 

12 do is change the status. I didn't realize --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: No, no.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- it wouldn't let you 

15 insert anything.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: It won't let me do 

17 anything.

18 CHAIR MUNN: In a case like that, 

19 we know what has to happen with No. 2 as well.

20 Now, I guess we are back to you, 

21 Matt, and No. 3.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. SMITH: Okay. No. 3, the 227 1

2 finding or comment here was that the TIB does 

3 not present the rationale for using NCRP 

4 Report 38 as a basis for adjusting pre-'73 

5 neutron measurements.

6 The response takes us to the end of 

7 Section 2 and I wrote there page 7. It kind 

8 of starts on the bottom of page 6. And the 

9 statement in the TIB is the following and it 

10 is referring to comparing NCRP Report 38 to 

11 NCRP Report 20.

12 It states that "The two sets of 

13 data for the neutron quality factor are in 

14 close agreement despite the differences in the 

15 shape of the tissue-equivalent phantoms used 

16 to represent the human torso.

17 Figure 2-1 illustrates both data 

18 sets and how they are basically overlaying 

19 each other. The final sentence before Figure 

20 2-1 states that the results in the following 

21 sections, meaning the following sections 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

the OTIB, are based on the newer more 228 1 

2 extensive set of data from NCRP Report 38."

3 So that's the response on that for, 

4 you know, basis of using NCRP-38.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: So you say -- I 

6 missed that at the bottom of page 7.

7 MR. SMITH: It starts at the bottom 

8 and the word that is quoted starts at the very 

9 bottom of page 6 and they continue on to page 

10 7 and then Figure 2-1 is also part of it.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Any questions or 

12 comments? John, is this acceptable to you?

13 MR. STIVER: I was just reading the 

14 differences between the two. NCRP-20 used the 

15 calculations based on a slab phantom as 

16 opposed to the cylindrical phantom in Report 

17 38. And I would tend to agree that Report 38 

18 is a more extensive updated data set on which 

19 to base these values.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, wait a minute.

21 MR. STIVER: Now, whether it is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

laid out well-enough in Report 55, I guess, 229 1

2 Steve, that was your --

3 MR. MARSCHKE: No. I think the 

4 question was: what did the -- the concern was 

5 to adjust the doses that an individual 

6 received in the 1950s or pre-1973 to the ICRP7 60 factors. And so what you would have to do 

8 is you would have to take out whatever quality 

9 factor was used.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay, I see what 

11 you're saying. All right.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Whatever quality 

13 factor had been used back in history and then 

14 multiply it by the new quality factor.

15 MR. STIVER: Now, see you have to 

16 back out the old factor before you could 

17 multiply them.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Could you multiply 

19 by the new factor? And so that was really the 

20 question here. So when you go before 1973, 

21 obviously, nobody had the Report 38 quality 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

factors, so they must have used the Report 20 230 1

2 quality factors, so those are the ones that 

3 should have been backed out.

4 MR. SMITH: Right. And the authors 

5 here are stating that, you know, they found 

6 that 20 and 38 essentially agreed and so they 

7 used 38 as the basis to then go forward 

8 because of -- there was more extensive data.

9 MR. STIVER: But the actual values 

10 weren't significantly different to where it 

11 would make any difference -- okay. Okay. I 

12 get it. All right.

13 Well, if what Matt is saying is 

14 true, then essentially they are close enough. 

15 I don't know what kind of differences we are 

16 talking about, a percent or two or less. But 

17 then again, 38 is based on a more extensive 

18 set than your -- essentially, you have the 

19 continuity in the values going back beyond 

20 that.

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

at the figure there. The only one where they 231 1

2 seem to be -- if you go way onto the left 

3 side, that seem to be a factor of 2 versus a 

4 factor of 3, but the other ones seem to be a 

5 lot closer.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, the others are 

7 all basically within the uncertainty.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Within the 

9 uncertainty. So I guess, you know, I would --

10 MR. STIVER: Get down to the

11 thermal energy levels, maybe there might be a 

12 little bit of a difference.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. So I really 

14 have -- I guess I have no serious misgivings. 

15 If they just wanted an explanation, then there 

16 is an explanation.

17 MR. STIVER: That's the 

18 explanation. I just need to find a way to put 

19 it into the BRS.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, again, you 

21 know, if the Subcommittee agrees 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

explanation, I think SC&A or myself as the 232 1

2 generator of this finding, I think, you know, 

3 I'm satisfied with it.

4 MR. STIVER: Would you want to go in 

5 at some point when you have access and put in 

6 another response saying that we accept it 

7 based on X, Y and Z?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: If the Subcommittee9 - you know, if the Subcommittee accepts this 

10 now, then I don't see that there is any reason 

11 for us to do that. I mean, you know, this --

12 because the Subcommittee overrides anything 

13 that, you know, that we do.

14 MR. STIVER: I mean, just for the 

15 record, to have it in there.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's good for 

17 the record if you say that you agreed with it.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what we would 

19 do is I would put it in the same statement, 

20 basically saying that the Subcommittee, and 

21 then as I had indicated before, and SC&A 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

with the NIOSH response and have decided to 233 1

2 close the finding.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's all I was 

4 saying was something along those lines would 

5 be adequate. I would say let's go ahead and 

6 close it out.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We have 

8 agreement on resolution. Any comments from 

9 any Board Members, any concerns, any 

10 questions?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Not from me.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I'm good with 

13 that.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Let's put 

15 that on the list of more to close. That's 

16 great. And so doing, we can move on to No. 4. 

17 Matt?

18 MR. SMITH: Okay. No. 4 was a 

19 comment on the data in the table of OTIB-55 

20 pulling out Quality Factor 3 for the early 

21 years versus a statement in the Chalk River 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

document which quotes RBE as being 5. 234 1

2 I definitely did go back to George 

3 Kerr, one of the prime officers on this to get 

4 his take on it. And he does point out that, 

5 you know, RBE is an empirical value whereas 

6 the weighting factor and quality factors are 

7 consensus values.

8 I will note that George came up 

9 with a reference that is a little bit 

10 different than the one that is footnoted on 

11 these tables, but you will see in the 

12 response, the reference there that he is 

13 citing a quality factor of 3 in NCRP Report 20 

14 and also in NBS Handbook 63.

15 So the response basically here is 

16 that the early consensus quality factor was 3. 

17 It probably doesn't assess updating the 

18 reference that goes along with that table, 

19 that's Table 3-1.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Reactions, SC&A?

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

in abeyance, if they are going to update the 235 1

2 reference.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Any other thoughts?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I would like to 

5 check again the reference that they give. 

6 Matt, just --

7 MR. STIVER: For the Dose Handbook 

8 63?

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. I would like 

10 to, you know --

11 MR. STIVER: I would like to check 

12 that, too, just to make sure that everything 

13 is --

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: In which case, we will 

17 need it to be in progress, right?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: But I'm assuming 

19 that, you know, when we check it, it will be 

20 as Matt said. And then, you know, it would be 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: Once we check it, it's 236 1

2 just a matter of having it incorporated into 

3 the document. Yes, we do the in abeyance, at 

4 that point.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then we 

6 will check 04 next time. We will leave it on 

7 the agenda for your response.

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: Does the status 

9 of Finding 4 have to change?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Change to in 

11 progress.

12 CHAIR MUNN: I believe in progress, 

13 yes.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Thank you.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Until, you know, we 

16 check the --

17 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- Report 20 and 

19 Handbook 63.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We will 

21 leave 4 open and we will move on. I'm relying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

on you to shift the screen, Steve. 237 1

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, I'm sorry. 

3 Where are we going? We're going to PERs?

4 CHAIR MUNN: I believe unless, I 

5 guess, this is the last one, then I should ask 

6 whether anyone has any closing thoughts, 

7 comments or concerns,

8 MR. MARSCHKE: That is the last. 

9 That is the last finding under OTIB-55.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Fine. And we have 

11 essentially closed three and have one that is 

12 being opened one more round. Wow, references 

13 are checked. Other than that, we are done 

14 with that one, unless we have some other 

15 response from someone.

16 Not hearing any --

17 MR. STIVER: Interested in a 

18 comfort break at this point?

19 CHAIR MUNN: We are just about 

20 ready for one. Do you want to do that before 

21 we start with the next set of PERs?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. 238 1

2 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good.

3 MR. STIVER: I've been overridden.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take -- do you 

5 need 15? We can take 15, if you need it. And 

6 we will be back at 3:50, right?

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We will see 

9 you back at 3:50. Bye-bye.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Bye.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

12 matter went off the record at 3:37 p.m. and 

13 resumed at 3:50 p.m.)

14 CHAIR MUNN: Let's begin with the 

15 Status Reports on the four PERs that we have 

16 listed, the first of which is 33.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is John. 

18 33 and 25 are going to get combined. If you 

19 remember, this is the Huntington Pilot Plant 

20 PERs from different revisions. This is one of 

21 the ones that we were doing an updated 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

1 Profile Review. It was that one and PER-239 38, 

2 which is Hooker, is another one that we were 

3 doing a Site Profile update on.

4 And so I have the analysts who are 

5 doing those Site Profile Reviews also slated 

6 to do the PERs for obvious reasons. And it 

7 looks like we will probably have a Site 

8 Profile Review for Huntington is almost 

9 complete and so, you know, right on the heels 

10 of that will be the PER review.

11 And I believe we will -- shouldn't 

12 have any trouble having that ready for the 

13 next Board meeting.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

15 MR. STIVER: The same said for 

16 Hooker, the Site Profile Review has been 

17 delivered and we are in the process of getting 

18 started on the PER. That, too, should be 

19 ready by the next Board meeting.

20 37 was --

21 MR. KATZ: Wait, before 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

MR. STIVER: Yes? 240 1

2 MR. KATZ: John, before we move on, 

3 let me just get some clarification from the 

4 Subcommittee on this. With Huntington there 

5 is no issue. We don't have a Work Group.

6 The Hooker Site Profile was 

7 actually done before the Uranium Refining AWE 

8 Work Group.

9 MR. STIVER: Right. That will be -

10 - yes, we have the same issue with quorum, 

11 whether it will have to be transferred.

12 MR. KATZ: It's not a quorum issue 

13 with Hooker, but Hooker I just wanted to 

14 confirm since we have, again, a Work Group 

15 that has dealt with the Site Profile, I think 

16 they should be dealing with the PER review as 

17 well except for this, right?

18 MR. STIVER: I would assume so.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. I'm asking that of 

20 the Subcommittee really, because they have to 

21 look -- you would refer that to the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Subcommittee -- to the Work Group, the Uranium 241 1

2 Refining AWE Work Group.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think we have

4 agreed we're going to do that routinely, 

5 right?

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I think. Although 

8 from my perspective, we still need to track 

9 these things until they go and we need to 

10 identify here in this Subcommittee on the 

11 record that that responsibility has gone, 

12 because we still have the BRS to see to.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. And we are 

14 actually going to try to get other Work Groups 

15 to review the BRS. I mean, John's folks at 

16 SC&A will be putting stuff into the BRS for 

17 Work Groups. I think we can make that all 

18 happen.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully. But for 

20 the time being, we will continue to track 

21 these four PERs until ultimately they are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

closed, but for the time being, we will 242 1

2 anticipate seeing Huntington next time and 

3 Hooker next time. We will see and then send 

4 to the Work Group and go on from there.

5 MR. STIVER: And Ames is -- we are 

6 still getting the Site Profile Review finished 

7 up. That should be in hand within a couple of 

8 weeks and then following on that, then will be 

9 the PER review.

10 I'm kind of hesitant to commit to 

11 having that in time for the next meeting, 

12 although I'll certainly work with Ted and 

13 Wanda to keep you apprised of the progress. 

14 And if it does look like we are going to have 

15 it in time, then we could go ahead and slate 

16 it for a discussion.

17 CHAIR MUNN: We will call it a big 

18 maybe.

19 MR. STIVER: Big maybe.

20 MS. BEHLING: John, this is Kathy 

21 Behling. And Hans and I are working 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

Ames, you know, Site Profile work and TBD. I 243 1

2 believe we should certainly be ready by the 

3 next meeting, I'm hoping.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

5 MR. STIVER: And just to kind of 

6 backtrack a little bit, 31, which we 

7 substituted 11 for, will also be ready for 

8 discussion at that meeting.

9 CHAIR MUNN: 31 will be ready.

10 MR. STIVER: And possibly 30 as 

11 well, Savannah River Site. We should have 

12 something in hand there within -- probably by 

13 mid-May.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

15 MR. STIVER: So we will have a lot 

16 of PERs to discuss next time around.

17 MR. KATZ: John, can you remind me 

18 to -- one of these -- I'm thinking it was 

19 Hooker, but I could be wrong. We discussed 

20 the Site Profile Review at the last Board 

21 meeting and it was decided in the Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

meeting we wouldn't go on with a PER review 244 1

2 until that Site Profile Review had been 

3 reviewed by the Board and a decision was made.

4 MR. STIVER: That was Ames, 

5 actually. That was not Hooker.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. I just wanted to 

7 make sure that was clear. So we're not 

8 proceeding with a PER on that until we have 

9 the Site Profile Review in hand and considered

10 by the Board.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, this is Josie. 

12 I believe they were going to put a Work Group 

13 together for that one, if I'm not mistaken.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 MEMBER BEACH: For Ames.

16 MR. KATZ: You're right. You're 

17 exactly right, Josie.

18 MR. STIVER: That's right. I 

19 recall that now. That should be a Work Group 

20 established. Dr. Melius had sent out a 

21 notification asking for volunteers, as 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

recall. 245 1

2 MR. KATZ: That's right.

3 MR. STIVER: So, you know, 

4 committing to a PER review on that would be

5 premature then, at this point.

6 CHAIR MUNN: But for the time 

7 being, we will continue, for our purposes, to 

8 follow 33, 25, 37 and 38. All right. Any 

9 other thoughts, comments? We will hope for 

10 all of those, plus 31 and 30, next time. We 

11 will see how that goes.

12 MR. STIVER: Like I said, I'll try 

13 to keep you apprised if there is any changes 

14 in the plans.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you much, 

16 John, appreciate it.

17 The next item that we have is OTIB18 37. We had three open findings and we were 

19 going to get feedback from NIOSH today.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 246 1 

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: It's my 

3 understanding that SC&A was waiting for the 

4 reissue of the TBD for these particular 

5 findings.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

7 correct.

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: And the TBD has 

9 been issued, and I'm just wondering if SC&A 

10 had an opportunity to look at it?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: That was the August 

24th 12 issue, Lori?

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, it was.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Yes, I don't 

15 think we looked at it yet.

16 MR. STIVER: Actually, I did get an 

17 email from Joyce and she had looked at it and 

18 felt as though it had met her concerns. She 

19 hasn't written any formal responses yet, so we 

20 would have to put those into the BRS.

21 CHAIR MUNN: 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

MR. STIVER: She wasn't able to 247 1

2 stay on for this part of the discussion, so 

3 I'll have to get back in touch with her after, 

4 off-line, and then Steve and I can go ahead 

5 and upload responses.

6 CHAIR MUNN: So we don't have 

7 anything in writing yet on any one of the 

8 three?

9 MR. STIVER: We have a verbal 

10 commitment, but nothing in writing, at this 

11 point.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We have three 

13 outstanding. We will just carry them over.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, but now it's an 

15 SC&A --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- action as opposed 

18 to a NIOSH action.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Got it.

20 MR. STIVER: All right. So it's in 

21 our court now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And -- 248 1

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Same status we had 

3 last time, because at our last meeting the TBD 

4 had already been issued and SC&A needed to 

5 review it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think that was 

7 the case and --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sounds like the 

9 review was pretty well done, but not written 

10 up yet.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's what it 

12 sounds like. That's what I hope I'm hearing 

13 anyway.

14 MR. STIVER: That is correct.

15 CHAIR MUNN: And the next item then 

16 is OTIB-54. A report on the revision that is 

17 coming out, we hope.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, this is 

19 Lori again. OTIB-54 is still within the 

20 review cycle. During the review cycle, we 

21 encountered some technical issues, 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

additional issues, so we are currently doing 249 1

2 some additional research, so that particular 

3 document will possibly have to be carried over 

4 as well.

5 Right now, we are -- we have a 

6 completion date of the end of May.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That bodes well 

8 for our next meeting, then. We will expect to 

9 hear from you on that. Any comments, 

10 questions?

11 If not, we are sweeping through the 

12 last hour and a half of our meeting very 

13 quickly. The next item that we have is IG14 003. I am still continuing to search for any 

15 indication of where that came from. I have 

16 struck out so far every time I have looked, 

17 but I'm continuing.

18 I'm not going to take that off yet, 

19 because I want to make sure that we have a 

20 correct answer. If it's there, I will find 

21 it. It's not easy because it is not easy 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

search by category always, but I'm looking. 250 1

2 As far as PER-27, I think Brad 

3 knows about that. I think that has been 

4 transferred and that will drop off, which 

5 brings us up to administrative detail.

6 And that means our next meeting 

7 when we are going to have it. Now, we had 

8 some discussion earlier this year about going 

9 back to our original process in former years 

10 of combining some of our meetings with full 

11 Board meetings.

12 I expressed some concern, at that 

13 time, because we have had difficulty with 

14 spreading our staff between our demand and the 

15 demands of a Board meeting, but as was pointed 

16 out to me, and it's true, we have done it in 

17 the past and, apparently, we have managed to 

18 succeed and live through it.

19 So the question that is before us 

20 is: when is our next meeting? We clearly have 

21 things that are going to be done in May and 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

June. I would think that we would not want to 251 1

2 schedule anything before, at the very 

3 earliest, the last week in June and if we are 

4 going to go that late, then should we consider 

5 meeting with the Idaho Falls meeting in July 

6 or not? I think someone is trying to -- 

7 needs to comment on that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, who did you 

9 say should comment on that?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: From our 

12 standpoint, you know, we have largely 

13 telephone participation anyway from ORAU and 

14 so I don't see a whole lot of issue with 

15 combining it with the Idaho Board meeting. Of 

16 course, we won't know for a while what that 

17 Board meeting's agenda is and how full it is 

18 and how late the Board meeting will go, so it 

19 could be sort of a fluid situation in terms of 

20 what day would we actually have the --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think we would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

have to assume that we were going to meet the 252 1 

2 day before, rather than the day after, because 

3 we won't know whether there is a day after or 

4 not.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, this is Ted, hold 

6 on, Wanda.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

8 MR. KATZ: Can you hear me? So 

9 it's not looking to me, although, you know, I 

10 don't have enough information to even do a 

11 tentative schedule yet for the Board meeting, 

12 but I'm not thinking it's likely at all that 

13 we have a two and a half day Board meeting.

14 So actually, it doesn't hurt to 

15 occur before the Board meeting, if we are 

16 going to pair it up with the Board meeting.

17 CHAIR MUNN: You are saying we 

should do it on the 18th 18 if everybody wants to 

do it on the 18th 19 ? 

 MR. KATZ: No, or the 17th 20 . I 

21 mean, it just depends on -- I don't know how 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

long the Board meeting is going to be yet, so 253 1

2 that's why I think it's kind of fluid as to 

3 what the Board meeting will be.

4 So I mean, that's one possibility. 

5 I don't -- I mean, yes, that's one 

6 possibility. I'm not sure there is a huge 

7 advantage in -- I mean, that makes it easy for 

8 the Board Members, because they are already 

9 there, if they want to attend a day at the 

10 Subcommittee meeting if they're there.

11 But I think this also was pretty 

12 easy today and this can be scheduled, you 

13 know, anytime. So in other words, doing this 

14 by teleconference at Live Meeting.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'm pleased that 

16 it was easy for others. It was not easy for 

17 me.

18 And I don't anticipate that magic 

19 is going to happen in the meantime, but that's 

20 fine. My preference personally would still be 

21 to do this at some other time, but if it is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the Subcommittee's desire that we do it in 254 1

2 conjunction with the Idaho Falls meeting, then 

3 that or we can -- I guess I need response from 

4 someone else.

5 Would you rather that we move 

6 decisively into this telephonic kind of 

7 meeting or would you prefer, as I would, that 

8 we have face-to-face meetings in Cincinnati 

9 when we have this kind of agenda to address?

10 You know, I have expressed myself 

11 fairly frequently. What's new about that? 

12 Nothing. Okay. But I am not hearing from 

13 Josie and Paul and need to do that, I think.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. This is 

15 Ziemer. Either way I will only be there by 

16 phone. I won't be allowed to participate in 

17 the meeting directly because --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- of medical 

20 reasons.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Josie?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER BEACH: I am fine either 255 1

2 way. The phone works, but also face-to-face 

3 is fine, so --

4 MR. KATZ: And this is Ted. I 

5 mean, I think as long as it's functional, 

6 which I think it was very functional today, I 

7 mean, despite -- and again, part of your 

8 problem, Wanda, are computer problems which 

9 can be fixed actually. They are individual, 

10 but they are not a problem with the system.

11 But the Board is having to save 

12 some money here and there and one of the main 

13 ways it can do this is through cutting out 

14 travel that isn't necessary. And while there 

15 are some groups that need to meet face-to16 face, I think it actually is quite practical 

17 for this group to meet, you know, 

18 telephonically with Live Meeting.

19 So I mean, the Idaho meeting is 

20 sort of a separate case. We are going to be 

21 out there already and it's another group 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

is lined up for whatever. If we have a day 256 1

2 free, basically, because we don't need all 

3 that time for the Board meeting, then that 

4 might work because it's not going to -- we are 

5 not going to incur any special costs from 

6 that.

7 But in general, going forward, I 

8 think it makes sense for this Procedures Work 

9 Group to meet by telephone and by Live Meeting 

10 at least most of the time.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

12 If I could offer from a programmatic 

13 standpoint, we are in a situation where money 

14 we spend -- you know, it's much more severely 

15 this year than in previous years. Money we 

16 spend on things like travel is going to be 

17 subtracted from the work we can do

18 programmatically.

19 And from our standpoint, the remote 

20 meetings are -- it's really important for us 

21 to move as much as possible to the on-line 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

meeting format. 257 1

2 Now, having said that, I think 

3 something to consider might be shorter and 

4 maybe more frequent on-line meetings, because 

5 it, from our standpoint also, it's less 

6 disruptive to spend half a day in a meeting 

7 than it is all day. And when people are --

8 when you are traveling people across the 

9 country to meet, then it makes sense, well, if 

10 you are going to do that, go to that trouble 

11 and that expense, let's get our day's worth 

12 and make a whole day meeting.

13 But if you are meeting on-line, I 

14 think we can relook at the paradigm of doing, 

15 you know, eight-hour meetings and maybe do 

16 half day meetings, which I think fits the 

17 daylight schedule, the time of day schedule 

18 more readily for all of us since we are spread 

19 across the country and also is somewhat less 

20 of an imposition on the daily work of us and 

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

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KATZ: That's a great point, 258 1

2 Stu. I think that is worth considering for 

3 the Subcommittee to do.

4 CHAIR MUNN: So what do I hear as a 

5 suggestion for our next meeting? What and 

6 where?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as always, 

8 the Institute will do what the Board and the 

9 Work Groups and the Subcommittees want to do.

10 I think the suggestion would be 

11 toward the latter part of June, the last half 

12 of June sometime and a short -- maybe don't 

13 plan to do eight hours, plan to do four hours, 

14 because we have some things remaining from 

15 today that we couldn't finish that may be 

16 moved along and we will have some things to 

17 work on.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Taking Stu's 

suggestion to heart, how about the 20th 19 of 

20 June, Thursday?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: As a personal 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

matter, I prefer not to do it on a Thursday, 259 1

2 but I can.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. What about the 

18th, Tuesday, or the 25th 4 , Tuesday? 

5 MR. KATZ: I have to schedule -- I 

6 have Work Group meetings to schedule for the 

17th through the 19th 7 . I have to hold off on 

8 until I've sorted out the Work Group's date.

MR. HINNEFELD: I can do the 20th 9

10 if need be.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

Josie. I am available the 20th 12 . However, I'm 

13 not available the last week of June.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And if we are doing 

it on-line the 21st 16 might work, too.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, what about the 

21st? How about the 21st 18 ?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can't do the 

21st 20 .

21 MR. KATZ: 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

 MEMBER BEACH: I have a conflict in 260 1 

the morning of the 21st 2 . 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, okay, back to 

the 20th 4 , I guess.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I can do any 

other day in the week of the 17th 6 or the week 

of the 24th 7 . 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Well, Josie 

said she can't do the 24th 9 and so that --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: That week?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. She can't do that 

12 week.

13 MEMBER BEACH: That whole week.

14 CHAIR MUNN: So she is out.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Wait a minute. The 

20th 17 , I would have to --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's too 

19 complicated already.

 MR. HINNEFELD: The 20th 20 is going 

21 to be hard for me in the morning.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee,

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we need to give 261 1

up on the 20th 2 . So we have given up on the 

20th and 21st. And Ted has the 17th and 19th 3

4 tied up, which is --

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, that would be the 

17th, 18th and 19th 6 . Let me -- I could probably 

peel away the 19th 7 if I need to.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's all right.

9 MR. KATZ: But I shouldn't yet. I 

10 shouldn't yet.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, don't mess yourself 

12 up. There is no point in doing that.

13 MEMBER BEACH: What about the first 

14 week of July, Wanda? I know it's a holiday 

week on the 4th. What about the 1st, 2nd or 3rd 15 ?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it doesn't 

matter to me. The 2nd 17 would be fine for me.

18 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine for me 

19 as well.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

21 MR. KATZ: That's no problem 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

me. How is that for Paul? 262 1 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, I am in 

3 therapy all week that week.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We don't want 

5 to do that. It is beginning to look to me as 

6 though we would be wise to schedule this 

7 behind Idaho Falls, if we are going to be 

8 there anyway.

9 MR. KATZ: Well, we have to --

okay. But we have the week of July 8th 10 , too.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. But again, my 

12 concern is whether or not the staff is going 

13 to be able to devote time and energy the week 

14 before a Board meeting.

15 MR. STIVER: I also just want to 

point out the week of July 8th 16 is the HPS 

17 meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Which makes it bad for 

20 three-quarters of the people involved.

21 MR. STIVER: It would be bad for 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

because I need to go out there. This is 263 1

2 Stiver.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Can we say that 

4 we are going to meet with the Idaho Falls 

5 meeting? And leave -- we are assuming that we 

will meet on the 18th 6 ?

MEMBER BEACH: Or the 16th 7 .

8 MR. KATZ: But the Subcommittee 

won't be the 15th 9 , because that will be the 

10 Board meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Working on the 16th 11

12 would mean we'd need to --

CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the 16th 13 is when 

14 the Board starts.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- travel on Sunday 

to be there on the 15th 16 .

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Or we can assume 

18 that if we are going to have a one and a half 

19 day meeting, that no one is going to fall 

20 apart over the fact that we get a break 

21 between, a few hour break between the end 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

the Board meeting and the beginning of our 264 1

2 meeting the next day.

3 MEMBER BEACH: That would work for 

4 me.

5 CHAIR MUNN: We are going to be 

6 there anyway. And our key folks will be 

7 there. Hopefully, others can be there or be 

8 on the phone.

Steve, can you make it on the 18th 9 ? 

10 Have we lost Marschke?

11 MR. STIVER: Still out there, 

12 Steve? He's probably muted.

13 CHAIR MUNN: We have lost Steve.

14 MR. KATZ: It's okay. I mean, staff 

15 can join by teleconference, so unless Steve 

16 has a holiday planned for that week, but I 

17 have to follow up anyway with Dick as well. 

18 He is not on the call.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: So I can see about 

availability for the 18th 21 . And again, I can't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

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

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

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

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

commit to that, at this point, because I don't 265 1 

2 know about the Board meeting itself, but 

3 anyway, I can pencil this in, check with Dick, 

4 check with Steve and we will see.

5 We won't actually settle this for a 

6 little while yet, because the Board meeting 

7 won't be settled for a little while yet.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That's 

9 good.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any other 

12 items which need to be addressed or which need 

13 to be anticipated for the next agenda item?

14 If not, then we are adjourned at, 

15 what, 5:15 your time, right? No, 4:15 your 

16 time.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We will 

19 see you in Idaho Falls.

20 (Whereupon, the teleconference 

21 meeting was concluded at 4:15 p.m.)