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 

+ + + + +

PROCEDURES REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

JULY 31, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 

2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

ALSO PRESENT:
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team*

*Participating via telephone

 
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 and Roll Call

by Mr. Ted Katz 4 

Database Issues

(including overarching issues) 7 

OTIB-70 Review of New Revision

by Mr. Steve Marschke 47

Break

Review of PER-12 Report

by Mr. John Stiver 90

OTIB-52 - Rev. 1, Finding 14, Response

to SC&A Analysis Request

by Mr. Steve Marschke 132

Review of PER-14, Response to Review

by Mr. John Stiver 141

PER-17 by Mr. John Stiver 211

PER-18 by Mr. Hinnefeld 224

PER-20 228

Subcommittee selection of PER review 

assignments by John Stiver 278

OTIB-37 by Elyse Thomas 341

OTIB-54 by Elyse Thomas 345

IG-1 by Mr. Marschke 355
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (9:02 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone. 

4 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

5 Worker Health, Procedures Review Subcommittee 

6 and we're going to get started with roll call.

7 Beginning with the Board Members we 

8 have to address conflict of interest as well at 

9 the outset of the meeting and I think I'll just 

10 address this as we go through.

11 (Roll call.)

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, then there's an 

13 agenda that's posted on the web page and I think 

14 any other documents we're discussing should have 

15 been posted as well, that were PA-cleared at 

16 least. And, Wanda, it's your agenda.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right, before we 

18 undertake the agenda, there is one item that 

19 perhaps we should address.

20 In reviewing the transcript from 

21 last time, I noticed not one or two, as was in 

22 my memory, or a half dozen that I thought I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 recalled, but an astonishing 25 instances where 

2 what our transcript says is simultaneous 

3 speaking.

4 Those of us who were here remember 

5 that there was a great deal of Tower of Babel 

6 activity last time, and it's disconcerting for 

7 us to have that on our permanent record because 

8 we don't remember what we said three months 

9 later.

10 There ought to be some easy way for 

11 us to address that to make sure that we don't 

12 continue to do that.

13 Our transcribers and our recorders 

14 have been very innocuous for quite some time now 

15 and don't intrude in any way on our proceedings.

16 I'm wondering if perhaps we have 

17 been a little too lax in that regard and have not 

18 specifically asked that our recorders let us 

19 know when they're not getting what we say.

20 I personally would like to see a 

21 cleaner transcript, and if we all agree to that, 

22 then I guess we could ask our current recorder 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 if there's any objection to putting up a hand or 

2 in some way letting us know when we're talking 

3 over each other.

4 Sometimes the people who are doing 

5 that are not even aware of the fact that they're 

6 all talking at once. Is there any objection 

7 from anyone to having our recorder do that, and 

8 do you mind doing it?

9 COURT REPORTER: I don't mind doing 

10 that. Often the discussion is moving fast, but 

11 would you like me to just put up a hand?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, if you would just 

13 put up a hand when you're getting swamped, when 

14 you know that you can't get all of the voices in, 

15 so that I'll know to stop and ask what's the last 

16 thing you got and we can take up the discussion 

17 from there. That would be preferable for me if 

18 no one objects to that.

19 MR. KATZ: I agree and I also think 

20 I should and the Chair should also sort of keep 

21 a mind to this because that's part of our keeping 

22 an orderly meeting. So it's not all on the backs 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 of the transcriber to --

2 CHAIR MUNN: No. No, I don't 

3 anticipate that.

4 MR. KATZ: -- call attention. And 

5 I'm a transgressor, I have to admit. I know I 

6 am, but I should do better too.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and it really 

8 falls to somebody because she may raise her hand 

9 and in that heat of the moment nobody's paying 

10 attention there either so.

11 MR. KATZ: We can all pull towards 

12 this goal.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, our enthusiasm 

14 for addressing the issues is laudable but we'll 

15 need to curb our enthusiasm a little if we can 

16 get a little help in doing that.

17 And we'll try our best to be much 

18 more aware. And unfortunately I don't have a 

19 gavel but I can yell, so thank you, Kayla.

20 I think both the agency and the 

21 contractor have been busy populating our list 

22 where we had openings that had been identified.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 And to the best of my knowledge, 

2 everything that we anticipated has been. We're 

3 populated now, aren't we, so far as we know? 

4 We're pretty well up to speed in terms of what 

5 we know that needs to be on the database that we 

6 didn't have last time.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I think most of the 

8 information that we needed to enter has been 

9 entered. PER-14 has been.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I noticed that.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: The findings from 

12 that have been entered and Lori mentioned that 

13 NIOSH has been entering information and I've 

14 been entering some information.

15 Still, you know, as we work with the 

16 system, we are finding things that need to be 

17 cleaned up here and there and so on and so forth 

18 and we're working on those.

19 As a matter of fact, I was having 

20 some trouble getting the PER-14 findings in and 

21 Lori took care of that. Computer IT people take 

22 care of that for us and so we were able to do that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 And so we are going in the right 

2 direction and I would say we're, you know, 90 

3 percent there.

4 There are a few things that still are 

5 frustrating. The PDF file print thing here 

6 doesn't seem to be operating at this point.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I noticed that.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: There is an 

9 alternative way to get printouts, is to go up 

10 here to the file and get a printout here and 

11 direct it to a PDF file.

12 But that tends to generate a very 

13 fuzzy file which is difficult to read because 

14 it's not clear. Because of all the nice, fancy 

15 formatting we have on the screen, when you use 

16 the print option up here, you get an exact image 

17 of what's on the screen.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, really?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And because it is

20 highlighted and stuff, you'll get some fuzzy 

21 results and it's difficult to read some of the 

22 stuff.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 So I think, you know, I don't want 

2 to speak for Lori, but I think NIOSH is still 

3 working on making sure that the printing 

4 individual findings button will be implemented 

5 at some point and that'll take care of that 

6 problem.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't even find that 

8 back door and so I didn't know that was there.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we've got a few 

10 secrets in our pocket, Wanda.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, very good. 

12 Very clever of you.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess maybe the 

14 people to speak is Josie and Lori because they've 

15 been new to the BRS system and were they able to 

16 use it and was it useful to them more so than, 

17 you know, myself.

18 That would be really a test of the 

19 system, whether or not new people coming into the 

20 organization, you know, found it useful.

21 CHAIR MUNN: In the final analysis, 

22 that's what we have to look at. I just wanted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 to make sure that we were pretty well up to speed, 

2 pretty well current, with our population of the 

3 BRS.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, right now, 

5 excuse me Wanda, but right now I was trying to 

6 enter some stuff on TIB-10.

7 I'm having some trouble trying to 

8 get attachments attached, but I noticed that 

9 other people at NIOSH have been attaching 

10 attachments.

11 And so maybe it's just operator 

12 ignorance on my part and I just have to find out 

13 how to do that, but so that's what I'm working 

14 on right now.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's good. If 

16 we have most of the notations in that we were 

17 talking about last time and in prior meetings, 

18 then that's half the battle won. That's good.

19 And I just checked. One of the 

20 things we'd had trouble with last time was 

21 OTIB-54. It looks to me that all the active 

22 findings are working now but we'll find that out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 when we get there I suppose.

2 And I know Elyse was going to be 

3 doing a lot of the NIOSH work to make sure that 

4 as much as we had was up to date. Do you have 

5 anything to add, Elyse?

6 MS. THOMAS: No, Wanda, thank you.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right, thanks very 

8 much, appreciate it. And Steve's suggestion is 

9 well taken. Josie, are you feeling comfortable 

10 as a newcomer to the system?

11 MEMBER BEACH: I actually found it 

12 very easy to navigate through the system. 

13 However, there's probably way more to this 

14 system than I was even able to discover.

15 I was able to get on, find the 

16 documents, look at the findings. I guess I was 

17 looking for some of the backup documents and I 

18 don't know if those are there.

19 Like OTIB-70, I can see the findings 

20 but if I wanted to see the actual document, could 

21 I see it within this system?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 MEMBER BEACH: I just wasn't sure 

2 how to do that at this point, so that was one 

3 thing that it wasn't 100 percent clear to me.

4 CHAIR MUNN: It depends on what the 

5 link is, but we do have a significant number of 

6 links if we know where to look for them.

7 MEMBER BEACH: That's the key, is 

8 knowing where.

9 MR. KATZ: I guess the thing to do 

10 is just if someone from DCAS could just get on 

11 the phone with Josie and walk her through 

12 different functions --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, or just give 

14 like a tutorial of where things are.

15 MR. KATZ: -- or a little tutorial 

16 of different things.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Josie, to answer 

18 your first question, to find the document itself 

19 all's you have to do is go up here and click on 

20 the name. See, basically it becomes 

21 underlined.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, oh, I see. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 Okay.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: If you click on that, 

3 it'll pull up the document so the document itself 

4 can be accessed in that manner.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Very good. I 

6 figured there was an easy way to do it so there 

7 we go, so I don't have to switch back and forth.

8 CHAIR MUNN: No.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Excellent.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And then obviously 

11 to get the history of any particular finding, you 

12 go over and click on the little plus arrow or plus 

13 box over here and --

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I did find that. 

15 Okay, perfect.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The intent is to 

17 attach standalone files with this feature down 

18 here. There aren't too many presently 

19 attached. There are only maybe a handful in all 

20 the findings.

21 CHAIR MUNN: But we have a number of 

22 findings where White Papers have been issued 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 debating a technical issue back and forth 

2 between the agency and the contractor and it's 

3 our goal to eventually have the bulk of those 

4 White Papers --

5 MEMBER BEACH: And those would be 

6 under attachments?

7 CHAIR MUNN: -- attached, yes.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Excellent, okay. 

9 Yes, I think that was my biggest one, Steve, 

10 because I kept thinking I should be able to get 

11 to those documents much easier, and thanks for 

12 clearing that up.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's what we're 

15 aiming for. Anything else, Josie?

16 MEMBER BEACH: So far, no.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Lori, how about you? 

18 How we doing?

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, with the 

20 system itself, I had fun. Yes, I had fun. I was 

21 trying to make sure I could find any problems 

22 with it, and I agree with Steve. We're working 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 on the issue with the PDF icon.

2 Right now our IT team is planning to 

3 disable that for now until they can get that 

4 functioning properly.

5 One of the problems that we've 

6 discovered is that when the findings are entered 

7 a lot of them are being entered from either a 

8 website or a Word document and the differences 

9 in the fonts, the system is not recognizing so 

10 it's causing these errors.

11 The goal was to actually be able to 

12 click on the PDF and you can actually see a PDF 

13 listing of all your findings collectively, which 

14 I think is very useful.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that was our 

16 intent.

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It was going to be very 

19 useful for us in transferring between the Work 

20 Groups.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: So I took it upon 

22 myself to assume that the Committee wanted to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 have that function.

2 So we're in the process of actually 

3 getting a software tool that will scrub the 

4 symbols that come from a website or Word document 

5 to actually clean it up so we can keep that 

6 ability.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Your assumption is 

8 correct.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay, yes, all 

10 right. So other than that, I think it's a pretty 

11 good system.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: And we can keep 

14 working to get it functioning to the ability you 

15 want.

16 CHAIR MUNN: We're increasingly 

17 happy with it. It's been a long haul, but there 

18 is a plethora of information in here and it's 

19 taken a long time to get it in the format and as 

20 accessible as we wanted it to be, so I'm glad that 

21 two new people at least find it workable. 

22 That's good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 Anybody else have anything to 

2 contribute with respect to the BRS and what we're 

3 doing with it?

4 As a kind of side note, I just lapsed 

5 into three-letter acronyms there which we use 

6 here all the time.

7 But for the sake of anyone who might 

8 encounter this later and not be familiar with our 

9 acronyms, BRS stands for Board Review System 

10 which is what we're calling the database 

11 although I am an outlander and I have a tendency 

12 to call it the database, and I'm corrected 

13 regularly by our IT folks, but I think of it as 

14 our database.

15 We were going to have it reviewed for 

16 accuracy and pertinence during the interim from 

17 our last meeting and I am working on the 

18 assumption that that has occurred.

19 Stu, do you know for a fact? I'm 

20 assuming you or Elyse would have been the folks 

21 who were looking at that.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: At the data that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 in it?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, for accuracy and 

3 pertinence.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that, you 

5 know, we agree that what's in there is what 

6 should be there.

7 There may be instances where, you 

8 know, we have an answer or two that we haven't 

9 quite said okay to that hasn't been put in there 

10 yet, but we believe what's in there is what 

11 should be there.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we wanted to make 

13 sure that the findings were listed where the 

14 findings should be and that they reasonably 

15 reflect it.

16 There was I know a lot of effort that 

17 went on verifying the verbiage from the system 

18 with reports from transcripts covering this same 

19 material to make sure that we actually had 

20 captured the thought correctly.

21 And we had some discussion on that 

22 and it was going to be checked and I think it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 checked.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I remember there 

3 was one issue of a particular document that's 

4 entered with an extra zero or it's kind of in 

5 there twice.

6 And when you're trying to find it, 

7 you're liable to pull up the one that doesn't 

8 have the findings when almost the same document 

9 title brings up the findings and I can't recall 

10 which one it is now but --

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: I believe that's 

12 OCAS-0013 and DCAS-0013.

13 CHAIR MUNN: It's 13, yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And I'm not sure 

15 that's sorted out.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have one zero or 

17 two zeroes?

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: We took care of 

19 that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that taken care 

21 of?

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: We have two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 zeroes for the DCAS document.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's good, 

3 which is what we needed. Okay, thanks to all.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I notice on the 

7 agenda you have "including overarching issues" 

8 there next to the database issues. Are you 

9 referring to overarching database issues or are 

10 you referring to overarching technical issues?

11 What was the intent, because I know 

12 at one point we talked about putting in I guess 

13 a dummy document to track the overarching 

14 technical issues and I don't know if that was the 

15 intent of this, you know, here or not so.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was. At our 

17 last meeting, we said that we were going to 

18 pursue the concept of adding that list here since 

19 Jim Neton had been the keeper of that data and 

20 we did not have any means of tracking it.

21 We discussed the possibility of 

22 doing exactly that, setting it up in this Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 Review System, so that we would not only have a 

2 clear and easily accessible listing of what 

3 those issues were but also whether any change 

4 occurred over time. We could track that.

5 And I don't recall whether it was 

6 actually assigned. We discussed it. But I

7 thought it was assigned for NIOSH to do.

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well --

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't recall 

10 either, Wanda, whether or not we actually came 

11 to that far into the process, to actually 

12 assigning.

13 MR. KATZ: Lori was going to respond 

14 to that.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, we do have a 

16 little something --

17 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- that we'd like 

19 to share. Steve, if I can use your computer?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Sure, go ahead.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Could you pull up 

22 the BRS for us?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Set up is in seven. 

3 Do you want to go to the main screen?

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, let's go to 

5 the main screen. What we did is set up a little 

6 skeleton, not knowing exactly where you want to 

7 go with the overarching issues and all, so we've 

8 done a little test for you to see.

9 If you could go to the Document Type 

10 Filter, the center menu drop-down, and then you 

11 have a listing of overarching issues for an 

12 option, I'm sorry.

13 And what we've done here is listed 

14 the name of the overarching issues that we 

15 received from Jim Neton.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Wait, now back up. At 

17 the original screen --

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, the center 

19 drop-down menu.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Document Type 

21 Filter.

22 CHAIR MUNN: -- the Document Type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 Filter is included. Oh, I see. You've 

2 included it in the list, okay. Now, got it. Go 

3 ahead.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. According 

5 to Jim, we have at least eight categories, if you 

6 will, of overarching issues and we've listed 

7 those as document titles.

8 We just arbitrarily just picked a 

9 document number. I chose NIOSH over, one would 

10 be your oronasal breathing, okay? We can make 

11 changes as we start to build upon the overarching 

12 issue concept, okay?

13 And what we've done, I actually went 

14 through the database and found some of those that 

15 were designated in the findings as --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Good for you. Thank 

17 you, Lori.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- oronasal 

19 breathing and we assigned it to this overarching 

20 document number.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, good start.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: Now, going back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 to what Steve showed you early, Josie, there is 

2 actually no document. If you clicked on 

3 oronasal breathing, there's no document there.

4 Based on the design of the database, 

5 we had to name it something and present it as if 

6 it was an actual document.

7 MR. KATZ: This is perfect.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's perfect.

9 MR. KATZ: This is just we talked 

10 about, Lori, so.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly what we 

12 wanted.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Now, if you will 

14 go back, one other thing I'd like to show you. 

15 If you will actually go back to TIB-4 -- let me 

16 clarify that. That's OCAS, I'm sorry, ORAU 

17 TIB-4.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It'd be useful if we 

19 called it OTIB, wouldn't it? Okay, go ahead.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: How many zeroes, 

21 four?

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, three.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Three zeroes?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Now, we're still 

3 in the process of building this, designing it and 

4 all, but if you will go down, I believe that 

5 overarching issue is Finding number 12.

6 If you scroll down to 12, you will 

7 see -- go back to 11 for me, Steve. You see 

8 there's a gap, it goes from 11 to 14?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: Currently IT has 

11 moved it down to the bottom of the list in this 

12 particular document.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Because?

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, they're 

15 still working on it. Okay, but I would like it 

16 for it to remain in order, chronological order.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, so would I.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay, so we're 

19 working on that. But what they've done is added 

20 a little message once you get to that finding and 

21 12 is one of those findings. It's an 

22 overarching issue and it says "Finding has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 transferred here."

2 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent.

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: If you were to 

4 click on here, --

5 CHAIR MUNN: I just did.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- it should take 

7 you to the actual overarching category.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well done.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: One question. I 

10 notice the status is transferred in both. Does 

11 the status have to be the same in both screens?

12 I mean, because basically if you go 

13 back to the OTIB-4, it should say transferred, 

14 which is correct because it's been transferred 

15 out of here and it's been transferred over to the 

16 overarching.

17 But over here probably the status 

18 should be whatever the status is, open, in 

19 progress or, you know, in abeyance or whatever 

20 the status is over on this screen so.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Whatever the 

22 Committee would like to do, we can do it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 CHAIR MUNN: It should be open on 

2 the screen.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or whatever it is 

4 for that finding.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: For that finding, 

7 yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Whatever it was 

9 before they transferred it, it should be. On 

10 this screen, it should show whatever that 

11 status, the working status.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in the previous 

13 screen it probably showed in abeyance before it 

14 showed transferred.

15 And that brings up the issue whether 

16 we are going to address these on a regular, 

17 scheduled basis the way we do others or whether 

18 these stand separately.

19 I guess what I'm trying to say is are 

20 we going to address these while we're addressing 

21 OTIB-4 or will we be handling overarching issues 

22 separately? I guess that's really what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 trying to say, and I don't think we've even 

2 talked about that.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, I think the whole 

4 concept was when we identify overarching issues 

5 is we say we're not going to deal with this here. 

6 This affects many other --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

8 MR. KATZ: So I don't think you 

9 would address it when you're addressing that 

10 document because that's the whole point of 

11 putting it in this bucket, is because it affects 

12 more than one document or TBD, whatever it might 

13 be, and so it's going to be this generally.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Paul.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me ask it in a 

16 somewhat different way. So let's suppose at 

17 Savannah River you have an oronasal breathing 

18 finding and you push it over to here.

19 Now at, you know, Los Alamos you have 

20 an oronasal breathing finding which is sort of 

21 similar, maybe slightly worded different. You 

22 push it into here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 And so now these things show up as 

2 what? Both that identified number and then as 

3 little subsets of them?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So then when 

6 you look at oronasal breathing, you have this 

7 collection of where the findings showed up, and 

8 then whoever is reviewing it can review it sort 

9 of in a generic way and I think the specific site 

10 may still have to apply it to their site so --

11 MR. KATZ: But then when it all gets 

12 addressed generally and whatever the general 

13 matters are resolved, then you can send them 

14 back.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: You can send them 

16 back.

17 MR. KATZ: Transfer it back to the 

18 specifics and either be applied directly or if 

19 it needs to be adjusted for the conditions of the 

20 site or what have you, or the procedure, then 

21 that can be addressed by the group that's 

22 responsible for that site or procedure.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, this is --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Presumably you'll 

3 find this multiple times. If it's an 

4 overarching issue, you're going to find it.

5 Now, as I understand it, Lori, so did 

6 you go through or partially through the database 

7 and say, okay, here's oronasal breathing so put 

8 it there?

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Based on Jim 

11 Neton's list?

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Good.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And I'm delighted to 

15 see that you transferred the entire thing 

16 including its identification in OTIB-4 because 

17 as Paul just pointed out --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: You can still track 

19 it back if you need to.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you can still 

21 track it back, and no matter how many sites we 

22 add to this heading we'll know exactly where they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 came from. Great, thank you.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: If I can, I think 

3 what you did was you looked at anything with a 

4 transferred status, is that what you looked at?

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right, correct.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Because we thought 

7 that we had put the status as transferred for 

8 everything we'd identified in the database as an 

9 overarching issue.

10 So she looked at everything that was 

11 transferred and looked for things that said 

12 transferred to overarching or whatever. There 

13 was another term that was used sometimes. But 

14 that's how she arrived at the ones that were in 

15 the database in order to link up with those.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Great.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, I'm not sure 

18 that every one of those overarching issues on 

19 that list will link to anything that's currently 

20 in the database.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Probably not always.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you find 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 something for all of them, Lori, do you remember?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, I did not.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, because there 

4 were those that came, I mean, those have come up 

5 elsewhere, rather than from the Subcommittee.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: That's true.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was looking on the 

8 overarching list for resuspension factors, 

9 which is one of our categories, and I didn't see 

10 that. Now, it may be a subset of workplace 

11 ingestion or something.

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: It will be added.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Jim made me aware 

15 that --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: You don't 

17 necessarily have them all --

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- TIB-70 is one 

19 of them.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: And that will be 

22 added.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Some of these I 

2 think there was already a document being 

3 developed. There may be a document on 

4 resuspension factors per se. Is that right or 

5 is it part of a bigger document? I don't 

6 remember.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: There have been 

8 documents prepared for some of these I know. I 

9 believe there's been a document prepared for 

10 oronasal breathing a while ago and it's never 

11 really been discussed in a Subcommittee or Work 

12 Group, I don't believe.

13 But there has been something 

14 prepared on oronasal and I suspect there has been 

15 maybe more than one thing prepared on 

16 resuspension, so it'll be a matter of getting, 

17 you know, collecting those --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Collecting those 

19 into this.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and getting them 

21 into here.

22 MR. KATZ: So I guess one suggestion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 I have is, I mean, I think maybe SC&A wants to 

2 look at these too as they're in there, including 

3 all their links.

4 And once sort of DCAS and SC&A sort 

5 of agree that they think that they're complete 

6 to the extent that you can identify them, we may 

7 stumble across others that have been somehow 

8 left out somewhere but I don't mean issues but 

9 elements of a particular overarching issue.

10 But once we think they're complete, 

11 I think then the Subcommittee can just start 

12 addressing them one at a time. We decide at this 

13 meeting we're going to address this one.

14 There may be an overarching issue 

15 that you think belongs elsewhere but otherwise 

16 this is a reasonable place to start at least and 

17 look at these and one by one you can start 

18 addressing them.

19 And we can then arrange to have Jim 

20 Neton or anyone else here for that meeting, 

21 including the right people from SC&A here for 

22 that meeting, and try to knock these off and so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 that they'll no longer be hovering as they have 

2 for these years.

3 CHAIR MUNN: A legitimate method 

4 for approaching I think. For the time being, 

5 the immediate action, it appears, would be that 

6 NIOSH would continue to populate this list and 

7 devise some method for searching base documents 

8 to add as components of populating this part of 

9 the system.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: What base 

11 documents?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, as you just 

13 mentioned, you thought that there may be some 

14 procedures, some documents already written to 

15 address some of these, and if those documents 

16 exist, then we need to populate this database 

17 with them.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So response sort of 

19 actions.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So just like we 

22 would enter responses on any other issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, and then if SC&A 

4 would just, as part of this, in the next month 

5 or whatever have a look at this and see if you 

6 can identify other instances where that 

7 overarching issue may have been addressed that 

8 might somehow not be captured.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. We'll go 

10 through and look. Now that we have a way to 

11 track the overarching issues, we can go through.

12 And if we can find something, I'll 

13 let Lori know, you know, we think this should be 

14 moved over into the overarching issue or we want 

15 to add this or whatever, so I'll work with Lori 

16 on that.

17 But I did have one question or maybe 

18 a database how we want to do this is now we're 

19 going to have these overarching issues and 

20 they're going to have basically two statuses 

21 associated with them.

22 In the initiating document, like in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 OTIB-4, they're going to have the status of 

2 transferred. In the overarching issue 

3 category, they're going to have a status of 

4 whatever it is.

5 And so when we go and generate this 

6 summary table, you know, we don't want to double 

7 count that particular issue. We want to make 

8 sure that we don't double count it, I guess, is 

9 my caution here.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, any issue 

11 that you transfer is going to show up again 

12 somewhere else, right? So don't all the 

13 transferred ones, in a sense, get double 

14 counted?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: No, not necessarily 

16 because, for example, Battelle-TBD-6000, all 13 

17 of these are transferred and they're transferred 

18 out of this Subcommittee into your Work Group, 

19 Paul.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: And so they don't 

22 really show up as double counting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they'd show 

2 up as 13 here.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: They show up as 13 

4 issues that have been transferred.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: And where they were 

7 transferred to, it doesn't show up. You know, 

8 the fact that they were transferred into your, 

9 and the status that they are in your Work Group 

10 is --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or there's not 13 

12 added to our Work Group then?

13 MR. KATZ: But we don't track it.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you. I got 

15 you.

16 MR. KATZ: We don't track it. But 

17 I don't think it's that important really, Steve, 

18 the double counting or what have you. When you 

19 put them to bed, it'll all go away. And so, yes, 

20 it inflates the numbers but that's not our 

21 tracking them.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 MR. KATZ: I don't think it's that 

2 important that it's worth struggling over 

3 really. I mean, we're going to address them, 

4 yes.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, I just want to, 

6 yes.

7 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. I 

8 think you're correct. I just think it just --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let me ask 

10 this. Once it's closed by whoever it was 

11 transferred to, where does it show up as closed?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Here.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is it 

14 counted?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: It would probably 

16 show, well, again, however we decide to operate 

17 this database.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but ultimately 

19 you want to close everything that started, one 

20 way or the other.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: One way or the other, 

22 yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you don't want 

3 those transferred ones dangling out there as --

4 MR. KATZ: I think I can answer that 

5 because you're going to close them as 

6 overarching issues first because that's where 

7 you're going to deal with them as overarching 

8 issues.

9 And then you're going to go back to 

10 the specific cases. And if you can close them 

11 automatically, because that settles the issue 

12 for that specific case, then it'll be closed 

13 immediately there.

14 But if there's something 

15 particular, for example it's site specific at a 

16 number of sites and there's some sites for which 

17 it has to be applied differently, you'll close 

18 it at those sites as you can wrestle down the 

19 site-specific issues for that overarching 

20 issue. Does that make sense for that? I think 

21 that's how that would get done.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: So they're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 go back and show up at the original starting 

2 point as closed?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, as closed or still 

5 open until they can be closed, right, but the 

6 overarching matter will have been closed, yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: As I see it, that's 

8 roughly the plan I see falling into place.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: I have a 

10 question. If they're transferred to Paul's 

11 Committee or Work Group --

12 MR. KATZ: Sure.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- they're

14 addressed in the Work Group?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: They do not come 

17 back to the database?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they do come back.

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: They do?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. When they close 

21 it --

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: When they close 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 it, okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- they're requested 

3 to notify us, yes.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: And then we 

5 close?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, those are the not 

8 overarching but other matters you're talking 

9 about, right?

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, overarching.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Either way. 

12 Either way you want to know.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, but generally 

14 overarching, yes, I mean, we don't send to a Work 

15 Group an overarching issue because it's coming 

16 from a Work Group to --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Most of the 

18 overarching are probably going to be --

19 MR. KATZ: Coming here, right, 

20 exactly.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: So it would never 

22 have to go, maybe.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I hate to say 

4 never.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, there's one Work 

7 Group where I can imagine we might send an 

8 overarching issue. That would be the Science 

9 Issues Work Group because that's sort of 

10 constituted in a way that can deal with broad 

11 issues as well as procedures.

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's a possibility.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And I think a part of 

15 the thinking when that Work Group was organized.

16 MR. KATZ: Sure.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Good, that's excellent 

18 progress.

19 MR. KATZ: It is, thank you.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very much, 

21 Lori.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: You're welcome.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 CHAIR MUNN: Didn't know that had 

2 gone on. That's great. Anything else with 

3 respect to the BRS? If not, then let's 

4 undertake the agenda. Are there any additions 

5 or corrections to the rest of the agenda as you 

6 have received it?

7 I have only one thing that I'd like 

8 to mention and that is that Lori and her office 

9 have populated a part of OTIB-37 that wasn't 

10 there before and have added a couple that needed 

11 to be there and has one new one I believe.

12 So I would suggest that when we start 

13 looking at the OTIBs right after lunch that we 

14 include OTIB-37 and devote a little bit of time 

15 to it so that Lori can report that to us. Other 

16 than that, I don't have any additions. Does 

17 anyone else?

18 All right. Let's start with 

19 OTIB-70, which is going to be a handful, and who 

20 is going to carry the water on this one?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I can start. 

22 What we did was I guess NIOSH had made -- wait 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 a minute. Let me first bring it up, get it here.

2 NIOSH had made some responses to 

3 some of the comments or maybe they reissued 

4 OTIB-70 as a new issue, and what we did was we 

5 looked at that and we went through and made some 

6 recommendations to the Subcommittee as to status 

7 changes.

8 And back in May we sent to Wanda and 

9 the Subcommittee an email, which is basically 

10 shown here on the screen which is a summary of 

11 those recommendations.

12 And, in essence, we are recommending 

13 that most of the open issues or the in abeyance 

14 issues associated with OTIB-70 should be closed.

15 And so if we want to walk through I 

16 guess the OTIB-70 issues and if the Subcommittee 

17 would like to, you know, act on our 

18 recommendations I guess, then --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do that, Steve.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we can do that.

21 CHAIR MUNN: I think for the record 

22 the best thing we can do is take them one at a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 time. Number 1.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, first finding. 

3 Basically in Revision 1 of OTIB-70, our response 

4 states that in Revision 1 of OTIB-70 the source 

5 term depletion rate has been changed from 0.01 

6 per day to 0.00067 per day.

7 And this change was consistent with 

8 resuspension factor 1E-6 per meter, and based 

9 upon this revision, SC&A recommends that the 

10 finding be closed.

11 CHAIR MUNN: We are aware the 

12 revision has been made and we have discussed this 

13 particular item at length in this forum. Is 

14 there any additional comment to make or may we 

15 accept this as closed? Any objection to closing 

16 it, Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I'm just 

18 absorbing what they said here, source term 

19 depletion rate. This is the resuspension 

20 factor issue.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is, exactly.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this the case of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 a cleaned-up facility again? I'm just trying to 

2 remember. Is this the category where there's 

3 been prior clean-up such as in the residual 

4 period?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. OTIB-70 is 

6 dose reconstruction during the residual 

7 radioactivity period.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I think we 

9 had been moving toward that final 10 to the minus 

10 6 value, both SC&A and for previously cleaned-up 

11 sites.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. If you look 

13 at the history that's been going on, basically 

14 that's the argument that has been being debated.

15 You can go back to December of 2010. 

16 You can see there's a whole rather large SC&A 

17 reply that discusses all this thing.

18 And then in January of 2012, we got 

19 a NIOSH response which indicates that they, I 

20 guess, had kind of agreed with the SC&A approach 

21 or they were going to accept the SC&A approach 

22 and the TIB was being revised to reflect this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 And, again, in January then we had 

2 discussed this in the Subcommittee and the 

3 Subcommittee agreed with the approach being 

4 taken by NIOSH.

5 And at that point they changed the 

6 status. The status was changed to in abeyance 

7 and so basically what NIOSH is saying here now 

8 is that the agreed-upon approach has been 

9 implemented in the OTIB to SC&A's satisfaction.

10 MR. KATZ: For a cleaned-up 

11 facility.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: For a cleaned-up.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just wanted to 

15 clarify.

16 CHAIR MUNN: You're okay with 

17 closing it?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I agree with 

19 that.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Josie, okay?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Dick, are you okay with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 closing this? Are you on mute, Dick? We're not 

2 getting a response from Dr. Lemen.

3 MR. KATZ: That's okay because you 

4 have a quorum.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Let's close it as 

6 recommended. Next item, Steve.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Careful you don't 

8 get too far ahead of Steve.

9 CHAIR MUNN: No, we won't.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: He's doing this 

11 live-time updating.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We'll let Steve close 

13 it.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Hello.

15 MR. KATZ: Oh, there you are.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Dick.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I am sorry. Yes, I 

18 agree with you.

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right, thank you.

20 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Dick.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: My fingers are just 

22 -- (Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 MR. KATZ: I knew you'd find this 

2 tricky.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Warm water works.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Does it? Okay, I'll 

5 stick my fingers in warm water.

6 MR. KATZ: While Steve's catching 

7 up, I just thought I'd mention that I think it 

8 would be good as important documents like this 

9 get completely closed, the issues, it would 

10 probably be good for the Procedures Subcommittee 

11 to present to the Board its closure of that 

12 because there's really right now not a feedback 

13 mechanism for the full Board on these.

14 It would be good to bring the Board 

15 up to date, certainly on major documents like 

16 this which, you know, many Work Groups have 

17 wrestled with.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and this is 

19 an overarching issue basically.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Sorry, I did the 

22 wrong button. I have to do it all again. Okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 closed.

2 Issue 2 is kind of the same 

3 situation. Again, going back to January of this 

4 year, NIOSH presented what they intended to do 

5 with the revision.

6 The Subcommittee agreed with the 

7 NIOSH approach and in May the revision was 

8 issued. SC&A looked at it and we recommend 

9 again that the finding be closed.

10 MR. KATZ: Do you want to say for the 

11 record and for Dick who's on the line about Issue 

12 2, what we're speaking of?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Issue 2, we're 

14 talking about -- what are we talking about? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Misinterpretation of 

16 references, just using them properly, 

17 pertaining to outdoor soil contamination.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Which is different 

20 than building surfaces, building uses, room 

21 rights, ventilation rates. Yes, Paul.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: At our last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 meeting, I think we'd already agreed to the 

2 finding. I think the only thing we had to do was 

3 confirm that it showed up in the revision, isn't 

4 that correct?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That you were going 

7 to go back and confirm that it actually showed 

8 up.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct, yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the approach 

11 we'd already agreed to.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we had agreed to 

13 that a year or so ago.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: The in abeyance 

15 status of the issue, that's implied by the, you 

16 know, the in abeyance status so without, you 

17 know, going back and looking at the January 

18 transcript.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: January says the 

20 Subcommittee agrees with the approach.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And changed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 abeyance until OTIB-70 is changed. Well, it has 

2 been revised and I guess Bill Thurber confirmed 

3 that.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And the decay rate is 

6 now based on estimates from specific sites 

7 rather than literature sources and that's, I 

8 believe, what the history of the finding led us 

9 to request of the revision, which is now a fait 

10 accompli.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we need a 

12 recommendation?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I recommend we 

15 close the issue.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Any objections? Not 

17 from Lori. You're all right with that, Dick?

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Good, the hot water 

20 worked, good.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, the warm water 

22 is good water.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 CHAIR MUNN: That's great. Thank 

2 you.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're all in hot

4 water, Dick.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I know.

6 CHAIR MUNN: The finding is closed. 

7 Number 3, Steve.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Closed.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Got to catch up.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: The first two are 

11 closed. Finding 3 is currently in abeyance. The 

12 finding is talking about uniformly distributed, 

13 well let's see, inappropriate assumption 

14 regarding the impact of ventilation on source 

15 term depletion.

16 And, again, it has to do, I think, 

17 with the 1 percent per day being changed to 

18 0.00067 per day.

19 Well, going back to January meeting, 

20 the Subcommittee agreed with the approach being 

21 taken by NIOSH and they changed the status to in 

22 abeyance.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 Bill Thurber reviewed the depletion 

2 factor in Revision 1 and it was based upon the 

3 average observed depletions at four AWE sites. 

4 We believe the new approach eliminates prior 

5 SC&A concerns and, therefore, we recommend that 

6 the finding be closed.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

8 closing Number 3?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection.

10 CHAIR MUNN: This relates to the 

11 same material we were discussing earlier with 

12 the depletion rates.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I agree.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Dick. No 

15 objection here. We will record Finding 3 as 

16 closed.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 4 is already 

18 being shown as closed, so let's skip that one.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 5 is being in 

21 abeyance and basically it's the Attachment B, 

22 survey data from three separate thorium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 facilities. There is no guidance for the dose 

2 reconstructor regarding their use. That was 

3 the summary of the comments.

4 And the January NIOSH response was 

5 the TIB is currently being revised to remove 

6 Attachment B. It was never used for dose 

7 reconstruction purposes and therefore had been 

8 deemed unnecessary.

9 Also in January the Subcommittee 

10 agreed with the approach, I guess the removal of 

11 the Attachment.

12 And when Bill Thurber reviewed 

13 Revision 1, he confirmed that Attachment B has 

14 been deleted, and we recommend that the Finding 

15 5 be closed.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

17 closing Finding 5?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, that was really 

19 just a confusion factor. In the original 

20 document, they had a table which wasn't used --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Wasn't being used.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for anything and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 confused people as to why it was there. I think 

2 it just removed it from the revisions. It makes 

3 sense. In a sense, it's not a change in 

4 procedure, just removal of a confusion factor.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right with closing 

6 it, Dick?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

9 MR. KATZ: Closed.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Looks like this one 

11 deals with the same.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Almost a duplicate. 

13 Finding number 6.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding number 6, 

15 use of Horizon summary survey data as default for 

16 operational air concentrations was 

17 inappropriate and not claimant favorable. That 

18 is the summary of the finding. Again, I guess 

19 this is the same thing about Attachment B.

20 CHAIR MUNN: It is.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: And never been used 

22 and it's been removed, and so if the Subcommittee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 agrees, we can close it.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection? Dick?

3 MEMBER LEMEN: I have no 

4 objections.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. You may 

6 close it, Steve.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you, Wanda.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And 7 is already 

9 closed. Eight is closed.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And 9 is the same 

11 thing, Attachment B.

12 MR. STIVER: It's another example 

13 of Attachment B.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: We're up to 8 is 

16 closed, 9 Attachment B.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Another Attachment B, 

18 which has been removed.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Which has been 

20 removed so we closed it.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Closed.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 CHAIR MUNN: Closed, closed. 

2 Dick?

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, where are we?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Now we're down to 10.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Ten was basically 

6 again the recommended resuspension factor of 

7 1E-6 per meter is inappropriate.

8 Indoor resuspension factors sited 

9 in the scientific literature involve 

10 substantial industrial activities should be a 

11 resuspension factor of 10 to the minus 4 to 10 

12 to the minus 3 per meter. That was the summary 

13 of the concern.

14 NIOSH feels that 10 to the minus 6 

15 isn't appropriate. In addition, it does not 

16 limit resuspension. Therefore, if a situation 

17 arises where a higher resuspension factor is 

18 deemed necessary, it could be applied to that 

19 specific situation. This is the NIOSH January 

20 response.

21 NIOSH has committed to the finding. 

22 The Subcommittee's January response to NIOSH was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 NIOSH has committed to check whether OTIB-70 has 

2 the appropriate caveat for the use of 10 to the 

3 minus 6 resuspension factor.

4 If not, an appropriate caveat will 

5 be inserted. Based upon this, the Subcommittee 

6 has changed the status to inappropriate.

7 MR. KATZ: To what?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: To in abeyance.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MEMBER BEACH: So the correction 

11 here is, therefore, if a situation arises where 

12 the higher suspension factor is deemed 

13 necessary, it could be applied.

14 Does OTIB-70 give you the option or 

15 does it just say it would apply? Because it 

16 doesn't really change anything, that answer.

17 CHAIR MUNN: The table says it's 

18 going to be a site-by-site analysis.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, if you go down to 

20 Bill Thurber's response --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: If you go to Bill 

22 Thurber, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 MR. STIVER: The caveat is in Table 

2 5.1, where basically they default to a 

3 site-specific situation.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so it will go 

5 to site, okay. I wanted to clear that up, thank 

6 you.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, basically a 

8 footnote has been added to Table 5-1 which 

9 states, "In cases where the contaminated area is 

10 still involved in operations, a site-by-site 

11 analysis of the appropriateness of 1 times 10 to 

12 the minus 6 per meter squared resuspension 

13 factor should be done."

14 And basically since the table 

15 indicates a site-by-site analysis, SC&A 

16 recommends the finding be closed.

17 MEMBER BEACH: And have we reviewed 

18 the Table 5.1?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we can go up 

20 and --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- look at it right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 now. We can go --

2 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A has reviewed it.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Have they? Okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: This is their 

7 response.

8 MEMBER BEACH: They found it 

9 appropriate?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, that's fine 

12 then.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of course, Bill 

14 Thurber has confirmed that the footnote is 

15 there. My concern is, and I'll maybe ask Stu, 

16 if the dose reconstructor is using this 

17 document, is a footnote going to be easily 

18 missed?

19 If they see a table of resuspension 

20 factors, is there some way that really red flags 

21 it so they say if this is an active site, it 

22 hasn't been cleaned up, I should not use this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 table?

2 That's what it's really saying, to 

3 go back and see if these are -- I'm a little 

4 concerned about footnotes because they easily 

5 get overlooked.

6 I mean, this meets the letter of the 

7 law in terms of changing the procedure. Are we 

8 comfortable that all those dose reconstructors 

9 out there catch the footnotes?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Scott Siebert, are 

11 you on the phone?

12 CHAIR MUNN: You shouldn't be using 

13 OTIB-70 anyway if you're --

14 MR. SIEBERT: I am.

15 MR. SHARFI: This is Mutty again.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Mutty.

17 MR. SHARFI: Really DRs don't 

18 directly use this document.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right.

20 MR. SHARFI: This is more for TBD 

21 authors.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you, okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 Thank you, that answers it then, and a TBD author 

2 presumably will be looking at the details 

3 critically of the document.

4 I was just concerned of a dose 

5 reconstructor somehow using this, but it's 

6 already a document for cleaned-up facilities 

7 anyway.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, correct.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right? Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And beyond that, 

11 sort of a technique has to be approved for dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And once that 

15 technique gets approved would be incorporated. 

16 That's like a --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's based on this 

18 but it wouldn't be in there. Okay, I'm good with 

19 that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, so it's not 

21 individual dose reconstructors who are making 

22 the judgement.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right, got 

2 you. Thank you, that answered it. I'm 

3 comfortable with that.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right, onto Item 

5 number --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: What was status, 

7 closed?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the status is 

9 closed, yes.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: That was 8. Nine is 

11 --

12 CHAIR MUNN: No, that was 10.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: That was 10? Oh, 

14 I'm way behind.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Eight, 9 and 10 are 

16 all closed. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 11 was 

18 concerned with the use of NUREG-1400.

19 CHAIR MUNN: And Thurber says 

20 NUREG-1400 has been deleted from Rev. 1 of the 

21 OTIB and that SC&A recommends the finding be 

22 closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, back in 

2 January, that's what NIOSH said that they were 

3 going to do, was we advise remove the NUREG-1400 

4 source term approach.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, although I like 

6 NUREG-1400 myself. So any objection to closing 

7 this?

8 MEMBER BEACH: No.

9 CHAIR MUNN: None here at the table. 

10 Dick?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: No, I'm fine.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right, thank you. 

13 You may close it, Steve.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

16 MEMBER BEACH: So addressed in 

17 finding? Is that something we deal with or is 

18 it --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. No, it means 

20 this has already been taken care of in a 

21 preceding finding, and if you look at the comment 

22 itself, it should tell us which finding meets 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 this.

2 MEMBER BEACH: So is that 

3 technically closed then --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: No.

5 MEMBER BEACH: -- since it's been 

6 addressed?

7 CHAIR MUNN: No, it says this 

8 finding should be closed when the documentation 

9 from the TBD-6000 Work Group is received. We 

10 have to wait for feedback.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess basically 

12 this is the one that had been transferred to 

13 TBD-6000 Work Group and so --

14 CHAIR MUNN: If Paul ever gets his 

15 email back, he may send us closure.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: So there's no change 

17 in that status at this point in time?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right. We will 

19 continue it until we hear from the TBD-6000 Work 

20 Group.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Issue 13 --

22 MR. KATZ: Can you just remind us, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 what is that finding?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Use of TBD-6000 for 

3 assigning operational air concentration values 

4 may not be claimant favorable.

5 SC&A previously conducted a 

6 separate review of TBD-6000 and submitted a 

7 working draft report to the Board in September 

8 2007 and identified in the draft report was the 

9 following finding.

10 Default airborne dust loadings used 

11 in the TBD to derive external exposures and 

12 inhalation exposures are based upon data 

13 provided in Harris and Kingsley.

14 The TBD would benefit from including 

15 a review of the time-weighted daily average 

16 uranium dust loading reported in Adley et al.

17 And I think it was a study of 

18 atmospheric contaminations in the Metal Melt 

19 Building, that was a 1952 ABC report, and in the 

20 Site Profile of Simonds Saw and Steel. That was 

21 in Site Profile TKBS-0032.

22 SC&A's review of these documents 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 reveals that the bounding default time-weighted 

2 average airborne uranium dust concentrations 

3 recommended in the TBD may not be claimant 

4 favorable.

5 So basically I think the thing is, 

6 yes, we looked at the TBD-6000 and thought that 

7 the dust loadings were not favorable and I think 

8 OTIB-70 referred to the TBD-6000 on that.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I just realized 

11 you're waiting for an email, a copy of that 

12 email.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true. So 

15 it's action item Ziemer.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, for me.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's why I asked 

19 about --

20 (Laughter.)

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's why I'm 

22 writing here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 MR. KATZ: On paper.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Well, it's 

3 so easy for these things to get lost. That's why 

4 we have the tracking system.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. Yes, easy 

6 to slip through. All right, we'll leave that 

7 one as is and no action for us at this time. We 

8 will go on to Action Item 13.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 13 was 

10 involving the use of TBD-6001. I'm not sure if 

11 you want to go through what the exact issue was 

12 but.

13 CHAIR MUNN: No, I think just 

14 picking up Thurber's last comment will satisfy 

15 our need.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, in January of 

17 this year, NIOSH's response was that the TIB is 

18 currently being revised to remove all references 

19 to TBD-6001 and any data from it. Back in 

20 January, the Subcommittee agreed with that 

21 approach.

22 And Bill Thurber, on behalf of SC&A, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 reviewed 6001 and confirmed that all references 

2 to TBD-6001 and data therefrom have been removed 

3 from Revision 1 of OTIB-70 and, therefore, we 

4 recommend that the finding be closed.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection?

6 MEMBER BEACH: No.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Dick?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIR MUNN: You may close it, 

11 Steve.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Did you hear me? 

15 No.

16 CHAIR MUNN: No. Thank you.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I need to heat the 

18 water up I guess. I'm getting a little slow.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Microwaves are 

20 good for that. This is the voice of experience 

21 speaking.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: You stick your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 fingers in the microwave, Wanda?

2 CHAIR MUNN: No, in the warm water.

3 MEMBER LEMEN: Oh, okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: This is for water only. 

5 Your suggestion didn't work.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, Finding 14. 

7 Again, this has to do with TBD-6001 and, again, 

8 same thing. Everything associated with 6001 

9 has been removed from OTIB-70 and, therefore, we 

10 recommend that the finding be closed.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Since it had been 

12 previously identified as being covered in the 

13 preceding finding, there's no reason why this 

14 shouldn't be closed also since we just closed 13 

15 so, so directed.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: And Ed McMahon used 

17 to say on Johnny Carson we come to the last 

18 finding.

19 And that finding has to do with many 

20 of the fundamental assumptions that form the 

21 technical basis of OCAS-TIB-9. Ingestion model 

22 are too restrictive and may yield too low values 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 under Task 3.

2 NIOSH ingestion model as described 

3 in TIB-9 was previously reviewed by SC&A and a 

4 draft issued May 30, 2006. In that review, SC&A 

5 concluded that the NIOSH model is simplistic and 

6 likely to yield intakes that are too low for 

7 multiple reasons.

8 However, Issue TIB-9, Batch 1, has 

9 not been formally finalized and, thus, regard it 

10 here as a conditional issue.

11 CHAIR MUNN: I can summarize 

12 Thurber's findings. It appears the position is 

13 that issues relating to TIB-9 haven't been 

14 formally resolved and the 2004 version of that 

15 document is still current.

16 So SC&A is recommending that this 

17 finding remain in abeyance until concerns 

18 regarding TIB-9 are resolved.

19 We believe the ingestion exposures 

20 during the residual period will be small, 

21 assuming that some clean up has occurred at the 

22 end of operations, for example see Table 2.5 in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 TBD-6000.

2 So the recommendation from SC&A is 

3 that this remain in abeyance until TIB-9 has been 

4 closed.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, so the 

6 recommendation is no change in the current 

7 status of the --

8 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone wish to 

9 take issue with that recommendation? Stu, does 

10 that make sense to you?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Who is reviewing 

12 TIB-9? Are we?

13 CHAIR MUNN: It's not on my list of 

14 hot topics.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is TIB-9? 

16 It's eight years.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I'll 

18 have to do a little research on that question. 

19 I don't see that we have an agreed-upon 

20 resolution here yet.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's why I 

22 was wondering. Is --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds to me like 

2 this --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- it being 

4 addressed or is it sitting somewhere?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, from this 

6 reading here, I don't know that we have an 

7 agreed-upon resolution.

8 If we don't have agreed-upon 

9 resolution, then I think we should be in 

10 progress, not in abeyance, but let me do a little 

11 checking on this OCAS-TIB-9.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is Stiver. 

13 From my recollections, Stu's correct and I know 

14 this TIB-9 issue has come up in several different 

15 Work Groups as well.

16 And it's the same kind of a 

17 situation. There hasn't been a revision since 

18 2004 that would address these problems.

19 CHAIR MUNN: What is TIB-9? What's 

20 it about?

21 MR. STIVER: It's about assigning 

22 ingestion doses from situations like this where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 you have resuspended material and what fraction 

2 of that deposits on surfaces and is available for 

3 ingestion, intakes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Operational periods as 

5 well as --

6 MEMBER BEACH: Is it being used? 

7 Are dose reconstructors using OTIB-9?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: TIB-9 basically is 

10 shown on the screen. TIB-9, Issue 1, there's 

11 just basically no guidance.

12 If you go back and forth, you can see 

13 basically on November of 2007 ingestion is being 

14 addressed as a global issue and then it got cut 

15 off.

16 Overarching. Well, yes, so 

17 basically this should be one of the ones that 

18 should go into the overarching issue category.

19 MR. STIVER: Is there a bin for 

20 ingestion issues in BRS?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: So this would be one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 of the things that would populate the 

2 overarching, and global is the key word. 

3 There's a few of them that have, I don't know if 

4 you've looked for that.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, I looked.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: What she looked on 

7 was statuses of transferred.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Transferred.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. This 

10 status shows open, so she wouldn't have picked 

11 it off.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: So back to the 

14 OTIB-70 finding, I mean, we have kind of a 

15 disconnect. I mean, we have the OTIB-70 

16 finding, as Stu says, in abeyance, whereas the 

17 underlying TIB-9, Finding 1, is open so.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Open. This means we 

19 haven't addressed it at all.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: It means we haven't 

21 even talked about it --

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, we haven't.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 MR. MARSCHKE: -- in this 

2 Subcommittee.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So the question 

4 probably arises, should we ask NIOSH to look at 

5 TIB-9 for our upcoming meetings, next or 

6 otherwise?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, shouldn't they 

8 answer the findings from SC&A? Wouldn't that, 

9 I mean, --

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, SC&A is saying 

11 until you address TIB-9.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Right, but they're 

13 giving you the reason OTIB-9 should be 

14 addressed. I mean, if you look back through all 

15 the findings, there's nothing that even 

16 addresses SC&A's problem with OTIB-9 so it gets 

17 to the same thing.

18 MR. STIVER: That's a secondary 

19 finding. It relates back to the --

20 MEMBER BEACH: It's secondary, yes.

21 MR. STIVER: -- original problem.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we've got a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 couple things to sort out here because, first of 

2 all, I believe you guys had reviewed TIB-9, is 

3 that right?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm looking. 

5 August 2007 we issued, this is Revision 1 to the 

6 second set of reviews, and you can see here was 

7 TIB-9 being reviewed. Actually it was reviewed 

8 by John Mauro.

9 CHAIR MUNN: John and Hans.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And Hans did approve 

11 the review. And so if you want to look at the 

12 details of the SC&A review of TIB-9, this is 

13 where to go.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then from 

15 that, there would be findings in that review.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: From that, there 

17 should be findings.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Which should be 

19 entered in the BRS, right?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: According to the 

21 BRS, basically there's only one finding now for 

22 TIB-9. And if we go to that, that's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 estimation of the ingestion intakes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So this is TIB-9. Why 

3 does it not come up for me?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB hyphen 0009.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Three zeroes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Three zeroes.

7 MS. THOMAS: Yes, this is Elyse and, 

8 Stu, I think this is one of the issues that we 

9 had with the migration. I'm not sure all the 

10 findings and responses migrated from the old 

11 access database into the BRS for this particular 

12 item.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's another one of 

14 those accuracy issues.

15 MS. THOMAS: Yes.

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. This is 

17 Lori. Actually, I put those in myself 

18 yesterday. Apparently Steve is not seeing what 

19 I see, okay? So that's something else I'll make 

20 note of.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Lori.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: You're welcome.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 CHAIR MUNN: Regardless of how we 

2 look at it, it appears that --

3 MR. KATZ: So, Lori, do you have 

4 responses then from DCAS on --

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Not for TIB-9.

6 MR. KATZ: Not for TIB-9.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: I just got the 

8 finding in.

9 MR. KATZ: Just the findings.

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: There was a 

11 problem with populating it from the old database 

12 so we're trying to get the finding in.

13 CHAIR MUNN: It appears it's 

14 receiving attention right now just purely from 

15 a clerical point of view, and the question arises 

16 is it time for us to request that it be looked 

17 at from a technical point of view? Can we put 

18 that on your to-do list?

19 All right.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, and that's on the 

21 DCAS to-do list?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 MR. KATZ: And I think I recall 

2 addressing this in some meeting. I don't know 

3 what the forum was, at least in part this issue, 

4 but we'll see.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So we have two 

8 things. One, is to make sure we get the findings 

9 because they don't appear online. Make sure we 

10 get the findings in TIB-9 into the BRS from the 

11 old system and also for us to prepare responses 

12 to the finding.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: On the screen, I'm 

14 showing basically a printout from the old system 

15 which shows TIB-9, Finding 1, and TIB-9 only had 

16 the one finding in the old system.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. That's 

18 encouraging, all right.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And you can see what 

20 the finding is. The fundamental scientific 

21 approach to reconstruction ingestion exposures 

22 has flaws and it could lead to an underestimated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 ingestion doses under certain circumstances.

2 That was cut off too. This is cut 

3 off as well. However, NIOSH has agreed to 

4 revise its approach to deriving radionuclide 

5 ingestion rates. And then this is showing the 

6 status as being transferred to global issues.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, global issues is 

8 where we are. That's overarching.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: It's now called 

10 overarching issues.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Correct, so that's on 

12 the burner for NIOSH next time and we will, 

13 therefore, accept the SC&A recommendation. Any 

14 objection to that?

15 Then we will accept the 

16 recommendation for the finding.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no. Wait a 

18 minute because the recommendation was for in 

19 abeyance, right?

20 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct so --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's in progress.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It should be in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 progress.

2 MR. STIVER: Should be in progress.

3 MR. KATZ: In progress.

4 MR. STIVER: Because there isn't a 

5 solution published.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: In abeyance means 

7 we have an agreed-upon solution. We just 

8 haven't revised the document yet.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, I guess it 

11 does. In my mind I'm thinking, okay, it's going 

12 to be in progress for NIOSH. All right, very 

13 good. We'll change it to in progress and 

14 indicate that NIOSH is undertaking a response to 

15 the TIB-9 outstanding issue.

16 MR. KATZ: And this would be a good 

17 time for a comfort break.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It is a good time for 

19 a comfort break. We're a little bit early but 

20 we're going to take it anyway because we need to. 

21 We'll be back in 15 minutes.

22 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 line. So we'll be back about 10:45.

2 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

3 went off the record at 10:29 a.m. and went back 

4 on the record at 10:47 a.m.)

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, we are back, 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

7 Subcommittee on Procedures Review. Dick, are 

8 you back with us?

9 MEMBER LEMEN: I am here.

10 MR. KATZ: Great.

11 CHAIR MUNN: We have completed our 

12 work on OTIB-70 I believe.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And did you get that 

15 last agreement that we were discussing, Steve?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I --

17 CHAIR MUNN: We had said it's in 

18 progress.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, he's got it, in 

20 progress.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, all right, 

22 great. Then let's move on to the status of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 PERs that we have been visiting in the past and 

2 we'll start with 012.

3 Kathy gave us a review last time of 

4 one of the cases that SC&A had looked at and had 

5 said she was going to provide the other eight for 

6 us and I believe that's now been done, and would 

7 you like to take us through that, John?

8 MR. STIVER: Okay, as you may know, 

9 Hans and Kathy just moved and they are still in 

10 the process of unpacking their boxes and don't 

11 have an office set up or anything.

12 So I went and ahead and volunteered 

13 to cover PER-12 and -14 for Hans and Kathy. They 

14 do have cell phones, so they will be able to call 

15 in at some point if they're not already on the 

16 line.

17 CHAIR MUNN: They were on before.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: They were on 

19 earlier.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes. So with that, if 

21 you all have the formal document that was 

22 transmitted on the 20th of July, it's a PDF file 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 entitled Transmit Draft-SCA-TR-PR2012-0012, 

2 not PA-cleared.

3 This is the document that I'm going 

4 to be going through, which has kind of a brief 

5 introductory summary of the PER and then the nine 

6 case reviews that were the subject of that PER 

7 investigation as part of Subtask 4, and then 

8 there's a brief summary conclusion section 

9 there.

10 But what I'd like to do, considering 

11 that we have two new Members of the Subcommittee, 

12 I'd like you, when you get that file, to go to 

13 Page 9.

14 This is in Section 1 that's entitled 

15 Relevant Background Information and this is kind 

16 of a cameo summary, if you will, of the PER review 

17 that we did back in 2010.

18 And if everybody has that up or we 

19 can wait a few minutes. Well, I can just go 

20 through it. You don't necessarily have - 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: July 20?

22 CHAIR MUNN: The 20th, July 20.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, July 20. It was 

2 actually addressed to the full Board and I sent 

3 out a reminder too.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Mine says it's on --

5 oh, it is Page 9, okay, got it.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes. Okay, I think 

7 Steve has it pulled up here so we can go ahead 

8 and get started.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the date?

10 MR. STIVER: The date is --

11 CHAIR MUNN: July 20.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: The 20th.

13 MR. STIVER: It was the 20th.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you, okay. 

15 Thank you, go ahead.

16 MR. STIVER: All right. All right, 

17 I'll give kind of a brief history of PER-12 and 

18 the issues that brought it about and some of the 

19 criteria for selection and identification of 

20 impacted cases that were reviewed.

21 During the meeting of the Advisory 

22 Board in October 2009, SC&A was tasked to review 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 PER-12, which is the evaluation of highly 

2 insoluble plutonium compounds.

3 And this was initiated by NIOSH when 

4 they acknowledged and became aware of the 

5 existence of these highly insoluble forms of 

6 plutonium at various DOE facilities, which 

7 prompted an investigation into the effects on 

8 the exposed workers.

9 And in response to this issue, they 

10 produced a document, OTIB-49 Rev. 00 which is 

11 entitled Estimating Doses for Plutonium 

12 Strongly Retained in the Lung.

13 And this document which has, in 

14 fact, been reviewed by SC&A, I don't believe we 

15 had any findings regarding that document, felt 

16 to be a very good document.

17 It provides guidance for 

18 reassessing the organ doses for these highly 

19 insoluble forms of plutonium, which are called 

20 Super S and which really are not handled 

21 adequately by the ICRP Task Group on the Lung 

22 Model for the ICRP Task Group which looks at Type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 S as the most insoluble form.

2 Thereafter PER-12 was issued to 

3 determine which completed claims required 

4 re-evaluation for the effect of OTIB-49.

5 In March of 2010, we submitted the 

6 Program Evaluation Report Review, and when we do 

7 one of these reviews, we basically go through 

8 five subtasks and I'll go ahead and just list 

9 those, itemize them for Josie and Lori.

10 The first is what we do is we assess 

11 NIOSH's evaluation and characterization of the 

12 actual issue that gave rise to the PER.

13 The second is we assess the specific 

14 methods that are proposed for corrective action.

15 The Subtask 3 is to evaluate the 

16 stated approach for identifying what we call the 

17 universe of potentially affected cases and also 

18 the criteria by which a subset of those cases of 

19 potentially affected DRs may be selected for 

20 re-evaluation.

21 Subtask 4 is to actually conduct 

22 audits of the DRs that are affected by the PER 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 under review, and as most of you know, this is 

2 the first time that we've actually gotten to 

3 Subtask 4.

4 We have been tasked to review 14 PERs 

5 out of a total of 31 that have been produced and 

6 this is the first time that we've actually looked 

7 at the cases for review.

8 And having said that, we can move on. 

9 Subtask 5, that is to prepare a comprehensive 

10 written report that contains the results of all 

11 the above steps.

12 So this report basically fulfills 

13 Subtask 4, and when we talk about an affected 

14 claim for a dose reconstruction, we're talking 

15 about there's basically three things that we're 

16 looking at.

17 And in this particular case, the 

18 first was that the DR had been completed on or 

19 before February 6, 2007, which was the issue date 

20 for OTIB-49.

21 The second was the involved 

22 facilities had the potential for Type SS 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 plutonium, and three was that the Probability of 

2 Causation was less than 50 percent. And based 

3 on this criteria, NIOSH identified 4,865 cases.

4 They then applied two screening 

5 criteria to reduce this potential universe down 

6 to those that could actually be candidates for 

7 review.

8 One was to look at the cases that, 

9 based on the increase in the dose, it was 

10 determined that in the worse case situation an 

11 organ dose could go up by a factor of 4.

12 And because the excess relative risk 

13 is proportional to dose, then what we looked at 

14 is a potential increase that would result in a 

15 revised PoC that could be at least 45 percent.

16 And based on these criteria, they 

17 basically looked at kind of a window, two trigger 

18 levels between 16.97 and 45 percent.

19 And then in addition to that, 

20 because we're looking at different categories of 

21 target organs as well as different types of 

22 monitoring, there were those particular cases 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 that were based on air monitoring that were not 

2 for respiratory tract tissue could also be 

3 eliminated.

4 And using those two criteria, they 

5 were able to then reduce this pool of potential 

6 cases down to 1,757 claims.

7 In our review of PER-12, we 

8 concluded that the selection criteria of the 

9 claims described in Section 3 of PER-12 were 

10 scientifically sound, inclusive of all 

11 potential variables affecting the DR and 

12 maximally conservative.

13 And the next step was to really 

14 select cases to satisfy subtask 4, and if you go 

15 to Table 1.1 on Page 11, there's a matrix here.

16 And the Potential Categories of Dose 

17 Reconstructions is the title of this and you look 

18 down. The Column 1 has the Target Organs.

19 There's four different categories 

20 here that are of concern, lung and thoracic lymph 

21 nodes, which will be what they're going to call 

22 respiratory tract cancers or target organs, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 extrathoracic region, GI tract and systemic 

2 organs.

3 And then there are also four 

4 different types of monitoring that were used in 

5 the dose reconstruction, either urinalysis, 

6 lung counts, fecal samples or air samples.

7 And you can see there's urinalysis 

8 and fecal sampling. You would want to 

9 potentially re-evaluate all the four categories 

10 of target organs, but for lung counts and air 

11 sampling only the lung and thoracic lymph nodes.

12 So basically what we proposed in our 

13 review was that at least one DR from each of those 

14 categories be reanalyzed as part of the Subtask 

15 4.

16 And we were able to actually find 

17 nine cases, two of which were repeats, that 

18 satisfied the different characteristics.

19 Sections 2 through 10 look at the 

20 actual dose reconstructions that were reviewed.

21 And for Privacy Act concerns, I know 

22 we're not allowed to mention case numbers or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 identifying information so I will parse my words 

2 accordingly so that none of that information is 

3 divulged.

4 Kathy Behling in the April meeting 

5 had gone over Case 1, but I'm going to go ahead 

6 and go through all of them just in broad 

7 brushstrokes here so that we have an overall 

8 picture of what we found here.

9 And you'll see in Section 2 on Page 

10 12 is really broken down into three subsections 

11 and this is how all of the targeted, if you will, 

12 dose reconstruction reviews were conducted.

13 The first section is kind of the 

14 background information. It just lays out, you 

15 know, what the conditions were, the time frame, 

16 what the energy employee's occupation was and 

17 the types of cancer he or she incurred and the 

18 date of those diagnoses.

19 The second section basically 

20 compares the original and the reworked dose 

21 reconstructions and we present a table here 

22 which just summarizes the previous and revised 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 doses.

2 We never went through and did any 

3 calculation because that's really outside the 

4 scope of our purview.

5 All we do is just take a snapshot and 

6 put it out there and then show and discuss the 

7 impact of the high-fired plutonium in a revised 

8 dose for that particular source.

9 So this particular case here, this 

10 is Case number 1. This is for an employee who 

11 worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 

12 the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s.

13 This particular worker had in vitro 

14 urinalysis bioassays and a whole-body count. 

15 He was diagnosed with a systemic cancer in 1999 

16 and a GI tract cancer in 2006.

17 If you look at the reworked and the 

18 original dose reconstruction, you can see that 

19 the original dose reconstruction used TIB-2, 

20 which is a maximizing approach that basically 

21 assumes that 10 percent of the maximum 

22 permissible body burden is incurred. It looks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 at 28 different nuclides, and so it's really a 

2 super-maximizing approach.

3 And if you go to Table 2.1 on Page 

4 13, you can see the previous dose and the revised 

5 dose.

6 The total in the previous dose was 

7 about 43.6 rem, the revised dose is 18.2 and the 

8 internal dose went down from 14.155 to 0.958 rem.

9 Now, if you look at the Section 2.3 

10 on Page 13, this is the review of the OCAS-PER-12 

11 issues related to the case.

12 And the bottom of the first 

13 paragraph will show you that this particular 

14 case was selected by the Subcommittee because it 

15 represented an individual who was monitored by 

16 urinalysis for assessing dose to both the GI 

17 tract organ and the systemic organ.

18 Okay, in the original case, there 

19 were positive bioassays and the systemic organs 

20 were based, as I said, on ORAUT-OTIB-2.

21 And as I said, this is a hypothetic 

22 model that assumes an intake of 28 radionuclides 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 including plutonium-238 and -239 on the first 

2 day of employment and it's only used for 

3 non-compensable cases.

4 The reworked dose reconstruction, 

5 NIOSH noted the employee was monitored on 

6 several occasions in the early '60s and then 

7 twice in the late '60s.

8 And they used an IMBA computer code 

9 to calculate a fitted chronic intake of Pu-239.

10 And it was determined that Type S 

11 plutonium provided the highest dose and that 

12 resulted in doses for two periods that are shown 

13 in Table 2.2 on Page 14 and the Type Super S 

14 plutonium adjustment factors from OTIB-49 were 

15 applied. 

16 And if you look at Table 2.3, it 

17 shows where the two organs, the systemic organ 

18 and the digestive organ, for both a fitted and 

19 coworker model fitted for the period for which 

20 the energy employee had bioassay and the 

21 coworker for the later period.

22 And in both cases, for both organs 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 and both types of models, the internal doses to 

2 the organs of concern did increase.

3 However, when you look at the total 

4 decrease in the dose, it should be noted that the 

5 main reduction is due to the use of OTIB-2 in the 

6 original reconstruction.

7 And then what else Kathy did was at 

8 the bottom of the page here they list the actual 

9 guidance in OTIB-49 for the particular matrix 

10 element, for the type of organ category, as well 

11 as the monitoring type.

12 And here you can see in italics the 

13 guidance from OTIB-49 for systemic organs and at 

14 the top of the next page for unmonitored 

15 individuals using coworker data.

16 And the summary of this is quite 

17 favorable. We were able to verify that the 

18 assumptions were appropriate. The data was 

19 entered into IMBA correctly.

20 And we basically found the rework 

21 was done in accordance with the guidance in 

22 OTIB-49 and we had no findings with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 methodology for assessing this energy 

2 employee's exposure to the insoluble form of 

3 plutonium.

4 The next case is on the top of Page 

5 16. This is for an employee who worked at the 

6 Nevada Test Site for one day in the early 1980s 

7 and then again from the late 1980s to the mid 

8 1990s. He worked at the Tonopah Test Range 

9 during four of those years.

10 And he was monitored for external 

11 dose as well as internal monitoring in one year 

12 by means of a whole-body count and one fecal 

13 sample.

14 This particular employee was 

15 diagnosed with a systemic cancer in 1997 and in 

16 1998 he was diagnosed with respiratory tract 

17 cancer.

18 NIOSH had performed the original 

19 dose reconstruction in 2005. The claim was 

20 reworked in 2009.

21 In addition to re-evaluating this 

22 case based on the exposures to plutonium for Type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 Super S, there was also a revised utilization for 

2 all current methods of the DR.

3 And the original dose and the 

4 revised dose are presented in Table 3.1. 

5 There's a previous dose and a revised dose for 

6 both categories of organs.

7 In Section 3.3, the review of the 

8 issues related to this case. This particular 

9 case was selected because it represented an 

10 individual who was monitored by fecal sampling 

11 to both respiratory tract and the systemic 

12 organs.

13 The original dose reconstruction, 

14 there were two bioassay measurements throughout 

15 employment. No internal dose was assigned from 

16 these bioassays, indicating the results were 

17 considered insignificant.

18 In the reworked case, NIOSH 

19 accounted for non-detect or the sub-MDL Pu-239 

20 results in the fecal sample by using the approach 

21 of using missed dose, which is one-half the 

22 detection limit which in this case was 0.004 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 picocuries per gram.

2 The doses were calculated as kind of 

3 standard procedure for both absorption Types M 

4 and S with not surprisingly Type S resulting in 

5 the highest dose to the respiratory tract and 

6 Type M to the systemic organ.

7 Also the rework assigned 

8 environmental intakes for employment at the NTS 

9 and the Tonopah Test Range based on ORAU 

10 Technical Basis Document 0008-4, the NTS TBD.

11 And to account for Type Super S, both 

12 the missed bioassay doses and the environmental 

13 doses were multiplied by the Attachment D dose 

14 adjustment factors.

15 The top of Page 18 there's a Table 

16 3.2. This lists the assumptions that were used 

17 in calculating the internal dose from exposure 

18 to plutonium.

19 You can see the doses are listed 

20 there. In evaluating this case, we reviewed the 

21 guidance that was provided in TIB-49 again. 

22 This is in italics.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 The guidance was provided for each 

2 of these cases for the type of situation that 

3 we're considering, the systemic organs, 

4 respiratory tract organs in this case, and the 

5 type of monitoring that took place.

6 So I'm not going to read through all 

7 that. I mean, it's all there. It's all taken 

8 directly from TIB-49.

9 And we went through and looked at all 

10 of the TIB-49 guidance, the bioassay records, 

11 IMBA runs and the worksheets for this case. And 

12 we once again verified that everything was done 

13 correctly and we have no findings regarding this 

14 case either.

15 Try to move a little bit quicker 

16 here. Don't want to spend the entire day going 

17 through these.

18 MR. KATZ: I don't know if all the 

19 Board Members had a chance to read these.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I didn't. You 

21 didn't really have any findings with any of 

22 these, did you, that I remember?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 MR. STIVER: Well, actually there 

2 was one kind of minor finding with one of the 

3 cases.

4 But, you know, they're all laid out 

5 the same way. You know, the TIB-49 guidance was 

6 applied for the particular type of organ and the 

7 monitoring type.

8 And, yes, I mean, we don't really 

9 have to go through each of these. Typically 

10 when we do a dose reconstruction presentation, 

11 we go through a lot of detail but we don't 

12 necessarily have to do that for all eight of 

13 these.

14 MR. KATZ: I think it's good to go 

15 through detail when you have findings because 

16 then that's germane for the --

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, in this case what 

18 we can do, just in the interest of time, we can 

19 just go straight to the Summary Conclusions.

20 CHAIR MUNN: That's probably good 

21 after we covered these first two fairly 

22 thoroughly so that --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, I mean, all the 

2 others are basically going to be the same type 

3 of situation.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and anyone who 

5 wants to re-review the material that's here in 

6 more detail is certainly free to do so. We know 

7 how rigorous SC&A has been in its review which 

8 is, of course, of interest to us.

9 And we know we can pick up very 

10 quickly from the first paragraph what the real 

11 basis for selecting this particular case was and 

12 fortunately you have set out for us what the 

13 results were of what you see and the last 

14 paragraph tells us whether there were findings.

15 MEMBER BEACH: The one that was of 

16 interest to me, Page 33, the case that was 

17 reworked and then granted. I was just trying to 

18 determine, and I think I did determine, that 

19 NIOSH actually reworked it. It was nothing that 

20 SC&A did. You just reviewed it.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, they do the 

22 reworks and we just review those like we do for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 any dose reconstruction audit.

2 CHAIR MUNN: To identify that their 

3 rework was done correctly.

4 MR. STIVER: Was done in accordance 

5 with the guidance in the document.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: And according to --

8 MEMBER BEACH: And I think in this 

9 case they used DOE records where they hadn't 

10 previously possibly, so it was all pretty 

11 straightforward I thought.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, in this 

13 particular situation there were not any real 

14 wrinkles or any difficult technical issues that 

15 came out. They were all done in accordance with 

16 the guidance and we felt it reflected very well 

17 on NIOSH.

18 So really basically just go to the 

19 Summary Conclusions. Yes, this is on Page 43, 

20 Table 11.1.

21 This lists, once again, some matrix 

22 with the 16 elements here and you can see the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 different cases are listed by the type of 

2 sampling and the type of organ.

3 And the bottom line really here is 

4 in the last paragraph. We concur with the 

5 approach and the assumptions used by NIOSH. We 

6 felt they did a good job.

7 We had no findings regarding any of 

8 the nine cases that were evaluated for the highly 

9 insoluble plutonium.

10 MR. KATZ: So, John, this also 

11 satisfies Task, I mean, what is it? Task or 

12 Element 5 --

13 MR. STIVER: Subtask.

14 MR. KATZ: Would be you too, right? 

15 Because this is the conclusory report. There's 

16 not another report to write.

17 You reviewed the methodology 

18 originally. You concurred with all of that. 

19 Now you've reviewed cases to see that it was 

20 implemented correctly. You've concurred on 

21 implementation. Is there another report?

22 MR. STIVER: Well, in essence, this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 is the first time we've gotten to this point I 

2 think. I was thinking about that last night 

3 when I was coming to do this.

4 And I think between the report we 

5 produced under Subtask 3 and then this, it pretty 

6 well covers the waterfront.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So this is the 

8 comprehensive written report?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think this does it 

10 in this case. I think you could have a case 

11 where when you go through this implementation 

12 you have issues and that may result in a general 

13 report afterwards that might be somewhat 

14 different that you might need to write a separate 

15 report, but in this circumstance it seems like 

16 you covered the --

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think this 

18 pretty well closes it out, you know.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Well, the only 

20 question I would have is there was 4,800 and some 

21 odd cases and you reviewed nine. That's not a 

22 very high percentage. Does it matter?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 MR. KATZ: They didn't need a 

2 representative sample of each type. The issue 

3 was to make sure that for each way in which a case 

4 might be different they had reviewed an example 

5 to see that it was actually implemented 

6 correctly. So it's a little different than --

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, we were not trying 

8 to get a representative sample to try to derive 

9 --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay.

11 MR. STIVER: -- an error rate in the 

12 reconstruction process really. It was just to 

13 have a sample from the different categories that 

14 were of interest.

15 And that's something else. I don't 

16 know if you knew that but in the Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee is when those cases 

18 are selected and then they're brought back and 

19 so just the process is described for you well in 

20 our methodology paper on PER evaluations. Yes?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is, I think, 

22 reassuring to see that this has proceeded the way 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 we hoped it would.

2 A couple of questions for 

3 clarification. It's my understanding that 

4 claimants are not notified in advance that 

5 they're going to be reviewed, right, to raise 

6 their expectations?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Not today, not 

8 today.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I wouldn't.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other words, 

11 they get notified if there's a change and they 

12 get compensation but --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: The history on this 

14 is that we had identified several situations 

15 where PERs were required and we shared that with 

16 Labor.

17 We had not made progress on 

18 completing PERs and evaluating cases and Labor 

19 essentially got, you know, impatient --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with us and 

22 shipped back all these cases that could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 potentially be affected. And so when they did 

2 that, they told the claimants we're shipping 

3 these back to NIOSH.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. So 

5 claimants knew that --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we go through 

7 this and so you have thousands, literally 

8 thousands of people who had been denied once. 

9 Maybe they had started being a little less angry 

10 about that. Then they got a letter saying, hey, 

11 we're going to reconsider your case.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, no.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And then a few 

14 months later get another letter that says you're 

15 denied again.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, yes, so 

17 that's not very helpful.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I told them at the 

19 start don't do that. We told them all along 

20 don't do that. They got impatient. They did it 

21 anyway. Because of the reaction, they now agree 

22 that they will not do that anymore.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, there's no 

2 point.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The PER process now 

4 is to identify the affected claims, the ones that 

5 could potentially change, redo the math, you 

6 know, not necessarily rewrite a whole dose 

7 reconstruction report, redo the math, provide 

8 the results back to Labor for those instances 

9 where it looks like it's going to change, ask

10 them to reopen the case and then they send only 

11 those cases.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Separately, John, 

13 I'll just mention, for consistency in here some 

14 of your tables show dose units, some don't. 

15 Tables can often get separated from text. I'll 

16 pull one out here. 

17 Table 3.1 doesn't have any units in 

18 it, so this could get pulled out by someone and 

19 they don't know whether you're talking about 

20 rems or sieverts or whatever unless the text is 

21 present.

22 MR. STIVER: That's true.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think usually you 

2 have the units in there but you need to be 

3 consistent in that.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, it got past us on 

5 this one.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then in Table 

7 5.3, some of them are in dpm and some are in 

8 becquerels and I'm a little puzzled. Sometimes 

9 it's because the original source is that way and 

10 you're quoting it, so that may be the source of 

11 that.

12 But it did cause me to wonder as to 

13 are the federal agencies ever going to move to 

14 SI units or is this just not going to happen? I 

15 love being in the old units because I feel 

16 comfortable -- but the rest of the world is in 

17 SI units and I think of it a lot because, you 

18 know, last week, the Health Physics meeting, 

19 virtually all the papers were in SI units. The 

20 Journal uses that now.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Journal and all the 

22 health physics societies are in SI units.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think NRC is 

2 not yet and DOE's sort of use one and put the 

3 others in parentheses or use the new ones and put 

4 the old ones in parentheses. But I couldn't 

5 remember if NIOSH had an official policy.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We do not really.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that there 

9 is interest within the agency, meaning CDC for 

10 sure, for emergency situations to use SI units.

11 And that came up during Fukushima 

12 when the whole world's talking about sieverts 

13 and becquerels and here we're doing 

14 translations, you know, trying to do hasty 

15 translations into units, you know, common units.

16 So there is interest in the part of 

17 CDC certainly to do that, although this is a very 

18 small group of people within CDC. It really 

19 didn't rise to the level of a major initiative.

20 So I thought about that while I was 

21 at the meeting last week to say, gosh, we're 

22 using rem in our program and curies and shouldn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 we be doing this too?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I didn't 

3 necessarily want us to get off on this in this 

4 meeting. It just occurred to me because you had 

5 mixed units in the tables here and --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I blame John.

7 (Laughter.)

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, now you've done 

9 it, Paul. You've gotten us into it. And I 

10 would like to insert one thought that doesn't 

11 have anything to do with whether or not we should 

12 go forward in the future with whatever CDC wants 

13 to do, CDC's going to do, and there certainly 

14 isn't anything that this Subcommittee says or 

15 does that's ever going to affect that one way or 

16 the other.

17 But I would call to your attention 

18 that certainly the claimants with whom we are 

19 dealing are familiar with the, if they know any 

20 terminology at all, if they know anything about 

21 it, then they know the terms that we're talking 

22 about.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 And if you're talking about having 

2 to translate something, then you're asking for 

3 daily translation with every interaction that 

4 you have with clients in which you refer to any 

5 dose at all.

6 Any claimant here is going to 

7 understand what a millirem is much more clearly 

8 than they'll --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I agree with 

10 that. Even I understand it better.

11 CHAIR MUNN: From my perspective, 

12 we're dealing with terminology that certainly I 

13 believe everyone at this table is comfortable 

14 with and I strongly believe that our claimants 

15 universally are.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and that's 

17 what we're still using. It works so.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I would strongly 

19 advise against our making an attempt to change 

20 in this venue.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But in 

22 Table 5.3 where you've mixed them, is that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 because you're quoting a different source and 

2 it's been --

3 MR. STIVER: I thought those were 

4 basically taken right out of the calculation, 

5 right, was the units that were --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That were used so 

7 you --

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, you can select 

9 whatever units you want I guess.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, got you.

11 MR. STIVER: Some were dpm per day. 

12 Others were becquerels per year.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay, sorry 

14 to get us off on that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: That's all right. 

16 It's all your fault and that's --

17 (Laughter.)

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, I have a 

19 question.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I have a 

22 database-related question. In the database, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 are tracking PER-12 and basically in the initial 

2 portion of it we have an entry saying that there 

3 was basically no findings in our initial review.

4 Now, do we want to make a second 

5 entry, basically a second finding saying that 

6 now that we've done the case review there are no 

7 findings that were identified during the case 

8 reviews as well?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Given the amount of 

10 effort that both the Subcommittee and SC&A have 

11 put into that review, it seems reasonable to me 

12 that we should include a note indicating --

13 MEMBER BEACH: And could you 

14 reference that document?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I guess on the 

17 other hand now, in the hypothetical, if on the 

18 other hand we had identified findings during the 

19 case review, we would add those individual 

20 findings into the database and track them 

21 through the database.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Probably. What else 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 can you do?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm going to take the 

3 action item to do that offline as opposed to 

4 trying to do that live in the --

5 MR. KATZ: I think we just need the 

6 Subcommittee's final decision that whether it 

7 concurs with the SC&A final report and that this 

8 concludes the Subcommittee's review of this PER.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That certainly meets 

10 my approval. Is there anyone here who sees any 

11 different approach?

12 You agree that we shall ask Steve to 

13 do that for us and that he will notify us when 

14 he's made that correction -- addition, not a 

15 correction. Do you have any objection to that, 

16 Dick?

17 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection. In 

20 essence, we are closing that --

21 CHAIR MUNN: The entire --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- whole entire 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 thing.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, closing it.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes, closing it 

4 the second time.

5 MR. KATZ: So I think probably, as 

6 we close these PERs just along the lines of that 

7 other TIB-70, it's probably good to report out 

8 to the full Board on PERs as you close your 

9 reviews.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

13 Behling.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Kathy.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: First of all, I 

16 just wanted to thank John for handling this for 

17 me today. The move is one of those things I 

18 think that gets ranked up there as one of the more 

19 stressful events in your life. But anyway, 

20 we're both sitting here.

21 But I just did want to make one 

22 additional comment. The fact that we did agree 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 last time during the Subcommittee meeting that 

2 I would prepare a summary of each of the cases 

3 and try to give you an overview of all of the 

4 doses.

5 But what's important to note here is 

6 that the fact that there were no findings, we 

7 were strictly focusing on the OTIB-49 issues and 

8 the fact that NIOSH did appropriately apply 

9 OTIB-49 in all of these cases.

10 And one of the things that I will 

11 mention and I did put into the summary is the fact 

12 that I believe that the workbook that was created 

13 for this particular situation, the OTIB-49 

14 workbook, was really a major factor in the reason 

15 that we had no findings.

16 It's an excellent workbook. I 

17 think it really helped the dose reconstructors 

18 tremendously.

19 A lot of little tabs in that workbook 

20 allows the dose reconstructor to look at fitted 

21 doses and coworker doses and make comparisons 

22 between different types of cancers and that type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 of thing.

2 So it's a very well-designed 

3 workbook and I really attribute that to the fact 

4 that we had no findings.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Kathy, have you 

6 completed your summary?

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Do I have a copy of it?

9 MS. K. BEHLING: No. No, I'm 

10 talking about this particular report that John 

11 just went over. 

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, okay. Yes, 

14 that's a long summary, Kathy, and it's very 

15 thorough. Thank you very much. I will 

16 probably quote not only from your report but from 

17 your remarks when I report out to the 

18 Subcommittee.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you for those 

20 remarks, Kathy, because I'm sure the people that 

21 work hard on these appreciate kudos where they 

22 can get them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we try not to 

2 ever compliment the contractors. They'll 

3 attest to that.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. KATZ: That's much appreciated 

6 and I will just quid pro quo say that this was 

7 very nicely carried out, this review. It's very 

8 clear, easy to follow and does everything that 

9 the Subcommittee asked it to do, so that's 

10 appreciated.

11 CHAIR MUNN: The thoroughness is 

12 certainly appreciated.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you so much. 

15 All right, I think we are completely done with 

16 PER-12, forever hopefully.

17 MR. STIVER: That's good, once and 

18 for all.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, very good. All 

20 right, then let's move on to our next active 

21 item, PER-14. And we have a response to the 

22 review I hope and who's going to do the report?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 MR. STIVER: I can go ahead. This 

2 is Stiver. I'll go ahead and finish that one as 

3 well.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, John.

5 MR. STIVER: And this is kind of a 

6 unique one in that it's based on, PER-14 is 

7 construction trade workers. Basically it's 

8 OCAS 2007 and this is based on OTIB-52, which we 

9 have been reviewing in detail in this 

10 Subcommittee.

11 And I think we're at the point, as 

12 you're going to find out later today, that we've 

13 essentially closed out or will close out all of 

14 the findings at OTIB-52.

15 However, when Hans began this, back 

16 last year I believe it was -- let me back up just 

17 a second.

18 Typically what we will do is if the 

19 Technical Basis Documents that the PER is 

20 referencing have not been reviewed by SC&A, 

21 we'll go ahead and do a review as part of the PER 

22 review.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 If they're not, then we'll just go 

2 ahead and summarize whatever the findings were 

3 or whatever the issues were, like we did with 

4 TIB-49 for PER-12. 

5 However, in this case we had a 

6 document under active review so there was a bit 

7 of concern. Should we just wait till this is 

8 finished and then do the PER? But the decision 

9 was made to go ahead and do it.

10 And as part of that, Hans did review 

11 TIB-52. He kind of took a second look at it and 

12 he identified a couple of issues. Several of 

13 those findings I believe are conditional 

14 findings. They're going to depend on some 

15 further analysis I believe.

16 And so we're kind of in a situation 

17 where we thought we were closed out on a TIB 

18 review but yet there are some new things that 

19 have been opened up in the PER review.

20 And so having said that, all that is 

21 kind of contingent upon Hans's review of TIB-52 

22 so I'd like to go through a part of that before 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 we start, you know, going into the actual 

2 findings, if that's okay with the Board.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Should we postpone 

4 PER-14 until we are looking at OTIB-52? Would 

5 it be better to look at the two simultaneously 

6 or one immediately following the other?

7 MR. STIVER: I think that might be 

8 a better use of time to look at them both 

9 together. That's certainly your prerogative.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have any 

11 objection to our postponing 14 until we take up 

12 OTIB-52 this afternoon after lunch?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you go through 52 

14 and then 14, is that the idea?

15 MR. STIVER: PER-14 is based on 

16 OTIB-52, which is the construction trade 

17 workers.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, so do it 

19 together?

20 MR. STIVER: So we're just going to 

21 do them simultaneously.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 CHAIR MUNN: Sort of simultaneously 

2 or, at the least, one right after the other.

3 MR. STIVER: Steve, you were about 

4 to say something?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: In OTIB-52 there's 

6 only one item that has been changed since the 

7 last go-round. I think it had to do with Finding 

8 14.

9 So I don't know at this point. You 

10 know, I think, again, going over and looking at 

11 some of the responses that NIOSH has made to some 

12 of these, basically they're pointing to OTIB-52 

13 and saying that, you know, the PER finding has 

14 been addressed in the OTIB-52 finding.

15 So what I mean, waiting to go through 

16 OTIB-52 and talk about this one particular 

17 finding which has been changed since last time, 

18 again, I don't know that it really -- either way 

19 I think it's comparable.

20 I don't think it's going to really 

21 matter that much if we do it now or if we do it 

22 this afternoon because there's not that much to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 add to OTIB-52.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Good, good.

3 MR. KATZ: We could just do them 

4 both now.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. What is 

6 your preference? That we start with the 

7 findings in the PER or that we go with the OTIB?

8 MR. STIVER: Why don't we just go 

9 ahead and look at the one finding in TIB-52 and 

10 then we can go back to the PER because these are 

11 all going to be new issues.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good. 

13 That's easy hopefully.

14 MR. STIVER: In theory it will be 

15 very easy.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We have one, 

17 Finding 14. Okay, Internal Review Objective 

18 7.3, Rating 3, the handling of missing dose needs 

19 to be consistent. Currently some sections 

20 include missing dose while others do not.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We talked 

22 about this, I think, at the last meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 CHAIR MUNN: We did?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And between then and 

3 now, NIOSH had taken a look at that comment and 

4 they provided this table here, or associated 

5 comparison.

6 What they did was looked at, I think 

7 this is Rocky Flats. They took the Rocky Flats 

8 data and they did a calculation of the dose, the 

9 ratio of construction trade worker dose to all 

10 monitored worker dose year by year with and 

11 without missing dose component being included.

12 And that table is provided in the 

13 attachment, which is in the BRS. The BRS 

14 attachment is a PDF file which is provided.

15 And they've also highlighted the 

16 years where the ratio without the missing dose 

17 is higher than the ratio with the missing dose.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And the hot link is 

19 active and works.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And the hot link is 

21 active and works. And I think I just lost, where 

22 am I?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sorry, where do 

2 you get the hot link?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Look down at the bottom 

4 of 14 and there'll be an attachment.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, the PDF?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Click on it and you've 

9 got it, just as we asked for it to be. Thank you 

10 all who were involved in that.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mine says it can't 

12 find it. Go back.

13 MR. STIVER: Go all the way down to 

14 the bottom.

15 CHAIR MUNN: We have too many people 

16 looking at it.

17 MR. STIVER: Go to the very last 

18 response.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, back here.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, okay, right 

21 there.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, right here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 MR. STIVER: Click that and it'll 

2 take you right to it.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

4 MR. STIVER: Actually the other tab 

5 is Next Response, Previous Response, right 

6 there.

7 CHAIR MUNN: It truly gladdens my 

8 heart when the hot link works.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: And what I did was I 

10 took the NIOSH-provided data and did a little 

11 additional analysis on it. And if you can look 

12 at it, you can see in my follow-up response, you 

13 can see the additional analysis.

14 I took the average of all the years, 

15 compared the ratio with the missing dose to that 

16 without the missing dose, they were 0.7 versus 

17 0.8.

18 The maximum was a 2.3 ratio to 2.8 

19 ratio. The number of ratios that were greater 

20 than 1 was 12 years. The average of the ratios 

21 that were greater than 1 is 1.56 versus 1.78. 

22 And obviously the number of ratios which were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 less than 1 was 40.

2 Now, the last row here is something 

3 that I called the average adjusted, and one of 

4 the ways that NIOSH looks at this data is that 

5 when the ratio is less than 1, they assume a ratio 

6 of 1. They don't lower the dose to the 

7 construction worker from the all monitored 

8 worker.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's certainly 

10 more than generous.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So if you factor that 

12 in, if you take out all the ratios that were less 

13 than 1 and substitute 1 for those ratios, then 

14 you get a ratio of construction trade workers to 

15 all monitored workers of 1.13 when you include 

16 missing dose, and when you exclude missing dose, 

17 you get a ratio of 1.18.

18 So that's virtually identical 

19 numbers and so the bottom line is, you know, we 

20 recommend that the finding at this point be 

21 closed.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I like your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 recommendation. Is there any discussion or any 

2 dissension to accepting the recommendation that 

3 this finding be closed? If not, please do so, 

4 Steve. Are you all right with that, Dick?

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Now, with 

7 that in mind, do we have anything else to address 

8 in OTIB-52 before we take a look at the PER?

9 MEMBER BEACH: What about 12? Did 

10 I miss that?

11 CHAIR MUNN: No.

12 MEMBER BEACH: That's in abeyance.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, 12, I think, was 

14 in abeyance.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we received no 

16 additional information. Since the last 

17 Subcommittee meeting, there has been no 

18 additional information provided on Finding 

19 number 12 so there's no reason to change that 

20 status.

21 MR. KATZ: It's in abeyance so 

22 presumably that is awaiting a revision then, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 OTIB-52?

2 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-52, 12.

3 MR. KATZ: Or something else, some 

4 other action?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, if you 

6 read on the screen, you'll see in last December 

7 NIOSH said that they were going to follow the 

8 editorial change as proposed to replace the 

9 current wording in Revision 1 and the change is 

10 indicated there. So I think it's in abeyance 

11 waiting for their Revision 2.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's what I was 

13 asking.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I don't know. 

16 How far off is Revision 2? Just curious.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to 

18 follow the thought process here. I don't know. 

19 I don't know if any of the ORAU folks on the phone 

20 want to comment on this finding or not.

21 MR. SMITH: On that, we were 

22 probably just waiting for all these to get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 settled one way or another. This is Matt Smith, 

2 by the way, from ORAU Team.

3 With Item 14 being settled, that 

4 would pretty much then let us go ahead and do the 

5 Rev. 2.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, great.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, like John 

9 mentioned, during the review of PER-14, you 

10 know, some potential additional concerns were --

11 MR. SMITH: Right.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: So you may want to 

13 hold off on --

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see, okay.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the Rev. 2 until 

16 we talk about PER-14.

17 MR. KATZ: I see that. Right, that 

18 makes sense.

19 CHAIR MUNN: We're fine. All 

20 right, we'll move on to PER-14.

21 MR. STIVER: Can you pull up PER-14, 

22 Steve?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm working on it.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay.

3 MEMBER BEACH: And to do that you 

4 just go right into search?

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I go right into 

6 search, yes, and then you put in --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Quickest and easiest 

8 thing to do.

9 MR. STIVER: So is that going to 

10 pull up our review or the actual PER?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: It brings up our 

12 findings. See, John, on the screen?

13 MR. STIVER: I can't quite see that 

14 without my glasses.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: May be a little 

16 fuzzy. I don't know.

17 MR. STIVER: Right, but that link 

18 right there is going to take you to our report?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: If we click on this, 

20 no. It'll go to PER-14.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay, that's what I 

22 thought.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Our review is not hot 

2 linked into the BRS, none of our reviews.

3 MR. STIVER: That was my question. 

4 Do you have that available? If not, I can --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. No, it's 

6 available on my flash drive here. I have to go 

7 get it. I think it was available in the last 

8 meeting.

9 MEMBER BEACH: What I got up was the 

10 whole case.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, it gives you the 

12 PER, the OCAS PER, not ORAU.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: You click on what 

14 now?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: The title up there.

16 CHAIR MUNN: If you click on the 

17 title --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It says 

19 Construction Trade Workers at the top. If you 

20 put your cursor on that, it comes up underlined. 

21 Click on that. It'll bring up our PER.

22 CHAIR MUNN: It will give you the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 PER if you want the PER.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: The SC&A review is on 

3 the screen now, John.

4 MR. STIVER: Right, okay. Okay, 

5 I'm starting off on Page 5 of that, on the 

6 Statement of Purpose. I'm just going to do some 

7 background information here.

8 Basically we were tasked to review 

9 PER-14 in October 2009 and, again, you see that 

10 we have the five different subtasks. This 

11 particular report is going to take us to Subtask 

12 3.

13 Go to Section 2.0 on Page 7. This 

14 is Subtask 1 which is identifying the 

15 circumstances that necessitated the need for 

16 OCAS-PER-14.

17 And this basically just outlines the 

18 fact that construction trade workers, which 

19 include these categories here in the first 

20 paragraph, laborers, mechanics, masons, 

21 carpenters, electricians, painters, 

22 pipefitters, boilermakers, millwrights, sheet 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 metal workers, iron workers, insulators and 

2 others.

3 And these particular workers may 

4 have, by virtue of their activities, and not 

5 necessarily in original construction but 

6 certainly in renovating structures that may have 

7 been previously contaminated, may have had an 

8 elevated potential for exposure.

9 And so this is what really 

10 precipitated this particular review. When 

11 OTIB-52 came out, sure enough, some categories 

12 were elevated and that triggered the PER.

13 Section 2.1 basically, like I said, 

14 whenever we do one of these reviews we summarize 

15 the basis documents and we've been through that 

16 in detail so I'm not going to go through every 

17 single aspect of that.

18 But if you go to Page 9, relevant 

19 conclusions presented in OTIB-52, it lists the 

20 conclusions by the different type of exposure, 

21 external deep dose, non-penetrating dose, 

22 internal dose and occupational medical dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 For external deep dose, NIOSH is 

2 proposing to use a value of 1.4 for the ratio of 

3 construction trade workers to all monitored 

4 workers.

5 And this was selected as the 

6 prescribed claimant-favorable external dose 

7 adjustment factor. The italicized section here 

8 is right out of the TIB.

9 The application of the conclusions 

10 and adjustment factors derived in this document 

11 are limited to dose reconstruction. Okay, 

12 okay, we don't need to worry about that.

13 For non-penetrating dose, dose 

14 reconstructors should not apply any adjustment 

15 factor for non-penetrating dose.

16 Based on the comparison of data that 

17 showed that CTW doses were adequately bounded by 

18 all monitored worker doses, Section 8.3 of 

19 OTIB-52 recommends using the 95th percentile 

20 non-penetrating dose of the site-specific 

21 coworker study.

22 And for internal dose, the Hanford 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 dose reconstructions covered by this OTIB, 

2 intake rates in the Hanford model should be 

3 multiplied by a factor of two.

4 And then there's a description of 

5 the NIOSH approach for occupational medical dose 

6 on Page 10. They basically recommend against 

7 using PFG because that would not have been a type 

8 of procedure that would have necessarily been 

9 used for these types of workers.

10 The bottom of Page 10 is SC&A's 

11 comments. Section 2.3.1 at the very bottom, the 

12 external penetrating dose adjustment factor, we 

13 basically agree that the factor of 1.4 for all 

14 DOE facilities in all years is conservative and 

15 claimant favorable.

16 However, this gave rise to some of 

17 the findings here and I'm not 100 percent sure 

18 what the status of the availability of the CTW 

19 and all monitored worker data is.

20 But as you'll see at the top of Page 

21 11, we state that at this time SC&A has neither 

22 been given access to the original dose data nor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 an explanation that would indicate whether the 

2 annual doses for construction workers and all 

3 monitored workers were scaled to reflect 

4 exposure and employment duration in any given 

5 year.

6 It's kind of a long description of 

7 kind of a simple concept. As Hans brought up in 

8 the last meeting in April, based on his 

9 experience at the utilities, you have a 

10 situation where you have some rad techs that are 

11 full-time employees.

12 Then you have others, like the 

13 people that maybe come in for an outage or 

14 something like that, who are only working for a 

15 short period of time.

16 And so you have this mixture of 

17 construction trade worker doses that reflect 

18 different exposure intervals.

19 And I guess the problem is we can't 

20 really tell whether those exposures for the 

21 short-term workers would be scaled to reflect 

22 the full-year exposure, and the issue being that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 if they weren't and then along comes another 

2 unmonitored worker who is there for a full year 

3 of employment, is that ratio that's based on some 

4 partial year doses, I guess for lack of a better 

5 term, is that going to possibly underestimate 

6 their dose?

7 Is that going to affect the ratio to 

8 an extent that that particular worker who was 

9 there for a full year might be short changed in 

10 some way?

11 Maybe, Steve, you can enlighten us 

12 on this. When we were working on the Savannah 

13 River Site construction trade worker 

14 comparisons, we did a lot of work on looking at 

15 different categories of workers, whether they 

16 were relative to all monitored workers, looked 

17 at just construction versus non-construction as 

18 well as pooled workers.

19 I believe there were some categories 

20 where the CTWs were definitely higher but did we 

21 ever look at this particular issue?

22 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not sure that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 looked at this issue. We do have a lot of the 

2 data that is available in the various electronic 

3 databases, and NIOSH has made that available to 

4 us and we have looked at that and analyzed all 

5 that.

6 If you're talking about original 

7 data as to, you know, hard copies and things like 

8 that, we haven't looked at any of that.

9 But original data as it applies to 

10 the various electronic databases, Savannah 

11 River has a DP something or other database. We 

12 have looked at that.

13 There are several databases at 

14 Savannah River and we looked at all those. 

15 NIOSH made them available to us. We looked at 

16 REX at Hanford. We looked at, and I think 

17 something at INEL.

18 So the only thing we can do is we can 

19 go back and we can relook at the database. If they 

20 have terms of employment for the various workers 

21 that are associated in the database, we can then 

22 see whether or not, you know, how long that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 particular individual who was in the database 

2 was employed at the facility and we can come up.

3 And we haven't attempted to do this 

4 at this point. I don't know if it's our task to 

5 do it or whether it's NIOSH's task to do it now 

6 that this issue has been raised but.

7 MR. STIVER: Well, I can tell you 

8 for other sites or other facilities, let's say 

9 Fernald, NIOSH has typically gone and done that. 

10 It's the very same issue as they've done for 

11 Fernald.

12 We have the partial-year exposures 

13 and this issue, which is going to be the next 

14 finding, is whether mixing the construction 

15 trade workers in with all monitored workers 

16 artificially depresses the ratio to a point 

17 where it may not be claimant favorable too.

18 And that's something that's still on 

19 the table in other Work Groups I know, so it may 

20 be something that NIOSH would want to 

21 investigate.

22 If not, I mean, SC&A could certainly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 do an analysis that we've done for Savannah River 

2 and some others.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: John.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Hans had something to 

5 add.

6 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

7 Behling. I was just wondering if it would be 

8 possible for NIOSH just to take a sample of one 

9 or two sites and just take the construction trade 

10 workers from just a random sample and say what 

11 is the average employment period for any given 

12 year?

13 And on the basis of that, you could 

14 come to a conclusion that a time adjustment 

15 factor needs to be applied or the differences are 

16 nominal and can ignored.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I'm 

18 going to ask Matt Smith to describe briefly the 

19 response he sent to us that I held up because I 

20 don't have the actual evaluation to be able to 

21 attach when we put it in the database so, Matt.

22 MR. SMITH: Sure. In preparing the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 response to Number 14 for OTIB-52 itself, as I 

2 went through that file for the analysis of the 

3 Rocky Flats data, it was apparent that at least 

4 for Rocky Flats the original authors of OTIB-52, 

5 they did prorate the construction trade worker 

6 exposure.

7 So as you look at the results for 

8 Rocky Flats and in general that supported the 1.4 

9 factor being reasonable, the analysis for that 

10 site showed that when you do account for 

11 prorating the construction trade workers, it 

12 does support the 1.4 factor.

13 As I looked through the compilation 

14 of data that formed the tables and figures in 

15 OTIB-52, it looks like if prorating was done it 

16 wasn't explicitly obvious to me. It could be 

17 that it was done by the original authors as they 

18 formed those data sets.

19 I know you're likely correct. With 

20 Savannah River, we can probably look at it closer 

21 but at least for the one that was immediately 

22 available at hand, Rocky Flats, it looked 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 promising.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So essentially it's 

3 not a new issue. It's one that the agency has 

4 been aware of from the outset, and at least in 

5 one instance that we know, it has been 

6 appropriately answered.

7 Hans's question has been 

8 appropriately answered, right? Is that a 

9 decent summary, Matt?

10 MR. SMITH: Correct, and in the 

11 bigger picture when we do the overall coworker 

12 studies, we're prorating on that front as well.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

14 MR. SMITH: It leads a little bit 

15 into the second finding, which is separating the 

16 construction trade workers from all monitored 

17 workers.

18 That same or similar issue was part 

19 of the Finding number 13 back on OTIB-52, which 

20 I believe that issue was taken care of.

21 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

22 MR. SMITH: I know it causes us to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 kind of jump back and forth again, but the 

2 Finding number 2 for PER-14, the issue there is 

3 similar to what was being discussed in Finding 

4 number 13 of OTIB-52.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, as you said in 

6 your response to the PER number 2 item, yes.

7 MR. SMITH: And, again, the bottom 

8 line there is, you know, not a huge difference.

9 And then also to keep in mind is when 

10 we apply this factor 1.4, we are applying it to 

11 a coworker study that's been done for all 

12 monitored workers, so the construction trade 

13 workers are mixed into that overall study.

14 MEMBER BEACH: So it looks like of 

15 the six findings, some of them have been answered 

16 by NIOSH, and then has SC&A went back and looked 

17 at those?

18 MR. STIVER: Looking at our 

19 response here on Finding 13.

20 MEMBER BEACH: To see if it's 

21 appropriate or answered back or?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Of 52.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 MR. KATZ: Can I say something?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Because, I mean, our 

4 intent in these PER reviews was not to rerun OTIB 

5 reviews that have already been found and 

6 concluded.

7 I mean, we didn't want to do reruns, 

8 so I can understand if there's a new finding 

9 because of something that was yet to be resolved 

10 on an OTIB, but I'm not sure I understand why we 

11 would be repeating.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think my sense 

13 here is this OTIB Finding 13 is essentially the 

14 same as the PER Finding 2. And it looks like we 

15 have --

16 MEMBER BEACH: I guess my question 

17 would be if in answering that you could almost 

18 go through and make a recommendation to the Work 

19 Group whether it should stay open or be closed 

20 based on those answers.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm just saying more 

22 fundamentally it shouldn't even be in here, a PER 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 review.

2 MR. STIVER: It shouldn't be a 

3 repeat, that's right.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it's not an issue 

5 anymore. That's why I said what I did earlier 

6 when I was clarifying what Matt said. This is 

7 not a new issue and it's one that has been in the 

8 mix and one that NIOSH has been aware of and 

9 incorporated into its activities.

10 MR. STIVER: Looking at the history 

11 here, it's been under discussion for several 

12 years now and I really don't see that this is 

13 adding anything new to the mix.

14 CHAIR MUNN: The apportionment has 

15 been done essentially is the answer.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: We've looked into 

17 this issue.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes.

19 CHAIR MUNN: It's been done.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, so the 

21 Subcommittee is instructing me to close this 

22 issue in the database? Is that as I understand 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 it?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Is there anyone who has 

4 an issue with closing PER-14, Finding 2?

5 MEMBER BEACH: So you're saying 

6 close all six findings?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: No, number 2.

8 CHAIR MUNN: We're saying Finding 

9 2.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, Finding 2.

11 CHAIR MUNN: We address one finding 

12 at a time.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so in closing 

14 it, will you put a note in there just capturing 

15 why it was closed, that it was --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Tell me what you want 

17 to put in. We'll type in whatever you want to 

18 put in. The Subcommittee --

19 MR. KATZ: I think you could say 

20 that it was addressed in OTIB-52 and closed and 

21 --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 CHAIR MUNN: That's what it says 

2 essentially.

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's what the 

5 finding says, Matt says --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what Matt's 

7 saying.

8 CHAIR MUNN: -- that it's captured 

9 in 52, Finding 13, the response --

10 MEMBER BEACH: And then --

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- and says it's 

12 appropriate.

13 MEMBER BEACH: -- SC&A agrees and is 

14 closed.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: At this point, SC&A 

16 doesn't have to agree because the Subcommittee 

17 agrees.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Right.

20 MEMBER BEACH: But just so next year 

21 you look that up and go, oh, okay.

22 MR. KATZ: Just so that we're clear 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 going forward, for SC&A reviews of PERs we're not 

2 supposed to be reviewing methodology unless

3 there's open issues that haven't been closed on 

4 the methodology that's the basis.

5 Otherwise, we're not supposed to be 

6 reviewing methodology. We're supposed to be 

7 reviewing implementation of agreed-on 

8 methodology.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, whether or not --

10 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans 

11 Behling again. Let me just clarify a few things 

12 because of the fact that when I reviewed PER-14, 

13 as the central author, I was also tasked with 

14 looking at 52.

15 And that was not written by me and 

16 was actually at the time I wrote this and I 

17 believe that was in March of this past year that 

18 I submitted my report, I think the OTIB-52 was 

19 still in the process of being modified.

20 I didn't have a full understanding 

21 of what the final outcome of OTIB-52 was and so 

22 I think this is why we have this problem about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 is it a redundant issue. As I said, when I 

2 reviewed PER-14, OTIB-52 was still undergoing 

3 revision.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Hans. 

5 That's understandable.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, appreciate it. 

7 Any objection to closing Finding 2 in PER-14? 

8 Okay with you, Dick?

9 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. Could 

10 you repeat what you're closing exactly? Can you 

11 just define it for me better?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, let me read you 

13 what the original finding was and what we're 

14 closing here.

15 The original finding was a 

16 conditional finding. "The inclusion of 

17 construction trade workers among AMWs may 

18 obscure dose differences as stated in Section 4 

19 of OTIB-52.

20 "Sometimes the AMW group includes 

21 the CTWs and in others it did not. However, the 

22 OTIB does not identify which data sets, that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 external deep dose, shallow dose and/or bioassay 

2 data sets, failed to separate CTW from AMW data."

3 And the response now is, "This issue 

4 was discussed in the response to OTIB-52, 

5 Finding 13.

6 "The response states, quote, 

7 'Regardless of comparison methods, the outcome 

8 would be favorable to CTWs because the 

9 correction is typically applied to doses in a 

10 site-specific coworker model which is based on 

11 data for all monitored workers.

12 "When CTW are removed from the 

13 comparison population, the ratio favors the CTW 

14 if the CTW doses are, in fact, elevated.

15 "In addition, the 20 percent 

16 threshold criteria for adjustment falls inside 

17 the margin of uncertainty, paren, 

18 (approximately 30 percent) for dosimetry 

19 programs during the film era as well as modern 

20 programs covered by DOELAP,' end quote.

21 "Again, please note that the factor 

22 of 1.4 recommended by OTIB-52 is applied to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 coworker data that represents a combination of 

2 the CTW and non-CTW populations."

3 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: So on that basis, we 

5 are recommending closure of this finding.

6 DR. H. BEHLING: And, Wanda, just 

7 another secondary comment to that issue that I 

8 just made, the reason it was cited as a 

9 conditional is because of the very reason that 

10 I mentioned to you.

11 During that time that I was writing 

12 this, I think OTIB-52 was undergoing changes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, one of the 

14 drawbacks in trying to do the two almost 

15 simultaneously.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Or at least in 

18 parallel. So we are now recommending that it be 

19 closed on the basis of the statement that I just 

20 read to you.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The statement is the 

22 Subcommittee agrees with NIOSH that this finding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 has been raised and addressed under review of 

2 OTIB-52, Finding 13. Therefore, the status of 

3 this finding has been changed to closed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Is that okay with you, 

5 Dick?

6 MEMBER LEMEN: I can live with that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, thank you. 

8 Let's close that.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Are we closing the 

10 Finding 1 as well?

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, we're only dealing 

12 with Finding 2.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Going back to 

15 Finding 1, did we change the status? Since 

16 we've talked about Finding 1, did we want to 

17 change the status now to in progress?

18 Usually what we do is if we bring it 

19 up and bring it up and talk about it at one of 

20 these meetings, we change the status from open 

21 to in progress, indicating that, you know.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 MR. MARSCHKE: And basically the 

2 Subcommittee has directed NIOSH -- requested.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, we don't get to 

4 direct.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: We don't want them to 

6 think that anyway. We have requested that NIOSH 

7 look into this issue.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I'm looking at 14.4.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we on 14.1? 

10 Okay. NIOSH agrees to provide a response. It 

11 can be as easy as that.

12 MEMBER BEACH: We say that for 3 as 

13 well?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, because it's 

15 the same issue. Remember, Matt described what 

16 he looked at at Rocky and we've got it for there 

17 too. I just wanted to not say that unless we 

18 could provide the analysis, and so that's why we 

19 didn't put it in here.

20 MR. STIVER: That sounds good. 

21 Yes, Finding 3 is exactly the same issue here.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Somebody on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 line was going to say something.

2 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt Smith 

3 with ORAU Team again. Is the action then just 

4 to provide the Rocky Flats workbook?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the data that 

6 would allow people to look at this data and say, 

7 yes, when you make this prorating adjustment, 

8 you still come out at 1.4.

9 MR. SMITH: Okay. And that is 

10 contained in that workbook so.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well, you'll 

12 need to give us some instructions on what to look 

13 at though.

14 MR. SMITH: Sure, sure, a guideline 

15 to all the different worksheets, sure.

16 CHAIR MUNN: They've just broken 

17 down so that we need specifics for both deep dose 

18 and shallow dose. Now that's Finding 1 and 

19 Finding 3.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 3 is the same 

21 as Finding 1?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, essentially.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Conceptually it's 

2 the same.

3 MR. STIVER: Maybe there's a 

4 smaller data set to draw into, Savannah River and 

5 Rocky Flats.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I'm just worried 

7 about changing the, basically NIOSH has agreed 

8 to look into the issue and the status has been 

9 changed to in progress.

10 CHAIR MUNN: The Subcommittee's 

11 finding is the same in 1 and 3. I mean, the 

12 instruction is the same in 1 and 3 for today.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, so that takes 

14 care of --

15 MR. STIVER: Ready to move on to 

16 Finding 4?

17 CHAIR MUNN: As soon as Steve is 

18 ready.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm ready.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: There is a database 

22 issue, BRS issue. If you'll notice, actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 Hans is the one who has written PER-14. If 

2 you'll notice, I've been attributing all these 

3 comments to Kathy Behling and that's because the 

4 database does not allow me to -- Hans is, for some 

5 reason, not in the database --

6 MR. KATZ: He's not in the intranet. 

7 That's why.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: -- probably because 

9 he's not on the intranet. But so it just be 

10 understood that when you see Kathy Behling's 

11 name here we're really referring to Hans.

12 MR. KATZ: That's fine, that's 

13 fine.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. We don't 

15 have a problem with that.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a new form of 

17 a surrogate.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It is.

19 MR. STIVER: A surrogate author.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Let me know who the 

21 boss is.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I was going to say that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 but I thought it better that you do, Hans. 

2 That's great, thank you.

3 MR. KATZ: Hans operates off the 

4 grid.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, he is. Finding 4 

6 we have a response from Liz.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, this is just 

8 a simple wording that I suppose someone from 

9 NIOSH could clarify.

10 The statement that I had a problem 

11 with is the issue of the internal dose should be 

12 determined using the same method that is applied 

13 to all workers.

14 And the assumption is that the 

15 construction trade worker was monitored but all 

16 other workers were not monitored so I'm not sure 

17 I know how that statement should be interpreted.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. 

19 What the statement intends to say is that there's 

20 no, for this, was it internal? There's no 

21 correction factor for construction trade 

22 workers. So remember this correction factor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 applies to the application when you're using a 

2 coworker approach.

3 So if you have a construction trade 

4 worker in this instance and you're using the 

5 coworker approach, there's no construction 

6 trade worker adjustment. You use just the 

7 coworker approach as is published probably in 

8 the Site Profile.

9 So that's what this is intended to 

10 say. I mean, you know, we think we understand 

11 what it means so we don't know that there's any 

12 need to revise it.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Let me just get a 

14 quick understanding of what you're saying, Stu.

15 You have a construction trade worker 

16 for whom there is no internal dose monitoring. 

17 What do you do to assign this an internal dose?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We would use the 

19 coworker approach, the same coworker approach 

20 that we would use for someone who was not a 

21 construction trade worker.

22 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, so there's no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 adjustment factor, just a coworker dose 

2 assignment.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct, there is 

4 no --

5 DR. H. BEHLING: Is it the 50th 

6 percentile, the 95th percentile? I'm just 

7 hoping to get some clarification as to what that 

8 statement means, just a little more definitive 

9 statement to back up that approach.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know 

11 sitting here which percentile or distribution we 

12 would use. I think it might differ.

13 But the fact is that the purpose of 

14 this whole document, 52 and PER-14, were all 

15 about construction workers and construction 

16 trade worker adjustment.

17 What this is trying to say is in this 

18 instance, there is no construction trade worker 

19 adjustment. You just use whatever the approach 

20 is for coworkers.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Hans, are you looking 

22 at Liz's response?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 DR. H. BEHLING: No, I'm not. I'm 

2 only looking at my own writeup. Right now we're 

3 just living out of boxes for the next few weeks 

4 probably.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I don't envy you 

6 at all. Would you like me to read the response 

7 that we have in front of us?

8 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, that would be 

9 helpful.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Quote, '"The internal 

11 dose should be determined using the same method 

12 that is applied to all other workers,' end quote, 

13 means that the CTWs are treated no differently 

14 than other workers. The same criteria are used 

15 to determine potential for intake and coworker 

16 values would be the same for all workers." So 

17 that's the response to the finding.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, I think that 

19 clarifies it for me.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do you find that 

21 acceptable?

22 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, from my point 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 of view but I'm not the one who makes the final 

2 decision.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, does SC&A find 

4 that --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think if Hans says 

6 he finds it acceptable because --

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, he's the author.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in view of the 

9 fact he said he's not the one to make the 

10 decision, I'm looking at the guy I think should 

11 be the decision --

12 MR. STIVER: SC&A believes that 

13 that could be closed, yes. We're satisfied with 

14 that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Our notation for today 

16 should say that SC&A concurs and that the 

17 Subcommittee concurs, unless I hear to the 

18 contrary and this item is closed.

19 MR. KATZ: I think, John, you can go 

20 ahead and present while Steve's furiously 

21 typing.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay, I was just going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 to wait for him.

2 CHAIR MUNN: What is he presenting?

3 MR. STIVER: We're just going to 

4 give the background for Finding number 5 here.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, Finding number 

6 5's fairly clear and Lori has a response to it 

7 that we --

8 MR. KATZ: Weren't we trying to 

9 proceed through this? Weren't we trying to 

10 proceed through?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we are.

12 MR. KATZ: All right. So okay I 

13 thought --

14 CHAIR MUNN: I just didn't 

15 understand what John was going to present since 

16 we have his finding and we have --

17 MR. KATZ: Well, no one was speaking 

18 and so.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MR. STIVER: And I was waiting for 

21 Steve because I didn't want to get ahead of him 

22 too far.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 Yes, Finding 5, Subtask 3, on Page 

2 15 of our report, there's five different 

3 criteria that are used to go through these 977 

4 potentially affected claims.

5 And the finding, as you can read it 

6 right here, "The extent to which NIOSH has 

7 screened and evaluated the universe of 977 

8 claims by means of the above-cited criteria was 

9 not discussed in OCAS-PER-14.

10 "As such, NIOSH has not identified 

11 the actual number of CTW claims, from among the 

12 977 potential claims, that are eligible for the 

13 PER's dose adjustment factors and, therefore, a 

14 new DR."

15 And then Lori has provided a 

16 response. Would you like me to read that?

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, I figure it's 

18 Lori's response.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you want to do it 

21 or you want me?

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: You can.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu. 

2 There are four categories for dispositions on 

3 the 977 cases.

4 For 52 cases we asked that DOL return 

5 those, okay, that they are affected and we need 

6 to do something different with those cases.

7 There were 620 of the 977 that didn't 

8 meet the five criteria on Page 4 of the PER, or 

9 the criteria. I don't know if it's five. See 

10 if I can figure out how to get back there.

11 Those have to do with was coworker 

12 data used in a dose reconstruction, is the person 

13 a construction trade worker.

14 There are Probability of Causation 

15 thresholds because the adjustment can't raise. 

16 You can only raise the Probability of Causation 

17 by so much.

18 Let's see, what were the others on 

19 there? I can get to them if my computer works.

20 MR. STIVER: Number 5 is just the 

21 application of those trigger PoC values.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So anyway, a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 set of criteria are listed in the PER and so 600 

2 of the 977 don't meet all the criteria. Let's 

3 see, which number am I on here? We're on five.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: There were 84 cases 

7 that have already been returned either for a new 

8 dose reconstruction, for instance the person got 

9 an additional cancer, or for some other reason 

10 so we already have them back.

11 And 221 of the cases had been 

12 requested for return because of a different PER. 

13 I know we got probably lymphoma or Super S 

14 because those were the big ones.

15 So that accounts for the 900 and some 

16 odd cases and what happened to them. So, you 

17 know, we know what happened to them all and, you 

18 know, the ones that had to be reconsidered were 

19 reconsidered and it amounts to the 52 additional 

20 besides the ones we got back for other reasons.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

22 Stiver. That's a satisfactory explanation to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 me.

2 I think, if I can speak for Hans, I 

3 think his concern was that there was no 

4 discussion of it in the PER and sought 

5 clarification, and now that you've provided 

6 that, I think we can put this one to rest.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: John, the reason is 

8 that the finding is that in order to satisfy 

9 Subtask number 4, we have to have some 

10 understanding of the total number of cases that 

11 will be affected by the PER.

12 And so it's really not a finding, 

13 other than the shortcoming that the system in 

14 time, or at least at the time that I was reviewing 

15 PER-14, I did not have the numbers that I could 

16 look at and sort of make a recommendation that 

17 would satisfy Subtask 4 in terms of identifying 

18 the number of cases that we would have to review.

19 And so, in essence, it's really not 

20 a finding, other than the fact that the number 

21 out of the 977 which is the universe of potential 

22 claims that need to be looked at was not defined 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 in PER-14 and usually it is.

2 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Hans, 

3 understood.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So we can close that 

5 one?

6 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know. Can we 

7 close it?

8 MR. STIVER: We can close it.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

10 objection, Dick?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, you can show 

13 this as SC&A accepted the information provided 

14 by the --

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Did you hear me?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did. Thank 

17 you. SC&A accepted the data provided by NIOSH 

18 as being acceptable and the Subcommittee has 

19 closed this finding.

20 MR. STIVER: Ready to move on to 

21 Finding 6?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 MR. STIVER: Okay, now this is one 

2 we talked about at the last meeting. This was 

3 triggered by this quote on Page 4 of PER-14 

4 regarding external coworker dose assignment.

5 "If no external coworker dose was 

6 assigned, there's no OTIB-52 adjustment to be 

7 made and the claim is not affected by OTIB-52."

8 And I think the concern we had here 

9 was what about cases that would have been 

10 adjudicated before a coworker model was 

11 available for a particular site?

12 And so we had a situation where there 

13 could be a subset of these 977 claims that would 

14 be given possibly an environmental dose or would 

15 otherwise not be given a coworker dose based on 

16 OTIB-52 or a coworker model that existed at that 

17 time.

18 And I think looking at the 

19 transcript on Page 211 or 212 from April, Stu 

20 provided an explanation that those cases would 

21 have been pended until a coworker model was, in 

22 fact, developed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

2 MR. STIVER: Is that correct?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, early on in the 

4 program at several sites we had lots of cases 

5 pended for a coworker model because we knew that 

6 it was not an appropriate case for environmental 

7 and we didn't have another way to do it and 

8 overestimating approaches weren't going to 

9 work.

10 So we didn't have a way to do it so 

11 we pended them and we waited, so the success of 

12 getting rid of the backlog of claims is partly 

13 the result of getting these coworker approaches 

14 done at these various sites. So that's the 

15 answer and that's standard in here too.

16 MR. STIVER: That's satisfactory to 

17 me. I think we can go ahead and close that one 

18 out if the Subcommittee agrees.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection from any 

20 Member of the Subcommittee?

21 Hearing no objection, Steve you may 

22 use the same closure statement that was used in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 the preceding finding. We're going to lunch now 

2 folks.

3 MR. STIVER: Want to just keep 

4 working through?

5 CHAIR MUNN: No, we're going to 

6 lunch now and we'll be an hour.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Wanda.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Dick.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick and I 

10 may be a little bit late getting back from lunch. 

11 That's one of the reasons I'm not there. I have 

12 an appointment, so carry on without me.

13 CHAIR MUNN: We'll do that and 

14 please let us know when you do return, Dick.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Never fear. I will.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you so much.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Dick, and --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Good luck.

19 MR. KATZ: -- thank you to the 

20 Behlings and we will rejoin. And thank you all 

21 to the DCAS support at --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: ORAU Team.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 MR. KATZ: ORAU?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they don't 

3 want to associate too closely with us.

4 MR. KATZ: That's mean. Okay, see 

5 you after lunch.

6 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

7 went off the record at 12:21 p.m. and went back 

8 on the record at 1:25 p.m.)

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

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

16 (1:25 p.m.)

17 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, 

18 everybody. Advisory Board on Radiation and 

19 Worker Health, Procedures Review Subcommittee. 

20 We're back from lunch break. Let me check on the 

21 line and see, do we have Dr. Lemen? He thought 

22 he might be a little bit late. Okay. Not at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 this time, but it sounds like, from the number 

2 on the phone, we have everyone else who we might 

3 expect.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Probably so. We 

5 closed out PER-14. We're still working on PERs. 

6 The next one we have ready is PER-17. Are we up 

7 on the screen yet? We will get there. Give us 

8 just a moment.

9 MR. KATZ: So I wasn't totally 

10 clear, PER-14, were you finished?

11 MR. STIVER: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Get back into the BRS 

14 here. Just a moment.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: There's no findings 

16 in the database.

17 MR. STIVER: There were no findings 

18 for PER-17.

19 CHAIR MUNN: No.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want us to add 

21 a placeholder finding to that effect like we did 

22 on PER-12? We added, basically, a placeholder 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 finding saying that, SC&A has reviewed --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: -- this PER and has 

4 no findings.

5 CHAIR MUNN: We hadn't discussed, 

6 prior to this meeting, I believe, what to do in 

7 that case, and as far as I'm concerned, we 

8 established the precedent earlier this morning. 

9 I see no reason why not. As a matter of fact, 

10 it's probably a very good idea since this may be 

11 accessible to people long after we've gone to our 

12 just rewards, whatever that turns out to be.

13 MR. KATZ: So is PER-17 one where we 

14 need to consider whether audit cases are needed 

15 are not? Is that where we are with that?

16 MR. STIVER: Actually, if we could 

17 back up just for a minute for PER-14, we did not 

18 talk about the audit cases. That was one thing 

19 that was still left.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sorry. I didn't 

21 hear you, John. PER-14?

22 MR. STIVER: As far as PER-14 goes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 we didn't discuss the audit cases. So the next 

2 step to go to is Step 4 on that, or to Sub-task 

3 4.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

5 MR. STIVER: And that's pretty 

6 straightforward. We recommended selecting one 

7 DR from each of the ten categories that were 

8 produced, and now that NIOSH has identified the 

9 different subcategories, or the four groupings, 

10 of that 977, we could go ahead and proceed with 

11 that.

12 Now, I don't know, how would you want 

13 to do that? At the next Board meeting or the 

14 next Work Group meeting?

15 MR. KATZ: No, you can do it now, but 

16 I mean, the Subcommittee can do that now, but can 

17 you just say a little bit more, does it make sense 

18 to select one from each of the categories? Is 

19 that necessary?

20 MR. STIVER: Well, it would 

21 certainly give us the overview of the different 

22 types, you know, that we'd want to look at from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 each of the different facilities.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but they aren't 

3 necessarily different facilities, are they?

4 MR. STIVER: For 14, for each of the 

5 DOE facilities, I believe. Well, let me just 

6 read what we have here. SC&A recommends the 

7 selection of ten DRs from each of the ten DOE 

8 sites listed in Table 2 for SC&A audit. So go 

9 back to Table 2, which is on Page 13, we have 

10 Hanford, PNNL, the Kansas City Plant, Los 

11 Alamos, Pantex, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 

12 Plant, Savannah River Site, Weldon Spring, Oak 

13 Ridge National Laboratory, and the Y-12.

14 MR. KATZ: So is there a different 

15 methodology applied at each facility? I'm just 

16 trying to understand what's the --

17 MR. STIVER: Well, what we'd want to 

18 do is look at each -- remember how we were talking 

19 about how, potentially, there might be 

20 differences in the data for the different sites 

21 and how those were implemented. And so we 

22 believe that just looking at one of each of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 different sites might give us a better overall 

2 view of how all these were implemented.

3 I mean, certainly, you could pick 

4 more from Savannah River or, you know, Rocky 

5 Flats, or one of the others, but we thought, 

6 maybe, rather than trying to make a 

7 representative weighting like that, we'd just 

8 pick one of each. Kind of like what we did with 

9 PER-12.

10 MR. KATZ: No, I wasn't suggesting 

11 any representative weighting, I was just trying 

12 to understand if there's actually -- with 

13 PER-12, there's actually a different approach 

14 for each. I mean, each category shows one was 

15 testing sort of a different -- there's a 

16 different method applied and I'm just asking if 

17 there is a different method applied for each 

18 site, the fact that they're different sites in 

19 and of itself, I don't whether that matters or 

20 not.

21 If you're saying there's different 

22 data to select from or something.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 MR. STIVER: Well, I think, you 

2 know, I don't know if the different sites would 

3 really matter all that much. You know, this is 

4 a recommendation. I mean, TIB-52 is basically 

5 going to be used as, kind of, an overarching, I 

6 think, for all construction trade workers, so I 

7 mean, we could pick more from sites that had more 

8 representation.

9 This is just what they had put forth 

10 as an option. I think it could go either way. 

11 I think you got a pretty good feel for how well 

12 it was implemented.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's not clear to 

14 me --

15 MR. KATZ: That's something for the 

16 Subcommittee to chew on.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: -- whether using ten 

19 sites is necessarily going to give us anything.

20 MR. STIVER: Well, in that case, 

21 what sites would you recommend using? I mean, 

22 we could pick from those that have more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 availability. I don't think it would hurt to do 

2 that. It wouldn't detract from the process and 

3 whether it would enhance the process to look at 

4 the different sites --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's my 

6 thought. What's it getting us, really? And I 

7 guess I haven't really given any real thought to 

8 that, but just my knee-jerk reaction is that it's 

9 hard to see what added value there is in doing 

10 ten cases.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: What would be the 

12 alternative to it?

13 MR. STIVER: That's what I was 

14 wondering, the alternative, would you pick all 

15 from Savannah River or a particular site? I 

16 mean, I would think you'd want to have some 

17 representation of all the different affected 

18 sites.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: If I could suggest 

20 something, this is Stu, Hanford has a different 

21 approach than the others. Hanford has an 

22 adjustment for internal and the others don't. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 So you would want, probably, a Hanford case. 

2 Other than that, you know, one other case, 

3 somehow, just doesn't seem sufficient, but I 

4 don't know if you need a case from every site.

5 And then, another thing to think 

6 about is, of the four categories we identified, 

7 you know, one of them, first of all, just drops 

8 out because they don't fit the criteria, so you 

9 won't have any there. But there were 52 we 

10 specifically asked for that. And then you have 

11 a group that returned before we could ask for 

12 them and a group that were returned because of 

13 a different PER.

14 The simplest way to do this is to do 

15 cases that only have this PER evaluated. That 

16 would be the cleanest look at these cases. So 

17 you kind of pare down the number you select from. 

18 This doesn't say a lot about the number you 

19 select, but the only thing that comes to my mind 

20 is you want to make sure you have a Hanford that's 

21 affected.

22 And I don't know if you need every 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 site, but maybe, you know, a couple others or 

2 something, and select, preferably, the cases 

3 that are only affected by this, just for the 

4 simplicity of review. If you don't want a 

5 simple review, there's another way of thinking 

6 of this, you know?

7 Did we do a good job when we had all 

8 these complicating factors in there? Maybe 

9 you'd want to do a couple from the more 

10 complicated category.

11 MR. STIVER: Well, I think it kind 

12 of gets back to the purpose of selecting these, 

13 really, just looking at the implementation of 

14 this particular PER, kind of like we saw with 

15 PER-12. Now, in that case, we did have some that 

16 were kind of complex because they were returned 

17 for other reasons as well.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

19 MR. STIVER: But we didn't really 

20 look at that. All we looked at was whether, you 

21 know, the high-fired plutonium was addressed 

22 correctly.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: And that's what we 

3 would do here. Presumably, we'd want to keep in 

4 that same kind of process and that same focus.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I think the same level 

7 of rigor with what you want to apply.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: TIB-52 does not 

9 directly affect, or it's not used -- OTIB-52 is 

10 not used by the dose reconstructors directly, is 

11 my understanding. Basically, TIB-52 is used to 

12 construct these coworker tables.

13 And if you look in these documents 

14 that are identified on the right-hand column of 

15 Table 2, usually what they do is, these documents 

16 have a table of coworker doses and now, with 

17 TIB-52, they're adding a second table of 

18 coworker construction worker doses.

19 So really, what is important is, how 

20 did NIOSH use TIB-52 to construct from the 

21 coworker dose table, how did they construct the 

22 construction coworker table? Because that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 really where you're applying -- the 1.4 gets 

2 applied in that step of the process.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: And so, I mean, if 

5 it's applied correctly, then the construction 

6 coworker table is calculated correctly. If 

7 it's not, you know, then it doesn't really matter 

8 what they do in the individual dose 

9 reconstructions because the construction 

10 coworker table has not been correctly 

11 calculated.

12 MR. KATZ: So is the main issue to 

13 look and see that that table is done correctly 

14 for each site where it's created? Is that what 

15 you're saying?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: My opinion is, 

17 really, it's at least as important as looking at 

18 the individual dose reconstructions. 

19 MR. STIVER: You know, I don't know 

20 if Hans is still on the line as the author of the 

21 document.

22 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I'm on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 line. And I was just going to make a comment 

2 here. There's really no single justification 

3 for selecting ten, to be honest. The only 

4 question I had is, are the construction trade 

5 workers different in different locations? For 

6 instance, a facility that is dominated by 

7 nuclear power plant production reactors, et 

8 cetera, like Hanford, would the construction 

9 trade worker profile be different in terms of 

10 composition than another site?

11 Again, it doesn't really matter, but 

12 that was one of my thinking ideas of selecting 

13 at least one DR from each of the ten sites.

14 MR. STIVER: Thank you, Hans. I 

15 think that, and also Steve's point that we would 

16 also want to look at, you know, this kind of adds 

17 another complicating layer, but, you know, I was 

18 just looking at TIB-52 and its impact, but how 

19 it was implemented in these other documents, as 

20 well.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, if I

22 can just offer, this may not be a TIB fix or a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 TBD fix. This may be a workbook fix. This 

2 might be a workbook function where those 

3 documents may not have changed. I don't know if 

4 they did or not, but you can build a workbook and 

5 select construction trade worker and apply it 

6 without ever going back and changing it.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't remember --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

9 they're changed or not.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't remember 

11 which site it was, but I remember that, actually, 

12 Ron Buchanan, in one of his reviews, so it was 

13 maybe Rocky Flats, I'm not sure, but one of the 

14 sites that Ron Buchanan reviewed the Site 

15 Profile for, he actually went through and did the 

16 calculation of, how does the coworker dose table 

17 compare to the construction coworker dose table.

18 And both these tables were available 

19 in the documents that he was reviewing. I don't 

20 know if it was Y-12 or which one it was, or it 

21 was Rocky, or what it was, and I can go back and 

22 look into that a little bit more, but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

2 ORAU team, and yes, it was an action item back 

3 several years ago when OTIB-52 was first 

4 released for us to go back through and update all 

5 the coworker TIBs, to include the table that 

6 you're talking about. And I think the one Ron 

7 was looking at was X-10.

8 But, yes, back when even Rev. 0 of 

9 OTIB-52 came out, we did a pretty quick 

10 turnaround on updating all those TIBs.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is John 

12 Stiver. Another question for you, now, did you 

13 also go through and update all of the workbook 

14 tools in conjunction with the tables and so that 

15 those would be changed for each of these sites 

16 as well?

17 MR. SMITH: My quick answer is yes. 

18 The ultimate answer we can get for you to confirm 

19 that.

20 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, in my 

21 mind, based on this new information that I didn't 

22 have before, I would certainly say we'd want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 look at all the different sites, and also 

2 factoring in what Steve said about the, you know, 

3 the fact that Hanford was being treated a little 

4 bit differently for internal. 

5 We'd want at least a couple from 

6 Hanford, I would think, at least one, maybe more 

7 than one, and then we'd also want to look at these 

8 other sites in terms of, you know, how well this 

9 was implemented in the TIB and also in the tools.

10 In the Dose Reconstruction 

11 Subcommittee we've had several findings about 

12 the workbooks being updated and implemented in 

13 a timely manner. They're so incredibly complex 

14 it's very easy to see how things could get 

15 overlooked. They might not be programmed in 

16 there quite right. So I would want to look at 

17 it in that respect, as well.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: So what you're 

19 saying, I guess, John, is there may be three 

20 phases to this next step. One is where we look 

21 at the coworker OTIBs to see that the 

22 relationship between the coworker table and the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 construction coworker table -- step 2 would 

2 maybe be looking at the workbooks associated 

3 with those, and Step 3 may be the actually 

4 looking at some dose reconstructions.

5 MR. STIVER: Or within the dose 

6 reconstruction, we could look at those aspects 

7 of the dose reconstruction. I think, you know, 

8 we would certainly want to wrap that into it.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I wouldn't 

10 break the tool out separately myself. I would 

11 just say, you're going to do the documents, 

12 you're going to do the dose reconstructions, and 

13 as you do that --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, as part of the 

15 dose reconstruction, we can look at, you know, 

16 these.

17 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith again 

18 with ORAU team and I went next door to confer with 

19 Pete McCartney that the tools do indeed include 

20 the OTIB-52-based coworker data.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: That's good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 MR. STIVER: All right. Thanks.

2 MR. SMITH: You bet.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So would you like to 

4 summarize what your proposal is with respect to 

5 review of cases under PER-14?

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. I think what 

7 we'd want to do is, first, look at only those 

8 cases that are affected by PER-14 that don't have 

9 other issues associated with them. We'd want to 

10 look at representative cases from the Table 2 

11 sites, and within that, we would want to verify 

12 in the reconstruction that the tools were 

13 appropriately modified for that application.

14 And so I guess, Steve, if there's 

15 anything else you could think of that we'd want 

16 to look at, I think that would be our main 

17 criteria for selection.

18 MEMBER BEACH: How many from each 

19 site? Because you had mentioned one from 

20 Hanford. It seems like you might want to do two.

21 MR. STIVER: I think a Hanford site 

22 case will -- you know, it'll show whether it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 been implemented in a different way. I know 

2 we'd need more than one.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Just one. Okay.

4 MR. STIVER: At least one.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, again, if you 

6 look at the table you can see that Hanford and 

7 the Pacific Northwest Lab, they both use the same 

8 OTIB-30.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So if you do one from 

11 each you're, in effect, doing two associated 

12 with that OTIB.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Makes sense.

15 MR. STIVER: And the only 

16 difference for Hanford is you'd have the 

17 internal component associated with that.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 MR. STIVER: And that would 

20 probably be reflected in the workbook.

21 CHAIR MUNN: So you are suggesting 

22 --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 MR. KATZ: So ten DRs.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- ten DRs?

3 MR. STIVER: Ten DRs.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now, it'll 

5 be our action to find the cases?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

8 CHAIR MUNN: To find the pool.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll see what we 

10 can do. I think we'll start with the 52 that 

11 we've asked for back. We may not get all ten 

12 sites.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And so then we'll 

15 move on to the other categories, like the ones 

16 that were returned before we asked for them.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. And then we will --

18 MR. STIVER: Right. Yes. Just 

19 work your way through them.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: At some point we'll 

21 get to all ten sites, I would think.

22 MR. STIVER: And if not --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, if there's no 

2 site being affected, then you can't really, you 

3 know --

4 MR. KATZ: It's not an issue.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, you don't have any 

6 cases for that.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: If you don't have any 

8 cases then there's no cases that have been --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, actually, 

10 we'll get to all of them. We don't have just a 

11 ton of cases from Kansas City, but we've got 

12 some.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we don't need to 

14 build future activities, I wouldn't think.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: The others all have 

16 a pretty healthy population, I think, of claims 

17 and so I think Kansas City might be the only --

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, if we had one 

19 without cases, I don't think that would affect 

20 the overall.

21 MR. KATZ: So previously, we had had 

22 the DR Subcommittee do the actual selection, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 it's not clear to me whether that's necessary or 

2 whether you can just pull randomly, according to 

3 the characteristics, and that be that.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's going to 

5 take NIOSH a while to build a pool and we can, 

6 if we want the Dose Reconstruction Committee to 

7 consider being the selector, that was considered 

8 to be desirable at one juncture, but like you, 

9 Ted, I really don't know whether that's a 

10 necessary --

11 MR. KATZ: I mean, it's up to you. 

12 You can decide here, but if you think that you 

13 can just have DCAS select these cases randomly 

14 from the --

15 MR. STIVER: Well, that would be the 

16 first step to begin with. I mean, even if we do 

17 it through the Dose Reconstruction 

18 Subcommittee.

19 MR. KATZ: But I mean, the Dose 

20 Reconstruction Committee's only function in 

21 this was to select cases, but if you agree upon 

22 how these cases are to be selected here, DCAS 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 selects them, and hands them over to you, SC&A, 

2 and you start the work, and there's no additional 

3 step to be taken with the Dose Reconstruction 

4 Subcommittee.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. You know, this 

6 being, really, the first time we've come up 

7 against this. I mean, I thought it was the 

8 process that we had, you know, identified 

9 earlier, but yes, I mean, that'd be much value 

10 added in certain situations.

11 MR. KATZ: That's what I'm 

12 wondering.

13 MR. STIVER: Well, I'd be willing to 

14 just go ahead and, you know, just have DCAS 

15 select them. The criteria are pretty 

16 straightforward here.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: So have we, in our 

19 discussion here, come around to the idea that we 

20 will do nine DRs?

21 MR. KATZ: Ten.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Ten.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to look for 

2 ten DRs despite the fact that we have --

3 MR. KATZ: One for each site.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I know, but we also 

5 discussed that Kansas City Plant has a small 

6 pool.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, but Stu's going to 

8 look into whether there are cases or not. If 

9 there's a case, we want it. Right?

10 CHAIR MUNN: But if there's not a 

11 case, then we would have nine.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Then we'd do nine.

13 MR. KATZ: Then we'd do nine.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: Actually, for Kansas 

16 City, even if there's not a case, they can still 

17 look at the tools.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's the other 

19 aspect of it.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. So they can still 

21 do that check even though there hasn't been a 

22 case to look at.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, we wouldn't have 

2 a rework, we can still look at the --

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 MR. STIVER: -- process that's in 

5 place.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. And that makes 

7 sense that you would do that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: All right. NIOSH has 

9 the action. Anything more on PER-14?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Once NIOSH delivers 

11 that you'll just --

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, you could just 

13 consider a test, yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Can you look at the 

15 tools prior to getting the cases --

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 MEMBER BEACH: -- or do you want to 

18 wait?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: They can certainly 

20 look at the TBDs and the TIBs.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, we can look at the 

22 TBDs and we can arrange through DCAS to have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 access to the latest version of the tools.

2 MEMBER BEACH: So you can be doing 

3 that at the same time. Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. That's good.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

7 Siebert. One thing on that, you may just want 

8 to make sure you're looking at the tool version 

9 that was in place when the claim was run.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Good point.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MR. SIEBERT: As opposed to the 

13 recent tools.

14 MR. STIVER: That's a good point, 

15 Scott. Thank you.

16 MR. SIEBERT: So you may want to 

17 wait for the claims to come across.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Good point, or see 

19 how many revs are -- I mean, it shows revs, right?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, Scott.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Are we ready for 

22 PER-17?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: Are we ready for that? 

3 We can get started on PER-17?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. PER-17, I'm 

6 looking here at the SC&A review of that document, 

7 dated May 15th, 2012, and this is a review of

8 NIOSH's Program Evaluation Report of this 

9 PER-17, evaluation of incomplete internal 

10 dosimetry records from Idaho, Argonne-East, and 

11 Argonne-West National Laboratories.

12 As far as the background information 

13 here, this case was assigned by the Advisory 

14 Board back in May of 2010. We looked at the, 

15 again, first three categories of sub-tasks, 

16 which would be identifying NIOSH's evaluation of 

17 the characterization of the issue, NIOSH's 

18 specific methods for corrective action and 

19 evaluating the PER's stated approach for 

20 identifying the potentially affected DRs in the 

21 criteria by which a subset was selected for 

22 re-evaluation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 Again, let me just reiterate that we 

2 did not have any findings in this particular PER, 

3 but I'm just going to go through the different 

4 sub-tasks and what was done.

5 A little bit more of the history 

6 under Sub-task 1. In April or May of 2006, there 

7 were two dose reconstruction reviews that 

8 involved claimants exposed at INL and 

9 Argonne-East that contained questionable 

10 notations response to request for internal 

11 monitoring data.

12 For the INL claim, the notations 

13 stated there was no recordable dose and for ANL 

14 East, the notations stated no internal dose. 

15 More inquiries were made that revealed that INL, 

16 ANL-E, and Argonne-West as well, did not 

17 consistently include the dose data in response 

18 to request for such data by NIOSH.

19 NIOSH concluded that, for a given 

20 Energy employee at any of the three sites, were 

21 either provided with all or none of the 

22 employee's internal monitoring records. And so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 there was a potential for missed internal 

2 dosimetry data that had been requested, but not 

3 received by NIOSH, and centered around these 

4 handwritten notations in this form 

5 OCAS-INT-004, which is a checkbox form that 

6 either stated no internal dose or no recorded 

7 dose.

8 Our comment on that was that we found 

9 this revelation by NIOSH to be commendable. 

10 Further inquiries did reveal instances where 

11 some EEs may not have been monitored for internal 

12 exposure, but requests for such -- or excuse me, 

13 where they were monitored, but where requests 

14 for such records had not been provided.

15 And so NIOSH correctly concluded 

16 that, in such instances, the corresponding 

17 reconstruction, organ doses, and derived PoC 

18 were potentially incorrect.

19 For Sub-task 2, this is the approach 

20 and methods for corrective action. Okay. 

21 There were three different steps here that were 

22 undertaken in order to identify the potential 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 claims.

2 First, they determined the total 

3 number of non-compensated claims for these 

4 facilities and, as of January 24th, 2007, there 

5 were 677 INLs, 87 Argonne-Wests, and 69 

6 Argonne-Easts submitted non-compensated claims 

7 for a total of 833.

8 Okay. The next was to review each 

9 case with respect to completion of the internal 

10 dosimetry status section and then based on 

11 information in the notations contained in the 

12 OCAS-INT-004, determine which of the 833 claims 

13 qualified for additional request.

14 Our comment as of the time of the 

15 review, we requested that NIOSH provide that 

16 information that would identify the 

17 subcategories of the 833 claims, which they did. 

18 And a cross-reference of the ID numbers by NIOSH 

19 revealed that some claimants had been employed 

20 at more than three sites, which reduced the total 

21 number of potential claims from 833 down to 789.

22 The initial responses to requests 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 for internal dosimetry data are then summarized 

2 in columns B and C of Appendices A, B, and C to 

3 this document, which really comprise the lion's 

4 share of the document. This is actually a 

5 fairly short review.

6 Section 4 on Page 8, this is Sub-task 

7 3, Section 2 of the PER identified a set of three 

8 criteria for identifying the claims for which an 

9 initial request for internal dose data contained 

10 the following notations.

11 First category would be, there were 

12 no internal dose records in the original 

13 response and along with or without a handwritten 

14 note stating no internal reportable dose.

15 A second was, there were no internal 

16 dose records in the original response and the 

17 OCAS-INT-004 was marked as internal dosimetry 

18 records not readily available or without a 

19 handwritten note stating no internal recordable 

20 dose.

21 And then category three, the INT-004 

22 contained no markings or notations and there are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 no internal dose records provided with the 

2 original response. And we have a little note 

3 here, the initial responses to requests for 

4 internal dosimetry data are summarized, once 

5 again, in columns B and C, and were used by NIOSH 

6 to select those cases where additional 

7 information was requested.

8 Okay. Using those criteria, this 

9 set of 833 was winnowed down. We identified a 

10 number of 223 cases from the 789 for which 

11 further information and clarification of 

12 internal exposure were requested. Responses 

13 for 142 cases contains notes stating the EE was 

14 either not monitored or that no internal 

15 exposure records could be found.

16 And these are summarized in columns 

17 D and E of Appendices A, B and C. Additional 

18 requests for internal dose data were, therefore, 

19 not generated for cases when this information 

20 was provided in the response because NIOSH 

21 concluded there was no need for a re-evaluation, 

22 which makes sense.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 In total, bottom-line, NIOSH 

2 identified 83 cases for which responses dictated 

3 the need for a re-evaluation of the employee's 

4 dose with the following representation. There 

5 were 62 from INL, 14 for Argonne-West, six from 

6 Argonne-East, and one with employment both at 

7 INL and Argonne-West.

8 So our review of the data found no 

9 inconsistencies or errors with the 

10 identification and selection of cases as 

11 specified in Section 2. And we also highlighted 

12 the 83 cases shown in Appendices A, B and C so 

13 that they're easily identifiable.

14 As far as Sub-task 4, which would be 

15 selecting cases, we independently assessed the 

16 current status of the 83 cases in the NOCTS 

17 database. Now, remember, this is back in May, 

18 so things may have changed a bit. The claim ID 

19 numbers are not identified in Appendices A, B and 

20 C of the current status.

21 The 83 cases as shown in Appendices 

22 D, E and F for INL, Argonne-West, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 Argonne-East, respectively. For illustration, 

2 if you want to go to Appendix D, you can see that 

3 it identifies the status of 63 cases. 

4 Thirty-eight of these have a completed revised 

5 dose reconstruction.

6 It has been adjudicated by Labor. 

7 Twelve have a completed revised DR, but without 

8 final DOL decision. And 13 are still awaiting 

9 completion of a revised DR. And so the 

10 selection of the DRs for audit by SC&A we feel 

11 would be limited to those, obviously, that have 

12 been adjudicated and we recommend selecting at 

13 least three INL cases, two Argonne-West cases, 

14 and one Argonne-East case, presumably, based on 

15 the relative proportions of the available cases.

16 And that's really where we stand on 

17 PER-17.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: And this is Hans, 

19 the numbers that he just cited under Section 5 

20 Sub-task 4, may have changed since we issued this 

21 report.

22 MR. STIVER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 DR. H. BEHLING: So, I guess, at 

2 this point there may have been more completed 

3 than were made available to me at the time that 

4 I reviewed this PER.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, thanks, Hans. We 

6 ought to keep that in mind that this is a snapshot 

7 in time, that things may have changed.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but it's pretty 

9 current.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

12 have a question. When you determined the 

13 adjudication status on these, did you look in the 

14 case file and find a letter from DOL?

15 MR. STIVER: I'll have to defer to 

16 Hans on that. He was the author of this.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Actually, I think 

18 somebody from NIOSH provided me with those 

19 numbers.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. So we can 

22 update if we need it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 MR. KATZ: John, my attention 

2 lapsed for a moment when you said the numbers of 

3 cases based on -- why would you choose multiple 

4 cases for the same --

5 MR. STIVER: I'd say that was my 

6 presumption was that it would have been based on 

7 the proportions of the three sites that were in 

8 the adjudicated bin. Is that correct, Hans? 

9 Is that why they were --

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. It was just 

11 a proportionality. And the fact is, there's 

12 really nothing constant. The additional 

13 information that was provided on this second 

14 attempt to retrieve internal exposure, 

15 obviously, varies for each of the cases. And so 

16 you can't just say one case represents all of 

17 them.

18 In fact, they may all differ and so, 

19 on the basis of proportionality and just be 

20 somewhat conscious of cause. I decided to use 

21 a proportionality thing because of the fact that 

22 INL had the largest number of cases that had to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 be reconstructed. It was just sufficient to say 

2 that we at least take three - 

3 MR. KATZ: I see.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: -- and then one 

5 from ANL-West, and ANL-East, just one, based on 

6 proportionality.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Hans.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Any comment? The 

9 proportion seems reasonable to me. That's not 

10 any other, really, mitigating factors. Any 

11 problem with suggesting six as has been 

12 suggested here?

13 MR. KATZ: So can DCAS randomly 

14 generate those cases from the pools that they 

15 have?

16 MR. STIVER: I would assume so. 

17 They provided the information to begin with.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I'll have to 

20 figure out how we did it. I mean, the most 

21 accurate way for us to know about the 

22 adjudication status of the case is to ask DOL 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 because sometimes we get the copy of the final 

2 determination letter and sometimes we don't.

3 So the most accurate way for us to 

4 do it is ask. And if we asked in May, I don't 

5 know that we would necessarily need to ask again. 

6 We probably have enough adjudication of the 

7 cases to select from.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, right. 

9 Absolutely.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So that would be the 

11 only thing I'd want to reassure myself is that 

12 we do, in fact, know these cases are adjudicated.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: So?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we can do that.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. And so they will 

17 send the cases to SC&A, kind of, just copy the 

18 Work Group with these transmittals of cases so 

19 the Work Group knows that SC&A has received their 

20 work fodder.

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Anything 

22 else on PER-17? The action is NIOSH's. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 They're going for six. Next item is PER-18, 

2 which I have done. I have sent notation to the 

3 LANL Work Group telling them that the action is 

4 theirs.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Did we get copied on 

6 that?

7 CHAIR MUNN: I sent it directly to 

8 your Chair.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Minus the Procedures 

10 Work Group.

11 CHAIR MUNN: I will send copies. I 

12 had thought I would send copies when I heard back 

13 from them, but I can do that.

14 MR. KATZ: I can testify that she 

15 sent it though, because she copied me.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I was never in 

17 doubt of that.

18 MR. KATZ: I know. I'm teasing.

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right. PER Number 

20 20, result of a single case review.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu, 

22 and I think I'm supposed to talk about this. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 This is our Blockson PER. And the findings at 

2 issue here are whether or not the selection of 

3 Class M of uranium is the appropriate selection. 

4 That's what we selected in the Site Profile for 

5 Blockson for the uranium exposures that occur in 

6 the uranium category.

7 And the finding is, this was U-308, 

8 that's Class S in certain references, including 

9 ICRP, in order to be, you know, since there's 

10 this uncertainty about solubility class, 

11 shouldn't you use S for claims where it would be 

12 most beneficial?

13 My initial response was, I don't 

14 know if anything's affected because all the 

15 respiratory tract cases are going to be getting 

16 paid through SEC anyway, and I think I reported 

17 previously that, after looking at the Blockson 

18 cases, there is, in fact, one case that, 

19 interestingly enough, has a respiratory tract 

20 that's a extrathoracic lymph node target organ, 

21 but is not an SEC cancer.

22 It's a Hodgkin's disease of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 supraclavicular lymph nodes. And in thinking 

2 about, you know, and discussing this back, I was 

3 chastised for even introducing the idea that 

4 nothing's affected, because even if there had 

5 been zero cases here, the issue might remain 

6 because it happens frequently, even in a 

7 situation of an SEC, the claimant is still alive 

8 and has an additional cancer, and they want 

9 medical coverage for the non-SEC cancer.

10 Those cases are returned to us for 

11 dose reconstruction and we reconstruct as much 

12 as we can reconstruct for all the cancers. So 

13 just because, you know, the analysis I did 

14 doesn't necessarily mean it would be no harm and 

15 no foul even if it were zero people.

16 So we're back to the original 

17 argument about the solubility class of the

18 uranium. Our position is, and has been all 

19 along, that the solubility class of the material 

20 made at Blockson was M.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And the reason we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 say that is that, it was a sodium diuranate that 

2 was produced by this process, that was then 

3 heated to be dried in an oven, but it was a sodium 

4 diuranate and it wasn't really U-308.

5 It's referred to in some AEC 

6 documents as U-308 being obtained from Blockson. 

7 And it's our conclusion from looking at 

8 documents from that era that the AEC routinely 

9 talked about the receipts from their suppliers 

10 in terms of U-308 equivalent.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's what they said.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be U-308 

13 contained in yellowcake, or in concentrates, or 

14 something like that. So the fact that AEC 

15 describes it as a U-308 does not mean that it was 

16 actually a chemical U-308, they were talking 

17 about the equivalency; the amount of the actual 

18 uranium they were getting.

19 So our position remains that this 

20 was a sodium diuranate product that was then 

21 dried. We have some references about sodium 

22 diuranate solubility and it's actually pretty 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 soluble. So we feel like we've addressed it 

2 appropriately. So that's the place where we 

3 are.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

5 Stiver. I was reading through the transcript on 

6 this discussion from the last time, and I looked 

7 into Blockson a little bit more, and I would tend 

8 to concur that the type M is reasonable.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. There's nothing 

10 in Blockson's history.

11 MR. STIVER: There's nothing that 

12 indicates you would have any insoluble material.

13 CHAIR MUNN: There's nothing in 

14 that process that would lead us to believe there 

15 was anything other than what's been 

16 characterized already. So does this clear the 

17 issue for us? Are we considering this to be 

18 PER-1, I mean, PER-20, Finding 1?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I forget which 

20 finding it is right now.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 1 meets 

22 NIOSH's science solubility class type M for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 uranium and its use.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's it.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's it.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's what we're 

5 talking about.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And there's a 

7 second finding that talks about the absorption 

8 fraction, which is the same question.

9 CHAIR MUNN: It's, again, urine 

10 excretion.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. It's just 

12 GI versus respiratory.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: So that would be the 

15 second one; Finding 2?

16 CHAIR MUNN: That would be -- this 

17 report applies to both Finding 1 and Finding 2. 

18 And hearing no objection, Steve, you may 

19 indicate in both cases that NIOSH reports 

20 there's no reason to consider this anything 

21 other than Type M. SC&A has agreed. And the 

22 Subcommittee has closed Findings 1 and 2, unless 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 I hear argument to the contrary.

2 Dick, have you returned yet?

3 (No response.)

4 CHAIR MUNN: And that will apply to

5 1 and 2, which means that we are complete with 

6 PER-20. Now then, while Steve is going to work 

7 on that --

8 MR. KATZ: Cases.

9 CHAIR MUNN: -- we can --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Start the cases?

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- start the fun part 

12 of the PER review. What?

13 MR. KATZ: Cases.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I was 

15 saying. We can now start the fun part of the PER 

16 reviews.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: That would be the 

18 cases.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see. That's the 

20 fun part. I see. Okay.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Now we get to 

22 pick all the new stuff we can play with.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 MR. HINNEFELD: No, Ted was talking 

2 about the cases --

3 MR. KATZ: Cases for this PER.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the audit cases 

5 for PER-20.

6 CHAIR MUNN: For PER-20.

7 COURT REPORTER: I didn't get that 

8 exchange. I'm sorry.

9 MR. KATZ: We trampled each other.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: It's probably just as 

12 well. You did get his saying cases, right?

13 COURT REPORTER: Right.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And so what he's 

15 calling for is the selection of cases from the 

16 Blockson site for these folks to take a look at.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Is there a 

18 recommendation of how many we need from this?

19 CHAIR MUNN: Shouldn't be a very 

20 large number. The site is small and all of the 

21 claims would be very similar. Very similar 

22 indeed. So it's just a question of having SC&A 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 do their review to assure that our cases that 

2 they have in front of them have been done in 

3 accordance with the --

4 MR. STIVER: Let me just take a look 

5 at PER-20 to see if we have actually made the 

6 recommendation or not.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 MR. STIVER: Let's see.

9 CHAIR MUNN: I've already closed 

10 mine.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. The table that 

12 I had sent out, that Ted sent out just a couple 

13 days ago, which is the complete update of PERs 

14 as of May, Table 1 has the status of all the PERs 

15 that have been assigned. And I believe we're on 

16 Page 6 for PER-20, and we did, in fact, recommend 

17 for the Subcommittee to select between three and 

18 five DRs to complete using the best estimate 

19 approach.

20 MR. KATZ: And what's the basis?

21 MR. STIVER: Let me go ahead and, 

22 kind of, give you a little bit better background 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 here. Okay. There are three different things 

2 here. Let me just read SC&A's finding here. 

3 And this is verbatim.

4 SC&A concurs with NIOSH's approach, 

5 assumptions of selection criteria, for 

6 reassessing claims affected by Revision 1 for 

7 the Blockson TBD. SC&A did, however, identify 

8 three potential issues that were not adequately 

9 addressed in the TBD: solubility, f1 uptake, 

10 which is the same thing which we just closed out,

11 and three, bounding radon estimates.

12 These issues have been raised and 

13 are being resolved under purview of the Blockson 

14 Work Group. So this, again, a bit of a snapshot 

15 in time.

16 March 2011, the Subcommittee 

17 meeting, I see we presented the findings. Yes. 

18 The Subcommittee agreed with SC&A's findings. 

19 The number of cases re-evaluated were 91. The 

20 total claims with PoC less than 50 percent, 32 

21 are compensated, and 59 were denied.

22 And at the time, a recommended 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 selection criteria, SC&A recommended the 59 

2 denied claims be classified based on the 

3 original approach used for dose reconstruction, 

4 i.e., maximize for best estimates, and the DR 

5 Subcommittee select three to five DRs completed 

6 using a best estimate approach.

7 I was not involved in this 

8 particular PER and I do not have the basis for 

9 that particular selection. I think it was 

10 probably a best guess of what would cover the 

11 waterfront.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So maybe we need 

13 to, rather than move forward, since we don't 

14 really know the basis for choosing three to five, 

15 maybe we can just --

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think we might 

17 want to back off on this.

18 MR. KATZ: -- get clarification on 

19 that first.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Who made the 

22 recommendation?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 MR. STIVER: I don't know. 

2 Probably John, who's not available.

3 MR. KATZ: It's okay though.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, I mean, we can 

5 certainly --

6 MR. KATZ: We can discuss this at 

7 the next meeting.

8 MR. STIVER: I think with some of 

9 these, actually, that's not the only PER that had 

10 outstanding case selection criteria.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MR. STIVER: But I think we 

13 definitely need to take another look at this 

14 because some of these are kind of old and we're 

15 dealing with a moving target here.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So who made the 

17 final numerical determination before? It's the 

18 basically the number that would go in that second 

19 to last column. Where it says, determined 

20 number of cases, who determined that?

21 MR. KATZ: The Subcommittee.

22 MR. STIVER: That would be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 Subcommittee.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Subcommittee?

3 MR. KATZ: After considering --

4 MR. STIVER: If you're considering 

5 all the --

6 MR. KATZ: There are suggestions 

7 about what basis there should be used in the 

8 report.

9 MR. STIVER: Right, if you consider 

10 all the latest.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right.

12 MR. STIVER: At this time, 

13 remember, the solubility issue is still in 

14 question.

15 MR. KATZ: Right. Exactly. 

16 That's why it's confusing, I think.

17 MR. STIVER: Right. We're 

18 basically just looking at radon estimates at 

19 this point.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And so what we're 

21 really and truly seeing here is, are we revising 

22 our previous stand with respect to -- and would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 the DR Subcommittee make this evaluation.

2 MR. KATZ: No. It's just that SC&A 

3 needs to figure out what is a reasonable basis 

4 for selecting a number. It may be that one case 

5 is enough to check it. It may be that you need 

6 -- we need a basis for making --

7 MR. STIVER: Yes. At this point I 

8 don't feel comfortable not knowing what the 

9 basis for this recommendation of three to five 

10 was.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And SC&A --

12 MR. STIVER: I need to go back and 

13 revisit that.

14 MR. KATZ: Right, so that's an 

15 action item for SC&A.

16 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A action.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm back.

19 MR. KATZ: Welcome.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Welcome back. 

21 Glad to have you, Dick.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, they may have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 already considered the types of cases and came 

2 up with the three to five, but we don't know that.

3 MR. STIVER: Exactly. I just need 

4 to follow up on that.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: We're just getting 

7 ready to look at future PER assignments. I 

8 tried to do it earlier and they wouldn't let me.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu now, am 

10 I clear that we don't have an action on PER-20 

11 case selection?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Correct.

13 MR. STIVER: Not until after we 

14 clarify our criteria here.

15 CHAIR MUNN: It's my understanding, 

16 first, we're going to hear from SC&A what they 

17 now believe we should be looking at. Dick, did 

18 you receive the material that was just sent out 

19 by Ted, which is, again, an update of the Program 

20 Evaluation Report reviews --

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: -- May 2012 status?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, I did.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's what we're 

3 going to be looking at now.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. I've got it.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, in an attempt to 

6 try to define what the next group of PERs are to 

7 be assigned to SC&A for review.

8 MR. STIVER: Wanda, if I could step 

9 in for just a second.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Please do.

11 MR. STIVER: I'd sent out an earlier 

12 document. I remember at the Santa Fe meeting, 

13 it was June 20th, we talked about a whole series 

14 of, you know, from TBDs, Technical Basis 

15 Documents, procedures, and then PERs.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Everyone has it.

17 MR. STIVER: And there was 

18 conditional authorization granted for, I 

19 believe, eight documents. And we decided we 

20 would go back and look at the PERs, kind of, 

21 separately one-by-one.

22 MR. KATZ: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 MR. STIVER: And so what I did is 

2 I've created an annotated version of that budget 

3 discussion document, which everybody's got, and 

4 I guess the first thing that I would like to do, 

5 if we could just go through and look at those, 

6 those eight documents, if we can go ahead and get 

7 those formally authorized, the ones that were 

8 tentatively authorized for the Board meeting, 

9 and then go look at the PERs --

10 MR. KATZ: Wait.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I thought those were 

12 done.

13 MR. KATZ: I'm confused. No. The 

14 Board -- for Site Profiles you mean?

15 MR. STIVER: No, not the Site 

16 Profiles. Remember, the Site Profiles were 

17 authorized, but there was a series of documents 

18 that were new documents and we've identified, I 

19 believe, five of those, and there were others 

20 that had been gone through two to three revisions 

21 since our review, and we identified, I believe, 

22 four from each of those two groups.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 And those, I can show you, where they 

2 can be found.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I thought we 

4 authorized those?

5 MR. STIVER: Looking through the 

6 transcript, I wasn't a 100 percent sure, and I 

7 looked through the transcript, and I believe Dr. 

8 Melius indicated that these should be formally 

9 assigned in the Procedures Subcommittee 

10 meeting.

11 MR. KATZ: What's the name of the 

12 document that we're --

13 MR. STIVER: It's Follow-up Budget 

14 Discussion for Full Board Meeting.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And what's the date 

18 on that?

19 MEMBER BEACH: June 15.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the most recent 

21 agenda item and report was sent by Ted on the 

22 23rd.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, that would be the 

2 annotated version.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So which one is the 

5 easiest to work from at this point?

6 MR. STIVER: I think the easiest to 

7 work from is the follow-up budget discussion. 

8 It has everything laid out in it. The only thing 

9 this doesn't have regarding PERs is the Table 1, 

10 which would have already been assigned in the 

11 status, which we have already determined is a 

12 little out of date.

13 MR. KATZ: So what page should we go 

14 to?

15 MR. STIVER: So let's go to --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's the document 

17 we're looking in?

18 MR. KATZ: It's called Follow-up 

19 Budget Discussion of Full Board Meeting.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it was sent on 

21 email?

22 MR. STIVER: Ted sent it on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 23rd, I believe.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: 23rd of?

3 MR. STIVER: Right here. No, 

4 that's 6/18.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that's the 

6 18th.

7 MR. STIVER: No, that's the old one.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's the old one. 

9 23rd?

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, 23rd is the July 

11 --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, July.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, July.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me get back here 

16 then. I thought you said it was sent in June.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, we're kind of 

18 mixing up our dates here.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Well, my date says 

20 June.

21 MR. STIVER: The actual document 

22 does. I didn't revise everything. All I did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 was annotate the June version.

2 CHAIR MUNN: The document date is 

3 June. The transmission date from Ted is the 

4 23rd of this month.

5 MR. STIVER: I actually have a hard 

6 copy if you just want to look at that.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'm 

8 wondering if you might have actually sent it to 

9 my -- this is my CDC mail. Maybe they didn't 

10 send it to the CDC mail.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it went to the CDC 

12 mail, Paul.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: For me?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. STIVER: He has the hard copy 

16 here.

17 CHAIR MUNN: On the 23rd, July 23rd.

18 MEMBER BEACH: What page did you 

19 want to start on?

20 MR. STIVER: Let's look at Table 3 

21 on Page 6. These are the documents already 

22 reviewed by SC&A.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 MR. MARSCHKE: These aren't PERs.

2 MR. STIVER: No, we're not in PERs 

3 at all yet. We're not getting to the PERs just 

4 yet.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Haven't gotten there.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. These are the 

7 documents that we have recently reviewed. I 

8 believe we've got some PROCs and OTIBs, a mixture 

9 of the two. This is previously reviewed 

10 documents with two to three revisions since SC&A 

11 review.

12 And basically, what we found in 

13 Table 3, we found five documents that we thought 

14 might merit review and during the discussions in 

15 Santa Fe, we received tentative approval, to be 

16 finalized today, for four of those.

17 MEMBER BEACH: What happened to

18 0066?

19 MR. STIVER: We decided the quality 

20 assurance records management really wasn't 

21 something that would merit a full review. So 

22 OTIB-0005, which is internal dosimetry organ, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 external dosimetry organ, and IREP model 

2 selection by ICD-9 code. That was tentatively 

3 authorized.

4 OTIB-20 was tentatively approved. 

5 It was the use of coworker dosimetry data for 

6 external dose assignment. PROC-31, Site 

7 Profile and Technical Basis Document 

8 development. And PROC-61, occupational 

9 medical x-ray dose reconstruction for DOE sites.

10 MR. KATZ: So Stu, you have this 

11 right in front of you. It could be useful to 

12 hear from DCAS as to the nature of the revisions 

13 as to whether -- so the Subcommittee can decide 

14 whether it's worthwhile to review them. Are you 

15 capable of speaking on these?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I am not very 

17 familiar with these revisions. I don't know if 

18 anyone on the phone is or not. First one is 

19 OTIB-5, which lists target organs and IREP 

20 models. I don't know what the last two 

21 revisions have done. I don't know if, Scott, do 

22 you know, or anybody?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 MR. SIEBERT: I mean, a bunch of 

2 different little things we've updated as the 

3 ICRP had stated organ ICD-9 codes. Basically, 

4 what are we looking for?

5 MR. KATZ: So, for example, that 

6 updates an ICD-9 -- and that's kind of trivial. 

7 I don't think that really warrants a --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Well the revision is 

9 --

10 MR. STIVER: Well, it provides 

11 guidance on the selection.

12 MEMBER BEACH: So it shows that 

13 there's two revisions to that since you reviewed 

14 it.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, since our first 

16 review, there have been two revisions.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Those should be 

18 fairly quick, shouldn't they?

19 MR. STIVER: It depends on the 

20 nature of the revisions. I guess that was one 

21 thing that was kind of outstanding. Basically, 

22 we felt that, most of these would merit review 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 to validate the selection criteria. You know, 

2 just assess the degree of implementation.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: One thing to do is, 

4 I mean, we don't have to make a decision just 

5 today, but we could, if the Subcommittee would 

6 like, go back and look at these four documents 

7 and see if we can maybe provide the Subcommittee 

8 with a summary of what the changes were.

9 I mean, usually if you go to the 

10 document itself, if you pull the document out --

11 MR. KATZ: It calls out --

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- it calls out what 

13 the changes were and if there's really no 

14 technical changes, if it's just changing, you 

15 know, the codes in a table, or something like 

16 that, to be consistent with the latest revision, 

17 then there's really no --

18 MR. KATZ: That's all I'm raising is 

19 that, it's good to understand what the changes 

20 are, because if they're trivial, we don't need 

21 to spend $8000 or anything on an SC&A review.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, some of these --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and probably 

2 in the table and --

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, in some of these 

4 we weren't able to locate the most recent 

5 revision. We attempted to do that, so that's 

6 the main reason why we're not seeing -- I went 

7 through and looked at the revisions. In some 

8 cases, it wasn't clear exactly what had been 

9 done. We have the latest case.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it seems like 

11 that would be a DCAS action, is to tell us what 

12 the revisions were and then go from there. I 

13 mean, why would you have to go look for the 

14 documents?

15 MR. STIVER: Well, I was doing that 

16 in preparation with this document just to try to 

17 have a better understanding of which of these 

18 might be, you know, worth expending resources.

19 MR. KATZ: Right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, since they chose 

21 it, you know, they'd have a reason to choose it. 

22 It'd be helpful to have such a summary, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 especially in light of the fact that, in the 

2 table itself, the document numbers only show for 

3 OTIB-5, the other three don't actually show, so 

4 that we'd have the title, but not the 

5 designation.

6 MR. STIVER: I sent you a revised 

7 version. That accidentally got stripped out.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it did get 

9 stripped out.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this something 

11 we could tell easily by going back into the main 

12 document? For example, on OTIB-0005, you've 

13 got some idea there as to -- some of those items, 

14 for example, were in abeyance awaiting revision 

15 or are these -- there'd be some new items in here 

16 --

17 MR. KATZ: You'll find that these 

18 are all --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I --

20 MR. STIVER: These are documents 

21 that we have reviewed that have undergone 

22 subsequent revisions and so they might be worth 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 looking at --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

3 MR. STIVER: -- just on that basis 

4 alone.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Some of the 

6 revisions may have resulted from others too.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: That's why we only 

8 identified those that had two or more revisions. 

9 We felt that if they did one revision, it was most 

10 likely, probably, in response to --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the findings. 

13 And so we've identified these five that had two 

14 or more revisions, but that's the level of 

15 research that we've done.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes. I mean, we've 

17 haven't gone to look and see whether those 

18 revisions were just trivial or if they were --

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Meaningful or, yes, 

20 trivial.

21 CHAIR MUNN: And with the OTIBs, 

22 it's easy for us to take a look on our Board page, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 the OTIBs, and their changes are listed. So 

2 it's easy to see the summary of the changes for 

3 the OTIBs. It's not so easy to pull up the PROCs 

4 and the other --

5 MEMBER BEACH: Well, the first one 

6 I brought up only shows Rev. 1, 0 or 1, so --

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. I've got OTIB-5 

8 Revision 4, which I just took off from the list 

9 of documents. Presumably, we've gone through 

10 three changes, so what we have, we currently have 

11 Rev. 4, three, so we must have looked at Rev. 2. 

12 And if you look at the publication record, which 

13 is on Page 2 of that document, Rev. 2 is 5/7/2004, 

14 and here is an external model correction for 

15 ICD-9 code change to medical review.

16 We go on to Page 15. External model 

17 correction. Okay. I'm not quite sure what all 

18 these --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: My comment was, 

20 usually, when a document is revised there's a 

21 control thing that tells what the revision is, 

22 and I think you have that here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 MR. STIVER: I have it here.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: He has that.

3 MEMBER BEACH: You're on Page 2 of 

4 40, right?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the next 

6 step that I was hoping to get to.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where is that?

8 MR. STIVER: This is OTIB-5, Rev. 4.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, it's in the 

10 beginning of that particular --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the 

12 tentative.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 MR. STIVER: An annotation of all 

15 the changes that were made.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So you can 

17 tell whether they're trivial or not.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's actually 

19 quite a few. We reviewed Revision 2, which was 

20 put out in 2005, and you can see, since then, 

21 there's been a page change, Rev. 3 and Rev. 4. 

22 The page change was probably fairly trivial.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: It just updates Table 

3 3.1. Let's see, Rev. 3 adds a discussion by 

4 ICD-9 reciting C9 and CM in background session 

5 as codes in Table 3.1 that cross-reference codes 

6 as clarification for skin cancer. Updates 

7 organ selection for ICD-9 codes 155 and 156. 

8 Adds clarification this OTIB is not applicable 

9 for x-ray procedures. Incorporates internal --

10 okay, that's a whole other matter.

11 So that's fairly substantive there.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Madam Chairman.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm thinking that 

15 what he's looking at now, I think SC&A could do 

16 that part fairly rapidly and make a 

17 determination if there's substantive changes, 

18 and that we, perhaps, could authorize them if 

19 they identify those to proceed. I mean, 

20 otherwise --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, we don't want 

22 to do that. That's painful.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is something 

2 I was hoping to get through before --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the changes 

4 seem to be well-identified.

5 CHAIR MUNN: I think they are.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: You can look at that 

7 and say, yes, we need to look at that. We don't 

8 need to look at that.

9 MR. STIVER: Right.

10 CHAIR MUNN: If we can get that 

11 summary next time, it would be most helpful.

12 MEMBER BEACH: On those four, 

13 right?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. STIVER: Actually, I could 

16 probably get this done in a day or so.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, because you 

18 have four documents with a page like that --

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, they're not very 

20 many documents.

21 MR. KATZ: And if there are 

22 substantive changes, then you just proceed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: We could identify 

2 what they are and then proceed.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, proceed. I mean, 

4 just send us a note to tell us what the results 

5 were in terms of what you're proceeding on.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

7 would offer to John, if you have trouble finding 

8 the latest versions of any of these, just let me 

9 know.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll make sure we 

12 put them someplace where you can get --

13 MR. STIVER: Yes. I had notes and 

14 commented on some of these that they didn't have 

15 the latest version. One would have been 

16 PROC-31. Actually, let's see what I have for 

17 PROC-61.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Is that the last one?

19 MR. STIVER: I had a little summary 

20 of what it does, but not what the latest updates 

21 were. I think I'm -- just a second.

22 MEMBER BEACH: It's 61.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 MR. STIVER: Sixty-one. Let's 

2 see. This is Number 4. Okay. So, no, I do not 

3 have revision updates in this. I thought I had 

4 put some of them in, but I know I did it for the 

5 PERs, but I did not do it for that first table. 

6 So, yes, I'll go back and make a determination 

7 of how substantive the changes were and then a 

8 recommendation, which, if we determine that they 

9 do, in fact, merit a review, would we --

10 MR. KATZ: Proceed.

11 MR. STIVER: -- need to go ahead and 

12 proceed with it? 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MR. STIVER: And just email the 

15 Subcommittee?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: So just send the 

19 Subcommittee a final little memo saying, these 

20 ones you're proceeding on because they have 

21 substantive changes.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay. All right. We 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 shall not have that problem with --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and then this 

3 should be changed to four instead of five, right? 

4 Because we're not going to do --

5 MR. STIVER: Actually, there is 

6 another one on the next page. Actually, there's 

7 four. There should be four. No, these are the 

8 five that we -- this is from the previous June 

9 version. These are just the five that we 

10 identified.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. Moving along. 

14 The next would be approved unreviewed documents. 

15 This is Table 5 on Page 9, I believe. And of 

16 these five documents that I identified, we felt 

17 were candidates for review. We received 

18 tentative approval for all except Report 45, 

19 which is the radium toggle switch, which we 

20 probably don't want to spend $8000 on.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No.

22 MR. STIVER: The first one is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 OTIB-55, the Technical Basis for Conversion of 

2 NCRP Report 38, Neutron Quality Factors, to ICRP 

3 Publication 60, Radiation Weighting Factors for 

4 respective IREP input. And we felt that one was 

5 definitely something we'd like to look at.

6 CHAIR MUNN: It is.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Next is 

8 OTIB-79, Guidance on Assigning Occupational 

9 X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered 

10 Offsite. We felt that --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That should be an 

12 easy one. It should say don't.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, what is it?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a question 

16 though --

17 MR. KATZ: This doesn't make sense.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- on OTIB-55, is 

19 that actually a procedure?

20 MR. STIVER: I think it's more of a 

21 technical basis, not really something a 

22 reconstructor would use, but sort of a basis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 document for a process.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I guess it's of 

3 interest --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, it's sort of 

5 like explaining why we would use ICRP-60 instead 

6 of ICRP something other.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, as I 

8 recall, doses for, I don't know if they're still 

9 being, but until recently, doses were recorded 

10 using neutron quality factors for NCRP-38.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And the ICRP-60 

13 weighting factor recommendations are different. 

14 And those documents didn't really publish 

15 weighting factors that align exactly with the 

16 IREP bins, Energy bins, for neutrons. And so 

17 this, essentially, describes the mathematics 

18 that --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: How we will apply 

20 these to the bins.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, got you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a 

2 conversion factor for this bin in IREP --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I got 

4 you.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you convert the 

6 recorded neutron dose to what we're going to use 

7 using this factor.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's a little 

10 note that I took from the TIB, but the purpose 

11 is to provide broader technical basis to convert 

12 from recorded neutron dose to dose equivalent 

13 using radiation weighting factors and the 

14 respective site Technical Basis Documents often 

15 present this medical basis.

16 So what we would want to do is take 

17 a look at, indeed, you know, how those 

18 conversions were made and then also at the 

19 implementation.

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 CHAIR MUNN: These were approved 

22 documents, not necessarily approved procedures.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, but I 

2 think your implementation here is the critical 

3 thing because I don't think we have to go through 

4 a justification of using the latest ICRP 

5 document from an old one, it has to do with how 

6 you're going to actually implement that into the 

7 system where the IREP was, sort of, binned based 

8 on the old system. That's how I understand 

9 that. That makes sense.

10 MR. STIVER: The way I saw this is, 

11 we just basically look at two aspects. We look 

12 at the technical correctness. Was it done in 

13 the right manner? And then, look at 

14 implementation.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Look at what?

16 MR. STIVER: Implementation.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Implementation, but 

18 are you really and truly seeing implementation 

19 here? Aren't these, for the most part, may not 

20 be true of OTIB-55, but aren't the other three 

21 pretty much -- well, they're the PROC pair, not 

22 a big one, but I'm --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 MEMBER BEACH: Reading 79 correct, 

2 there's a lot of different sites that this is 

3 used at.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, basically, you 

5 got Table 1 and Table 2. And Table 1 has sites 

6 with known occurrence of occupational x-rays at 

7 locations other than the covered facility. We 

8 wanted to look at those tables and make sure they 

9 were, indeed, correct.

10 And then Table 2 contains a list of 

11 covered facilities where it's known that 

12 occupational medical x-rays were taken onsite or 

13 at another covered facility from historic 

14 documentation. And Table 2 also contains sites 

15 that might have had medical x-rays taken at an 

16 offsite location. They can't be demonstrated 

17 with certainty.

18 So we'd want to look at those tables 

19 and look at the basis for those to make sure that 

20 they were, indeed, correct.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Correct in -- and I 

22 guess I'm not understanding. Correct in what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 way?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you talking 

3 about 0079?

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, 79.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if they're 

6 offsite, there was always a question of whether 

7 it applied. The doses weren't delivered, even 

8 if they're required, they weren't delivered at 

9 that facility.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. They're not 

11 counted if they're offsite.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And they're not 

13 counted.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, and this would 

15 probably be pretty quick if we want to look at 

16 the --

17 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this says 

18 onsite or at another covered facility for this 

19 particular document.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this is a 

21 sorting. It was the compilation of the 

22 research. For these covered facilities, where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 did the x-rays occur and how much evidence do we 

2 have that they occurred there? In some cases, 

3 this clearly occurred onsite. In some cases, 

4 there's clear indication that they occurred 

5 offsite. And then the other case, if you don't 

6 know --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then if you 

8 don't know, what you do --

9 MR. STIVER: And the other cases, 

10 we're not quite sure.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think it falls 

12 under the category.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. You're going to 

14 look at those ambiguities.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, we'd want to look 

16 at the ambiguities. We want to look at, you 

17 know, whether the tables are accurate. Then 

18 we'd want to look at the criteria for judging --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: The table's 

20 accurate in what sense?

21 MR. STIVER: In that those are, 

22 indeed, the correct facilities that measured 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 that. We'd want to look at the technical basis 

2 for that.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. You're not 

4 looking at x-ray doses, you're looking at --

5 MR. STIVER: That the correct 

6 facilities were identified.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: The correct 

8 facilities. Okay.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because the doses 

11 there are a different question.

12 MR. STIVER: Oh, that's a 

13 completely different issue.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: You have to 

15 remember. This table, when we generated this 

16 table, we looked at -- and we did just look at 

17 documents which have been approved and we have 

18 not, and I assume the Subcommittee has not, 

19 looked at any of these approved documents. So 

20 we just want to crack open these documents, see 

21 what's in them, kind of do the discussion that 

22 we're having around this table, and so that if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 somebody says, well, what about this document?

2 We can say, yes, we've looked at this 

3 document and it's a no-nevermind. So some of 

4 these things, you know, we're showing $8000 for 

5 each one of these reviews, but some of them, I 

6 think, will come in substantially below that.

7 MR. STIVER: Those are high-sided 

8 estimates.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. So some of 

10 them, we may just crack open the document and 

11 say, yes, but it's got a technical name, but 

12 there's really nothing in here that's going to 

13 affect much, and we might just close it up again.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, it would be like 

15 the three sets of procedure reviews that we did 

16 before. I mean, some of them, there's no 

17 findings. There's just a very brief discussion 

18 and that wouldn't take much time at all.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Then we would have, 

20 on the record, yes, the Subcommittee has looked 

21 at these documents and, you know, we have no 

22 problems with them. And it would be on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 record to that effect.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, at least at that 

3 point we would have a definitive judgment as to 

4 whether, A, we looked at them, and what the 

5 significance might be.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Given nothing but the 

7 titles, it's hard to see how this is something 

8 that we need to be spending much time and effort 

9 on, but as much as I hate to say this, never 

10 thought I would say this, I'd rather see the 

11 $8000 committed than to see us spend the rest of 

12 the afternoon trying to figure out why we're 

13 looking at these documents.

14 MR. STIVER: And remember, it might 

15 not be $8000.

16 MR. KATZ: It's your money.

17 MR. STIVER: It might be $200.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I agree. It's 

19 only money I intended to use for my dotage. Is 

20 there any objection to authorizing SC&A to 

21 proceed with their review of the four documents 

22 that have been identified in Table 5?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 MR. KATZ: We've talked about two of 

2 them, but what about the other two? Do you all 

3 have nothing to say about them?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I just pulled up 0044 

5 and just started glancing at it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: It's the only one 

7 which, from its title, would lend itself, in my 

8 mind, to the kind of review that we would 

9 anticipate from our --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it's a 2005 

11 document, no revisions of it --

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, is there no 

13 reason to revise it. Once you've established 

14 what you're going to do with an SEC, you've 

15 established it.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, we had never 

17 reviewed the guidance for the evaluation of 

18 these SEC submissions and so we felt that that 

19 would be --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think you'll find 

21 it, fairly, an administrative sort of thing.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it seems that most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 of these were.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: But Report 53 is, I 

3 think, something we really should do --

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, 53 is something 

5 that really got my attention.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: That is substantive 

7 and it is brand new.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Looks as though it's 

9 going --

10 MR. KATZ: But so 44, if it's 

11 administrative and not technical, we don't need 

12 SC&A to review it.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I suspect 

14 that. I don't know for sure. I mean, I trust 

15 them to look at it and say, is there anything 

16 here?

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, we look at it and 

18 determine if it's administrative. We would 

19 make a comment to that effect and it would be --

20 MR. KATZ: Then you don't need to 

21 review it.

22 MR. STIVER: Well, we would need a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 full review and we could say --

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think we'd 

4 have to do a full review.

5 MR. STIVER: No.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean, a full 

7 review, we have a checklist that we have to fill 

8 out and all this other stuff. If we just look 

9 at it and say, this is administrative, then we 

10 can put a little paragraph in our report, or 

11 whatever, saying that, you know, we have not done 

12 a full-blown review because we feel that this is 

13 an administrative document or whatever.

14 MR. STIVER: I think Steve and I are 

15 on the same page with this. That's exactly what 

16 I'm saying. If we see something that lends 

17 itself as more of an administrative document, 

18 that's all it would ake, just a paragraph, as a 

19 matter of fact.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this is a large 

21 document. I mean, it's 61 pages. It goes into 

22 examining area facility monitoring information. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 It spells out quite a few other documents within 

2 it.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which one are you --

4 MEMBER BEACH: This is the 0044.

5 MR. KATZ: It's the SEC.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, there it is. I 

7 see it.

8 MR. STIVER: You know, I pulled some 

9 information out of the introduction from each of 

10 these. This was actually a fairly big document.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think there's

12 no objection to having these four placed in 

13 SC&A's hands, is there?

14 MEMBER BEACH: No.

15 CHAIR MUNN: If I hear objections, 

16 speak now or forever hold your peace. Going, 

17 going, gone. You have those four. And now on 

18 to --

19 MR. STIVER: Table 6, these were 

20 proposed documents --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Almost issued, but not 

22 quite.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 MR. STIVER: -- that were selected 

2 to review once they're issued and so these are 

3 documents that have not yet been approved for 

4 release.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is sort of a 

6 heads up as to what's coming down the pike.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is what's 

8 coming down the pike.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: So there's nothing 

10 to authorize or anything like that.

11 MR. STIVER: No, when the time 

12 comes, then we can take a look at these.

13 CHAIR MUNN: This is a later.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, we just looked at 

15 that as a category of what was out there in the 

16 pipeline.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have anything 

18 else to say about those before we move into the 

19 PERs?

20 MR. STIVER: No.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Are we ready to address 

22 PERs, folks? If so, let's look at the PERs that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 you have outstanding that you have not been 

2 assigned and ask everyone -- Ted just recently 

3 sent you the segregated table, Table 1.

4 MR. STIVER: Actually, if we could 

5 look at the other document.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that the same as 

7 your Table 7?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Table 7?

9 MR. STIVER: The other document of 

10 Table 7, I went through and made some annotations 

11 on these. I added some more information.

12 MR. KATZ: Right.

13 MR. STIVER: I went through and 

14 looked at each of these PERs. I didn't look at 

15 them in excruciating detail, but I looked at them 

16 and made some preliminary recommendations as to 

17 whether we thought it would benefit from a review 

18 or we could defer a review.

19 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

20 MR. STIVER: And of those, there's 

21 15 that we felt might benefit from review and six 

22 others that either have outstanding issues that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 are being discussed in a Work Group or are pretty 

2 evident that they really don't need a review.

3 And the ones that are highlighted in 

4 green are those that we feel could be deferred. 

5 The ones highlighted in yellow, obviously, would 

6 be the others. And this is Table 7, starting on 

7 Page 12 of the follow-up budget discussion, the 

8 annotated version.

9 CHAIR MUNN: But we can't 

10 differentiate the colors here, so you'll have to 

11 --

12 MEMBER BEACH: Lighter 

13 highlighted, yellow; darker one is green.

14 MR. STIVER: I can indicate to you 

15 which ones --

16 MEMBER BEACH: That's how I could 

17 tell on mine.

18 MR. STIVER: And the ones that say, 

19 may benefit from an SC&A review.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: And now, before we get 

22 started, I'd like to clarify something. I know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 at the discussions in June there was, what 

2 appeared to me to be, some misunderstanding of 

3 what our selection criteria really represented, 

4 that being the number of cases re-evaluated was 

5 pretty clear, but the selection criteria, and 

6 the science involved and revising the DR.

7 Now, these ratings of low, medium 

8 and high have nothing to do with what we felt that 

9 this was an important PER. This was really just 

10 as a cost basis. This is for our determination 

11 of, what do we think it would cost doing it to 

12 prepare this document?

13 MEMBER BEACH: So you could have 

14 left it out for us.

15 MR. STIVER: I could have left it 

16 out. This is taken from an internal document 

17 and, you know, I probably could have spread that 

18 a little bit more.

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, I actually 

20 remember the background for that, so that's not 

21 how these came about originally, because, 

22 originally, we discussed this low, medium, high 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 was intended. The thinking that we had talking 

2 about this was that, for a highly complex change, 

3 that raises real implementation issues as there 

4 could be real mess-ups in implementation.

5 But medium, less so, and low, much 

6 less concern about implementation, so that was 

7 the thinking.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's a NIOSH 

9 cost, so not SC&A cost.

10 MR. KATZ: No, I'm not talking about 

11 costs. I'm just talking about this issue of 

12 complexity.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, complexity of 

14 -- oh, got you.

15 MR. KATZ: The complexity of the 

16 reason we differentiated that originally was for 

17 that, because we thought -- and we've had a PER 

18 where we don't even bother auditing cases 

19 because the actual implementation was so simple 

20 there was no point going and looking at cases, 

21 so that was actually -- it may relate to cost as 

22 well, but that was the rationale for this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 taxonomy.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay. I understand 

3 what you're saying. In this particular table, 

4 we put those in based on our cost estimate. You 

5 know, but clearly, complexity is going to impact 

6 the implementation.

7 MR. KATZ: How easy it is to 

8 implement the PER.

9 MR. STIVER: Right. Yes, I agree 

10 with you.

11 MR. KATZ: So we wanted to be 

12 certain to evaluate those PERs in terms of 

13 auditing cases where the implementation was 

14 complex.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: But if I extrapolate 

17 then from your current definition of selection 

18 criteria, then everything we have to look at here 

19 is all, and we have the numbers to prove it, are 

20 all in the low-cost area anyway. So we can 

21 remove that as a concern, right?

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, most of these are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 -- well, there's a few that are a little higher. 

2 I think there's some that have, and again, I'm 

3 just paging through here --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: The complexity 

5 seems to be level. 

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, the complexity is 

7 going to drive the cost up. Say PER-27, or 

8 excuse me, PER-30 from Savannah River site is a 

9 high, and that's $14,000 as our upper bound 

10 estimate on that. What it would cost to do that 

11 one.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

13 MR. STIVER: So they range between 

14 about 6 and 12, and remember, those are 

15 worst-case scenarios, and oftentimes, they 

16 won't even come close to that.

17 MR. KATZ: So again, I would just 

18 say, by the discussions we had previously on how 

19 we would go about this, the high complexity would 

20 be priorities, medium would be lower priorities, 

21 and low would be less. It's not a budget 

22 exercise. It's a -- what's most important to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 address.

2 MR. STIVER: Kathy, are you still 

3 online, Kathy Behling? I guess not. I guess my 

4 only concern there is that, whether she used the 

5 criteria in the same manner that you're 

6 indicating when she put this table together.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, yes, because 

8 they all say low. The science is the only one 

9 that differentiates between --

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, the selection 

11 criteria might be fairly straightforward.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I was 

14 saying.

15 MR. STIVER: But that has --

16 CHAIR MUNN: I thought I said.

17 MR. STIVER: -- nothing to do with, 

18 really, the impact of implementation 

19 necessarily. It could be pretty significant.

20 MEMBER BEACH: You did.

21 MR. STIVER: Anyway, if people are 

22 ready, we can start going through these. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 first one, this is on Page 12 of Table 7, this 

2 is PER-13. This is Revision 2. It relates to 

3 a Technical Basis Document which was produced in 

4 April of 2007.

5 This is the evaluation of the impact 

6 of changes to the isotopic ratios for the Paducah 

7 Gaseous Diffusion Plant. And it was determined 

8 that those ratios published in the TBD did not 

9 provide an accurate or bounding dose estimate.

10 Therefore, a revision was required 

11 and the revised ratios also affected 

12 environmental dose estimates and required a 

13 modification to a Technical Basis Document, 

14 19-4.

15 As you can see, there's about 734 

16 affected claims. Selection criteria, low, 

17 science involved, medium. Because these are 

18 sorted based on the number of cases we evaluated, 

19 this represents the most potentially affected 

20 claims.

21 And so we felt that this one would 

22 benefit from a review.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 MEMBER BEACH: So -- oh, I'm sorry.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: The exact number is 

3 -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

4 MEMBER BEACH: I was just going to 

5 say, I know we're reviewing this in our Work 

6 Group also. How does it correlate to this 

7 review in what we're doing?

8 MR. STIVER: It would be kind of 

9 analogous to the TIB-52 PER-14 in which you've 

10 got an ongoing review and you also have a PER 

11 because the changes could impact doses, so there 

12 may be the type of situation where you have to 

13 go back and re-evaluate cases because the doses 

14 are going up, and they trip a PoC threshold.

15 But then you still have the separate 

16 issue of, you know, debating the nuances of the 

17 TBD itself, which may or may not impact this part 

18 of --

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this number of 

21 cases re-evaluated, is this the actual number 

22 that the DOL has sent back; this 134?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, I believe that's 

2 what this comes from. These are the claims that 

3 would be -- it's kind of like what we've found 

4 in the other PER-77.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Yes.

6 MR. STIVER: Those are based on 

7 NIOSH's selection criteria.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I kind of agree with 

9 Josie here. I mean, this is a PER that is on a 

10 document that this Subcommittee doesn't really 

11 review. This is on a Site Profile document. 

12 This PER is associated with a Site Profile 

13 document, which the Work Group is reviewing 

14 those. This Subcommittee doesn't review them.

15 So why would this Subcommittee get 

16 involved in the PER review of that document? To 

17 me, it seems like this should go -- whoever is 

18 reviewing, you know, 19-5, TKBS-19-5, they 

19 should also be -- this PER should go along with 

20 that.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, answer me 

22 this then, are there situations in the past that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 I would not know myself, having not been involved 

2 in that that long, are there situations where the 

3 PERs are evaluated in Work Groups as opposed to 

4 the Procedures Subcommittee, or is that 

5 something that's done here in Procedures only?

6 CHAIR MUNN: It's been done here in 

7 Procedures only.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: PERs have only been 

9 done here.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And we 

11 don't review Site Profiles.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: But we don't do Site 

13 Profiles.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. STIVER: No, we don't. But 

16 see, the change to a Site Profile or any other 

17 document --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: May result in a PER.

19 MR. STIVER: -- results in a PER if 

20 they're potentially affecting the PoC. And so 

21 you're actually looking at two different angles 

22 for the same document.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 MR. HINNEFELD: If I could offer one 

2 thing. This is Stu. This was a specific change 

3 in the prescribed transuranic impurities at the 

4 diffusion plants and how to apply those. And 

5 so, you know, the PER could be evaluated to see 

6 did we make that change appropriately and 

7 address those cases appropriately.

8 The part of the review that I think 

9 we'll start to trip over the Gaseous Diffusion 

10 Plant Work Group would be, is the solution 

11 correct part of the PER review, which we've done 

12 on some of these things.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But we don't look at 

14 that here.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's come up 

16 on some. You know, if the technical resolution 

17 hasn't been subject to a review, then it's 

18 reviewed as part of this effort. In this case, 

19 ultimately, the technical solution here is in 

20 review in the Gaseous Diffusion Work Group, and 

21 so that part could be excluded.

22 If you choose to do it, the PER 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 evaluation could take, at face value, the 

2 transuranic numbers that were presented in the 

3 Site Profile change. You know, don't opine on 

4 those, just take those at face value, and say, 

5 given those, was the PER executed correctly? I 

6 mean, to me, it's certainly doable here.

7 MR. KATZ: It's doable. I would 

8 just suggest we don't, though, because the PER 

9 review starts with the methodology. I mean, 

10 normally, with the assumption that the 

11 methodology has been reviewed, and is all 

12 kosher, and gives that background. I would 

13 suggest we wait till that's done before we have 

14 a PER review.

15 I mean, why do the PER review --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in fact, I 

17 don't understand why you'd have a PER until 

18 you've answered the question.

19 MR. KATZ: Well, because they move 

20 ahead.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We did this change 

22 and this PER before the current discussion of a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 Site Profile.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I got you.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

4 MR. STIVER: And typically what we

5 will do is, if a basis document has not had a PER, 

6 which in this case, the Technical Basis 

7 Document, that hasn't been formally reviewed by 

8 SC&A, then we will do that review. But here's 

9 a situation, kind of like what we have in TIB-52, 

10 only in a grander scale --

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MR. STIVER: -- where you've got 

13 that review going on as we speak in a different 

14 venue.

15 MR. KATZ: Right.

16 MR. STIVER: And so, you know, I 

17 think Stu may be on the right track here and if 

18 you go ahead and move forward with this, let's 

19 just look at implementation. And if I don't 

20 start questioning --

21 MR. KATZ: Well, I don't see the 

22 point in doing that until the technical matter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 is resolved.

2 MR. STIVER: How far along is the 

3 technical review on it?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Well, we keep trying 

5 to schedule a meeting and we keep getting pushed 

6 back to, I believe, next year now, was the last 

7 one.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I agree with Ted.

9 MEMBER BEACH: That's for the 

10 Gaseous Diffusion.

11 CHAIR MUNN: There's no real 

12 pressure on us to select this right now. I can 

13 see no reason why we have to make that decision.

14 MEMBER BEACH: You recall the 

15 emails.

16 MR. KATZ: That's right.

17 CHAIR MUNN: There's no reason why 

18 we cannot postpone this until the issue has been 

19 resolved in Work Group, is there?

20 MR. STIVER: Okay.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, this is one we can 

22 do without.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question though, 

2 NIOSH, based on some determination, either 

3 internally or with the Work Group, has 

4 determined that they should go back and review 

5 some cases, is that correct?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is all 

7 done.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it's already 

9 done.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this has all 

11 been done.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Already been done. 

13 It would be a little bit like, I'm trying to think 

14 of a case, high-fired plutonium. When we go 

15 back and do a PER on it, we don't look at whether 

16 or not they should have considered high-fired 

17 plutonium versus, you know, what some other 

18 model -- we hadn't looked at that here, right?

19 CHAIR MUNN: No.

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 CHAIR MUNN: It's not our job.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now, suppose that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 in the discussions on high-fired plutonium, 

2 NIOSH had said, oh, let's just go ahead and do 

3 the PER process and review all these. And then 

4 before the whole issue is reviewed, the Work 

5 Group, well, that would be us, wouldn't it? 

6 It's overarching.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it would be us for 

8 that.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: But let's suppose 

10 you said --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Bad example.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- you know, we 

13 don't accept that super-fired theory and we're 

14 going to keep things as they are. If they've 

15 gone ahead and done it, it's too late anyway, 

16 right?

17 MR. STIVER: Well, that's why we 

18 have that Sub-task 2 in the PER review process 

19 where, you know, we will take a look at the basis 

20 and if it's been reviewed, then we summarize what 

21 that might have been, like we did with TIB-49.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 MR. STIVER: It's pretty easy to do 

2 when you're dealing with a TIB. When you're 

3 dealing with a Technical Basis Document that's 

4 under review, it's more nuanced. And I guess 

5 that's the question. We can certainly look at 

6 the selection criteria, evaluating the basis, 

7 but going in and looking at the Technical Basis 

8 Documents would be, you know, going after a 

9 moving target here.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, a TBD is not 

13 a procedure, per se.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, yes, but it's kind 

15 of an --

16 MR. STIVER: It's a basis document.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a basis for a 

18 procedure.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Let's hold PER in 

21 abeyance until we have looked at the others. If 

22 we go ahead and identify the others as being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 appropriate to move forward on, then we don't 

2 have a problem. SC&A can live without one 

3 assignment. What's our next one?

4 MR. STIVER: The next one is PER-31. 

5 This is Y-12, again, TBD revisions. This is 

6 their Technical Basis-14. It's been revised 

7 several times. Some changes would result in an 

8 SEC designation, while others would increase the 

9 dose for some previously completed DRs.

10 And let's see, this was produced in 

11 2007. It refers to Rev. 1, page change 2 of the 

12 -- okay, but this is the one that incorporated 

13 some substantial changes that increased doses. 

14 This is the equilibrium ratio of thorium-228 to 

15 232. Okay. So you're assuming less 

16 equilibrium. Okay. So you're going to have a 

17 higher thorium-232 content.

18 This would increase the dose 

19 estimate for claims containing thorium intakes. 

20 And then I have the concurrent version of the 

21 Rev. 3, which is dated March 2012, they both 

22 incorporate SEC designations and NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 determined that those revs do not result in 

2 increased doses and do not require a PER.

3 So the PER is still valid and there's 

4 nothing new that came along that might result in 

5 an additional PER. But this is one where it 

6 could be a big impact on dose. Let's see, 

7 there's almost 700 claims that would be 

8 involved. This is one, I don't believe is under 

9 review at this point. Y-12, I don't believe a 

10 Work Group has been appointed for Y-12 at this 

11 point.

12 MR. KATZ: No, it's not.

13 CHAIR MUNN: No. Does anyone have 

14 any objection to assigning this document to 

15 SC&A?

16 MEMBER BEACH: No.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Dick? If not, you're 

18 assigned PER-31.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. The next one is 

20 one with medium science involved. This is 

21 PER-21, Rocky Flats Plant dose reconstruction 

22 method modifications. Let's see, PER-21, dated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 September 2007, involved revisions to several 

2 TBDs and TIBs. Basically, Technical Basis 3 and 

3 4, medical and environmental did require PERs 

4 and that was really the basis for this.

5 So there's several different 

6 documents that have all been changed that are 

7 kind of resulting in this PER. It's not just one 

8 particular one. And so that's, I guess, why the 

9 science involved would be a little bit more 

10 complex; 590 potentially affected claims in this 

11 one. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: If anyone has any 

13 reason why they should not be assigned, speak 

14 now, please. You're assigned PER-21.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. Thank you. 

16 All right. PER-32, Nevada Test Site TBD 

17 revisions. Let's see, this is Technical Basis 

18 8. Again, several revisions. Some result with 

19 an SEC designation and there's increased dose. 

20 Okay. The PER was initiated or completed and 

21 put forth, published, December 2007.

22 It refers to Technical Basis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 Documents 4 through 6, revised in April 2010. 

2 Okay. There were two changes that could result 

3 in an increased dose. Okay. These are kind of 

4 small changes. First being the increase in the 

5 detection limit for the dosimeters used after 

6 1986. There could be a missed dose issue on 

7 that.

8 Second is an adjustment to missed 

9 and recorded dose from '60 to '65. Okay. This 

10 was using a different type of film pack, a DuPont 

11 559 with a lead filter. Okay. So this was kind 

12 of a small change in dose or PoC, but --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Large impact.

14 MR. STIVER: -- a large impact. A 

15 large number of claims affected. So, you know, 

16 we try not to look at the impact on PoC on these, 

17 but more, you know, just, is the science being 

18 done correctly? Certainly, you know, the Group 

19 might want to look at that in terms of, you know, 

20 how to best allocate resources.

21 CHAIR MUNN: These changes were 

22 very significant.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a question.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Part of the changes 

4 were to accommodate SEC designation. I'm 

5 trying to understand how that impacts here. Are 

6 we then talking about non-SEC cancer claims on 

7 the rest of it?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, well, when an 

9 SEC Class is designated --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for a site where 

12 we have a Site Profile --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that means that 

15 there's something that we thought, you know, 

16 that we can't --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. You could 

18 do that, you're really not doing now.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So we couldn't do 

20 that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So those 

22 are out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 MR. KATZ: So those changes 

2 themselves, obviously you don't need SC&A to 

3 review because it's just taking away something 

4 --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

6 MR. KATZ: -- that used to be a 

7 procedure.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the number of 

9 cases are still what's left outside the SEC then.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, this was after the 

11 SEC designation.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

13 MR. STIVER: No, you know what? 

14 Actually, they may not be.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm just trying to 

16 get a feel -- what?

17 MR. STIVER: They may not be because 

18 --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

20 MR. STIVER: -- remember, this PER 

21 was produced in December of 2007 and the changes 

22 to accommodate the SEC were done in April 2010. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 And so the revision, those two changes that I 

2 indicated, in July of 2007, which precipitated 

3 the PER, may be impacted to some extent by the 

4 SEC designation.

5 MR. KATZ: It may be impacted 

6 enormously; the SEC designation.

7 MR. STIVER: Now, this is external 

8 dose.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: There should be a 

10 smaller number of claims, because what'll happen 

11 is that, since there were what, 400 and some odd 

12 looked at by the PER, is that what that 481 number 

13 is?

14 MR. STIVER: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: That's how many the 

16 PER looked at? That was done in '07.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Before the addition 

19 of Nevada Test Site of 292, so it would be a great 

20 many of those cases, undoubtedly, went to the SEC 

21 and so it may be irrelevant anymore.

22 MR. STIVER: So you may need to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

1 review the number of claims on this.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Boy, it's going to 

3 be hard to find.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it would be 

5 good to clarify that. I mean, this could, in my 

6 mind, have dropped it way down.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, we may be looking 

8 at 10 or 15 cases for all we know.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I mean, quite 

10 willing that they go ahead and look at and figure 

11 out whether it's --

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think this one 

13 might be better to be deferred, given that --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, either that 

15 or tell us what the right thing -- I mean, unless 

16 the Chair wants to proceed in some way. I'm only 

17 raising a question. I don't object to them 

18 looking at it. I'm just thinking that it may be 

19 a little -- I don't think I fully understand 

20 what's going on here with the interplay of the 

21 SEC.

22 CHAIR MUNN: What is the desire of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

1 the Committee?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: If you would like to 

3 know how many cases are currently possibly, I 

4 think we can do that, because the two changes 

5 that John describes here would affect people who 

6 were after 1986 and people who worked from 1960 

7 to 1965.

8 So you've got those sets of people 

9 who are outside the SEC. And, I mean, I would 

10 think you would result in a somewhat quite a lot 

11 smaller number than 480.

12 MEMBER BEACH: But we don't pick 

13 these based on the number. At least, I wouldn't 

14 think we would. 

15 MR. KATZ: Well, it's a factor.

16 MR. STIVER: Well, it's going to be.

17 MEMBER BEACH: It's somewhat of a 

18 factor.

19 MR. STIVER: I mean, I'm trying to 

20 look at the resources. Not sure you're going to 

21 do all of them --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Honestly, a change 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

1 in the sensitivity of dosimeter, I mean, you're 

2 talking from 20 millirem to 40 millirem, maybe, 

3 for exchange.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, you can figure out 

5 the maximum number of exchanges that would be and 

6 would that be significant in terms of PoC?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't want to 

8 offer anymore work if we think we can defer this 

9 one and get enough work somewhere else. I don't 

10 want to offer to do this.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let's just keep 

12 this one in abeyance.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I know we don't 

14 base it on numbers, but suppose it was ten people 

15 affected, would you still want to do it right 

16 now?

17 MR. STIVER: Well, we'll get down to 

18 those towards the bottom of the grouping. There 

19 are some that are very few cases impacted.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do I hear defer?

21 MEMBER BEACH: I'm fine with 

22 deferring it and maybe getting an idea of what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

1 we're even looking at there.

2 MR. STIVER: Then, also, have DCAS 

3 look at the number currently affected --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, do you want us 

5 to do that or can we just wait on that?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we're deferring 

7 it, let's do other stuff.

8 MR. KATZ: We choose to defer it.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. We'll come back 

10 to it.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Deferred.

12 MR. STIVER: Deferred.

13 CHAIR MUNN: PER-11.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is the

15 K-25 TBD and TIB revisions. This PER was 

16 initiated in September 2007 and does, indeed, 

17 refer to the latest TBDs. In the latest 

18 issuance of OTIB-26 and OTIB-52, which we're so 

19 familiar with, several changes were required to 

20 the K-25 external dose TBD, which impacted our 

21 methodology.

22 And I have here, the revisions to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

1 external coworker model would affect any claim 

2 completed before May 21st, 2005, but there's 

3 kind of this narrow window here because the data 

4 was not available until November of 2004, so it's 

5 kind of a small number of cases would be 

6 impacted. Well, 432, at least on that.

7 OTIB-52, okay, we already know about 

8 OTIB-52. So it would impact the construction 

9 trade workers, obviously. So you have two 

10 different aspects of it. I guess the 

11 construction workers may be contributing most of 

12 that 432.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Do I hear any 

14 objections to assignment of this? Going once, 

15 going twice, you're assigned PER-11.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Here's a question. 

17 How many of these do you think we're going to 

18 assign? I was just wondering if we --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Probably 10; maybe 15.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I was just wondering 

21 if we couldn't decide if we had questions on some 

22 of them, to look at those, just to speed up the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

1 process a little.

2 CHAIR MUNN: However you'd like to 

3 do it, Josie. I don't care.

4 MEMBER BEACH: It's just a 

5 suggestion.

6 MR. STIVER: Well, I could suggest 

7 something here. It's starting to get down on 

8 Page 19 -- you're getting down to where you've 

9 got 15 and fewer affected claims. Granted, that 

10 may not be the best basis for determining whether 

11 to proceed. However, we got four of those we 

12 have recommended deferring, and so there's 

13 really only one in that group that we may pick.

14 Well, even now, if you go down here, 

15 let's just jump ahead for a second. This is 

16 PER-34 on Page 19, Harshaw Chemical. If you 

17 don't mind. If everybody's onboard for that we 

18 could just take a look at that real quick. And 

19 this is, again, a TBD revision.

20 MR. KATZ: Let me just suggest, I 

21 don't think it's trivial to consider these 

22 one-by-one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

1 MR. STIVER: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: So I would just suggest 

3 you get as far as you want to get. It'll be 

4 plenty, because we're already assigning, so I 

5 don't think you should just, sort of --

6 MR. STIVER: Jump ahead?

7 MR. KATZ: -- forget the 

8 consideration and just dump them onto them. I 

9 think you should just consider the ones as far 

10 as you want to consider and then move on in the 

11 agenda. We'll have another meeting and more can 

12 be assigned.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: They'll still be 

15 there.

16 MR. STIVER: Seems reasonable. 

17 Okay. So, let's see, we just left off on --

18 CHAIR MUNN: Can we go to PER-5?

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, PER-5, this was 

20 misinterpreted application of external dose 

21 factor for Hanford dose reconstruction.

22 MEMBER BEACH: We missed 11 though, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

1 just for --

2 CHAIR MUNN: We've assigned PER-11.

3 MR. STIVER: 11's been assigned.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I thought we 

5 didn't. Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. This PER was 

7 produced in June 2006. Thirty-one cases were 

8 identified that required re-evaluation. The 

9 maximum increase in external dose was nearly 5 

10 rem and the minimum was 80 millirem, so these 30 

11 cases could be a potential underestimates in the 

12 magnitude of now only about 5 rem, which, you 

13 know, it could impact a compensation decision, 

14 at least close to 50 percent.

15 So again, you got a small number of 

16 cases, but it looks like the impact could be 

17 significant.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any objection 

19 to assigning PER-5?

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, actually, 

21 this one, you can't even speak to, Wanda.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I know. I can't vote 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

1 on it.

2 MR. KATZ: Paul, you can ask Dick 

3 this question.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, okay, so if 

5 Josie and Richard --

6 MR. KATZ: Josie and Wanda are out.

7 MEMBER BEACH: No, I can't. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, you're both 

9 out.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, this is Hanford 

11 we're talking about here.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm a majority of 

13 one then.

14 CHAIR MUNN: No, you have --

15 MR. KATZ: So you have Dr. Lemen.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm still here.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, Dick, you got 

18 a coin there with you? I don't object. Let's 

19 go ahead. I'm willing to have them assign the 

20 Hanford.

21 MR. KATZ: I think that makes sense.

22 MR. STIVER: That might be a good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

1 one.

2 CHAIR MUNN: You're assigned PER-5.

3 MR. KATZ: PER-5.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's PER --

5 MEMBER LEMEN: That's okay with me. 

6 Josie, what's your vote.

7 MR. KATZ: No, Josie can't vote.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: She can't vote.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: Oh, she can't. Oh, 

10 who is it, just me and Paul?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MEMBER BEACH: It's all on your 

13 shoulders.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: All right, Paul.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll go with you. I 

17 agree.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're going to do 

19 it. All the blame's on our hands if it's --

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I know. It's a 

21 heavy burden.

22 MR. KATZ: Very good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

1 CHAIR MUNN: Can we move on to 

2 PER-16?

3 MR. STIVER: PER-16, this is one we 

4 considered deferring. This is the 

5 implementation of the IREP procedures for claims 

6 near 50 percent PoC. And this is the 30-run 

7 average using 10,000 replicates of the Monte 

8 Carlo code in order to get tighter statistics.

9 And let's see, a little summary 

10 here. Okay. It was for PoCs between 45 and 50 

11 percent were revised to increase statistical 

12 precision like I just said. The largest 

13 increase resulting from the change was 2.27 

14 percentage points and the largest decrease was 

15 2.71.

16 Basically, then these newly 

17 established PoC values remained below 50 percent 

18 for each claim. So we felt this was pretty 

19 well-established. The statistical precision 

20 was getting better. It didn't appear that this 

21 is a significant change. So we thought, you 

22 know, while it would interesting to look at that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

1 that maybe there's some others that seemed more 

2 useful.

3 MR. KATZ: It's just a mechanical 

4 process.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, it's a mechanical 

6 process.

7 MR. KATZ: They're pointless to 

8 review, I think.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes. So that's where 

10 we are on PER-16. PER-10, however, looks a 

11 little more interesting. This is the effect of 

12 the --

13 CHAIR MUNN: So what are we doing 

14 with PER-16? We are removing it --

15 MR. KATZ: We're not reviewing.

16 CHAIR MUNN: -- from the list, 

17 right?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, at least 

19 deferring it.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, either defer or 

21 remove. At this point we're just not going to 

22 --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let's make the 

2 decision whether or not we are going to remove 

3 it.

4 MR. STIVER: I would.

5 CHAIR MUNN: If it is of low 

6 consequence at this moment, then it's not going 

7 to likely increase in consequence as time goes 

8 on. Shall we keep this on the list active or 

9 shall we remove it? I would choose to remove it.

10 MR. STIVER: I would agree to remove 

11 it.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Remove it. Thank you.

13 MR. KATZ: Josie's shaking her 

14 head. She's pondering away.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Now, let's go to PER --

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: For the record.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I heard him shake his 

19 head yes.

20 MR. KATZ: I heard Dick shaking his 

21 head too.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

1 MR. STIVER: Okay. PER-10, this is 

2 the Rocky Flats neutron dose reconstruction 

3 project. This one was produced in April of 

4 2007. Additional neutron doses relating to the 

5 effort of the NDRP made it necessary to reassess 

6 completed Rocky Flats DRs. Eighty-eight of 

7 these require reevaluation. The science 

8 involved here would be a medium level.

9 Let's see, based on guidance for the 

10 use of Rocky Flats in ORAU-OTIB-50 2005. Okay, 

11 that was the basis for this PER. TIB-50 has been 

12 canceled. That information was moved into 

13 Technical Basis Document 6. Let's see, there's 

14 an October 2010 revision clarified guidance for 

15 the use of neutron dosimetry data.

16 It's not clear whether the -- there 

17 may have been inconsistent guidance from 2007 to 

18 2010 and it may result in additional 

19 questionable dose assessments.

20 CHAIR MUNN: On the other hand, 

21 there may not be.

22 MR. STIVER: There may not be.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

1 CHAIR MUNN: And so shall we spend 

2 $12,000 to find out?

3 MR. STIVER: Let's see, the cases 

4 may concern workers at the plutonium production 

5 facility from '52 to '69 when workers were 

6 monitored for neutrons using NTA film. The 

7 additional neutron dose data may cause an 

8 increase or decrease on a case-by-case basis and 

9 probably would cause a -- I think that's where 

10 the complex science comes from.

11 CHAIR MUNN: A great deal has been 

12 made of NTA film.

13 MR. KATZ: Does this relate at all 

14 to the SEC or no?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so. 

16 I remember that, when I was working in the 

17 program, we wanted to get the NDRP neutron doses 

18 from Rocky and they weren't done yet. And it was 

19 actually hung fire for us to get it. We thought 

20 we were going to get it quite a lot earlier than 

21 we did.

22 CHAIR MUNN: A long time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

1 MR. HINNEFELD: But we did get it 

2 eventually and so once we had those, those now 

3 became Rocky Flats reported exposures for these 

4 cases, as opposed to what they had told us 

5 earlier, so I'm pretty sure that's what prompted 

6 this PER.

7 MR. STIVER: Probably why.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I think so too. My 

9 preference would be to remove it. Does anyone 

10 object?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Remove it?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Based on?

13 CHAIR MUNN: You want to do it?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't care. I 

15 don't do any of these things.

16 CHAIR MUNN: I know you don't.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: If I'm not talking 

18 about this down here, I'm going to be talking 

19 about something else.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and we like to 

21 keep you busy.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: What would be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

1 basis for removing it?

2 CHAIR MUNN: A couple of bases.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: One, in my mind, was 

5 just given to us by the information about what 

6 followed up this particular PER. And the other 

7 is the relative cost against the number of cases 

8 that are being affected.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Is any of this going 

10 to be addressed in the current Work Group 

11 deliberations? Will any of this come to play?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the current 

13 work that we're involved in at Rocky is the SEC 

14 Evaluation Report relates to tritium exposure.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Tritium?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Now once we deliver 

18 that, I don't know whether this would come up or 

19 not.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, there's two 

21 things, though, for the Work Group. There's 

22 that, the SEC. They're gearing up, or not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

1 gearing up, but they'll be ready.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We intend to 

3 deliver that --

4 MR. KATZ: To address that, right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because then we 

6 have to start assessing --

7 MR. KATZ: Right. But the other 

8 thing the Rocky Flats --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- contractors and 

10 make sure that they know we're serious. And I 

11 suppose they're listening. We intend to 

12 present that in September.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. But the other 

14 thing that the Rocky Flats Work Group will be 

15 doing is looking at, now, the TBD issues that 

16 were left behind from SEC actions.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: So that is separate and 

19 I can't answer your question, Josie, as to 

20 whether --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

22 MR. KATZ: -- this relates to what's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309

1 in their, sort of, TBD issues that were remaining 

2 after all that SEC work. I don't know. I know 

3 there is a matrix that I believe Joe Fitzgerald, 

4 or someone, updated to prepare for that. I 

5 don't know what's on it.

6 MR. STIVER: I can take that as an 

7 action to work with Joe and see exactly where 

8 they stand.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think it's Joe. I 

10 could be wrong about that.

11 MEMBER BEACH: And for me, I'm okay 

12 with deferring this at this time, but I don't 

13 think we should remove it. That's just my 

14 thought.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, I agree too. I 

16 don't think -- first, just the fact that it's a 

17 limited number of cases should be really not a 

18 reason to remove anyway, particularly if it's an 

19 important complex change that we might worry 

20 about how it was done.

21 MEMBER BEACH: And I'm okay with 

22 just moving forward and assigning it as well. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

1 So I can do either of those.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I favor deferring 

4 for the time-being.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

6 MR. STIVER: Well, at least until we 

7 sort out what's going on in the Work Group.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Dick? Defer?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I would say defer. 

11 Hello?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: We got you.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Got it.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're good.

15 CHAIR MUNN: PER-10 is deferred. 

16 PER-27?

17 MR. STIVER: 27, 

18 Clarksville/Medina Site Profile issue. Some 

19 claims were completed using information 

20 developed prior to its issuance. Due to TBD 

21 changes during the comment resolution process, 

22 the dose is assigned to the pre-TBD claims or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

1 underestimated; approximately 65 of them.

2 And no additional information under 

3 here other than that there are no additional TBD 

4 revisions since the PER was initiated.

5 MR. KATZ: We probably have SECs.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We just added 

7 Classes to both these places.

8 MR. STIVER: Just add a Class. We 

9 got SEC issues now.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I think we should go 

11 back and automatically re-look at those cases 

12 that were done before --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we did. That's 

14 what the PER-27 did.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It closed it.

17 MR. STIVER: I guess the question 

18 then would be, how many of those would be 

19 candidates for the SEC?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem with 

21 assigning this?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we have the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

1 same issue on this. Are these the number of 

2 cases after the SEC has been --

3 MR. KATZ: No, this is prior.

4 MR. STIVER: This is October 2007.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It goes back to 

6 2007. That was probably the number of claims 

7 that fit this category that were done before the 

8 TBD was finalized. And I don't remember this 

9 issue at all, so I don't know what the issue was. 

10 It was an internal issue, you know, uranium 

11 internal issue. That's all off the table now 

12 anyway.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: There could be 

14 hardly any cases left here.

15 MR. KATZ: I would defer this one.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is not going 

17 to be a candidate for --

18 MEMBER BEACH: And could we look at 

19 this and see?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's worth figuring 

21 out what the SEC --

22 MR. STIVER: Defer with an update.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313

1 MR. KATZ: -- impact was.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, who's looking 

3 at it, SC&A or us?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I would say --

5 MR. STIVER: I would say you.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And what 

7 should we tell you about it? I mean, the number 

8 of cases that -- well, first of all, we could find 

9 out what the issue was.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: What we were doing 

12 before and then what the TBD made us do 

13 differently.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, and whether 

15 that's even an issue.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: So I can find out 

17 what that is.

18 MR. KATZ: And if the SEC takes it 

19 off the table completely, then of course, 

20 there's no value to this at all.

21 CHAIR MUNN: The recommendation is 

22 that this is to be deferred. Do you have any
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314

1 objection, Dick?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I hear none.

3 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

4 CHAIR MUNN: No objection.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

6 MR. KATZ: No objection.

7 CHAIR MUNN: PER-27 is deferred.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: No.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, we got you.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. We got it.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Next is PER-30.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is, again, 

14 a Savannah River site TBD revision. So this is 

15 also a dated one; December 2007. It addressed 

16 changes in Rev. 1 of Technical Basis Document 3. 

17 This would be the occupational medical. It's 

18 been revised three times. Some of these 

19 revisions would result in an increase in dose for 

20 previously completed DRs.

21 Again, 54 may be modified. It may 

22 not be applicable nowadays, given the SEC. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315

1 my recommendation would be deferral on that.

2 CHAIR MUNN: What is the 

3 Committee's desire?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Would that come with 

5 some action also to look at that to see where we 

6 stand?

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, in any case you're 

8 going to have to do the occupational medical 

9 doses for anybody who falls outside the SEC.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Exactly.

11 MR. STIVER: The only impact for the 

12 SEC would be on the number of claims. So if you 

13 want to reassess the number of claims.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Or just assign it 

15 because it needs to be done if it's been reviewed 

16 three times.

17 MR. STIVER: That would be a Board 

18 decision.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't have a 

21 feeling that these occupational medical doses 

22 rarely affect anybody's outcome, do they?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316

1 MR. STIVER: The only time they do 

2 is if --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: They'd have to be 

4 right out --

5 MR. STIVER: -- PFG is involved.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: What?

7 MR. STIVER: The only time that I've 

8 seen any kind of a substantial impact was when 

9 a PFG gets done.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, 

11 photofluorography was done.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: In this case, I'm not 

14 sure.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: And they were doing 

16 lumbar spines at Pantex?

17 MEMBER BEACH: This is Savannah 

18 River.

19 MR. STIVER: No, this is Savannah 

20 River.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, at which one? 

22 Oh, I'm looking at --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317

1 CHAIR MUNN: We're on PER-30.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think you're 

3 looking at 26. Yes, these are two similar --

4 MR. KATZ: Wait, so PER-30 is 

5 medical doses?

6 MR. STIVER: Yes. These are 

7 medical doses.

8 MR. KATZ: And the science is high?

9 MR. STIVER: I think there might be 

10 some complexities. Again, I didn't personally 

11 do that review.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this says the 

13 revisions would result in an increase of doses 

14 and could be --

15 MR. STIVER: I think in determining 

16 the magnitude of the doses for a given claimant 

17 might be what's causing the --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Do we know for sure 

19 this is only medical? I mean, Savannah River is 

20 that Site Profile where it's all one --

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it doesn't say 

22 it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318

1 MR. HINNEFELD: There are no 

2 individual --

3 MR. STIVER: Oh, you know, you're 

4 right. This is not necessarily related to --

5 okay. That's my mistake.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And if I'm not 

7 mistaken, there might be a PFG question at 

8 Savannah River because they told us for a long 

9 time they didn't do them, and we started finding 

10 the little films that are taken with a PFG for 

11 a camera that say, oh, gosh, you really were.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay, that changes 

13 everything then.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: So there might be a 

15 medical, you know, meaning non-PFG to PFG 

16 decision in there. There might be other 

17 decisions as well because it doesn't say it's 

18 specifically a medical.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, Savannah River 

21 shows an occupational medical dose section 

22 revision effective November 30, 2009. And TIB 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319

1 --

2 MR. KATZ: This is December 2007.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It doesn't show, 

5 prior to that, the original --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Lori has 

7 found the PER and here -- is that the first

8 bullet?

9 CHAIR MUNN: PER-30, it says --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes, here 

11 are the changes that this PER was written for. 

12 Rev. 0 required the urine samples be adjusted to 

13 a daily rate by assuming 1.4 liters per day 

14 standard rate; however, many samples reported 

15 this activity per 1.5 liters, that sounds like 

16 it would make it go down.

17 Revision 0 provided a table that 

18 contained errors in the pre-calculated missed 

19 intakes for plutonium exposure. The values 

20 that were miscalculated in Rev. 0 were corrected 

21 in Rev. 1. All the values for type M plutonium 

22 were too high in Rev. 0 and values for type S were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

1 too low.

2 Because of this, claims used type S 

3 values and Rev. 0 required a new dose estimate. 

4 Let's see, some dose estimates, including 

5 ambient external dose, change in hours from 2000 

6 to 2500. TBD included table of maximum 

7 site-wide ambient intakes of various isotopes. 

8 In that table, the heading for plutonium and 

9 uranium were transposed and corrected in 1.

10 Most dose estimates from -- that 

11 would be a computational tool. That tool 

12 contained the appropriate values. Some claims 

13 -- well, that seems to be kind of a small deal 

14 there.

15 CHAIR MUNN: There is some --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Some of the changes 

17 in these two revisions presented phased 

18 implementations and this approach TBD is issued 

19 with some sections either marked reserved or a 

20 specific issue is not covered in order to allow 

21 the completion of claims unaffected by that 

22 aspect of the dose reconstruction.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321

1 The revision is later issued with 

2 new information so that the affected claims can 

3 be completed. These types of modifications do 

4 not require an evaluation. In this case, this 

5 case was the photofluorography implementation 

6 in Rev. 2. It's quite a hodgepodge --

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's a whole --

8 MR. KATZ: It's a menu of different 

9 little things.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And it could go, 

11 some of them go up and some go down.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, depending on how 

13 you type this.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Getting into analogous 

15 arguments, you name it, there's been a revision 

16 for it.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So are we going to 

18 assign this one? We're not.

19 CHAIR MUNN: What is the desire of 

20 the Committee?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sounds to me like we 

22 may need to assign this one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322

1 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: You're assigned 

3 PER-30.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Next item, PER-26; 

6 Pantex.

7 MR. KATZ: Do you want to move on in 

8 your agenda?

9 MR. STIVER: How many we got so far?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got five in 

11 mine.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: It feels like we've 

13 done more than five.

14 MR. KATZ: We deferred a number.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. MARSCHKE: You did ten and we 

17 assigned five, deferred four, and we moved one; 

18 according to my book.

19 MR. KATZ: I'm just asking you, 

20 Wanda, you have a lot of other things on your 

21 agenda here.

22 CHAIR MUNN: They'll still be there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323

1 next time.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. So it's just a 

3 matter of what's more important for you to get 

4 to.

5 MR. KATZ: I'm fine to carry on. 

6 It's 3:30 right now.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER BEACH: It's break time.

9 MR. KATZ: It's break time.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We're on 

11 break.

12 MR. KATZ: And return at what time?

13 CHAIR MUNN: We'll return in 15 

14 minutes, that would make us --

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. 3:45?

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 3:45 is 

17 fine.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

20 went off the record at 3:32 p.m. and went back 

21 on the record at 3:45 p.m.)

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we're ready to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

1 get started again. Dick, are you back on the 

2 line?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think he said he 

4 may -- well, he didn't say he may.

5 MR. KATZ: He was going to return.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MR. STIVER: He said he might be 

8 late.

9 MEMBER BEACH: No, that was after 

10 lunch.

11 CHAIR MUNN: At the suggestion of 

12 the Members here in the room, we will stop 

13 working on the PERs, we'll pick those up the next 

14 time we meet, and we will move on to the two OTIBs 

15 we have listed for after lunch, move from those 

16 to the IGs, and if we have any time leftover, 

17 we'll do the carryover items.

18 Otherwise, we will carry over the 

19 carryovers. OTIB-37, you want to go for us, 

20 Lori?

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. Elyse, you 

22 want to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325

1 MS. THOMAS: Yes. This was one 

2 where, you know, there were findings. NIOSH had 

3 provided some responses back in 2009, but that 

4 was when the database, or I guess the Board 

5 Review System, was being designed, or worked on, 

6 and so those responses somehow never got entered 

7 into the Board Review System.

8 And I don't think -- they might have 

9 been distributed to the Subcommittee and SC&A, 

10 but it would have been as an attachment to an 

11 email, and I don't know that the Subcommittee has 

12 ever really examined those responses.

13 So just in combing through older 

14 items in the Board Review System, I came across 

15 them, and I went ahead and entered the responses 

16 with the original date.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Elyse. Do 

18 you want to tell us which findings you are 

19 speaking to; 2 and 4, correct?

20 MS. THOMAS: Yes, it's OTIB-37, 

21 Findings 2, 3, and 4. One of them, I'll have to 

22 call them up here on the Board Review System, has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326

1 a, you know, 2012 date because there was new 

2 information, but the other two responses have a 

3 2009 date, but again, I think the status is open, 

4 so I don't think the Subcommittee has addressed 

5 them at all.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I don't believe so, but 

7 we need to change the status, and if you will read 

8 them in order, the new increase that you have 

9 just placed, that you've -- well, 2 shows the 

10 November 9 date, but it now has a NIOSH comment. 

11 That's the first response.

12 MS. THOMAS: Yes, do you want me to 

13 read them?

14 CHAIR MUNN: If you would very 

15 quickly.

16 MS. THOMAS: Okay. Finding 1, 

17 well, first of all, the title of this one is, 

18 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah 

19 Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and Finding Number 1 

20 was closed.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MS. THOMAS: Finding 2, like I said, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327

1 we provided a response back in 2009. It just 

2 never got entered.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

4 MS. THOMAS: So you'll notice the 

5 status is still open and it says the response is, 

6 uranium enrichment was the purpose of the plant. 

7 The statement in the TBD was meant to indicate 

8 that bioassays began with plant startup.

9 MR. KATZ: This is OTIB-37.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, 37.

11 MS. THOMAS: Examining the numbers 

12 included in the coworker study, there were as 

13 many or more workers samples early in the plant's 

14 history than in later years.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. I 

16 appreciate that, Elyse. Do we need to await an 

17 SC&A response to that?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not ready to talk 

19 on --

20 MR. STIVER: I'm not ready on this 

21 either.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- 37.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328

1 CHAIR MUNN: Action item, SC&A, 

2 Finding 2, OTIB-37.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Can we change the 

4 status then to in progress?

5 CHAIR MUNN: Change status to in 

6 progress.

7 MR. KATZ: SC&A response needed. 

8 Okay.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Next item is Item 3, 

10 the finding was that the fitting of the data to 

11 a log normal distribution is statistically 

12 acceptable, but many times did not represent 

13 well the data at the high-end of the results. 

14 Significant discrepancies between the high real 

15 results and the ones generated by the curve.

16 And the response that we had was, in 

17 August of 2009, you see that response, and today 

18 there is a new response from NIOSH. Want to go 

19 ahead?

20 MS. THOMAS: Yes, I'll read the 

21 latest response with the 2012 date. OTIB-37 has 

22 been incorporated into ORAU-TKBS-0019-5, which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329

1 is the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

2 occupational internal dose TBD. The 95th 

3 percentiles are provided, including direction 

4 to the dose reconstructors about when to apply 

5 them.

6 The TBD will be issued in the near 

7 future.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Does SC&A want to 

9 postpone that and include that in their action 

10 item?

11 MR. STIVER: I would want to include 

12 it in the action item.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, yes, but the 

14 only thing is, we can't really do too much until 

15 the TBD has been issued.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. It's still in 

17 your court.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: The status should not 

20 change.

21 MR. STIVER: Well, wait a minute.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the status can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330

1 change to in progress.

2 MEMBER BEACH: In progress.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, well, that's 

4 right, because it's still open because it wasn't 

5 caught; the August one. It wasn't caught. And 

6 Finding 4, when NIOSH uses the 50th percentile 

7 dose distribution it should not be understood as 

8 the 50th percentile of the worker's intake 

9 rates.

10 They correspond to a model intake 

11 rate that will fit the chosen percentiles for 

12 some periods of time when the urine excretion 

13 rates will be underestimated and some periods of 

14 time when they will be overestimated.

15 This observation is not critical to 

16 the intake rate model, but instead, is an 

17 argument in favor of raising the percentile from 

18 which the intake should be derived. We have a 

19 response that was made in August of 2009, now 

20 just being incorporated for the first time. You 

21 want to read that?

22 MS. THOMAS: Okay. It says, this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331

1 finding isn't completely clear. It seems to be 

2 describing the variation of individual data 

3 points from the fitted line that describes the 

4 data. If it is saying that a larger percentile 

5 of the bioassay results should be used, from 

6 which a larger intake rate would be derived, the 

7 same variation of those individual points from 

8 the line that fits them will be present.

9 If this finding means to convey that 

10 the use of the full distribution intake, rather 

11 than a higher percentile, like the 95th, may not 

12 be claimant-favorable in every case, then NIOSH 

13 concurs and the document has been changed as 

14 noted in the response to Finding 3.

15 And that response was, essentially, 

16 drafted in 2009, which is why it has that date, 

17 but that last phrase, you know, was added to the 

18 response in 2012.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Right. All right. 

20 I'm assuming that also goes in the action item 

21 for SC&A.

22 MR. STIVER: That goes in the action 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332

1 item as well. I need to get a better 

2 understanding of what transpired and why.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. And again, 

4 status changes.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: In progress?

6 CHAIR MUNN: In progress.

7 MR. STIVER: In progress.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very much, 

9 folks. We appreciate that. Is there any other 

10 activity with respect to OTIB-37? Any comment 

11 that needs to be made? If not, let's move on to 

12 the next item on the agenda, which would be 

13 OTIB-54, the status of the new revision.

14 MS. THOMAS: Yes, this is Elyse 

15 again, and the OTIB-54, the revision to it, has 

16 not been issued and so NIOSH is waiting to 

17 respond to those SC&A comments until the 

18 revision is actually completed. So we're not 

19 there yet, but we're moving in that direction.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

21 expectation as to when it might be available? 

22 Any guesstimates?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333

1 MS. THOMAS: That, I'm not sure.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have a 

3 project schedule that is fluid.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, because we 

6 always have a newest hot issue to go work on, 

7 like, right now it's Rocky Flats and Los Alamos 

8 to make sure those are ready for September. So 

9 we make up these project schedules with the 

10 understanding that they're fluid.

11 This schedule, I hate to put a lot 

12 of stock in this, but it looks like this is about 

13 scheduled for somewhere in the October time 

14 frame now, with the caveat that that could 

15 change, and in fact, this may not even be the most 

16 up to date because of the resources that are 

17 being required elsewhere.

18 So you're talking about, you know, 

19 not in the next couple of weeks, but with any 

20 luck, by the end of the year.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Going to classify it as 

22 a carryover with probable completion before 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334

1 year-end.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Or probable by 

4 year-end. That's close enough.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it does not 

6 need to be on the agenda for the next meeting.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, if you would 

8 ask us, is it done?

9 MR. KATZ: Are you ready?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I'll have it as a 

12 placeholder.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a question, is 

14 that an ORAU OTIB?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is an ORAU --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Why am I not seeing 

18 it on the Board Review System? I see 51, 52, 57.

19 CHAIR MUNN: No, OTIB-54. We'll 

20 get it for you.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, aren't they 

22 normally in order in here?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335

1 CHAIR MUNN: No.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Not necessarily.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not necessarily.

4 CHAIR MUNN: No, they were grouped 

5 by when they were assigned.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that's right.

7 CHAIR MUNN: So if you put it in your 

8 search block, you'll pull it up.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's move 

11 on to the IGs. We'll start with IG-001.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: At the last meeting 

13 SC&A was asked to look at the revision, the 

14 recent revision, to IG-001 and see whether or not 

15 -- or see how many outstanding issues could be 

16 closed after that revision. And back in May, I 

17 sent to the Work Group, or to the Subcommittee, 

18 an email giving you the review -- Kathy Behling 

19 did that review, and I sent the Subcommittee a 

20 summary of that.

21 And I'm working desperately here now 

22 trying to get up to speed. And it looks like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336

1 what we did was, Kathy went through and she 

2 identified a number of the non-closed issues, 

3 which --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Which is still about a 

5 dozen or so as I recall.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Which could be 

7 closed, or some of them could be closed, and some 

8 of them, we're still going to be recommending 

9 that they still remain open. I'm just trying to 

10 get this set up here.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Did we get the system 

12 populated?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: The database has 

14 been populated. I'm just trying to figure out 

15 which ones we want to go to. We want to go to 

16 Issue Number 1, which, we're changing our 

17 recommendation from transferred to close. We 

18 want to go to Issue Number 8.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Shall we take them one 

20 at a time or do you want to run through --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I want to make some 

22 notes here, which one we want to go to.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: 18 was changed, 21 

3 was changed, 23 was changed. Okay. Now, I want 

4 to go to the -- okay. IG-001. Okay. In 

5 Finding Number 1, basically, the finding was 

6 covered. Finding 1 and Finding 19 are the same, 

7 so at this point, SC&A is recommending that 

8 Finding 1 be closed since it's a duplicate of 

9 Finding 19.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Committee Members, do 

11 you have your data --

12 MEMBER BEACH: So it remains open in 

13 19? It shows open. That's why I was --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: It shows it being 

15 open, yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: So we're closing 

17 Number 1 if you have no objection. Are you 

18 reading Number 1; the current finding? It's 

19 dated May.

20 MEMBER BEACH: May 7th?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And Number 19 is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

1 much more extensive than Number 1, so you're 

2 saying that Number 1 is like a subset of 19. 

3 They're not identical. There's a lot more stuff 

4 in 19.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what happened 

6 was, 19 -- what I think -- yes, you see, starting 

7 with Issue 19, or actually, starting with Issue 

8 Number 18, you're on Rev. 2 of IG-1. Findings 

9 Numbers 1 through 17 are on Rev. 1.

10 So what Kathy did was, she did both 

11 the reviews, and now she's doing this, you know, 

12 she did, also, this for today, she looked at the 

13 previous issues and Finding 19 is basically just 

14 saying a deficiency identified under Rev. 1 

15 review was a fragmented structure and illogical 

16 sequence of the information here in the finding 

17 resolution process.

18 NIOSH agreed with SC&A's comments, 

19 they were constructive, and future revisions 

20 would include changing the structure. However, 

21 no such modifications were introduced in Rev. 2 

22 of IG-1. So it's really kind of just relating 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

1 the two findings on structure of the document.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Let me interject here 

3 just a moment, Steve. IG-001-01 has no 

4 technical issue in it. It is deficiencies with 

5 procedure layout, include fragmented structure, 

6 excessive amount of useless data, and historic 

7 background in the main body, and critical data 

8 for dose reconstruction found in the appendices 

9 rather than the main body. That was the issue.

10 The issue is now considered a subset 

11 of Finding Number 19, the latter one being a 

12 finding on the later revision of this IG. Does 

13 anyone have any problem with closing Finding 1? 

14 Dick?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Hearing no objection, 

17 Steve, please note that Finding 1 has been 

18 accepted by the Subcommittee as closed.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a procedural 

20 question here, we're basically closing it 

21 because it's covered again in the other finding.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

1 other finding --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the other 

3 finding --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Is much more 

5 extensive.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- is number what; 

7 19?

8 CHAIR MUNN: 19.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that's not been 

10 closed.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No. That's still 

12 open.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me, when 

14 we say it's closed, we should reference the fact, 

15 in essence, the issue hasn't been closed.

16 CHAIR MUNN: No, this finding is 

17 closed and it's closed because, as the last --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because it's 

19 covered in the --

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- item states it's 

21 covered under Finding 19.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I guess I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341

1 didn't open the --

2 CHAIR MUNN: That wording appears 

3 in the text.

4 MEMBER BEACH: The last one, yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Item 1 is now --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got it. I see it. 

7 Okay.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I hadn't seen that 

10 last comment.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Item 1 is now closed.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. Good.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead, Steve, once 

14 you finish there. Didn't mean to provide you 

15 with a bow wave.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I think I got it. 

17 The Committee has determined that this finding 

18 is closed since the concerns raised by this 

19 finding are covered in Finding 19.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's good.

21 CHAIR MUNN: That satisfies Dr. 

22 Ziemer. And Dr. Ziemer being satisfied, we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

1 move on to Item 2.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Item 2 is 

3 basically a guidance in the -- again, in Kathy's 

4 review of Revision 3, we found that the guidance 

5 for film/TLD uncertainty in neutron source have 

6 not been addressed in Revision 3. Note, the 

7 revision or provision on finding and the lack of 

8 guidance on dosimetry and uncertainty in 

9 calculation of occupational medical doses, 

10 which was resolved in Rev. 2. The finding 

11 should remain in abeyance.

12 That's the latest SC&A position. 

13 The actual finding was guidance for deriving 

14 film and TLD dosimeter uncertainty neutron dose 

15 from source term and occupational medical dose 

16 using an x-ray machine. Operating parameters 

17 requires data and resources that are not 

18 available to the dose reconstructor.

19 And what Kathy is saying is that, for 

20 the film badge/TLD uncertainty and neutron 

21 source, that remains true.

22 MEMBER BEACH: So does that make it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343

1 a NIOSH action?

2 CHAIR MUNN: So a portion of it's 

3 still open. Is Rev. 3 out?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Rev. 3 is out.

5 CHAIR MUNN: So we have the third 

6 revision and still don't have this particular 

7 finding covered. It's in abeyance for now, so 

8 no change in that. It would appear to be a NIOSH 

9 action.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, can we 

12 talk about this one just for a little bit here.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, why not?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Is the issue here 

15 that it doesn't provide sufficient guidance for 

16 individual dose reconstructors? Because dose 

17 reconstructors don't use this document. I'm 

18 struggling with this one a little bit here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Is this an item that 

20 needs to be discussed?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it'll be for 

22 us to come back, I think, with additional 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

344

1 information if we want to discuss this.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: But to me, I mean, 

4 guidance for film and TLD uncertainty and --

5 well, I don't know about neutron source term. 

6 Normally, that information is all incorporated 

7 into some other document, which is then used to 

8 build the tool that the dose reconstructor uses.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, this is 

11 sort of like a principles, or concepts, sort of 

12 document rather than any specific guidance. 

13 You know, TBDs are supposed to take these things 

14 into consideration when they're written, but no 

15 one actually picks this thing up and utilizes it, 

16 other than, like, a TBD writer.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Stu, this is kind of 

18 what you say, back in 2005 --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- that it's not used 

22 by individual dose reconstructors. It's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

345

1 high-level document. But I think what the key 

2 thing, and the reason why it's in abeyance is, 

3 however, the comment is valuable feedback and 

4 future revisions of this document will be made 

5 in light of it.

6 Revisions that incorporate the 

7 comments will be made as time is available. I 

8 think it was that second to last sentence there 

9 saying that future revisions of the document 

10 will be made in light of it.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Well, the next 

13 comment says that it's a low-priority for 3, 

14 medium priority for 1 and 2. What does that 

15 mean?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, if you look, 

17 again, at the way the comment was written; Item 

18 1 was film and TLD dosimeter uncertainty; Item 

19 2 was neutron dose from source term; and Item 3 

20 was occupational medical dose. So they're 

21 saying that the medical dose has a low priority 

22 and the other two have a medium priority.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

346

1 CHAIR MUNN: May we make a response 

2 to that a NIOSH action --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: It looks like the --

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- to give you a chance 

5 to look at it?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- 2007 comment 

7 from SC&A has acknowledged some revisions; 

8 October 29th comment. The uncertainty 

9 calculation of occupational medical exposure 

10 has been modified. The neutron flux equation 

11 has been removed, the section describing 

12 assessing neutron dose from source term, and 

13 then it says the recommendation remains the 

14 same, so I'm a little confused by that.

15 It says all these things have been 

16 done, but what? Nothing's changed?

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, they're focused in 

18 on only one of those aspects and that is, the film 

19 and TLD uncertainty, and the neutron source term 

20 hasn't been addressed. The other things have 

21 dropped out, but guidance for film and TLD 

22 uncertainty and the neutron source term have not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

347

1 been addressed in Rev. 3.

2 The occupational medical dose and 

3 dosimeter uncertainty has dropped out.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: So SC&A did address 

5 those. Well, actually, probably Rev. 2 

6 addressed those.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they've been 

8 addressed.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: They've been 

10 addressed by Rev. 3.

11 MR. STIVER: That's acknowledged in 

12 Kathy's response here.

13 CHAIR MUNN: So we're asking NIOSH 

14 to take a look at this issue again and see where 

15 they stand on the film and TLD uncertainty, and 

16 the neutron source term. The status still 

17 remains in abeyance because it's still being 

18 worked and waiting for coverage somewhere or our 

19 closure of this item upon further information.

20 Okay. I don't want to move off of 

21 it unless you're happy.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, well, we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348

1 just going to have to read the original finding 

2 and kind of piece this back together --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to figure out 

5 what exactly is missing.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, what 

8 exactly have we not fixed? Because it's not 

9 clear.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess it's 

11 guidance for film versus TLD uncertainty.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it has 

13 something to do with the neutron source term. 

14 Apparently there's some comment about a neutron 

15 source term technique that we include in there 

16 that never got resolved.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: You may want to, 

18 also, I mean, look at way back to January 2005, 

19 you know, report. That was the first one.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the first one.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The very first one, 

22 because there'd be more information in that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

349

1 report than there is in the BRS.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, right. See, 

3 that's what I'm saying. I've got to go back and 

4 look at that first report --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Let me look at that 

6 first report.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then figure 

8 out which pieces of which are fixed and not.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Action on Finding 

10 Number 2; NIOSH; in abeyance; no change. The 

11 next one?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are 

13 already closed.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So the next one is --

16 CHAIR MUNN: We're down to 8.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- Number 8. And 

18 Kathy reviewed, and this is Kathy, not Hans, Rev. 

19 3 of IG-1 has included the use of more practice 

20 methods, such as employee neutron to dose photon 

21 ratios. SC&A recommends closing this finding.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Does the Committee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350

1 have any objection to closing this finding?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Close.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, you may 

4 identify -- Josie?

5 MEMBER BEACH: No.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection? 

7 Steve, you may indicate that the Subcommittee 

8 has accepted SC&A's recommendation and has 

9 closed Finding 8.

10 MEMBER BEACH: So isn't, like, IG-1 

11 slash 24 slash -- this says 33, some of them say 

12 35, I thought that was how many in total. The 

13 number changed on me. So is that something --

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, remember, we 

15 have this particular entry is covering two 

16 revisions now, actually, into the third 

17 revision.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, so there may have 

19 been more findings.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, what those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

351

1 numbers after the finding number are, they 

2 indicate the page in the January 17th, 2005 

3 report where you will find that discussion, or 

4 in the case of the findings which are on the 

5 second Rev., the page in the 2007 document, which 

6 were the findings.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And you closed 8. The 

9 next one that I see open is 12.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: 12 is in abeyance.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And the latest 

12 information we have from Kathy?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: There has been no 

14 modification introduced into Revision 3 of IG-1 

15 to either address the fact that the PA geometry 

16 dose conversion factors are in error and should 

17 not be used or recommend the use of a dosimetry 

18 location correction factor. Finding should 

19 remain in abeyance.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Another action for 

21 NIOSH it would appear. As long as you're 

22 looking at that whole thing anyway, might as well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

352

1 do them all, right? All right.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: 13 and 14, 15 are 

3 indicated as being closed. That leads to 16, 

4 Kathy's response, there has been no discussion 

5 added to Revision 3 of IG-1 that addresses 

6 environmental uncertainties. Finding should 

7 remain in abeyance.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 16? Action 

9 NIOSH?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, if you 

11 could see way back to the initial response of 

12 NIOSH back in 2005, OCAS will revise the 

13 uncertainty language in various sections so that 

14 it reflects the basis of the uncertainty 

15 approaches utilized in the program.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, NIOSH will take it 

17 as an action item. And that brings us to 17.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Revision 3 does not 

19 resolve the issue of consistency or address the 

20 need for professional judgement. What is that 

21 all talking about? The issue is, the finding 

22 was, guidance for the selection of uncertainty 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

353

1 distributions for total organ dose raises 

2 questions of consistency and requires 

3 professional judgement.

4 The initial OCAS response was, OCAS 

5 will revise the uncertainty language in various 

6 sections so that it reflects the basis of the 

7 uncertainty approaches utilized in the program. 

8 And I guess that was not done.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Can we add 17 to the 

10 action items for NIOSH to review? This brings 

11 us to an open item.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the 

13 beginning of the Rev. 2.

14 CHAIR MUNN: We're in Rev. 2 stuff.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: The comments that 

16 were initially made on Rev. 2. So these are all 

17 open because probably this is the first time 

18 we've discussed them here in the Subcommittee.

19 CHAIR MUNN: However, Kathy says 

20 Rev. 2 has cleaned this one up and recommends 

21 that the finding is closed. Any objection?

22 MEMBER BEACH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

354

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Without objection, 

3 Steve, you may say that the Subcommittee has 

4 accepted SC&A's recommendation. This finding 

5 is closed. I don't think we have to debate very 

6 much on Finding Number 19. We spoke to it 

7 earlier when we were talking about Finding 1.

8 And the recommendation from SC&A is 

9 that there's been no change in the structure and 

10 they recommend keeping it open. We've already 

11 said that.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want to keep 

13 it open or keep it in progress?

14 MEMBER BEACH: In progress.

15 CHAIR MUNN: In progress.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: That's Finding 19.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And that will be 

18 another NIOSH action with regard to IG-1. 

19 Number 20.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: 20.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Kathy says, the 

22 methodology for assessing neutron dose from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

355

1 source term has not changed in Rev. 3. SC&A's 

2 recommendation is to keep the finding open. I 

3 think she means active.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And it would, 

6 therefore, change its status to in progress, but 

7 it would be a NIOSH action. Any objection?

8 MEMBER BEACH: No.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Next finding is 

10 Finding Number 21. I'm going to read to you 

11 while Steve's busy typing. Many technical and 

12 site-specific documents have been published 

13 since the release of IG-1, Rev. 1; however, Rev. 

14 2 of IG-1 does not consistently direct the dose 

15 reconstructor to these technical documents.

16 And Kathy's comment is that, Rev. 3 

17 didn't include any wording that would direct the 

18 dose reconstructor, but it's nearly the same as 

19 Finding 22, so she's recommending closing it. 

20 Finding 22 says, IG-1 should, but does not, 

21 direct the dose reconstructor to technical and 

22 site-specific documentation where the DR can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

356

1 find more specific guidance.

2 Sounds like the same thing actually. 

3 Any objection to accepting SC&A's 

4 recommendation to close 21, as it's covered in 

5 22?

6 MEMBER BEACH: No.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection.

8 CHAIR MUNN: If not, Steve, on 21, 

9 you can say Subcommittee accepts SC&A's 

10 recommendation as the finding is covered in 

11 Finding 22.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question. Stu, 

13 can you remind us now, on these IG documents, and 

14 they're not used directly in dose 

15 reconstruction. They are guidance. Are they 

16 guidance for dose reconstructors?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they're sort 

18 of foundation documents for the writing of Site 

19 Profiles and whatever files from those, like, 

20 tools and things like that. These are some 

21 principles. Remember, IG-1 and --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

357

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- let's just say 

2 IG-2, IG-1 is like the first thing ever written 

3 when we didn't know how anything was going to 

4 work.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But see, 

6 they're asking that it direct the dose 

7 reconstructor to this technical document.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we should 

9 all remember that.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: If the dose 

11 reconstructors don't read this --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- what's the point 

14 of making that change?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't think 

16 we're going to. In fact, when we get to our 

17 response to these things that's, essentially, 

18 what we're going to say. I want to make sure I 

19 follow through this and see what's being talked 

20 about, but our response is going to say, any of 

21 these findings that have to do with, you know, 

22 a dose reconstructor confusion or insufficient 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

358

1 specificity to the dose reconstructor should go 

2 away because dose reconstructors don't read 

3 these things.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Don't read these.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Do they still use 

6 this document when they're writing the lower 

7 documents though?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, to be 

9 honest, I don't know who refers to this anymore. 

10 It's sort of a principles sort of thing.

11 CHAIR MUNN: It's a historic thing, 

12 yes.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But they're asking 

14 for this to tell the dose reconstructors --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: By now, when you've 

16 been doing this program for eight or ten years, 

17 you know, you don't have to refer back to this, 

18 you know what's being done, and what's accepted, 

19 and what's being done.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: See, I'm concerned 

22 about having to spend time revising a document 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

359

1 to tell something to dose reconstructors when 

2 they don't even use this.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but we will make 

4 that decision when we get NIOSH's response.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That's 

6 fine. I was concerned that we were tasking, not 

7 tasking, but suggesting suddenly to NIOSH that 

8 they do a lot of extra work for something that's 

9 superfluous.

10 CHAIR MUNN: No, we just want to 

11 close IG-1.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: We want to close it. 

13 Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: We want to get it to 

15 where it needs to be so that we don't have to be 

16 concerned with it too much anymore.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was sort of 

18 thinking maybe we could close it without going 

19 through that.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Good luck. No, I 

21 don't think so.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Still got to answer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

360

1 it.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we don't think 

3 that's the answer, we don't have to. I don't 

4 think we have to say that they have to respond 

5 to that statement. That's my humble opinion.

6 CHAIR MUNN: IG-22 needs to be --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Just to stir the 

8 pot, SC&A is your contractor and you can say, 

9 well, thank you, Mr. Contractor, but we're not 

10 going to convey these on, we're going to close 

11 them without conveying them on to denial.

12 MR. KATZ: I don't know how you 

13 record John Stiver's look in here. That was 

14 good. I like that.

15 (Laughter.)

16 CHAIR MUNN: We can show Item 22 as 

17 in progress.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Our contractor 

19 writes things that we don't convey on to the 

20 Board.

21 MEMBER BEACH: We're almost done.

22 MR. KATZ: You can request, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

361

1 Wanda's not biting.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I'm not biting. 

3 Sorry.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Now moving on to 23?

5 CHAIR MUNN: 23, yes.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Recommended 

7 closing.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, since 21 was 

9 closed because of 22, we have an action on 22, 

10 right?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you do.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: You are on my list and 

14 I'll go through the finding numbers with you when 

15 we're done here, that I have, to make sure we're 

16 on the same page. Kathy says, Rev. 3 does add 

17 working to clarify the evaluation of missed 

18 neutron data by recommending the use of 

19 site-specific neutron to photon dose ratios, and 

20 SC&A recommends closing the finding.

21 MR. STIVER: Which one are we on 

22 here?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

362

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: 23.

2 MR. STIVER: 23? Oh, okay.

3 CHAIR MUNN: 23. Any objection 

4 from the Subcommittee?

5 MEMBER BEACH: No.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's close it.

7 CHAIR MUNN: If not, Steve, please 

8 indicate on 23 that the Subcommittee accepts the 

9 recommendation of SC&A and has closed this 

10 finding.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So, Stu, is that the 

12 same with IG-003 and 005 as well? Are those, 

13 like, parent documents?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, see, I'm 

15 trying to remember which ones those are.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All IGs are.

17 MEMBER BEACH: All IGs are.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I know the 

19 implementation guidance, which one's 3?

20 MR. STIVER: 3 and 5, that's a 

21 separate issue. That had to do with the 

22 two-pager subject selection.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

363

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Let's finish up.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Let's not go there 

3 until we finish.

4 MR. STIVER: That's something 

5 different.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: 1's surrogate data.

7 MR. KATZ: 1 is surrogate data.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, 1 is surrogate 

9 data.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Let's finish up.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Let's don't go there 

12 until we finish with --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, 4 is surrogate data.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- IG-1. The last 

15 item that we have is Finding 24 and Finding 24, 

16 in the response from SC&A says, Rev. 3 does not 

17 cover correct PA geometries, address 

18 environmental uncertainty associated with 

19 dosimeters, provide more specific guidance for 

20 selection of uncertainty distributions. 

21 SC&A's recommendation is that the finding remain 

22 open.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

364

1 Again, we would interpret that to 

2 mean change the status to in progress. And

3 without argument, I hope, Finding 24 becomes the 

4 last of these items that will be NIOSH action 

5 upcoming. Is that acceptable to all?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Then, Steve, you may 

9 say as much on your screen. And --

10 MEMBER BEACH: So the last revision 

11 was in 2007 for IG-001, is that correct?

12 CHAIR MUNN: No.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Because that's what 

15 came up here.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that's a 

17 question that Lori and I were talking about at 

18 lunch time as to, when you click on the link to 

19 the document that was reviewed, which document 

20 do you want to be pulled up?

21 Do you want the document which the 

22 findings are associated with to be pulled up, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

365

1 this case that would be difficult because 

2 there's two different revisions of that document 

3 in which these findings are associated with, or 

4 do you want the most recent revision of the 

5 document to be pulled up?

6 MEMBER BEACH: I would prefer the 

7 most recent. That's just me.

8 CHAIR MUNN: But if we had the most 

9 recent, then we don't have the raw data from 

10 which the finding was derived.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: But we might have the 

12 resolution to the finding.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, can't we go to 

14 later revisions elsewhere? This also begs the 

15 question as to why we could not have more than 

16 one revision, if that's necessary, in our BRS.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess, from my 

18 point of view, it was very easy to say that the 

19 IT people could put multiple links in here; Rev. 

20 0, Rev.1, Rev. 2, Rev. 3, and link to multiple 

21 versions of this document. But again, that just 

22 complicates the, you know, programming of this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

366

1 thing.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Let's talk offline or 

3 have some email exchanges about whether or not 

4 this is a smart thing to do and how to address 

5 it so that we can easily have access to pulling 

6 up more than one revision.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we limited to 

8 one?

9 CHAIR MUNN: At this moment, so far 

10 as we know, we are, but we don't know.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a question 

12 for our programmers.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, right now, the 

15 thing, just basically, what you do is you put 

16 your cursor on the document name and so you'd 

17 have to redesign this somewhat.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, not if the 

19 document name was basically a file with all three 

20 documents or just have them all in there. The 

21 PDF size isn't limited, is it?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Let's don't try to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

367

1 solve it today. Lori, can you setup a 

2 teleconference with at least the three of us --

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, I can.

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- to try to at least 

5 identify some potential solution we could bring 

6 to the Subcommittee next time?

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, because the one 

10 I pulled up when I hit on that document was 2007 

11 Rev. 3. That's why I asked if that was the 

12 latest.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, it is.

14 MEMBER BEACH: So it is? Okay.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Rev. 3 or Rev. 2?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I had pulled up Rev. 

17 3.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Rev. 3 is linked.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So I think 

20 you're right, that's a good technical call, 

21 Wanda.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We'll do that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

368

1 And, Stu, here are action items from IG-1 

2 findings that I have listed on my list as action 

3 items for you; Findings 2, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 

4 22, and 24.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Exactly the ones I 

6 have.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: That's astounding.

9 CHAIR MUNN: It really is. Well, 

10 it's just great minds working in the same camp. 

11 At this juncture, we are going to discontinue our 

12 following agenda and we'll carry over any item 

13 that has not been covered. We need to talk very 

14 quickly about when our next meeting is going to 

15 be and how we can arrange that.

16 Obviously, since we had so many 

17 carryovers, we have a good agenda to start with, 

18 but we need some time to work on what we've got.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, there's 

20 not that much work involved with these; what's 

21 left on the agenda. Although 3 and 5 --

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we had a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

369

1 OTIB fun stuff. Maybe not.

2 MEMBER BEACH: What's happening 

3 with the two-pagers? Is everything out that 

4 needs to be reviewed?

5 CHAIR MUNN: No, everything is not 

6 out that needs to be reviewed.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Because when I went 

8 and looked through them I wasn't sure.

9 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's primarily my 

10 action. The big news is that the IT folks now 

11 have 20 of the completed reports and they are 

12 starting to put together a Web page. So you will 

13 be able to see that before long and you'll be 

14 hearing from me with respect to the three batches 

15 that we have not addressed.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, and Wanda owes me 

17 another 30, right?

18 CHAIR MUNN: I do. Yes. 

19 Actually, 32, I believe, in the batch.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. I like that. That 

21 sounds right.

22 CHAIR MUNN: But I owe you 15 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

370

1 in-between. I hate to wait that long, but we 

2 can't schedule anything else during this fiscal 

3 year, correct? 

4 MR. KATZ: Right.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And so that means we 

6 are into October and my calendar won't turn me 

7 loose until -- I could do the 22nd, I guess, of 

8 October.

9 MEMBER BEACH: That's a Monday?

10 CHAIR MUNN: 22nd or 23rd.

11 MEMBER BEACH: 22nd or 23rd?

12 CHAIR MUNN: How's everybody else 

13 looking? I assume we've lost Dick. Dick, are 

14 you still there?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I am still here. 

16 You've ignored me, but I'm still here.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, we're not trying to 

18 ignore you.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, how's the 

20 30th look for you?

21 MR. KATZ: I was.

22 CHAIR MUNN: The 30th would be okay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

371

1 for me. We're looking at calendars, Dick.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: I know.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Does the 23rd or 30th 

4 of October sound reasonable to you?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, October.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, the twenties, 

7 no, I'll be in Italy then.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, you poor babe. 

9 How about the 30th?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll still be there.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, you're just going 

12 to be there.

13 MR. KATZ: That's acceptable if you 

14 take me.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you can go.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, would it be 

18 possible? Could you arrange for the 

19 Subcommittee to meet in, what city are you going 

20 to be near?

21 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm going to Carpi. 

22 It's near Bologna.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

372

1 CHAIR MUNN: Can we fly in?

2 MR. KATZ: You can fly to Bologna.

3 MEMBER LEMEN: You can take the 

4 train from Milan to Bologna.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll be happy to have 

7 the meeting over there. I'll even arrange for 

8 a place to have it if you decide to do that.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I would like very 

10 much to be able to recommend that, but I don't 

11 think it's going to, if you'll excuse the pun, 

12 fly. So when are you going to be back? We'll 

13 have to decide whether to meet without you.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, actually, I 

15 will not be available until the first part of 

16 November. Most of my October is shot.

17 MR. KATZ: That's fine. Only the 

18 end of October would have worked anyway.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: But any time after 

20 the 1st of November I will be available. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: There's a Board call 

22 on the 5th.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

373

1 CHAIR MUNN: Boy, that's a long way 

2 out.

3 MR. KATZ: That's way out there.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's a long way out.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: We have our Board 

6 meeting on the 15th, right, of November?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, what about --

8 CHAIR MUNN: On the 15th? We have 

9 a teleconference call the 5th.

10 MR. KATZ: What about November 1st?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: That'll work for me.

12 CHAIR MUNN: It will?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Anybody have any 

16 problem with November 1?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

18 MEMBER BEACH: No.

19 CHAIR MUNN: November 1 it is.

20 MR. KATZ: Going, going, gone.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Does this mean 

22 you're adjourning your meeting now?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

374

1 CHAIR MUNN: It means that we are 

2 unless --

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I'd like to have one 

4 more, just thing, to let the Subcommittee know 

5 that, we made some good progress today. If you 

6 look at the screen, we have the status at this 

7 morning, and it shows we had 43 open, 40 in 

8 progress, 92 in abeyance, and 318 closed.

9 And if you look at the current 

10 status, it shows we have 25 open, 47 in progress, 

11 81 in abeyance, and 340 closed. So we jumped up 

12 from 318 to 340 closed issues today, so that's 

13 22.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, this is excellent 

15 progress, especially when we recognize how many 

16 open items we beat down today.

17 MR. KATZ: Of course, two of them 

18 were items we closed, then reopened, but I'm just 

19 joking.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Always the 

21 optimist.

22 MR. STIVER: Should we assign 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

375

1 partial credit to those then?

2 CHAIR MUNN: In any case, thank you.

3 MR. KATZ: False progress.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: You and Jim.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you all for the 

6 hard work that was necessary to get us to where 

7 we are now, even though we're still behind the 

8 curve. I'll try to get out notations to you, 

9 with respect to the two-pagers, in another 

10 couple of weeks, and we'll have a teleconference 

11 set up to identify what we need to do about the 

12 issue of multiple revisions appearing for us.

13 And everything else will carry over. 

14 Everyone have a --

15 MEMBER LEMEN: What's this 

16 teleconference you're talking about?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, we had had a 

18 question with respect to how we might be able to 

19 see more than one revision at a time when we're 

20 working with the Board Review System here. We 

21 wanted to be able to see when we've had multiple 

22 revisions of a procedure, and we have multiple 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

376

1 findings with respect to those various 

2 revisions, we could only pull up one of the 

3 revisions at a time and it was confusing because 

4 we couldn't see where all of the findings were 

5 related in the base document.

6 So we're going to have a small 

7 technical call just to try to identify what we 

8 want to do more than anything else and recommend 

9 it to you. You'll get an email about that one.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. Thank you.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Thank you. 

12 Anything else for the good of the order? Steve, 

13 thank you again for a yeoman's job and for 

14 letting us know that we've made progress. It's 

15 greatly appreciated.

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Lori, as well 

17 and everyone behind you guys as well.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, welcome to both 

19 Lori and Josie. We're glad to have you with us. 

20 You both do good work. Thanks a bunch and we'll 

21 see you later. We'll leave a light in the window 

22 for you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

377

1 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

2 was concluded at 4:42 p.m.)

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8