This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 

+ + + + +

SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT ISSUES WORKING GROUP

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

FEBRUARY 22, 2013

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., James Melius, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES MELIUS, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

PAUL ZIEMER, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

STUART HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JAMES LOCKEY, SC&A

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

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

Welcome and Roll Call ..................... 3

DCAS white paper: Review of Parameters

Associated with Defining Sufficient

Accuracy .................................. 6

DCAS white paper: Feasibility of

Thorium Dose Reconstruction ............... 9

Next Steps/March Board Session ........... 38

Adjourn
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

2 (11:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Why don't we get 

4 started here?

5 This is the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health, the Special 

7 Exposure Cohorts Issues Work Group. And let's 

8 do roll call.

9 We have a lot of sites potentially 

10 to be talked about today which makes it 

11 impractical to address conflict of interest 

12 specifically to Board Members and others. But 

13 everybody keep in mind what the conflicts are, 

14 and please don't speak to an issue on a site 

15 for which you have a conflict and I think 

16 that'll take care of things.

17 So let's go to roll call, 

18 beginning with the Chair.

19 (ROLL CALL.)

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. So just a couple 

21 of things in the agenda for this meeting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 that's posted on the NIOSH website under the 

2 Board's section under schedules, today's date, 

3 and with it there should be two papers from 

4 NIOSH DCAS related to today's call, one on 

5 sufficient accuracy generically and one on 

6 thorium dose reconstruction.

7 Anyone's on the line who's not 

8 speaking press *6 to mute your phone if you 

9 don't have a mute button. Press *6 again to 

10 come off of mute. Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

12 you. And welcome, everybody. I think it's 

13 still good morning for everybody on the phone.

14 The issue we're going to discuss 

15 today is really in follow-up to NIOSH's ten16 year review. And one of the issues in the 

17 ten-year review was to try to sort of develop 

18 a definition or parameters for what was meant 

19 by sufficient accuracy because that is 

20 something that has continually come up 

21 particularly in our reviews of Special 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 Exposure Cohorts at various sites, but there 

2 is also pretty central about how dose 

3 reconstruction is done, and essentially the 

4 entire DCAS program.

5 So NIOSH is working, I believe 

6 with ORAU, who has produced White Papers that 

7 we'll talk about in a second. It got to the 

8 Board -- what -- sometime in the last several 

9 weeks. And so Board Members had time to 

10 review them. We've not had any sort of formal 

11 technical review from SC&A, although we did 

12 ask them to sort of familiarize themselves 

13 with the two White Papers.

14 I think what we want to accomplish 

15 today is sort of hear a little bit more about 

16 where NIOSH thought they were -- or why they 

17 thought these papers might be helpful in 

18 looking at this issue and try to have some 

19 discussion of what do we think would be the 

20 best approach to address the issue of 

21 sufficient accuracy, and then finally, how do 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 we want to work with the other members of the 

2 Board on doing that.

3 So I think it would be helpful 

4 first if -- and I don't know who, Stu, from 

5 your group wants to talk -- at least a brief 

6 introduction on these two papers or what you 

7 saw them accomplishing and how you thought 

8 they might be helpful.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, okay. I'll 

10 speak very briefly about the general one --

11 the view of parameters associated with 

12 defining sufficient accuracy, and say that in 

13 response to the ten-year review item which 

14 talked about coming up with some sort of 

15 clarity about what does it mean to be 

16 sufficiently accurate, we've worked on that or 

17 thought about that for a while and kind of 

18 concluded that we didn't have really a better 

19 definition than we had back when we wrote the 

20 regulations a number of years ago -- the 

21 regulations for SEC. It's just very difficult 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 given the variety of situations that you run 

2 into in terms of exposure potentials and 

3 records availability. It's really difficult 

4 to come up with a nice definition.

5 But we thought what we could do 

6 would be to assemble, for lack of a better 

7 term, a sort of case law situation that sort 

8 of documents the decisions that have been made 

9 in the program so far and to try to be able to 

10 assemble from that, maybe, some sort of 

11 guidance for consistent application --

12 consistent decision-making -- as we proceed so 

13 that we have sort of at least a standard to 

14 shoot for.

15 The idea here was to have what is 

16 the standard you're shooting for in terms of 

17 sufficiently accurate. And lacking the 

18 ability to really provide a good definition 

19 for that, we thought sort of a careful look at 

20 decisions that have been made up to date and 

21 then so we have a guideline to continue to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 operate in accordance with those decisions. 

2 So that was the idea behind doing this.

3 And other than that, I don't 

4 expect I'll be saying much today. So other, 

5 more specific questions and information I 

6 think can be probably best answered by LaVon 

7 or maybe Jim.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So you're 

9 putting LaVon on the spot?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You bet. He 

11 knew coming in that he was.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that's 

13 right.

14 And specifically on that, we did 

15 look at the past year's worth of Secretary's 

16 determinations and designations for the 

17 parameters that drove either the feasibility 

18 or the denial of a class. And we tried to lay 

19 all of those out and see if we could come up 

20 with some items that were routinely seen and 

21 then feasibility determinations or some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 parameters that we could pull together.

2 And I think ultimately if you 

3 review the paper and looking at the paper, you 

4 find that really what we see is in an 

5 evaluation, you follow the hierarchy of dose 

6 reconstruction looking for information to 

7 determine whether dose reconstruction is 

8 feasible and not. And you work through those 

9 parameters. And what we found out is you just 

10 could not, because there's so many different 

11 factors in making that determination and so 

12 many different data points that come in, you 

13 can't define specific items that really drive 

14 the infeasibility. It's just a case-by-case 

15 basis. And that's why it makes it difficult 

16 to define, any further, sufficient accuracy.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What do you 

18 think was added by the thorium?

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, our thought 

20 was, geesh, we have designated so many classes 

21 because of our infeasibility to do thorium, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 and thorium has driven so many of these 

2 determinations and designations, we thought 

3 well, we've looked at this so much. Maybe we 

4 can just pull together specific criteria for 

5 thorium that can be used that could make our 

6 decision process quicker or more timely in 

7 future evaluations if we pull together and 

8 summarize these factors.

9 But I think ultimately in the end 

10 when the paper was finished, you'd come back 

11 to the issue. It's really case-dependent. 

12 There's a number of situations that are laid 

13 out in the thorium paper -- either 

14 infeasibility or denials of classes where 

15 we've determined it is feasible. And it's 

16 case by case. But you still follow the same 

17 hierarchy for dose reconstruction.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I'm glad 

19 you agree with me because I was a little 

20 frustrated by the papers because I'm not sure 

21 that -- you're right. You end up looking at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 just what are the facts at a particular site. 

2 And, you know, that doesn't necessarily help 

3 -- that doesn't at least appear to help the 

4 actual issue of how to evaluate the sufficient 

5 accuracy because if you compare the different 

6 sites, it really is dependent on what 

7 information is available at those sites and 

8 what the circumstances were for the use of 

9 thorium, what other materials were used and 

10 what was the nature of the monitoring at that 

11 site that make it difficult.

12 Any other Board Members have some 

13 general views of whatever or reflections?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have some 

15 comments that I'd like to insert at some point 

16 if this is an appropriate point.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think it is.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, first of 

19 all, I do like the concept of the case-law 

20 approach to this thing. I hadn't thought of 

21 that term but I think it describes an approach 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 pretty well.

2 And when I read in the two papers 

3 and then thought about it, I said to myself, 

4 what question are we really trying to answer 

5 or what is the end point going to look like. 

6 And it seemed to me that we're trying to say 

7 what are the characteristics of sufficient 

8 accuracy or what are the criteria that must be 

9 met to achieve it. And it seems to me that in 

10 the two papers we've gotten so far, although 

11 very simply descriptive, they have been able 

12 to identify some factors that might lead us to

13 a -- maybe a more concise conceptual 

14 framework, and it might even parallel what we 

15 did for surrogate data where we said, you 

16 know, it had some criteria to see if we've met 

17 those criteria.

18 And so what I'm thinking about is, 

19 if you ask the question what are the 

20 characteristics of sufficient accuracy and 

21 could ask that in the general sense -- and I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 think LaVon's paper has identified some of 

2 those characteristics, like you've shown that 

3 you've monitored most of the exposed 

4 workforce, or you have eliminated methods that 

5 resulted in implausibly high values -- things 

6 like that. You might be able to identify the 

7 characteristics of it.

8 And then you might also ask the 

9 same question for special cases. And insofar 

10 as thorium may have additional sort of 

11 characteristics, those could be identified as 

12 well.

13 So I'm thinking in terms of a kind 

14 of a framework that these two papers might 

15 represent a first step toward defining what 

16 that framework might look like and sort of ask 

17 ourselves moving forward are they tests for

18 sufficient accuracy that we can apply -- for 

19 sort of data analysis, as we go back and say 

20 have we met these tests? And I'm asking 

21 myself, can we do that for sufficient 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 accuracy. Are there methods that we can say, 

2 have we met them and how well have we met 

3 them? Or if we haven't, is there a way to 

4 meet them?

5 Those are kind of some thoughts 

6 that came to me to try to focus beyond the 

7 descriptive stuff. And that could frame out 

8 in terms of what they described as the case 

9 law. You use the cases as a background.

10 We have in essence made the 

11 decision based on whether we believe we have 

12 met similar laws of these criteria even though 

13 they may not be fully spelled out.

14 So, those are my initial comments.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I think I'm 

16 on the same track.

17 But Josie, do you have any?

18 MEMBER BEACH: No. This is Josie.

19 I agree with what you said, Jim, 

20 and also those ideas from Paul. Those sound 

21 like reasonable ideas. I don't have anything 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 else to add, though.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Let me 

3 try. Maybe it's an example. But one is a 

4 comment.

5 I think this is sort of a key 

6 concept because sufficient accuracy also goes 

7 to I think two other efforts that DCAS is 

8 involved in from your ten-year review. One is 

9 what is claimant-friendly and how do you make

10 that operational in this program. And 

11 secondly, another issue you're working on is 

12 the co-worker models.

13 And so to do that, develop 

14 parameters for co-worker models really comes 

15 back to very weak or sufficiently accurate 

16 dose estimates of that. So I think to some 

17 extent, even to address those issues, we have 

18 to sort of come to grips with sufficient 

19 accuracy.

20 But where I thought you were 

21 originally going to go with these papers, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 maybe it's just because I was thinking of some 

2 recent examples where the Board had reached 

3 various determinations on SEC evaluations was 

4 right now, yes, we do have -- so what's a 

5 plausible -- is it a plausible upper bound. 

6 And I think clearly if we're able to 

7 quantitate sufficient accuracy a way, or some 

8 parameters on it that bounding or the variance 

9 or whatever would be sort of part of that. 

10 Say something is accurate if it meets some 

11 certain parameters in terms of variance or 

12 bounding around what you believe to be the 

13 actual value. So I think that's sort of 

14 fundamental to the concept.

15 But if you look at how we've 

16 approached this, when there are circumstances 

17 where, so the absolute value of the exposure 

18 is relatively low. And let's say just in 

19 general for residual exposure periods at these 

20 sites. We tend to be able to accept a much 

21 more general upper bound. We're not trying to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 individualize exposures as much because we 

2 don't think that those exposures will make --

3 or is likely to make a significant 

4 contribution to the person's overall dose, and 

5 therefore their risk or Probability of 

6 Causation.

7 And in other circumstances where 

8 the absolute value of the exposure may be much 

9 higher, then I think we're much more concerned 

10 on how accurate these dose estimates may be 

11 whether it be from a co-worker model or from 

12 some other approach that they're using or how 

13 that is being applied to the population that's 

14 being evaluated. I guess the example that 

15 comes to my mind offhand is one of the Linde 

16 SECs where we had a fairly good set of 

17 monitoring data on some of the cleanup and 

18 renovation activities, but that only covered 

19 one part of the population. We had another 

20 large part of the population at that same 

21 facility at the same time that we had no 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 information on. And we couldn't tell who was 

2 who. In fact, the larger population -- the 

3 production population -- most likely had 

4 relatively low exposures unless they went into 

5 the contaminated buildings, particularly if 

6 they went in there during the renovation 

7 periods and active cleanup that was going on.

8 And in that case, the potential 

9 for exposure absolute value was fairly high, 

10 at least for the cleanup and renovation. And 

11 then we had another population where it was 

12 probably very low. I think the other 

13 population -- I saw in the production 

14 population, we consider as part of a residual 

15 period or relatively exposure and would have 

16 accepted a very general approach to 

17 reconstructing their exposure, where, for the 

18 people doing the cleanup and the renovation in 

19 the one building, we saw that they would have 

20 much higher exposure, we'd want much more 

21 accurate information or robust data on their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 exposures in order to be able to say their 

2 doses could be reconstructed with sufficient 

3 accuracy.

4 And you mix the two together and 

5 you really had sort of two different 

6 populations mixed together -- one with a low 

7 exposure, one with a probably higher exposure, 

8 and an inability to separate the two.

9 But it seems to me that if you 

10 look back at all of our decisions for a period 

11 of time -- and I think it also goes to our 

12 evaluation of dose reconstruction. If the 

13 absolute value of the exposure is relatively 

14 low, then we're willing to accept more 

15 variability in the dose if it's being 

16 calculated for an individual. And if the 

17 exposure's absolute values are higher, then 

18 we're looking for a more accurate dose 

19 reconstruction method. And then I think we're 

20 also wanting to take into account the 

21 variability of exposures within the population 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 that we're evaluating. So that's sort of a 

2 second parameter.

3 So it seems to me that going back 

4 to what Paul was saying that we could develop 

5 a set of guidelines, one of the things you'd 

6 look at is what's the absolute value of the 

7 exposures that you're looking at for this 

8 population trying to do dose reconstruction. 

9 That would be one thing to take into account. 

10 The second thing might be the variability of 

11 that exposure within the population that 

12 you're assigning those doses to.

13 And then there's probably some 

14 more. The hierarchy of monitoring, also an 

15 exposure assessment probably also fits into 

16 that.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, this is 

18 Ziemer. You're suggesting perhaps that even 

19 the concept itself may be somewhat different 

20 in terms of the exposure level. That is we 

21 consider sufficient at very low doses may look 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 different than what we think was sufficient at 

2 high doses.

3 Am I understanding that clearly?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct. Yes. 

5 We think about it in terms of we --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: We certainly 

7 actively assess those levels when we make 

8 decisions. Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I don't 

10 know if we can quantify it precisely. But I 

11 certainly --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. But it could 

13 be characterized, I think.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would think in 

16 terms of what the characteristics are. I'm 

17 not sure you put numbers with these things.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, no, I 

19 don't think you would. But you certainly do 

20 that because if the absolute exposure is 

21 relatively low, what percentile you apply to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 it -- is it 95th or 90th or whatever --

2 doesn't really make that much difference in 

3 terms of the actual effect on the exposure 

4 you're assigned or affect the Probability of 

5 Causation. Whereas a much higher exposure --

6 how you characterize that exposure in terms of 

7 95th percentile of whatever parameter you're 

8 using is going to make a very significant 

9 difference in terms of their estimated 

10 exposure, the Probability of Causation --

11 however you want to determine it.

12 And I think we've been operating 

13 that way for a while in terms of making our 

14 evaluation. I don't think we're always so 

15 consistent about it, but I think we've tended 

16 to be able to reach agreements on it.

17 Is that making sense to Stu or Jim 

18 or LaVon?

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it is. It 

20 does make sense to us. And I do agree with 

21 you that I think that we have been behaving 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23 1 that way.

2 And I think the paper hasn't 

3 specifically called that situation out. But I 

4 think that is good characteristics that could 

5 be added. I don't know if Stu or Jim will 

6 answer that.

7 DR. NETON: I agree with what 

8 you're saying. We've been behaving that way. 

9 I guess I need to think about how that tracks 

10 back to the rule and the definition of health 

11 endangerment.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think that 

13 part of the reason that we're at this 

14 difficulty is that we are at a level or 

15 quantification for health endangerment. So 

16 health endangerment doesn't help us get out of 

17 this or address the situation to any --

18 DR. NETON: I understand that. 

19 Without the definition --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But it's 

21 implicit in it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 DR. NETON: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's implicit in 

3 it. But we've never had a way of

4 operationalizing or whatever you want to call 

5 it or using health endangerment as a 

6 parameter. And when we have tried to do it 

7 with short-term exposures, we get tied up 

8 among ourselves pretty well on that and 

9 haven't been able to do that. And some of 

10 that is the nature of the regulation.

11 I think what I was saying was very 

12 compatible with the current regulation.

13 DR. NETON: I don't necessarily 

14 disagree. I just need to think about it. But 

15 --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I'm not 

17 trying to get you to agree or disagree. But I 

18 think it is -- what is a plausible upper 

19 bound. We all know we can upper-bound 

20 anything. So this always come out with sort 

21 of what's the plausibility of that. And then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 there's some other verbiage in the Act that 

2 puts a little different twist on that.

3 And I think bounding sort of makes 

4 sense because we know that we can't do an 

5 absolute accurate estimate of dose. And we're 

6 always estimating dose.

7 DR. NETON: I agree.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And you 

9 calculate all the factors. When you do dose, 

10 you essentially look at all those factors.

11 DR. NETON: Agreed.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Provide 

13 variabilities of the measurements that you're 

14 using. So I think that's fine.

15 I think the question is, does it 

16 improve our ability to make sort of consistent 

17 and fair decisions.

18 DR. NETON: Right. I think what 

19 we're really saying is it's easier to define a 

20 plausible upper bound as the exposures get 

21 lower and lower.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: You're not getting 

3 into the realm of ridiculous levels of 

4 exposure. You're just saying well, it's low 

5 and it's certainly no lower -- it could be 

6 this low and maybe this high. When you get in 

7 the very high-end exposures, that's when it 

8 doesn't pass the laugh test, so to speak.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: So I think we can work 

11 with this.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And in the 

13 two White Papers, I think it's captured in 

14 some of the examples in there.

15 DR. NETON: Yes, it is.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I think it 

17 actually comes up all the time. And we may 

18 have verbalized it more recently but it's 

19 always been part of how we've approached 

20 things. It tends to get lost though because a 

21 lot of them are the same. A lot of it comes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 to what are the circumstances at a particular 

2 site for all the various exposures we're 

3 looking at.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Well, Jim, this is 

5 Josie.

6 I might be totally off here. But 

7 one thing that comes to mind is we make a lot 

8 of judgments on professional judgment. And I 

9 just wonder how that fits in, or if it doesn't 

10 at all.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think 

12 it's sort of the same thing. If your 

13 professional judgment is about -- let's call 

14 it low dose -- issue, then you've got more 

15 leeway in making that. It's less concern. If 

16 it's about a very high-dose situation, then I 

17 think you'd want to be more careful in your 

18 professional judgment.

19 Now again, professional judgment -

20 - if the dose reconstructors are doing it, it 

21 also takes in a lot of other factual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 information -- what they know, where the 

2 practice is, how things are done -- things 

3 that may not be necessarily captured in all 

4 the PoCs and so forth. I mean, you can't get 

5 guidance on every absolute detail.

6 MEMBER BEACH: No, I guess I look 

7 at it as more of a consistency. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And how do 

9 we make it consistent? And you make it 

10 consistent I think if you focus on where it's 

11 most important to have consistency.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think 

13 Josie's right. Professional judgment will 

14 always be part of it in any regard. This kind 

15 of a concept -- sufficient accuracy -- is 

16 never going to be a very sort of a precise, 

17 like a number, that if you achieve this number 

18 or something like that.

19 But this is going to always 

20 require some professional judgment. I think 

21 that you're right that what we're looking for, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 Josie, is consistency in how we go about 

2 making that decision. And I think doing this, 

3 not only having -- there is a pretty good 

4 definition in the regs. I have looked at it 

5 several times again in the last couple weeks. 

6 And I think the regulation is fine. It's how 

7 we apply it and do we apply it consistently.

8 And in fact, can we depict 

9 something that is in place to -- personally, I 

10 like the idea of having sort of a set of 

11 criteria that we can say this is how we go 

12 about it. It's still going to be a judgment. 

13 But this is how we go about reaching our 

14 judgments on this and these are the parameters 

15 that we look at.

16 And I think we're making a good 

17 first step here with these papers to build on, 

18 and maybe NIOSH can go back and develop this 

19 further. SC&A can help us with some of these 

20 ideas as well. But -- anyway.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: SC&A, you've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 been quiet, so we'll give you an opportunity 

2 to weigh in, if you'd like.

3 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver.

4 I think you guys are right on the 

5 money.

6 The kinds of decisions that are 

7 made have a larger impact, getting the 

8 compensation decision right. That will the 

9 biggest impact on the PoC action is what are 

10 the more refined types of the determination's 

11 going to be made.

12 From our standpoint, when we do 

13 SEC Evaluation Reports, the two things that 

14 always come up, the decisions seem to turn on 

15 the issues of the completeness and adequacy of 

16 the data set for the particular site -- the 

17 particular exposures that are there. In terms 

18 of adequacy, it's really not so much the

19 amount of data that's available but does it 

20 really provide a meaningful interpretation of 

21 what the actual exposures were.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 And an example that comes to mind 

2 for that is this recent determination for 

3 Fernald for the thorium. At first blush, it 

4 looks like you've got a lot of data --

5 thousands of data points for the material of 

6 interest -- which I'm looking into the basis 

7 for that. We found that it really didn't tell 

8 us anything about the actual exposures.

9 And so there's that aspect, and 

10 there's also the completeness. There's kind 

11 of a three-dimensional array of whether all 

12 the job types and time periods and locations 

13 can be adequately covered, given the fact that 

14 you have adequate data.

15 So in my mind, that's how we 

16 approach it. Now, it's more of the I guess 

17 the yeoman's aspect as opposed to looking at 

18 the big philosophical picture. What exactly 

19 does it mean? That's kind of how we come to 

20 our determination.

21 And maybe Arjun or Joe might want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 to weigh in on that.

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: A couple of 

3 thoughts. I agreed with the low/high dose 

4 when you get the doses are stratespherically 

5 high then it's kind of a subjective you-know6 it-when-you-see-it, implausible definition 

7 without putting a number on it.

8 But there's also the accuracy 

9 problem. It's not only when it's 

10 unrealistically high. It is the attribution 

11 of a particular material or surrogate 

12 radionuclide or is the placement of the worker 

13 reasonable. So you could in the example that 

14 is given at the bottom of page one -- gross 

15 alpha measurements that were primarily caused 

16 by uranium resulted in unrealistically high 

17 thorium exposure. Well, if it was not 

18 reasonable to apply uranium intakes to 

19 thorium, then in my mind, it doesn't matter 

20 whether it's unrealistically high or not. 

21 It's just scientifically not plausible to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 apply that because it doesn't apply to the 

2 situation.

3 And so the problem of accuracy 

4 where sufficient accuracy is being defined as 

5 one phrase. But there is the accuracy part of 

6 it, and it seems in some situations it's 

7 inaccurate to do something regardless of 

8 whether you get high or low results. In the 

9 case that you were discussing earlier, it 

10 seems reasonable to do it that way.

11 And so, a couple of other -- NIOSH 

12 often says that we know the highest exposed 

13 workers were monitored. And in one of the 

14 examples actually, NIOSH said that highest 

15 exposed workers were not monitored. Now 

16 correct me if I'm wrong. I'm doing this from 

17 memory of reading the paper. But the 

18 demonstration of that has turned out to be 

19 quite difficult in our reviews, and we've had 

20 extended discussions of that. It might be 

21 useful to try to narrow that down as to what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 kind of objective evidence from the site do we 

2 need regarding their monitoring practices 

3 before we can make that assertion.

4 And then placing workers in the 

5 situation, you may have a lot of monitoring 

6 data but can you place workers in the 

7 situation where they had exposure potential, 

8 especially for surrogate radionuclides? I 

9 think pretty important.

10 And the last sort of minor 

11 comment, I thought it would be important to 

12 have the Board's surrogate criteria explicitly 

13 referred to in these papers.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. This is 

15 Joe. And I agree with what my colleagues have 

16 brought up as well.

17 But you know, in my experience 

18 it's a two-step process. And I think this has 

19 been outlined by Arjun and John as well.

20 The first step is really a 

21 deliberation on weight of evidence which gets 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 down to the actual completeness of the 

2 documents, whether the information itself --

3 the data -- would support a concern.

4 And once we pass a threshold where 

5 one way or the other there's agreement that 

6 there's a sufficient weight of evidence that 

7 there is an issue, that's when we get into 

8 this question of sufficient accuracy. Then it 

9 becomes a question as to whether the analytic 

10 approach to dose reconstruction that's being 

11 proposed would give you an estimate that's 

12 sufficiently accurate.

13 Having spent years in the first 

14 phase in terms of weight of evidence, looking 

15 at some of the cases that are outlined in 

16 LaVon's paper, I think from experience some of 

17 those actually were more a question of weight 

18 of evidence versus technical accuracy. And 

19 the reason I raise that is because I guess a 

20 case-study approach was mentioned earlier sort 

21 of similar to the surrogate analysis policy 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 was laid out before.

2 And I think the challenge on this 

3 one, going back to an earlier comment by Paul 

4 Ziemer, is if you come up with some approach, 

5 you have to be sure that that approach is 

6 based on apples and apples, and a case-study 

7 approach is one that's going to have to be 

8 based on apples and apples. I think in this 

9 case there's some that really were leaning 

10 more toward is there sufficient evidence. For 

11 example, at Mound, that you had chronic 

12 exposures or exposure potential from those 

13 internal nuclides. That's number one -- the 

14 first example that's provided.

15 The Work Group could not prove 

16 that there was in fact any chronic exposure or 

17 exposure potential. There wasn't any bioassay 

18 data. There really wasn't sufficient evidence 

19 one way or the other. So at a certain point, 

20 there was no need to go further because there 

21 just was no way to ascertain that question.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 So that's the only cautionary note 

2 I would make that in terms of weight of 

3 evidence, that's a different question than the 

4 technical accuracy question that we're getting 

5 into here. And I think we've got to be 

6 careful if we're basing a policy to make sure 

7 it's based on that second phase of the 

8 technical accuracy of the analytic approach 

9 that's taken for dose estimation.

10 But beyond that, I think the 

11 question of consistency and tying that to the 

12 potential dose itself makes a lot of sense. I 

13 think that has a lot of merit.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Going back 

15 to Arjun's comment, I think it's sort of a 

16 Linde example that I was giving and it really 

17 maybe convoluted different concepts.

18 But we saw two issues. One is --

19 and I think it's gotten better recently but a 

20 lot of it's been initially it was, well, as 

21 long we can do it in upper bound and that's a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 plausible upper bound for the highest exposed 

2 individuals, then that method was okay, and we 

3 didn't really look at how that upper bound was 

4 -- the population it was being used for. And 

5 so it may be a plausible upper bound for a 

6 certain group, but it really may not be a 

7 sufficiently accurate plausible upper bound 

8 for the others in that same population.

9 And we started to look more I 

10 think at the population being evaluated. I 

11 think that is the critical issue with the co12 worker models is sort of what's the right sort 

13 of -- what level of detail, how far do you 

14 have to go down in terms of the 

15 characteristics of the people -- the workers 

16 that you put into that model in order to have 

17 that model be sufficiently accurate upper 

18 bound.

19 So I think that's sort of another 

20 parameter is how is this being applied to the 

21 population. What's the nature of that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 population, and does that really cover the 

2 entire population, and then how much leeway do 

3 you give on that, basically? Because there's 

4 always going to be some variability in 

5 whatever methodology you use. So it's not 

6 fair to say that you have to always separate 

7 out the lowest from the highest exposure and 

8 have different parameters. Often, you can't 

9 identify who that is, so that's why you're 

10 doing some sort of an estimate method. But I 

11 think you have to take that into account in 

12 some way.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I would 

14 agree. This is Ziemer. I think whenever you 

15 can do, it makes sense. The problem is you 

16 can't always do it.

17 But again, that's another issue 

18 that could be part of the characteristics. 

19 We're already going in the direction of sort 

20 of identifying what it would look like.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 Any other comments or thoughts?

2 (No response.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then how do you 

4 want to proceed?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

6 I think from our standpoint, what 

7 we hear is there's a follow-on document that 

8 we need to prepare. And it will be an 

9 attempt, because we certainly value the advice 

10 we get.

11 First of all, I want to thank 

12 everybody for weighing in on this. This ten13 year program review item ostensibly is our 

14 item, but we do value the advice we're getting 

15 here, and we want this to be the most useful 

16 that we can do.

17 We have a follow-on document to 

18 prepare which is to describe the 

19 characteristics of sufficient accuracy as Paul 

20 said. And then that would follow from what we 

21 have done so far and provide a follow-on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 document for people to review to see if we've 

2 caught that.

3 And if anyone feels like there are 

4 things that they really feel should be 

5 addressed in this, we'd appreciate you sending 

6 those to us. You can send them to LaVon, Jim 

7 and me or to any one of us, and we'll share 

8 among ourselves in order to assist us in doing 

9 that.

10 Now we can do it if left to our 

11 own devices, and you guys can review what we 

12 do. It would work that way as well.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I suggest 

14 something -- sort of a modification of that --

15 that I think might be helpful?

16 It would be if NIOSH developed an 

17 outline of what would be in that document: 

18 what are going to try to cover in that, what 

19 needs to be part of that? The idea we come up 

20 with is something similar to what was done for 

21 SEC evaluations and then what both NIOSH and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 the Board have done for surrogate data 

2 evaluations.

3 But developing an outline or a 

4 shorter document that maybe didn't have as 

5 much detail in it but we definitely would do 

6 another Work Group meeting to discuss that 

7 document.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, as sort of a 

9 framework to flush it out, I think that makes 

10 sense.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I hate to 

12 have you spend a lot of time and effort 

13 developing something and then we're all saying 

14 well, no, you missed this or it's not quite 

15 right or whatever and do that. And it may 

16 also be helpful to at least after one 

17 iteration bring it back to the Board for 

18 comment to see if other people have ideas.

19 I think one, it's a very important 

20 key concept. And we're wrestling with it all 

21 the time. So even having some discussion of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 by the Board itself I think would be 

2 helpful. I don't think we're quite ready for 

3 that yet. But we'll talk about some at the 

4 next, upcoming meeting. It may be more 

5 procedural.

6 But I think if we had sort of an 

7 intermediate step where you produce a two- or 

8 three-page -- whatever it will -- it will be 

9 sort of an annotated list outline that would 

10 hit some of how you think it would be 

11 organized and what would be the key concepts. 

12 And then we have a meeting to discuss that.

13 And then the next step would be to 

14 flesh that out. I think we'll want more 

15 detail.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That sounds 

17 like a good idea to us.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, may I 

20 make a comment?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, Arjun.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 DR. MAKHIJANI: I want to pick up 

2 on something that John and Joe alluded to 

3 earlier and kind of try to cast it in a little 

4 bit different words.

5 A lot of the difficulties that 

6 we've had and a lot of the time in SEC reviews 

7 is spent on disagreeing and then agreeing as 

8 to whether something is an issue or not before 

9 you get to the sufficient accuracy question. 

10 I mean, the thorium issue at Savannah River 

11 Site is a very good example.

12 For a couple of years, we argued 

13 about whether it was an SEC issue or not and 

14 whether and how much thorium handling had 

15 happened. And I think a lot of sort of that 

16 threshold that Joe was talking about where 

17 something is bumped up to an SEC issue, where 

18 a lot of the difficulties occur before we get 

19 to the -- is it sufficiently accurate or is 

20 upper bound so high that it's not credible and 

21 so on. I don't know how you want to address 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45 1 that, but it might be useful. It's not 

2 strictly in the sufficient accuracy 

3 definition. So maybe you don't want to 

4 include it right now.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My immediate 

6 reaction is I agree it's an issue and it's 

7 probably the most frustrating issue we have, 

8 particularly at these larger sites.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because we want 

11 to try to focus on what important issues for 

12 an SEC petition which covers a large site.

13 And even with all the work that's 

14 been done on a site up until now, we have 

15 trouble doing that. We have trouble sorting 

16 through and sort of figuring out what those 

17 are, short of the usual way which is to go 

18 through issue by issue and develop it.

19 Maybe this will help, but I'm not 

20 sure if this would very much. But I think 

21 maybe we can think about that when we look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 the outline and we've all thought about this a 

2 while. And maybe they'll be things that'll 

3 come up then.

4 But I agree with you, Arjun, it's 

5 important. But I have trouble thinking how 

6 this -- because some of it's factual, some of 

7 it's the circumstances. Some of it's sort of 

8 peeling back what may appear to be a 

9 reasonable dose reconstruction method, but 

10 when you look at it in more detail -- so the 

11 SEC at Fernald, I think took some peeling back 

12 and evaluation to sort of focus at least on 

13 the one we've done so far.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. No, I agree 

15 with you. I think maybe it's not an issue 

16 that's amenable to any general rules 

17 especially for the large sites that we've been 

18 dealing with like Hanford and Savannah River 

19 and Rocky Flats.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean, there's 

2 a lot of times when we see a petition come in 

3 or take a first look at the slides that are 

4 being presented, well, we really should focus 

5 on this and that's the key issue for the SEC. 

6 And the batting average is pretty low.

7 (Laughter.)

8 And I think NIOSH -- and I think 

9 everybody has the same -- I'm hoping it's not 

10 just me.

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I agree. It's 

12 very difficult.

13 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

14 I agree with you 100 percent.

15 I'd like to add one thing. We've 

16 just recently completed the review of ORAU 

17 Clarksville report, the SEC, Special Exposure 

18 Cohort, which was put out in 2005. And we 

19 have two appendices in there that might be 

20 useful --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 MR. STIVER: -- particularly for 

2 NIOSH in developing their framework.

3 The first appendix is an example 

4 of the strategies that we've used in reviewing 

5 completeness and adequacy of the records. And 

6 the other would be examples of the strategies 

7 in analyzing allegations of corrupt data or 

8 data falsification.

9 And it kind of lays out the 

10 framework that we go through. So it may be 

11 useful to look at this in developing the 

12 framework.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: John, this is Stu.

15 What was the specific document 

16 that you reviewed that had the two appendices?

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. I can actually 

18 send it out to you.

19 It was prepared in October 2012. 

20 It's called, Review of ORAU Clarksville Report 

21 Special Exposure Cohort, Revision 00, October 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 17, 2005.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 MR. STIVER: Actually, Special 

4 Exposure Cohort, Revision 00, October 7, 2005.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thanks.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. And I can go 

7 ahead and send it out to the group here.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that would 

9 be good.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay. Thanks.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Great.

12 Anything else? Thoughts?

13 (No response.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, I will 

15 talk to Stu and Jim and put together a 

16 presentation for the Board meeting in Augusta 

17 just sort of outlining what we've been talking 

18 about and then what we see the next steps are.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. That sounds 

20 good.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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 helpful, but I think if we sort of go step2 wise, I think we can get there put together 

3 which I think is important on this one also.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I agree.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We should be 

6 able to after how many years it's been, 

7 wrestling with these issues.

8 Agreed?

9 MR. STIVER: Agreed.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

11 everybody. And have a good weekend. And 

12 we'll see you all in Augusta.

13 Ted, any last words?

14 MR. KATZ: No, I thought that was 

15 a great discussion.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I wanted to give 

17 you a chance to say something, you know.

18 Okay. Thanks, everybody.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 11:54 a.m.)

21
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, SEC Issues Work Group,

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

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

certified by the Chair of the SEC Issues Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should 

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

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

2

3

4