1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MAY 16, 2016

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened telephonically, at 

11:00 a.m., Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN MCKEEL

JIM NETON, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL ............................ 4

REVIEW BRS STATUS ................................ 9

Y-12 ACTIVE ISSUES .............................. 13

OTIB-0013 - ASSIGN OTIB-0044 .................... 13

OTIB-0029 ASSIGN TBD ............................ 16

OTIB-0026 ....................................... 26

OTIB-0032 ....................................... 34

OTIB-0014 ....................................... 39

OTIB-0039 ....................................... 54

OTIB-0050 ....................................... 70

OTIB-0060 ....................................... 77

PROC-0042 - OTIB-0064 STATUS .................... 95

RPRT-0044 ...................................... 107

PER 003 ........................................ 118

PER 005 ........................................ 120

PER 008 ........................................ 123

PER 011 ........................................ 126

PER 0057 ....................................... 140

PER 029 ........................................ 163

PER 0031 ....................................... 181

PER 0042 ....................................... 181

PER 0045 ....................................... 183

PER 0047 ....................................... 188

PER 0053 ....................................... 197

PER-0055 ....................................... 202

ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL - ROUTINE NOTE OF ABEYANCE ITEMS 

READY FOR CLOSING .............................. 215

ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL -STATUS OF CASE SELECTION 

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 215

NEED FOR NEW TASKING - PROC-0006 ............... 232

NEXT MEETING ................................... 232
4

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

2 (11:00 a.m.)

3 WELCOME AND ROLL CALL

4 MR. KATZ: Let me begin with first 

5 matter of the agenda for the Board meeting for this 

6 teleconference. Subcommittee conferences is on 

7 the NIOSH website under the Board section, 

8 scheduled meetings, today's date.

9 If someone wants to follow along with 

10 the agenda, they can follow along with it there. 

11 I don't know if we'll --- we may have some 

12 deviations in the agenda. We always do. But 

13 that's a basic plan.

14 Next thing, about roll call, so we have 

15 all three of our Board Members, which means we have 

16 a quorum, which is great. And let me just note, 

17 take care of it for everybody, myself. Wait, 

18 Josie, we have you on the line, right.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, you do.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. So conflict of 

21 interest, if there are, and I don't know that there 

22 are any, but if there were any Hanford items today, 
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

1 for those, Wanda and Josie, would recuse 

2 themselves.

3 And if there were any X-10 or LANL in 

4 the late years' items, Dr. Ziemer, Paul would 

5 recuse himself from those. I don't believe there 

6 are, but just in case. So let's be aware of those. 

7 And let's do roll call for everyone else. So let's 

8 go to the NIOSH/ORAU team.

9 (Roll Call)

10 MR. KATZ: And, Wanda, it's your 

11 agenda.

12 (Off the record comments about 

13 telephonic interference)

14 CHAIR MUNN: Let me assure you, that 

15 wasn't Wanda.

16 MR. KATZ: No, no. I know. I don't 

17 know. It came of first when Joyce --- but I don't 

18 know that it was Joyce's phone or just coincidence.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we'll just have to 

20 say for the moment, Joyce, she's going to have to 

21 bite the bullet. We think it might be that phone. 

22 But for the time being, we're good to go.
6

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 And our first item on our agenda, I 

2 assume everyone has the agenda. If not, please say 

3 so. Because I do intend to follow it unless we have 

4 requests to change, which I have had none, and have 

5 had no additions since this agenda was put together 

6 for our February meeting.

7 So although some things have changed 

8 since them, and I trust that everybody has received 

9 the note from Kathy Behling indicating the items 

10 that were specifically placed on the O: drive for 

11 us to --

12 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, sorry for 

13 cutting in, but you're fading a little bit.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I hope it's not my phone. 

15 I hope it's just me.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes. I think it's just you, 

17 Wanda.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that seems to be the 

19 story of my life. She's fading fast. But we'll 

20 try to do better. I'm assuming that we all 

21 received ---

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, could I also 
7

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 interrupt just very briefly?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes ---

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: In terms of the 

4 documents that were put online, I just want you to 

5 know that I currently don't have access to the NIOSH 

6 website.

7 I've been working with ITSO for the past 

8 week trying to get this laptop back up. There's 

9 some problem with the Citrix entry gateway that is 

10 being updated or has been updated. And I've not 

11 been able to get it updated on my computer. So I 

12 can't get into the website on my NIOSH laptop. So 

13 I don't have access to those documents.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for letting us 

15 know. I'm know that Kathy stays on top of this 

16 pretty well. And my guess is that when we come to 

17 address those, they'll probably, although you 

18 won't be able to see the screen, they'll be ---

19 we'll describe it for you, I trust. Let's hope. 

20 We'll try to keep that in mind, Paul. Thank you 

21 for letting me know.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if I can 
8

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 get the online screen on the regular web. If I have 

2 the address, if Ted or if you or Zaida can send me 

3 the login information, maybe I can get the regular 

4 web.

5 MR. KATZ: No, you can't, Paul.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can't? Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: That's all in the Intranet. 

8 And if you go to that ---

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, got you. Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Good enough.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. But --

13 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry about that, Paul.

14 CHAIR MUNN: We'll try to do the best 

15 we can. We'll try to be sensitive to the fact that 

16 ---

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'll just 

18 operate in the dark here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well, okay. But 

20 we'll do the best we can. And good luck with that 

21 ---

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.
9

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 REVIEW BRS STATUS

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's a tough one. If 

3 anyone else has had any trouble with it, please let 

4 me know. Otherwise, I'm assuming that most 

5 everyone's had an opportunity to take a look at 

6 that.

7 If not, then we'll move --- I think that 

8 what we need to do next is move directly to the first 

9 item of business, which is reviewing the BRS 

10 status. To the best of my knowledge, it's up to 

11 date. If that's not the case, please let me know.

12 I note that we're up with the agenda on 

13 the screen here, so I'm assuming that we're going 

14 to have full access to all of the updates to the 

15 BRS which have occurred in the interim since our 

16 last meeting.

17 If that's not true, then will someone 

18 who is charged routinely with keeping it at least 

19 let us know where we have holes still remaining that 

20 are expected? And otherwise we'll just address 

21 these one at a time as we come along. Did anyone 

22 have any specific updates for BRS that we're not 

23 going to likely see today?
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is Kathy 

2 Behling. I was just going to ask a question with 

3 regard to who -- is it Lori Marion-Moss that updates 

4 the BRS with new PERs, and OTIBs, and that type of 

5 thing? I was attempting to add PER-55 to the BRS. 

6 And I was not able to do it. I wasn't sure who is 

7 responsible for updating.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I'm assuming you're still 

9 doing that, Lori, right?

10 (No audible response)

11 CHAIR MUNN: Lori?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Lori does that. 

13 I'll get to her. I'll get that word to her.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. She was with us 

15 just a minute ago.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: So in other words, I 

17 should just be sending a note to Lori when I need 

18 something updated into the BRS. Is that correct?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. As I understand 

20 it, this is the BRS that, or this the PER that was 

21 reviewed. And it needs to appear on the, and be 

22 assigned to the Subcommittee so you can actually 
11

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 enter the findings. Isn't that where we're at?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Correct, yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes. I'll get 

4 with Lori. Because I noticed that when we were 

5 prepping for the meeting, that there are a couple 

6 that --- one that was on there that didn't have 

7 findings in it. And there was one that didn't even 

8 appear on the BRS.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, Kathy, from here 

11 forward just always email Lori, and you can copy 

12 me too so I can follow-up if I need to. But that'll 

13 work.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And copy me as well on 

15 that.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: If you would.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Wanda likes to know 

20 when that happens, okay, so that I can have a copy 

21 of the memo to remind me when we get to agenda time.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes. And, Wanda, it may be 
12

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 gratifying. It's not really this Subcommittee's 

2 business, except that was the pioneer here. But 

3 the other Work Groups are now, with SC&A's help, 

4 getting online with using the BRS. So that's a 

5 good thing too. So we've done that for quite a 

6 number of Work Groups now, so they'll be following 

7 the BRS model for issue resolution.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I'm delighted to hear 

9 that. We've done an awful lot of work on this 

10 Subcommittee to try to get it to that point. So 

11 it is gratifying to know that it's underway and 

12 actually beginning to spread the way we had hoped 

13 it would. That's good. I hope everyone else has 

14 as a salubrious ---

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Excuse me, Wanda.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. I was 

18 disconnected somehow.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, we do that sometimes, 

20 you know.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: The last I heard, I 

22 believe Kathy was asking a question about updating 
13

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 a PER to the BRS.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 55.

3 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. I can get 

4 that done.

5 CHAIR MUNN: She said she had tried to 

6 get it on, and wasn't able to do it.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. I'll load 

8 that document here shortly.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Any other 

10 comments about the BRS?

11 (No audible response)

12 Y-12 ACTIVE ISSUES

13 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then let's move 

14 directly to the couple of things that we had 

15 discussed at our last meeting that have not been 

16 completed.

17 OTIB-0013 – ASSIGN OTIB-0044

18 The next item I have on the agenda is 

19 two active issues outstanding from Y-12, OTIB-13 

20 with an assignment for review and OTIB-29, another 

21 assignment for review. Has anyone had any new 
14

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 information with respect to that? Or are we ready 

2 to assign those?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe that Ron 

4 Buchanan is on the line and can speak to OTIB-13.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, Ron?

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

7 Buchanan with SC&A. These are very old OTIBs we 

8 reviewed about, I think, about seven or eight years 

9 ago. And our findings at that time, we had five 

10 findings. One of them had previously been closed, 

11 Number 4.

12 However, OTIB-13 has been superseded by 

13 OTIB-44 for workers and OTIB-64 for co-worker 

14 model. And so the concerns with OTIB-13 for Y-12 

15 external dose was related to scaling factors, a 

16 group of workers they used to create some co-worker 

17 dose, and the use of scaling factors in the work. 

18 But it all had to do mainly with scaling factors.

19 And the new OTIB 44 and 64 do not use 

20 scaling factors. And so essentially all of these 

21 findings are a moot question at this time. Because 

22 OTIB-44 and 64 superseded OTIB-13 and do not use 
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

1 the scaling factors, which we had the concern with, 

2 and the same way with the workbook.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: So we recommend, you 

5 know, I guess, closing them. Because they're not 

6 related to what they're using today.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone have any problem 

8 with that?

9 MEMBER BEACH: I don't, Wanda.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, let's close them.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good. 

12 Thanks, will do. And 0013 has been superseded, and 

13 the Board agrees with the recommendation of SC&A 

14 that it be closed.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: And, Wanda, would you 

16 like for me to do that offline?

17 CHAIR MUNN: If you would please, 

18 Kathy, that'll be fine.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think there's any 

21 reason for us to try to do it real time here unless 

22 someone else feels that's appropriate. As long as 
16

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 it gets done, and you notify me so that I can verify 

2 it on my list, that'll be great.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Will do.

4 OTIB-0029 ASSIGN TBD

5 CHAIR MUNN: We have a similar 

6 situation with OTIB-29, I believe. Ron, are you 

7 doing that one as well?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: No.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Hi.

10 CHAIR MUNN: That's Joyce.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I did. That's Joyce 

12 Lipsztein.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good. Hi, Joyce. 

14 Would you like to bring us up to date and make a 

15 recommendation?

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. As well, OTIB-29 

17 was transferred to the TBD-45. And I've been --

18 Finding Number 1 was already closed.

19 Finding Number 2, I think SC&A accepts 

20 NIOSH arguments for Finding Number 2, that the 

21 database is considered official of records for the 

22 site. And it's used to supply claimant results. 
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

1 So we recommend it should be closed.

2 For Finding Number 3 attachment, we had 

3 some problems with situations where the 95th 

4 percentiles of the co-worker distribution should 

5 be applied.

6 And now in the TBD-14, there is some 

7 situations that described where the 95th 

8 percentile is more appropriate. So SC&A 

9 recommends this finding to be closed also.

10 And then Finding Number 4, we had some 

11 problems, because some routine urine samples were 

12 collected after a minimum of 48 hours absence from 

13 work hours. And we had asked NIOSH to demonstrate 

14 the impact of this 48 hours absence from work.

15 In one of the answers, NIOSH said that 

16 40 percent of the samples were not collected on 

17 Monday mornings. But this was not demonstrated. 

18 So we recommend that this finding of the 48 hours 

19 absence from work hours should be further analyzed 

20 by NIOSH.

21 And Finding Number 5, which would be the 

22 inclusion of solubility Type F, this was done. So 
18

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 we recommend that this finding should be closed.

2 So the only one that remains open should 

3 be Finding Number 4, the problem of collecting 

4 urine sample is a minimum of 48 hours absence from 

5 the work.

6 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to close all 

7 except Item 4.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, Wanda, this is Ted. 

9 Can I just recommend that you go through each of 

10 these though so that we have a clear understanding 

11 of the whys for closing those?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes. You didn't feel 

13 that Joyce was ---

14 MR. KATZ: Well, Joyce explained. But 

15 the Subcommittee didn't take up these at all. Some 

16 of them, it seems like a perfunctory discussion, 

17 but I'm not sure that all of them were ---

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, straightforward. 

19 I did have a question myself with respect to the 

20 -- was it Number 3 that had the 95th percentile?

21 MR. KATZ: Well, Finding 2, I mean, 

22 Joyce just said that they accept NIOSH arguments. 
19

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 But that's not, there's nothing on the record as 

2 to what the arguments were that they're accepting, 

3 and the why, and wherefore.

4 CHAIR MUNN: No. I guess we went past 

5 the document on the screen pretty quickly. I had 

6 assumed that we had a response from NIOSH, but 

7 nothing on the ---

8 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, the 

9 Subcommittee hasn't said anything.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Then ---

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Do you want me 

12 to go through each one of them?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think, except for 

14 Number 4. That's clearly remaining open. And 

15 it's going back, you're asking for additional 

16 information from NIOSH. That's clear enough. 

17 But the other three, yes please.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. So Finding 

19 Number ---

20 MR. KATZ: Two.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Two. The first 

22 problem with it is that the ORISE CER database of 
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

1 uranium records for IPSUM 12 from 1950 through 1988 

2 was used without questioning the accuracy of these 

3 records.

4 So there were some problems with these 

5 records that were pointed out in OTIB-29. And then 

6 we had some questions about if the CER database 

7 should be considered. Because there were -- 20 

8 percent of the results were labeled as do not use. 

9 And a lot of results were zero.

10 So this would give a bias to the 

11 database. And then when it was transferred to TBD 

12 for TM-5, NIOSH put that the -- explain how was the 

13 derivation of each formula that was applied and 

14 also said that the PER is the official database for 

15 it.

16 And so we analyzed it again. And with 

17 all those discussions that we had, we came out to 

18 accepting the database for the calculation of 

19 intake doses for unmonitored workers. Is that 

20 okay now?

21 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Joyce, yes. I 

22 mean, and then it's just for the Subcommittee to 
21

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 concur or ask questions?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Any questions?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I'm 

4 okay on that one.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, this is Josie. 

6 I'm okay on that one, as well.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I was trying to follow 

8 that screen as we were going along, because I don't 

9 remember that clearly. But, fine. All right, 

10 very good. The recommendation of the contractor 

11 to close this issue has been accepted by the Board. 

12 And we'll move on to the next. Was it Number 3, 

13 in this ---

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Number 3. Number 3, 

15 yes. When the co-worker data was calculated, we 

16 said that, well, NIOSH used the 50th percentile for 

17 the intake rates. And we considered that some of 

18 the workers could be exposed to higher levels of 

19 contamination which was one of the characteristics 

20 of Y-12.

21 So there was no explanation why there 

22 was the choice of the 50th percentile. Then what 
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

1 NIOSH did is that it specified that the 50th

2 percentile would not be used all the way through, 

3 that there were some sites and locations.

4 So this was a new addition that for some 

5 sites, and locations, and job types, certain 

6 workers would be assigned to the 95th percentile.

7 So this was incorporated into the TBD. 

8 And so now there is an Attachment B on the internal 

9 dosimeter co-worker data for Y-12, in the TBD-45, 

10 where it's considered that there are situations 

11 where the 95th percentile of the co-worker 

12 distribution should be more accurate than the 50th 

13 percentile. So our recommendations were 

14 followed. So we thought that this finding should 

15 be closed.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's say, 

17 when we do our response, that SC&A's 

18 recommendations for observed deficiencies have 

19 been covered by the issuance of new documents. And 

20 therefore, SC&A has recommended this item be 

21 closed. The Committee agrees. The item is closed 

22 unless there's any discussion.
23

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 Does anyone else have any comments to 

2 make about that?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I agree. That's 

4 consistent with other uses, yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

6 MEMBER BEACH: And I agree as well. 

7 Thanks, Wanda.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Josie. Very 

9 good. On that, did we have one other, other than 

10 Item 4 which is open expecting a request, a response 

11 from NIOSH?

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It's Finding 5.

13 CHAIR MUNN: It's five, not four.

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: But five is the other one

16 that we were going to close, right?

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, okay. And ---

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: At first, NIOSH only 

22 considered uranium compounds of solubility Types 
24

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 M and S without considering Type F compounds. But 

2 for many cancer sites, SC&A thought that Type F 

3 should be used also.

4 So within the new document in 

5 Attachment B, NIOSH now includes solubility Type 

6 F, and recommends selection of this material type 

7 when it's more favorable to claimants.

8 So SC&A recommends this finding to be 

9 closed. Because Type F is now incorporated into 

10 the document when it's more claimant favorable for 

11 the ---

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any comments 

13 about that? It seems to me this is exactly the same 

14 response that we would have given to Item 2.

15 And therefore, we could use the same wording. Does 

16 anyone have any discussion or concern with that 

17 finding?

18 (No audible response)

19 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then we'll ---

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No concerns.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No concern, we'll ---

22 MEMBER BEACH: No. It seems pretty 
25

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 straightforward to me.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- follow the 

3 recommendation of the contractor and close the 

4 item. I believe that cleans up OTIB-29 for us, 

5 with the exception of the outstanding Finding 4. 

6 Am I correct?

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Very good. Any 

9 other questions or comments with respect to that 

10 Y-12 issue?

11 MR. KATZ: So what is the path forward 

12 for Finding 4? I know NIOSH is going to respond. 

13 Do we have a sense of when?

14 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I need to 

15 look at this a little closer. Joyce, you said 

16 something about the fact that we said 40 percent 

17 of the samples were not collected on Monday.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. But you said, 

19 but never put it on the document or ---

20 DR. NETON: Yes. I have a note here 

21 that we responded on January 20th, 2009. Is that 

22 the response that you're talking about?
26

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 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

2 DR. NETON: Okay. I can't find that 

3 right now. But we can clear that up. I think we 

4 should be able to do that fairly quickly, I would 

5 think.

6 OTIB-0026

7 CHAIR MUNN: So we'll carry it on the 

8 next agenda. Can we move on to OTIB-26? SC&A is 

9 going to talk to us about dosimetry at what, K-25, 

10 isn't it?

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron 

12 Buchanan with SC&A. And this was the OTIB-26. 

13 And it's the co-worker issue for K-25. And it was 

14 Finding 1 was closed previously. And Finding 2 is 

15 in progress. And Finding 3 was closed previously. 

16 So we'll look at Finding 2 which was in progress.

17 And, Kathy, if you could pull up that 

18 attachment, that PDF file, I think, that shows the 

19 graph. That should be attached to that. And what 

20 this consisted of was that K-25 went to -- they were 

21 badging just the most exposed people, radiation 

22 workers, up until about '75, 1980, in that area. 
27

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 And then they went to badging everyone.

2 And so the question came up was how do 

3 we know, of course, the old question, how do we know 

4 that the most exposed were being monitored 

5 previously to everybody being monitored.

6 And so NIOSH had used a maximum 

7 likelihood analysis to show that previously, in 

8 2008, about eight years ago, and the Board had 

9 requested that SC&A look at that in a little more 

10 detail.

11 And so we show, on the screen there, 

12 what I did is I went back, and I took the yearly 

13 doses. Now, we did not have access to the 

14 individual dosimetry, but we looked at the yearly 

15 doses both before and after the switching in 

16 dosimetry.

17 And can you pull that up just a little 

18 bit, up the page just a little bit? There, okay, 

19 whoa. Back a little bit. I just wanted to see the 

20 years there. Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

21 Okay. And so I plotted the yearly 

22 average dose, as they were recorded, to be used for 
28

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 coworker doses. And you can see there that, in 

2 about '75, they switched to monitoring everyone. 

3 So the average dose went down.

4 And so looked at the 50th percentile. 

5 Now, we sent -- the data we had was in OTIB-26, Table 

6 2, Page 9, which lists the gamma 95th and 50th 

7 percentile for each year.

8 And so what I did, I tried to determine 

9 some information out of this. So I went back and 

10 then plotted it, and looked at it. And the 50th 

11 percentile, you can see, is based right around 800 

12 millirem a year, pretty close, from '46 forward 

13 until about '75. And then it drops lower. 

14 However, it stays very much the same in those years.

15 And then the 95th percentile stays 

16 within, plus or minus, about 20 percent of around 

17 one rem per year. And then it drops down in the 

18 '75 period.

19 And so I looked at this data, and 

20 essentially it looked as if there was no years where 

21 we've seen a lot of spikes in the years that just 

22 the select, the workers were monitored. And there 
29

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 was fairly consistent results during those years.

2 And so, in our opinion, it looks like 

3 that, you know, there would probably not be a large 

4 chance for outliers of individuals that are being 

5 exposed that weren't monitored. And those that 

6 were monitored, it was fairly steady exposure 

7 rates.

8 And so that's where we're at at this 

9 point. We have a little text there, a paragraph 

10 explaining our findings. So at this point, we were 

11 asked to go back and look at this a little further 

12 by the Subcommittee. And this is what we had come 

13 up with.

14 Again, the only thing we can do is go 

15 back and look at the --- we don't have access to 

16 the individual data. But I don't know I that would 

17 really tell us the people that weren't monitored 

18 who were exposed. And so we, at this point, have 

19 arrived at this point and feel that there's 

20 probably not a likelihood that there was people 

21 exposed that weren't monitored, to a great extent. 

22 And so that's where we're at.
30

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ron, I wonder if you'd 

2 mind reading your statement for us?

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I will. "SC&A 

4 analyzed the co-worker data in OTIB-26 to evaluate 

5 whether the dose data reported during the period 

6 when most of the employees' dosimeters were 

7 processed and recorded, beginning around 1975 to 

8 '80, was significantly different from that of the 

9 earlier period, around 1945 to 1975, when only 

10 select employees were monitored and the results 

11 recorded.

12 "The following Exhibit A summarizes the 

13 results of the data as it appears in Table 2 of 

14 OTIB-26. The monitoring results for the latter 

15 period beginning around 1975 to '80 show a marked 

16 decrease in co-worker dose for both 50th percentile 

17 and 95th percentile values.

18 "This indicates, during the previous 

19 monitoring period, 1945 to 1975, workers with above 

20 average potential for exposure were monitored and 

21 their dosimeters processed and recorded.

22 "During most of the early period, 1947 
31

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 to 1975, the 50th percentile values were closely 

2 centered around 0.8 rem per year. And the 95th 

3 percentile fluctuated around 1 rem per year within 

4 approximately plus or minus 20 percent.

5 "This would indicate it is unlikely 

6 that there are significant outliers for workers 

7 that were not monitored during some years for the 

8 period 1947 to 1975.

9 "Therefore, the co-worker data 

10 recommended in Table 2 of OTIB-26 would provide for 

11 reasonable and likely claimant favorable external 

12 doses. It should be noted, however, that SC&A does 

13 not have access to and could not locate the detailed 

14 co-worker data used by NIOSH to generate Exhibit 

15 A, above, and Table 2 of OTIB-26."

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Certainly a stark 

19 difference obvious from the graph. It's nicely 

20 presented.

21 MEMBER BEACH: I guess, this is Josie, 

22 my question would be how important would it be to 
32

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 have a look at that co-worker, the source of the 

2 co-worker data that NIOSH used.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, on one hand, it 

4 would show us the individual rather than the 

5 cumulative. And so we could maybe look for, if 

6 there was large, you know, outliers, because this 

7 is obviously an average, to see about that.

8 Now, the other thing is that's really 

9 not going to tell us if people weren't monitored 

10 that were exposed. And so it would kind of verify 

11 what we see here.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: And, you know, we could 

14 do that if you'd like for us to, if NIOSH can provide 

15 us with that individual exposure data.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I don't 

17 necessarily think it was needed. I just wanted to 

18 know what your thoughts were on it. Thank you.

19 CHAIR MUNN: I can't imagine we'd get 

20 any meaningful new information from that kind of 

21 examination. But from my perspective, what we 

22 have is adequate. Paul?
33

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, the 

2 difficulty, of course, is that it doesn't really 

3 answer the question of were there workers 

4 monitored, not monitored but should have been.

5 But I think we're operating on a policy 

6 basis here that, in advance, a determination is 

7 made as to whether workers should be monitored 

8 based on whatever criterion were used at that time.

9 I think what would happen in practice 

10 is that if an individual, through the interview 

11 process, was identified that had somehow been 

12 involved in operations and could show they weren't 

13 monitored, I think you would end up assigning them 

14 the doses of the monitored group anyway, would you 

15 not? Maybe Jim could answer that.

16 DR. NETON: Well, that's true. I 

17 mean, any unmonitored worker is either going to be 

18 assigned a 50th percentile or the 95th percentile. 

19 What the conclusion demonstrates in environmental 

20 would be applicable.

21 But I'd also say that it looks like the 

22 distribution's pretty tight if you look at the, I 
34

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 think, I can't see on the screen what the 95th 

2 percentile versus the 50th was, but they seem to 

3 be pretty close. So they weren't, like, 

4 enormously large variations is the doses between 

5 the upper tail and the 50th percentile.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But I don't 

7 see it as an issue. I'm comfortable with closing 

8 it as recommended by SC&A.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Can't your list just say 

10 that the Committee has, the Subcommittee has 

11 considered the information presented by the 

12 contractor, accepts their recommendation to close 

13 this item. And we'll move on if there's no further 

14 question about OTIB-26. Thank you, Ron.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you.

16 OTIB-0032

17 CHAIR MUNN: We'll go on to OTIB-32, 

18 Savannah River, I believe.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. This is Kathy 

20 Behling. And I'll take this one. Actually, 

21 OTIB-32 is the Savannah River external co-worker 

22 model that we reviewed.
35

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 And I went back to the transcripts. 

2 And during the discussion of this finding, and I 

3 think it's Number 2 here, yes, Finding Number 2, 

4 we actually got sidetracked to some extent. And 

5 there was a great deal of discussion about --- the 

6 finding had to do with -- we actually had, in our 

7 initial procedure, a table that identified certain 

8 review objectives.

9 And we were questioning the review 

10 objective that had to do with the clarity of the 

11 document and whether it was sufficiently 

12 prescriptive in order to minimize, you know, 

13 subjective decisions. That was the gist of the 

14 initial finding.

15 And the reason that it remained open or 

16 in progress is because the Subcommittee was ---

17 NIOSH, first of all, questioned the finding. 

18 Because they said all of our documents -- it's a 

19 dynamic system. There has to be room for 

20 professional judgement. There are going to be 

21 changes. One document's going to impact another 

22 document.
36

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 And then this led the Subcommittee to 

2 recommend that SC&A go back and review our 

3 protocols for actually reviewing technical 

4 guidance documents. So we got sidetracked.

5 And our mission was that we were going 

6 to go back into the procedure, our initial 

7 procedure that, in fact, I just put that out under 

8 the O: drive on the Procedures Subcommittee section 

9 this morning under the SC&A documents. Our 

10 original procedure was written back in 2004.

11 And quite honestly, if you go through 

12 that, you'll see at the end our table and our review 

13 object is in the criteria we used to use. We really 

14 are not following, to the letter, that protocol 

15 anymore. We look at each --- we actually focus on 

16 each review and the elements associated with that 

17 review. And I think that has become the accepted 

18 approach that we've been using, except the approach 

19 by the Subcommittee.

20 So I'm really not sure if this finding 

21 can't be closed. Because I don't know that there's 

22 a lot of meaning in going back to a protocol that 
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

1 we're really not even following anymore.

2 CHAIR MUNN: You're right. When we 

3 get sidetracked from the original goal it ---

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: But what you're saying 

5 is that, if you were to review that now under your 

6 present protocols, you would not have had this 

7 finding. Is that what I'm understanding?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Well ---

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or what?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: No. I'm not saying 

11 that we would not have necessarily had this finding 

12 but the fact that we were questioning the clarity 

13 and the fact that procedure wasn't prescriptive 

14 enough.

15 I know in the transcripts Stu was 

16 questioning saying, you know, this is a review 

17 objective that maybe should be, we should rethink 

18 that as a review objective. Because we do need to 

19 look.

20 And, yes, perhaps you're correct. I 

21 don't know that we would have that as a finding 

22 today. But the reason that this particular 
38

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 finding stayed open was not because we didn't give 

2 in to the fact that, okay, we understand. And we 

3 do feel there's enough clarity now or that there 

4 is enough other documents. And the people that are 

5 using these documents are familiar enough that we 

6 don't have to be as prescriptive as we initially 

7 thought.

8 But what kept this particular finding 

9 in progress is because you would ask us to go back 

10 into that protocol and make changes or at least 

11 suggest changes.

12 And what I'm saying is that we're really 

13 not even using that protocol anymore. We are doing 

14 these documents, we're looking at each PER or OTIB 

15 individually. And we look specifically at all of 

16 the elements associated with that document. And 

17 we don't follow that, we don't generate that table 

18 anymore.

19 CHAIR MUNN: So essentially, I think, 

20 what I think I'm hearing is that we can say that 

21 the protocol that raised the question is 

22 essentially outdated and not being used at this 
39

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 time. So the original finding, which is very, very 

2 old, no longer applies. Is that roughly a correct 

3 statement?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Then we can 

5 essentially say something to that effect, I think, 

6 and say the Subcommittee has considered the 

7 recommendation of the contractor and agrees that 

8 this finding can be closed.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That sounds good.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Paul, Josie?

11 MEMBER BEACH: That sounds good to me 

12 also.

13 OTIB-0014

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Finding 2 of 

15 OTIB-32 has been closed. That brings us to 

16 OTIB-14, needed to be assigned to review it close 

17 it. What this is ---

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: This is Joyce.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Joyce.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I reviewed the TIB-14, 

21 and I don't think it should be closed.

22 CHAIR MUNN: All right.
40

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 DR. LIPSZTEIN: First of all, there is 

2 a little bit of confusion, which is just --- and 

3 I'll diminish that is confusion, because there 

4 isn't information that TIB-14 was cancelled. And 

5 it was incorporated into the TBD-11-5.

6 And on one of NIOSH sites, if you go to 

7 Rocky Flats, TIB-14 has been cancelled. But if you 

8 go by the number, TIB-14 on the same NIOSH site, 

9 it doesn't inform that the document was cancelled.

10 So this is just something that you could 

11 do it very fast, just say that TIB-14 was cancelled 

12 on the TIB list.

13 The second thing is that on Finding 

14 Number 1 --- May I proceed? Hello?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Hello, yes.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, okay. Now, going 

17 to finding, we said that, on Finding 1, that the 

18 document was not complete.

19 Now, the data from TIB-14 is the data 

20 covering 1989 to 2005 period. In TBD-11-5, the 

21 data on Attachment D, when the intakes for uranium 

22 are calculated for the period of '89 to 2005, which 
41

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 was covered by TIB-14, this data was not 

2 transferred to the TBD.

3 So as it is now on Attachment D, 

4 Attachment D is still referencing TIB-14 and using 

5 that data to calculate intake. But it didn't 

6 transfer the data. So you cannot see, on the TBD, 

7 the data from TIB-14. And it referenced TIB-14 as 

8 TIB-14 still exists. Do you understand what I'm 

9 trying to say?

10 CHAIR MUNN: I think so. I think what 

11 I'm hearing is that the attachment to the, the 

12 addendum to the current document does not 

13 appropriately transfer the actual information from 

14 ---

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: -- 2014 that needs to be 

17 included in that document in order for us to be able 

18 to close TIB-14 and not have it on the books 

19 anymore.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So what we need to 

22 do is to make sure that the new, the addition to 
42

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 the new document doesn't just reference TIB-14, 

2 that it doesn't reference it at all, but transfers 

3 the appropriate information and incorporates it in 

4 the attachment, right?

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Right.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So what we ---

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Now, Finding Number 2 

8 ---

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, excuse me. Can 

10 we just hear from NIOSH on that OTIB?

11 DR. NETON: This is Jim. Joyce, I'm a 

12 little confused. I just went out on our website. 

13 And it clearly indicates that TIB-14 has been 

14 cancelled. So I'm not even going to ---

15 (Simultaneous speaking)

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Jim, that's one, you 

17 look at Rocky Flats. But then when you look at the 

18 TIBs numbers ---

19 DR. NETON: Yes, I did. And it's not 

20 in the list ---

21 (Simultaneous speaking)

22 DR. NETON: I'm sorry.
43

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 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I just looked at it --

2 DR. NETON: Well, I just looked at it 

3 just now.

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: -- five minutes ago.

5 DR. NETON: Well, I looked at it. 

6 There was no TIB-14 listed. Are you looking now 

7 at the DCAS TIBs or the ORAU TIBs? Because this 

8 is a DCAS TIB, an OCAS TIB.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I ---

10 DR. NETON: If you go to the control bar 

11 ---

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, no, no, no. No, 

13 no. It's exactly what you are ---

14 DR. NETON: No. I'm under Technical 

15 Information Bulletin, and there is no TIB-14 listed 

16 under Technical Information Bulletins. And if you 

17 go back and look at historical revisions on that 

18 same thing, and you go to TIBs ---

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No.

20 DR. NETON: TIB-14 is listed there.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I just looked at it, 

22 Technical Information Bulletin TIBs. It's in 
44

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 front of me. But it's in front of me.

2 DR. NETON: No. I'm looking right now 

3 ---

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Me too.

5 DR. NETON: Okay. Well, I'm looking 

6 at the cancelled ones. And it clearly says it was 

7 cancelled under the historical revisions.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Now go to, if you go to 

9 NIOSH radiation dose reconstruction programs, 

10 Technical Information Bulletin ---

11 DR. NETON: Yes, yes, yes.

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: -- numerical listing. 

13 So you press on TIB-14, it will come.

14 DR. NETON: Well, I'm looking on our K: 

15 drive. Okay, that's an issue with the website, I 

16 think, versus what's on our ---

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, on this.

18 DR. NETON: Yes.

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And the most important 

20 problem is that the information there was not 

21 transferred to the new TBD.

22 DR. NETON: Yes. And that's a 
45

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 separate issue. But what I'm saying right how is 

2 if you try to go out to our K: drive and use TIB-14, 

3 it's not there. I mean, it's listed ---

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh, okay, but --

5 DR. NETON: -- but you could not use it. 

6 The website may have an inappropriate listing. 

7 And that's something we need to check.

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: Anyway, okay. I just want 

10 to make sure that we're on the same page here.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay.

12 DR. NETON: Okay, fine.

13 CHAIR MUNN: And who has the action to 

14 check the listing, Jim?

15 DR. NETON: Well, our listing is fine. 

16 We'll look at the website listing and make sure that 

17 that's corrected. Because sometimes those don't 

18 coordinate maybe as well as they should. So we'll 

19 take a look at that.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. This is Kathy 

21 Behling. And Joyce is correct. On the website, 

22 there's a CDC website and a NIOSH, it does still 
46

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 show the OTIB-14.

2 DR. NETON: Right. And see, but if I 

3 go out to our site, and I go, it's not there. And 

4 if I go to historical revisions ---

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Right.

6 DR. NETON: -- by TIBs, it's says 

7 TIB-14, what's it say here? It said it was 

8 cancelled, basically, or not in use.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Okay.

10 DR. NETON: Okay. We'll look at that. 

11 Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: What's the designation of 

13 the TBD we're looking at?

14 DR. NETON: It's TIB-14.

15 CHAIR MUNN: TIB-14.

16 DR. NETON: Yes. I guess, from a dose 

17 reconstruction perspective, it's okay that what 

18 we're doing internally. But the world is seeing 

19 outside of NIOSH, outside of DCAS, is misleading 

20 for sure.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, something else. 

22 And if I -- if what I understood to begin with is 
47

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 that the new TBD references OTIB-14 but does not 

2 correctly -- it incorporates the information. But 

3 instead of incorporating the information in the new 

4 OTIB, I mean, in the new TBD, it references TBD-14.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: That leaves you kind of 

7 out in left field with the referencing being to a 

8 now closed TIB.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. And all the 

10 information to be transferred there.

11 CHAIR MUNN: You follow what I'm 

12 saying, Jim?

13 DR. NETON: Yes, yes. Yes, that part 

14 I understand. I'm obviously confused about which 

15 document had indicated it having been cancelled, 

16 that's all.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so I'm saying NIOSH 

18 has the action then to check this out and make sure 

19 that the information that was previously 

20 referenced in OTIB-14 is incorporated into the new 

21 TBD and that our electronic records show that, 

22 okay?
48

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 DR. NETON: Yes.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to leave it in 

3 progress right now, I believe, unless other people 

4 have stronger feelings one way or the other. And 

5 we'll come back to this next time, right? Action, 

6 NIOSH. Thank you.

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Now --

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, go ahead.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: For Finding Number 2, 

10 again, SC&A found that use of a model based on the 

11 50th percentile of the excretion rate would 

12 misrepresent the high exposure experienced by 

13 unmonitored subcontractors at the Rocky Flats.

14 And now on the new TBD, the 95th 

15 percentile was used in the derivation of intakes 

16 for '89 to 2005. So we think this finding should 

17 be closed.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Any discussion, 

19 any concern? We will ---

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we talking about, 

21 in essence, closing the finding on TIB-14 or is it 

22 applied to the new TIB? I mean, 14 doesn't, it 
49

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 isn't in operation anymore.

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Oh, no.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what is the finding 

4 applying to?

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: What was transferred 

6 to the TBD.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: The finding still 

8 carries over, is what you're saying. Is that 

9 right?

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No. We looked at 

11 TBD-11-5 to see if our suggestion of using the 95th 

12 percentile was followed. And it was.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes. So what we 

14 would be doing is closing it on the new one, is what 

15 you're saying.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because I just want to 

18 make sure that that's what the action would 

19 reflect.

20 MR. KATZ: Right. Paul, I mean, 

21 closing it on the basis of having issued the new 

22 one, so it's as if this were in abeyance until the 
50

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 new document came out.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And it's out, right?

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And therefore, the 

8 subcontractor is, I mean, our contractor is telling 

9 us that the action from Finding 2 has been 

10 appropriately transferred to the superseding TBD, 

11 I mean TIB. And we followed their recommendation 

12 to close. Okay.

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Now ---

14 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead.

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Finding Number 3, 

16 Finding Number 3 was that there was no, that NIOSH 

17 did not address in vivo counting results. And 

18 there was no information on americium lung data for 

19 calculating potential unmonitored worker doses to 

20 the lung.

21 So now I'm going to talk about what was 

22 transferred and is on TBD-11-5 that should have the 
51

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 information from TIB-14, okay.

2 There is now an --- now, in Attachment 

3 D of TBD-11-5, there is no mention of americium lung 

4 count in data for use in the intake rates for 

5 plutonium for 1989 to 2005.

6 In the same document, in Attachment B, 

7 it was shown that germanium detectors were used 

8 from '85 to '95 period and even that the detector 

9 software and hardware were upgraded in the period 

10 of '95 to 2005.

11 So we think that if lung counting is not 

12 being used to calculate intake rate for plutonium 

13 at that time where the installation had germanium 

14 detectors, then either the lung counting should be 

15 incorporated or there should be a discussion on why 

16 the lung counting results were not used to 

17 calculate plutonium intakes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: So we need that 

19 information in the attachment to TIB-115?

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, 115. I just used 

21 the information on americium lung counting to 

22 calculate intake rates of plutonium during '89 to 
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

1 2005 or present an argument why they were not used 

2 when, at that time, there were germanium detectors 

3 at the place where americium measurements were 

4 done.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we need a 

6 response from NIOSH to your concern, right?

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Jim, any thoughts, any 

9 comments?

10 DR. NETON: Let me just make other 

11 stuff, see if I understand this. You're asking why 

12 we don't, we have to explain why we don't have an 

13 americium lung counting coworker model, why we 

14 don't use that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: For that period, I think.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: When the germanium 

18 detectors were actually in.

19 DR. NETON: Yes. I'm sure there's a 

20 good reason for it. But we'll have to get back to 

21 you on it. I haven't thought about this for a

22 while.
53

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 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is Kathy 

3 Behling. This is currently in progress. And I 

4 assume we will just continue to keep it in progress.

5 CHAIR MUNN: It appears to me that 

6 that's the appropriate designation right now. Any 

7 thoughts from other Board Members?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That seems 

9 appropriate.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So it will just say 

11 the issue was reported to the Subcommittee. NIOSH 

12 will respond. And we'll not change the status and 

13 move on.

14 Does that cover the entire TIB now, 

15 Joyce?

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Those are all of your 

18 problems?

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I think we have a 

21 situation where Number 1 is going to be looked at 

22 to see that the appropriate information has been 
54

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 transferred to the appropriate documentation to 

2 make sure that we're squared away on our electronic 

3 databases appropriately.

4 We've closed Number 2, and Number 3 will 

5 have a response from NIOSH but continue in the same 

6 category. Any comment from anyone else?

7 (No response.)

8 If not, then thank you, Joyce, 

9 appreciate it. We're moving on to ---

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: To me again.

11 OTIB-0039

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, you lucky thing. All 

13 right. Joyce, TIB-39, coworker data at Hanford. 

14 And so your Chair and one of our Board Members won't 

15 be able to make much of a comment about this. Paul, 

16 would you, are you able to follow that and 

17 essentially chair us through that, OTIB-39?

18 (No response.)

19 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead, Joyce.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. OTIB-39, which 

21 is Hanford, was cancelled. And the information 

22 was incorporated into TBD-65, Revision 6, in 2015, 
55

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 in Attachment C.

2 The first finding is closed because we 

3 accept reasoning that, because we were comparing 

4 the documents from TIB-39 with recommendations 

5 from TIB-002, and NIOSH said that, and it's clear 

6 that TIB-2 was a very early document and pre-dates 

7 all of coworker studies in many Site Profiles. And 

8 so, barring no more subjective decisions from dose 

9 reconstruction for Type S plutonium, so I think 

10 that, we think that this finding should be closed. 

11 And then ---

12 CHAIR MUNN: Paul, can you ask for any 

13 comments or questions with respect to this 

14 particular finding?

15 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, Paul would be 

16 the only one to have questions.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: No comments.

19 MR. KATZ: So should that be closed?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Then on Finding Number 

22 2, on Page 39, SC&A has asked NIOSH why it has not 
56

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 considered Type Super S plutonium for intake 

2 estimation.

3 And the information from TIB-39 was 

4 transferred to TBD-65. And on TBD-65, it is noted 

5 that plutonium at Hanford would have existed as 

6 absorption types M, S and the highly insoluble form 

7 Super S.

8 And also there are some mentions that 

9 Type Super S was present in several buildings, same 

10 activities. That's all information on TBD-65. 

11 But this information was not incorporated into the 

12 coworker model, Type Super S. So we recommend that 

13 this should be done. So this finding should remain 

14 open.

15 DR. NETON: Joyce, this is Jim. I have 

16 a question. I don't know how you would develop 

17 your coworker model for Super S. As you know, it 

18 relies on using the bioassay data and making 

19 certain assumptions.

20 I don't think it's possible to do what 

21 you're saying. I could see using one of the 

22 excretion values that we have in the existing 
57

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 coworker models and assuming it's an S, maybe, and 

2 converting it. But I don't see how we would do what 

3 you're suggesting.

4 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett. 

5 If I understand the question, OTIB-49, which is 

6 Super S, has a section that gives ---

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

8 MS. BRACKETT: -- directions on how to 

9 apply Super S to coworker intake.

10 DR. NETON: Right. That's what I was 

11 thinking.

12 MS. BRACKETT: So they need to take the 

13 values. They start with the S values that are in 

14 the coworker OTIB and then would apply the 

15 corrections to that for the specific case.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Exactly.

17 DR. NETON: So, in fact, we're doing 

18 what you were suggesting. It's just not, it's in 

19 49. I mean, we're always, you know, if Super S is 

20 considered to be existing in a site, we'll always 

21 use that as an option.

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. But it's not in 
58

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 this one.

2 DR. NETON: Well, you can't really 

3 develop a Super S coworker model. You have to 

4 interpret the data, like Liz said, from the 

5 existing coworker data and then apply the Type S, 

6 Super S correction values for an approach --

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, right.

8 DR. NETON: Yes. So I think we're okay 

9 on this one. I don't see that anything ---

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's done on a case 

11 by case basis, right?

12 DR. NETON: Correct. I mean, if Super 

13 S is a possible solubility class, it will be dealt 

14 with at a site, such as Hanford. But we'll use the 

15 existing coworker excretion values and apply the 

16 TIB-49 approach.

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, right.

18 DR. NETON: So I would suggest that 

19 this is closed.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, but it's not there. 

21 It's not on the TBD-65. It should say what should 

22 be done on the coworker.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRACKETT: But that's the purpose 

2 of OTIB-49; it tells them what to do. That's how 

3 it's done for all of the sites.

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but it's not, you 

5 know, there's not a word about Super S on the 

6 coworker model on TBD-65.

7 DR. NETON: Well, there is no Super S 

8 coworker model. That's correct. You can't 

9 develop a Super S coworker model.

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but the intakes 

11 should be applied.

12 DR. NETON: Well, they are. That's in 

13 TIB-49.

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, but then it should 

15 refer to TIB-49. But something has to be said on 

16 the coworker for Hanford, for ---

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it sounds like Joyce 

18 is just saying that there perhaps needs to be 

19 something in this document that gives a heads up 

20 on what to do if you find that it's a Super S 

21 individual.

22 And I think Liz was saying that that 
60

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 practice -- well, let me ask it a different way. 

2 Do other documents where you would have this 

3 situation specifically call attention to the Super 

4 S issue?

5 DR. NETON: To my knowledge, not in the 

6 coworker model itself, no, not in the coworker 

7 model.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: I think, I would suggest 

10 that, you know, we're trying to fix something 

11 that's not broken. And, you know, if SC&A can 

12 identify cases where this has slipped through the 

13 cracks because of inconsistent or incomplete 

14 guidance, I'd be happy to do that.

15 But I don't know that we're going to fix 

16 anything by doing this. I think we're doing it 

17 very consistently across these Super S sites.

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: If you have an 

19 unmonitored worker at Hanford, and you go to the 

20 TBD-65, there is no information of what to do with 

21 unmonitored workers that could be exposed to Super

22 S plutonium, who have intake rates for S and M but 
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

1 not to Super S.

2 DR. NETON: Well, we don't have that at 

3 any of the other sites that have Super S either. 

4 I mean, like Liz said, it's in TIB-49. I'm 

5 assuming the Hanford site acknowledges that Super 

6 S exists, or the Hanford TBD. And if it does ---

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It's acknowledged that 

8 Super S exists but it doesn't say what to do with 

9 the unmonitored worker.

10 DR. NETON: Well, right, but we always 

11 apply all the possible solubility classes to 

12 determine the most claimant-favorable dose. 

13 That's just the standard practice we've adopted 

14 since Day 1. If Super S is among the solubility 

15 classes, it will be analyzed as such.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So it should be said 

17 that on --

18 MR. KATZ: So, Joyce, this is Ted. So 

19 Jim is just trying to tell you this is already 

20 standard practice. It doesn't need to be 

21 referenced in a particular document, because it's 

22 not referenced in any of the particular documents, 
62

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 the coworker models. In all cases, this is 

2 standard protocol, so it doesn't need to be there. 

3 So, I mean, I think that settles the matter.

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It's not an 

7 issue that it's not being done or it's going to be 

8 overlooked. If it's standard practice that's 

9 always applied, then I think we're taken care of.

10 Are you okay, Joyce, the rest of SC&A? 

11 Stiver, are you okay on that?

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay.

13 MR. STIVER: My only concern is that, 

14 you know, the dose reconstructor needs to be aware 

15 that, you know, TIB-49 might apply. And I don't 

16 know. It sounds to me like it's part of their basic 

17 training, even though it may not actually be 

18 referenced or called out in the Technical Basis 

19 Document.

20 But as long as, you know, the 

21 reconstructors know it, and they know to use that 

22 protocol where it's appropriate, then I guess it 
63

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 doesn't really need to be in the TBD. That's kind 

2 of what I'm getting from it.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

4 I believe that OTIB-49 actually discusses the 

5 Hanford site. I'm not sure if -- there used to be 

6 a list of sites that should be considered for the 

7 Type Super S. But I'm sure that TIB-49 actually 

8 calls out Hanford.

9 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, because that was 

10 used for developing some of the factors in there. 

11 So it is definitely mentioned. And the Hanford TBD 

12 does mention that Super S is applicable. It may 

13 not be specifically in the coworker appendix, but 

14 in the main body, it does talk about Super S needing 

15 to be considered.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. It's not 

17 mentioned only on the part of unmonitored worker.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think we have 

19 reached the point where we have agreed that this 

20 issue is covered by the process. So, Ted, I need 

21 some advice, we can close it on that basis, right?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes. Paul, I think this is 
64

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 fine to close. I mean, I think it was right for 

2 Joyce to raise the issue, to understand this. But 

3 it certainly, it's covered in standard procedure. 

4 So we don't have to worry about dose reconstructors 

5 not addressing it. I mean, this whole --- the 

6 solubility is such a fundamental part of standard 

7 practice.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, from my 

9 point of view it can be closed. This is one of 

10 those ones that it's very awkward to have a 

11 Subcommittee where one person makes the decision 

12 because of the conflict of interest.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. No, I understand 

14 that.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: This may be an issue 

16 that we need to think about for not only this 

17 Subcommittee but others where, well, maybe if they 

18 knew what occurred in this, because it's one of 

19 those groups that covers multiple sites rather than 

20 one site.

21 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, we're also 

22 going to add, I mean, we're going to add a Member 
65

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 to this Subcommittee too, because it's difficult 

2 to have just your quorum as a membership.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, let's move on. 

6 Are there any other findings that we need to address 

7 on this one?

8 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. Finding Number 3 

9 was, again, the problem of collecting Monday 

10 morning samples.

11 There was an answer from NIOSH in 2009 

12 saying that the majority of the samples were not 

13 collected on Monday. But on the TBD-65, on Page 

14 39, it states that Monday morning only samples were 

15 collected after the early '80s.

16 So if, in reality, as NIOSH answered, 

17 the majority of the samples were not collected on 

18 Monday, then this statement on the TBD should be 

19 changed. Or if this was not true, then Monday 

20 morning samples should be analyzed.

21 But I think NIOSH response was correct, 

22 that the majority of the samples were not collected 
66

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 on Monday, although the TBD says that Monday 

2 morning only samples were collected after the early 

3 '80s.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, can you respond to 

5 that? Can we clarify that?

6 DR. NETON: Yes. I think this seems to 

7 be a pretty straightforward fix. I mean, we can 

8 add some language to that effect. It shouldn't be 

9 a problem.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So then if it's 

11 agreeable, Joyce, we'll just make that change. 

12 This will be in abeyance until it occurs. And 

13 we'll put it in that category. And, Ted, that 

14 would take care of that, would it not?

15 MR. KATZ: That would.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay.

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Then Finding 

18 Numbers 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, they refer to information 

19 to be incorporated for intake calculation of 

20 strontium-90, Pm-147, zinc-65, sodium-24 and 

21 cesium-137. All the information that was required 

22 is on TBD-65 now. So we think that those findings 
67

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 should be closed: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: So just repeat your 

3 last statement, I ---

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Our information 

5 related to those nuclides on Findings 4, 5, 6 and 

6 7 which relate to strontium, zinc, sodium and 

7 cesium. They are now in the new TBD. So we 

8 recommend that they all should be closed.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that makes sense to 

10 me as well. So I agree, we can close that or those. 

11 Thanks. Okay, any others?

12 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe that's the 

13 last finding, those are the last findings, Paul.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Say it again.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: That was the last of 

16 the findings.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: You know, up to eight, 

19 yes. So if you are in agreement, we can move on 

20 to 50?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and bring the 

22 others back, right?
68

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 MR. KATZ: Right, right. Hopefully, 

2 they haven't gone far.

3 MEMBER BEACH: No. Still here.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Still here. So clarify 

5 for me, is all of OTIB-39 now closed, or did we have 

6 one that was ---

7 MR. KATZ: We have one in abeyance.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Which is number ---

9 MR. KATZ: That's Finding Number 3.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Number 3, yes. Still in 

11 abeyance. Very good. That we'll carry for next 

12 time?

13 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, I don't know 

14 how quickly the sort of language, it depends on when 

15 a document is updated. It usually doesn't happen 

16 that quickly, because it usually gets tied in with 

17 other updates.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. Well, at 

19 least we'll bring it up and ask about the possible 

20 timing. And I know that it's been a short time for 

21 you folks. I have a commitment I have to take care 

22 of. So if you can bear with me, if I say this is 
69

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 a good time to break for lunch.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. Before you do that, 

3 Wanda, could I just ask Jim or Stu, just in these 

4 cases where we're waiting for an update to show the

5 finding for a new document, is there some way you 

6 can have a tickler system so that we don't need to, 

7 on the agenda, you know, meeting after meeting, but 

8 we can just raise it when it's ready to be closed.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Actually our 

10 tickler system on that is mainly Laurie who keeps 

11 track of changes that are made as they reflect on 

12 items that are in abeyance.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We just have to get 

15 those on the, you know, in the abeyance portion of 

16 the conversation.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks. I just think 

18 it's, to hold something on an agenda when really 

19 nothing's going to ---

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We kind of have, 

21 on the agenda, a period of time when we get to it 

22 where we can bring up, you know, these are things 
70

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 that have changed that were in abeyance, that we've 

2 made the modification and we think they can ---

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- can be done. And I 

5 suggest we just move it as one of the items in there.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Otherwise though, the 

8 only time we can see them is when we review the 

9 entire BRS for abeyance and open items.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay. So thanks 

11 for your forbearance, Wanda. And yes, I think we 

12 can then go into recess until, what time do you want 

13 to rejoin?

14 CHAIR MUNN: I'll be back at 1:30 

15 Eastern.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, 

17 everybody. And we'll see you back at 1:30.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

19 went off the record at 12:22 p.m. and resumed at 

20 1:31 p.m.)

21 OTIB-0050

22 CHAIR MUNN: Next item on our agenda is 
71

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 OTIB-50. It's a TBD review status. SC&A? Is 

2 that you, Kathy?

3 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron Buchanan 

4 with SC&A, and I'm working on OTIB-50.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: And a little background 

7 on this since these are, it's been a while since 

8 we looked. The OTIB-50 was a Rocky Flats neutron 

9 dose guidance, I think around 2005. So it's been 

10 a while since we reviewed it.

11 Now, this was supplemented. Well, it 

12 was cancelled actually. And the information 

13 incorporated into the Rocky Flats TBD 11-6 of 2010. 

14 And so what we did was, we went back to see if the 

15 material that we were concerned about in OTIB-50 

16 was correctly resolved in the new TBD-6 for Rocky 

17 Flats.

18 And we had find -- we had four items 

19 here. And Number 3 had previously been closed. 

20 So we just have three to discuss today: Number 1, 

21 2 and 4. So Number 1 was confusing in the 

22 directions on what neutron dose to use.
72

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 So, Rocky Flats had a lot of different 

2 terminology in neutron dose. It had the NDRP 

3 document, which had different neutron doses in it. 

4 And so, our concern was how that was worded.

5 And when it was transferred over to the 

6 new TBD-6, we reviewed that. And we find on Page 

7 249 of the new TBD that it was correctly defined. 

8 And we agree with that. And so, we had no problems 

9 with that.

10 We did find that in NIOSH's response in 

11 2008, they did use, we think, the wrong 

12 terminology. It doesn't really affect the TBD or 

13 dose reconstruction, but they said, that 

14 non-effective neutron dose is no longer used.

15 According to the TBD, this is not 

16 correct that the non-effective original dose and 

17 the NDRP dose should be used and the other two not 

18 used. That's just a clarification point on their 

19 response in October 9th of 2008.

20 So, we have no further issues with that. 

21 We felt it's been clarified and revised TBD for 

22 Finding Number 1.
73

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 MR. KATZ: So you recommend closure?

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Any discussion?

4 MEMBER BEACH: No. This is Josie. 

5 Seems pretty straightforward to me, too.

6 CHAIR MUNN: No additional issues, 

7 Paul?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We can close it then?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you much. Next 

12 item up?

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Finding Number 2 

14 was the last paragraph in Section 3. OTIB-50 

15 discussed distributions in errors, values. And we 

16 find that this would have been difficult to 

17 implement in the way it was stated in OTIB-50. 

18 This is rather vague.

19 But we find in the TBD Revision 6 of the 

20 Rocky Flats, on Page 49 does provide clarification, 

21 and we agree with that clarification. We just had 

22 one comment on this. We recommend that it be 
74

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 closed.

2 However, we do find in the revised TBD 

3 of 2010, they do use a reference to the old IT-001 

4 on Page 49. They should be using the reference to 

5 the new IT-001 Revision 3.

6 And so, you know, when you revise TBD-6 

7 again for Rocky Flats, on Page 49, you need to look 

8 at that reference to IT-001 and update it. So we 

9 recommend it be closed.

10 CHAIR MUNN: And do we -- I'm not seeing 

11 words in the actual record.

12 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

13 believe that we want to change your response, Ron, 

14 from in abeyance to closed when I update the BRS. 

15 Is that correct?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. For this finding 

18 and Finding Number 1, I believe you had 

19 inadvertently put in to be changed to in abeyance, 

20 rather than to be changed to closed.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Oh, okay. Well, my, 

22 didn't I write in there SC&A recommends the item 
75

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 be closed?

2 MEMBER BEACH: That's what I'm reading 

3 --

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, I'm sorry.

5 MEMBER BEACH: -- under Number 2.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: On one and two, I have 

7 a printout here that shows SC&A recommends items 

8 be closed.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm sorry. I didn't 

10 scroll down far enough. My apologies.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No. That's quite all 

12 right. Thank you. Very good. Unless there's 

13 any comment to the contrary, we --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. And the other 

15 change will, it's going to carry forward though, 

16 that's for a future revision, not for this one, 

17 right?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct. It has 

19 nothing to do with --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: -- our findings.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So this one 
76

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 should be closed, right.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Josie.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that too, 

4 Wanda. Sorry.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We've reviewed it, 

6 agreed with SC&A's recommendations, closed.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And Number 3 had 

8 already been closed in the past. So we won't go 

9 into that. Number 4 was instructions on use of the 

10 worker's N over P ratio for unmonitored workers.

11 And the original in TBD-50 they 

12 recommended using a .42 ratio for all the 

13 unmonitored workers, and we questioned that. And 

14 NIOSH did come up with a more elaborate N over P 

15 table.

16 And we find that in the revised TBD-6 

17 on Page 50 that they did include the revised table. 

18 We had reviewed that, and found that it was 

19 appropriate. And it's being used in numerous DRs

20 today. And so we suggest closing that.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Fine with me. Paul?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. All right. 
77

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 Yes, I'm in agreement.

2 MEMBER BEACH: And I am, as well.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That's all the 

5 findings for OTIB-50.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Same response. And with 

7 OTIB-50 we just have, what, one outstanding? Or 

8 are we done with OTIB-50?

9 DR. BUCHANAN: I think we're done. I 

10 think there wasn't any more.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

12 MEMBER BEACH: They're all closed.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Three was already 

14 closed, I think.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes. Yes. We had 

16 done that earlier, I remember. All right. Very 

17 good. And we can take that off our list. I'm 

18 rather relieved to see TBD-50 disappearing from our 

19 list. OTIB-60?

20 OTIB-0060

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And this is 

22 Doug Farver. Are you on the line?
78

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 MR. FARVER: Yes. I'm here, Kathy. 

2 Okay, OTIB-60. This is another document that was 

3 reviewed a little while ago. And I believe there's 

4 a few things that are still open that we can discuss 

5 here.

6 So, the first finding, I believe has to 

7 do with IMBA documentation.

8 MR. KATZ: Doug, can you just headline 

9 this? What does this OTIB deal with?

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. Internal 

11 dosimetry.

12 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

13 MR. FARVER: I'm sorry.

14 MR. KATZ: No, that's good. Thanks.

15 MR. FARVER: And Finding 1, the guide 

16 references NIOSH and ORAU documents but should be 

17 revised to include IMBA documentation reference.

18 This was agreed upon a long time ago. 

19 And was just in abeyance until the new revision was 

20 issued. And it's in the new revision. And we 

21 suggest closing this item, since it is contained 

22 in the new revision.
79

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 MEMBER BEACH: And I'm assuming you 

2 looked at the new revision and --

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Perfect.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Close, yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

8 Subcommittee agrees with the recommendation. The 

9 finding is closed.

10 MR. FARVER: Finding Number 2. Okay. 

11 This is pretty wordy. But what the gist of this 

12 is, is that there was terminology used in the 

13 document that's very subjective, and could be 

14 interpreted differently by different people.

15 That's pretty much what the objections 

16 1.5 and 4.1 are that we reviewed it to. And there 

17 was, at the last meeting there was some issue about 

18 they wanted clarification on a ten percent number, 

19 and it was mentioned in a finding.

20 Well, after going back and reviewing 

21 the transcript from the previous meeting, it was 

22 pretty much discussed, and rightly so, that the 
80

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 problem was just in the general wording of the 

2 document, not the specific number.

3 So I made some suggestions, and I don't 

4 know if you can bring up the assessed file, for 

5 changing the wording a little bit to using terms 

6 that are already defined in the document.

7 For example, instead of using a better 

8 fit, reasonable fit or satisfactory fit, we change 

9 it to the ones that are already in the document like 

10 overestimate, underestimate, best estimate. Just 

11 to make the wording consistent, because those terms 

12 already are defined in the document.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

16 MR. FARVER: And that's pretty much why 

17 I just have some edits there under that Word 

18 document that NIOSH might want to take a look at, 

19 and see if they agree with that. That might be a 

20 better way to resolve the subjective wording.

21 CHAIR MUNN: So we carry that 

22 particular finding? Then it's a three, right?
81

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 MR. FARVER: Three.

2 MR. KATZ: Do you want to hear back from 

3 NIOSH?

4 MR. FARVER: If they have a chance to 

5 take a look at it, that would be fine.

6 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I looked at 

7 this a while ago, and I really don't remember. 

8 We'd have to go back and look at it. So I would 

9 recommend we just hold that open for now.

10 CHAIR MUNN: We will.

11 DR. NETON: Unless someone else from 

12 NIOSH has got more insight into this than I do.

13 MS. BRACKETT: Well, Jim, if you don't 

14 mind, I could speak.

15 DR. NETON: Sure.

16 MS. BRACKETT: I took a look at it and 

17 I think the wording sounds fine. It makes sense.

18 MEMBER BEACH: The suggested wording?

19 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Any thoughts to the 

22 contrary? Can we accept that as acceptance from 
82

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 NIOSH?

2 DR. NETON: Yes. I think that's fine. 

3 And maybe just label this in abeyance, maybe.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Then it goes to abeyance. 

5 And we won't require anything from NIOSH. All 

6 right.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. On to Finding 3.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I thought that was 

9 three.

10 MR. FARVER: No, that was two.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's two, okay. Thanks 

12 for correcting me.

13 MR. FARVER: I believe the last status 

14 of this, we're waiting for some ICRP changes, so 

15 that it could be incorporated into the document. 

16 And I believe that is, the status is still unchanged 

17 on that. So it's still in progress.

18 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett 

19 again. I don't know what ICRP change we were 

20 waiting for. But that, the cited document, the 

21 ICRP was a draft.

22 And the ICRP decided several years ago 
83

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 they were not going to issue that document because 

2 they had a lot of comments that were unfavorable. 

3 And they decided just to not go ahead with it. So, 

4 I don't believe that that document will ever be 

5 published.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay.

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Which document is 

8 this?

9 CHAIR MUNN: An ICRP from 2006.

10 MS. BRACKETT: Recommendations on 

11 assessing bioassay. What was it called? It was 

12 a, like a supplementary. I forget the word they 

13 used for it, but more of a guidance document than 

14 a technical.

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. I think what 

16 happened is just ICRP just issued a new document 

17 from occupational intakes of radiation. And it's 

18 OIRCs. And all the bioassay are going to be on the 

19 complementation of the Cs. So the first C is just 

20 a general one. And it was already published last 

21 year, 2015. And the other ones are going to be 

22 published this year and next year. Then they will 
84

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 have the bioassay on each document.

2 DR. NETON: Joyce, are you talking 

3 about ICRP-130?

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

5 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. It was not part of 

6 that. This was something separate. It was not 

7 one of those. Like I said, I can't remember what 

8 they called these. This is a particular --

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes. I know. 

10 Because it wasn't on that group. It was related 

11 to bioassay. There was a bioassay group. And 

12 then they decided that it was going to be part of 

13 each of the OIRCs, which are going to be published 

14 now. So this wasn't published. You were right.

15 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Can I just ask 

16 to back up a bit? Why is there a finding on an ICRP 

17 that's not published? Because, I mean, the 

18 program is not supposed to be operating on 

19 unpublished ICRPs. And it, in fact, takes a while 

20 to even start up with them once they are published.

21 MR. FARVER: I understand. And that 

22 was part of the NIOSH response back in October of 
85

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 2008, to which we replied that we accept it and 

2 recommend closure. And for some reason it was not 

3 closed, because NIOSH was providing comments to the 

4 ICRP committee.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: And they said that the 

7 ICRP is in progress but has not published. The 

8 Work Group changed the status to in progress.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well it, so it sounds 

10 like it should have just been closed way back when.

11 MR. FARVER: If it's never been 

12 published, and no intention of, then just, that's 

13 fine.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. Even if there was 

15 intention to publish it, it's still not something 

16 the program can be held to.

17 MR. FARVER: No, no, no. The, only if 

18 it was published already.

19 MR. KATZ: Right, right. And even 

20 then, there's a startup time.

21 MR. FARVER: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: But, okay. Okay. So --
86

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 MEMBER BEACH: So, this is Josie. Was 

2 there a reference to it in the document OTIB-60? 

3 Is that why it became an issue?

4 CHAIR MUNN: No.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Because of the 

6 reference?

7 MR. FARVER: No, no. There's a --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: -- reference in our 

10 review.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: And during the discussion 

13 it was determined that they'll follow it when it 

14 comes out.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That makes 

16 sense.

17 MR. FARVER: And it was going to come 

18 out but it never did.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

21 A little of the history here is, one of the 

22 Subcommittee Members at the time, Mark, asked to 
87

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 see the comments, sort of offhand. And the 

2 comments are not project comments, you know.

3 NIOSH didn't make the comments. 

4 Contractors to NIOSH made the comments, but not 

5 during their work on the project. So they're not 

6 even project comments. So I really think this 

7 should just be closed, and that whole issue of the 

8 comments should go away.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I agree. What I feel 

10 needs to happen, though, is I think we need the 

11 appropriate words here in this closure to that 

12 effect. Oh, I need to comment that --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: If you would like I 

14 will send some proposed words to Kathy offline, and 

15 copy the Subcommittee Members so they can make 

16 suggestions.

17 CHAIR MUNN: If you would, please, Stu, 

18 that would be ideal.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Good. We'll 

21 look forward to that. And for the time being we'll 

22 leave it sitting the way it is. When we get Stu's 
88

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 comments and SC&A's agreement to that, we'll 

2 incorporate them into the BRS. And at that time, 

3 if they are acceptable, I will ask the Board Members 

4 if they concur that it can now be closed.

5 MR. KATZ: Well no. You can't close 

6 offline.

7 CHAIR MUNN: No.

8 MR. KATZ: But I think you can close now 

9 and agree to the wording offline.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That was a 

11 question I was just going to ask. I don't think 

12 we can take the action. I think we could 

13 distribute them, and then close it at the next 

14 meeting.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. If you agree in 

16 concept that future ICRP changes are not fair game, 

17 then I think you can close it now, and agree to the 

18 exact wording afterwards.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, was there an 

20 issue on the way things were already being done?

21 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think so. I think 

22 that the issue was very easy. Mark wanted to see 
89

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 the comments.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The issue was 

3 this draft ICRP document apparently said that 

4 bioassay is log-normally distributed and our 

5 document says it's normally distributed. And so, 

6 that gave rise, I believe, to the finding.

7 We pointed out that that ICRP document 

8 was never issued. And everybody was good, and it 

9 was recommended to be closed. SC&A recommended it 

10 be closed, but Mark asked to see the comment. So 

11 it wasn't closed for that reason.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I think we 

13 should just close it.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I'll accept that. As I 

16 said to begin with, we need words in here explaining 

17 that.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: But, Wanda, you can 

19 close it and agree to the words --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Offline.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- offline, right?

22 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. That's 
90

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 fine. Yes. Everybody happy with we can close it? 

2 I'm certainly happy with it. Just wanted to make 

3 sure that the right words got there. And we'll 

4 expect those from Stu. So I agree it's closed. 

5 Both Paul and Josie agree it's closed.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: We will record it as 

8 closed. And I will be responsible for seeing that 

9 Stu gets back to me with some words that we can have 

10 Kathy insert at a later date. Next?

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next one is 

12 Finding 4. The OTIB would benefit from 

13 explanations of certain terms, like fitting 

14 bioassay results and assignment of missed and 

15 unmonitored dose and so forth.

16 And it was discussed in previous 

17 meetings, and agreed upon that those would be 

18 helpful. And it was in abeyance waiting until the 

19 OTIB was revised. The OTIB has been revised. And 

20 therefore, we recommend closing this finding.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No problem here. Any 

22 problem from any Board Member?
91

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 MEMBER BEACH: No.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. No problem.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Any discussion from any 

4 party? If not --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Somebody? Then it's 

9 closed.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No discussion here.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. Four is 

12 closed. Next?

13 MR. FARVER: Next is five. There was 

14 some discussion about the guidance on the uniform 

15 relative air, how it could benefit from additional 

16 information.

17 And throughout the different meetings 

18 and responses, it was agreed that they would revise 

19 the OTIB and incorporate some more information for 

20 the dose reconstructors during training sessions 

21 and group meetings and so forth. And they did so 

22 in the revised document.
92

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 And they also include a bunch of OTIBs, 

2 like 11 OTIBs relating to internal dosimetry 

3 guidance documents, which is very helpful also. 

4 So I believe we can close this one also.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Part of that was --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection.

8 MEMBER BEACH: -- whether the modeling 

9 -- oh. Part of that was whether the modeling was 

10 claimant-favorable. And you found that the new 

11 wording and modeling is claimant-favorable?

12 MR. FARVER: Well --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Is that correct, Doug?

14 MR. FARVER: And apparently it has been 

15 changed a little bit through the discussions, that 

16 they were going to add more guidance to their 

17 instructions.

18 So that it, the dose reconstructors 

19 understood that it may not be claimant-favorable. 

20 And to, you know, to be trained to see that and 

21 recognize that, and deal with it.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And you feel 
93

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 like it meets that objective now?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I just want to be, I 

4 wanted to be sure. Thank you.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 6.

6 MR. FARVER: Finding 6. I'm trying to 

7 find the status on that. Is that one closed 

8 already?

9 CHAIR MUNN: It says so.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 CHAIR MUNN: At least it's 

12 recommended.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it says addressed 

14 in findings.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: It's currently 

16 addressed in finding, yes.

17 MR. FARVER: So it goes back to Finding 

18 3, I believe, which --

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Which we just closed.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, yes. Okay. So that 

22 can be closed also. I didn't think there was any 
94

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 action on that one.

2 MR. KATZ: Doug, is it a duplicate? 

3 I'm not understanding.

4 MR. FARVER: It looks like it's all 

5 part of just incorporating more guidance into the 

6 document.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I guess if we read the 

8 finding itself, it would be helpful. That should 

9 clear up the question. So Finding 6.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. I can read it for 

11 you. It's very brief. Error Distribution 

12 Section 5.2.5.3 of the guidance states individual 

13 bioassay results are assumed to be normally 

14 distributed. This may not be true in all cases. 

15 But I think this goes back to the whole discussion, 

16 is this normal or log normal, and so forth, which 

17 I thought was Finding 3.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: The one we just closed. 

21 We're waiting for Stu's words.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.
95

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'm certainly in 

2 favor of closing it. Any, Paul?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree with closing 

4 it.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I agree also.

7 CHAIR MUNN: This one is closed. 

8 Next, Number 7.

9 MR. FARVER: Seven is closed, I 

10 believe.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Let's see. It's already 

12 closed?

13 MR. FARVER: It's already closed, yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: And that's the last one 

16 for OTIB-60.

17 PROC-0042 – OTIB-0064 STATUS

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yay. So, we have only two 

19 and three that we have anything outstanding on, and 

20 three itself is closed. All right. Very good. 

21 Next up, PROC-42 and the OTIB-64 status. NIOSH?

22 MR. SMITH: This is Matthew Smith with 
96

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 ORAU Team. As I jumped through the BRS just on my 

2 own, I did not see any open active findings on 

3 Procedure 42, and I didn't see any findings at all 

4 on OTIB-64.

5 The issue with these two publications 

6 is very similar to what Ron Buchanan went over 

7 earlier in the session regarding OTIB-13 and OTIBs 

8 44 and 64.

9 Procedure 42 was a document that 

10 implemented the technical guidance given in 

11 OTIB-13. And again, this was an early coworker 

12 methodology for Y-12. It was specific to Y-12, 

13 where again, as Ron mentioned earlier, we were 

14 using a scaling factor to adjust coworker dose 

15 data.

16 With the publication of OTIB-64, that 

17 retired both Procedure 42 and OTIB-13. So, the 

18 recommendation would be to, I'm not sure what we 

19 would close, because I don't know what was open or 

20 active, but.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Matt.

22 MR. SMITH: If there was any issue with 
97

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 Procedure 42, those issues would go away due to its 

2 retirement, because of the publication of OTIB-64.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Since I have not checked 

4 those documents personally myself, and our past 

5 findings on them, if it's all right with the rest 

6 of the Subcommittee, I will take it upon myself to 

7 offline check those, and see if I, like Matt, don't 

8 find anything outstanding on them, and will get 

9 back to you at our next meeting as to whether or 

10 not I've found something that I thought was 

11 following up. I'll also check the, it's been a 

12 while since I read the minutes of our previous 

13 meeting. Yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Look, they're all in 

15 abeyance. They look straightforward. But I 

16 agree that you should probably take a look if you 

17 haven't.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I will. I have not. 

19 And, but I'll check the minutes to see what we said 

20 last time because frankly I don't remember.

21 But whatever we expressed as a concern 

22 last time, I'll see if it's worthy of our attention 
98

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 again. I'll have -- either have it on the agenda 

2 or send you a note to the effect that I've taken 

3 a look at it, and like Matt, couldn't find anything.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. But if they're in 

5 abeyance then they do need closure.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So pretty much, Wanda, 

8 all of them say PROC-042 has been cancelled, then 

9 the current guidance used to evaluate and assess 

10 internal, external, excuse me, coworker data at 

11 Y-12 is prescribed in OTIB-064. I believe they all 

12 say that.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'll double check 

14 to make sure that there's nothing in either 

15 document.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: And, this is Kathy 

17 Behling. So, are you, am I understanding that --

18 we have not been tasked to review OTIB-64 yet. So, 

19 are you suggesting, Wanda, that you will go in and 

20 look and ensure that our, these in-abeyance 

21 findings have been properly addressed in OTIB-64, 

22 or?
99

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 CHAIR MUNN: No. I won't do that.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

3 CHAIR MUNN: What I'll do is try to 

4 identify what we've outlined as a problem in our 

5 past discussions.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

7 CHAIR MUNN: And so I'll report that 

8 back. So, thanks.

9 MEMBER BEACH: So, I'm hearing, you're 

10 going to carry this on the next agenda then?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I'll carry it on the 

12 next agenda because I don't feel comfortable 

13 personally in closing it, or making any statement 

14 about it until I've spent more time than I have this 

15 past week.

16 MEMBER BEACH: So it's not appropriate 

17 to task SC&A to review 64 at this time?

18 CHAIR MUNN: I would -- I think that's 

19 a separate question.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay, yes. And 

21 it's on their list of --

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, we'll --
100

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 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We'll address that when we 

3 get to it, if we're actually going to discuss this 

4 at length.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, this is Ted. I mean, 

6 if it's to review 64 to the extent to be sure that 

7 the findings on PROC-42 were addressed, I think you 

8 can go ahead and do that.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: As opposed to reviewing 64 

11 across the board for everything, which would be a 

12 tasking by the Board. But --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: -- if you're just wanting to 

15 follow-up on these findings, and SC&A hasn't looked 

16 at how they were resolved, I'm not sure why that 

17 didn't happen. Because that's just part of the 

18 task, to see --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: -- how they were handled in 

21 the follow-up document. But certainly that's 

22 already tasked, in effect.
101

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Because that's what you do.

3 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I was 

4 thinking. I didn't see that as being a special 

5 tasking by our --

6 MR. KATZ: So, Kathy, is there some

7 reason for this, that these aren't followed up on?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: No. I guess I sort of 

9 held back because I wasn't sure if we needed to 

10 actually be tasked with reviewing OTIB-64. That 

11 was my fault that I didn't, that we didn't follow 

12 through with that. I didn't know, I was going to 

13 wait until this meeting to ensure that we should 

14 go forward.

15 MR. KATZ: I see. Well, no, I mean, 

16 like I said, I mean, when you have a finding that's 

17 open until you, that's in abeyance, awaiting the 

18 next document, we always do that. We go to the next 

19 document and see if that abeyance matter --

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: -- was resolved as agreed 

22 upon in the discussions.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Understood 

2 that we have the follow-up action to --

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That will be great. 

5 Because the recommendation that we have on our list 

6 anyhow is for representative claims, some to 

7 suggest for, not this kind of thing. So, okay.

8 MR. KATZ: So, and, Kathy, when you do 

9 that then, I mean, if there's a whole large other 

10 matters that are addressed that haven't been looked 

11 at by SC&A, then you can report that as well at that 

12 time, so that the Procedures Subcommittee could 

13 make a recommendation to the Board about reviewing 

14 the rest of that.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, Kathy, this is Jim. I 

17 think that's what you're going to find. Because 

18 OTIB-64, I think, has a very different methodology 

19 than was, that was used in the Procedure 44.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

21 DR. NETON: It's not like just fixing, 

22 you know, the things that were found. I mean, 
103

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 there were, I think it's a whole different 

2 approach. It's more of our standard coworker 

3 model approach.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

5 DR. NETON: Whereas PROC-44 had a bunch 

6 of different stuff in it.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, if you think 

8 that's an appropriate procedure to get reviewed, 

9 then I think the Subcommittee can make that 

10 recommendation at our August Board Meeting.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have it in front 

12 of us as part of our recommendations with, at least 

13 as far as --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: We can do it now or then.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, you can, I mean, you 

17 can, the Board doesn't meet until -- well, the Board 

18 has a teleconference. But it's not set up to deal 

19 with these taskings.

20 CHAIR MUNN: True.

21 MR. KATZ: So, it would be August when 

22 the Board would task it, right?
104

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: It seems to me.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: And one other item. 

5 This is Kathy again. I should have mentioned this 

6 back on our very first item, and maybe Ron Buchanan 

7 can help me out here.

8 The OTIB-13, I believe, did we say that 

9 a lot of our findings were transferred over to 

10 OTIB-44? And, I don't know that we have reviewed 

11 OTIB-44 in light of 13, or am I wrong there? Ron, 

12 can you --

13 DR. BUCHANAN: I believe that we did 

14 44. I'd have to go back and look at that. 

15 Forty-four has replaced, then, 64 for coworkers. 

16 OTIB-44, Section 7.4 and 7.5, I have here a note 

17 on Number 3.

18 I say that -- yes, I quote several 

19 sections in 7. And this has been years, remember, 

20 since we've done this. That Section 7.5, OTIB-44 

21 has been addressed, this issue from OTIB-13 and 7.

22 Yes, I think that we have, I have at 
105

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 least looked in OTIB-44 to see if what they said 

2 was carried over or addressed from our question in 

3 OTIB-13.

4 Now whether we were tasked to do a 

5 complete review of OTIB-44, I don't know. But I 

6 did look at it in light of our questions from 

7 OTIB-13. But we would have to check to see if the 

8 Board tasked us with a complete review of 44. And 

9 I'm sure they have it with 64.

10 MR. KATZ: Right, right. Well, so 

11 what I was saying applies here, too. When you look 

12 at that, if you see that there are stretches of 

13 guidance that address approaches that you guys 

14 haven't looked at before, then you can make that 

15 recommendation to the Subcommittee, or to the Board 

16 in August, explaining what it is that hadn't been 

17 reviewed before that's a new approach, and then the 

18 Board can take it up.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And I'm, as you 

20 may have seen if you're looking at the screen, I 

21 did go back through the OTIBs. And I didn't see 

22 OTIB-44 identified on the BRS system. So, Ron, 
106

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 maybe you can look into that a little further for 

2 us.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you.

5 CHAIR MUNN: You know, that's, it's a 

6 mystery.

7 MR. SMITH: Well, this is Matt Smith 

8 again with ORAU Team. I'll just -- I'll reiterate 

9 again that the method in OTIB-13, which has been 

10 expounded on in Procedure 42, is a methodology for 

11 coworker -- external coworker dose that's no longer 

12 used.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. SMITH: OTIB-64 implements what's 

15 written up in OTIB-20. And I know we've discussed 

16 OTIB-20 a lot.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. SMITH: And the coworker studies 

19 that stem from that, we've discussed those a lot 

20 as well. And that is what OTIB-64 is.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, that may 

22 resolve it then. And it may not need reviewing. 
107

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 But SC&A anyway can follow-up --

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

3 MR. KATZ: -- and keep in mind what Matt 

4 explains.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: And let us know. Thanks.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Anything else to 

8 address on that item? Alright. We're moving on 

9 then to RPRT-44. Looks like everybody should have 

10 a hand in this.

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Should I start?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Sure. As far as I'm 

13 concerned. Unless your team has something, 

14 thoughts on this.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Joyce.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: You start it, Joyce.

18 RPRT-0044

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. The, that was 

20 not real apparent with this report, is that there 

21 is a newer document from NIOSH that was issued in 

22 2014. So it's let me say that the -- this report 
108

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 is for analysis of bioassay data, with a 

2 significant fraction of less than results.

3 And the methods for analyzing data sets 

4 that are dominated by sensitive results are 

5 presented in this report. And the statistical 

6 methods that are proposed are based on sound 

7 statistical methodology. And the material was 

8 very well presented.

9 The application of this data is the --

10 all the findings by SC&A referred to the 

11 application of this model. At the same time, in 

12 2014, a newer document for coworker dataset was 

13 presented. And that's RPRT-53, Revision 2, 

14 analysis of stratified coworker datasets, that was 

15 issued in 2014.

16 And this document was complemented by 

17 a NIOSH White Paper, that draft criteria there for 

18 the evaluation and use of coworker datasets in 

19 2015. And Jim Neton was the author of that 

20 document.

21 So, many of the questions and the 

22 findings that we had on this document 44, they are 
109

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 answered satisfactorily in the newer document.

2 So, what SC&A proposed we commence is 

3 that NIOSH should review this document 44 as a 

4 standalone document, after document 53 was 

5 published.

6 So, if you want, I can go finding by 

7 finding. But even Tom Labone has answered that 

8 some of those questions are already answered in the 

9 new document.

10 CHAIR MUNN: So, how to proceed? Jim 

11 --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which new document is 

13 the --

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Is RPRT --

15 DR. NETON: It's RPRT-53.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: RPRT, document 52.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which was it?

19 MEMBER BEACH: It's 0058, Rev 2.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: 0058 Rev 2?

21 DR. NETON: Well, no, 53.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: 53?
110

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 DR. LIPSZTEIN: 53, Rev 2, yes. 2014.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes.

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And that, plus a White 

4 Paper by Jim Neton on draft criteria for evaluation 

5 and use of coworker datasets. One is a 

6 complementation of the other.

7 So, because all the questions we had was 

8 with the example that was done, that was presented 

9 on 44 about the representativeness of the datasets 

10 for workers, in all workers, job sites, time, 

11 patterns, and, like for example, in many datasets 

12 you would have just one year was very, or just one 

13 set of data that would have high results. And all 

14 the others would be less than.

15 Or samples, workers that were sampled 

16 less frequently, and others that had a higher 

17 percentage of data. And then the data would be 

18 used for all workers, without separating it.

19 And all those patterns they are result 

20 in this new document, 53. So, I think that, you 

21 know, this particular document should be reviewed, 

22 taking into consideration that this new document 
111

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 was published. And this other document has been 

2 discussed extensively. And it's very good.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So --

4 DR. NETON: Yes. This is Jim. This 

5 is sort of held up in these coworker model issues 

6 that we've been dealing with. And Joyce is right, 

7 you know, the stratified data set RPRT-53 answered 

8 a lot of questions.

9 And then the imp guide went ahead and 

10 addressed the representativeness, and all those 

11 other factors that are brought up in RPRT-44. It 

12 really didn't have, the findings on RPRT-44 had 

13 less to do with how we analyze the bioassay data 

14 versus, you know, did we have a representative set 

15 of bioassay data to start with. And that's sort 

16 of what's balled up in 53 and the imp guide, the 

17 coworker imp guide.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is 44 officially off 

19 the record, or officially, you know, sort of --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Superseded?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- not used anymore?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Superseded.
112

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, we're just left 

2 with closing it out. Is that what you're saying?

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The statistical 

4 analysis in 44, it's okay. It's the method in 04, 

5 when you have very few data with high results, and 

6 a lot of datas with less than results. The 

7 statistical part is very good. It's okay.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, I'm just 

9 asking --

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The problem is the 

11 implementation that we -- it doesn't carry out to 

12 53. I think both have to be. But all the 

13 implementation of it should be reviewed in place 

14 of 53.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Of the new document.

17 DR. NETON: Yes. The findings against 

18 RPRT-44 really had nothing to do with the 

19 statistical methodology --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. NETON: -- that was put forth.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.
113

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 DR. NETON: It had to do with can you 

2 really use, how do you know that you're using on 

3 a really representative dataset. And that brings 

4 in all the coworker issues.

5 MR. KATZ: But what's left on the table 

6 then, Jim, since there is RPRT-53, plus your 

7 supplemental, your White Paper?

8 DR. NETON: Well, I think it was, yes, 

9 only that. But I think Joyce is right in the sense 

10 that we should probably do a cross walk against 

11 those findings, and demonstrate where they were 

12 addressed in 53 and the imp guide. Maybe that's 

13 the -- I don't know how many findings there were. 

14 I haven't looked at this in a while. But there are 

15 findings that are relevant more to the imp guide 

16 in RPRT-53 now. Because that was written 

17 specifically to address those types of issues. 

18 And there's nothing absolutely wrong with RPRT-44, 

19 at least technically.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So in essence 

22 though all we would need to do would be to close 
114

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 the 44 issues, and make a statement pertaining to 

2 whatever, however that comes out in the cross walk 

3 then.

4 DR. NETON: Yes. I think so.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I think one, there is 

6 an example there of the implementation of the 

7 statistical matters, should say that this 

8 statistical matters should be implemented together 

9 with the instructions on the new document, 

10 something like that. Or should be --

11 DR. NETON: Well, I think --

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: -- used together with 

13 53, or something like that.

14 DR. NETON: I would agree with that. I 

15 think some statement to the effect that this 

16 statistical method should be applied in accordance 

17 with the representativeness defined in those other 

18 document, or something to that effect. That's 

19 what would really need to be done.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So we, do we not need a 

21 statement from NIOSH to get -- is NIOSH going to 

22 do that comparison for us, and give us words that 
115

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 tell us that that comparison has been made, and that 

2 the two documents combined together meet the 

3 requirements of both the agency and the contractor? 

4 So that we can agree to that.

5 DR. NETON: Yes. I think so. I'm 

6 trying to see how many findings were here on 43. 

7 I know, I don't have that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have at least 16 

9 showing up here.

10 DR. NETON: Fifteen?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Sixteen showing.

12 DR. NETON: Sixteen findings.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I'm not sure what the 

14 status is.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: But the ones that were 

17 not closed were four findings.

18 DR. NETON: Oh really? There's just 

19 four?

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Okay. Yes. We could, we 

22 can, I think that's manageable. Sometimes when 
116

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 you get --

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And --

3 DR. NETON: Yes.

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And some, one of the 

5 findings, even Tom Labone has said, oh, this is 

6 already on 53.

7 DR. NETON: Yes. You know, because we 

8 brought in this time-weighted OPOS and all kinds 

9 of stuff since --

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, right.

11 DR. NETON: And, yes. We can, I think 

12 it would be good for us to go through and look at 

13 these four remaining findings. And just sort of 

14 cross-walk them somehow.

15 And keep in mind though that the IMP 

16 guide is still a draft document to begin with, I 

17 mean, so it might be a little difficult to do that, 

18 but we can try.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We'll carry it 

20 with that expectation, and hope to have an 

21 opportunity to do that before too long. Okay. Is 

22 there anything else to be said, or to worry about 
117

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 with respect to RPRTs 44 and 53? Or shall we move 

2 on? Move on to PERs? Because we have a gaggle of 

3 them. Shall we start with 57? Assignment of 

4 review cases.

5 MR. KATZ: That's Bob Anigstein.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Are you with us, 

7 Bob?

8 MR. KATZ: Is Bob on the phone?

9 CHAIR MUNN: I thought I heard him 

10 earlier.

11 MR. KATZ: No. He was this morning. 

12 Kathy is, or John Stiver. Maybe we need to circle 

13 back to this and hunt down Bob.

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. If someone can 

15 contact --

16 MR. STIVER: The only problem I'm 

17 seeing is work phone is not working. So let me call 

18 him on his cell.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: I was going to say, his 

20 phone, he was having difficulty with his phone.

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, got it.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes. Let me see if I can 
118

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 raise him, and get him on the line.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. We can just circle 

3 back to this one.

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right. PER-3, open 

5 item status for NIOSH.

6 PER 003

7 MS. K. BEHLING: PER-3 is, that's mine, 

8 I believe. Hold on one second. Let me see if I 

9 can pull that up. Okay, yes. And actually, 

10 Findings Number 1 and 2 are closed. And Finding 

11 Number 3 was in abeyance.

12 And the issue with Finding 3 is that we 

13 initially had suggested that the TBD should have 

14 a reference to the IREP user's guide. And NIOSH 

15 responded by questioning the relevance of making 

16 this change.

17 And as we've been talking, these are all 

18 very old findings. And at this point we agree that 

19 there's really no impact on, you know, making that 

20 kind of a change. And so, we feel that, we're 

21 recommending that we close this finding.

22 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Do we have 
119

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 words saying that in our response here in the BRS? 

2 Can we scroll down to any later responses to that 

3 finding? Yes. There we are. Any comments from 

4 the Board?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it doesn't seem 

6 to impact anything. So I think we should close it.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

8 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that also, 

9 Wanda.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. The 

11 Subcommittee accepts the recommendation of SC&A. 

12 It's closed.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And if we move 

14 on then to Finding Number 4, which is open. This 

15 finding had to do with -- Type S solubility was 

16 identified as the most claimant-favorable.

17 However, we identified that if there 

18 were organs associated with the extra thoracic ET1, 

19 the Type S would not necessarily be the most 

20 favorable.

21 And NIOSH responded by saying there 

22 were no cases involving the ET1. And so, with that 
120

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 being the case, we feel we can close this. We just 

2 wanted to be sure.

3 We didn't have a complete list of, not 

4 all the PERs identify all of the cases that were 

5 reviewed. So if NIOSH has convinced us that ET1 

6 was not part of any of the cases, then we can close 

7 this.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Any comments from 

9 the Board?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No comments. Close.

11 CHAIR MUNN: It's not then the same 

12 wording for Finding 4. Okay. All right. I think 

13 that's all we have on PER-3. Great. That one can 

14 come off our list. Next is PER-5.

15 PER 005

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Can I assume that Bob 

17 Anigstein did not join us yet?

18 CHAIR MUNN: I haven't heard anything.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

20 MR. STIVER: Bob was logging in when I 

21 called him. So he should either be on or almost 

22 on.
121

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 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. How many findings 

2 do we have on five?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Just one.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, if there's only one 

5 then let's go ahead and do that, and give Bob a 

6 chance to get there.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. That would be 

8 me.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Great.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this has to do with 

11 the Hanford external dose.

12 CHAIR MUNN: And so I'm not saying 

13 anything. Paul.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Wanted to give you a 

15 fair warning.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: PER-5 essentially 

18 addressed NIOSH's incorrectly using a biased dose 

19 correction factor for Hanford workers. And when 

20 we reviewed it, we had the single finding, that we 

21 were concerned that they potentially were not 

22 casting a big enough net when they were looking at 
122

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 impacted claims.

2 We were concerned that by limiting the 

3 potential claims impacted to only claims that used 

4 the best estimate workbook, that perhaps they 

5 weren't potentially capturing all claims. We 

6 weren't sure. But we wanted to make sure that all 

7 claims were captured.

8 And so, NIOSH did a very in-depth search 

9 of all the rest of the claims. And they did provide 

10 us with several attachments here, that go into 

11 detail on exactly how they did that assessment.

12 And when they did the assessment, they 

13 did not find any other impacted claims. And we 

14 reviewed that and were entirely satisfied with 

15 their response. And we would recommend closure.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm the only one 

17 involved in this, right?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

19 MR. KATZ: That's correct, Paul.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Well, I'm 

21 certainly in agreement with closing that. Because 

22 that was pretty convincing anyway. So I recommend 
123

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 closing.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. You do close, 

3 actually.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm in favor of it. 

5 Never say I. Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: It is closed.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's an overwhelming 

8 vote.

9 MR. KATZ: It is.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I like those. PER-5 has 

11 just come off our list. Next we have PER-8, which 

12 is the IREP lung cancer response.

13 PER 008

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, yes. This is 

15 Kathy. PER-8, I think the reason this was carried 

16 onto this agenda is that last time I made mention 

17 that we might want to look at some cases.

18 And I know, I believe Jim Neton said 

19 that there -- it really wasn't necessary. This is 

20 just the fact that the IREP lung model now uses two 

21 risk models: the NIOSH and the NIH model. And so, 

22 NIOSH went back and looked at like, I think around 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 920 claims, and just re-ran those claims using the 

2 newer IREP lung model.

3 And so, I assume, based on our 

4 discussions last time that the Board, or the 

5 Subcommittee does not necessarily recommend that 

6 we re-run those for any of the cases under the 

7 Sub-task 4 review.

8 It would simply be taking the IREP runs 

9 and re-running them, and that's what they have 

10 done. And didn't really know if it was a necessary 

11 step that we needed to take.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That would seem 

13 unnecessary to me. Other Board Members?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, what are we 

15 recommending here?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, I'm 

17 recommending that we don't follow through and do 

18 Sub-task 4. I don't believe that that would be 

19 necessary.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So that would essentially 

21 close the --

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.
125

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 CHAIR MUNN: -- PER?

2 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, this is Jim. 

3 Which finding was that? I'm only seeing Number 1 

4 on this.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, it's not a finding, 

6 Jim. It's --

7 DR. NETON: Oh.

8 MR. KATZ: It's a task that they do. 

9 Whenever we have a PER which has any kind of 

10 complicated --

11 DR. NETON: Yes, yes.

12 MR. KATZ: -- implementation, we want 

13 SC&A to check some cases. But in this --

14 DR. NETON: Right. I got it.

15 MR. KATZ: -- the implementation's 

16 simple and mechanical.

17 DR. NETON: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I recommend closing. Any 

19 of the other Board Members?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree.

21 MEMBER BEACH: I would agree with that 

22 as well.
126

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 CHAIR MUNN: All right. PER-8 

2 question is closed as being unnecessary for our 

3 review. PER-11 status.

4 PER 011

5 MR. KATZ: And so, that would mean that 

6 PER-8 is closed as a whole then, right?

7 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct.

8 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay.

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Excuse me, this is 

10 Lori. Wanda --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: Would there be a 

13 notation made in there that there's no longer a need 

14 to perform Sub-task 4 --

15 CHAIR MUNN: I hope it's --

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- of the PER?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Early on, we had 

18 agreed that instead of doing these things real 

19 time, while we had them on the screen --

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right.

21 CHAIR MUNN: -- Kathy would provide 

22 words for us, and would submit them to us to review.
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. MARION-MOSS: Oh.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So that she could fill 

3 these in offline.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. Thank you.

5 CHAIR MUNN: You bet. Thank you, 

6 Lori. It's good to hear you. PER-11.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. PER-11, 

8 Findings 1 and 2 are closed. Finding Number 3 is 

9 in abeyance. And this is still in abeyance because 

10 PER, NIOSH is indicating that OTIB-54 needs to have 

11 a PER written for it.

12 However, I was just questioning if we 

13 want to go ahead and select cases for Sub-task 4. 

14 Because I don't know if that -- because the PER for 

15 OTIB-54 will be looked at separately. So I'm 

16 questioning whether we want to go ahead and select 

17 cases for Sub-task 4.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: Excuse me, Kathy. 

19 That's PER, OTIB-52, not 54.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Oh, OTIB-52. Okay.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Construction trade 

22 workers.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I'm sorry. 

2 I'll make that change.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, our old friend 52.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. This is 

5 Bob Anigstein.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, there's Bob.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Did we skip over 

8 PER-57?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: We're waiting for you, Bob.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Because we were 

12 waiting for you.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh. It was, I thought 

14 it was 2:30 p.m. So I was having some phone 

15 problems.

16 MR. KATZ: No, it --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But anyway, we're 

18 coming back to it.

19 MR. KATZ: Great, Bob. We'll come 

20 back to you after we done with --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Very good.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. This item --
129

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 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sorry about that.

3 CHAIR MUNN: -- then back to you. 

4 Quite all right. Now, where were we with the 

5 question on PER-11? We were looking at three. 

6 And what was the question, Kathy?

7 MS. K. BEHLING: The question is, shall 

8 we go ahead and select some cases for, under the 

9 Sub-task 4 for this PER, even though we have this 

10 one item in abeyance?

11 MR. KATZ: So, Kathy, if the PER isn't, 

12 if it's in the -- I don't understand. How do you 

13 select cases if the PER isn't out for one of the 

14 findings?

15 MS. K. BEHLING: What I'm saying is 

16 that we will select cases for PER-11.

17 MR. KATZ: Ah.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: And what I'm saying, 

19 this one finding is in abeyance awaiting a PER for 

20 OTIB-52.

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. And so, I'm 
130

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 asking if we can go ahead and assign a few cases 

2 for PER-11, which is the K-25 TBD.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. And did you make 

4 recommendations for what criteria for selection? 

5 Because that's how --

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: -- we'll go forward with 

8 that.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. In that 

10 write-up there were two criteria. The first 

11 criteria was coworkers that were claims prior to 

12 May 21st of 2005, and we're suggesting maybe one 

13 or two cases from that criteria.

14 And then the second criteria was 

15 between the time periods when OTIB-26 was issued 

16 and OTIB-52 was issued, which would be a timeframe 

17 of May 21st, 2005 to August 31st of 2006, maybe one 

18 or two cases from those two time periods.

19 MR. KATZ: So, and then does this make 

20 sense to NIOSH, that this, these cases be assigned? 

21 That this is necessary?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And there's no impact 
131

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 on the in-abeyance finding on running these two, 

2 these several cases?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: I don't --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, yes. Well, we 

5 have, yes, it's about what constitutes a CTW, I 

6 think.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that we 

8 have any particular position to take on whether a 

9 claim should be reviewed here. I think since there 

10 is a finding about what constitutes a construction 

11 trade worker is in abeyance, it might be worthwhile 

12 to avoid construction trade workers in these PER-11 

13 selections. Or is that all about construction 

14 trade workers?

15 MS. K. BEHLING: It's all about --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's sort of 

17 the question though, is you're going to -- is that 

18 what we want to do? I'm not sure that we 

19 necessarily want to do that.

20 Or, I guess I'm wanting to hear whether 

21 or not that's going to be critical in you're cutting 

22 out a group that you might otherwise have selected, 
132

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 or not. I don't know. Kathy, what was your 

2 thinking on that?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, you know, Rose, 

4 I'm going to ask you. I know this is one that you 

5 had done. And I am kind of, I hate to put you on 

6 the spot here. But do you have any comment on that? 

7 Should we wait to do this or am I catching you off 

8 guard?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You're catching me a 

10 little off guard. But the PER for OTIB-52 has to 

11 do with, they were not selecting all the 

12 construction trade workers. They were 

13 misinterpreting the guidance there.

14 And so, we pretty much know what they 

15 should have been doing. It just wasn't being 

16 correctly executed. So, I don't think that should 

17 hold up our process.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So essentially, 

19 reading one of the previous comments there, with 

20 respect to whether or not PER-14 criteria are --

21 I guess I'm getting into a do-loop in my thinking 

22 here. And NIOSH didn't, did NIOSH respond to your 
133

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 concern a couple of years ago about that?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. I needed to 

3 scroll down here a little bit further maybe, this 

4 little -- perhaps --

5 CHAIR MUNN: This is in abeyance, 

6 because of the second of the, the Rev 2 of the OTIB. 

7 PER, they're going to address it, it says.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I don't think we 

9 actually need to eliminate them from 

10 consideration. Because we know how we'll handle 

11 them, right?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. They were 

13 simply not applying construction trade workers --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- up front.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the issue of saying, 

17 let's not, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. 

18 But in your criteria you're not considering whether 

19 or not they're trade workers. If they happen to 

20 be, that's okay, isn't it?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe they have to 

22 be construction trade workers for this to even 
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

1 apply. Am I misinterpreting --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, they all will be?

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh. Well, I -- but it 

5 still doesn't matter. We know how they're going 

6 to be handled, right? In abeyance means we've 

7 basically solved it. We're just waiting to see if 

8 it turns up in the later document.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We're just waiting to see 

10 whether the other document covers it or not, I 

11 think.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But we know how 

13 to handle it. I think we're okay in going ahead 

14 with Kathy's criterion.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I think so too. But 

16 there's nothing that can keep us from keeping this 

17 in abeyance. But is the PER for Rev 2 of OTIB-52 

18 out?

19 MS. K. BEHLING: No, it is not.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So if it's not, then we 

21 essentially need to keep this, continue to keep 

22 this in abeyance until we can actually --
135

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But as far as 

2 selecting the cases, we can go ahead and do that, 

3 can't we?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Sure, sure.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I don't see any reason why 

7 not. Okay. Well, if the cases that we select are 

8 intended to include construction trade workers, 

9 then wouldn't we have to wait to see that the PER 

10 that addresses that is complete and out before we 

11 select the cases? Am I thinking incorrectly?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I think 

13 what OTIB-52 will do is add some additional people 

14 to be considered construction trade workers that 

15 had not been considered construction trade workers 

16 beforehand.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So, but at the time 

19 that PER-11 was written there were already a number 

20 of people identified as construction trade 

21 workers.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Right.
136

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 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, you could 

2 select from that population of claims that we 

3 looked at under PER-11, because they would have 

4 already been considered construction trade workers 

5 at the time.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. Because, Wanda, the 

7 purpose of selecting these cases is to see that 

8 PER-11 was implemented correctly.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: And that's already out, 

11 done.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: The cases have already been 

14 selected and processed. So now SC&A is just 

15 looking to see that that implementation was done 

16 correctly.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And they're just 

18 sampling from a couple of time periods, is how 

19 they're --

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- looking at it. 

22 Not, what I'm saying is, it seems to me that that 
137

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 makes sense. And I would say, yes, and we go ahead.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. So the, all the 

3 Subcommittee needs to do is to concur with the 

4 criteria that have been recommended by SC&A. And 

5 then NIOSH will pull cases for that, and send them, 

6 refer them to SC&A.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes. That seems 

8 the logical way to proceed to me.

9 MR. KATZ: Very good.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Anybody else?

11 MR. KATZ: So NIOSH will follow up on 

12 that with the cases for SC&A. And then they'll do 

13 that.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Just so we make 

16 sure we get the criteria correctly, Kathy, could 

17 you email us those time periods that you said?

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. I will do that. 

19 And I'm sorry --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: -- for all the 

22 confusion here.
138

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 CHAIR MUNN: No. It's quite --

2 MR. KATZ: No. It's quite fine, 

3 Kathy.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Because you're going to be 

5 loaded, especially from June, are bearing the 

6 burden of putting these words together so that it 

7 makes sense when we look at it again in the BRS, 

8 on top of everything else. But, then we can 

9 consider those closed, that closed?

10 MR. KATZ: It's just an assignment of 

11 cases. It's not closing any findings.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: But we, well, okay. So 

15 we're --

16 MR. KATZ: That's all we're doing here 

17 is assigning the cases.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Okay. Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: So that's, it's sort of a 

20 nice lead in to Bob's, because that's also --

21 CHAIR MUNN: It is.

22 MR. KATZ: -- just a matter of 
139

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 assigning cases.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. And are you ready 

3 now, Bob?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And as a matter of fact 

7 I have, let me go see if I can get this loaded up. 

8 I would like to present, make a presentation on Live 

9 Meeting. Okay. I should be --

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. I'm good. 

11 There you go. I'm going to share with you. I'm 

12 sorry.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Does everybody see my 

14 PDF file?

15 CHAIR MUNN: I do.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Good. Let me make 

17 this -- okay. It was last-minute problems I was 

18 having with my internet. Just one reason I was 

19 late.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you might as well 

21 join the group.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Getting back on. 
140

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 Pardon?

2 CHAIR MUNN: You might as well join the 

3 club.

4 PER 0057

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right. My case 

6 was very simple. It was just pushing a button on 

7 my modem to reset it, and fix it. Anyway. Okay. 

8 So, as everyone I'm sure knows, PER-57 -- here's 

9 your PER-57. I'll just do it very quickly. Is 

10 that there has been a revision. Okay, there was 

11 actually a very early PER, back in 2007 for four 

12 cases for General Steel Industry, GSI.

13 And those four cases were done under 

14 TBD-6000. And they were then redone when the GSI 

15 Appendix B, it was Appendix BB to TBD-6000, Rev 1, 

16 Rev 0, which came out in 2007. And those cases were 

17 redone.

18 But then my understanding is that three 

19 of those cases turned out to be not GSI workers. 

20 So, I'm not quite sure what the status of that PER 

21 was. But that's probably, you know, a moot 

22 question right now.
141

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 So, PER-57 was -- then there was a Rev 

2 1 to Appendix BB that came out in 2014, I believe, 

3 in summer of 2014. And that -- is Dave Allen on 

4 the line?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think Dave's 

6 on.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. I was 

8 going to say he would -- I was going to invite him 

9 to correct me if I got any of the details wrong. 

10 You guys want to know.

11 Anyway the Rev 1 came out. And then 

12 SC&A had a response to Rev 1. And there was, I 

13 think two meetings of the TBD-6000 Work Group 

14 following that discussing it. And then in the end, 

15 NIOSH decided that even though there was Rev 2 will 

16 probably be -- there probably will be a Rev 2.

17 Nevertheless, to speed the process, we 

18 decided to choose the PER-57 so as to review all 

19 of the GSI cases that had ever been studied, 

20 wherever there had been DRs performed, to see if 

21 they needed to be, if the PoC changed. And 

22 apparently there was about 100 cases where the PoC 
142

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 changed.

2 So the, where we are now is that the, 

3 we were asked, or we were recommending that we be 

4 assigned to review -- Tasks 1, 2, and 3 -- Sub-tasks 

5 don't need to be done because they've already been 

6 taken care of. And Task 4, the review of the cases, 

7 is all that's left.

8 So the sample cases that I'm suggesting 

9 that we look at is, first of all, it will change 

10 by -- you have doses from, you have an entire 

11 variety of doses at GSI.

12 You have external photon dose, both 

13 from the betatron, scattered radiation from the 

14 betatron, and from radiography sources that were 

15 using radionuclides, primarily radium-226 that was 

16 in use at GSI during the beginning of the covered 

17 period, starts in late 1952.

18 And if I remember correctly the source 

19 of the radium sources were used through 1962. And 

20 we have called that, it's been generally adopted, 

21 the radium era. This is the time where the 

22 primary, the main source of external exposures is 
143

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 radium.

2 However, the same radiographers that 

3 were doing radium, that were using radium, and we 

4 know of one person who I've spoken -- I've 

5 interviewed, who was doing both.

6 Part of the time during his shift he 

7 will be doing it using radium, part of the time 

8 using the betatrons. He would be shuffling in and 

9 out of the betatron building to, and the special 

10 structure they had for the radium.

11 Then in addition, those worker who were 

12 -- then later, starting with 1963 through June 

13 30th, 1966, which is the end of the radium era, at 

14 the end of the covered period, the primary external 

15 exposure was from the betatron.

16 And we postulated that there could be 

17 a worker just outside the betatron room, called the 

18 layout man, that would be marking up the -- as soon 

19 as the casting is radiographed they send it out of 

20 the betatron building on a flatcar.

21 And it gets this layout man, who's not 

22 a specific job category, he actually alternates 
144

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 with the betatron operators. Looks at the 

2 casting, has the films that have just been, that 

3 developed in front of him.

4 And he lays the film beneath the 

5 casting, matches them against the casting, and 

6 marks where there are defects on the film. And 

7 then those defects then get repaired and the 

8 casting goes back for a second confirmation 

9 radiograph to make sure they have been fixed.

10 And sometimes it takes more than one 

11 iteration to get the two, repair all the defects. 

12 And that person, this layout man, could be --

13 operators are safe. They're sitting behind a --

14 Hold it a minute until I mute this phone.

15 Hello. Yes, I'm sorry. I had the 

16 other phone line ringing. So, sorry about that. 

17 So, this person would be, would get, be actually 

18 in line of the betatron beam, even though it's at 

19 a distance.

20 But there is a geometry where he could 

21 actually be getting exposed to the periphery of the 

22 beam. And so, he will be getting a reasonably high 
145

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 exposure. And then, so that's both photon, 

2 external photon exposures from the radium.

3 And then later from -- and they're 

4 comparable on an annual basis -- and later from the 

5 scattered radiation through this layout man. Then 

6 the betatron operator is shielded. So he gets very 

7 little direct exposure. He's behind a ten-foot 

8 thick wall filled with concrete and sand.

9 However, he will get some neutrons. 

10 Some neutrons penetrate the sand. So there is some 

11 neutron dose that the betatron operator will get 

12 during the betatron exposures.

13 Next, the betatron operator is handling 

14 uranium, slices of uranium ingots that were -- we

15 used those as an example. But we know there were 

16 other shapes also that he has to set up and orient 

17 and take about four shots.

18 And so he's getting beta exposures now, 

19 electron exposures to the skin while he's handling 

20 the uranium slices. And particularly after 

21 they've been radiographed there are some 

22 short-lived -- uranium-237, uranium-239 --
146

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 short-lived radioisotopes that get created during 

2 the betatron radiography.

3 And these are beta emitters. So after 

4 it's been exposed, there's an additional dose from 

5 the metal for anyone in contact with it --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I interrupt just 

7 a second?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Wanda, if it's 

10 agreeable, I think this Subcommittee's pretty 

11 familiar with all of the different exposures at --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, okay.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- General Steel. And 

14 I'm wondering if we need this much detail on --

15 (Simultaneous speaking)

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- rather than going 

17 directly to the recommended groups or --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I will --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm asking the Chair to 

22 give us a --
147

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think Paul is 

2 absolutely correct. I think we've all been very 

3 familiar and have worked with the information for 

4 quite awhile. So, yes.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry, Wanda, I 

6 have difficulty hearing you.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I'm sorry. I said, 

8 yes, I think the Members of our Subcommittee here 

9 are very familiar --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I guess, now that I 

11 think about it, yes, you are. Because -- I'm 

12 sorry. Forgive me. I guess the same personnel as 

13 the --

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. As the big Board, 

15 yes.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry.

17 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all right.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I wasn't, I didn't have 

19 my head on right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: It's just --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I will, I'll 

22 cut to the chase.
148

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 CHAIR MUNN: Just --

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will definitely cut 

3 to the chase then.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So the categories that 

6 then I would like to have, the case action, is the 

7 three different, I mean, many cancer sites. But 

8 lung, metabolic organs and skin would have 

9 different dose pathways and consequently it would 

10 be useful if we could have one of each. Because 

11 the lung will get the inhalation of radium/uranium 

12 dust. Metabolic organs will also get uranium. 

13 And the skin, of course, will be primarily beta 

14 exposures.

15 Then there are the two job categories. 

16 Like, you know, if they have assigned the job 

17 categories appropriately. And there's 

18 administrative personnel, which was agreed in the 

19 Rev 1 of the TBD, that they will get a lesser dose. 

20 They will get something like 500 something millirem 

21 per year, just casual exposure when they happen to 

22 be walking through the plant. But most of the time 
149

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 they're in a separate building away from the 

2 radiation sources.

3 And then you have, the second category 

4 of course is the plant personnel. And depending 

5 on which era we're talking about the radiographers 

6 would get the highest exposure during, external 

7 exposure certainly, during the radium era. And 

8 the layout man would get the highest exposure 

9 during the betatron era. I mean, betatron was used 

10 the whole time, but that's when betatron is the 

11 primary source of exposure.

12 And then the time periods would be, the 

13 first time period October 1952, December '62, this 

14 we call the radium era. And we have a lot of 

15 radium/uranium radiography going through that 

16 period. And there would be the skin doses from 

17 uranium handling.

18 Then the second period, when the new 

19 betatron was installed at the very end of, towards 

20 the end of 1963. And then you have the possibility 

21 of the layout man. So, that's another exposure 

22 scenario that would now have taken place earlier.
150

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 And then finally, the residual period, 

2 which is from July 1st, '66 to December 31st, '93. 

3 And that would be exposures related to the residual 

4 uranium contamination.

5 And so, here is a recommended selection 

6 of perhaps as many as five to six cases. We'd like 

7 to see an operator, betatron, radiographer I should 

8 really say because he could be a betatron operator, 

9 he could be using radium, or probably 

10 interchangeably.

11 We'd like to see a lung case from that 

12 period. And another, and also a skin case of hands 

13 and forearms because those would be the limiting, 

14 the highest exposures of skin.

15 Then during the second period, it will 

16 be interesting to look at a non-respiratory 

17 metabolic organ because that would be, again, from 

18 the uranium dust.

19 I would like to see one case from a 

20 uranium worker, which could be from oxide blue, 

21 because it could be -- we don't need two. Either 

22 a lung cancer or a non-respiratory metabolic organ. 
151

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 Either one would be okay.

2 And then finally, during the residual 

3 period, it could again be the same choices, a lung 

4 cancer or a non-respiratory metabolic organ.

5 So, I would say that the two blue cases 

6 are really one case, one or the other. And the two 

7 orange cases are also one case. So we're talking 

8 about one, two, three, four, five, would be ideal 

9 and probably sufficient.

10 MR. KATZ: And keep in mind, Bob, that 

11 you can have cases that actually cover more than 

12 one of these scenarios because they would be 

13 reconstructing dose if it's a full dose 

14 reconstruction on all of the radiation exposures.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right. All right. 

16 I mean --

17 MR. KATZ: That's just something --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Assuming that you're 

19 talking --

20 MR. KATZ: -- that they do when they dig 

21 into the cases.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You're saying if they 
152

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 have multiple cancers?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. Multiple cancers and 

3 cover multiple periods.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I'll -- I can 

7 accept that, yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have one question. 

9 So you're talking about at least one or two betatron 

10 periods and one or two radium periods? Also --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. That's, we're 

12 talking about two periods. Two periods during the 

13 operation, yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Then there is 

16 the --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Plus the residual 

18 period.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And during the 

20 operational period --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: During the first 
153

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 operational period the betatron -- there is the old 

2 betatron that is used --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. I know --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the radium is being 

5 used.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I want to get to my 

7 question, though.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The question, we had 

10 theoretically three job categories, which included 

11 the, quote, administrative jobs. And at the time 

12 we talked about that I actually had personal doubts 

13 whether there would actually be anyone in that 

14 category. Because it seemed pretty likely that 

15 virtually everybody at one time or another got into 

16 the, what we would call the working area of the 

17 plant.

18 I wonder, and maybe Jim Neton would know 

19 it, whether actually anybody, any people that fell 

20 into that category of administrators, or 

21 administrative?

22 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I don't know,
154

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 Dr. Ziemer. I haven't looked that closely.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, you, I thought 

3 you were intimating, Bob, that you were going to 

4 try to identify someone in that category. Was that 

5 correct?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Only if my -- no. 

7 Excuse me. No. Only if NIOSH has identified 

8 someone.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. If they had.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If they've identified 

11 someone as an administrative worker and assigned 

12 a dose to an administrative worker, I will be very 

13 interested in seeing, so we could sort of, you know, 

14 confirm that we agree with that categorization --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and with the method. 

17 Because it's a different --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: And probably --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- dose --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- determine that it 

21 was --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- specific scenario.
155

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Obviously if there are 

3 no such people then --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then it's a moot point. 

5 Yes. Okay. I just wanted to raise that. But --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And they will most

7 likely, and they will probably be more likely, 

8 because it is lower, to be in the less than 50 

9 percent PoC. So they would fall into the --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Exactly.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- category that we 

12 were -- the ones that are, you know, compensated, 

13 obviously we don't look at.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. So that 

15 may not even show up in your --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. It would show 

17 up on the non-compensated, which is the one that 

18 we need to review.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Now, if there 

21 aren't any, then the question is moot.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
156

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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: At the time this was 

2 discussed, it was considered to be a real 

3 possibility --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- that there could be 

6 some clerical workers or --

7 MR. KATZ: Right. So long as the 

8 Subcommittee agrees on Bob's criteria, his 

9 construct, then NIOSH can go ahead and search the 

10 cases to meet the criteria.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

12 Bob, can you share the page you're showing here, 

13 so we can work from that? I don't think it's in 

14 BRS anywhere, right?

15 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think so.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes. But Bob will share 

17 that for sure.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Send that to us 

19 and you, I guess. And then we'll, so we can just 

20 work from this table.

21 MR. KATZ: So, the Subcommittee just 

22 needs to express their concurrence with the 
157

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 criteria.

2 CHAIR MUNN: The criteria sound 

3 reasonable enough to me. Paul?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We've got three 

5 types of cancers, three types of job categories, 

6 three time periods.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. All 

8 overlapping.

9 MEMBER BEACH: So, my question would 

10 be, if one of, if you do not find an administrative 

11 person, would you add another category or another 

12 operator or would you just eliminate that?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. I would be happy 

14 with four. If there are no administrative --

15 MEMBER BEACH: You'd be happy? Okay.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would be happy with 

17 four.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That should be adequate. 

19 Any further discussion? If not, we can indicate 

20 that Dr. Anigstein's recommendation --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For my information, 

22 when, about how long would it take NIOSH to sift 
158

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 through those cases to --

2 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know whether Jim 

3 or Stu heard that.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Jim?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I'm sorry. I was 

6 on mute. I don't know exactly how long it will 

7 take. But what we'll do is we'll sort the cases 

8 into categories that can allow selection. And 

9 hopefully can provide efficient selection of cases 

10 that may need more than one, may check more than 

11 one of the boxes here in the table.

12 So then, in terms of, I mean, we can 

13 choose the exact cases if you want. Or we can show 

14 you which cases fit into the categories.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I would be 

16 perfectly happy to sift through. If you can --

17 MR. KATZ: Well, no. I mean, the 

18 process is for NIOSH to select the cases and send 

19 them over.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We can select 

21 the cases.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
159

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 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I mean, are we

3 talking about a period of weeks, months?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it will be, I 

5 think it would be weeks.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think so. But I 

7 think in general, unless there's something, a 

8 complication, Bob, it takes a number of weeks to, 

9 just because this has to be assigned among other 

10 work, and so on.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It has to be fit into 

12 other stuff our folks are doing in our computer 

13 area. They're on the query. And so, I'm thinking 

14 weeks. But I don't think it would be a whole lot

15 of weeks.

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: One other question, if 

18 I could ask NIOSH. Are there still some cases that 

19 are under consideration for, under the PER? I was 

20 trying to interpret what was depicted in Dr. 

21 McKeel's memo about some cases that appeared maybe 

22 are still under consideration. Or did I 
160

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 misunderstand that?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's a lot of 

3 information in that memo. Of the 100 cases which 

4 we identified as PoCs changing in, for PER-57, we 

5 got, ultimately I think we got 91 of them back.

6 The ones we didn't get back were either 

7 DOL has not found a survivor, you know, of the 

8 original claimant --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that, you know, 

11 haven't found a survivor. Or they've determined, 

12 when looking back at the case, that they, that this 

13 person actually didn't work at General Steel at 

14 all. They were probably Grant City Steel.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I understood 

16 that. I was just really asking, is NIOSH done with 

17 the cases? Well, it's the 91 then, or whatever it 

18 is.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you folks --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: To what I, adding to 

22 what I just said, some of the 91 that we got back, 
161

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 I think DOL then later determined did not have 

2 covered employment, did not work there.

3 And so we found out after we had 

4 reworked the dose reconstruction that there were 

5 some that did not have covered employment. There, 

6 as I, by our tally we just got one out like either 

7 Friday or this morning.

8 But by our tally that was the last one 

9 of the PER-57 cases that we had in front of us to 

10 work on. We have one, what I would call a new 

11 claim, which is a very high number that has come 

12 in since PER that we're working on. That's just 

13 the first time, you know, the first dose 

14 reconstruction.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: So is it, so it's not 

16 part of the PER group there?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: No. That's not part 

18 of the PER group. So it's --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, you're able to sort 

20 it, the complete group that you've handled? 

21 That's all I was asking.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And --
162

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And I know that in the 

3 Department of Labor as one of their messages to Dr. 

4 McKeel, they said there were 15 new claimants in 

5 that population of 100. And I've asked them about 

6 that.

7 What they meant by that was that the 

8 original claimant has passed away. And they have 

9 found the qualified survivor, which they've been 

10 calling --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh. They call it a new 

12 claimant.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: They call it a new 

14 claimant. It's the same old, it's a case that we

15 evaluated. And it was a particular energy 

16 employee that we evaluated under PER-57.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: But by the time the PER 

19 came through that, the original claimant had died. 

20 And they had found new claimants, survivor 

21 claimants to satisfy. And they called those new 

22 claimants. But those were not new cases.
163

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. Okay. 

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Have we had adequate 

4 discussion, and resolved the issues that we, that 

5 had developed with respect to PER-57?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, Wanda, that takes care 

7 of 57. We've got 58 squared away.

8 CHAIR MUNN: If so, yes. If so, thank 

9 you very much, Bob. We appreciate it.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You're welcome.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And you'll be hearing from 

12 NIOSH.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thank you, Bob.

14 PER 029

15 CHAIR MUNN: Next on our list is 

16 PER-29.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron 

18 Buchanan of SC&A. And I have PER-29. Now, this 

19 is the Hanford TBD changes. So I guess we're back 

20 to Paul now.

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Thank you, 

22 Paul.
164

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 DR. BUCHANAN: And this consisted of, 

2 PER-29 is a change to the Hanford TBD, to go back 

3 and look at cases NIOSH issued. And we had 

4 questioned, we had 12 issues that are --

5 And we have, the first one is the skin 

6 dose. And the problem there was, we asked, well, 

7 what about the skin dose? Was not included in, the 

8 new method of doing skin dose wasn't included in 

9 PER-29.

10 And several places in this findings 

11 relate to this. I guess it was a placeholder. 

12 They mention it in their original TBD. That was 

13 in effect with PER-29, which is in 2007. PER-29 

14 was issued in 2007.

15 So, the 2006 older Hanford TBD refers 

16 to airborne particles and hot particles to the 

17 skin. But the way we understand it now, NIOSH's 

18 response was that was a placeholder. They did not 

19 do it before, in 2007.

20 It wasn't until 2010 that they came out 

21 with a procedure to implement the hot particles. 

22 And so, Procedure 29 would not be covering the hot 
165

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 particles that were just mentioned in the original 

2 TBD.

3 And so, with that explanation we 

4 consider, you know, it can be closed. Because it 

5 really wasn't applicable when PER-29 was issued.

6 The other part of that Number 1 finding 

7 was an error in Revision 0 of the TBD, where it 

8 states 130, 240 rad per hour. And then in the later 

9 edition it states, it's a value.

10 And so, NIOSH came back and explained 

11 that was a typo in Revision 1. But it was corrected 

12 in Revision 2. However it was a rate, not a total 

13 annual dose. And so it wouldn't impact the dose.

14 It was a text error in the original one 

15 that didn't impact the dose. And it was corrected 

16 in the Revision 1. And we checked that out and it's 

17 true. And so, we recommend closure on Finding 

18 Number 1. Hello?

19 MR. KATZ: So, Paul, maybe you're on 

20 mute.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sorry, I was on mute. 

22 Didn't realize it. So, it sounded like you had 
166

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 two. The skin dose procedure, was that Finding 1?

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. That was skin 

3 dose.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then the textual 

5 error was Finding 2?

6 DR. BUCHANAN: No. That was 

7 incorporated into --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that was part of 

9 one?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that was part of 

11 one.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So, yes. I 

13 agree. Let's close Item 1.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: So, that brings us to 

16 Finding 2. Now, I'm going to cover Finding 2, 3, 

17 4, and 5, because they all have the same answer. 

18 Originally when we looked at PER-29 they was, and 

19 TBD, the revised TBD, that it was issued for, we 

20 could not find an attachment that it refers to in 

21 the original TBD.

22 Because, we couldn't compare them, 
167

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 because we couldn't find them. And they weren't 

2 in the original TBD. And so, what we found out was 

3 NIOSH had these, and they could use them. But we 

4 couldn't find them to compare.

5 And so, then later on we found out that 

6 they had been posted on the NIOSH website as a 

7 separate document. So we found the attachments 

8 that was originally should have been issued with 

9 the TBD originally, and compared those to the 

10 revised TBD, so that we could see if, you know, 

11 PER-29 was correct.

12 And we went through those. And these 

13 were thousands of pages of tables almost, or 

14 hundreds of pages of tables. And so, I compared, 

15 just a spot checking, I compared the minimum and 

16 maximum. And I did not see that there was a

17 discrepancy between the attachments, and so, that 

18 we found later on.

19 And so, we seen that there was no 

20 problem with it once we was able to recover the 

21 original attachments. And so, Findings 2, 3, 4, 

22 and 5, and they're just tables of numbers for source 
168

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 terms, atmospheric dispersion factors, argon-41 

2 immersion, and intakes for TBD-4, these all 

3 reflect, relate to TBD-4.

4 And so, we found that they did match. 

5 And so we recommend closure on Findings 2, 3, 4, 

6 and 5, because the appendix, or the attachments are 

7 now available.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Good. We will close 

9 2, 3, 4, and 5.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And now, Finding 

11 6. And again, 6, 7, and 8 are similar, in that what 

12 it was, kind of like 1, they mentioned something 

13 in the original TBD. And then there was 

14 placeholders for this.

15 And so, this is changes in internal dose 

16 in TBD-5. And the way I understand NIOSH's 

17 explanation is, they retained, they say they 

18 mention it.

19 And then, when something comes in to 

20 work that dose reconstruction, they set that case 

21 aside if it falls in a certain area that they don't 

22 have the effective information for. And then they 
169

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 go back and rework it when they get this information 

2 in.

3 And so, that, so the cases, the claims 

4 are held until that information becomes available, 

5 and they fill that in. Then when that information 

6 becomes available they work those claims, and 

7 determine the PoC.

8 And so, this is what Finding 6 was, 

9 changes in internal doses in TBD-7. Seven was new 

10 information on the MDAs in TBD-5. And eight was 

11 MDAs for non-routine uranium bioassays in TBD-5.

12 And so, and some of them include tables 

13 which were not in the document. But they were 

14 included in Revision 1. And so, if this is true, 

15 NIOSH does hold these cases until they come up with 

16 this information that's in the revised TBD, then 

17 the rework.

18 Then, we have no issue with this, and 

19 we recommend that Findings 6, 7, and 8 be closed. 

20 Because this information was presented later, the 

21 cases held, and then reworked.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Very good. And can we 
170

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 confirm then -- Those will be subject to future 

2 PERs. Is that correct, Jim? I'm not hearing 

3 anybody.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: What was the question 

5 again, Paul?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it sounds like in 

7 those cases that where there were placeholders that 

8 the actual new procedures haven't come into play 

9 yet. But there will be a future PER that will 

10 handle those.

11 Ron indicated that those cases were, 

12 would be set aside, or they're held back for future 

13 PER work, or future recalculation. Am I 

14 understanding it correctly?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there certainly 

16 will be a future PER for Hanford.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the discussion 

19 --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- is going on there 

22 now.
171

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. Well, 

2 there were two sets here. The one was, the first 

3 group were the, what was it Ron?

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, the --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: For those tables that 

6 will, that were in the original document, but not 

7 in the revision.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Well, I don't 

9 think there's a PER issue. The question is that 

10 when there's a placeholder in the TBD, when the 

11 technical information isn't available, then the 

12 cases that fall in that group are set aside until 

13 that information becomes available. And then 

14 they're worked with the new information, like the 

15 new information on MDA values and such.

16 And so, the question is that NIOSH goes 

17 back, and as soon as that information becomes 

18 available, then they work those cases that have 

19 been set aside.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I was trying to 

21 understand whether that becomes part of the same 

22 PER once the information is there. Or is that a 
172

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 new PER?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in the situation 

3 where Ron's talking about, I don't think that 

4 constitutes a requirement for a PER. I mean, as 

5 far as I know those cases, you know, those 

6 situations are non-historical.

7 And we're now doing the cases from 

8 Hanford, even though we know that we're going to 

9 have to do a PER and take another look at them. 

10 But, I believe the days of holding claims because 

11 we didn't have a technical approach, I think we've 

12 resolved all those, and those move forward.

13 So, when we made a resolution and said, 

14 okay, now we have enough information that we can 

15 now do these claims we've been holding, that didn't 

16 require us to go back and look at any claims that 

17 had previously performed, because --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But you're not 

19 -- holding claims now.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: We are not holding 

21 claims now, no.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. See, so I'm 
173

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 trying to resolve in my mind, what is the impact 

2 of closing this, Ron, or Stu, Findings 6, 7, and 

3 8, on the internal dose? You had a placeholder. 

4 Here Ron is saying those claims are being held until 

5 we get that information. But I think you're 

6 saying, no, we're not holding claims. So, help me 

7 resolve this in my mind.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This was awhile 

9 back. Okay, this was, when I did this evaluation 

10 they were holding claims then. And I said, okay, 

11 if you're going to rework the claims when the 

12 information comes available, that's fine, you 

13 know. And so, if NIOSH has, states that they went 

14 back and picked up those claims, and reworked them, 

15 well then, I recommend closure. You know, there's 

16 nothing really more that we can say about it. We 

17 just wanted to point out that those changes did take 

18 place. And NIOSH says, yes, we held those claims 

19 until that information became available --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the ones you're 

21 talking about may have already been reworked then?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, right. By this 
174

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 point they've been reworked.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. Okay then, 

3 then it's kind of a moot point. But we'll close 

4 6, 7, and 8 as well. Okay?

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And then, and, 

6 Kathy, I just wanted to make a note, on Number 8 

7 the heading should be MDAs for non-routine uranium 

8 bioassays.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Okay.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: It says, non-uranium. 

11 It should be non-routine uranium. Okay?

12 MS. K. BEHLING: We'll make that 

13 change.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Just wanted to 

15 clarify. Okay. And now, so that brings it to 

16 Finding 9. And that was a reference to Attachment 

17 D.

18 They used a reference, again, they 

19 talked about Attachment D in the original TBD. And 

20 it wasn't included in the Revision 1 of TBD-5. And 

21 the way NIOSH explained it, that was an error in 

22 the original TBD.
175

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 It should not have said anything about 

2 Attachment D, because it wasn't there. And also, 

3 it wasn't in the revision. And it, well, it 

4 shouldn't have been in the revision. It was 

5 corrected, that text was removed from the revised 

6 TBD.

7 And so, we agree. We just wanted to 

8 make sure there wasn't something out there we was 

9 missing, that was forgotten when they went to the 

10 revised TBD. And there wasn't. That text 

11 shouldn't have been in the original one. And so, 

12 we agree. And that was, we recommend closure on 

13 that.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Nine is closed.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay. And then 

16 we have ten. It's changes in uranium specific 

17 activity in TBD-5. Table 5.2.5-1 of Revision 1 was 

18 different than those in Revision 2.

19 And what NIOSH explained, and if this, 

20 obviously when you looked at the details, is that 

21 they took a very long list in the original TBD. And 

22 they condensed it, and just gave the highest 
176

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 specific activities.

2 So the dose reconstructor would use 

3 those, rather than selecting from a variety that 

4 he could have selected from in the original one, 

5 table, which is pretty lengthy. And so it ends up 

6 being claimant favorable, reasonable. And so, we 

7 recommend that that be closed.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agreed. We'll close 

9 it.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Now, Finding 

11 Number 11 is, we found that in the revised TBD that 

12 they doubled the plutonium americium impurity 

13 levels, which could increase the dose in the 0.4 

14 microcuries per gram to 0.8.

15 And so, the latest response we have on 

16 that is that NIOSH would consider that and get back 

17 to us. And so, that's where we're at on that. So 

18 that's in NIOSH's court. That and 12 also.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there anything more 

20 recent, Jim, on that one?

21 DR. NETON: Well, I don't think so at 

22 this point.
177

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we leave that in 

2 process then.

3 DR. NETON: Right.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And the same 

6 thing applies to 12. It's a change in the 

7 reporting level increase to TBD-5. And the latest 

8 I have on that is NIOSH is going to evaluate that 

9 on December 15th 2015, and get back with us.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it's still in 

11 process? Kathy?

12 DR. NETON: Yes, I believe so.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Paul, what we're 

15 saying is that we're going to address this issue 

16 in the next PER.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'm trying to 

18 decide how we handle this in the documentation 

19 here. Is it considered, I mean, when you say 

20 you're going to address it, that doesn't put it in 

21 abeyance, because we don't have the answer yet, do 

22 we?
178

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 How do we handle these? I think this 

2 is procedural. Maybe, Madam Chairman, you can 

3 tell me procedurally what do we do on this? Isn't 

4 this still in process then, or not?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, I can tell you, Paul. 

6 Yes, this would still be in progress, because you 

7 don't know what the solution is.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. So 11 and 

10 12 will remain in progress then.

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. They're 

12 currently showing as open. So I will change them 

13 to in progress.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Yes.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That includes 

16 all 12 findings on PER-29.

17 CHAIR MUNN: That's great. Thank you 

18 very much, Paul.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I had a lot of 

20 findings there, I'll tell you, single handedly.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. You're getting a lot 

22 of work done, Paul. Well done.
179

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Especially in view 

2 of the fact he doesn't even have a screen to work 

3 from. And, yes, that's tough when you can't get 

4 to the BRS and you're doing it. But you're doing 

5 a good job. Thank you.

6 I have a question for all of the 

7 participants here. We're getting very close to 

8 our wrap up time. And we're not nearly through our 

9 list yet. And we're past due, I think, for at least 

10 a short break. Questions from you, for you. Are 

11 all of you good to go for an additional half hour, 

12 or not?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Wanda, this is 

14 Stu. I'm not hearing you. I'm only hearing about 

15 every third word.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, all right. I'm 

17 asking if folks are going to be available to 

18 continue after 4:00 p.m. your time, until 4:30 p.m.

19 MR. KATZ: This is, Wanda, this is Ted. 

20 And I'm not available after 4:00 p.m. I have a 

21 migraine coming on. And it's getting worse.

22 And so I'd, if people can forebear, I 
180

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 would be glad if we could just plow through and get 

2 as much done as we can get done today. And then 

3 end by 4:00 p.m. All right. Let's do one or two 

4 others and --

5 MR. KATZ: If someone needs a break, by 

6 all means then say so, and we'll break for the ten 

7 to go the, you know, bathroom break, or whatever. 

8 But otherwise --

9 CHAIR MUNN: Anybody want to, anybody 

10 can't stick with us, then keep plowing through? 

11 Okay. And the case --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I will need to take a 

13 short break.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, then let's go 

15 ahead. Let's do that then. I don't want to put, 

16 make other people uncomfortable with that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take ten. And be

18 back in ten flat, okay?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks much.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

22 went off the record at 3:24 p.m. and resumed at 3:35 
181

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 p.m.)

2 PER 0031

3 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take up immediately 

4 with PER-31. It's a carryover and NIOSH has the 

5 action.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu. 

7 That's the PER of the Y-12 internal and the question 

8 was about are the in vivo results for thorium 

9 interpretable and we don't have an answer on that 

10 yet.

11 We may be looking to seeing if we have 

12 an air sampling solution because I'm not so sure 

13 we're going to get an in vivo sampling, or an in 

14 vivo monitoring solution for that, thorium in vivo 

15 results that reported in milligrams.

16 PER 0042

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So that being the 

18 case we'll continue to carry that over. PER-42 

19 status?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron 

21 Buchanan.
182

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 Okay, PER-42 was the Linde Ceramic 

2 Plant and this was just an wording issue and in the 

3 original TBD, it was a TBD change, and PER-42 was 

4 issued on that and we questioned the difference in 

5 the wording on what would be assigned to some 

6 workers and different rates of intake.

7 In the old TBD they had some wording on 

8 Page 75 which didn't match the tables that the DR 

9 was using and they corrected this wording on Page 

10 74 of the revised TBD, and so it matches the intakes 

11 that the workers should be receiving.

12 And so we agree that that was corrected 

13 and recommended it should be closed.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Any comments? Paul?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sounds 

16 straightforward to me.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

18 MEMBER BEACH: No comments here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Standard wording 

20 on that one then, Kathy.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.
183

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 PER 0045

2 CHAIR MUNN: We'll move on to PER-45.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. PER-45 is 

4 Aliquippa Forge and I'm going to start this off by 

5 explaining when we, Hans and I looked at this and 

6 when we looked at NIOSH's -- we're starting with 

7 Number 1 here, which was in abeyance, and when we 

8 looked at NIOSH's response to the finding we, their 

9 initial response, we came to the conclusion that 

10 they were not going to make the changes that Hans 

11 had recommended.

12 However, and so, therefore, I put in a 

13 statement here that I'm going to have to correct 

14 because earlier today we did go back and confirm 

15 that the changes have been made to the Aliquippa 

16 Forge TBD and they have all been made correctly.

17 Hans will go through those in a little 

18 more detail, but they had agreed in Finding 5 to 

19 use 8.49 dpm per cubic meter as their starting point 

20 for the residual period and because of that that 

21 changed all of the, many of the findings.

22 And so, yes, I'm going to let Hans go 

23 into details, but I am going to change our response 
184

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 for this finding and I apologize for that.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. No, that's quite 

3 all right. This is the time to do it.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. If I can just 

5 kind of quickly summarize the issues that we had 

6 discussed at one of the earlier Subcommittee 

7 meetings and when I reviewed the responses to the 

8 eight findings that we had identified with regard 

9 to PER-45 I realized that they were, in essence, 

10 all tied together.

11 And when NIOSH accepted the fact that 

12 they were going to revise, and the most important 

13 thing to this whole change was NIOSH's concession 

14 for Finding Number 5 where initially they had 

15 derived an air concentration for 1950, which was 

16 an artificial construction of an air concentration 

17 that was based on faulty assumption, they came up 

18 with an air concentration for 1950 of 0.211 dpm per 

19 cubic meter.

20 And I pointed out that that was not 

21 likely to be the one that they should use, in fact, 

22 I pointed out the value of 8.94 dpm per cubic meter 
185

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 in air. That was 42 fold higher than the one they 

2 had initially used.

3 And the reason why this is important is 

4 that for all the years in between 1950 and 1992 that 

5 particular value was used for an extrapolation 

6 purpose for air and for internal and external.

7 And as the result of that they came up 

8 with values that were considerably lower because 

9 they started out with a 42 fold lower air 

10 concentration and extrapolated through 1950 and 

11 1992 using that information.

12 Important there was obviously the use 

13 of a source term depletion factor which, as I said, 

14 the air concentration was changed 42 fold higher 

15 for the 1950 and as a result of also a change in 

16 the final 1992 air concentration where NIOSH 

17 accepted a resuspension value that was tenfold 

18 higher from ten to the minus six to ten to the minus 

19 five.

20 They also revised in 1992 air 

21 concentration, so the air concentration was 

22 changed from 0.035 dpm per cubic meter to 0.35, 
186

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 which is tenfold higher.

2 So using these two values, from 1992 

3 that have changed tenfold higher, to 1950, which 

4 is 42 higher, they determined, they, obviously, 

5 extrapolate a depletion factor, and this new 

6 depletion factor changed from 1.15 times ten to the 

7 minus four dpm -- Oh, per day, I'm sorry -- to 2.08 

8 times ten to the minus four per day as the 

9 depletion.

10 That changed every single value in 

11 Table 5.1 and, as I said, all of the Findings 

12 related to those issues, the internal and the 

13 external, which were obviously not changed because 

14 of these three changes, the starting air 

15 concentration in 1950, this air concentration in 

16 1992, and the depletion, source term depletion 

17 value that was changed in essence because of those 

18 two values and all but Finding Number 4 were 

19 dependent on those changes.

20 Finding Number 4 was an air 

21 concentration that I identified as being the 

22 highest one and NIOSH looked at that air 
187

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 concentration that was very much higher than the 

2 8.94 with the 180 dpm, but it was associated with 

3 a highly select area of the plant involving 

4 sweeping and I accepted the fact that that was 

5 episodic and I conceded that particular Finding 

6 because it was not something that one could 

7 reasonably conclude would expose people for a long 

8 term period, so as a result of everything that has 

9 changed we looked at the revisions.

10 We feel that every single Finding, 

11 other than Finding Number 4, which we conceded as 

12 being perhaps not important, that was closed and 

13 has been satisfied and I would recommend that we 

14 close all of the Findings out, other than 4 that 

15 has already been resolved.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'll remind the 

17 Board Members that Kathy has said she has some 

18 wording to change here, but with respect to the 

19 closeout of the items itself I am certainly in favor 

20 of doing that.

21 Does anyone have any discussion or any 

22 question that needs to be asked?
188

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 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no questions. 

2 Thank you, Hans, for that summary. I concur and 

3 we should close.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Wanda, I agree with 

6 that also.

7 PER 0047

8 CHAIR MUNN: Alright, very good. 

9 We'll look forward to Kathy's change in the wording 

10 both here and to the wording with respect to closure 

11 and we'll move on to PER-47. Thank you much, Hans, 

12 and thank you also, Kathy, appreciate it. 47?

13 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe we're 

14 waiting for NIOSH.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Lori, can you 

16 handle that one?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: That one is the one 

18 -- is that Grand Junction?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That's Grand Junction.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, okay. If you 

21 don't mind there is a little confusion on SC&A's 

22 response to our response. Kathy, can you 
189

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 elaborate on your response? We were a little 

2 confused about your response.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: This is just Finding 

4 --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Which Finding?

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Pardon me?

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Which Finding?

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: Three.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, yes, Finding 3. 

10 Let me just refresh everyone's memory here. That 

11 was basically an issue here where in the report the 

12 raw data for 569 air samples are stated as being 

13 available for doing dose reconstruction at the 

14 discretion of the dose reconstructor and they did 

15 not reference -- in the initial statement, they did 

16 not reference where those 569 air samples were 

17 actually located and how to use them.

18 And, of course, NIOSH's response 

19 identified the source for those 569 air samples in 

20 a total of -- let me see, I think it was 15 

21 documents, and what I really concluded was yes, 

22 they may be available, but is it reasonable to ask 
190

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 a dose reconstructor to actually sit down and wade 

2 through 15 different documents to assess how those 

3 air samples might apply to a particular individual 

4 who's dose reconstruction is being targeted here.

5 And I believe that that, in essence, 

6 would be an unfair expectation on the part of the 

7 dose reconstructor to go through 15 different 

8 documents to identify air concentration and then 

9 for himself determine how that might apply to that 

10 individual.

11 Again, I want to raise the issue of 

12 consistency here. If you have multiple people who 

13 are going to be doing this will they use the same 

14 air concentration to establish how they might 

15 apply.

16 Are these general air samples? Are 

17 they breathing some samples? What will be used for 

18 an individual when there is no reference to that 

19 individual in context with that air concentration 

20 in terms of his job description, in terms of his 

21 whereabouts, the timeframes, et cetera, et cetera?

22 It's a complex issue that I would not 
191

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 expect a dose reconstructor to do. So it's either 

2 NIOSH creates a table that would perhaps be useable 

3 for that particular dataset where they simply if 

4 they need it as an option for a dose reconstructor 

5 to use. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

7 DR. NETON: Stu, I think I got a little 

8 bit of intelligence on this.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It's starting to come 

10 back to me a little bit. Go ahead, Jim.

11 DR. NETON: Yes. I think Hans -- I 

12 reviewed this a long time ago when we were preparing 

13 for the last meeting and, unfortunately, I didn't 

14 have time to revisit this.

15 But my recollection is that the 

16 template that we do have in there has a table. It 

17 doesn't talk about this, you know, looking at the 

18 15 SRDB references.

19 It's almost like you were looking at a 

20 draft table or something because clearly the table 

21 that I looked at, the document, the draft, the 

22 template that I looked at a few months ago did 
192

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 exactly what you said.

2 It provided a table with estimates to 

3 be used and it seemed okay to me. I'm not sure 

4 exactly what happened here.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Jim, here's what 

6 happened on this.

7 DR. NETON: Yes?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a case review, 

9 right, a Finding from a case review?

10 DR. NETON: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. What happened is 

12 in this particular claim the employee didn't have 

13 employment during the period that these air samples 

14 applied to, but that phrase, that statement, was 

15 left in there about having all these statements in 

16 the D&D period, but the table was taken out of the 

17 dose reconstruction.

18 That part of the template wasn't used 

19 in the dose reconstruction because they didn't have 

20 employment during that period, so it led to a 

21 confusing, you know, depiction, and to be honest, 

22 regardless of whether they had employment during 
193

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 this period or not, since this statement was in the 

2 dose reconstruction it would have been a lot more 

3 clear if the table had been in the dose 

4 reconstruction report.

5 This got to -- and, you know, this goes 

6 to an area of the use of the templates and actually 

7 I think it was a little surprising to some of us 

8 that the template wasn't used in its entirety and 

9 that pieces of it were taken out for certain claims.

10 So I think we have some work on our side 

11 to do to deal with that particular issue and it may 

12 reflect on our answers in these, in this claim, in 

13 this Finding.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, you know, I think 

15 that goes back to some of the comments we made with 

16 regard to the template is that we only encountered 

17 them when we actually do a dose reconstruction that 

18 makes use of the template and in this case it was 

19 an incomplete template and that, obviously, 

20 brought up an issue that I would have not brought 

21 up had I had access to a complete template.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.
194

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 DR. H. BEHLING: And we have always 

2 made the comment that perhaps these templates 

3 should be identified as an independent document 

4 other than identifying them only through a DR that 

5 is ultimately also inclusive of that template.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I understand 

8 the issue now. I wasn't aware that this was, this 

9 part of the template was deleted on behalf of this 

10 individual and, therefore, I did not have access 

11 to a table that would have given me reasons not to 

12 even make that an issue.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, right. With this 

14 we have to some internal discussions on dealing 

15 with it ourselves.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. In fact, when we 

17 started looking at this PER I went out on the NIOSH 

18 website looking for the template.

19 This was I think one of the first ones 

20 that we had actually dealt with and I couldn't find 

21 it and I ended up talking with David Allen who 

22 pointed me to two of the cases.
195

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 He is the one that provided us with the 

2 case numbers as to here is the old template, here 

3 is the new template. So that's how that 

4 transpired.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: And I -- while we are 

7 talking about templates, and I don't want to get 

8 sidetracked here, and perhaps I didn't listen in 

9 to the full Board meeting last time, has there been 

10 any additional discussion on SC&A perhaps looking 

11 at these templates?

12 And it seems to me that this would be, 

13 I don't know -- this Subcommittee would be the group 

14 that might want to tackle those if we are going to 

15 be tasked with looking at them.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we've started 

17 some internal discussions on our side, but we don't 

18 have a resolution at this point.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So it looks to me 

20 as though Finding 3 is going to be a carryover.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We're moving on to 
196

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 Finding 4.

2 DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, Finding 4. That 

3 was an error, or an issue that I identified with 

4 regard to Table 3 in the template and that is the 

5 absence of a value that, let me see -- I have to 

6 refresh my memory. My apologies.

7 This relates to radium-226 and 

8 thorium-230 and the issue was that NIOSH had some 

9 thorium activity fraction cited in the Table 3 of 

10 the provided template and I gathered that NIOSH has 

11 accepted that and --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu again. 

13 Hans, I'm not following you very much, I'm just 

14 hearing pieces of words.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, I may have to --

16 can you hear me now, Stu?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, now I can hear 

20 you.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. We 

22 discussed Finding 4 and we indicated that we agreed 
197

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 with the Finding that we would make a change to the 

2 template during the next revision, so that Finding 

3 is in abeyance.

4 CHAIR MUNN: So it's only in abeyance 

5 and we won't continue to cover it.

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct, right.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Then we -- an additional 

8 discussion doesn't appear to be necessary then, 

9 Hans. Thank you so much.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

11 CHAIR MUNN: We'll see what happens 

12 with abeyance.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: And unless there is some 

15 comment or other concerns with PER-47 we'll move 

16 on to PER-53, a review status from SC&A. 

17 PER 0053

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, 53 is Allied 

19 Chemical. Let me just quickly get my mind straight 

20 here.

21 I think I can start out by saying that 

22 we used Rev 1 of the Allied Chemical Corporation 
198

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 Technical Basis Document and there were obviously 

2 some issues that related to the presence of 

3 non-uranium radioisotopes, thorium-230, 

4 radium-226, radon-222, et cetera, and there were 

5 also issues related to neutron exposures from the 

6 alpha neutron reaction to the UF-4 and UF-6, 

7 uranium tetrafluoride and uranium hexafluoride.

8 And, also, for the residual period 

9 after 1976 when Allied Chemical resumed ore 

10 processing, but they provided the uranium 

11 tetrafluoride through gaseous diffusion plants 

12 used by commercial fuel fabrication facilities 

13 that were not covered by EEOICPA.

14 And yet, however, there was a need for 

15 dose reconstruction during that residual period 

16 from residual contamination that had been part of 

17 the issue that we had prior to '76 under EEOICPA 

18 for dose reconstruction.

19 Secondly, there were, in that interim 

20 there were changes made to OTIB-70 and the most 

21 important change there was the depletion factor 

22 from 1 percent per day to 0.0067 per day.
199

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 And these changes were essentially 

2 incorporated in the Rev 2 of the Allied Chemical 

3 TBD that was issued on May 5 in the year 2014, and 

4 as a result of those changes to the TBD the PER-53 

5 was issued and when we were asked to review the 

6 PER-53 we reviewed all of the various components 

7 that we were asked to do, Subtask 1, 2, 3, and 4.

8 And as a result of our review we had no 

9 findings for Subtask 1, 2, and Subtask 3, only 

10 Subtask 4 where we needed to select a 

11 representative dose construction to verify that 

12 these changes had been incorporated.

13 We identified that the potential exists 

14 for a single dose reconstruction to satisfy that 

15 need provided that single dose reconstruction 

16 covers the operational period --

17 (Telephonic interference) 

18 -- and the residual period.

19 On the other hand, we note that a dose 

20 construction --

21 (Telephonic interference)

22 -- that covers both periods then we 
200

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 would have to have two different independent dose 

2 reconstructions, one that was principally for 

3 first period of operation, the second one post the 

4 operational period where only the residual 

5 contamination would come into play.

6 And, as a result, that is the only issue 

7 that we believe to be discussed at this point is 

8 the selection and identification of either one or 

9 two dose reconstructions that would, of course, 

10 satisfy Subtask 4.

11 CHAIR MUNN: And so this is a decision 

12 NIOSH will have to make based on if the pool --

13 (Simultaneous speaking)

14 DR. H. BEHLING: -- that usually it 

15 also incorporates the Subcommittee I take it.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, so it also 

17 incorporates the what?

18 MS. K. BEHLING: The Subcommittee.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: The Subcommittee.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: In other words you are 

21 in agreement that we should go ahead with just a 

22 case, Wanda, I assume.
201

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 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay.

2 (Simultaneous speaking)

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think so. That 

4 sounds obvious to me.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Any comment from the 

7 Board?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, that's -- I agree.

9 MEMBER BEACH: No comment and I also 

10 agree.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's very good. 

12 Then the only action here is for NIOSH to, based 

13 on the pool they have, make the decision whether 

14 they need one or two and convey that information 

15 to SC&A, correct?

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: I think we'll make a note 

18 on the BRS to indicate that and we can go on to 

19 PER-55, and we have three minutes.

20 DR. MAURO: You got it.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.
202

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 PER-0055

2 DR. NETON: Okay, this John. Hi, 

3 everybody. PER-55 was issued by NIOSH on 

4 September 12, 2014, and it was the PER that was 

5 designed to revisit all the cases that might need 

6 to be revisited because of all of the changes that 

7 were made to TBD-6000, which you all know is the 

8 uranium machining and handling TBD.

9 And there is a -- and it was issued, it 

10 was Rev 1 that was issued, and all of the -- that 

11 Rev captured all of the issues that were discussed 

12 over the period of years with Paul's group, 

13 TBD-6000, all of which were resolved.

14 So from the perspective and -- but there 

15 is a little nuance here that I'll get to in a minute. 

16 So from a technical perspective there is really 

17 nothing to discuss.

18 All of the issues were discussed, 

19 resolved, documented, and on the record related to 

20 TBD-6000, which was a protracted process. The 

21 TBD-6000, keep in mind, only applies to cases where 

22 TBD-6000 the parent documents were used.

23 It does not apply to the appendices, 
203

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 like GSI, Appendix BB. So what NIOSH did was go 

2 and capture all of the cases that might have been 

3 affected by all of the changes that were made to 

4 TBD-6000 and called them down and identified, I 

5 believe, about 30 cases that needed to be 

6 revisited.

7 And so our process was, one, to take a 

8 look technically, are there any open issues that 

9 we need to talk about, and that's the first thing 

10 I'd like to bring to the attention.

11 There are two things that I don't 

12 consider to be major issues, but I do want to put 

13 them on the table. One is TBD-6000 currently is 

14 silent regarding OTIB-70, which you know deals with 

15 the residual period.

16 I called Jim up while I was working on 

17 this to ask by the way when you revisited the cases 

18 that were in play, because of the revision of the 

19 TBD-6000, did you factor in the changes made to 

20 OTIB-70, because there really isn't anything said, 

21 any words, language, in Revision 1 of TBD-6000.

22 And Jim indicated absolutely, yes, and 
204

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 that at some future time they will simply have to 

2 put some language in, but they did in fact, when 

3 they revisited, certainly factored in any changes 

4 that occurred to OTIB-70.

5 So that's just by way of a matter that 

6 at some future time it's probably a good idea just 

7 to put some language in there, that was one 

8 observation.

9 The second one, from a technical 

10 perspective, has to do with the Putzier effect, the 

11 famous Putzier effect. NIOSH did an excellent job 

12 in describing the effect starting on Page 20 of 

13 TBD-6000. And on Page 22, and here is my question, 

14 and I guess it's to David or Jim, is the statement 

15 is made that the Harris and Kingsley, which is the 

16 underpinning to TBD-6000, values that are used as 

17 default values, as you know in the back of TBD-6000 

18 there are these look-up tables where you look up 

19 the dose rates beta, the dose rates gamma, as a 

20 function of job category and as a function of year, 

21 and there is some language in TBD-6000 that says 

22 that, yes, we did take the Putzier effect into 
205

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 account by multiplying the beta dose by a factor 

2 of ten.

3 In other words, recognizing that this 

4 could be a problem and, you know, the circumstances 

5 under which that's a problem are complex, all of 

6 which have been discussed and all of which have been 

7 agreed upon.

8 But my question now really to NIOSH that 

9 maybe we could resolve real quickly is when a person 

10 is doing a dose reconstruction for external 

11 exposure that might be handling metal and where you 

12 are concerned about his beta exposure to the skin, 

13 do the look-up tables in the back of TBD-6000 where 

14 it gives millirad per year or millirad per hour --

15 I don't have it in front of me -- do those values 

16 reflect an increase to account for the Putzier 

17 effect or is that something that the dose 

18 reconstructor has to make a judgment himself on 

19 whether or not to make any adjustments to the 

20 default exposure rates that are currently in 

21 TBD-6000?

22 DR. NETON: John, I don't think they 
206

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 do. I'd have to verify that, but my gut feeling 

2 is that those reflect, you know, freshly made 

3 metal, not reprocessed metal, which is in the 

4 situation where the Putzier effect would come into 

5 play.

6 DR. MAURO: No, no, and --

7 DR. NETON: These metals --

8 DR. MAURO: -- I agree with you and in 

9 the writeup, in your writeup in TBD-6000 starts on 

10 Page 20, there is an excellent description of all 

11 of that, but it does conclude with a statement 

12 that's why I raise this.

13 I'll read it, it's on Page 22, it's one 

14 sentence.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Film badge readings at 

17 various sites indicate those sites engaged in 

18 remelting exhibit the highest ratio of whole body 

19 beta dose to whole body gamma dose. The ratio for 

20 those sites can approach ten. Therefore, a ratio 

21 of ten is used in this document to account for this 

22 effect.
207

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 Now that statement basically is telling 

2 me that the look-up tables that you have in the back 

3 have taken that into consideration, and if the 

4 answer to that -- and I just wanted to confirm that 

5 if that in fact is the case, we're done. If there 

6 is some ambiguity regarding whether in fact that's 

7 the case then it may be worth looking into that a 

8 little further.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, I think we're going to 

10 have to look into it because I really can't tell 

11 right now.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. So it sounds like we 

13 may need to leave that particular matter open until 

14 we can nail it closed. So that's the one TBD-6000 

15 issue that was left in a little bit of an ambiguity 

16 and we may need to resolve.

17 DR. NETON: Could you read that 

18 statement one more time then, John?

19 DR. MAURO: Sure, I'll read it one more 

20 time. It's on Page 22 of TBD-6000.

21 DR. NETON: Okay.

22 DR. MAURO: Film badge readings at 
208

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 various sites indicate those sites engaged in 

2 remelting exhibit the highest ratio of whole body 

3 beta dose to whole body gamma dose. The ratio for 

4 those sites can approach ten. Therefore, a ratio 

5 of ten is used in this document to account for this 

6 effect.

7 And I was, you know -- and, that's 

8 great, but I just wanted to confirm then, does that 

9 mean that the look-up tables in the back that you 

10 use --

11 DR. NETON: Yes, yes. I can't tell 

12 from that statement, but I'd be surprised if they 

13 include it because the remelting is kind of an 

14 exception compared to --

15 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that.

16 DR. NETON: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: That there are only very 

18 specific circumstances where that might be a 

19 problem, but there may very well be AWE sites where 

20 that was the case and they could be done.

21 DR. NETON: Oh, yes, yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And that's my only concern, 
209

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 is --

2 DR. NETON: Yes, we can get back with 

3 that answer pretty quickly, but, unfortunately, I 

4 can't off the top of my head confirm one way or the 

5 other.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. So if it's 

7 acceptable to the Subcommittee, I think that is 

8 something that probably should stay in progress 

9 until we can close that down.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. But I have, if 

11 I am following your presentation adequately, John, 

12 I believe that you found the first issue all right 

13 and that the only outstanding thing in your mind 

14 is the question about the Putzier effect?

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: All right, and that 

17 tables. NIOSH will -- That's what I will expect 

18 to maintain on our agenda and everything else from 

19 our perspective is clear on PER-55, correct?

20 DR. MAURO: Right. The only thing you 

21 have to do with that OTIB-70 where everything is 

22 fine but there is no language in TBD-6000 in its 
210

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 current form to let the reader, the dose 

2 reconstructor, know please use OTIB-70 when you are 

3 doing the residual period.

4 So it's just -- in fact, when the PER 

5 was done and they revisited those cases, they 

6 didn't, I spoke to Jim and they did in fact factor 

7 in OTIB-70 in their re-analysis.

8 But the language itself is not there in 

9 the TBD itself, TBD-6000, so it's just a matter of 

10 getting that language in at some convenient point 

11 in the future.

12 CHAIR MUNN: So, actually, we are still 

13 in abeyance on that one.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good.

16 DR. MAURO: The last point I want to 

17 make, and I guess it's a preliminary thought, is 

18 this was a very difficult job for NIOSH to do.

19 They had to identify all of the cases 

20 where TBD-6000 was at play, not a simple matter, 

21 and we -- I'd just like to say that Amy, who is on 

22 the line right now, actually checked to see if they 
211

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 missed anything and the description of what we did 

2 to check is very complex.

3 I'm not going to go over it here, but 

4 just to let you know that if you do read our report 

5 you will see that we believe that NIOSH didn't miss 

6 anything, that is when they went back and captured 

7 what needed to be revisited they in fact did revisit

8 everything that needed to be revisited.

9 So we find favorably with regard to the 

10 scope of the cases that they looked at. As far as 

11 getting into the details on how we did that, that 

12 could take some time, but it's all written up in 

13 our report that you have before you.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good, yes, for which we 

15 thank you, yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Finally, I'm almost done, 

17 we recommend three cases be reviewed, that the 

18 Subcommittee working with NIOSH identified three 

19 cases.

20 We'd like to look at the one case where 

21 there was a reversal where a person was 

22 compensated, we would like to at another case where 
212

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 the dose went down, and we'd like to look at a third 

2 case that did in fact use OTIB-70.

3 If those three cases could be 

4 identified, we think -- and we would like to review 

5 those and close out this process.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Did or did not use 

7 OTIB-70?

8 DR. MAURO: Did. A case where OTIB-70 

9 was in fact used. This would confirm the statement 

10 that, yes, it was done, even though there is no 

11 language in TBD-6000 to that effect.

12 CHAIR MUNN: NIOSH, can you 

13 accommodate that request?

14 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good.

16 DR. MAURO: I'm done.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: I have a follow-up 

19 question to PER-55, Wanda, real quick.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: So there were 

22 Findings for PER-55, am I correct?
213

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 DR. MAURO: There were basically two, 

2 which are more like questions. One is this OTIB-70 

3 business, which really is a matter of, you know, 

4 getting the language in there at some time when it 

5 is convenient, so that's really not an issue.

6 The other one has to do with the Putzier 

7 effect, which also is an assumption, you know. The 

8 TBD-6000 does say that it does accommodate the 

9 Putzier effect, but it's not apparent of that in 

10 fact is accomplished, because there are a bunch of 

11 look-up tables in the back of TBD-6000 and it's not 

12 clear how the dose reconstructor would take the 

13 Putzier effect into account if in fact it needs to 

14 be taken into account.

15 You know, if circumstances existed at 

16 a given facility where it becomes clear that, yes, 

17 maybe we should have taken the Putzier effect into 

18 account, so, yes, that is an issue, a finding that 

19 I think is important that needs to be cleared up.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: So SC&A will be 

21 updating the BRS with these findings, is that 

22 correct?
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay, thanks.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I just 

5 want to make sure I am clear on those criteria that 

6 John listed for case selection.

7 One was a case whose compensation 

8 changed to not compensated, is that right?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, reversed.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And the second one was 

11 a dose, or the dose in the DR went down from the 

12 original?

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And the third was that 

16 the claim used TIB-70 in the rework?

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I have. Very 

21 good. And thank you, John, for that 16-minute, 

22 3-minute presentation. Any other comments with 
215

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 respect to PER-55?

2 (No response.)

3 ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL – ROUTINE NOTE OF ABEYANCE ITEMS 

4 READY FOR CLOSING

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right, let's quickly 

6 go to administrative detail. Lori, with respect 

7 to the first item, routine note of abeyance items 

8 ready for closing, can we postpone that until next 

9 time, unless there is something pressing we need 

10 to hear?

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: No. We can hold 

12 that over.

13 ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL –STATUS OF CASE SELECTION 

14 RECOMMENDATIONS

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, I'm going to carry 

16 those over. And the status of the case selection 

17 recommendations have been given to us. I am sure 

18 everybody has had a chance to look at those.

19 Do we want to move through that very 

20 quickly? There were nine of them, three of them 

21 were just Subtask 4 issues. Are there any 

22 questions that anybody has rather than go through 
216

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 them one at a time, since I am assuming that, Paul, 

2 both you and Josie have had an opportunity to read 

3 these, correct?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any 

6 suggestions, any comments?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think I've seen 

8 them. What are we looking at?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Oh. Well, back in 

10 February, Kathy sent us that original list and it 

11 was recently resent to us so that we could see that 

12 list of nine.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, all right. Is 

14 that the email from Kathy?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh. Oh, yes, hang on. 

17 I just want to pull that up, but --

18 MEMBER BEACH: It was February 23rd, 

19 Paul, if that helps.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: February 23rd.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well there was a more 

22 recent dispersion of those sheets.
217

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 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, that's right, there 

2 was.

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- but it was very 

5 quickly.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Same one.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I am looking at it 

8 now I think. Wait.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the date on 

11 the recent one?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, the recent email?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, gosh, I'll have to 

15 look at my old stuff to see.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I'm trying to think, 

17 too. It may have been last week one day.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: It was PA-cleared and 

20 we sent it out and I also put it on the O: drive 

21 for everyone --

22 MR. KATZ: Right, it was last week.
218

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Last week, and I actually 

3 then followed it up with an email. But so --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's May 4th.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. So for each one of 

6 these where we are assigning cases for Task 4, I 

7 think you also, you have to get the Subcommittee's 

8 concurrence, but you also need to make sure they 

9 make sense to NIOSH so that they can do selection.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's why I would 

13 like to first address the six others that were 

14 recommended, whether --

15 MR. KATZ: Well, you can't --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well let's just go through 

17 them one at a time. The first recommendation was 

18 PER --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Ted, are you okay?

20 MR. KATZ: I'll hang in there, go 

21 ahead.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Nevada Test Site, PER-46, 
219

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 SC&A recommends that it be reviewed, numerous 

2 modifications that affected all exposure pathways 

3 and the number of cases impacted by these changes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Our only comment is 

5 there is an NTS Work Group that's dealing with, you 

6 know, the issues having to do with dose 

7 reconstruction.

8 I mean they have looked at these and 

9 they are continuing to look at the dose 

10 reconstruction approaches, so do you need a full 

11 review, the one, two, and three review, or do you 

12 just want case selection on this?

13 CHAIR MUNN: This was not one that, 

14 just expected case -- well, let's ask SC&A.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, I felt, and 

16 since it did impact all of the various pathways that 

17 we should do a full review on this.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean there is 

19 an NTS Work Group that's doing that as well, that's 

20 evaluating the dose reconstruction approaches.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Okay, so this 

22 PER incorporates SC&A's comments accordingly, you 
220

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 know, in accordance with that, that Work Group. Is 

2 that correct?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, I mean this 

4 one and --

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and then that 

7 there will be, probably there could be another PER 

8 for the comments we are working on now, but what 

9 I am saying is that there is a group, there is a 

10 Subcommittee, or a Work Group, that is evaluating 

11 the technical quality of the dose reconstruction 

12 approach, which is essentially one, two, and three 

13 --

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- looking at one, two

16 and three in review.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, all right. 

18 With that in mind then, yes, I agree, maybe just 

19 Subtask 4 for this.

20 MR. KATZ: Can I just raise a question 

21 though? If the Work Group is looking at those 

22 methods and there may be a PER to supersede this 
221

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 PER, then it's less important. If that PER ends 

2 up superseding this PER then it's not worth 

3 spending more money on reviewing even the cases on 

4 this PER.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Can we continue this for 

6 consideration following the Work Group's 

7 completion of the task that they are undertaking?

8 MEMBER BEACH: I think that's a good 

9 suggestion, Wanda.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Postpone till the 

11 Work Group has completed its review of their 

12 methodology, okay.

13 All right then let's go on to PER-54, 

14 Carborundum. I have an SEC and NIOSH has evaluated 

15 it. It proposed to revise the DR methodology, 

16 which has been reviewed by SC&A but not yet 

17 completed with the Board.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, can I just 

19 interject, there is a Work Group for this as well.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, yes.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Is it the same situation 
222

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 as NTS?

2 CHAIR MUNN: I believe it's similar, 

3 yes.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Sorry 

5 to interrupt, but is Bob Anigstein still on the 

6 line? Perhaps not. And is John Mauro still on the 

7 line? Because the two of them looked at this and 

8 insisted that I put that on the list and that this 

9 gets reviewed.

10 I think it has to do with the template 

11 and --

12 MEMBER BEACH: It does, it does.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

14 MEMBER BEACH: This was one that I was 

15 recommending. I just didn't want to recommend it 

16 and then have someone say, because I know there is 

17 a Work Group for it.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. In fact I 

19 mentioned that to Bob Anigstein and he said we still 

20 need to look at this and I, quite honestly at this 

21 point in time I forget all of his justifications, 

22 but --
223

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 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this is the one, 

2 Kathy, that brought up the template issue most 

3 recently, I believe.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Okay, your 

5 call.

6 CHAIR MUNN: So, Paul, do you have any 

7 feelings about this?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I don't. 

9 Actually, I'm kind of lost here. Where is 

10 Carborundum on the agenda? What are you looking 

11 at?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We're looking at the 

13 memo that Kathy sent. I don't know if you got it.

14 (Simultaneous speaking)

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. And I can't 

16 get to that memo because I can't get to my, in my 

17 NIOSH email because I can't get on the NIOSH 

18 website.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Oh.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I don't have that 

22 document, so --
224

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 MR. KATZ: I think this one is going to 

2 have to wait.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there is, like 

5 there is an SEC, you know, Evaluation Report due 

6 or done and then the review of the Evaluation 

7 Report.

8 There is a Work Group that's looking at 

9 the dose reconstruction approach. It would seem 

10 like that group would look at it.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let's put this as a 

12 carryover till next time. And if SC&A and NIOSH 

13 want to have some exchanges in the meantime about 

14 the wisdom of when this needs to be done, if it needs 

15 to be done by SC&A, that would be helpful, I think.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, that would great.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Let's do a carryover. 

18 Let's move over to PER-59, Norton, recommending 

19 review since the DR methodology hasn't been used, 

20 and if used in the templates, hasn't been 

21 previously evaluated.

22 MR. KATZ: Can I, again -- well, okay, 
225

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 if you are just making recommendations here, but, 

2 you know, where we haven't evaluated a TBD, I mean 

3 that -- yes. I mean that's fine to make a 

4 recommendation; it's the Board that will deciding 

5 whether they want that reviewed anyway.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MEMBER BEACH: I think it said there 

8 was no TBD for this one, right?

9 MR. KATZ: Right, but it's the same 

10 thing if it's the template.

11 CHAIR MUNN: It's the template, yes.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, got you.

13 CHAIR MUNN: So shall we -- let's, I 

14 would recommend that we recommend this to the 

15 Board.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes. So which site is it, 

17 sorry?

18 CHAIR MUNN: This is Norton.

19 MR. KATZ: Norton, thanks.

20 CHAIR MUNN: PER-59. And the next 

21 case then we will look at very quickly is Subtask 

22 4 for Blockson. Can we ask for criteria?
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: I can provide 

2 criteria, yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Can we ask that 

4 those be provided for NIOSH --

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: -- and if those criteria 

7 can be provided, is there any objection to the 

8 recommendation?

9 MS. K. BEHLING: None here.

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

11 MR. KATZ: Has NIOSH looked at the 

12 criteria?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am okay with it, so 

14 go ahead.

15 CHAIR MUNN: No, no, but that's what we 

16 have to have before we can actually recommend it.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, the criteria on the 

18 book in a table.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Does the Board have to 

20 approve that?

21 MR. KATZ: No, the Board doesn't have 

22 to approve Task 4, it's just that NIOSH has to agree 
227

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 that those criteria make sense.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Then we'll have to 

3 hold them over and ask for criteria to be presented 

4 to NIOSH.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are no 

6 criteria on here are there?

7 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't see them.

8 MR. KATZ: So SC&A if you will provide 

9 criteria NIOSH can review that and then this --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Should we select or is 

11 it premature?

12 MR. KATZ: I mean I think if it's okay 

13 with the Subcommittee just conceptually then, yes, 

14 go ahead and actually select if it all makes sense.

15 If it doesn't make sense then it will 

16 be on the agenda for the next Procedures meeting.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. Sounds fine to 

19 me. Any questions or --

20 MS. K. BEHLING: So I will provide 

21 criteria to NIOSH and to the Subcommittee, is that 

22 correct?
228

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 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, Kathy.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, very good.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks. Next is PER-61, 

4 Bridgeport Brass. That is recommended that the 

5 PER be reviewed since the only review of these 

6 facilities has been performed under an expanded 

7 review of a DR audit performed in May 2008. That's 

8 Bridgeport Brass. I would recommend it.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, Wanda.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, sure.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right. PER-63, 

13 Aluminum Company of America, Pennsylvania. 

14 Forty-four cases in this we identified, 35 cases 

15 reevaluated. SC&A recommends the PER be reviewed 

16 since the Board has not previously evaluated the 

17 Alcoa PN DR methodology.

18 If the methodology hasn't been 

19 reviewed, I would recommend it. Anyone else?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agree.

21 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

22 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Moving on to 
229

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 PER-64, that's Subtask 4 only out of 56 cases that 

2 were reevaluated.

3 I don't see criteria, but it says here 

4 SC&A will provide criteria, identify the relevant 

5 cases and perform a review.

6 Can we ask that they provide the case 

7 selection criteria now and move on from there? If 

8 NIOSH agrees then we have the same situation that 

9 we had in an earlier case, I do believe.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Does the Subcommittee 

12 agree?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agree.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I do.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good. And so, 

16 Kathy, you will be providing SC&A -- you're going 

17 to provide the case selection criteria and if NIOSH 

18 agrees, they'll let you know and you can go forward.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A, the last one is --

21 oh, the next one is PER-65, Anaconda, recommended 

22 the PER be reviewed since the Board hasn't 
230

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 previously evaluated that methodology.

2 That's essentially the same one as the 

3 preceding case that we had with Aluminum Company 

4 of America. I would recommend it for the same 

5 reasons.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agree.

7 MEMBER BEACH: I have a different 

8 appendix, so, yes, definitely.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. And one last one is 

10 also Subtask 4 for Huntington, PER-66, and SC&A, 

11 again, offers to provide selection criteria.

12 Again, the same situation. It seems 

13 appropriate to me to do Huntington, 59 cases 

14 originally identified.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, Wanda.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agreed.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That is that 

18 we have technical guidance documents that have not 

19 been assigned, the 600 TKBS, and for our Nuclear 

20 Metals, Inc., and TKBS-25, an exposure matrix for 

21 Linde.

22 I am not sure -- our revision to 
231

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 Appendix CD is based on revisions to TBD-6000.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, this is Kathy. 

3 In this particular case, Ted usually informs John 

4 Stiver and I that there has been an update and I 

5 just compiled this table because I didn't, quite 

6 honestly I wasn't sure that this was supposed to 

7 be done in this, for the Subcommittee or where these 

8 would be picked up.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and I'm not sure

10 about these three and the technical document on the 

11 next page, TBD-64, coworker external dosimetry 

12 data. I'm not sure about those.

13 Ted, do you have a suggestion on how to 

14 proceed with these or is that normally something 

15 that's done administratively?

16 MR. KATZ: I don't know.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Frankly, my head is cracking 

19 and I can't --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, yes, I can 

21 understand that, I can ask you --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Hold these over for the 
232

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 --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I believe we can hold 

3 them over. Kathy, is there any problem with that?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: No, not at all.

5 NEED FOR NEW TASKING – PROC-0006

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Hold over then, 

7 we'll do that. Very quickly, the last case, I had 

8 PROC-0006 on there, what's that about, Kathy? It 

9 needs --

10 (Simultaneous speaking)

11 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm not sure. I put 

12 a question mark alongside of that and I think that 

13 was just -- I went back to the transcripts from the 

14 last meeting and I just think that might have been 

15 a typo on --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think it must have 

17 been.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

19 NEXT MEETING

20 CHAIR MUNN: I think that was covered 

21 by what we've already done. This leaves only the 
233

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 next meeting.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can do that online.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

4 MR. KATZ: Offline, whatever.

5 CHAIR MUNN: If we can do that offline 

6 then I suggest that we do that. Does anyone have 

7 any objection?

8 (No response.)

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, and my only thought 

10 about that is it seems like you guys cleared the 

11 table of an awful lot and until -- we'll need more 

12 work for a meeting.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I would like to get 

14 some better feel other than just the fast notes I 

15 have made as to how much time is going to be needed 

16 for the next group of activities and what we are 

17 looking at in the way of new PERs and things of that 

18 sort.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So if it's amenable with 

21 all the others I would like very much to call this 

22 meeting to a close. Does anyone have any problem 
234

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 or something we must address today?

2 MEMBER BEACH: No, I agree with 

3 adjourning.

4 CHAIR MUNN: If not, this meeting is 

5 adjourned and, Ted, go take care of yourself.

6 MR. KATZ: All right, thank you, 

7 everybody.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Bye-bye.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

10 went off the record at 4:28 p.m.)