STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS

404/733-6070

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

convenes

WORKING GROUP

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

PROCEDURES REVIEW

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in St. Louis, Missouri, on June

24, 2008.
2

C O N T E N T S

June 24, 2008

OPENING REMARKS 6

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 11

RE-REVIEW OF MATERIALS PROCESS 11

SC&A’S SUMMARY REPORT, FIRST SET 21

TRACKING SYSTEM STATUS 35

FIRST SET, REMAINING OPEN ITEMS 50

APPENDIX BB TO TBD 6000/6001 85

OTIB-52 133

OTIBS 8, 10, 23 148

HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS 151

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 158
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken.

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material.

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported.

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available.

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response.

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available.

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone.
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order)

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D.

Principal Associate Director

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Washington, DC

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

GIBSON, Michael H.

President

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200

Miamisburg, Ohio

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

School of Health Sciences

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH

ALLEN, DAVE, NIOSH

ANIGSTEIN, ROBERT, SC&A

CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH

CRAFT, PATRICIA, ORAU

DUTKO, JOHN G., GENERAL STEEL

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH

HERZING, RALPH, GENERAL STEEL

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOFF, JENNIFER, ORAU

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

LUBER, GEORGE, GENERAL STEEL

MARSCHKE, STEVE, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

RAMSPOTT, JOHN, GSI

1
6

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

2 JUNE 24, 2008

3 (8:30 a.m.)

4 OPENING REMARKS

5 DR. BRANCHE: Ray, are you ready?

6 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, ma'am.

7 DR. BRANCHE: George, would you please un-mute 

8 the line?

9 Good morning. I'm Dr. Christine Branche. I 

10 have the pleasure of being the Designated 

11 Federal Official for the Advisory Board on 

12 Radiation and Worker Health, and this is the 

13 procedures workgroup meeting. It is Tuesday, 

14 June 24th, at 8:30 a.m. Central Time.

15 Would someone who's participating by phone 

16 please let me know that you can hear me?

17 UNIDENTIFIED: I can hear you.

18 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you so very much, and I'll 

19 start the procedures for figuring out who's 

20 who, so just one moment, please.

21 Ms. Munn, are you ready?

22 MS. MUNN: Yes, I am.

23 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Would the Board members 

24 who are in the room please state your names.

25 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board member and chair 
7

1 of this workgroup.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Paul -- Paul Ziemer, Board member.

3 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, Board member.

4 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board member.

5 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other Board members 

6 participating by phone?

7 (No response)

8 We do not have a quorum of the Board, so we can 

9 proceed.

10 Would NIOSH staff in the room please state 

11 their names?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld.

13 DR. NETON: Jim Neton.

14 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams.

15 DR. BRANCHE: NIOSH --

16 MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang.

17 DR. BRANCHE: -- staff partici-- please forgive 

18 me.

19 MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang.

20 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. NIOSH staff 

21 participating by phone who -- would you please 

22 state your names.

23 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen.

24 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, Dave. ORAU staff who 

25 might be in the room -- okay, ORAU staff 
8

1 participating by phone, would you please state 

2 your names.

3 MS. HOFF: Jennifer Hoff.

4 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you.

5 MS. CRAFT: Pat Craft.

6 DR. BRANCHE: Could you please state that --

7 the la-- the last person, would you please 

8 state your name again?

9 MS. CRAFT: Patricia Craft.

10 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. SC&A staff in the 

11 room, would you please state your names.

12 DR. MAURO: John Mauro.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Robert Anigstein.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke.

15 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. SC&A staff 

16 participating by phone would you please state 

17 your names.

18 (No response)

19 Other federal agency staff in the room, would 

20 you please state your names.

21 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

22 MR. MCGOLERICK: Robert McGolerick, HHS.

23 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. Other federal agency 

24 staff participating by phone, would you please 

25 state your names.
9

1 (No response)

2 Petitioners or their representatives in the 

3 room, would you please state your names.

4 MR. DUTKO: John G. Dutko, General Steel, 

5 Betatron (unintelligible) operator, ma'am.

6 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. Could you please 

7 spell your last name for us?

8 MR. DUTKO: D as in dog, u-t-k-o.

9 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you.

10 MR. DUTKO: Yes, ma'am.

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott, R-a-m-s-p-o-t-t, 

12 family member of a former GSI worker.

13 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you.

14 MR. LUBER: George Luber, that's L-u-b-e-r, 

15 radiographer at General Steel.

16 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. And, sir?

17 MR. HERZING: Ralph Herzing, H-e-r-z-i--n-g, 

18 (unintelligible) technician, General Steel.

19 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. Any 

20 petitioners or their representatives on the 

21 phone, would you please state your names.

22 (No response)

23 Workers or their representatives by phone, 

24 would you please state your names.

25 (No response)
10

1 Any members of Congress or their 

2 representatives who are participating by phone?

3 (No response)

4 Anyone else in the room who would like to state 

5 your name? Mark Griffon, Board member. Mark 

6 Griffon, Board members.

7 Are there any others who'd like to mention 

8 their names by phone?

9 (No response)

10 Before we begin I do ask that every participant 

11 by phone mute your phones, please. If you do 

12 not have a mute button, then please use star-6 

13 to mute your lines. It's very important that 

14 all of the telephone participants mute their 

15 phones because every piece of -- every small 

16 incident noise can interrupt the line.

17 If you must leave the phone, then please do not 

18 put this line on hold. It's better for you to 

19 leave the line altogether and dial back in than

20 to put us on hold.

21 When you're ready to speak by phone, please 

22 unmute your phones, and if you -- again, if you 

23 do not have a mute button, then use that same 

24 star-6 to unmute your lines so that we can hear 

25 you speaking.
11

1 Thank you very much for exercising this basic 

2 telephone etiquette. Ms. Munn, it's yours.

3 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

4 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Dr. Branche. I am 

5 working on the premise that all of the Board 

6 members around the table have a copy of the 

7 agenda which was sent out by e-mail to you 

8 several days ago. Is that correct? Does 

9 anyone not have a copy of our agenda?

10 (No response)

11 If not, would you please take a quick look at 

12 it and tell me whether there are pressing 

13 matters that we must address today which are 

14 not mentioned in any place on the agenda. We 

15 have a full morning's work and we need to move 

16 through it as expediently as possible. We're 

17 going to try to do that.

18 RE-REVIEW OF MATERIALS PROCESS

19 The first order of business that we have is to 

20 -- to revisit an item from our last meeting. 

21 At that time our contractor, SC&A, raised a 

22 question with respect to clarification of 

23 review of materials which they had reviewed, 

24 NIOSH had then changed in some way and was now 

25 complete on the point of view of the agency. 
12

1 Their question was whether the entire document 

2 was then to be re-reviewed by them or whether 

3 only the portions that had been corrected were 

4 open for review. Am I stating that correctly, 

5 John?

6 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

7 MS. MUNN: We had tentatively said at that time 

8 that only the items which had been changed were 

9 already covered by the expectation of review 

10 process, but we did not come to a definite 

11 instruction to the contractor in that regard. 

12 There was some hesitance because of the budget 

13 inferences here. We don't have the authority

14 to establish the need for that. The full Board 

15 has to do that, but we are in fact going to 

16 bring this to the full Board; if it needs 

17 bringing to the full Board, then I need the 

18 agreement of this body that that's the 

19 expectation that we have. Is there any 

20 disagreement to the position that re-reviews 

21 are required only for the material that has 

22 been changed; the original review does not need 

23 to be repeated in its entirety. Is that -- do 

24 I see nodding heads? Is that the sense of the 

25 committee?
13

1 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- yeah, I think 

2 generally. I mean I'm not sure we need to make 

3 a blanket policy on this, do we? What if -- if 

4 there's so many changes to something that it 

5 ends up being fairly significantly revamped, I 

6 think we would say just do a -- a new review, 

7 you know? But then we'd bring that back to the 

8 Board and --

9 MS. MUNN: We'd bring it to the Board in any 

10 case.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, so re-reviews, I --

12 yeah, I...

13 MS. MUNN: And the real purpose in -- in 

14 clarifying this is to make sure that we don't 

15 have to do this every time when it's simply a 

16 relatively minor change.

17 Yes, Steve Marschke.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: The -- the other problem -- or 

19 the concern is when the resolution of the issue 

20 resulted in either a revision to the procedure 

21 or maybe perhaps a new procedure. Several 

22 procedures that had been reviewed were rolled 

23 up into a new procedure, and either the 

24 revision to the procedure or this new procedure 

25 was not on SC&A's list of -- of documents to be 
14

1 reviewed. And I guess the question is what do 

2 we do in that case? But the -- the example 

3 that comes to mind is PROC-90. In PROC-90 we 

4 had (electronic interference) made a -- a 

5 number of comments on (unintelligible) 4, 5 and 

6 17, which were then rolled into (electronic 

7 interference) PROC-90. And all the resolutions 

8 to the issues will -- of 4, 5 and 17, which are 

9 not inactive, all those are (unintelligible) be 

10 resolved in PROC-90. SC&A does not have the 

11 authority or whatever the correct word is --

12 MS. MUNN: Well, you haven't had the directive.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the directive to -- to review 

14 PROC-90 at all, so I guess that's the other 

15 prong of this -- what do we do when -- when we 

16 close out those -- I think there's 29 issues 

17 associated -- that were associated with 4, 5 

18 and 17 and we -- we don't know how to go about 

19 closing those out.

20 MS. MUNN: This is probably the most obvious of 

21 the examples that we have, and whether or not 

22 we encounter the same situation in the future 

23 is open to debate, I would think. But in this 

24 particular case where a new procedure has in 

25 fact taken the case of at least three and, if 
15

1 memory serves, a portion of a fourth of the 

2 documents that have been reviewed before, this 

3 may be one of those times where we really do 

4 need to bring this to the Board and ask for 

5 specific authority to instruct SC&A regarding 

6 PROC-90.

7 Yes, John?

8 DR. MAURO: Well, I'd like to point out when 

9 this arose my direction to the team was 

10 (electronic interference) those issues to --

11 I'm thinking in terms of the issue that came 

12 out of whatever the original procedure was. 

13 And if now it's all agreed that that issue now 

14 has been addressed somewhere else, we follow 

15 the issue and will review it wherever it is, 

16 but we won't expand beyond that. That is, if 

17 it ends up in PROC-90, that issue is now 

18 addressed there, we will review it there. 

19 However, the standing directive, at least until 

20 we get further guidance, is that's -- that's 

21 the protocol we're finding -- we're follow--

22 following. The issue comes up, if in fact we -

23 - it's -- it's -- finds its way into the new 

24 document and it's explained to us that way 

25 during a workgroup meeting, we will then 
16

1 proceed -- which we have -- and review it there 

2 and -- and then make a recommendation to the 

3 workgroup that yes, we concur, it has in fact 

4 been resolved in accordance with the 

5 discussions we've had; however, it's being --

6 it's been resolved in PROC-90 as opposed to 

7 some earlier procedure. So then this is the 

8 modus operandi we've been operating under 

9 anyway as -- and -- but we do want I guess 

10 confirmation that in fact that's what you'd 

11 like us to do.

12 MS. MUNN: Yes, and -- and I wanted to make 

13 sure that we were all clear on what we were 

14 doing.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Wan-- Wanda --

16 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me, Wanda, before you 

17 proceed, there's a person participating by 

18 phone -- we're so glad to have you on board 

19 with us, but we do ask that you mute your line 

20 until you're ready to speak. If you do not 

21 have a mute button, then please use star-6. 

22 You are causing some interference on the line 

23 by not muting your phone. Thank you.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda --

25 MS. MUNN: Yes.
17

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I think that PROC-90, as it 

2 currently exists, is not significantly 

3 different -- not in content, I don't know that 

4 it's any different in content -- than the old 

5 PROCs 4, 5 and 17 which were reviewed. I 

6 believe that's why I suggested that these could 

7 -- these findings could be just tracked under 

8 PROC-90.

9 Part -- a number of our responses to those 

10 findings refer to a revised acknowledgement 

11 packet that is now being sent to claimants that 

12 we think provides better explanation to the 

13 claimants at that aspect, because many of the 

14 findings had to do with not explaining things 

15 very well to the claimant during the CATI, and 

16 we felt we were using this other mechanism to 

17 do that. I brought I think maybe about a dozen 

18 of those to distribute to the working group and 

19 to the SC&A principals for use if the -- if you 

20 proceed along the additional PROC-90 review or 

21 if they're looking to follow these issues and 

22 what's going on now in these issues.

23 MS. MUNN: It's the sense of the chair that, 

24 even in this particular case, as long as the 

25 finding itself is being tracked and is being 
18

1 followed into whatever procedure it goes to, 

2 that the current process of following the 

3 finding through should be adequate. And re4 review of the entire new procedure may not be 

5 called for. That -- barring any -- any 

6 negative feeling about that from the -- the 

7 workgroup, that's the recommendation that I --

8 that is the report that I will make to the --

9 to the Board, saying in effect that the 

10 contractor will continue to track the finding 

11 and that re-issuance of a statement for review 

12 of a new procedure is not necessary as long as 

13 the finding itself is being followed. Any 

14 problem with --

15 MR. GRIFFON: That -- yeah, I think I'm --

16 MS. MUNN: -- that recommendation?

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- okay with that. Is -- the 

18 only question I have in this circumstance is is 

19 the -- is this acknowledgement package 

20 referenced in PROC-90 or is it just a total 

21 separate thing and -- and I think that's where 

22 -- from what I understand from Stu, we're not -

23 - PROC-90 did not in fact resolve the findings 

24 for 4, 5 and 17 --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) --
19

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) the 

2 acknowledgement package --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: No --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- may answer some of those --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- but we -- but we haven't 

7 reviewed the acknowledgement package, so --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't -- we've never 

9 discussed the acknowledgement packet. I --

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I thought maybe I 

12 distributed it one time that --

13 MR. GRIFFON: I think you -- yeah, I think you 

14 alluded --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- to it several times, but --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- we never saw it.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I have it to distribute for --

20 for consideration after today about whether 

21 that -- you know, whether people feel that 

22 that's the specific findings that we felt this 

23 addresses and whether it's appropriately 

24 addressed. The acknowledgement packet is not 

25 referenced in PROC-90. It would be -- it would 
20

1 be probably referenced in a different 

2 administrative procedure about what do we do 

3 when we receive a claim. See, it -- a CATI is 

4 done -- you know, that -- PROC-90 was -- this 

5 is how you conduct the claimant interview and 

6 track -- you know, schedule and conduct and 

7 record. But the -- this acknowledgement packet 

8 goes out well before that. This 

9 acknowledgement packet goes out when we receive 

10 the claim from the Department of Labor, so 

11 there -- probably an administrative procedure 

12 that would talk about sending the 

13 acknowledgement packet to the claimant as --

14 when we send the request for exposure history 

15 to DOE, for instance.

16 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I guess I'm fine with 

17 the process you described, Wanda, as long as we 

18 don't, li-- like we all intend not to lose 

19 these findings and -- and in this case it's --

20 it's going to be tracked through beyond the 

21 procedure, you know --

22 MS. MUNN: Yes.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- apparently --

24 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is.

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- so...
21

1 MS. MUNN: And as -- as you'll notice on the 

2 agenda, we have 45 minutes set aside 

3 specifically to address PROC-90 --

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

5 MS. MUNN: -- and any questions we have there. 

6 So the question I'm asking now is a more 

7 generalized one, using PROC-90 only as an 

8 example. And I believe I have just received 

9 the approval of the workgroup to make that --

10 that statement to the full Board, which I will 

11 expect to do.

12 Any other comments with respect to the re13 review process item?

14 (No response)

15 SC&A’S SUMMARY REPORT, FIRST SET

16 If not, we'll move on to the next agenda item, 

17 which is the final review and approval of the 

18 transmittal letter for SC&A's summary report on 

19 the first set. Again, this is an item which 

20 was sent to you by e-mail. You should all have 

21 it. You should have had a chance to read 

22 through it. Do we have any additions, 

23 corrections, comments with respect to that 

24 letter?

25 MR. GRIFFON: I mean we -- we discussed this at 
22

1 the last workgroup. I'm -- the only I guess 

2 concern I have, which I expressed at the last 

3 workgroup, was that we don't conclude any-- you 

4 know, it doesn't say anything. I mean it's a 

5 status report, I guess.

6 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is.

7 MR. GRIFFON: But it doesn't -- you know, I 

8 don't know, if I was in the Secretary's 

9 position and receiving this letter and I saw 

10 that 40 percent of the findings were not 

11 resolved after a couple of years of doing this 

12 procedures workgroup, I'd be -- you know, and -

13 - and I think I'd say what do you mean they're 

14 not resolved yet, you know, what's the --

15 what's going on and what is the significance 

16 level of the findings, what -- you know, I 

17 don't...

18 MS. MUNN: Do you believe we could clarify that 

19 in the wording in a better way?

20 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- to be honest with you, 

21 I'd have to pull it up, I -- I've got to put my 

22 computer up, but...

23 MS. MUNN: Do we need to --

24 MR. GRIFFON: I mean do other people feel that 

25 --
23

1 MS. MUNN: -- postpone this --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean if I'm the only one, 

3 I'm not going to push that if it's just a 

4 status report and people are comfortable with 

5 that -- that report. I'm just worried that 

6 there's some items in there that hang out for 

7 me. Like, you know, I'm -- I'm trying to 

8 remember the phrase, maybe someone else can 

9 weigh in while I look at this.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, I have a comment, if I 

11 could --

12 MS. MUNN: Yes, please.

13 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me that, although it's 

14 a status report, there are a number of items 

15 that have been closed and, based on those, we 

16 might be in a position to make some preliminary 

17 statements of conclusions with respect to what 

18 we have seen. You -- you may recall that we 

19 added, I think it was in the first paragraph, 

20 the statement having to do with why we're doing 

21 the procedures review in the first place. And 

22 it has to do with the -- the requirement of the 

23 Act that we confirm that NIOSH is carrying out 

24 those reconstructions with scientific validity 

25 and some other words to that effect, I forget 
24

1 the exact wording.

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

3 DR. ZIEMER: The -- if there's any conclusions, 

4 we have to base them on whether or not that is 

5 occurring, or the extent to which that is 

6 occurring. And if we're able to make some 

7 statements based on at least the items that 

8 have been closed -- obviously they're not all 

9 closed, but the lack of closure doesn't 

10 necessarily mean something is wrong; it means 

11 we're still pursuing something. But my 

12 question is would we be able to state that --

13 in some -- in some degree, and I don't have any 

14 words in mind at the moment so I just ask it as 

15 a question, could we make some statements about 

16 what our conclusions are relative to the use of 

17 these procedures in carrying out dose 

18 reconstruction in a scientifically valid 

19 manner?

20 MS. MUNN: Well, let's look at some of the 

21 verbiage that exists in the letter and see 

22 where the best place might be to additionally 

23 inform.

24 The second paragraph is a very brief 

25 description of the process that is undergone. 
25

1 The third paragraph discusses our new format 

2 for making the information electronically 

3 available to NIOSH and the Board as we move 

4 through it. The fourth paragraph is the one 

5 that describes and summarizes what we have.

6 (Reading) Completion of this notable 

7 improvement presents an approximate moment --

8 an appropriate moment to summarize the status 

9 of the first set of procedures and assess the 

10 progress of this substantial effort. Since the 

11 working group first convened meetings have been 

12 held on a regular basis, approximately every 

13 six weeks, both in group session and by 

14 teleconference. The first set of 33 procedures 

15 referred to SC&A resulted in 153 individual 

16 findings of varying weight. Of those, 99 have 

17 been resolved and are now closed. Fifty-four 

18 are open and under discussion or otherwise in 

19 process.

20 Actually from the time that we wrote this, 

21 those numbers have changed slightly. Perhaps 

22 in this paragraph might be the appropriate 

23 place for the addition of one or more sentences 

24 further clarifying the degree of success that 

25 is not easily reflected by the raw numbers 
26

1 themselves.

2 DR. ZIEMER: I think that would be the 

3 appropriate spot. I -- I guess I, for one, 

4 would like to hear from other members of the 

5 workgroup as to whether or not this is 

6 something that we should do. Basically it is -

7 - I think as Mark described it, it currently is 

8 a status report in terms of how many procedures 

9 we've reviewed and the numbers of findings and 

10 sort of just categorizes as -- as what's going 

11 on. But is it -- is it premature to reach any 

12 conclusions, that's what I'm sort of asking.

13 MR. GRIFFON: And I mean -- I guess -- and I've 

14 got to pull out -- you've -- we've referenced 

15 an attachment and that's an S-- the SC&A 

16 report. Right? I'm trying to --

17 MS. MUNN: The SC&A report, yes.

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm trying to find that. I 

19 know I've looked at it, but I'm trying to get a 

20 sen-- you know, do we have any sort of 

21 descriptive statistics. Like, you know, we've 

22 -- 99 findings have been clos-- you know, we 

23 have 150 findings or whatever and of those we 

24 consider, you know, 80 to be, you know, of --

25 have we described those in any way? Maybe 
27

1 they're described in the attachment, I don't 

2 recall, you know, like 40 were techni-- we 

3 consider technical but -- you know, several 

4 times we've had some findings which were 

5 language things, you know, which I would 

6 consider low level, you know, so I was thinking 

7 of a way -- because 150, someone might read 

8 that and say wow, that's -- that's quite a few 

9 findings, you know, but we -- I think we need 

10 to give it some context of -- you know.

11 MS. MUNN: Well, that's why we indicated that 

12 they were of varying weight. What we --

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

14 MS. MUNN: -- did not do was identify whether 

15 the 99 that have been resolved include those 

16 that we consider to be of most significance, 

17 and which I think is a true statement, leaving 

18 the 54 that are open and under discussion --

19 MR. GRIFFON: I guess I just -- I -- I'd be 

20 willing to -- to try to put together some 

21 numbers. I don't have it right this second, 

22 but I -- you know, I -- I'd have to --

23 MS. MUNN: I'd appreciate --

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- look at the SC&A attachment 

25 and try to break it out a little bit. I -- I 
28

1 would try -- I should have probably come 

2 prepared with that to this meeting, I'm sorry, 

3 but I think we need a little more -- little 

4 more description there of what -- just more --

5 little more context for the reader is my --

6 MS. MUNN: You can understand why I don't want 

7 to postpone this for another meeting of this 

8 group. We have -- this is --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

10 MS. MUNN: -- the third meeting in which we've 

11 addressed this. SC&A gave us their -- their 

12 report several months ago, and this is our 

13 third attempt to try to get it out and to the 

14 Secretary. If we want to make this status 

15 report -- which in my view is important that we 

16 do -- then we need to get this tied down. And 

17 if we have words, if other people on the 

18 working group have words that they want to 

19 place before us as possibly clarifying or in 

20 any way assisting us to get this out, I'd 

21 certainly appreciate having it. I really don't 

22 want to postpone this until next month. Can we 

23 -- how can we do this? Mark, if you have words 

24 for us, is there a possibility that you can 

25 provide those words sometime perhaps later 
29

1 today, after this --

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean --

3 MS. MUNN: -- meeting is over --

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- I've got a pretty tight day, 

5 but you know, I --

6 DR. ZIEMER: I'm --

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- I just -- and I will say that 

8 I did bring this up at the last workgroup 

9 meeting, on the phone meeting. I -- I do 

10 remember saying -- I didn't say I had specific 

11 words available, but I -- but the -- the same 

12 draft is before us so, you know, I -- I was 

13 thinking maybe someone might have added in by 

14 this time, so I -- I will try, I'll -- you 

15 know...

16 DR. ZIEMER: A comment. I'm looking at the 

17 SC&A report here now --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- and of course it -- it details 

20 the nature and the numbers of all the findings 

21 so that -- that's all in there. There's also a 

22 section called "Role and Potential Impact of 

23 the Findings" --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I think we could probably 
30

1 use that information, it's at the very end of 

2 the report, it's -- it's a --

3 MR. GRIFFON: That's my thought --

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- single paragraph --

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- maybe it's there and we just 

6 didn't pull a little bit of --

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I'm wondering if during the 

8 break maybe if -- if the chair agreed, maybe 

9 Mark and I could take a look at that and -- and 

10 suggest some words to the workgroup yet this 

11 morning based --

12 MS. MUNN: That would --

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- based on some preliminary 

14 conclusions reached by the contractor.

15 MS. MUNN: That would be very helpful. Perhaps 

16 we could even include -- if you feel that the 

17 words from the contractor report adequately 

18 address our concerns here, then perhaps --

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we know that the 

20 contractor's report would not come close to the 

21 -- achieving the level that the Board members 

22 themselves could -- so we would --

23 MS. MUNN: This is --

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- feel compelled to change it.

25 MS. MUNN: I -- I need to point out that that's 
31

1 a facetious statement --

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if anybody thought was 

3 serious, they have a serious problem to start 

4 with.

5 MS. MUNN: Sometimes it looks different in 

6 black and white --

7 DR. BRANCHE: That's exactly right.

8 DR. ZIEMER: That's the problem, isn't it?

9 MS. MUNN: But if that's a possibility, then 

10 perhaps the entire issue could be resolved by 

11 incorporating those words as a quote, as -- as 

12 a paragraph --

13 DR. ZIEMER: Or something close, but let -- let 

14 us take a stab at it. I -- I kind of agree 

15 with Mark. I think it would be helpful if --

16 in a communication to the Secretary if there 

17 was at least an early evaluation of -- of 

18 impact.

19 MS. MUNN: The more specificity we can bring to 

20 it, the better we all are. If the two of you 

21 would be willing to do that at break time, then 

22 --

23 MR. PRESLEY: Within reason.

24 MS. MUNN: -- I'd appreciate it.

25 MR. PRESLEY: I agree with Paul, I agree with 
32

1 Mark, but this -- what you're discussing here 

2 could be a single paragraph, or it could be 20 

3 pages long, depending on how much you get into 

4 it.

5 DR. ZIEMER: There will be an attachment, I 

6 believe, to the report, which is the SC&A 

7 report.

8 MR. PRESLEY: Right --

9 MS. MUNN: Correct.

10 MR. PRESLEY: -- and that's what I'm saying --

11 DR. ZIEMER: So that detail --

12 MR. PRESLEY: -- the attachment's there, so --

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we need to highlight --

14 MS. MUNN: That's what we're transmitting.

15 MR. GRIFFON: We're looking at one, two, three 

16 lines maybe --

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- a couple of lines at most just 

19 to --

20 MR. PRESLEY: Okay.

21 DR. ZIEMER: At most.

22 MS. MUNN: Just to -- just to summarize the 

23 attachment more completely, I think.

24 All right.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, do you have the name of the 
33

1 SC&A report? I'm just looking in my folder 

2 while --

3 DR. ZIEMER: It's called "Draft Report, First 

4 Set of Procedures Reviewed" -- there may have 

5 been a --

6 MS. MUNN: And there is a final.

7 DR. ZIEMER: The version I'm looking at is 

8 dated --

9 MR. GRIFFON: Is Kathy Behling on the line?

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- March 31st, 2008.

11 MS. MUNN: And --

12 DR. ZIEMER: This is -- Steve prepared this.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't have a copy of it with -

14 - I didn't bring a copy of it with me, though, 

15 unfortunately.

16 MS. MUNN: Now it's --

17 MR. GRIFFON: What's the date of the report? 

18 I'm sorry, I --

19 MS. MUNN: -- dated April 8th, 2008.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, I'm -- I -- the last time 

21 I --

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'm looking at a March 31st 

23 draft, so there may have been a revision on 

24 April 8th.

25 MS. MUNN: There's a -- yeah, there's an April 
34

1 8 final report --

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this --

3 MS. MUNN: -- that's entitled --

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- this is -- this is one that may 

5 have not been cleared at that point.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I think the April 8th had input 

7 from the -- the Board meeting that was down in 

8 Florida.

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, and the title is "Overview 

10 and Summary Results of the First Set of 33 

11 Procedures Reviews."

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the report.

13 MS. MUNN: Prepared by Steve Marschke, April 

14 8th, 2008. Do you need it with -- would you 

15 like me to --

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't have -- I'm not 

17 finding it right now. I don't know if -- Paul, 

18 do we have wireless in here? Can you forward -

19 -

20 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, you should have wireless.

21 MS. MUNN: We do have.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Can you e-mail --

23 DR. ZIEMER: I -- yeah, or I can just put it on 

24 a flash stick.

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Thank you.
35

1 MS. MUNN: Very good, we'll rely on you two 

2 gentlemen to address that at the break.

3 TRACKING SYSTEM STATUS

4 The next item on our agenda is the tracking 

5 system status summary and presentation. This 

6 is our first opportunity to begin to really 

7 work on the ground with the electronic version 

8 of -- of our database, which makes it possible 

9 -- much more -- much more simple for us to 

10 track where we are with the various procedures 

11 that we're charged with overview.

12 Recall that we are responsible only for the 

13 procedures that have been authorized by the 

14 Board to be reviewed by SC&A. Now that we have 

15 this tracking system up and running -- for 

16 which, again, thank you, Steve and Kathy 

17 Behling, the other folks at SC&A who have been 

18 involved in this -- Steve, would you like to 

19 tell us where we are and where we perhaps might 

20 still need to tweak one or two things.

21 THE COURT REPORTER: Wanda, before you go to --

22 can I say --

23 MS. MUNN: Just a moment.

24 THE COURT REPORTER: Would y'all use the mike 

25 about like Wanda is? If you're going to speak, 
36

1 you need to get that close.

2 DR. BRANCHE: You need to get that close? We 

3 can't --

4 THE COURT REPORTER: About like Wanda was, 

5 yeah.

6 DR. BRANCHE: We can't get them any more 

7 sensitive than that, George? Okay.

8 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

10 MS. MUNN: Go ahead, Steve.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Since the May meeting we've made 

12 a number of changes to the database. And in 

13 addition to myself and Kathy, I think we should 

14 acknowledge Don Loomis, who is now our 

15 programmer and did a lot of the prog-- well, 

16 did all the programming on the -- on the 

17 database for SC&A.

18 A -- a few -- I just gave a handout -- I only 

19 had eight copies and so I apologize, I didn't 

20 have enough for everybody but I think I got the 

21 -- everybody on the Board a copy of the 

22 handout, or everybody on the working group, I 

23 should say.

24 The first -- on the handout the first page is a 

25 -- a screen capture of the summary page from 
37

1 the database, and circled up on the top you'll 

2 see we've replaced two "print" buttons with a 

3 single "print" button. Before we had a "print" 

4 button for print the summary and print details, 

5 and we've replaced that with a single "print" 

6 button. That's really the only change we made 

7 on the first screen.

8 If you flip over to the second screen you'll 

9 see, again, the top button is changed -- that's 

10 a change. You'll also see there's two other 

11 changes on this screen.

12 We've added a status date. In May it was 

13 requested that we put in a date when the issues 

14 had been closed. Well, we've taken that a 

15 little bit -- the status date is our way of --

16 of doing that. Whenever the status gets 

17 changed, the date in here will reflect the 

18 latest change to that status. And so when the 

19 status gets changed to "closed", this will be 

20 the closed date showing down here in -- in 

21 about the middle of the right-hand portion of 

22 the screen.

23 The other change on this page is on the --

24 we've added another field called the "issues 

25 source" field, and this is -- is shown blank on 
38

1 -- on this example, but what can be put in 

2 there is where the issue came from, whether it 

3 came from the first set of SC&A reviews, the 

4 second set, the third set, the OTIB-52 review 

5 or -- which -- which is -- probably this is 

6 more important, if the issue was transferred in 

7 from another working group, then that would be 

8 captured here. Where that -- where that tran--

9 was transferred from would be captured here.

10 Again, if we go back up to the top, the 

11 "print/view reports" button, if you press that 

12 button, what you then get is the third sheet 

13 here on the handout. This is a new screen 

14 which comes up when you pre-- press that new 

15 button. And you'll see the top -- you have two 

16 options, which is the old "print summary" or 

17 "print details", and those are -- those are 

18 what had been in the database from before. But 

19 those two new buttons here, which one is the 

20 capability to sort the issues by meeting date, 

21 so if any issues came up during this meeting 

22 which were associated with the procedures, you 

23 could sort them by pressing this button here. 

24 An example of the printout that you get is on -

25 - when you press that button is on the last 
39

1 sheet.

2 The -- the final -- fourth button on this 

3 reports screen is the status summary, and that 

4 is the table that Nancy Adams produced at our 

5 last meeting which had the roll-up summary of 

6 where we were for each one of the issues --

7 which -- which -- by issue date, which ones 

8 were open, which ones were closed, which ones 

9 were in abeyance and was a roll-up.

10 So the one item that we are trying -- we are 

11 currently still working on for the -- the 

12 summary sheet is we want to put -- next to each 

13 issue finding date we want to put an identifier 

14 for each -- like June 17th, 2005, the 

15 identifier for that would be "first set of SC&A 

16 findings", so that's one thing that we're still 

17 working on.

18 MS. MUNN: It gives us an additional sort.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: It gives you an additional sort, 

20 yes, and gives you --

21 MS. MUNN: So that it doesn't have to be by 

22 date, we can sort by set.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Yeah, we want to 

24 basically be able to sort -- yes, exactly.

25 MS. MUNN: Because some of these items that we 
40

1 have on here are not -- are items that were not 

2 the result of a specific set. SC&A was charged 

3 at one time or another with doing some 

4 additional work, and those don't fit into this 

5 same category so it helps us to identify.

6 DR. MAURO: Just a perspective, not to change 

7 anything, but --

8 DR. BRANCHE: You need to speak into the mike.

9 DR. MAURO: As you go through this process it's 

10 becoming apparent that the boundaries between 

11 sets -- first set, second set, third set -- the 

12 separate, stand-alone procedure reviews and the 

13 entire process, they're starting to blend. In 

14 a way what we really have, what I'm starting to 

15 see, and this is meant only as a point of 

16 perspective, is as we come to the close of this 

17 contract, the SC&A contract which will be 

18 ending in September, we effectively have about 

19 133 procedures that instead of looking -- I'm 

20 starting to look at them now not as the first 

21 set, the second set, the third set. I'm 

22 starting to look at them as there were 133 

23 procedures reviewed by the Board over this 

24 four-year period and -- and -- well, five-year 

25 -- is it five years? Five years, oh, how time 
41

1 flies.

2 MS. MUNN: This workgroup has not been 

3 established that period of time, though.

4 DR. MAURO: But what I'm getting at is Nancy's 

5 -- Nancy's table does a very nice job of 

6 rolling that up so that -- it's almost as if, 

7 though I know you're working on the first 

8 report which is designed to talk about the 

9 first set of 30 or 33 procedures, which is 

10 fine, but we actually are now transitioning 

11 into a stage where we could actually start 

12 talking about the entire group of -- of I 

13 believe it's 133 or a hundred -- I forget the 

14 exact number. I just wanted to point that out 

15 be-- because the groupings were I guess 

16 functional for us at one time because we have 

17 our thick book, we started the process of 

18 review and moving that along. Now we moved --

19 now we're into the second book, and now we're 

20 actually loaded up the third book --

21 MS. MUNN: The third book.

22 DR. MAURO: -- and all the separate stand23 alones, like OTIB-52 and the other CATI-related 

24 procedures which sort of stand alone, they're 

25 in the system. So they're all now in the 
42

1 system in -- in one place, so -- and the reason 

2 I -- and there's transference between them. 

3 There's actually cross-talk occurring between 

4 them. So what I'm -- all I'm really trying to 

5 say is that I know I'm starting to think about 

6 this as one fully integrated process as opposed 

7 to set one, set two, set three.

8 MS. MUNN: I agree with you, John. For our 

9 purposes here in the workgroup it's very 

10 helpful for me to be able to look at them in 

11 terms of sets still, and to be able to identify 

12 those items which do not belong to a specific 

13 origin of sets. It would also be my 

14 expectation at the second status report that we 

15 eventually will send to the Secretary would 

16 also at that time talk about the blending of 

17 the various sets and where we are with each one 

18 as a whole. It was my specific request that we 

19 identify one more sort capability because, for 

20 our purposes in tracking them, I think it's 

21 important. Otherwise, we lose a little 

22 continuity from -- from where we began. If 

23 we're looking at it from any perspective other 

24 than inside the tracking system, we need to be 

25 able to pull that. So I agree wholeheartedly, 
43

1 they are starting to blend, and hopefully we'll 

2 have one set at the tail end of all this with -

3 - with very easy-to-discover sources and -- and 

4 closure mechanisms.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: There was one other change which 

6 I didn't get a handout for, I couldn't get a 

7 screen capture of, but on our sort screen we do 

8 -- did add the capability -- again, I think it 

9 was asked for in -- in the last meeting. We 

10 did add the capability to sort on a range date, 

11 a finding range, so you can add a start date 

12 and an end date for the finding dates and find 

13 all the findings within that range. So that 

14 capability is -- has been added. We're still 

15 working on making it a little easier to -- to 

16 implement by including drop-down menus as 

17 opposed to requiring the person remember what 

18 dates to type in. They can do it either way, 

19 either with a drop-down menu or type in a date 

20 range, which-- whichever way is more convenient 

21 for them.

22 MS. MUNN: Should be helpful.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that -- that that's 

24 really -- as far as the mechanisms of the -- of 

25 the programming of the database, that -- that 
44

1 about cre-- summarizes what we did. We did add 

2 -- make some changes to the data in the 

3 database, based again on recommendations from 

4 the Board in the last minute -- meeting. I 

5 don't know if you wanted me to kind of 

6 summarize those also --

7 MS. MUNN: You might touch on one or two of 

8 them anyway.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: The first one we did was we 

10 added the -- Appendix BB, I think there was 13 

11 issues associated with Appendix BB and we added 

12 those to the database and we statused those as 

13 all being in progress since they were discussed 

14 at the last meeting. And we did add the NIOSH 

15 initial responses to the Appendix BB issues, so 

16 they are all in the database presently.

17 The second thing that we did was we changed the 

18 status of the 16 issues associated with TIB-52 

19 from open to in progress, because the 

20 definition of in progress is that they have 

21 been discussed at a working group meeting and 

22 they -- and OTIB-52 was discussed at a working 

23 group meeting last August. So those were 

24 changed from open to in progress, and we're 

25 going to talk a little bit more about OTIB-52 
45

1 later in -- in the meeting.

2 The other changes we did make was we discussed 

3 at the last meeting OTIB-7, PROC-3, OTIB-2, 1 

4 and IG-2, and we had some changes based upon 

5 recommended -- some of those issues were closed 

6 and some of them were -- had other changes 

7 associated with them, and we did make those 

8 changes as we agreed upon at the last meeting.

9 The OTIB-11, there was two issues associated 

10 with those, and at the last meeting we had 

11 agreed to close those two issues, and those two 

12 issues were closed.

13 So I think that summarizes the changes that 

14 were made to the data within the database.

15 MS. MUNN: Essentially the data's up to date --

16 to date with our -- with our current 

17 recommendations from the workgroup.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: As far as I know, it is, yes --

19 to the best of my knowledge. I --

20 MS. MUNN: That's a great relief to those of us 

21 who need to track open items. Yes, John?

22 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

23 ask a question --

24 MS. MUNN: Mike -- sorry about that.

25 DR. BRANCHE: The mike --
46

1 MS. MUNN: Maybe --

2 DR. BRANCHE: -- does move.

3 MS. MUNN: Maybe it can move.

4 DR. MAURO: That's all -- I'll just come by, 

5 that's okay. With regard to the process that 

6 NIOSH and SC&A just went through over -- since 

7 the last workgroup meeting, it's my 

8 understanding that we did have access to the 

9 transcript for that last meeting. I believe 

10 that's true. And that that was -- was that --

11 was that available -- when we last spoke we had 

12 --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: We had --

14 DR. MAURO: -- there was some --

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we had --

16 DR. MAURO: -- transcript information that did 

17 -- was used.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: We had transcript information 

19 for the meeting that was last August --

20 DR. MAURO: Ah, okay.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- on -- on TIB -- on OTIB-52.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay, I -- I misspoke then, I -- I 

23 thought that -- the nature -- the amount of 

24 granularity associated with the -- all of these 

25 procedures and their status and their evolution 
47

1 is complex. We are at this meeting taking 

2 notes, making sure we try to capture what was 

3 discussed and what actions either SC&A/NIOSH 

4 need to take, and then we take those actions 

5 and load up the database. I guess the only 

6 point that I'd like to make is that, in the 

7 end, verification that we have accomplished and 

8 are faithful to that commitment really is a --

9 something that I guess a -- it's the collective 

10 judgment of the folks sitting around the room 

11 but also ultimately the transcript is the gold 

12 standard upon which to make sure that this is 

13 happening. So I know that we did go back to 

14 the transcript for the previous one then to 

15 help make sure -- I just want to add in, that 

16 is a very valuable step in the process. For 

17 example, the question you just asked about --

18 and Steve's response was to the best of his 

19 knowledge. In my opinion, ultimately 

20 confirmation that in fact we are fully faithful 

21 to the commitments made around the table has to 

22 go back to the original transcript to check off 

23 to make sure yes, we have done the things we 

24 have committed to do. So I mean that really is 

25 the place where, in the end, we can be sure we 
48

1 did -- we did what we said we were going to do.

2 MS. MUNN: John, does SC&A have in -- in 

3 process already a procedure by which when a 

4 transcript is available and -- and we know we 

5 have so many transcripts that we have to deal 

6 with in the entire Board process that sometimes 

7 a considerable number of weeks passes before 

8 you actually have access to the transcript. Do 

9 you have a procedure in place for, at the time 

10 you receive transcripts, then checking it 

11 against the database which we have now 

12 developed?

13 DR. MAURO: No, we -- we don't have anything in 

14 writing, and really what I know I've done in 

15 the past, and others, is when we're a little 

16 concerned that perhaps do we have it right, is 

17 our understanding correct, we will very often 

18 give Ray a call and ask Ray, Ray, would you 

19 mind -- I've done this on two occasions -- Ray, 

20 is it possible to get a copy of the raw 

21 transcript -- 'cause it -- you know, in a rough 

22 form, and say Ray, I'd like to take a look at 

23 it because I'm really not quite sure, you know, 

24 what we've com-- committed to, there's a little 

25 -- you know, little ambiguity -- in addition to 
49

1 talking to other members around the Board, so -

2 - but there have been occasions where I draw 

3 upon the rough transcript, but this is really 

4 on a case-by-case basis when I'm uncomfortable 

5 and not quite sure exactly what we've committed 

6 to, that could happen.

7 MS. MUNN: Dr. Branche is our fount of all 

8 knowledge in that regard, and so --

9 DR. MAURO: But I -- I hear what you're saying, 

10 and I never even thought about having that 

11 proceduralized; namely, one of the steps that 

12 your contractor might want to factor into their 

13 protocol is when the transcripts come through 

14 to go back, read them and make sure that what 

15 we have been doing up to the point -- that 

16 point is in fact faithful to the commitments 

17 made in the transcript. And if there is any 

18 delta difference between what we have been 

19 doing, what's been accomplished, and what we 

20 committed to, that somehow is communicated back 

21 to the workgroup --

22 MS. MUNN: It would seem --

23 DR. MAURO: -- but we're not doing that right 

24 now.

25 MS. MUNN: It would seem a logical step in your 
50

1 QA process, to me.

2 Any negative response to that?

3 (No response)

4 Any other comment with respect to where we are 

5 with this tracking system?

6 (No response)

7 Thank you, Steve and Kathy, all of you who have 

8 done such long, difficult work, not only 

9 setting this up but getting the database 

10 populated. I know this is -- has been a heroic 

11 task and it's expected to be very profitable 

12 for us in the long run in terms of -- of time 

13 management, so thank you very much.

14 FIRST SET, REMAINING OPEN ITEMS

15 The next item is the first set of remaining 

16 open items. Our roll-up that we just passed 

17 around, our -- our summary of all of our items, 

18 do you see that first finding date there? 

19 Those are -- those are our set one items that 

20 we still have currently in process. It's my 

21 understanding that all of those items have now 

22 been rolled up into PROC-90 that we were 

23 discussing earlier so that essentially first 

24 set items now are PROC-0090.

25 We have 29 open items on that procedure, and if 
51

1 we can take a moment and have either Stu or 

2 Steve give us a quick overview of what's been 

3 factored in here and, for those of you who want 

4 to follow, perhaps you may want to pull the 

5 data up on the O drive and take a look at it. 

6 I asked that I have a printout of those items 

7 and it's been provided to me. I'm sorry we 

8 don't have copies for everybody to pass around, 

9 but I don't think the outstanding items are 

10 really that pressing, just feel that it's 

11 necessary for us to be comfortable with what's 

12 transpired and know that we've done the right 

13 thing here.

14 Stu?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I was trying to go 

16 back through these and reconstruct some strong 

17 talking points about, you know, what to talk 

18 about today and our response and what we've 

19 done. These -- these findings I find 

20 particularly difficult to work on because this 

21 was a very early product. And the statement of 

22 the finding in the report -- in the summary is 

23 -- is quite -- is -- is oftentimes different 

24 from the summary of the finding in the matrix. 

25 You know, the -- the matrix summary describes 
52

1 the nature of the finding, but unlike most of 

2 the SC&A reports, which are -- that I find just 

3 really clear and able to understand the thought 

4 process, in this case the finding as summarized 

5 on the -- on the matrix, old times, now on the 

6 database, is a bit of a restatement or summary 

7 of a fairly long description of comments on the 

8 procedures. So this, to me, is a -- is a 

9 difficult one.

10 I think you'll -- you know, to understand the 

11 nature of the -- of the comment, as well as the 

12 nature of our response, it probably will 

13 require working from the original report, 

14 rather than the matrix or the database, to go 

15 through these in -- in detail and understand 

16 what this summary refers to and -- and how does 

17 this response then address that. So this, to 

18 me, I think will be a complicated task to work 

19 through. I think it would be very difficult to 

20 do in -- in a meeting, you know, where people 

21 aren't prepared coming into the meeting, so 

22 I'll just offer that up now. I'm trying to get 

23 my notes organized here, make sure I've got the 

24 -- the database printouts from -- from the --

25 of these to -- to speak in a little bit more 
53

1 detail.

2 MS. MUNN: I'm sure everyone here recognizes 

3 that there are very few things more difficult 

4 than taking a complicated set of findings and 

5 trying to summarize them accurately in as brief 

6 form as -- as necessary for the kind of 

7 electronic record we're trying to -- to get 

8 here. Perhaps one of the steps that we're 

9 missing so far is interaction between the 

10 agency and the contractor as these -- as the 

11 wording is being generated to make sure that --

12 that there's agreement with respect to the 

13 capture of -- capture and weight of the 

14 specific item being addressed.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean -- yeah, I think 

16 in this case for this product, that's the case 

17 -- for this -- for these set of findings, 

18 actually.

19 MS. MUNN: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think in general 

21 there's any particular problem at all. I think 

22 in general a report that we get, the other 

23 procedure review reports, the specific product 

24 reports, those are pretty well explained, 

25 pretty well described and the summary finding 
54

1 is pretty -- you know, is kind of stated first 

2 time in the main report and then just -- just 

3 taken over into the -- the findings matrix. 

4 And so, you know, nowadays it's -- it's -- I 

5 think it works real well in terms of getting an 

6 understandable summary on the page and -- and 

7 being able to relate that summary to the -- the 

8 more depth -- in-depth information in the -- in 

9 the broad report. I just think that this 

10 particular product is -- it's a little more 

11 difficult to do that.

12 MS. MUNN: Can understand that. Paul?

13 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, if you could just clarify for 

14 me, are you talking about responding to what's 

15 in the database versus responding to the actual 

16 words in the report --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- or --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Because I think you'd have to 

21 respond to what's in the report.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I agree. And to 

23 understand our response --

24 DR. ZIEMER: You may have to go back to --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you have to go back to --
55

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- the report --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the original report to see 

3 why did this response --

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- did we write this response 

6 for this summary finding.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Now are you having any trouble 

8 with the finding itself, or is it just the 

9 summary of the finding as it appears in the 

10 database?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There are --

12 DR. ZIEMER: Or is --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there are a few --

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- are the comments you're making 

15 about these findings look a little fuzzier than 

16 the findings for -- for example, a site profile 

17 or something like that?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I am -- I am, as a general 

19 rule, less confident that the finding actually 

20 speaks -- or our response actually speaks to 

21 the nature of the finding in this -- on this 

22 case, on this -- this one set of findings than 

23 I am in pretty much any other arena, any of the 

24 DR reviews or any of the other procedure 

25 reviews. So I'm -- I'm less comfortable --
56

1 DR. ZIEMER: That has to do with the nature of 

2 the findings --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: That has to do --

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- and how they're developed or --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: How they're developed in the --

6 in the broader report, and then how they are 

7 summarized --

8 DR. ZIEMER: Summarized.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on the matrix, and so I'm a 

10 little less confident that I understand the 

11 exact nature of the findings.

12 DR. ZIEMER: So you -- you have to keep going 

13 back a step, you can't just take what's in the 

14 database. You go back to the finding summary, 

15 but then you may have to go back into the 

16 report and see how that was developed to -- to 

17 understand the full nature of what --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Even then it's -- it's somewhat 

19 difficult. I mean I normally do that when I --

20 when I'm trying to prepare responses for any of 

21 these findings I -- I look at the summary 

22 statement of the findings from the database, 

23 and I also look back to the -- the broader 

24 description in the report to make sure I 

25 understand -- okay, what -- did I really 
57

1 understand what the finding is or what the 

2 comment is.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Is there something inherent in the 

4 nature of this kind of a review versus site 

5 profiles or versus an SEC petition review?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I think it may 

7 be --

8 DR. ZIEMER: I mean it's --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, maybe John or 

10 somebody could speak to this --

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it -- it's one thing, for 

12 example, for SC&A to -- to raise an issue 

13 about, I don't know, a conversion factor from -

14 - going from film badge reading to an organ 

15 dose or something and that -- you can -- you 

16 can get a pretty good handle on that 'cause 

17 it's very specific. Is it the nature of -- of 

18 --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I more -- I'm more -

20 -

21 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to get a feel for what 

22 the issue is here and whether we can solve that 

23 issue, or if it's inherent in the nature of 

24 this particular kind of review.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, here's -- here's -- maybe 
58

1 I can start with this. I'm looking at just the 

2 -- the finding detail that happens to be on the 

3 top of my stack here, and it lists -- this is 

4 PROC-90-24, and -- and also under the finding 

5 number it refers to page numbers within the 

6 report -- 199, 210 and 211. So whereas most of 

7 the report -- it will list a summary finding 

8 with just the number. You'll look to -- you 

9 know, fr-- in the matrix or in the database. 

10 You look to the longer -- the broader report, 

11 you find that exact finding number -- you know 

12 -- you know, listed very mu-- you know, 

13 language is pretty much the same as it is in 

14 the database. And then either immediately 

15 preceding or immediately after, I think it's 

16 preceding that finding statement is the 

17 discussion of the reviewer that led him to that 

18 finding. So you can do that very clearly and 

19 you get the nature and you understand the 

20 nature of the comment in that -- in that 

21 context.

22 In this report, or on -- it's not even all the 

23 first set. It's the PROC-90 findings. I had 

24 difficulty because I don't believe the findings 

25 are -- there's a summary statement of the 
59

1 finding in the broad report that matches the 

2 summary statement in the database. I don't 

3 think there's in large part any summary 

4 findings statement. I mean there may be some, 

5 but they don't match up with the finding 

6 statements in the database. And so it refers 

7 you to, in this case, two passages -- this is 

8 actually not very complicated 'cause I think 

9 one of those is just the table where it -- you 

10 know, the -- there's a table where there's a 

11 check mark that this doesn't always or almost 

12 never satisfies this one particular review 

13 requirement -- criterion. And then you look at 

14 the other two -- 210 to 211, you read the 210 

15 to 211 pages, and I'm not sure that I picked 

16 out of that 210 to 211 pages what the reviewer 

17 and the summarizer thought was the important 

18 nugget of it in order to write the summary 

19 statement that they wrote.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Stu --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- would it be helpful if we --

23 if we -- we took a -- another shot at maybe 

24 summarizing the issues and -- because I -- you 

25 know, there's nothing that says we can't change 
60

1 what's in the summary of the -- of the issue 

2 here. If we went back and -- I think these are 

3 mostly Arjun's issues, or Arjun's review -- he 

4 reviewed these documents. And if we, you know, 

5 took another look at those and -- and maybe

6 made an attempt to -- to add more meat to the 

7 summary of -- of the issue so that it would 

8 give you a better indication of what we feel 

9 are the significant concerns?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I wa-- I was hoping you'd offer 

11 that, you know. The -- something else I'd ask, 

12 though, during that is that you look at the 

13 response we wrote -- you know, we -- we wrote 

14 initial responses on these long ago, and I 

15 don't know that we as a Board have really ever 

16 discussed in a meeting those responses. Do you 

17 remember, Arjun?

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I believe we have --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe we did and 

20 (unintelligible).

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we have done -- done it, but 

22 a couple of major issues have remained 

23 unresolved for quite a long time. Why -- why 

24 don't I get together with you off-line, Stu --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.
61

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy DeMers and I worked on 

2 this. Why don't I get together with you off3 line and we can just identify the findings with 

4 which you're having some trouble --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Especially in the context of 

6 what we have done and what we have provided.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we can do that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, we've provided some 

9 responses, we've -- I want everybody to make 

10 sure they got their revised acknowledgement 

11 packet because we do, in a lot of our 

12 responses, say that we think this revised 

13 acknowledgement packet does do a better job of 

14 explaining to the -- to the claimant what to 

15 expect, and that was the nature of some of the 

16 findings. It wasn't, you know, majority 

17 necessarily, but it was the nature of some of 

18 the findings. So I would like you to do that, 

19 if -- if you would and if the working group and 

20 -- feels that that's the appropriate task for 

21 SC&A to do.

22 MS. MUNN: It seems the most direct thing to 

23 do, and certainly would appear the sooner the 

24 better. These -- these technical exchanges 

25 between the two principals are always much more 
62

1 productive than trying to work them out in a --

2 a meeting setting, I believe, if that can be 

3 done. John, you have --

4 DR. MAURO: The only thing I'd like to add is 

5 what -- what I'm hearing is the process, there 

6 are places along the way where there is 

7 ambiguity, confusion that needs to be clarified 

8 so that we could work through the issue. In 

9 some cases it may simply be that in our report 

10 itself, the full report, there may be some 

11 ambiguity that, once we get into the process --

12 NIOSH is not quite sure what the -- what's the 

13 problem. And then of course the logical step 

14 would be some discussion. And so I don't see 

15 there are -- and we'll work that out.

16 I am concerned, though, that -- with the 

17 archive. In effect, what's happening is 

18 there's clarifying discussion that takes place 

19 where there's an -- aha, oh, is that what you 

20 meant, and then we'll say oh, no, now I know 

21 what the issue is. I think it's important that 

22 that's captured. And what I would suggest is 

23 that when that happens, when those discussions 

24 happen, that some minutes be made regarding 

25 that clarification. It might be something on 
63

1 our part where we have to clarify the point we 

2 made in our original report. But somehow that 

3 needs to be captured as part of the archive. 

4 And I would -- I would recommend that that go 

5 in the database, just like we put white papers 

6 in and -- and click so you can go to the white 

7 paper. This would be a form of that. So -- so 

8 when you do do that -- let's say you do have 

9 that conversation and the clarification is 

10 accomplished, that it -- it is memorialized so 

11 we don't lose it in the record.

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: What -- what --

13 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

14 (Unintelligible) 

15 DR. MAURO: It'll be. Okay.

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: What -- what we can do is just 

17 prepare a short memorandum about the findings 

18 at issue and discuss what the old finding was 

19 and put clearly what the new finding is, 

20 capture that in a summary, and I think that 

21 should -- that should take care of it. Right, 

22 Stu?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so, right.

24 MS. MUNN: It would, assuming that we will be 

25 able to, for example, sort by date those 
64

1 findings so that -- that those of us who want 

2 to see what the resolution was can see how it's 

3 captured.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: What we -- yeah, but the -- the 

5 database will be able to handle that because 

6 what we have is we will make an entry now into 

7 the database for each one of these 29 issues, 

8 that we discussed them today, an action item 

9 was taken for each one that -- for Stu and 

10 Arjun to get together and clarify, and then we 

11 have basically -- we have space in here for 

12 SC&A follow-up or NIOSH follow-up. SC&A 

13 follow-up could be a clarification of the 

14 issue. There will be a date associated with 

15 that, so -- so that actually the database is a 

16 -- is -- is well-prepared to -- to handle this 

17 situation.

18 MS. MUNN: Excellent. And in addition to that, 

19 it would be enormously helpful for this body if 

20 the status of the results of such conferences 

21 were a standard report item for each of our 

22 meetings. When these things have occurred off23 line, it's very helpful for us to know --

24 especially if off-line conversations have 

25 resulted in a change to the database, it's 
65

1 helpful for us to be statused on that at each 

2 meeting.

3 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda?

4 MS. MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one thing on this --

6 I think this is probably like the fifth time 

7 we've had this CATI procedure on the workgroup 

8 agenda, and --

9 MS. MUNN: It's the first time we've had it 

10 rolled up quite this nicely, I think.

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's true. And this 

12 package is going to be helpful -- but it's also 

13 the fifth time we haven't discussed the meat of 

14 the issue, and I'm -- I just am a little 

15 concerned -- I'm glad -- it sounds like a 

16 decent path forward, but I think we really need 

17 to -- to get at the heart of the issue. This 

18 is, you know, a key part where the program 

19 meets the public, and we haven't been able to 

20 grapple with some fairly serious findings and I 

21 -- I think we need to start talking about the 

22 substance, so -- you know, so I'm happy you 

23 have a process but I really hope that at our 

24 next workgroup meeting we can be ready to talk 

25 about the meat of the findings.
66

1 MS. MUNN: That specifically is your major 

2 concern, Mark?

3 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I -- I have several con-- I 

4 mean I have several concerns about the 

5 interview process on the phone, whether there's 

6 HPs available on the phone -- I mean all these 

7 findings have come up. I've also -- I think 

8 now there's a different CATI. I'm -- maybe --

9 can someone help me with that? I'm not even 

10 sure if there's a different interview form. 

11 When we were -- early on in our Advisory Board 

12 we were -- we were basically told, you know, 

13 don't make comments regarding the -- the 

14 physical structure of the questionnaire --

15 MS. MUNN: CATI itself.

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- because that's going to have 

17 to go through OMG (sic) --

18 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's going to be a lengthy 

20 process, da, da, da, can't be changed.

21 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Well, apparently it's been 

23 changed, so I don't know where thing-- you 

24 know, I think we -- we have several items we 

25 have to discuss on that.
67

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the new CATI 

2 script -- the changes, as I understand it --

3 some of those changes that were made -- first 

4 of all, the reason it was changed was because 

5 the OMB approval of the original script 

6 expired. You know, those are not permanent 

7 approvals. Those are for a set period of time, 

8 so we had to request a renewal of the OMB 

9 appro-- OMB -- approval by OMB in order to 

10 collect the information from a lot of people. 

11 That's why you need OMB approval, 'cause we're 

12 collecting information from a lot of people. 

13 But when we --

14 MR. GRIFFON: That might have been a nice place 

15 for the Advisory Board to weigh in --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And we --

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) that --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we submitted --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible).

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with our proposed our 

21 revisions, revisions that we felt addressed 

22 findings from these -- from these -- you know, 

23 these findings, some of these, so --

24 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we included that --
68

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) the loop, 

2 Stu.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah.

4 MR. GRIFFON: That's all I'm saying, you know.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

6 MR. GRIFFON: So... But I think we need to 

7 review those and look at those and see if --

8 maybe they did respond to the findings. I'm 

9 happy if they did. But again, we weren't --

10 you know, that kind of went on without us 

11 knowing about it, as far -- as far as I'm 

12 concerned, anyway. Maybe other people were 

13 aware.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, with respect to 

15 changing the script, I said we -- we would 

16 prefer not to change the script, but it can be 

17 changed -- I believe is what we said -- because 

18 it would require, again, OMB approval. It will 

19 take a -- a while for that to happen. But we 

20 can change the script and we don't have to wait 

21 until the approval expires to do a change.

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I ask for a 

23 clarification, Mark? If -- if the CATI has 

24 been changed and there's some confusion on that 

25 very -- on the findings in relation to the 
69

1 review of the CATI that we did, are -- are you 

2 saying that we should -- we should look at the 

3 new CATI? I mean will it be -- it seems -- it 

4 might be cumbersome --

5 MR. GRIFFON: It just came to my attention --

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- (unintelligible) agree to 

7 read old findings and then review a new CATI 

8 and --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll send you the new ones.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that new CATI might be part 

11 of the response to the findings, is what I'm 

12 hearing, so I think we -- we certainly need to 

13 look at it when we're looking at the findings.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: So this -- this may be a little 

15 bit larger task than -- than the cleanup of --

16 you know, just clarification of an old finding 

17 relating to an old CATI, which is what I 

18 understood just a moment ago that we were going 

19 to do. If there's a -- if there's a new CATI 

20 that needs to be looked at, I -- I just have a 

21 question. Do you want it looked at as part of

22 the same process, or do you want us to clean up 

23 the old findings and then deal with that 

24 separately? I'm not clear.

25 MS. MUNN: Well, from the chair's perspective, 
70

1 first we need to get PROC-90 cleaned up so that 

2 everybody is happy and clear on exactly what 

3 the findings are and make sure that we have 

4 captured what the issues are correctly, and 

5 have correctly captured the weight of each of 

6 those issues. It would appear to muddy the 

7 waters if we attempted to begin review of the 

8 current existing documentation without having 

9 clarified what we felt was the problem with the 

10 preceding documentation. Does that make sense?

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Fair enough, yeah.

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I suppose so.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's good. We can do that.

14 MR. GRIFFON: I mean like I said, the process 

15 described sounds -- sounds reasonable. I'm 

16 just a little concerned -- you know, I -- I 

17 just found this out myself a few weeks ago.

18 MS. MUNN: For our next --

19 MR. GRIFFON: I was surprised that the CATI had 

20 been changed and I think it happened a while 

21 ago, so --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I forget ex-- I forget now.

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I forget exactly.

25 MS. MUNN: Our next workgroup meeting will be a 
71

1 full day meeting, and will give us considerably 

2 more opportunity to address these issues in 

3 depth if we feel that we want to include that 

4 on our agenda. It does sound like a reasonable 

5 thing to do, if we can work on the assumption 

6 that, for the most part, these fuzzy issues 

7 that exist now can be clarified in that period 

8 of time. Do the two of you think that's 

9 probable between now and July when this --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what part of July?

11 MS. MUNN: -- workgroup will meet again?

12 DR. BRANCHE: July -- The next procedures 

13 meeting is scheduled for July 21st at 9:30 a.m. 

14 Eastern time. An announcement has already been 

15 sent out about that, I believe.

16 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is it a phone meeting or --

18 DR. BRANCHE: No, it's a --

19 MS. MUNN: No, it's --

20 DR. BRANCHE: -- face-to-face meeting --

21 MS. MUNN: -- face-to-face in --

22 DR. BRANCHE: -- in Cincinnati.

23 MS. MUNN: -- Cincinnati. Uh-huh.

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think in terms of clarifying 

25 old issues and -- and creating a short 
72

1 memorandum would clear up a few findings should 

2 -- it should be very possible to do that --

3 MS. MUNN: Good.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and send it to you in 

5 advance.

6 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. Then we 

7 could have a more in-depth look at the new 

8 process as a part of our agenda.

9 DR. BRANCHE: Actually I stand corrected. I 

10 stand corrected. I think the announcement for 

11 the June -- July 21st meeting has not been sent 

12 out. I was going to clarify all of that with 

13 Zaida at the conclusion of this meeting. It's 

14 a Monday.

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is a Monday. Is it a bad 

16 day for you?

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, unfortunately it -- I 

18 can't be there on July 21st.

19 MS. MUNN: Hmm.

20 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn, you scheduled this 

21 meeting before we concluded our last meeting --

22 MS. MUNN: Yes.

23 DR. BRANCHE: -- in Cincinnati.

24 MS. MUNN: Yes, we did. We looked at it at 

25 that time. We may need to look at it again as 
73

1 a housecleaning procedure.

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I could possibly participate by 

3 phone. I have to check in my calendar.

4 MS. MUNN: All right. We'll look at that at 

5 the end of our agenda here when we get to 

6 housekeeping and closure items.

7 Do we have any other material with respect to 

8 PROC-90 that we need to cover?

9 (No response)

10 Stu, do you want to say anything at all about 

11 the new packet?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I maybe should. The --

13 this is the acknowledgement packet that goes to 

14 claimants today when we receive their claim 

15 from the Department of Labor.

16 DR. BRANCHE: I'm sorry, Stu, could you please 

17 clarify? You're meaning as of this day, but --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

19 DR. BRANCHE: -- it started this --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: It started some time ago.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It started some -- I don't -- I 

23 don't have the exact date when it was adopted 

24 with me, but I could probably find out. It 

25 includes a letter which is somewhat similar to 
74

1 the letter we sent earlier, I believe probably 

2 is more explanatory, a better letter than the 

3 letter we sent earlier. That's -- at least 

4 it's on the right side of my packet, and on the 

5 left are a number of brochures that provide 

6 information about EEOICPA program, there's --

7 you know, FAQs, there's just a series of steps. 

8 There's a detailed steps in the dose 

9 reconstruction process so that claimants, we 

10 hope, will know what's -- what's happening 

11 next. There's a glossary of terms. So the 

12 kinds of information are much -- much of -- you 

13 know, a number of the findings -- I won't say 

14 most, or maybe not even much, but a number of 

15 the findings on the CATI procedure spoke to the 

16 fact that the process wasn't very well17 explained to -- to the claimant. We felt like 

18 well, we don't really want to use the CATI to 

19 explain the process to the claimant, but that's 

20 a -- that's a valid point that we should -- we 

21 should do a better job of explaining to the 

22 claimant what's going to happen. And so that's 

23 why a packet of this nature was developed. So 

24 it's -- it's a -- it's bigger. I think we used 

25 to just send just an acknowledgement letter, so 
75

1 there's more information provided at this point 

2 in -- in the process to address those. You can 

3 look through it and see what's there. I guess 

4 people might find out -- they feel like boy, 

5 there's something in here -- that should be in 

6 here that isn't. Chances are people will say 

7 well, boy, I think this may be too much and 

8 there's a lot of this that doesn't need to be. 

9 So I guess some feedback on that would be --

10 would be welcomed, as well.

11 MS. MUNN: Could that be an item of our next 

12 meeting?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I would leave that not 

14 necessarily as a forced item, that we want 

15 somebody to give us feedback, but if someone 

16 has it, you know, I'd be willing to take it 

17 either at the next meeting or any other time. 

18 You know, the meeting -- our meeting time is --

19 for this workgroup seems to be never -- we 

20 never seem to have enough time in this 

21 workgroup, and so it might be better not to 

22 provide that kind of information into, you 

23 know, a work-- into the workgroup setting, but 

24 just for peo-- you know, as individuals who are 

25 interested.
76

1 MS. MUNN: Workgroup members, do you need a 

2 reminder from me to do that? Can you take it 

3 on your own hook to respond to Stu's request? 

4 If you have feedback with respect to the packet 

5 here, will you please get it to Stu? That will 

6 save me one e-mail. Thank you very much.

7 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. One of the 

8 discussions we had earlier today has to do with 

9 the re-review process. I'd like to just 

10 confirm, for all intents and purposes, the 

11 extent to which the material contained in this 

12 packet explicitly addresses some of the 

13 concerns that may have been contained in our 

14 previous review -- let's say of the 

15 communication CATI or communication -- I -- my 

16 perspective is well, this is part of following 

17 the finding --

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: -- so if it turns -- so to Arjun, 

20 in effect, part of the process is now that, 

21 with this document out, it's -- ought -- within 

22 the mandate of SC&A to review it from the 

23 perspective of the degree to which you feel it 

24 satisfies or -- the intent or concerns that 

25 were raised in one of your reviews. So what 
77

1 I'm saying is one of the discussions we had a 

2 little earlier, I'm not sure if you were here 

3 at the very beginning. We talked about 

4 following the finding 'cause very often a 

5 finding may come out in a particular review 

6 that we have done a year ago, or more. And 

7 then that finding is -- begins to be processed 

8 and -- and addressed by NIOSH in various 

9 venues, such as this. It's my understanding 

10 that we have a standing authorization, as long 

11 as it's a continuation of the finding and its 

12 resolution, that our role would be to look at 

13 that material and stay on top of it and keep 

14 the working group apprised of the degree to 

15 which we feel that particular issue has been 

16 closed to SC&A's satisfaction.

17 MS. MUNN: That would be my interpretation of 

18 your charge, as well. From my perspective, 

19 that's simply following the finding to ground -

20 -

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 MS. MUNN: -- and -- and reaching its 

23 appropriate conclusion. If it -- if it evolves 

24 that our interpretation of that is incorrect, 

25 then I trust someone will notify us that we are 
78

1 looking at it incorrectly, but till I hear to 

2 the contrary, my assumption is that you are 

3 correct.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ms. -- Ms. Munn, the only --

5 the only question I -- I would have -- I agree 

6 with what you both have said. The only 

7 question I have is NI-- NIOSH would need to 

8 alert us that this -- this is responding to 

9 some particular finding so we can rel-- relate 

10 it. If it's a general action that NIOSH has 

11 taken and they're simply sending out a new 

12 packet, we -- we have no way of -- of knowing 

13 that it's responding to a finding and tracking 

14 it because -- I mean we have to -- that's just 

15 a kind of a --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe our initial response 

17 information in the database will -- would 

18 indicate whether we believe --

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, right, that --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the acknowledgement packet 

21 addresses the finding.

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that will then take care of 

23 it.

24 MS. MUNN: I would anticipate that it would 

25 appear in the database as a -- as a response to 
79

1 an open item, yeah.

2 Very good, it is almost time for our break and 

3 in view of the fact that I would like to give 

4 Mark and Paul an extra five minutes to put 

5 their words together, let's take our break at 

6 this time. We'll come back at 10:15, at which 

7 time our first item will be to look at what 

8 Mark and Paul have done, revisit the 

9 transmittal letter, to see if we can get that 

10 out of the way before we undertake the next 

11 issue with respect to TBD-6000 and 6001 and 

12 Appendix BB.

13 DR. BRANCHE: For phone participants, we will 

14 mute the line and we will reopen when we 

15 reconvene. Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:55 a.m. 

17 to 10:15 a.m.)

18 DR. BRANCHE: Who's participating by phone,

19 please let me know that you can hear me.

20 UNIDENTIFIED: I can hear you, Christine.

21 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you so much. This is the 

22 procedures workgroup meeting reconvening after 

23 a break. Thank you very much. I do remind all 

24 phone participants to please mute your lines. 

25 If you do not have a mute button, then please 
80

1 use star-6 to mute your phones. It is critical 

2 that everyone participating by phone use a mute 

3 function. And please, if you must leave us 

4 temporarily, please do not put us on hold. 

5 Thank you so much.

6 Ms. Munn?

7 MS. MUNN: Thank you. Over the break Dr. 

8 Ziemer and Mark Griffon were working on wording 

9 for us to amplify what we have already been

10 looking at with regard to a transmittal of 

11 SC&A's status report on the first set of 

12 findings.

13 Dr. Ziemer, Mark, do you have --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Paul's got it written --

15 MS. MUNN: -- words for us?

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I do have words for the 

17 workgroup, and I'm sorry to tell you that I'll 

18 just have to read them into the record and then 

19 we can provide written copies later if -- if 

20 that's agreeable. And perhaps if the workgroup 

21 is able to get -- catch the sense of what we're 

22 saying -- it's not all that long. If they 

23 catch the sense of it and are willing to 

24 approve it, the chair might offer the 

25 opportunity for workgroup members to also do a 
81

1 little word-smithing or editing later if -- if 

2 needed. But let me read the words and then you 

3 can make that decision.

4 MS. MUNN: Thank you.

5 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me. Dr. Ziemer, when you 

6 do so are you also going to tell us where in 

7 the current document you think it ought to be 

8 placed, or are you leaving that for later 

9 discussion?

10 DR. ZIEMER: We would place this where Wanda 

11 suggested, which is the paragraph -- let me 

12 pull it up here.

13 MS. MUNN: Next to last paragraph 

14 (unintelligible) --

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you, next to last 

16 paragraph.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Next to last paragraph --

18 DR. BRANCHE: That's helpful. Thank you, Paul.

19 DR. ZIEMER: It -- it's in the -- it would come 

20 at the end of that paragraph --

21 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you.

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- or it would be a paragraph 

23 following that, perhaps would be better, but --

24 as a separate paragraph. Here it is.

25 Approximately two-thirds of the findings relate 
82

1 to the clarity, completeness and consistency of 

2 the procedures for use in dose reconstruction. 

3 The other third deal with technical issues such 

4 as accuracy, claimant favorability and 

5 scientific quality. It should be noted that 

6 approximately 50 percent of the technical 

7 findings have been closed. Likewise, 

8 approximately 50 percent of the non-technical 

9 findings have been closed. Accordingly, the 

10 Board's review process is helping to assure 

11 that the procedures being used by NIOSH and its 

12 contractors not only are scientifically valid, 

13 but are also clear and efficient.

14 If I can comment, and Mark may wish to comment 

15 as well, but that -- that ends the -- the 

16 statement as we prepared it. Could I add some 

17 comments?

18 MS. MUNN: Please do.

19 DR. ZIEMER: The statement made in the body of 

20 the SC&A report we may wish to also include. 

21 It is the very last paragraph of the SC&A 

22 report, and it suggests that the review process 

23 will cause NIOSH -- hang on just a moment --

24 will cause NIOSH or has caused NIOSH to do one 

25 of the following: One, modify a procedure to 
83

1 correct an error, further provide 

2 clarification, or improve its logical sequence 

3 format; two, develop new guidance documents or 

4 eliminate redundant procedures; or three, 

5 revisit some adjudicated cases through the 

6 Program Evaluation Program.

7 So we may want to include that to pull that 

8 forward because that's how -- or that's the 

9 impact on the procedures. The statement Mark 

10 and I developed was to try to identify the 

11 extent to which the -- the findings were in the 

12 technical versus the non-technical range, and 

13 the extent to which those are closed. For 

14 example, if -- if all we did is closed the non15 technical issues -- or the grammar's really 

16 great in these issues but we haven't addressed 

17 the science, then we would be very concerned. 

18 But what we're finding in our early count that 

19 pretty much half of all the types of findings 

20 are being closed, so it's not one or the other.

21 Mark, you may wish to add to that, and we -- we 

22 -- because of some double counting in the -- in 

23 the original report, we don't have the exact 

24 numbers, but they're close to 50 percent.

25 MS. MUNN: Certainly the wording that's been 
84

1 presented is well-received. What's the sense 

2 of this body with respect to the inclusion of 

3 the last paragraph of SC&A's report, as well as 

4 any comment with respect to the words that have 

5 been presented by Paul and Mark?

6 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think that last paragraph 

7 would -- would be a good inclusion as well 

8 because I think it -- it speaks to the action 

9 of -- that resulted from the findings, so --

10 and we -- and Paul and I discussed, in our 

11 brief meeting, that, you know, we may not be 

12 able to -- to refine that, but we can generally 

13 say here's three -- three -- you know, and I 

14 think SC&A stated the general outcomes from the 

15 findings. And I think that's the only way we 

16 can state it right now. We can't really say 

17 that, you know, certain PERs resulted from this 

18 or certain -- you know, but we can at least 

19 make that general statement that these are 

20 three actions that resulted from our review, so 

21 I -- I'm happy with adding that in if it's -- I 

22 don't think it gets too wordy at that point, 

23 but I think it might be a good addition.

24 MS. MUNN: It would be simple enough to 

25 indicate that the contractor's summary of their 
85

1 -- of their report reads -- and include that 

2 paragraph. That would be simple enough.

3 Any other thoughts, comments, complaints, 

4 additions, deletions?

5 (No response)

6 If not, we will make an effort to incorporate 

7 those words into what we have here and, at the 

8 very least -- if nothing else, we'll have them 

9 in hard copy to you prior to the time this 

10 issue comes to the floor for the full Board, at 

11 which time it's my intent to recommend that 

12 these words be accepted and that a letter be 

13 sent to the Secretary accompanying this report. 

14 Any additional comments or thoughts?

15 (No response)

16 I'll work with your words then, Paul. Thank 

17 you.

18 APPENDIX BB TO TBD 6000/6001

19 The next item on our agenda is one which I'm 

20 very pleased to see us addressing. As you 

21 know, we've been dealing at considerable length 

22 recently with Appendix BB to TBD 6001.

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 6000.

24 MS. MUNN: 6000, and we've had 6001 on our 

25 scope as well. These -- these TBDs are a 
86

1 different animal than the other procedures that 

2 we have been addressing, and they are going to 

3 be extensive in terms of their scope. They're 

4 going to be extensive in terms of the Board's 

5 time. And they are going to be much more 

6 nearly in the purview of site profiles than 

7 they are in the realm of procedures that we 

8 have been dealing with here in the past.

9 We want to hear a little bit about where we are 

10 here. And after we've talked about where we 

11 are with these procedures at this time, the 

12 chair has a recommendation that's been 

13 discussed off-line a little bit which I'd like 

14 to bring for your consideration with respect to 

15 these two documents and the additional 

16 documents that will proceed from them in the 

17 future. For the moment, to bring us up to 

18 speed on where we are -- Bob, are you going to 

19 do that for us, or John?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well --

21 MS. MUNN: Do you want to --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- I certainly can, but the 

23 really -- oh, sorry. So shall I proceed?

24 MS. MUNN: Yes, please.

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There really have been very 
87

1 little new development since the workgroup 

2 meeting in May -- May 20th, I think it was --

3 in Cincinnati where we made the extensive 

4 presentation of our review of Appendix BB. 

5 Since then we've gotten -- at that time we 

6 summarized the findings, there's 13 issues, and 

7 then -- in the report and in a summary -- and 

8 then we transferred those issues also into a 

9 matrix which Steve Marschke just mentioned has 

10 gone into the database. And shortly before --

11 sometime last week I believe it was -- I -- we 

12 received a response from NIOSH to each of the 

13 issues in the matr-- or they filled in the --

14 their box of the matrix. And I guess I would -

15 - I -- I suppose Stu or -- Stu should -- do you 

16 want to summarize your response?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I -- I can summarize 

18 briefly.

19 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. Thank you, 

20 Stu.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We're not -- well, I sent the 

22 responses I believe to the workgroup and --

23 MS. MUNN: Yes.

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- SC&A. We're not at a 

25 position yet to be able to speak definitively 
88

1 about where we believe this will all turn out 

2 in -- you know, given the review information 

3 provided by SC&A and the information we've 

4 obtained about the film badge results from the 

5 people at General Steel.

6 A couple -- we know there are a couple of 

7 issues with the film badge dataset. One is 

8 that it does not cover the entire covered 

9 period. It starts fairly late in the covered 

10 period, covers the last two or three years of 

11 the covered period, and then continues on 

12 beyond that when the Betatron was still being 

13 used -- as we understand it, was very -- in 

14 very heavy use for the irradiation of steel 

15 products for a number of years after that while 

16 -- and we have those film badge results. And 

17 so there's a lot of the -- lot of the dose, as 

18 SC&A's pointed out, comes from activation of 

19 the Betatron itself, and some from activation 

20 of the irradiated objects. And then there's 

21 also the -- some dose from the leakage 

22 radiation during operation.

23 So the fact that we don't cover the entire 

24 covered period, we don't know that is a fatal 

25 flaw because the -- the issue is do we cover 
89

1 perio-- heavy Betatron use, which is the source 

2 of the exposure, predominantly, and we -- we 

3 think we do.

4 In terms of coverage of the work force, that 

5 would be another thing to talk about, and the -

6 - because as we understand it, the Betatron 

7 operators who I believe were the radiographers 

8 who -- at least the ones who worked for -- for 

9 General Steel, were the ones who were badged. 

10 You know, the rest of the population wasn't 

11 badged. And in the instance of the leakage 

12 radiation scenario, it -- the exposed people 

13 are more likely not radiographers. They would 

14 be people who have access to certain areas 

15 where the leakage radiation would be the most -

16 - well, the highest and most intense.

17 And then -- then trying to resolve what the --

18 the dosimetry data says with the kind of model 

19 exposures is the other instance. I can tell 

20 you we have -- I don't know the numbers, I know 

21 many, many pages -- it was like a -- 14,000 

22 pages of -- oh, okay, 14,000 measurements --

23 film badge measurements -- from the people. 

24 They were generally weekly reads. The number 

25 of people is a little hard to tell because you 
90

1 have to see -- you know, because it changes 

2 over time. So we have that -- you know, quite 

3 a lot of number of badge reads, many of which 

4 are reported as below the detection level for 

5 the badge. So there's some issues to work 

6 with, and unfortunately we're not prepared 

7 really to say how we feel -- where we think --

8 think all this takes us today.

9 So Dave Allen is on -- I think Dave Allen is on 

10 the phone. I don't know if there's anything 

11 more he wants to add or not.

12 MS. MUNN: Dave, are you there?

13 MR. ALLEN: I'm here, Wanda. I think Stu's got 

14 it covered.

15 MS. MUNN: Very good.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks, Dave.

17 MS. MUNN: We understand that, especially given 

18 the brevity of our meeting today, it would 

19 really be almost impossible for us to get into 

20 this in any great detail.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I am -- I have one 

22 question. Do the workgroup members have access 

23 to our -- to the site research database? Can 

24 you go to O drive and see the site research 

25 database, 'cause I'm -- I'm never clear on 
91

1 that.

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we do.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And we can al-- we also 

4 have that review file, though -- document 

5 review file on the O drive -- right? -- that 

6 you guys -- one that has the various sites?

7 (Whereupon, multiple participants responded to 

8 Mr. Hinnefeld's query.)

9 MS. MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's -- that's what 

11 it's called on our side, yeah. But we can -- I 

12 mean we can -- these are -- this is Privacy Act 

13 information, but we can put Privacy Act 

14 information in those forms, and we can make 

15 those data sheets available for workgroup 

16 members who want to look at them. Or you know, 

17 be -- it would be probably easier to find it on 

18 the document review or there's a folder that 

19 call-- that says General Steel Industries, as 

20 opposed to, you know, searching the SRDB and 

21 finding it in SRDB, so we can make that 

22 available. I know -- I think Bob got access to 

23 those sheets fairly recently, if I'm not 

24 mistaken.

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but I -- I was able to 
92

1 review them, actually --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and I was wondering --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- I mean I made a preliminary 

4 review of those.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right. It'd be hard to 

6 do an in-depth one in a couple of days, but --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- do you have any response or 

9 any kind of take --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on that?

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have a couple of comments. 

13 One is -- the period of interest, in other 

14 words, the contract period ended in -- I 

15 believe it was June 30th, 1966. The film badge 

16 records -- the -- the monitoring apparently 

17 started in November '63. However, the earliest 

18 record was early '64, January '64. So again, 

19 it's a minor -- minor -- minor omission there. 

20 For some reason the '63 records -- the end of 

21 '63 records were not included.

22 They started off with about a dozen workers at 

23 the very beginning. Then the record for the 

24 middle of the week that exactly spanned the 

25 termination period -- in other words, the June 
93

1 30th, so the week that started end of June and 

2 went into beginning of July of '66 -- had 36 

3 workers on it. Now that's a small fraction. 

4 My understanding is there were -- the entire 

5 plant population numbered in the hundreds. So 

6 these were the -- I -- my understanding or I 

7 surmise from various information I got was that 

8 at one point the workers handling the iso--

9 what they called isotopes, isotopes but it --

10 which means the cobalt-60 sources were --

11 primarily, I believe they were the only ones. 

12 There was an iridium-192 source but I think 

13 that was handled by this off-site St. Louis 

14 Testing who brought it in. So they had to 

15 receive licenses from the Atomic Energy 

16 Commission, and therefore one of the licensing 

17 conditions would be that they be monitored. 

18 And as a matter of fact, there was a release 

19 put out by General Steel -- a news -- a news 

20 release which John Ramspott was kind enough --

21 he collected a lot of information and furnished 

22 to us -- which said the, you know, commonwealth 

23 -- remember what -- the title was "commonwealth 

24 workers are now -- passed their isotope tests" 

25 or something like that. Commonwealth was 
94

1 simply the original name of that facility was 

2 the Commonwealth Steel Company -- foundry, 

3 which was then purchased by General Steel. So 

4 at that time they probably started the film --

5 the AEC required they -- they be monitored.

6 Now the AEC did not -- and of course its 

7 successor, the NRC -- did not have anything to 

8 do with Betatrons. Even though it's a 

9 radiation source, it's not part of the uranium 

10 fuel cycle and therefore does not fall un--

11 does not fall under -- was not covered by the 

12 Atomic Energy Act. But I surmise that as long 

13 as they were badging people, they included the 

14 Betatron workers -- operators. But again, the 

15 concern we have was how do you account for the 

16 doses of some-- of a worker using the restroom 

17 which, according to our model, fell right into 

18 the Betatron beam -- into the fringe of the 

19 Betatron beam. Now unless they happened to be 

20 Betatron operators, they would not be -- they 

21 would not have been wearing badges. So that's 

22 one con-- one -- one concern about the -- the 

23 film badge program.

24 The other issue which was raised off-line by a 

25 -- through an e-mail from an advisory to the 
95

1 claimants' representatives, and it's a valid 

2 point, is the film badge, like any other 

3 radiation device, is calibrated -- I mean a 

4 gamma radiation device -- is calibrated against 

5 a gamma source with a particular energy or 

6 energy spectrum, and it's strictly valid within 

7 the limits of accuracy for that particular 

8 source. Now it will register other radiation, 

9 but the calibration factor would change. And I 

10 spoke just -- again, 'cause I only got this 

11 material on -- let's -- we -- we think we got 

12 it on Wednesday, it was to -- I don't have 

13 direct access to the O drive, I just, you know, 

14 go through our office. I got it on a CD on 

15 Thursday. I got on to examining it, and I 

16 spoke to -- in fact -- as a matter of fact, we 

17 have one contractor, SC&A, as an associate, a 

18 gentleman named Joseph Zlotnicki, who is a 

19 former vice president of Landauer and very 

20 technically knowledgeable about the film badges 

21 and the -- this whole issue. And I spoke to 

22 him, but it was Friday afternoon after working 

23 hours, so he said unfortunately he can't get 

24 hold of anyone at Landauer at that time. He 

25 said he thought that the film badges were 
96

1 calibrated against -- at -- earlier years, 

2 either against cobalt-60 or radium-226. Then 

3 they were cali-- then they switched over to 

4 cesium-137, which has a lower energy range. 

5 However, he doesn't -- he knows sometime in the 

6 '60s, he doesn't know when that changeover 

7 happened. But he said that information can be 

8 obtained. And one thing that is possible --

9 feasible to do, and we could certainly do that 

10 if the working group directed us to, would be 

11 to do a model -- to do -- and do a mod-- you 

12 know, a simulated exposure of the film badge to 

13 the Betatron -- scattered radiation of the --

14 from the Betatron at various locations, and 

15 also to the source under which it was normally 

16 calibrated, and see how the response of the 

17 film badge would vary. That's something that 

18 we've done in the past, actually, so we have 

19 models in place to do -- not for this project, 

20 not for the -- for -- for -- not for General 

21 Steel. So it's a -- it's not a big effort, but 

22 a few days' work. So that would help 

23 understand how well the -- the film badge data 

24 responds to this particular -- corresponds to 

25 the actual exposures at this particular 
97

1 location. Again, it does not address 

2 individuals like the worker maintaining the 

3 ventilators on the roof of the Betatron 

4 building. So that's about -- and also there 

5 was no monitoring of beta radiation. The film 

6 badges were only for -- I mean Landauer did 

7 (unintelligible) on the report form there is a 

8 column for beta dose, but that was not 

9 measured.

10 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Bob, that's very helpful. 

11 Yes, Paul?

12 DR. ZIEMER: Two comments. Number one, the 

13 experiment that you just described, in my mind, 

14 would be something that NIOSH would do if it's 

15 done. It's -- the contractor -- my usual 

16 caution is not to do the work of NIOSH.

17 But number two, I used Landauer for many years 

18 at the University, probably 30 or 40 years, and 

19 I know that they have the capability, if the 

20 user supplied information about the nuclides 

21 being used, to correct their readings from say 

22 the cesium calibration to the nuclide of use. 

23 I mean they had correction factors. So it's --

24 it seems to me it would be important for 

25 determination -- maybe it's been looked at 
98

1 'cause didn't NIOSH go -- you --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we got this information 

3 from Landauer. We did not --

4 DR. ZIEMER: It would be -- just to find out 

5 whether or not they obtained that information 

6 from General Steel to determine whether or not 

7 a correction was actually made by Landauer, 

8 'cause they often did that as part of their 

9 service.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't asked that question, 

11 so -- we can find out.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And -- and if they did, 

13 one might still need to validate whether they 

14 used the right correction factor, but it seems 

15 to me that question would be worth asking 

16 'cause we had used that service in some cases, 

17 particularly if you had -- if you had nuclides 

18 that you knew in advance were going to give you 

19 very different --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-huh, but it doesn't seem 

21 likely that they would have known what the 

22 energy or the scattered -- scattered radiation 

23 from the Betatron would be 'cause that would be 

24 a whole range of energies.

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah, but I mean that's what 
99

1 health physicists do. That's -- I mean that's 

2 what you're proposing to do is figure that out, 

3 and that's what -- you know, to the extent one 

4 can model that. In principle, you can do it. 

5 Some things you can't do very well, but you --

6 I had a friend who used to say anything worth 

7 doing is worth doing poorly, and you get the 

8 idea that, you know, some sort of correction --

9 if the effort was made, we need to find out 

10 whether --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- it was made or -- or done, you 

13 know.

14 MS. MUNN: Thank you for that discussion and 

15 update. We appreciate it and my action item 

16 that I've recorded is that NIOSH will be 

17 interacting with Landauer to see what kind of 

18 calibration took place with the badges.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, and -- excuse me, could I ask 

20 one other thing? What year did Illinois become 

21 an agreement state? They were one of the 

22 earlier ones --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Don't know.

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- because --

25 MR. RAMSPOTT: (Off microphone) 
100

1 (Unintelligible) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Huh?

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: I don't believe they are.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, they are now.

5 MR. RAMSPOTT: Are they?

6 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, Illinois has one of the 

7 largest --

8 MS. MUNN: Definitely.

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- probably the premier state 

10 program --

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the country --

13 MS. MUNN: Yes.

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- over the years and I'm 

15 wondering what records they would have at the -

16 - they're a cabinet-level agency in Illinois.

17 MS. MUNN: They are.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The news release that I saw --

19 copy -- said they were licensed by the AEC.

20 DR. ZIEMER: At that time. That's what I was 

21 trying to remember. There were a lot of states 

22 in transition in the '60s and '70s.

23 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, but they now have to be 

24 licensed also by Illinois as well, yeah.

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the thing about the --
101

1 Illinois, the state agency had requirements for 

2 things other than by-product material, 

3 including medical X-rays.

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's true.

6 DR. MAURO: Wanda --

7 MS. MUNN: And sources. Uh-huh?

8 DR. MAURO: I just wanted to mention, we -- we 

9 went directly to General Steel on Appendix BB. 

10 I don't know whether or not you wanted to speak 

11 to TBD 6000, 6001 with regard to the strategy 

12 for the -- dealing with those TBDs. And --

13 MS. MUNN: Yes, I do.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MS. MUNN: That's why I touched on that before 

16 we began our update here.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh -- oh, one comment. Bob, 

18 you said the covered period ended in June of 

19 '64? I think it goes into '66 at -- at General 

20 Steel.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry, what are --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: You -- when you were commenting 

23 about the film badge data started in early '64 

24 and the covered period --

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The film badge data started --
102

1 the first -- the earliest record I have was 

2 January '64 --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and then it continued, but I 

5 only looked at the one middle of July of -- of 

6 '66 because that's --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: '66, right.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- when the con-- that's when 

9 the covered period ended.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And you actually don't have to 

12 necessarily look at every film badge record 

13 because the -- that particular one has a roll14 up, so it gives you --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, there's a cumulative 

16 total, I think on all the reports actually.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For -- but of course some of 

18 the ind-- they're not always the same 

19 individuals, they don't --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Some started later, some had 

22 left.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

24 MS. MUNN: As we can easily see from the 

25 discussion that just took place, my earlier 
103

1 comments with respect to these two TBDs being 

2 more appropriately in the realm of site 

3 profiles than in the realm of procedures is I 

4 think borne out. The time commitment that's 

5 necessary for site profiles, and certainly for 

6 the kind of investigations that have taken 

7 place with Appendix BB, is significant. It has 

8 pretty nearly overwhelmed a great deal of what 

9 we have done here in the last few months, and 

10 made it necessary for us to move several items 

11 further back on our agenda than we would like 

12 to see them, perhaps prevented the closure of 

13 many others that are nearer to completion than 

14 this.

15 We've discussed the fact that -- as I 

16 mentioned, off-line, and some discussions have 

17 been held with respect to the fact that -- that 

18 these particular documents do not really fall 

19 under how the -- the -- the list of procedures 

20 that we normally deal with. It's been 

21 suggested and I believe, after considerable 

22 thought, that I agree that TBD 6000 and 6001 

23 and the appendices that are going to flow from 

24 them in coming months and years should be 

25 segregated from the work that this particular 
104

1 workgroup is doing and be considered as 

2 separate items with the potential for a 

3 different workgroup to be looking at those 

4 specific documents.

5 I'd like to get some feedback from the 

6 workgroup members here as to their reaction to 

7 that. My first -- my knee-jerk reaction, when 

8 I first thought about it, was no, we can't do 

9 that because. These are fairly complex 

10 documents. The basic documents are not site 

11 documents, they're global documents. The 

12 appendices are going to be site documents. 

13 Those of us who sit on this particular working 

14 group are the ones who are most familiar with 

15 all of the documentation involved here, and it 

16 would take a little while for others to get up 

17 to speed. But after considering a possible 

18 division of labor here, it's difficult for me 

19 to see anything other than a beneficial effect 

20 of breaking this out for a separate group.

21 Certainly open to any discussion about it. I'm 

22 sure we need to bring any recommendation that 

23 we have to the full Board. It's not a decision 

24 we can make here. But certainly it's our 

25 prerogative, and I think probably incumbent 
105

1 upon us, to consider that.

2 Does anyone have any reaction, one way or the 

3 other?

4 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- yeah, I -- I think it 

5 makes sense. I -- I -- I guess I was part of 

6 that off-line corresp-- I talked to Paul a 

7 little bit about this and -- I think it was 

8 after our last workgroup meeting, I -- I just -

9 - I think it makes sense to probably have 

10 another group to focus on that. And then as 

11 individual sites are identifi-- that are in the 

12 appendices become priorities, that group can 

13 focus on them as priorities instead of them 

14 being lost in -- in a bigger procedures 

15 workgroup, you know, so I think it makes sense 

16 for that reason. And maybe there's a way to 

17 have a little bit of -- you know, a -- we can -

18 - this would be a Board issue, but maybe we can 

19 have a little bit of -- one or two of the 

20 members from this group --

21 MS. MUNN: There may be some --

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- are also on that group so --

23 MS. MUNN: -- cross-fertilization, yeah.

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's a little bit of 

25 overlap so we don't lose all -- what we've 
106

1 discussed so far, but you know, I think it does 

2 make sense overall.

3 MS. MUNN: Paul?

4 DR. ZIEMER: I'm in general agreement with 

5 that, keeping in mind that we have 12 Board 

6 members, so regardless of how we cut the cake, 

7 it's -- you know, several of the members of a 

8 separate workgroup would probably end up coming 

9 from this group. But it does allow for a 

10 little focus issue and the -- particularly 

11 Appendix BB, for example, and I don't know how 

12 many of the various appendices will have that 

13 particular complexity and -- and maybe if I 

14 might call it urgency. We -- we have felt a 

15 little bit of -- we've definitely felt pressure 

16 to come to closure on this in a timely way. 

17 And as Wanda's indicated, that forces other 

18 sort of issues that have been on the matrix to 

19 -- to take the back burner. So if we had a 

20 separate group doing, for example, Appendix BB, 

21 in a sense that also elevates it to a little 

22 higher status anyway and gives it some more 

23 visibility. I think the General Steel 

24 Industries is a good example of one that is 

25 more like a site profile. It's a complex one. 
107

1 It has some urgency to complete and we could 

2 get more focus by having a separate workgroup.

3 Now whether or not the main document, the TBD 

4 6000, which is sort of the overriding -- in 

5 your mind would remain here with this 

6 workgroup?

7 MS. MUNN: I have some question about that, 

8 simply because it's -- in my mind, falls in a 

9 global issue -- Dr. Branche?

10 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, a couple of questions 

11 actually. If -- or something for you to 

12 consider 'cause from my thoughts stem three 

13 questions or a question with three parts. If 

14 the nature of the work in examining TBD 6000 

15 and 6001 is proce-- actually falls under the 

16 charter or the charge that this workgroup was 

17 given, and I know that Dr. Ziemer has asked the 

18 Board members who are workgroup chairs to 

19 provide statements, and that will be read 

20 during the Board meeting. If that is in fact -

21 - if the work of that is in fact -- falls 

22 within the domain of procedures, then the 

23 question is should it be a sub-- that kind of 

24 focused attention -- you ought to consider it 

25 being a subset, a specific group of people as a 
108

1 subset working from this workgroup.

2 Or, if you want to assign it to an existing 

3 workgroup, which one would you recommend to the 

4 Board that it be assigned to?

5 Or, does it need to be a brand-new workgroup?

6 MS. MUNN: And my perspective is that 6000 and 

7 6001 are global documents. They are complex8 wide documents. They're not site-specific 

9 documents. That being the case, they are not 

10 procedures. The appendices that flow from them 

11 are clearly site-specific documents, there's no 

12 question about it. Again, not procedures, 

13 they're site-specific documents. That being 

14 the case, my perspective says these two 

15 procedures fall under a heading that we have 

16 called several things -- global issues, 

17 complex-wide issues -- and certainly, as a 

18 procedures workgroup, we have never had the 

19 responsibility for site-specific documents. So 

20 in my view, this particular set of issues needs 

21 to be in the hands of an entirely different 

22 workgroup.

23 DR. BRANCHE: New.

24 MS. MUNN: New. I would be delighted to hear 

25 from NIOSH with respect to their views on this.
109

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I was just thinking that 

2 TBD 6000 and 6001 are similar to other 

3 documents that have been reviewed by this group 

4 that are OTIBs, Technical Information 

5 Bulletins. For instance, we have OTIB-4, which 

6 is a broadly-applied technique for AWE sites 

7 that did uranium. There is OTIB-2, which is a 

8 broadly-applied technique for overestimating 

9 internal doses based on hypothetical intake. 

10 So to me, TBD 6000 and 6001 are not 

11 particularly different from other documents 

12 that this group has reviewed because it 

13 describes a dose reconstruction technique. 

14 Even though it's not called a procedure, it 

15 describes a dose reconstruction technique that 

16 -- and in these cases they are broadly17 applicable to a number of different sites. 

18 OTIB-52, the construction OTIB, would be 

19 another example of that kind of approach.

20 So to me, whereas the appendices are site21 specific and -- and seem to be different from 

22 what the -- this workgroup, you know, fre-- you 

23 know, normally looks at, TBD 6000 and 6001 are 

24 actually fairly similar to some other technical 

25 documents that this -- that this workgroup has 
110

1 looked at.

2 DR. BRANCHE: So you're saying that you would 

3 not necessarily agree that it's something that 

4 should be taken out of the context of this 

5 group.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, but I wouldn't have said 

7 anything if Wanda hadn't asked me.

8 DR. BRANCHE: I perceived that, also.

9 DR. NETON: I think -- well, not -- I'm not to 

10 take issue with what Stu just said, but I would 

11 point out that 6000 and 6001 are intended to be 

12 best estimate dose reconstructions, as opposed 

13 to the other ones that sort of use the 

14 efficiency process for overestimating to 

15 expedite claims. So to that extent, they --

16 they would require some additional scrutiny 

17 because they truly would be considered best 

18 estimates by NIOSH.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: That shouldn't --

20 DR. BRANCHE: You need to come to the 

21 microphone.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry, that shouldn't -- with 

23 that said, that shouldn't preclude them from 

24 being resident in this --

25 DR. NETON: No, I --
111

1 MR. ELLIOTT: -- this procedures workgroup, and 

2 I think -- you know, it's the prerogative of 

3 this group as to whether or not they want the 

4 appendices farmed out to another workgroup. We 

5 don't have a concern in that regard.

6 MS. MUNN: But if we --

7 MR. ELLIOTT: The appendices are unique 

8 exposure situations at a given site, so they 

9 are site-relevant.

10 MS. MUNN: I don't have my list of workgroups 

11 in front of me. Have we yet established a 

12 workgroup for our global issues? We haven't, 

13 have we?

14 DR. NETON: No.

15 DR. BRANCHE: No.

16 MR. PRESLEY: No.

17 MS. MUNN: So that this would, in effect, be 

18 breaking new ground if we did decide to do 

19 this.

20 MR. GRIFFON: It's not a global --

21 DR. NETON: It's not -- I --

22 MS. MUNN: No? It's not --

23 DR. NETON: -- recommend being a global issue.

24 DR. ZIEMER: In my mind, I -- when I -- I 

25 talked with Wanda about this off-line. In my 
112

1 mind, the TBDs themselves, as Stu described, 

2 were just general procedures, in quotes, and 

3 would remain with us. But for example, 

4 Appendix BB, I could see that as being a 

5 workgroup to -- to address because it is a 

6 site-specific case. It -- it, in essence, 

7 would become the General Steel's workgroup, for 

8 practical purposes. I mean it might still be 

9 called Appendix BB workgroup, but nonetheless 

10 it would be very much like our other 

11 workgroups. And I don't see another workgroup 

12 on our list where we would assign this to 

13 because --

14 MS. MUNN: No, I hadn't --

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's unique. I -- I think we 

16 would have to --

17 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I guess the other -- the --

18 the only way I was looking at it wa-- I -- I 

19 can see either argument. I can certainly see 

20 leaving 6000 and 6001 in this workgroup and, as 

21 issues come up on certain appendices, certain 

22 sites, we -- we develop another workgroup or we 

23 farm it out to the other workgroup that exists, 

24 if there -- if one -- if one exists.

25 I guess my thought was more to have 6000 and 
113

1 6001 as a stand-alone workgroup because -- I 

2 see these as not really global issues, but as 

3 uranium facility site profile. I mean they're 

4 -- these are two different types of uranium 

5 facilities, and if you start farming out 

6 individual -- if we find, you know, General 

7 Steel and then we find a couple of others in 

8 appendices, we make all different workgroups to 

9 address those, I think if we establish a new 

10 workgroup there's going to be some 

11 similarities. That's why these are all grouped 

12 in the same TIBs to begin with. There's going 

13 to be some overlap. So I think it's useful to 

14 have the same course -- people looking at them. 

15 I think just to give them more priority, 

16 establishing a new workgroup would take them 

17 out of our longer list of all -- you know, all 

18 this work, so that was -- that was sort of the 

19 way I was thinking about it is that 6000, 6--

20 it would be good to have maybe a consistent 

21 group of -- one workgroup. And then if 

22 something -- you know, if one of the appendices 

23 -- if one of the sites in the appendices ends 

24 up being an SEC, then I think we may even 

25 consider -- you know, you establish this total 
114

1 separate group. But you know, I -- I would 

2 think that it -- it makes a lot of sense to 

3 have a separate workgroup for 6000 and 6001 

4 'cause part of what you have -- you're not only 

5 looking at the front end of the procedure, but 

6 you're also considering whether -- you know, 

7 how the appendix fits into the procedure. And 

8 -- and to do that, you sort of have to look at 

9 -- at each one of those site documents and say 

10 -- I mean one of the early questions in one --

11 I think one of the reasons that -- that 6000 

12 and 6001 came about was that -- and Stu will 

13 correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was 

14 an earlier Rev where there were some sites that 

15 were listed that I think you ended up saying 

16 no, they didn't belong in the uranium facility 

17 document. Was that -- that -- might have been 

18 a different TIB.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it might have happened on 

20 TIB-4, I don't recall -- I don't remember it 

21 specifically.

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I mean I -- I guess the 

23 -- the -- another part of the review, as I see 

24 it, would be to look at the -- the sites within 

25 6000 and 6001 and see if it is it appropriate 
115

1 to have them in -- in the TIB to begin with, do 

2 they fit in this mix of facilities addressed 

3 under these TIBs, and that gets into the 

4 individual site, so it gets -- you know, I see 

5 it as you can't -- I see it as a little hard to 

6 separate. I mean General Steel obviously, you 

7 know, at this point has -- has escalated into 

8 more of a thing we have to address separately, 

9 but are other ones going to, I don't -- I don't 

10 know, so I thought it would make sense just to 

11 separate them all.

12 MS. MUNN: That's -- will -- will each of the 

13 Board members please speak to this and see --

14 let's get at least the -- the weight of opinion 

15 here with respect to whether 6000 and 6001 

16 needs to be a separate workgroup with 

17 (unintelligible) --

18 DR. BRANCHE: Or the -- or the appendices.

19 MS. MUNN: Well, the appendices would attach to 

20 them, that's the point. And -- or whether we 

21 need to keep 6000 and 6001 in our purview and 

22 suggest that any appendices have a separate 

23 workgroup.

24 MR. PRESLEY: I have no problem doing that, 

25 Wanda, is keeping the -- the procedures under 
116

1 our auspice, and then split anything off, maybe 

2 in that appendices, that needs to be split off 

3 into a sub-- into the subcommittees.

4 MS. MUNN: So your -- your preference would be 

5 to split off 6000 and 6001 with their 

6 appendices? You would -- you would prefer to 

7 keep 6000 and 6001 in our purview, but have the 

8 appendices -- the site-specific appendices go 

9 to other workgroups.

10 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, if --

11 DR. BRANCHE: Wait a minute, I heard -- you 

12 said subcommittees. Did you mean subcommittees 

13 of this workgroup?

14 MR. PRESLEY: No.

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay.

16 MR. PRESLEY: No.

17 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Just different workgroups.

18 MR. PRESLEY: Right.

19 DR. BRANCHE: I just wanted to make sure. I'm 

20 sorry, Wanda, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

21 MS. MUNN: No, that's quite all right. Mike?

22 MR. GIBSON: This is the first I've heard about 

23 it. I wasn't part of the -- the off-line 

24 discussions but it, at face value, seems to 

25 make sense to split it out. As to how we do 
117

1 it, I'm not really convinced either way at this 

2 time. There's been some good id-- ideas tossed 

3 around the table. But I do think we probably 

4 ought to split it out.

5 MS. MUNN: Do we have agreement that, at least 

6 with respect to Appendix BBB -- BBB -- only --

7 only BB and General Steel -- we do need to be 

8 requesting a separate workgroup to deal with 

9 that. Is -- do -- are we all on that same 

10 page? So the issue boils down to whether to 

11 keep or to recommend a different group --

12 DR. BRANCHE: Looks like Larry wants to address

13 you.

14 MS. MUNN: -- for 6000 and 6001. Mr. Elliott.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, I'd like to just -- for the 

16 record and for the working group's 

17 consideration -- note that TBD 6000 has 15 

18 appendices that are complete right now.

19 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: One of -- one other appendices is 

21 in development, so you'd have a total of 16, as 

22 we understand it. TBD 6000 is for site profi--

23 is site profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers 

24 that worked with uranium and thorium metals.

25 Then TBD 6000 (sic) is for AWEs that refined 
118

1 uranium and thorium, so that's the difference 

2 between the two, and it only has six 

3 appendices, all of which are complete.

4 MS. MUNN: Yes, ma'am?

5 DR. BRANCHE: Mark Griffon, when you called 

6 upon him after you first raised this issue, 

7 talked about the fact that act-- in his mind, 

8 if I understood you correctly -- actually there 

9 was something to do with uranium workers, and I 

10 wonder if something to consider in your 

11 recommendation to the Board for this -- this 

12 breaking out or division of labor, is it 

13 reasonable to entertain that rather than a 

14 workgroup for each of the appendices, which 

15 sounds like an explosive amount of work for an 

16 already taxed Board, might there be a grouping 

17 to consider rather than each appendic--

18 appendix having its own workgroup. Is there 

19 some other kind of grouping along the lines of 

20 what I --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I --

22 DR. BRANCHE: -- I think I heard you say.

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- you could do -- you could do -

24 - you could do 6000 and 6001 or you could do

25 one for 6000 and one for 6001, 'cause like 
119

1 Larry just defined, they're -- I mean a lot of 

2 -- I think there is -- that's why they're 

3 grouped together, these sites were -- were 

4 viewed as all fitting into that role of uranium 

5 refining or uranium processing and, you know, 

6 so they do have similar -- they have 

7 similarities in what they did at these sites. 

8 And I think -- but I think part of the review 

9 gets into the individual appendices, and that's 

10 where you might -- it might bog us down as a 

11 procedures group, is my feeling, so to separate 

12 them out and to -- you know, you know you're 

13 going to be talking mainly about two -- two 

14 sort of sets of processes at these -- you know, 

15 we -- and we've discussed a lot of these 

16 already at a couple of the other sites we've 

17 done, the -- certainly the uranium machining 

18 type of stuff and the ura-- you know, so we --

19 so we -- we have a sense and a little 

20 background on this, but -- so I think we're 

21 going to see some similar issues, but we might 

22 have some site-specific questions that arise. 

23 And -- and the depth of review into each 

24 appendix I think is going to -- you know, could 

25 -- could necessitate a separate group, you 
120

1 know.

2 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda, one more thing -- and I 

3 don't mean to be thick --

4 MS. MUNN: No, that's quite all right. I feel 

5 thicker than you right now.

6 DR. BRANCHE: -- but -- and why -- why is the 

7 notion of whatever arrangement that's being 

8 sought, why is the idea of these being subsets 

9 of this workgroup a -- why does that appear to 

10 be off the table, given the fairly generic 

11 nature of the way procedures cuts across?

12 MS. MUNN: From my perspective, it's a simple 

13 issue of amount of work that can be completed 

14 by any given group. It's very clear to me that 

15 procedures is one of those working groups that 

16 is overloaded. We have an enormous amount of 

17 material to cover in extreme detail. And we, 

18 as has been mentioned before, are often under 

19 outside pressure to not follow our anticipated 

20 agenda in meeting our requirements. As Mike 

21 pointed out during our last meeting, we have 

22 spent so much time in the last few months of 

23 this group on process rather than on activity 

24 that we -- we all I think feel as though we're 

25 dragging our weight in concrete. When we have 
121

1 placed before us a site-specific off-shoot of 

2 our work -- and that's what Appendix BB is, 

3 it's an off-shoot of our work -- that develops 

4 a magnitude of effort that literally cuts 

5 across everything else that we do, then we have 

6 to do one of several things. We have to either 

7 decide to meet more often, which is very 

8 difficult for all of the people involved. Or 

9 we have to decide whether we are meeting our 

10 charter correctly in what we're doing. My 

11 position is that site-specific work of this 

12 kind was not the original charter of the 

13 procedures workgroup because it is not a 

14 procedure per se. It's not how we do business. 

15 It's a site-specific activity that needs to be 

16 defined clearly.

17 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- oh, Paul has...

18 DR. BRANCHE: Paul has his hand up.

19 MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Let me add to that. I think part 

21 of the concern, if we followed the idea of a 

22 subset of this group, is that that still keeps 

23 our hand in the -- in the wash and -- and 

24 whatever a subgroup did would have to come up 

25 through us again, so bureaucratically we don't 
122

1 gain that much because we would still have 

2 stuff out there that we're responsible for. I 

3 think having a separate group sort of allows 

4 this group to, in a sense, devoid itself of 

5 that issue and -- and the other group then, 

6 whoever takes it over, can report directly to 

7 the Board. So bureaucratically it seems to 

8 perhaps make some sense.

9 The other comment I have is, as I've thought 

10 about and I -- Mark's suggestion about having a 

11 uranium group to cover these -- these two TIB -

12 - TBDs. It seems to me that in every appendix 

13 case that work has to be done in the framework 

14 of the main TBD anyway. So as I think about it 

15 -- still top of the head, I'm a little bit like 

16 Mike saying well, okay, I'm sort of evaluating 

17 this as we go -- I think it sort of makes sense 

18 to have a group that would look at those two 

19 TBDs and their appendices, because all of the -

20 - all of the appendix work is not going to come 

21 to the front simultaneously. It may not all be 

22 in exact sequence. But we have, for example, a 

23 priority right now, it's -- it's Appendix BB. 

24 That can be taken care of. Other ones will 

25 rise to some level of importance as we go 
123

1 along. But if this group has the background on 

2 the two starting points, 6000 and 6001, as a 

3 framework and then can handle the site-specific 

4 cases as they came along, it seems to me that 

5 would work. It may be that if we went that 

6 direction, after we got into it, a workgroup on 

7 TBD 6000 and 6001 might find itself in the 

8 situation you are, Wanda, saying no, we've got 

9 too much to do; we need help. But I -- I'm 

10 sort of convinced that maybe that would be a --

11 a decent starting point.

12 We -- we don't -- certainly in my mind we don't 

13 want a workgroup on every one of these 

14 appendices --

15 MR. GRIFFON: No.

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- like Larry talked about, and I 

17 didn't anticipate that all of them would rise 

18 to the level of importance that General Steel 

19 has, both because of its uniqueness and 

20 complexity, as well as the urgency of -- of 

21 coming to closure.

22 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob again. I don't -- I 

23 don't mean to have a working group for each

24 individual site profile that's mentioned in 

25 this thing. I can see two, or one, side 
124

1 working group, whether it reports back to this 

2 one or where it reports back to the Board. But 

3 Larry brought up two specific entities in this, 

4 one being material and the other being --

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Refining.

6 MR. PRESLEY: That could be where the split is. 

7 Or you could have one that takes care of both 

8 of them. Whoe-- whatever, if we have another 

9 working group, this is going to be a tremendous 

10 task. It's not going to be something --

11 there's going to be a lot of similarity, but it 

12 is not going to be easy to go through all these 

13 sites, I don't think.

14 DR. MAURO: If I may, I realize this -- the --

15 the working group is working this, but there is 

16 a perspective on this that I feel I need to 

17 bring to the table.

18 TBD-6000 and 6001 is a resource to be used as a 

19 surrogate. So in effect, what we have is 

20 sitting here a surrogate protocol that can be 

21 drawn upon by a dose reconstructor and only has 

22 standing once it's applied. So if I -- for 

23 example, I reviewed TBD 6000 and 6001, and one 

24 of the things that happens is you say well, the 

25 default values that are laid out here as 
125

1 generic to be applied universally to all 

2 uranium metal facilities -- or on the other 

3 hand, to processing facilities -- may very well 

4 serve the purpose very well, depending on the 

5 particular case or particular site you're 

6 dealing with. So a judgment regarding TBD 6000 

7 can only be done within the context of how it's 

8 being applied to a particular case or 

9 particular site.

10 Perfect example is when we reviewed GSI. One 

11 of the areas -- by and large, GSI stands alone, 

12 except there are certain exposure scenarios 

13 that are not addressed in TBD 6000, they 

14 relegated to 600-- I'm sorry, are not addressed 

15 in Appendix BB, but they're relegated to TBD 

16 6000. So it's almost like portions are brought 

17 in when needed.

18 Then the question becomes a surrogate question, 

19 because what's happening is okay, for -- and 

20 I'll tell you what it is, it's the residual 

21 uranium radioactivity. There is a little bit 

22 of residual uranium radioactivity associated --

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the airborne.

24 DR. MAURO: And the air-- right, so what 

25 happens then is they -- oh, let's take 
126

1 advantage of TBD 6000 because it's there and 

2 it's a realistic treatment to be used. The 

3 question then is does that work for that site, 

4 because there will be times when one could ask 

5 the question well, it certainly is plausible 

6 and reasonably bounding to use TBD 6000 to this 

7 particular site. But there may be other sites 

8 that we -- that we've come across --

9 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's the question for 

10 this other work--

11 DR. BRANCHE: Speak into the mike.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and -- but the -- see, that's 

13 -- so what I'm getting at is that it's an 

14 inter-- we -- we -- what we effectively have 

15 here is a tool that can be evaluated on its own 

16 merits. For example, the day come when a 

17 working group would decide let's look at TBD 

18 6000 and how comprehensive it is and address 

19 generically the broad range of types of AWE 

20 activities that took place. Does it capture 

21 the high end, the low end, the distribution of 

22 the kinds of things that happened at metal23 working facilities. And we do -- we have our 

24 review. Our review's on the table and we have 

25 something to say about that, all of which I 
127

1 think enriches the process. But in the end, 

2 the rubber meets the road when you try to use 

3 it for a particular site, and whether or not it 

4 has -- it -- it is being -- in that context, it 

5 has direct applicability.

6 That doesn't really change anything that we've 

7 been talking about, but I think it's important 

8 to keep in mind that this is a surrogate tool 

9 that is -- that is to be used. And I would 

10 argue that when it's used, we have our four 

11 surrogate criteria and we would put it to that 

12 test at that time. So it adds another 

13 dimension to this discussion.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'd like --

15 MS. MUNN: Your point's --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- to add --

17 MS. MUNN: -- well taken, John. Yes, Bob, 

18 quickly. Uh-huh, yes.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'd just like to add a footnote 

20 to --

21 DR. BRANCHE: Bob you need to come closer to 

22 the microphone, please.

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and that is in -- I don't 

24 have it in front of me, but in TBD 6000 there 

25 is not just one but several, for instance, 
128

1 metal faci-- metal machining, metal handling 

2 scenarios taken from a study -- again, I can't 

3 -- I can't (unintelligible) it right now.

4 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Harris and 

5 (unintelligible).

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

7 DR. MAURO: Harris (unintelligible) --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, it was a different one 

9 there. And the authors of Appendix BB selected 

10 one of those, a slug production scenario, as 

11 best characterizing or being limiting for the 

12 airborne uranium dust concentrations from the 

13 handling of uranium metal at GSI. But there 

14 were others in Append-- in TBD 6000 that could 

15 be used for other sites. So it's not a single 

16 default value but a number of sugges-- of 

17 recommended -- and then from those you can 

18 either pick the 95th percentile or median. And 

19 again, this is one actually where we did not 

20 disagree. Our finding -- our observation was 

21 that that was a -- an appropriate limiting 

22 scenario for the airborne dust during the 

23 handling of uranium metal. I mean that's just 

24 an observation. But I think John's point --

25 you know, this -- is that -- if I could restate 
129

1 (unintelligible) my word -- is that from our 

2 perspective as reviewers it would be best if we 

3 had the same -- we reported to the same 

4 workgroup for -- so we can go back and forth 

5 and say -- for GSI or for another GSI-like site 

6 if we were reviewing, to go back and forth to 

7 the -- to the mother document, the parent 

8 document, the TBD 6000 or 6001, rather than 

9 have them separated -- would make it a little 

10 more cumbersome.

11 MS. MUNN: Thank you for all of your comments. 

12 That's most helpful.

13 Yes, Christine?

14 DR. BRANCHE: One last thing to consider as you 

15 formulate your recommendation to the Board on 

16 this. Wanda, you talked about -- actually 

17 several people talked about, if it remains 

18 here, having to meet more often, the division 

19 of labor. And so I wonder how many of the 

20 people who are currently on the procedures 

21 workgroup would end up on this -- if there's 

22 one or two committees -- and that's just 

23 something to bear in mind. And the calendar is 

24 as the calendar is. There are already quite a 

25 number of workgroups that meet, usually clumped 
130

1 together. And so there -- I'm just -- I'm just 

2 -- want you to consider from a -- a logistical 

3 perspective that a lot might not be saved 

4 necessarily.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I've already pointed that 

6 out. We have a very finite group of Board 

7 members available. I would hope that several 

8 from this workgroup would at least volunteer to 

9 be -- participate in such a group. But it 

10 would have a separate identity, it could meet 

11 separate, focus separately, and address those 

12 issues --

13 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- And I think breaking it 

14 off, we would gain efficiency 'cause you end up 

15 -- I think we'd end up having more focus on --

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- a limited number of findings 

18 that way and a limited scope of discussion, 

19 whereas, you know, we're very broad here in the 

20 procedures work-- workgroup, so I think we --

21 we -- you know, you -- you have so many things 

22 to look at before a mee-- I think it would 

23 allow better focus and better efficiency.

24 The other thing which we haven't really 

25 mentioned is it would allow possibly more 
131

1 efficient and better access to the public if 

2 those sites referenced in TIB 6000 and 6001 are 

3 the main interest of -- of the public. They 

4 don't have to sort of wait on the entire 

5 procedures workgroup, phone call or whatever, 

6 for their agenda item to come up. They can 

7 dial in to, you know, a separate group and --

8 and -- and we can -- and I think that's part of 

9 what's bogging our group down maybe is that 

10 when you have all those site-specific issue 

11 coming into the bigger doc-- the 6000 and 6001, 

12 you have to be responsive and -- and you know, 

13 that -- that gets into the site-specific 

14 responses to members of the public or 

15 representatives and, you know, I -- I think it 

16 would be more efficient and -- and I think we'd 

17 gain efficiency if we had -- you know, I agree, 

18 breaking 6000 and 6001 -- I mean that's --

19 that's my sense of it, just makes sense 'cause 

20 there -- there's a lot of overlap and I think 

21 if we have the same group discussing those 

22 technical issues we'll -- we'll start to gain 

23 efficiency ourselves, you know. We'll -- we'll 

24 have to look at each individual site, but we'll 

25 -- we'll have -- we'll gain knowledge ourselves 
132

1 on -- on the processes, so...

2 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn, I know I -- I know I 

3 realize that in my questions I sounded as if I 

4 were resistant to the idea, but I -- I actually 

5 have benefited, and I hope other people, too, 

6 have benefited -- obviously there was some 

7 separate conversation most of us weren't privy 

8 to how you arrived at the decision, but I'm --

9 I think through the questions we have a much, 

10 much richer understanding of the support that 

11 underlies why this proposal's going forward. 

12 So I feel like I have a better education now, 

13 so thank you.

14 MS. MUNN: Well, thank all of you. And we 

15 could discuss this easily another hour and a 

16 half. Unfortunately we're burning daylight 

17 here and we really have to move on. So Bob, 

18 unless something is really crucial --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, just quick -- quick 

20 observation which has not been mentioned. On 

21 June 17th I believe there was a Federal 

22 Register notice qualifying General Steel 

23 Industries as an SEC -- or rather qualifying 

24 the SEC petition for General Steel Industries.

25 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.
133

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't know that that changes 

2 your perspective on this.

3 MS. MUNN: Not really.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

5 MS. MUNN: But unless I hear violent objection 

6 to the contrary, it is my expectation that 

7 during our -- our large Board meeting I am 

8 going to make the recommendation that TBD 6000 

9 and 6001, and all of the site-specific 

10 documents that derive from those, be set aside 

11 into a separate workgroup for the specific 

12 purpose of focusing more attention and more 

13 time-efficient action on the required segments 

14 of -- of those particular sites.

15 Hearing no real argument against that, that's 

16 what I will put together -- in better language, 

17 I hope -- and move forward quickly.

18 OTIB-52

19 The next item that we have on our agenda is 

20 OTIB-52. We have 16 open items. NIOSH and 

21 SC&A, either of you, do you want to give us an 

22 update and any action items that you feel are 

23 crucial for us next time?

24 MR. MARSCHKE: We changed -- as I mentioned 

25 earlier, we changed the 16 open items to 16 
134

1 items in progress, as a -- just a point of 

2 clarification.

3 MS. MUNN: Right.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Duri-- since last time we met I 

5 have gone through -- myself and SC&A have gone 

6 through the NIOSH initial responses to those 16 

7 items, and we have come up with a 

8 recommendation that we are prepared to make to 

9 the Board as to some changes to the statuses --

10 states of these 16 in-progress issues, and 

11 we've identified six issues which we think can 

12 be out and out closed. We've identified a 

13 single other issue which we think -- we agree 

14 with NI-- we think could be put into -- in 

15 abeyance, which is essentially closed. There's 

16 another two which we think should be 

17 transferred; one which we feel is -- is 

18 addressed in another issue, so again that one 

19 is also effectively closed. And then there are 

20 six that we feel we would like to see remain in 

21 progress. We would like to either see a little 

22 bit more inf-- information from NIOSH in 

23 response to those -- some cases we disagreed 

24 with the -- the response that NIOSH provided.

25 I have a -- I don't have a -- handouts for 
135

1 everybody. I just brought two handouts, one --

2 one for -- one for Wanda and I guess this --

3 this second here which I can give to Stu and 

4 Jim, which -- but all this information is now 

5 in -- in -- in the database and it's available 

6 off the O drive so if you wanted to get your 

7 own copies, they're available on the O drive.

8 And I don't know if -- Wanda, if you want us to 

9 walk through all these in -- in detail, which 

10 ones we -- which we feel are closed and which 

11 ones we feel are -- we need more information 

12 on. I don't know how you want to handle it.

13 MS. MUNN: It would be my preference that we 

14 very quickly -- if it's all right with you 

15 folks -- go through the items that you've 

16 identified as being closed in your minds.

17 DR. NETON: Could I just make a comment first, 

18 though?

19 MS. MUNN: Please do.

20 DR. NETON: I'm a little confused because I 

21 know we had a meeting last August, I think you 

22 said it was, that discussed these, and -- and 

23 did you base your observations solely on the 

24 NIOSH responses in the matrix or did you go 

25 back and review the transcripts of that 
136

1 meeting?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I did go back and review the 

3 transcript.

4 DR. NETON: Because I'm -- I'm a little 

5 confused in the sense that I walked away from 

6 that meeting thinking that all -- we were in 

7 agreement on all issues. I even specifically 

8 rose and asked the question, are we in 

9 agreement, are we done here; and I believe the 

10 response was yes. So I'm a little confused 

11 that these things have resurfaces as -- as open 

12 issues at this point, and I would like the 

13 opportunity to go back and review the 

14 transcripts ourselves and -- and see where my -

15 - my memory has failed me because I really 

16 believe that we -- we had a very vigorous, good 

17 discussion with Mel Chew and Associates and 

18 myself, and I thought that we were in 

19 agreement, and I specifically asked at the end 

20 of the meeting, are there any issues that NIOSH 

21 has action on, and I think the answer was no. 

22 So I'm -- I'm a little confused as to how we 

23 now have six findings.

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I -- I think at that 

25 meeting I -- we had not really gone over in 
137

1 detail and reviewed the initial NIOSH 

2 responses, and that was probably our fault at -

3 - at that time.

4 DR. NETON: Well, but I think we -- we sort of 

5 took the approach of a more overarching 

6 discussion of all these issues, and my -- my 

7 thought was that these things were -- you know, 

8 we had a consensus between SC&A and NIOSH that 

9 there were -- there were no issues remaining. 

10 So I'm -- I'd like to go back -- I mean this is 

11 news to me. I just heard about this last week 

12 sometime, and I would like to, you know, review 

13 the transcripts ourselves and -- you know, it 

14 may be that this is the case, but it certainly 

15 is not my recollection, and of course my 

16 memory's not what it used to be, so I'd like 

17 the opportunity to at least do that.

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I don't have the 

19 same recollection as Jim, but you know, it was 

20 a long time ago and I think a review of the 

21 transcript would be useful. But regardless of 

22 the review of the transcript, I think Steve has 

23 gone over the transcript in terms of substance 

24 and our findings and NIOSH's written comments. 

25 I think what we've given you is the status of 
138

1 the substantive issues, as we see it, so --

2 DR. NETON: Right, but somehow I came away from 

3 that meeting with a very different view, and 

4 maybe it's in the context of reading the 

5 transcripts, I don't know. I'm not saying 

6 you're wrong. I just feel that we should be 

7 afforded the opportunity -- before we move 

8 forward and start reviewing issues again --

9 UNIDENTIFIED: Oh, okay.

10 DR. NETON: -- that I would like to be able to 

11 go back and look and -- and will -- certainly 

12 will take what you have to offer here --

13 UNIDENTIFIED: I think --

14 DR. NETON: -- and then -- and then go back and 

15 look at it 'cause I -- I think at this point 

16 I'm certainly not prepared to go over these 

17 findings 'cause I -- I actually considered them 

18 to be closed. I really did.

19 DR. MAURO: Am I -- am I correct in 

20 understanding -- so what we have is --

21 DR. BRANCHE: Please speak into the microphone.

22 DR. MAURO: -- six out of -- excuse me, I'm 

23 sorry. What I just heard is six out of 16 are 

24 the -- at some degree of con-- point of 

25 contention. Namely it was your perspective 
139

1 that all were closed and I guess, Steve, your 

2 perspective is there are six of them that seem 

3 to be place that you would consider still be 

4 open -- call open -- in progress --

5 DR. NETON: In progress.

6 DR. MAURO: -- and require some additional 

7 discussion. I mean that's -- is that --

8 DR. NETON: Yeah, that's where we're at.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well -- well, John, there are 

10 more than six because the way Steve wrote them 

11 up there were -- there were more than six open 

12 issues, except somehow -- I guess in terms of 

13 the procedures of the workgroup there are some 

14 that were bumped to another -- to TIB-20.

15 DR. NETON: Yeah, that --

16 MS. MUNN: That's -- that's correct. Let me 

17 run down these since -- since everyone does not 

18 have this in front of them. The open items --

19 what we originally had as open items are not 

20 currently open items, and what SC&A sees as --

21 as recommended is six in progress, one in 

22 abeyance, one addressed in -- two transferred, 

23 six closed, for a total of 16. And that's -- I 

24 -- I also -- it's been some time since I 

25 reviewed that transcript and I was a little 
140

1 surprised that the numbers were this large as 

2 well, because I had thought that we had more of 

3 them closed out. But perhaps it's a question 

4 of terminology, and NIOSH should certainly have 

5 an opportunity to review that transcript to see 

6 what we said when we said it before, and to 

7 work with -- with SC&A to see if -- if their 

8 current recommendation is in fact in concert 

9 with what we said in our August meeting and 

10 what is in the transcript.

11 Yes, Stu?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Will the workgroup agree to 

13 close the issues that SC&A believes should be 

14 closed?

15 MS. MUNN: I see no --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And change those statuses?

17 MS. MUNN: I see no reason why we should have 

18 any conflict with that. Does anyone -- if SC&A 

19 says they're closed --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I mean did -- did we -- I -

21 - I don't recall if we as a workgroup discussed 

22 those items and closed them.

23 MS. MUNN: Yes, we did.

24 MR. GRIFFON: If we did, then I think yeah --

25 MS. MUNN: We did, yeah.
141

1 MR. GRIFFON: Then I think we already agreed to 

2 it, yeah.

3 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yes. And I think the 

4 transcript will bear that out. We -- we had --

5 MR. GRIFFON: If that's the case, then --

6 MS. MUNN: -- considerable discussion on that.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- so then from this meeting 

8 then, those statuses can be changed to closed.

9 MS. MUNN: That's my understanding, yes. We 

10 have had that discussion previously. Unless --

11 DR. MAURO: Could I get a clarification --

12 MS. MUNN: -- unless someone finds --

13 DR. MAURO: -- just a clarification --

14 MS. MUNN: Unless someone finds a conflict with 

15 that in the transcript at the time they're re16 reviewing it.

17 DR. MAURO: Process. What I heard was that at 

18 the last meeting it was agreed and we were 

19 directed by the workgroup to close certain 

20 items, or was it that certain items were placed 

21 in abeyance until SC&A had an opportunity to 

22 review it and then make a recommendation to the 

23 workgroup regarding closure?

24 MR. MARSCHKE: As I recall the meeting of -- of 

25 August of last year, I gave a -- and I think 
142

1 this is in the transcript -- I gave a general 

2 overview of -- of our review of PROC-- of OTIB3 52, and then Mel Chew gave NIOSH's response. 

4 I don't think we went issue by issue to the --

5 through the 16 issues that are -- are listed 

6 here. It was more -- you know, this is 

7 generally what we found and this is basically, 

8 you know, generally what the responses were.

9 Go ahead, Paul.

10 DR. ZIEMER: We clearly need to go back to the 

11 transcripts, but if I could read from my 

12 personal notes for that meeting, under OTIB-52, 

13 number of points of discussion, then the last 

14 item -- I shall point out to the chairman, and 

15 it's circled -- all issues resolved.

16 DR. NETON: That was my recollection.

17 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

18 DR. ZIEMER: So certainly I heard that.

19 DR. BRANCHE: I have to confess, I heard it, 

20 too.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, then I -- I --

22 MS. MUNN: The question is, is --

23 DR. ZIEMER: So --

24 MS. MUNN: -- resolved -- that meaning that 

25 it's --
143

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well --

2 MS. MUNN: -- taken care of or does it mean --

3 MR. GRIFFON: So I guess we let 

4 (unintelligible) --

5 MS. MUNN: -- closed, that's --

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- I don't know, but I'm just 

7 saying we heard different things.

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. Uh-huh.

9 DR. NETON: And in a sense, I -- you know, I 

10 considered them resolved, and in fact, you 

11 know, since nothing came back on the matrix 

12 since that time until a week ago, that just 

13 sort of confirmed it in my mind that this was 

14 all water under the bridge and -- and we're 

15 done. And I specifically remember standing up 

16 -- not standing up, but making a statement --

17 'cause -- 'cause we didn't go point by point, I 

18 agree with that. But I said now -- but we had 

19 some very vigorous discussions and I thought we 

20 made a lot of good points, and I said now is it 

21 clear, are we in agreement that these issues 

22 are resolved -- or something to that effect --

23 and I remember John Mauro I think saying yes, 

24 this is it, we're done. We're done here, as 

25 John likes to say, relatively recently. That's 
144

1 my recollection. Now maybe it's wishful 

2 thinking on my part, I don't know. But again, 

3 we just need to go back and look at the 

4 transcripts.

5 MS. MUNN: My action item is NIOSH will review 

6 the transcripts and will interact with SC&A 

7 regarding any lack of agreement on anything 

8 that might still be open. It will be an action 

9 item for our July meeting. Agreed?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I hate to be a pest about this, 

11 but on the six items that SC&A recommended be 

12 closed, are tho-- will that status be changed 

13 to closed as a result of this meeting, or is 

14 there some transcript review that has to occur, 

15 looking for conflicting information, before we 

16 decide to close those?

17 MS. MUNN: I can't see any reason why. We said 

18 they were closed the last time we met --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So they can be closed because 

20 of this meeting.

21 MS. MUNN: -- SC&A says they're closed --

22 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

23 the other ones essentially closed.

24 MS. MUNN: -- they're closed.

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Or transferred, yeah. Yeah, 
145

1 and -- and the transfer of -- the transfer 

2 recommendations for -- like this is addressed 

3 in a different finding and things like that, 

4 can those statuses be changed as well?

5 MS. MUNN: As long as -- I -- I thought that we 

6 had agreed, when we transferred, once the 

7 trans-- that we left it in transfer state 

8 unless the transfer did actually occur.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I guess maybe I 

10 was thinking about "addressed in" --

11 MS. MUNN: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, like there's 

13 certain --

14 MS. MUNN: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- number one is addressed in 

16 number 16, for instance.

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So that status can be changed.

19 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's also -- yeah.

20 MR. GRIFFON: Ye-- ye--

21 MS. MUNN: What?

22 MR. GRIFFON: All I was going to say is I think 

23 I'd appreciate -- I mean I -- I understand that 

24 Paul -- notwithstanding Paul's note and 

25 everything, I think I wou-- I -- I don't think 
146

1 I was at -- I think I attended by phone at this 

2 last workgroup, but I think we do need to make 

3 sure we go through each one and we're all in 

4 agreement, ev-- even if we mistakenly said 

5 everything's closed or if SC&A -- you know --

6 well, Jim, I don't know, I just want to make 

7 sure we get it right. If we --

8 DR. NETON: Well, I do, I --

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- if we're going to close it on 

10 -- on an administrative mistake, by us or by 

11 SC&A or --

12 DR. NETON: I'm not saying it's a mistake --

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- whatever, I think that's a 

14 mistake overall program, you know, we want to 

15 make sure --

16 DR. NETON: -- we want to review the 

17 transcripts and see what was said and -- and 

18 the context --

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause I think you -- I think 

20 this --

21 DR. NETON: -- in which it was said.

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think part of the problem 

23 was it was a general discussion of the entire 

24 (unintelligible) --

25 DR. NETON: Right, but -- but that general 
147

1 discussion --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- rather than going point by 

3 point.

4 DR. NETON: That general discussion got into 

5 such overarching issues, I think, that it made 

6 it clear that some of these what I consider 

7 minor, more minor type issues, were subsumed by 

8 this general discussion that we had, and I 

9 think Mel presented a very convincing argument 

10 that our approach was bounding, and that's my 

11 impression. But again, we need to go back --

12 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- just -- just so this 

13 doesn't come up when we come back to the next 

14 meeting, I just want to go on the record as 

15 saying I want a chance to review each 

16 individual item and -- as a workgroup member. 

17 SC&A may have made this statement that 

18 everything's fine, resolved. I would like the 

19 opportunity to review each individual item. 

20 I'm not saying I disagree with it, but I'm just 

21 saying I -- that's all I'm saying.

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah, good, please feel free to 

23 review the transcript item by item if --

24 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't want to review the 

25 transcript. I want to review the findings. 
148

1 That's what we're here for --

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Well, the findings are --

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- is to review findings.

4 MS. MUNN: -- each called out and available on 

5 the O drive. We will address that issue at our 

6 next meeting in July.

7 OTIBS 8, 10, 23

8 Earlier this -- last week Stu sent us a number 

9 of items, OTIB-8, 10, 23 -- or the reports. 

10 Would you like to go through those quickly for 

11 us, Stu, to see if anyone has any question 

12 about them?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Those were items that -- well, 

14 OTIB-8 and 10 are the infamous overestimating 

15 techniques for film badge -- for interpreting 

16 film badge data and TLD data. They've been --

17 they were commented on in a procedure review. 

18 They've been the subject of a number of 

19 findings in dose reconstruction reviews. I 

20 believe we came to agreement on the kinds of 

21 modifications that should be made to address 

22 the findings. We made those modifications. 

23 It's my understanding SC&A has re-reviewed 

24 those, agrees that the findings that were --

25 that the -- the revisions that were made 
149

1 addressed the findings. And so as far as I 

2 know, SC&A agrees that those findings can be 

3 closed.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that is --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So on the OTIB-23 was --

7 we submitted corrective actions saying we would 

8 revise the procedure to address certain aspec--

9 you know, just to address the findings. That 

10 procedure was revised, and I submitted that. I 

11 was tol-- I had -- I was told to advise the 

12 workgroup when that was done. It was done a 

13 month or two ago, and so I -- I submitted that 

14 revised procedure to the workgroup and to SC&A, 

15 and I don't know what their -- I don't remember 

16 what their interpreta-- or what their response 

17 to that was.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I believe -- and Steve, 

19 correct me if I'm wrong -- that procedure was 

20 turned over to the original reviewers. They 

21 reviewed the revised procedure and concurred 

22 that all of the -- the agreements that were 

23 made during the discussion have in fact been 

24 made. So in other words, this is one of those 

25 cases where we're im-- we've implemented our 
150

1 re-review. We took it upon ourselves to --

2 MS. MUNN: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: -- re-review it to see if in fact 

4 your revised procedure does in fact close out 

5 or deal with the issue that was originally 

6 raised, and the answer is our reviewer said 

7 yes, looks fine to us. So as far as we're 

8 concerned, we're prepared to recommend closeout 

9 of those issues related to those procedures.

10 MS. MUNN: Is there any objection to the 

11 closeout of those issues?

12 MR. PRESLEY: Can you state those issues again, 

13 please?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: All of them?

15 MR. PRESLEY: No, just these three that we're 

16 going to close out.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, well, they're all the 

18 findings associated with OTIB-8, OTIB-10 and 

19 OTIB-23.

20 MR. PRESLEY: And it's recommended that -- by 

21 SC&A that they be closed?

22 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is. Does anyone have any 

23 objection to closing those items that were

24 listed by Stu and re-reviewed by SC&A?

25 (No response)
151

1 Will you please see that the database reflects 

2 those items are closed? Thank you.

3 HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS

4 Now we're down to housekeeping items. We had a 

5 problem apparently with -- I know we --

6 DR. BRANCHE: The 23rd -- or the 21st?

7 MS. MUNN: -- the 21st and that problem was 

8 that --

9 DR. BRANCHE: Arjun Makhijani --

10 MS. MUNN: -- Arjun did not believe he could be 

11 available --

12 DR. BRANCHE: In person, but can you -- you 

13 said that you thought there was a --

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: I could do it by -- I could do 

15 it by phone.

16 MS. MUNN: My memory was that we struggled a 

17 bit in order to -- there were conflicts --

18 MR. PRESLEY: Right.

19 MS. MUNN: -- for a number of people --

20 DR. BRANCHE: I have a considerable number of 

21 conflicts for changing the date, to be honest 

22 with you.

23 MR. PRESLEY: I do, too.

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah.

25 MR. GRIFFON: What is the date again? I'm 
152

1 sorry.

2 DR. BRANCHE: The date on -- the date on the 

3 record is July 21st, 9:30 to 3:00 or 4:00, 

4 something like that.

5 MS. MUNN: I have 5:00.

6 DR. BRANCHE: 5:00?

7 MS. MUNN: That'll be a full day, yeah. 9:30 

8 to 5:00 o'clock Monday July 21st, Cincinnati, 

9 face-to-face. Dr. Makhijani -- 9:30 -- Dr. 

10 Makhijani can be available by phone?

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I can do it by phone.

12 MS. MUNN: All right.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll be on the west coast so 

14 I'll be in your position there, starting --

15 MS. MUNN: Good.

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- at 6:30 in the morning.

17 MS. MUNN: Good, I am so pleased that I can 

18 speak to you at 6:30. That's -- that's such a 

19 delightful thing to have to do.

20 DR. BRANCHE: But then you'll have the rest of 

21 the day --

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that is the rest of the day.

23 DR. BRANCHE: -- available to him at the 

24 conclusion of the meeting.

25 MS. MUNN: I call your attention to the fact 
153

1 that our next scheduled full Board meeting is 

2 the first week in September, immediately 

3 following Labor Day. And the reason I call 

4 that to your attention is that it's highly 

5 probable that we will, after the Board call --

6 the -- the teleconference --

7 DR. BRANCHE: On the 5th of August.

8 MS. MUNN: -- on the 5th of August, it's highly 

9 probable that this group will need to meet 

10 prior to that full Board meeting in September. 

11 Whether we can do that by telephone or whether 

12 we can -- have -- whether it will be face-to13 face depends largely on what falls out of the 

14 July 21 meeting. But it would behoove us to 

15 try to choose a date when we would at least be 

16 available for a telephone call.

17 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn, if I can -- actually 

18 I've just gotten some information from Zaida 

19 about CDC's bookkeeping, essentially.

20 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh.

21 DR. BRANCHE: And I would recommend that we 

22 schedule a face-to-face meeting and then 

23 determine later that it's going to be by phone. 

24 It'll be easier to undo a face-to-face meeting 

25 and make it a -- a meeting by phone than to try 
154

1 to do the reverse because we'd have to get the 

2 travel inform-- apparently the book-- the 

3 logistical issue is we need to get every 

4 request for travel in and through the 

5 bookkeeping system by the 29th of August.

6 MS. MUNN: Oh, well, all right.

7 DR. BRANCHE: So any requests for -- by -- and 

8 I'll say this during the Board meeting, but any 

9 requests by workgroup chairs for meetings will 

10 have to be done -- your requests and the travel 

11 requests have to be done before the 29th of 

12 August, even if you want to -- if not, you'll 

13 have to wait until the turn of the fiscal year, 

14 which is October 1.

15 MS. MUNN: Let us then, for the sake of 

16 expedience and to maintain our good graces with 

17 the federal government, choose a date in 

18 August. It is much easier to either change it 

19 or cancel it than it is to try to beg 

20 forgiveness later. August is a difficult 

21 month, I know that. My preference personally 

22 would be something like the 14th/15th in --

23 DR. BRANCHE: That's a tough --

24 MS. MUNN: -- mid-August.

25 DR. BRANCHE: -- week for me. I've already got 
155

1 some obligations. The week of the 18th and the 

2 week of the 25th are --

3 MR. PRESLEY: The 18th I'm good.

4 MS. MUNN: The 18th you're good, or busy? Did 

5 you say good or busy?

6 MR. PRESLEY: I'm good on the 18th.

7 DR. BRANCHE: I'm good on the 18th.

8 MS. MUNN: That's a good week for me as well.

9 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that week's okay for me. 

10 The 18th is not good, but the -- that week is -

11 -

12 DR. BRANCHE: With the exception of the 18th?

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, with the exception of the 

14 18th.

15 MS. MUNN: How about something like the 21st, a 

16 Thursday that week?

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.

18 DR. BRANCHE: I can do that.

19 MS. MUNN: August 21.

20 DR. BRANCHE: Speak now.

21 MS. MUNN: We will momentarily -- we will 

22 schedule it temporarily as --

23 DR. BRANCHE: 9:30.

24 MS. MUNN: -- 9:30 (unintelligible) --

25 DR. BRANCHE: In Cincinnati.
156

1 MS. MUNN: -- in Cincinnati, with the hope that 

2 we can avoid that, but let's get it on the 

3 books.

4 I'm not prepared to go further out than that, 

5 but I think it's wise for us to have two on the 

6 books.

7 DR. BRANCHE: If you go further than that I'm 

8 going to suggest that you wait until October.

9 MS. MUNN: Yes, I think --

10 DR. BRANCHE: Okay.

11 MS. MUNN: -- that -- I think that's wise. I 

12 can't imagine we'd have another meeting in 

13 September, anyway. I'm sure we'll -- are there 

14 any other items that anyone feels need to be 

15 addressed before we adjourn?

16 (No response)

17 If not, I will get the action items that I have 

18 to you sometime within the next two weeks so 

19 that, if there's any confusion or any 

20 objection, you can let me know well in advance. 

21 I would hope that we will be able to address 

22 more than the first set of procedures at our 

23 next meeting. I would suggest that between now 

24 and our next meeting you take an opportunity to 

25 go into the database and sort on the open or in 
157

1 progress items and see for yourself. If 

2 something jumps out at you as being extremely 

3 important that we have been pushing in the 

4 background, please do let me know. I'll make 

5 every effort to get it on the agenda.

6 Anything else for the good of the order?

7 (No response)

8 If not, this meeting is adjourned. Thank all 

9 of you on the phone.

10 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 

11 a.m.)

12

13

14

15
158

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of June 24, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein.

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein.

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

8th day of Aug., 2008.

___________________________________

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102