NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH

 + + + + +

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH

 + + + + +

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

 + + + + +

 THURSDAY,

 AUGUST 13, 2009

 + + + + +

 The Subcommittee convened in the

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott

Hotel, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky

at 10:00 a.m., Wanda I. Munn, Chair,

presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH OCAS

STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH OCAS

EMILY HOWELL, HHS*

TOM LEBONE, ORAU Team* 

JAN LOVELACE, ORAU Team*

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

JIM NETON, NIOSH OCAS*

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team

*Present via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

2 10:06 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health,

5 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Procedures Review.

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Procedures

8 Review. Sorry. Mark is not even here. 

9 Procedures Review. And we'll begin with roll

10 call with Board members in the room.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, Chair of

12 the Subcommittee.

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer.

15 MR. KATZ: And then one last

16 check. On the line, any Board members? Mark? 

17 Bob?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then in the

20 room, the NIOSH ORAU team?

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott,

22 Director of the Office of Compensation
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1 Analysis and Support.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld,

3 Technical Program Manager, same office.

4 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU

5 team.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU

7 team.

8 MR. KATZ: And on the line, NIOSH

9 ORAU team?

10 DR. NETON: Jim Neton on the line.

11 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith, ORAU

12 team.

13 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry? You were

14 hard to hear.

15 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith.

16 MR. KATZ: Matthew Smith. Okay. 

17 Thanks.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Any other NIOSH

19 ORAU team on the line?

20 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU

21 team.

22 MR. LEBONE: Tom Lebone, ORAU
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 team.

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

3 SC&A in the room?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke.

5 MR. KATZ: And on the line, SC&A?

6 DR. MAURO: John Mauro here.

7 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Good morning, Hans

9 MR. KATZ: Welcome, both of you.

10 And now HHS and other government

11 employees on the line?

12 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

13 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS.

14 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi,

15 DOE.

16 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

17 Contractor.

18 MR. KATZ: Welcome to all of you.

19 And any members of the public on

20 the line?

21 (No response.)

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. Folks, please
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 mute your phones on the line. And, Wanda,

2 it's yours.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted.

4 As all of you know, we have been

5 having a great deal of trouble in this IT

6 transition from the old database to the new

7 database. It's maintaining the same format,

8 but it's been very difficult for us to all get

9 on board with getting into it.

10 So we are going to do the best we

11 can from both directions. Fortunately, Steve

12 is able to access what we need from the old

13 system. And I believe that most of us in the

14 room now with the help of our own internal IT

15 folks have been able to get up this morning

16 onto the database that we need. We hope this

17 works well.

18 The first item that we have on our

19 agenda today is the summary report to the

20 Secretary, which we have all agreed needs to

21 go out sometime in the immediate future. I

22 have provided for you, thanks to Dr. Ziemer,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 electronic copies of the material that we sent

2 during our first contact with the Secretary,

3 which was this time last year. The issue

4 seems in my mind to be whether we will

5 essentially follow this same format or whether

6 we will make significant changes in our

7 request for our contractors' report

8 summarizing the second year of activity.

9 We had felt that it was very

10 important the first time out to include tables

11 that made it very clear what the data looked

12 like when we were dealing with it. Whether we

13 need to retain that type of attachment each

14 time we make this report to the Secretary is

15 a key item in my view. As you at the table

16 here all know, I much prefer the briefest

17 possible reports with the maximum amount of

18 information in the simplest form we can

19 create.

20 So I am open to comments from

21 anyone here with respect to their feelings as

22 to how to approach this. I was hesitant to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 even begin a draft of the letter until we had

2 this discussion in hand. My preference would

3 be a letter similar to this one, only modified

4 to meet current expectations and a much

5 reduced report, which our contractor would put

6 together for us and including this time,

7 rather than the tables, the graphs and charts

8 that have been a part of our standard review

9 in the past meetings.

10 Steve has one such chart up on the

11 screen right now. That is the type of thing

12 I had hoped we would include, rather than the

13 large numbers of forms we have.

14 Any comments? Any thoughts? 

15 Mike, do you feel that it is necessary for us

16 to continue repeating the format forms for the

17 sake of the new readers, who obviously will

18 not be the same readers as they were a year

19 ago? I guess that's the real question.

20 We know that these are likely to

21 go to entirely different people. And do we

22 want it to be a completely stand-alone form
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 process this time with no reference at all

2 other than the date of the preceding

3 communication, or can we shorten, abbreviate,

4 and expedite this format?

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Are you talking

6 about the report for this round to the new

7 administration?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

9 MEMBER GIBSON: I would almost

10 think it would probably be appropriate to

11 provide them with the same format that the

12 previous holders of the office had for the

13 first round.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Paul?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: One of the

16 problems with our first report was that we

17 hadn't finished the first round even.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we were

20 reporting sort of what we are doing, you know.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: We exist. We have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 these under review. We have closed some, so

2 on. I would hope that we could have a report,

3 in my mind something that would look a little

4 more like the summary report the dose

5 reconstruction group did on their first 100

6 cases.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me we

9 need to be able to summarize that first set

10 now in some form or another and make some

11 statements about what it means. And, again,

12 the bottom line of all of this is to critique,

13 I guess, whether or not we think that

14 procedures are being followed and if the

15 procedures are appropriate. So we need to be

16 able to make some more definitive statements,

17 I think, than we were able to make in the

18 first report.

19 I agree with Mike that I think we

20 need to try to follow that format, but I think

21 we are in a position of being more definitive.

22 Also, I am not sure how helpful it
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 is for these groups -- and by "these groups,"

2 I mean the Secretary's staff -- to have the

3 SC&A report. I think that's probably more

4 technical detail than might be useful to them. 

5 I am not sure how useful.

6 Our previous report was a cover

7 letter that kind of summarized what we're

8 doing and then the SC&A report. And if we can

9 have something that looks more like the bar

10 graphs that Steve showed, maybe summarize the

11 SC&A stuff in some way, it seems to me it

12 would be more useful to the non-technical

13 people who are the support staff of the

14 Secretary.

15 Well, she probably has technical

16 people, too, but I am trying to get maybe a

17 median between the first report, which I

18 looked at as just a description of what we

19 were doing versus something that can allow

20 them to say, "Okay. Here is what this group

21 has found." We will still have a description

22 of what we are doing on the other sets. But
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 anyway --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. You are

3 articulating it, I think, more completely than

4 I was. And it sounds as though you're

5 thinking much the same as I am.

6 Would that be a problem for you,

7 Mike, if we followed that general direction

8 and you saw what came out?

9 MEMBER GIBSON: No. Sounds good.

10 CHAIR MUNN: We'll see how we get

11 with that. And if we have need to reference

12 the nitty gritty of how we do it, then we can

13 always respond to that in a different way.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am just noting. 

15 I am looking here. This, I guess, was a

16 draft. Maybe I'm not looking at the final

17 copy, but I think it was the same. We told

18 them how often we were meeting --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- and who is on

21 the Committee.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: The first set of

2 33 procedures, there were 153 findings of

3 various weights. Ninety-nine have been

4 resolved. Fifty-four are open. I don't think

5 that tells them very much.

6 CHAIR MUNN: No. I think they

7 will get a great --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: We don't know what

9 varying weights mean.

10 CHAIR MUNN: No.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: We don't know what

12 closed means.

13 CHAIR MUNN: No.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, we do, but

15 they don't. So I would like to see something

16 that would give them a better understanding.

17 CHAIR MUNN: My personal feeling

18 is that visual graphs do a better job of doing

19 that than words do. So at our next meeting,

20 I will come to you with draft words. 

21 Actually, I will try to get those to you

22 beforehand so that you can think about them,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 add to them, flesh them out in any way that

2 you feel necessary.

3 And for the moment, we'll proceed

4 with the concept that this letter will be more

5 specific with regard to what we have

6 accomplished. And it will contain at least a

7 paragraph about observations relative to the

8 efficiency and effectiveness of the procedural

9 activities as they are now performed.

10 Any other comments with respect to

11 our proposed report to the Secretary?

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIR MUNN: If not, I hope you

14 all have from me the letter that I sent last

15 night to you, a draft of suggestions for

16 information to be included in transfer

17 letters, when we are transmitting one or more

18 of our site-specific or, in Mike's case, Work

19 Group-specific procedures that have been

20 assigned to SC&A for review.

21 I had a note back from Mark saying

22 that he had no problem with the letter. He
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 thought it was fine the way it was. Nancy

2 Adams weighed in, said she found it okay.

3 Does anyone have any grief with

4 that? Is it adequate? Is it too much? Is it

5 okay?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just have one

7 question, Wanda.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: On this particular

10 one, remind me. We transferred completely the

11 two OTIBs to them, right, all of the findings?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's why I

13 worded the letter the way I did when I said we

14 would hold it in our database until we

15 received either their agreement on what had

16 been done already or their resolution,

17 inferring, I thought, that it was now their

18 responsibility --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- to resolve the

21 issue that was outstanding in each case.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 CHAIR MUNN: As I indicated, this

2 is an unusual case in that both of --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Both are canceled.

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- these have now

5 been canceled and incorporated into the Site

6 Profile.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other cases, we

8 would specifically enumerate the items and

9 cull them out because --

10 CHAIR MUNN: We could do that or I

11 felt that issue was covered by including a PDF

12 file of that entire transaction with the

13 transmittal. Until Steve gives me the PDF

14 file, I can't send the transmittal. But he

15 will send me the PDF file, which will show how

16 each of the outstanding items that are -- each

17 of the items that are closed have been closed

18 and will indicate the status of the

19 outstanding item as well.

20 So I am relying on the Chair of

21 the Work Group involved to work from that PDF

22 file that they'll have. That was what we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 discussed as being the best way to make sure

2 that people who were not familiar with the

3 database have the full set of information

4 transferred to them. And we made a point of

5 saying we are transferring the information to

6 them.

7 If that is all right with all

8 concerned -- and, Mark, have you shown up on

9 the phone yet?

10 MS. ADAMS: I got an e-mail from

11 him, Wanda -- this is Nancy Adams -- saying

12 that he was going to be late and to let you

13 all know.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's fine. 

15 Thanks, Nancy.

16 Hearing no -- Paul?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: One other

18 question. Do we need to have a confirmation

19 that the Work Group Chair has accepted these,

20 this transfer?

21 CHAIR MUNN: We can certainly ask

22 for it or we can -- we can either ask for it
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 in the transmittal or we can ask for it

2 verbally and ask for written --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am trying to

4 think whether we can do this unilaterally or

5 do we need confirmation that they agree that

6 it is their task? I don't know the answer to

7 that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Sometimes it's

9 more efficient to say has to object if they

10 object and assume their concurrence.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's a good way

12 to do it.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's better than

14 just saying, "If you have questions or

15 concerns."

16 MR. HINNEFELD: In my experience,

17 people will tend to say, "Yes. I've got a

18 problem with that" and they never do or they

19 don't have any problem with it.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is the

21 effective date of transfer when we transfer --

22 MR. KATZ: I am going to think
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 it's actually good to get -- I mean, it's not

2 that it's very difficult to confirm that you

3 are accepting these. I think it's good to get

4 a positive affirmation, as opposed to the

5 assumption that all is well if they didn't --

6 just in terms of completing that process.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, either way

8 affirmation that it is in their loop.

9 MR. KATZ: Right, it's in their

10 hands.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right. May I

12 suggest that we leave the letter as is with

13 the exception of the final sentence? I would

14 revise that final sentence to say, "Will you

15 please forward your acceptance of the" --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Please confirm

17 your acceptance."

18 CHAIR MUNN: "Confirm," yes,

19 acknowledge acceptance of the transfer. And

20 "Let us know if you have any questions." And

21 I'll change that. And we'll ask Steve to get

22 me the PDF files. Do I need to make that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 transfer?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Do you want --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Do you want to put

5 in that last sentence something like "Please

6 respond or affirm by" --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

8 MEMBER GIBSON: -- such and such

9 or it will be assumed that, you know, put a

10 date in there so I mean, it's not just kind of

11 hanging out there.

12 CHAIR MUNN: I would do that if we

13 were not transferring these internally. If we

14 were transferring it outside of the Board, I

15 would do that.

16 MR. KATZ: If you would copy me

17 when you do these, send these?

18 CHAIR MUNN: I will.

19 MR. KATZ: Copy me. Then I can

20 sort of dog it down to make certain that we

21 actually get an acknowledgment.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I will. I will do
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 that. I hate to get too formal with our own

2 colleagues inside the Board, but yes, we will

3 --

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Just we are all so

5 busy sometimes it just seems like it might be

6 two weeks before you get to your e-mail or

7 whatever.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and you forget

9 that you made that commitment or that you were

10 asked for it. That's true.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And in our

12 records, Steve, you would show the transfer

13 date as the date of Wanda's letter, then, or

14 --

15 CHAIR MUNN: I would think so.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We can do

17 that several ways. When we actually change

18 the database to indicate that it has been

19 transferred, the database automatically keeps

20 track of when the last change was made.

21 Additionally, in case something happens and we

22 make another change to that record, that date
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 may change. I'm not exactly sure how that

2 works.

3 We don't want that to occur. So

4 we will also make a note in the Board or the

5 Work Group action area indicating that it was

6 transferred via this letter to the Work Group. 

7 So we will take care of it in a couple of

8 ways.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And, actually, we

11 can make that note before. Do you want to

12 make that note before I create the PDF file or

13 do you want to make it after?

14 When the PDF file comes, you

15 probably want to show the old status so that

16 the recipient will see the old status, not the

17 transferred status, right?

18 CHAIR MUNN: What old status?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Whether it is in

20 progress or closed or open or, see, because

21 that way, then, the receiver understands if

22 they understand the terminology, they
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 understand we are in the process.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: They see the

3 finding and so on.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now we have

5 something in here for each one. I guess we

6 could probably get a better example than this

7 one, but OTIB-0058 is what we are talking

8 about. That's August 27th. Just look at

9 that.

10 So it is closed. So basically

11 when I make the PDF file, you want to indicate

12 this to be closed. And then when I go back

13 and I will change it to transferred on our

14 database and I will make a note down here

15 saying, on such and such a date, the Work

16 Group transferred it.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or the

18 Subcommittee transferred.

19 CHAIR MUNN: I understand what you

20 mean. Yes, we want the old status there so

21 that they --

22 MR. MARSCHKE: The old status in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 the PDF file.

2 CHAIR MUNN: -- understand that

3 our viewpoint, this item is closed.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Exactly.

5 CHAIR MUNN: As long as they

6 understand that, then that is the purpose of

7 my last sentence, "If you have any problem

8 with this status."

9 And one of the reasons we are

10 transferring it the way we are is if that Work

11 Group does not agree with the resolution that

12 we have reached, then that is their

13 opportunity to --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Now, this is going

15 to affect our statistics somewhat in that we

16 are going to basically remove any findings

17 like this that are closed.

18 We are taking them from the closed

19 bin and putting them over into the transferred

20 bin. So our statistics on the number of

21 findings closed is going to change.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Can we split our
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 transfer bin into two parts? Can we split

2 them into an active transferred and closed

3 transferred? Is that --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: In theory, we can. 

5 Again, it comes down to the fact we are

6 basically not making any changes to the

7 database until we get -- probably get behind

8 the firewall and start using the SQL database.

9 And so when we start using the SQL

10 database, you know, we would just add another

11 -- you know, we have this drop down menu here. 

12 Maybe we could just add another transferred,

13 you know, transferred/closed or just

14 transferred/active or transferred/closed or

15 something like that.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. That would

17 seem to be ideal.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think

19 that's a big thing, or we could do it the

20 other way. We could say closed/transferred.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Closed/transferred. 

22 That would be my preference or in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 abeyance/transferred or whatever.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, we could

3 have another whole set. You know, you could

4 go down each one and just say, you know,

5 closed/transferred, well, imported, in

6 abeyance/transferred, in progress/transferred.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: How are you going

8 to track that, though, in your final

9 statistics?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we are going

11 to have more bars.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to have

13 one more bar or two more bars.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Unless you want to

15 roll it up. Again, we can roll all the

16 transferred up into one. We can roll all the

17 closed up into one. You know, you tell us how

18 you want to roll it up, and we can roll it up

19 whatever way you want to.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we closed it

21 and transferred it and the group that got it

22 probably should be reopened, then our closure
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 gives sort of a false sense of information.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does. I

3 don't think we're going to have very many of

4 those.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Statistically they

7 may not be significant, but in terms of --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to

9 think of whether it would be good to have the

10 transferred as the main subset rather than

11 having closed period and closed/transferred.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: What is the down

13 side of this transfer and so that you're

14 opened/closed, all of your various statuses

15 that you're tracking are the ones that are

16 being tracked by the Subcommittee? Anything

17 that is transferred is somewhere else.

18 I mean, what is the down side of

19 dropping your number of closed by one and your

20 number of --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: You'll still have a

22 history that, in fact, the -- this record will
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 still -- on March 24th, the Work Group closed

2 it. Still this history will remain, and you

3 will have a new record down here that on

4 September 14th, we transferred it or something

5 like that.

6 So you will still when you print

7 out the summary here, you will still have the

8 whole history associated with this finding. 

9 But it just won't show up here when you do the

10 summary sheet.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I guess in

12 answer to Stu's question with respect to the

13 down side, the only down side that I see is

14 the difference between transferred to another

15 work group and transferred to another issue. 

16 We have several things where we have

17 transferred to another issue.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We don't call

19 those transferred. Those are --

20 CHAIR MUNN: We don't?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Addressed in.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 addressed in.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We call them

3 addressed in.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Addressed in

5 finding.

6 CHAIR MUNN: So it wouldn't be a

7 duplication, then?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: The only thing I am

9 thinking that may not be true on is some of

10 these generic issues. And way back when with

11 the first set, there was something like -- I

12 don't know if it was re-suspension --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we transferred

14 it to --

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- or something

16 like that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: -- to the global

18 issues --

19 MR. MARSCHKE: The global issues. 

20 Exactly.

21 CHAIR MUNN: -- concerns that are

22 being addressed separately.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not sure if

2 they were transferred or if they were

3 addressed in. I would have to go back.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think they were

5 transferred.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I think they were,

7 too.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I think that --

9 MR. MARSCHKE: That would be the

10 only --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Because we didn't

12 have anything in which they were addressed. 

13 I think we just transferred them. But those

14 are relatively smaller numbers.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: We need to

16 distinguish between that kind of a transfer,

17 and this is really a reassignment or

18 something.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we need a

21 separate word to distinguish those or two

22 types of transfer?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Well --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think your

3 suggestion that we don't otherwise need

4 subsets of transfers for our purposes, it's

5 transfer. But if we are using the same word

6 for a different process, we need to

7 distinguish it.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't

9 know. It's your guys' business. I have a

10 certain hesitation to expanding your status

11 list.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I can

13 understand that.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Because we did

15 that in NOCTS. And we got like 30 statuses or

16 claims in NOCTS. It's unduly. I mean, you

17 have to be very careful to write the query if

18 you're looking for certain kinds of things to

19 make sure you include all the statuses that

20 might be what you're looking for. So it's

21 very difficult to manage once you start

22 expanding your statuses. It's kind of based
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 on the history of the claim or the history of

2 the --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, since we can

4 always tell ourselves, we can query our

5 database. And we can always tell if we have

6 a question in our mind which kind of transfer

7 we are talking about.

8 But if it's not going to foul up

9 our statistics terribly, if we understand what

10 we are looking at when we look at Steve's

11 graphs and if we have a problem with the

12 number of transfer items there, I guess we can

13 individually look it up or we can put it on

14 the record here at a meeting if we have a

15 problem with it.

16 Any grief with that?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's try it.

18 CHAIR MUNN: We'll try it and see? 

19 Yes. This is a first time trial for

20 everything. So let's trying just leaving it

21 transferred, understanding that it will skew

22 the report. But we will understand what that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 skew is, hopefully.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: So anything

3 transferred will remove the statistic from

4 another category.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: When you do that --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But that

8 will happen automatically, right?

9 MR. MARSCHKE: That will happen

10 automatically. Basically this table here is

11 automatically generated. And if you transfer

12 a closed finding, it will go from here over to

13 here.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: So we will have

16 significantly more than seven percent

17 transferred. We will probably have double

18 that transferred after --

19 MR. MARSCHKE: If there is room,

20 yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER GIBSON: Would you just put
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 a footnote on that report that these numbers

2 may change due to blah blah blah, just so if

3 someone was concerned about seeing unusual

4 changes?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. The number

6 of closed will go down.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: In theory, you

8 could do that, Mike. Again, it's a question

9 of we can get somebody or we can get down --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We only use

11 this sort of internally anyway.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I could write

13 something on it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: You know, if we are

15 going to break that out at all, this summary

16 might be the right place to bring it out; the

17 difference, that is, between closed and

18 closed/transferred, if we feel that it is

19 necessary.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: If you don't have

21 the data --

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, immediately.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 MR. MARSCHKE: If you don't have

2 the data back here in the status box, you

3 can't. I mean, that is all that this table is

4 looking at is just what is in those status

5 boxes up there.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: But it doesn't really

8 matter much. I mean, it's off your table.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: It's in someone else's

11 hands. And that's really your main concern,

12 I think.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That is quite true.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's try it this

15 way and see.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Because in truth,

17 anything that is transferred goes to us as

18 closed.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: So all right. We

21 will leave it as it is for the time being. 

22 We'll move on to an enormous piece of work
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 that Steve has put together for us, the

2 commonality findings, which he sent to us

3 earlier and which I hope we all have. I need

4 to pull it up. I don't have it yet.

5 What date did you send it, Steve?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it was

7 either yesterday or it would be the 11th or

8 the 12th.

9 CHAIR MUNN: The 11th or 12th. 

10 Commonality findings. This is the 12th. I

11 don't know whether anyone has had an

12 opportunity to really absorb this. I did not. 

13 I scanned it.

14 We asked Steve to put this

15 together. And it turned out to be clearly a

16 monumental task. These kinds of comparisons

17 are not easy. The list is pretty

18 overwhelming.

19 Steve, do you want to tell us

20 about this?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I guess this

22 really started off back at the May 1st
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 Procedures Subcommittee meeting, where we

2 would notice that's -- when we were talking

3 about site-specific procedures that were

4 reviewed by the Subcommittee and we were

5 concerned about similar findings on different

6 procedures and that we came up with kind of a

7 uniform resolution to these findings.

8 And so the first thing I was

9 tasked to do was to go back and just get a

10 list of how many site-specific procedures were

11 reviewed. And I had -- and that's what this

12 Table 1 is. And it shows seven for Y-12 and

13 five for Savannah River and so on and so

14 forth.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. You got those

16 to us --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And I got those two

18 quite early. And the table, Table 2, is

19 basically just a listing of what those seven

20 Y-12 procedures were, what those five Savannah

21 River site procedures were. And so it lists

22 all the site-specific procedures. All of
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 these site-specific procedures were reviewed

2 in the third set that SC&A put together.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. And I think

5 we did talk a little bit last meeting, in the

6 June meeting. If you look at the Table 2

7 procedures, you will see that, really, most of

8 the procedures are pretty much site-specific. 

9 And they wouldn't lend themselves to having

10 common concerns except for the coworker

11 procedures, the internal dosimetry coworker

12 procedures and the external dosimetry

13 coworker. Each site or a lot of the sites

14 have their own specific internal and external

15 dosimetry coworker models.

16 So those are the ones that we

17 focused on. And Table 3 is a listing of the

18 external dosimetry coworker procedures that

19 SC&A had reviewed. And we reviewed them for

20 five different sites.

21 You can also see included on Table

22 3 are the procedures numbers, who the SC&A
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 reviewer was because if you have the same

2 reviewer, it's more likely you would have the

3 same findings was my rationale for including

4 the SC&A reviewer in there, and also a number

5 of issues that were associated with each of

6 the procedures that were reviewed.

7 Now, the fourth table, Table 4, is

8 basically we found one similar issue that came

9 up on two different sites, X-10 and Hanford. 

10 Both had the same issue, the same wording. 

11 And you can see X-10 and Hanford, again, were

12 two sites that were reviewed by Ron Buchanan. 

13 And he had the same issue, which is written

14 out there.

15 All the other issues were unique. 

16 And all the issues are listed at the end of

17 this file in Appendix 1. And Appendix 1 is

18 what I really showed to the Subcommittee back

19 in June was in an Excel file format at that

20 point in time. And I just brought it over and

21 put it into this Word file. So Appendix 1 is

22 that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 The next thing we did or the next

2 thing I did was look at these two Table 4

3 issues. And I went to the database and looked

4 at what the status of them, both of the

5 issues, were.

6 And the status of the X-10 issue

7 is open because we have not received a NIOSH

8 response on the X-10 issue. Status of the

9 Hanford issue, OTIB-0030, is closed because

10 basically NIOSH presented their response,

11 SC&A, we concurred with it. And the

12 Subcommittee back in March agreed to close it. 

13 So, again, it's highly likely that we could

14 probably use the same rationale to close the

15 X-10 one, but we probably want to look at that

16 by itself.

17 So that's really the external

18 dosimetry ones. Table 5 is similar to Table

19 3 in that it's a listing of the internal

20 dosimetry coworker models that SC&A reviewed. 

21 And there were six of them. And, again, we

22 have a list of the procedure numbers, the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 reviewers, and the number of issues.

2 And, again, Appendix 2 lists all

3 of the issues, 32 of them that we came up with

4 for those six procedures. Only two issues

5 were common between the procedures. Paducah,

6 Rocky Flats had an identical finding. And you

7 could see it there.

8 Both of those findings are open at

9 this point. We have not received a NIOSH

10 initial response. So they're shown in the

11 database as being open.

12 There was another finding which

13 was pretty similar across that wasn't

14 identical. The external dosimetry one and

15 that first internal dosimetry finding, those

16 were identically worded findings.

17 This finding on Table 7 is pretty

18 much similar across the four sites that are

19 indicated there on the table. The wording is

20 a little bit different, but I thought they

21 were close enough together to say that they

22 were a common finding.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 CHAIR MUNN: They certainly appear

2 to be.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And the NIOSH

4 responses to these issues were all very

5 similar. Basically it came back and they

6 asked SC&A for site-specific documents or data

7 that NIOSH may adequately respond to the

8 finding.

9 In three of the four sites, SC&A

10 came back and said, you know, we recommend

11 that you close this, that you can't -- we

12 understand now that you can't put all

13 documentation and information in every

14 procedure. So we basically came back and

15 recommended that the issue be closed. And you

16 can see the rationale for that there.

17 And I believe on June 9th, the

18 Subcommittee agreed with us or agreed with our

19 recommendation and proceeded to close the

20 issues associated with OTIB-0034, 0037, and

21 0038.

22 On OTIB-0029 for Y-12, SC&A, we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 took a little bit different tact. And we did

2 respond to NIOSH's request for specific

3 documents with a list of specific documents.

4 And we did that back, I guess,

5 probably in March. And at that point in time,

6 the Subcommittee decided that that one was in

7 progress. And that is the analysis that was

8 done.

9 So what do we have? We have ten

10 issues which are common, you know, or -- they

11 fall into three groups of commonality. And

12 many of those issues have already been closed,

13 three out of four in the third group.

14 Both of the ones in the external

15 group -- no. One of the two of the external

16 group, the first one in the -- in the internal

17 group are both open. So maybe, you know, you

18 can come up with a common way to address

19 these.

20 CHAIR MUNN: It would be very

21 helpful if we could work out a method for SC&A

22 and NIOSH to look at these commonalities and
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 see if a decision that is made in one case can

2 be applicable to the other as well. 

3 Continuing to see the same concern appear at

4 each site if we have already closed that

5 concern is not a very effective way to address

6 them.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess that's one

8 thing we can keep on our -- when we review

9 procedures, we can look and see that if we

10 have a similar procedure that was reviewed for

11 another site, and we had a comment in there. 

12 You know, if that comment had been resolved

13 and so on and so forth, we can take that and

14 factor that into our review in the future.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Is that a reasonable

16 instruction for us to pass along to our

17 contractor as one additional item to cover in

18 their review? Yes, Paul?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think it

20 is, and this is very helpful. I have sort of

21 a procedural question for us. Is this an

22 official -- this is obviously a Subcommittee
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 working paper, is this an official product of

2 SC&A?

3 And the reason I ask that, this is

4 a document that appears to be undated and

5 although in reading it, you -- obviously it's

6 clearly an SC&A document. But it is not so

7 labeled.

8 Does this have the status of a

9 white paper or --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Not at this point

11 in time, Paul. I mean, we can make it into --

12 and, John Mauro, if you want to jump in?

13 DR. MAURO: The answer is no. 

14 It's just for the convenience.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: It was really

17 something we did for the convenience of this

18 meeting after suggestion at a previous

19 meeting, but no, it did not go through the

20 process that normally a white paper would. 

21 Most white papers receive official status

22 because they go toward very often a site
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 profile and SEC closure.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, also, John,

3 I'm just thinking in terms of your own sort of

4 internal review and so on, that I'm sort of

5 asking, has this sort of been blessed by the

6 appropriate people within SC&A?

7 DR. MAURO: No.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: No. This is --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right now it is

11 just a working paper that --

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. Steve took the

13 initiative to be as helpful as he could, but

14 no, it has not gone through due process as

15 other deliverables often do.

16 By the way let me point something

17 out that is sort of a dilemma. These are all

18 the procedures that are going to be

19 transferred. So it really doesn't -- you

20 know, this issue, I mean, the bridge that we

21 are creating here when we transfer these

22 site-specifics when and if we do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 This matter is something I think

2 that is interesting, almost falls through the

3 crack. How do we make sure that the --

4 there's parity -- let's say we recommended

5 closure on a given item for a given -- whether

6 it's Y-12. Meanwhile, let's say the same item

7 has been transferred over to some other group,

8 Rocky, but it's really now in their hands to

9 ensure parity.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: And so there is

12 another level of complexity, as I see it. Do

13 you see it that way also?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, John, I would

15 think when it leaves our hands here, we can

16 make sure that it's in parity across a site. 

17 Now when the site work group gets it, of

18 course they can do whatever they want to. And

19 they could make the response different.

20 But I think, you know, we haven't

21 transferred anything yet. And we are going to

22 transfer 58 and 27. I don't know if -- I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 don't think -- those two don't happen to be

2 any of the ones here that have been

3 identified. I don't think. No.

4 So but if we were to transfer any

5 one of these back, I think what we could do

6 is, again, we could indicate in Wanda's letter

7 saying, you know, "There was an issue in here

8 that is commonality across sites. We have

9 addressed it. And so that it's in parity with

10 the other sites, change it at your own peril."

11 CHAIR MUNN: Peril.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: There's no --

13 DR. MAURO: That was the reason

14 for my question. So this goes toward the

15 transfer process --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no need

17 --

18 DR. MAURO: -- the information

19 package that goes over to the receiving end.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no need

21 to transfer a finding that you believe is a

22 general finding that just happens to appear in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 a site-specific document. You don't really

2 have to transfer that.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in any

4 event, if one did, you would want the new Work

5 Group Chair to be aware that the issue has

6 been addressed, you know, at these other sites

7 -- I think a work group as you have suggested,

8 Steve, would always have the prerogative to

9 say, "Well, yes, but in our site, there is

10 this little nuance that's different."

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That is true.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, therefore, we

13 are going to consider it in somewhat of a

14 different way than you have. I think we have

15 to allow for that to occur. Even though it

16 looks like the same finding and the same sort

17 of general parameters, there may be some

18 little quirk or twist that is very

19 site-specific that we hadn't thought of at the

20 time.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I don't have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 anything specific in mind other than sort of

2 as a general concept to think of it that way. 

3 So it seems to me it's helpful if SC&A helps

4 us point out to the others, particularly if a

5 transfer is made, that this appears to be a

6 finding parallel to what we have had in other

7 cases. And these have been resolved in the

8 following way. And you may need to consider

9 that as you -- or we can say, "No. We don't

10 need to transfer it. We're satisfied."

11 MR. HINNEFELD: You have a good

12 point. You make a good point.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We may or

14 may not. I don't think it's automatic.

15 CHAIR MUNN: But as a matter of

16 course in reviews, in future reviews, would it

17 not be reasonable for us to anticipate that

18 SC&A will include this concern in their

19 review?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: One of the things

21 you asked us to do at the last meeting was to

22 go back and look at our review procedure. We
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 have started to do that to some extent. And

2 if we are going to make modifications to that

3 review procedure, we can certainly add a

4 sentence to that procedure to say basically

5 "Look for commonality with other sites."

6 CHAIR MUNN: This would seem to be

7 a reasonable request.

8 MR. KATZ: It is commonality with

9 the resolution of this issue at other sites.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the

12 commonality of the finding as well, I think.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I make one

15 other comment? John Mauro, for you and for

16 Steve, even though this is not an official

17 white paper or anything, I think it would be

18 helpful for our records if you showed this,

19 for example, as a Steve Marschke paper and a

20 date on it.

21 DR. MAURO: We will retransmit in

22 a more official, you know --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: You know, it

2 doesn't have to be an SC&A document.

3 CHAIR MUNN: No.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: In fact, it would

5 be good to identify that this was prepared by

6 Steve for the Work Group or for the

7 Subcommittee.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: We also need to put

9 the disclaimer headings on it and so on and so

10 forth, which --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. And you may

12 --

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. We will take

14 care of that.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: John, you may even

16 want to say that this is not officially --

17 well, whatever you would say that --

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. There are

19 certain ad hoc --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is not an

21 SC&A --

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. That brings us
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 -- I mean, I think you bring up an important

2 nuance related to material we provide. We

3 have developed quite a bit of formality,

4 certainly, with our major deliverables.

5 We are now actually in the mode

6 where even our white papers because they are

7 so fundamental to dealing with the issues

8 resolution for SEC petitions especially are

9 being treated as if they were site profile

10 reviews or official SEC petition review

11 evaluation. In other words, they're actually

12 at a level of official deliverables going

13 through the full QA process.

14 But there's this other level

15 where, as a matter of convenience, this would

16 be a perfect example, so a richer

17 understanding. So there really is no

18 resolution of an issue here in terms of some

19 scientific fact.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. It is just

21 providing information.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. And I like --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just to identify

2 it by date and who generated it.

3 DR. MAURO: Right.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because, in

5 essence, we are taking action based on this

6 information.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. But it is a

8 class of report that I agree with you 100

9 percent. In fact the first thing I noticed

10 when I was looking at it was it should have a

11 date and author on it. Certainly we will do

12 that. But I think a little introductory words

13 to the effect that you just mentioned, that

14 this is something being provided for the

15 convenience of the Work Group.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So we

17 understand the status of it.

18 DR. MAURO: Right. Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because two or

20 three years from now, someone is going to say,

21 "Well, now, was this a white paper or is this"

22 --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 CHAIR MUNN: Just a document

2 title, a page in front of it.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, it has

4 a title.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, but the

6 title is what we are looking at.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I am suggesting that

9 we consider a face page on it that says,

10 "Summary data for internal discussion" because

11 that is what it is. It is a summary of data.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't want

13 to make too big of a burden on formalizing

14 this. It's just a matter of tracking these

15 things. And I find it helpful, even

16 internally, for filing stuff.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Here's a

18 disclaimer.

19 DR. MAURO: You know, the only

20 reason I am sort of like raising this is that

21 we do have a requirement for certain QA before

22 we put out our work product. And that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 includes all white papers. This didn't go

2 through that.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Right.

4 DR. MAURO: And I don't think it

5 needs to.

6 CHAIR MUNN: No. It is just for

7 our use in seeing what we have done so far and

8 identifying how common these themes are that

9 we see recurring.

10 MR. KATZ: You may want to just

11 call all of these working papers, John, or

12 something like that. They are working papers

13 of the Board in a legal sense with respect to

14 the Federal Advisory Committee Act. So --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. Okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: So we are asking SC&A

17 to take these commonality issues into

18 consideration in future reviews, correct?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Thank you very

21 much, Steve. This is quite an exercise. It

22 was much appreciated and, I think, revealing. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 Have we heard from Mark yet? No?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I am on,

3 Wanda. I just caught the tail end of that

4 discussion. Forgive me.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good. We are so

6 pleased that you are here because several of

7 these things are going to have something to do

8 with you.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

10 CHAIR MUNN: And we want to make

11 sure now that you're here before we take a

12 quick ten-minute break, you have indicated

13 that your schedule is pretty tight today and

14 that you may not be on for the whole call. So

15 we have an issue with respect to our upcoming

16 meeting that I would like to take care of

17 while I know you are still here before we have

18 to look at other housekeeping items.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sure.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't check to see

21 if you were on copy. Paul indicates that he

22 cannot make a September 6th meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 MR. KATZ: Not 6th. That's a

2 Sunday.

3 CHAIR MUNN: I am sorry. October

4 6th meeting. And my memory was that we had

5 quite a time finding that particular date. 

6 But it would seem incumbent upon us to try our

7 best to find a date when both you and he can

8 be here if we're not going to use the 6th. 

9 He's not even going to be able to call in.

10 And that being the case --

11 MR. KATZ: What about October the

12 8th? Does that work?

13 CHAIR MUNN: It would for me, but

14 Paul said he's --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am out that

16 whole week.

17 CHAIR MUNN: -- out the whole

18 week.

19 MR. KATZ: I see. Sorry.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I can't call

21 in that whole week.

22 MR. KATZ: That's right. That's
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 what I recall.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So there has been

3 some discussion about other meetings taking

4 place the week of October 12th.

5 MR. KATZ: There are two meetings

6 that week. There's a meeting on the 13th and

7 a meeting on the 14th. And the 12th is

8 Columbus Day, so there will be no meeting that

9 day.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So is the 6000

11 meeting, then, agreed to be on the 14th?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, the 14th. What

13 about the 15th of October? I just remind

14 everyone that the next week is the Board

15 meeting. So that would be a full week in

16 Cincinnati a week before a full Board meeting.

17 CHAIR MUNN: A full week in Port

18 Jefferson the next week.

19 MR. KATZ: The following week,

20 right.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: The following

22 week?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: The following week is

3 Port Jefferson.

4 CHAIR MUNN: The 15th is about the

5 only day I could.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: When is the Board

7 meeting? I'm sorry. What dates again?

8 MR. KATZ: It's the 20th to the

9 22nd, I believe.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: So the 15th would be

12 the only option before that meeting, I think.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Is that a possible

14 for you, Mark?

15 MR. KATZ: October 15th.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. It

17 looks good right now. I'll be in the TBD-6000

18 meeting on the 14th, too.

19 CHAIR MUNN: And so would you,

20 Paul.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have got a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 different Board meeting on the 16th, 17th, and

2 18th.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Can you get there

5 from here?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other one is

7 in Chicago, so to go from here to there. I

8 can do it.

9 CHAIR MUNN: How is the 15th?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: We are getting yes

12 from Mike as a possible. Do you want to do

13 that, Paul?

14 MR. KATZ: He doesn't want to do

15 it, but --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can do it.

17 CHAIR MUNN: If that's a

18 reasonable thing to do.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And, Mark, you are

21 fairly sure you can be with us?

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then I will get

2 in the works to switch that to October 15th.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We have

4 got it. Thank you very much.

5 And now before we go on, let's

6 take a very quick five-minute comfort break

7 here. And then we will come back and start

8 our look at outstanding procedures if that

9 fits the needs of all here. We will start

10 with NIOSH and the Board's --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Our conference

12 call?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the conference

14 call.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I actually have

16 that.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think we have

18 that report ready to go. So let's take ten

19 minutes. We'll be back at 11:20 and very

20 quickly get going with the conference call

21 report.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 matter went off the record at

2 11:08 a.m. and went back on the

3 record at 11:20 a.m.)

4 MR. KATZ: We are back.

5 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. The

6 next item on our agenda is a report on the

7 technical conference call on OTIB-0029 that we

8 had asked to take place last month. And,

9 indeed, it did.

10 Steve has given us a report on

11 that. And, Steve, would you like to summarize

12 it for us, you or John, whoever wants to do

13 that?

14 MR. KATZ: Let me just check and

15 see. Mark, are you back with us?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am on.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great. Thanks.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I would prefer to

19 defer to John on issue 29 if that's the same

20 with him. John, are you there?

21 (No response.)

22 MR. MARSCHKE: No. Well, I have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 to do it then, I guess. On July 8th, we had

2 a conference call between NIOSH and SC&A. And

3 we talked about the issue 29 -- typo here

4 already -- or OTIB-0029, issues 3 and 5. 

5 Issue 3 had to do with the distribution,

6 blindly accepting the full distribution. Jim

7 Neton stated that that's not NIOSH policy,

8 they don't blindly accept the full

9 distribution. And I think he suggested that

10 they would make some changes to the OTIB to

11 indicate that. And, with that, SC&A concurred

12 and recommended issue 3, that the status

13 should be changed to in abeyance.

14 The other issue that was discussed

15 was issue 5. And what was discussed was the

16 Monday morning sampling or, in other words,

17 collecting a bio sample after the worker has

18 had two days off. Actually, if you look at

19 the set of issue 29 or OTIB-0029 issues, the

20 Monday morning issue is more related to issue

21 4 than it was issue 5.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I am trying to get
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 that. I'm trying to pull up the database

2 again, which has closed down on us, so that

3 you can refresh our memory on the actual

4 findings that were of issue. You have it up. 

5 Good.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I have it up here

7 from a PDF file that I have. I don't know how

8 to fix that so that you can read the whole

9 thing either, but I guess you can read most of

10 it.

11 Issue 5 is more to do with the

12 solubility type, what solubility type to

13 assign to uranium compounds. Issue 4 if you

14 read issue 4 was SC&A's concern about the

15 timing of the bio sample collection being

16 Monday morning after the worker has had two

17 days off.

18 Now, these two issues are

19 interrelated because, in particular, if you

20 have a solubility type F or a fast solubility,

21 after two days the uranium compound may have

22 significantly less per worker. And you would
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 not pick it up in the bio sample.

2 So even though in the

3 teleconference we have talked primarily about

4 the Monday morning issue, it is related. I

5 mean, these two issues are related.

6 DR. MAURO: Steve, this is John. 

7 I just joined you. I had to step away for a

8 second. I just wanted to let you know that

9 Joyce is looking at this. She was on

10 vacation. That's back about a week ago.

11 And I did e-mail her, and she did

12 e-mail me back that she would be looking at

13 the exchange of information that has taken

14 place to date related to this combined type

15 F,S,M link to the date when the bioassay

16 samples are taken and the response and

17 material that NIOSH has provided regarding

18 this matter. So she had indicated to me that

19 she would get -- she is now working on it.

20 I don't know if you already

21 mentioned that.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: No. We haven't
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 gotten that far. No. I was just filling in

2 for you, John. And you can feel free to take

3 over.

4 DR. MAURO: No, no, no. You

5 answered the question perfectly. I wanted to

6 let everybody know that we haven't ignored it. 

7 Joyce, who is our go-to person when it comes

8 to these kinds of matters, was on vacation in

9 Israel for about a month. Otherwise we would

10 have had something for you today.

11 DR. BEHLING: This is Hans, too,

12 Steve. I think the last time when we had this

13 discussion, I did make reference to another

14 TBD. It is the Harshaw TBD that's ORAUT

15 TKBS-0022.

16 I was also making a reference to

17 pages 23 and 24 for that TBD that is not only

18 just this issue of Friday versus Monday

19 morning. And I believe during that last

20 meeting, I read to you a passage from that

21 Harshaw TBD that acknowledges the fact, and I

22 quote here, a worker and one that could see a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 tenfold drop in uranium content between Friday

2 night and Monday morning, samples for those

3 exposed to soluble forms, but little drops for

4 those exposed to insoluble forms.

5 So that issue was, in fact, also

6 acknowledged in the Harshaw TBD.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you.

8 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim

9 Neton now. But Harshaw is an SEC is it not? 

10 I understand maybe you're trying to set a

11 precedence that this happened at Harshaw, but

12 this facility is really Y-12 that we're

13 talking about here.

14 DR. BEHLING: Yes. I realize

15 that, but it's the same problem.

16 DR. NETON: Right. But our

17 contention wasn't specifically Monday morning

18 sampling at Y-12. We went back and looked at

19 the database and determined that it was

20 smaller. It was certainly not the majority of

21 the samples. There was a smaller percentage

22 that were Monday morning.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 And I think the issue was on our

2 conference call that John Mauro recalled that

3 Joyce or someone had looked at that and said,

4 "Well, yes, there were samples on other days,

5 but they were always after two days off."

6 DR. BEHLING: Yes. I think I

7 mentioned that when I was part of the

8 discussion previously. I think the Monday

9 morning is really a coined term that has to be

10 looked at in the broader scale. You may have

11 to realize that Monday morning is more or less

12 a reference to a two-day hiatus.

13 DR. NETON: I understand that,

14 Hans, but the question was, we had never seen

15 that analysis --

16 DR. MAURO: Right. And we always

17 --

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- demonstrated

19 that. And that is what we are waiting on

20 Joyce to find.

21 DR. MAURO: Right. And that's in

22 our -- you know, we've got the ball on that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 We were supposed to provide you with that, and

2 we haven't.

3 DR. NETON: Okay.

4 DR. MAURO: In addition, you had

5 also made an important point where you had

6 indicated that the reality is, though, these

7 types of exposures are more episodic, not

8 continuous. And I think that was another

9 reason to buffer concerns.

10 So there are two issues at play

11 that would argue for maybe this is not as

12 important as represented by some of our

13 calculations. And that is one that, you know,

14 there wasn't always this two day hiatus, and

15 second, that the actual exposure scenarios

16 were, in fact, not continuous.

17 And right now I asked Joyce to

18 take a look at that.

19 DR. NETON: We will be happy to

20 look at it when the analysis comes our way.

21 DR. MAURO: Right, and this other

22 matter where we found -- I have to admit, I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 remember discussing it that we looked at it. 

2 And we're probably going to have to go back

3 and look at the data again.

4 This is one of those things where

5 we went into the records to take a look at

6 what is their two day hiatus, even though you

7 may have collected on Wednesday. I remember

8 we looked at it. I remember our answer was,

9 it looks like that.

10 This Monday is sort of a surrogate

11 for a two-day hiatus. But we owe you

12 something better than that, something that

13 shows, you know, we looked into this and here

14 is what the records show and the degree to

15 which that, in fact, did occur. So the ball

16 is in our court on that one.

17 CHAIR MUNN: John, were you on

18 when we changed our meeting date from the 6th

19 to the 15th -- our next meeting date?

20 DR. MAURO: No. So the next one

21 is October 15th, which is, what, linked up to

22 the GSI?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. That's good. 

3 That's back to back. And yes, that makes it

4 better for me.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have a feeling

6 that we will have a response from Joyce by

7 that time?

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: So we'll be able to

10 have that as an action item for our next

11 meeting?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, can I ask

15 about the first one, finding number 3 --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Go right ahead.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- on OTIB-0029? 

18 Steve, you mentioned that you are recommending

19 this be in abeyance. My understanding --

20 maybe I'm still confusing these terms, but in

21 abeyance is SC&A basically accepts the change. 

22 It just hasn't been made yet, right? Is that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 --

2 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: And what are you

4 accepting? I'm not following what you're

5 accepting. I noted -- I wasn't on that

6 conference call, but apparently, you know, Jim

7 acknowledged that it's not in the procedure. 

8 But what's not in the procedure? What exactly

9 is the protocol for finding the full

10 distribution or the 95th?

11 It sounds like that information

12 usually is in the site profiles at this point,

13 but what are you accepting as kind of --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: What we are

15 accepting -- and either Jim or John can jump

16 in here when I get it wrong, but let me try

17 and explain it. The way the procedure is now,

18 SC&A reads it. And to the way we read it, it

19 looks like they apply the full distribution

20 always.

21 What Jim Neton explained to us in

22 the teleconference and before, I think, even
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 was that no, that's not the way NIOSH really

2 applies that full distribution. They don't

3 really apply it all the time across the board.

4 Again, it comes down to

5 engineering judgment as to which of the

6 distributions should be applied depending upon

7 the type of worker who is being evaluated and

8 so on, so forth.

9 So we went with that approach to

10 assigning the distribution. And we just want

11 the procedure to be a little clearer that that

12 is, in fact, the approach that is being taken.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do you agree with

14 the fact that you can just say, "No, we're not

15 always going to do that, we'll use our

16 judgment?"

17 DR. MAURO: Well, unfortunately --

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I think

19 there might be a little more to this. I don't

20 know. Maybe not.

21 DR. MAURO: Well, there are other

22 procedures where we have encountered this. In
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 all the other cases, the way in which it was

2 described, whether it was a generic procedure,

3 I forget if it was OTIB-0060 -- there is a

4 generic one, and also -- and other

5 site-specific applications.

6 There is guidance basically

7 explaining that under certain circumstances,

8 you picked the 95th percentile. Sometimes you

9 picked the full distribution. And sometimes

10 you picked either the low end of the

11 distribution or their environmental

12 assignment.

13 Now, the reality is that is on a

14 case-by-case basis. And the rationale for

15 what's picked is something that needs to be

16 justified when it's applied in the dose

17 reconstruction.

18 So the way we see it -- and I

19 don't know if the Work Group agrees, but the

20 way we see it, as long as the procedure alerts

21 the dose reconstructor that he has an

22 obligation to make his case for why he picked
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 what he picked, then that has to, of course --

2 would stand scrutiny as the rationale for why

3 he did what he did in the dose reconstruction.

4 I don't know if we could ask more. 

5 I mean, if you think that there is more that

6 could go into the guidance in these procedures

7 on how you make that judgment, you are

8 correct. We did not explore that further.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think one

10 of the things we did talk about -- I don't

11 know if, again, it was with this or a

12 different one. Whenever engineering judgment

13 is used or judgment is made by one of the

14 NIOSH dose reconstructors, it really gets

15 reviewed internally by NIOSH. And it's not

16 just one person's opinion. It kind of goes up

17 the chain of command, I guess, at least one

18 step up.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Five reviews.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Five reviews. So

21 it is just not --

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Two at ORAU, three
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 at our place.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- so, it's just

3 not one guy's judgment call out there.

4 And then the other thing is that,

5 you know, if we don't -- if SC&A doesn't

6 really agree with the way these judgments are

7 being made, I think we picked that up, I

8 think, in our review of the dose

9 reconstructions. And so, again, I don't know

10 if we were talking about this particular issue

11 when we talked about that, but I think we did

12 bring that up at one of the Subcommittee

13 meetings.

14 DR. MAURO: I've got a question

15 for Jim. Maybe he could help us out a little

16 bit here. In the other procedures, where

17 they're more generic, is there some language

18 in there on what types of considerations go

19 into making these judgments?

20 DR. NETON: I think there is. I

21 can't bring it to mind right now, but there is

22 a procedure out there that sort of delineates
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 the type of work categories which could have

2 received higher exposures versus lesser

3 exposures, that sort of thing. And they kind

4 of broadly fall into what you would expect,

5 things like chemical operators and those types

6 of workers are in the higher exposed category

7 and then maybe administrative folks on the

8 lower end.

9 And then there's a middle area of

10 like maybe security guards and such. And

11 that's delineated. And I can't remember the

12 name of the TIB right now, but that is out

13 there.

14 But I do think that it's hard. 

15 You cannot specifically cast in concrete these

16 types of categories. You do need to use some

17 professional judgment at the end of the day

18 looking at a guy's work history, his file, you

19 know, what he was doing, that kind of thing.

20 And we are willing to say that in

21 general that the 50th percentile or the full

22 distribution would apply to unmonitored
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 workers. However, we need to be careful, have

2 caveats in there that it's quite possible that

3 a highly exposed worker's bioassay records may

4 have just been lost or something and we need

5 to be aware of that and deal with it on a

6 case-by-case basis.

7 DR. MAURO: One of the things that

8 brought this to our attention when we reviewed

9 it for Y-12 was I believe we looked into

10 "Okay. Do we have some workers here who at

11 some time period" -- this might have been

12 related more to Fernald, but, in any event,

13 one of the ways we check is do we have a

14 worker here who either has a title where we do

15 have data where if he didn't have data, he

16 would have been assigned a full distribution,

17 but we do have data. And it looks like he's

18 at the high end.

19 Similarly, do we have a person who

20 maybe for a time period he had no data? Then

21 you have to fill it in. This is what we did

22 on Fernald. And you have to fill it in.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 And if you follow the procedure,

2 you would have filled it in with the full

3 distribution. But then we have some data for

4 other time periods for this person where he

5 was above, well above the median. So what I'm

6 saying is I think the rationale of why we felt

7 that it was important that this be done was

8 given with those examples.

9 Certainly those examples almost

10 give some indication of how do you go about

11 making those judgments, for example, if you

12 are working with a person who has some data

13 but missing data in other years taking

14 advantage of not only his job title but also

15 what his other data show and what his patterns

16 have been.

17 The only reason I bring all of

18 this up is if the Work Group believes that, a

19 little bit more needs to be said, more than

20 just "Use your judgment, and there will be

21 some due process to make sure that judgment

22 seems reasonable." There is some language or
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 some ways of being a little bit more

2 prescriptive.

3 But right now as far as SC&A's

4 position is, is that we accept the fact that

5 the language in the procedure in this

6 particular OTIB to the effect that these

7 matters will be dealt with on a case-by-case

8 basis and the rationale for picking what was

9 picked is provided, we basically agree that

10 that does the trick. If the Work Group wants

11 more, you know, the kinds of things I just

12 described, you know, I could see that being

13 reasonable, too.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark. 

15 John, I mean, you said several buzz words in

16 both your responses which made me go back to

17 the dose reconstruction review process. But

18 one of them certainly is, even if this

19 procedure said, you know, something to the

20 effect that we understand there has got to be

21 some best judgment in these cases, but dose

22 reconstructors should be careful to clearly
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 document it in the case file.

2 I haven't seen that in past cases. 

3 So if that is something to be added, that

4 would be a good thing because my concern is

5 that it is this shell game thing again. We

6 say it's a case-by-case thing. We only are

7 reviewing a small percentage of cases, as you

8 know.

9 DR. MAURO: I agree.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: So then we get to

11 the cases. And I can name two, at least two,

12 for Y-12 where we came up with this issue

13 where it was more regarding neutron exposure. 

14 It wasn't bioassays.

15 DR. MAURO: I agree.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: It was a neutron

17 exposure. And they weren't in an identified

18 building.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then it ended

21 up sort of going away on those two cases

22 because we said, "Well, it wouldn't affect
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 this case." And then it gets lost. That's,

2 I guess, more my concern.

3 So all I'm saying, my initial

4 reaction was, how can it be in abeyance until

5 you see how NIOSH -- you know, at least ask

6 NIOSH, how are you going to modify this? Is

7 it just going to be judgment is going to be

8 used, you know, case-by-case basis, or is it

9 going to be a little more than that and the DR

10 constructor shall clearly outline the basis

11 for the judgment or whatever in each case

12 file?

13 That would make me feel more

14 comfortable, you know. I just didn't think

15 something belonged in abeyance until you saw

16 the exact language that was going to be

17 changed in the procedure.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Isn't that why it

19 is in abeyance?

20 DR. MAURO: I think that is the

21 definition of abeyance, though.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 DR. MAURO: And we agree in

2 principle, but, of course, we really can't

3 close the issue.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I wasn't

5 sure what principle we were agreeing to. So

6 I guess that's the discussion now maybe.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we are

9 agreeing with the idea that NIOSH is going to

10 reword that, at which point the rewording

11 comes back, does it not, for review?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: What we have

13 provided previously is we would say, "We will

14 revise this to do something. We haven't shown

15 you or tracked revision documents in order to

16 move it into abeyance."

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's how I

18 recall the process that Stu just described. 

19 You know, we revise it as follows. You know,

20 we don't need to wait for the official change

21 in the official TIB or procedure, you know. 

22 But we at least have a sense of the language.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was said in

2 the teleconference document, maybe it needs to

3 be more specific. But it says that NIOSH will

4 revise it to better describe the practice that

5 NIOSH uses for assigning distributions to

6 claimants.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. And I

8 just don't know what that practice is for

9 Y-12.

10 DR. NETON: Well, Mark, I guess I

11 don't want to jump in in the middle of this

12 process description, but I'm a little

13 uncomfortable with where you are heading with

14 this specificity because, if you recall, when

15 we do have a coworker internal model, in

16 particular, we go to great lengths to

17 demonstrate, before we can use it, that the

18 highest exposed workers were actually

19 monitored. So almost by definition we've got

20 a cadre of highest exposed workers who are in

21 this database.

22 Now we are presented with some
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 workers who, for whatever reason, have zero

2 monitoring data, I mean, none because if they

3 had any at all, we would use it to reconstruct

4 some type of a chronic exposure scenario.

5 In general, it is our opinion

6 that, by and large, most of those workers will

7 fall into the category of full distribution. 

8 That would be our default position. But we do

9 allow for the possibility 95th percentile

10 should be used on occasion if it appears that

11 the person fell through the cracks, so to

12 speak, was a more highly exposed worker that

13 has no evidence of any monitoring data.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, is that the

15 default? I am trying to remember Y-12 as

16 well, but --

17 DR. NETON: Fiftieth --

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: If they had no

19 monitoring, wouldn't you assign environmental

20 or no?

21 DR. NETON: No. I mean, if --

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: You wouldn't --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 okay, okay.

2 DR. NETON: That's who we used

3 this for, is the people who have no monitoring

4 data --

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

6 DR. NETON: -- that might have

7 been security guards or other type job

8 categories that frequented the process areas

9 or production areas but were certainly not in

10 there doing grinding, welding --

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. No. I

12 understand. I understand the reluctance to

13 have specificity. I'm just saying even what

14 John said seems to be going further than what

15 I read in the technical call notes. At least

16 the DR would document in the case file the

17 rationale for selecting the distribution he or

18 she did.

19 DR. NETON: Well, I'm not sure

20 that -- you know, I think that there is an

21 overarching rationale for that. And, like I

22 say, we are prepared to acknowledge that that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 full distribution should not be blindly

2 applied in all cases if it looks like there is

3 a reason not to use it. But we do believe

4 that the full distribution is a default where

5 we have demonstrated that the highest exposed

6 workers were monitored.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: So then can't you

8 say that, you know, the normal protocol would

9 be to use the full distribution? However, if

10 there is a case-specific reason --

11 DR. NETON: That's exactly what we

12 --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- we may use the

14 95th. And if so, it will be documented in the

15 case file why we use this?

16 DR. NETON: Exactly. That's what

17 we exactly --

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's different

19 than what I saw in the notes, but, I mean, I

20 think that document --

21 DR. NETON: I am totally

22 comfortable with what you just said.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, but

2 documenting in the case file is important to

3 me because then we have a way to track it when

4 we do review the cases.

5 DR. NETON: Right. I thought that

6 you were suggesting that every situation be

7 documented as to why it was the 50th or the

8 95th.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I mean, I'm

10 discussing this with you as we go. So I am

11 agreeable with that situation as well, you

12 know, Jim, that you just --

13 DR. NETON: But I would prefer not

14 to have to document every single instance.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: It would just be

16 exceptions?

17 DR. NETON: Yes.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine.

19 DR. NETON: Okay. We're okay. 

20 I'm okay with that.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that wording

22 if you have that down, then I would be more
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 comfortable with that, yes.

2 DR. NETON: Okay. Fine.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's in

4 abeyance until wording such as Jim just

5 described gets incorporated into the revision. 

6 Is that what is being said?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It moves to

8 abeyance, and will stay in abeyance until that

9 document has been revised.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Like the wording

11 that Jim said.

12 DR. MAURO: By the way, this does

13 establish an important precedent and guidance

14 for SC&A. What I mean by that is when we came

15 to our agreement that we think it should be in

16 abeyance, it was based more on the principle

17 that Jim described, rather than the actual

18 language.

19 In other words, we did not

20 establish the -- we didn't have such a high

21 bar. That is, once in concept, there was

22 agreement that yes, by making these types of
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 changes without actually saying what the words

2 are would resolve the issue. And, therefore,

3 it goes into abeyance.

4 It's important that we know that

5 we need a little bit more than that in terms

6 of maybe something along the lines of example

7 language that might be used. Maybe it's not

8 the final word, but certainly example language

9 as being, you know, which really holds it a

10 little bit stricter.

11 If that's what the Work Group

12 would like when we make our recommendations

13 regarding when something goes into abeyance,

14 that's fine. And we will proceed down that

15 path.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think,

17 really, what you're doing is, is you're

18 tasking NIOSH with -- when they give us a

19 response, which is a word change to the

20 procedure, it's going to require wording

21 changes to the procedures, then they should

22 include sample words --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 DR. MAURO: Right.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- so that we can

3 then agree with them or disagree with them --

4 DR. MAURO: Right. That is the

5 question I am asking the Work Group. If

6 that's how you would like us to -- you know,

7 when we go down this road on the next one,

8 should we be looking for sample words,

9 recognizing that they're draft words and they

10 could change but at least a shot at what the

11 words might look like?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think in some

13 cases, we have described the nature of the

14 change, where -- and this is a case where in

15 describing the nature of the change, I think

16 there has been a request for a little more

17 specificity to understand what the change

18 really entails. I think that is fine in

19 certain cases.

20 There are other cases -- and I

21 don't have a particular one in mind, where the

22 general nature of the change has been
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 agreeable to the Subcommittee. And the exact

2 wording may be less critical in some cases as

3 long as the concept is adhered to.

4 DR. MAURO: So we will work with

5 this on a case-by-case basis. That is, the

6 next time we are in a situation like this, we

7 will -- what we are saying is we are not

8 making any hard and fast rules.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think the nature

10 of the changes has always been described. 

11 This one may be a little more specific.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Are we clear what

14 we're doing, who has the action and what is

15 the action?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we have

17 an action to provide some sort of language

18 about how we're proposing to change the OTIB.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And the language

20 reflects what Jim described?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, in more

22 specificity, more specificity about what we're
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 proposing as to revision that reflects the

2 conversation that John and Jim had.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: It is not

4 necessarily the language that we say we're

5 going to insert. It's more the concept of

6 what the language will deal with.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And another

8 thing to consider here -- I don't know if we

9 need to get into this very far, but there are

10 a number of site-specific coworker sets that

11 have this finding. And so the question is,

12 are we going to make these series of page

13 changes on each one of these or is there

14 another way that we can write it, prepare a

15 document, some other document, we can put that

16 change in?

17 I don't know sitting here today. 

18 So that will be some aspect.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you want to be

20 consistent.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, some

22 aspect of what we need to prepare to set forth
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 what we're going to do.

2 DR. MAURO: This is one of those

3 commonalities.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, it is.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Our next

6 item on the agenda --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Can I ask a

8 question, Wanda?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So right now the

11 status of OTIB-0029-03 is in progress. And we

12 basically have agreed to leave that as in

13 progress until we see the wording from NIOSH?

14 CHAIR MUNN: That is my

15 understanding. And we have two action items

16 on, one the overall OTIB-0029. One is a

17 report back from Joyce Lipsztein after she has

18 had an opportunity to review that data. And

19 the other is language to be decided by NIOSH

20 giving a summary of what changes will occur in

21 the document when they do review.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 that on item 3, issue 3, that it goes into

2 abeyance until we see while NIOSH prepares the

3 exact language because we have defined or in

4 the discussion between Jim and Mark, Jim has

5 defined what the language will contain.

6 I believe, Mark, you will speak

7 for yourself, but you agreed to the nature of

8 the language, I believe.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Paul, I

10 agree. I'm not trying to bring this out

11 further. I mean, I agree. Now that we --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: In terms of how we

13 handle this when rewording is going to be

14 done, we put it in abeyance, as opposed to in

15 progress, do we not?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I think --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Trying to be

18 consistent --

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: The discussion

20 that Jim and I just had, if all other members

21 of the Subcommittee are happy with that, I'm

22 happy with that language. And, as far as I'm
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 concerned, that's documented on our

2 Subcommittee call here. And that's good

3 enough.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: That would show up

5 in the action that puts it in abeyance.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because if it's in

8 progress -- I mean, everything else where

9 NIOSH agrees to rewording, doesn't it go into

10 abeyance?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It has in the

12 past.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I agree. 

14 And I think this satisfies my request of draft

15 language. It doesn't have to be a written-out

16 document. We just outlined it on the meeting

17 right here.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that's fine.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it is

21 documented in the transcript.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Are we

2 happy with that?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay now, now I

4 have a question, does that mean that we do not

5 have action to provide that more specifically?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have an action

7 to revise based on that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. But we have

9 an action to provide the document but not to

10 provide back to the Subcommittee more specific

11 language. Okay. Great. Great.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: What I wrote in

13 here was NIOSH will change the procedure to

14 describe the practice that NIOSH uses for

15 assigning distributions to claimants and

16 document any change from the default. And

17 then I put in parentheses full distribution in

18 the case file. Is that what I heard, Mark,

19 you and Jim talking about?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: That sounds about

21 right to me, yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And that is in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 abeyance.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And then basically

3 in the Working Group directives box, I have

4 "Change status to in abeyance." So on the old

5 database, it has been changed to in abeyance.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully it will

7 transfer when the new database comes out.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just one comment. 

9 It sounds like NIOSH is going to change the

10 wording, and then, as a separate action,

11 something gets documented in the file. I

12 think what we want to say is that the wording

13 will include a requirement to document in the

14 file or something like that. It's part of the

15 wording that we're talking about, as opposed

16 to the action. I mean, the action obviously

17 follows the procedure, but this is a procedure

18 change, right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just want to

21 make sure that what we reflect here -- will

22 indicate the need to document or something. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 Does that sound okay, Mark?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Paul. I

3 agree.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. That

5 ties the documentation issue in with the

6 wording of the procedure. That's all I was

7 getting at.

8 CHAIR MUNN: We are good on that

9 item. The next item on our agenda list is

10 NIOSH checking the status of the new OTIB.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Now, this is

12 part of the discussion we just had, the

13 two-day-off, two-day-off for sampling

14 discussion. That was a draft.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: The OTIB that was

17 discussed at one of the meetings, OTIB-0068,

18 that kind of accounts or recounts our

19 investigation of that issue and our conclusion

20 that really it doesn't seem that the majority

21 of the samples were Monday samples. And so

22 since that is not the case, there is no
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 adjustment necessary.

2 And so since we arrived at that

3 conclusion, we said, "Well, what do we need

4 this document for because it doesn't say to do

5 anything?" It just says, "What we are doing

6 is okay."

7 So if the nature of that OTIB --

8 we're at the point now where we don't see a

9 reason to issue this OTIB. And so it stopped. 

10 And there is a draft sitting out there, but

11 our plan now is not to issue it because it

12 doesn't say -- it doesn't tell us to do

13 anything. All it does is it provides -- it's

14 sort of the summary of our investigation of

15 the issue of did the samples really occur on

16 Monday?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And separate from

18 that, Joyce hasn't analyzed that other --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Joyce has not

20 analyzed --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- information

22 which you will need to take a look at, in any
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 event.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: That may or may

4 not impact on this, right?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, if,

6 in fact, there is evidence that we haven't

7 found that this does, in fact, overwhelmingly

8 a two-day-off sampling regimen, despite

9 whatever day the sample is left, that would

10 cause us to reconsider our position.

11 CHAIR MUNN: So the wise thing for

12 us to do, it would appear, is to carry this

13 action item over into our next meeting, by

14 which time we hope to hear from Joyce. And

15 depending upon her response, this may become

16 a moot point next time.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: If it is not

18 already.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: If it is not

20 already.

21 CHAIR MUNN: If it is not already. 

22 We're just giving ourselves the extra --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 MR. HINNEFELD: But if you are

2 going to leave it on there, be sure you put

3 OTIB-0068 on there.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Because otherwise

6 I am going to lose track of --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I've got it. 

8 I have OTIB-0068. All right.

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Before we bust for

10 lunch, could we take up the IG-004 issue while

11 Jim is on the line?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Why not?

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I know Jim is

14 hanging around for that discussion.

15 CHAIR MUNN: We will --

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Sorry, Madam Chair.

17 CHAIR MUNN: No. That's quite all

18 right. That's quite all right. No reason why

19 we shouldn't address the IG-004 right now. Do

20 you want to take the lead on that, Jim?

21 DR. NETON: I wasn't planning on

22 it, but I could.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, tell me who

2 should.

3 DR. NETON: Well, Stu has got the

4 document in front of him. I don't happen to

5 have it with me right now.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then,

7 Stu, you have --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I sent it,

9 didn't I?

10 DR. NETON: Do we want to handle

11 this point by point? I mean, there were, I

12 think, seven issues that were raised. I guess

13 I could do it. Let me just pull up the

14 response.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can you tell me

16 what document you are referring to, Jim? Was

17 it --

18 DR. NETON: It was just

19 essentially labeled NIOSH Responses to SC&A's

20 Review of IG-004.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: And it was sent

22 recently or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 DR. NETON: Stu, I think, sent out

2 in the last day or two.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: 8-11 is the date.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, the date

6 on the document is the 10th, I think.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I sent it on the

8 11th, I believe.

9 CHAIR MUNN: I got it on the 12th.

10 DR. MAURO: The heading says

11 August 10th.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the heading

13 says August 10th. Have you got it yet because

14 I can send it to you?

15 DR. NETON: No. I mean, it's here

16 somewhere. Like I said, I got caught by

17 surprise here a little bit.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I am sorry. We

19 didn't mean to do that to you.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: I am sorry, Jim. I

21 should have warned you I was going to try to

22 push this one up a little bit.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 DR. NETON: No, no. I think that

2 is fine. I'm rushing here trying to find it. 

3 Stu, you sent that out on?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: On August 11th.

5 DR. NETON: I'm in the wrong

6 inbox. All right. I've got it. Sorry about

7 that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: It's quite all right.

9 DR. NETON: Okay. We didn't

10 specifically address finding number 1 because

11 that, according to Stu, had been closed by the

12 Subcommittee already. We started with finding

13 002 -- finding 02. And that was essentially

14 SC&A's objection that we seem to apply that

15 precedents that we cited were specifically

16 justifications for use of surrogate models in

17 dose reconstructions under EEOICPA.

18 And the gist of our response was

19 that it really wasn't our intent that would be

20 the implication there. I cited one of the

21 reasons for doing this was really just to sort

22 of outline the variety of approaches that have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 been used in other settings where surrogate

2 data has certainly been used. And that would

3 include epidemiologic studies, regulatory

4 decisions, using guidance documents as well as

5 at least one other compensation program.

6 That is really why they were

7 included. In fact, I would like to just

8 comment that the reason IG-004 was developed

9 was for that exact reason. None of these

10 precedents actually were completely compatible

11 or could be used under EEOICPA. And that is

12 why we wrote it, to set forth the conditions

13 under which surrogate data could be used. 

14 That is kind of it in a nutshell.

15 We can discuss it if anyone wants

16 to have any questions or comments.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Mark?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was waiting to

19 hear back from SC&A, actually, while I am

20 still reading through it.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. I guess the only

22 thing I would like to point out -- and
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 certainly, Hans, please jump in -- this

2 material, which you could almost consider to

3 be almost like a preamble to your position,

4 where you use epi work, argues for how this is

5 as an example.

6 I think we did provide a great

7 deal of evidence of why the analogy does not

8 apply. In other words, its use in epi work,

9 surrogate data has certain objectives tied to

10 looking at collective population consequences

11 of elevated exposures.

12 Our mission here is so much

13 different. And, as a result, we find that it

14 can almost be misleading. That is, by making

15 reference to epi and how surrogate data is

16 used there in our opinion has no applicability

17 here.

18 DR. NETON: Yes. I don't

19 necessarily disagree with you, John. I take

20 that comment to heart. But, really, under

21 that sort of logic, there was no example I

22 could provide that would be meaningful for
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 this purpose because this is a specific

2 program.

3 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that. 

4 And, by the way, I think that you did a good

5 job when you got to the point. And it's

6 almost as if that piece led us a bit astray in

7 terms of --

8 DR. NETON: You know, I did quote. 

9 In the end of the response was one of your

10 statements. It says, "assuming that 82 allows

11 for the use of other sites in dose

12 reconstruction, then the criteria set forth in

13 004 are technically sound." And I appreciate

14 that comment.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 DR. NETON: It's almost like the

17 argument is moot because we got past that. I

18 mean, I don't know what else to say other than

19 I understand your statement that it took these

20 examples to be precedence as to why it should

21 be used under a compensation program. It was

22 really written as examples of how surrogate
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 data have and continue to be used in

2 reconstructing exposures over a variety of

3 platforms, which are not exactly EEOICPA,

4 understood, but there are precedents set of

5 how it is used to help inform what exposure

6 conditions are like when you are lacking data. 

7 I think that is totally reasonable to include

8 in there.

9 DR. BEHLING: I just want to make

10 a comment since I was the person who wrote

11 most of this stuff in there. I sort of

12 perceived it as something akin to a judicial

13 system, where you look for previous incidents

14 where a case was heard in front of a judge or

15 in front of even the Supreme Court and that it

16 provides, therefore, a precedent that

17 justifies the use of that protocol in

18 subsequent cases. And that's how I perceived

19 it.

20 And, of course, I disagreed with

21 the likelihood that there are parallels

22 between the various methods that were cited as
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 instances where surrogate data was used and

2 its applicability here in the EEOICPA. And

3 that's the reason I kind of spent a lot of

4 time discrediting that relationship.

5 DR. NETON: You know, I don't know

6 where to go with that other than the fact that

7 we disagree as to how useful it is to cite

8 previous uses of surrogate data, not

9 necessarily to justify why it is useful under

10 the EEOICPA but that here are how surrogate

11 data can be used to come up with -- and then

12 004, of course, goes beyond that and says,

13 "Here is how you do it. Here is how you can

14 use surrogate data under this program."

15 I don't think -- and I don't want

16 to get into OGC's territory, but because

17 surrogate data has been used in epidemiologic

18 studies I don't think is a basis for why it is

19 useful under EEOICPA. I mean, there are other

20 reasons. I can't comment any more than that,

21 I guess.

22 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I mean, I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 don't want to push it either, as I've said. 

2 I just questioned why it was even introduced

3 because it really has no developments.

4 DR. NETON: Also because -- well,

5 everyone is aware of how it is used routinely

6 in these other applications. And it's not

7 something to pick out of a hat and say, "Well,

8 this is something brand new that has never

9 been done before. And we are making this up." 

10 I mean, it has been used in other platforms. 

11 That is the whole point.

12 And I totally agree with you that

13 EEOICPA is not an epidemiologic study. That

14 is not the point.

15 DR. MAURO: I would have actually

16 done something a little different. If I were

17 to put this in here, I would use this as

18 juxtaposition, saying there are places where

19 surrogate data has been used in certain

20 contexts.

21 But I would actually use this as

22 an example that this is -- we're not using it
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 this way, almost as if -- the only real

2 precedent we have -- this is where I think

3 surrogate data is such a special application

4 here and is of great importance to the extent

5 that it really goes to the heart of how we're

6 going to deal with SECs.

7 In the end, whether you accept the

8 surrogate data approach or not is one of the

9 most important issues that we are dealing

10 with. And I would almost say that we're doing

11 something that goes way beyond what is

12 required and what is used when it comes to epi

13 work. I would either remove it or use it as

14 a way to show that we're going way beyond

15 this.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't know

17 that I agree with that, John.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: I've worked on epi

20 studies and provided exposure assessment for

21 chemicals as well as radiation. And the use

22 of surrogate data in epidemiologic studies is
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 far more complex, far more complicated, far

2 more philosophical than what we are trying to

3 do here with the use of surrogate data in this

4 program.

5 And, as Jim says, this IG-004 is a

6 very high-tier document that provides general

7 guidance on the minimum requirements for use

8 of surrogate data in this program under the

9 regulation that we operate. So I guess we can

10 agree to disagree that --

11 DR. MAURO: We will agree to

12 disagree on that one.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Whether or not the

14 reference of epidemiologic use of surrogate

15 data is appropriate or not, we think it adds

16 some context here. And we would welcome

17 whatever Board recommendation comes forward on

18 this point.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it is worth

20 noting perhaps that precedents that are

21 established in legal cases have to do with

22 similar but not necessarily repeatable
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 circumstances. If you are dealing with

2 radiation, you have very specific repeatable

3 circumstances. If you have given types of

4 radiation and given types of exposures, then

5 you will get similar results. And that is a

6 different kind of approach to a precedent than

7 what one thinks of when one thinks of

8 precedents that are established in the outside

9 world.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me make one more

11 point here on this. In the world of

12 industrial hygiene, chemical exposure

13 measurements and monitoring information is

14 very much -- there's a paucity of that. 

15 There's a small amount of that, if you will,

16 as compared relatively to the monitoring

17 information, albeit flawed as it is, that we

18 have for radiation exposures.

19 And so when we put together an

20 epidemiologic study that deals with chemical

21 exposures, I assure you the use of surrogate

22 information is far more almost flexible, I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 guess, in its use than it is in this program. 

2 It's more defined in this program, I think.

3 DR. MAURO: I agree. I mean,

4 that's the point I'm making.

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes. That is

6 exactly the point. I tried to identify the

7 principal justification for surrogate data,

8 which in many epidemiologic studies, it seemed

9 to demonstrate a dose-response relationship

10 without necessarily defining the accuracy.

11 And I pointed out, for instance,

12 the issue of the BEIR reports regarding the

13 cancer risk coefficients, which have been

14 repeatedly revised. But they always show a

15 positive dose-response relationship, which

16 obviously is the key issue for defining

17 something as a carcinogen.

18 And the accuracy by which the

19 dose-response relationship is defined varies

20 over time. And it is almost immaterial. I

21 think that was the whole point in dealing with

22 it. But I think we can come to some
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 understanding that perhaps this is an issue

2 that really has very little relevance here.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. Maybe that is

4 the answer.

5 DR. NETON: I would agree.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. Maybe we are

7 arguing something that is of marginal

8 significance or importance to this particular

9 procedure. Yes. Maybe we should just let

10 this one go because it doesn't really change

11 anything. I think we've got a good procedure

12 here.

13 DR. NETON: That is my opinion. I

14 think we are looking at it in two different

15 ways. And it doesn't really change the

16 substance of what is in that document itself.

17 CHAIR MUNN: No. And this is not

18 a good place for academic discussion.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. That is what we

20 are doing.

21 DR. NETON: Actually, do you want

22 to move on to the next one or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 MR. MARSCHKE: What do we want to

2 do with the status? Do you just want to wait

3 until SC&A responds formally?

4 DR. BEHLING: No. I think we

5 should just close this out.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we have

7 the response and --

8 DR. MAURO: It doesn't really have

9 direct applicability to the protocol. I mean,

10 I am ready to let it go if the Work Group is

11 willing to let it go.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no

13 objection to the reference to the epi studies

14 as they have done it because it is clear that

15 they are not using the same methodology in

16 this program, number one. Number two, I think

17 conceptually it does help readers recognize

18 that sort of the concept of surrogate data is

19 not something brand new.

20 It's used in other kind of

21 contexts in other appropriate ways. So I

22 think it is just a framework.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 DR. NETON: That's exactly my --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not like a

3 legal precedent that we're doing it exactly

4 the way that it's done in epidemiology,

5 clearly very different. But it provides sort

6 of an argument that the general idea of using

7 surrogate information is not something we have

8 pulled out of thin air.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, this is

10 Mark. This might be a different discussion if

11 we were arguing about the regulation, but that

12 is a moot point.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is in the

15 regulation. So I agree it should be closed,

16 yes.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. It's closed.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It is closed.

19 DR. NETON: Then hearing that I

20 will move on to finding 003, which starts off

21 by saying, "SC&A, we appreciate this belief

22 that IG-004 is technically sound." However,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 they muse a little bit about how difficult

2 this might be to implement because of lack of

3 information, first term unavailability, that

4 sort of thing.

5 And we do agree that there are

6 going to be possible difficulties in

7 implementing the procedure. However, it is

8 our opinion that all of these difficulties

9 that are overcome are best judged by

10 evaluating the specific procedures that are

11 developed using this guidance.

12 In other words, we totally agree

13 that this is not going to be easy in all

14 cases, but, again, the site-specific

15 procedures are really what needs to be looked

16 at in that regard. Nothing we could really

17 change in the document itself but this

18 finding.

19 DR. MAURO: One area where we

20 thought it might be important to point out to

21 the Work Group, to the Subcommittee, is there

22 is a little discontinuity between the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 criteria, draft criteria, developed by the

2 Work Group, the other Board Work Group,

3 dealing with the subject. That has to do with

4 the time period.

5 I believe the write-up in OCAS-004

6 doesn't have a requirement that the data that

7 you are using for a surrogate be the data that

8 is of the same time period. And I think it's

9 worth discussing that a little bit because

10 that is the one place where there is a

11 difference between at least the opinion of the

12 Work Group for Surrogate Data and OCAS-004. 

13 That is the level of importance that is given

14 to the time period that the data are acquired. 

15 That might be something that is worth

16 discussing a little bit here.

17 DR. NETON: John, yes. I forgot

18 that was one of the comments in that finding. 

19 Thanks for bringing that up.

20 And we did look at that. At the

21 end of the day, our opinion is that what the

22 Board's issuing is a draft document right now. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 And so we didn't feel it was appropriate at

2 this point to start commenting on how our

3 procedure agrees or disagrees with a Board's

4 draft position document.

5 I am not sure how that can be

6 handled. And, again, you're probably right. 

7 That needs to be discussed maybe among the

8 members of the Subcommittee, how they want to

9 deal with that.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or maybe, Jim, we

11 may have to wait for the -- I mean, we do have

12 the Surrogate Worker Work Group. They have to

13 wait for us. I'm on that Work Group as well,

14 but we may have to finalize that draft before

15 --

16 DR. NETON: I was just, you know,

17 do we want to leave this finding open until

18 the Board comes to a consensus or do we just

19 open it at such time when it's -- I don't

20 know.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I don't

22 know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or defer it.

2 DR. NETON: That's a good --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Transfer it, you

4 mean?

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Transfer it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that is a

7 thought.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: I always like to

9 delegate.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That is a

11 delightful --

12 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a feel-good

13 situation for me.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That is a delightful

15 idea. Is that the feeling of the Board, of

16 the Subcommittee, that transferring item 3 is

17 appropriate?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: It certainly has

19 got to be part of the discussion of the

20 Surrogate Data Work Group.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I guess we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 don't want to both be working on that.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. It is

3 probably a good idea.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I will transfer

5 IG-004-03 to the Surrogate Data Work Group

6 with the proper language accordingly. I will

7 send the draft of that letter to all of you

8 before it goes out.

9 Okay. Let's move to item 4.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Did we lose you,

11 Jim?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Hello?

13 DR. NETON: Sorry. I was on mute. 

14 I was talking to the air.

15 (Laughter.)

16 DR. NETON: Finding 004

17 specifically talks about how implementation

18 guide 004 was weighted very heavily towards

19 Atomic Weapons Employer facilities. It went

20 further even to suggest that if that were the

21 case, that it was only an AWE-specific

22 document that maybe it could be superseded or
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 has been superseded by TBD-6000 and 6001,

2 absolutely correct that the document

3 emphasizes the use of surrogate data at AWE

4 facilities.

5 In fact, most of our applications,

6 almost all that I can think of, are going to

7 be, surrogate data are going to be, tied to

8 AWE facilities. And so that's why the

9 examples, at least, were heavily towards that

10 type of operation.

11 I am not sure that there was not

12 going to be some instance that pops up for a

13 DOE facility. So we went back and looked at

14 the criteria that are in the sections.

15 And the general guidance provided

16 really is equally applicable to DOE

17 facilities; that is, you know, the temporal

18 nature of the material, similar processes and

19 such. So we feel that it is appropriate to

20 leave it open to cover both AWE and DOE

21 facilities, although the examples are slanted

22 towards AWEs.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 In regards to the TBD-6000/6001

2 issue, we think it is sort of the opposite of

3 how SC&A has viewed this. IG-004 is the

4 overarching higher tier document in our

5 process. The implementation guides in general

6 are that. And they inform floor requirements

7 or minimum requirements for procedures and

8 technical information bulletins, those types

9 of documents.

10 So we don't think it supersedes

11 TBD-6000/6001. I've documented that those

12 documents need to be in conformance with. In

13 fact, we acknowledge their suggestion that

14 those documents should be reviewed against

15 IG-004. I think that is true.

16 Regarding the suggestion that we

17 cross-reference 6000 in IG-004, I think we

18 would prefer to leave that out of there and

19 have TBD-6000 reference IG-004 as an

20 implementing document.

21 I am not sure what the end result

22 of this is other than I think we're okay with
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 the way it is set right now. And we do agree

2 that 6000/6001 should be reviewed against

3 those criteria in IG-004.

4 DR. MAURO: Jim, let me give you

5 another way we were looking at it. And that

6 is a parallel structure. The IG-004 with the

7 richness it has as it relates to AWE is very

8 useful.

9 And with the examples, what I had

10 in mind when I was reading this, something

11 similar to that, where there are other places

12 where surrogate data might have applicability

13 in non-AWEs immediately comes to mind where we

14 in the past have -- just like you have done

15 with AWEs. We know what the issues are. And

16 you've engaged them here in 004.

17 Engaging some of those issues in

18 non-AWE facilities was something that I guess

19 I was expecting to see only because it was

20 there for AWEs. For example, we know

21 neutron-photon ratios are a big deal. We know

22 that the chemical form of the particular
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 material, especially things like high-fired,

2 are important.

3 We know that tritides -- and when

4 you use the hafnium tritide versus another --

5 in other words, what I am getting at, there is

6 a whole litany of places where you might draw

7 upon surrogate data. Radon, another example,

8 where, just like you created a richness for

9 AWEs, in theory, you could create a richness

10 for others that would create a parallel

11 structure.

12 It's almost as if, once you went

13 down the road to get into AWEs, it almost was

14 incumbent upon you to do the same thing for

15 non-AWEs.

16 DR. NETON: John, I don't know

17 that most of the examples you cited are really

18 what I would consider surrogate data; that is,

19 data from one facility applied to another. 

20 You are talking about surrogate neutron

21 exposures, but that is based on the monitoring

22 data from that specific facility.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 Solubility material, the same

2 thing. You have Super S or you have tritides. 

3 Those are data that are at that exact

4 facility. We're not forwarding information

5 from one site to another.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Let me ask you

7 a question. Do you think --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Jim?

9 DR. NETON: Yes?

10 DR. MAURO: -- it's plausible to

11 use neutron-photon data from one facility and

12 apply it to others? Because we have.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We might want to

14 do that, Jim.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Jim.

16 DR. NETON: I am not saying that's

17 not possible, but --

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Jim, let me make a

19 comment here. This is Larry. The definition

20 of surrogate data is at hand right now. And

21 IG-004, I believe, talks about the use of

22 surrogate data from a similar operation at a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 similar facility. That's what we focus on.

2 Surrogate data could also be

3 considered coworker models that are used to

4 assign missing unmonitored dose. So, you

5 know, we need to be careful when we talk about

6 surrogate data.

7 I don't see IG-004 as being

8 dedicated only to AWE operations. IG-004 is

9 a high-tier document that we would use in the

10 situation where we were putting the use of

11 surrogate data in dose reconstructions for DOE

12 folks.

13 So, you know, we're not going to

14 change this. It is a higher-tier document;

15 the 6000, 6001 or lower-tier documents. We

16 think that IG-004 accommodates all the covered

17 facilities in this program.

18 DR. NETON: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I tend to agree

20 with that.

21 DR. NETON: I agree with that. 

22 Somewhere in here I did define, and I can't
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 find exactly where, that for purposes of

2 IG-004, surrogate data is data used from one

3 facility used in another facility. I mean,

4 that was the narrow focus we took, although

5 Larry is absolutely right. Surrogate data

6 could be a lot of different things.

7 DR. MAURO: Jim, let me --

8 DR. NETON: I'm getting back. 

9 Just one more minute. Getting back to the

10 neutron-photon thing, you know, Stu, I think,

11 was chiming in. And he's right. I was

12 thinking of neutron-photon ratios at a

13 specific facility. There are situations,

14 though, where we could port a neutron-photon

15 ratio for a similar reactor from one facility

16 to another. That is true.

17 I wasn't trying to imply that we

18 wouldn't be using -- as a matter of fact, I

19 would encourage that we use -- not encourage

20 but support the use of surrogate data that

21 existed in filling gaps at DOE facilities. 

22 But most of the examples you were citing, what
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 I was trying to say is, were not what I would

2 consider surrogate data with the possible

3 exception of the neutron-photon ratios.

4 DR. BEHLING: Jim, while we are

5 talking about the definition -- and I am

6 curious because I am kind of working on

7 something that has raised some questions in my

8 mind regarding the definition of surrogate

9 data. And let me explain.

10 Suppose you have a facility for

11 which you have data for one year and the

12 period of concern for dose reconstruction may

13 span 11 years so that, in essence, in this

14 particular case, they used data that was

15 accumulated for a one-year period, the

16 first-year period of an 11-year period for

17 which dose reconstruction would have to be

18 done.

19 And it is obviously not an issue

20 of transferring information from one facility

21 to another but basically transferring

22 information over time. Would you consider
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 that an example of surrogate data when you

2 take one year's data and say, "This applies to

3 all full 11 years?"

4 DR. NETON: Under the approach we

5 have adopted in IG-004, I would say that is

6 not surrogate data. That is data from that

7 specific facility.

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: Jim, I'm not arguing

10 with you.

11 DR. NETON: It's not surrogate

12 data. I can't argue that. But what I am

13 saying is for purposes -- the issue really

14 arose if you remember way back in Iowa. Think

15 about those days.

16 We used I think it was Pantex data

17 to reconstruct exposures at Iowa. That's when

18 the issue really came to a head early on, was

19 that you're using data from another facility. 

20 And people started looking in the regulation

21 and stuff. Is that really allowed? Can you

22 take data form one facility and apply it to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 another?

2 No one really, in my opinion, has

3 challenged the use of dose reconstruction

4 using data within the facilities, but I think

5 even the regulation or the Act that says

6 something about using data at such facility --

7 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John. I

8 agree with you completely. When we reviewed

9 IG-004, we reviewed it on the presumption that

10 the scope of this was for data from one

11 facility being applied to another facility. 

12 By no means did we review it from the point of

13 view of different time periods or within a

14 facility.

15 DR. NETON: And Hans raised a good

16 point. I mean, those techniques are also

17 used.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 DR. NETON: But they come under a

20 different sort of size area.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Hans, I would like

22 to answer your question. Jim has answered it
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 in the specific sense of IG-004. In a broad

2 sense of the definition of surrogate data, the

3 extrapolation of information for a site across

4 time at that site is also surrogate data.

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And I wish to

6 --

7 MR. ELLIOTT: And the use of that

8 kind of information in an epidemiologic study,

9 that is surrogate data.

10 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And the thing

11 that raises my concern a little bit is that

12 for this particular instance that I am

13 referring to, with one year's worth of data

14 extrapolated over 11 years, it's that there's

15 also information that suggests there were some

16 major, major changes, both in source material

17 and facility designs and practices.

18 So, in essence, you are really

19 extrapolating over time, during which many,

20 many changes occurred. And you are

21 essentially using data that you have to regard

22 as surrogate data from my point of view.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 MR. ELLIOTT: I would agree.

2 DR. NETON: Well, I think we refer

3 to data by that definition. And all of the

4 caveats need to be applied to that data that

5 you have to ensure that these certain criteria

6 are met, but that is not the subject of this

7 document.

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: I mean, we can address

10 that later and under different documents, I

11 suppose, but I looked at my footnote here. 

12 And now there is a footnote that says,

13 "Coworkers are considered to be workers at a

14 site, job description, radiation." No. 

15 That's not it either.

16 Oh, "Traditionally the term

17 'surrogate data' refers to any of the data

18 that is not a direct measure of the

19 individual's worker exposure conditions." I

20 mean, that could be, for example, general area

21 samples, coworker models, et cetera.

22 "In this document, however,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 surrogate data is only considered in the

2 context of use of data from another facility." 

3 That is footnote 3.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. No. I

5 wasn't sure. I'm glad to hear that. So this

6 --

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me pick up an

8 example for you, John, real quick. This goes

9 to IG-004 and our use of modeling for chest

10 X-rays in the early time periods that is used

11 at DOE sites. It's used at AWE sites, I

12 think. So that is a surrogate data use that

13 IG-004 has to set a minimum floor requirement

14 for, and specifically it goes to the time era

15 of when certain types of radiographic tools

16 were used.

17 DR. NETON: That is a good

18 example, Larry. That is a use of surrogate

19 data that is not in here, by the way, at AWEs

20 and DOE facilities. We often use that one

21 procedure we have to reconstruct medical

22 X-rays based on the known operational
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 characteristics of X-radiographic equipment

2 over a certain time period.

3 DR. MAURO: Right. And we

4 reviewed that, and we found very favorably,

5 especially the way in which you tiered it.

6 DR. NETON: I mean, that is

7 something that could be added to this to give

8 an example of another. But that is something

9 that I didn't put in because it really hasn't

10 been challenged. It has already been

11 reviewed. It's been reviewed favorably. But

12 it is an example of surrogate data in my

13 opinion for IG-004 specifically.

14 Back to the original finding, I

15 mean, we understand it would be nice to have

16 DOE-specific examples in there, but, in

17 reality, again, the proof is going to end up

18 coming out in the documents that use them, how

19 well they follow guidance that is provided

20 here; for example, neutron-photon ratios.

21 Let's take that example. The same

22 requirements would apply that are in here,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 such as the temporal nature of the material,

2 the process similarities. You know, that is

3 what we are trying to spell out here. So if

4 you are going to use neutron/photon ratios at

5 a different facility, you've got to look at

6 the requirements in IG-004 and say, "I have

7 met them" or "I have not met them."

8 DR. MAURO: Jim, ironically this

9 issue would not have even come up if there

10 wasn't so much material here giving additional

11 guidance as applies to AWEs. Once I saw that,

12 it immediately came to mind, gee, we could use

13 something like this for non-AWE.

14 DR. NETON: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: If it wasn't here, I

16 don't think I would have -- you know, this is

17 one of the comments I came up with.

18 DR. NETON: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: I wouldn't have even

20 brought it up.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, yes.

22 DR. MAURO: But once you did it, I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 said, "This is good stuff." I would sure like

2 to keep --

3 DR. NETON: This is the one thing

4 I would like to bring up. You know, all of

5 these are labeled findings, which in my

6 previous life means it is a deficiency of some

7 nature in the document itself.

8 And I'm not sure that it is a real

9 deficiency. These are maybe, you know, nice

10 to have supplemental pieces of information to

11 go in there, but it doesn't really detract

12 from what the document says. Flip out all of

13 the examples, and you still have the core of

14 the guidance which is there.

15 DR. MAURO: I absolutely agree

16 with that.

17 DR. NETON: And so I guess my

18 response here is that we agree, and we might

19 change it down the line in the next rev or

20 something, but at this point we are happy to

21 leave it the way it is.

22 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean, I would
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 like to. I mean, this seems to me that it --

2 does the Work Group think that examples for

3 non-AWEs would enrich this and make for a

4 better guidance, the way you have done for

5 AWEs?

6 I mean, I guess my reaction was I

7 thought it would. But it certainly is not

8 something that's essential. So SC&A's

9 position is that would add value, just like it

10 did for the AWEs.

11 Whether or not that is cream on

12 the cake, so to speak, or something that

13 really needs to be put here is another

14 question because, you know, when it is all

15 said and done, where the rubber meets the road

16 is that when a person is about to use it, is

17 there additional guidance that should be here?

18 The example you started to make

19 with neutron and photon ratios, is that

20 something that one would expect this document

21 to contain or do we really leave that to the

22 more lower-tier documents?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 DR. NETON: That would be my

2 preference. I mean, if you look at the

3 guidance, it talks about you need to know the

4 source term quantities. You need to know

5 facility processes, the description of what

6 happened, temporal considerations, and the

7 quality of the data.

8 I mean, those are all meat and

9 potatoes issues that one could hold up against

10 any example or any specific procedure and say

11 that they followed that.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim?

13 DR. NETON: Yes?

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark

15 Griffon. As a member of the Subcommittee, I

16 would say I agree with your position that

17 these other examples might be nice but not

18 necessary.

19 So I would say that we should

20 close this finding. And if you do a future

21 revision, maybe you add it in. But I don't

22 think, you know, they're needed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have adequate

2 agreement to close it?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think I agree

4 with that because the finding is not really

5 that they have criteria that don't apply to

6 the other facilities. It's just that they

7 haven't used examples of the other facilities.

8 The actual criteria do apply to

9 both. So in that regard, the document is

10 suitable. Yes, it probably would have been

11 nice to have some other examples, but maybe

12 next revision.

13 I think the document itself is

14 adequate. I would say close it.

15 MEMBER GIBSON: I think examples

16 is a bad idea. I mean, this subject is

17 controversial enough. I mean, using an X-ray

18 machine, I could see that because it is going

19 to put out the same, whether it is in this

20 room or in Michigan.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: But when we start
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 trying to describe two similar buildings, two

2 similar processes, it just stirs controversy. 

3 I mean, it is with me personally, and it seems

4 to apply to a lot of other people. So I don't

5 see that examples would help.

6 CHAIR MUNN: We will close this

7 based on the fact that by agreement, the

8 current procedure is adequate. Examples are

9 not required. Excellent.

10 We move on to finding 5.

11 DR. NETON: Finding 5 is an easy

12 one. It says, "SC&A is in agreement with the

13 provisions of section 3.6 and 3.7." And we

14 agree with that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: We have no response

17 required is what we have said.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I move we close

19 it.

20 CHAIR MUNN: John?

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: Finding 006 is similar
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 to finding 004 in that SC&A felt that the

2 addition of more examples covering things like

3 off-normal conditions and accidents and such

4 benefit the document. And, again, our

5 position was that we understand the benefits

6 of more specificity. And we consider it for

7 future revisions of the document. But take

8 this as a suggestion for improvement, as

9 opposed to a finding of a deficiency with the

10 approaches described.

11 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that. 

12 For the same reason we closed 4, in my opinion

13 we could close 6.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Using essentially the

15 same words?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem with it?

19 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, any comment?

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: No.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We are closing
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 6. Our final finding is number 7?

2 DR. NETON: Finding 7 is similar

3 to another issue that we talked about that

4 there is a discrepancy between the Board's

5 draft document and this document, specifically

6 related to the extrapolation of data to other

7 time periods.

8 Again, it is similar that the

9 draft -- don't feel it's appropriate to

10 comment on the differences between a draft

11 document by the Board and our document.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I suggest we

13 transfer this one like we did the other one. 

14 That's similar.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Transfer it?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Surrogate Data

17 Work Group.

18 CHAIR MUNN: If I understand where

19 you would want --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is almost the

21 same issue, isn't it?

22 DR. MAURO: It is the same issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Does this

2 Subcommittee desire that we do so?

3 MR. KATZ: Mark, is that good with

4 you?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I am all

6 set on that.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: So transfer.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's for 03

9 and 07.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: IG-004, the seven

11 issues were the findings of IG-004, we have

12 five of them closed and two of them

13 transferred to the Surrogate Data Work Group.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We will do

15 that. All right. I think the hour has come

16 for us to break for lunch. Mark, are you

17 going to be with us when we come back or not?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I will be but

19 probably only for a short period of time after

20 lunch.

21 CHAIR MUNN: We will be back at

22 2:00 o'clock.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 2:00? 

2 You are not coming back until 2:00?

3 CHAIR MUNN: No.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then I won't be,

5 but I will probably join like an hour after

6 that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right? So

9 like 3:00 or 3:15, I should be back on.

10 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

11 MR. KATZ: Quarter to 2:00.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I will do

13 my best to get on.

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Good. 

15 Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

17 matter went off the record at

18 12:44 p.m. and resumed at 1:47

19 p.m.)

20

21

22
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1

2
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 1:47 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health

5 Procedures Subcommittee. We are just

6 rejoining after a lunch break.

7 Mark, do we have you with us? 

8 Mark Griffon?

9 CHAIR MUNN: He indicated he might

10 not be here.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. I know. He was

12 uncertain about that.

13 CHAIR MUNN: We have completed

14 some of our items ahead of schedule. We need

15 to go back now on our agenda to the review

16 procedures and change item. Steve, are you

17 going to do that or is John going to?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I think John is

19 actually the one who reviewed the procedure. 

20 I think I can give you some background as to

21 what this is all about. This is about the

22 procedure that SC&A uses to review the NIOSH
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 procedures.

2 And one of our comments, one of

3 the findings that we made had to do with not

4 being sufficient references in the NIOSH

5 procedures. And it came from our checklist

6 that we have here showing here item 1.3, the

7 part that's in parentheses that -- some of our

8 reviewers take this quite literally -- does

9 not reference other sources that are needed

10 for additional data.

11 Some of our reviewers took that

12 quite literally. And whenever they saw a

13 reference to another document or data, they

14 wanted the data to be included in the

15 procedure.

16 What we were tasked to do by -- I

17 guess it was in the June meeting -- was to go

18 back and look at our procedure and see if we

19 could take this out from here and see whether

20 or not anything else needed to be changed in

21 this procedure.

22 And I believe John Mauro has
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 performed that review. And he's under the

2 impression that this needs to be changed and

3 can be changed, but other than that, it looks

4 like to be still a pretty good procedure.

5 DR. MAURO: Beyond that, I think

6 we have to get rid of that criteria and I

7 guess 1.3, the checklist, and anything, text,

8 that goes toward that. Other than that, when

9 I read through the procedure, it seemed like

10 everything else held up pretty well

11 considering how long that procedure has been

12 in place, although something did come up

13 during this meeting earlier.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. This meeting

15 earlier, we did talk this morning about

16 something that's warranted to basically

17 include a change in our procedure to check for

18 commonalities.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: We want to --

21 again, this procedure, I think, still stands

22 in a state of flux. I also noticed when I was
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 looking at this procedure that there is a big

2 section 2 in this procedure which was geared

3 towards the first set of reviews, which in a

4 generic procedure such as this may not be

5 needed any longer.

6 So I think this is still on our

7 plate to go through this procedure and make --

8 bring it up to date.

9 DR. MAURO: Perhaps what we should

10 do is if the Subcommittee would like to task

11 us, we could just mark up this procedure and

12 submit it to the Subcommittee to see how the

13 changes are that we would suggest. Right now

14 I was just going to go with deleting that 1.3,

15 and the associated text. Now I hear that we

16 are certain that we should add in this

17 commonality piece.

18 And, Steve, if you have some

19 thoughts regarding this other section 2, maybe

20 we could just go ahead and do that and get

21 that in to the Subcommittee so they can take

22 a look at it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 CHAIR MUNN: That would seem to be

2 a logical course of action. Paul, do you have

3 any disagreement with that?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That's fine. 

5 What's the title of this procedure that you

6 have up there, Steve?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: This is, the title

8 of it is "A Protocol for the Review of

9 Procedures and Methods Employed by NIOSH for

10 Dose Reconstruction." This is rev 2. And it

11 was issued in September 2004.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We have had it on the

13 books for a long time.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it has been on

15 the books. Yes. It has been on the books for

16 a substantially long time.

17 DR. MAURO: We still use that

18 checklist.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: We still use the

20 checklist.

21 DR. MAURO: It may be time to

22 refresh it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the checklist

2 is pretty thorough.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: And it seems to have

5 served us well.

6 DR. MAURO: I would agree.

7 CHAIR MUNN: It wouldn't hurt to

8 review it, but I don't believe this

9 Subcommittee has heard any complaints about

10 the thoroughness or other things that needed

11 to be changed other than 1.3.

12 Was there an issue with 1.5 or

13 not? Was that just something in my note?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't recall.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem that

16 might be there? But, John, you and Steve are

17 aware now of the two items that the

18 Subcommittee has called to your attention.

19 And if there are others that you

20 encounter in your cursory review, if you would

21 be good enough to mark the existing document

22 and get that markup to the Subcommittee so
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 that we can comment or get this item off our

2 list next time, it would be very helpful.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. That should be

4 easy enough to do.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Sure.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. You will

7 have that action item forwarded to you.

8 The next item on our agenda was

9 the transferring of OTIB-0058 to the Rocky

10 Flats Work Group. We covered that by review

11 of the letter this morning. That will go

12 forward later. You will see the final letter

13 before it goes.

14 We have taken care of the IG-004

15 findings. So we are now down to the NIOSH

16 action item to provide response to

17 OTIB-0035-01 and 152.

18 I am going to try one more time to

19 get our new database up on my screen. Does

20 everyone who has to have it find themselves in

21 a position to utilize the screen or do we need

22 to rely on Steve's old entry to do that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 We're typing away here, folks. 

2 Hold on just a moment.

3 So far, so good. Okay. Is it

4 working for you, Paul?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm looking at

6 something else. I'm fine.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. You are good. 

8 Okay. It's in the system. Shall we rely on

9 Steve? We may have to rely on Steve?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is our action

11 item 35-01.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: 35-01 I think is

14 the same finding that was the subject of the

15 conversation between John Mauro and Jim Neton

16 that we talked about this morning, which is

17 there should be some allowance to use

18 something other than the full distribution of

19 bioassay data.

20 MR. SIEBERT: This is K-25 and --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is K-25. 

22 That one was Y-12. This one is K-25. So our
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 action, our response I believe is saying that

2 whether we would go through revising one by

3 one to bring the TBDs in one by one or whether

4 we have some way of essentially amending them

5 all.

6 We intend to provide that same

7 response we provided to the one we talked

8 about this morning. Let's see. That was 29?

9 MR. SIEBERT: Twenty-nine, yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: So 35-01 has

12 essentially been covered. Is there action

13 that we can take? Does it need to be changed,

14 in abeyance?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I think whatever

16 --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: What we said this

18 morning in 29 is NIOSH will change the

19 procedure to describe the practice that NIOSH

20 uses for assigning distributions to claimants. 

21 And the revised wording would indicate the

22 need to document any change from the default
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 in the case file. And for 29, the default was

2 use of the full distribution.

3 Did you want to take those same

4 type of words and put them in for

5 OTIB-0035-01?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any

7 objection to using that terminology?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It is the same

9 issue, I think. It seems to be the same

10 issue. The finding is that the use of the

11 full distribution is not necessarily

12 claimant-favorable in all cases. And it's the

13 same one that Jim and John agreed to, I

14 believe, if I can recall.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I think so. Without

16 disagreement, we will use the same words,

17 change the status accordingly. The question

18 was, is it the same thing throughout item 152?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think the

20 152 is page 152-01.

21 CHAIR MUNN: It's the same thing.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: The only thing I am
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 worried about is in the other -- the default

2 on this is really a log-normal distribution.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. But they are

4 all that way.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: They are all that

6 way.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Do we want to keep

9 this --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It is the same

11 default.

12 MR. SIEBERT: It is an identical

13 issue.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It is the same

15 thing.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: It's identical?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Then why didn't I

19 catch it on my --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the wording

21 is different. I mean, it's described

22 differently, but it is the same issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So if we're going

2 to revise the commonality paper, we should

3 include this on the --

4 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds to me like

5 we should, yes.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: And this one

7 basically was -- on OTIB-0029-03, we had set

8 it as in abeyance, did we not?

9 CHAIR MUNN: I believe we did

10 because we were only waiting, then, for NIOSH

11 to incorporate the proper wording.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: So is that what we

13 want to do with this one?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Correct, yes. Our

15 next item, then, SC&A, verify with Phillips

16 whether OTIB-0043-04 has been cleared by -01.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I have a document

18 that Chick sent to me is -- this is 0043-04.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Did we receive that?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: No, you have not.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: I just got this
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 from Chick.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Fine.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: And I haven't put

4 it in the database either yet. But he agrees

5 the term 238, uranium-238 in equilibrium with

6 its daughters in table 4-3 includes the

7 thorium-230 intake. Thus, the issue can be

8 considered closed.

9 SC&A recommends that NIOSH

10 consider a discussion of thorium-238 in any

11 revision to OTIB-0043, but I don't think the

12 last sentence -- Chick doesn't feel is an

13 impediment to closing the issue.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's very hard

15 to instruct about future actions, too. Stu,

16 do you have any concerns with that?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no. I mean,

18 we felt like this is the same. It had to do

19 with progeny in equilibrium with the parent. 

20 And thorium-230 is a progeny now.

21 Thorium-228 -- something he

22 commented on. Is that what you said,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 thorium-228?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: No. It was

3 uranium.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Uranium-238.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, to take care

6 of this, but the thing that he suggested we

7 consider in the future.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thorium intake.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Consider discussion

10 of thorium-230 in any revision to thorium-230. 

11 So basically we just say that 230 is included. 

12 Specifically say something along those lines

13 so it is included, as opposed to implicitly --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. Because

15 it's one of the progenies.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Because it's one of

17 the progenies. Okay.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the

19 original concern, that that hadn't been

20 included?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that the

22 thorium may do the same thing uranium does and
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 be there in the same abundance as the uranium. 

2 This is about phosphate, places that extracted

3 uranium.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: We need to agree

5 that that should be closed?

6 CHAIR MUNN: We do need to agree

7 that that should be closed. Any problem?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: There was a similar

9 issue. Issue 1 was similar, which we had

10 agreed to close back in June.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Different nuclide,

12 wasn't it?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well they still

14 considered about 230. I think the --

15 CHAIR MUNN: I thought it was 232. 

16 Similar but not the same.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Similar but not the

18 same. I think what the concern was, too, with

19 issue 4 was, is there any possibility that

20 thorium-230 could be present without

21 uranium-238? And I think that's why we kept

22 it on the books as in progress, as opposed to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 closed.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We've looked at all

3 of those processes pretty thoroughly.

4 DR. MAURO: Is this the phosphate?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's the

6 phosphate one, John.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. When we looked

8 at this issue, really, it was looked at very,

9 very carefully in Blockson.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: And the issue had to

12 do with when you receive the phosphate

13 concentrate 4 and then you go through your

14 digestion process and you -- eventually,

15 though, you precipitate out your uranium,

16 uranium-238, 234. And, if you recall, we were

17 concerned. This was like one of the first

18 issues.

19 It is important that you consider

20 thorium-230 because that is present also. And

21 there were appropriate modifications made to

22 make sure that thorium-230 was, in fact,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 explicitly included.

2 Then the question became, well,

3 where does it go? And we all concluded that

4 it is reasonable to assume that the

5 thorium-230 is going to follow the uranium-238

6 based on very careful consideration of the

7 chemistry.

8 So, I mean, I think that that sets

9 the stage for this one. And I think if the

10 language -- and I am not looking at the

11 language right now. The language basically

12 says that, that, you know, yes, thorium-230 is

13 going to be included. And it is going to be

14 assumed to be in equilibrium with the

15 uranium-238 when performing these

16 calculations. I think that the problem is

17 solved.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the way the

19 procedure is now, I think. Basically

20 thorium-230 is included as a daughter product

21 of uranium-238. And that is why we have

22 closed, if memory serves me right, back in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 June, that is why we closed issue 1. And now

2 we have a --

3 DR. MAURO: We have no reason to

4 believe that, unlike raffinates, when you are

5 processing uranium ore, where you find

6 yourself having radium-226 and thorium-230 in

7 a completely separate stream where you could

8 have them there without the uranium. That

9 doesn't seem to be the case here.

10 You know, the thorium-230 will

11 follow the uranium when you are dealing with

12 the way in which phosphate is processed.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that was

14 our concern that it wouldn't follow it, but

15 now that you say to confirm that it does

16 follow --

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. We looked at

18 this very carefully. And, as long as we are

19 working with the other phosphate process,

20 similar to the one at Blockson, you know, we

21 have learned a lot, I guess, perhaps since we

22 reviewed this. The two go together.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So we would have no

2 -- SC&A would have no objections to closing

3 this at this point in time.

4 CHAIR MUNN: I suggest we close

5 it.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I have in my notes

7 from June 6th an additional question that had

8 to do with this document refers you to

9 site-specific information. And since this

10 site-specific information is needed, why do

11 you need this OTIB?

12 And that reference about

13 site-specific information has to do with

14 exposure from the tailings pile, which is

15 essentially separate from this OTIB.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And the reason it

18 is site-specific is that it depends upon the

19 facility designation as to whether or not the

20 phosphate pile is part of the facility that is

21 covered or not.

22 So based upon that determination,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 then that determines whether the tailings pile

2 dose has to be reconstructed and whether you

3 have to deal with that site-specific

4 information. So that's the reason why we have

5 this OTIB.

6 This OTIB also has some

7 information that we don't have in any other

8 technical documents, from ICRP-32, which has

9 to do with radon exposures. And so we felt

10 like we needed to keep this. This question

11 was, do you even need this OTIB? Should this

12 be done away with? We feel like we need to

13 keep it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I would agree we need

15 to keep it, yes. Do we not have any open

16 items left on that particular --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think

18 there is anything else on 43.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Forty-three?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I think there are a

21 couple in progress.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Let's take a look at
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 the ones in progress and see where they are.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: On 43? 02 is in

3 progress.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: 02 is in progress. 

5 And NIOSH to provide additional response to

6 the SC&A concerns. It's about the FIPR data.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: 03 is in progress.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. I will work

9 on Blockson. Again, it's FIPR may not always

10 apply. It needs to cite IG-004 regarding the

11 use of surrogate data.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, absolutely. I

13 mean, this is a big deal. That was the reason

14 why we went into the whole discussion. This

15 had to do with radon now --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: -- you know, where we

18 felt strongly that you really couldn't use the

19 FIPR data, certainly not in Illinois. Now

20 there may be other locations where the FIPR

21 data would apply because the buildings are

22 open.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 But I guess all we are cautioning

2 is if you are going to use the FIPR data, you

3 know, this, again, is a surrogate data issue

4 that you have to make sure that the facility

5 that you're looking at resembles the phosphate

6 building or process buildings in Florida.

7 CHAIR MUNN: And we had agreed

8 that NIOSH would --

9 MR. MARSCHKE: 03 was in reference

10 to the FIPR data in reference to IG-004. It

11 was issue 03. And the other issue that was

12 still in progress was issue 05, which,

13 actually, SC&A would recommend that the issue

14 05 be closed, but NIOSH --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We didn't argue

16 that.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: On 05? I have a

18 note that says NIOSH is to clarify how -- I

19 have "how used." I am not sure what --

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Maybe that is what

21 Stu just did.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That's what
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 I was talking about. See, the finding refers

2 to tailings pile. It's not apparent that the

3 working-level measurements are a bounding

4 exposure rate for uranium workers. Additional

5 information is needed regarding location,

6 size, and characteristics of the tailing

7 piles, which contain radium at a given

8 facility and at the Florida facilities in

9 order to support the default adopted by the

10 TBD.

11 So what they are saying here is

12 that the radium pile, exposure to radon from

13 the tailings pile, isn't necessarily what you

14 are proposing -- isn't necessarily good enough

15 if you have to worry about the tailings pile. 

16 Our response is that this is for the thorium

17 extraction operation if that is what is

18 defined as the facility. And in the event

19 that the facility includes the tailings pile,

20 then site-specific information has to be used

21 and compared against that.

22 So you can't just use the values
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 in here if you have to also consider the radon

2 from the tailings pile. That was our

3 response. And I didn't know that at the last

4 meeting. So I couldn't describe it. So

5 that's probably why we didn't act on it at the

6 last meeting.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Can you send me --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you have words

10 to that effect that I can --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- incorporate into

13 this?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I can invent some

15 words to that effect, yes. I don't have them

16 written yet, but Jim told them to me. So if

17 I can recall them.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So NIOSH is

19 going to send words.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now, I need

21 to move this procedure along, process along

22 here, but how do you want me to do this? I am
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 going to send Steve this language. Where is

2 Steve going to put it?

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the thing is

4 if you talk slower, I can type it in. And

5 then it will be in here.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: That is the only

8 thing. I don't --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we type this

10 into the --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: If you want to put

12 this in, we can put it in right now is what

13 Stu is --

14 CHAIR MUNN: If it is okay with

15 Stu --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: -- we should take the

18 time to get the words right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: All right.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: All right.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Then we can clear the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 item.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0043

3 describes exposures.

4 DR. MAURO: Stu, could you get a

5 little closer to the mic? I would like to

6 listen to this.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. OTIB-0043

8 describes exposures for the retrieval of

9 uranium from phosphate and doesn't include

10 radon exposure from tailings piles. If

11 tailings piles are included in the covered

12 facility, site-specific information is needed

13 to estimate exposures from tailings piles. 

14 There you go, written on the fly, no

15 opportunity to edit.

16 DR. MAURO: I would say that

17 resolves the issue in principle, and I would

18 recommend going into an abeyance.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Abeyance? What's

20 the abeyance? What do we promise to change?

21 CHAIR MUNN: What are we waiting

22 for?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. What are we

2 waiting for?

3 DR. MAURO: All those words have

4 to go? Oh. Well, I thought these go in

5 abeyance until we see the change in the

6 procedure itself.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I am not

8 saying I am going to change anything. What I

9 am saying is that the finding stretches the

10 applicability of the document beyond what the

11 document is intended for, that the document is

12 not intended to describe.

13 DR. MAURO: I misunderstood. I'm

14 sorry. So you're just clarifying that I guess

15 those words -- I didn't understand. Maybe I

16 didn't understand the issue, then.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: John, at the last

18 meeting, the Subcommittee asked the question,

19 asked NIOSH to describe when and how this

20 procedure would be used. And that is what Stu

21 just did.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 answer.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And this is the

3 answer.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically this

6 would be used with tailing pilings.

7 DR. MAURO: So we are not looking

8 for any additional language in the procedure

9 itself?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. We are

11 considering this as the explanation that

12 fulfills the outstanding question.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. Then it sounds

14 like recommended closed.

15 CHAIR MUNN: So done, without

16 objection. Very good. That was 05, correct?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: 43-05?

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And 06 is the last

20 one on 43, and we already have it in abeyance.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Did we check to see

22 what our in abeyance was and make sure we're
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 not doing the same thing?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's a

3 change in the document.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but is that what

5 we're waiting for?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Should be. It's

7 1.1 picocuries per day. The document right

8 now says 1.1 picocuries per day. And it

9 should be changed to 8.2 picocuries per day. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: So that's a real in

11 abeyance.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That's a real one.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Just wanted to make

14 sure. All right. The next item that we have

15 on our agenda is OTIB-0047-01.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I sent

17 something on that also. Jan is the author and

18 on the phone if we want to discuss this with

19 her.

20 As I recall, this is fairly

21 lengthy, fairly meaty. And everyone may want

22 a little more time to look at this before we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 take any action on it.

2 I believe I might be able to walk

3 through it and let Janice correct me when I

4 say something wrong, which I undoubtedly will.

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Can you

6 set the background for us and start us through

7 it, Stu?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I will. I am

9 trying to catch up, catch my thoughts up to my

10 mouth.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. The OTIB

13 we're talking about here, OTIB-0047, is

14 external radiation monitoring at the Y-12

15 facility during the 1948 to 1949 period.

16 Now, if I'm not mistaken, this was

17 prepared essentially not to tell us to do

18 anything but to say what we have done before

19 in the coworker model is okay for these years

20 '48 and '49. That's my understanding.

21 MS. LOVELACE: That's correct.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you. When
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 the coworker model for -- like what was

2 written, the dosimetry data that we had

3 started in 1950. But we applied it back to

4 '48 and '49. And so I think that must have

5 come up somewhere that this is the right thing

6 to do or maybe we decided we need to check and

7 see if this is the right thing to do.

8 And so this document essentially

9 does that. And it's written because we didn't

10 cover the external dosimetry information from

11 Y-12. '48 and '49 was discovered. It just

12 wasn't in the database that was used for the

13 coworker model.

14 So the finding -- let's see if I

15 can get this. Let's see. It says the

16 OTIB-0047 would benefit from a more

17 substantive discussion and quantitative

18 examples of its conclusion that OTIB-0045,

19 which I believe was a coworker model, provides

20 a more claimant-favorable approach regarding

21 the fact that recovery of these records does

22 not affect the dose reconstruction process
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 employed thus far.

2 Additionally, OTIB-0045 no longer

3 exists in its original form but is currently

4 entitled Report 33. I think it's actually

5 Report 32.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And OTIB should be

8 --

9 CHAIR MUNN: Is that a typo?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0032, yes. 

11 That is just a typo.

12 Okay. So what I sent on the 11th

13 was essentially a substantive discussion of

14 why it's okay. And there is a fair amount to

15 this.

16 It accounts for the various people

17 or number of individuals that we have badge

18 information for, for the period of 1948 to '49. 

19 And it summarizes the monthly results in a

20 table, revised table, 5.1.

21 And let's see. Given the number

22 of cases there, it appears that this is all
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 records. I think that this is the finding. 

2 Yes. This is the finding that describes -- we

3 actually have this database, four different

4 numbers, for each of these people, for each of

5 the monitoring periods.

6 There is an R1, which R1 year is a

7 PIC number. In other words, this is a

8 compilation of their pocket ionization chamber

9 reading. R2 is the reading of the sensitive

10 film badge open window. R3 is the sensitive

11 film badge cadmium window. And R4 is the

12 insensitive film, which I assume is under

13 cadmium window.

14 So that is the R1, 2, 3, and 4. 

15 And so the first table 5.1 is sort of a

16 compilation of all of the readings that are

17 available. If any of them were non-null, then

18 that record is considered non-null. There are

19 tables later on that essentially show by

20 category for the film when you had a null

21 number and when you didn't.

22 Now, in fact, this table shows,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 let's see, the number -- there is a

2 description. When I read this, I understood

3 it. There is a description of what the n

4 means. N is not a count the way we often

5 think of n.

6 MS. LOVELACE: What table 9 is

7 showing is that, although there appeared to be

8 over 11,000 records, in fact, there were only

9 about 3,600 records that were anything but

10 null or blank or --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right. 

12 They're blank. A great number of them were

13 blank.

14 MS. LOVELACE: There are not

15 nearly as many records as there appear to be.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That

17 illustrates that fact. When we say there are

18 this many entries, in fact, many of them were

19 blank, which is different than zero.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: R2 provides

22 information for the open window reading. And
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 that is of course the sensitive, where n I

2 believe is the number of results that are not

3 null. Is that right, Janice, meaning --

4 MS. LOVELACE: Yes, it is.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It actually has a

6 value there, even if the value is zero. N

7 equals zero means that the value of the

8 readings is zero.

9 MS. LOVELACE: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And n equals 30

11 means that the written-down value is 30. Now

12 that becomes important because 30 during some

13 of these months clearly became treated as the

14 minimum detection level.

15 And numbers for some of these

16 months, the practice was to report a minimum

17 detection level if you didn't see anything on

18 that because you can see from about August --

19 I'm on table 2, I think, table 5-2, where it

20 says, "R2, sensitive film, open window" from

21 about August of 1948 certainly through

22 December of 1948 and probably continuing on
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 through 1949, that there are no values written

2 down as zero.

3 CHAIR MUNN: So this may have been

4 just a personnel decision at the time?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, it's

6 reporting. Various sites have done that --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right. I understand.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- over time over

9 history. So there are no reports reported at

10 zero, but in many of those months, the number

11 of results reported as 30 is exactly equal to

12 the number of results we got that actually had

13 a value.

14 So this would indicate that when

15 they didn't see anything, they would write

16 down a 30 because you can't imagine that all

17 of those people in the system got an exact 30.

18 CHAIR MUNN: This is not simply

19 circumstantial, no.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Okay. So

21 our R3 table shows the same historic data. 

22 R3 was just the cadmium cover. And R4 is the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 insensitive film. And there is some

2 discussion in here about how you arrive at

3 values on the insensitive film. And it

4 appears maybe there had been a convention that

5 if you got enough of a reading on the

6 sensitive film, you would just record that

7 everywhere because it got readings.

8 I think one of the readings was

9 somewhere on the order of 600 millirem as

10 recorded. And it is recorded for both the

11 cadmium-covered and the insensitive film,

12 which you don't think -- you wouldn't rely on

13 insensitive film to report the 600 millirem

14 when you got the film, the sensitive film,

15 whose range goes from 30 to 1,000. That would

16 be the one you would want to read 600.

17 So I believe that's part of the

18 interpretation here, although it's not really

19 particularly relevant to our discussion. I

20 found these interesting reading in kind of a

21 geek sort of way.

22 CHAIR MUNN: I can understand
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 that. It is.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And then there is

3 a table, 5-3, which shows the various

4 percentiles. And you can see the 95th

5 percentile for most of these. And it seems to

6 be some sort of composite is somewhere not far

7 off of 30. Eightieth percentile is pretty

8 consistent, like 30 or below.

9 So bottom line, there is a bottom

10 line down here I'll get to a little later. 

11 I'm going to skip some of this stuff. There's

12 been a lot of discussion. But, like I said,

13 it's kind of weighty stuff.

14 But if you look at table 5-5,

15 which is essentially the last piece of this

16 response, it shows a comparison of the mean

17 doses based on the '48-'49 doses with the

18 quarterly means from the regression approach,

19 which is the coworker approach.

20 And you can see that in every

21 instance, the regression or the coworker

22 approach, you know, significantly
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 overestimates what you would probably choose

2 if you use this actual data, '48 and '49.

3 So that is essentially the bottom

4 line table. I would invite everybody to read

5 this. I would suggest we not try to sort it

6 out and make a rational and informed decision.

7 If you want to close it, that's

8 fine with me. But I suspect, knowing the

9 personality of the Subcommittee, the

10 personality of SC&A, they're going to want to

11 have some time to look through this and digest

12 it and maybe have their own comments.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I barely read it

14 before we got here.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: And I doubt that --

17 John, have any of your people had an

18 opportunity to absorb this?

19 DR. MAURO: No. I haven't, and I

20 haven't requested anyone, although I have to

21 say when we were doing Y-12 a long time ago,

22 this sounds awful familiar, how a coworker --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 CHAIR MUNN: It does.

2 DR. MAURO: -- model was used over

3 those dates, where a demonstration was made

4 why it would work. This may have been

5 prepared subsequent to the discussions we had

6 on how that issue was going to be dealt with

7 when we were way back when talking about the

8 SEC for Y-12 and why this particular dose

9 could be reconstructed.

10 So all I'm saying is this does

11 ring a bell, the material you just described,

12 but we certainly have -- and I haven't asked

13 anyone to look at it recently.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Is it reasonable to

15 expect a response from SC&A by our next

16 meeting?

17 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We will

19 make a notation on the database accordingly.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This status was

21 already in progress, wasn't it?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 DR. MAURO: May I ask, what is the

2 date of that OTIB?

3 MS. LOVELACE: Let me look it up

4 on my computer here.

5 CHAIR MUNN: The finding date was

6 10-29-07.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: He asked for the

8 date of the OTIB.

9 CHAIR MUNN: The OTIB itself?

10 DR. MAURO: The OTIB itself.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Janice is looking

12 it up currently.

13 DR. MAURO: I only ask because it

14 was around 2005, 2004 --

15 MS. LOVELACE: I think we covered

16 this in 2005.

17 DR. MAURO: '05. This may have

18 been done about the same time we were looking

19 at Y-12 or after.

20 MS. LOVELACE: Right.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 MS. LOVELACE: We found these data
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 quite a while ago.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. Anyway, we will

3 certainly look at that. I feel confident we

4 could get you a response before the next

5 meeting.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That's

7 01. And that will be on our action list for

8 next time. Our next action item is OTIB-0051

9 and item 1 in subsequent findings.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the one

11 item on my agenda I could not get anything on.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Carry that one over.

13 The last item on the action --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If anybody is

15 interested --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which one was

17 that, now? Is that 02?

18 CHAIR MUNN: That was 0051-01 and

19 subsequent --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And subsequent. 

21 It's probably all the findings. It's probably

22 all the findings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: 03 and 04?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sorry. What

4 happened to 0047-02?

5 CHAIR MUNN: We are getting to

6 take it up. 0047-02 and 0049-01 are the ones

7 that we were prepared for a discussion. That

8 is the last item on the action list.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

10 MS. LOVELACE: Excuse me. I

11 believe that the first item, action item, for

12 OTIB-0047 dealt only with the number of

13 workers who were involved in these doses.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I'll have to take a

15 look at it and see. We have a recommendation

16 that the first part of the issue status be

17 changed to in abeyance.

18 The OTIB states there were 240

19 distinct ID badges identified, but SC&A was

20 only able to identify 229. And then NIOSH

21 responded that there were 233 distinct

22 individuals represented in the analysis file.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 MS. LOVELACE: Upon further

2 looking, it was determined that some

3 individuals did not have a distinct badge

4 number. And there was just the difference in

5 the way that SC&A and we had classified those

6 individuals. And that was just, I believe,

7 four people.

8 There were four badge numbers that

9 we had classified as different individuals and

10 SC&A had not classified as different

11 individuals because they didn't have ID

12 numbers. And so we had decided to agree that

13 it could only be determined positively that

14 there were 229 distinct individuals.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I see. And the

16 statement we have is that it doesn't stretch

17 the conclusions or analysis of the TIB. So

18 this appears to have been a Work Group

19 discussion since our directive was to provide

20 discussion as to why SC&A agrees with the

21 NIOSH response. I think that is what we just

22 heard.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 MS. LOVELACE: The difference was

2 there were four badge numbers that it could

3 not be positively determined whether they

4 belonged to different individuals or

5 individuals who were already in the group. 

6 And we and SC&A had just interpreted that

7 differently.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And that was sent to

9 us back in July, was it, did we all receive

10 that?

11 MS. LOVELACE: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Do we all have that?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was the title

14 of it?

15 CHAIR MUNN: The title of the

16 e-mail was, if I can get to the right set of

17 documents, the title of the e-mail was -- I

18 don't see it. Did that come to --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I am not 100

20 percent sure. That is what I am trying to

21 check.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Monday, July 27th,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 Bob Barton. But perhaps we didn't get it.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know. 

3 Well, one of the things was in the June

4 meeting, it was SC&A provided discussions as

5 to why they agree with the NIOSH response --

6 we are talking about 0047-02?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Why we agree with

9 the NIOSH response at the next Subcommittee

10 meeting.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: And so this is what

13 we -- Bob Barton was the individual who has

14 been looking at that issue for us. And this

15 is --

16 CHAIR MUNN: There is his

17 response, which I don't believe I --

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- which has not

19 been forwarded to the Subcommittee at this

20 point. And that is my fault. The only issue,

21 I guess basically the issue would be that some

22 of the individual workers are represented in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 the database.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Right. There was a

3 difference in the count. And as was just

4 explained, four of them didn't have badges

5 issued to them.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that what it

7 was? Four didn't get --

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Nine additional

9 workers that had no badge numbers assigned.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Nine? Okay.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: That was what Bob

12 came up with.

13 MS. LOVELACE: Yes. I think

14 that's what it was, that they appeared to be

15 distinct individuals, but it was hard to

16 determine whether, indeed, they were or not.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And Bob associated

18 -- he has a Excel file that has a list of

19 individual names. And so that would imply

20 that he went by names, as opposed to badge

21 numbers.

22 MS. LOVELACE: Okay. Good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So that if they did

2 not have -- if NIOSH is going by badge

3 numbers, then that would explain the

4 difference.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: And we essentially

6 agree that there should be no lower number

7 than 229, 228 individuals. I mean, we agree. 

8 So that part --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Some people had

10 multiple badges? Is that --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably what

12 happened was there was maybe a similar -- a

13 name that was used was maybe similar or the

14 same, two different badges. You can interpret

15 that as two people being named S. Hinnefeld or

16 you can interpret that as one person with two

17 different badges.

18 So if you go by -- I assume it's

19 something that's, if I'm wrong, Janice can

20 correct me -- I assume that something like

21 that is -- you know, if Bob had another list

22 of names and here are unique names and there
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 are 228 or 229 of them, then some of those

2 people got two badges.

3 So if you would say each of these

4 badges is absolutely unique, that means that

5 there are two people with the same name

6 working there and they have two different

7 badge numbers. I mean, it is really

8 irrelevant to the outcome of OTIB.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: And I think that is

10 what -- I mean, whatever this is, it is just

11 a matter of accounting at this point. It's

12 not really one of change needed to the results

13 or conclusions.

14 CHAIR MUNN: How do we want to

15 capture this information here without

16 displaying any information?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think what

18 I have to do, Wanda, is I have to take what

19 Bob sent to me, his rationale and status

20 report, that he sent to me. And I have to

21 insert that here into the database.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That would be my
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 suggestion.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And then the

3 Subcommittee could look at it and make the

4 determination as to whether or not we should

5 close this issue or change the status of this

6 issue.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have looked

8 at it. We have read it. Does anyone want any

9 more reading or any more explanation of what

10 we had here?

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean, that is the

12 other option. You can trust me to put this

13 stuff in, and you can get back on the issue at

14 this point.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I will have an action

16 item to check that you have done that.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: All right.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And that would seem

19 adequate to me.

20 DR. MAURO: Based on the

21 discussion you just had, SC&A would recommend

22 this issue be closed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 CHAIR MUNN: I would recommend

2 that also. Let us close this. I will carry

3 an action item to verify that Steve has

4 incorporated this information into 0047-02,

5 but that will just be a checkpoint next time.

6 The last thing I see is that the

7 NIOSH response to OTIB-0049-01, Part A does

8 not satisfy SC&A concerns.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did we get

10 anything since our last meeting on that one?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so.

12 CHAIR MUNN: If we did, I haven't

13 seen it and I'm not aware of having seen it. 

14 And what we have in our follow-up, there,

15 doesn't help much either. It says it doesn't

16 satisfy SC&A concerns.

17 But NIOSH, it said if SC&A wishes

18 to elaborate more specifically on which

19 sources of information are not referenced,

20 then NIOSH can address this in a page change.

21 But it appears that the ball is in

22 SC&A's court and that this response that we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 show from March does not really get us

2 anywhere, does it?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the ball

4 may be in our court, actually.

5 CHAIR MUNN: We have the NIOSH

6 follow-up questions too. And then NIOSH

7 follow-up, but that is from back in January.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. They got out

9 of order.

10 CHAIR MUNN: So that needs to be

11 cleaned up and switched.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I am just trying to

14 go back to my notes from March to see. I

15 don't have any notes written down for 0049-01.

16 CHAIR MUNN: So if our most recent

17 notation is correct here, it was March 9th. 

18 And that's when they have said the NIOSH

19 response doesn't satisfy their concerns. The

20 response had been the follow-up questions for

21 finding 2 appear to be the same as the

22 questions for finding 1. So both were
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 addressed here.

2 For finding 1, the first two

3 paragraphs quote OTIB-0049. All right. It

4 still looks like there is a discussion of some

5 kind hanging --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it looks

7 like maybe it's all right. And it seems like

8 the last entry we have is the SC&A entry for

9 March 9th, right? And we have not had to

10 write anything back since then. Is that where

11 we are on this?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think so.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are we going to

14 discuss the SC&A response first? The last

15 time I have a note on that one that says that

16 the Work Group needs to review this in detail. 

17 We must have just gotten the SC&A response at

18 that time. What is the date of the SC&A

19 response?

20 MR. MARSCHKE: The way I follow

21 this is this was the NIOSH response, it was on

22 10-9-2008. This was the SC&A response to the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 NIOSH response, it was on --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is dated

3 what?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: December 5th 2008. 

5 Then we had the meeting on December 9th. And

6 this was basically the group's direction on

7 December 9th. And then basically on January

8 20th, NIOSH came back with this in response to

9 the -- NIOSH came back with this. And then on

10 --

11 CHAIR MUNN: March.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: March.

13 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: SC&A responded to

15 the January NIOSH response with this. So that

16 is the chronology.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes. We've got

18 that.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was that the

20 extent of the response, that it doesn't

21 satisfy the concerns?

22 MR. MARSCHKE: No. It goes on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 It goes on and on. And I'm just trying to

2 figure out a way to get this on the screen.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am thinking that

4 we also didn't look at that. We were going to

5 look at that response in more detail. I am

6 thinking we ran out of time to even look at

7 the response.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did. We did

9 run out of time. And I am wondering --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Should we get a

11 feel for the nature of the response before we

12 talk or have NIOSH come back again?

13 CHAIR MUNN: If it is possible for

14 us to get that whole response up there, then

15 this may be a good time for us to take a

16 ten-minute break, if so, and then come back

17 and read through that and discuss it, if it is

18 a concern of the Board that it needs to be

19 discussed here. We did run out of time. I

20 remember that.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I don't

22 think we even sort of heard the issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 CHAIR MUNN: 0049-01. If we can

2 get that up? Is that agreeable with

3 everybody, a ten-minute break while Steve

4 works with that? And then we can have Steve

5 or John or somebody read through that

6 completely. And we can get it out on the

7 table here for us all to think about.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And before the

9 break, where we are on the overall agenda now?

10 CHAIR MUNN: We are done with our

11 outstanding action items. We were going to

12 begin back in set 3, where we stopped, to look

13 at open items.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: It is very

15 long-winded.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. There is a lot

17 to be said there. We all need to read that

18 carefully.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: A lot of words.

20 CHAIR MUNN: If we are interested

21 in discussing it, we need to read it.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Who drafted that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 for SC&A?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: It's Joyce, Joyce

3 Lipsztein.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

5 DR. MAURO: Steve, is this high

6 fired plutonium?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

8 DR. MAURO: And so it was probably

9 Joyce?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it was Joyce.

11 DR. MAURO: I know she is not

12 available to us, but could you send that to me

13 from where you are?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't.

15 DR. MAURO: You cannot? Okay. 

16 I'll see what I can do to find out. I'm a

17 little concerned that --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hang on, John. 

19 Stu might be able to.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: John, I can send a

21 file that has it.

22 DR. MAURO: I appreciate that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a long file

2 with a lot of conversations about a bunch of

3 different findings, but they're in here pretty

4 much in order.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, I'll get a feel

6 for it. It sounds like this might have to

7 wait until Joyce can help us out, but send it

8 on over. I'll see what I can do.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

10 MS. LOVELACE: This is Janice. Is

11 there any need for me to remain on the

12 conference call or have I answered any

13 questions that you might have?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I think,

15 Janice, we're done with the Y-12 issue. So,

16 I don't think you need to stay on.

17 MS. LOVELACE: Okay. Thank you

18 very much.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks for joining

20 us.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Bye bye. 

22 And we're going to mute the phone and be back
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 at 3:10 or 3:15? What is your pleasure?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: 3:10 is fine.

3 CHAIR MUNN: 3:10.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

5 matter went off the record at 2:59

6 p.m. and resumed at 3:15 p.m.)

7 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, do you happen

8 to be back yet? No? Our apologies for taking

9 a little longer than we anticipated. This

10 particular item does indeed have a great deal

11 of meat in it, and we were reading, trying to

12 assimilate what the discussion really needs to

13 be.

14 It appears that SC&A has several

15 points that it would like fleshed out or

16 revised in some way. Whether this is the

17 appropriate venue for the discussion of

18 whether there needs to be a technical

19 discussion between SC&A and NIOSH is not

20 particularly clear to me at this time. Does

21 anyone have any strong feelings?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was just
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 going to ask Stu, do you know if NIOSH has

2 looked at this at all? This is sort of

3 related to other Super S discussions that have

4 taken place in the past, I guess.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Scott

6 stepped out. I'm not sure if Tom or somebody

7 might be on the phone who might want to say

8 anything about this, but to me the finding is

9 asking for quite a bit of specificity in this

10 OTIB, which is supposed to just describe, how

11 are we going to account for the fact that

12 there is some plutonium that isn't described

13 very well. And so we have written an OTIB to

14 say this is how you do that.

15 And it didn't get into, this is

16 how you do it for a single acute, this is how

17 you do it for multiple acutes, this is how you

18 do it for things like that. But the

19 principle, I think, is pretty much the same,

20 you know, in terms of how you make that

21 adjustment.

22 I will just say that briefly in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 summary. And I don't know if there is

2 anything more that anybody wants to add or

3 not.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in fact,

5 when Joyce was citing those cases that she

6 said were off by a factor of four, these were

7 specific cases that she was reviewing that had

8 been done or were they examples that you had

9 given?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought they

11 were the ones that we had used.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: She was

13 disagreeing that Super S was applied in those

14 cases? I mean, you don't have a disagreement

15 on how you do this, do you?

16 It wasn't clear to me whether the

17 issue was whether the examples were not done

18 right or whether there is a disagreement on

19 the underlying assumptions.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so. 

21 I thought there was sort of agreement on the

22 adjustment, that what we had done made sense.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: You agree that

2 there is an adjustment of four or whatever it

3 is? Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I thought

5 that we agreed to them, but the finding seems

6 to be that, well, beyond the scenario you have

7 described here, there are other potential

8 exposure scenarios and you don't talk about

9 how to do those.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, there are

11 any number of other scenarios.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, exactly.

13 DR. MAURO: This is John. I

14 quickly read through this. And it seems that

15 we're in a lot better shape than what we

16 think. I mean, I think Joyce found fairly

17 favorably except for she questioned multiple

18 independent acute intakes.

19 In other words, there are a lot of

20 different scenarios here, worker 1, worker 2,

21 worker 3, for different sets of conditions

22 where it appears that she says, no, this works
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 fine. But it is not apparent how you are going

2 to deal with multiple intake.

3 This all goes to Part A out of a

4 four-part set of concerns. So it seems to me

5 that, unless I misread this because I read it

6 rather quickly, the technical discussion

7 regarding a particular aspect of

8 implementation of this procedure whereby some

9 level of assurance that when you have multiple

10 acute intakes, that the protocol itself will

11 be used in a way that will result in a

12 claimant-favorable result.

13 So that is the single thing I get

14 out of item A. It looks like B and C are

15 fine. And D seems to be a new item related to

16 fecal sample analysis that we haven't

17 discussed. So that is, in a 30-second sound

18 byte, what I got out of reading this.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I agree with John. 

20 I think basically the concern that Joyce has

21 is multiple independent acute exposures. If

22 the procedure is being utilized for a single
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 acute exposure, then there is probably no

2 problem with it.

3 And maybe the short answer is if a

4 claimant indicates that he has multiple

5 independent acute exposures to this type of

6 Super S material, then maybe this OTIB should

7 not be applied or could be modified or

8 something.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is

10 where I was trying to get some clarity during

11 the break, Steve. It is my understanding that

12 if you have assay points that are quite a ways

13 apart, maybe one a year or something, that, in

14 fact, NIOSH assumes multiple acute exposures;

15 in other words, here is an assay point and

16 what was the maximum acute it would take after

17 this previous one. I forget if that is right

18 away or halfway between. MR. SIEBERT: 

19 Midpoint.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Midpoint. So they

21 assume that somewhere in between these two

22 points there is another acute intake and then
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 an excretion. And so in a sense, if you have

2 like five points spread over a number of

3 years, you are, in essence, I believe,

4 assuming multiple acute intake. Did I

5 understand that correctly, rather than a

6 chronic?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it would

8 depend, I mean, if you saw consistently those

9 five were all about the same value and there

10 was nothing in between them showing lower, we

11 would tend to think that was a chronic.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I see.

13 MR. SIEBERT: But that is not

14 generally what we see. Generally what we see

15 is we would see a positive followed by a bunch

16 of negatives and maybe another couple of

17 positives followed by negatives.

18 And then, you're right, we would

19 deal with the multiple acute scenario.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if you had

21 specific information on events, you would know

22 the dates there, in any event.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. If there is

2 any incident information, obviously we would

3 go with that.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So is

5 there disagreement as to how to calculate the

6 multiple acute? It's not clear to me what the

7 issue is.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, again, in

9 Joyce's three examples, workers 1, 2, and 3,

10 I mean, worker 1 and 2, she pretty clearly

11 indicates that I think she agrees with the

12 procedure. Worker 3, I think, she doesn't.

13 DR. MAURO: But she says it's

14 overly conservative, right?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: She gets the lower

16 value.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: She gets the lower

18 value. So maybe there is not a problem.

19 DR. MAURO: But then she comes to

20 the part where she has multiple acute intakes. 

21 And she is not really clear on how you're

22 going to do that. I guess you would like to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 hear more about how that is going to be done.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I disagree a little

3 bit with what basically you are saying. She

4 is saying the multiple claimant-favorable

5 treatment would be to treat the exposures as

6 independent. But then she says this approach

7 is overly conservative.

8 Now I don't know what she is

9 saying. And I don't think that is what was

10 done for worker number 3.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: She is giving an

13 alternative approach. She is giving an

14 alternative approach to treating a worker

15 number 3, which the alternative approach that

16 she gives is overly conservative.

17 DR. MAURO: I mean, the essence of

18 the issue is after all of that, on the second

19 page of the write-up, there is a paragraph

20 towards the bottom that starts, "In

21 conclusion."

22 I guess it sounds like that she,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 whether in writing or in some type of

2 technical conference call, you know, we could

3 talk through. SC&A would like a more detailed

4 explanation on how to calculate doses for

5 multiple independent acute intakes. That to

6 me seems to be the single outstanding item.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. She says that

8 basically in that paragraph and the paragraph

9 above it basically she wants more detailed

10 explanation. And so, I mean, that seems to be

11 her main concern or main request.

12 DR. MAURO: It sounds like that

13 NIOSH may already have thought that through

14 and has a well-established procedure and knows

15 what they would do under those circumstances. 

16 Maybe that just needs to be -- has that been

17 communicated to SC&A or in any one of your

18 work products?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I

20 am trying to work through this.

21 DR. MAURO: I mean, if you already

22 have like a fairly well-described protocol for
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 doing that, maybe all you need to do is just

2 provide that to us. And we will take a look

3 at it. If it turns out you don't, maybe a

4 conversation, technical conversation, with

5 Joyce and your folks would help to close this

6 issue.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We may have to go

8 that route because I am not 100 percent sure

9 where to take this right now because, as I

10 read this screen that I have, the last entry

11 seems to be from March from SC&A, if we have

12 an answer to that. And if we don't know how

13 to answer, then I guess we need to get a hold

14 of these guys, arrange for some sort of

15 technical call so we can understand exactly

16 where this is trying to answer here.

17 MEMBER GIBSON: I would like to

18 suggest that Mark be made aware of these so he

19 has an opportunity to join us. This is an

20 issue that I have had a lot of experience out

21 at Mound. Mark helped us a lot with this.

22 CHAIR MUNN: It has been discussed
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 many times.

2 MEMBER GIBSON: I understand. I

3 just want it resolved.

4 CHAIR MUNN: We already have a lot

5 of information under our belt. It's just not

6 incorporated here, where we need it. So who

7 has the action to set up the call?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have the

9 action because if we feel like we can respond

10 to this March entry without the phone call, we

11 understand we can go ahead and write a

12 response. So we will either write a response,

13 write it, or we will get a hold of SC&A about

14 phone calls.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

16 That will complete our action items that we

17 have set up for today. Before we go further,

18 I am still struggling with the tracking system

19 here, trying to get my entire database back up

20 so that I can see where we are in set 3, how

21 many further procedures we have to go yet

22 before we have gotten through that final set.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 While I am struggling for those,

2 for them, I need to make this group aware of

3 an action that occurred yesterday in Mike's

4 Worker Outreach Group, when that group charged

5 SC&A with the responsibility of reviewing

6 PROC-0012.

7 So this brings us to what I

8 believe is a new process question for the

9 Subcommittee, which is we have had a Work

10 Group request action from SC&A on a specific

11 procedure that they will then want to follow.

12 So far as I know, our data set is the only

13 legitimate way for the entire Board to keep

14 track of procedures that have been reviewed by

15 SC&A.

16 So we have a process question that

17 is a new one. In cases like this, how do we

18 expect to proceed?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is PROC-0012?

20 MR. KATZ: It is worker outreach.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Worker outreach.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that an OCAS
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 procedure?

2 DR. MAURO: It is important to the

3 point of view of PROC-0012 is sort of like the

4 maturation of a protracted process that had

5 previous PROCs, 0090, 0097, which evolved and

6 matured, which we do have in our database with

7 reviews and comments.

8 And it's almost as if now

9 PROC-0012 is the place now where a lot of what

10 went on before, onto the procedures, now is

11 being taken on by this new Work Group. So it

12 is within that context.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Now my question is

14 what do we ask of SC&A with respect to

15 advising us of when their review is done and

16 we need to incorporate the findings into our

17 database?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: How is this

19 different from any other procedure that we

20 transferred? Eventually it has got to

21 incorporate back in, right?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we

2 officially would show this as a transfer to

3 the other group would be the way to do it, it

4 seems to me.

5 CHAIR MUNN: We could do that. 

6 The only reason I wrote --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, that puts

8 it in the database.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. This is the

10 reverse of what has been done in the past.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But in

12 essence --

13 CHAIR MUNN: We would immediately

14 transfer it without any action.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: We could simply

16 recognize that and put it in the database and

17 transfer it immediately. And then we still

18 have it there to track, right?

19 DR. MAURO: I have a question.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

21 DR. MAURO: When we transfer,

22 let's say we put this in the database and say
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 transfer it, and then the Outreach Work Group,

2 you know, works the problem, resolves issues,

3 has its minutes and transcripts, one of the

4 things that, unfortunately, it won't have is

5 it won't be in our database and the process,

6 the dates of the meetings.

7 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct.

8 DR. MAURO: Are they resolved? 

9 Unfortunately, the record, the historical

10 record, as we are doing now, will not be in

11 our database.

12 I mean, that is one of the

13 outcomes, one of the consequences of

14 transferring things out of the system. We

15 lose that record. That is one of the major

16 reasons for creating this in the first place.

17 So I would say as another process

18 question, are we all okay with the fact that

19 there will be some procedures that are going

20 to be resolved in other venues and, as a

21 result, will not contain a record of the

22 nature that we are maintaining for the ones
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 that we are doing?

2 MR. KATZ: Is there any way to

3 continue it in this database, the recording of

4 it as a separate to indicate that this is

5 being done under another work group or

6 continue the recording of the finding? Is

7 that difficult to do?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: No. I mean, it may

9 be difficult to keep -- again, we have these

10 fields. And pretty much these fields, you can

11 pipe in anything you want to pipe into it. 

12 You can identify in the Work Group which work

13 group is basically making the decisions here.

14 The thing is somebody has to run

15 this database at the meetings. And if you are

16 talking about one procedure and a handful of

17 issues, I don't think they want me traveling

18 to all of these different meetings to run the

19 database.

20 We have to come up with a form

21 that we can give to somebody who is taking

22 notes. And then we can fill in the form. And
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 then they can give it to me, and I can update

2 the database or something along those lines. 

3 It is a matter of logistics.

4 But, again, we could make a

5 database, do whatever it is we want the

6 database to do.

7 MR. KATZ: What I suggest is we

8 just do that, the other groups when they pick

9 up something from a transcript, that they

10 would keep sort of essentially similar notes

11 and those would be logged in --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it would

13 be helpful --

14 MR. KATZ: -- so you have a total

15 database.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for them to

17 have --

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- the information

20 in any event.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MEMBER GIBSON: Not only the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 notes. I mean, this whole database was

2 created out of historical records that were

3 generated between NIOSH and SC&A. So those

4 same records are being generated.

5 MR. KATZ: Exactly. So I would

6 just suggest Steve doesn't need to travel to

7 these Work Group meetings for that, but we can

8 add that into the record.

9 CHAIR MUNN: I know, but I guess I

10 don't completely agree with what Mike just

11 said. These records will not continue to be

12 generated in the work groups if they function

13 as they have in the past unless we do what Ted

14 has suggested and provide a form with specific

15 fields on it. And whenever you address this

16 action item, please respond back to the

17 Subcommittee with this form.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: That would be your

19 attachment to your letter.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: You could say, here

22 is a form. Basically when you are addressing
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 this, please fill it in so that we can keep

2 our database up to date. And please feel free

3 to use our database if you --

4 MR. KATZ: Or, I mean, that is the

5 alternative to a form unless someone --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you don't want

7 them entering stuff.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, you don't want it?

9 CHAIR MUNN: They may look at it,

10 but they may not enter.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: No.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: We have only two

15 people sitting --

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I am all for having

17 everybody enter.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That is chaotic.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we haven't

20 given up on the SQL version, which we would

21 expect to be broadly usable. In other words,

22 there would be a section of it for this and a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 section of it for any of the work groups who

2 want to use that and utilize it in that

3 fashion.

4 I mean, if you want to have work

5 groups keep track of findings and issues that

6 are being discussed electronically, that is a

7 vehicle that should be really -- you know,

8 once it is broadly useable --

9 MR. KATZ: What is the time?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't

11 have a time. I met with the developer a

12 couple of weeks ago. We went through some

13 things. I kind of got more familiar with what

14 we have in our document-tracking system, which

15 was built, really, for the preparation of

16 documents. Okay?

17 But the mechanism, the form, looks

18 kind of the same. You can have a finding and

19 a response and an iterative back and forth

20 during that.

21 MR. KATZ: And link documents and

22 so on.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Documents

2 can be linked. And there are a lot of

3 advantages to SQL that Access doesn't provide. 

4 So I am working with a developer to try to get

5 a system that would do this. And at that

6 point, then, you have a vehicle that this can

7 all be done in for whatever they can track.

8 You know, to me the nice thing

9 about the database is that if I want something

10 from procedures, I can go --

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to the

13 Procedures Subcommittee. And when you start

14 keeping track of things that the Procedures

15 Subcommittee is not dealing with in this same

16 database, then it gets a little -- you know,

17 I'm not clear how we keep that apart.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: The ideal situation

19 would be to make the modification to the

20 database and identify the Work Group, have a

21 field where you identify the Work Group which

22 is responsible.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 In 99 percent of the cases, it

2 would be the Procedures Subcommittee, but in

3 some other cases, it may be somebody else.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it conceivable

5 that someone from a different work group or

6 subcommittee, say Mike's subcommittee, could

7 be authorized to change just that part of the

8 database that was theirs?

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, in

10 computers, you can do anything --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That you want.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- you can think

13 of. We can probably do it. Right now the

14 answer is no.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. But we might

16 want to work toward that.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: But you could work

18 towards that.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And you would have

20 to send me out forms and --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: And we could

22 identify. You could have a matrix and say,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 this individual is authorized to make changes

2 to --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This card.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- these procedures

5 or something like that.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We would like to

7 do this development in SQL, in a SQL version,

8 rather than try to do it with this one.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: SQL.

10 MR. KATZ: In which case it won't

11 be a problem anymore. As soon as SQL is up

12 and running, we can do this. You don't need

13 to block out part of it. But when Mike's

14 group deals with this new procedure, that work

15 group will put it in there so you don't have

16 it hanging --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Rights and

18 authorities are part of the structure. So you

19 assign the rights and authorities to this Work

20 Group, to the people in that work group, and

21 then the SC&A people who work on it, the NIOSH

22 or other people who work on it so everybody
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 can pull it up and look at it.

2 And so that is just part of the

3 development of the system that we have got to

4 develop anyway. And so to me, it would be

5 great to be able to do this today. And I

6 can't give you a date on the development. To

7 be honest with you, they never roll out the

8 way you want it. So there will be things to

9 think of.

10 I mean, something to think about

11 is sort of a customer meeting at one of these,

12 either Procedures or at the various work

13 groups, with developers and say, "We are here

14 to design the database to keep track of the

15 findings."

16 And I wouldn't want to design a

17 separate one for each working group, but you

18 get some commonality of what are the features

19 you want. You get enough people contributing. 

20 And so you have got a system that is going to

21 make everybody happy. And so then they go off

22 and develop that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 And, like I said, the process we

2 use for developing procedures looks a lot like

3 the process that we would use here with just

4 this extra wrinkle in it. It's developed on

5 the contractor side. And then you've got a

6 review and approval on our side, which we

7 probably won't need here.

8 And we could link the two systems

9 together by even making this an historical

10 module so that it will continue all of this,

11 the development and the Board review, but

12 there are enough differences that you can't

13 just pull that module out and use it. It is

14 too clunky.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Stu, do you currently

16 have the form that you use?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: For?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Setting up your

19 procedure development.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: A form? No.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we don't have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 anything like a form.

2 CHAIR MUNN: See, I'm looking for

3 something easy that already exists that I

4 might be able to modify.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, what I would

6 suggest is what we could do is just take this

7 page and give them some more spaces in here

8 and just print this, a blank page like this,

9 --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: -- right out but,

12 of course, make these fields bigger so that

13 they can write it in. And, you know, whenever

14 they have their meeting, they can just write

15 the date in here and write down in here

16 whatever they say and then give it to me or

17 whoever we could do data input and put it in. 

18 And I would think that would be basically your

19 form.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: See, that to me

21 is right. That is the form that is a

22 discussion that describes how the discussion
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 in the Work Group will proceed for your

2 Subcommittee.

3 It's like this. The finding is

4 written. There are responses. There are

5 iteration. There is Board action.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We can put

7 in a word --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: That is what you

9 use to develop this. And then what you do is

10 you take that form to these groups and say --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, correct me if

12 I'm wrong. It is my understanding that the

13 software on our new computers has the file

14 that is necessary to provide the capability to

15 fill in PDF forms. I believe it does.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And if it does,

18 then if you can send me exactly what we were

19 discussing, a PDF form with more space there,

20 then all I have to do is include that when we

21 transfer anything to a work group. And all

22 they have to do is fill it in and e-mail it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 Right?

2 MR. KATZ: That is what we were

3 just talking about.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So I just

5 wanted to make sure that we had --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, I don't

7 think it would look like it had more space

8 until you started typing it in. And it would

9 allow you to keep scrolling through this.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you talking

11 about the transfer of this to another or are

12 you talking about right now?

13 CHAIR MUNN: I'm talking about

14 right now, right now. What happens in the

15 future is a part of the planning horizon that

16 I don't see. Does that sound reasonable to

17 you, Mark?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

19 CHAIR MUNN: So I need several PDF

20 files from you, Steve, that being one of them.

21 DR. MAURO: Bear in mind that this

22 form does not have to be filled out until SC&A
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 delivers its report.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I know.

3 DR. MAURO: So we have some time.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, we do. 

5 However, if we are going to start transferring

6 things to other work groups, we have to have

7 the chairs of the work groups understand what

8 their responsibility --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: We have already

10 transferred stuff to like Rocky Flats.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We are in the

12 process of transferring Rocky. And I need

13 this to go along.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. Actually,

15 strangely enough, that seems to be where the

16 immediacy is.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 CHAIR MUNN: It is. All right. 

20 Thank you for assistance with that.

21 Now, those of you who can pull up

22 your tracking system, if you would do so for
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 our third set, so that we can get a feel for

2 what we have ahead of us that we may not have

3 addressed yet and whether we have specific

4 requests that we want to put either before

5 SC&A or NIOSH for where we are.

6 The last of the open categories

7 that we had that I see following where we left

8 off, on my list is OTIB-0057, external

9 radiation doses for individuals near the 1958

10 criticality accident.

11 That is open. It has three items

12 on it. Do we need to request NIOSH to address

13 those or get some feel for when they will be

14 addressed?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, a feel for

16 when would be kind of an open question.

17 CHAIR MUNN: We have OTIB-0057. 

18 We have PROC-0042, accounting for incomplete

19 personnel monitoring data on penetrating gamma

20 ray dose, workers in radiation at Y-12 at Oak

21 Ridge plant prior to `61.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0057 you will
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 have very shortly. I mean, I will have it out

2 next week probably.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Fifty-seven? Okay.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I could have sent

5 it before today, but I figured, what good

6 would that do? Everybody is not going to read

7 it.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. I will

9 put that on the expected list. And what about

10 PROC-0042? There seem to be five findings.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we on 4 or 5?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Five, I believe.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I see it. Yes. 

14 Well, okay. Are we on 0042 now?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We are

16 wondering how we should proceed with these. 

17 These are open items that are still on our set

18 3 list that we have not addressed or anything

19 like that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, according to

21 0042-01, we submitted a response and said,

22 "Okay. We will incorporate these suggestions
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 at the next plant revision." And Ron Buchanan

2 recommended we change that in abeyance.

3 MR. MAURO: That was March 9th.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it is

5 probably one that we haven't --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't

7 discussed it.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: We haven't

9 discussed it in the Work Group.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean, we can

11 say that the Board agrees with it. We won't

12 get abeyance. We can leave it in abeyance

13 today.

14 And remember that we said, hey,

15 look, here are suggestions for improving the

16 clarity. And so it's not like we feel like we

17 need to dash out and do this, but --

18 CHAIR MUNN: No.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we will revise

20 it. We will change it.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: That leaves it in
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 abeyance possibly for a long time.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Is this true of all

3 five items?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have got

5 to read them one by one. I don't know.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I do, too.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I think it is

8 except for one of them we recommended be

9 closed.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Forty-two? Yes. 

11 John recommended that item 4 be closed. That

12 was for this procedure considered

13 claimant-favorable in instances where

14 claimants were not monitored.

15 There are a number of assumptions

16 or limitations that have to be accepted. 

17 These assumptions and limitations are not

18 necessarily explicitly pointed out at the tail

19 end of the procedure. And links are very

20 consistent with other documents and can

21 sometimes be followed to fully evaluate the

22 applicability and technical soundness of the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 document.

2 NIOSH said the focus of the

3 procedure was to capture and record the

4 methods used to calculate dose within the

5 guidelines and data given in OTIB-0013. Other

6 documents are used by the DR staff to

7 complement this claim process and claim data. 

8 And the SC&A follow-up recommended that the

9 status be changed to closed.

10 Any objection to changing item 4

11 to closed? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection.

13 CHAIR MUNN: We can close that

14 one. And we leave 5 here. Buchanan has

15 already recommended that it be changed to in

16 abeyance.

17 The Chair agrees the remaining

18 four should be in abeyance based on what NIOSH

19 responses are. Are you okay with in abeyance,

20 Paul?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't quite

22 understand. It appears that there is an error
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 in the document. Is that correct?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The finding

3 is that the term "scaling factor" is used in

4 two different places to describe two different

5 things. So if you read --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Is it a

7 confusing point for the dose reconstructors or

8 just a --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it is a

10 confusing fact for somebody who doesn't do it

11 all the time. You recall that most dose

12 reconstruction, actual dose reconstruction, is

13 done with automated tools.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's not by a

16 dose reconstructor for --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Reading through

18 this document. So it would be corrected in a

19 later version but has virtually no impact on

20 the day-to-day operation. Is that correct?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. That would

22 be our position.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'm okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. SC&A has

3 accepted that. So all four of these with the

4 exception of 4 will be changed to in abeyance. 

5 And 4 we will still close.

6 The next open procedure on my list

7 is PROC-0060.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Basically, these

9 are all similar things.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: They are similar

11 in nature. They are clarity.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, clarity

13 issues that don't impact --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Not the way we're

15 doing business.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- the way you are

17 doing things. Yes, I'm okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: This is

19 occupational-onset ambient dose reconstruction

20 for DOE sites. There are two outstanding

21 items. What happened to 1, I wonder.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not open.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 CHAIR MUNN: I know. I can see

2 that, but I don't show it on my --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Your screen? Your

4 filter may --

5 CHAIR MUNN: -- summary. My

6 filter must have taken it out.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: If you filtered on

8 opened, you can get it.

9 CHAIR MUNN: No. I filtered on

10 almost everything except the kitchen sink. 

11 I'm just looking for opens. I don't -- well,

12 I can do it. It is of no consequence.

13 The point is we have two that show

14 open on PROC-0060. And the question is what

15 action do we need to request, if any? Like

16 this dose reconstructions for DOE sites item?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the same

18 thing. Basically these two open ones, we do

19 have a NIOSH response. PROC-0060 are we

20 talking?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: We do have a NIOSH
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 response. And we do have SC&A follow-up.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. SC&A,

3 NIOSH indicates they agree with the finding

4 and plan to make appropriate changes in a

5 future revision. That means we should have

6 this in abeyance, rather than open, for item

7 2.

8 Any problem with that?

9 MEMBER GIBSON: No.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Item 2?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: What about item 1?

13 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Item 1 is not open.

15 CHAIR MUNN: It hasn't shown up. 

16 And item 3, similarly, recommend following

17 SC&A's recommendation in abeyance.

18 The next item I show as open on my

19 list is PROC-00095, generating summary

20 statistics for coworker bioassay data. I see

21 three open items.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: I show the database
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 shows no NIOSH initial response.

2 CHAIR MUNN: No initial response. 

3 We will need one. And I just got logged off. 

4 Start over again.

5 DR. MAURO: While you are starting

6 over, I've got a question. Steve, how is all

7 of this backed up, what we are working on

8 right now?

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Backed up by ORAU

10 when they back up the O: drive.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. So you are

12 right now working off the O: drive as opposed

13 to your own software?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: That is correct.

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Don't ask empirical

17 questions. We will need to provide it. I

18 appreciate when NIOSH gives us responses. 

19 They've given us pretty much the complete. We

20 usually put a little --

21 CHAIR MUNN: So where were we?

22 MR. MARSCHKE: PROC-0095.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 CHAIR MUNN: We were at 95.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: You had to go back

3 to the beginning on --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I had to go

5 back to the beginning. And we had the three

6 open items on 95. And they were going to be

7 asking for some kind of response from NIOSH,

8 correct?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

10 CHAIR MUNN: PROC-0095. 

11 Ninety-seven, same thing, Worker Outreach

12 Program. Oh. Well.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. 

14 Wait a minute. Where are you guys?

15 CHAIR MUNN: We are at the end of

16 --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Ninety-seven is not

18 in the third group, is it?

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. It was

20 dated 10-29-07.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Why isn't it

22 showing up here? Even if it transferred, it
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 should show up as being transferred.

2 CHAIR MUNN: So, now, what

3 relationship does PROC-0097 --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: PROC-0097 I --

5 CHAIR MUNN: -- have with

6 PROC-0012?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Which ones? What

8 is the name of PROC-0097?

9 MEMBER GIBSON: Talking about the

10 Worker Outreach Program

11 CHAIR MUNN: And you are right. 

12 It's 11-9. It's not 10-29. But we have. So

13 it's one of the later ones.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

15 CHAIR MUNN: But it has nine

16 findings. And its title looks like it should

17 be in Mike's shop.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this the one

19 you were talking about earlier?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's what I

21 was mentioning earlier. I believe 12

22 effectively subsumes 97, but, you know, I
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 can't say that for certain.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: That is true.

3 DR. MAURO: We were discussing it

4 that way. When we had our meeting yesterday,

5 we had made reference to 97 and that, for all

6 intents and purposes, 12, you know, is --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Twelve is correct. 

8 Is it PROC-0012?

9 CHAIR MUNN: PROC-0012.

10 DR. MAURO: PROC-0012. Whether or

11 not it completely subsumes or replaces

12 PROC-0097 I don't know.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I am pretty sure

14 it does. I am pretty sure PROC-0097 is

15 canceled, but I will be able to tell you that

16 for sure. PROC-0097 was an ORAU procedure. 

17 PROC-0012 is an OCAS procedure.

18 MEMBER GIBSON: That's part of

19 what SC&A was going to look at in the review

20 of 12 is whether or not the finding of 97 was

21 complete.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: True.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 DR. MAURO: Correct. It's part

2 and parcel of what we will be doing.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Would it be

4 appropriate to suggest that we go ahead and

5 transfer PROC-0097 over to Mike's Work Group

6 as well or, else, if it is already canceled,

7 what happens?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, at this

9 juncture, it appears wiser to me for us to

10 keep this as it is until we have --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Learn what --

12 CHAIR MUNN: -- SC&A's report --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- as to whether or

15 not PROC-0012 does adequately cover this

16 document.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: If this has been

18 canceled, then it's not in the picture. Is

19 that correct? I mean, they would still look

20 at it.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Some of the

22 concerns that were raised may be applicable to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 12.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Either that or

4 NIOSH may have addressed the concerns when

5 they wrote 12. If they're no longer

6 applicable, then I guess we would either close

7 or withdraw the issue because 97 has gone

8 away.

9 But if it was they had the same

10 wording and we had a problem with the wording

11 in 97, then we might have the same problem

12 with the wording in 12.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess we

14 should wait, then.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

16 MEMBER GIBSON: But it appears

17 somewhere. I mean, when we had SC&A do their

18 initial review of the PROC-0097, they came

19 back with some findings. NIOSH made a

20 response to that, to SC&A's finding, saying

21 that "We're going to cover that in 12."

22 So somewhere here there has been
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 an action by NIOSH that is not showing up

2 here. I don't know if it's not supposed to be

3 here or --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that is

5 interesting. Let me see what I can find. You

6 are right. We made some responses.

7 MEMBER GIBSON: And then SC&A's

8 response was they were going to wait until

9 they review 12 to answer whether or not they

10 have weighed the issues adequately. There are

11 like almost two steps missing. Some of this

12 may be --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. In which case

14 we should not be showing this as open, I

15 guess. So, Stu, will you check to see why we

16 are still showing this open if there were

17 responses to any of these that we haven't

18 captured? We need to do that.

19 I don't know whether that was

20 simply dialogue or whether there are

21 documents.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought we had
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 open stuff.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. The next open

3 item that is shown on my list is OTIB-0054. 

4 There is a lot on that; well, mostly

5 observations. There are only two findings.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0058. Okay. 

7 You are just looking at all open items now.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, because we need

9 to go through the entire list and identify

10 whether there are procedures that SC&A has

11 completed their review and given us findings

12 and observations for which there have not been

13 responses. And we just started where we were

14 in group 3.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Now we're not in

16 group 3 anymore.

17 CHAIR MUNN: No. Now we're into

18 the and other things that came along later

19 list.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Okay. 

21 Which one are we looking at now?

22 CHAIR MUNN: We are looking at
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 OTIB-0054.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty-three.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but many of them

4 are observations rather than findings.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty-six

6 observations and findings.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Fifty-four was the

8 fission and activation product assignment for

9 internal dose-related gross beta and gross

10 gamma analyses.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we are

12 working on responses, it is a fairly difficult

13 concept, it's fairly specialized.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: I seem to remember

16 this one as getting a favorable review except

17 we were concerned that if you have people who

18 are working in a facility and you don't have

19 gross beta-gamma measurements, what do you do

20 about that? I mean, I remember that being the

21 -- it would really be the essence of the

22 concern on this one. I remember that being
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 the main problem.

2 I don't know. Is there a large

3 number of findings on this?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there are. 

5 There are 26 total findings and observations. 

6 They seem to be about equally divided between

7 observations and findings, a whole batch of

8 reactor source term issues, a whole batch of

9 urinalysis issues.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. Never mind. 

11 Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: So they may be

13 relatively easy to address, but they are going

14 to be very cumbersome.

15 DR. MAURO: If I remember, this

16 was Joyce or Ron. Do you know who had the

17 lead on this, Steve?

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I think Steve

19 Ostrow.

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Fission products,

22 fission and activation product assignment for
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 -- well, maybe not. I don't know.

2 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. There were

3 two aspects to this. You had a number of

4 different reactor types --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it was

6 Steve Ostrow because --

7 DR. MAURO: -- a full mix

8 depending on the reactor type. In other

9 words, you know a person is working at a

10 facility where there was a reactor. All

11 you've got is gross beta-gamma information and

12 the kind of reactor that was there.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I think that is

14 probably true because there is a reference to

15 TRIGA in here.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: And then we would say

19 okay. If you know you've got this kind of

20 reactor and the person worked there and you've

21 got gross beta-gamma, here's a mix of fission

22 products you assume those gross beta-gamma
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 reflect.

2 So I can see two things happening. 

3 I can see Steve Ostrow looking at the reactors

4 as a nuclear engineer and Joyce looking at the

5 gross beta-gamma assumptions.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I think you are

7 exactly right. The other thing is Steve

8 Ostrow liked to put in observations as opposed

9 to findings.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. Actually, when

11 you said a large number like that, it sounds

12 like it may have picked up a lot of things out

13 on the margin.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there are

15 ten things identified as observations. And I

16 just opened one. It's essentially a positive

17 comment where "The AKR methodologies,

18 assumptions, and data sources are reasonable." 

19 I will respond, "No response needed."

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We could,

21 indeed.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Or we could say,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 "What do you mean they are reasonable?"

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: We want to be

3 unreasonable.

4 (Laughter.)

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Any response at

6 all is gratefully accepted.

7 The next thing I see on the list,

8 OTIB-0070, dose reconstruction during residual

9 radioactivity periods at AWE facilities.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. I am familiar

11 with that one. The lead on that was Hans. If

12 you want to engage that one, I can get Hans on

13 the line.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We haven't

15 gotten any feedback.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Our concern is that

17 it is showing completely open. And, as you

18 dealt with -- remember, we have 15 findings on

19 it.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. Again, there are

21 certain essentials, so to speak. I remember

22 that one. Maybe there are 50 findings, but
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 there are really only 2 or 3 issues that

2 really were of concern. But when the date

3 comes, we'll deal with that.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: A lot of the

5 findings were basically related to TBD-6000/

6 6001.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I think they were

9 duplicates of basically findings that were

10 found in TBD-6000/6001. So probably the Board

11 -- well, one way to address it would be to say

12 addressed in --

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- whichever was

15 the appropriate because I remember when I

16 entered these, at first I didn't enter the --

17 CHAIR MUNN: And that may be the

18 end of our group for the day because the only

19 other thing I show open on my files here is

20 OCAS IG-004, which I think has had an adequate

21 amount of coverage here today and in any case

22 is going to be transferred, correct?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 MR. MARSCHKE: IG-004 we decided

2 to close. You may want to look back to OCAS

3 TIB-0013. On my file, it is showing to be

4 open.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It is shown on

6 my file to be open as well.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Both 13 and 14.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I don't even see 14.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. You will

10 get OTIB-0013 initial responses.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you looking at

13 OCAS TIB-0013 or --

14 MR. MARSCHKE: OCAS TIB.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: OCAS TIB-0013.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Thirteen and 14.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And 14. They're

18 both being shown as open.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

20 DR. MAURO: Do you have the titles

21 to those?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. OTIB-0013 is
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 Individual Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12

2 Dose Reconstruction. And OTIB-0014 is Rocky

3 Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension.

4 DR. MAURO: And those are both

5 being transferred, I presume?

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I would assume the

8 Rocky Flats one has been subsumed.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: They haven't been

10 yet.

11 CHAIR MUNN: They have not been

12 transferred. That may be a big job for us to

13 look at based on some of the information that

14 we have with respect already to commonality as

15 well.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, you know,

17 Rocky has a hole to go to. Y-12 doesn't.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is true. 

19 But I think it is in our commonalities.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I am puzzled. 

21 Those reviews are pretty old, right, because

22 these are OCAS TIBs.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And those aren't

3 generally the kind of TIBs that we would

4 write.

5 CHAIR MUNN: The SC&A report was

6 2007 October.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It was the third

8 set.

9 CHAIR MUNN: It was third set,

10 yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Third set.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I will

13 make a note of questions here. There are

14 several others here showing open that I am not

15 constrained to address them at this time

16 unless someone else is really eager to do so.

17 I think it would be wise for us to

18 complete this listing of action items and make

19 sure that we have covered those adequately and

20 hope that our system is fully up and operating

21 so that we don't have to worry about what is

22 open in the past.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 Do we have additional housekeeping

2 items over and above our meeting itself that

3 we have already established for the 15th? Do

4 we need to look out further than that or is

5 that quite adequate for what we are doing?

6 MR. KATZ: Do you want to talk

7 about for the drafting of the Subcommittee

8 report? It seems like you are going to need

9 to join some heads a bit in advance of that

10 meeting because you don't have any?

11 Unlike the Dose Reconstruction

12 Subcommittee, which has substantive findings

13 to roll up and so on, you go through

14 procedures in this group and sort of pack them

15 away as you resolve them. But it is going to

16 take some doing for you to think through and

17 come up to sort of some other statements for

18 the Secretary about --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. And, as

20 a matter of fact, I thought we covered that

21 this morning. But perhaps --

22 MR. KATZ: Just what was unclear
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 to me was it seems like you are going to need

2 -- I don't know who is going to be the initial

3 drafter, but you are going to need the help of

4 your Subcommittee members to be thinking about

5 some of the statements in advance, rather than

6 coming to a meeting with just more thoughts on

7 that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: They will be getting

9 --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I think she

11 said she was going to distribute it in

12 advance.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I will distribute a

15 draft and ask for as much input as I can get

16 and will be working with Steve, too, to get

17 the drafts and other status material that we

18 will need to include. Yes.

19 What I was trying to do this

20 morning was get a real feel for whether it was

21 the Subcommittee's opinion that we should

22 duplicate the time the same as we did last
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 time, which I didn't feel was appropriate.

2 I think I received confirmation

3 that the rest of the Subcommittee does not --

4 yes. We will need to do a lot of discussion

5 -- it will probably be e-mails -- with respect

6 to that document.

7 Any other items? Steve, before

8 you put that summary away, we did not go over

9 that this morning. And I would like just for

10 our own information for us to take a quick

11 look at that before we close out. And that

12 will be our last item of the day.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the first

14 thing I would like to compare is this is where

15 we started this morning. This is one I

16 brought with me this morning. And we had 118

17 open items, 38 in progress, 78 in abeyance, 15

18 addressed in other findings, 39 transferred,

19 250 closed.

20 If you all remember those numbers,

21 you can see basically at the end of the day,

22 we have 105 open items. So we got rid of
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 about 13 open items on this. We have 33 in

2 progress, 86 in abeyance, still have 15

3 addressed in other findings, 41 transferred,

4 --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and 258 closed. 

7 So I guess the number closed went up by 8, the

8 number in open went down by 13 from today's

9 efforts.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent.

11 DR. MAURO: How many in abeyance?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: In abeyance went

13 from 78 this morning --

14 MR. KATZ: To 86.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- to 86. So there

16 was quite a bit. That's about eight.

17 MR. KATZ: Ten percent.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Ten percent.

19 CHAIR MUNN: That is about ten

20 percent. That helps. We are making progress,

21 even though it sometimes doesn't feel so.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is the one
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 open item from June of '06?

2 CHAIR MUNN: It's TIB-0010, item

3 8. The use of Attila software was questioned.

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Yes. I

5 remember commenting on Attila, as opposed to,

6 I believe it was, MCMP as being a way to do

7 these external dose calculations.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think this

9 was an internal dosimetry coworker extension.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-010 is the

11 glove box. And Attila is a finite element

12 code, as opposed to a Monte Carlo code.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh. So it is

14 external?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-0010 is the

18 glove box.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Why is that still

20 open?

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Good question.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 well, I don't know. Steve, can you pull it

2 up? My recollection is that we resolved it at

3 some point.

4 There is an MCMP run that pretty

5 much matches this and we were supposed to buy

6 that or something. Is that it or have I got

7 that confused with something?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I am just looking

9 here. Basically it says this issue was not --

10 we concurred. We were waiting for -- I think

11 NIOSH had promised or had indicated that they

12 had confirmatory analysis to compare Attila to

13 MCMP. And we would like to get a look at

14 those calculations.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's your last

16 thing at the bottom?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: The last thing is

18 basically we suggested the status be changed

19 to in abeyance. Obviously the status should

20 be changed to at least in progress. Okay. 

21 Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: And didn't I discover
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 there was no action?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I think there was a

3 --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Was that after the

5 SC&A follow-up?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: As I recall, we

7 brought it or the transcript was consulted,

8 the August 21st transcript was consulted. And

9 there was some indication that NIOSH would --

10 well, I can basically -- we looked that up

11 once before. And there was some indication

12 that NIOSH was going to give us some

13 documentation of the confirmatory analysis

14 that they had performed.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We had worked on

16 it, and I have just not pursued it hard

17 enough. There are a couple of guys in our

18 office who worked on it.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. I recall we were

20 not able to get Attila. There was proprietary

21 code or --

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Attila is very
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 expensive.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Really expensive. 

3 It's really expensive. I don't think we have

4 it.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: It's private. You

6 can't get it from our side.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We had it for

8 a while. I don't think we have it. It was

9 too expensive to maintain. We just didn't use

10 it.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it says SC&A is

12 awaiting a presentation confirming.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I suppose. 

14 Yes. I mean, we will try to find out, try to

15 find the MCMP files.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is certainly

17 in progress, as a minimum.

18 DR. MAURO: Are you still using

19 it? Because I know when you did the work on

20 GSI, you worked with MCMP.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We don't use

22 Attila anymore. We use MCMP. I don't think
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 we have Attila anymore. To me --

2 DR. MAURO: It is ridiculously

3 generic.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, this

5 comment that Bob made, Bob Anigstein made, --

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was he agrees

8 with us, but he would like to see the code. 

9 He would like to see the run. Well, if he

10 agrees with us, what is the point, you know?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: He wants to feel

12 more comfortable, but --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: He probably agrees

14 if the numbers --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I figured Bob

16 wanted to run it just to check for himself.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, he can't run

18 Attila, but he --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: If he can set up

20 MCMP and run the same problem on MCMP and he

21 gets a similar result, what does it matter?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we ought to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 try to get this one closed out.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Let's see.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean, we are not

4 running Attila anymore. Is it still --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is still. 

6 Presumably it is the basis for TIB-0010. You

7 know, there was an Attila run that was done

8 because it has this nice graphical -- you

9 know, you use CAD/CAM and you set the problem

10 up. And it's intuitive.

11 DR. MAURO: I will tell you why I

12 don't think it's a problem. When you actually

13 apply Attila to a particular problem, whether

14 it was the glove box problem -- I think that

15 is where it was.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: We checked those

18 numbers using MCMP. And so we provided

19 commentary to match your numbers by some

20 degree. So in a way, it's almost a moot

21 point.

22 Since the end result is did you
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 come up with numbers for that application that

2 we agree with, yes or no, the fact that we're

3 interested, you know, it's almost like this

4 generic question about Attila in general

5 almost is really moot. Do you see what I

6 mean?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. It's my

8 suggestion that we change the status now to in

9 progress and that NIOSH will check to make

10 sure that we have covered the appropriate

11 bases with the current calculations --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's get it

13 closed.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- and with the

15 expectation that we will close it next time.

16 The action item list for our next

17 meeting is daunting, but I don't think it's as

18 bad as it looks.

19 MR. KATZ: Do you have it in one

20 place that you can run through it?

21 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know whether

22 I can read it or not, but I can try. The
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 action item list that I have is Steve is going

2 to get me the PDF files that are necessary to

3 attach to the transfer letters.

4 I will make the slight change that

5 was necessary on the transfer letter for the

6 two procedures that we are sending to Rocky

7 correcting the last sentence.

8 I will put together a first draft

9 of an attempt for the letter to the Secretary

10 and get it out to the Board for review.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's call it a

12 report. You have a cover letter and a report.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, report. SC&A is

14 going to have Joyce take a look at the notes

15 on OTIB-0029. Hans had some concerns about

16 the Harshaw TBD, whether that had any bearing

17 on it.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was that an action

19 item?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was an action

21 item for Joyce to take a look.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Joyce.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Hans's comment

2 about Harshaw was that the Harshaw Site

3 Profile says that there is this linking change

4 in urinary output between Friday afternoon and

5 Monday morning of a particular solubility.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's in this

8 that he said that you need to worry about this

9 issue. I don't think there are actions

10 associated with this.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think so

12 either.

13 DR. MAURO: I don't have that in

14 action items.

15 CHAIR MUNN: No.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Correct. It

17 isn't.

18 CHAIR MUNN: The action is --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Is Joyce's.

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- Lipsztein and

21 OTIB-0029. I have OTIB-0068 was intended to

22 cover that two-day sample. That is more
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 action.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: What's our action?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Your action --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: What is it?

5 CHAIR MUNN: -- was that you were

6 going to -- depending on Joyce's report next

7 time. We were going to carry it over until

8 next time and --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't have an

10 action until Joyce's report.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. 

12 That's correct. Ostensibly Joyce's report

13 will come in. And we will hopefully be able

14 to close it out next time.

15 I am going to transfer IG-004-03

16 and 7 to the Surrogate Data Work Group with a

17 draft to the Subcommittee beforehand and a PDF

18 necessary from Steve.

19 I have on the list of procedure,

20 SC&A procedure, check-off, they are going to

21 change two items that we have discussed and do

22 a quick review to see if there are others.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 SC&A is going to revise the

2 commonalities table to include two items from

3 OTIB-0035-01.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: 0029-03 and

5 0035-01.

6 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A will review the

7 NIOSH response to OTIB-0047-01. NIOSH is

8 carrying over OTIB-0051-01. They didn't have

9 a chance to look at it for this time. SC&A

10 will --

11 MR. KATZ: You said what?

12 CHAIR MUNN: 51-01.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, I think

14 it's all of them.

15 CHAIR MUNN: All of them, yes.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: All of the ones

17 that are with 51 in sequence.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: One, 2, and 3, I

19 think.

20 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A is going to

21 check to incorporate closure data in 0047-02. 

22 NIOSH is going to respond on this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we

2 closed 0047-02.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, 0047-02 is closed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Why do I have it to

5 incorporate closure data into that?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, I was going to

7 basically -- I have closed, but I haven't had

8 --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh. You are going

10 to add something in --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I just have to

12 update the database.

13 CHAIR MUNN: It's just to check to

14 make sure we did what we said we were going to

15 do. Then NIOSH respond on setup of

16 OTIB-0049-01 and see if you need a technical

17 call or not, notify Mark if we do. NIOSH is

18 working on OTIB-0057. Hopefully we will have

19 something next time.

20 PROC-0042, PROC-0095 needs

21 response.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: There is no action
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 item here on 42, right, or is there?

2 MR. MARSCHKE: PROC-0042 we

3 basically, didn't we put a --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we put it

5 in abeyance.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Closed one and

7 there are four in abeyance.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Okay.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: No actions.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. We just

11 need to revise the copy we have.

12 CHAIR MUNN: So we don't have an

13 action?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean,

15 anything that is in abeyance --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the grand

18 scheme, we have an action. But there is

19 nothing specific about that.

20 CHAIR MUNN: You didn't say you

21 had an action item?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. We are asking

2 for a response on PROC-0095, which is all

3 open. And NIOSH is going to check for the

4 documents for PROC-0097. We'll keep it open

5 for a time. The next is going to be covered

6 under PROC-0012. That is going to be

7 verified.

8 And then the other open items we

9 had as we went down the list were OTIB-0054,

10 OTIB-0070, OTIB-0013, OTIB-0014. And they're

11 going to report on OTIB-0010-08 the status

12 with the expectation we can close it next

13 meeting.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: You just might

15 mention those 13, 14, and 10, the last 3. 

16 Those are OCAS TIBs.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 13, 14, and

18 10-08.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are OCAS

20 TIBs, which we abbreviate TIB.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: When you mentioned
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 the items on the commonality paper, did you

2 mention SC&A is going to reissue that author

3 and date as well?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. SC&A revised

5 commonalities paper to include the two items.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Two items plus the

7 format.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. And you said

9 the two items.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wasn't sure if

12 --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: One format as

14 well.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Is that it?

17 CHAIR MUNN: That is what I have.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Anything else?

20 (No response.)

21 CHAIR MUNN: If not, I didn't hear

22 an answer to my question. Is anyone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 enthusiastic about trying to set yet another

2 date past October for our meeting following

3 that or do you want to ignore the whole thing? 

4 Well, is anyone enthusiastic about anything at

5 this point?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: About adjourning.

7 MEMBER GIBSON: Getting out of

8 here.

9 CHAIR MUNN: You would like to

10 leave, wouldn't you?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did you have

12 particular dates in mind or --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I had hoped

14 that we might set something up for the end of

15 November or in the middle of November.

16 MR. KATZ: So we don't have Mark?

17 CHAIR MUNN: We don't have Mark.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I have come back

19 on. I've been on for the last half-hour. 

20 Thanks for the summary at the end, Wanda.

21 CHAIR MUNN: So glad you got in

22 there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Mark. We have

2 Mark. So --

3 CHAIR MUNN: How is your middle

4 November looking?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, we're

6 actually going to try to fit in those dates? 

7 Yes. Middle November is fine with me,

8 actually.

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I guess

10 we have to avoid Veterans' Day on the 11th.

11 MR. KATZ: Thanksgiving, too.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We won't even talk

13 about the last week of the month. Is that

14 week of Veterans' Day reasonable for us to

15 look at, that Thursday or that Friday?

16 MR. KATZ: Well, the Thursday

17 means, then, traveling on Veterans' Day.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. What

19 about the Friday?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, or what about the

21 following week, the 16th, 17th, 18th, or the

22 17th, 18th?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 CHAIR MUNN: Fine. Seventeenth? 

2 Tuesday, November 17? No?

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay with me.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have got a

5 conflict, but I might be able to change it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, is that week

7 okay?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Just that day that is

10 not good?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Okay. Eighteenth.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Is the 18th okay? 

14 Eighteenth, Mark?

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Eighteenth is

16 better, yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. All right. 

18 Mike? We are good for November 18th, 10:00

19 o'clock here.

20 MR. KATZ: 9:30. If Paul comes

21 now the night in advance, we can actually get

22 started earlier.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we were

2 starting late for Wanda.

3 MR. KATZ: She blamed it on you.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Wait. Well, I didn't

5 blame it solely on you. Mark likes to come in

6 that same day, too.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I usually

8 do, but my flight usually gets there by --

9 9:30 is pretty good for me.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because we get in

12 at 8:30.

13 MS. HOWELL: Hey, Ted?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, Emily?

15 MS. HOWELL: The 18th and 19th are

16 going to be a problem for OGC.

17 MR. KATZ: You mean no coverage?

18 MS. HOWELL: No coverage.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh.

20 MS. HOWELL: We have meetings in

21 Atlanta those days.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Uh-oh. And the 17th
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 is bad for Paul.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can probably

3 change mine. If the 17th is good, let's do

4 it.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Is the 17th okay,

7 Emily?

8 MS. HOWELL: Yes, the 17th would

9 work.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Mark?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. It's okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Mike?

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. The 17th.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right.

16 CHAIR MUNN: I thank you. This

17 meeting is adjourned.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

19 matter went off the record at 4:43

20 p.m.)

21

22