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

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 + + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

 AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 OFFICE OF COMPENSATION ANALYSIS AND SUPPORT 

 + + + + + 

 WORK GROUP: PROCEDURES 

 + + + + + 

 TUESDAY, 

 DECEMBER 9, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The Work Group convened at 9:30 

a.m. Eastern Standard Time, in the Zurich Room 

of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, 

Wanda I. Munn, Work Group Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON* 

MARK GRIFFON* 

PAUL L. 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 

 2

ALSO PRESENT: 

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE* 

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A* 

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU 

LARRY ELLIOTT, OCAS 

JOE GUIDO, ORAU* 

LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS* 

STUART HINNEFELD, OCAS 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

JEFF KOTSCH, DOL* 

PAT KRAPS, ORAU* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A* 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A* 

MATT SMITH, ORAU* 

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU 

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU 

*Participating via telephone 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

Roll Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 

Administrative Matters 

 Wanda Munn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 

Presentation on Proposed CATI Procedure 

 Larry Elliott. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Overview on Comments and Findings on OTIB 

 John Mauro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

Current Status of Tracking System 

 Nancy Adams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 

Discussion on Full Database of the Open and 

In-Progress Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 

Adjourn 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

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

2 9:35 a.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning to the 

4 folks on the phone. This is Ted Katz. I'm 

5 the acting designated federal official for the 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health, and 

7 this is the procedures working group and we're 

8 about to get started. 

9 We're going to begin with roll 

10 call with board members in the room, please, 

11 starting with the chair. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Ms. Wanda Munn, board 

13 member and chair of Procedures Working Group. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, board 

15 member. 

16 MR. KATZ: And then on the 

17 telephone? 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

19 board member. 

20 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Mark. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks. 

22 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, board 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 member. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Bob Presley, are 

3 you there? No, and then in the room, starting 

4 with the NIOSH ORAU Team. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

6 director of NIOSH's Office of Compensation 

7 Analysis and Support. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

9 chemical program manager for OCAS. 

10 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU 

11 Team. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

13 Team. 

14 MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett, ORAU 

15 Team. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then NIOSH 

17 ORAU Team on the telephone? 

18 MR. GUIDO: Joe Guido, ORAU Team. 

19 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith, ORAU 

20 Team. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then SC&A in 

22 the room? 
 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 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke, 

3 SC&A. 

4 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

5 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, SC&A. 

6 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Steve. 

7 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Kathy. 

9 All right. And then other federal 

10 employees in the room? 

11 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams. 

12 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

13 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

14 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki15 Titus with HHS. 

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Liz. 

17 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with 

18 Labor. 

19 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Jeff. 

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

21 DOE. 

22 MR. KATZ: Any 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 

 7

1 Okay. And then any members of the 

2 public on the telephone or representatives of 

3 Congressional offices? 

4 Okay. Thank you. Then just a 

5 note for everyone on the phone, please mute 

6 your phones when you're not speaking or use *6 

7 if you don't have a mute button. And please 

8 do not put us on hold. Hang up and dial back 

9 in if you need to leave for a piece. Thank 

10 you very much. 

11 And it's all yours, Wanda. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted. 

13 There are several administrative 

14 items that it would be wise for us to address 

15 before we undertake our procedures issues 

16 tracking process, which we're prepared to do 

17 all electronically this time, I trust. We've 

18 had quite a few additions to the matrix since 

19 our last meeting and we hope we'll be able to 

20 close out several items as we go through them. 

21 It's my expectation when we get to that point 

22 that we would be looking only at open 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 

 8

1 abeyance material and will not be running 

2 through the entire database when we start that 

3 portion of our deliberations. 

4 The first thing I'd like for us to 

5 address is the letter that I assume all of you 

6 have that has been proposed to the director of 

7 NIOSH on the issue of establishing this work 

8 group as a subcommittee. Our charter has 

9 lasted much longer and is obviously going to 

10 continue for some time, which is not the 

11 official description of a good work group. So 

12 this issue of whether or not to propose this 

13 group as a subcommittee has been around for 

14 several months. The draft letter is now in 

15 circulation. 

16 Ted, do you have any additional 

17 information with regard to status? 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, the memo has gone 

19 forward for the NIOSH Director's signature and 

20 it will go up the pike from there. So that 

21 should occur. The next time we have a 

22 meeting, we should be 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 

 9

1 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. I 

2 appreciate that. All of us who are members of 

3 the work group and who support the work group 

4 need to be aware of the fact that this will 

5 change our modus of operation a little bit. 

6 Being a subcommittee requires more advanced 

7 notice, Federal Register notice and a 

8 significant period of time prior to -- I 

9 believe it's 30 days, isn't it -- 

10 MR. KATZ: That's correct. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- prior to our 

12 actual meeting. So although we've had 

13 considerable flexibility to this point 

14 regarding when and how we call our meetings, 

15 we're not going to have quite that much 

16 latitude in the future. So please bear that 

17 in mind. As we reach these discussions, we'll 

18 be talking about our next meeting. That will 

19 probably become increasingly important for us 

20 to do well in advance effective, probably as 

21 Ted points out, with our next meeting. 

22 That being said, is there 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 

 10

1 who has any question or any outstanding 

2 misunderstandings with regard to this 

3 potential change in our status? 

4 If not, then let's move on to the 

5 second item which we should address. I trust 

6 that most of the people in the room, if not 

7 everyone, has received the email that I sent 

8 on the eighth with respect to our concern with 

9 the new proposed CATI procedure that's in 

10 place before us. 

11 Larry Elliott has asked to be able 

12 to present that information to us. And since 

13 I anticipate there will be a number of 

14 comments, you may want to pull that up on your 

15 screen if you have it available to you. 

16 Larry? 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Madam 

18 Chair. I appreciate the opportunity here to 

19 try to introduce to the working group this 

20 survey instrument, the computer-assisted 

21 interview has a questionnaire associated with 

22 it, actually two questionnaires. One used 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 

 11

1 Energy employees to capture as best we can 

2 their experience in working in the facilities 

3 where they were, and another questionnaire 

4 that attempts to obtain any relevant 

5 information from a survivor that might be 

6 useful for dose reconstruction purposes. 

7 What we have provided to the 

8 working group, and I believe also to the full 

9 Board, is a copy or copies of modified 

10 questionnaires based upon input that we have 

11 gained about these documents, these survey 

12 instruments. And this input has come from not 

13 only, of course, the Board and this work 

14 group, and the Sanford Cohen and Associates 

15 review of PROC-90, Procedure 90, but it also 

16 comes from claimants themselves talking to us 

17 about the process. And it comes from public 

18 meetings and inquiries and scrutiny that is 

19 given to the program and GAO reviews to just 

20 our own internal assessments. 

21 And so the draft questionnaires 

22 that we have before you today reflect things 
 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 that we have heard, changes that we made based 

2 upon our consideration of all of that input. 

3 There are certain things that we didn't accept 

4 that were provided as comments or suggestions, 

5 of course, and certainly I'm sure you all want 

6 to examine that. 

7 But I think there's a bigger 

8 question here in my mind right now, and I want 

9 to lay out a time line for you because there's 

10 been a question raised as to whether the Board 

11 has an opportunity to input into this process 

12 that we are engaged in right now with the 

13 Office of Management and Budget, and that is 

14 a renewal of the authority to use these 

15 instruments in this program. We have to go 

16 through this every so often. I believe this 

17 is the second time that we have sent up a 

18 request for renewal to use these instruments. 

19 We are at the end of the current 

20 expiration date of the current instruments and 

21 this renewal package has to go into this 

22 process and we are actually late in getting 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 

 13

1 in. So while it's in to OMB for review and 

2 comment, there will also be an opportunity for 

3 a public comment period on what we propose to 

4 use to replace the current instrument. So 

5 it's a 60-day window of opportunity for 

6 anybody in the public to submit a request to 

7 see the instruments. The instruments are not 

8 typically provided within a Federal Register 

9 notice. Okay? And at the end of that period 

10 of public comment and input opportunity, we 

11 would have to sit down and, you know, reflect 

12 upon all of that and modify the documents as 

13 we think appropriate. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Larry, I'm sorry 

15 to interrupt. Did you say this is the second 

16 time you've had to do renewal? Because I've 

17 been confused whether this is the third 

18 version of the questionnaire or is this the 

19 first revision of the questionnaire. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: I believe that this 

21 will be the third version. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Third version? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 Okay. I've heard different information on 

2 that. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: We had original 

4 version. We submitted a renewal application 

5 and this is the second renewal application 

6 that we're going to submit. Now how many do 

7 we count there? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: The real question, I 

9 think, is was the second one, is the current 

10 form that's being used today as we sit here 

11 the same as the original form? 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: It's slightly 

13 modified in the second renewal, or in the 

14 first renewal. And the first renewal is 

15 slightly modified. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: I didn't remember the 

17 -- 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Very slightly. It 

19 is modified, and I can't point distinctly 

20 right now to where it was modified, but it was 

21 based upon a change that ORAU suggested to us 

22 and we agreed to make at that point in time. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 CHAIR MUNN: I recall that we were 

2 aware that it was being renewed but it was my 

3 impression at the time that there was not a 

4 significant change, and that's essentially 

5 what you're saying now. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Not significant. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, you have a 

8 different memory than me on that one, Wanda, 

9 because I don't recall being notified of that 

10 at all. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think we were 

12 told. It may even be in our minutes 

13 somewhere, but I don't mean this group's 

14 meeting. I mean, the board meeting. I'm 

15 fairly sure that there was some discussion of 

16 it at the board level the first time. But the 

17 change was insignificant, as I recall. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: I believe the 

19 transcript will show that the Board was 

20 notified of the renewal. I don't believe 

21 there was a lot of discussion about it at the 

22 time. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 CHAIR MUNN: There was 

2 no -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: And it's the same 

4 process as I'm describing now. 

5 But at any rate -- 

6 MEMBER GIBSON: Wanda, this is 

7 Mike. I believe I remember there was a 

8 renewal that I -- I don't believe I remember 

9 anything about any modification. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: No, I didn't either, 

11 Mike. But as Larry's saying, it was so minor 

12 that we probably wouldn't have even noticed 

13 it. 

14 MEMBER GIBSON: I guess minor, you 

15 know, is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, yes. 

17 Nevertheless, there was opportunity for public 

18 comment during that renewal application 

19 process as well. 

20 So here you have two draft 

21 documents that could be provided -- could be 

22 provided -- in response to somebody wanting to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 comment on this from the Federal Register 

2 notice. 

3 We have been examining this and 

4 we're thinking that these are not perhaps the 

5 best current tools to be using to interview 

6 claimants with. We have heard that there's 

7 burden here, as claimants see it, that in fact 

8 the burden extends to points of frustration 

9 when they're asked about a long list of 

10 radionuclides that, particularly if you're a 

11 survivor, you have no idea. And then if 

12 you're even an Energy employee, you still may 

13 not be able to identify any that were on that 

14 list. And we should know at this point in 

15 time, by and large at every site where we have 

16 a lot of technical basis developed, the answer 

17 to these kinds of questions. 

18 And so we're thinking that maybe 

19 the right survey instrument at this point in 

20 the program is not a lengthy questionnaire 

21 like you have in draft form before you. It 

22 may be nothing more than a short series 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 

 18

1 questions that, one, confirms the information 

2 that we have at hand on the individual Energy 

3 employee, indicates to them that we have 

4 received -- if they are a DOE facility worker, 

5 that we have received this type of dose 

6 information. In other words, don't hold the 

7 interview until after you've got that back 

8 from DOE. And then, you know, a couple open9 ended questions about things that they think 

10 might be relevant to their claim for us to 

11 know about. 

12 And so, you know, I just throw 

13 that out there. These two survey instruments 

14 that you have before you are not cut in stone. 

15 Here's your opportunity as a working group, or 

16 as a board at your meeting in December, to 

17 advise us on your thoughts about the best 

18 approach to interview these claimants. I'll 

19 stop at that. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Larry. 

21 That's very much appreciated and helps clarify 

22 several questions that certainly came to 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 

 19

1 mind as I was reading through this. I know 

2 very few survivors who would be able to answer 

3 more than a half-dozen of these questions, if 

4 that. And these appear to be the kind of 

5 questions that, were I an interviewer, I would 

6 be asking very specific individuals, probably 

7 safety professionals and health physics people 

8 in the plants themselves. 

9 Yes, Paul? 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer 

11 speaking. 

12 Larry, I think you've put your 

13 finger on the issue, and we've heard it over 

14 and over again in the public comment period. 

15 And that is that somehow this gives the 

16 claimant the impression that the burden is on 

17 them to furnish the information. Now I know 

18 that in the second paragraph on page 2 it's 

19 pointed out that this is an opportunity to 

20 provide additional information. But that is 

21 sufficiently vague, I think, that people are 

22 missing the point. And somehow if both 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 

 20

1 introduction and, maybe the narration here, 

2 could emphasize that NIOSH already has a great 

3 deal of information about the site and the 

4 records on the site, and that it actually is 

5 not necessary for the person to provide all of 

6 this information for the claim to be 

7 processed, that we know a lot already: somehow 

8 to emphasize that if there's information that 

9 they know that would supplement that. And I 

10 know you've said that here, but people are not 

11 getting it. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: It's not said in -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it needs to 

14 come out in a much stronger way that all we're 

15 doing is supplementing a lot of information 

16 that we already have. And probably there 

17 could be some words, and I don't have any 

18 modifications to generate here today, but I 

19 would think perhaps in the 60-day process and 

20 at our board meeting, we're going to bump up 

21 against the 60 days, I think, but I think the 

22 Board should comment on that and maybe help 
 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 suggest some language that would bring that 

2 out. And that could be coupled with -- I 

3 think the questions are good ones. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they are. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- because they 

6 cover the things that you want to stimulate in 

7 the people. But at the same time, in asking 

8 the questions, it appears that the burden is 

9 falling back. But if -- in every case, if we 

10 said we know a lot about the work practices at 

11 this site, but in case your, the claimant, may 

12 have been somehow different; do you know about 

13 this. This could be asked, I think, on 

14 everything. We know a lot about the jobs that 

15 were carried out and the nuclides used, but if 

16 there's other things that you know, and I 

17 think it has to be added in every question to 

18 sort of reinforce. We know a lot already. Is 

19 there something that we've missed that you 

20 know about so that we reemphasize that somehow 

21 the burden is not so much on them, but that 

22 there's supplement -- 
 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 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

2 Or maybe -- those interviews with the actual 

3 worker as opposed to -- 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, CATIs 

5 are with the claimants. The claimants are 

6 survivors often. 

7 DR. MAURO: I'm looking at the 

8 form here. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, but how many 

10 hours per week did you work? Well, if it's -- 

11 DR. MAURO: I'm assuming this is 

12 -- yes. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: This is the 

14 claimant or the Energy employee. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, the only reason 

16 why I'm reacting is because I think that what 

17 you're saying is to lay on the button when it 

18 comes to the worker, because he uniquely can 

19 offer much richer information in his personal 

20 experience. But the degree to which that tack 

21 will work well for survivors might be 

22 different. 
 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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's often 

2 less for survivors, though we've bumped into 

3 survivors that have gathered a lot of 

4 supplementary information, maybe from 

5 notebooks and records that they have at home. 

6 But I think the general principle is true in 

7 either case, trying to supplement it. 

8 So to the extent to which we can 

9 sort of reemphasize that, I think the 

10 information you're trying to glean is the 

11 right information. If they know something we 

12 don't know, let's find it. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: The point I hear you 

14 making, Dr. Ziemer, is to reemphasize that we 

15 know a lot about what we know about and, can 

16 they provide anything in addition to that. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: I also hear you say 

19 though that the list of questions you find to 

20 be appropriate -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, only in 

22 stimulating them to think about work times, 
 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 nuclides, locations, those kinds of incidents. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Where do you see the 

3 balance in asking a long list of questions 

4 that will gain some information or any 

5 information versus, you know, maybe a sort of 

6 series of questions that are more open-ended, 

7 more broad? What is the burden? You know, 

8 where's the best place to say the burden is 

9 balanced? 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, for example, 

11 on most of the sites we know either -- let's 

12 take medical X-rays for employment. We pretty 

13 much either know that or we're going to assign 

14 that. I'm not sure if we've ever run across 

15 anything that helps on that. And I would say 

16 if you find that there's things like that it 

17 sort of makes no difference, they don't need 

18 to be in here. 

19 But I think things like incidents, 

20 sometimes we've run across cases, and they may 

21 not pan out, but they may say, you know, my 

22 husband's work clothes were confiscated 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 

 25

1 some case, or something must have happened. 

2 I don't know. 

3 DR. MAURO: If I might offer, in 

4 looking at the questionnaire, this is just a 

5 thought that came to me, for example, let's 

6 say we're talking about overtime or then how 

7 many work hours, do you think it would be more 

8 interactive and claimant-friendly to say, 

9 listen, right now based on the records we've 

10 reviewed for your case, it's our understanding 

11 that about 10 hours a week was the number, 

12 we're going to assume 10 hours a week because 

13 we think that's probably -- in other words, 

14 turn it around. Let them know what we plan to 

15 do. And I just wanted to make sure that you 

16 think that is the right approach to do, or do 

17 you think maybe it was even more than that? 

18 So all of a sudden that personalizes it. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Except that the 

20 CATIs occurring before the dose 

21 reconstructor -- 

22 DR. MAURO: That's 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 

 26

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- assigns that 

2 kind of information, I think. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: So and the CATI 

5 interviewer doesn't have access to the 

6 workbooks and the assumptions and so on. I 

7 think that's the case. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: That's the case. 

9 That's the case. You know, we've done 20,000 

10 claims, but probably that represents 35,000 

11 interviews. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Using, you know, 

14 this long set of questions. And if were to 

15 ask, and I have asked the dose reconstructors, 

16 what do you actually need? You know, because 

17 they all look at these. They are required to 

18 look through these CATI reports. And I'm not 

19 sure what they're going to say to me. I 

20 haven't heard back yet, but, you know, I can 

21 anticipate that some of them are going to say, 

22 look, if there was an incident, I'd 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 

 27

1 know about that and what the year was. You 

2 know, leaving your badge, you know, on the 

3 wall, that might not be important. But, you 

4 know, in some cases if it's overtime, the way 

5 the model works there is that it accounts for 

6 overtime. So we don't necessarily need to 

7 know whether you had true PE because we don't 

8 factor that into our -- the use of that into 

9 our models. But why do we ask that? You 

10 know, it's a question that we pose, the burden 

11 that we place, and what purpose? You know, 

12 what benefit do we gain from pushing to ask 

13 that kind of question? That's what we're 

14 talking about here and welcome any thoughts 

15 that we have. 

16 You know, I think you're right, 

17 I'm sorry about the 60-day window. The 

18 Federal Register notice will probably appear 

19 sometime maybe next week. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: The first impression 

21 that one gets when reading through the 

22 preamble, even if I read this very carefully, 
 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 it comes across, even if I'm speaking those 

2 words very, very clearly, it still comes 

3 across as bureaucratic formulation of some 

4 kind. I know that there has to be some 

5 parameters placed on how the individual 

6 interacts with the claimant on the line. But 

7 we've heard repeatedly from claimants that 

8 they feel like they're taking a test, that 

9 this is going to be a pass or fail issue. And 

10 if they don't have information, that they are 

11 somehow failing and it's going to negatively 

12 affect the claim. If we've been told that for 

13 a number of years from a number of sites and 

14 we don't address that when we revise the CATI, 

15 then it seems that we are deliberately turning 

16 our backs on an area of information that we've 

17 gone out of our way and spent a great deal of 

18 effort in trying to cultivate. 

19 It's very easy to be able to say 

20 it may not sound bureaucratic to the 

21 formulators of this language, so it's very 

22 easy to say, look, please understand up front 
 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 this is not a test. This is our effort to try 

2 to include any information we already asked. 

3 If you don't know the answers, it doesn't 

4 affect your claim in a negative way. We don't 

5 expect you to be able to answer all these 

6 things. That's not difficult to say. So if 

7 we incorporate that in this and, as Paul 

8 indicated, reemphasize that from time to time 

9 throughout the interview, that's one approach 

10 from this personal perspective that would be 

11 very helpful. 

12 The second item is with respect to 

13 the questions themselves. Most of them can be 

14 lumped into categories and rather than asking 

15 those detailed questions in the categories, 

16 there's a train of thought somewhere that says 

17 if you don't ask -- the detailed question 

18 might stimulate some thought process. 

19 Conversely, it may drive people crazy, which 

20 it seems to based on the feedback that we get. 

21 Whereas maybe we're only getting feedback from 

22 the people that are annoyed by it. Maybe 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 

 30

1 don't hear from the people who think that's 

2 okay. But it seems to me that a coverall 

3 question like the blow-by-blow question about 

4 the radionuclides, I know these people may 

5 have heard that term, but the fact that they 

6 may have heard that term doesn't necessarily 

7 mean that their claim is associated with it in 

8 some way. That doesn't assure that their 

9 survivor, the survivor's relative was actually 

10 working with that material. The fact that 

11 they may have talked about plutonium for 

12 example, that they worked with radioactive 

13 substances but they may not have been anywhere 

14 in a plutonium area. 

15 So a generalized question, which 

16 if a positive result comes back, might trigger 

17 some more specific questions, may be a far 

18 better approach in moving down this line of 

19 large categories, which might affect then what 

20 we have in front of us now. 

21 I'm going to be quiet now because 

22 I'd like the other board members on the line 
 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 to have an opportunity to comment. 

2 Mike, do you have something you'd 

3 like to say about this? 

4 MR. KATZ: Just a note before we 

5 continue. Someone on the phone is apparently 

6 having a hard time hearing. 

7 People on the phone, can you hear 

8 me well right now? 

9 MEMBER GIBSON: Ted, I can hear 

10 you well. This is Mike. I can hear you, but 

11 some of the speakers, John Mauro and et 

12 cetera, is a little bit -- 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So just let's 

14 everybody try to come up to the table and 

15 speak clearly? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Could you hear me all 

17 right, Mike? 

18 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Wanda, I can 

19 hear you. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks. Sorry. 

21 DR. MAURO: Mike, this is John. 

22 I'm closer to the mic right now. Can you hear 
 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 me? Is this an improvement? 

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that's an 

3 improvement. 

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you. 

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Thanks. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Mike, this is Larry 

7 Elliott. Were you able to hear me earlier? 

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Thank you. 

10 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Now, back to my other 

12 question, now that we're sure you can hear us. 

13 Do you have comments to make about our 

14 discussion here? 

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I have a few 

16 comments and it kind of relates back to our 

17 work group meeting yesterday. I understand, 

18 you know, asking this whole question about the 

19 CATI and stuff, but a step deeper and it kind 

20 of gets into -- you know, it will come up I 

21 guess in the worker outreach work group, to 

22 the extent people give additional information 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 and comments, we heard yesterday from Stu that 

2 it's considered that very seldom is it really 

3 investigated because it's very time-intensive. 

4 So, you know, I'm kind of cut off this -- 

5 we're going through this process of, you know, 

6 iterations on this thing when the information 

7 provided by the claimant sometimes doesn't 

8 seem like it's investigated deep enough, in my 

9 opinion. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, and 

11 for the benefit of people who weren't here 

12 yesterday, Mike's talking about -- this is, 

13 the topic of discussion was when an employee 

14 or an interviewer of a claimant says this, I 

15 was involved in such-and-such an incident, do 

16 we go to the site and try to find out and 

17 investigate that incident? And I said, by and 

18 large we don't because by and large we expect 

19 a worker to encounter things that they would 

20 describe as and incident. And we expect our 

21 dose reconstruction to be sufficiently robust 

22 that those kinds of exposures, the kind 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 

 34

1 would expect, would be covered by that dose 

2 reconstruction. The times when we do try to 

3 do additional investigation would be when the 

4 incident described causes us concern about 

5 whether our dose reconstruction was robust 

6 enough. Or for instance, if there was some 

7 collaborating piece of information we knew 

8 that seemed to indicate there was an incident 

9 at that time, this person could very well have 

10 been involved in that one and we maybe need 

11 to, you know, check and see have we really 

12 covered his dose okay. 

13 So there are times like that, and 

14 those are not very many times, as Mike has 

15 said. What I did say was it's not that often 

16 when a claimant says in their CATI, I was 

17 involved in these incidents, it's not very 

18 often that we go back to the site and try to 

19 find some sort of document of record of the 

20 incident. Because, like I said, we are 

21 confident that our dose reconstruction 

22 addresses the kinds of things they describe. 
 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 So that's what I said. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: And I'd like to 

3 comment for the record, just to make sure 

4 there's no misunderstanding, the meeting which 

5 is being discussed here was not a previous 

6 meeting of this group. This work group was 

7 not meeting yesterday. It was an entirely 

8 different work group. This was a tangential 

9 item, not one that was on the agenda of that 

10 preceding work group. It had nothing to do 

11 with the procedures. 

12 Okay. Go ahead, Mike. 

13 MEMBER GIBSON: And, Stu, you said 

14 that you don't go back to the site. You know, 

15 maybe I missed that. I thought you said 

16 something different, but anyway -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, either way, 

18 Mike, you know, we usually don't investigate 

19 very far. You are right. And so if the 

20 person describes an incident and we feel like 

21 our dose reconstruction -- we expected that 

22 kind of -- at that place for people to be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 involved in those kind of work conditions. 

2 And so our dose reconstruction is robust 

3 enough to address that kind of exposure, then 

4 we don't investigate. I don't mean we were 

5 limited. We just don't go back to the site. 

6 I mean then we say, okay, we're good and we 

7 don't necessarily investigate any further. 

8 That's what I meant. I think it's what you 

9 said. 

10 MEMBER GIBSON: And I guess I just 

11 want to say that, you know, given the history 

12 of DOE, all incidents are not recorded and so 

13 the information -- you know, I don't fault 

14 NIOSH at all for the extent of efforts you put 

15 forward to gather evidence and do, you know, 

16 site profiles, this and that, but all 

17 incidents are not recorded. You know, that's 

18 been my swan song for a long time and I stand 

19 by it. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That's a lot of 

21 the reason, Mike, why we don't spend a lot of 

22 time trying to go find information about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 things like this. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't disagree 

3 with you. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We agree with you 

5 100 percent. And that's exactly why we don't 

6 go try and investigate that. We try to write 

7 a dose reconstruction to start because we 

8 expect people will be exposed to those kinds 

9 of events at the various sites because, by 

10 this point we do know a fair amount about the 

11 various sites, and we expect those kind of 

12 exposures. We write a dose reconstruction 

13 that is robust enough to cover those. And 

14 just as you said, trying to find out more 

15 about it is often -- you know, we don't see a 

16 lot of chance for success there. And in fact, 

17 if you ask other people about that event, what 

18 will they tell you that will give us a better 

19 dose number? I mean, what are they going to 

20 be able to tell you that the person that you 

21 talked to already can't tell you in terms of 

22 some sort of a quantitative information about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 that event? 

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, you know, 

3 Stu, you know, I'm not trying to agitate you, 

4 but I'm just saying sometimes I believe that 

5 the NIOSH worst-case scenario for dose 

6 exposure is not what certain individuals could 

7 have got. You know, I know the program is not 

8 perfect, but I would just -- you know, I hate 

9 to think, and I do believe there are people 

10 that had exposures that are going to be denied 

11 that, should not be because of an incident or 

12 something that happened at the site that, you 

13 know, can't be documented. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

15 suppose I can dissuade of you that. We are 

16 confident that our approach is actually very 

17 much the other way. You know, we worry about 

18 exactly what you described. We worry about 

19 someone being denied who in fact should not 

20 have been. We don't worry very about 

21 compensating people that we -- you know, we 

22 don't think very much about those, does 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 

 39

1 person really deserves to be compensated or 

2 not. We don't think about that. What we 

3 worry about is, is someone not going to get 

4 compensated that should. And so we have the 

5 same concern you do. We try to operate the 

6 program in that fashion. I don't think I can 

7 dissuade you of your opinion because there's 

8 not much more I can do with that. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

10 Elliott. If I could jump in here. I think 

11 there's a point that I need to make for 

12 clarification and it goes to an extent to what 

13 Mike has raised. If you look at our current 

14 draft questionnaire, you'll see that question 

15 18 about,can you name coworkers or other 

16 witnesses, has been struck out. And in this 

17 draft questionnaire we would propose, and it's 

18 our opinion, that this question is not needed, 

19 that if we were in a situation reconstructing 

20 a dose for an individual claimant where we 

21 felt coworker intelligence might be necessary, 

22 we would go back to that claimant and ask 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 

 40

1 coworkers to go track this down. The 

2 collection of this information on this 

3 question alone has only resulted in us going 

4 out less than a handful of times to coworkers. 

5 So we put these people through all of this 

6 burden to try to identify and give us a 

7 number, you know, an address or how we could 

8 locate these people and we really don't go 

9 take stuff down unless we absolutely need it. 

10 So, Mike, I didn't want you to see 

11 this red-line strikeout and think that here's 

12 just another example where we don't welcome 

13 and accept, you know, worker input. It's just 

14 that we would go after that as necessary, 

15 given the circumstances of the claim. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Anything else, Mike? 

17 MEMBER GIBSON: No, not right now. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Mark, do 

19 you have something, maybe thoughts? 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I guess one 

21 would be just to follow up on that coworker 

22 question. And Stu just said, I guess 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 

 41

1 respond to Stu's response, you know, what 

2 would you expect when you call the coworker? 

3 You know, if you didn't find any 

4 documentation, what would you expect to find 

5 out that was going to shed any light? You 

6 know, I guess if you haven't tried calling 

7 them, you probably don't know. But, I mean, 

8 I would think if it was a supervisor or a rad 

9 tech, or something like that, you may find out 

10 something. You may find out that they had a 

11 special project that was going on that wasn't 

12 related to the normal radiation exposures and 

13 that may really shed some light on, you know, 

14 wow, we didn't know this guy was even exposed 

15 to polonium or protactinium, actinium, you 

16 know, something like that that you didn't even 

17 include in the dose reconstruction and you may 

18 have to reconsider, or may say we can't 

19 reconstruct dose. So, you know, just because 

20 there's not records there, I think sometimes 

21 these coworkers may shed some light on 

22 something like that. I don't know what your 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 experience has been. Obviously it's only been 

2 used a limited number of times, but you know, 

3 to say that we don't bother calling them 

4 because what could they tell us, I think 

5 that's -- I don't know, it's just a little 

6 shortsighted. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just looking, 

8 Mark. I think I have a pretty strong 

9 understanding of how many of these are going 

10 to be helpful. Of the coworker cases that we 

11 have, I don't know how many of those have been 

12 helpful. I only know of my one that I was 

13 involved in and the coworkers identified by 

14 the claimant could not remember the claimant. 

15 They did not remember. So that was not 

16 helpful. 

17 And you're talking now about, how 

18 do we know if we haven't, but you're not 

19 really thinking about what does it take if we 

20 do? You know, what would it take, what it 

21 would do the program and what would it do to 

22 the progress of dose reconstruction and the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 pace at which people get their answer if we in 

2 fact did this? 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes. I mean, 

4 yes, you have a balance here. We've talked 

5 about this from the beginning of the program, 

6 the balance of efficiency versus, you know, 

7 thoroughness and, you know, I understand that 

8 dilemma. That's a constant tension in the 

9 program. But, you know, if someone raises -- 

10 and I'm not saying necessarily that all the 

11 time they're going to write down the 

12 appropriate coworkers, so I'm going back and 

13 forth on Larry's notes that the coworker 

14 information was struck out of this current 

15 questionnaire. You know, a lot of times I 

16 think they might write down the colleagues 

17 that they worked with the most, but they may 

18 not be the ones that were the right ones to 

19 interview about a certain incident; you know? 

20 So I'm not saying that necessarily the people 

21 will write down the right coworkers to follow 

22 up with, and it is a judgment call, but I'm 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 saying that if you have somebody that noted 

2 incidents, I think the potential at some sites 

3 to overlook, you know, something in a non4 routine area -- in other words, you know, you 

5 think for the most part the workers were 

6 exposed to plutonium, but it turns out that 

7 they bring up some incident they weren't sure 

8 what the exposure was, but they knew of an 

9 incident. You follow up with it and it was a 

10 more exotic material that they worked with for 

11 one campaign. Didn't know anything about it. 

12 Didn't know it happened on the site. All of 

13 a sudden it could be an important aspect of a 

14 DR. So, that's my point, I guess, on that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: It appears that we -- 

16 oh. Yes, Paul? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let me 

18 insert a couple other ideas in here. I think 

19 one of the problems on this is what is 

20 considered to be an incident by a worker and 

21 what's considered to be an incident by either 

22 a dose reconstructor or even the health 
 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 physics staff at the time. I can think of 

2 many cases during the years I worked with Oak 

3 Ridge where we had contamination events where 

4 we might have taken the worker's shoes or 

5 their clothing, or whatever. And these were 

6 actually fairly routine situations where it 

7 would be very easy for a dose reconstructor to 

8 cover that in the process. If the worker 

9 said, you know, I had an incident where this 

10 occurred, it's very easily covered in the dose 

11 reconstruction process. That would be very 

12 different from, say, the Y-12 criticality 

13 incident or the SL-1 incident, or a blowout 

14 that was really a major event. It seems to me 

15 the dose reconstructor, at the point where he 

16 has the basic information that the worker 

17 identified, basically has to make the decision 

18 at that point as to whether or not the 

19 parameters of both the site profile and what 

20 he's working with in the reconstruction are 

21 sufficient to cover that kind of event. If 

22 not, I think they'd do what Larry described 
 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 and have to do a follow-up at which point they 

2 either identify and maybe go back to the 

3 worker to identify other individuals for 

4 collaboration or go back to the records and 

5 try to define ,is this something that we 

6 somehow have overlooked. Does it rise to a 

7 level of what either a practicing health 

8 physicist or the site people, or the dose 

9 reconstructor himself would describe as an 

10 incident that would be outside of what already 

11 is within the bounding of the dose 

12 reconstruction. And I think that doesn't 

13 necessarily, 100 percent assure that we've 

14 covered it, but it was within the framework of 

15 what's trying to be done here, you would have 

16 a high expectation that for the most part if 

17 the worker identifies something and the dose 

18 reconstructor at least looks at that, that you 

19 can either cover it by just the bounding or 

20 get supplemental information. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul, I don't 

22 disagree with your general statement 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 

 47

1 I guess, you know, really this comes into the 

2 sort of judgment of the DR or the person 

3 interviewing them on the phone. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you have all 

5 that you need to -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because I agree 

7 there's -- I'm sorry. 

8 DR. MAURO: Would you mind if I 

9 just interject just a thought? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: As long as you do it 

11 loudly and clearly. 

12 DR. MAURO: Philosophically, I 

13 guess this is more of a question to NIOSH. 

14 When you engage the claimant or their 

15 survivor, or the folks at ORAU that make these 

16 calls, do they think of themselves as an 

17 advocate or an agent operating on behalf of 

18 the claimant to try to get the best 

19 information and try to help that person 

20 through the process, similar to the way in 

21 which, let's say, good bedside manner from a 

22 physician might be where you're there 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 

 48

1 that person working with them, keeping them 

2 informed and get into the process so that as 

3 he's moving through the process he feels that 

4 he has a person that's watching out for his 

5 interests, or is it really not -- because 

6 that's quite a burden to place on a person to 

7 have to carry that responsibility. Or it is 

8 really -- we did to make sure we got as much 

9 factual information as we can so that we could 

10 defend our dose reconstruction at the back end 

11 of the process to say that we did everything 

12 reasonable and came up with a good dose 

13 reconstruction? 

14 They're related, but the first one 

15 is, I guess, in my opinion, the kind of thing, 

16 if that's a desirable objective, what I 

17 believe will greatly reduce the angst that 

18 we've experienced by a lot of the folks at 

19 these meetings. Whether or not that could be 

20 achieved, I don't know. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll offer 

22 this, and I think Pat Kraps might be on the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 phone, so she might want to offer something 

2 after I do. She might just tell me I'm 

3 completely wrong. 

4 I think that ORAU would probably 

5 not describe themselves as advocates to the 

6 claimant. I believe they would describe 

7 themselves as neutral information gatherers. 

8 Okay. Now the manner in which 

9 they do that though can go a long way to how 

10 that interviewed person, how the claimant 

11 feels about the experience. And I know that 

12 they go to great lengths to make sure that the 

13 claimant, the person being interviewed, is 

14 satisfied with the interview and has had their 

15 say. And so I think they try to build a 

16 friendly or cordial relationship with the 

17 interviewee, but I think they would shy away 

18 from calling themselves an advocate. 

19 Now, Pat, do you want to correct 

20 everything I just said? Pat, are you there? 

21 Well, I thought she was on the 

22 phone, so I guess my words can stand 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 

 50

1 MS. KRAPS: Stu? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there you 

3 are. 

4 MS. KRAPS: All right. Sorry, I 

5 couldn't hit the mute button fast enough. 

6 No, you pretty much hit it on the 

7 head. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I was 

9 hoping you'd elaborate, but that's fine. 

10 MS. KRAPS: No, we try to maintain 

11 a neutral balance, as you say, all the while 

12 trying to let the claimant know that we're 

13 here to work with them and we're here to try 

14 to help them as best we can in understanding 

15 the questions, and understanding the process. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thank you. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Pat, would it be 

18 feasible for there to be an individual that 

19 would be essentially the impact for your 

20 activities there, an individual who might be 

21 the first person to whom the claimant spoke 

22 and a person who would be able to develop 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 

 51

1 John so aptly dubbed the bedside manner that 

2 would help to set the interviewed person at 

3 ease? We have heard so much about the feeling 

4 that they were taking a test. And if the 

5 proper language could be managed -- I 

6 understand it would be almost impossible and 

7 probably not even desirable to try to develop 

8 that particular kind of approach from the 

9 people who are taking the information 

10 routinely, but it might not be so impossible 

11 to have an individual in your staff who would 

12 be the first contact and pass them off to the 

13 person who could take the question. Would 

14 that be an unreasonable suggestion? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Wanda, let me say 

16 something. That's a lot of phone calls for 

17 one person to make. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I know it is. 

19 I'm aware of that. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

21 think the person, the interviewer, is in a 

22 better position that has enough time to 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 

 52

1 that. How do you do that and do that quickly, 

2 for one person? 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Pat, are you still 

4 on the line? 

5 MS. KRAPS: Yes, I'm here. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, this is Larry 

7 Elliott, so jump on top of me if I'm speaking 

8 out of school here, saying something wrong. 

9 But, you know, I think you heard Dr. Ziemer 

10 earlier speak about our need to make sure that 

11 the interviewee understood the amount of 

12 information we're already dealing with and 

13 that, you know, recognizing the burden we're 

14 placing on them. We're not trying to 

15 frustrate them further. Do you see from that 

16 and from what you've heard Dr. Mauro mention 

17 any opportunity for modification or change to 

18 the way you currently conduct interviews? 

19 MS. KRAPS: No. On a global 

20 scale, no. I mean, if you gave me a case-by21 case, most certainly we'd take a look at that, 

22 but most certainly no. We approach every 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 interview with the neutrality, but still 

2 trying to be compassionate and warm and to 

3 emphasize to the claimant, it's okay if you 

4 don't know. I mean, we emphasize that first 

5 and foremost to let them know that, as Wanda's 

6 been saying, that they're not taking a test. 

7 But rather, what little bit of information 

8 they may have most certainly can be helpful 

9 during the dose reconstruction and that's what 

10 we try to impart during the interview. But 

11 I'm not sure if I really answered your 

12 question or not, Larry. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: If I could offer 

14 something here. SC&A's review of PROC-90, 

15 which is the CATI procedure where they came 

16 and observed interviews, CATI interviews, as 

17 a general rule they were complimentary about 

18 the demeanor and the style of the interviewer. 

19 And they said that on more than one occasion. 

20 You know, they had some objections about the 

21 form and some things like that they wrote in 

22 the report, but in general, they made 
 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 complimentary comments about the demeanor of 

2 the interviewers and their compassion for the 

3 claimant. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Paul. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: So there are some 

6 other words that are used that we do not see 

7 here in writing. Is that correct? 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: I believe there's 

9 been a script or two that have been used to 

10 bring people along in that conversation; 

11 hasn't there, Pat? 

12 MS. KRAPS: I'm not aware of any 

13 change to the script, Larry. What we tell the 

14 claimant -- and it's more of an introduction 

15 before we actually even get into the 

16 questions. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: But what you're 

18 seeing here is the questions that are asked. 

19 You're not seeing the introduction, the 

20 scripted information that is presented in 

21 advance of going through the questions, or 

22 what's given -- there's probably a 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 

 55

1 here that you're not seeing. In some 

2 instances, you're not seeing questions that 

3 come up that, from asking one question, the 

4 answer could dictate we need to ask another 

5 and go off, you know, in that direction. We 

6 don't have to include those secondary 

7 questions to the survey instrument. 

8 So what you're seeing here is only 

9 the burden of questions placed to the 

10 claimant. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. But it 

12 sounds like the script has a different 

13 emphasis than the written -- this is a letter 

14 that's sent prior to the interview? 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Yes, this is a 

16 letter sent prior to the interview. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess I 

18 would ask why doesn't the letter reflect what 

19 the scripts reflect? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: And my question is -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: If the script is 

22 compassionate and makes it clear, why doesn'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 

 56

1 the letter? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: And is the second 

3 page that we're seeing here, which is titled, 

4 EEOICPA Dose Reconstruction Telephone 

5 Interview, Claimant as Covered Employee, that 

6 is not the script? I had interpreted that as 

7 being -- 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: That is not the 

9 script that's used for the phone conversation. 

10 Elements of this information are found in that 

11 script at times, sure. I don't have the 

12 script -- 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Is either this work 

14 group or the full board ever going to be able 

15 to see the script? Because that's where I've 

16 perceived most of the concern of board members 

17 has been. What's in the script? You know, 

18 what are they saying to these people, are 

19 failing to say to these people, that leaves 

20 them with such feeling of, I think, angst was 

21 the properly used word. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And is the script 
 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 approved by OMB, or only this for form? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no. No, the 

3 only thing you provide OMB is the information 

4 you're gathering from this group of people. 

5 That has to be approved by OMB. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: And let's be clear 

7 about the script. The script highlights 

8 things that the interviewer should make sure 

9 is said to the interviewee. You know, 

10 introduce what is about to happen. Be as kind 

11 and friendly as you can be. You know, it is 

12 not something that is read rote. It is not 

13 something that an interviewer reads from their 

14 screen to the interviewee. So, you know, I'm 

15 sure we can get you a copy of the current -- 

16 Pat, is there a current script, or 

17 is there just a current set of talking notes? 

18 Or where are you at in the -- what's the 

19 training document that I'm sure SC&A reviewed 

20 about this process? You know, there are those 

21 kind of things that you've already perhaps 

22 examined. That's another reason why the visit 
 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 was so desirable, I think, to SC&A that 

2 actually observed the conduct of these. So, 

3 but we'll try to get you whatever currently -- 

4 this, as a script or a set of talking notes 

5 that need to be used in this interview 

6 process. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: The reason it's 

8 desirable for us to have some position and 

9 some talking points from this particular group 

10 is that there's no question this will be a 

11 major topic of discussion at the board meeting 

12 next week. We will either have 12 separate 

13 individuals with a number of the same concerns 

14 being expressed and with multiple opinions 

15 being expressed, or at the very least we can 

16 choose as a procedures group to present a 

17 position from this group. If we have any 

18 suggestions, I think, what the action of this 

19 group should or might be appropriately, then 

20 we need to have that on the table here today. 

21 I would very much like to be able 

22 to bring a suggestion to the Board, but 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 

 59

1 a feeling that most board members who are 

2 concerned with this are going to want to see 

3 the talking points or the training data that 

4 would be available and I'm not sure how we can 

5 move from here to that point. Any suggestions 

6 would be welcomed. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I speak to 

10 the actual questionnaire now? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Please. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was off on a 

13 tangent earlier on the coworker stuff. But I 

14 mean, I think, you know, I am curious about 

15 the script. I think my bigger concern all 

16 along with the CATI interviews was not 

17 necessarily the script or the compassion that 

18 the interviewer had toward the interviewee, or 

19 those kind of things. I guess my concern a 

20 little more was the lack of information that 

21 the interviewer had regarding the 

22 interviewee's facility or work. And that 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 

 60

1 also been stated several times to the Board, 

2 that, you know, the interviewee would say a 

3 certain production acronym or, you know, some 

4 shorthand slang that they had used at the site 

5 and the interviewer had no clue, and there was 

6 no follow-up to those kinds of questions, or 

7 no opportunity for a follow-on question in 

8 those cases because you've got someone who 

9 knows nothing about the site doing the 

10 interview and also you had no health physics 

11 backup in most of these interviews, it was my 

12 understanding. So that concern was brought 

13 up. I don't want to get into that anyway. 

14 But, you know, I am interested in the script, 

15 but I had a bigger concern on that part. 

16 Getting back to the questionnaire 

17 itself, I actually think, looking through the 

18 EE version, the Energy Employee version, not 

19 the survivor version, I actually think the 

20 added depth is an improvement. To me, I think 

21 it's more consistent with some of the 

22 interview stuff I did for medical 
 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 surveillance, actually. So I think it's 

2 improved. I have some specific comments that 

3 maybe would be helpful for us to understand. 

4 In question 1, you talk about facility and 

5 then later you talk about building or 

6 location. And I think these terms are terms 

7 that are used differently at different sites, 

8 I think. So sometimes that can be a stumbling 

9 block. I know that like at Idaho, they talk 

10 about each -- like CPP was considered a 

11 facility, but at some of the sites, you know, 

12 it's laid out -- so I just wonder how you 

13 intended that, Larry, or if the interviewers 

14 are going to clarify that when they're doing 

15 the interview, because I think that might 

16 create a little confusion, I guess. So that 

17 would be one question I'd have. 

18 The other one was on some of these 

19 when you say the job and then I think you -- 

20 it's not clear to me when you say building or 

21 location and their duties, whether they are 

22 going to be limited to like one duty in 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 

 62

1 building or if this list can go on 

2 indefinitely. I mean, it seems to me that 

3 could be a pretty broad set of -- if people 

4 had different jobs over time, that could get 

5 pretty extensive. 

6 And then I guess in some of the 

7 add-on questions, I think it's very 

8 interesting to find out whether these should 

9 have been sub-parts of your job question. In 

10 other words, for each job, if they had three 

11 or four different jobs, were they monitored 

12 during different jobs. Now that could get 

13 into making it too long, so I understand the 

14 concern there. But I think when you start to 

15 ask about -- the problem may be with the way 

16 it's set up now, is when you start to ask 

17 about monitoring, and then you say frequency, 

18 a lot of times what I found in our interview 

19 process is that they'll say, well, yes, you 

20 know, I was monitored for urinalysis on and 

21 off, depending on what job I had. And yes, 

22 sometimes it was monthly, sometimes 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 

 63

1 yearly; it depended on the job. So they just 

2 kind of give you a generic, you know, kind of 

3 yes and then you wonder if you're getting any 

4 useful additional information with that 

5 question, if you follow what I'm saying there. 

6 And then the last question I'll 

7 throw out there, and this has been a fun one 

8 for me in the past, is was this questionnaire 

9 run by the DOE security people? Because you 

10 certainly don't want to make a classified 

11 document when you do this interview. I guess 

12 that's it for -- 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, to your last 

14 question first. No, we don't have to run this 

15 by DOE. We know that this is a clean document 

16 already. 

17 The other question I would answer 

18 is that what I would want everybody to 

19 understand is that this is the paper copy of 

20 a computer system open interview. And so in 

21 many of these cells, they're expandable on the 

22 computer. So if the guy has 14 different, 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 

 64

1 know, employment histories that have to be 

2 collected, the on-screen form accommodates 

3 that collection. Another answer to your 

4 question, if the person being interviewed is 

5 hesitant in saying, you know, the frequency or 

6 is just off-handed about the frequency, I 

7 think the interviewer has the responsibility 

8 to pursue that a little bit and clarify it. 

9 Also remember that the interview, once it is 

10 completed, is prepared with the questions and 

11 the responses given as a paper copy that's 

12 given to the interviewee for review and edit. 

13 And if there are questions raised from that 

14 process, they go back and forth again. But I 

15 appreciate your comments, Mark. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just a little 

17 devil's advocate on the security question, 

18 because we both deal with this; I've been 

19 through this myself a lot. 

20 But what if someone worked at a 

21 certain facility, only worked in one building 

22 their whole career and so they put 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 

 65

1 building down and then they check off a list 

2 of radionuclides, you're basically attributing 

3 radionuclides to a certain building. And I 

4 know that can be a no-no in some instances. 

5 So is that a problem? 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: That is not a 

7 problem. That's all I'm going to say. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

9 Let's leave it there for the phone call, yes. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: And I'd just as soon 

11 we not go any further in that direction. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. Okay. 

13 Just checking. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Paul? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Larry, did you 

16 indicate that have or have not had feedback 

17 from the interviewers, or from the dose 

18 reconstructors, I guess is what I want to ask, 

19 as to what they actually use? For example, do 

20 they ever use the supervisor's name? And if 

21 not, you know, do you -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I have asked, 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 

 66

1 I've not got a collective answer yet. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I've had some 

4 individual responses, but, you know, I don't 

5 want to portray those as the consensus on 

6 looking. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then in the 

8 interview process, are we correct in assuming 

9 that they don't pressure either the worker or 

10 the claimant, if it's not the worker, to give 

11 exact -- for example, if you were to ask me 

12 what my job title was when I worked at Oak 

13 Ridge, I'm not sure I could tell you exactly 

14 what it was. I know sort of generically, but 

15 they may have had a very specific job title. 

16 In fact, I'm not even sure I could tell you 

17 the exact date. I could maybe give you within 

18 the month. So they would accept the 

19 approximate starting date, approximate ending 

20 date? 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Accept the 

22 recollection of the individual. 
 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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. So 

2 they make it clear that if you don't have that 

3 exact -- in fact, this says month and year. 

4 So that makes it a little fuzzier and that's 

5 probably better. Yes. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Some of this 

7 information may also be pre-entered. You 

8 know, if we've already got information about 

9 the employment history from the case file, 

10 that could already be put in here and the 

11 interviewer would confirm that with the 

12 individual. All right? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: And say are there 

15 any other -- and in some instances we've 

16 learned that the original claim submission 

17 with DOL didn't account for all employment. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: In our conversation 

20 or in what DOE sends us back many times as far 

21 a dose information shows that the individual 

22 had employment history beyond what 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 

 68

1 captured in their claim form. So, you know, 

2 we can point to that as an advantage here of 

3 what we know, we try to confirm. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, we want to 

6 make sure that we're dealing with the correct 

7 information and this an opportunity -- first 

8 opportunity with the claimant first hand to 

9 say here's the information that is critical 

10 for our use of dose reconstruction that we 

11 already have on you. All right? And I think, 

12 you know, going forward, we're going to change 

13 in our process where we weight the conduct of 

14 the interview -- we haven't done this yet, but 

15 this would only make sense to me, to weight 

16 the conduct of the interview for a DOE site 

17 employee once we -- and do it once we have the 

18 dose data. And then we can go through the 

19 dose data with them as well. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: So then the 

21 interviewer would have ample information 

22 usually on the facility which would be, 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 

 69

1 example, Los Alamos or Savannah River, and 

2 then they may drill down to what Mark maybe 

3 described as the facility within the facility, 

4 you know, or CP-5 and Argonne, or something 

5 like that and then buildings and location. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: It's my hope that 

7 when we move to a new technical support 

8 contract and finally see an award there, that 

9 our interview process will change in different 

10 ways. One way I think it should change is 

11 that we do this confirmation of information 

12 that we have with the person. Another way 

13 that we want to see it change is that, you 

14 know, we need to impart, as you say, the fact 

15 that we do have a lot of knowledge about the 

16 sites and say to them, oh, we see that you 

17 were there during this incident. Were you 

18 involved in that incident? You know, 

19 something like that. But we have an 

20 opportunity with the advent of this 

21 contractual relationship change to modify the 

22 process of doing this interview. 
 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 MEMBER ZIEMER: So for OMB, you 

2 need to identify the kinds of things you're 

3 asking, which is what you're doing here? 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: For OMB, we're 

5 trying to establish the burden we're placing 

6 on the claimant. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: And so that is 

9 viewed as the questions that are posed to the 

10 claimant that they would have to then provide 

11 answers to, or feel that they are being called 

12 upon to provide an answer to. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: So what's the feeling 

14 with regard to this body's recommendation or 

15 comments to the Board tomorrow, or with regard 

16 to our suggestions to the larger team that's 

17 working with this new CATI form, what's the 

18 changes we'd like to see? 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: While you're 

20 thinking on that, we're going to publish this 

21 Federal Register notice late. I think it's 

22 going to happen next week. It looks like 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 that's when it's going to be issued. Again, 

2 unless somebody writes in and says I want to 

3 see what you're talking about here, you know, 

4 that's the only way they would get a copy of 

5 this to provide comment on it. But, you know, 

6 I think we're in a position right now where 

7 we're going to say these are the two examples 

8 of what could be used and we may provide 

9 another example in a different formatted 

10 version seeking information that the health 

11 physicists say they need to pursue in this 

12 process. That's a possibility, too. And then 

13 if somebody wants to see what we're talking 

14 about, they would get all three examples and 

15 be able to comment on their use. 

16 DR. MAURO: I just had an idea. 

17 Let's say I'm seeking to make that first call. 

18 Let's say I'm making that first call, and I 

19 understand that you won't have -- the folks 

20 from OCAS won't have that information, but 

21 let's say you approach the interview this way. 

22 You know, we're about to enter into a dose 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 reconstruction process where we're going to be 

2 gathering up certain information. Okay? 

3 Information that's going to be helpful to us 

4 in understanding the nature and extent of 

5 exposure, whether it's you or your husband, 

6 monitored experience. And say -- and use this 

7 form more towards -- not that we're asking 

8 them to give us that information, to let them 

9 know that this is the kind of information 

10 we're going to be pursuing. Now, this is our 

11 step one where, you know, we want to apprise 

12 you that we're entering this process and we'd 

13 like to leave this form with you with the idea 

14 toward -- to give some thought to it that you 

15 may have some records, some recollection that 

16 might help us. While you're doing that, we're 

17 going to be gathering this information. And 

18 because what I just heard you say before, 

19 there's going to be multiple calls. So it's 

20 not just this call and then later at the back 

21 end of the process here's result. Did I hear 

22 you just say that part of the new process 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 

 73

1 there might be intermediary steps along these 

2 lines, or did I misunderstand you? 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: No, I don't know 

4 that I said that. 

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry. Then I 

6 misunderstood. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: And what you're 

8 talking already happens, where we send out the 

9 copy of the questionnaire to the claimant. 

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: They already have 

12 that. 

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: This is what we're 

15 going to talk about, this is what we're going 

16 to work through together on the phone, this is 

17 the process. That already happens. 

18 What I'm suggesting as a change in 

19 the future is as we're confirming what 

20 information we already know about the 

21 claimant, you know, we should be able to say 

22 our interviewers are going to have to be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 trained to say, and I see that you were at 

2 that facility during a covered class period, 

3 but here's why you don't belong in the class. 

4 Here's why NIOSH has your dose reconstruction 

5 to do for you. You know, we need to get down 

6 to that level of information provision that I 

7 don't know that we've achieved in our current 

8 efforts in the process. But, you know, with 

9 35 classes added and we're going to do, you 

10 know, a number of partial dose 

11 reconstructions, we're going to have to be 

12 geared up to say why NIOSH has your claim, 

13 knowing full well that there's a class at your 

14 site and for whatever reason we can tell you 

15 why you don't fit into the class, 

16 unfortunately. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: That would be very 

18 helpful. 

19 Paul? 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a 

21 suggestion on a path forward, if you'd like to 

22 hear 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 

 75

1 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly would. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a suggestion, 

3 kind of top-of-the-head, and I'd like to, you 

4 know, get others to sort of respond to it. I 

5 don't think that this work group will be ready 

6 today to make specific recommendations on any 

7 alterations. What I think we could do would 

8 be to recommend to the Board at its meeting 

9 next week that they charge this work group to 

10 gather input from all the board members and to 

11 develop any recommended changes in both the 

12 letters that are before us, as well as the 

13 interview, if we can get the script and have 

14 some idea of what that entails, and then to be 

15 prepared at the February meeting to recommend 

16 to the Board some specific changes, if needed, 

17 in the script and the letters. The meeting in 

18 February, I have looked at the dates and 

19 depending on when this comes out, will be very 

20 close to the 60 days and -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, let me just 

22 say this: If you don't make the 60-day 
 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 window, big deal. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: If the Board sends a 

4 consensus recommendation forward -- 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. It will be 

6 considered anyway. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you know, it's 

8 going to be considered. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Because the 60 days 

11 are up and then we're going to have whatever 

12 we have to consider and address. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Why wouldn't we -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- even if we had 

17 to, wait a week or so. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Postpone it a month 

20 or so to finalize a new product for the Board. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Either way. Yes, 

22 either way. I think the Board should shoot 
 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 toward developing something for the February 

2 meeting, but if this work group, subcommittee, 

3 whichever it is, had the opportunity in the 

4 intervening time to come together and put 

5 together some specifics so that the Board 

6 could react to. Because we just now have 

7 this. We need input from other board members, 

8 I think, because this is an issue that's of 

9 concern to more than just this work group. 

10 Other board members need to react as well. 

11 And maybe we could develop a straw man 

12 consensus recommendation of some sort. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: That timing would 

14 work well. It's my expectation to request 

15 that we consider a date for moving late in 

16 January for this body. And that would give 

17 adequate time for interested board members to 

18 be able to provide us with their comments and 

19 concerns, which could be factored into our 

20 presentation at that board meeting, if that 

21 sounds like -- 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: But maybe Mark 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 

 78

1 Mike and -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Paul, 

3 actually that sounds like a reasonable step 

4 forward to me, too. Because I have a lot of 

5 little line-by-line kind of comments for 

6 consideration. And that seems like the best 

7 way to do it, is gather them all, bring them 

8 back to the subcommittee and then come back 

9 together in February. Sounds like a good 

10 approach. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Larry? 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd make a 

13 suggestion for you to consider. It would be 

14 most helpful in this process to distinguish 

15 comments that you want to make about questions 

16 that are used in this process, from issues or 

17 questions you want to raise about the process 

18 in general. Because the questions specific to 

19 be used here in your comments on those are 

20 critical to us in dealing with OMB. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: The OMB issue. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: OMB is not concerned 
 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 about the other part of the -- you know, 

2 aspects of the process, you know, but we 

3 certainly are and we want that input. And it 

4 would be helpful if we could -- you know, I 

5 know they intermingle in different ways and 

6 there's crossover, but if you can encourage 

7 board members to think of it that way. You 

8 know, what are your concerns and issues about 

9 the questions used or the concept of the 

10 questions versus, you know, the entire process 

11 itself. And we certainly welcome your 

12 thoughts. 

13 DR. MAURO: Does that go toward 

14 the introductory text also, the first page of 

15 -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, what you have 

17 before you as far as the questions. This is 

18 what OMB would look at in their renewal and 

19 they're going to say there has to be some way 

20 to communicate to the person you're going to 

21 interact with. Well, here's a letter. The 

22 letter says. The letter also has an 
 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 attachment and the attachment has a foreword, 

2 you know, background and then this set of 

3 questions. All of that is the informational 

4 packet that was used to interact the first 

5 time. That is what OMB has to approve. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: I will propose that 

7 I'll provide a report to the Board next week 

8 asking that they provide for us their 

9 questions and comments and that we segregate 

10 our concept of the questions themselves from 

11 the process that's undergone in getting there. 

12 Yes, Ted? 

13 MR. KATZ: Larry, if you'd have a 

14 shorter version, would that be ready at the 

15 time for the next board meeting, or is that 

16 still in development? 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: We're hoping that it 

18 will. I mean, that's just a possibility going 

19 onto the table. I've asked for folks to think 

20 about that and to prepare something that we 

21 could look at. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: So far 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 

 81

1 that? 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: So far we don't have 

3 that and we'll try to get you whatever talking 

4 points or current script language 

5 is -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It might just be 

7 like an introduction, you know, to the form. 

8 I'm not exactly sure what they do by way of 

9 introducing the interview. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: But in any event, 

11 as long as we had it by the time the work 

12 group met so that becomes -- even if it's a 

13 modification of this -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and that would 

15 be over a month from now, so that should work 

16 well. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: It will be nearly 

18 six weeks from now. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it will be a 

20 month from the board meeting, when the report 

21 should -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: If we're going to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 put another option on the table, we should 

2 have it completed. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Good. 

4 All right. Any other comments on 

5 this? 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Here's another 

7 reason why we have to have it. If we're going 

8 to do it and we get a call under the Federal 

9 Register notice for whatever, you know, they 

10 want to review, it has to be in that package. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

12 Any other comments with respect to 

13 this topic? 

14 If not, in the interest of all our 

15 mental and physical health, let's take a 15- 

16 minute break. We will mute our telephone and 

17 we will be back at 11:15. 

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 10:58 a.m. and 

20 resumed at 11:17 a.m.) 

21 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz, the 

22 acting designated federal official for 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 

 83

1 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. 

2 And we're starting up. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: When we last met, we 

4 were aware of the fact that OTIB 0066, which 

5 is quite vital to our next steps, was in the 

6 hands of SC&A for their review, we were 

7 awaiting clearance. It has now been PA 

8 cleared. It was issued as of yesterday. It 

9 contains, by their description, three 

10 observations which are positive comments with 

11 respect to the OTIB and four findings, which 

12 are concerns involved with that document. 

13 John Mauro is going to take -- 

14 MR. KATZ: One second. Someone on 

15 the speakerphone, are you trying to raise 

16 something on the speakerphone? 

17 DR. OSTROW: Yes, this is Steve 

18 Ostrow. Can you hear me okay? 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, Steve. 

20 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Thanks. Just 

21 a clarification. I got an email yesterday 

22 that the OTIB was just cleared by DOE. 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 

 84

1 just received yesterday a cleared copy of it. 

2 So it's PA cleared and DOE cleared right now. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. We can 

4 proceed and discuss it with impunity. Thank 

5 you. 

6 John? 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'd be glad to 

8 give an overview and I'm glad Steve was on the 

9 line. Steve was our task manager for leading 

10 this effort. And it turns out our 

11 commentaries are relatively brief, but I think 

12 important. 

13 Technically, we find very 

14 favorably with the approach methods. We had, 

15 you know -- take a real close look at how the 

16 models and assumptions were developed. 

17 Everything came out favorably with regard to 

18 the metal tritides and how they were treated, 

19 but we did have one commentary regarding 

20 organically-bound tritium where we felt that 

21 the dose conversion factor that was employed 

22 might have been a little low. So all we 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 

 85

1 say is you may want to take another look at 

2 that. Basically we compared the one you folks 

3 proposed to the ICRP recommendations and there 

4 seemed to be a little bit of a disparity. 

5 Nothing that I think is any -- you know, it's 

6 something that we have got to clear up. That 

7 is the only technical issue that is before us. 

8 The more profound concern, 

9 something that we probably are not going to 

10 discuss here, has to do with implementation. 

11 Given that you have a site and you have lots 

12 of bioassay data, you know, urine samples 

13 where they look for tritium, the dilemma is 

14 going to be at each site which of those 

15 bioassay samples are you going to treat as 

16 that which you've measured or were unable to 

17 measure in urine was due to the intake of 

18 tritium, organically-bound tritium or one of 

19 the various forms of metal tritides that could 

20 range in properties ranging from, I guess, 

21 type S to type F, depending on the tritide. 

22 We fell that this an 
 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 implementation issue that will have to be 

2 dealt with on a site-by-site basis. One of 

3 the first sites where this issue is going to 

4 have to be engaged is going to be Pinellas at 

5 the January 8th work group meeting. Now, I am 

6 told that depending on the strategy that NIOSH 

7 elects to implement, let's say at Pinellas, 

8 may or may not mean you're entering into 

9 classified information space. Okay? That is, 

10 apparently if you're trying to get to a high 

11 level of granularity in terms of identifying 

12 those -- let's say the data are out there 

13 where you could actually identify those 

14 activities, those time periods, those 

15 buildings and those people who may very well 

16 have handled a given type of metal tritide, 

17 that kind of information, as I understand it, 

18 may very well be classified. So therefore, 

19 once the work group meets, it may turn out 

20 that we'll have to relegate those discussions 

21 and the resolution of those issues, let's say 

22 as they apply to Pinellas, to a group 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 

 87

1 group participants who have the proper 

2 classification. And I think that all depends, 

3 and I will take my lead from Joe Fitzgerald 

4 on, you know, when a strategy is being adopted 

5 for a given site. And I'm not sure what DOE's 

6 interest might be. This is something I called 

7 Larry about. Once we enter into this part of 

8 the process, my understanding is the 

9 boundaries of what you could talk about and 

10 what you can't talk about aren't always very 

11 self-evident. 

12 As a result, probably some 

13 preparatory work prior to the Pinellas meeting 

14 is in order perhaps with some involvement of 

15 DOE and that they're aware that we're about to 

16 engage this issue. And what can be discussed 

17 in an open work group setting and what can't 

18 probably needs to be clarified so that there's 

19 no confusion and no problems in this area. So 

20 I think that's in a nutshell where my 

21 understanding of where we are in OTIB-0066. 

22 Technically, bottom line, I think except 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 

 88

1 that organically-bound tritium issue, which we 

2 can discuss in open session here, or as part 

3 of the Pinellas meeting, but the other 

4 implementation issues are the ones that are 

5 more sensitive. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, do you have 

7 anything to add to that? 

8 DR. OSTROW: No, I don't. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: The concern the Chair 

10 has with respect to this particular procedure 

11 is that like 6000, 6001, it cuts across a 

12 number of sites and we will have more work 

13 groups than the Pinellas work group relying on 

14 what this OTIB is going to do. Because it is 

15 a cross-cutting procedure, it seems to be of 

16 significance for us to address it as 

17 completely as we can, as early as we can. 

18 Do we know when Pinellas is 

19 meeting? 

20 DR. MAURO: January 8th. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: January 8th. Given 

22 that these three issues may require 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 

 89

1 significant interaction between the contractor 

2 and NIOSH in order to develop responses, Stu, 

3 can you give us a feel as to whether or not it 

4 might be feasible for us to consider putting 

5 together a technical call on this perhaps 

6 first thing immediately after the new year 

7 begins? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: The technical call 

9 will be to talk about what? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: About the issues that 

11 exist, there are four issues here. I don't 

12 know whether you've had an opportunity to read 

13 them. First issue is recommendation given to 

14 ORAU on OTIB-0066 to assess those due to 

15 intake of OBT is not claimant favorable. 

16 There's more with reference to the dose 

17 coefficient and to the computer code. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's issue 3 in 

19 the -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Which page are you 

21 on? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: That's page 6 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 

 90

1 report where they list the first two issues 

2 are observations and not comments. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: In support. 

4 Positive conclusions -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Starting with item 

6 number 3. Issue number 3 is where we need to 

7 look at resolutions that need to be at least 

8 probably underway. Pinellas should be aware 

9 of the fact that we're underway with it, and 

10 that it's there. 

11 Issue 4 is the bounding techniques 

12 currently effectively developed and applied 

13 without handling information. 

14 And issue 5 does not ensure that 

15 result of doses are based on adequate 

16 monitoring data. 

17 Number 6, the procedure provides 

18 no guidance on how to distinguish between the 

19 intakes of SECs, elemental tritium, or 

20 tritiated water which occurs simultaneously. 

21 So if it's not feasible for us to 

22 have a technical discussion of this between 
 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 the first of the new year and the Pinellas 

2 meeting, then we need to be able to in any 

3 case keep them informed as to where we are. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I would suggest 

5 that of that -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, can I ask 

7 one thing? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why aren't we 

10 discussing these findings on this -- I mean, 

11 isn't that what this work group/subcommittee 

12 is for, to discuss these findings? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why are deferring 

15 it to a technical call? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: The only reason I'm 

17 suggesting that is that I felt it might 

18 expedite the resolution of some of these prior 

19 to the Pinellas meeting. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I mean, 

21 are we not ready to discuss it today? Is that 

22 what kind of the reason -- 
 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 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we only 

2 received it last night. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 

4 Okay. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: So NIOSH has had 

6 absolutely zero opportunity to formulate a 

7 response. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: I didn't realize. 

9 I actually can't get access to the O-drive, so 

10 I don't have it at all right now. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it was sent out 

12 by email. It's in your email. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. From 

14 you, Wanda, or from -- 

15 CHAIR MUNN: While you were on the 

16 airplane probably. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I'll look 

18 at the email. But I understand now. Okay. 

19 Thank you. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

21 DR. MAURO: Right now, at this 

22 moment, if you wish, we could talk about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 organically-bound tritium and the way in which 

2 you reconstruct the doses. If you have a 

3 urine sample and you're assuming that urine 

4 sample reflects an intake that occurred from 

5 organically-bound tritium, our finding is 

6 that, well, I think you might be 

7 underestimating the dose. That has nothing to 

8 do with any clearance. In other words, it's 

9 just biokinetics as recommended by -- it's a 

10 model issue. We can talk about that right 

11 now, or we could talk about that in the 

12 technical call after NIOSH has a chance to 

13 look at it and see if they agree, but it's 

14 something that -- now, all the other issues, 

15 if you really look at them, they're all 

16 implementation issues. They all have to do 

17 with, okay, great. You've got some data, 

18 you've got a site. How are you going to 

19 determine who you're going to assign that 

20 model to and who you're not going to assign 

21 the model to? If it comes to implementation, 

22 site specific and depending -- and in fact, 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 

 94

1 had a conversation with Larry on this and in 

2 theory there's a range of strategies that 

3 could be adopted for a given site. On the one 

4 extreme one could say, well, we know that over 

5 a given time period, perhaps in a given 

6 building, that at least some activity took 

7 place where they were handling some type of 

8 tritide. And this would be the most claimant 

9 favorable approach. All the bioassay data on 

10 urine analysis for tritium that we get back, 

11 we're going to assume -- make certain generic 

12 bounding assumptions. That would be at one 

13 extreme. 

14 The other extreme is no, no, no, 

15 we can go into the records for that facility 

16 and we could do a lot better than that. You 

17 know, we got to identify the people that were 

18 doing X, Y and Z, what kind of compounds they 

19 worked with. And we do have bioassay data for 

20 them and we know -- so at that point, you're 

21 at a much higher level of resolution and 

22 actually could say with a degree of confidence 
 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 whose bioassay data reflect, you know, the 

2 intake from a given kind of tritide or 

3 organically-bound tritium? That would be the 

4 most precise way. But then again, that would 

5 be getting into a much higher level of 

6 resolution, which of course would depend on 

7 the availability of the site-specific data, 

8 all of which could only be determined on a 

9 case-by-case basis, some of which has to 

10 happen within behind I call the cone of 

11 silence. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let me just 

14 ask it in a generic way, Stu. If you had 

15 tritium urinalysis data and all you knew was 

16 that the worker handled all three types, 

17 organic-tritiated water and tritiated 

18 tritides, wouldn't you look at what you would 

19 get from all the three models and take worst 

20 case? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's our 

22 standard approach. 
 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 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Now if you 

2 knew the worker only handled say tritiated 

3 thymidine, then you would use the organic 

4 model and take that result. If you knew they 

5 handled only tritiated water, you would take 

6 that model. So you have some sort of standard 

7 approaches to how you would do this anyway. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Now, you've 

9 kind of described it. If you only know that 

10 they worked with all three. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And there's no 

13 more granularity to your -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Then as a general 

16 rule we would use the one that -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever one you 

18 gave you the worst. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The highest dose of 

20 the entire building. As a general rule, 

21 that's what we'd do. I am pretty far removed 

22 from the work on this today and do not have 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 

 97

1 security clearance, have not had any security 

2 briefings. I know enough about it to know 

3 that this is an interesting topic. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. But aside 

5 from the security issue, I think that's a 

6 generic question, is how you use -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Is how granularity 

8 can you become? 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: How granular can 

11 you become, becomes, I think, part of that 

12 issue, from my understanding. 

13 You want to say something, Liz? 

14 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, just a few 

15 points. This definitely does have to be 

16 looked at on a site-by-site basis, because 

17 urine sampling is generally not the preferred 

18 method for the metal tritides. And just a 

19 point before going on with this, it's really 

20 an issue primarily with respiratory tract as 

21 the organ. For most other organs, or for most 

22 other scenarios, the systemic organs, the dose 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 will be calculated the same way as a HTO. So 

2 there's not going to be a difference in dose. 

3 So really this is an issue for respiratory and 

4 GI tract. So it's somewhat limited. 

5 But if you use urine sampling for 

6 that particular case, this gives you extremely 

7 large numbers for doses and somewhat 

8 unrealistic in most cases. So the preferred 

9 method is air monitoring. And so at the 

10 sites, I don't know how possible this at 

11 various sites, but we really need to have the 

12 people working on the site profiles look at 

13 whether air monitoring was done for the metal 

14 tritides to see if that could be used to 

15 assign the lung doses to people for this 

16 particular material. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask, Liz, 

18 let's suppose that the worker was working with 

19 titanium tritide, which would be common in 

20 accelerators for targets. Wouldn't the issue 

21 there then be airborne tritium, which would be 

22 fuse off, it wouldn't enter the body as 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 

 99

1 tritide? Typically those targets outgas 

2 tritium. I mean, a tritide isn't a true 

3 compound. It's tritium absorbed or adsorbed 

4 in a metal matrix. So often, I think, the 

5 tritium just diffuses off and picks up some 

6 water in the air and you get tritium oxide or 

7 tritium gas, whichever it is. Probably the 

8 oxide if it's in the moist air. But now that 

9 would be different than a worker working with 

10 metal tritides in some kind of a different 

11 process. 

12 MS. BRACKETT: Right, where the 

13 tritium was purposely put into that 

14 matrix -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And 

16 they're somehow working with the matrix 

17 and -- 

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, you bring up a 

19 good point. In reading through the report, I 

20 didn't prepare it, I notice that there was the 

21 deliberate attachment of the tritium atom to 

22 a metal for very specific reasons that 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 

 100

1 weapons-related. However, there's also, that 

2 came out of the discussion, tritium sometimes 

3 associates itself with metals during 

4 oxidation. Rust. And that's another 

5 question. Okay. Well, you know, is it 

6 possible to -- and then it becomes a different 

7 biokinetics. But my understanding though is 

8 that many of the deliberately bound tritiums 

9 to these exotic metals. I don't even know 

10 their names. What happens is when you inhale 

11 it, the tritium, the metal, a little particle 

12 with the tritium on it is dissolved and 

13 eventually the tritium leaves, becomes HTO and 

14 then is clear. But in the meantime, it's 

15 sitting in the lung for a much longer time as 

16 opposed to the normal tritium water, which has 

17 what, a 10-day half-life, biological half18 life, is uniformly distributed. Now you've 

19 got this little tritium atom tied to this 

20 very, very fine particle sitting in the lung 

21 with a type S half-life. So all of a sudden 

22 the dose to the lung is going to be 10 -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 well, I don't know, 1,000 times higher. I 

2 don't know what it would be. I'm not sure. 

3 So it does have a profound effect on the lung 

4 dose, and that's for sure. 

5 But I notice that there is some 

6 uncertainty, you know, whether or not -- how 

7 quickly it dissolves. In other words, how 

8 quickly does the tritium come off the metal 

9 and become available to be excreted by the 

10 normal routes and it depends on which kind of 

11 tritide it is. And all that might be secret 

12 stuff, I'm not sure. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: I hope not. 

14 MS. BRACKETT: I don't think how 

15 long it's retained is secret to what material 

16 is present at what site. 

17 DR. MAURO: That's what I'm 

18 referring to. At a given site, you know, is 

19 this material, is it material they made, when 

20 they made it and why -- 

21 MS. BRACKETT: I get the 

22 impression that at some sites that is an 
 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 issue. If it is then -- well, what we had 

2 tried to do when we talked to Lawrence 

3 Livermore when we were trying to find out if 

4 they had the metal tritides there, if it's 

5 possible in the absence of specific 

6 information, if we could find out what would 

7 be the most limiting, you know, if they could 

8 tell us if they had something that would be 

9 type-S material or strongly-retained and then 

10 we could use that assumption if we had to 

11 assume any metal tritides for a facility, you 

12 know, that's an option. 

13 DR. MAURO: When I was thinking 

14 about it, this is all new to me, and I was 

15 thinking about it and I visualize inhaling the 

16 type S of plutonium as opposed to a type S 

17 tritide. Now plutonium has 5N to the alpha 

18 every time it disintegrates, while the tritium 

19 has a 16 keV beta. So in other words, to get 

20 the equivalent dose, you have to inhale 10,000 

21 times more activity of tritium to have the 

22 equivalent dose. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Depends on how you 

2 calculate dose. the tritium beta is absorbed 

3 in a little tiny mass. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if you 

6 calculate the dose to that mass -- I've done 

7 this, it's tremendous. If you average that 

8 mass over the total mass in the lung, it's 

9 very different. 

10 DR. MAURO: But that's also true 

11 with plutonium. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is what you 

13 should do for radiation protection purposes. 

14 But in that respect, sort of like alphas, you 

15 have hot spots. 

16 DR. MAURO: It's probably even -- 

17 I mean, alpha's even worse in terms of 

18 localized energy depositions. But I think we 

19 average over the dose of the lung, right? I 

20 mean, you don't calculate the localized dose 

21 to this extreme. 

22 MS. BRACKETT: No, right. It's 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 over the particular organ. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: You average it 

3 over the organ. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, because I know 

5 NCRP addressed this issue a long time ago and 

6 they said that's, you know, the -- that's 

7 okay. So the way you're proposing to do it, 

8 except for this organically-bound tritium 

9 constance, because that's the assumed 

10 clearance rate, I believe, that was assumed in 

11 your model, we had some minor -- I think, in 

12 fact there are two or three -- 

13 MS. BRACKETT: I think it said 

14 1.4. 

15 DR. MAURO: It was that small. It 

16 was that small. Okay, there you go. 

17 So that's the only subject that I 

18 think we might be able to engage in this work 

19 group. All the others are very site-specific 

20 and might very well be classified. 

21 MS. BRACKETT: I think you're 

22 right. This OTIB gives the mechanics of how 
 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 you deal with it but, you know, of how to 

2 actually assess the dose, but the information 

3 as to where that would be has to come from 

4 other sources. 

5 DR. MAURO: The sites. Right. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: And so we're back to 

7 my original question. Is it feasible? Is the 

8 proper thing to do in order to get the issues 

9 resolved as quickly as possible for us to 

10 consider a technical call or not? Is it 

11 possible -- I want to give NIOSH plenty of 

12 opportunity -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Doesn't NIOSH need 

14 to respond first and see if we need a 

15 technical call after that? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the thing 

17 about schedule, next week, probably the key 

18 people will be in Augusta. Week after that is 

19 Christmas. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And the week after 

22 that is week before Christmas and New Years 
 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 when those people are on vacation. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. Exactly. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: So I frankly don't 

4 see a lot of utility in a technical conference 

5 before the January Pinellas meeting. And in 

6 fact, isn't this the first meeting of the 

7 Pinellas work group? 

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I mean, are 

10 they going to be so far along that they need 

11 a resolution to these issues at their first 

12 meeting? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Probably not. 

14 DR. MAURO: In fact, I would argue 

15 that a 1.4 factor in the dose conversion 

16 factors for organically-bound tritium is of 

17 marginal -- we will work that out. There's an 

18 answer to that some place, and it's either 

19 that we got it right -- but we're only talking 

20 about a factor of 1.4. The big ticket issue 

21 which certainly can be engaged by the sites is 

22 implementation. You know, whether or not 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 

 107

1 issue is resolved now, later or whenever, it's 

2 almost of marginal significance. The more 

3 important thing is how you can implement this 

4 regulation. We'll figure out the 1.4 factors 

5 along the line. I'm not worried about that. 

6 I'm more concerned that when it goes to 

7 Pinellas, that everyone is prepared to deal 

8 with the issue and to know where the 

9 boundaries are regarding classified and non10 classified. Depending on the strategy that's 

11 taken. And I think DOE is going to be very 

12 interested in exactly how they're going to 

13 deal with that. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I'm sure they will. 

15 So is the appropriate response then to request 

16 NIOSH to have responses to these four issues 

17 at our next January meeting so that we can 

18 have them on the matrix? 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think Stu's 

20 saying we couldn't by -- at our meeting? Our 

21 meeting? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, our 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 

 108

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if there 

2 aren't a lot of findings, we might be able to 

3 do that. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there are four. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, two of them 

6 are just observations. 

7 DR. MAURO: They're first of all, 

8 positive comments. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, they're not 

10 really the findings. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, but there are 

12 four findings. There are two observations and 

13 four findings. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: And aren't the 

15 first two findings the observations? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: First two are the 

17 observations. Then there's a total of six. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I see. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: So is that a 

20 reasonable schedule and expectation? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we can 

22 provide a response at some time in January. 
 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 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Since I don't 

3 personally have to do it, I can say that. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Our anticipation will 

5 be that we'll be meeting probably the last 

6 week in January, if that turns out to be all 

7 right with everybody when we get around that 

8 particular issue. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right. We 

10 talked about dates yesterday, didn't we? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: In passing. 

14 Then any other comments, any other 

15 suggestion, any other question with respect to 

16 current status of OTIB-0066? 

17 If not, then -- 

18 MR. KATZ: Someone on the line 

19 trying to speak? 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Wanda? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun 
 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 Makhijani. I'm sorry I was not able to join 

2 at 9:30, but I joined about 10 minutes ago. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: We're glad you were 

4 available for the discussion, Arjun. Do you 

5 have anything to add with respect to what you 

6 heard? 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Not in regard to 

8 the tritides and so on. John had asked me to 

9 be on in regard to the questionnaire in case 

10 there were issues about that. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Are you 

12 talking about the CATI? 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: We discussed that 

15 earlier. That was our second item of 

16 business. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: And so you've missed 

19 that particular discussion. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: John will fill you 

21 in. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, Arjun, if you can 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 hear me, I took notes and I will brief you on 

2 what transpired. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Fine. I'm 

4 sorry I was not able to be on when it was on 

5 the agenda. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite all 

7 right. You're welcome at any time. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Thanks. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: In view of the fact 

10 that we don't want to get too far into our 

11 matrix yet, it seems that the next item of 

12 business for us should be what's up on the 

13 screen right now, to take a look at our 

14 current status with the tracking system. 

15 Nancy, are you prepared to go through that for 

16 those of us who can't quite see it, please? 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I interrupt 

20 just for a second? If there's someone in the 

21 meeting or on the phone that can help me, I 

22 can't access the O drive. It says unable 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 

 112

1 access. Your account's been locked out. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see what I 

3 can do. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

5 Thanks. I want to follow the database and I 

6 can't log on right now. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: In the meantime, 

8 hopefully Nancy will read the procedures 

9 issues tracking system data so that you can 

10 get an idea of what the overall circumstances 

11 are right now. 

12 MS. ADAMS: Thanks to Steve's 

13 update on Friday, the latest data is that 

14 there are between all of the findings dates 

15 submitted there are a total of 497 findings. 

16 A hundred-and-sixty are still open, 16 are in17 progress, 63 are in abeyance, 14 are labeled 

18 "addressed in findings," 29 have been 

19 transferred and 215 have been closed. So 

20 we've got 43 percent of all the findings that 

21 have been closed and 32 percent that are still 

22 open, and 25 percent, I guess, then that 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 

 113

1 somewhere in between. 

2 DR. MAURO: I'd like to point out, 

3 in abeyance means that we've sort of 

4 technically agreed on the solution. It just 

5 hadn't been yet implemented in the particular 

6 document. So I like to think in terms of the 

7 "in abeyance" of all intents pending closure. 

8 That is, just waiting until they're formally 

9 adopted. Then they could be swung over to the 

10 closed side. So, you know, in a way, that 

11 means over 50 percent. You know, I've been 

12 thinking in terms of we're about halfway home 

13 in terms of getting all this taken care of. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it appears so. 

15 A hundred-and-thirty-one plus forty-four. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The one new row, 

17 the bottom row is OTIB-0070 issues that were 

18 raised for OTIB-0070 in the report that SC&A 

19 had sent out. There were I think a total of 

20 14 issues or findings raised in that report. 

21 I've only added 11 of them to the database. 

22 Three of them were conditional findings 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 

 114

1 the way they were conditional was that really 

2 they were phrased such that in another 

3 document we had this finding and it's not been 

4 resolved yet and therefore we're kind of 

5 repeating the same finding that was made in 

6 some other document. Because it was not a new 

7 issue, I did not add it to the database. Now, 

8 I guess the work group could instruct me to go 

9 in and add those to the database, but my 

10 feeling is that if we added the three new 

11 findings we would then add them as either 

12 addressed -- probably under the addressed in 

13 finding column. We would just put them 

14 immediately right into that column. So, I 

15 mean, it was my call not to add them, but 

16 again, it's really the work group's decision 

17 if we want to add those three conditional 

18 OTIB-0070 findings or not. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: I had a different 

20 take on it at the time that I looked at the 

21 findings. I had assumed that we would just 

22 incorporate them into the database as soon 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 

 115

1 possible. What's the feeling of other members 

2 of the group with respect to how we address 

3 OTIB-0070 here? 

4 Don't all speak at once. 

5 DR. MAURO: I just have a 

6 suggestion. Really there are three procedure 

7 reviews that I don't think have made it into 

8 the -- did I hear you say you did recently add 

9 an OTIB-0070? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0070 is the 

11 bottom line there. 

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. So that's in. 

13 And the one you didn't add in was? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0066 is not 

15 in. 

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. So 66 isn't in. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I wouldn't 

18 expect that. 

19 DR. MAURO: And you will be seeing 

20 our review of OCAS IG-004, which has to do 

21 with -- we have that done. I'm reviewing it 

22 as we speak. That will be delivered before 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 the end of the contract. So there are a few 

2 more open items. As you correctly point out, 

3 perhaps they'll more appropriately fall in one 

4 of the other categories. But I don't think it 

5 changes the ultimate big picture. In other 

6 words, even though we're going to add in a few 

7 more sorted accorded to those categories from 

8 the most recent set of reviews -- well, three 

9 of them, it's not going to change the overall 

10 sense that, yes, we're about half way home. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's OTIB-0070? 

12 DR. MAURO: That's the residual 

13 radioactivity model. You know, how do you go 

14 about reconstructing doses after operations 

15 stop and now you're no longer under AEC 

16 contract, but you do have residual 

17 radioactivity in the workplace and we want to 

18 not have that. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: What were you 

20 asking about that, Wanda? What we should do 

21 with it? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was asking, 
 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 since it's not incorporated in our matrix yet, 

2 Steve was suggesting that a couple of them be 

3 approached, rather than all as open items, 

4 that some be incorporated in the other 

5 heading. And I was just asking which you felt 

6 was most appropriate. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: This is an example 

8 of what I was talking about, findings 5 and 6 

9 were identified as conditional findings. 

10 Basically it says that in review of the title 

11 TBD-5001, certain findings were found. And 

12 then at this time you both cited findings 

13 which have not been completed, the sixth 

14 resolution purpose, and are therefore 

15 considered as conditional findings herein. So 

16 I didn't, you know, reenter those under OTIB17 0070 because they already should be some place 

18 under TBD-6001. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: They're in 6001. 

20 DR. MAURO: But bear in mind TBD21 6001 is being dealt in under test 1 as part of 

22 this profile review. So, I mean, 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 

 118

1 boundaries sometimes get a little fuzzy and 

2 I'm not too troubled by it, as long as we keep 

3 track of it. So that issue that's raised 

4 here, is being addressed, but it's being 

5 addressed as part of your work group on the 

6 TBD-6001. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: So we don't have it 

8 here and therefore not truly incorporated 

9 elsewhere in our matrix. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not included 

11 on these 11 that were added before OTIB, these 

12 11. 

13 DR. MAURO: Well, you see, I would 

14 say they be transferred. You see, I would say 

15 that, yes, we're not dealing with them here. 

16 They're being dealt with on this profile -- 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, but that was 

18 one way to do it. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Put them in and 

21 immediately transfer them out. So, I mean, 

22 there's options and, you know, we'll 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 

 119

1 whatever the work group instructs us. If they 

2 want to put them in, we'll put them in. It's 

3 not a big deal. 

4 DR. MAURO: As an archival 

5 document, given that OTIB-0070 is in fact a 

6 procedure that is appropriately designated as 

7 under our procedure reviews, I envision a year 

8 from now, two years from now, five years from 

9 now some of you would ask the question, you 

10 know, how does this resolve? There should be 

11 a paper trail that starts with -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I will add 

13 the -- 

14 DR. MAURO: And that's my 

15 suggestion. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and that would 

17 have been my suggestion as well. I was just 

18 waiting for feedback from any other our board 

19 members. 

20 Mark, do you have any objection? 

21 Do you have a different take on how to address 

22 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 

 120

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, appendix 

2 BB was handled that way. It showed up here 

3 and then we transferred it. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, right. But 

5 appendix BB is a little different than that. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a little 

7 different than the OTIB, right. 

8 DR. MAURO: It is a site profile 

9 review. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

11 DR. MAURO: So we don't feel it 

12 needs to have a -- oh, it does? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it showed 

14 here initially. 

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, they're still 

16 here? Okay. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Four-twenty-one is 

18 basically the 11 issues -- the 13 issues on 

19 421 and they would be immediately transfer 

20 out. 

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So you did 

22 keep them in? All 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 

 121

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: They were here to 

2 start with, because the other committee didn't 

3 even exist. 

4 DR. MAURO: That wasn't formulated 

5 yet. All right. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: There wasn't 

9 another place to transfer them at that time. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So I will take an 

11 action item to add those three conditional 

12 OTIB-0070 findings. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Please. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: And just have all 

15 14 of them that were in the SC&A document and 

16 transfer them out or identify them as being 

17 resolved elsewhere, or being addressed 

18 elsewhere. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks. That's 

20 helpful. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I think 

22 you're asking me. I think I'm in agreement. 
 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 I was focused on trying to get on the O drive, 

2 but you could you just describe what the path 

3 forward is now for the findings that's on the 

4 -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Steve just 

6 described that, but I'll ask to describe it 

7 again. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now, Mark, 

9 I've added 11 issues to the database and there 

10 are 14 issues that SC&A made for OTIB-0070. 

11 I've added 11 of them to the database. The 

12 remaining three that I did not add to the 

13 database are what SC&A called conditional 

14 issues, because they were really restating 

15 issues that had already been formulated for 

16 other documents. And the path forward is to 

17 add those three conditional issues as OTIB18 0070 issues and indicate that they were either 

19 transferred to another document or -- I guess 

20 that was the approach taken, to indicate that 

21 they were transferred to some other document. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Thank 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 

 123

1 Yes, that seems fine, too. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Any other comments 

3 with respect to the overall tracking system 

4 report? 

5 Otherwise, we can do one of two 

6 things. We can undertake to start on our full 

7 database of the open and in-progress items, or 

8 we can break and go to lunch. I guess what 

9 I'd like to do is discuss, before we go to 

10 lunch, what my purpose would be for sorting 

11 these as we're going to look at them. My 

12 memory is we didn't quite get through the 

13 third set of procedures that we were going 

14 through one at a time. My suggestion would be 

15 that we filter first by finding date, which 

16 will get us into the appropriate set that we 

17 need to look at; second by the procedure 

18 number, which will put them in appropriate 

19 order; and third, pull up only open in20 progress issues because we know that abeyance 

21 is -- perhaps we better include abeyance -- 

22 open, in abeyance and in-progress 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 

 124

1 will eliminate a great deal of the other not 

2 particularly active and not necessary data 

3 from the base. 

4 Is that agreeable with all? Mark, 

5 are you up yet? 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that's fine. 

7 Yes, I still don't have access. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, okay. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: But hopefully 

10 during lunch I'll get it. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I sent an email 

12 to John Gibson to find out what was going on. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

14 Thanks. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. And other 

16 thoughts about that one way or the other? 

17 Yes, Paul? 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, just want to 

19 ask, will that be the complete afternoon, or 

20 do we have any other items after that? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: That's the only thing 

22 I have on my agenda, but I suspect that 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 

 125

1 will take the afternoon. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I just 

3 wondered if there were any other items after 

4 that. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: No. We want to try 

6 to make sure we incorporate any recently 

7 received responses from NIOSH. I assume that 

8 Steve has them loaded already. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: The most recent 

10 received -- I don't think we've received any 

11 more responses from NIOSH since the last 

12 meeting. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we had a 

14 couple from Stu. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we had a couple 

16 from Stu. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER; This past week, 

18 right? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there you go. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, these were 

21 from Stu that sent out on October 6th, and 

22 basically the last meeting we discussed 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 

 126

1 handful of these and SC&A had only responded 

2 to NIOSH's responses on a handful of them and 

3 which we discussed at the last meeting. Now 

4 SC&A has responses or made recommendations on 

5 all the NIOSH initial responses. And we do 

6 have recommendations for all those. Now there 

7 may be another document that Stu sent out that 

8 I'm not aware of. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got two. One is 

10 dated December 5th and when was -- let me 

11 check it here. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: December 5th I 

13 believe might be theirs. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe December 

16 5th was theirs. It was their add- back on 

17 something I had sent out earlier. I believe 

18 that's the same -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, okay. That 

20 did come from SC&A. I was just looking at the 

21 title of it. Right. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

 127

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was SC&A's 

2 response to the -- that's it right there, yes. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: And it was 

4 contained in two documents. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: So there's one for 

7 OCAS and one for -- 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Right. 

9 Okay. That's what I was thinking. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: So they're loaded 

11 already? 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: They are loaded and 

13 we can discuss them. Again, it's not a 

14 comprehensive walk-through of all the third 

15 set of issues at this point. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: So it's just the 

18 ones that we have gotten feedback from NIOSH 

19 on. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. That's 

21 fine. Just wanted to make sure we didn't 

22 overlook this late-breaking information. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 Any other thoughts about how we 

2 shall approach this as we return from lunch? 

3 MR. KATZ: Do you want to try to 

4 button down our date for the next meeting now 

5 instead of leaving that for later? 

6 CHAIR MUNN: That might be a good 

7 idea. Let's see what everybody's calendar 

8 looks like. The subcommittee met yesterday 

9 and had established their next meeting the 

10 last week of January. They requested and we 

11 identified Thursday, January 29th for their 

12 meeting. I had suggested that this group take 

13 Wednesday, January 28th, as their next face14 to-face meeting. 

15 Is there anyone who has so much 

16 grief with Wednesday the 28th that you can't 

17 revise your calendars? 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I can do 

19 it. I probably have to do it on the phone, 

20 and I may miss like one hour that day, but 

21 it's okay other than that. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: All 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 

 129

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's part of 

2 the reason why I picked that Thursday that 

3 week. But I understand you want to -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: So that you could 

5 avoid Wednesday? 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you understand 

8 why I want Wednesday. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

10 Certainly I do. But I can do that, I just 

11 might miss like an hour. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. All 

13 right. Hearing no objection, the subcommittee 

14 or work group, whichever we will be at that 

15 time, will meet on January 28th at -- my 

16 preference is always 10:00. 

17 MR. KATZ: Nine-thirty. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Ted's is always 9:30. 

19 What's the preference of the other -- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Nine-thirty. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Nine-thirty will do? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Actually 10:00 
 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 would be better. That would make me less of 

2 the hour. It's okay. If you want to go with 

3 9:30, that's fine. I probably won't be on 

4 until like 10:30. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well, if it's more 

6 likely that you will be here -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I just 

8 would miss less if you started a little -- 

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. If that works 

10 for you, Mark, then that's fine. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I, you know, 

12 go with what you want to go with. 

13 MR. KATZ: Start at 10:00. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Ten o'clock, 

15 Wednesday the 28th. Procedures. Same 

16 station. Thank you. That helps. 

17 Any other comment for the good of 

18 the order before we have lunch? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I did send one 

20 message with some procedure information. It 

21 was in the last couple weeks. I'll get the 

22 date eventually. It related to OTIB-0018, 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 

 131

1 I recall it pretty clearly because I sent it 

2 to the dose reconstruct subcommittee first and 

3 had to tell them, oh, wait a minute, I made a 

4 mistake; this is actually a procedure 

5 response, thanks to my one contractor employee 

6 who watches out for me. And so I did send 

7 something. It's the additional information 

8 for OTIB-0018, from OTIB-0018. In other 

9 words, to say what do you know about the air 

10 monitoring program and what they did and so 

11 on. So I did submit that. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So that was the 

14 one thing I did submit. And I thought I 

15 copied you on it, Steve. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Monday the 1st. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: It was Monday the 

18 1st? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I think I did see 

20 that, Stu, but it was a response to a question 

21 of the Board -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, it 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 

 132

1 not -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: It wasn't really a 

3 response to any particular issue. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It was additional 

5 information to the Board. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it's a 

7 response to findings. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't speak 

9 directly to the finding, but it provides 

10 additional information that the Board had 

11 asked us to provide in response to a 

12 particular finding. I think it's 18-5, if I'm 

13 not -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: It was 18-5. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, 18-5. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve on that? Oh, 

17 you have it up there? You have my email up, 

18 or just -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: You want me to put 

20 this on the -- 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Am I on -- no. 

22 Well, yes, okay. We can do it at the break 
 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 just to make sure that I have it. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, okay. I can 

3 copy you on this, if you want. Yes, it looks 

4 like -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: If I wasn't on 

6 before. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's dated 

8 December 1st. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Like Stu says, I 

11 might have it on my email and I just wasn't 

12 sharp enough to realize that I needed to load 

13 it into the database. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: It looks like I 

15 got it on December 8th. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: December 8th was 

17 today. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: No, I had 

19 on -- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I know why 

21 that's showing up. I loaded it on here this 

22 morning. So, that's right. Yes, it shows 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 

 134

1 latest date. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: You're on the -- 

3 unless it didn't get to you. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I will take a look 

5 at it and when we break or when I get back to 

6 my desk. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I got it twice. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: That's because 

9 you're the procedures subcommittee and this 

10 work group. That's why you got it twice. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Thank 

12 you, all. We're going to sign off for one 

13 full hour and five minutes. We will be at 

14 1:10. 

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone on 

16 the phone. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 12:07 p.m. and 

19 resumed at 1:10 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 

 135

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 1:14 p.m. 

3 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. This 

4 is the procedures review working group of the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health and 

6 we're restarting after a lunch break. And I'd 

7 just like to check too for participants on the 

8 phone. 

9 Mark, are you back with us? 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'm on, Ted. 

11 MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

12 other board members? Mike Gibson? 

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here. 

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, hi, Mike. 

15 And Bob Presley, maybe? 

16 Okay. And then, Wanda, it's all 

17 yours. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Have you been able to 

19 get back on line, Mark? 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: No? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Didn't get on the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 O drive yet. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No luck, huh? 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: We've done the best 

5 we can from here. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I know. 

7 Yes. Hoping it will happen soon. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well perhaps in order 

9 to stall that just a little bit more, we have 

10 a question to pose for you in any case. You 

11 had some communications with Steve Marschke 

12 about OTIB-0052 and you had some questions 

13 that you posed and he responded to them. I 

14 believe has placed some information on the 

15 database as a result. Was his response 

16 adequate for you and do you have more 

17 questions with respect to OTIB-0052? We 

18 thought we'd address that first thing. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: You're going help 

20 me out. OTIB-0052. Where can I find these 

21 responses other than the O drive? I was 

22 planning on just pulling everything up on the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 O drive. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: They were emailed 

3 to you. Basically, Mark, back on October 14th 

4 you sent -- that's about the time of the last 

5 time we got together. And you sent me an 

6 email with four questions that you had 

7 regarding OTIB-0052. And then I guess on the 

8 16th I sent you back some responses. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: This would have 

10 been October -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: October 16th. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: And OTIB-0052 is 

13 what? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0052 is dose 

15 to construction workers. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes. Okay. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And the questions 

18 you asked were, you know, how do they treat 

19 missing dose for external-internal? In the 

20 second one, did they use internal data itself 

21 or start with annual averages? Did they 

22 calculate geometric standard deviation or use 
 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 an assigned value? And again, the fourth one 

2 had something to do with the TIB mentions 1955 

3 as the only year that construction trade 

4 workers greater than all monitored workers. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, since I 

6 can't quickly find those, can you go through 

7 one-by-one my question, your response, that 

8 kind of thing? Is that all right, Wanda? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: We can give it a 

10 shot. I'm looking at the first response. I 

11 have a number of equations in it which 

12 probably won't be able to go through over the 

13 phone. Your first question was, how did they 

14 treat missing dose? In parentheses, for 

15 external, for internal. Did they include 

16 zeros or use MDAs or somewhere in between? 

17 And my response was, when external missing 

18 dose was included, it was included as one-half 

19 the MDA as specified in the site profiles. 

20 And I said, I believe this was done correctly. 

21 In particular, ORAU OTIB-0058 was used to 

22 assign the missing dose providing flats. 
 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 And then I went into the problem 

2 that I have is the missing dose was not 

3 included in all the sites analyzed. Therefore 

4 the ratio of construction trade worker dose to 

5 all worker does was not developed on the same 

6 date for all sites. And then I give, you 

7 know, some examples where basically if you 

8 include the missing dose, if you calculate the 

9 ratio of all construction work dose to all 

10 workers including the missing dose increases 

11 that ratio by a factor of about 30 percent. 

12 And that was my response to the first 

13 question. 

14 DR. MAURO: Steve, along those 

15 lines, if I recall the last time -- ORAU OTIB16 0052 in our review, the basic approach was to 

17 multiply the operational exposures for each 

18 category of worker by 1.4. Is that the 

19 fundamental concept that's used for the 

20 construction? The construction worker OTIB 

21 basically says, listen, you've got lots of 

22 data for operational, but and I know this 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 

 140

1 -- well, Savannah River anyway -- you've got 

2 a certain amount of data for operational 

3 personnel, but you may not have an adequate or 

4 complete data set for construction workers, or 

5 different trades. And NIOSH came up with 

6 OTIB-0052 as a method to go from, well, how do 

7 we take advantage of the fact that we do have 

8 some limited data. What they ended up doing, 

9 as I understand it, is take the operations 

10 data, you know, at a given facility and 

11 multiply that by 1.4; that number just sticks 

12 in my mind, to account for, to make sure that 

13 when you run your coworker model for the 

14 construction workers, let's say at Savannah 

15 River, that you are making sure that your 

16 claimant favorable. 

17 Now, what I just read here is that 

18 well, because different sites did it a little 

19 differently, is the 1.4 still pretty good? I 

20 guess that's the question. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The question is, 

22 yes, how do you calculate the 1.4? The 1.4 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 

 141

1 calculated -- it's the ratio of the 

2 construction worker dose to the all- monitored 

3 workers. 

4 DR. MAURO: All-monitored? 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: And if you include 

6 missing dose in that ratio, both in the 

7 numerator and the denominator, you get 

8 slightly different numbers. You know, you can 

9 get a number which varies by about up to 30 

10 percent. So the 1.4 could be 30 percent 

11 higher, you know, so instead of 1.4, it could 

12 be 30 percent higher than 1.4. So that's 

13 really the point we were trying to make with 

14 this. How was the 1.4 arrived at? The final 

15 table here was we looked at some Rocky Flats 

16 data which was presented in OTIB-0052, table 

17 5.2., and it was presented with the missing 

18 dose. If you present it without the missing 

19 dose, this table shows what the increase would 

20 be if you did this ratio without the missing 

21 dose and, you know, it would go up from 1.4 to 

22 1.5. So in some cases, you know, 1.4. to 1.5. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 It would go from 2.2. to 2.4 on bases. It's 

2 not a big thing. It's just, you know, this 

3 point that we pointed out. 

4 Mark's second question was, did 

5 they use individual data itself or start with 

6 annual averages/summary data? And then in 

7 parentheses he states, "I know from the rems 

8 report years they only had dose category data, 

9 but how about other years?" My response was, 

10 the approach taken depends upon the site being 

11 analyzed. For SRS and Rocky Flats, NIOSH 

12 looked at the individual 

13 dose records. But for Hanford they used rems, 

14 dose reports, et cetera. In short, NIOSH used 

15 the data in whatever format was available to 

16 them. 

17 The third question that Mark asked 

18 was, did they calculate a GSD or geometric 

19 standard deviation or use an assigned value to 

20 derive the 95th value? And then in 

21 parentheses, external/internal may have 

22 treated these differently. And then 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 

 143

1 response was for external doses, NIOSH used 

2 Excel's percentile function to determine the 

3 50 percentile and the 95th percentile doses 

4 for most sites. Because of it's various 

5 sources of data, the Hanford discussion does 

6 not talk about percentages. For internal 

7 exposures, NIOSH used the GSD approach. 

8 The fourth question that Mark 

9 asked was the TBD mentions that 1955 was the 

10 only year other than post-1990 that had 

11 construction trade worker greater than all 

12 monitored workers, and then in parentheses, 20 

13 percent higher. In the internal paragraph of 

14 section 5, in parentheses, page 5 -- or page 

15 9 of 35, they say based on this observation, 

16 seven sites were examined individually to 

17 determine if at any time the external or 

18 internal dose to construction trade workers 

19 exceeded the dose to all monitored workers, 

20 close quote. And the Mark continues: But I 

21 don't see any explanation for this 1955 

22 oddity. And my response was, I believe 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 

 144

1 are correct in that no explanation is provided 

2 as to the spike in construction trade workers 

3 to all monitored worker dose ratio in 1955. 

4 However, examining the site-specific 

5 penetrating dose figures in OTIB-0052 shows 

6 that this peak must be do to something 

7 happening at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as 

8 the table below indicates. And the table 

9 below indicates it's a table that identifies 

10 all the various figures from OTIB-0052 for the 

11 various sites and it shows that only Oak Ridge 

12 -- when you look at the site data, only Oak 

13 Ridge has the construction trade worker value 

14 greater than the all monitored workers. 

15 And then my final -- I'm not too 

16 concerned with this because: (1) it is only 

17 one year, so it would have to be a minimal 

18 effect on any integrated construction trade 

19 worker dose; and (2) the 1.2 factor discussed 

20 is less than the OTIB-0052 multiplier of 1.4. 

21 And then I added a fifth question, 

22 what about neutron doses? And I 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 

 145

1 basically, Mark, you didn't ask about neutron 

2 in your email, but you did mention them during 

3 Tuesday's work group meeting. I wanted to 

4 point out that during the August 29th, 2007, 

5 work group meeting the last OTIB-0052 item 

6 that was discussed was how the neutron dose 

7 should be handled. And that was discussed on 

8 pages 225 through 228 of the transcript. 

9 Specifically, NIOSH stated that the 1.4 factor 

10 would be applied to the neutron dose as well 

11 as the gamma dose. And then we have Mr. Chew, 

12 we have a brief excerpt from the transcript. 

13 MR. CHEW: You apply the 1.4 to 

14 the total. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Including all 

16 sources? 

17 MR. SHARFI: The deep dose and the 

18 neutron dose, not the shallow dose. 

19 And so that's what we had. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: You still with us, 

21 Mark? Mark? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm 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 

 146

1 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. I was 

2 hoping we weren't reading to an empty mic. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I finally 

4 found those comments from the -- I mean, this 

5 database is great when it works, but when you 

6 have no access, it really threw me for a loop 

7 because I was planning on pulling everything 

8 up on the database as we were going. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I found those 

11 comments and especially the responses. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: We may have to get to 

13 the point where we have backup equipment 

14 available for those of us whose electronics 

15 fail us when we need it. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: This exchange has 

18 not been captured in the database at this 

19 point. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I understand. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't -- 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, so it wasn'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 

 147

1 on the database anyway. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I didn't know 

3 how I would do that. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is like 

5 a sidebar conversation and I think Mark has 

6 raised some -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that was 

8 kind of -- as I was wondering, I was wondering 

9 why Steve was answering -- but I actually -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, no, I don't 

11 object to it, Mark. I think the questions are 

12 important ones and it would be probably 

13 helpful since they were raised that they 

14 become part of the subcommittee's 

15 deliberations. But we don't have either the 

16 questions or the answers, so I'm suggesting 

17 maybe -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it should be 

19 shared. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- that Steve 

21 share that whole thing and we have it, because 

22 I don't think it would be quite proper for 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 

 148

1 member of the Board -- I'm not picking on you, 

2 Mark, but one member of the subcommittee to 

3 develop separate solutions or, you know -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, this 

5 communication was sent to all of us. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we have it? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: It was sent to 

9 everybody. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe I have it 

11 and didn't need it. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: It was sent -- 

13 again, it's two months old, so, you know, and 

14 people -- but it was sent. I did send it to 

15 Stu, Jim, John and members of the work group. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I must have it 

17 somewhere, huh? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Paul, Wanda, Mike 

19 were on the CC and Mark was there. So it was 

20 -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: It was out and we 

22 did it right after the meeting when 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 

 149

1 fresh in my mind. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I 

3 apologize. I'm going to look and see. I must 

4 have it here then somewhere. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, there's no 

6 problem in re-sending it. We can redo that, 

7 you know? 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I have it. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: The attachment is 

10 called response to Mark. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Response to Mark. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: But now that you 

13 brought it up on the subcommittee call here, 

14 or subcommittee meeting, maybe it should 

15 become part of the database. Then everyone 

16 would be able to hold up, you know -- yes, I'm 

17 in between things now. I try to use the 

18 database more so I'm not relying on the email 

19 response as much and now I'm now trying to 

20 patchwork things together. 

21 Anyway, I mean, I saw your 

22 responses, Steve, and I'm not sure I'm ready 
 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 to say yay or nay on them. And I know it's 

2 been two months, but we, you know, have done 

3 several different things. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Shall we identify 

5 this as an item of business for our next 

6 agenda? 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Definitely, yes. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: And then the question 

9 becomes whether you accept these answers as 

10 being appropriate and if so, how should they 

11 be incorporated into the database? 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and I would 

13 also offer that as I was listening to those 

14 responses, Wanda, I was thinking and then I 

15 noticed that, you know, it was probably my own 

16 doing. And I think what happened in the 

17 meeting was you asked if there were any other 

18 questions and if I had some specific follow19 ups to share them or forward them. And I 

20 forwarded them to Steve for reasons that elude 

21 me right now, because I think all those 

22 questions that were raised are 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 

 151

1 appropriately addressed in NIOSH. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think they 

3 may have been -- 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, they're 

5 not really what the auditor thinks. They were 

6 questions based on how NIOSH put this thing 

7 together. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: I don't have the 

9 transcript in front of me and I'm not going to 

10 bother to pull it up. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: But I believe what 

13 transpired was the question was asked and I 

14 think Steve was responding in light of answers 

15 that had already been made to specific 

16 findings from OTIB-0052. And I think he's 

17 just repeating findings that are already of 

18 record to clarify things. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Right. 

20 It might have been just clarifications or 

21 extensions on findings that were there. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: So what I'm guess 
 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 what I'm saying is, I think that his answers 

2 are probably more likely categorized as a 

3 brief summary of what's already been responded 

4 to in the NIOSH database itself, although I 

5 haven't checked the database to assure that's 

6 the case. If that's not the case, then we 

7 need to probably have a discussion about how 

8 to incorporate them. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that would be 

10 -- I would like to have that -- because the 

11 questions do not identify a specific OTIB-0052 

12 issue, or they're not associated with a 

13 specific issue, or they haven't been 

14 identified as being such. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, these are 

16 generalized. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: These are kind of 

18 generalized questions and I'm not sure how I 

19 would get them -- at this point in time, I'm 

20 not sure how I would go and insert them into 

21 the database. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: 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 

 153

1 encountered this specific situation before of 

2 always been working with a database. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, and structurally 

4 the way this would be handled is for that 

5 previous meeting there would be a section, 

6 okay, we had a meeting on this date. And then 

7 there would be a part underneath that that 

8 tries to capture what was discussed. In other 

9 words, that's what we try to do, is write 

10 underneath and say, okay, here -- and 

11 sometimes we're pretty lengthy, in summary 

12 form, you know, we don't want to repeat what's 

13 in the transcript, but try to capture the 

14 essence of the discussion. And I believe the 

15 way in which it would work is that there be a 

16 row underneath summarizing what was discussed 

17 at the meeting. Now one of the items would be 

18 perhaps -- would then load up into the 

19 database is certain questions being raised by 

20 Mark and then in response to those questions. 

21 Certainly those questions I guess could have 

22 been answered either by SC&A or by 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 

 154

1 perhaps more appropriately by NIOSH, but I 

2 think they were posed to you. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: They were posed to 

4 me. That's why I answered them. 

5 DR. MAURO: And then Steve 

6 answered. So as far as the way I, I guess, 

7 envision the database is, yes, this would be 

8 loaded in underneath follow-up activities that 

9 took place as a result of a dialogue that took 

10 place during that work group meeting. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: The flaw in that, 

12 John -- 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- is that if you 

15 look here, this is an example -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- nothing to do 

18 with OTIB-0052, but just an example of the way 

19 the database is set up. The whole discussion 

20 on the work group meetings is a subset 

21 underneath a finding number. So you have to 

22 associate that discussion with some kind of a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 finding number. 

2 DR. MAURO: Good point. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: You just can't go 

4 in there and just stick it in. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: And that's our 

6 dilemma here. 

7 DR. MAURO: That is a dilemma. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Mark is asking 

9 generalized questions that have to do with the 

10 procedure in itself, not with identifiable 

11 items of findings. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the dilemma 

13 of putting into -- I mean, there's probably 

14 something we can do to work around it, but you 

15 know, one thing is to go through and try to 

16 identify an issue for each one of these four 

17 questions. Right now everything really has 

18 been more or less read into the transcript for 

19 this meeting, so from that point of view it's 

20 on the record, you know. I don't know. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's very 

22 difficult unless we do not have anything 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 

 156

1 our current process that will suit this 

2 situation well. If we want to consider the 

3 possibility of adding yet one more significant 

4 item to the format that we've already 

5 established, and I hesitate to do that, 

6 frankly, because I think it's cumbersome, but 

7 if we're going to include this kind of 

8 dialogue that takes place between work group 

9 meetings and not have them become a part of 

10 anything other than the written transcript, 

11 not be a database item, then we need to 

12 identify some way to see that that's a path 

13 way that we want to go. 

14 DR. MAURO: I got a question. Can 

15 issues be added? 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Issues can be added 

17 if we want to add. There's nothing wrong with 

18 adding new issues. 

19 DR. MAURO: I mean, right now this 

20 construct is that everything was triggered, is 

21 triggered by SC&A's issues. I mean, we write 

22 a report, put it into a procedure, OTIB-0052, 
 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 submit our report and in that report there 

2 are ten issues, or numbered one through ten. 

3 Now what we're saying here is, wait a minute, 

4 hold on, issues can emerge, new issues over 

5 and above those that have been identified by 

6 SC&A by working those. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Sure. 

8 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. So let's 

9 put them in, those issues and track them just 

10 as if they we were issues raised by SC&A. I 

11 see no problem. And as long as 

12 mechanistically it can be done. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, we're not 

14 limited to SC&A's -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Of course not. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- issues and -- 

17 DR. MAURO: No. Yes. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: In fact it 

19 probably is good that there are some issues 

20 that board members identify. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Absolutely. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: I would suspect 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 

 158

1 might be a wise idea from time-to-time. I 

2 would suggest that if we are going to do such 

3 a thing, it would be wise for us to put some 

4 different identifier other than the simple 

5 finding number, the procedure number and 

6 finding number. I would suggest that we 

7 identify them in some other way other than 

8 just by number. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: We could put a 

10 prefix on the number, you know, with WG OTIB11 0052, or something like that, to identify that 

12 it was a work group-initiated -- because the 

13 format of the finding number is not a fixed 

14 format. So we can put anything in there we 

15 would want. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: I would suggest that 

17 rather than putting an identifier before the 

18 procedure name, that we put it before the 

19 number of the finding. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: That's fine. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: For example, we have 

22 here OTIB-0052; I'm currently looking at 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 

 159

1 9, and from 59, we go to -- I'm trying to get 

2 to where I can see how many procedures we 

3 actually have, how many findings we actually 

4 have here. I think I saw four still in our 

5 open list, did I not? Now I can't find where 

6 I was. I see 09, I see 05, I see -- so 

7 there's 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 still in our 

8 open list. So if we are going to add findings 

9 here, I would suggest that we can check on the 

10 original table and make sure 15 was the last 

11 one, but whatever the next number would be, I 

12 would suggest that we call it OTIB-0052-work 

13 group whatever the next number is. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Could I just say 

17 I think that these questions -- I think Steve 

18 characterized them correctly on my part. They 

19 were background questions about the TIB and I 

20 appreciate, you know, if we may want in some 

21 cases to add work group findings, that's fine. 

22 But I don't think this is -- you know, 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 

 160

1 emails that I sent out, I don't think are 

2 really issues or findings yet. I think it was 

3 more exploratory on my part just of how the 

4 TIB was constructed. And I think it was 

5 handled fine. I just think maybe we need to 

6 -- you know, I wasn't -- you know, and I know 

7 this was sent out a long time ago, but when 

8 I'm looking at agenda, I was thinking, okay, 

9 we got the CATI thing and then we're going to 

10 go through the third set of cases, and we're 

11 going to do them numerically from the 

12 database. So it lost my sort of radar in 

13 terms of -- but if it's something like this, 

14 maybe we can just have it separately on the 

15 agenda that, you know, ongoing TIB-52 

16 background discussion and, you know, some 

17 things you're doing with standard-sort of 

18 email correspondence from the contractor or 

19 from NIOSH. I don't think this really needs 

20 to necessarily be added to the database. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I appreciate 

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 

 161

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't see it as 

2 any new findings or issues yet. I mean, it 

3 may, if I don't -- you know, if I'm not 

4 satisfied with answers or whatever, then maybe 

5 it evolves into an issue or finding, but my 

6 take on it was really that it was more almost, 

7 you know, explain to me how you're doing this 

8 and how you account for this, and, you know, 

9 if all the explanations are fine, then that's 

10 good. That's just a background discussion. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: I have a tendency to 

12 agree with you, Mark, and I appreciate your 

13 taking that position. I guess the real 

14 question then becomes in situations like this 

15 I would think it might be incumbent upon the 

16 originator of the question to respond saying, 

17 okay, that's what I needed to know, or saying, 

18 I don't feel this is covered adequately. I 

19 would like to request an additional finding. 

20 If we can reach some general agreement among 

21 the members of the work board as to how to 

22 approach this type of situation, it might be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 helpful. 

2 Steve has something to say. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I just wanted to 

4 kind of apologize to Mark for kind of 

5 blindsiding him on this, but I wanted to take 

6 advantage of this opportunity to make sure 

7 that these questions did not fall through the 

8 cracks. And that's why I asked Wanda to bring 

9 it up. At lunch time I made the request of 

10 her and she graciously did bring it up. And 

11 so, you know, again, it's just something I 

12 knew was out there and didn't want it to just 

13 disappear into the ether. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, at least it has 

15 generated a good discussion with respect to 

16 how to approach it if it does occur again, and 

17 it very well may. Even in this instance it 

18 may. But with your assurance, Mark, that in 

19 your opinion none of the responses to your 

20 questions have risen to your concept of an 

21 additional finding, then we'll just leave this 

22 as it is now and move on with the expectation 
 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 that if you do identify what you feel is a 

2 large enough issue to qualify as a finding, 

3 that you will submit that to the work group in 

4 written form so that we can incorporate it as 

5 we have just discussed in the procedures 

6 tracking database. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine. 

8 And, Wanda, I guess that's fine as a protocol 

9 going forward. I would just also offer that, 

10 you know, the questions I generated were to 

11 really, you know, get that dialogue going on 

12 the background and how this was created so if 

13 other members look at these questions and, you 

14 know, have follow-up add-on input, I would 

15 encourage that as well. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Would you like us to 

19 continue going through the outstanding issues? 

20 Hold on just a moment. Yes, Stu? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

22 Hinnefeld. I just want to make sure now, 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 

 164

1 we going to talk about the use at the next 

2 work group meeting? I mean, we said that long 

3 ago, that if things weren't going to be -- we 

4 will have a more in-depth discussion. Mark 

5 can prepare; we can prepare, the TIB can be 

6 read? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That's the 

9 note I have, so -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I was going to 

11 say, you know, this response is our 

12 understanding of how in fact NIOSH intends to 

13 deal with these issues. It's important that 

14 you folks say, yes, I think you got it right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: The right people 

16 have to get engaged. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I know Jim got 

19 this, but I haven't talked to him about it. 

20 And also it just can be a -- 

21 CHAIR MUNN: So are we all agreed 

22 that OTIB-0052 and any additional response 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 that's necessary will be an item of business 

2 in our January meeting? Agreed? 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And, Mark, 

6 this is Stu. Have you tried logging on the O 

7 drive in about the last 20 minutes? 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Not while we were 

9 just talking, so I'll try again. Before I do, 

10 Wanda, though, just the one thing, it will be 

11 on the January meeting. I agree that's fine. 

12 Can you make sure that we're prompted in the 

13 agenda item on that one? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Steve, you didn't 

16 have to apologize. You sent these responses 

17 out a long time ago. I just lost sight of 

18 them, but I won't for January. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: We will have an 

22 agenda for January. 
 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 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: And we will not 

3 continue with OTIB-0052. We will start with 

4 the third set, once I get the database back up 

5 on my screen again. 

6 Steve, do you have those third set 

7 -- 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: -- starting with -- 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu, I am back 

11 on. Thank you for following up on that. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. You're 

13 welcome. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thanks. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am on the O 

16 drive. Thank you. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. So the 

18 third set, if memory serves, begins with OCAS 

19 IG-01. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: What's the finding 

21 date? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: The finding date 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 

 167

1 10/20/2007. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Of what? Is that 

3 the matrix that you're looking at? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: If you're sorting by 

5 date, you should be at 10/29/07. And the 

6 first item that's shown on mine as open is 

7 ID01. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: IDO1, we have not 

9 received an initial response from NIOSH yet. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: The first one we've 

12 received is PER-03. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Alright, PER-03, 

14 finding 37? No, page 37. 301? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, finding 301. 

16 And basically we got the document title is 

17 misleading, does not deal solely with 

18 injection component, but also speculates the 

19 probability of foundation including the 

20 updated occupational X-ray data. While there 

21 were revisions to the occupational medical 

22 dose between rev. 0 and rev. 1, there 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 

 168

1 decreases in doses. These were decreases in 

2 doses. Because of that, they were not 

3 expected in the outcome of any previously 

4 completed non-compensatory claims. So a PER 

5 would not be required in that case. The 

6 change in approach at one-fifth PER was the 

7 addition of the dose from injection, which did 

8 increase the dose slightly. Consequently, the 

9 PER was initiated to address the addition of 

10 injection dose only. Any time claims are 

11 reworked, they are completed in accordance 

12 with all current guidelines. Consequently the 

13 revised occupational medical bills were 

14 included in the reworked claims. 

15 And SC&A's response was SC&A 

16 agrees with the NIOSH response that the PER-03 

17 only needs to address the change that resulted 

18 in the dose increase. It's title was 

19 appropriate and recommends the status of this 

20 issue be changed to closed. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Comments? Concerns? 

22 Hearing none, we will change 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 

 169

1 status to closed. 

2 Next issue, PER-03-02. It appears 

3 to me that we have the same response from 

4 SC&A. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: The same response. 

6 SC&A agrees with the NIOSH response that the 

7 intake parameters utilized in PER-03 are on 

8 the high side of estimates and recommends the 

9 status of this issue be closed. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: This has to do with 

11 specific intake parameters on the low-sided 

12 estimates. 

13 Any comments or concerns? 

14 Otherwise, it's closed. 

15 The next item is PER-03-03. This 

16 one is a recommendation be held in abeyance. 

17 SC&A agrees with NIOSH that the IREP user's 

18 guide should be referenced on page 14. 

19 Recommends the status of this issue be changed 

20 to in abeyance until that reference is added. 

21 Is that amenable with the group? 

22 Status is changed to in abeyance. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 Next issue is 04. We have no 

2 response. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. No response 

4 is provided. Yes. Okay. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: With respect to 

6 absorption types. 

7 Next, we move from that PER to the 

8 next PER-04, item 1, with regard to 

9 application of photo-chirography at Pinellas. 

10 We have a response from SC&A. Agrees with the 

11 NIOSH response and a reason given. Recommends 

12 it be changed to in abeyance until NIOSH 

13 completes a revision or deletion of PER-08. 

14 Any comments or questions? 

15 Status changes to in abeyance. 

16 Next item is PER -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me make sure 

18 I'm straight here. Oh, okay. Procedure 8. 

19 Okay. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, Stu? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: All 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 

 171

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess. I'm just 

2 catching up. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, this is it. 

4 Thank you. I'm busy with other things and -- 

5 PER-06, item 1. Response from 

6 SC&A. Agrees with the NIOSH response that 

7 this PER does not include all the required 

8 information for determining if a claim 

9 required rework. Recommends the status of the 

10 issue be changed to closed. 

11 Discussion or comment? 

12 The issue is closed. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, hold on. 

14 It's closed? Okay. Forget it. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Oh. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: You're running 

17 through like three ahead of me, so -- 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: PER-06 -- 

20 CHAIR MUNN: 01. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- item 1, I 

22 mean, why -- because it doesn't clarify. Can 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 you restate? I'm trying to open up the 

2 details. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the issue is the 

4 structure of the PER does not strictly follow 

5 guidance provided in PER-08. That is, PER-04 

6 has a single evaluation section rather than 

7 separate issue and POC evaluations in the 

8 summary section is missing. NIOSH stated it 

9 agrees that PER-06 does not include the 

10 specific sections described in 08, but it does 

11 include all the required information for 

12 determining if claims required rework. The 

13 PER process has changed significantly since 

14 that time due to discussions with NIOSH and 

15 DOL about how to effectively manage it. And 

16 consequently, PER-08 will either be revised or 

17 canceled until such time as the activity 

18 resumes and the PER process is clarified. 

19 And SC&A is saying that agree with 

20 that and that they recommend that 

21 the -- 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 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 

 173

1 fine. I guess I heard it all then. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay? 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: So I didn't want to 

5 get ahead of you, Mark. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's all right. 

7 That's all right. The database takes a little 

8 to load it up, you know? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I'm sorry about 

10 that. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

12 fine. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Didn't mean to run 

14 off and leave you. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I've got your 

16 order now, so I think I'm up to speed. Thank 

17 you. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: We're okay with 

19 closed. 

20 The next issue on the database is 

21 PER-07. I show no response from NIOSH. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Jump down to PER -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 PER-07 is not -- we didn't get a response to 

2 PER-07. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: PER-07 we had no 

4 response. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not on the 

6 list, because we didn't -- yes. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: We have no response. 

8 We go up to PER-08. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: PER-08, and 

10 basically we handled PR-08 -- was handled back 

11 on October 4th and they had been given the 

12 status of in abeyance on October 4th. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: No new data there. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, so there was 

15 nothing new sent then. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Is that true of all 

17 of 08, isn't it? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, there was two 

19 08 issues and both of them were put in 

20 abeyance on October 14th. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: The next procedure 

22 listed is TIB-13 and the first finding 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 

 175

1 no response. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: The next one we 

3 have a response. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: What about 08-02? 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Same thing. 

6 Basically 08-02 was also put in abeyance on 

7 October 14th. 

8 The next one we have a response 

9 for, Wanda, is OTIB-006, issue three. And 

10 that one was put in abeyance also on October 

11 14th. I'm sorry. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: I have 04. I have in 

13 abeyance, but I don't -- oh, we just changed 

14 the status with no statement about it. Okay. 

15 So 04 then has new status from SC&A. Agrees 

16 and accepts the NIOSH response as being 

17 adequate. IT should be classified as -- oh, 

18 yes. Not IT. Sorry. It should be classed as 

19 in abeyance until such time as NIOSH completes 

20 the revision as indicated in the NIOSH 

21 response. 

22 Any concerns or comments 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 

 176

1 changing to status to in abeyance? 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Wanda, I 

3 lost you again. I thought we were on OTIB4 006. I just heard -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-006, we're 

6 looking at rev 4. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: I mean, issue 4. 

9 Pardon me. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry, OTIB11 006, rev 3? Is that the one? 10/29/07. Is 

12 that the one you're looking at? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Oh-three we changed 

14 to in abeyance at a meeting in October. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: And 04, at this 

17 meeting -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I see. Yes. 

19 Finding 04. I got you now. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. SC&A is 

21 accepting the NIOSH response and that means it 

22 goes to in abeyance. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: If the work group 

3 agrees. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can someone help 

5 me view the details of the finding again for 

6 something that -- I'm out of the page. It 

7 looks different to me. 

8 MR. HINNEFLED: Are you on the -- 

9 oh, the details of the finding from the write10 up originally? 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Like if I'm 

12 on the summary page and I want to view 

13 details. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If you're at the 

15 summary page -- 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- the button to 

17 view details. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, highlight the 

19 finding you're interested in and there's a tab 

20 at the top left of the screen. There are 

21 three tabs actually. Summary details and 

22 procedures. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, it's -- you 

2 know what, I think it's the set up of my 

3 screen. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That screen thing 

5 that happens sometimes. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I can't 

7 even see those tabs. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: You have to work with 

9 the bar on the far right on my system. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Steve, when you 

11 open this thing, there's no way to avoid this 

12 cumbersome little automatic thing that comes 

13 up, is there? Can I go right to the table? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Not that I know of, 

15 Mark. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I had that 

18 experience initially. I haven't had it for 

19 awhile. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you just have 

21 to get it in the right spot on your screen. 

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 

 179

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Paul? 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'd like to ask 

3 SC&A a question on this and other findings as 

4 far as your internal procedure is concerned. 

5 When you say, for example, SC&A agrees and 

6 accepts them and you put in parentheses Harry 

7 -- I forget his name, that means Harry did the 

8 evaluation for you, but you have 

9 institutionally as an entity accepted that by 

10 the issuing of the report? 

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, what 

12 basically -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're not saying, 

14 well Harry -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Harry -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- maybe these are 

17 the only two bad. 

18 DR. MAURO: No. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, on your behalf 

20 or whatever. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, since Harry 

22 initiated the comment, of course that comment 
 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 eventually made it into the report. Okay? 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

3 So you're just identifying -- 

4 DR. MAURO: So basically SC&A -- 

5 now, it's an SC&A comment. Similarly now, 

6 when there's a response to that, the same 

7 process goes forward. It goes back to Harry. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're giving 

9 attribution here, which is good. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, we're giving -- 

11 yes, we want to know that Harry is the author 

12 of the -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, he's on all 

14 my -- John and mine. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, we go back to the 

16 expert, you know? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're trying to 

18 share the blame, I know. Well, I just wanted 

19 to clarify this that this still is an SC&A 

20 position. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, the same process. 

22 Absolutely, this is SC&A's 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 

 181

1 CHAIR MUNN: This is known as 

2 distributed by -- 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, also there's 

5 a question of, you know, if a question comes 

6 up, I want to be able to quickly know who to 

7 go to to respond to that question. So, it's 

8 quite -- 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I think it's 

10 appropriate. It's sort of analogous to NIOSH 

11 does attribution on their documents now, who 

12 prepared what and so on. So if there were an 

13 issue on even conflict of interest, you want 

14 to make sure whoever did this doesn't have a 

15 conflict. 

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is SC&A's 

17 work product. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: And it was an 

20 outgrowth of some discussions we had -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. No, 

22 everything's good. Just wanted to make sure 
 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 that -- 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Are you okay yet, 

3 Mark? Mark, have you gotten well yet? 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I'm trying to 

5 do a work-around here. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'll deal with 

8 it. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: But you're okay with 

10 our going with in abeyance on -- 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: -- OTIB-006-04? 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. The next 

15 item that comes up as open is OTIB-0013, 

16 finding 1. And we have a response from SC&A 

17 that says they agree that the data is better 

18 described in the revised OTIB-0013 and 

19 incorporated into OTIB-0044. And this is no 

20 longer an issue. Recommends the status be 

21 changed to in abeyance. 

22 Any comment or concern? 
 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 DR. MAURO: Any reason why this 

2 isn't closed since the issue has been resolved 

3 in OTIB-0044? Because I mean, usually in 

4 abeyance means that eventually this issue will 

5 be fixed in a future OTIB, or a revision to an 

6 OTIB. In this case it looks like that we've 

7 accepted OTIB-0044 as a solution. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, if you 

9 see right here, I think what it is is the 

10 effect of OTIB-0013 should be modified to 

11 better describe the data shown in figure 1. 

12 So there is action items identified in here. 

13 It changes to OTIB-0013, which NIOSH has 

14 indicated they should be made. 

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, there is an action 

16 to be taken? 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: So there is some 

18 action to be taken. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, I 

20 misunderstood. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: The next item is 

22 OTIB-0013, item 2. Response from SC&A saying 
 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 they agree. If information is better 

2 described in the revised OTIB-0013, then this 

3 is no longer an issue and suggests in 

4 abeyance. 

5 Comments or questions? 

6 If not, then finding 2 goes to in 

7 abeyance. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, is it 

9 already described, or if it's described, the 

10 previous item was that if it's described 

11 better in 13 and then incorporated. Is this 

12 similar to that, or is this already described? 

13 It also has been described in 0013? You 

14 understand what I'm asking? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I understand what 

16 you're saying. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The previous one, 

18 you said if it's -- you worded it slightly 

19 different. You said -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: If the data is 

21 better described in the revised 13 and 

22 incorporated in OTIB-0044, then there's no 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 longer an issue. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the "if" is 

3 there as if it is yet to be done or has to be 

4 examined. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: We were talking 

6 about the text of OTIB-0013 should be modified 

7 on the previous one. Now on this one we're 

8 talking about -- 

9 CHAIR MUNN: The same -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: This needs to be 

11 clearly stated in the revised text of OTIB12 0013. And then that's item 1, which NIOSH 

13 says -- and then item 1 what we -- SC&A agrees 

14 that if the information is better described in 

15 revised 0013, then there's no longer an issue. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: When you say if it 

17 is, are you saying that it is yet to be 

18 described in 0013, or revised, or somebody has 

19 to go back and make that determination as to 

20 whether or not it is? That's what I'm asking. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my question is, 

22 has OTIB-0013 been revised? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm checking right 

2 now. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think it 

4 has been. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think it 

6 has. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: From the -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: We're working with 

9 OTIB-0013 here. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically it says 

11 needs to be clearly stated the revised text of 

12 OTIB-0013. So I don't think it has been -- 

13 0013 has not been revised. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So this is like 

15 the previous one? 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Like the previous 

17 one. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it will need 

19 to be revised in 0013. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's where it 

22 will be done? 
 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 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. How can we 

2 better -- 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's the same 

4 procedure. It's just a new revision 

5 necessary. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: How can we better 

8 state this in -- do we get rid of this 

9 "if" -- 

10 CHAIR MUNN: "When?" 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and put -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Provided that." I 

13 don't know. I hate "provided by committee." 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I understand what 

16 you meant, you know? 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I thought it 

18 could be interpreted as if it's better there, 

19 let's go see if it is. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: As opposed to it 

22 needs to be. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, the "when" 

2 might do it, or once it's -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, "once it's" 

4 -- 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: What did you say 

6 in the previous one? 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Agrees that "once" 

8 instead of "if." "Once the information is 

9 better described" in revised -- there's no 

10 longer -- 

11 Okay? Can we move on? Are you 

12 okay, Steve? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, just a point. 

14 There were two sub-issues, I guess, if you 

15 will, under this issue 2. And one of the sub16 issues we had closed and the other one we 

17 basically said is in abeyance, and so 

18 obviously we're going with the, if you will, 

19 the higher tier and this occurs several times 

20 in our responses. And so we always go with 

21 the least closed of the sub-issues, I guess. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, otherwise 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 

 189

1 would falsely lead a person to think this 

2 issue has been closed when at least a sub-part 

3 of it wasn't. So, no, I think that's the way 

4 to do that. So you're saying this number two 

5 up there, the second item, 

6 that -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, number two, we 

8 basically -- we agree that -- 

9 DR. MAURO: We agree with that? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: But again, the work 

11 group should look at it and make sure that 

12 they agree with -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Agree that that 

14 part of it's closed. 

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, that hasn't 

16 happened yet? Oh, okay. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: That that part of 

18 it is closed. 

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: And so, I mean -- 

21 DR. MAURO: I think the record has 

22 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 

 190

1 CHAIR MUNN: Do we want to be more 

2 specific then and say when the two matters are 

3 better described and revised? 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, the second 

5 matter is separate, right? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: The second matter 

7 basically an incorrect LOD value was used when 

8 the worker's dose equals zero. The laboratory 

9 minimum LOD of 40 millirem should at least be 

10 used in this analysis. 

11 And basically the NIOSH response 

12 was the LOD for the measured dose values from 

13 56 to 65 used in the regression analysis for 

14 estimated un-monitored dose prior to the third 

15 quarter of 1956 was 30 millirem and the LOD 

16 for all other measured dose values after the 

17 third quarter of 1956 through 1980 was also 30 

18 millirem. See table 3-3 of OTIB-0044. 

19 And our response to that was SC&A 

20 pointed out this smaller LOD value discrepancy 

21 during the review of the OTIB, however it 

22 would not significantly impact the results 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 

 191

1 dose assessments because for most the LOD 

2 value is listed as 30 millirem. SC&A 

3 recommends that this portion of the issue be 

4 considered closed. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if it was 30 

6 for multiplications, where is the discrepancy 

7 anyway? Am I missing something here? Seems 

8 like 30 is close to 30, in all cases. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I think -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did they use some 

11 other values in certain -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look up on 

13 the top, we basically said the laboratory 

14 minimum LOD is 40. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: So 30 is pretty 

17 close to 40. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but they're 

19 saying they used 30 anyway. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: But 40 should be 

21 used. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you'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 

 192

1 saying it -- oh, I see. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Forty should have 

3 been used, and they used 30 and we're saying 

4 it wasn't for many years and it wasn't for -- 

5 over very many years and it wasn't for, you 

6 know -- 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: So for a given 

8 person to make a few tens of millirems 

9 different? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: In that sense, yes. 

11 Basically it's a low number, but -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- I mean, again, 

14 that's -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay on that. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: So are we happy with 

17 the language of the follow-up comment? And 

18 we're finished with -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I didn't hear, are 

20 Mark and Mike okay on that? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: I'm hoping that if 

22 Mark or Mike either have anything to 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 

 193

1 they'll be fast on the draw with their 

2 comments. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Where are you on 

4 findings, TIB-0013 findings? Two, is that it? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: 0013-02, yes. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: 02. Yes. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's where they 

8 used the 30 minimum LOD. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think we're 

10 okay on this one, but, you know, I guess I was 

11 concerned that, you know, if these -- I was 

12 looking at -- well, I think it would come up 

13 on the next one. If the recommended changes 

14 are made, SC&A is okay with theirs and then 

15 they're recommending in abeyance. And I have 

16 the same question that Paul had. You know, 

17 what if they aren't made to our satisfaction? 

18 You know, in abeyance, I guess, gives us the 

19 -- it's open enough to -- I mean, John stated 

20 yesterday and I think you stated, Wanda, that 

21 in abeyance by definition means that the work 

22 group is okay with the change. It's that the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 TIB hasn't been revised yet. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: We're waiting for the 

3 change to occur. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's not closed 

5 though, Mark. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's different 

7 than saying, you know, NIOSH -- if we have a 

8 case where NIOSH says we agree to change the 

9 TIB. If we agree, we'll modify the TIB. 

10 That's different than saying we agree we'll 

11 modify the TIB as follows, you know? Because 

12 then we agree with the technical content 

13 without a modification. If you just say oh, 

14 yes, we're going to change the TIB, how do I 

15 know it's going to meet the need outlined in 

16 the finding? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think we 

18 do. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's why it's in 

21 abeyance. Otherwise, you could close it if 

22 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 

 195

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. So -- 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: If they agree to 

3 change it by a certain date in a certain way, 

4 I think we could close it. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: So then what 

6 happens with the in abeyance one? Why aren't 

7 they -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: We go back and 

9 revisit them the next time we go through this 

10 third set. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: And we 

13 request -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: If you look at 

15 the revised TIB or whatever? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: We request of NIOSH 

17 that if they have not addressed these 

18 findings, they please do so. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's still open, 

20 Mark. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. So it's 

22 not open, but it's -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's open in 

2 the sense that it's not been resolved. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, my 

5 understanding of what will happen here is that 

6 we provide the revised document to the working 

7 group. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe next month 

9 or next year, or next decade. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Some of these 

11 things may have already been done and I'm just 

12 not up to date. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or yesterday. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I got to tell you 

15 though -- 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

17 fine. That's what I wanted to understand. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Providing a 

19 document to add a reference, you know, a 

20 document that's on the shelf that we're not 

21 using anymore to add a reference. That's 

22 going to be a pretty little priority change, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 pretty little priority work activity. Maybe 

2 they'll just let me do that, since I don't do 

3 anything else important. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Now, now. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: But yes, I think 

6 we'll -- some of these I think -- I think PRA, 

7 for instance, has been canceled already, but 

8 I can't say for sure. So I'll find out for 

9 sure and let the working group know. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: The way it's worked 

11 in the past, Mark, is, you know, when NIOSH 

12 reissues a document and they state that the 

13 reissuing has addressed these issues, then 

14 SC&A -- or the work group usually tasks SC&A 

15 to go and look very specifically at that 

16 reissuing to make sure that that does in fact 

17 address the issues that were open against that 

18 document. And it's a very limited review of 

19 the reissuing of the document, focusing only 

20 on those issues that were open. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Identified. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Identified. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, got it. I'm 

2 okay with that. Thank you. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. The next 

4 item that's open and with comment is OTIB5 0013, finding 3. The response from SC&A 

6 agrees that the conditions and recommendations 

7 that NIOSH presented are better described in 

8 the revised TIB than OTIB and they recommend 

9 in abeyance. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, we should 

11 change the "if" to "once." 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that says 

13 "are" better described. It implies they've 

14 already been changed. No, "if." Yes, "once." 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Once the -- if the 

16 conditions are better -- once the conditions 

17 are better described. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Same thing. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: You just want to add 

20 a "when." The "once" is appropriate. 

21 Any comments or objections? 

22 Otherwise, finding 3 goes to in abeyance. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 Finding 4 for the same OTIB has a 

2 response from SC&A pointing out that this 

3 small formula discontinuity during its review 

4 of the OTIB would not significantly impact the 

5 results of those assessments because it would 

6 not be applied to below-average exposed 

7 workers. SC&A recommends issue be considered 

8 closed. 

9 Any objection? 

10 Hearing none, finding 4 is closed. 

11 Finding 5 has no response, nor 

12 does OTIB-0015. 

13 OTIB-0021, finding 1 has no 

14 response. Finding 2 has no response. Finding 

15 3 has a response to the NIOSH recommendation. 

16 SC&A agrees with the response. If the DR 

17 staff is aware of the correct procedures, then 

18 this is not an issue and recommends the status 

19 of this issue be changed to closed. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I'm sorry, 

21 you're on TIB-0015 or did you go past that? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, there's no 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 

 200

1 response for TIB-0015. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: We've moved on to 

4 TIB-0021 and there was no response to findings 

5 1 or 2. We're on finding 3. NIOSH had said 

6 in October that they were aware that the DR 

7 staff knows what the TIB documents are that 

8 are available. They've been instructed to use 

9 OTIB-0017 for situations involving low energy 

10 beta. Questions can be directed to DR staff 

11 or the other supervisors of the technical 

12 staff. And SC&A is saying they agree. As 

13 long as the DR staff is up to speed, they 

14 recommend this issue be closed. 

15 No objection? Finding 3 is 

16 closed. 

17 No response to finding 4. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just a question 

19 there before we go on. The dose 

20 reconstructors are instructed on this issue 

21 outside of OTIB-0021. SC&A is saying they're 

22 not given guidance in the document as to where 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 to go, I think is what you're saying. And 

2 NIOSH is saying yes, they have that guidance. 

3 It's just they know what they're supposed to 

4 do based on what their training or -- is it 

5 outside this document? Am I understanding 

6 this one correctly? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there is 

8 direction outside. It's either the documents 

9 or the interview the external coworker. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. The finding 

12 relates to a footnote to a table that says 

13 that the LOD values for low-energy beta are 

14 not reliable, I guess, as they're presented in 

15 that table. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: So that would 

18 essentially say, well -- and then the note 

19 goes on to state that you should consult the 

20 site profile to determine if your person may 

21 have been exposed to low-energy -- 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 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 

 202

1 once having done that and if they were, then 

2 if the dose reconstructor knows, we go to the 

3 other -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Then we go the 

5 other site. Well, this person was exposed to 

6 low-energy protons and if he didn't know any 

7 better, or she didn't know any better, the 

8 person exposed to low-energy protons, and says 

9 I shouldn't use the low-energy LOD, proton 

10 LODs here -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they're more 

13 reliable, and so what do I do? And if they 

14 don't know, they ask their supervisor. The 

15 supervisor says OTIB-0017 tells us what to do. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if they do 

17 know, then they'll -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: If they knew, then 

19 they would go to OTIB-0017. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Is there any 

21 reason why you wouldn't go ahead and put that 

22 information 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 

 203

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it becomes 

2 kind of complicated when you start to inter3 link documents and footnotes of documents. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, we discussed this 

6 once before in one of our commentaries. You 

7 know, this whole -- but because of the 

8 unfolding nature of what all has been added, 

9 the expectation to go back and let's say 

10 modify -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, we keep 

12 putting in footnotes. 

13 DR. MAURO: As long as there's an 

14 active training program where people keep be 

15 apprised of these new developments, then what 

16 else can we do? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I'm good on 

18 that. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: So we're on OTIB20 0026, finding 1, which is the next one that I 

21 see with a NIOSH response and an SC&A follow22 up. SC&A agrees with the NIOSH response, 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 

 204

1 I guess that's supposed to be "rationale" 

2 rather than "rational" provided. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we're rarely 

4 rational. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right. So seems 

6 the extensive peer review process should catch 

7 any unwanted professional judgments. SC&A 

8 recommends the status of this finding be 

9 changed to closed. This is the external 

10 coworker -- K-25. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I have a 

12 comment on this one. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is basically 

15 saying this is relying on professional 

16 judgment on what the full distribution versus 

17 the 95th, or that sort of determination. Is 

18 that what this is about? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

20 recall. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Basically, if I 

22 am understanding this right, you're saying 
 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 that we're going to look at job titles, 

2 etcetera and make our judgment and that's 

3 where were stand. Is that what this is about? 

4 I'm just trying to -- I mean, I'm reading 

5 these summary things. Sometimes I'm missing 

6 the entire point. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I am trying to 

8 find out. I got to find the finding here. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but in addition 

10 to a professional judgment, they specifically 

11 called out OTIB-0020. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Which is 

13 currently under review, right? Yes. Is OTIB14 0020 the general approach document? I'm 

15 trying to remember. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it is. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This finding deals 

18 with how the dose constructor is categorizing 

19 the worker in terms of the types of things -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to find 

21 the -- 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what 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 

 206

1 think, Paul. And this has been an area of 

2 concern of mine. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I think maybe 

4 what it is -- I'm getting close here, but I 

5 think what it is, is that there are a few 

6 options provided to a dose reconstructor, one 

7 of which is the person was not likely exposed 

8 and therefore would receive essentially 

9 environmental -- if they weren't monitored, 

10 because they wouldn't expect to be monitored, 

11 it would be -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: And based on 

13 either a job description or a building 

14 location. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be the 

16 professional judgment part. And then at other 

17 times if the person would have been 

18 intermittently exposed, if the materials -- 

19 the control -- company within their inventory 

20 and things like that, then they might get 50 

21 percent of the monitored population. And then 

22 if someone was a regular worker who 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 

 207

1 expect to have been monitored and for some 

2 reason they don't have their exposure record, 

3 then they would receive 95th percentile. That 

4 about where we're at? That's probably the 

5 evolution of this finding. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I think you're 

7 right, too. But, you know, you pick the 50th 

8 percentile, the 95th percentile or the 

9 environmental. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And so the finding 

11 relies on professional judgment and, yes, it 

12 does. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: And this was 

14 specifically for one site or -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the document 

16 that is being reviewed is specifically K-25. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, it just 

20 relies on job title information, or a 

21 combination of job and building, or what? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably job title 
 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 and CATI. I'm looking around the room at 

2 people who actually do this. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking at 20 

4 real quick here. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I just -- 

7 you know, and this usually is for the 

8 environmental versus the 50th probably because 

9 the higher end people would have been 

10 monitored. They would have a record, but you 

11 don't -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: By and large, yes. 

13 Now I think in K-25 there was some maybe not 

14 100 percent monitoring -- 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I guess even 

16 on the lower end like -- you know, the concern 

17 I would have is the job title over time or not 

18 -- you know, always descriptive, but I mean, 

19 so does the DR -- I mean, is there any 

20 template for K-25 to guide them a little more 

21 specifically? Is that in this document? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: K-25 is not my 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 

 209

1 But generically speaking, it is whatever 

2 information that we have, which would tend to 

3 be the job titles, the CATI, any monitoring 

4 records we may have gotten. It doesn't 

5 necessarily mean the person wasn't monitored 

6 at all. They may have been un-monitored for 

7 part of the time. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: For a period, 

9 right. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: So any of the 

11 information that we have we take into account. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. My feeling 

13 on this is -- well, I don't know. I don't see 

14 the details of what was outlined, but I see 

15 he's recommending to close it based on 

16 professional judgment. I mean, maybe SC&A can 

17 answer this for me. In OTIB-0026, does NIOSH 

18 indicate that they're going to use -- what do 

19 they indicate they're going to use? I don't 

20 have it open right now, TIB-0026. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: For that 

22 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 

 210

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Let me flip through 

3 quick. I'm guessing just like all the rest of 

4 the OTIBs, it refers back to the fact that you 

5 make that determination form OTIB-0020. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: And OTIB-0020 is 

7 still open, in our review anyway. And OTIB8 0020 is based on job title. I mean, if it's 

9 deferring back to 0020, then it isn't site10 specific guidance with regard to the selection 

11 of -- you know, it's site-specific with regard 

12 to the coworker model, but it's not site13 specific with regard to the placement of the 

14 individual within that either 50th or 

15 environmental, or in that category, I guess, 

16 in that exposure category. That's a generic 

17 assessment, right, based on TIB-0020? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's kind of 

20 generic. I think we -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, how do we 

22 close this one if we haven't closed TIB-0020, 
 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 I guess is sort of my -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think no 

3 matter where we look, I think we have 

4 difficulty coming up with a comprehensive list 

5 of job titles, really anywhere. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: But especially 

8 over a long period of time because they 

9 change. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And so if we've 

12 got a list of job titles, you know, we're not 

13 really very confident we can have a 

14 comprehensive list. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, no, I'll 

16 give you a specific example for K-25. I mean, 

17 I've seen some that will indicate -- you know, 

18 and the individuals that sort of worked up 

19 through the ranks, chemical operator and then 

20 they're foremen and then they're supervisor 

21 and that last category is where things get a 

22 little vague, because sometimes the supervisor 
 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 is very much on the floor, but sometimes 

2 they're like off in an administrative office, 

3 you know? And they may retain that same title 

4 and be very different exposure profiles, if 

5 you understand what I'm saying. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that's kind of 

8 -- you know, and I think for the -- you know, 

9 professional judgment, that's sort of a -- 

10 it's more than just professional judgment. I 

11 think it's, you know, understanding of the 

12 site itself and, you know, maybe for those 

13 certain ones it might even involve a little 

14 investigation to say, you know, this guy, you 

15 know, what was his work history, what 

16 buildings were they in, were they likely to -- 

17 you know, more than just looking at a title 

18 and saying oh, yes, that's definitely a person 

19 that was likely to get a little higher 

20 exposure, and oh, that's clearly an office 

21 worker, you know, and, you know, we'll put 

22 that in the environmental category. So 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 

 213

1 guess that's what I was trying to understand. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I think, Mark, 

3 what you just described is exactly what a 

4 professional judgment person has to do. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. 

6 But I don't know if that's outlined in this 

7 document. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It almost becomes 

11 a question of application and -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, to 

14 inform ourselves about this, it would be 

15 necessary to look at some examples. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Look at the DRs, 

17 yes. Okay. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I really 

19 despair. I understand your discomfort with, 

20 you know, having a previously filed decision 

21 essentially deciding these things. 

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 

 214

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a pretty 

2 significant decision. And so but to really -- 

3 I think we could only get some level of 

4 comfort if we looked at, you know, maybe 

5 examples of application of this. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, or it's just 

7 a matter -- I guess I'm looking it at as just 

8 some checks and balances built into the system 

9 to assure that if a DR person who's doing 

10 these cases, you know, has, you know, any 

11 doubt, then they have -- you know, then they 

12 go to whatever for more information. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Mark, the checks 

14 and balances I think is what SC&A is, you 

15 know, kind of stressing is that, you know, the 

16 extensive peer review process of both ORAU and 

17 OCAS, I guess, you know, if you look at the 

18 last sentence here that they peer review the 

19 DRs' professional judgment in these cases. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this has been 

21 the subject. Now, it's been a long time since 

22 I've been directly involved in a review -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: So these are all 

2 peer reviews is what you're saying? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, that's 

4 the basis of SC&A's recommendation here, is 

5 that we have a peer review on the contractor 

6 side and then there's HP on OCAS' side that -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: And you've agreed 

8 to put that into -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Agree with that 

10 judgment, essentially. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes. All 

12 right. Thanks, Steve. I missed that in 

13 reading and that is a check and balance, so 

14 that's good. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's been a 

16 while since I've been involved in those 

17 reconstruction reviews, but when I was, this 

18 was not an infrequent subject of debate and 

19 comment about are you sure about the selection 

20 you've made? What evidence have -- because 

21 those reconstructions in that report doesn't 

22 necessarily explain the evidence for choosing 
 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 a group. What evidence is there for choosing 

2 the grouping that you did on coworker -- 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's good for 

4 me. Then I'm okay with the SC&A 

5 recommendation. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, the other item 

7 that should be noted too is that OTIB -- to 

8 which we've referred several times already 

9 was, I believe, released yesterday. Of course 

10 it hasn't had time to be loaded or have 

11 anyone's comments added to it, but I believe 

12 it's out. So if anyone's interested in tying 

13 that knot, I think you have the document 

14 available to you. 

15 Barring any other comment, we'll 

16 accept SC&A's recommendation then and item 1 

17 is closed. 

18 The next issue is item 2. It has 

19 similar recommendations. This one had talked 

20 about K-25 and again refers to OTIB-0020. The 

21 SC&A recommendation is that finding number 2 

22 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 

 217

1 Any problem with that? 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, not 

3 necessarily a problem. Can someone explain to 

4 me with a little more detail, the data is only 

5 available from 1980 on? Is that what I'm 

6 reading in the first part for the coworker 

7 model and your -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: It says few of the 

9 dosimeters issued at K-25 were processed prior 

10 to 1980. Few, not no. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: And that's the entire 

13 data -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Few sounds less 

15 than -- you know, anyway. I guess I'm asking 

16 NIOSH what -- or SC&A why they are accepting 

17 of this. I mean, I think -- and this coworker 

18 model is going to be applied all the way back 

19 to 1955 -- well, K-25 for the -- you know. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Matt Smith, are you 

21 still on the line? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Matt had to bow out. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 He wasn't on this afternoon. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: So maybe SC&A can 

4 tell me why this is reasonable. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't. 

6 DR. MAURO: I can't. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: We'd have to get 

8 back to you on that, Mark. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Who has 

11 -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I just 

13 want a little more information before I am 

14 willing to sign off on this one. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Who has the personal 

16 action to get back to Mark? 

17 DR. MAURO: SC&A. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Isn't the whole 

19 work group interested? It's not just me. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's right. Get 

21 back to all of us. It appears that they just 

22 used the most highly-exposed subset? 
 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 MR. HINNEFELD: I think what the 

2 situation was here is that K-25 only processed 

3 the bad -- of what who they thought would be 

4 the more highly-exposed. They didn't -- you 

5 know, everybody was 

6 just -- 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the others 

8 wore badges in case something went wrong? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: In case something 

10 went wrong. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: And so routinely 

13 the people who they thought would be the most 

14 highly-exposed, would be, you know, mainly the 

15 ones who were processed. And so there is that 

16 issue. You know, you're taking what you think 

17 to be a biased sampling, you know, high-biased 

18 sampling, but it's based on, you know, the 

19 site's belief at the time. And based on that 

20 -- and now, I am not very familiar with the 

21 maximum probability technique that's described 

22 here, or the -- is that's what it's called? 
 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 Maximum probability? Maximum likelihood. I'm 

2 not very familiar with that. That is a 

3 statistical construct that I don't know much 

4 about. So apparently OTIB-0020 explains it 

5 somewhat and provides some supporting 

6 description of why it appears to us that the 

7 data set is favorable, the data set we do have 

8 available is favorable. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: We all may feel a 

10 little better when we've had an opportunity to 

11 take a look at the new OTIB-0020. But in any 

12 case, I have an action for SC&A to send the 

13 work group a better explanation of finding 2. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or NIOSH. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll look at it, 

16 too. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, what the 

18 initial response actually means. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu, also, is the 

20 K-25 model, the coworker model itself, is that 

21 posted on the O drive anywhere where we can 

22 find 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 

 221

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, OTIB-0026 

2 is. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Twenty-six is on 

4 there? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. As far as to 

6 the extent that it explains completely what 

7 was on, it's on there. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And that 

9 probably has the annual -- I assume it's 

10 annual -- I'll look closer at that. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Sometimes I guess 

12 they refrain on -- sometimes they, I think, 

13 have a cycled data. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

15 Thank you. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: In any case, since we 

17 have now at least looked at this and discussed 

18 it, the open status is no longer applicable. 

19 It seems to be in this case it needs to be in20 process. 

21 Is that satisfactory with all? 

22 We will continue with 0026 and 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 

 222

1 finding 3, where we have a response from SC&A 

2 to NIOSH's initial response saying that they 

3 agree with the response and commitment for 

4 necessary future changes and recommend this 

5 particular issue be closed. 

6 Any comment? If there is no 

7 discussion -- 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this on 03? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: This is 03. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, I forgot to put 

11 that -- that one didn't make into the -- oh, 

12 I'm sorry, Paul. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm looking at the 

14 version that is set out and then the 

15 recommendation part is blank. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I forgot to 

17 put that in. I'm sorry. You have to read it 

18 off from the screen, if you can, or you can 

19 look at my screen. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Barring any comment 

21 to the contrary, we'll mark this closed. 

22 Since we now have a bare patch 
 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 between 0026 and the next response that we 

2 have, I suggest we take a 10-minute break. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: You are most welcome. 

5 Glad to be of service. 

6 When we return, we will be taking 

7 up -- I believe, OTIB-0049 is the next comment 

8 that we have to address. 

9 Please, we'll mute the phone line 

10 for 10 minutes approximately. We'll be at 

11 five minutes to 3:00. 

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 2:44 p.m. and 

14 resumed at 2:57 p.m.) 

15 CHAIR MUNN: One very brief item 

16 before we go to OTIB-0049 findings. Steve, 

17 Marcy called to our attention the fact that, 

18 in an earlier meeting, we had discussed TIB19 0010, issue 8, and had said that we were going 

20 to anticipate some feedback on that item at 

21 our next meeting, and we have not had that. 

22 So just as a heads up, OTIB-0010, issue 8 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 will, in fact, be on the agenda for January, 

2 with the expectation that we'll have some sort 

3 of follow-up at that time. 

4 That being said, do you have 

5 anything to say about that, Steve? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Did you say O -- 

7 it's TIB-0010. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Pardon me. TIB-0010. 

9 No, I did say OTIB-0010. Sorry. TIB-0010. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: TIB-0010. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: TIB-0010, issue 8. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Issue 8. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's our 

14 action, right? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Provided the MCNP 

17 runs it, or similar to -- 

18 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that's 

19 correct. NIOSH action. 

20 We'll begin with OTIB finding 2 of 

21 OTIB-0049. The NIOSH response and SC&A 

22 follow-up says they reviewed the initial 
 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 response, as well as other OTIB-0049, rev 1 

2 PC, and have comments. As stated above, the 

3 coworker issue was solved in the newer version 

4 of OTIB-0049 rev 1, PC-1 2008. The problem of 

5 clarification on how to apply the correction 

6 factors for systemic doses calculated from 

7 your analysis were not solved, even in the 

8 newer version of the TIB. There are no 

9 examples or instructions geared to single 

10 intakes or independent chronic intakes with a 

11 time gap between them. Based on the above, 

12 SC&A recommends the status of the issue be 

13 changed to in-progress. I read that to be 

14 requesting further action from NIOSH, and for 

15 our status to go to in-progress. 

16 Is there any question or comment 

17 with regard to this secondary finding? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, you read 

20 that whole SC&A follow-up into the record? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I did. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 Because -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: You read -02. We 

3 didn't read the -01 yet. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: -01? Yes, I was 

5 going to -- it's a lengthier paragraph that 

6 I'm looking at, or six or seven paragraphs. 

7 And I was going to ask, maybe Steve or someone 

8 from the database part can help me here, is 

9 there any way to expand like the SC&A follow10 up box where the response is written? In this 

11 case, it's about six pages long, and I can 

12 only see a line at a time, or two lines at a 

13 time. Is there any way to blow up that field 

14 to be able to look at it? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: No, Mark. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: No? That's it? 

17 That's what we work with? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: And that's short of 

19 printing it out -- 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I know. I 

21 know. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the PDF, 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 

 227

1 print it that way, but, you know, with the 

2 interactive screen, the answer is, no. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean, that's an 

5 enhancement we could make to the database, but 

6 again, we're not -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I don't -- 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we're a 

9 database. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, wouldn't it be 

11 simpler for those of us who would like to see 

12 that to just copy it and -- 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Copy and paste 

14 into a document. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: -- and paste it into 

16 a document? 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I mean, if you 

18 look at the -- 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Actually in this 

20 case you have to copy, paste, download, and 

21 then print. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, Steve -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: No big deal. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Steve sent all of 

3 these items as a separate Word document. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: He did. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Probably around the 

6 5th or the 6th. Last few days. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Last week, yes. The 

8 end of last week. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's all on one 

10 page there. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, okay. I 

12 see it. You're looking at that, too. Thank 

13 you. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, actually, for 

15 what we're doing here, that's probably easier. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So you 

18 called me back to number one. I was very 

19 cleverly trying to get by that one. 

20 And is there a problem with the 

21 recommendations? Obviously, there are other 

22 details to be addressed yet. 
 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 MEMBER ZIEMER: So what happens 

2 during that, there's some additional trainings 

3 that have been pointed out like issuing 

4 attachment A that doesn't exist, or something. 

5 Is NIOSH to do something with it? 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: See, this is their 

9 reaction to -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: To yours? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what we wrote 

12 back in October. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess we 

15 responded back in October. We gave our 

16 initial response. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And then 

18 they have a -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And they just 

20 recently have prepared their reaction to our 

21 response. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 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 

 230

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we have to 

2 take that into account. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what I was 

4 asking, yes. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: They asked us to 

7 elaborate on what our findings were. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, on a couple 

9 of these things we just asked for -- we'll 

10 need a little more -- you know, we'll need a 

11 little more elaboration on what you're saying 

12 here. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: It was very 

14 general. Our issue was very generally stated 

15 when it went up to them. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: So finding 1 goes to 

17 in-progress. 

18 And item 2, which I have already 

19 read in its entirety, is recommended to go to 

20 in-progress. 

21 Any problem with that? If not, 

22 finding 2 goes to in-progress. 
 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 Finding 3, SC&A agrees with the 

2 NIOSH response that this guidance incorporated 

3 into the revised site profile on OTIB-0050, 

4 deleted. Then this is no longer an issue, and 

5 recommends that the status be changed -- 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: That's OTIB-0050? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: 0050-01. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: 0050-01. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm 

10 just moving right on down, out of one and into 

11 another. It's a recommendation. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the one 

13 that's already been -- this one has already 

14 been changed to in-progress. This one is 

15 already changed. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: But the current 

17 recommendation is in abeyance. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The latest one, 

19 yes. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: That was our -- I 

21 think the last time we met, the Board changed 

22 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 

 232

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: To in-progress. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- to in-progress. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: It was our change. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: That's right. This 

5 was already done last month. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Our change. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, you gave 

8 us something to do. SC&A to review the site 

9 profile to ensure that this issue has been 

10 addressed. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: And I do not think 

13 that SC&A has done that at this point. But 

14 that's an action item. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: At least not in 

16 action item 2. 

17 Action item 3 of OTIB-0050 is an 

18 agreement with a response. The issue is no 

19 longer applicable. SC&A recommends closed on 

20 finding 3. 

21 Comments or questions? 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: What happened 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 

 233

1 No. 2? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 2 is basically 

3 the same type of thing, same thing as No. 1. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Except that No. 2 we 

5 asked to be placed in a different category. 

6 We asked that it go into in-progress. There's 

7 work yet to be done. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Same as 01. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Same for both 01 

10 and 02. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it remains in12 progress then. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. So No. 3 

14 has been recommended to be closed. 

15 Hearing no objection, finding No. 

16 3 of OTIB-0050 is closed. 

17 The next issue is already in18 progress, and has been so since last month. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's the same 

20 thing as 1 and 2. SC&A is to review the site 

21 profile to ensure this issue has been 

22 addressed. 
 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 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. The next 

2 open items that we see are OTIB-0060, 

3 everything in between not having any response 

4 from NIOSH as yet. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: 0060-01. NIOSH 

6 agreed to make a change, so it goes into 

7 abeyance, right? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Here it is. NIOSH's 

9 response from October was reference to the -- 

10 documentation will be added, and SC&A concurs, 

11 and recommends change to in abeyance. 

12 Any concern with that? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: If not, so ordered. 

15 Doesn't that sound official? 

16 The next item, OTIB-0060-02. We 

17 have a response from NIOSH, and now an SC&A 

18 response that says, the procedure review 

19 criteria stated -- is the procedure 

20 sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

21 the need for subjective decisions and data 

22 interpretation? Does the procedure support 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 

 235

1 descriptive approach to dose reconstruction? 

2 NIOSH -- well, you can all read that for 

3 yourselves. The final recommendation is that 

4 the issue be changed to in-progress. That 

5 appears to be appropriate under the 

6 circumstances. 

7 Any comment, or any need for 

8 discussion? 

9 MS. BRACKETT: I have a question. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Liz? 

11 MS. BRACKETT: Regarding the SC&A 

12 finding where it says -- it's the second 

13 sentence. It says, terms such as better fit, 

14 removal fit, et cetera would benefit by some 

15 type of quantification guidance. For example, 

16 intake quantity plus or minus 10 percent 

17 defines a satisfactory fit. Well, I don't 

18 understand. Plus or minus 10 percent of what? 

19 If we knew what the actual intake was, then we 

20 wouldn't be doing the dose assessment. So 

21 relative to what? I'd be happy to put 

22 something like that in, if I understood 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 

 236

1 that was referring to. 

2 DR. MAURO: When you run into -- 

3 you have data, bioassay data, and you try to 

4 estimate intake, you're trying to get the best 

5 fit you could, what the intake pattern will be 

6 that will give you the bioassay data. I guess 

7 our concern is that there's a degree of 

8 judgment of when do you reach the point where 

9 you think that the intake scenario that you've 

10 selected represents a reasonable fit to the 

11 data, the bioassay data that you are 

12 observing. 

13 MS. BRACKETT: Right. 

14 DR. MAURO: And I think this goes 

15 toward, I guess, that judgment. You know, 

16 where do you stop? 

17 MS. BRACKETT: Well, what's plus 

18 or minus 10 percent -- 

19 DR. MAURO: And I agree with you. 

20 I don't think -- I think that -- well, I'd 

21 like to get that -- is this Joyce? I'm not 

22 sure -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it was 

2 Doug. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: It mentions Doug in 

4 there -- 

5 DR. MAURO: I think we all need a 

6 little clarification, because I think I know 

7 the thrust of the concern is that, you know, 

8 when you're trying to find that best fit, and 

9 at some point you stop to say, I think we're 

10 there. And I guess, and I think the thrust of 

11 this is, how do you know when you're there? 

12 MS. BRACKETT: Right. Yes. It's 

13 always fun to -- and really, a so-called best 

14 fit is not needed for every case. It's only 

15 when you're close to 50 percent that you 

16 actually need to do a so-called best fit. 

17 Otherwise, you try to under or overestimate 

18 and just, you know, do something that's quick, 

19 but relevant to the particular case. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: So we have an action 

21 item. SC&A is going to clarify their original 

22 finding to the satisfaction of NIOSH so that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 they know -- so that either the wording of the 

2 original finding will be revised, or NIOSH 

3 will understand precisely what the concern 

4 might be. 

5 MS. BRACKETT: I mean, I pretty 

6 much understand the general issue. It's just 

7 this particular recommendation, it would be 

8 helpful to have a clarification on. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Understand. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: May I? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Aside from that 

13 issue, NIOSH's statement is basically, yes, 

14 some additional guidance would be beneficial, 

15 but you're only saying that sort of in a very 

16 general way. You're not committing yourself 

17 to any additional guidance, I don't think. 

18 You're just sort of saying, yes, more guidance 

19 is always good, or something. So if we didn't 

20 have this 10 percent issue, I'm not sure what 

21 else is needed. I mean, the 10 percent issue 

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 

 239

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, see, we do 

2 say that it's currently under revision to 

3 provide the details, but without being really 

4 specific about what that means. 

5 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I am in the 

6 process -- I'm the author of this OTIB, and 

7 I'm in the process of revising it. And, you 

8 know, it was written initially with as much 

9 detail as I could put in in the time that I 

10 had, and I have been trying to add in more 

11 detail, and just in a lot of different areas. 

12 So that's why it's not specific, because as 

13 issues come up with dose reconstructors, I 

14 make a note, or I go in and add something to 

15 try and, to put more guidance in there. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: But we still have 

17 the fundamental problem of trying to decide -- 

18 MS. BRACKETT: What's the best 

19 fit. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what's good 

21 enough. 

22 MS. BRACKETT: 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 

 240

1 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, what's 

2 best -- 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you already 

4 have really big geometric standard of 

5 deviation on the distribution. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: On the dose. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: On the dose. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

9 MS. BRACKETT: Right, and that is 

10 to account for some of this variation that you 

11 get when you do the fit. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and I'm not 

13 sure what the 10 percent would mean, either. 

14 DR. MAURO: I know that it's 

15 almost -- when I look at -- 

16 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. 

17 DR. MAURO: -- yes to, you know, 

18 this picture you've got of 25 bioassay samples 

19 spread out everywhere. They're all over the 

20 place. But what do I do? You know, it's -- 

21 sometimes suggestions are made, but I don't 

22 think you're going to get away from it, and 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 

 241

1 don't think we could be all that quantitative 

2 about, how do you do that? 

3 MS. BRACKETT: Right. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: I can hardly hear 

5 John, but I think he just hit on something. 

6 I heard the word professional judgment, again, 

7 and I think -- I mean, this might be another 

8 opportunity in TIB-0060 where you indicate for 

9 best estimate cases that you're going to have 

10 additional checks and balances. You know, 

11 more peer review, because I think you're right 

12 that you can't -- I mean, how prescriptive can 

13 you be with this kind of thing? But, you 

14 know, if you get down to best estimate, 

15 because, for the bounding cases, you're 

16 probably not going to need as much, but for 

17 the best estimates, you might want that as 

18 sort of the peer review to kick in at a higher 

19 level, or whatever. I don't know what the QA 

20 level is for these cases, but that might be 

21 another way to address this. 

22 MS. BRACKETT: That's a good 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 point. There's nothing procedural. Some 

2 cases do get elevated, depending how the dose 

3 reconstructor feels about it, you know, how 

4 much difficulty they have had or -- but yes, 

5 that's one option. I'll make a note of that. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: So the item on our 

7 tracking list changes to in-process. Action, 

8 SC&A. Correct? 

9 Next issue, item 3. SC&A accepts 

10 the NIOSH response, recommends the status of 

11 this issue be closed. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I have a 

13 question on No. 3. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: And mainly, you 

16 know, in the NIOSH response, they offer 

17 comments that they submitted to the ICRP 

18 committee. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would like to 

21 take them up on their offer, because I'm 

22 curious, and it's not obvious to me how these 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 parameters would affect calculations of 

2 intake, anyway, but I guess I am interested in 

3 that, in looking at those responses before I 

4 sign off on this one. I don't know, maybe 

5 SC&A did look at those responses that NIOSH 

6 sent to the ICRP committee, but I'd be 

7 interested in -- 

8 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. It wasn't 

9 specifically NIOSH that sent them. Tom LaBone 

10 had sent these comments, you know, not as a 

11 representative of -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: A copy of comments 

13 that have been -- not NIOSH's comments. I 

14 see. Okay. 

15 MS. BRACKETT: No, this was 

16 comments that he had made when the draft ICRP 

17 came out. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, 

19 nonetheless, they're cited in NIOSH's 

20 response. 

21 MS. BRACKETT: Right. But I just 

22 wanted to clarify, that's 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 

 244

1 CHAIR MUNN: But you are asking 

2 that we provide them? 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: They could be 

4 provided, and then -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Liz, can you 

6 send those to me, and I'll -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would recommend 

8 that the in-progress employee at least look at 

9 those. 

10 MS. BRACKETT: I would also offer, 

11 I found out recently that the draft document 

12 that was cited here, the ICRP, it apparently 

13 has been rescinded as being too prescriptive. 

14 This particular issue was cited where the ICRP 

15 document was making a specific recommendation 

16 to use this particular fitting method, and the 

17 ICRP is not going to issue this document now 

18 because it's too prescriptive, and they don't 

19 want to be that prescriptive. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can you include 

21 that correspondence, too, Liz? That would be 

22 interesting. 
 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 MS. BRACKETT: That was just a 

2 statement that was made at IRPA -- 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 

4 MS. BRACKETT: -- Last month. And 

5 I couldn't find anything on the ICRP website 

6 that actually stated that. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: So action, NIOSH to 

9 send the ICRP comments to the Board, to the 

10 work group members? Bearing in mind that ICRP 

11 -- they're not accepting of it, are they? 

12 Therefore, rather than change this issue to 

13 closed, it will have to be in-process. 

14 Next issue is finding No. 4. SC&A 

15 responds, they concur, and recommend the 

16 status of the issue be changed to in abeyance, 

17 awaiting the OTIB revision. 

18 Any objection to in abeyance for 

19 finding 4? If not, that change will occur. 

20 Finding 5. Concurs with NIOSH 

21 response, provided OTIB-0060 is revised to 

22 include the information given to the dose 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 reconstructors in training. Request it be 

2 changed to in abeyance. 

3 Any problem? It will change to in 

4 abeyance. 

5 The next issue is finding No. 6. 

6 The NIOSH response is the same as their 

7 response to -03, and that's accepted by SC&A 

8 in recommending that this issue be closed. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: This was the same 

10 issue we just discussed? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Individual bioassay 

12 results. 

13 DR. MAURO: It was changed it to 

14 in-progress. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: We changed it to 

16 in-progress. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, even though we 

18 recommend that it be closed -- 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: The Board changed 

20 it to in-progress. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- the Board can use 

22 its judgment. 
 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 MEMBER GRIFFON: Pending that -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So this one was also 

3 in-progress as per Board -- is this basically 

4 addressed in -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: I think this is 

6 addressed in -03. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: And 03 is in8 progress. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 03 is in10 progress, so there's no reason why this one 

11 should also remain open, correct? 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: They're almost 

13 the same issue. I don't know what -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Very nearly. So we 

15 can close this one and cover it in -03, 

16 correct? 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I don't think 

18 it closed with this one, does it? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it says -- 

20 it's addressed, and it's another of the 

21 finding statuses. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Addressed 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 

 248

1 finding -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that okay with 

3 the work group? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine with me. 

5 The next issue is finding 7. Take 

6 a minute to read the NIOSH response and the 

7 SC&A follow-up. I believe that's another one 

8 of those for which we have hard copies, if you 

9 want to look at it. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: This has a PDF file 

11 associated with it. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. If we want to 

13 go to look at that, the recommendation is to 

14 change status to in-progress. A lot of work 

15 to do on TIB-0060. 

16 Any objection to in-progress? If 

17 not, it will be changed. 

18 Next open issue by my record is in 

19 procedures. PROC-86, is that correct, Steve, 

20 from your record? PROC-86, finding 1. You 

21 may want to read NIOSH's response, and note 

22 that SC&A concurs, recommends in abeyance. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 Any problem or question? 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask a very 

3 simple question? Since I'm not up to speed on 

4 PROC-86, what are complex internal dose 

5 claims? I mean, how does someone identify -- 

6 when they get a case, how does someone 

7 identify a complex internal dose claim? 

8 You know it when you see it? Is 

9 that it? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: We're trying to 

11 get up to speed on this, Mark. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: This really 

13 applies to the review and summary of records, 

14 right? 

15 DR. MAURO: It sounds like there's 

16 some kind of revision. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, it looks 

18 like you're making a distinction between the 

19 case preparation and the dose reconstructor. 

20 So this person's taking the raw data, and 

21 putting their -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: There is, 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 

 250

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- spreadsheet, 

2 right. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: But what this is is 

4 the data for these three people, that they're 

5 group is doing an initial -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Triage. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: -- screening - yes, 

8 exactly - triage of it, and that was created 

9 to help efficiency early on in the project. So 

10 it is a very different process. The dose 

11 reconstructor may or may not use the 

12 information given by this. I would actually 

13 have to go back, and we'd have to go check 

14 with the people who prepared this to see if 

15 they're still conducting -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe 

17 they are in this procedure. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is this an arcane 

19 procedure? Is this really -- 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This procedure 

22 apparently has been canceled. It's not on 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 

 251

1 -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Been canceled? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- list of current 

4 procedures. Let me check and verify that. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: That's why -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: But it was used 

7 on some cases, or in the beginning? Right, 

8 right. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and it was -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Apparently. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: -- it was never 

12 something that was required to be used by the 

13 dose reconstructor. It was basically to ease 

14 them while they were working on other cases so 

15 that -- another individual was doing this type 

16 of screening so that it would save them a 

17 little time on the general process, but they 

18 weren't required to use anything from it. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm going 

20 to withdraw my statement that it was canceled, 

21 because it's not in the historical revisions, 

22 either, and so it could be that my set only 
 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 includes the dose reconstruction procedures, 

2 rather than the entire set. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Which one is it? - 

4 86? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -86. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: -86. PROC-86. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: No, that's still out 

8 there. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think my set is 

10 just dose reconstruction procedures, so I 

11 don't have it. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: And it still could 

13 be used. We have to check with Rick to see 

14 how frequently it's still used. 

15 DR. MAURO: So if you help me out 

16 a bit, is this where you have lots and lots of 

17 bioassay data, and as a convenience for the 

18 dose reconstructor, someone prepares a file? 

19 I mean, what is this? You know, it depends -- 

20 all the input? 

21 MS. BRACKETT: There is a group 

22 that does that. They enter the data into 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 

 253

1 spreadsheet so that the dose reconstructor 

2 doesn't have to spend time doing that. 

3 DR. MAURO: Doesn't have to do it? 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Now let me take a 

5 look. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Liz or Scott, 

7 they also go through, like to see if they were 

8 involved in any incidents, or things like 

9 that. I mean, is there some -- or do they 

10 just enter all the data in a spreadsheet, and 

11 -- 

12 MS. BRACKETT: They enter 

13 everything they see. They don't do any 

14 judgment at all. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 

16 All right. That's important, then. Okay. 

17 MS. BRACKETT: Right. The dose 

18 reconstructor then has to do that. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: But is this 

21 multiple inputs, or it could be multiple 

22 inputs, like inhalation plus a wound, 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 

 254

1 MS. BRACKETT: Well, it's all the 

2 bioassay data that's on file. Everything. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Given Liz's 

4 clarification, I think I'm okay with in 

5 abeyance. But the case preparers do no -- 

6 they just look for everything. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

8 MS. BRACKETT: Correct, they do no 

9 interpretation at all. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: With that, any -- no, 

11 go ahead. 

12 DR. MAURO: Well, but 

13 nevertheless, I see that there's some type of 

14 provision being -- anyway, you have a protocol 

15 for people to load data into the database. It 

16 sounds like that's -- there are some revisions 

17 being made to that protocol, which is a 

18 mechanical process, actually. Of course, you 

19 have to load the data correctly, but it sounds 

20 like there are some revisions being made. 

21 That's why this is recommended in abeyance. 

22 I'm just trying to understand conceptually 
 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 what the concern we had was originally. In 

2 other words, if this is a mechanical process 

3 of taking data from one location, and loading 

4 it up into a spreadsheet for the convenience 

5 of the dose reconstructor, I'm not too sure if 

6 I understand what the issue is. I'm trying 

7 to -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It appears that 

9 the issue relates to wounds. If there's 

10 evidence of a wound, that these people, as 

11 they prepare the case, should specifically 

12 make note of that. And as far as I know, the 

13 procedure is silent. Is that what the issue 

14 is here? Well, I'm going to leave with one 

15 final observation. Maybe it's more than that. 

16 I'm at the end of the finding; I'm sorry. 

17 DR. MAURO: So right now, you're 

18 saying that the guidance might be a little 

19 ambiguous through the person that's going to 

20 be loading the data and making the distinction 

21 between whether the bioassay data that we're 

22 looking is as a result of a wound, as opposed 
 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 to, let's say, inhalation or ingestion. It's 

2 ambiguous right now. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, part of it 

4 is that the title is misleading, because it 

5 talks about dose reconstruction determining 

6 the most efficient approach to process things 

7 found by EEs, and this says very little about 

8 efficiency. That's one thing. So it says the 

9 title is misleading. Yes, it seems to be just 

10 that, and then the observation that -- it 

11 gives examples of what is and what is not to 

12 be considered an incident, and should or 

13 shouldn't be entered into a spreadsheet. It 

14 says it would be prudent to include any 

15 mention of medical or operations report 

16 related to a wound. Documenting the wound 

17 information would help the dose reconstructor 

18 determine -- 

19 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I mean, this 

20 procedure doesn't relieve the dose 

21 reconstructor of any review that they would 

22 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 

 257

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Of any obligation 

2 like that, right. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: This is just for 

4 their convenience, to have an electronic 

5 spreadsheet of data instead of them, you know, 

6 wasting their time keying in data, and 

7 possibly mis-keying something. It's not meant 

8 to cover everything that might be in 

9 somebody's file. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Right, the dose 

11 reconstructor still -- it's still incumbent on 

12 them to always check all the information that 

13 they have. This is just kind of guidance of 

14 -- here's things you might -- you can get an 

15 overview of where you might want to go. 

16 MS. BRACKETT: Right, but this is 

17 data entry clerks using this procedure. It's 

18 not a health physicist. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: So the status goes to 

20 in-progress. And I have an action item for 

21 NIOSH to check whether PROC-86-01 is still 

22 active. 
 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 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it is. It is 

2 still active. It is still active. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. And is it 

4 likely to be revised? That's the real 

5 question. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you know, in 

7 a global sense, almost everything we do gets 

8 revised at some point. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I mean, are 

10 there -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know -- 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Do I need to qualify 

13 that? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

15 there's a current action revisor, and I don't 

16 know that this response that we wrote, the 

17 initial response, should be interpreted as a 

18 promise to revise it promptly. It says that 

19 we'll collect this feedback, and consider it 

20 when we do revise it, which is not -- so it's 

21 different than a promise that we will revise 

22 it because of this feedback. So there's not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 really a specific promise to revise it here. 

2 So I guess I don't know where you want to go 

3 with that. I mean, it could be in abeyance, 

4 it could be in-progress. 

5 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean the point 

6 is basically is that the committee -- you 

7 know, that the fact that the person is just 

8 mechanically, faithfully loading up a 

9 database. The fact that that database is an 

10 outcome of wounds, or an incident, or 

11 whatever, is really not that person's 

12 responsibility. It's up to the dose 

13 reconstructor. Now that he has a database in 

14 front of him as a convenience, then he goes 

15 into this person's -- you know, reconstructs 

16 this person's dose, taking into consideration 

17 everything that's in the record available 

18 regarding that person. I guess, in looking at 

19 this, if that's the case, then, you know, 

20 maybe there's no issue here. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I think what I 

22 would like to do is take a shot at 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 

 260

1 follow-up comment following on Doug's comments 

2 down here to kind of lay some of the things 

3 that we've said here, and maybe get a 

4 different kind of outcome, because the way 

5 this proceeded was that -- you know, Doug's 

6 conclusion was that, well, we say we're going 

7 to revise PROC-86. And he says, okay, well, 

8 if they take care of this in revision, then it 

9 should be in abeyance. So that's what I'm 

10 trying to respond to, here. So I'd like to, 

11 rather than go that way, I'd like to include 

12 some additional comments that Liz and Scott 

13 have provided, and along with making sure that 

14 -- finding out whether, in fact, there is an 

15 active effort to revise this, and wrapping 

16 that all up in a NIOSH follow-up comment here, 

17 if that's okay. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: So maybe just change 

19 our action item to NIOSH, or revise the 

20 response? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: For PROC-86. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 DR. MAURO: Which makes this in2 progress? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Makes this in4 progress. 

5 The next item is PROC-94, item 1. 

6 The NIOSH was made in October. Take a moment 

7 to read it. It's fairly lengthy. 

8 SC&A concurs that no response was 

9 required. Recommends the item be closed. 

10 Any objection? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's just 

12 for the first item? 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, there's a couple 

14 different pages here. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: This is going to be 

16 tricky. How do we close item 1? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think you 

18 close anything until you close them all. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: I wouldn't think so. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess the 

21 question is -- the way we need to do is we 

22 need to put something in here in the 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 

 262

1 group directives, and basically there are 

2 seven sub-issues. And if the work group 

3 agrees with the SC&A recommendations for all 

4 seven, then we can say that, and then the 

5 overall status of this issue would be in 

6 abeyance. And if the work group agrees that 

7 some of them should be closed, we will 

8 identify which of the sub-issues the work 

9 group wants closed, and which ones be made in 

10 abeyance. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

12 appropriate. That's why we have the space on 

13 the form to do that. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

16 making that addition to the work group 

17 directive, and placing this entire first 

18 finding in abeyance? That's good? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess so. I mean 

20 it's -- 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Work directives will 

22 include the minutiae, and the status 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 

 263

1 change to in abeyance. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Where are the 

3 first two indicators being findings if they're 

4 -- under SC&A findings. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Kind of like when 

6 you were talking this morning about OTIB-0066, 

7 and where we basically gave, I guess, positive 

8 findings as opposed to negative findings. I 

9 think, again this is from Dr. Ostrow, and so 

10 maybe he's doing the same type of thing here 

11 where he's, you know, giving a positive 

12 finding. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that's the 

15 last one, Wanda. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Are we okay with 

17 that? Are we still thinking about it? 

18 Hearing no negative concerns one way or 

19 another, I do believe that that's the last of 

20 set three, is it not? Am I missing something? 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's it. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: There's nothing new 
 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 in PROC-95 which I show as the last of the 

2 open set three issues. Correct? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Do we have any 

5 responses to anything past set three that we 

6 need to address, or other outstanding 

7 procedures which have been inserted into our 

8 process by reason of their imminent need that 

9 we need to touch on before we close? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have the 

11 additional response on OTIB-0018, which I 

12 submitted, which I sent out on December the 

13 1st. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's not very 

16 much lead time. I don't know if anybody, you 

17 know, wants to discuss that yet or not, but 

18 it's something that, you know, we were asked 

19 to provide. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is like 

22 additional discussion on 0018-05, so this 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 

 265

1 our contribution to it. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. Let's 

3 do it. OTIB-0018. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu, I was just 

5 reading through that, and one of the items you 

6 indicated -- I don't know if I'm getting ahead 

7 of Wanda here, but -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: No, go ahead. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. In one of 

10 the items you indicated you -- I think it's 

11 NIOSH additional responses 1125-08, No. 1, 

12 you indicated that you had sort of a 

13 conference call process where you went through 

14 the different sites to see if it was the 

15 author's sense that -- the TBD authors, I 

16 guess, primarily were on the call, and if it 

17 was the author's sense that they had a, quote, 

18 robust air sampling program for those sites. 

19 And you know, yes or not kind of, and then 

20 that's how the list was generated. And I 

21 don't know if -- I mean, my feeling is I would 

22 rather have a little more backup for that than 
 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 just a -- you know, a call took place. I 

2 don't know about how others feel in the work 

3 group, but if something -- if the authors 

4 could put a memo forward or something like 

5 that that says here's how -- you know, for K 

6 -- for whatever site, given that we have X, Y, 

7 Z, and da-da-da, over the different time 

8 frames, we feel this is the robust air 

9 sampling program, you know, was in place. But 

10 I mean, I'm not looking for -- I think it 

11 probably is something that they can -- given 

12 that they authored the TBD, they can use their 

13 existing reference file, some sort of brief, 

14 and I stress brief, response as to why they 

15 feel it satisfies the definition of robust air 

16 sampling program. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I can find out. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's my 

19 opinion. I don't know how others feel. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Eighteen would be 

21 MPCs, or dose reconstruction. And there's a 

22 certain list that extensively has air 
 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 monitoring programs of a nature that if people 

2 were, you know, chronically going to be 

3 exposed to MPC, that would have been found and 

4 prevented. That's kind of the basis for 

5 getting them to use MPCs. 

6 DR. MAURO: And that was the 

7 denial until 0033 came in, which allowed you 

8 to use it for -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: For a fraction of 

10 it. Yes, a fraction. 

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. All right. I 

12 got to say, that's like, there are a number of 

13 procedures that go to the surrogate data 

14 issue. In a way, in effect, that procedure 

15 goes to, well, we know what the regulations 

16 were, or we have a pretty good idea that a 

17 given site were following the orders that were 

18 in place. So in effect, it's -- 

19 MEMBER GIBSON: Excuse me, Wanda? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MEMBER GIBSON: Was there an 

22 answer to Mark's question? I'm having a hard 
 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 time hearing. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Mike, this is Stu. 

3 I'm sorry, I'm kind of behind my laptop here. 

4 What I said to Mark's question was that I will 

5 try to find out if we can provide -- if the 

6 site profile authors can provide a little more 

7 backup to their opinion that, yes, this one 

8 should be including, you know, this site 

9 should be included, or that one shouldn't. Or 

10 actually I don't know if anybody ever said 

11 that one shouldn't, but they identified sites 

12 that they thought should be included. And so, 

13 I'll try to find out if we can provide 

14 anything more like that. That's all I can say 

15 today. 

16 MEMBER GIBSON: Okay. I just 

17 didn't hear the answer. Thanks. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: And John was saying 

20 something, but he was saying it so softly. 

21 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I was just 

22 sort of thinking about the surrogate 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 

 269

1 In other words, there are a lot of places 

2 where generic concepts are being applied to deal 

3 with the fact that maybe there's a limitation 

4 of data. Up until now, we've mainly been 

5 looking into using data from another site to 

6 apply to a given site, when you're, you know, 

7 missing, or there are deficiencies in data. 

8 In a way, I see this procedure as being of 

9 that nature. That is, the idea being that, if 

10 you feel a degree of confidence that it had a 

11 good health physics oversight program at a 

12 facility for a given time period, the use of 

13 the regulations, the MPCs, as being a way of 

14 assigning exposures, and I read through 0018, 

15 and there's no doubt that, if you had a good 

16 coverage, there weren't any incidents of note, 

17 and you were to assign the MPCs, especially I 

18 think you were assigning the MPCs in a way 

19 that were off the charts, conservatively. And 

20 whether you just picked Strontium-90, you went 

21 ahead and found those radionuclides, and some 

22 kind of workbook, a sophisticated workbook, 
 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 that would just assign off-the-chart exposures 

2 for the purpose of denial. Then you layer in 

3 this other OTIB, which is 0033, which is what 

4 -- but now you could assign fractions, 0.5, 

5 0.1 of an MPC. 

6 What I'm getting at, and I see it 

7 important to put this I guess on the table, is 

8 that that goes toward a generic approach to 

9 dealing with the fact that you may now have 

10 site-specific data, or have inadequate data. 

11 And it's a way to fill that gap. So I think 

12 that that, along with the other surrogate data 

13 -- you know, we look at a number of sites 

14 where surrogate data would be used, but here 

15 we have a procedure where, in effect, it's a 

16 way to get around the fact that you're lacking 

17 site-specific data, or it's insufficient. And 

18 I think it's -- whether or not it's addressed 

19 here in the way in which we just discussed, 

20 where you'll be providing additional 

21 information on these judgments, but also it's 

22 something that I'm sure will be a matter 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 

 271

1 perhaps should be on the table for the 

2 surrogate data worker, whether or not they 

3 would like to engage that issue from that 

4 perspective. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: John, I tend to 

6 agree with you. You know, it's kind of a 

7 work-around, and that's all the more reason 

8 for the -- you know, my inquiry into the 

9 definition of how -- or how you derive or 

10 determine whether a facility has a robust -- 

11 you know, I mean, I think it is, you know, 

12 probably very generous if in fact it -- you 

13 know, it meets that definition. 

14 The other thing I think you have 

15 to look at is, is it a plausible -- and, you 

16 know, I think this is just a way to, you know, 

17 avoid the fact that you don't have records at 

18 all for these individuals, and throw a high 

19 number at the situation, because you know it's 

20 going to be a denied claim. So you know, I 

21 guess there's a couple things going on in 

22 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 

 272

1 DR. MAURO: I'm less concerned 

2 with the use of it for denial, especially 

3 if there's no incidents, than I am with the 

4 OTIB-0033, which is a way to tweak the results 

5 of that. It could also have been used for 

6 granting. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: But remember, 

8 this is a dose reconstruction program. So you 

9 know, you have to -- you know, peaking on the 

10 side of this, and we've talked about this at 

11 length for over five years, you know, that 

12 this -- lurking in the sideline is the SEC 

13 regulation, and the fact that it's not -- 

14 we're not just looking at, you know, a POC 

15 determination here. We're looking at dose 

16 determination. So those two things we use 

17 together. I think we have to keep that in 

18 mind. You know, if you do this kind of thing, 

19 obviously what ends up falling out is a lot of 

20 the obvious cancers that are very low radio21 toxic, radio-toxicity, not very radiogenic, 

22 end up falling off the bottom, and so 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 

 273

1 throw a high dose no matter -- they're never 

2 going to be compensable, and they're gone, you 

3 know? Is that consistent with a dose 

4 reconstruction program? I don't know. I'm 

5 thinking out loud here, but that's -- I think 

6 that's also something to consider. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, 

8 Mark, we -- you know, OTIB-0018 was a fairly 

9 early development, and for a lot of these 

10 sites, I would think we'd have coworker data. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, you're going 

12 to have coworker data, right? Yes. Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: But the dose 

14 reconstructors are looking at you with a 

15 puzzled look on their face, so maybe not. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I think it's 

17 widely used. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be a 

19 preferred approach, if it's available. 

20 MS. BRACKETT: But oftentimes, 

21 OTIB-0018 is easier. It's more efficient, so 

22 the dose reconstructors still tend towards 
 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 that -- 

2 DR. MAURO: And denied. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, there 

5 could be a comparison of coworker data that -- 

6 MS. BRACKETT: You'd have to run 

7 every scenario possible, because OTIB-0018 

8 changes depending on the organ and the time -- 

9 the length of employment. Because it's based 

10 on -- it's a changing nuclide that gives you 

11 the largest dose. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 MS. BRACKETT: And once exposure 

14 stops, the nuclide that gives you the largest 

15 dose changes. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

17 MS. BRACKETT: It's very 

18 complicated the way OTIB-0018 works. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay. 

20 DR. MAURO: Now I would say, if we 

21 looked at that carefully, and I agree with 

22 you, every effort was made to make sure 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 

 275

1 the radionuclide that was selected for a 

2 particular case gives you the limiting MPC 

3 exposure, by far. In terms of the limiting 

4 dose to the organ of concern, and the 

5 exposure scenario. 

6 MS. BRACKETT: On an annual basis. 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, on an annual 

8 basis. It's quite fabulous and amazing. I 

9 mean, when I looked at it, I was quite 

10 overwhelmed. But at the same time, when you 

11 do that, you certainly create scenarios which 

12 are bounding, certainly not plausible, but for 

13 the purpose of denial, acceptable. It's when 

14 you move into the realm of, is there any way 

15 we could use this particular tool in 

16 combination with, let's say OTIB-0033, it 

17 starts to allow you to ratchet that down to a 

18 0.5 of an MPC, 0.1 of an MPC, and thereby 

19 avoiding the fact that you're not using site20 specific data anymore, and then grant. I 

21 think that might raise some questions 

22 regarding an SEC. That's where I'm coming 
 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 from. 

2 MS. BRACKETT: OTIB-0033 is not 

3 used to grant. It can only be used for 

4 denials. 

5 DR. MAURO: I misunderstood. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: It was during the 

7 time frame that -- it caused problems for 

8 us -- 

9 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. And -- 

10 DR. MAURO: That's behind us now? 

11 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, and it is a 

12 problem because the title does imply that you 

13 can use it, and that's because it was written 

14 at that time. And it is on -- I believe it's 

15 on our list of action items to change the 

16 title of that OTIB and -- 

17 DR. MAURO: Then I have absolutely 

18 no concerns with it. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Any other comment 

20 with respect to 0018-05? So where do we 

21 stand? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm going to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 see if we can provide any additional 

2 information from the site profile authors 

3 about support for their opinions. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any other 

5 comments with respect to OTIB-0018-05? And 

6 any other outstanding material that's been 

7 generated since our last meeting that should 

8 be addressed before we adjourn? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you have an 

10 idea of how we're going to go on the next 

11 meeting? Anything you want us to try to focus 

12 on getting responses back from? Because I 

13 know there are still some third set procedures 

14 that we haven't provided initial responses on. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a review 

17 of the worker outreach program. What else is 

18 out there that -- I was going to look at our 

19 list of cases, and see what all the various 

20 products are. I mean, clearly we can go ahead 

21 and, you know, try to get some more responses 

22 on the third set, some more of those initial 
 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 responses, and try to get those out. Then I 

2 just wondered if there's anything else that we 

3 need to try to focus on. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: I will try to get the 

5 action item list from this meeting out in a 

6 prompt manner. And it would, from an 

7 administrative perspective, be very helpful to 

8 get as many initial responses to that that are 

9 outstanding in, and there's one, two, and 

10 three out there. If that can be done, that's 

11 helpful. 

12 I hesitate to undertake much 

13 effort on the fourth step until we have gotten 

14 a little further along with this third group. 

15 The older they get, the more difficult it is 

16 for us to come to a conclusion. 

17 So at this juncture, I do not 

18 anticipate going any further into our list 

19 than we can count, with the exception of 

20 outstanding pressing issues that arise as we 

21 go along the normal course of events. 

22 Yes, Steve? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 279

1 MR. MARSCHKE: I was just going to 

2 point out, Wanda, we started off this morning 

3 with a snapshot of -- or at lunch time, we 

4 started out with a snapshot of the summary 

5 table where we began today, and after working 

6 through the initial responses, this is kind of 

7 where we're ending the day, I guess. If you 

8 look at the 1029 row up there, we started out 

9 the day with 139 open issues, and we're ending 

10 the day with 113 open issues. We started 

11 today with three in-progress, and we ended up 

12 with 10 in-progress. We had three in 

13 abeyance, and we now have 13 in abeyance. We 

14 now have one addressed in another finding, and 

15 we have now -- before we had no closed issues, 

16 and now we have eight closed issues. So 

17 that's the progress we've made this afternoon. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's helpful. And 

19 it is certainly a mood adjustor. Thank you, 

20 Steve. 

21 DR. MAURO: Steve, I noticed that 

22 we have them grouped by date, and some 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 

 280

1 these, like the first one here, certainly this 

2 one and this one, may represent these very 

3 large documents that have maybe 30 or more 

4 procedures that were reviewed. And some of 

5 them, my guess is, that's just one procedure. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: They're all just 

7 one. 

8 DR. MAURO: This is just one? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean, all the 

10 other ones are -- except for those three, all 

11 the other ones are single. 

12 DR. MAURO: And the reason I 

13 mentioned that is that the ones that are by 

14 themselves are the ones that were considered 

15 of special concern, like OTIB-0052. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. 

17 DR. MAURO: And the extent to 

18 which this kind of summary table could capture 

19 that would be helpful. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, Wanda asked 

21 to implement that a number of months ago, and 

22 basically, because the SQL database was coming 
 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 down the road any day now, we've kind of 

2 frozen work on this database, and we have not 

3 been updating anything. But Wanda has asked 

4 for a descriptor back in the summer sometime, 

5 and this was quite a while ago, a text 

6 descriptor, which describes what each one of 

7 those finding dates is all about. And we did 

8 not incorporate that, because again, we froze 

9 the database in anticipation of moving away 

10 from this particular database. I mean, if you 

11 want, we can start, you know, making changes 

12 to it, and making enhancements to it. There 

13 was a couple of questions that -- I mean, this 

14 is one. Mark basically had another one. Is 

15 there someway that we can press a button, and, 

16 you know, get more text on the screen. 

17 DR. MAURO: Blow up the whole 

18 thing. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Blow up the SC&A 

20 response so that it -- you know, so you have 

21 -- you're not reading two lines at a time. So 

22 I mean, there are some enhancements that could 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 be made to the database, but at this point, 

2 it's frozen. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: And I hesitate to 

4 recommend that, John, for a number of reasons, 

5 not the least of which is, those of us who use 

6 this on a regular basis are well aware that we 

7 have three sets of procedures up there, and we 

8 identify them by date. We know that anything 

9 else is either a single or one or two 

10 procedures that were of special interest for 

11 some activity that was ongoing for the full 

12 Board. 

13 And knowing that, and as Steve has 

14 already said, understanding that some changes 

15 are coming with respect to how we handle the 

16 continued case, I hesitate to make an interim 

17 change. I think most of us are relatively 

18 comfortable with this, are we not? Am I 

19 speaking out of turn? 

20 Mike? Mark? Have I spoken 

21 incorrectly? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, Wanda, 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 

 283

1 fine. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Anything 

3 else for the good of the order? If not, I 

4 will see you first next week, and then in this 

5 setting again in January. 

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter was concluded at 4:02 p.m.) 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21