STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

WORKING GROUP 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

PROCEDURES REVIEW

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Aug. 

21, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Aug. 21, 2008 

OPENING REMARKS 6 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 9 

MS. WANDA MUNN 

TRACKING SYSTEM REPORT AND CONVERSION TO SQL STATUS 12 

SC&A/ ADAMS 

DATABASE UPDATE: 29 PROC 0090 ISSUES 24 

MARSCHKE 

13 TBD 6000, APP BB – NIOSH RESPONSE TO ELECTRON 

ENERGY VALUE DIFFERENCES OTIB-0008, 010, 0023 52 

OTIB 0052: NEW CLARIFYING STATEMENTS AND ELECTRON 

DATA REVIEW 82 

HINNEFELD 

OTIB 0070: STATUS (SC&A REPORT EXPECTED BY 8/31 FOR 

NIOSH RE-REVIEW) 123 

BEHLING 

INDIVIDUAL ITEM REVIEW - 2ND SET 148 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 298 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

ANIGSTEIN, ROBERT, SC&A 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MARSCHKE, STEVE, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 

RAFKE, MICHAEL, HHS 

SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 

THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 

 
6

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

2 AUGUST 21, 2008 

3 (9:30 a.m.) 

4 OPENING REMARKS

5 DR. WADE: Good morning. This is the workgroup 

6 conference room. We're just about ready to 

7 begin, so bear with us just another minute or 

8 two. 

9 (Pause) 

10 Ray, when you're ready. 

11 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm ready, sir. 

12 DR. WADE: You're ready? Wanda, you're ready? 

13 Good morning. This is Lew Wade, and I'm acting 

14 as Designated Federal Official for this meeting 

15 of the subcommittee on procedures review. That 

16 -- workgroup, excuse me, workgroup on 

17 procedures review. That workgroup is ably 

18 chaired by Wanda Munn; members Gibson, Griffon, 

19 Ziemer, with alternate Presley. Munn, Gibson, 

20 Griffon and Ziemer are all present here in the 

21 room. 

22 Let me ask if there are any Board members who 

23 are participating by telephone in this 

24 workgroup call. Are there any Board members 

25 who are on this workgroup call by telephone? 
7

1 (No response) 

2 Okay, good. We don't have a quorum of the 

3 Board, and that's appropriate for a workgroup 

4 meeting. 

5 What we'll do is go around the table here and 

6 do our introductions, then we'll go out into 

7 telephone land and do our introductions. We'll 

8 have a little bit of a discussion of telephone 

9 etiquette, and then we'll begin the workgroup 

10 meeting. 

11 So again, this is Lew Wade. I'm acting as 

12 Designated Federal Official, and I work for 

13 NIOSH. 

14 MR. RAFKE: Michael Rafke, HHS, OGC. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, Advisory Board 

16 member. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke with Sanford 

18 Cohen & Associates. 

19 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Advisory Board 

20 member. 

21 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

22 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Advisory Board member 

23 and chair of this commi-- working group. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Advisory Board 

25 member. 
8

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH. 

2 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor, NIOSH. 

3 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. 

4 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU. 

5 DR. WADE: Those are the folks around the 

6 table. Let's out onto the telephone and hear 

7 from other NIOSH/ORAU team members who are on 

8 the call. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the ORAU team. 

10 DR. WADE: Other NIOSH/ORAU team members on the 

11 call? 

12 (No responses) 

13 How about SC&A team members on the call? 

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, SC&A. 

15 DR. WADE: Good morning, Bob. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun -- Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 

17 DR. WADE: How are you, Arjun? 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 

19 DR. WADE: Other SC&A team members on the call? 

20 (No responses) 

21 How about other federal employees who are 

22 working on this call? Other federal employees? 

23 (No responses) 

24 Do we have any members of Congress or their 

25 representatives who are participating on this 
9

1 call? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Is there anyone else who'd like to be 

4 identified for the record as being on this 

5 call? 

6 (No responses) 

7 Anyone at all? 

8 (No responses) 

9 Okay. Well, again, by way of phone etiquette, 

10 we could be all much more productive if you 

11 speak into a handset and not a speaker phone 

12 when you're participating. Mute the instrument 

13 that -- that you're using when you're not 

14 actively engaged. And if you don't have a mute 

15 button, star-6 will mute the instrument and 

16 then star-6 will unmute the instrument, if 

17 that's an English word, and we'll do well at 

18 the meeting. 

19 Wanda? 

20 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

21 MS. MUNN: Good morning, and thank you all for 

22 being here today. We're going to try to move 

23 through the procedure workgroup agenda items 

24 which I sent out by mail over the weekend, but 

25 not particularly constrained by any specific 
10

1 order. We'll move around as we need to. 

2 I'm hoping that this will be one of the first 

3 meetings where we will all be working primarily 

4 from the ABRWH procedures issues tracking on 

5 our -- on our respective laptops rather than 

6 from printed data that we've had in the past. 

7 It's my personal goal to try to have this be 

8 the first meeting where we undertake our 

9 efforts to move through each of these items in 

10 the fashion that we had agreed earlier, which 

11 was -- once having gone through the first set 

12 thoroughly, which we completed with our last 

13 meeting -- we would address the second set. 

14 And then, as time allowed, address the third 

15 set, going through each one in order, rather 

16 than moving around and selecting priority 

17 fashion, as we've done in the past. 

18 Is that amenable to all the folks here, and 

19 have I misstated our objective? Are we all 

20 okay with that? 

21 Yes, John. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I'd just like to say that I -

23 - I did not bring my remote connection computer 

24 so I'm going to look over your shoulder. And 

25 the other thing I had thought of that might 
11

1 make it easier for everyone -- I don't know if 

2 that's possible -- but to actually project what 

3 everyone's -- what's on your screen through 

4 that machine over there. Is that something 

5 that can be done? So then everyone really 

6 knows we're all looking at the same page. 

7 MS. MUNN: That would be excellent if we could 

8 do that. And since my guess is that Nancy's 

9 probably the person seated at this table with 

10 the most intimate knowledge of the working base 

11 -- hmm? Who are you pointing at, Steve? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm wired up to it. 

13 MS. MUNN: Are you? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm wired up to it. Let's just 

15 leave my computer live-wired up to it. 

16 MS. MUNN: Let's do, by all means. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And I'm trying to figure out 

18 how to use the... 

19 MS. MUNN: There'll be a brief pause while we 

20 familiarize ourself with some of the electronic 

21 equipment that we've opted to use here. 

22 (Pause) 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Now I have to warn you, this 

24 manipulation is relatively slow. 

25 MS. MUNN: Well, that's quite all right, my 
12

1 manipulation is slower, so no matter how slow 

2 it is, Stu, yours will be better. I'm sure of 

3 it. 

4 TRACKING SYSTEM REPORT AND CONVERSION TO SQL STATUS

5 Before we actually get into that, let's take as 

6 our first item of discussion the procedures 

7 action -- procedures issues tracking system. 

8 As we have been working on it in the past, 

9 especially with respect to the conversion to 

10 SQL, at our last meeting we were well along 

11 with that and I have no feel for what's 

12 transpired since that time. So I'm hoping that 

13 two things can occur. I hope that Steve 

14 Marschke and Nancy Adams can give us respective 

15 information with -- concerning where their 

16 groups are with our tracking system and how 

17 we're doing. Which of you needs to go first? 

18 MS. ADAMS: Well -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Nancy? 

20 MS. ADAMS: -- in the conversion -- in the 

21 process of the conversion, we've got the 

22 numbers square from both SC&A's side of the 

23 house as well as NIOSH's. 

24 MS. MUNN: Excellent. 

25 MS. ADAMS: I met with Leroy on Tuesday 
13

1 afternoon, who is the head of the programming 

2 group at OCAS, and they're working on the final 

3 part of the system to get it up and distributed 

4 internally within NIOSH so that people can test 

5 it and play around with it. I talked to him 

6 about some enhancements in terms of the 

7 reporting functions which he has. But in terms 

8 of the data, yesterday I dropped off a copy of 

9 the data and I can -- we can e-mail this 

10 around. Of the first set, the first 182 

11 findings, there are none that are in the, 

12 quote/unquote, open status. There are 131 that 

13 are closed. There are 44 in abeyance. There 

14 are 44 labeled "addressed in findings." And 

15 there are three that were transferred. 

16 MS. MUNN: Forty-four or four "addressed in 

17 findings?" 

18 MS. ADAMS: Four. 

19 MS. MUNN: Four. Thank you. 

20 MS. ADAMS: And 44 in abeyance. 

21 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

22 MS. ADAMS: Right. 

23 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

24 MS. ADAMS: Set two, there's 112 for the total 

25 number of original findings; 37 are open, three 
14

1 are in progress, five in abeyance, four are 

2 addressed in findings, ten were transferred and 

3 53 are closed. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Now I know I'm going to kick 

5 myself for asking this, but what's the 

6 difference between open and in progress? 

7 MS. ADAMS: Open's definition is no meeting 

8 discussion has occurred concerning -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so -- 

10 MS. ADAMS: -- this finding. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- in progress would be there has 

12 been -- 

13 MS. ADAMS: Right. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- discussion. 

15 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

16 MS. ADAMS: Do you want me to go on with the 

17 rest of them? 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes, please. 

19 MS. ADAMS: Okay. The third set, there were 16 

20 findings. None are open, six are in progress, 

21 one is in abeyance, one is addressed in 

22 findings, two are transferred and six are 

23 closed. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: That was chronologically the 

25 third report, but I don't think that was the 
15

1 third set. 

2 OTIB-52, that's OTIB-52. 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes, yes, the -- 

4 MS. ADAMS: That's the July 30th. 

5 MS. MUNN: Chronologically we understand that 

6 we have some additional priority items that 

7 were inserted, just -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- there are three big 

9 sets. There are first, second and third sets. 

10 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There are several other like 

12 single documents -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Exactly, exactly -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that are on -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- yes, we understand that. We 

16 understand that the third set, as we will use 

17 that term later, is the 10/29/2007 group. 

18 That's the set. But chronologically, we're -- 

19 we're maintaining this table chronologically. 

20 So thanks, Nancy, go -- go ahead. 

21 MS. ADAMS: The findings submitted on September 

22 20th -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

24 MS. ADAMS: -- 2007, there were eight findings. 

25 None are open, one is in progress, two are in 
16

1 abeyance, five are addressed in findings. 

2 The October 29th, 2007 finding dates -- this is 

3 what you're referring to as the third set? 

4 MS. MUNN: Third set, correct. Uh-huh. 

5 MS. ADAMS: There are 145 findings, and all 145 

6 are open. 

7 The November 9th, 2007 findings, there were 

8 nine total findings and nine are open. 

9 And the April 21st, 2008 set of findings, there 

10 were 13, and the 13 have all been transferred. 

11 So that gives us totals of 485 total findings 

12 for all of those submission dates; 191 of those 

13 are open, ten are in progress, 52 are in 

14 abeyance, 14 are addressed in findings, 28 are 

15 transferred, and 190 are closed. 

16 MS. MUNN: So Steve, your numbers agree. Is 

17 that right? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: My numbers agree, yeah. The 

19 only thing I would -- I have put together, and 

20 I guess we can kind of show these -- a little 

21 graph which kind of shows the history over the 

22 last four months of -- of the -- of the 

23 statuses and how we've been making some 

24 progress in moving the issues from the open 

25 column to the closed column. I'm also sending 
17

1 you basically the -- the -- the copy of -- the 

2 second sheet is also really what Nancy has been 

3 reading from. 

4 MS. MUNN: No changes -- no differences there. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: And there's no differences. But 

6 you can see on this -- on this little bar chart 

7 -- I think you see from May, June, July and 

8 August and how the -- the -- the issues on the 

9 bottom are the ones that have closed, and you 

10 can see we've progress from about 30 percent of 

11 the issues being closed in May to about 39 

12 percent, almost 40 percent being closed in -- 

13 in August. 

14 The open issues have decreased. If you look at 

15 the top -- the darker color on the top of the 

16 chart, there were about 50 percent of the 

17 issues were open in -- in May, and right now we 

18 have about 39 percent of the issues open in 

19 August, so we are making some progress in -- in 

20 whittling down the number of open issues and -- 

21 and working our way through this -- this -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Steve, I've got a question. The -- 

23 so the -- the bar chart is a percent number and 

24 that's the percent of the 485? 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the percentage -- it -- it 
18

1 kind of -- the number kind of changes. There 

2 was some addition -- for example, I'm not sure 

3 that the first of May chart, for example, 

4 includes the 13 -- it may have started out that 

5 there were -- that -- the absolute number may 

6 change from chart -- from month to month. 

7 MS. MUNN: Especially as we get transfers in. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: If we get transfers in, yeah. 

9 For example, the -- the 13 that came on on 

10 April 21st, I'm not sure that they were 

11 included in the May column on here, so it may 

12 have only been 473 in -- in pure numbers, but -

13 - so that's kind of one reason why I put it in 

14 percentages, because in numbers it would -- the 

15 numbers would differ. 

16 MS. MUNN: Excellent. The bar chart's helpful. 

17 It gives me, personally, a good feel. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing I'd like to say 

19 is we've been kind of updating and keeping -- 

20 keeping the data in the database. I've been 

21 trying to keep that current as much as 

22 possible, but I have not been making any 

23 enhancements to the Access version of the 

24 database because it's a short-timer, is my 

25 understanding, and so basically it would have 
19

1 been just kind of a waste of effort. I know 

2 one of the things that we wanted to do and 

3 Wanda and we had talked about doing was -- was 

4 putting a identifier next to each one of these 

5 finding dates so that we would know that the 

6 7/30/2007 date was associated with OTIB-52. 

7 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I had -- I didn't have Don 

9 Loomis do that because I figured it's going to 

10 be lost in the transfer anyways, and so I 

11 really stopped -- basically stopped work on 

12 making enhancements to the database and just 

13 really keep the -- focused on keeping the data 

14 up-to-date as much as possible. 

15 MS. MUNN: I think that's appropriate, Steve, 

16 especially in view of the fact that we have the 

17 same date identifiers on our tracking base, and 

18 if we -- if I really need to know what 9/20/07 

19 is, all I have to do is go to my database and 

20 pull it up. And it's -- it will tell me what 

21 9/20/07 is. I was going to show myself how 

22 easy that was, and since I had them listed -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Timed out. 

24 MS. MUNN: Well, yes, I've sorted by alphabet 

25 rather than by -- than by date, so I'm doing it 
20

1 to myself. But in any case, all we have to do 

2 is check our database and we can -- can see 

3 that. So I -- I think you're assuming 

4 appropriately that -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

6 MS. MUNN: -- there's no need to continue with 

7 that type of change and addition. 

8 We are where we need to be with the SQL, I'm 

9 assuming -- 

10 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 

11 MS. MUNN: -- since last month. 

12 MS. ADAMS: There is also a report that does 

13 give you the breakout. We can get out of the -

14 - the NIOSH version of the database now -- that 

15 tells you what the procedure is and whether -- 

16 how many findings associated with it and 

17 whether it's got findings that are closed, 

18 open, in abeyance, transferred, et cetera. 

19 So... 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Is the SQL version on the O 

21 drive? I'm still -- 

22 MS. ADAMS: Not yet. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: I just e-mailed for a password 

24 'cause I -- I don't want to log in three times 

25 -- 
21

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- and get -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we have a -- there is 

4 actually a -- a sample version that -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we can see in our office, 

7 but I don't know that it was actually -- it 

8 wasn't fully loaded. It hasn't even been 

9 rolled out for OCAS use yet. 

10 MS. MUNN: But you're close. Right? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we're fairly close. 

12 MS. MUNN: Excuse me, I'm groping for some 

13 notes that I had with respect to that, among 

14 other things. 

15 You had originally said that it should be up 

16 and running by September, internally. Do you 

17 still anticipate that to be the case? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's the case. 

19 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, when I talked to Leroy, he 

20 said that -- that that was still their hope. 

21 That -- I mean they're still -- they've got a 

22 lot of data still to load because they're -- 

23 they're creating relationships so that with -- 

24 with any one of these documents you'll be able 

25 to see how many claims are affected. You'll 
22

1 also be able to know how man-- which sites they 

2 affect, whether they're overarching or whether 

3 they're site-specific. So -- so it'll be -- 

4 there'll be a lot more stuff associated with -- 

5 with each -- each record that will relate 

6 information that's important to the Board and 

7 to the working group. 

8 MS. MUNN: Good, we will -- is there any 

9 possibility that -- that we can have a very 

10 quick, five-minute update at our next meeting, 

11 or is that too close? Will there be any 

12 additional work done on it by that time, you 

13 think? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. That's... 

15 MS. MUNN: Well, I'll probably ask at that 

16 time. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll -- I'll try to figure out 

18 if I can (unintelligible). I'll talk to Leroy 

19 about it. 

20 MS. MUNN: I just -- we don't have -- we don't 

21 -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: See, I'll be out of pocket -- 

23 MS. MUNN: -- have a feel for how much effort -

24 - 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll call him. 
23

1 MS. MUNN: -- is available to be -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: It's only two weeks off. 

3 MS. MUNN: I know, it's only -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I mean that's only -- 

5 that's -- 

6 MS. MUNN: It's only two weeks off, but I don't 

7 know how much time is available for the people 

8 who are actually doing this particular work, so 

9 -- I'll just ask for it -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be awful close. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I would think so. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll let you know on the day, I 

13 suppose, what we -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Oh, that's -- that's fine. If 

15 there's -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I'll be -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- something to report, that's good. 

18 If there isn't, fine. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll be a terrific rookie at 

20 it. 

21 MS. MUNN: Well, we -- we have to do -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Which is normally what I am 

23 anyway, so I'll -- I'll look kind of familiar. 

24 DR. WADE: You're terrific. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah. We want it to be done right 
24

1 so that we -- all of us don't have to struggle, 

2 which'll be helpful if we can do it. 

3 Is there anything else that needs to be said 

4 about the database at this time? Any 

5 questions? 

6 (No responses) 

7 DATABASE UPDATE: 29 PROC 0090 ISSUES

8 Otherwise, thank you. Let's take up the 

9 database update, starting with things that are 

10 left over from PROC-90. We spent a significant 

11 amount of time discussing that at our last 

12 meeting. We left a few things hanging. We had 

13 something like 48 in abeyance and 29 open items 

14 from it. We closed the first four. We 

15 transferred number six to PROC-92. That was 

16 supposed to happen. We haven't checked -- I 

17 haven't checked to see if that has occurred. 

18 One moment, we're passing Nancy's summary 

19 status -- Steve's summary status. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, that might help you 

21 because that basically is -- is how we 

22 dispositioned the issues on the PROC-90 -- the 

23 PROC-90 issues. 

24 MS. MUNN: Ah, you have that already listed. 

25 Very good. 
25

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, that's why I'm passing out 

2 -- that's why when you started going -- you 

3 know, which ones -- the first four were closed, 

4 that's -- this handout that I just gave -- I 

5 only brought ten copies, so -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, that's fine. That's fine. 

7 The PROC-90 is in its appropriate alphabetic -- 

8 yeah, PROC-90, yeah. 

9 DR. MAURO: There was a whole sheet, though. 

10 Did you -- did you hold onto one of those? 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

12 DR. MAURO: You got that. PROC-90. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Did you get that? 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes, I did -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Are we lo-- are we -- 

16 MS. MUNN: I did. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- on line up there? Can you 

18 pull these up, PROC-90? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: You want all status -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: I'm still waiting for my 

21 password. I hope (unintelligible) in the 

22 office. 

23 MS. MUNN: I probably (unintelligible) mine 

24 out. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I just e-mailed him. 
26

1 MS. MUNN: Does anyone have a copy of that, 

2 which I thought I had in my hand but I seem to 

3 have -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Here it is. 

5 MS. MUNN: -- handed it away. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Here it is. 

7 MS. MUNN: Ah, thank you. Thank goodness other 

8 people are able to help me here. That's why I 

9 passed it on, 'cause I knew I had one. 

10 Was item two transferred to PROC-92? Has that 

11 actually occurred? 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: The -- I have updated the 

13 database to reflect these new statuses. 

14 MS. MUNN: Good. So anything that's shown on 

15 your sheet you handed us here has in fact 

16 transpired. It's already on the database. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: It's on -- yeah, the database is 

18 -- this is a current reflection of the 

19 database. 

20 MS. MUNN: So we won't have to go shopping to 

21 see that. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And this is my understanding of 

23 what was agreed upon at the July 21st meeting. 

24 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, meeting. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: And I did circulate -- before I 
27

1 did the update, I did circulate to Stu and 

2 Wanda and Arjun, I think were the three parties 

3 most interested in PROC-90 and -- and solicited 

4 their input. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to get that status 

6 on that third sort on. 

7 MS. MUNN: Well, we should be okay because, as 

8 Steve says, this has already gone on -- it's 

9 already -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: But are we planning on discussing 

11 these findings or just the status of the -- in 

12 abeyance or how they've shifted and moved in 

13 the database? 

14 MS. MUNN: What -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I mean -- 

16 MS. MUNN: -- what my preference would be is to 

17 review the status of those that are in 

18 abeyance. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. Well, then I would 

20 sort on by... I've got them now. 

21 MS. MUNN: They should have. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just -- I could sort them 

23 on -- if you want to wait another few minutes, 

24 I can sort them -- 

25 MS. MUNN: No, that's quite all right. I think 
28

1 we can tick them off as they're here. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

3 MS. MUNN: The first one is 07, no procedure or 

4 requirement for coworker interview or 

5 explanation. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Well, the ones that are 

7 in abey-- are in abeyance because the 

8 procedure's in revision. It's taking into 

9 account these -- these findings is the driver -

10 - certainly one of the drivers for the 

11 revision. 

12 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that I have a 

14 resolution for the specific findings yet, you 

15 know, and how the resolution will be presented 

16 in the procedure revision, some schedules of 

17 it. 

18 MS. MUNN: Well, Stu, I don't want to put you 

19 on the spot. Perhaps it would be more 

20 beneficial and expedient for all of us if you 

21 were aware of changes that had occurred in the 

22 "in abeyance" group that we have here, which is 

23 -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can't tell you any 

25 specific changes that have been made. 
29

1 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: The revision to the procedure -

3 - to any procedure is schedule to be -- start 

4 internal review in ORAU in September. 

5 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Early September. 

7 MS. MUNN: All right. That's good information 

8 in itself. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Do we know that -- can someone 

10 read to me the full finding? I mean I think 

11 it's coworker interviews. What else does it 

12 say? It's sort of -- it's cut off there, 

13 but... 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Should be able to get that. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry -- 

16 MS. MUNN: It's 07. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- a few minutes. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: No procedure or requirement for 

19 coworker interviews -- can you read that now? 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or explanation of if 

22 coworkers are not interviewed. 

23 MS. MUNN: Right. And this -- without even 

24 going to the other "in abeyance" items, this 

25 brings up one of the issues that we discussed 
30

1 at considerable length at our last meeting, 

2 which is the use of the word "coworker." Has 

3 any discussion taken place inside the agency 

4 with respect to what kind of change we could 

5 make to the too-common use of that word that 

6 would be more beneficial? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Not in -- not in particular, I 

8 suppose. I remember we talked about coworkers 

9 were used in several different -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, used in different 

12 ways -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- around the -- in -- in and 

15 around the -- the program and -- and maybe 

16 rather than calling everything "coworker," 

17 having specific usage for coworker in a 

18 specific -- you know, something else meaning 

19 something else. And no, there's not really 

20 been much discussion about that. 

21 MS. MUNN: Is there going to be an opportunity 

22 for us to have any additional intelligence on 

23 that by our September meeting or not? 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Possibly. You know, there's 

25 not -- there are not many work days unti-- you 
31

1 know, between now and that meeting. And -- 

2 MS. MUNN: No, there aren't. It just was an 

3 item to which we devoted a significant amount 

4 of time, and apparently has been of concern 

5 pretty much across the board. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think if we -- we might 

7 be able to at least list various ways in which 

8 the word "coworker" is used and come up with 

9 some suggested alternatives. 

10 MS. MUNN: That would be really helpful. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, maybe we can do that. 

12 MS. MUNN: If there's a possibility that we 

13 could do that -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Now I don't know -- see -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- that would be a good start. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what the impact of 

17 that change is. 

18 MS. MUNN: Well -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: When you make a change like 

20 that, you may end up with a lot of work -- 

21 MS. MUNN: I know that's -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to get that implemented 

23 because it's used in a variety of places. 

24 MS. MUNN: That's true. With any luck at all, 

25 we'll be enough -- we'll have enough additional 
32

1 information that we can identify where it's 

2 used in each case and select the appropriate 

3 alternative, not necessarily change in all 

4 places but in some. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- I think perhaps for this 

6 we might have an opinion about CATI and is that 

7 the correct term to use in that portion of the 

8 CATI. 

9 MS. MUNN: That seemed to be the primary 

10 concern. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, maybe that would be the 

12 right which seems to be sort of a -- the common 

13 vernacular. You know, the co-- my coworker is 

14 the person who I worked with. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: As opposed to a coworker 

18 dataset, which is really a coworking dataset. 

19 You know, that stuff is sort of the population 

20 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Well, the way you've been using 

22 it -- 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the way it's being done is 

24 the population dataset. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- in this program has been site-
33

1 wide. 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes, it has. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: It's been a population dataset, 

4 so -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: And that's confusing maybe to -- 

6 DR. NETON: Well, that's -- that's an artifact 

7 of -- we didn't know what we were really going 

8 to do when we started the program. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, just a comment. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me that if -- if we're 

13 going to try to mandate going back to all 

14 documents and putting in new words, that's not 

15 going to be useful. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So the main thrust will be going 

18 forward, I think, and how it's used with the 

19 interview process. And if we can clarify the 

20 terminology and make sure that in the interview 

21 process, as we go forward, that it's used in 

22 whatever new way we determine -- as far as old 

23 documents are concerned, we would just have to 

24 -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, I -- I -- 
34

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) those. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- I wasn't -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And maybe when they're revised, 

4 suggest that the new terminology then be used. 

5 But to go back and revise everything would not 

6 (unintelligible) -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: But I think more -- more of the 

8 issue comes into play when people -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- are told you -- you did my 

11 dose reconstruction with a coworker model -- 

12 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- and they say I talked to my 

14 coworkers and you didn't do any -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: You didn't call them at all. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- you didn't call them, right. 

17 So that's the -- 

18 DR. NETON: I think an explanation -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, an explanation of -- 

20 DR. NETON: -- this process -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think you have to go 

22 through and edit -- 

23 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- or change the terms. I think 

25 -- 
35

1 DR. ZIEMER: Exactly. 

2 MS. MUNN: Well, this is, after all, the CATI 

3 procedure that we're talking about, and that's 

4 where that interface with the claimant and with 

5 the general public seems to be the roughest 

6 spot. And we -- we had suggested last time the 

7 possibility of "fellow worker" as opposed to 

8 "coworker," which is a slightly different 

9 thing. It's a person who was there -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I think if we would be a little 

11 more explanatory in conducting the interview on 

12 what we're asking about -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- rather than worry about the 

15 actual term -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because right now when we 

18 ask for coworkers we get, you know, people who 

19 were in the same car pool -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, who never saw each 

22 other except in the car pool. 

23 MS. MUNN: Right. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: So maybe a little bit more 

25 explanatory about what we're asking for in the 
36

1 interview might be what we're interested in 

2 here, which really should be captured in the 

3 form anyway, as -- as we're going in this 

4 revision. 

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah. We'll see if we -- if we have 

6 something to report next time, we'll talk about 

7 it next time. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask -- I think I asked this 

9 at the Board meeting, but as -- to follow up on 

10 Wanda's request for intelligence, so to speak, 

11 I think I asked last time -- I -- and this is 

12 more implementation than the procedure, but how 

13 many -- is it easy for NIOSH to pull the 

14 numbers -- how many coworkers have been 

15 contacted out of the total CATIs completed and 

16 how many coworkers have been called? I'd just 

17 like to see that number. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll try to find it. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Is that -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if it's easy or 

21 not. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know how easy that is to 

23 -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if it's easy. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- pull out of the database or 
37

1 what. 

2 DR. NETON: I can tell you the number's pretty 

3 low -- very, very low. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 DR. NETON: The reality is once -- once we 

6 adopted that coworker approach where we use 

7 population distributions, there really is a 

8 claimant's advantage for us to use that -- the 

9 95th percentile or whatever -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Right. 

11 DR. NETON: -- as opposed to trying to track 

12 down someone who stood next to him at work. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not -- I'm not -- 

14 DR. NETON: Where -- where we just -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- it either way, I just want to 

16 know the numbers in... 

17 DR. NETON: I think where we've used it is 

18 situations where a person would -- would allege 

19 a certain work environment that just didn't 

20 make sense, like huge exposure rates, 100 R 

21 fields or something like that, and then we 

22 would -- or existence of certain sources that 

23 didn't make sense, what we knew about the site 

24 inventory, and we would go and contact people 

25 and verify -- does this make sense to you. 
38

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Jim, this is Arjun. One -- one 

2 of the original concerns I remember when -- 

3 when we -- when I interviewed Denise and 

4 prepared the report was -- was not just a 

5 question of coworker interviews and somebody 

6 standing next to a coworker. It was a question 

7 of is there a level playing field between 

8 employee claimants and survivor claimants. And 

9 you know, you can't level that playing field 

10 completely, of course, you know, but the spirit 

11 of the recommendation was that interviewing 

12 somebody that stood next to them might reveal 

13 those kinds of conditions, whereas an employee 

14 could tell you themselves and then you can make 

15 a judgment. In the case of a survivor 

16 claimant, if you don't interview the coworker 

17 you'll never know. 

18 DR. NETON: Okay. I hear what you're saying. 

19 That's a little different than I was thinking 

20 about it, but yeah, that makes some sense. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: But that -- that was the main 

22 thrust of the recommendation. It -- it isn't 

23 that, you know, NIOSH would always interview a 

24 coworker that's been named -- you know, in the 

25 case of an employee that, you know, has 
39

1 reasonable memory and good health or, you know, 

2 or at least reasonable memory, which seems to 

3 be the case in the vast majority of -- 

4 DR. NETON: That -- that doesn't come across in 

5 the way that finding is written, to me. 

6 MS. MUNN: No, I think -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's written elsewhere. 

8 DR. NETON: Okay, maybe that's another finding, 

9 but the finding that I'm seeing here really 

10 talks about people being concerned when they 

11 get their dose reconstruction and we didn't 

12 contact coworkers that they named during their 

13 interview and they -- they said why didn't you; 

14 you asked me for names, I gave them to you and 

15 you blew them off. That's -- 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe I'm looking at the wrong 

17 one. Whi-- which -- which one are we in? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Number seven. 

19 MS. MUNN: We're looking at PROC-90, item 

20 seven. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Item seven. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Finding seven -- issue seven. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Sometimes these -- these 

24 summaries in the matrix or database doesn't 

25 reflect the entire -- as you know, so I don't 
40

1 know if it was in a subtext or... 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm in the tracking system. 

3 I'm not finding an issue number in that. 

4 MS. MUNN: You don't find PROC-90? 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: I have PROC-90 -- oh, yes, here 

6 it is. Okay, I see it. All right. All right. 

7 Okay. 

8 MS. MUNN: So we'll do the best we can with it. 

9 That's as far as we're going to go with it 

10 right now. 

11 The next item -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I think, for 

13 everybody's -- I think Arjun's comment relates 

14 to number 17. 

15 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Number 17 -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Which is addressed in number eight. 

18 DR. NETON: It's a different finding. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I -- I agree. Sorry, my 

20 mistake. 

21 MS. MUNN: Which is addressed in number eight, 

22 so -- which is procedure's lacking sufficient 

23 information to assist the recipient, and we can 

24 look at these item by item to see the ones that 

25 are outstanding, but unless someone here feels 
41

1 differently there is no purpose in discussing 

2 any of the others since we haven't had an 

3 opportunity to move forward with them in any 

4 great detail inside the agency. 

5 Still outstanding is number eight, procedure is 

6 lacking sufficient information to assist the 

7 recipient, and item 14, interview contains 

8 numerous gaps. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: These are all going to be 

10 addressed by the revisions, I guess, is that 

11 the -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, because there's still -- 

13 there's -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- revision I guess -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there's revision to the 

16 procedure and revision to the CATI script -- 

17 are both underway. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: And the revision of the CATI 

19 script, I was going to ask, is that -- is that 

20 something the Advisory Board is going to have a 

21 chance to comment wi-- I think we discussed 

22 this a little bit -- 

23 MS. MUNN: We had agreed last time that -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- prior to OMB -- prior to your 

25 -- to your submittal to OMB or... 
42

1 MS. MUNN: We agreed last time that this body 

2 would do that. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if I can say -- I 

4 don't know if I can speak to that or not. 

5 MS. MUNN: No, no, we agreed last time that 

6 this group -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Procedures, right. 

8 MS. MUNN: -- would look at it. We would not 

9 take it to the Board, but that -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, this goes to the Board, but 

11 anyway -- yeah, yeah, okay. So do -- I mean 

12 what's the timing on that, Stu, do you know? 

13 Is it similar to the -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: By the -- by the end of -- by 

15 the end of the year we would expect to submit 

16 our -- it's a renewal package that we have to 

17 submit OMB, and it's a -- so it's a lot -- I 

18 mean we can revise it other times as well, but 

19 this is a lot, so we'll -- we'll have the 

20 submittal by the end of the year. So there's -

21 - there's -- I think there (unintelligible) 

22 content in there for (unintelligible). 

23 MS. MUNN: Item 14 is in abeyance, the numerous 

24 gaps. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Same issues. 
43

1 MS. MUNN: Same thing. Same thing. Number 

2 16's been transferred to 92; 17 is addressed in 

3 08. Item 21 is still in abeyance, definition 

4 and scope of key terms like completeness and 

5 technical. 

6 (Unintelligible) definition and scope of key 

7 terms, completeness and technical content. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Excuse me, I'm -- I'm sorry, I 

9 didn't understand what -- what happened with 

10 17? 

11 MS. MUNN: Seventeen is addressed in PROC-90, 

12 item eight, the one we were just -- 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, yeah. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- discussing earlier. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. 

16 MS. MUNN: And the only other three left -- 

17 this is 21, two left -- item 23 is -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Is 21 part of the same thing? 

19 MS. MUNN: No, it isn't. No, that's this -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: 21 had to do with certain types 

21 of activities that are done during the review 

22 of the CATI. It's reviewed -- it's sent -- you 

23 know, for completeness and technical content. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: But what does that mean? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: And what does that mean. 
44

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the -- the reviewer 

3 certainly had a different expectation based on 

4 the -- the words there, they had a different 

5 expectation of what that activity would be 

6 compared to what it actually was. And so 

7 that's what this is about. 

8 MS. MUNN: So item 21 then is there but 

9 separate. I keep one -- one very good thing 

10 about having a remote connection from my laptop 

11 to the O drive is that it's a very secure 

12 system which logs me off about every two 

13 minutes, so -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Whether you want to or not. 

15 MS. MUNN: Whether I want to or not, right, so 

16 -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: They keep working on it very 

18 (unintelligible) -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Yeah, either you're moving or you're 

20 not going to stay on line. 

21 Item 23? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask, if I might, 

23 first -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- on 21 then, when the CATI is 
45

1 all revised and so on -- or the interview 

2 process, you're going to define what you mean 

3 by completeness and -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- technical content -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- right -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible)? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- rather than just leave that 

9 completeness and technical content, it'll 

10 better describe what -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: What that means. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that review -- what that 

13 review is. 

14 MS. MUNN: So 23 is no explicit connection to 

15 review of information in closing interview. 

16 That will be covered by the same -- by the same 

17 effort. Correct? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to remember this 

19 one. This one seems to me like this might be 

20 a... 

21 (Pause) 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I -- I believe this item 

23 is actually connected with our review of the 

24 closeout interview process. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes, it -- it -- it specifically 
46

1 states closing interview, Arjun. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, and then we had -- you 

3 know, we had -- the reason I say that, Wanda, 

4 is we had made a number of comments about this 

5 in -- in the other review of that procedure. 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't know if NIOSH is doing 

8 something under that or -- I don't remember. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Either the CATI or PROC-90 it says 

10 under the NIOSH. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe this is -- might be a 

12 transfer to PROC-92. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: It's in 92, it seems like. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Because it's -- the closeout 

15 interview procedure is PROC-92, and I believe 

16 the finding was that people would tell us 

17 things in the CATI and it was never related 

18 back to them the information from the CATI, and 

19 so -- but that occurs at the closeout interview 

20 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Closeout. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- not at the CATI, and so this 

23 might be a transfer to -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: 92. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 92, where it would be in 
47

1 abeyance till PROC-92 is revised. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, presumably during -- in 

3 the revision of the closeout interview process 

4 you would -- you would have some portion of it 

5 where you explain to the claimant what was done 

6 with the CATI. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be the time to do 

8 it. I mean when you're -- when you're doing 

9 the CATI interview you have no opportunity to 

10 tell the claimant -- 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what the ultimate use of the 

13 information was -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: You won't know it at that point. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the next structured 

16 conversation or, you know, sort of, you know, 

17 conversation essentially with the claimant is 

18 at the closeout interview. So that would be 

19 essentially the opportunity to describe to them 

20 how the information provided in the CATI was 

21 used in the dose reconstruction. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I -- I think that would 

23 be good, you know, just in my view -- opinion, 

24 of course, having participated in the -- in the 

25 review of both these procedures, that -- I 
48

1 agree with Stu that, you know, if you -- if you 

2 amend Procedure 92 to include that 

3 conversation, then -- then this -- this thing 

4 could -- could be fixed and it could be 

5 transferred to the amendment of 92. I -- so I 

6 -- I agree with Stu. I don't know what the 

7 working group wants -- would want to do. 

8 MS. MUNN: Agreed? Any problem with that? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Let's -- let's transfer it. 

10 MS. MUNN: Transfer it to PROC-92. All right, 

11 one last one in abeyance, item 25. 

12 Qualifications are not specified in the 

13 procedure. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- the issue here is were 

15 these supposed to be health physics reviews or 

16 not. 

17 MS. MUNN: Right. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And the qualifications 

19 (unintelligible). 

20 MS. MUNN: Right. We have -- have we come to 

21 any agreement with respect to that? I know 

22 we've had discussions about it. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: (Off microphone) Issue was we 

24 (unintelligible) clarify the procedure 

25 (unintelligible) who is the interviewer. 
49

1 MR. GRIFFON: You've got to speak up. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: It was -- basically it was we 

3 agreed last time we would change the wording in 

4 PROC-90 to clarify who was the interviewer, and 

5 that the interviewer was not necessarily a 

6 health physicist. 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, generally an interviewer 

8 is not a health physicist. 

9 MS. MUNN: No, that's -- that's understood. 

10 But it appears that this falls under the same 

11 blanket as all of the other current "in 

12 abeyance" activities, namely it'll be addressed 

13 in the rewrite of the procedure. Correct? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: In PROC-90 in this case. Right? 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it -- it should be 

17 addressed in the re-- it's not (unintelligible) 

18 to me this is strictly a qualification 'cause 

19 there's also -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- some suggestions here for 

22 preparation for the interview. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

24 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not strictly the 
50

1 qualification -- 

2 MS. MUNN: No. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the interviewer and the 

4 qualification of the reviewer -- 

5 MS. MUNN: No. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but it is what is the 

7 appropriate preparation for the interview. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So there a -- a need for that. 

10 MS. MUNN: Very good. We know where we are now 

11 with PROC-90, I think. Thank you for -- thank 

12 you, Steve, for getting that -- the updates 

13 done and for helping us through the tracking 

14 here. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, I have a question on 

16 database protocol, I guess it would be. 

17 MS. MUNN: Yes? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: For example, the -- the -- we 

19 just -- we just agreed to transfer PROC-90 

20 issue 23 to PROC-92. 

21 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Now I can go into the -- and 

23 change the -- and do that transfer on -- on 

24 PROC-90 23. Now do you also want me at the 

25 same time to go into -- to add a new issue to 
51

1 PROC-92, which is basically, you know, the 

2 issue received? 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes, that would be the logic that I 

4 would expect almost everyone to follow. If you 

5 have a transferred in item, then -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: If it's transferred out, it's got 

7 to go in somewhere. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right. Yeah. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we haven't been doing 

10 that, so we'll have to start -- we'll have -- 

11 I'll have to go back and make sure that that is 

12 done, where appropriate. 

13 MS. MUNN: I think that's -- 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: That may increase the number of 

15 issues. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: How do you identify it? It'll 

17 have the new issue number that's not in the 

18 original matrix. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: It'll have a new sequential -- 

20 sequential number -- like PROC-90 -- this'll be 

21 PROC-92, whatever the next number is in the 

22 sequence, and it will -- then we'll have in 

23 parentheses formerly -- or transferred from 

24 PROC-90, issue 23. 

25 MS. ADAMS: And a transfer date. 
52

1 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And the -- yes, the transfer 

3 date will -- should -- should show up 

4 someplace. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Imported status then? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Impor-- yeah, there is a field 

7 in there someplace. Yeah, imported -- yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we agreed that we would have a 

9 export/import -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, right. 

11 MS. MUNN: -- designation. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 TBD 6000, APP BB – NIOSH RESPONSE TO ELECTRON

13 ENERGY VALUE DIFFERENCES OTIB-0008, 010, 0023

14 MS. MUNN: All right, good. Thank you. The 

15 next item that I had on database update was 

16 TBD-6000, Appendix BB. We may be able to save 

17 ourselves the grief of looking at that by just 

18 inquiring where we are in terms of the new 

19 workgroup. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the new workgroup has been 

21 established and we're trying to find a meeting 

22 date which we can -- where we can legally meet. 

23 We're waiting to hear whether we can meet in 

24 October or not. We've set out eight possible 

25 meeting dates for the group and gotten the 
53

1 matrix available when. But now I've learned 

2 within the last couple of days, based on the 

3 efforts by the -- I think it's the Fernald 

4 workgroup (unintelligible) establish a date, 

5 that there's some restrictions on when we can 

6 meet in October based on some budgetary issues, 

7 I guess on the continuing budget. 

8 MS. MUNN: We hadn't heard that before. 

9 DR. WADE: You'll have a clarification. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we were awaiting a 

11 clarification. In any event, all I'm saying is 

12 we're trying to establish a work-- workgroup 

13 and the priority of the workgroup initially 

14 will be to address Appendix BB and... 

15 MS. MUNN: There's not any pressing need for us 

16 in this workgroup to take any action on the 

17 outstanding items -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think -- I think they belong 

19 to the new workgroup now. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean to -- to -- and also, 

21 just so everybody's clear on this, the NIOSH 

22 responses to those findings were largely a 

23 promissory note -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we're going to provide 
54

1 the technical response with, you know, the 

2 analysis of the -- by -- of the film badge 

3 (unintelligible). 

4 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So you know, there's -- until 

6 that's really available, I don't know there's a 

7 lot of point for the -- for that workgroup 

8 (unintelligible). 

9 MS. ADAMS: The official response here now is 

10 for October you need to schedule as late in 

11 October as possible, but preferably the first 

12 week of November would be better. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

14 MS. ADAMS: Travel cannot be approved until '09 

15 numbers are released and you actually have 

16 them, and there's no way of telling when that's 

17 going to be. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Hmm, well, that's different than 

19 what Christine sent us before. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: She said October 1st. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

23 MS. ADAMS: Well, that's the start of the new 

24 fiscal year. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
55

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

2 MS. ADAMS: But until they figure out what's 

3 going to happen -- I'm guessing with the 

4 continuing resolution and where the numbers are 

5 going to lie and (unintelligible). 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: There is an additional 

7 complication this year on the continuing 

8 resolution because Fiscal '09 -- the money for 

9 this program was supposed to be coming to HHS, 

10 whereas previously it was done through 

11 Department of Labor. But under a continuing 

12 resolution, I don't know anybody knows what 

13 happens if we start '09 on a continuing 

14 resolution -- where does the money come from 

15 because a continuing resolution means we're 

16 going to continue last year's lev-- level. 

17 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I think the people are 

20 involved in this don't even know how last month 

21 (unintelligible). I mean RFMO and Labor 

22 doesn't. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So we have that issue, and then we 

24 have -- you're awaiting what, Stu, something 

25 from Landauer? 
56

1 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: What is -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Our staff has -- is preparing 

4 for an analysis of film badge data, so it's -- 

5 you're waiting for us to provide that from them 

6 that supports our findings. 

7 DR. WADE: Now remember, the message that was 

8 read said as late in the month as possible. If 

9 you have a critical need to meet, then you 

10 should surface that need. It could be -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: If we don't -- if we don't have 

12 that analysis, then -- 

13 DR. WADE: -- back to Mark's (unintelligible). 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- that may become a moot point 

15 then. 

16 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) to Mark's -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Thinking about some of the newer 

18 -- you know, Fernald, Mound, some of the SEC 

19 ones. 

20 DR. WADE: Yeah, I would be clear and say it's 

21 important that we meet, it's critical that we 

22 meet, it's convenient that we meet -- whatever 

23 it is -- and give that data, then see what the 

24 system sends back to you. 

25 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Wanda? 
57

1 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

2 THE COURT REPORTER: When we're not using that 

3 screen can we turn off the projector? It gives 

4 a huge white noise into my feed. Are y'all 

5 about to use it for the next -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

7 THE COURT REPORTER: Are you? 

8 MS. MUNN: This will create a problem, simply 

9 because -- 

10 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, it is a problem. 

11 MS. MUNN: -- we anticipate using it a lot -- 

12 THE COURT REPORTER: I know, I don't know what 

13 to do. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- and it was my thought that we 

15 would continue to use it in future meetings -- 

16 THE COURT REPORTER: I know. 

17 MS. MUNN: -- so that this isn't a one-time 

18 thing. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Is it -- is it feedback or is it 

20 -- 

21 THE COURT REPORTER: It's the fan in it, yeah. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Can we move the mike away from 

23 the -- I don't know. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Which mike is picking up that? 

25 THE COURT REPORTER: Well, probably that one, 
58

1 yeah. If you could move that -- 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: This one? 

3 THE COURT REPORTER: -- toward me maybe, Stu, 

4 get it away from that -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: What about the little one there? 

6 MS. MUNN: I think the floor one. 

7 DR. NETON: That's just the speaker phone. 

8 THE COURT REPORTER: Right, that's that 

9 speaker. That may help. 

10 MS. MUNN: See what happens. 

11 THE COURT REPORTER: It's still bad. I mean -- 

12 you know, like this mike could probably be 

13 picking it up. It's something I'll have to 

14 figure out before the next meeting, but it 

15 truly -- it's like an ocean wave and hearing it 

16 miked. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that is loud. 

18 MS. MUNN: It's not good. 

19 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, I know. And I know 

20 it's that machine because any time it's turned 

21 -- let's see what that does, Nancy. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Put a sound barrier. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah -- 

24 THE COURT REPORTER: It didn't help. 

25 MS. MUNN: It didn't help? 
59

1 THE COURT REPORTER: Thanks. Well, I'll figure 

2 it out. I mean we'll get through and I'll 

3 figure something out. 

4 DR. MAURO: Are there on/off switch on each of 

5 the mikes that we could see if we start turning 

6 one or two off, see which ones help? 

7 DR. NETON: They're on on/off switches, but I'm 

8 just wondering if it's just that fan or there's 

9 a lot of laptop fans going around -- 

10 DR. MAURO: That's true, too. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: But you didn't have this 

12 yesterday. 

13 THE COURT REPORTER: Right. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: It was fine yesterday. 

15 DR. NETON: It's on the top of the mikes. 

16 THE COURT REPORTER: I mean there's always 

17 ambient noise with Blackberries and laptops on, 

18 and those -- but I've got to have the mikes on. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Does that -- does that make a 

20 difference? 

21 THE COURT REPORTER: No. 

22 DR. MAURO: Maybe it's something else. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So it's not the mike then. 

24 MS. MUNN: It's -- it's just too much -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I can't even hear that fan. I 
60

1 wonder if it's -- 

2 THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, I know y'all don't 

3 hear it. But it's coming into my feed. 

4 MR. GIBSON: Could we turn it off for a minute 

5 and see if it quits? 

6 THE COURT REPORTER: It -- it is that machine, 

7 because we didn't use it yesterday and 

8 everything was fine. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's -- 

10 THE COURT REPORTER: And we've had projectors 

11 in other rooms and whenever they're on it's a 

12 big ambient problem. 

13 DR. NETON: The fan's going to stay on. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: The fan'll stay on if we turn 

15 it off 'cause the fan stays on to cool the bulb 

16 after you turn it off. 

17 THE COURT REPORTER: Let's -- let's not delay 

18 any further. It'll -- I'll figure something 

19 out before the next meeting. I'm sorry. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Really it is -- 

21 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry to delay 

22 everything. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's loud in his ear. 

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's pretty bad, but -- and 

25 it's strange, because the fan itself -- in 
61

1 ambient noise -- does not produce that much of 

2 a problem. We'll just have to figure out what 

3 to do electronically to help that out. 

4 The other items that I had listed that I sent 

5 to you were also items that we discussed at 

6 great length last -- at our last meeting, 

7 didn't want to leave them high and dry -- OTIB8 8, 10 and 23, and the items that we have... 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: What we did on 8, 10 and 23, I 

10 think we -- I think we briefly talked about 

11 these at the last meeting, but you know, we 

12 also talked about these at the June -- the 

13 meeting in June in St. Louis. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: And what I'm handing out now is 

16 -- is e-mails which were -- went back and forth 

17 between Stu, myself and Kathy Behling, which -- 

18 if you look at the second page, there's an e19 mail we received from Stu on June 16th, 

20 basically requesting us to -- to -- or 

21 notifying us that these OTIBs had been revised 

22 and requesting us to see whether or not we -- 

23 we think the revisions address the issues. And 

24 if you look at the first page, then my -- I -- 

25 I forwarded Stu's e-mail to -- to Hans Behling 
62

1 and asked him to perform the review because he 

2 did the original review of those three OTIBs. 

3 And then the top -- the e-mail at the top 

4 coming back from Kathy Behling indicates, if 

5 you just read the first paragraph, she 

6 indicates that they both looked at the three 

7 OTIBs in question and concluded that they -- 

8 all the findings were addressed and could be 

9 closed. And I believe at the June meeting in 

10 St. Louis we received instructions from the 

11 workgroup to -- to close those issues. And so 

12 now they are indicated in the -- in the -- in 

13 the database as being closed. And I think -- I 

14 believe there were 16 of those issues. 

15 MS. MUNN: Everything I see on 8 and 10 and 9 

16 are closed, and -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: This -- this -- this makes me -- 

18 I don't know if it makes anybody else uneasy, 

19 but this makes me a little uneasy that we -- 

20 you know, as we go forward, we should think 

21 about this because, you know, we've said many a 

22 times that SC&A's our contractor and, you know, 

23 this note here says, you know, Hans and Kathy 

24 think everything looks good and they can be 

25 closed. The workgroup never even looked at 
63

1 them and we're just closing them, you know. 

2 MS. MUNN: Well, we did look at them. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we looked at the initial 

4 ones and we said let's transfer it 'cause it's 

5 being revised, and we never looked at the 

6 revised procedure. Or I haven't. So I -- you 

7 know, and -- and then it's going away, and I'm 

8 -- I'm not even saying that there's any problem 

9 with the revisions. They're probably fine. 

10 But I just think we -- we need to -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- to watch this -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- what you're saying -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) this work. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- in principle is a good point, 

16 that -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's not -- it's not sufficient 

19 -- it -- it's good that NIOSH and the 

20 contractor agree -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- but that does not inherently -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: We should at least have a -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- doesn't follow that we 

25 necessarily agree with both of them -- 
64

1 MR. GRIFFON: Or should at least have a chance 

2 to question it. I mean and make sure we're -- 

3 we're -- 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: We did not close these issues 

5 until we received approval from the working 

6 group at the June meeting. These -- these were 

7 not closed until after the -- after they were -

8 - 

9 MR. GRIFFON: But again, the -- the way it was 

10 brought back in June I believe -- and maybe I'm 

11 wrong -- is -- is the sa-- sort of the same 

12 way, that you've reviewed it -- you know, we 

13 didn't go through the -- we didn't go back to 

14 the findings and say, you know, this was 

15 rewritten the other way and -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) you saw -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- addresses this finding -- 

18 yeah, yeah. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Did we see what you saw when -- 

20 did we see what the contractor saw when they 

21 came to agreement. Is that -- that's what that 

22 Mark -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

24 MS. MUNN: We did. We discussed them. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Did we? 
65

1 MS. MUNN: Yes -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that was a -- 

3 MS. MUNN: -- we discussed them. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- question -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: I must have missed that meeting. 

6 I remember a database discussion, but I don't 

7 remember that, so... 

8 MS. MUNN: We discussed each of them. I 

9 believe we can -- I believe you can see that in 

10 the transcript. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that should show up here. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- there's a resolution 

13 on these findings -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Let's -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that what we agreed to do. 

16 It may -- maybe it's not specific enough, but I 

17 don't... 

18 MS. MUNN: But let's -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: It could -- I'm just saying -- 

20 I'm not even talking about necessarily 8 and 

21 10, I'm just saying let's keep our eye on this 

22 'cause a lot of things when we -- when we're 

23 transferring them and we're saying, you know, 

24 this -- this is being considered or -- or 

25 handled or addressed in the revision of this 
66

1 TIB, if -- if we nev-- if the workgroup never 

2 looks at the TIB again -- 

3 DR. NETON: Well, I guess I have -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, we're counting on -- 

5 DR. NETON: -- a question on what "in abeyance" 

6 really means. If "in abeyance" means that a 

7 resolution has been reached with the Boar-- 

8 with the working group and SC&A on how to 

9 address that issue, and it only means that SC&A 

10 is going back to see that they actually 

11 captured that in the write-up, that's a little 

12 different than saying we're just going to 

13 address it, and then SC&A looks at it and the 

14 Board has never really -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 DR. NETON: -- considered the resolution of the 

17 finding. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I just want to ma-- and if 

19 Wanda's correct, that's fine. I just want to -

20 - 

21 DR. NETON: But if you want to go back and 

22 review every document again, then that would be 

23 a lot of extra work. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: No, I'm not even saying that. 

25 DR. NETON: Well, that's what I'm saying. But 
67

1 if you agreed to the resolution, the comment 

2 resolution, here's the technical approach that 

3 needs to be added to the TIB -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: But you never tell us the 

5 technical approach. That's what I'm saying. 

6 DR. NETON: That's what I'm saying, what does 

7 "in abeyance" mean? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 DR. NETON: If "in abeyance" -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: We never get the technical 

11 approach. We say "a revision's underway." 

12 DR. NETON: Well, I'm not sure -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and -- 

14 DR. NETON: -- that's true in all cases. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Well, not all cases, but a lot of 

16 them. A lot of them. 

17 DR. NETON: Well, then that's -- 

18 DR. MAURO: Well, one of the things that we did 

19 agree is SC&A would not convert something that 

20 is "in abeyance" to "closed" unless we are so 

21 ordered to do so by the working group. 

22 MS. MUNN: That we did agree to. We did -- 

23 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, this is Kathy Behling. 

24 I apologize, I joined a little bit late and you 

25 may not have known I was on, but if you would 
68

1 like I can provide something a little bit more 

2 explanatory than just that e-mail and give you 

3 reasons as to why we accepted all of those 

4 findings and we found those findings to be 

5 resolved. I could provide more detail on all 

6 three of those procedures if you'd like. 

7 MS. MUNN: It might be -- 

8 MS. BEHLING: If that would resolve this issue. 

9 MS. MUNN: Since there's some concern being 

10 expressed at the table, Kathy, it might be a 

11 good idea for us to go through these items one 

12 at a time, each of these items that has now 

13 been closed -- which my memory tells me we 

14 agreed to, but nevertheless, it would be 

15 helpful perhaps if you would go through those 

16 one at a time for the benefit of anyone who 

17 might not have been present or who, for some 

18 reason, hasn't -- has a memory like mine and is 

19 not clear on each of the items. 

20 MS. BEHLING: Can I ask to do this? Can I put 

21 -- put this in writing and I'll explain as to 

22 why each one of the items we felt was closed, 

23 and even if -- you know, maybe cite new 

24 information from the revised document? Because 

25 I know in 8 and -- 
69

1 MR. GRIFFON: That's what -- yeah. 

2 MS. BEHLING: -- 10, those -- those were 

3 completely rewritten, and so some of the 

4 initial findings that we had -- some of the 

5 tables are not even there anymore and so the 

6 confusion no longer exists. And there may be a 

7 new paragraph that precisely describes what the 

8 dose reconstructor can do -- or should do, and 

9 so if you -- 'cause it would be a little bit 

10 easier for me if I could put that in writing 

11 and send that to you for each -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's -- 

13 MS. BEHLING: -- one of those items. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's sort of what I'm 

15 looking for as a general rule, instead of an e16 mail saying we've looked at it and it looks 

17 fine and close it. I think maybe just to go 

18 back through -- you know, have a little -- and 

19 I'm not saying -- 

20 MS. BEHLING: I agree. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- a big report -- 

22 MS. BEHLING: I agree. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- just a little update we -- we 

24 reviewed the revision, these old findings; you 

25 know, this one's no longer applicable, the 
70

1 table's been dropped; this one -- you know, 

2 handled by doing this. You know, how did they 

3 technically handle each finding and -- 

4 MS. BEHLING: Agree, and then that can be put 

5 into the database, also. 

6 DR. MAURO: That's (unintelligible). 

7 MS. BEHLING: So I agree with that. I'll 

8 certainly put together something regarding 

9 those 16 findings. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay, Wanda? I'm -- I'm 

11 not sure -- 

12 MS. MUNN: Well, in light -- in light of this 

13 discussion -- now this brings a concern to my 

14 mind with respect to how our database is going 

15 to fulfill one of the original purposes that we 

16 established, which is that of archive. If the 

17 information that is contained on this sheet of 

18 paper is not adequate for us, then we need to 

19 address that now. So it appears to me that, in 

20 light of the concern that's being expressed, it 

21 would be wise for us to go through each of 

22 these sheets and agree here in this group that 

23 what is shown on that sheet is adequate for 

24 archive purposes. If it is not, then what we 

25 are saying is after we have closed a set of 
71

1 issues like this we still need yet an 

2 additional report to qualify these sheets and 

3 pull them together -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I'm just saying -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- in some way. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- that probably shouldn't have 

7 been closed until we got that official report. 

8 I mean I -- and we probably did discuss -- I'm 

9 not -- you know, your memory's probably better 

10 than mine on this. We probably did say SC&A 

11 looked at it and we're fine and we agreed as a 

12 workgroup. I'm not -- you know, that could 

13 have happened. I mean I don't remember it, but 

14 it could have happened. But I'm saying that -- 

15 that we probably should get a little -- I think 

16 John said a white paper to say -- you know, not 

17 a -- a full review again, but to say here's our 

18 original findings; they wrote a new procedure 

19 and, you know, like Kathy said, if this one's 

20 no longer applicable 'cause the table isn't in 

21 the update, this one is addressed in paragraph 

22 three on page two, they've handled it this way 

23 -- and then we as a workgroup can say yeah, 

24 these all look reasonable, let's close them. 

25 'Cause the workgroup's closing them. It's not 
72

1 SC&A closing them, it's the workgroup closing 

2 them. Right? 

3 MS. MUNN: That's true, but the -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MS. MUNN: -- but the workgroup closed them -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Did close them, I guess, yeah. 

7 MS. MUNN: -- did close them, yeah, and that's 

8 why -- and wanting to see what's on the sheet. 

9 Yes, Paul? 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure we need a white paper 

11 or a report. It seems to me that the only 

12 thing we need is the -- if you can scroll down 

13 there -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: SC&A -- another SC&A follow-up -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- just an entry -- it may be a 

16 couple of sentences, because there -- there's a 

17 -- there's a fol-- which one is this? 

18 MS. MUNN: This is OTIB-10. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Just another SC&A follow-up 

20 maybe, with a new date. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking for -- okay, recommend 

22 the proce-- what happened there? 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I (unintelligible) that down. 

24 I'm sorry. I thought you were 

25 (unintelligible). I'm sorry. 
73

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: This -- this is Arjun. I'm a 

2 little bit confused also -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: There's a workgroup directive now, 

4 an SC&A follow-up. There was something that 

5 you did that doesn't show up here. That's what 

6 I'm saying. 

7 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Abso-- yeah, that could go -- 

9 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And if we had that, that SC&A 

11 reviewed this and they -- and here's what they 

12 found, and we could look at that and we could 

13 say well, let me see that or okay, if you found 

14 that, let's close it. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Something -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: That's all you're -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- something more than SC&A 

18 review-- 

19 DR. MAURO: Says yes -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- something more than an e-mail 

21 that says SC&A reviewed it and we like it, 

22 yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: It needs to show up right there. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually it shows up on the ne-- 

25 if -- 
74

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if you go to the bottom. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- goes to the next one, it 

3 shows up there. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) answer is 

5 (unintelligible). 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: On the 17th we made this, and 

7 then it was -- on the 24th it was the -- the -- 

8 MS. MUNN: SC&A -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: What does that say? I can't -- 

10 MS. MUNN: SC&A reviewed -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: It adequately addresses the 

12 concern -- 

13 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 

14 simultaneously.) 

15 MR. GRIFFON: The same idea, it can go in that 

16 field, yeah. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 DR. MAURO: There's a rationale there. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe just a couple sentences that 

20 the -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- paragraph so-and-so -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- states this and that adequately 

25 -- 
75

1 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) intended to do, 

2 just one or two sentences that can be put into 

3 the database because I thought, too, that's -- 

4 was supposed to be included into the database. 

5 I -- I haven't been following the procedures as 

6 closely as I used to, but I can certainly 

7 provide that to you. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's what we need, just 

9 to know that we technically closed it out and 

10 the workgroup's comfortable with it, as well as 

11 SC&A, yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I'm just concerned about asking 

13 them to write white papers and -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: No -- yeah, I agree. If there's 

15 a place for it, yeah, that's fine. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Just clarify what that means. 

17 MS. BEHLING: It's going to be -- it'll take me 

18 a few minutes. It's not going to be a huge 

19 paper or anything, it'll just be an explanation 

20 for each of those findings -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And it can go into the field -- 

22 MS. BEHLING: -- resolved. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- and we're done. 

24 DR. WADE: Arjun, do you have any -- you had a 

25 point, Arjun? 
76

1 (No responses) 

2 Arjun, are you with us? 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear 

4 me? 

5 DR. WADE: Yes. 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I'm a little confused. 

7 I'm looking at, for instance, that one closed 

8 finding, Procedure 23, number 8. And -- and 

9 then the -- there's an SC&A and NIOSH follow-up 

10 and it says all issues were resolved in a 

11 conference call. Normally we make minutes of 

12 those conference calls and give them to the 

13 working group, but it doesn't indicate here 

14 that that was done, and the minutes usually 

15 provide the -- provide the substance of -- of 

16 the discussion to the working group and, you 

17 know, it allows things to proceed smoothly and 

18 the working group -- group has a pretty good 

19 record of what happened so they can make a 

20 decision. And I'm wondering, (a), was that 

21 done, and (b), where -- where in this database 

22 does something like that show up so there's 

23 actually a rec-- substantive record of what 

24 happened. 

25 MS. MUNN: Well, that's essentially what we 
77

1 were just discussing, Arjun, is the fact that 

2 the database that we have needs to reflect when 

3 and where the substance of these closures was 

4 agreed to. And we're -- we're looking at 23 

5 right now, which -- 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it does do that. I mean 

7 if you look at number 8, it says when and where 

8 it was resolved, but it doesn't have any -- any 

9 technical detail -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Doesn't have the documentation. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- on the resolution. 

12 MS. BEHLING: In this particular case, it was 

13 just -- we did not take notes or -- I -- I mean 

14 we did not provide the Board with any follow-up 

15 on our technical call. It was Stu Hinnefeld, 

16 and I'm not sure if there were any other NIOSH 

17 or ORAU people, and Hans and myself on that 

18 phone call. But no, we did not provide follow19 up on that. 

20 MS. MUNN: The discussion says conference calls 

21 held on November 5th. NIOSH has agreed with 

22 all of SC&A's findings and will introduce 

23 appropriate changes in a -- what -- future -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like future revision of 

25 the (unintelligible). 
78

1 MS. MUNN: -- revision of the -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like procedure. 

3 MS. MUNN: -- procedure. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Or something (unintelligible). 

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah. And we do not -- I guess the 

6 issue here is -- is the procedure available? 

7 Has the workgroup seen the procedure? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

9 (Unintelligible) 

10 MS. MUNN: And what's the -- and the new 

11 procedure is or is not out. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And found to adequately address 

13 this concern. So again we don't have the meat. 

14 We don't have the substance, that's the point. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think -- well, I think 

16 Nancy offered up all three of these procedures 

17 that she reviewed. 

18 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Or Kathy -- Kathy. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so that's fine. That's 

22 fine, I think we know what to do. 

23 MS. MUNN: You have your marching orders, 

24 Nancy? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy. 
79

1 DR. ZIEMER: Kathy. 

2 MS. MUNN: We've got to stop this. 

3 MS. BEHLING: See what happens when you don't 

4 show up at the meeting? They forget your name. 

5 MS. MUNN: No. 

6 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I have my marching orders. 

7 MS. MUNN: All right. So you feel this won't 

8 be a lengthy matter. 

9 MS. BEHLING: No, not at all. I'll get it out 

10 to you within a few days -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Good. 

12 MS. BEHLING: -- day or two. 

13 MS. MUNN: If Kathy's going to be able to do 

14 that for us within a few days, then all three 

15 of these issues will be on our slate for our 

16 follow-up meeting at Redondo Beach, and we will 

17 at that time have information back and 

18 hopefully -- Steve, will you have an 

19 opportunity to populate the database by then? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm kind of hoping that Kathy 

21 might even do this directly in the database. 

22 MS. MUNN: What do you think, Kathy? Is that a 

23 possibility? 

24 MS. BEHLING: Sure -- certainly, yes, I can do 

25 that. 
80

1 MS. MUNN: Good. All right. 

2 DR. MAURO: So as a ground rule, this last step 

3 -- something I guess we really haven't talked 

4 about was when we get to the point where the 

5 OTIB has been revised and, in the mind of S-- 

6 of NIOSH, yes, we -- we have responded to all 

7 of the issues, SC&A is asked please review to 

8 see yes, in fact it is fully responsive to your 

9 concerns. 

10 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. MAURO: We have that last step is when we 

12 get back and say -- just happens yes -- this is 

13 -- this is your rehearsal now. 

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

15 DR. MAURO: When we say yes, it is fully 

16 responsive and here's -- 

17 MS. MUNN: And this is why. 

18 DR. MAURO: -- why -- here's why -- 

19 MS. MUNN: And this is why. 

20 DR. MAURO: -- is why, that's got to be 

21 captured. 

22 MS. MUNN: What we're missing here is this is 

23 why. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

25 DR. WADE: And then the -- the workgroup or the 
81

1 Board needs to say -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: We'll have a basis. 

3 DR. WADE: -- yes, we agree. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

5 DR. MAURO: We accept that -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's fine. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- and then -- and then you tell us 

8 to close or not. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: So it stays in abeyance until -- 

11 until you read our rationale and -- 

12 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- agree you accept that rationale. 

14 MS. MUNN: Absolutely, yes. That -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Make sure we got it right. 

16 MS. MUNN: That gives us the archives that we 

17 need, and a concept of having to issue an 

18 additional document of some sort is what we 

19 were trying to avoid with this. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. 

21 MS. MUNN: All right. We have our -- our 

22 marching orders in terms of the next meeting's 

23 agenda. 

24 OTIB-- let's take just a 10-minute break here, 

25 give everybody a chance to catch their breath a 
82

1 little bit, and we'll -- we'll take a look at 

2 OTIB-52 and see where we are with that when we 

3 get back. Ten minutes -- folks on the phone, 

4 we'll be back at five minutes till 11:00. 

5 DR. WADE: We're not going to break the line, 

6 we're just going to go on mute. 

7 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:47 a.m. 

8 to 10:59 a.m.) 

9 DR. WADE: Let us know that lunch is likely to 

10 be at noon, Eastern Daylight Time, or 

11 thereabouts, so curtail your appetites till 

12 then. 

OTIB 0052: NEW CLARIFYING STATEMENTS AND ELECTRON

13 DATA REVIEW

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Do we have 52 up? Yes, we 

15 do. Very good. I won't keep trying to fight 

16 this -- 

17 DR. WADE: Kathy, can you hear us? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Kathy? 

20 (No responses) 

21 MS. MUNN: Are you ready, Mr. Green? 

22 DR. WADE: Is somebody on the phone who can 

23 hear us? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Just doing a voice check. I don't hear 
83

1 anybody. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes -- yes, we can. 

3 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 

4 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We can hear you. 

5 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. Okay. 

6 MS. MUNN: All right. We have several 

7 editorial changes to -- oh, are we all right, 

8 Mr. Green? 

9 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, ma'am. 

10 MS. MUNN: All right. Thank you. I have a 

11 report just handed to me, a draft of proposed 

12 changes to OTIB-52. 

13 DR. NETON: Wanda, I might be able to explain -

14 - 

15 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful, Jim, if you'd 

16 like to take the lead on this, please do. 

17 DR. NETON: Yeah, I would. I apologize for 

18 this getting out -- 

19 MS. MUNN: No, that's quite all right. 

20 DR. NETON: -- a little late, but it's done, 

21 and Stu also this morning forwarded this to the 

22 working group electronically. 

23 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. So you have it by e-mail 

24 if you don't have it otherwise. 

25 DR. NETON: I'd also say that the title saying 
84

1 "ORAU Proposed Changes" you can assume that 

2 that also means NIOSH (unintelligible) we've 

3 reviewed (unintelligible) also say "NIOSH 

4 Proposed Changes." 

5 If you remember at the last working group 

6 meeting, which I guess was about a month ago, 

7 there were six items out of 16 that were still 

8 listed as "in progress" -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. NETON: -- and the document that you have 

11 now is our proposed edits to TIB-52 based on 

12 the discussions we had at that working meeting 

13 to try to reach closure on those six items that 

14 are listed in progress. I realize these came 

15 through too late to have any real substantial 

16 discussion of what we're saying here. I would 

17 propose or would like to propose that after 

18 SC&A's had a chance, and the working group, to 

19 review it, that we hold a technical call to 

20 work out the details of -- of what we've 

21 proposed here and see if they are appropriate 

22 or additional information is needed. 

23 MS. MUNN: Sounds like a reasonable course of 

24 action. John Mauro has just stepped out for a 

25 moment but he's returning to us right now. 
85

1 We're -- John, we've just been handed -- and 

2 you all will have it in hand very shortly -- 

3 this -- these proposed changes to OTIB-52. And 

4 Jim has proposed that we have a call once we 

5 have an opportunity to take a look at this and 

6 see if there are any additional issues that 

7 come out of that or if this is going to be in a 

8 position to be implemented following that. 

9 DR. NETON: In anticipation of your next 

10 question, I don't know that we can accomplish 

11 this in time for the -- for the procedures 

12 working group meeting at the Board that's going 

13 to happen in Redondo Beach, only because -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Jim's psychic. 

15 DR. NETON: Yeah, that's fine. I don't want to 

16 jump -- I don't want to put words in your 

17 mouth, either, but the problem is this just 

18 came out and the same people that are working 

19 on this are also working on the Santa Susana 

20 closure document, which is also going to meet 

21 Tuesday of next week. And so it'd be very 

22 difficult for us to convene any -- any 

23 substantive discussions or conduct any 

24 substantive discussions before next -- before 

25 the Board meeting. 
86

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Next week is our last week 

2 before (unintelligible). 

3 DR. NETON: And we sort of get in a feverish 

4 pitch within our offices, you can imagine, just 

5 before a Board meeting. But shortly 

6 thereafter, or whatever is convenient for SC&A 

7 and the members of the working group that might 

8 want to participate, we'd be happy to sit down 

9 and discuss these responses to see if they're 

10 satisfactory or what we might need to do -- 

11 DR. MAURO: So we'll try to schedule a -- a 

12 technical conference call -- 

13 DR. NETON: A call -- 

14 DR. MAURO: -- at an appropriate time. We'll -

15 - we'll get back to you and we'll work that 

16 schedule out. 

17 DR. NETON: I think that'll work well because 

18 we -- we just don't want to get in the weeds on 

19 the wording here. That'll give us a chance to 

20 sort of, you know, bounce it off each other and 

21 then come back to the full working group with -

22 - with where we're at. 

23 MS. MUNN: Could I request that SC&A have an 

24 opportunity to look at this proposal and, if 

25 you have any clear outstanding concerns, that 
87

1 you be able to at least comment on those -- no 

2 report, just comment on them at our September 

3 meeting so that both you and the agency will 

4 have some understanding of what the course of 

5 the telephone conversation's likely to be. 

6 Does anyone mind if we take just a couple of 

7 minutes for those of us who have a copy of this 

8 to scan it quickly? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay. 

10 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Does anybody have it in e12 mailable form that can e-mail it to me, please? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Stu has. 

14 DR. NETON: Stu has. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Let me see what I can do here. 

16 See, I'm -- I'm at -- 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: To arjun at ieer.org. Thank 

18 you. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: How many items were... 

20 DR. NETON: Well, there were six open, but 

21 there's some ones addressed in here that are in 

22 addition to the six because they were listed as 

23 in abeyance -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

25 DR. NETON: -- as well, which meant that we 
88

1 were going to provide something in that... I 

2 think one that could be addressed fairly 

3 quickly -- there was an issue with numbers 9 

4 and 10 that had to do with an interpretation of 

5 the INEEL -- NIOSH's -- NIOSH had published an 

6 epi review of the INEEL data, and Steve 

7 Marschke did an analysis comparing the INEEL 

8 data versus what we used from the -- I forget 

9 the name of the database over there now at 

10 INEEL. They didn't compare, and we explained 

11 that part of it was that the Naval Reactor 

12 facility data was included in the NIOSH study 

13 and not in our data analysis, and everyone 

14 seemed to be in general agreement that that was 

15 -- that was an acceptable -- those -- explained 

16 away the dif-- discrepancy. And that is listed 

17 under -- on the top of the second page, the -- 

18 under the italic response -- responses to 

19 findings 9 and 10, the bullet. You could put 

20 that da-- that couple sentences in there to 

21 address those two findings. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: So the -- just -- just to -- I'm 

23 refreshing myself on this procedure in general 

24 while people are reading, but the -- the reason 

25 INL and Hanford weren't used is it was only 
89

1 annual summaries available and you had the 

2 other five that you focused on -- Savannah 

3 River, Rocky, Y-12, K-25, ORNL? 

4 DR. NETON: We did use Hanford and INL. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: You did? 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Then why does it say -- 

8 DR. NETON: I think -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- five says a comparison -- it 

10 says five major DOE sites. This section it 

11 says -- 

12 DR. NETON: Hang on -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Well, anyway -- yeah. 

14 DR. NETON: Hanford was definitely mo-- was -- 

15 was (unintelligible). 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I should read it through before I 

17 ask more questions like that. So you think you 

18 used them all, though, is -- 

19 DR. NETON: Well, there was an issue with INEEL 

20 for internal exposures that we didn't do 

21 because we did not have electronic data 

22 available. But Hanford was one of the few that 

23 had a correction factor, if I remember 

24 correctly. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 
90

1 DR. NETON: I really think it'd be best if we -

2 - we all re-- we refreshed our memories. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

4 DR. NETON: It would be difficult for me -- 

5 DR. MAURO: By way -- by way of protocol -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- we effectively have a white 

8 paper here for -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- for want of a better term. Does 

11 this -- is this loaded and cli-- and clickable 

12 in our database now? Other words -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Not right now. 

14 DR. MAURO: Not right now. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: What I -- what I would propose 

16 to do is basically take each one of the 

17 responses and put it in the appropriate section 

18 where we have -- we have -- in the database -- 

19 you don't have to put everything in as a white 

20 paper. In the database we have -- 

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- spots for NIOSH's response, 

23 and this is NIOSH's response, and it would go 

24 in with the date associated with it of 8/22 as 

25 a NIOSH response for -- to, you know, our 
91

1 finding-- our comments on the findings, and it 

2 would -- it would go in there, but not as a 

3 single -- 

4 DR. MAURO: Gotcha. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: -- white paper. 

6 DR. MAURO: It's better that way. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It'll go in -- 

8 DR. MAURO: By issue. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- by issue. 

10 DR. NETON: And I would -- all the responses 

11 are actually -- these are supposed to go into 

12 the TIB-52 itself. 

13 DR. MAURO: Proposed changes. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Proposed changes to the -- 

15 MS. MUNN: This is -- this is the rewrite, uh16 huh. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: So I would -- I would try to 

18 capture that -- well, I -- I'll take an action 

19 item or I'll take an action item to take what's 

20 on this document that Jim has handed out and 

21 load this into the database -- 

22 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: -- so that it will be up there 

24 definitely in time for the September 4th 

25 meeting, probably -- and probably by the end of 
92

1 -- of next week. And -- and -- and then we can 

2 basically -- you know, there is, again, a spot 

3 in the database where we will -- we -- SC&A 

4 will -- we will provide a response or reaction 

5 to the NIOSH's proposed changes here, and then 

6 the final thing will be direction from the 

7 working group. 

8 MS. MUNN: Correct. However -- 

9 DR. MAURO: In between that conference call. 

10 MS. MUNN: Right. 

11 DR. MAURO: Other words, before we load our 

12 response -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

14 DR. MAURO: -- we have a conference call with 

15 Jim. 

16 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

17 DR. MAURO: So that we make sure that our 

18 perspective and our response -- this is an 

19 important part of the program -- 

20 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- seems to be -- ought to be a 

22 reasonable thing to do. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

24 DR. MAURO: Before we load our answer, let's 

25 make sure you have a little dialogue. 
93

1 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

3 MS. MUNN: And Steve, this -- my interpretation 

4 would be you will not load this entire 

5 response. You will capture the thought here 

6 and indicate that this appears in Section 3.1 -

7 - will appear in Section 3.1 of the new 

8 procedure, the corrections that appear in 

9 Section 3.1 will meet the requirements of item 

10 five of OTIB-52. Rather than have the entire -

11 - 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: If -- 

13 MS. MUNN: -- paragraph. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- if you prefer it that way, 

15 then we -- then we -- then we can do that. I 

16 mean -- 

17 MS. MUNN: I believe that's what we really and 

18 truly need. We don't need to have the entire 

19 list of changes. The -- in many cases the 

20 changes that go in are going to be 

21 excruciatingly long, so what we really and 

22 truly want is assurance that we can go to the 

23 new document and find the wording that we've 

24 approved. That's what -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Then -- then I would agree that 
94

1 -- then I think we should basically attach this 

2 as a -- as a white paper. We do have the 

3 capability of attaching files in -- into the 

4 database, and so I think that we should put 

5 this in as a file that is captured in the 

6 database as -- and -- and -- and so that we 

7 don't -- 

8 DR. MAURO: Lose it. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- lose it. 

10 MS. MUNN: I disagree. You're going to have 

11 this -- this paper tells you what wording is 

12 going to go into this item. And you and NIOSH 

13 are going to discuss your reaction to that -- 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- after you've read it. And there 

16 may be -- in the first place, there may be 

17 changes to this. It may go in verbatim. But 

18 in either case, your response is going to be 

19 predicated on the exchange that takes place in 

20 that technical call. Then, only then, will you 

21 make your response. And at the time you make 

22 your response, it may be no, we do not agree 

23 with that wording. And there's no point in 

24 changing what we've already populated on the 

25 database. The database tells us that we had a 
95

1 response, you looked at the response, you 

2 either did or did not approve it, and the 

3 notation tells us where to find it in the new 

4 revision of the OTIB. Then we have our go-to 

5 information, if you capture the sense of what 

6 is here. 

7 DR. MAURO: I -- I would just like to point 

8 out, though, that if you recall, one of the 

9 main purposes of this database is an archive -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- so that we don't lose any of the 

12 granularity -- as best we can, we gra-- we hold 

13 and capture the granularity of the process. 

14 MS. MUNN: Exactly. 

15 DR. MAURO: Now this seems to be a very 

16 important part of the process. In other words, 

17 at this meeting a white paper was issued and 

18 there was information about -- if we don't 

19 capture this, I think we do le-- we do leave a 

20 hole in the archive that I think we need to 

21 capture. It's one way -- I mean I'm sor-- I 

22 guess I'm disagreeing with you, Wanda. 

23 MS. MUNN: Well -- well, but you see, if thi-- 

24 if we do this, then the whole purpose in having 

25 a concise summary and a final disposition on 
96

1 this single sheet gets lost. 

2 DR. MAURO: Well, it's clickable. See, that 

3 was the idea of the white paper. That is, in -

4 - in there -- in the sheet there will be this 

5 issue was addressed during this meeting, and a 

6 white paper was presented by NIOSH to the 

7 workgroup, and you click and you go to a 

8 different -- somepl-- I mean tell me if I got 

9 this wrong or not, it's -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Stu -- Stu, could you click on 

11 the details of any one of those? 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I'm going to -- you know, as -- I 

13 mean I think -- I -- I can't agree with both of 

14 you on this, but in this case I think Wanda's 

15 correct 'cause this isn't really a white paper. 

16 These are excerpts from the revised procedure 

17 that address each finding. 

18 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: So I think if you said -- like 

20 for TIB-52, finding 13, finding 14 -- 

21 DR. NETON: NIOSH response is -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- the second paragraph -- second 

23 paragraph of Section 4 of Procedure 52 has been 

24 modified, and then you can -- you can click to 

25 the procedure. You don't have to go to a white 
97

1 -- this is not really a -- 

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- white paper. It's like a -- 

4 excerpts from the procedure itself. 

5 DR. NETON: This is a little different than a -

6 - 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's a little different 

8 than -- 

9 DR. NETON: -- typical NIOSH response. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- a white paper, so I would say 

11 in this case Wanda's probably -- it's probably 

12 fine to keep it more streamlined and go to 

13 that. 

14 DR. MAURO: So -- so the way to look at this, 

15 then really this is your draft revisions that 

16 you plan -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

18 DR. MAURO: -- to put into your document, which 

19 is a little different than a white paper. 

20 DR. NETON: That's the language -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I'm saying. 

22 DR. NETON: -- suggested language to modify -- 

23 which would be -- most of our discussions at 

24 the last meeting were about clarification and 

25 expansion of -- of what we were -- you know, 
98

1 what it was and what it -- what was and wasn't. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Now I -- I would say that in some 

3 cases a white paper might be different and we 

4 might want to link it -- 

5 MS. MUNN: It may be. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- and attach it. 

7 MS. MUNN: It may be. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. But this is different, 

9 yeah. 

10 MS. MUNN: But not -- not in this case. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: In my eyes, anyway -- yeah. 

12 So... 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I -- I come back to the 

14 discussion we had earlier this morning about, 

15 you know, what it's going to end up doing in 

16 the -- and then what the discussion's going to 

17 be is that NIOSH provided suggested changes, 

18 SC&A reviewed the changes and agreed with them 

19 -- or, you know -- and then is not -- you're 

20 not going to be able to -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: No, you'll see the -- I just 

22 described the granularity. You say for -- for 

23 this finding, response to finding -- TIB-52-13, 

24 NIOSH modified the second paragraph of Section 

25 4 of that procedure -- 
99

1 DR. MAURO: That's what goes in there. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- right. 

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: And then SC&A reviewed the 

5 paragraph, discussed in a technical group; the 

6 workgroup agrees that it -- so people know -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- know the details of what was 

9 modified to address -- and we can agree or 

10 disagree, but that's the discussion we can 

11 have, but -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we saying -- 

13 (unintelligible) extend this, but are we saying 

14 that -- that our -- the action is to clip and 

15 insert into the NIOSH follow-up action 

16 (unintelligible) -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Au contraire, we're saying -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- not -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Not to do that, right. 

21 MS. MUNN: The action is to capture the sense 

22 of this here and say where it's been -- 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

24 MS. MUNN: -- it's going into -- where it has 

25 been inserted in the new -- 
100

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, like the second paragraph of 

2 Section 4 -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- has been revised. 

5 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And if you want to see the 

8 revision, you would go to that document. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: If you -- now as an option -- I 

12 just thought of another option as we're talking 

13 here, but there is a field up there called 

14 "related link," if you see the -- the -- the 

15 "related link" field, it's on the left-hand 

16 side, right there. You can basically take this 

17 whole document, put it in as a -- as a stand18 alone document, and say basically put in here 

19 and -- and give it a title, "NIOSH Proposed 

20 Changes to OTIB-52," and this whole document 

21 then would be -- be brought up. I mean... 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Comment -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Yes -- yes, well -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- well, there -- there is a point 

25 -- 
101

1 MR. MARSCHKE: If that's over-- if you think 

2 that's overkill -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: These are proposed changes, so 

4 there is not a revised document to go to at 

5 this point -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- so I think it makes sense to 

8 have som-- something. This proposed wording 

9 doesn't show up anywhere else right now. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's true. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, but we all have it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- yeah, but -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Everybody here has it, NIOSH has it, 

14 SC&A has it -- 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we might not have it six 

16 months from now. 

17 MS. MUNN: Well, you may not want it six months 

18 from now. It will already have been 

19 incorporated into the -- it's -- it's not going 

20 to -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: But it may -- it may change, is 

22 what -- 

23 MS. MUNN: None of this is going to go away. 

24 We all are going to have this in our file until 

25 it's incorporated. When it's incorporated it's 
102

1 not going to be closed until this has been 

2 done. When this has been done, yeah, it's in 

3 the procedure. The procedure's issued now, and 

4 we're done, and it's okay. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: But don't you have 

6 (unintelligible) to be archived if you -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- put this document in a -- in 

9 here as a link? 

10 MS. MUNN: Why do you want a duplicate archive? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- because -- 

12 MS. MUNN: If -- if he puts it -- 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it may not be a duplicate 

14 because -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: This -- this -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the final -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- this doesn't exist anywhere. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the (unintelligible) of the 

19 product may be different. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: May change after discussions, 

21 right. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And there's going to be 

23 discussions after this. See, suppose there's 

24 disagreement, and SC&A says no, that doesn't 

25 fix it -- 
103

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and that comes out in a 

3 technical conversation and there's adjustments 

4 to be made. You have then this technical 

5 conversation about something that you don't 

6 know what it was. You don't have an archive of 

7 what they were talking about that they had the 

8 disagreement about. You understand what I'm 

9 saying? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think it makes sense. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean it's -- it's not a hard 

12 thing to do, it's basically to put a link on 

13 there -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- throw the document into the -

16 - into a -- a -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And it doesn't make the screen 

18 any busier. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: It doesn't make the screen any 

20 busier. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: It's just a link, it's not taking 

22 text -- it's not a lot of text on the screen. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

24 MS. MUNN: So how do you -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I think it's fine, yeah. 
104

1 MS. MUNN: -- where do you put this related 

2 link? Where do I go to? 

3 (Whereupon, Mr. Griffon and Mr. Marschke spoke 

4 simultaneously.) 

5 MS. MUNN: No, no, no, I -- I know you're 

6 putting your reference there. What am I 

7 referring? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: You -- you click on that -- 

9 MS. MUNN: What am I -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: When you want to look at that 

11 related link, you just -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- box and you click on it. 

14 MS. MUNN: And where have you put it? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: To the -- it'll be in a -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: On the O drive -- 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- subdirectory on the O drive -

18 - 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible), right. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- which, when you click on 

21 that, it'll automatically bring it up and 

22 display it as a PDF file. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And it'll be called NIOSH/ORAU 

24 proposed changes -- draft of a certain date, I 

25 guess. Right? 
105

1 DR. NETON: Yeah, 8/22. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause these are still proposed, 

3 are they not? 

4 DR. NETON: They're draft changes that we 

5 propose. 

6 MS. MUNN: All right. If we're doing that any 

7 time that you propose more than one change, 

8 then are we doing that at every change that we 

9 have requested? Is every single one of those -

10 - because the normal routine, to this point, 

11 has been one item at a time, and we have not 

12 placed all of the discussions, and I never had 

13 any -- personally never had any intention of 

14 placing all of the discussions -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me the other 

16 option would be to put in the proposed wording 

17 for each item there, then -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Then it gets too busy, yeah. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Then this becomes pretty busy, but 

20 NIOSH proposes the following word changes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So you -- that's what I was 

22 saying, you would clip out -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then you would clip this -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you would clip the five, you 

25 would clip that out and you'd put it in your 
106

1 NIOSH follow-up so you have that text in there, 

2 and then that provides the basis for what is 

3 discussed in the conversation. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Seems to me you could do it either 

5 way. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So you could use it this way -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Either way. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or attaching this, it seems 

9 like they both accomplish the same thing, which 

10 is to capture the archive of the discussion, 

11 'cause if you don't capture it somehow, when 

12 there's a disagreement down here you don't have 

13 an archive of what you disagreed about. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: My feeling is when you get into a 

15 longer text, you want the link. When you get -

16 - if it's a short response, you want it right 

17 in the field, you know? Just from a user 

18 standpoint. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, an example would be this one 

20 on the bottom of the second page, revision of 

21 Section 6.1 for finding 12, they've got a whole 

22 -- little more than a page of text there. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: So do you want that in this 

25 document or do you want to just be able to 
107

1 click on it? 

2 MS. MUNN: Or do you want a summary of the fact 

3 that it's there and an indication where it can 

4 be found? That's what I -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: It can't be found anywhere. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: It can't be found anywhere because 

7 it doesn't exist. 

8 MS. MUNN: It ex-- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: The difference I have now is that 

10 -- that -- that Stu or -- I mean it's proposed 

11 language, you're right. It's not -- it's not a 

12 -- it's not a rev that exists out there as a 

13 existing revision of the procedure. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: So it's proposed language so I 

16 take back what I said. If it was an existing 

17 document, then I would say yeah, use the small 

18 excerpt and reference to it, don't include this 

19 as a separate document. But it's proposed, so 

20 it's on the table. We're discussing it. Have 

21 the link to it, then we can -- it may change by 

22 the time they publish a -- a revision of the 

23 procedure. 

24 MS. MUNN: So it is actually the desire of the 

25 workgroup and the Board to have this reflect 
108

1 all of the wording that was proposed, 

2 regardless of whether or not it is ever 

3 incorporated, somewhere in this archive? We 

4 want every comment that's made and every 

5 suggested change, regardless of whether it's 

6 incorporated? It was my intention that we 

7 would -- when it was incorporated, it would 

8 appear here, or the direct reference to where 

9 it is would be -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it's -- it's got to have 

11 some -- some meat on the bone. I mean you 

12 can't -- this thing, at the end of the day, is 

13 just going to say we reviewed everything and 

14 everything was appro-- you know, revised and 

15 approved and -- 

16 MS. MUNN: No, it isn't. It's going to say 

17 where -- it's going to say where the change was 

18 so that you can go to it. So if -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: But -- 

20 MS. MUNN: -- if we want all of our -- all of 

21 the machinations -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- this is only -- it's 

23 not only an archive. You're telling us that 

24 we're going to use this real time in our 

25 meetings, so if I want to come into a meeting 
109

1 and I want to be able to discuss a certain 

2 finding, if I -- if I just pull up and it says 

3 that NIOSH and SC&A had a technical phone call 

4 about this and they both agreed that it's okay, 

5 if I don't ha-- if I don't have some of that -- 

6 that detail or links to that detail, then you 

7 know, how do I know what -- what I'm okaying? 

8 MS. MUNN: Because it was sent to you -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I go to the -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- by e-mail. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- final version of the publi-- 

12 MS. MUNN: No, you go to your e-mail. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you go ba-- oh, so now we're 

14 going back to -- 

15 MS. MUNN: No -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- a matrix we're going to send 

17 around by -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: E-mails are -- 

19 MS. MUNN: No, we aren't. No -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- unofficial documents, I -- I 

21 think this is not different than -- you -- if 

22 you go back to the very first finding, there's 

23 a NIOSH response. Now there can be another 

24 response to the response, and so on. This -- 

25 this is a -- this -- each of these is a 
110

1 response. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: A response, yeah. 

3 DR. WADE: Wanda posed the right question. You 

4 just need to answer the question. Do you want 

5 to keep track of all steps along the way? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's what we're doing 

7 here. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: We've been doing, yeah. 

9 DR. WADE: So I think the answer to Wanda's 

10 question is yes. The question is, at what 

11 cost? It doesn't seem to me the cost is 

12 particularly high. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Or at what level of detail. 

14 MS. MUNN: At what level of detail, because we 

15 have a list of what has transpired, but what we 

16 have done in the past is capture the sense of 

17 the item. We have not repeated verbatim the 

18 item that was before us. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I think the difference 

20 here is in the past NIOSH has said we plan to 

21 revise the document, and so then it's sort of -

22 - it goes into abeyance and we're sort of 

23 awaiting that to occur. And that's sort of 

24 where we are here, except now you've come back 

25 and said here's how we plan to revise it. 
111

1 MR. GRIFFON: Propose -- right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And we haven't always had that 

3 detail. So you're right, it's a little 

4 different kind of step, 'cause we usually don't 

5 have detail on the proposed revision. You 

6 would revise it, and we may or may not see it 

7 before it's revised, at which point it would 

8 get looked at again. Right? 

9 DR. NETON: We could do it that way, too, if 

10 you'd be happy with that, but -- 

11 DR. WADE: It seems to me this document 

12 contains intellectual information. I don't 

13 think you want to lose it. Whether or not you 

14 excerpt from it and put it there, or you link 

15 to it, I think one or the other would be 

16 appropriate. 

17 MS. MUNN: If we're going to do that, then I 

18 propose that we be very cautious in the 

19 language of the titles of this kind of material 

20 that we put up, and I would suggest that we 

21 very clearly -- that the first word in the 

22 title be "draft" -- "draft of proposed NIOSH 

23 changes to" -- and the date, as a part of the 

24 title. 

25 DR. WADE: Thank you. 
112

1 DR. NETON: I -- I suspect that there are going 

2 to be some changes here. There's going to be a 

3 little give and take. We put our best shot 

4 here, but I -- my sense is that there may be 

5 some suggestions by SC&A that are going to be 

6 made to change this wording. I mean that's one 

7 of the reasons -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I know that's one of the 

9 reasons you put it out as a proposed change -- 

10 right? -- instead of a final revision. 

11 DR. NETON: It wasn't so -- it wasn't as clear12 cut last meeting -- oh, yeah, we will modify 

13 this sentence and say that. These are more 

14 sort of qualitative arguments that we presented 

15 that, in principle, everyone agreed to. But I 

16 thought it'd be best if we put them on the 

17 table. Are they sufficiently robust, I guess -

18 - 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Is this a little different from -- 

20 for you where, in the past, you would develop a 

21 procedure and it's -- goes through your 

22 internal process, it's reviewed, approved, 

23 comes out, then we and our contractor look at 

24 it. Versus here we're sort of given an 

25 opportunity to input it as you're developing 
113

1 it. 

2 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Is that better for you or worse 

4 for you? 

5 DR. NETON: No, it's -- actually we would 

6 prefer to stay out of that issue then, but in 

7 this particular case I think these were more 

8 qualitative issues. They were -- they were -- 

9 there's nothing quantitative here. These are 

10 qualitative descriptions of why we did what we 

11 did, and I just sensed that it was better in 

12 this particular instance -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: In this case, so this is -- 

14 DR. NETON: I wouldn't make it a practice. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- a little different than normal 

16 practice anyway. 

17 DR. WADE: But the good news is you have the 

18 flexibility in your tool to do this. Wanda's 

19 suggestion of draft and date in the title -- it 

20 seems to me that's what we do when we move 

21 forward. 

22 MS. MUNN: Then we're going to have to 

23 therefore build what we have heretofore not 

24 had, another file bin that we can link to. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: It's available -- 
114

1 MR. GRIFFON: It exists. 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: The -- the user of the tracking 

4 system won't -- won't need -- that'll be all 

5 transparent to the use of the tracking system. 

6 DR. WADE: If it's agreeable to you, Wanda, I'd 

7 say we modify the title, we put it there, and 

8 we -- we track this and we think about it. And 

9 if it becomes unworkable in the future, so be 

10 it. It seems to me, at least for now, that's a 

11 reasonable -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: But you can link to any number of 

13 documents easily -- right? 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I mean you just have a -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Only one document per -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: No, no -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- issue. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- no, no. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, but I mean -- 

22 MS. ADAMS: In the future you'll be able to 

23 link -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- there's all kinds of documents 

25 you could link to. 
115

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, definitely. We just have 

2 not done this type of draft -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

4 MS. MUNN: -- or preliminary document. 

5 DR. WADE: Well, that's because, in part, NIOSH 

6 normally doesn't -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

8 DR. WADE: -- come forward this way. 

9 MS. MUNN: All right, we'll build the new bin. 

10 We don't know what its name is -- at least I 

11 don't know what its name is, but we'll build a 

12 new bin. We'll re-title this document and -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, do -- do we need to know 

14 what the bin is? All we need to know is -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: No, there's nothing there -- it's 

16 right there, related document. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- a link will have the -- will 

18 have "draft, NIOSH proposed changes" -- right? 

19 That's the -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: The title will come right up in 

21 the -- in the link there and you just click on 

22 it and it'll come up as a -- you know, as a PDF 

23 file in -- in Acrobat and you'll be able to 

24 read it. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
116

1 MR. MARSCHKE: And it'll be transparent to the 

2 -- to the use of the tracking system. 

3 DR. WADE: Let's make sure the title reflects 

4 the changes that -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

6 DR. WADE: -- Wanda has specified. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Just move this information. 

9 MS. MUNN: So done. 

10 DR. WADE: That's right. That's what you 

11 really need is that lower left-hand corner at 

12 the (unintelligible). That'd be good practice 

13 all the time, as a matter of fact. 

14 MS. MUNN: Very good. We'll still get a 

15 preliminary report from SC&A -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, I would -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- that -- 

18 DR. MAURO: That -- that begs the question, 

19 okay, we are going to respond. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

21 DR. MAURO: And we're going to -- response, I'm 

22 presuming, is going to be loaded into the 

23 system. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, are you going to have your 

25 detailed responses by then or is this just an 
117

1 early -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Technical call -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- feel for -- 

4 DR. MAURO: Well, that's a good -- let's talk 

5 about -- yeah, I -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: It wasn't -- it wasn't clear to me 

7 that we were tasking you or just to get an 

8 early feel. What -- I mean you only have less 

9 than two weeks to prepare anything. 

10 MS. MUNN: Yeah, all we've asked for is just 

11 their acknowledgement of how -- their progress 

12 and -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, oh, not -- not the initial 

14 respon-- 

15 MS. MUNN: The technical call is not going to 

16 take place until after -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 MS. MUNN: -- that -- that tentative 

19 (unintelligible). 

20 DR. MAURO: Well, let -- tell by the logi-- 

21 okay, certainly SC&A is going to carefully 

22 review this. We have a group of individuals -- 

23 Arjun and Steve are probably the two principal 

24 authors of the original review. They will 

25 review it. I don't know how long that'll take. 
118

1 We will call, schedule a conference call. We 

2 will take minutes, as we always do for all of 

3 these technical conference calls, and then 

4 there will -- then we will have that. So we'll 

5 have some -- we'll have, in writing, SC&A's 

6 opinion or position regarding each of these 

7 issues, the results of the dialogue that took 

8 place written up as minutes of the conference 

9 call. Now, what do we do with that? 

10 MS. MUNN: It'll go on a link, apparently. 

11 DR. MAURO: It goes on a link? 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it goes -- well, it either 

13 goes on a link or it goes in the -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Each field. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- each field. You know, you 

16 have to -- I think, depending upon the -- the -

17 - the volume of it -- I mean -- and how wordy 

18 we want to get. You know, if we get -- if we 

19 get a white paper and we want to put it -- you 

20 know, or -- or ten pages of -- of discussion, 

21 we want to put it in the link. If we get a 

22 sentence or two -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Then it's in -- 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: -- then we just want to put it 

25 in the field. 
119

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I think -- you know -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Easy enough. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we have to be flexible. The 

5 other thing is -- you know, the question is -- 

6 I mean you -- you set up the -- the -- the 

7 outline of how to do it. The question is when 

8 we do it, and I don't -- like Wanda said, I 

9 don't think we're going to get it done by the 

10 next meeting -- 

11 MS. MUNN: No -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- unless Arjun and I -- 

13 MS. MUNN: -- it won't be done. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- look at these and say yeah, 

15 we agree with everything here; there's nothing 

16 for us -- further for us to add. Then I -- you 

17 know, in that -- in that case, then we may be 

18 able to, you know -- we may be able to, at the 

19 -- at the September 4th meeting, say, you know, 

20 we recommend that, you know, these changes be 

21 made and these issues be closed. But -- 

22 MS. MUNN: That would be nice, but I don't 

23 anticipate it. I -- all I'm expecting -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and this is my problem -- 

25 I mean the technical call's fine -- 
120

1 MS. MUNN: It doesn't happen -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I would also ask that the 

3 technical call -- you -- you're going to notify 

4 workgroup members. Right? 

5 DR. WADE: As always. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) a call. 

7 MS. MUNN: It's not going to happen until after 

8 September anyway. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 

10 MS. MUNN: So... 

11 MR. GRIFFON: But I mean -- 

12 (Whereupon, Mr. Griffon and Dr. Wade spoke 

13 simultaneously.) 

14 DR. NETON: Workgroup members are always 

15 invited -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Right, right. 

17 DR. MAURO: The only thing that's different -- 

18 we're doing everything the way we've always 

19 done it in the old way -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- except now we're trying to put 

22 it into a database that is accessible and 

23 forever available for the world to see at some 

24 time in the future. That's the only thing 

25 that's changed, as opposed to a piece of paper 
121

1 in a file cabinet. 

2 DR. NETON: It's not that different from how we 

3 approached Bethlehem Steel. I keep going back 

4 to that one, but we went back and forth on -- 

5 on what we're going to do over here, and SC&A 

6 in fact never did review the final document -- 

7 the final approved document, but we sort of 

8 bartered -- not bartered, but went back and 

9 forth on all the technical pieces that we were 

10 -- 

11 DR. MAURO: See, to me, the -- 

12 DR. NETON: -- that we were at. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- there's nothing really different 

14 that we're doing right now except we're making 

15 it a more accessible record for posterity. 

16 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

17 DR. MAURO: So at any time anyone who wants to 

18 know what did we talk about on this day during 

19 that meeting, and here's what we did. And I 

20 think it's very valuable to have that. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, I think the only place in which 

22 we may differ at little is our -- is our view 

23 of the level of detail that's required here. 

24 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

25 DR. WADE: That's what we're arguing about, 
122

1 what's reported. But I would say take a -- 

2 take a read of the document. If you find 

3 complete concurrence, then let the workgroup 

4 chair know. If not, then schedule your 

5 technical call. 

6 DR. MAURO: If you recall, one of the things we 

7 talked about was ultimately the rock we're 

8 standing on is a transcript. But everyone -- 

9 but the transcript is enormous, so really all 

10 we're really -- I mean we could always say, you 

11 know, it's in the transcript. If you want to 

12 find out the history of how we got to where we 

13 got -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Go to the transcript. 

15 DR. MAURO: -- read the transcript, but that's 

16 thousands of pages. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: But this isn't in the transcript 

18 even. 

19 DR. MAURO: But that would not be in the 

20 transcript, that's -- that's true. 

21 DR. WADE: Unless we read it in. 

22 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Unless you read it in. 

24 DR. WADE: This is a good plan. 

25 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, we're fine. I think we know 
123

1 what we're doing. At least I have some idea of 

2 what I think we're doing. We'll see how close 

3 I come. 

4 Let's see, we did close nine and ten so we 

5 don't have to worry about that. And thank you 

6 very much for having that ready. 

OTIB 0070: STATUS (SC&A REPORT EXPECTED BY 8/31 FOR

7 NIOSH RE-REVIEW)

8 The next item that we're going to talk about is 

9 OTIB-70. We had said earlier that SC&A was 

10 working on the report, and Hans I think was 

11 going to be putting it together and that should 

12 be ready for re-review before the end of this 

13 month. So the question is where are we, how 

14 close are we, is the date good or what do we 

15 have to look forward to. Hans, are you on? 

16 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I am. Can you hear me? 

17 MS. MUNN: I can. 

18 DR. BEHLING: Okay. 

19 MS. MUNN: You're good. 

20 DR. BEHLING: I wasn't sure exactly, Wanda, as 

21 to what I was supposed to have sent you today, 

22 other than what you just mentioned as a 

23 confirmatory date for a draft deliverable. I'm 

24 also prepared to give you a brief overview as 

25 to what I am at this very moment preparing to 
124

1 put down in the draft report. 

2 MS. MUNN: That would be appreciated very much 

3 if you would. 

4 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Let me just give you, for 

5 those who are at this point going to be looking 

6 at this but may not remember fully all the 

7 details, OTIB-70 used to be used for AWEs that 

8 were engaged in some uranium and thorium 

9 activities for a period of time, but for these 

10 facilities that data may not be available with 

11 regard to internal exposures in the form of the 

12 conventional bioassays. And the principal 

13 concern is for those AWE facilities where there 

14 may have been residual contamination in the 

15 workplace and the AWE may have continued to 

16 operate for some period of time thereafter, but 

17 not in a capacity that supported the Manhattan 

18 Engineering District or the AEC. For -- for -- 

19 just for reference purposes, the Dow Chemical 

20 Company would apply -- would -- would 

21 potentially be assessed by OTIB-70, and perhaps 

22 in retrospect even Bethlehem Steel would be, 

23 because they were rolling steel and then for a 

24 period of a few years they were engaged in 

25 rolling uranium. So OTIB-70 would apply to 
125

1 those AWEs engaged in uranium and thorium 

2 activities, but it would apply to those AWEs 

3 where there is very little data in terms of 

4 dose reconstruction from the internalization of 

5 either uranium and thorium. 

6 So having said that, the OTIB-70 then proceeds 

7 to provide you with a series of methods by 

8 which this particular dose reconstruction may 

9 proceed. And I think for the -- for the sake 

10 of simplicity, those methods are summarized in 

11 Table 4-1 of -- of the OTIB, which is on page 

12 16, so those who may have access to that it 

13 would be easy to really look at that table, and 

14 I'll just briefly go over it. 

15 What, in essence, OTIB-70 tries to do is to 

16 give you seven different methods by which a 

17 dose reconstruction can take place that focuses 

18 on the internalization of uranium and thorium. 

19 And so for those of you who may have access to 

20 Table 4-1, the methods include the following. 

21 There are a total of three methods, and they 

22 are really in descending hierarchy. The first 

23 method you will see on that table would be 

24 considered -- the top would be the -- the most 

25 desirable, on the assumption that these data 
126

1 are available. So the Table 4-1 really 

2 provides you with a series of X's in the 

3 various columns that says, for method number 

4 one, what we have available to us for dose 

5 reconstruction are operational air sample data 

6 -- meaning we have picocuries or becquerels or 

7 dpm per cubic meter during the period of that 

8 facility's operation that is of concern, that -

9 - namely that period when they were supporting 

10 the Manhattan Engineering District or the AEC 

11 involving uranium or thorium. And in -- in the 

12 first one we have, in addition to operational 

13 air sampling data, we have post operational. 

14 And there the dose reconstruction would really 

15 rely on really two sets of -- of air sample 

16 data; namely operational and post-operational. 

17 And obviously the assumption is that once you 

18 stop processing or refining or working with 

19 either uranium or thorium, the -- the source 

20 term would go down and, at some point in the 

21 post-operational period, you would only be 

22 dealing with the residual contamination as a 

23 source term for airborne material. And -- but 

24 the use of operational to -- post-operational, 

25 you would then develop a decay factor or source 
127

1 term reduction factor, Lander* -- much like the 

2 Lander we -- we use when we decay-correct for -

3 - for a given isotope. And so that's method 

4 number one, and there's really very little to 

5 be said about it other than obviously the fact 

6 that in all of these cases you're still far 

7 removed from the most desirable approach to 

8 dose reconstruction for internal, namely 

9 urinalysis, whole body counts, chest counting, 

10 and those kinds of bioassay, either in vivo or 

11 in vitro. But the first method that is defined 

12 in Table 4-1 is probably the most reliable one 

13 because it really relies on empirical air 

14 sampling data. And there's very little to be 

15 said other than to recognize the limitation of 

16 using air sampling data as a way of doing 

17 bioassay -- as a way of substituting for other 

18 bioassay data that might be the most 

19 preferable. 

20 In -- in method two, which the available data 

21 consists of is strictly operational, and at 

22 that point you obviously have to determine what 

23 is the post-operational air sampling data. And 

24 of course that raises the question as to how 

25 you would go about doing this. And if you look 
128

1 at -- in Table 4-1, the -- the preferred method 

2 there is to basically estimate the post3 operational air sampling data by decaying the 

4 operational air sampling data using a decay 

5 factor of one percent per day. And of course 

6 that is a number that was derived in OTIB -- 

7 and I do have some serious questions about it 

8 because I do believe it's likely to be a value 

9 that is perhaps not supportable. The -- the 

10 value of one percent per day as a removal rate 

11 for source term removal rate was derived by a 

12 formula that was identified in the TIB, and 

13 that formula makes use of ventilation rate, 

14 meaning that if a building is assumed to have a 

15 ventilation rate of one change-out per hour, 

16 and it also is based on an assumed resuspension 

17 factor which turns out to be considerably 

18 different from the one that's ultimately 

19 employed. And so I have several issues with 

20 the use of a one percent per day removal factor 

21 as is required for dose reconstruction using 

22 method two. 

23 Also the issue -- and I'll just briefly go into 

24 it. I won't obviously try to completely 

25 document the various issues that I have raised 
129

1 in my draft report, but the ventilation rate is 

2 certainly one that has to be looked at very 

3 carefully in terms of what it implies with 

4 regard to source term removal. Obviously we 

5 know that facilities in the '50s, '60s, '70s 

6 and '80s may have had a different ventilation 

7 system that we are used to today, and it's also 

8 important to note that perhaps these AWEs were 

9 never really intended to be radiological 

10 facilities, meaning that we're not looking at 

11 facilities as we might design today using 

12 engineering controls, ventilation systems, 

13 sealing all surfaces that would minimize the 

14 buildup of contamination, so we have to take 

15 all this in consideration and realize that 

16 perhaps some of the assumptions with regard to 

17 resuspension that are used here, and also 

18 ventilation, may not apply here. In other 

19 words, the -- the source term removal rate of 

20 one percent is really predicated on the notion 

21 that when a certain volume of air has been 

22 removed containing resuspended airborne 

23 particulates, that those airborne particulates 

24 are now permanently removed. That would be the 

25 case if we had a very highly efficient HEPA 
130

1 filter system. In days past, perhaps in 

2 facilities that may not have been operated as a 

3 radiological facility, the use of HEPA filters 

4 may or may not even (unintelligible) issue. 

5 Secondly, the -- the -- there would be a 

6 gradient for airborne contamination. If the 

7 floor surface, for instance, were to be the 

8 source term for the contamination that gives 

9 rise to resuspension, we all do know that the -

10 - the rate of resuspension from loose 

11 contamination will be affected by the particle 

12 diameter, and of course the redeposition is 

13 also affected by the particle diameter, which 

14 means that when we talk about the -- the 

15 airborne contamination levels that may reach up 

16 to a five-meter-high ceiling where perhaps the 

17 return vent is located, you will see a gradient 

18 that will obviously have been maximized -- or 

19 will be maximal at the surface of the floor, 

20 but thereafter gradually decrease. And there's 

21 data that I've looked at that suggests that the 

22 air that's subject to ventilation may be a 

23 factor of five lower in terms of airborne 

24 concentration than at the breathing zone at 

25 approximately five foot. So these are all 
131

1 variables that I talk about in terms of perhaps 

2 looking at this removal rate of one percent 

3 which is used in other -- not just in method 

4 two but in several other methods as you go 

5 through that table. And -- and I do believe 

6 that when you look at that, it is possibly a 

7 factor of ten, or even more, higher than it 

8 should be. 

9 Let me just briefly go on to the third level. 

10 Again, the first three all are based on air 

11 sampling data, which, on the hierarchy of 

12 measurable empirical data, would be much higher 

13 than the -- the subsequent ones which -- which 

14 will rely on surface contamination. But for 

15 method number three, again, we have -- we have 

16 the available data to us is post-operational, 

17 and then we have to really identify what is the 

18 operational air sampling concentration for 

19 which we have no data. And according to TIB20 70, here we are looking at, for instance, O-- 

21 ORAUT-206, which really is the Battelle team 

22 TBD 2000 -- 6000 for uranium and 6001 for 

23 thorium as a reference facility that says okay, 

24 we don't have, for this particular AWE in 

25 question, specific information on this 
132

1 operational air concentration, but we will use 

2 surrogate data that is derived from the 

3 Battelle TBD 6000 for uranium and 6001 for -- 

4 for thorium. And there, too, we have potential 

5 questions, and those questions are really 

6 conditional questions or findings because those 

7 particular documents have been reviewed by SC&A 

8 and we had conditional findings that, as far as 

9 I'm concerned -- or I know, and you may want to 

10 correct me, John, or somebody else whether or 

11 not that review of Battelle TBD 6000 and 6001 

12 have been fully resolved, but there are some 

13 issues that would potentially affect their use 

14 here in TIB-70 as is indicated in this 

15 particular protocol. 

16 In method four we have a switch-over where the 

17 available data sources are not necessarily 

18 going to be available from air contamination, 

19 which is obviously the more direct approach to 

20 assessing what may be inhaled, but we now have 

21 to rely on surface contamination. In other 

22 words, dpm per 100 centimeters square, which we 

23 can translate into a square meter, and then we 

24 have to then take another leap of faith forward 

25 in saying well, what does surface contamination 
133

1 really relate to in terms of air contamination, 

2 because that's what we're inhaling, and that 

3 would be obviously our principal exposure 

4 pathway. 

5 And starting in -- in method four, we have 

6 operational and post-operational surface 

7 contamination, and so the recommended approach 

8 here is to now say we have two empirical sets 

9 of measurements, operational and post10 operational surface contamination expressed 

11 usually in dpm per 100 centimeter square, 

12 either as removable or total. And then we have 

13 to supply -- or apply a resuspension factor in 

14 order to determine how to convert surface 

15 contamination into airborne contamination. And 

16 the choice defined by TIB-70 is the use of a 

17 resuspension factor of one times ten to the 

18 minus six. 

19 Now that potentially raises some significant 

20 questions because we -- we don't really have 

21 empirical data that is frequently available for 

22 facilities such as the AWEs and -- and what we 

23 are at this point required to do here is to 

24 essentially take literature data and see how 

25 typical that is to the partic-- potential AWE 
134

1 that we need to look at. And the TIB-70 

2 defines or identifies certain measurements in -

3 - in table form. And I looked at those, and I 

4 have to say they are obviously documented 

5 values of -- of resuspension factors from 

6 literature that for a facility that has a high 

7 level of activity, as would be expected if an 

8 AWE that was at this point rolling uranium or 

9 thorium but then ceases to do so and goes back, 

10 in the case of Dow Chemical or Bethlehem Steel 

11 resumes rolling steel or doing something else 

12 that was not linked to -- to the AEC or the 

13 Manhattan Engineering District people. 

14 Obviously under those conditions you would have 

15 a substantial amount of -- of foot traffic, of 

16 other activities, of grinding, of ventilation 

17 and so forth, which would make the values that 

18 I see in the literature much more applicable 

19 than the ultimate value that was defined in -- 

20 in TIB-70 as the appropriate value, which they 

21 derived from the NUREG 1720. And looking at 

22 NUREG 1720, the value of one times ten to the 

23 minus six is documented there, but NUREG 1720 

24 is really a document that is used for D&D of 

25 licensed facility awaiting license termination. 
135

1 And what really I believe is -- is a serious 

2 flaw here in this assumption of applying a one 

3 to the minus six resuspension factor is the 

4 fact that that value is really derived for a 

5 facility that has undergone extensive 

6 decontamination in anticipation of license 

7 termination. And extensive decontamination 

8 usually focuses on the one component in -- in 

9 airborne activity that is most important and 

10 that is removable or loose or suspendable. 

11 When a facility is subject to D&D for license 

12 termination and to ensure compliance with 10 

13 CFR 20 that says after -- after license 

14 termination, unrestricted use, light 

15 industrial, the exposure is limited 25 millirem 

16 TEDE/PEDE* in any given year, and of course 

17 what you would normally focus on obviously is 

18 the easiest thing and that is to clean up any 

19 removable contamination that is subject to 

20 resuspension. And so the value that is defined 

21 in 1720 as (unintelligible) minus six, while it 

22 may be an appropriate resuspension value for a 

23 facility that has already undergone extensive 

24 decontamination and is awaiting license 

25 termination, I would be hard pressed to apply 
136

1 that particular value to -- to the facility 

2 such as Bethlehem Steel or Dow Chemical that 

3 for a period of time was subject to -- to a -- 

4 experiencing radiological work activities and 

5 then resumes normal activities without the 

6 extensive D&D that you would normally expect 

7 that would apply to NUREG 1720. 

8 And so I have some concerns about the -- the 

9 loss of source term, namely the reduction of 

10 the source term of one percent per day. That's 

11 a key issue. I also have some serious con-- 

12 concern about the use of a resuspension factor 

13 that is a default value defined in 70 -- TIB-70 

14 at (unintelligible) minus six. And there are 

15 other issues that I have problems with I won't 

16 go into because I think it's not something that 

17 I want to get into in this brief period today 

18 that I have, but you will see in my draft 

19 report that talks about appen-- attachment B, 

20 which is another default approach that makes 

21 use of empirical data from three facilities for 

22 the thorium facility, but I won't go into that. 

23 Method five and six are -- are again facsimiles 

24 of method four, but in method five you don't 

25 have operational surface contamination and so 
137

1 you have to at some point in time decide how to 

2 devise some post-operational surface 

3 contamination. And again, this makes use of 

4 the one percent per -- per day as a reduction 

5 factor or source term reduction factor that 

6 I've already mention. 

7 And the same thing with method six, which is 

8 the reverse where you have post-operational 

9 surface contamination but you don't have pre10 operational surface contamination. And -- and 

11 again, here we use what I've already mentioned, 

12 the Battelle TBD-6000 and 6001 or the -- the 

13 Attachment B values that (unintelligible) 

14 empirical dataset from -- from the literature. 

15 Again I won't really go into it, but I do have 

16 a fairly extensive and exhaustive analysis of 

17 those particular references that are cited as 

18 usable for -- for TIB-70. 

19 The last one is method seven, and that is 

20 obviously at the bottom of the hierarchy. 

21 Method seven says we don't really have any air 

22 sampling data, operational, post-operational, 

23 nor do we have any surface contamination data 

24 available for the operational/post-operational 

25 period, and -- and we may not even really have 
138

1 a source term. To me, source term for -- for 

2 method number seven would really be defined by 

3 the residual contamination. And for method 

4 seven, TIB-70 tells you to -- to use NUREG 

5 1400, and I looked at NUREG 1400 and says how 

6 is NUREG 1400 related to this particular 

7 approach. And NUREG 1400 is really -- the 

8 title of NUREG 1400 is "Air Sampling in the 

9 Workplace" and it's really intended for a 

10 facility that has a very modest amount of 

11 radioactive material. And the -- the question 

12 -- it may be an NRC licensee, but the potential 

13 for radioactivity in the air is nominal and 

14 therefore the intent of NUREG 1400 is to give 

15 the licensee the option of saying do I need to 

16 monitor my employees for the internalization 

17 from airborne radioactivity. And it is 

18 basically defined by a simple protocol that 

19 says you -- you are bound by federal 

20 regulations defined in 10 CFR 20 to monitor any 

21 worker who may be exposed to airborne 

22 contamination in excess of ten percent of an 

23 ALI in a year, and therefore this is your 

24 criteria. How do I determine whether or not 

25 any potential worker may be exposed to in 
139

1 excess of ten percent ALI and there -- and they 

2 provide you with a protocol. So this whole 

3 NUREG is really designed not to serve as a 

4 substitute for monitoring an individual, either 

5 to airborne air sampling -- by means of air 

6 sampling and/or by -- by actually -- but 

7 determine whether or not the whole issue of the 

8 sampling program is even necessary. And in 

9 that particular situation they provide you with 

10 a formula of potential intake that is 

11 reproduced in NUREG 70 that is based on a host 

12 of -- of variables that includes the value Q, 

13 which is really defined as the total quantity 

14 of unencapsulated material processed in a year 

15 at the facility and a host of other variables 

16 that include the release factor, the 

17 confinement factor, and dispersibility of the 

18 material. I won't go into the detail, but what 

19 is really a -- a conflict here is that for the 

20 use of this particular formula that involves 

21 potential inhalation that is Q times R times C 

22 times E, you need to have a value of Q, which 

23 is really the source term. And as I've already 

24 stated out, the -- the method number seven 

25 basically says I don't know any -- I don't have 
140

1 any of that data. So it's almost a paradox 

2 that you would be asked to look at NUREG 1400 

3 which, among other things, requires a -- an 

4 assignment of a value for Q, meaning the source 

5 term, which in this case would not be something 

6 that -- you work in the facility but in -- in 

7 TIB-70 the source term would be defined by the 

8 -- the total amount of surface contamination, 

9 but it's also -- based on Table 4-1, you're 

10 told that you won't have any -- any values that 

11 involves operational and/or the -- the post12 operational surface contamination. So I'm not 

13 sure how that particular NUREG would apply, and 

14 -- and I raise that as an issue that would 

15 limit the use of NUREG 1400 as a viable option 

16 as part of method seven. 

17 In addition there's the issue of ingestion, 

18 which basically defaults to one of the OCAS 

19 TIBs and -- and I have some comments about 

20 that. And that pretty much is a summary of 

21 what I intend to provide you with in a draft 

22 report that I will try to get into your hands 

23 on or before the last day of -- of this month. 

24 MS. MUNN: That would be greatly appreciated. 

25 You clearly have done your usual 
141

1 extraordinarily fine detailed review, and we're 

2 looking forward to seeing it, Hans. Do you 

3 think that we will in fact have it in 

4 electronic form before we all leave to go to 

5 Redondo Beach? I guess -- 

6 DR. BEHLING: Yes, you will. 

7 MS. MUNN: I'm really wondering whether we'll 

8 have an opportunity to even bring it up on our 

9 agenda when we meet at -- following that -- 

10 that Redondo Beach. 

11 DR. BEHLING: I will try to have the electronic 

12 version of this draft report in your hands on 

13 or before the end of this month, which would 

14 then give you approximately several days or 

15 almost a week, perhaps, to review its content 

16 and -- and to get familiar with the 

17 information. As I said, this -- this -- in my 

18 write-up I'm going to be including a lot of 

19 exhibits because this particular OTIB makes use 

20 of a lot of secondary documentation, including 

21 I mentioned the Battelle TBD-6000 and 6001, 

22 certain other reports for -- for surrogate data 

23 involving other facilities that had processed 

24 thorium in the past, so I'm trying to minimize 

25 the amount of effort that the Board members 
142

1 will have to engage in in trying to really 

2 understand what are the issues by -- by which 

3 these other documents have been incorporated as 

4 a default approach for TIB-70. So you're going 

5 to see a lot of exhibits in my write-up so that 

6 it precludes the need to look at the other 

7 OTIBs or Battelle TBDs or other references 

8 (unintelligible) -- 

9 MS. MUNN: We do appreciate that. It will make 

10 it certainly much simpler for the workgroup 

11 members. I'm sure as NIOSH reviews it they're 

12 familiar enough with those other documents that 

13 it wouldn't be necessary for them, but I'm sure 

14 we'll certainly appreciate it. Understandably 

15 NIOSH won't have an opportunity to look at that 

16 before the next meeting, but speaking for 

17 myself -- and I think probably most of the 

18 other workgroup members -- we will appreciate 

19 having an opportunity to have a look at that at 

20 the same time that NIOSH begins their review. 

21 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, if there's any problem, I 

22 will certainly inform the Board. But as it -- 

23 as it stands right now, I'm -- I'm pretty much 

24 -- I would say 95 percent done. I just need to 

25 sort of clean up a few things, but I hope 
143

1 actually within the next two or three days to 

2 have -- have a rough draft available for in3 house review, that may include Steve and John 

4 and others, and then hopefully a few days later 

5 you'll get your draft copy of that report. 

6 MS. MUNN: That will be greatly appreciated. 

7 Thank you very much. 

8 DR. BEHLING: You're welcome. 

9 MS. MUNN: And now, without objection -- yes? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Before we break for lunch, can I 

11 just ask -- I think this is from NIOSH, really 

12 -- do we know -- I'm looking through TIB-70 -- 

13 which sites this is applicable to, or you 

14 didn't really list them in the -- in the TIB. 

15 Is it -- is it left open because you're not -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's supposed to be -- 

17 it's not supposed to be specific to certain 

18 sites. I mean it -- it gives -- as I 

19 understand it, there are several situations 

20 described -- you know, various -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- types that Hans talked 

23 about, and so it's intended to be broadly 

24 applicable. And then you could use, depending 

25 upon what data you have for the site you're 
144

1 interested in, you choose the section that 

2 you'd be doing, so it's supposed to be broadly 

3 -- broadly applicable. 

4 DR. MAURO: In -- in general -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

6 DR. MAURO: -- you have an AWE site that's -- 

7 its AWE operations have terminated -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

9 DR. MAURO: -- but you are concerned about the 

10 post-AEC operation residual activity, and 

11 there's a need to somehow predict what the 

12 exposures would be to workers who still work 

13 there, but it -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I understand the 

15 issue, I understand the issue, I just -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, and it did come up with, 

17 for example -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 DR. MAURO: -- Dow. Dow is -- there's this 

20 post-1960 -- the Dow -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and tha-- that's what I'm 

22 getting at is -- I think the -- the key -- the 

23 -- that's more review of implementation of 

24 this, I guess, because how this works on 

25 certain sites is not really part of this TIB, 
145

1 be-- you know, 'cause I think -- I think -- 

2 DR. BEHLING: Can -- can I interrupt, Mark -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- well, I think there's some big 

4 questions about how much data -- you know -- 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: How much is enough -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- oftentimes this data in the 

7 non-operational period is -- you know, I mean 

8 we can all -- we all know that from 1990 to '92 

9 ORAU did a lot of surveys for -- you know, for 

10 decommission and stuff -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: FUSRAP, yeah. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, for FUSRAP, so you have 

13 a gap of 40 years -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Right. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- and you have four -- you know, 

16 you have a -- a fair -- some weight data in the 

17 '90s, and the question of representativeness of 

18 that -- 

19 DR. MAURO: Need to fill it in. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: That big gap, yeah. 

21 DR. BEHLING: Can -- can I comment -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: That's going to vary 

23 (unintelligible) sites -- 

24 DR. BEHLING: -- Mark? For instance, as John 

25 already mentioned, the Dow Chemical was 
146

1 assessed using method one, meaning that they 

2 felt they had air sampling data during the 

3 operational period when -- when that facility 

4 processed material that is subject to OTIB-70 

5 concerns, and then they had data that they felt 

6 was legitimately representative of a post7 operational. And then what you do is you 

8 actually look at the two and you determine what 

9 lambda is, and then calculate your air 

10 concentration based on -- on the decay that is 

11 derived empirically from those two values for 

12 any year in between. And -- and I think if you 

13 look at the Dow Chemical document, the SEC 

14 petition for Dow Chemical or the evaluation for 

15 the SEC, you will see that approach. 

16 Now the question is that -- and I'm sure that 

17 we will probably go into that with respect to 

18 how legitimate was the post-operational air 

19 sampling data, which for Dow Chemical occurred 

20 in 2006, and I won't go into details but at 

21 that time they had already undergone two D&D 

22 efforts. But they also, to -- to further 

23 complicate the issue, they continued to pro-- 

24 process thorium after that brief period when 

25 thorium was actually involved with the AEC, so 
147

1 there are two complicating factors, the -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the -- the other thing I 

3 think we at -- as the Board, the workgroup need 

4 to keep in mind -- and this'll be more site5 specific considerations I think, but you know, 

6 the ac-- the activities of -- during the post7 operational period. I mean I think -- you 

8 know, I'm just -- I'm just paying close 

9 attention to that 'cause I'm not sure that 

10 that's really accounted -- it's accounted for 

11 in a generic sense, but you know, I -- I -- 

12 having some experience in cleaning up several 

13 of these sites, I -- I know that those 

14 questions were raised to me by former employees 

15 that, you know, we've been working there for 30 

16 years doing XYZ, and now you're in there with 

17 respirators on doing -- you know, I mean -- so 

18 that kind of thing, you know, we're almost 

19 assuming sort of non-intrusive activities went 

20 on in this interim period, and that's not 

21 always the case. In some sites they -- you 

22 know, so tha-- and then you-- then you have 

23 this question of are we really modeling the 

24 source term correctly, you know, so -- anyway -

25 - 
148

1 DR. WADE: Uh-huh, this will be discussed. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- put that on the table. 

3 DR. WADE: Miss Wanda? 

4 MS. MUNN: Yes? 

5 DR. WADE: Ready to go to lunch? 

6 MS. MUNN: We are ready to go to lunch, yes. 

7 DR. WADE: Want to take an hour? 

8 MS. MUNN: We'll take a full hour. We'll be 

9 back here at 1:10. 

10 DR. WADE: We're going to break the line. 

11 We'll dial back in about 1:05. Thank you all. 

12 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:07 to 

13 1:09.) 

14 DR. WADE: Hello, this is the workgroup 

15 conference room and we're just about ready to 

16 begin. Ray, are you ready? 

17 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 

18 DR. WADE: Ms. Munn? 

INDIVIDUAL ITEM REVIEW - 2ND 19 SET

20 MS. MUNN: It's our expectation this afternoon 

21 to try to do what I have heretofore found to be 

22 the impossible, which is track what we're doing 

23 from the second set. And if we have any 

24 opportunity at all to do so, we will take a 

25 look at the third set. 
149

1 The second set of procedures that we had has 

2 been dated 6/8, I believe. Is that correct? 

3 There were originally 112 of them -- findings, 

4 that is. We have 37 open. So if what I have 

5 on my screen is anywhere near correct, that 

6 would start us with OTIB-12 or not? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I am waiting for my 

8 computer. 

9 MS. MUNN: All right. It's very helpful that 

10 Stu can illuminate that end of the room with 

11 this data, rather than relying on -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: You're saying we're starting 

13 with OTIB-12? 

14 MS. MUNN: Well, no, we're -- we're starting 

15 with the second set, and that would be dated 

16 6/8/2006. And my first -- although I was 

17 supposed to have been sorted by date here, it 

18 didn't work out that way. My -- it appears 

19 that the first 6/8 that I have is OTIB-17. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: How are you sorting? 

21 MS. MUNN: By date -- sorting by date. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Procedure number? 

23 MS. MUNN: Start by date, then by procedure 

24 number. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I just got thrown off. 
150

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, the date is 6/8/06, because 

2 that was when the second set was first provided 

3 to us. We're giving the -- the process a 

4 workout here. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: What is TIB-17? 

6 DR. MAURO: Non-penetrating? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Shallow dose thing? 

8 DR. MAURO: Is that non-pene-- non-penetrating 

9 radiation? 

10 MS. MUNN: Do you have these all in your head, 

11 John? 

12 DR. MAURO: That one I do. 

13 MS. MUNN: I'll be interested to see if Stu's 

14 sort is more effective than mine. Kathy, if 

15 you're on, you and Steve, we're giving your -- 

16 I am personally giving your hard work a workout 

17 here. This is the crucial test. If Wanda can 

18 do it, anyone can do it. I don't quite 

19 understand why I am not getting the date sort 

20 that I asked for. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think it's -- 

22 MS. MUNN: I'm going to go back and do that one 

23 more time. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Can you just sort by second set? 

25 I thought there was, you know, a little -- 
151

1 MR. MARSCHKE: You can sort by finding date or 

2 you have to put the -- you have to put it in 

3 twice. If you go -- 

4 MS. MUNN: I did put the -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: You have to put -- 

6 MS. MUNN: -- finding date -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- you have to put the date in. 

8 You have to tell it -- oh, okay. 6/8/2000 -- 

9 you probably have to put it in over on two, as 

10 well. And then you have to do a sort on it. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I did the sort. Originally I 

12 had the date and -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: (Unintelligible) -- 

14 MS. MUNN: -- the first one -- 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- that's not... 

16 MS. MUNN: Okay. And originally I sorted by 

17 finding date -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: It doesn't look too good up 

19 there. Oh -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, well -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- oh, you haven't -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I want to get it up there 

23 before I turn (unintelligible). 

24 MS. MUNN: And the second one was the procedure 

25 number, and the third one -- it shouldn't 
152

1 matter that much. So if I put the date in, it 

2 works. If I don't put the date in, it doesn't 

3 work. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. 

5 MS. MUNN: Therefore the tracking system some 

6 (unintelligible) that we have becomes even more 

7 valuable and necessary. We have -- correction, 

8 now what comes up for me is PR-5 -- there it 

9 is. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know why, but it 

11 came up for me, too. 

12 MS. MUNN: Sure enough. Now with -- with a 

13 little help from my friends here, maybe I can 

14 get through this. There are -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

16 (Unintelligible) one last screen 

17 (unintelligible). 

18 MS. MUNN: It says Section 3 references do not 

19 contain any citations. 

20 Steve is helping us here. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: (Unintelligible) helping her. 

22 MS. MUNN: No, it's very helpful to know why 

23 I'm not getting what I'm getting. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: What did you want to get? 

25 MS. MUNN: Oh, I got -- what we got. 
153

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

2 MS. MUNN: Now what I need to do is take a look 

3 at -- what we need to look at is PR-5 to see -- 

4 no, I don't want to do that. That wasn't what 

5 I wanted to do. Oh, now I'm back where I 

6 started from. So if we sort by the finding 

7 date, which is 6/8 -- it gets me what I want. 

8 But then when I want to view PR-5, if I print 

9 new reports, it doesn't give me what I want. I 

10 click here -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: For some reason you're not 

12 showing the view details. Your -- for some 

13 reason your screen is not showing the details -

14 - 

15 MS. MUNN: No -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and I don't know why what's -

17 - what's -- see where -- where Stu's arrow is 

18 up there? 

19 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, right. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: For some reason that doesn't 

21 show up on your screen. 

22 MS. MUNN: No, it doesn't show on my screen, 

23 and I don't know why. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Maybe if you hit the -- expand 

25 the -- hit that -- yeah, that -- there you go. 
154

1 Now hit the detail screen right in there. 

2 MS. MUNN: Ah, there it is. I wonder why it 

3 didn't come up. 

4 DR. MAURO: You didn't have the full screen. 

5 What you -- you -- in other words, the full 

6 screen. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: There you go. 

8 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: The form wasn't showing up, yeah. 

10 MS. MUNN: So now we have OCAS PR-5 and what do 

11 we have open? Section 3 doesn't contain any 

12 citations, although it's unlikely this 

13 procedure is -- oh, my goodness. 

14 DR. MAURO: That's Steve Ostrow. 

15 MS. MUNN: Holy cow, this procedure... there 

16 were no references, so is there -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This procedure is not dose 

18 reconstruction procedure or anything like that. 

19 This is -- 

20 DR. MAURO: Was this a -- oh, is this one of 

21 these quality assurance ones? Steve Ostrow did 

22 all the reviews of the quality assurance ones, 

23 and I recognize Steve's -- 

24 MS. MUNN: The terminology. 

25 DR. MAURO: The terminology. 
155

1 MR. MARSCHKE: The -- the handout that I gave, 

2 basically what I did was, based upon the last 

3 workgroup meeting, I took the initiative to 

4 review the 37 -- or I thought I was given the 

5 direction to review the 37 open -- 

6 MS. MUNN: We tasked you to look at them. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Right, the 37 open issues, and 

8 to look at the responses that NIOSH had given 

9 and see whether we agreed, disagreed or -- or -

10 - or what, and that's the handout that I gave 

11 is basically the results of that review of 

12 those 37 open set two issues. 

13 MS. MUNN: So what Steve has given us here show 

14 that the first four issues from PR-005 can be 

15 closed since the author of the finding agrees 

16 with the NIOSH response. 

17 UNIDENTIFIED: That goes back to your comment. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: That goes back to my point, yeah. 

19 Tho-- SC&A's not closing these so I think we 

20 need to -- 

21 MS. MUNN: No, that's right, we need to take a 

22 look at -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: And it does say recommended, 

24 yeah. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Place to start. 
156

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So recommended status -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- I mean -- but the only thing 

5 you can do is you can look at -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the finding and you can look 

8 at the response and see -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: -- whether you agree as well. 

11 MS. MUNN: Right. And the NIOSH response was 

12 very straightforward. There were no references 

13 for item one. Can the members of the workgroup 

14 accept that as closure? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Any objection to that? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not objecting, I just want to 

18 make sure I understand this. So initially the 

19 finding was they should have cited something -- 

20 it appeared that there was a -- there were 

21 comments about the assessment that they didn't 

22 cite any particular sources. Is that correct? 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

24 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And the response is well, these 
157

1 were experienced assessment people so they were 

2 basing it on their general knowledge without -- 

3 is that -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: They wrote it from their 

5 experience and it reads just like the previous 

6 -- what they'd done as assessors in previous 

7 jobs -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in terms of establishing an 

10 assessment plan, the assessor -- you know, 

11 essentially starting out (unintelligible) 

12 assessment plan and with the criteria he had to 

13 compare (unintelligible) items 

14 (unintelligible). 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So they weren't -- it wasn't 

16 somebody else's material. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We didn't pull out a QA 

18 reference on (unintelligible) assessment 

19 (unintelligible) anything like that. 

20 (Unintelligible) sat down and wrote it from 

21 previous experience. 

22 MS. MUNN: Is there any concern with this being 

23 closed? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Let's close it. 
158

1 Item two, the next one would be -- no, can't do 

2 that, so that's... 

3 MR. GRIFFON: So the-- there are no 

4 qualifications required for doing an assessment 

5 -- that's what this says, right? -- in the 

6 NIOSH response? And when -- when we're talking 

7 assessments, you're talking -- I -- just to 

8 refresh my memory, all these are -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) We'll 

10 (unintelligible) -- they're assessments of the 

11 contract-- usually they're -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- assessments of the 

14 contractor. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Some aspect of what the 

17 contractor is doing, whether -- you know, just 

18 as an arbitrary case, the filing of the hard 

19 copies, written responses from DOE or 

20 something, you know, is that being done 

21 appropriately or something like that. And I 

22 just made that up, I don't know -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) ever did 

25 that or not. Or -- I -- I can't even think of 
159

1 very many examples, but it would be -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that's -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) could 

4 assess -- I don't know if they did this, but 

5 the implementation of the software, quality 

6 aspects for dose reconstruction 

7 (unintelligible) or something like that. So 

8 the assignment -- I mean personnel are selected 

9 and assigned based on their abilities, rather 

10 than just say well, anybody can go do any 

11 assessment. That -- that's not what we're 

12 saying here. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, the assignments are 

15 made based on the abilities of the assessors, 

16 who are -- these are mainly done by health 

17 physicists, although sometimes we will have 

18 somebody else -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I like that response -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- better than the one you've got 

22 in the database, quite frankly. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: It makes me feel better, you 

25 know. 
160

1 MS. MUNN: Perhaps the wording is -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can reword that. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Because they're -- you know, 

5 the assignments to the teams -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- are made based on the 

8 abilities -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Obviously you're not going to 

10 have someone assess the database implementation 

11 that doesn't have experience in -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

13 (Unintelligible) 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

16 MS. MUNN: Can we just add the word "qualified" 

17 after "any" -- "any qualified OCAS staff" -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I could -- well, I can put in 

19 the words about, you know, assignments are made 

20 based on the abilities and qualifications of 

21 the individual, you know -- or assignments to -

22 - 

23 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- are made on that. 

25 MS. MUNN: All right. Will that meet the 
161

1 concerns of proper language? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

3 DR. MAURO: These -- these are related to the 

4 quality assurance procedures, which I -- am I 

5 correct, we're in a different realm now. We're 

6 not talking about any kind of technical 

7 assessment. 

8 MS. MUNN: No. 

9 DR. MAURO: We're making sure -- this is almost 

10 like an audit, an internal audit to make sure 

11 that the procedures are being followed? I 

12 recall -- see, I recall the series of 

13 procedures that Steve Ostrow reviewed, and -- 

14 and I remember they're dealing primarily with 

15 what you would call quality -- quality 

16 assurance audits. And there was -- there were 

17 a number of them. We're not really what I 

18 would call -- they were to make sure the 

19 procedures were being followed, so -- am I cor20 - am I -- am I correct about what these are, as 

21 opposed to being a sci-- a scientific 

22 procedure, how do you go about doing a dose 

23 calculation. It's a procedure of -- to make 

24 sure that the dose calculations were being done 

25 in accordance with your procedures. 
162

1 MS. MUNN: These are administrative. 

2 DR. MAURO: Administrative -- these are 

3 administrative. 

4 MS. MUNN: -- rather than technical 

5 assessments. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, these -- these tend to be 

7 administrative. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. So we have an action that 

9 NIOSH will revise the wording and so do we want 

10 to see this again or not? Can we just accept 

11 it as closed? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: He told us what the new wording 

13 would be. 

14 MS. MUNN: Closed? Closed. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) Then will the 

16 rewording go in there where we put our initial 

17 response? (Unintelligible) put that in or... 

18 MS. MUNN: No. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

20 MS. MUNN: No, those -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) your initial 

22 response. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: In other words, down in a NIOSH 

24 follow-up or something? 

25 MS. MUNN: It goes down under NIOSH follow-up, 
163

1 yeah, at the instruction of the workgroup, 

2 wording's changed to -- as it is. 

3 Okay, very good. We'll see you in Redondo 

4 Beach. 

5 Next item, item three, checklists are optional. 

6 They're referred to in the text as examples and 

7 terms such as may be used are included. Steve 

8 has accepted that and listed it as closed. Is 

9 there any objection? 

10 (No responses) 

11 If not, item three is closed. 

12 Next, item four, which Ostrow has also 

13 accepted, shows the checklists provided are 

14 examples, as labeled. The assessor has the 

15 freedom to develop a checklist, if used, that 

16 best suits the needs of the assessment. Any 

17 problem with that response or with the 

18 agreement of SC&A? 

19 (No responses) 

20 It can be marked closed. 

21 Our next item is PR-7, dose reconstruction 

22 review, item one. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: This procedure is the -- what 

24 is done by the OCAS health physicists when a 

25 draft dose reconstruction comes in from 
164

1 (unintelligible). That's -- this is the review 

2 that's done by OCAS (unintelligible) it's the 

3 procedure for that review. 

4 MS. MUNN: And our last instruction that I can 

5 see is to have SC&A review the modified TIB-8. 

6 I'm assuming that has been done. Is that the 

7 last -- I'm not -- I'm not getting down to the 

8 -- look -- look here. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, you're on seven. 

10 MS. MUNN: Someone who is more conversant with 

11 this than I -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we sent this one response 

13 at one point. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: There were three TIBs, 6, 7 and 

16 8 -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- all which we said we would 

19 revise, and so only -- only part seven -- only 

20 7 pertains to this and then SC&A will review 

21 the modified -- this should actually be seven. 

22 Okay. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Six or 7. 

25 MS. MUNN: Says in either 6 or 7, and so my 
165

1 question then is I'm assuming that -- has that 

2 been done? That -- that's been done. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve reviewed the -- yeah, if 

4 you look, he -- he reviewed the changes made to 

5 revision two. 

6 MS. MUNN: And has accepted them, and it's now 

7 marked closed. Any objections to that? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: The original finding was they need 

9 to clarify the -- the authority under which the 

10 -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: The auth-- the authority that 

12 established the frequency of -- originally 

13 there were three types of reviews of -- of 

14 these dose reconstructions. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) The basic 

17 review is what's -- it's sort of the default 

18 (unintelligible) over, you do it -- you do that 

19 and you do your review, and you approve it or 

20 make comments on it. The second level review 

21 is a documented checklist -- you know, the 

22 checklist items from the procedure, you have to 

23 complete the checklist when you do the review, 

24 and that -- the -- our -- NOCTS, our computer 

25 system that controls -- I mean the movement of 
166

1 a case through the case process, and so we do 

2 all of our interactions with the case in NOCTS, 

3 so one of the things we do is either review it 

4 and then either approve it or return it. So 

5 five percent of the time when a health 

6 physicist opens up a case to review -- or is 

7 ready to approve it, he's presented -- he's 

8 presented with a form, a checklist -- I guess 

9 it's either way, whether he returns it or not, 

10 approves it, the -- the system automatically 

11 presents him with a checklist that he has to 

12 complete in order for -- to move the case on. 

13 So five percent of -- so there's no -- you 

14 know, so that -- that is the authority of what 

15 -- I guess the frequency of the various types 

16 in the first procedure was -- you know, wasn't 

17 so -- who's going to tell you how many times to 

18 fill out the checklist. The third category, by 

19 the way, which blind reviews which we don't do. 

20 (Unintelligible) a blind review -- in other 

21 words, completely duplicating the dose 

22 reconstruction, we don't do that. So this -- 

23 there are only two now, and the computer 

24 automatically pops up so that's essentially in 

25 the computer program in this way, where the 
167

1 authority is (unintelligible) but the frequency 

2 -- or it's programmed -- the five percent is 

3 programmed into the computer program. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: What were you asking in the 

6 finding? By whose authority do you decide 

7 what's to be reviewed or what -- what's -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- what's the finding? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: The finding was -- we list 

11 these three levels of review but we don't say 

12 how often we're going to do a basic or how 

13 often we're going to use the intermediate level 

14 or how -- how often we're going to use the 

15 blind, how many of those you're going to use, 

16 that's (unintelligible) -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: That's not clear from the finding 

18 that they're challenging the frequency so much 

19 as who -- who made the decision -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

21 (Unintelligible) wanted to say there was no one 

22 specified to decide who that -- what that was. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I see -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: The procedure doesn't specify 

25 who decides. 
168

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And now you don't need -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) And now you 

3 don't -- the procedure in a -- in a subsequent 

4 programming of the computer (unintelligible) -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: So now it's a policy of 

6 (unintelligible) -- 

7 DR. MAURO: So -- so is it automated? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. MAURO: I understand. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: So the decision has already been 

11 made -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: The decision has already been 

13 made -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) there's a 

15 policy, this is -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- how it's done procedurally, so 

18 nobody has to -- like we don't have to say that 

19 Stuart Hinnefeld will decide -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I don't have to see how 

21 many we've reviewed and say gee, we reviewed 

22 80; we need another -- we need four -- we need 

23 four higher level, you know, documents. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Computer select these at random? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know. They -- the 
169

1 computer guys tell me it's random, but I -- you 

2 know how that works. 

3 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, it's randomly 

5 selected. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: There -- there were so many that 

7 came up at -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah, every 20 or 

9 whatever, however often -- however it selects. 

10 I don't even know -- I don't know if it's every 

11 20th one or it has some other selection. 

12 MS. MUNN: Is -- is the problem we're 

13 discussing right now our failure to capture the 

14 -- the real thought of the finding correctly? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

16 MS. MUNN: 'Cause remember we -- we populated 

17 these as quickly as we could and -- and the 

18 whole idea was to be brief but to catch the 

19 sense of it. Was authority the incorrect word 

20 here? Perhaps it -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: No, as -- as I recall, the 

22 finding was -- as I recall the finding, it was 

23 you don't specify who decides how often to do 

24 the various levels of review. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, is it the person that's 
170

1 doing the review, is it Larry or -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Is it the HP or is it Larry or 

3 -- or who is it? You don't specify who is it 

4 who decides how often. 

5 MS. MUNN: So authority is adequate or correct. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe it's captured 

7 okay. 

8 MS. MUNN: All right. Fine. Then we can 

9 accept the assessment of the -- of the original 

10 finder that the response is adequate and it's 

11 closed? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I'm okay with it. 

13 MS. MUNN: Okay, 7-01 is closed. Next is 7-02, 

14 the role of the contract oversight team leader 

15 should be delineated in Section 4. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) I believe that 

17 was a (unintelligible) like a responsibilities 

18 section or something? I suppose the contract 

19 oversight team leader was mentioned in the 

20 procedure in some fashion, but he wasn't 

21 mentioned in the procedures -- in the 

22 responsibilities section. I think that's what 

23 (unintelligible). 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: It's the other way around, 

25 probably. 
171

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Or maybe it's the other way 

2 around. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Or maybe -- no, I think you're 

4 right actually. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Anyway, the revi-- the revision 

6 of that kind of took that out, the -- it -- 

7 it's -- dose reconstruction review is assigned 

8 to all the health physicists as a -- and they 

9 fit it into the rest of their work -- into 

10 their work time. Certain health physicists 

11 have a lot of -- do a lot of work on SEC 

12 petitions, evaluation reports and things like 

13 that, so they don't do very many dose 

14 reconstructions. Some health physicists 

15 primarily do dose reconstruction. So -- and 

16 everybody understands that they are to get dose 

17 reconstructions out of the -- what's called the 

18 un-- the unassigned queue in -- in NOCTS and 

19 put them in their queue and do the revisions as 

20 they can get to them. And certain guys have 

21 that high on their -- high on their list 

22 because they don't have other tasks competing 

23 so much. Other guys have it a little lower on 

24 the (unintelligible) 'cause they have competing 

25 activities. 
172

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but in the original -- 

2 before you revised, this -- this document 

3 mentioned the contract oversight team leader 

4 but didn't say what their responsibility was, 

5 that's -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) I believe 

7 that's what the finding (unintelligible). 

8 DR. ZIEMER: The new revision doesn't even -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) Doesn't even 

10 (unintelligible), right. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- include that because that 

12 person has no responsibility. Is that your -- 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That's my under-- that's my 

14 understanding. There is no specific 

15 responsibility for dose reconstruction review 

16 assignment. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: There is a person called that. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't -- I don't know -- I 

19 guess I don't really know how that fa-- I'm not 

20 famil-- that part of the procedure, sitting 

21 right here, but there is a person called that. 

22 But the -- but in terms of his specific 

23 responsibilities with dose reconstruction 

24 review, I don't know if they're spelled out in 

25 this procedure or not 'cause the procedure more 
173

1 describes what is a health physicist supposed 

2 to look at when they do a dose reconstruction. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And what's the last -- S-- SC&A 

4 said what? 

5 MS. MUNN: SC&A said that they were told to 

6 review the modified OTIB-8, and either 6 or 7, 

7 if those documents are determined to be 

8 documents reviewed as the result of this 

9 review, or await workgroup instruction if 

10 either 6 or 7 are to be considered new 

11 documents. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are the same for all the 

13 DR (unintelligible). 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah, for all the -- of this entire 

15 procedure, so SC&A apparently has looked at 

16 this and Ostrow is accepting of the fact that 

17 there are no specific responsibilities that are 

18 necessary. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Or that this person's even 

20 involved in the -- 

21 DR. MAURO: Exactly -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- process. 

23 DR. MAURO: -- he's out of the picture -- he's 

24 out of the picture now. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So it's a moot point. 
174

1 MS. MUNN: Okay, closed. Next issue, number 

2 three, the procedure is not clear on how the 

3 cases are chosen for review. NIOSH says the 

4 document was revised. Every DR is reviewed 

5 according to the requirements of Section 5.1.1. 

6 Five percent of all DR reviews are selected at 

7 random automatically by NOCTS. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

9 (Unintelligible) 

10 MS. MUNN: And that's been accepted without 

11 issue. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: See, there's no real selection 

13 -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Right, huh-uh. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because they all get 

16 reviewed. 

17 MS. MUNN: Right. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: And five percent get the -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Five percent -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- get the random review. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) Five percent 

22 (unintelligible) checklist (unintelligible). 

23 MS. MUNN: Okay, closed. Next issue, item 

24 number four. The procedure mentions training 

25 for health physics personnel reviewers, but 
175

1 does not reference the procedure covering their 

2 training process. Both NIOSH and SC&A have 

3 looked at this and -- prior to the response of 

4 NIOSH that says the document was reviewed -- 

5 was revised and there are no training 

6 requirements. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, now there are 

8 qualification requirements to be hired. 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Once we have a health 

11 physicist, then the process is sort of a -- 

12 work under the direction of a more senior 

13 person until you're in -- and demonstrate the 

14 ability to -- to do the work on -- 

15 independently, and then you're allowed to do 

16 the work independent -- that's essentially the 

17 process by which people are brought up to 

18 speed. And we -- we rarely hire -- I think we 

19 have hired a few people in the last year, but 

20 (unintelligible) couple in the past year, but 

21 it's not like we're hiring and having 

22 (unintelligible) turnover and a lot of new -- 

23 new people coming in and doing dose 

24 reconstruction, but the process is not so much 

25 that -- here's your training manual, do this 
176

1 training and then you're -- then you can go do 

2 dose reconstruction reviews. The -- it is here 

3 -- here, start with this one, but you don't 

4 approve it; you tell me what you would -- what 

5 would you write on it (unintelligible) you pass 

6 this on a particular finding and someone else 

7 (unintelligible) kind of a (unintelligible). 

8 DR. MAURO: We do it the same way. 

9 MS. MUNN: So Stu, if there are no training 

10 requirements in this document -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

12 MS. MUNN: -- do they appear elsewhere? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they're in the 

14 qualification requirements for the position. 

15 MS. MUNN: Qualification requirements should be 

16 adequate for the job. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but why does the procedure 

18 mention training? Why does the procedure 

19 mention it? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think it does. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it says the procedure 

22 mentions training. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It did originally. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, it doesn't anymore? 

25 MS. MUNN: It says the document was revised; 
177

1 and that may have been the revision, I don't 

2 know. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: SC&A know the answer to that, is -

4 - was -- 

5 DR. MAURO: I'm assuming the fact that Steve 

6 agreed, he checked item -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve -- 

8 DR. MAURO: -- Steve Ostrow. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- Steve -- yeah, he was given 

10 the revision, too, and I'm assuming that he 

11 checked as well. I should have -- I should 

12 have asked Steve Ostrow to be on the phone for 

13 this meeting and I forgot -- slipped my mind. 

14 DR. MAURO: I can give him a call. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I might have the phone number, 

16 John. 

17 DR. MAURO: I take it -- 

18 MS. MUNN: Do we have the ability to pull up 

19 the document? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: So let -- well -- 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- I -- I'm okay with it, I -- 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: We do have the ability to pull 

24 up the document. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: If the document's -- 
178

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, we got a few more. We're 

2 up to -- we have four or five more. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: What we're saying is the document 

4 doesn't re-- mention or require training. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it originally talked 

6 about training for the health physics 

7 personnel. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe that was written 

10 before we did any. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And you also were telling us 

12 actually there is some training that's not 

13 formalized in this document -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- so -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And in fact it is a -- it's -- 

17 you know, sort of construction as they, you 

18 know, work under the observation or, you know, 

19 the guidance of somebody until you can 

20 demonstrate the ability to do it, and they you 

21 -- then you're allowed to do it on your own, so 

22 that's the -- that's the process. I think the 

23 original version -- the version of the 

24 procedure that was reviewed was probably 

25 written as things were starting -- 
179

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- before I was even there -- 

3 MS. MUNN: I think this was very early on. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and they said well -- and so 

5 they put these things together, envisioning 

6 that -- what would happen, and then as people -

7 - as they -- 'cause there were -- they started 

8 with what, maybe three health physicists, so as 

9 they started adding staff to review these dose 

10 reconstructions that were, they adopted a 

11 different practice that -- rather than a formal 

12 training package, so... 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a final SC&A response? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: It hasn't been added at this 

15 point. What we would do is -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: In other words, would they say yes 

17 -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: What -- what -- what -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- we have reviewed this and we -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- what you have on the -- on 

21 the -- on the page, we can basically take it 

22 and stand upon this or -- or -- or we have not 

23 added -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm wondering if there 

25 should be a sentence similar to what we talked 
180

1 about in that other document -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- where SC&A says we have 

4 reviewed this and we agree that the procedure 

5 no longer mentions -- 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: You need a little bit more 

7 explanation as to why we agree. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I would -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Something like a sentence similar 

11 to what we talked about in that earlier -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- what -- why did you agree. 

14 MS. MUNN: Right. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: We agreed because either -- either 

17 it no longer mentions, if it did originally, 

18 training -- 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Training -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- or if it does, Stu just 

21 described what the training is. There -- there 

22 is some training, but maybe it's not mentioned 

23 here. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

25 MS. MUNN: But the SC&A follow-up area down 
181

1 there is probably the appropriate place to 

2 close it out. Right? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, we can put it in there. 

4 DR. MAURO: I think as -- again, as a ground 

5 rule, what we've been doing is sending the 

6 response to our folks that originally had the 

7 comments, saying what do you think, and they 

8 said oh, it looks okay -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- but what we need is more than 

11 that. We need it looks okay because. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 MS. MUNN: Exactly. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I mean I'm -- I'm, again, 

15 agreeable to closing it, but the basis for the 

16 closure is -- is not delineated. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I believe -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: And I think that would be -- 

19 DR. MAURO: Steve is calling in right now. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Ostrow is just calling in 

21 so we'd be able to get his input as to why he 

22 agreed. 

23 DR. MAURO: But still I think we still have to 

24 fill in -- fill in -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: We have to -- yeah, we have to -
182

1 - 

2 DR. MAURO: -- fill in the record, essentially. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it will. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Good. 

6 MS. MUNN: Is this the kind of thing that we 

7 can have another report on in September when 

8 we're at Redondo Beach, or is it going to take 

9 a little more -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, I don't think -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I'm satisfied that we -- if we 

12 know how to close it, as long -- as long as 

13 they agree to put the reason in the -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- I mean if it's what he just 

16 described. 

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah. And I -- I'm saying that it 

18 would be wise for us to take a look at their 

19 resolution -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Make sure that it's -- 

21 MS. MUNN: -- to see that the wording does 

22 indeed fulfill our desires. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: So I'll hold off making any 

24 closing of these 37 until after the September 

25 4th meeting? 
183

1 MS. MUNN: Assuming that you'll have the 

2 database filled in with the final closure 

3 comments at that time. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

5 MS. MUNN: And then -- yeah, that's what we'll 

6 be looking for is -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll put it in the SC&A follow8 up; we'll put some -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: -- words to that effect. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 MS. MUNN: And if you've got a date up there, 

14 then that's the closure date for us. 

15 All right, that's good for number four. The 

16 next one is item number five, the procedure 

17 does not reference OCAS PR-005 for basic 

18 reviews or for detailed reviews. NIOSH says it 

19 was revised in 2007, it's a stand-alone 

20 document, PR-5 is referenced in Section 3. 

21 That's adequate. Any problems with that or any 

22 of the language on it? It would simply be 

23 accepted as-is. 

24 (No responses) 

25 Closed? 
184

1 (No responses) 

2 Closed. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Just for my understanding, what 

4 would SC&A's statement be on this particular 

5 case? 

6 MS. MUNN: NIOSH response is adequate, accepted 

7 as-is. 

8 DR. MAURO: Or that we loo-- we -- I guess as 

9 to the response or let the -- good question. 

10 The document was revised on 2/1, so that was 

11 quite a while ago. The question is, was our 

12 response because we read the revised document 

13 and see that yes, in fact it has made -- the 

14 changes have been made and, as changed -- or is 

15 that document is now fully responsible -- 

16 responsive to our originally concern, or is it 

17 that all we simply say was well, we saw the 

18 response -- I mean I guess I'm not sure whether 

19 we actually reviewed the new procedure. You 

20 see what I'm getting at? Whe-- whether or not 

21 our -- our current position -- 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve -- no, Steve has looked at 

23 Rev. 2 of the procedure. 

24 DR. MAURO: Okay, he did look at that then. 

25 All right. So the word -- the word should be 
185

1 we reviewed -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: We have verified that. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- verified that this has in fact 

4 occurred. Okay. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the -- the meaning of 

6 the response, if -- I think -- well, first of 

7 all, I think -- well, part of the response is 

8 okay, we added OCAS PR-5 as a reference. 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's part of it. 

11 MS. MUNN: Right. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the other part is that 

13 we don't -- there was no need to refer back to 

14 PR-05 for the basic and detailed review because 

15 the -- PR-7 describes to you as you do the 

16 review that five percent of the time the form's 

17 going to pop up and you have to complete the 

18 checklist on it during your review. And so I 

19 believe that's what it means by "this is a 

20 stand-alone document" is that it's described 

21 there, you know, the differences are described 

22 there, so there's no need necessarily to talk 

23 back to PR-05 for what's a detailed and what's 

24 a basic review. 

25 DR. MAURO: I -- I have to say, what I'm -- 
186

1 this is -- this is our first time through. 

2 Probably we need to do a little bit more 

3 writing -- not a lot more -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Not much. 

5 DR. MAURO: -- probably just a -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Probably just a sentence, just a 

7 sentence. 

8 DR. MAURO: -- just another sentence just to 

9 make sure that -- see, the way you're 

10 explaining it right now, Stu, is very -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's what it is. Now 

12 I'm -- 

13 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that would do it. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I'm -- this is not very 

15 fresh in my mind -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: But that's why we want something 

19 here, that we've -- 

20 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- confirmed that this appears 

22 there -- 

23 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- or whatever it is. 

25 MS. MUNN: And that's all it needs, actually, 
187

1 to confirm that that's taken place -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: The question -- 

3 MS. MUNN: -- and we agree. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: The question I would have is why 

5 did we find that it -- why did we feel that it 

6 needed to reference PR-5 in the first place? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It -- it might be that the 

8 original PR-7 didn't include any particular -- 

9 I don't know what it did. Maybe it didn't 

10 include a difference -- it wasn't sufficiently 

11 clear on the difference between a -- a basic 

12 and a detailed or maybe it was there was no 

13 instruction in PR-7 for how often you had to do 

14 a detailed, or something could have been -- I 

15 mean it could have been along those lines, but 

16 I don't -- I don't know. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: We'll have to go back and read 

18 the -- read our report. 

19 DR. MAURO: Exactly. With -- with regard to 

20 the first item, SC&A's original finding, that's 

21 something that's easy to work with because we 

22 can just go back to our report -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause you have it, right. 

24 DR. MAURO: -- we have it so we can go back -- 

25 and you know, maybe we could have done a better 
188

1 job in summarizing that finding -- you know, 

2 our concern and why we had that concern, so -- 

3 DR. OSTROW: John, this is Steve Ostrow. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yeah, hey, Steve, good. Thanks for 

5 joining us. 

6 Steve, right now we're looking at the review of 

7 PR-007, item number five. 

8 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

9 DR. MAURO: Okay? And if you have your 

10 reports, you -- you -- right now where we are 

11 is -- we're looking at our database, which I'm 

12 -- 

13 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

14 DR. MAURO: -- sure you're not looking at, but 

15 in effect what it does is it says okay, our 

16 original comment, your comment, in our original 

17 report regarding this particular matter is 

18 described and one -- in a one-liner. 

19 DR. OSTROW: Uh-huh. 

20 DR. MAURO: And I guess step one is when we 

21 summarized, very briefly, the one-liner -- 

22 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

23 DR. MAURO: -- did we do it justice in making 

24 it -- 

25 DR. OSTROW: Oh, okay, I see. 
189

1 DR. MAURO: In other words, right now -- I'll 

2 read the words to you. We say the procedure 

3 does not reference the OCAS PR-005 for basic 

4 reviews, Section 5.1.5, or the detailed 

5 reviews, Section 5.1.2. 

6 DR. OSTROW: Okay. 

7 DR. MAURO: And I guess the first thing that 

8 happened here was within what context was that 

9 concern. Other words, this very brief 

10 description of your finding -- 

11 DR. OSTROW: Oh, all right. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- may be a little too brief, and 

13 that's -- you know, that's more of our concern 

14 in loading up the database. 

15 MS. MUNN: The question, Steve, really was why 

16 did you feel that 05 should be referenced to 

17 begin with. That was the question. 

18 DR. OSTROW: Well, because OCAS-7 is on dose 

19 reconstruction reviews, but OCAS-5 talks about 

20 the -- the conduct of a-- of assessments, the 

21 basic reviews and the detailed reviews, so I 

22 thought that 07 should just reference 05. 

23 MS. MUNN: Okay, that makes sense. 

24 DR. OSTROW: I mean there's nothing profound 

25 about it. 
190

1 MS. MUNN: No, understand that. 

2 DR. OSTROW: I thought it was a related 

3 procedure, so this one I thought should 

4 reference the other one, too. And there's no 

5 deep meaning in that one. 

6 MS. MUNN: Understand, okay. So -- so the 

7 statement that -- that since the revision has 

8 been made and the reference now appears in 

9 Section 3, you've confirmed that, and that 

10 therefore takes care of the -- of the issue. 

11 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah, good. All right, that's what 

13 we need to know. 

14 For this one, uh-huh. Thank you. 

15 DR. OSTROW: You're welcome. 

16 MS. MUNN: All right, we can mark this one 

17 closed. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Now there's still going to be a 

19 statement though. Right? 

20 MS. MUNN: One more -- oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. 

21 DR. MAURO: Well, we've got to load it now. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Uh-huh. 

23 DR. MAURO: That's part of our story. 

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we're -- we're 

25 making sure that Steve here has plenty to do. 
191

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now I'm not going to close 

2 anything -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Nope. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- until after -- until we get 

5 these all -- all -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Until -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- all loaded and agreed -- and 

8 wording agreed to. 

9 MS. MUNN: Right. Correct. Next issue is 7-6, 

10 the procedure should provide guidance on what 

11 is meant by "a significant overestimate," and 

12 the NIOSH response was it's been revised. The 

13 term "significant overestimate" does not appear 

14 in the current revision. That would seem to 

15 take care of the problem. Does anyone have any 

16 issue with that? 

17 (No responses) 

18 All right. 

19 DR. MAURO: Other than -- when you -- I just -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And you'll state the -- exactly 

21 what she said. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, right. And Steve, just for 

23 you -- now when -- when -- when you checked 

24 this -- I mean I guess the last step in this, 

25 did you read the revised procedure and confirm 
192

1 that those words are no longer there? 

2 DR. OSTROW: I didn't find it. 

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. You di-- you di-- wait a 

4 minute, I'm sorry. You didn't find the 

5 procedure? 

6 DR. WADE: He didn't find the words. 

7 DR. MAURO: Oh, you didn't find the -- 

8 DR. OSTROW: I didn't find the words. 

9 DR. MAURO: -- words, okay. Good. 

10 DR. OSTROW: I read the procedure but I didn't 

11 see that -- those words in it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: They were well-hidden this time. 

13 DR. WADE: He's not saying they're not there 

14 'cause this is a lawyer we're talking about. 

15 MS. MUNN: But the nice thing about electronic 

16 documents is it's easy to check to see if 

17 "significant overestimate" is there. 

18 DR. OSTROW: Right. 

19 MS. MUNN: Next item would be item number seven 

20 for the same procedure, the procedure should 

21 not be limited to, quote, radiological workers, 

22 end quote. Response from NIOSH is the 

23 procedure is not limited to radiological 

24 workers. The term "radiological worker" 

25 appears in the section which describes the 
193

1 likelihood of exposure. No issue beyond that. 

2 Mr. Ostrow has accepted that, SC&A accepts it. 

3 Any issue around the table here? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Okay. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: That one appears to still be an 

7 interpretation. Right? 

8 DR. MAURO: I -- I'm going to have to leave 

9 this to Steve. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Steve, in other words, there's -- 

11 there's no revision or anything. You thought 

12 what they said that they were limiting it to 

13 radiological workers, and they're saying no, we 

14 only use that term when we're talking about the 

15 likelihood of exposure. 

16 DR. OSTROW: That's true, and I re-read the 

17 procedure and I agree. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

19 DR. MAURO: So -- so in effect you're 

20 withdrawing your comment. In other words, you 

21 -- 

22 DR. OSTROW: Yeah. 

23 DR. MAURO: -- after -- after this 

24 clarification was made, you see that in fact it 

25 wa-- it was okay as it was. 
194

1 DR. OSTROW: That's right. 

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve, what we're going to have 

4 to do, we're going to have to ask you on your -

5 - for this PR-007 and PR-005 that -- 

6 DR. OSTROW: Right. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- we're going to have to -- we 

8 understand that you agree with the NIOSH 

9 responses, but we're going to -- you're going 

10 to have to add a little why do you agree -- 

11 DR. OSTROW: Certainly. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- for each one of the -- each 

13 one of the -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- responses -- 

16 DR. OSTROW: Okay, I can do that. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: -- so that we have it on -- on 

18 record. 

19 DR. OSTROW: All right. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: So -- and we can add that to the 

21 database. 

22 DR. OSTROW: Okay, no problem. 

23 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

24 DR. WADE: And you don't have to say you're a 

25 bad person in that -- 
195

1 DR. OSTROW: I won't put that in. 

2 DR. WADE: Okay. 

3 MS. MUNN: The next item is PR-7-08. It is 

4 suggested that the record of issues/revisions 

5 provide more detailed information, and that the 

6 revised sections are denoted. 

7 DR. OSTROW: That was just a general comment I 

8 made. It doesn't detract from the usefulness 

9 of the procedure. It's just that it's not that 

10 cl-- clear in the recommended issues and 

11 revisions what exactly has been revised. 

12 MS. MUNN: That's a good suggestion. 

13 Historical versions are maintained. 

14 DR. OSTROW: Yeah. So I suppose the answer is 

15 if someone is really interested in what's 

16 changed, you can look at one of the previous 

17 revisions. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We do -- we do try -- we get 

19 varying levels of success in records of 

20 revision page describing what changed, so we 

21 understand that it's -- it's really helpful to 

22 have a pretty good idea why was the revision 

23 done and what was revised. But if you have a 

24 large number of revisions, then the record of 

25 revision becomes kind of tedious, or sometimes 
196

1 -- when you're changing so much, record of 

2 revision just says "complete rewrite" -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

4 DR. MAURO: I've seen that. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so -- "complete 

6 rewrite", so at that point it's -- it's really 

7 hard to tell unless you're going to go back. 

8 DR. WADE: Remember our discussion of before 

9 lunch. We had just this discussion about how 

10 to maintain our own record of revisions. 

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. So that's -- response is 

12 accepted and we can close that. And -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Isn't -- I have a question, 

14 though. Is this -- this generally applies to 

15 all revisions, I guess, not just this 

16 particular -- you have a section called -- 

17 let's see, where did this arise? It was on a 

18 particular page where you must have listed 

19 revisions that you had made? Do you remember, 

20 Steve, what -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It was a -- they re-- they 

22 reviewed Rev. 1, so -- 

23 DR. OSTROW: All the procedures have a -- near 

24 the beginning, a record of issue and revision, 

25 so they have like Rev. 0, Rev. 1, Rev. 2, 
197

1 whatever, and each one gives a short 

2 description of what pages are affected and what 

3 sections and what the changes are. I mean all 

4 the procedures have that. I just noted it here 

5 for this particular procedure 'cause I was 

6 reading it. Since it's a revision, it's Rev. 

7 1, I was trying to look at the record of issue 

8 and revisions to see what's changed since Rev. 

9 0, and I ended up I just re-read Rev. 0, then 

10 read Rev. 1 so I saw what changed. It's more 

11 of a convenience issue. It's not really a -- a 

12 criticism of the procedure. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I was just saying I 

14 think it has broad ap-- applicability probably 

15 to other procedures as well, and I think your 

16 comment probably is even generic in that sense. 

17 MS. MUNN: And was -- appears to have been 

18 accepted as such by NIOSH. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: That would close it. 

20 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I don't know that you could 

22 say anything more in this one, NIOSH simply 

23 accepts that. 

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah, in effect this was just a -- 

25 what I -- what I'm reading there is it would be 
198

1 helpful to all users that there -- if -- to -- 

2 the extent to which you can make it a little 

3 con-- you know, so it's -- it's not even really 

4 a -- a finding. It's almost like a 

5 constructive criticism. 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: It's not even a criticism -- 

9 DR. MAURO: It's not even a criticism. 

10 MS. MUNN: -- it's just a good suggestion. 

11 DR. MAURO: A suggestion. 

12 MS. MUNN: And it's accepted. Next item is 

13 number nine, it would be helpful to the reader 

14 to include an acronym section in the 

15 procedures. Response is it's a good 

16 suggestion, and as a matter of fact that's 

17 frequently done now, is it not? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah, I frequently have 

19 those. I don't know -- I don't know that this 

20 has ever been revised to include it, but -- 

21 this specific procedure, but it is fairly 

22 common, you know, to put in an acronym. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve, did -- do you recall Rev. 

24 2 of the -- of -- of this procedure included an 

25 acronym list? 
199

1 DR. OSTROW: I don't think it did. I don't 

2 think it did. I'd have to check it again, but 

3 I don't think it did include an acronym list. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) I think Rev. 2 

5 was -- see, there's a little (unintelligible) 

6 the (unintelligible) issue here, you know, 

7 because, you know, Steve reviewed Rev. 1 and 

8 then I think Rev. 2 may have come out before we 

9 wrote the responses here. 

10 MS. MUNN: I think so, too. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And it would be like well, it's 

12 a good suggestion. 

13 DR. MAURO: Didn't catch up. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Too bad we didn't catch up -- 

15 we didn't catch it -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Should have told us sooner. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- should have caught it; wish 

18 we'd done it. 

19 DR. OSTROW: Okay, I just took a look at Rev. 2 

20 on my computer and it -- it does not have an 

21 acronym list. 

22 MS. MUNN: And it does -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: But you're -- Steve, you're 

24 recommending closing it on the basis that NIOSH 

25 agreed with you? 
200

1 DR. OSTROW: Well, it's not a -- I mean this is 

2 not like a crucial issue. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

4 DR. OSTROW: I mean I wouldn't expect them to 

5 issue another revision just to put an acronym 

6 list in. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, no. 

8 DR. OSTROW: This is like in the future they -- 

9 it would be a good idea to include acronyms. 

10 MS. MUNN: And for the most part, they do. 

11 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. Make a note. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yes. The next issue is -- when I 

13 just do "next issue," I get TIB-9, which is 

14 transferred to global issues. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Where do you want to go? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: What -- what was the one we just 

17 closed? 

18 MS. MUNN: We just closed PR-7, item nine. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, 7-9. 

20 MS. MUNN: And before we get to the next one on 

21 the printed list that we have here -- just 

22 checking, since I have everything that is 

23 considered open, this is one of those 

24 interesting things. We have TIB-9-01, which is 

25 transferred to global issues, and I believe 
201

1 we've agreed to leave them in transferred state 

2 until it's closed out somewhere else. That was 

3 our -- our agreement. So in the follow-up down 

4 here, perhaps it would be wise to indicate that 

5 the workgroup has determined that transferred 

6 items will be retained in the database until 

7 they're closed by the transferring -- by the 

8 transferred agency -- 

9 DR. MAURO: Question -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- or group. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- it's one thing to say yes, this 

12 issue now is -- is in the hands of OTIB-9 

13 procedure review group, or you know, that group 

14 that's looking at -- or the folks that are 

15 concerned with OTIB-9. Now does -- does that 

16 mean that this stays in abeyance until that 

17 issue is -- I gue-- I'm -- I'm a little -- 

18 other words -- let me see if I can 

19 (unintelligible). This item here, one, has 

20 been -- 

21 MS. MUNN: We're -- 

22 DR. MAURO: No, no, I'm sorry. 

23 MS. MUNN: -- not looking at this. 

24 DR. MAURO: No -- no, I -- O-- 

25 MS. MUNN: It's not -- this is one that isn't 
202

1 on here. 

2 DR. MAURO: Okay, O-- okay, OTIB-09, I know -- 

3 I think I know what that is, and it -- right, 

4 the ingestion intakes. 

5 MS. MUNN: Right. 

6 DR. MAURO: Now, I believe that's a global 

7 issue. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Yes, yes, yes. 

9 DR. MAURO: Oh, you -- see it is glo-- good. 

10 MS. MUNN: I see it is global. 

11 DR. MAURO: Now the que-- and -- and it's been 

12 identified as transferred. 

13 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

14 DR. MAURO: Okay. And it stays in that mode? 

15 MS. MUNN: We -- it stays in that mode until 

16 global issues have addressed this -- 

17 DR. MAURO: Got it. 

18 MS. MUNN: -- so that we don't lose track of 

19 it. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Now there is no global issues 

21 working group. 

22 MS. MUNN: Well, we -- we -- 

23 DR. WADE: Jim Neton -- Jim Neton was one of 

24 the bodies that we decided you could assign 

25 things to, so this is Jim Neton's global issues 
203

1 -- 

2 DR. MAURO: It's in it already. I know Jim 

3 gives a summary of his globals. 

4 DR. WADE: Right, so that's one of the elements 

5 we can track. Now he has to do his work. 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 DR. MAURO: Then that's -- by the way, that's -

8 - that's also a -- in this particular case, 

9 it's an easy one because there already exists -

10 - 

11 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- in Jim's global scientific 

13 investigations a body that's looking at this 

14 particular issue. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

16 DR. MAURO: Now the -- is it pos-- I guess -- 

17 have we ever run across a situation where we 

18 feel that this is a generic issue that has 

19 global implications, but there is no global 

20 place for it to be handled, but there prob-- 

21 there should be one? 

22 MS. MUNN: The global place is Jim. 

23 DR. MAURO: Okay -- okay, so in effect we could 

24 transfer something, even though it doesn't have 

25 a home yet. 
204

1 MS. MUNN: That's true. 

2 DR. WADE: But the Board would have to 

3 recommend to NIOSH -- 

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

5 DR. WADE: -- that it develop a global issue 

6 around that. 

7 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

9 MS. MUNN: The next one that comes up is one 

10 that we have on our list, TIB-10-01. This is 

11 the best estimate external dose reconstruction 

12 for glovebox workers. The finding was the TIB 

13 lacks transparency. The radioactive source is 

14 not identified. Neither exact dimensions nor 

15 location are given, nor is the thickness of the 

16 walls presented. NIOSH response is good 

17 comment, information will be added as an 

18 appendix to the report. However, since the 

19 ratio is completely a function of geometry and 

20 not of radionuclide or material thickness, 

21 specification of radionuclide and material does 

22 not add real value. If a photon or neutron 

23 makes it through the shield, it will hit the 

24 upper torso approximately two times less 

25 intensely than the lower torso. And it's shown 
205

1 as being in abeyance, then Anigstein concurs 

2 with NIOSH's proposal to specify the organs in 

3 a revised TIB. Is that your understanding as 

4 well, Stu? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

6 DR. MAURO: I got a phone call from -- I -- 

7 Bob's probably not on the line because he's on 

8 travel somewhere else, but he called me yester9 - last night or yesterday sometime. He 

10 mentioned something that may be -- or -- he 

11 says he agrees completely that the adjustment 

12 factors -- this had to do with the glovebox, 

13 film badge worn on the lapel versus the dose, 

14 let's say to the bladder. 

15 And he agrees completely that the adjustment 

16 factor -- the factor of two is based entirely 

17 on geometry, so this business of the thickness 

18 of the walls of the glovebox and all that 

19 really are not important. But then he said but 

20 he recently was looking at another OTIB where 

21 it became apparent to him that well, there is 

22 another factor at play here that should be 

23 brought up before the workgroup, and that is 

24 the angle of incidence. So unfortunately when 

25 he reviewed this, he -- he did not evalu-- this 
206

1 particular procedure, he did not look into the 

2 issue of angle of incidence, and the way he 

3 explained it was he did -- he did not have the 

4 software -- which is a MCNP version, fairly 

5 sophisticated -- to look into that matter, and 

6 -- but subsequent to reviewing this he now has 

7 access to that and he ran it to see what 

8 happens if you factor in not only the geometry 

9 but the fact that the film badge -- the angle 

10 is coming in at the edge of the film badge as 

11 opposed to perpendicular, and he said that 

12 might have another factor of two effect. So he 

13 asked me to pass on to the workgroup the fact 

14 that there is an angle of incidence concern 

15 here that should have been raised at the time 

16 of the review, but at the time of the review he 

17 did not have the tools that allowed him to 

18 evaluate that. So -- Steve, did you talk to 

19 Bob about this -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: He's got tha-- he's got it 

22 written in number five. 

23 DR. MAURO: Oh, so it's written on a little 

24 further down? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 
207

1 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, so -- never mind. Sounds 

2 like we've got it. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: It's here. 

4 DR. MAURO: It's here. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It's here in the information 

6 provided. I -- I don't really have a response. 

7 I'll have to get some -- you know, got it and 

8 so -- 

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- may not have had it -- if 

11 I'd had it for a few days (unintelligible) have 

12 a response. We'll have to go back and -- and 

13 consider that. So in general, though, we 

14 believe there are probably some revisions -- 

15 some clarifying that should be done here as 

16 well anyway. Regardless of where we end up on 

17 this issue, we believe there are some 

18 clarifying things and so we expect there will 

19 be a revision, and then -- is there -- if this 

20 -- this is a substantive change that we adopt -

21 - Bob's got another one here, too, number three 

22 -- these are substantive comments that would 

23 affect the numbers -- 

24 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so in other words 
208

1 there's going to be a more lengthy resolution 

2 of that -- 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and -- than what we would -- 

5 you know, that -- that may take some -- some 

6 back and forth, you know, as would a number of 

7 (unintelligible). 

8 MS. MUNN: It appears this status changes from 

9 open to in progress. And their -- the 

10 workgroup directive for this date would be for 

11 SC&A and NIOSH to identify what changes will be 

12 made and what TIB is affected. 

13 The next issue then would be TIB-10-2, which 

14 appears to be essentially the same thing. The 

15 finding was lower torso organs not specified. 

16 Response is the lower torso organs are 

17 generally considered to be those that would be 

18 below the stomach. The TIB will be revised to 

19 clarify which organs are considered to be in 

20 the lower torso. So again, the status changes 

21 to in progress, and the direction is for NIOSH 

22 to continue with the specification of organs. 

23 Next issue is TIB-10-3, correction factors do 

24 not represent worst case assumptions -- was the 

25 finding. The response was correction factors 
209

1 do not need to be worst case scenarios. The 

2 uncertainty identified by the lognormal 

3 distribution incorporates worst cast scenarios 

4 and gives the worst case scenario the proper 

5 weight. Most recent response from SC&A says 

6 they would concur with the use of a 

7 distribution only if the TIB listed the 95th 

8 percentile correction factor and recommended 

9 its use in the DR. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, now this -- this may be a 

11 philosophical -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's just philosophical. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and I think Jim would be 

16 (unintelligible), so maybe whoever Jim 

17 designates. 

18 MS. MUNN: I would think so. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: From our standpoint, you know, 

20 as a general rule we believe a distribution is 

21 a satisfactory representation of -- of a 

22 quantity, and it's not automatically necessary 

23 or appropriate to choose the 95th percentile 

24 every time you generate a distribution value to 

25 say well, we're doing that -- that has to be 
210

1 done in order to be claimant-favorable. We 

2 think the use of the distribution itself in 

3 occasion can be favorable -- can be 

4 sufficiently favorable or is the appropriate 

5 distribution. Remember, a claimant-favorable 

6 decision is -- is selected when you have 

7 alternative explanations that are equally 

8 plausible and you can't really sort them out, 

9 so you make the claimant-favorable choice. In 

10 a situation where you have a more plausible 

11 explanation, there's no need to choose a 

12 somewhat -- a -- a plausible, but less13 plausible, explanation that is more claimant 

14 favorable. So the -- the language about 

15 claimant favorability in -- probably in the 

16 preamble to one of the rules, has to do when 

17 there are alternative explanations that are 

18 essentially of equal probability. Because the 

19 other language in there talks about the weight 

20 of the evidence, and you develop a dose 

21 reconstruction that incorporates the weight of 

22 the evidence. And in those cases where you 

23 don't have a -- a weight of the evidence, a 

24 convincing weight of the evidence, then in 

25 those cases then you would choose the more 
211

1 claimant-favorable option when you have equally 

2 weighted probabilities -- equally -- equally 

3 plausible approaches. So just laying that out 

4 there as kind of background for where I think 

5 the discussion would start on our side, and it 

6 could be that Jim will read this and say well, 

7 Bob's right. He might, 'cause I'm -- I'm 

8 pretty sure -- I'm sure Jim has not seen this. 

9 Or -- but it may -- we may get into a 

10 discussion along those lines. 

11 DR. MAURO: And I -- I think this is a very 

12 important philosophical -- because what this 

13 means is when we do -- when a dose 

14 reconstruction's being done and there is some 

15 uncertainty, and say well, this guy's dose 

16 could be anywhere between here and here, and we 

17 really can't do much better than that, and the 

18 geometric mean of betw-- is here's the value -- 

19 so here's the value we're going to use with 

20 this uncertainty, so therefore you're -- or do 

21 you say no, it's between here and here, we're 

22 going to use a fixed value and assign the upper 

23 val-- value, and I agree. I think it's -- it's 

24 a judgment -- a policy decision that will have 

25 a big effect on the outcome, and I don't -- and 
212

1 I know in some venues when we entered into this 

2 discussion, it usually went toward the fact 

3 that well, we have a building and someone's 

4 working in the building, and we know that some 

5 rooms have higher concentrations than others. 

6 But we also know that this worker -- his job 

7 was to work in all the different places, he 

8 didn't stay in one buil-- one room. He worked 

9 in a lot of different rooms. So for him, the 

10 median of the -- of the entire building is 

11 probably the right number for him. But for 

12 this other guy, let's say we don't really know 

13 where he worked, but we do know by and large 

14 that -- that peop-- there are people working 

15 one location, and we don't know really what 

16 location that was. In those circumstances, 

17 this has been something that we all -- we did 

18 discuss. We assigned the guy to the wor-- to 

19 the 95th percentile location -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

21 DR. MAURO: -- 'cause if -- 'cause we don't 

22 know any better. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

24 DR. MAURO: Now we're talking about something 

25 similar where we're saying well, we -- when we 
213

1 modeled this guy's dose, there's enough 

2 uncertainty on how you go about the mathematics 

3 of the process that we know we could put it -- 

4 it's between here and here. The question is 

5 what do you -- what do you -- what do you -- 

6 and right now you're picking the full 

7 distribution. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: For this -- this TIB came out 

9 originally using, I believe, the dis-- the full 

10 distribution -- 

11 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of -- I guess it's a 

13 (unintelligible) factor (unintelligible). 

14 DR. MAURO: And -- and I think this is a -- a 

15 needed and healthy discussion with -- to -- you 

16 know, right now I -- I don't know what the 

17 right answer is but I think that this is 

18 something that needs to be discussed. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and I think that we'll 

20 have -- we'll have to bring a few people to the 

21 discussion, but that'll be part of this. 

22 MS. MUNN: So our status changes from open to 

23 in progress. The SC&A comment that is shown on 

24 the printout that we have will be incorporated 

25 into the database with today's date, and the 
214

1 workgroup's directive will be for SC&A and 

2 NIOSH to discuss this and attempt to reach a 

3 resolution. 

4 DR. MAURO: I have a feeling it's going to be 

5 regulatory-driven. There's probably going to 

6 be some language in the regulations that will 

7 help us make a judgment where we should come 

8 down on this. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Might be. Might be, and I'm -- 

10 I'm just laying out there, you know, a thought 

11 process and I don't know, it may not even be. 

12 MS. MUNN: Next item is TIB-10, item four. 

13 Finding was analysis is needlessly complex. 

14 NIOSH response is noted, no revision is 

15 proposed. Anigstein accepts the fact that 

16 they've taken note of it, and that's -- was 

17 more of an observation rather than -- that 

18 should change to closed, and the wording that's 

19 identified here should be incorporated into the 

20 database. 

21 Item five -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, wait. So on this one what 

23 did NIOSH actually do? 

24 MS. MUNN: Nothing. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Meaning wha-- in the original -
215

1 - 

2 DR. ZIEMER: It's needless complex. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Needless complex. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I mean did you simplify the 

5 analysis or -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- is it still needlessly complex? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah, some -- some of 

9 (unintelligible) complexity. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, maybe it's not needless 

11 then. Maybe it's -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I have to go back on -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I mean -- I mean did -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- when the original report was 

15 -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- did Steve think there was a -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This was Bob. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- some way to do it -- this is 

19 Bob's? 

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah, Anigstein. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: He probably felt like you could 

22 have done this simpler. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: You said -- you were a lot more 

25 complicated in your description of this than 
216

1 you need to be. You know, what you -- what you 

2 actually do there is not complicated, but it 

3 sounds a lot more complicated. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, when it said you'd taken 

5 note of the findings and were aware that -- you 

6 think it's needlessly complex? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I mean -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Well -- well, he said it was 

9 actually more of an observation. He identified 

10 it more of an observation than a finding, in 

11 any case. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And I'm not familiar enough 

13 with which calculation they're talking about. 

14 It's -- it had to do with -- this -- this whole 

15 thing has to do with how you calculate the 

16 adjustment to a -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I mean if -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- based on the geometry. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- if you had an easier way to do 

20 it, then it would be fine to know that, but -- 

21 DR. MAURO: I mean if I recall, this is -- what 

22 I -- what I believe it is, there's this factor 

23 of two adjustment. In the end you have to into 

24 further calculations -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 
217

1 DR. MAURO: -- crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch 

2 numbers and model it and model the different 

3 geometries. In the end, we both come down to 

4 the same place, notwithstanding the angle of 

5 incidence issue but so -- just the issue 

6 related to geometry and -- the inverse square 

7 law -- you know what I think he was saying? I 

8 think that when all's said and done, all you 

9 have to do is apply the inverse square law. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

11 DR. MAURO: Why are we going through all these 

12 calculations? Except when you start to enter 

13 into the question of angle of incidence on the 

14 badge, that might have been the basis for his -

15 - 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: It could very well have been. 

17 I mean we went -- I think -- I think Bob used 

18 MCNP on this. Right? 

19 DR. MAURO: He probably did. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And we did a different model. 

21 DR. MAURO: Attila. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we used Attila, and got 

23 about the same number. 

24 DR. MAURO: And we got the same number. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we said well, hey, 
218

1 that's pretty good. You know, we got 

2 independent confirmation using two different 

3 platforms, that sounds pretty good. 

4 DR. MAURO: It's funny that he would say it's 

5 needlessly complex because you don't get more 

6 complicated than MCNP. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: MCNP, right. We chose Attila 

8 'cause it was simpler. 

9 MS. MUNN: But this may be closed also in light 

10 of the fact that the author of the finding is 

11 preparing to -- in another item, is preparing 

12 to complicate the issue even further, adding in 

13 yet more -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess we could presume -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- calculations must be desig-- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that that's necessary 

17 complication. 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think that -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so he's not saying you get 

21 the wrong result or anything like that, he's 

22 just saying that -- 

23 DR. MAURO: Easier way to do it. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it could -- it could 

25 very well be with the description of what was 
219

1 done -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as well. I mean, God help 

4 us, we don't necessarily write that clearly all 

5 the time. 

6 MS. MUNN: No, you don't. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And so it just be with the 

8 description of how the -- how the HP went about 

9 describing what was done. I -- I don't 

10 remember. If we pulled up the report, we 

11 probably (unintelligible) clear. You know, if 

12 we -- if we pulled up SC&A's report, it would 

13 probably be relatively clear. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Most of the time they are. 

16 MS. MUNN: Can we just accept this? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it's kind of a non-finding. 

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is a non-finding to begin 

19 with. Let's accept it as closed, incorporate 

20 the language that's been provided for us, 

21 including specifically that it's more of an 

22 observation than a finding at the outset. 

23 And in view of the fact that TIB-10 has four -- 

24 five more items on it and one or two of them is 

25 likely to be a little long-winded, let's take a 
220

1 15-minute break here to see if we can get out -

2 - ourselves in proper condition for another 

3 onslaught for a couple of hours. 

4 DR. WADE: Okay. We're going to take a break 

5 for 15 minutes. We'll be back at about 20 

6 minutes of 3:00. We're not going to break the 

7 line, we're just going to put the phone on 

8 mute. 

9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:25 p.m. 

10 to 2:40 p.m.) 

11 DR. WADE: Okay, this is the workgroup 

12 conference room and we're about to go back into 

13 session. 

14 MS. MUNN: You set, Ray? Our next issue -- 

15 we're still on TIB-10. This is item five. We 

16 question the design of the analysis. It 

17 compares the particle flux over locations on 

18 the torso rather than modeling the variation of 

19 dosimeter response with location. NIOSH's 

20 response was the dosimeter effectively measures 

21 particle flux. Through the use of filters, the 

22 film density is correlated to exposure/dose. 

23 According to the review, SC&A has conducted the 

24 same analysis using Hp(10) dose rates and MCNP25 5. In SC&A analysis similar correction factors 
221

1 as indicated in the TIB were obtained. Modem 

2 dosimeters were calibrated to measure Hp(10). 

3 Thus we believe the additional work of modeling 

4 the individual dosimeters is not warranted. 

5 The response that we have now from SC&A is we 

6 disagree with the NIOSH statement that 

7 dosimeters effectively measure particle flux. 

8 The conversion of particle flux to dose rate 

9 depends on the type of particle, the energy and 

10 the angle of incidence. The SC&A analysis of 

11 TIB-10 did not address the angular dependence 

12 of Hp(10). In our later review of TIB-13, 

13 which employs analytical methods similar to 

14 those of TIB-10, we did incorporate the angular 

15 dependence and found a large discrepancy with 

16 the NIOSH results. Finally, although we agree 

17 that modern dosimeters are calibrated to 

18 measure Hp(10), the correction factors may be 

19 used in conjunction with early dosimeters, 

20 which were not calibrated in the same manner. 

21 So, clearly this is not going to be accepted. 

22 There's a difference of opinion with respect to 

23 more than just the angle of incidence here, it 

24 would appear. Is there anything we can do in 

25 this meeting to move this along, or is this 
222

1 going to be something we simply have to kick 

2 back to NIOSH for response and technical 

3 resolution? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think you at least need a 

5 response. 

6 MS. MUNN: Oh, yeah. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- before you do anything -

8 - in progress means we've talked about it, so I 

9 think that's the appropriate status 

10 (unintelligible) it to, but the -- I think the 

11 basis of the issue is our model did not put a 

12 dosimeter at various places across a person's 

13 torso and see what kind of response you get 

14 (unintelligible) dosimeter. It just looked at 

15 the particle (unintelligible) across various -- 

16 across the torso. And our position would be 

17 that well, the badges are good -- you know, 

18 particle (unintelligible) is a good indicator 

19 it's essentially -- for a given spectrum, 

20 particle (unintelligible) is proportional to 

21 the dose. So -- so our position was look, you 

22 -- you've got -- you know, any kind of question 

23 about is the badge reading the -- the radiation 

24 correctly is apart from the actual glovebox 

25 part of this question, and so -- but is the 
223

1 badge reading the dose correctly is sort of the 

2 -- the -- the additional thing. It's relevant, 

3 certainly, and it's what Bob has raised here 

4 because the angular dependence would be a big 

5 piece of is the badge reading the dose appro-- 

6 appropriately. So angular -- I knew angular 

7 dependence had come up somewhere else. I 

8 didn't remember it was TIB-13, but I knew it 

9 had come up somewhere, and so there'll have to 

10 be a resolution effort for angular dependence 

11 that would relate to this as well as the other 

12 place it came up. 

13 MS. MUNN: No, I didn't -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if -- 

15 MS. MUNN: I didn't -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we can go any further today. 

17 MS. MUNN: I didn't remember where it came up, 

18 either, but it's -- it's not a new -- it's 

19 nothing new on the table. We already have it. 

20 If no one has any objection, we will move this 

21 to in progress rather than open. We will 

22 incorporate the words from the SC&A response 

23 into the follow-up section, and the working 

24 group's directive will be for NIOSH to 

25 communicate with SC&A to attempt resolution of 
224

1 this. 

2 The next issue is TIB-10, item six. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Excuse me, Wanda. When you say 

4 communicate, do you mean like a -- a telephone 

5 conference or do you mean -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- e-mails back and forth or -- 

8 MS. MUNN: I mean telephone conferences -- 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Telephone conference? 

10 MS. MUNN: -- and e-mails, whatever is 

11 required. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: All -- whatever is needed? 

13 Whatever's needed. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes, whatever is needed. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the first point 

16 would probably be for us -- if we have a 

17 tentative position to write, we could write 

18 that -- 

19 MS. MUNN: It would be helpful. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to help get started. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah, helpful. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And all that communication 

23 should be -- again, coming out of the -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Should we go through the 

25 workgroup on that or should we just go directly 
225

1 to each other? 

2 MS. MUNN: I think you should go directly to 

3 each other until you have at least a position. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Anything -- anything we write, 

5 we'll share with the -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- share with the subcommittee. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we'd appreciate that. 

9 MR. GIBSON: And the technical calls, I think 

10 Mark likes to be on those a lot of times, too. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, he's always -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we always -- we always 

13 let the -- the subcommittee or workgroup know 

14 when one gets scheduled. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yep, just keep us in the loop. TIB16 10, item six, we question the assumptions made 

17 concerning the glovebox model; e.g., wall 

18 thickness, Lexan windows, et cetera. And NIOSH 

19 response was the model was to evaluate a 

20 typical glovebox in a claimant-neutral or 

21 favorable manner. As illustrated in the TIB, 

22 glovebox designs vary from facility to facility 

23 and may have steel-faced plates that greatly 

24 reduce the photon flux to the lower torso 

25 compared to where the badge would be worn on 
226

1 the lapel. Since the SC&A MCNP model resulted 

2 in a similar correction factor using a 

3 different glovebox design, assumptions about 

4 glovebox model, wall thickness, et cetera, do 

5 not seem to be a serious issue. 

6 SC&A's comment is the use of glovebox model 

7 with walls over four centimeters thick does not 

8 represent any actual glovebox design, past or 

9 present. The thickness of the glovebox may 

10 well affect Hp(10) if angle of dependence were 

11 considered. 

12 Does this not appear to be essentially the same 

13 type of concern as item five? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think it'll be wrapped 

15 in with that. I mean our position is that we 

16 didn't pick an actual glovebox and model it 

17 because there's a wide variety in gloveboxes 

18 that were used throughout the complex and we 

19 wanted to have a document that was applicable 

20 and favorable, you know, so it could be used 

21 everywhere, rather than trying to do one for a 

22 redesigned glovebox and trying to figure out 

23 what design a person used. So that was the 

24 approach here, so we didn't really try to make 

25 it look like a glovebox, and the fact that the 
227

1 design we chose doesn't fit any real gloveboxes 

2 kind of doesn't really matter to us. That 

3 there were no gloveboxes that truly looked like 

4 that, to us that doesn't matter. But the other 

5 question about does that -- you know, is there 

6 some design feature there or something about it 

7 that will affect the -- the issue we already 

8 know we're going to have to work it, which is 

9 the angle of dependence -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Angle of dependence. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- then, you know, we can go 

12 into that as well. 

13 MS. MUNN: Is there a possibility that we can 

14 combine these two? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I have -- I don't know, I think 

16 you'd have to get with Bob on that -- 

17 (unintelligible) anybody else could comment on 

18 that. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I think I'm going to talk to Bob 

20 before I agree to combining them or, you know, 

21 make this addressed in number five or something 

22 like that, and -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Would you, off-line, communicate 

24 with -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I will. 
228

1 MS. MUNN: -- Bob about that -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And I will e-mail the -- 

3 MS. MUNN: -- and ask him -- 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- workgroup the -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- ask him if, in his view, it's -- 

6 it's reasonable to combine them. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Reasonable to combine them, and 

8 if answering one -- answering five would also 

9 answer six, I'll -- I'll talk to him and see. 

10 MS. MUNN: We'll talk about that at the -- at 

11 Redondo Beach. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: At Redondo Beach we can put that 

13 in. 

14 MS. MUNN: Very good. All right. Yes, Paul? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I have a question on this 

16 particular one. Stu, do you recall -- did -- 

17 did NIOSH assume a four-inch -- four-centimeter 

18 thick glovebox -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: No, it's still pretty thick -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Pretty thick. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- depending on -- unless it's -- 

23 unless it's, you know, intentionally made to 

24 shield in some way. Sometimes gloveboxes 

25 (unintelligible) some shielding, particularly 
229

1 in nuclear (unintelligible). Otherwise, that's 

2 -- that is pretty thick. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I don't know if it doe-- 

4 I guess it does, I don't know. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: And also in connection with this 

6 and the previous one, are assumptions made 

7 about these source geometry -- I mean typical 

8 glovebox, the source is pretty well spread out. 

9 It's not just one thing. Right? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: My -- I don't know much about 

11 typical glovebox work. I think that that's the 

12 case many times, and there may be other 

13 applications where there's (unintelligible) 

14 work on at a time. I -- I really don't know. 

15 MS. MUNN: Where there's what? I'm sorry. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Many sources in the glovebox, 

18 or is there a particular item that's worked on 

19 and then removed and another one -- one single 

20 item brought in. 

21 MS. MUNN: Oh, that depends on what's going on 

22 at any given site. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and they're -- and they are 

24 often not point sources, they're -- 

25 MS. MUNN: No, they're multiple. 
230

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- they may -- yeah, multiple, and 

2 also there's a lot of scattering going on, so -

3 - 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm not sure -- well, I'm just 

6 -- 

7 MS. MUNN: No, when -- when you get into 

8 production facilities where all the remote 

9 handling's taking place, you've got -- you've 

10 got a whole glovebox full of differing -- often 

11 even differing isotopes, so -- okay, action on 

12 it is to change -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Same as the previous, I suppose. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably the same -- same 

15 action as the previous. Whether they -- 

16 whether it's the same -- whether it's the same 

17 finding and the same resolution, or whether 

18 they're two separate resolution discussions, 

19 but it's still the same action. 

20 MS. MUNN: Still the same action. We change it 

21 to -- to in progress rather than open. And 

22 Steve's going to let us know what Bob thinks 

23 with respect to combining them. 

24 Next item is 07. The finding was we question 

25 the use of an anatomical illustration of a 
231

1 human torso rather than the ORNL-developed ICRP 

2 reference man-based anthropomorphic phantoms. 

3 And NIOSH response -- again, since the 

4 correction factor based on the Hp(10) dose rate 

5 calculated by SC&A MCNP model -- which, by 

6 definition, is the dose ten millimeters into 

7 tissue -- was the same as the correction factor 

8 calculated using the anatomical illustration, 

9 we do not feel the additional work needed to 

10 model the ICRP-referenced man is warranted. 

11 And Anigstein concurs and recommends that it be 

12 closed. 

13 Any problem with any of that? 

14 (No responses) 

15 Hearing none, we will change the -- the status 

16 to closed and the SC&A follow-up will be the 

17 wording identified here on Steve's list, that 

18 SC&A concurs with NIOSH response, closed. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: So that one I can actually make 

20 the closed change to the database. 

21 MS. MUNN: Huh? 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: That one we can make the change 

23 to the database -- 

24 MS. MUNN: I see no reason why not. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: -- without any further approval 
232

1 from the workgroup. 

2 MS. MUNN: I see no reason why not, unless 

3 there's objection raised, which I don't hear. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to remember if Hp(10) 

5 is really a -- 10 millimeters. It's actually 

6 pretty shallow. Isn't the -- the standard 

7 sphere, isn't it a 20-centimeter sphere -- 

8 could you have someone check on that, Stu? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: For which, the definition of 

10 Hp(10)? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Hp(10) -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Ten mil-- ten millimeters? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I think it's centimeters. I -- I 

15 think -- I think it's the center of a 20-

16 centimeter sphere, not a 20-millimeter sphere, 

17 which is a -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So you're saying Hp being the 

19 center of a 20-- 

20 MS. THOMAS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, I know what you're 

22 talking about. You're talking about some 

23 quantity's measured at the center -- and it's 

24 the highest point -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: It's the highest point -- 
233

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the highest point in a 20-

2 centi-- in a sphere. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: But the distance is taken to the -

4 - to the -- the distance is taken to the ten5 centimeter point. You know what I'm saying? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I know what you're saying. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: The -- the depth of the maximum is 

8 never specified. It's the center of the sphere 

9 that's specified. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I know you're -- I know you're 

11 talking about how -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: So if -- if your -- if your source 

13 is here and this is the body, you claim that 

14 the distance is this distance, it's the -- I 

15 think it's the center of a 20-centimeter 

16 sphere, it's the maximum dose in there, 

17 wherever that occurs. It's somewhere between 

18 .7 millimeters and 20, I think, and I -- I 

19 don't think it's the (unintelligible), ten 

20 centi-- millimeters of tissue. I think that's 

21 wrong. I noticed that before, but... 

22 MS. MUNN: There'll be a brief pause while we 

23 see if we can get yet one more health physics 

24 expert to weigh in on exactly what Hp(10) does. 

25 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) one of our HP 
234

1 experts not here. 

2 MS. MUNN: Exactly. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in fact, the -- the 

4 definition of deep dose is never at a specified 

5 distance (unintelligible) shallow dose is -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah, shallow dose is -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- so that's -- that's wrong. 

8 (Pause) 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Brant thought it was the 

10 dose at ten millimeters. 

11 (Pause) 

12 Just to warn the Chair, I may be interrupted in 

13 a little bit by a phone call. 

14 MS. MUNN: Oh, that's -- that's quite all 

15 right. That's no interruption, it's 

16 fulfillment of our destiny here. So we will 

17 come back to item seven when we get feedback 

18 from yet another HP expert. 

19 We'll move on in the meantime to the next 

20 issue, which is item eight, the use of the 

21 Attila software is questioned. And the 

22 response is Attila was used out of convenience. 

23 Apparently we also ran MCNPX models and 

24 obtained similar results. Attila allows for an 

25 easy grasp of representation of the particle 
235

1 flux/dose rate that we feel is more informative 

2 to the casual reader and is therefore more 

3 transparent than MCNP. In addition, since the 

4 SC&A review comments indicate concurrence with 

5 the correction factor based on SC&A MCNP-5 

6 model, we feel this comment is simply a matter 

7 of preference. 

8 The response that came back is Anigstein 

9 concurs with NIOSH response, but awaits a 

10 presentation of the confirming MCNPX 

11 calculations in the revised TIB. Is that in 

12 the offing, Stu? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I'd like to ask SC&A, and I 

14 know you will have to go to Bob, for a little 

15 additional explanation here. Is he expecting 

16 us to write a revision that includes an MCNP 

17 version of the same calculations? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I think what he would be looking 

19 -- I think if we can delate -- delete in the 

20 revised TIB, from -- from his response, maybe 

21 we could take a look -- I mean it says in your 

22 response that you've made the MCNPX runs. We -

23 - do you have that -- a document, quality 

24 assurance packet or something, that -- that 

25 compares the results of your MCNPX runs to your 
236

1 Attila runs? If we could look at that 

2 comparison, I don't know that it has to be 

3 revision to the TIB, but maybe just a -- a -- 

4 you know, some kind of a -- a calculation 

5 package or something that -- that shows the 

6 comparison, then we would be happy. 

7 MS. MUNN: Is that reasonable? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so. I thought that 

9 Bob ran MCNP and got similar results, but I 

10 could -- I could be mistaken. 

11 MS. MUNN: Maybe he's just wanting to get it on 

12 the record here. So at this moment I'm marking 

13 out "in the revised TIB" from the SC&A 

14 response, and we're going to hold this in 

15 abeyance on -- and we're going to add SC&A's 

16 follow-up with these words, absent "in the 

17 revised TIB", and will expect a NIOSH follow-up 

18 at some time after the first week in September. 

19 Acceptable? 

20 (No responses) 

21 Hearing no problem with that, we'll move 

22 forward. 

23 Next item is TIB-10-9, the use of Rocky Flats 

24 to validate the model is questionable. Rocky 

25 Flats data is for glovebox and non-glovebox 
237

1 workers. Information is lacking regarding 

2 radiation sources, et cetera. NIOSH's response 

3 is RFP data was used only as proof of principle 

4 for the use of Attila. It was added as an 

5 appendix for this reason. It is not used in 

6 the justification of glovebox factor in the 

7 TIB. Also the RFP data used was from glovebox 

8 workers. 

9 And the response from SC&A says on page 11 of 

10 the TIB it was stated the claims involve 

11 glovebox and non-glovebox workers. If only 

12 data on glovebox workers were used in the 

13 validation, this should be stated in the 

14 revised TIB. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll have to provide 

16 another response to that. It could be as 

17 simple as saying -- we've already promised to 

18 revise this TIB from like one and two, so it 

19 could be as simple as saying we'll include the 

20 -- that statement -- you know, take this 

21 statement out, in quotes, and put in the 

22 statement that the claims used were just from 

23 glovebox workers, if that's the case. 

24 MS. MUNN: All right. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: And that may be as simple as 
238

1 doing that. We may not need any kind of 

2 technical resolution. 

3 MS. MUNN: Excellent. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And if that's not the case, 

5 I've got to figure out what we meant by our 

6 response. 

7 MS. MUNN: We'll call it in progress. This 

8 wording should go in as an SC&A follow-up, and 

9 we'll anticipate a NIOSH response when 

10 available. 

11 Do we hear an answer? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

13 MS. MUNN: We'll hold up here a minute. 

14 (Pause) 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. What he found was each -

16 - this is from ICRU-43, Hp(D), the individual 

17 dose equivalent penetrating at depth D is the 

18 dose equivalent in soft tissue below a 

19 specified point on the body at a depth D that 

20 is appropriate for strongly penetrating 

21 radiation, and recommended depth is ten 

22 millimeters for personal monitoring. So Hp(D) 

23 is a general term for dose in depth -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: It's kind of a minimum of depth -- 

25 minimum depth. 
239

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and -- and then -- and you 

2 specify the depth -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Hp(7) or Hp(10) -- Hp(0.07), 

5 so that's the -- that's the -- the definition 

6 of Hp(D), and then Hp(10)'s definition derives 

7 from that. He's looking some more at the ICRU 

8 sphere about dose -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: This is probably then a general -- 

10 it's like a generic -- he specified ten as -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, ten is what's recommended 

13 for radiation protection. Hp(D) is the generic 

14 -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for whatever depth you want 

17 to -- want to do -- whatever depth you are -- 

18 you're interested in the tissue. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Stu, this is Scott. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: I seem to recall that the sphere 

22 issue is when you're doing H*(10) or whatever 

23 depth. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

25 MR. SIEBERT: Which is a slightly different 
240

1 concept. To tell you the truth, I'm -- I'm 

2 flipping through to see if I can find it, too, 

3 but that -- that seems to be the difference. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. All righty. Thanks. 

5 Well, let us know if you get anything, Scott. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I don't -- I don't think it'll 

8 affect the finding. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's just -- 

10 MS. MUNN: I don't think so, either. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's just a comment in the 

12 response. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: And they have apparently used that 

14 correctly. There is a -- obviously is an -- 

15 Hp(10) is -- is one specific -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: One specific depth. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- depth, yeah. And whatever -- 

18 MS. MUNN: Which is ten millimeters. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- depth you chose, the -- the 

20 issue doesn't change. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's moot for this purpose. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, moot for this purpose. 

24 Thank you. 

25 MS. MUNN: Now we encounter -- we -- that 
241

1 completes TIB-10, and we now encounter one of 

2 those things which is going to require some 

3 definition I think from the workgroup. When I 

4 click to the next issue, the next issue that 

5 comes up is a closed one, TIB-11-01, and it is 

6 one of the original findings regarding lung 

7 dose conversion factor for thorium -- thoron. 

8 NIOSH provide further clarification of how the 

9 values of Table 1 of the TIB were derived. We 

10 were not able to reproduce the values of Table 

11 1, even using the same assumptions as the ones 

12 provided in the document. 

13 NIOSH replies in the course of evaluating this 

14 finding and revising TIB-11 to include progeny 

15 of Rn-219, NIOSH has discovered mathematical 

16 mistakes that caused the values in Table 1 to 

17 be erroneously high. NIOSH will revise the 

18 document, correcting the Table 1 values, and 

19 will provide the supporting calculations. 

20 Now this shows closed, but I see nothing on my 

21 screen which gives us any of the additional 

22 verbiage that we were just talking about 

23 earlier substantiating that those calculations 

24 have appeared, that they've been done, that -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I bel-- I believe they 
242

1 have. That is the case, they have appeared. I 

2 believe Stu gave them to -- to us and we sent 

3 them down to Joyce and she looked at them, and 

4 she concurred with the -- the NIOSH revised 

5 calculations. And we have to -- I have to take 

6 the action item to fill in the -- that informa7 - 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes, yes. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- to provide that information 

10 into the database. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yes. Would you, please -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I will. 

13 MS. MUNN: -- Steve? All right. Thank you. 

14 'Cause that's -- if we're going to be thorough 

15 in this business of -- of how it's closed and 

16 by whom, under what circumstances, then we have 

17 to do this. 

18 And the next issue that comes up is another 

19 closed one from the same TIB, 11, that is 

20 essentially the same situation. SCA doesn't 

21 agree with the statement this causes lead-212 

22 to produce less lung (unintelligible) dose per 

23 unit, et cetera. And we have a response from 

24 NIOSH, which appears to be responsive and -- 

25 and just fine, referencing the mathematical 
243

1 errors from before. But again I'm assuming 

2 that the conclusion of this and the reason for 

3 its closure is the same as item one, but -- 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I would -- I believe that's 

5 the case. 

6 MS. MUNN: So we would hope that you also have 

7 the action to fill in that group as well. 

8 The next one is -- that comes up is TIB-4, item 

9 12 shows it's transferred to global issues, and 

10 -- as of October of 2007, so this will remain 

11 as it is. We agreed that we would leave these 

12 transferred items reading just exactly that way 

13 until something happens with global issues. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: (Off microphone) Prior issues 

15 (unintelligible)? 

16 MS. MUNN: This is the same TIB, different 

17 finding, same resolution, a number of issues 

18 under TIB-4, 16, 17, 18, 19 -- hold on -- up to 

19 19 we're all reading transferred into glo-- no 

20 -- 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: (Off microphone) Should be 

22 (unintelligible) -- 

23 MS. MUNN: -- 04-18 is -- transferred, it says 

24 review of OTIB-9 -- oh, no, we're going to have 

25 to -- we're going to have to have follow-ups to 
244

1 several of these OTIB-14s, it looks like. 

2 OTIB-4 is okay, but when we get to item 14 of 

3 OTIB-4, the status is transferred to OTIB-53. 

4 Now what we'll have to have in order to make 

5 this into a closed item is to see that transfer 

6 go into OTIB-53 and have the resolution of it 

7 there. Correct? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: These aren't listed on their sheet 

9 -- 

10 MS. MUNN: No, no. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I only looked at the open 

12 it-- this only addresses the ones that were 

13 open. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I asked Steve for the open 

15 items and that's what he gave me. So I'm -- 

16 I'm doubling our pleasure and extending our 

17 scope considerably by doing what I'm doing 

18 here, but if we -- if we're going to be 

19 consistent in the way we approach these things, 

20 then we do have to review -- at least one time 

21 we have to go through these items that we have 

22 closed or transferred and identify how we are 

23 going to do them. Before we discuss that any 

24 further, Steve -- Stu, you have something else 

25 you wanted to -- 
245

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Brant called me back on 

2 the issue we were talking about a while ago, 

3 and he found the quantity dose equivalent 

4 index, which is the maximum dose equivalent in 

5 the ICRU sphere standard at the point of space 

6 to which the quantity is assigned. So it's 

7 each -- 

8 MS. MUNN: So we're okay? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

11 MS. MUNN: Still does not affect what we're 

12 doing here. 

13 So I would call your attention now to an item 

14 that's not on Steve's list because it is not an 

15 open item, TIB-4, item 14 shows as transferred 

16 and review OTIB-53. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: My first question, Wanda, would 

18 be do we -- are we -- is OTIB-53 a procedure 

19 that we have been chartered to review? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-53's not published yet. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Then I guess we have not done a 

22 review on it. 

23 MS. MUNN: That's -- I'm struggling with 

24 exactly -- determining whether or not any 

25 additional information needs to be on this at 
246

1 this particular time. Perhaps not. There's no 

2 way that we can flag this as something we need 

3 to look at following the release of OTIB-53. 

4 We'll just have to -- 

5 DR. WADE: I don't know, does the Chair of the 

6 workgroup keep a little list of potential 

7 procedures for review? 

8 MS. MUNN: She has not. And OTIB-53 will, 

9 however, be of sufficient magnitude that I feel 

10 fairly certain it will come before this 

11 workgroup. 

12 DR. WADE: I would suggest then that SC&A 

13 normally would keep a list of items that 

14 potentially would need to be reviewed, so I 

15 would ask SC&A to make sure that OTIB-53 is on 

16 their list. John Mauro would normally come to 

17 the... 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- if it helps, we can 

19 send a list of procedures, TIBs and Technical 

20 Basis Documents that are published, and then 

21 from that you would, you know, subtract 

22 anything that's been reviewed and then see 

23 what's -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: What it looks like. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- see. 
247

1 DR. WADE: I think when the workgroup is 

2 considering its next assignments to SC&A 

3 appropriate, as long as we have a way to 

4 realize that -- that part of the workgroup's 

5 unfinished business is OTIB-53 -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

7 DR. WADE: -- and SC&A can provide that. 

8 MS. MUNN: I am more concerned with what's 

9 under development that we do not currently have 

10 on our list than what we do have on the list. 

11 We -- we can seek out the -- the list -- 

12 DR. WADE: Whenever you want it, Stu can 

13 provide it. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- almost anywhere. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I can send you the list of 

16 published. Under development, I'll have -- I -

17 - I'll have to get with the contractor. I mean 

18 I can get -- just put my hands on this list 

19 that's out there, that's published. And there 

20 are a number, like coworker pop-- you know, 

21 coworker studies, coworker TIBs, things like 

22 that -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that are pretty technical 

25 analyses -- 
248

1 MS. MUNN: They are. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so there's a 

3 (unintelligible) out there in the already 

4 published realm. Other than TIB-53, what's 

5 coming, that would have -- I'd (unintelligible) 

6 to just (unintelligible) the contractor. I 

7 have no way of knowing that for sure. 

8 MS. MUNN: I'm just -- I'm just concerned about 

9 this reference to something that we're doing in 

10 the future. As long as it's transferred to 

11 something that is already done or to global 

12 issues, we have a handle to hang our hat on. 

13 But when we're looking at something that's 

14 still under development, I'm searching for an 

15 expedient method for us to track it here 

16 without interfering with the business of -- of 

17 NIOSH's day-to-day requirements. 

18 DR. WADE: Well, you'd have to have some way of 

19 flagging it -- 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

21 DR. WADE: -- there, or an independent list is 

22 kept. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Or you could -- if you want to 

24 keep it on the -- you've still got to worry 

25 about this list, you could change the status 
249

1 back to in progress. 

2 DR. WADE: Probably be better. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: If you just change the status 

4 back to in progress -- 

5 DR. WADE: Then it keeps things -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's on the things -- the 

7 list of things we have to finish. And when we 

8 get to this point we'll see oh, okay, that's 

9 how we're going to finish it. 

10 MS. THOMAS: Just leave it as transferred in 

11 reports -- you know, search for the 

12 transferred, because didn't -- didn't you say 

13 earlier that you're going to -- when you 

14 transfer it to something else it'll be an open 

15 item under that new procedure? 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes, we did. 

17 MS. THOMAS: So your transfer is really your 

18 flag -- your transferred status is your flag. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now I'm not sure when we 

20 print out -- if we have any report that will 

21 print out -- except for the -- we don't have 

22 any summary report that will print out the fact 

23 that it's been transferred and the -- the 

24 review in OTIB-53, that that informa-- both 

25 those pieces of information. We'd be able to 
250

1 print out the fact that it's been transferred. 

2 We'd be able to sort on the fact that it's been 

3 transferred. But we'll just -- you know, we'll 

4 have this whole group of -- of -- of issues 

5 that have been transferred. We won't know 

6 where they've been transferred to. We would 

7 have to come up with a new report form or 

8 something to -- to -- to include that 

9 additional bit of information associated with 

10 transfers. 

11 MS. MUNN: Well, it appears, though, that -- 

12 you know, transferred is going to be one of 

13 those items that we will continue to check, as 

14 we do open and in abeyance and in progress. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

16 MS. MUNN: We'll cons-- we're going to consider 

17 that as one of the forms of open items. And 

18 when they've been transferred to something that 

19 is clearly another procedure, then we can -- as 

20 a matter of routine process in this group -- do 

21 that. I had not considered that in the past, 

22 but that's one of the reasons for this run23 through, is to identify future process. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think there's all that 

25 many ones that got transferred, so I don't -- 
251

1 MS. MUNN: No. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- I don't think we can -- you 

3 know, I think we can be able to run through it 

4 -- 

5 MS. MUNN: I think we can do that -- 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: -- rather quickly. 

7 MS. MUNN: -- fairly easily. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So maybe -- 

11 MS. MUNN: I don't believe it's going to be a 

12 burden. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: So maybe the best thing is -- to 

14 do is to do nothing at this -- 

15 MS. MUNN: I think so, just adjust in -- in our 

16 own heads the fact that when we are looking at 

17 open items, those open items will include for 

18 us transferred. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

20 MS. MUNN: And from time to time we will review 

21 the transferred items to see what progress is 

22 being made. It's just a matter of how you 

23 think about the tools you have to -- 

24 DR. WADE: He has a double-check -- I used to 

25 always keep a running list of procedures that 
252

1 were indicated to be reviewed so that when we 

2 chartered SC&A with the next round, we started 

3 with that list. John Mauro does the same 

4 thing. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: We will -- we will -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes, he does. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- from now on make sure that -- 

8 that way that we -- we -- I'm not aware that 

9 we're doing that at this point. Maybe John is. 

10 But I'll make sure when I get back that -- that 

11 somebody, either John or myself, will maintain 

12 such a list. 

13 DR. WADE: 'Cause in the course of a Board 

14 deliberation you'd hear two or three procedures 

15 that the Board would say we want to review 

16 that, and we would collect that up for the next 

17 charter. 

18 MS. MUNN: I think that's workable. 

19 DR. WADE: Yes. 

20 MS. MUNN: We'll just continue with our -- 

21 leading up to the next issue, which is another 

22 transferred, OTIB-53, no problem. We've 

23 resolved how we're going to deal with that. 

24 Here's one that's transferred to review of 

25 OTIB-9. Again, as long as we know what we're -
253

1 - dealing with it. 

2 Here is OTIB-4, item 17, that says addressed in 

3 finding, PROC-61-04. So there's no action for 

4 us there. That's essentially closed for us. 

5 Eighteen is closed with adequate information. 

6 Nineteen is transferred to global issues. We 

7 know how we're dealing with those. 

8 Item 20 is closed. All right, adequate 

9 information, addressed in finding 05. 

10 Next one -- ah, should that be addressed in 

11 finding or should that be transferred? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Which one are you talking 

13 about? 

14 MS. MUNN: 04-21, OTIB-4, item 21. Its status 

15 is reported as addressed in finding. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: It should be in OTIB-4 -- it 

17 should be -- oh, I think what this is saying is 

18 that this is identical to or sufficiently 

19 similar to issue five. 

20 MS. MUNN: Well, we said we'd transfer it over 

21 there. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, and we said -- on four -- 

23 and on issue five we said we were transferring 

24 it to 53. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes, which wasn't done yet, but 
254

1 OTIB-4 is done, and so I'm -- I'm saying this 

2 addressed in finding should be, in my mind, 

3 closed because we've -- once we assure 

4 ourselves that it's been transferred to four -- 

5 DR. WADE: And addressed. 

6 MS. MUNN: -- and addressed there -- no. 

7 DR. WADE: The key thing -- it says SC&A look 

8 to see that it's been addressed in... 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, five -- 4-5 hasn't been 

10 resolved yet -- 

11 DR. WADE: So it's -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's been -- it's been 

13 transferred to 53 -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so this -- you know, 

16 this allows you to track it. I mean you've got 

17 to do a two-step track to find it but I mean it 

18 allows you to track it the way it is. I mean 

19 the alternative is to say transferred to 53, 

20 but I think this is better. This is more 

21 definitive in terms of really knowing what's 

22 going on. 

23 MS. MUNN: Addressed in finding -- it's then 

24 closed, I guess -- if we accept addressed in 

25 finding as being a closed item. That appears 
255

1 to be the logical thing at this -- in this 

2 case. We'll see what happens as we go on down 

3 the list. 

4 The next item that comes up is OTIB-11-01, 

5 closed, says -- okay, we have a reason for 

6 having closed it. We recommended it, it's 

7 closed. 

8 11-02 was more of that same discussion, I think 

9 -- all that tritium business. 

10 OTIB-12-01, SC&A submitted a white paper 

11 discussing OTIB-12's finding. Is this one of 

12 those -- is this -- 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this is where we are 

14 holding open -- yeah -- a comment about the 

15 derivation of this correction factor, and 

16 that's where we're holding this open. My 

17 recollection is that the original findings in 

18 TIB-12 -- in OTIB-12 did not speak to whether 

19 those correction factors were correctly derived 

20 from (unintelligible), and that after we had 

21 done some other -- you know, some of our other 

22 responses and SC&A looked at the revisions or 

23 whatever was done on OTIB-12 in response to the 

24 other findings here -- it was Bob Anigstein who 

25 said but we don't agree with the -- what you 
256

1 did -- calculations you used to generate the 

2 dose correc-- correction factors in IG-1. 

3 MS. MUNN: Then -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this where we're tracking 

5 that? Am I off-base on this? 

6 MS. MUNN: I don't know. It may be that we 

7 don't have an accurate listing of the finding. 

8 This doesn't appear to be a finding to me. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: A couple of other -- yeah, 

11 there's a couple of other statements there. I 

12 mean if you look on the bottom -- if you click, 

13 there's a couple more -- additional things that 

14 were said. 

15 MS. THOMAS: And there's been a whi-- I have in 

16 my notes, too, there's been a white paper. 

17 MS. MUNN: Yeah, discussing the findings, but -

18 - but the thing that I'm concerned about was 

19 the finding itself. Do we -- I don't suppose 

20 we still have Kathy on the line. Kathy, are 

21 you there? 

22 (No responses) 

23 I wouldn't be, if I were Kathy. But -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: If you want to excuse me for a 

25 minute I'll see if I have something so you can 
257

1 see it at the same time I do. 

2 MS. MUNN: Is this one of those ideal times 

3 where the white paper should be shown as a 

4 related link? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, I 

6 don't have anything convenient. I could find 

7 it, but it would take a long time. 

8 It would -- no, I mean I'll be able to find it, 

9 but it's going to take a long time for me to 

10 search 'cause the retrieval is so slow back to 

11 the system. So if -- if -- I'll -- after we 

12 get to a break or something, if you want to go 

13 ahead and have another break, or at the end, 

14 I'll go back and verify this. But my underst-- 

15 my recollection is I know we have in front of 

16 us a task to provide additional technical 

17 support for the dose correction factors, 

18 external dose DCFs, that are in IG-1. And if 

19 I'm not mistaken, it came up in this context, 

20 that there were originally some findings on -- 

21 on this OTIB-12, and as -- during the 

22 resolution of those findings SC&A -- it was Bob 

23 Anigstein -- said wait a minute, these -- this 

24 -- DCFs, we have a problem with how -- what you 

25 used -- how you generated the DCFs, these 
258

1 triangular distribution DCFs. 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And so our action now is to 

4 come back with additional technical support for 

5 that -- and this has been around for a couple 

6 of meetings. This is not a Johnny-come-lately. 

7 MS. MUNN: No, it isn't. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's been around for a while. 

9 MS. MUNN: No, it -- it says, though the 

10 workgroup directive says that we were to report 

11 back to the workgroup on December 11th, and I 

12 don't know what happened on December 11th, 

13 whether that was on -- 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, there's another -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- my scope or not. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Look at it again, Stu, there's 

17 something -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Another one after this -- no? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: It says December 11th, no? 

20 MS. MUNN: No. 

21 MS. THOMAS: (Off microphone) There's another -

22 - it's ORAUT Procedure 6 (unintelligible) 

23 procedure and in that follow-up action 

24 (unintelligible) Revision 1 to Procedure 6 is 

25 (unintelligible) proton (unintelligible) the 
259

1 dose reconstructor to (unintelligible), but IG2 1 hasn't been modified, so that one can't be 

3 closed, it's in abeyance. I don't know exactly 

4 what (unintelligible) -- 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

6 MS. THOMAS: -- that one to OTIB-12 is the same 

7 (unintelligible). 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: As I -- my recollection is that 

9 OTIB-12 was were the DCFs correctly prepared. 

10 You know, were they -- were they generated 

11 correctly. Triangular distributions for DCFs, 

12 were those really generated correctly. I'm 

13 almost sure this is what we're tracking. 

14 MS. MUNN: Let the Chair take the prerogative 

15 here of asking SC&A and NIOSH to confer on this 

16 particular item, which has several apparent 

17 administrative issues associated with it. The 

18 first is, in the view of the Chair, this is not 

19 a finding. If there's a finding here, let's 

20 try to identify precisely what the finding is. 

21 And if no response is required, then what are 

22 we tracking? We need to have further data with 

23 respect to what NIOSH's response was requested 

24 to be last December, and apparently there is a 

25 white paper from SC&A that's out there that 
260

1 needs to be put in the new related link bin and 

2 clickable here, so there's several things that 

3 appear to be remiss with this particular item. 

4 Would NIOSH and SC&A both take the action to 

5 communicate with one another about this and try 

6 to see if we can have a cleaner feel for what 

7 this item is and why we are tracking it? Can 

8 do? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

11 MS. MUNN: Okay. No point in trying to resolve 

12 it here. It takes a lot of going back and 

13 forth. 

14 Next thing that comes up for me is OTIB-14-01. 

15 There's agreement. No direction from us. This 

16 is one of those things that went to OTIB-52. I 

17 think that's correctly identified at this 

18 moment. 

19 OTIB-17-01 -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: We need to add a issue to OTIB21 52 to receive -- receive this. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that correct? 

24 MS. MUNN: That's correct, it needs to be 

25 transferred into -- you need to have a 
261

1 transferred tracking item. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And then when we talk about our 

3 OTIB-52 responses and -- and everything, we 

4 need to make sure that we did in fact -- that 

5 this has also been addressed -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- in -- in -- in 52, I guess. 

8 MS. MUNN: That's correct. That's what -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, I think you're 

10 right, but I think that you -- you want to be a 

11 little careful about assuming that this 

12 particular finding -- this can be written right 

13 into OTIB-52 because if you read it, it says -- 

14 you know, first of all, we're talking about a 

15 TIB that -- about assigning an environmental 

16 dose to people -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- who were monitored -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but not exposed. And the -- 

21 and the finding is an admonition to be careful 

22 when you do that about construction workers 

23 because there were sites where construction 

24 workers were not monitored when they should 

25 have been. 
262

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Which is really the intent of 

3 OTIB-52 -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Right. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the construction worker 

6 approach. And so the -- the actual existence 

7 of OTIB-52 may be sufficient to answer this 

8 finding. Now we may know more when we go back 

9 and read the actual report and the full text of 

10 the finding, but it just seems to be right now 

11 an admonition that's saying, you know, you 

12 can't assume the same thing about construction 

13 workers that you can assume about the -- the 

14 main -- the principal contractors, the 

15 operating contractor staff in terms of their -- 

16 their monitoring status. And like that -- that 

17 agreement, our agreement with that finding is 

18 the whole reason why OTIB-52 was written. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And I think maybe words to that 

20 effect is way -- the way that this answer -- 

21 this issue gets resolved. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically it's just -- at this 

24 point all's (sic) we have to do is add some 

25 words to that effect, that OTIB-52 was -- the 
263

1 intent was to really -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: -- address this -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: -- this exact issue. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: And so there's no -- not spe-- 

8 not anything specific in OTIB-52, it's O-- it's 

9 just the fact that the procedure itself -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: -- addresses the issue, so -- 

12 and -- and maybe we can craft some words to 

13 that effect and -- and then come back and close 

14 this out. 

15 MS. MUNN: That would be very nice, and it 

16 shouldn't take very many words on this -- 

17 that's the intent of OTIB-52 and every -- we've 

18 -- it's been done. 

19 The next issue that comes up is 17-01, 

20 dosimetry data, (unintelligible). The working 

21 group found NIOSH's response acceptable and 

22 closed this item. That appears to be an 

23 appropriate closure, with adequate information 

24 in here. 

25 The next is item two of 17, working group 
264

1 accepted, closed, fine. 

2 The next one is 03, NIOSH and ORAU disagree 

3 with this position, consideration of geometry. 

4 I cannot make my screen show me the rest of 

5 that comment at the bottom. Issue was 

6 discussed in OTIB -- discussed in the DOE 

7 (unintelligible) and is incumbent on DR staff 

8 to analyze and discuss the potential for 

9 overestimating or underestimating electron dose 

10 with respect to (unintelligible). In addition, 

11 ORAU TIB-17 recommends a favorable dose 

12 correction factor of 1.0 for application of 

13 measured electron dose to the skin. So this is 

14 outstanding. It's not on our list, but it 

15 appears to be still open. There does not seem 

16 to be an agreement, and there's no 

17 recommendation from the working group. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: If I'm -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Well -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: If I understand this finding, 

21 it's that of just because you have a shallow 

22 dose measured by a person's dosimeter, that may 

23 not be sufficient because there are chances -- 

24 opportunities for heart -- hot particle deposi25 - well, hot particles specifically for skin -- 
265

1 skin contamination that the badge would not 

2 measure but would, you know, add to the dose to 

3 an individual. So that, as I understand, is 

4 the nature of this. And as a matter of 

5 practice, we have not postulated or speculated 

6 the occurrence of a skin contamination absent 

7 evidence to the contrary, and the reason being 

8 that there's -- there's nowhere to stop, you 

9 know. 

10 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Yeah. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: If you're going to postulate 

12 skin contamination without evidence, then you 

13 might as well postulate an infinite skin 

14 contamination in terms of, you know, 

15 integration of -- of level and -- and time, if 

16 you're going to do that. 

17 MS. MUNN: We have too many situations where 

18 we're already postulating possibilities for 

19 which we have no evidence. Let's not add to 

20 it. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's the practice 

22 we've taken so far. If this may -- for 

23 resolution of something like this, it may 

24 involve specific discussion about this or -- or 

25 not, but I know -- I think Mark would probably 
266

1 want more discussion than just what I said. 

2 MS. MUNN: I am quite sure he would, but it 

3 appears obvious to me that a response from SC&A 

4 is required for the NIOSH follow-up. Is anyone 

5 else reading that any differently than I? 

6 Looks like the ball's in SC&A's court to 

7 respond to the NIOSH follow-up and express 

8 either agreement, disagreement or 

9 qualification. 

10 (No responses) 

11 It will hopefully appear on our next open items 

12 list, since it didn't pop up this time. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: It -- because it's an in 

14 progress list -- 

15 MS. MUNN: It's an in progress -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: -- sort of an in progress item, 

17 and I wasn't -- this -- this was just -- 

18 MS. MUNN: This is just open. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- pure item-- open -- 

20 MS. MUNN: I know, I know. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: We'll -- we'll expand it the next 

23 time we go through it to include these. 

24 17-04 is addressed in finding 17-03. We agreed 

25 to transfer it, so that's all right. It's 
267

1 closed. 

2 The next one is item five, also addressed in 

3 item three, for which we are expecting a 

4 response. That's all right. 

5 Go on to item six, which is closed. There is a 

6 related link -- aha, there's a white paper. 

7 (Unintelligible) white paper, it appears SC&A 

8 and NIOSH agree, closed -- appropriate, and a 

9 nice link. Thank all involved. 

10 17-07, closed by recommendation of the working 

11 group. 

12 Next item is 08, closed. Working group did not 

13 actually state that this issue is -- it closed, 

14 with the transcript to indicate that for all 

15 intents and purposes this issue -- still need 

16 some words out there -- has been fully 

17 addressed, should say. Discussion -- extensive 

18 (unintelligible) -- I remember talking about 

19 this, at considerable length. I think that all 

20 that this requires is this issue has been 

21 addressed and is closed. The addition of those 

22 words in the workgroup directives should do it 

23 for us. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, when they were -- when 

25 they were populating the database, basically 
268

1 they did cut-and-paste from -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Right. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: -- other documents, and 

4 obviously something got -- 

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: -- didn't get -- 

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: -- copied right. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: So we'll go back to the original 

11 document and find out what the remainder of 

12 that statement is. 

13 MS. MUNN: If you would. I believe it should 

14 say has been addressed and is closed, but if 

15 you would do that, I'd appreciate it. 

16 Then our next issue that comes up would be item 

17 nine, closed, Board agrees, no further action, 

18 that's appropriate. 

19 Ten, recommended closing it, no further action, 

20 fine. 

21 Eleven, same. I remember doing a lot of work 

22 with 17. 

23 Yeah, we're fine, all fine -- 13, 14, 15. 

24 Now we're back to 18-01 has been transferred, 

25 review of OTIB-9 will catch that one. Okay. 
269

1 18-2 is closed. And 18-3 is closed; 18-4, 

2 closed. 

3 And now we come to the outstanding one, 18-5 

4 shows open, but here is the response -- the 

5 finding was a more thorough evaluation of air 

6 monitoring programs at DOE facilities is 

7 required to ensure that OTIB-18 represents 

8 favorable -- claimant-favorable approach to 

9 assessing internal dose. 

10 And the NIOSH response is the OTIB was 

11 developed to apply to individuals who were not 

12 routinely exposed to radioactive materials of 

13 facilities with rigorous air monitoring 

14 programs. It does not assign intakes based on 

15 air monitoring, per se. The assumption is that 

16 air monitoring was performed at the site and 

17 work areas, and the work performed in them were 

18 controlled based on the air sample results. 

19 Actions taken based on air samples could take 

20 from limiting time in the area, requiring 

21 respirators, moving the work to a hood or 

22 glovebox, et cetera, making it unlikely that 

23 workers with lower potentials for intakes were 

24 consistently exposed at levels exceeding these 

25 limits. In the case of workers with negative 
270

1 bioassay results, the OTIB contains tables of 

2 results that yield smaller intake rates than 

3 those assigned to OTIB -- by OTIB-18. A list 

4 of applicable sites was generated with TBD 

5 authors familiar with the sites, in general, 

6 sites to which this would apply, include the 

7 large DOE facilities and some of the smaller 

8 ones. For other small sites and AWE 

9 facilities, the DR must provide justification 

10 for using this approach. The user's guide for 

11 using the tool is attached. This includes the 

12 list of approved sites. The related link is 

13 given and the recommendation is to close, and 

14 SC&A agrees with the response. 

15 Any objection? 

16 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

17 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

18 MR. GIBSON: I'd like to look into this some 

19 more. 

20 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

21 MR. GIBSON: Any -- to say any DOE facility had 

22 a robust air monitoring program, I -- I'd like 

23 to look into that a little bit more. 

24 MS. MUNN: All right. Hold. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Would we change that to in 
271

1 progress then? (Unintelligible) a problem with 

2 that? 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes, we would. All right, it's in 

4 progress, awaiting further review. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The addition discussion you're 

6 -- Mike, then is about -- are you interested in 

7 the -- which specific sites are included here? 

8 Because it's not all sites. There are certain 

9 sites that are supposed -- that -- you know, 

10 where this is going to be applicable to 

11 (unintelligible) I guess it's not supposed to 

12 be applicable to, and is it just -- what -- 

13 MR. GIBSON: Just -- yeah, just any information 

14 you could provide me and I'll just -- I'm 

15 really not familiar with this TIB -- you know, 

16 the section of this TIB right now. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm not, either. So -- 

18 but -- so it's sort of like you want -- you 

19 know, we just say here that there -- these 

20 sites have robust air monitoring programs, and 

21 you want -- rather than just take it at face 

22 value that these sites had robust -- you would 

23 want to know what evidence do we have that they 

24 did. 

25 MR. GIBSON: Right, and what evidence that the 
272

1 worker was less likely to be exposed and, you 

2 know, just all the caveats that you had in your 

3 response. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so you're -- okay, so 

5 what evidence do we have that they had robust 

6 air monitoring program and what evidence do we 

7 have that they had appropriate controls and 

8 took appropriate action based on -- on those -- 

9 on air monitoring results, if -- if in fact 

10 (unintelligible) program. 

11 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That kind of stuff? 

13 MR. GIBSON: Uh-huh. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

15 MS. MUNN: So we'll call it in progress, and 

16 the workgroup directive will be requests 

17 additional details from NIOSH. 

18 Next issue comes up for me is 18-6. This is 

19 another one that is suggested to be in abeyance 

20 by SC&A, concurs with NIOSH's proposed solution 

21 in a revised TIB, so SC&A agrees, but we need 

22 to hold it in abeyance for a revision. 

23 Correct? Awaiting revision? OTIB will be 

24 revised to include this information, so it's in 

25 abeyance, awaiting -- 
273

1 UNIDENTIFIED: Correct. 

2 MS. MUNN: -- a revision of the TIB. Okay. Do 

3 we want to take a five-minute break? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be helpful for me. 

5 MS. MUNN: Okay, let's do five minutes. 

6 DR. WADE: If anyone is still with us on the 

7 line, we're going to take a five-minute break. 

8 Is anybody out there? 

9 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz. I'm still 

10 here. 

11 DR. WADE: You're a trooper. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah, sure are. Thank you. 

13 DR. WADE: We're just going to take five. 

14 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I appreciate it, too. 

15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:56 p.m. 

16 to 4:03 p.m.) 

17 DR. WADE: Okay, this is the workgroup 

18 conference room. We're back in session. This 

19 is the last call, we think. 

20 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, we think. We've just 

21 completed 18-06 with a recommendation that the 

22 status be changed to in abeyance, awaiting a 

23 revised OTIB. 

24 The next item that comes up on the screen is 

25 18-07, transferred to the new expec-- 
274

1 anticipated OTIB. 

2 Next item is 19-01, shown as in progress. The 

3 OTIB's recommendations for interpreting the 

4 regression are two. Do not take into account 

5 the fact that there is a conditional dependence 

6 within the data, and that there is censored 

7 data. The R-2 values need to be adjusted to 

8 account for conditional dependence. NIOSH's 

9 response was information was intended as 

10 general guidance, not a requirement. Each set 

11 of data has its own unique properties and those 

12 taken into account as much as possible. 

13 Then there was some additional verbiage there, 

14 which had been requested, I believe. Our 

15 directive had been to have additional data 

16 provided -- a suggested revisions to the OTIB 

17 that address this issue. I don't see whether 

18 the second NIOSH response, 9-18, fulfills that 

19 request. It appears the workgroup directive 

20 was made after that. It's difficult to see why 

21 we still have this -- there's an extensive 

22 discussion over in the NIOSH/SCA discussion. 

23 It's not appropriate to rank numbers -- rank 

24 order a set of numbers from low to high, assign 

25 a Z score to the numbers and fit a line to a 
275

1 high correlation coefficient -- to conclude 

2 that a high correlation coefficient indicates a 

3 good fit for a lognormal distribution. It's 

4 only when you have paired measurements; that 

5 is, time and urine concentration 

6 (unintelligible) values do a test of a curve 

7 fit of the data to a lognormal distribution. 

8 SC&A suggests simply rank ordinary numbers and 

9 directly plucking off a 50 to 90 percent value 

10 rather than imposing an artificial distribution 

11 to the values. NIOSH understood and agreed to 

12 some degree with SC&A concerns, but agreed to 

13 do some editing of the OTIB. The end progress 

14 appears to be appropriate. It appears that we 

15 have an action item that has not been addressed 

16 elsewhere, mainly a potential edit of the OTIB, 

17 or in any case a resolution of the issue 

18 between the two groups. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: As a -- 

20 MS. MUNN: The last thing I have is NIOSH will 

21 confer with Jim on the issue and get back to 

22 the -- 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we've done -- our staff 

24 has done quite a lot of work on this. We 

25 worked on every -- we looked at every coworker 
276

1 dose (unintelligible) distribution we've used 

2 as of the date we did the analysis, and that 

3 was a lot -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and compared the various 

6 approaches, whether you rank order the data or 

7 do the fit (unintelligible) doing it, so 

8 apparently we've never delivered that to the 

9 working group. I'll have to get with Jim and 

10 see -- we may not have actually gotten to a 

11 final product of how exactly we're going to 

12 phrase this and what does this mean in terms of 

13 doing -- you know, (unintelligible) some 

14 modification of TIB has been made or not. So -

15 - but I'll have to get back with Jim and -- and 

16 see where we were on that 'cause I know they've 

17 gotten fairly far along and to the point of 

18 having a tabular comparison of the techniques 

19 for various work -- you know, coworker or work 

20 population distributions. But I don't know now 

21 what happened (unintelligible) got to get with 

22 Jim and sort out where we are. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it looks as though the -- the 

24 last thing I see down here is that Jim was 

25 going to get back to us -- it says to the work 
277

1 -- I am assuming that means workgroup instead 

2 of Board -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I think he was going to Warner 

4 Brothers Park. 

5 MS. MUNN: I think so, yeah -- at the next 

6 meeting. So we'll have a report from Jim -- 

7 I'll ask -- I'll have that on my agenda for the 

8 -- that Redondo Beach meeting, not with the 

9 anticipation he will do any more work, but that 

10 we'll get a status of what has been done and -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

12 MS. MUNN: -- whether it is closed or not. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I'll see what Jim will 

14 (unintelligible). 

15 MS. MUNN: Status only. Just so -- primarily 

16 so we can make sure we're on the right track 

17 here in the database. 

18 The next issue, OTIB-20-01 is closed, with a 

19 review, transcript -- general concurrence, it's 

20 recommended the issue be closed -- yeah, that 

21 one's okay. 

22 The next issue, 20-02, is closed, see item one, 

23 which was -- we talked about it. It's gone to 

24 PROC-6 and other places, and we're good to go. 

25 03 is the same closure; 04 -- I think we've 
278

1 closed that whole -- that whole coworker 

2 dosimetry data for external dose assignment, I 

3 think we've closed them all. 

4 20-06 and 22-01, SC&A finds no issue here. 

5 It's judged to be a closed issue. The finding 

6 was SC&A's review of this document produced no 

7 comments, and SC&A agrees with its contents and 

8 conclusions, so I don't know why this is even 

9 listed on our (unintelligible), but I guess it 

10 is. 

11 23-01 -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: This gives us the record. 

13 MS. MUNN: Gives us the record. 23 -- 

14 Yeah. 23-01, missed neutron doses based on 

15 dosimetry records. SC&A -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is the one we talked 

17 about at the start of the meeting. 

18 MS. MUNN: Right. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We went through the exposures 

20 at the start of the meeting. 

21 MS. MUNN: This is OTIB-23, we've done this, 

22 and it's closed -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: 24s. 

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's closed appropriately. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: This is -- Kathy's going to give 
279

1 the additional information. 

2 MS. MUNN: Right. (Unintelligible) go away, 

3 and 24-01, which is in abeyance, shows open. 

4 The dose rates are expressed as per gram of 

5 source isotopes rather than per gram of 

6 compound. NIOSH response says OTIB-24 will be 

7 revised using a model computer code and dose 

8 rates will be expressed appropriately. Do we 

9 have any report of where we are with the 

10 revision to OTIB-24? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have any report on 

12 that. This is on the -- the list that Steve 

13 handed out. 

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yes. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We did all the 24s. 

16 MS. MUNN: It's -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We have -- NIOSH has talked 

18 about them, but -- Steve and Bob Anigstein has 

19 looked at them and -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the answer to all the -- 

21 the res-- NIOSH response to all the -- the 

22 comments were we're going to run this modeling 

23 computer code and do all the -- the doses. And 

24 -- and so it's essentially if you just -- if 

25 you run through all the NIOSH responses, it's -
280

1 - you know, we'll -- we'll be done with the 

2 revised modeling computer code and -- and 

3 everything will come out the way the issues 

4 want them to, so... 

5 MS. MUNN: So we'll list all of these 24s as in 

6 abeyance, waiting on revised TB-- TIB. Right? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, revised OTIB. 

8 MS. MUNN: And this will happen sometime in the 

9 foreseeable future. This is neutron dose rates 

10 from alpha neutron reactions in uranium and 

11 thorium compounds. I don't know where we are 

12 on that, but are we in agreement that in 

13 abeyance is the proper change in status, 

14 awaiting revised TBD -- TIB, excuse me. In 

15 agreement? No disagreement? 

16 (No responses) 

17 Very good. That gets us through 24. Let's see 

18 what comes up on the screen, just scrolling 

19 through that. 

20 The next thing that comes up is 25-01, which is 

21 closed. That was radium-226 activity from 

22 breath radon measurements. The workgroup said 

23 closed after SC&A's follow-up. That's 

24 appropriate. 

25 The next one I show is 28-01, elevation of 
281

1 thorium annual dose, conversion factors, was 

2 resolved with the working group's approval. 

3 28-02, resolved with the working group's 

4 approval. It's in abeyance, the listing of 

5 files in the TIB is incomplete. A page change 

6 will be initiated to include all files used. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And we've -- we've revised that 

8 procedure. 

9 MS. MUNN: 28? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

11 MS. MUNN: So it looks as though NIOSH has an 

12 action to -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Or it may be already -- what 

14 you're saying, Stu, is -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It's revised. 

16 MS. MUNN: It's revised. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: It's already been revised and -- 

18 and the -- 

19 MS. MUNN: It's revised. SC&A has a -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: The list of file has been 

21 updated. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, actually it was -- we did 

23 -- we don't refer to those files anymore 

24 because we've generated (unintelligible) so the 

25 -- the TIB I believe contains the data tables 
282

1 that formerly were referred to as these files. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's the situation. 

4 MS. MUNN: So the final data entry on this 

5 sheet should be NIOSH follow-up that -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I believe that 

7 (unintelligible) SC&A, if this is the practice 

8 you want to follow, SC&A look at the revision 

9 to see if in fact it did -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Right. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- resolve the issues. 

12 MS. MUNN: Right. SC&A verify that the -- the 

13 page change has been initiated and the files 

14 were included, and then we can close it out 

15 next time. That's OTIB-28-02. 

16 (Unintelligible) revision. Okay. 

17 The next one that comes up is 28-3, it's the 

18 same thing, same requirement. 

19 And now we come to the next one that Steve has 

20 on his list, OTIB-33-01. He recommends that 

21 being closed, that SC&A agrees with the NIOSH 

22 response. Is there any problem with that from 

23 anyone here? This is the -- 

24 MR. GIBSON: I would -- I would say Mark would 

25 want to look over this. 
283

1 MS. MUNN: Application of internal doses. 

2 MR. GIBSON: Coworker data. 

3 MS. MUNN: Is included in document attached to 

4 18-05. You want to hold it for Mark? 

5 MR. GIBSON: I would say so -- he may just say 

6 go ahead and close it. 

7 MS. MUNN: Okay, it'll be on our list next 

8 time. 

9 The next issue is 01, procedure's been revised 

10 -- this is the ORAU procedure for Privacy Act 

11 compliance, which is consistent. Well, this is 

12 under additional requests for DOE information, 

13 so the most recent information we had was a 

14 year ago that the procedure is in the process 

15 of being revised. Do we have any information 

16 on the current status of PROC-22? It's an 

17 administrative, rather than a technical, 

18 procedure. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't have any status. 

20 MS. MUNN: It will appear on our next list. 

21 The next one that comes up is 22-02, this is 

22 the same procedure, so it's -- it says the 

23 issue is satisfactorily resolved, but it shows 

24 in abeyance. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, because we promised we'd 
284

1 be revising it. 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. And the next issue is 31 -- 

3 PROC-31-01, DOE TBD development and approval 

4 process. It's closed appropriately. 

5 Next one is 02, closed appropriately; 03, 

6 closed appropriately. 

7 PROC-60-01, currently open. It's on Steve's 

8 list. He suggests closed, replaced by PROC-60-

9 02 of the review of PROC-0060, Rev. 1. It's 

10 external on-site ambient. Procedure provides 

11 direction in the last two paragraphs under 

12 Section 5. It appears to be appropriate to 

13 close it since the method for maximum doses is 

14 addressed in Section 5, it says. 

15 Any problem with accepting SC&A's 

16 recommendation to close? 

17 MR. GIBSON: Which -- which one are you on now? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: 60-01. 

19 MS. MUNN: This is 60-01. It's been replaced. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: What happened was the -- when we 

21 did the revision, we reviewed the revision to 

22 PROC-60. We essentially cut and paste this 

23 first issue on -- and brought it forward as a -

24 - an issue under -- under the re-- you know, 

25 the fact that this had not been addressed yet, 
285

1 we brought it forward as a -- as a issue, so 

2 there's really -- this issue is really in here 

3 twice -- 

4 MR. GIBSON: Okay, so that's -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: -- under Rev. 0 and under Rev. 

6 1. 

7 MR. GIBSON: It's closed here, but it's not 

8 been resolved; it's just been moved. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: It's just been moved. 

10 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: This is almost the same as 

12 transferred to. 

13 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: But it -- you know. 

15 MS. MUNN: But it really isn't. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: 'Cause there's al-- but there's 

17 already -- 

18 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- an issue there. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Accepted? 

21 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: Close it, and identify the proper 

23 words. 

24 The next one that comes up is on the list, 

25 PROC-61-01. It says we suggest that NIOSH 
286

1 implement a system that updates all referenced 

2 and any procedure where an updated document is 

3 cited. NIOSH's response is good suggestion. 

4 It has remained open. As SC&A indicates, it's 

5 covered in PROC-61 Rev. 2. It's appropriate to 

6 close it and incorporate those words, hearing 

7 no objection. 

8 (No responses) 

9 All right, Steve. The next item that comes up 

10 is PROC-61-02. It's the same response, it's 

11 covered in PROC-61 Rev. 2, and the 

12 recommendation here is that it be closed 

13 because it's outstanding there, it's covered. 

14 No objection here? 

15 (No responses) 

16 So ordered. The same is true of PROC-61, item 

17 three. Again, it's covered in PROC-61 Rev. 2, 

18 so it's appropriate to incorporate those words 

19 and call it closed. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me -- 

21 MS. MUNN: No? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: It looks like NIOSH didn't 

23 understand the finding. 

24 MS. MUNN: It says they want more information 

25 about the comment. 
287

1 DR. ZIEMER: The response is they can't provide 

2 a response. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not -- I'm not familiar 

4 with (unintelligible). 

5 DR. ZIEMER: It's not obvious to me why this 

6 one was closed. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll have to get with Harry 

8 Pentagail*. He's the one who basically did the 

9 review on this, and I'll have to ask him why he 

10 feels that this is appropriate to close, given 

11 NIOSH's -- 'cause he did not just look at 

12 NIOSH's response. He looked at the Revision 2 

13 to this -- to this procedure, so -- and why he 

14 felt that Revision 2 addressed the issue, even 

15 though the response there doesn't -- indicates 

16 that there wasn't enough information for NIOSH 

17 to understand what the issue was. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Could be we fixed it by 

19 accident. You know, may have written a more 

20 clear set of directions. 

21 MS. MUNN: That's possible. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Cleared up. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It cleared it up. I don't 

24 know. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know, I'll try to get -- 
288

1 DR. ZIEMER: The basis for closure, though, is 

2 not obvious. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Right, I'll have to go get more 

4 information from Harry. 

5 MS. MUNN: Good. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So will this be then in 

7 progress? 

8 MS. MUNN: This will be in progress. Uh-huh. 

9 And the next issue that comes up is 61-04, 

10 which remains open. The dose reconstructor is 

11 not advised to make corrections for retakes or 

12 additional exposures due to poor technique in 

13 processing, yet estimated maximizing dose may 

14 not be claimant favorable. Retakes were 

15 usually recorded. Reference is Trout, and 

16 there was no -- no response to NIOSH's initial 

17 response, nothing back from SC&A. It appears 

18 to remain open. SC&A says on our list today 

19 that it's not addressed in the new version of 

20 PROC-61, so it appears that -- I'm interpreting 

21 that to mean that SC&A does not accept NIOSH's 

22 response here. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we kind of accepted the 

24 response, but I don't think the revision really 

25 incorporated that response. I think -- that's 
289

1 the way I -- I read this, if I recall 

2 correctly. I -- again, I'll have to talk to -- 

3 to Harry and -- and get that confirmed. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think -- our response 

5 was intended -- I mean certainly you need to 

6 talk to Harry. Our response was intended to 

7 say that we feel like the numbers are okay, 

8 retakes are -- are appropriately considered 

9 based upon this, you know, 'cause -- and so I 

10 don't know that we proposed to include language 

11 to that effect in the -- in the site -- in the 

12 TBD or the TIB, or the procedure, but -- I mean 

13 if that -- if you feel like that's important -- 

14 well, you know, at some point we -- you know, 

15 at some point we can get to it, you know. 

16 MS. MUNN: Well, let's -- if -- if the words 

17 that were being used here in NIOSH's response 

18 are not adequate -- I mean if -- if these were 

19 adequate to meet the concern, then it would not 

20 appear that the new revision would require 

21 anything additionally, unless there was some -- 

22 some elimination of -- of material in the new 

23 procedure. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me if the retake 

25 rate was -- was substantial, like if was 50 
290

1 percent rather than three percent, then you'd 

2 think seriously about correcting for that. But 

3 at three percent, the other correction more 

4 than compensates for that. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's what we said. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: In other words, for every -- for 

7 every 100 X-rays a worker got -- if he worked 

8 there 50 years, he got two a year -- you'd 

9 throw in a -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Three more. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- three more, it's not going to 

12 change their total very much, or you'd increase 

13 it by three percent or whatever it is. If 

14 retakes were 50 or 60 or 70 percent -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- on average, then you -- then 

17 you could justify okay, we're going to double 

18 it. 

19 MS. THOMAS: I think what they're saying in the 

20 response, too, is if they worked for 20 years 

21 but there may be only a record of ten 

22 procedures performed -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: You're still -- 

24 MS. THOMAS: -- they get 20 -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- you're still going to have 20 
291

1 anyway. 

2 MS. THOMAS: -- so -- and if those are double 

3 exposures, meaning a lateral and PA chest, for 

4 example, you know, that's -- they get assigned 

5 the dose from all of those for 20 years to 

6 (unintelligible). Now that, you know, depends 

7 on what the site profile says. It's not going 

8 to be the same -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

10 MS. THOMAS: -- in every case, but -- in other 

11 words, the -- it's more at a macro level than a 

12 repeat of one projection at one time. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I guess we -- 

14 MS. THOMAS: (Unintelligible) what I'm saying? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- we don't have SC&A's response 

16 in any event to -- 

17 MS. MUNN: No. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think -- 

19 MS. MUNN: The SC&A -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: If you can just let us -- 

21 MS. MUNN: -- here's -- we need clarification 

22 from SC&A about exactly what this means. 

23 That'll be on our -- our list next time. 

24 And the next issue that comes up is PROC-65-01, 

25 which is closed, issue resolved to the 
292

1 satisfaction of the workgroup. 

2 65-02, likewise; 66-01, likewise; 67-01, 

3 likewise; 67-02, correctly done; 69-01, the 

4 right words; 77-01, correct; 77-02, correct; 

5 03, correct; 80-01, fine; 80-02, correct; 91-

6 01, correct; 91 -- and that's the end of it. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: The end of the line. 

8 MS. MUNN: And we have come to the end of it. 

9 DR. WADE: Oh, shucks. 

10 MS. MUNN: And here we were looking forward to 

11 a nice midnight lunch. 

12 All right, you've heard my expectation for what 

13 we hope to have on our fairly abbreviated 

14 agenda at the end of the full Board meeting in 

15 Redondo Beach in September. 

16 MR. GIBSON: You going to start on the third 

17 set now? 

18 MS. MUNN: We will start on the third set at 

19 that time, if we do not get through our 

20 abbreviated agenda. But for the time being, I 

21 will make an effort to -- I'll ask Steve to 

22 pull together a revised set two items that we 

23 did not clear here, and I'll -- will ask you to 

24 give me an e-mail of what you have your action 

25 items to be for that group so that I can verify 
293

1 that it's the same for me. And Stu, could I 

2 ask the same of you, if you'll give me, at -- 

3 at your -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: My -- my notes of what I think 

5 our action items are? 

6 MS. MUNN: Just -- yeah, what you believe your 

7 action items were from this one. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

9 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. Does anyone 

10 have any additional information they feel needs 

11 to go on the record for this meeting? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: What are we covering next time? 

13 We talked about that. I just want to be sure I 

14 got it. We're starting on those two other 

15 reports -- 

16 MS. MUNN: We're going to do those -- just 

17 incorporate them in our -- our overview list. 

18 We're going to try to clean up as much of this 

19 set two as we can. We've had several -- going 

20 through set two where we've had a number of 

21 items jump back out at us that we still have 

22 outstanding. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Have a number of SC&A closure 

24 statements -- 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes. 
294

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- that we're looking for. 

2 MS. MUNN: That's true. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: In this group that -- in set two. 

4 MS. MUNN: Exactly, so we'll go through -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure you guys have 

6 anything -- 

7 MS. MUNN: I don't think -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- much for our next meeting. 

9 MS. MUNN: I don't think so. We tried to leave 

10 anything other than just an occasional status 

11 report -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I think Jim pretty well 

13 said (unintelligible). 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I was -- that's what I was just 

16 going to say, I don't know that we can do 

17 anything -- 

18 MS. MUNN: No. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- before the next meeting. 

20 MS. MUNN: No. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think Jim said you couldn't. 

22 MS. MUNN: The only -- the only thing that I 

23 have here is on OTIB-19-01. We had said that -

24 - that Jim was going to give a status report 

25 several months ago to the Board, and we -- all 
295

1 we were just asking is what is the status now. 

2 We weren't asking for any action other than 

3 what's already been done. We just don't have 

4 any knowledge of where we are. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That's OTIB-19? 

6 MS. MUNN: OTIB-19-01, uh-huh. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro was going to give us 

8 sort of their sense of this draft. Right? 

9 MS. MUNN: Yes, uh-huh. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't know where SC&A will 

11 be on the closure statements with -- will those 

12 be ready or not. That's not very much time. 

13 MS. ADAMS: No, some will be -- 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know. 

15 MS. MUNN: I imagine some will -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think it would take a 

17 lot of effort on Steve -- basically they were 

18 Steve Ostrow's -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: -- PR-5 and PR-7. I don't think 

21 -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: So that he can perhaps -- 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: We will shoot for that. I'll 

24 talk -- talk to Steve Ostrow tomorrow on line, 

25 send you an e-mail, Wanda, about my action 
296

1 items. I will let you know what he thinks. 

2 MS. MUNN: Thanks, Steve. I appreciate that. 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: And Steve, you'll do one more 

4 database update so that we can get that 

5 transferred early in the week before -- early 

6 in the week of the meeting so that by Thursday 

7 afternoon we'll have a revised 

8 (unintelligible). 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Which week? There was a -- 

10 Labor Day week? I will stop updating it -- I 

11 will update it up until the Friday before Labor 

12 Day. When is that? That's the 30th? 

13 MS. MUNN: Something like that. 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: Something like that. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: 29th, something like that? 

16 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Then I will freeze it at that 

18 point and you can take it -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: But anytime that next week we 

20 can bring it over -- 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: Bring that over to -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to our side so we 

23 (unintelligible) looking at it up there. 

24 MS. MUNN: That'll be great. Anything else? 

25 DR. WADE: Last chance. 
297

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Did we say earlier we were 

2 going to do a similar kind of thing on -- not 

3 OTIB-52 but one of the other products, the 9-

4 20-07? 

5 MS. MUNN: We're going to look at those. I 

6 think in each case those are -- there's only 

7 one or two -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

9 MS. MUNN: -- procedures involved, and we just 

10 wanted to incorporate them, get through that 

11 fiscal year, before we start the set of three. 

12 I think we probably already have statused them 

13 in one way or another. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

15 MS. MUNN: I doubt there'll be any work to do. 

16 We just want to get them on our list as having 

17 been covered. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

19 DR. WADE: Okey-doke? 

20 MS. MUNN: All right. 

21 DR. WADE: Okay, we're going to sign off, all 

22 you on the telephone line. We are done. 

23 MS. MUNN: Thank you so much. You can stick a 

24 fork in all of us. 

25 (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.) 
298

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Aug. 21, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

12th day of Sept., 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102