NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 OFFICE OF COMPENSATION ANALYSIS AND SUPPORT 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD WORKGROUP ON PROCEDURES 

 + + + + + 

 TUESDAY, 

 OCTOBER 14, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The Advisory Board Workgroup 

convened in the Frankfort Room of the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott, Cincinnati, Ohio 

at 10:00 a.m., Wanda Munn, Working Group 

Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 WANDA MUNN, Chair 

 MARK GRIFFON 

 PAUL ZIEMER 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

ALSO PRESENT: 

 NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor 

 BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A 

 KATHY BEHLING, SC&A 

 LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU 

 ZAIDA BURGOS, NIOSH 

 LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

 STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

 LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 

 EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

 TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

 STEVE MARSCHKE, SC&A 

 STEVE OSTROW, SC&A 

 SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU 

 MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU 

 DAVE SUNDIN, OCAS 

 ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

2 (10:03 a.m.) 

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning. This is 

4 the Procedures Working Group of the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation Worker Health. And we are 

6 about to get started. Let's begin with 

7 identifying who is attending, starting with 

8 the Board members in the room. If you would 

9 just start your names, please? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: This is Wanda Munn, 

11 Chair of this group. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Board 

13 member. 

14 MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

15 Advisory Board members attending by telephone? 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. This is Mark 

17 Griffon. 

18 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Mark. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hi, Ted. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. And I know Mike 

21 Gibson is not able to attend today. Then 

22 going to the NIOSH ORAU team, if you would 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 identify yourselves, starting in the room? 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

3 Elliott, Director of the Office of 

4 Compensation Analysis and Support. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

6 Authentical Program Manager, same office. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert with 

8 the ORAU team. 

9 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas with the 

10 ORAU team. 

11 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

12 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith, ORAU 

13 team. 

14 MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett, ORAU 

15 team. 

16 MR. SUNDIN: This is Dave Sundin, 

17 OCAS. 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. And now SC&A in 

19 the room? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke. 

21 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

22 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling. 

2 MR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein. 

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everybody. And 

4 now going from that to other federal employees 

5 in the room? 

6 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

7 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor 

8 with NIOSH. 

9 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

10 MS. BURGOS: Zaida Burgos, NIOSH. 

11 MR. KATZ: And I gather that's it? 

12 And then for members of the public, any 

13 attending or members of Congress or their 

14 representatives? 

15 (No response.) 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. And, just 

17 to note, then, for people on the phone, I 

18 don't think, actually, anyone on the phone 

19 needs it, then if we don#t have any others, 

20 but please keep your phones on #6 or mute, 

21 whichever, when you're not speaking. And if 

22 you disconnect, please do not put us on hold. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 Actually hang up and call back in. Much 

2 thanks and Wanda, it's all yours. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted. 

4 I think most of you have my e-mail 

5 of the 12th, indicating what we are going to 

6 be covering here, roughly. The only 

7 time-certain activity that we have discussed 

8 during our e-mail traffic over the last week 

9 or so has been that first item under my "At 

10 some juncture" group comments with respect to 

11 OTIB-0066, we had indicated earlier that we 

12 would be discussing that. In the interim, we 

13 have realized that that document has not yet 

14 been released from SC&A. They haven't quite 

15 completed their review of it. 

16 Therefore, as a result, what I have 

17 indicated is that at 11:30 today, we will ask 

18 some of the folks from SC&A who have been 

19 involved with that to give us a status and 

20 timeline and a very brief discussion of what 

21 the pertinent points are with respect to their 

22 findings. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 Other than that, we will not be 

2 covering OTIB-0066. Nor will we be going out 

3 of our way to try to maintain a strict 

4 timeline here unless someone has other 

5 concerns. 

6 If we have a situation where 

7 someone needs to make some presentation and 

8 he's not going to be able to be with us 

9 throughout the day, please make that known to 

10 us so that we can arrange our schedule 

11 accordingly. 

12 We expect to do this in a fairly 

13 unassuming manner today. We have all been at 

14 this for a little while now. And this is our 

15 second attempt to work almost entirely from 

16 the electronic database, rather than from 

17 written material. And we'll just play it by 

18 ear and see how it goes. I hope it goes well. 

19 I have asked that before we get 

20 really started here, we take a look at our 

21 procedures tracking system summary, which is 

22 on the O drive and available for all of you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 who want to. 

2 Rather than ask everybody to be 

3 pulling that up and scurrying around, it would 

4 be nice if we would just run through that very 

5 quickly, orally. 

6 Nancy, would you mind doing that 

7 for us? 

8 MS. ADAMS: No. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Just a quick reading 

10 of what we are staring at here. And if there 

11 are specific items as we go through this that 

12 the Board members are feeling a need to have 

13 some additional attention directed to them, 

14 please let us know. 

15 Nancy? 

16 MS. ADAMS: So the first set of 

17 findings of January 17th, 2005, there were 183 

18 total findings for that package. Forty-four 

19 of those are currently in abeyance. 

20 There are none that are officially 

21 as open. There are none in progress, 44 in 

22 abeyance. Four that are addressed in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 findings. And four have been transferred. 

2 And 131 are closed. 

3 The June 8th, 2006 set of findings, 

4 there are 112. Thirty-five are still open. 

5 Four are in progress. Five are in abeyance. 

6 Four are addressed in findings. Ten have been 

7 transferred. And 54 of those 112 are closed. 

8 The next set is July 30th, 2007. 

9 That set contains 16 findings. Six of those 

10 are in progress. One is in abeyance. One is 

11 addressed in findings. Two are transferred. 

12 And six are closed. 

13 September 20th, 2007 we have 8 

14 total findings. None are open. There is one 

15 in progress, two in abeyance, five addressed 

16 in findings. None of those have been 

17 transferred, and none of those have yet been 

18 closed. 

19 And then October 29th, 2007, there 

20 are 145 findings. All 145 of those are still 

21 open. November 9th, 2007, there are 9 total 

22 findings. All nine of those are still open. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 And then April 21st, 2008, there 

2 were 13 findings. And 13 of those have been 

3 transferred. So that gives us from all of 

4 those 7 packages of findings, 486 total 

5 findings, of which 191 have been closed, 189 

6 are still open, 11 are in progress, 52 are in 

7 abeyance, 14 are addressed in findings, and 29 

8 of those have been transferred. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Since we now have a 

10 group of initial findings from NIOSH on our 

11 third set, those numbers will undoubtedly 

12 change significantly after this particular 

13 meeting. 

14 Thank you, Nancy. I appreciate it. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I believe 

16 NIOSH gave us initial response to 32 of the 

17 145 in that October 29th set. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And, actually, we 

20 started looking them over and are ready to 

21 make a recommendation on just about a handful 

22 of them or so. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So the next time we 

3 meet, we will have probably, at least for 

4 those 32 and any additional ones that NIOSH 

5 provides us from that group, some 

6 recommendations to give the Board as to, you 

7 know, what status changes we would recommend 

8 be made. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: We'll certainly change 

10 the open numbers significantly. 

11 Yes, Paul? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is the date of 

13 this thing? I think you#re saying there are 

14 132 in progress on that set. Does that -- 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: There are 32, not 

16 132. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Thirty-two. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, 32. Okay. 

19 Whatever the number is. But that is as of 

20 like today? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is the date on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 this? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: This is live today. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other just 

4 hasn't been entered? 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: The other just 

6 hasn't been entered in yet. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Essentially, we 

8 haven't moved them from open until we talk 

9 about them in here. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Even though 

11 you have put them -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Even though we have 

13 given a response back, it usually remains 

14 open. And our response goes in the database. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: We don't make any 

16 changes to the status box until -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Until it's 

18 discussed. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- until it's 

20 discussed, until the Board directs us to make 

21 a change to the status box. So on our 

22 recommendation, we don't change the status 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 box. It's only when the Board gives us a 

2 direction to change the status that we change 

3 it from open to in progress or something like 

4 that. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: At our last meeting, 

6 we did go through the entire group of findings 

7 that we had and addressed the few that were 

8 still outstanding and set one. 

9 What is the preference of the group 

10 today? It had been my thought that we would 

11 start with the second set since, if memory 

12 serves, there hasn't been a great deal of 

13 activity going on in the first set of those 

14 abeyance numbers that are there have not, to 

15 my knowledge, changed significantly, but there 

16 has been a considerable amount of work done on 

17 the second and third sets. 

18 My instinct would be to start with 

19 the second set and go from there. But that's 

20 up to the group. Does anyone else have a 

21 preference for addressing these, the manner in 

22 which we are going to address these, the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 order? Is starting with the second set all 

2 right? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am agreeable. I 

4 would just ask the question and probably 

5 should know this, but I don't. Are there any 

6 procedures in the later sets that have an 

7 urgency about them relative to ongoing 

8 activities? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there is always 

10 -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if Stu 

12 or Larry could answer. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: The metal tritides? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's 66. And 

15 the metal tritides are what we will be 

16 discussing at 11:30. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: But also on the 

18 metal tritides, what is the interaction on the 

19 Pinellas group? Isn't Phil Schofield's group 

20 also looking at that issue? 

21 MR. KATZ: I think Phil was 

22 expecting that since this group is meeting 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 first that it would deal with it and then they 

2 would respond based on how this group -- 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So they -- you plan 

4 to look at it? 

5 MR. KATZ: So they plan to look at 

6 it, but I think they're relying on -- since 

7 this group is getting to it first from a 

8 timeliness perspective, they're looking at 

9 what results will come out of this group's 

10 discussion. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: However, that was what 

12 I was talking about earlier when I said we do 

13 not have SC&A's full set of responses. That's 

14 not complete yet. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, on that one. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: So we'll have only a 

17 verbal report. We don't have anything from 

18 which to make any decisions today. NIOSH 

19 hasn't even had an opportunity to look at that 

20 response. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: The report right now 

22 is a draft version, and it's being 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 declassified. It's going through the 

2 declassification review. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Until we have an 

4 opportunity for that initial technical 

5 exchange to take place, there really isn't 

6 much we can do except request a status from 

7 SC&A, which is what we#ve done. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: While you mention 

9 OTIB-0052, which is the construction worker 

10 OTIB, that's the third one, the 730-16 

11 findings. Should we get into that? I mean, 

12 we can summarize that. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Please do. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: We had a 

15 teleconference last Friday between myself -- 

16 Mark was on it -- and Jim Neton and several of 

17 the other NIOSH individuals. And we think we 

18 have come to an agreement as to the wording 

19 that would be acceptable to all parties who 

20 are involved that would satisfy the findings 

21 and we would be able to move the six that are 

22 in progress to probably in abeyance in short 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 order. 

2 It is my understanding that early 

3 this week perhaps -- maybe it's already 

4 occurred -- that the draft was going to go to 

5 Jim Neton, the draft revisions to the wording 

6 of the document was going to go to Jim Neton 

7 for his review. 

8 And then he would probably do 

9 whatever he wants to do to it and then forward 

10 it along to the working group and to SC&A. 

11 And we would be in a position to, you know, as 

12 I said before, we would move those six 

13 findings from in-progress to in-abeyance. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Would you like to 

15 review what those six findings were for us, 

16 Steve? I know you sent them to me. I don't 

17 know whether I forwarded them to the other 

18 members of the working group, but it would be 

19 helpful I think for us to review what those 

20 six were since it's my understanding from what 

21 you just said that we're close to a resolution 

22 on those six. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, this is 

2 Mark. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Mark? 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hi. I just wanted 

5 to say Steve is correct about the Friday call, 

6 but I did forward you, Steve, some questions 

7 that I had about OTIB-0052 in general. 

8 We were focused on the three 

9 questions that you have remaining, but I have 

10 some other background questions, which may be 

11 easily answered. So I didn't forward them to 

12 the whole workgroup. 

13 But I just wanted to say I agree 

14 with sort of our focused discussion on Friday. 

15 But I had some broader questions about the 

16 OTIB itself. So maybe that will come up in 

17 our deliberations of these six findings. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: It would be very 

19 helpful if we had a review of what those 

20 issues were. And, Mark, if it's all right 

21 with you, it would be helpful certainly for me 

22 if I had some feel for what your broader 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 questions with respect to other portions of 

2 the OTIB were. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes. I 

4 think some of them may overlap with what we 

5 discussed on Friday. Again, it was more the 

6 folks on the phone were much more familiar 

7 with the OTIB than I was. Some of it I 

8 thought was kind of background. It might be 

9 easily answered by them. But I'll be happy to 

10 include those in our discussion now. 

11 If you want to let Steve start 

12 maybe and I'll -- 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I would 

14 appreciate that. I had expected personally to 

15 try to be on that call but wasn't able to do 

16 it. So I am feeling a little bit out of the 

17 loop with respect to status here. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: We have, actually, 

19 two things going on here now. There are six 

20 findings that are currently in progress and 

21 that we're discussing. And these are the six 

22 here. It's shown on the screen, OTIB. It is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 finding 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. And we can 

2 show the details. 

3 NIOSH has provided us with a draft 

4 proposed changes back on 8-22, which would 

5 address all of those six open items. And this 

6 is also available on the O drive as a related 

7 link. 

8 In the telecon on Friday, we did 

9 not work issue by issue. We did not work 

10 through these issue by issue. What we did was 

11 we looked at the draft proposed changes, and 

12 the only things that we talked about were the 

13 areas where SC&A would like to see a little 

14 clarification, a little bit more detail, or a 

15 little different wording. And so those were 

16 only three areas. And so that is what was the 

17 topic of the discussion, was in three specific 

18 areas on the proposed changes. 

19 NIOSH had proposed a change to add 

20 a sentence or a couple of sentences to the 

21 effect that external doses to SRS pipefitters 

22 who are unmonitored and unemployed or employed 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 for a limited duration between '72 and '74 or 

2 '90 and '98 may be underestimated slightly. 

3 See OTIB-0020 for additional guidance while we 

4 would have liked to have seen a little bit 

5 more of a general statement than that about 

6 the pipefitters. 

7 We also thought that perhaps this 

8 statement belonged more appropriately in 

9 OTIB-0020 than in OTIB-0052 because OTIB-0052 

10 my understanding is is primarily for the 

11 individuals who are developing the site 

12 profiles and not for the dose reconstructors. 

13 In the back of the site profiles, 

14 they have these tables of, I guess for lack of 

15 a better word, default annual doses. They 

16 have the coworker table. And now they're 

17 going to have a second OTIB-0052 table for 

18 construction workers. 

19 So the person who is developing 

20 that site profile and those tables, those are 

21 the individuals who will be utilizing 

22 OTIB-0052, not so much the dose reconstructors 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 themselves. 

2 So we don't see that putting a 

3 statement to this effect in OTIB-0052 is going 

4 to be really beneficial. We would much rather 

5 see the statement in OTIB-0020. 

6 What I have done is the paragraph 

7 here that begins "Some workers are concerned" 

8 was taken out of OTIB, an existing paragraph 

9 out of OTIB-0020. And the italicized portions 

10 are my changes to the OTIB-0020 paragraph to 

11 implement our concern regarding the 

12 pipefitters and being underestimated by 

13 OTIB-0052. 

14 There was some concern about the 

15 exact wording. I think it was general 

16 agreement that this was the way we were going 

17 to go, but there was some concern that the 

18 wording may be changed from what is shown here 

19 presently. And that's one of the things that 

20 Jim Neton and NIOSH are working on. 

21 Mark, is that your recollection? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, I think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 so. I am just noticing as I scan through the 

2 database that several of the findings, as you 

3 just said, several of the findings, in the 

4 database itself we didn't really get into in 

5 our conversation. It was those three focused 

6 items. 

7 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith for 

8 the ORAU team. 

9 I did edit and revise OTIB-0020 for 

10 the past few months. And that's currently 

11 into the review cycle at NIOSH right now based 

12 on this finding. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Great. Good. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

15 It sounded like you're modifying 

16 something based on a finding which has not yet 

17 been accepted by the workgroup. Do I 

18 understand this correctly or -- 

19 MR. SMITH: Well, I believe it was 

20 an action that came up during the July time 

21 frame. I remember this issue being discussed 

22 back then. And the direction was given to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 include this language about pipefitters in 

2 OTIB-0020 at that time. 

3 MS. THOMAS: It was an action for 

4 OTIB-0020. 

5 MR. SMITH: That action was taken. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Some of the -- 

7 MR. SMITH: I will go back to my 

8 e-mail while we are on the phone here. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I just 

10 wanted to get some clarification on that. 

11 And then, as a follow-up question, 

12 I'll ask Ms. Munn, do we have that document 

13 that we're seeing projected? I don't think I 

14 have it. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: This one here? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: What's the status 

17 of it? Is it just a discussion piece as a 

18 result of the phone call or is it an official 

19 document? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: It was a discussion 

21 piece. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: We were going to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 have this phone call. And I thought it would 

2 be a good idea before we had the phone call to 

3 list a few topics that we wanted to touch on 

4 during the phone call. So that's all this was 

5 meant to be. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It was not an 

8 official document in any sense of the word. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Our instruction from 

10 our last meeting was that the agency and the 

11 contractor would have a technical discussion 

12 -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- to try to resolve 

15 the issues that we had with OTIB-0052. And 

16 this was just these notes relative to -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: So this is not a 

18 final version of that wording? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it is not. It 

21 is -- 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that's why I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 asked the original question, then. Is it 

2 being incorporated in this form in another 

3 document or has that other wording been 

4 approved anyway under OTIB-0020? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: It's my understanding, 

6 correct me if I am wrong, as a result of the 

7 discussion that Jim Neton is in the process of 

8 putting together wording now. Is that 

9 correct? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: That's my 

11 understanding. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: That was my 

13 understanding. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: That's my 

15 understanding of what is going on at this 

16 point as well. In August, NIOSH gave us their 

17 proposed wording changes to OTIB-0052. And 

18 what is italicized in number 1 was included in 

19 that. 

20 My understanding is that they were 

21 probably going to delete that from their 

22 proposed changes to OTIB-0052 and add 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 something to OTIB-0020. That is what I walked 

2 away from the teleconference with. 

3 And whether or not it is going to 

4 be some wording along the lines that are shown 

5 on the screen but not necessarily that 

6 wording, they're going to work on it. 

7 Obviously they will run it, I guess 

8 obviously they will run it, by us again. We 

9 will have another chance to look at it and see 

10 whether or not we agree with it or not. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: So that we can 

12 anticipate that will be an action item for us 

13 at our next meeting. And Jim is not with us 

14 this morning. Correct? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That will go on our 

17 record as an item for next meeting. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, this is 

19 Mark. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Mark? 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hi. I'm Mark 

22 Griffon. I just had a question. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 When I look at the database, the 

2 paper, Paul, that you were asking about, it 

3 does show up as a reference link, but I also 

4 noticed that this paper is linked to many of 

5 the OTIB-0052 findings. 

6 And, for instance, I am looking at 

7 OTIB-0052-14. And the original finding is 

8 related to the handling of missing dose. And 

9 this particular paper had, you know, nothing 

10 at all to do with the findings. 

11 So I think at some point we want to 

12 go back to each one of these original findings 

13 and make sure because I don't think that this 

14 handling the issues in this paper necessarily 

15 closed all findings related to OTIB-0052. 

16 Does that make any sense? I just want to 

17 cross-check that with somebody. 

18 There are several questions as I 

19 look at it. There is handling of other 

20 radionuclides. This thing only addresses 

21 plutonium and uranium. There is a question of 

22 neutron doses in here. There is a question of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 this handling of missing doses. Do they use 

2 zeros, MDAs, et cetera? 

3 And none of those three that I just 

4 mentioned were addressed in this last white 

5 paper, the SC&A issues. Maybe they are closed 

6 out another way, but I think we need to make 

7 sure we look back and look at the progress of 

8 each because, like I said, this white paper 

9 doesn't address -- it's linked to some 

10 findings that it isn't even related to. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Mark, can I clarify 

12 that a little bit? The link that you see on 

13 the O drive, the three topics of discussion is 

14 not an SC&A document that is linked on the O 

15 drive. It is the NIOSH-proposed changes that 

16 are linked on the O drive. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Correct. I'm 

18 sorry. Yes. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And it shows up. 

20 Because it's linked in so many different 

21 areas, if you look at the paper itself, the 

22 NIOSH paper itself, they identify which 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 findings, like, say, 14. If you look at the 

2 paragraph at the bottom of the first page of 

3 the draft, they say basically that paragraph 

4 was inserted in response to findings 

5 OTIB-0052-13 and OTIB-0052-14. So that's the 

6 reason why it's linked from OTIB-0052-14. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. I 

8 thought this was your white paper. You're 

9 right. I didn't look closely at the linked 

10 document. So it is the ORAU initial response. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. So it 

13 may be appropriate in the linked section, but 

14 I don't know if we ever discussed, I think we 

15 did preliminarily discuss, this paper. But my 

16 question maybe, then, is: the paper we 

17 discussed in the Friday meeting, was that the 

18 only finding that you have remaining issues 

19 with? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am not sure that 

2 we as the workgroup have closed those other 

3 items out. So maybe that's where we can 

4 discuss that. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, this is 

6 Ziemer. 

7 I think in the paper that we're 

8 looking at here that Steve is showing us, it 

9 probably doesn't have the "status" of a white 

10 paper, yet. It's still in the discussion 

11 stage, I think, as I understand it, between 

12 SC&A and NIOSH. Is that correct, Steve? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Both documents. I 

14 mean, both documents, I don't know that they 

15 have the status of -- neither of them have the 

16 status of white paper. 

17 In my mind, the first document, the 

18 NIOSH document, is really just their proposed 

19 revisions to the OTIB-0052. And the SC&A, 

20 what we're calling the SC&A white paper, is 

21 really just my talking my points for the 

22 telecon. And so it's just I wouldn't give 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 either of them status as white papers. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No. I don't think 

3 they were ever intended as that. They were 

4 intended as internal documents just outlining 

5 discussion points so that all the parties 

6 involved would be clear on what was going to 

7 be covered in that particular telephone 

8 conference. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe the 

10 terminology is not a good one. The NIOSH one 

11 is on the database and the SC&A one is not yet 

12 there. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And I don't -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: It may change a 

15 little bit before you put it on, as I 

16 understand it. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I am not sure that 

18 we will -- you know, unless the working group 

19 wants us to put it on, I'm not sure that I 

20 would say we should be putting that on because 

21 to me that's like an interim document. When 

22 NIOSH comes back and makes their second set of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 proposed changes to the OTIB, then we would 

2 get that on some form or fashion. 

3 We do have a problem with the 

4 database in that it's only allowed one link 

5 per finding. So there are several ways we can 

6 get around that by putting the two documents 

7 together or something like that, one after the 

8 other. 

9 But as it stands right now, we 

10 would have to do something creative, I guess. 

11 But that's -- 

12 CHAIR MUNN: As a cautionary word 

13 from the Chair, there would be some concern, I 

14 think, with assuming that any written 

15 communication regarding these items is going 

16 to be retained in its fullness in some way in 

17 our database. 

18 That would undoubtedly overload 

19 what we're trying to do here and cause us 

20 undue grief in trying to sort through 

21 preliminary discussion items in order to get 

22 to the final documents. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 It would in my view appear to be 

2 unwise to consider documents of this sort to 

3 be the kind of material that we want to insert 

4 into the database given that there had been no 

5 decisions made and no agreement reached with 

6 NIOSH on the verbiage. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I realize that, yes, 

8 there was discussion at one of our meetings -- 

9 I don't know if it was at Redondo Beach or the 

10 last time we were here -- about even putting 

11 this current NIOSH-proposed changes, even 

12 adding that to the database. 

13 We finally decided that we should 

14 add it to the database. We wanted to have 

15 some kind of a record as to what the changes 

16 were, but I don't think we want to have, as 

17 Wanda says, every step and nut and bolt in 

18 there. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: But it seems to me 

20 that the entry of this document, the 

21 NIOSH-developed document, that's labeled 

22 "Draft" presumes that you're going to provide 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 the response document. And that will have to 

2 be added to the system here. 

3 My question is one of procedure. 

4 You know, it seems to me that we belabor and 

5 we belabor and we belabor discussion here on 

6 minor points, language, semantics, what have 

7 you. 

8 I am trying to find where we should 

9 be with NIOSH decision-making. And where do 

10 we find ourselves saying, "Here is a NIOSH 

11 decision. What is the reaction of the working 

12 group?" 

13 If the working group chooses to say 

14 to SC&A, "What is your advice?" or "What is 

15 your review and comment on this?" that is your 

16 prerogative. 

17 Where does the board, where does 

18 the working group -- I think this is very 

19 pertinent to procedures because you can get so 

20 mired down into the details here. Where does 

21 the working group see NIOSH decision points 

22 being? Should we revise OTIB-0052 based upon 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 what we have seen from SC&A and the working 

2 group's discussions and say, "Here is our 

3 revision" and get your approval on that or 

4 should we say, "Here is our reaction to this 

5 issue that is brought up under this provision, 

6 under this procedure"? 

7 Should we take OTIB-0020 and make 

8 the revisions to it and that's our decision 

9 and we lay it on the table and you react to it 

10 or do we, as we are doing here in my opinion, 

11 continue to debate, continue to deliberate, 

12 continue to go back and forth, even to that 

13 point of suggestion on language? 

14 So I just ask that as a question. 

15 Where do you see the NIOSH decision points 

16 occurring here? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: And it's a crucial 

18 question, one we have not come to full grips 

19 with. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And I think 

21 also, particularly for OTIB-0052, SC&A is not 

22 proposing any changes to the methodology that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 would result in any numerical changes to doses 

2 that are reconstructed based upon the current 

3 version of OTIB-0052. 

4 What we are looking for is 

5 clarification and explanation in the wording 

6 that is in the document. So your point is 

7 well-taken. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, it bothers 

9 me to hear that we have a review of a document 

10 underway within our peer review process, that 

11 it tends to something that was addressed under 

12 OTIB-0020. That should be reflected in 

13 OTIB-0052. 

14 So I'm trying to find out, you 

15 know. I hate to see that review process 

16 proceed and then come out. And there will be 

17 some other decision that the working group 

18 feels is the appropriate decision. So that's 

19 why I'm asking the question, #Where#s the 

20 decision?# 

21 Sorry to throw a wrench into the 

22 works. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 CHAIR MUNN: No. That's not a 

2 wrench, really and truly. It's the crux of 

3 what we're trying to do here. And we are at a 

4 juncture in our deliberations where we have 

5 seen what can happen as a result of not having 

6 tacked down that precise question. 

7 This probably is as good a time as 

8 any for us to try to reach a significant 

9 milestone by putting that on the record if we 

10 are far enough along in our own individual 

11 thoughts to be able to see the end result from 

12 both sides. 

13 Does any other Board member have a 

14 thought on that? Yes, Paul? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is 

16 Ziemer. 

17 This is just top of the head, but 

18 it seems to me that we shouldn't be quibbling 

19 with wording changes that won't have any 

20 impact on the bottom line. I mean, 

21 wordsmithing is not that critical. 

22 If there is an issue that is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 important either to -- in fact, it may not 

2 even be important for us to define where 

3 something should be. And, you know, you need 

4 to move this into OTIB something or other. If 

5 that has no impact on how you are doing your 

6 work, then I don't think we need to mess with 

7 something like that. 

8 Now, if we identify an issue that 

9 impacts on the bottom line of dose 

10 reconstruction in some way or impacts on the 

11 procedures in a way that is significant, then 

12 we need to deal with it. 

13 I think Larry is right that we 

14 don't want to be wordsmithing and saying, 

15 "Well, this paragraph ought to go into this 

16 document" and so on. 

17 As long as if NIOSH knows, you 

18 know, has clarified the issue and how they're 

19 dealing with it, we're satisfied with how 

20 they're dealing with it. And we've gotten 

21 input from SC&A on the technical concerns. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: The first topic up 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 here may have some impact on a dose 

2 reconstruction if the construction worker were 

3 a pipefitter or one of these -- fell into this 

4 group where they received higher than average 

5 doses. 

6 So we think that this is a little 

7 bit more than wordsmithing. This is kind of 

8 raising a little flag to the dose 

9 reconstructor, saying, you know, if the 

10 claimant indicates that he was in the 

11 construction trade and particularly if he was 

12 a pipefitter, then you may want to take a 

13 little harder look at him than if he was in 

14 the construction trades as a painter or as a 

15 carpenter because we found in a general rule 

16 that the pipefitters receive a higher than 

17 average dose. With some of these other labor 

18 categories, we see lower than average doses. 

19 So that's what the intent here was. 

20 In the discussion on Friday, it was pointed 

21 out that, well, how are we going to know that 

22 this is the case for any particular claimant? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 And I think that's one of the 

2 points that Mark brought up on Friday. You 

3 know, the statement in 20 says verbally in the 

4 CATI interview or in written correspondence, 

5 that may or may not -- there may not be any 

6 information in either of those that would 

7 identify that and particularly if the claimant 

8 was a survivor, as opposed to the worker 

9 himself. 

10 So this first one is a little bit 

11 more than just wordsmithing. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I think we just 

13 heard that that is already being addressed. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: That's a valid point. 

15 We need to react to that. We need to address 

16 that. I'm happy to hear that being raised as 

17 an issue so that we can adjust as appropriate. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: However, there is 

19 another issue involved in this type of 

20 discussion. And that is a concern that we 

21 have gone through on several occasions in this 

22 body with respect to where issues are 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 addressed. There is some question as to 

2 whether or not it's a concern of a review body 

3 like this one where an issue is addressed. 

4 The question is whether the issue 

5 is adequately addressed. And our interest, 

6 for example, in 52 or 20 is a soft -- 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: I think you are 

8 speaking of verification. You want a 

9 verification step that NIOSH has said it's 

10 going to address the comment X, Y, and Z in 

11 such and such a document. Now, did they? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Did they? 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: And once it was done, 

15 should this body have any word one way or 

16 another in whether or not that the place where 

17 it is addressed is a real consequence? You 

18 know, we have from time to time had 

19 discussions about whether it should go here or 

20 whether it should go there. And there is some 

21 question as to whether or not that is an 

22 appropriate concern for us one way or the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 other. 

2 If the issue is addressed and it is 

3 addressed to the satisfaction of both the 

4 agency and the contractor, then it should be 

5 done, but your question still -- we talked 

6 around it, but we still haven't directly 

7 addressed the question. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: At some point in time 

9 we have to come forward, NIOSH has to present 

10 a decision. And that decision can be in the 

11 form of a whole document revision or it can be 

12 in the form of a "Here is our reaction and our 

13 position on this deficiency as noted." And 

14 that's all I'm asking. 

15 We need to be clear on what we're 

16 presenting, I think, because what I see in 

17 this document doesn't tell me that that is our 

18 final position on language or where we should 

19 attend to that language. 

20 And it doesn't, in my opinion 

21 doesn't, say that okay, we have reacted to 

22 that issue that Steve articulated a moment 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 ago. So where does verification start on our 

2 decision point that we make. 

3 And I think you are interested in 

4 who is going to make that verification? Is it 

5 something that NIOSH has to point you to or is 

6 it something that you as a working group want 

7 to take the step and actually do or do you 

8 want to ask your contractor for that support? 

9 And it could be any of those 

10 options, I believe. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. If I could 

12 expand a little bit? When the action is a 

13 revision to an OTIB or a revision to a 

14 document, usually what we do is we take a look 

15 at that revised document and see a focused 

16 look at the revised document to see whether or 

17 not that particular finding has been 

18 addressed. 

19 And then we give the Board the 

20 thumbs up or the thumbs down that we agree 

21 that it has been addressed appropriately. And 

22 when we have gone through, I think you will 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 see in a number of ones that we have been 

2 working off on the second group, I think that 

3 is exactly the case that has occurred. 

4 NIOSH has gone back and made 

5 revisions to documents. I think OTIB-0011 is 

6 an example where they revised the documents. 

7 We looked at the calculation packages that 

8 they utilized. And we said, yes, we are in 

9 agreement with the revisions that were made 

10 and we recommend that the Board close these. 

11 And I believe that the Board is now looking 

12 themselves at the calculations on that 

13 particular example. And will come to their 

14 own decision. 

15 But that has been the process. And 

16 even when a finding gets transferred to 

17 another document, such as the one that we have 

18 been talking about, if we were given -- okay. 

19 Say TIB-0020 has been revised and it now 

20 incorporates the OTIB-0052, we interpret our 

21 charter to be able to go into OTIB-0020 and 

22 look to see whether or not, in effect, the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 change does satisfy the finding from 

2 OTIB-0052. 

3 From an OTIB-0052 perspective, we 

4 would not look at other portions of OTIB-0020 

5 because that would not be our charter under 

6 OTIB-0052. It would be a very focused review 

7 to see that the change that was indicated was 

8 going to be made had, in fact, been made. And 

9 that would be the extent of it. 

10 I think we have done that. An 

11 example doesn't pop to mind immediately, but I 

12 think we have done that in the past as well. 

13 And then we turn around and, again, give our 

14 recommendation to the working group. 

15 And so that is procedure that we 

16 have been working under. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, are you still 

18 there? 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am still 

20 here. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: You are being very 

22 silent on this administrative issue here, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 which is probably key to many of the things we 

2 are going to be doing in the future. It would 

3 be helpful for us to hear your position now if 

4 you feel constrained to give it to us. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

6 guess part of my frustration is that I think I 

7 want to get answers to the findings, rather 

8 than -- I'm not interested in small wording 

9 changes either. I'm interested in the meat of 

10 the issue. 

11 And as I'm looking back at some of 

12 the responses back and forth -- and maybe it's 

13 because quite a bit of time has gone by and 

14 I'm not looking at these summaries and the 

15 database. Sometimes you lose the texture of 

16 the conversation, but, you know, I'm still 

17 hard-pressed to see whether the workgroup 

18 closed on certain items. 

19 One example I'm reading through is 

20 the question of neutron dose and the other 

21 radionuclides, two examples in there. They're 

22 not handled. I guess I have questions on both 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 of those, whether we closed it. 

2 And I think sometimes we have been 

3 at this, I think someone said we have been at 

4 this a while, but I think a lot of our 

5 dialogue lately is not focused on the findings 

6 themselves. It has been on process stuff. 

7 Here we have been going at this for 

8 an hour. And I don't think we've talked about 

9 a finding yet. So I guess that's my comment. 

10 I would just assume, you know, maybe we're 

11 not ready - - for OTIB-0052, maybe we're not 

12 ready for a revised language yet. 

13 Maybe we need to go back to each 

14 one of these and just summarize where we're at 

15 and make sure not only SC&A and NIOSH are in 

16 agreement but the workgroup, that we have some 

17 agreement on these findings and we can move 

18 forward or close some and some end up in 

19 abeyance. 

20 I think we haven't, at least to my 

21 satisfaction, we haven't, had that discussion 

22 on some of these. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 CHAIR MUNN: No, we haven't had 

2 that discussion, but the question that is 

3 before us now is, how do we get out of this 

4 loop? And what is going to be the final 

5 portion of process? 

6 Are we as a workgroup going to be 

7 passing on each of these issues before NIOSH? 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: May I propose 

9 something? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Please do. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: In this particular 

12 instance, I think you should back out this 

13 document. I don't think this NIOSH document 

14 should be in your tracking system yet. 

15 I think what you should enter into 

16 your tracking system is a document that says 

17 there was this technical discussion with SC&A 

18 and NIOSH and the outcome of that was. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, with respect to 

20 this particular piece of paper that we're 

21 talking about here, I agree with you. The 

22 technical discussion encompassed certain 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 items. And NIOSH is preparing its position 

2 now. That to me is the status of this 

3 particular item. 

4 Also, it still doesn't answer your 

5 question of when is the item closed, what is 

6 the process. And, Mark, I haven't heard your 

7 position on that either. 

8 Just a moment. Yes, Paul? 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was going 

10 to comment on that issue myself. And I think 

11 I agree with Mark on this that the fact -- and 

12 I think, Mark, if I express this correctly, I 

13 think your concern and mine would be that we 

14 should not assume that just because NIOSH and 

15 SC&A have come to agreement, that the issue is 

16 closed because the Board has the prerogative 

17 of disagreeing with both of those entities. 

18 So I think Mark has always been 

19 concerned that there is an assumption that 

20 closure is assumed simply because NIOSH and 

21 SC&A have agreed on something, that ultimately 

22 the Board has to also agree with that position 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 or disagree so that, in fact, on each item to 

2 close it, the workgroup has to agree that it's 

3 closed and make that recommendation to the 

4 Board. That's point one. 

5 Point two, I think that it is 

6 always a danger that either for the workgroup 

7 or for our contractor to get into so much 

8 detail that we're doing work that ultimately 

9 should be NIOSH's work, -- I think Larry has 

10 heard me say this many times -- there is a 

11 tendency for us to want to do the NIOSH work. 

12 If we identify a concern, we need to raise it 

13 to NIOSH. It is their responsibility to 

14 address it. 

15 It is not our contractor's 

16 responsibility. It is not the Board's 

17 responsibility to make the correction or to do 

18 the NIOSH work. Now, we may work hand in hand 

19 because they need to understand the concern, 

20 and we have the technical discussions back and 

21 forth, but I think it's always a danger. 

22 And we have this a little bit, I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 think, in my mind on Fernald right now where 

2 we have SC&A doing a sampling procedure to 

3 evaluate the data and I would question whether 

4 that is what the contractor should do or 

5 should we say, "NIOSH, here is a possible way 

6 to evaluate the data. Do this or do something 

7 similar to evaluate the data"? So I think we 

8 always have that danger of getting into the 

9 weeds too much, both the workgroup and the 

10 contractor. 

11 Those were my comments. Mark, did 

12 I characterize your concerns right? 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Paul. I 

14 agree with you, especially on the first point. 

15 I definitely agree with that. That is my 

16 concern. 

17 And I'm looking at 0TIB-0052, 

18 finding 14 on the missing dose question. And 

19 when I look at the back and forth on the 

20 responses, it may be that SC&A is satisfied 

21 with NIOSH's response, but when I look at it, 

22 even the final pdf document that gives another 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 language change is fairly vague. 

2 And I think that, you know, myself 

3 as a workgroup member, I started on Friday 

4 during that conference call and looked at it a 

5 little more over the weekend. But when you 

6 look at the spreadsheets, you have to sort of 

7 go back to the data and convince yourself that 

8 we agree with -- if SC&A is in agreement with 

9 this and NIOSH, that we are willing to sign 

10 off as well. 

11 Maybe it's not for discussion now, 

12 but I think we just need to step back and go 

13 through each one of these and say, "Okay. We 

14 also buy in" as workgroup members before we 

15 finally close the items. That's all. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: I'm trying to 

17 formulate the words to express my concern. 

18 And I'm having a hard time doing it because it 

19 is involved with a larger question of what our 

20 responsibilities as Board members actually 

21 are, both in the larger sense and very 

22 specifically in this body. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 The only reason we have these 

2 findings to begin with is that our contractor 

3 has reviewed NIOSH documentation and has 

4 brought these findings to our attention as 

5 being items of concern. 

6 When we as an oversight group 

7 received our charter, it was not a written 

8 charter for this workgroup or subcommittee, 

9 whichever we are, -- I'm not sure at this 

10 juncture -- but we were charged with 

11 overseeing the process of interchange between 

12 NIOSH and SC&A with respect to how the 

13 findings were resolved. 

14 Expecting that individual workgroup 

15 members would be actively involved in those 

16 resolutions is asking a great deal. It seems 

17 prudent for us, perhaps it would be wise for 

18 those of us who are workgroup members on the 

19 Board, to have an offline discussion to come 

20 to some agreement about our responsibility and 

21 present our thoughts to the Board itself to 

22 clarify some of these issues. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 If we were charged with the 

2 responsibility of seeing that the interchange 

3 was appropriate and that the findings were 

4 appropriately addressed, then when the agency 

5 that has made the finding agrees that the 

6 finding has been properly addressed and the 

7 agency who produced the original document 

8 accepts that finding, it is difficult to 

9 understand how as a Board there should not be 

10 an agreement from the subcommittee or working 

11 group, whichever we are, that that mission has 

12 been accomplished. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Or has not been 

14 accomplished. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Or has not been 

16 accomplished, as the case may be. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: So whenever SC&A 

18 and NIOSH agree, the Board members have no 

19 voice at all is what you're saying? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's not what 

21 I'm saying. What I'm saying is from a working 

22 group point of view, there is no reason why we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 should not say at this juncture, this working 

2 group's responsibility has been met if that 

3 circumstance is, in fact, met. 

4 As individual Board members, it 

5 appears we already know. In any case in a 

6 full Board meeting, all Board members may 

7 address this, not simply working group 

8 members. We have seen that already and will 

9 continue to see it. 

10 When there are individual concerns 

11 and individual disagreements, that is an 

12 entirely different thing than what the charge 

13 of the workgroup is, it would appear. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: But, Wanda, my 

15 point is that always the place where we have 

16 handled the more technical and sort of the 

17 down in the weeds issues is on the workgroup 

18 level. That is the whole notion of having 

19 workgroups deal with it, instead of dealing 

20 with it at the full Board level. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: So when you have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 questions like, how was this misdose handled 

2 in these databases, how did they merge all of 

3 the data together and establish these ratios, 

4 I mean, these kinds of discussions I think 

5 make sense to having the workgroup. 

6 And all I am saying is if you have 

7 a NIOSH response to a finding and then an SC&A 

8 rebuttal or whatever, at some point I thought 

9 the workgroup members should have an 

10 opportunity to ask clarifying questions. 

11 I'm not saying that I'm going to go 

12 to anywhere near the depth that SC&A has in 

13 reviewing these or NIOSH has in responding to 

14 the findings but just clarifying questions. 

15 Let me make sure I understand why 

16 you guys agree, that sort of questioning, and 

17 then we close it out. That is what we have 

18 done all along. I don't know why that is any 

19 different, really. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't why 

21 that's any different either. That's not what 

22 I was hearing in our earlier -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what I 

2 intended. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in any case, it 

4 seems that we can discuss this at great length 

5 and pontificate endlessly. We really don't 

6 want to do that. At least that's not my 

7 desire, and it's clearly not the desire of the 

8 other people sitting around this table and 

9 you, Mark. 

10 Do any of the Board members have 

11 any objection to our discussing offline Jim's 

12 specific request with regard to our 

13 determining what our process should be 

14 appropriately and how we will address it or do 

15 we want to continue to try to address it here 

16 or do we think it is resolved? I don't feel 

17 it's resolved, but what is your thought? 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, I don't 

19 think it's any different than any of the other 

20 workgroups when we have our matrices. There 

21 may be some differences in the level of 

22 detail, but ultimately the workgroup has to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 come to -- a Board member can raise an issue 

2 later certainly, but the workgroup has to come 

3 to some agreement that the issue has been 

4 closed. 

5 And I think, as Mark said, 

6 individual Board members may differ in their 

7 level of comfort on many of these issues. 

8 Some of it may depend on their background and 

9 their perspective, but the workgroup members 

10 need to be able to ask whatever questions they 

11 have. How did SC&A reach its conclusions or 

12 how did NIOSH reach its conclusions and 

13 ultimately to reach a level of comfort that 

14 that Board member can say, "Yes, I am in 

15 agreement that this issue is closed." 

16 CHAIR MUNN: That's our purpose. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: And also to oversee 

18 that process of resolving the issues and to be 

19 able to assure the Board that yes, the parties 

20 did get together and we did address these 

21 issues and the questions raised by the 

22 workgroup that have now been satisfactorily 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 answered and here is why. Certainly any Board 

2 member has the prerogative of going back and 

3 asking other questions. 

4 In fact, I would say that if a 

5 Board member wished to add findings, you know, 

6 here is something that I think that SC&A 

7 overlooked but as I read through the NIOSH 

8 document, whatever it may be, whether it is a 

9 site profile or in this case a procedure, I 

10 have this additional question that I would 

11 like to be addressed, I think Board members 

12 can even raise that. We're not locked into 

13 only findings of SC&A as Board members. 

14 And sometimes this comes up in the 

15 framework of other questions that have been 

16 raised anyway and sort of gets incorporated 

17 into existing findings. 

18 I think we have a path forward. I 

19 think you have identified the concern of us 

20 not -- I think in many cases many Board 

21 members will be satisfied once the two issues 

22 or the two parties have come to closure or 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 what appears to be. Others may have 

2 additional questions. 

3 I think a lot of that depends on 

4 individuals' backgrounds and their method of 

5 processing the information and analyzing what 

6 they have before them. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. If I can 

8 expand a little bit? I don't think OTIB-0052 

9 is a good place to be talking about this 

10 because at this point we're not coming to the 

11 Board with any recommendations for any status 

12 changes to these particular findings at this 

13 point in time. 

14 I don't know if I am anticipating 

15 where Wanda is going to go next. But if we 

16 look at the second set of findings, there are 

17 a number of 30-some odd open ones. 

18 On those 30-some odd open ones, we 

19 do have recommendations. But we have looked 

20 at the NIOSH's responses and we made our 

21 recommendations. In many cases, we recommend 

22 that the finding be closed. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 If you remember, looking at the 

2 status sheet, they are still open. We don't 

3 close them. As I said before, we don't close 

4 them on our recommendations. We bring it 

5 before the working group. And the working 

6 group gives us the direction to close. 

7 They can look at the NIOSH response 

8 for that particular finding. They can look at 

9 -- one of the things we have been asked to do 

10 is to go back and give a little bit more of a 

11 reason why we agree with NIOSH or why we 

12 disagree with NIOSH. 

13 We have attempted to do that in 

14 these 30-some odd open findings that are 

15 associated with the second group. And there 

16 now I think those are ripe for the working 

17 group to take or to make status changes. 

18 The OTIB-0052, these findings are 

19 either in progress or they really are not 

20 completely ripe at this point for the 

21 workgroup to make a status change. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-0052 is pretty 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 much a stand-alone document. It is a 

2 different kind of animal than most of the 

3 documents that we are dealing with. 

4 And I think Steve is correct with 

5 respect to its status. It is not ready for us 

6 yet. It is out there. And we need to look at 

7 it. But we don't have specifics before us, 

8 either from SC&A or from NIOSH at this 

9 juncture with respect to these items, correct? 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that's correct. 

11 I think you're right. You do have a path 

12 forward. My question that I raised earlier 

13 does not imply you don't have a well-designed 

14 path forward. 

15 What I think we all need to agree 

16 and expect here is that we are going to have a 

17 clear and transparent record. That is what we 

18 have all signed on for. 

19 But in some instances, like this 

20 example, I think learn from this example and 

21 say, where there has been a technical 

22 discussion, a technical meeting, and there's 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 not a final product from that, we should not 

2 see an entry into this database yet. 

3 If we do and then it looks like 

4 it's a NIOSH decision point that is triggering 

5 that, then, you know, I want it to be a NIOSH 

6 decision point. If it's not, then it 

7 shouldn't be there. 

8 Right now I am saying that is not 

9 yet a NIOSH decision. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: No. From my 

11 perspective, the only notation that needs to 

12 go is that -- 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: A technical meeting 

14 was held. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: -- a technical 

16 teleconference was held. And we anticipate -- 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: I think you need to 

18 ask yourselves as you go through these issues, 

19 you know, "Do we have something like this or 

20 are we dealing with something that is the 

21 result of the process that you have 

22 established here, the procedure you have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 established?" 

2 I think what you also need to talk 

3 about at some point in time is where we are 

4 going to disagree, where SC&A and NIOSH just 

5 absolutely have reached a stalemate and we are 

6 no longer interested in further conversation 

7 on the matter. That is going to come soon. I 

8 can assure you it will be perhaps in this 

9 meeting, if not your next meeting. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it will come 

11 soon. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Because I am driving 

13 my folks to say we have reached the end of the 

14 trail here and we need to put this to bed so 

15 that we can move forward and finish up the 

16 dose reconstructions that are affected. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: And it's going to be a 

18 long, frustrating discussion when that occurs, 

19 I suspect. And I wouldn't be surprised to 

20 have that occur this afternoon. 

21 Very frankly, when I put OTIB-0052, 

22 the teleconference, on our agenda, I had no 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 expectation that this kind of discussion was 

2 going to evolve from it. I simply wanted to 

3 make sure that all of the parties involved 

4 were aware of the fact that the teleconference 

5 had taken place and that there were activities 

6 going on with respect to the items that were 

7 discussed there. That was the only intent. 

8 However, since it has led to our 

9 discussion here, is there any objection from 

10 anyone to our indicating that the 

11 teleconference occurred, that the resolution 

12 to the discussions are currently being worked 

13 by both the agency and the contractor? Is 

14 there any objection to that being listed as 

15 our -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: That is true. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: -- transparent 

18 activity? That's what it was. But we have no 

19 status of any of the individual items to 

20 change or to impact at this time. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look at the 

22 current status, most of these issues, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 basically the status of that is what you just 

2 described. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: They are in progress. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: They are in 

5 progress. And they will remain that way until 

6 I guess we, NIOSH and SC&A, decide to come 

7 before the workgroup with a recommended change 

8 to that status. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: May we agree that that 

10 is what can close our discussion with respect 

11 to this particular OTIB at this moment? 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: No. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: No? 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: I would like for you 

15 to either agree to take that document out of 

16 the database or to re-label that document so 

17 that it is noted as a discussion piece for a 

18 technical meeting and that there will be a 

19 follow-up complementary document added. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think she was 

21 recommending to take it out. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I was. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 MR. ELLIOTT: One way or the other, 

2 whichever is the pleasure of the working 

3 group, but this can't stand alone. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. It is too 

5 much data. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know how it 

7 got added, but that is beside the point at 

8 this juncture. 

9 MS. HOWELL: And if I could just 

10 ask a question for point of clarification? I 

11 know we have had discussions before about who 

12 has I guess the rights from an IT perspective 

13 to add documents. But who is making kind of 

14 more of the editorial call about documents 

15 such as this being added? Because the 

16 concerns that Larry raise are, I mean, there 

17 is some legal concern there as well. 

18 We need to be very clear about the 

19 record that we are establishing. And 

20 obviously we are clear on this item because we 

21 are going to have a lovely transcript about 

22 it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 I just want to be clear about what 

2 kind of things are being posted because we are 

3 kind of, either post -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: What is the 

5 expectation? 

6 MS. HOWELL: -- every single thing 

7 or post judiciously. And obviously that means 

8 somebody somewhere is having to make 

9 decisions. And I just want to know for my 

10 own, you know, knowledge and my office's 

11 knowledge, who is it that is making that 

12 decision? 

13 I would assume that that should be 

14 a NIOSH decision point, but I need to know if 

15 that is at the OCAS level, the OD level. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it could be the 

17 decision of the working group to say technical 

18 minutes or meeting notes or discussion 

19 documents from a technical interaction or 

20 technical meeting, you know, all ought to be 

21 in there or selectively, those that are agreed 

22 upon as the resolution from the discussion of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 the technical meeting ought to be in there. 

2 It could be the working group that 

3 drives that training. I don't care. 

4 MS. HOWELL: Well, then we have to 

5 be -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: If you leave it to 

7 NIOSH, here is my preference. I'm going to 

8 say we don't enter anything from a technical 

9 meeting perspective unless it's an agreed-upon 

10 position by both parties because we have a lot 

11 of back and forth. You know, we can show 

12 minutes and notes. And one set of notes is 

13 somebody's perspective, and another set of 

14 notes is another person's perspective. 

15 MS. HOWELL: That is what I mean 

16 when I say something about labeling because if 

17 it is the workgroup's decision, then that 

18 means that it is incumbent upon SC&A and ORAU 

19 and NIOSH to clearly determine and to send up 

20 through their chain of command what is a final 

21 document, which version is this. This is 

22 something that should be posted. This is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 something that should not be posted because it 

2 is confusing to the people who are responsible 

3 for this. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: This particular 

5 document was posted because it was agreed upon 

6 at the workgroup meeting. I don't think it 

7 was at the August meeting, but I think it was 

8 the workgroup meeting before that, when we had 

9 discussion as to whether or not this should be 

10 posted. Wanda I think was against posting it, 

11 but she got -- 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Overridden. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- overridden -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Again. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- or outvoted, 

16 whatever the word is. And we came with -- we 

17 wanted to add the word "draft," which we did, 

18 to the title and the date to the title and 

19 some additional changes. But the posting of 

20 this document, this particular document, was 

21 the workgroup decision. 

22 Other times you will see related 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 links on some of the other ones. Sometimes I 

2 use the related links. It's a -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Could you highlight 

4 and just put that up, just pull that up? I'm 

5 sorry, Steve, to interrupt. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Other times I use 

7 the related links. The access database that 

8 we're utilizing is very limited in what it 

9 will accept as text. It will only accept 

10 text. 

11 It does not accept formatted text. 

12 There are no superscripts. There are no 

13 subscripts. There is no bold. There is no 

14 underline. There is no indentation. And 

15 particularly there are no equations, and there 

16 are no figures. 

17 Sometimes I get a response, either 

18 from my own people at SC&A or from somebody at 

19 NIOSH. And they will have figures and 

20 equations and so on and so forth in their 

21 document. 

22 The only way I can get that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 information in to the database is to put it in 

2 as a related link. And so that you will see 

3 some of the related links are that type of 

4 situation. 

5 But, as I recall, this particular 

6 one was -- you know, I gave you the history on 

7 this. 

8 MS. HOWELL: Well, if I could just 

9 say one more thing? I guess I am concerned 

10 that we're looking at this as something where 

11 on each procedure, on each OTIB-0052 versus 

12 OTIB-0020 versus all these other ones, that 

13 we're looking at it as something where in each 

14 case we can make a decision on this. 

15 But I would prefer to see some 

16 consistency about how we are posting these 

17 things. And obviously I understand the 

18 difference when you're talking about having to 

19 post files because they won't show up in a 

20 database otherwise, but these kinds of interim 

21 documents lead -- I'm not sure that it is a 

22 good idea to kind of say, "Well, in this case 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 we're positing it. In that case we're not." 

2 I think it would be preferable to have a more 

3 uniform policy there. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't disagree with 

5 that at all. My problem with this particular 

6 document is that I can't tell. It was 

7 introduced evidently on August 22nd, but I 

8 can't tell whether it was introduced and 

9 approved by the working group, which now I 

10 hear in Steve's report that it was at Redondo 

11 Beach, which is -- 

12 CHAIR MUNN: This is prior to that. 

13 This is prior to that. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Putting it in. 

15 This is like me writing the NIOSH initial 

16 response. I write that. You know, that is 

17 the amount of review that gets. It's NIOSH 

18 initial response or the NIOSH follow-up. I 

19 write it. And I send it over. That is how it 

20 gets submitted. These kinds of things are 

21 very much like that. 

22 Now, in this particular one, we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 went a little bit different in that we 

2 proposed, "Well, what if we change it like 

3 this." You know, frequently what we'll say is 

4 we'll revise the document to address this. 

5 And then it's in abeyance until we issue the 

6 revised document. That is what we do 

7 frequently. 

8 In this case, I think because of 

9 the level of discussion that occurred to get 

10 to this point to essentially understand the 

11 nature of the finding, part of this is sort of 

12 a discussion to make sure that both sides 

13 understand the other side's position. 

14 You know, there's a finding written 

15 on one side. There's I guess a document 

16 written on the other. You have some sort of 

17 discussion in order to determine, okay. I 

18 really want to make sure I understand what is 

19 the basis for the finding or they want to 

20 really understand what is the basis for why 

21 you wrote this in the document. 

22 So a part of this back and forth, a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 large part of the back and forth, is getting 

2 to a common understanding of what it is. Now, 

3 in this particular case, maybe we went a 

4 little different in that we gave them actual 

5 proposed revisions. Normally we don't 

6 necessarily do that. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: In the main part of 

8 the database here, you'll see this is where on 

9 8-21 they presented their proposed changes. 

10 And basically we reference it. And then we 

11 have the workgroup directive, which basically 

12 says SC&A should go back and read those 

13 directives. 

14 And it's not saying that this is a 

15 final product. It's saying, just as Stu said, 

16 this is our recommendation. And so you can't 

17 look at the related link maybe by itself, but 

18 if you look at it in the context of the 

19 additional information here, it has some 

20 caveats on that related link. 

21 MS. HOWELL: Could we solve this by 

22 having language such as what is in that box 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 for directives or other language put in as a 

2 header, footer, disclaimer on the actual 

3 document? Because I am concerned about the 

4 documents. 

5 You know, it is a related link. 

6 And somebody can print off that link. And you 

7 don't have those caveats there that make it 

8 clear to a non-workgroup member, a non-staff 

9 person what it is that they're looking at. 

10 And so if there was a way to be 

11 more clear about that on the document itself, 

12 that would make me more comfortable. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we can do that. 

14 That is certainly not a problem. I think 

15 that was the intent. That was one of the 

16 intents of putting the word "draft" in the 

17 header, in the title, so that we -- and also I 

18 think we put -- but, again -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: When does a draft 

20 become final or is it expected that many of 

21 these kinds of documents that are labeled 

22 "draft" will never achieve a finality, a final 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 version, of itself but will achieve some 

2 finality in the revision that occurs. Do you 

3 see where I am going with that? 

4 You know, here is the problem we 

5 face. We are constantly being scrutinized. 

6 And the scrutiny is itemized. And the 

7 itemized effort that you all go to gets played 

8 out in the adjudication process at DOL. 

9 DOL gets a complaint from a 

10 claimant saying they reviewed OTIB-0052 and 

11 they have identified these issues and I think 

12 they are all relevant to my claim. So it gets 

13 kicked back to NIOSH for rework. And we can't 

14 rework it until we get it all resolved. 

15 And so they put up draft, you know. 

16 And so we have also got to explain here is a 

17 draft document that may never have become a 

18 final document in that sense. 

19 So, you know, I would suggest that 

20 draft has a meaning. And it may perhaps be 

21 defined for this process. You might want to 

22 look at other descriptors, like "work in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 progress" or "working document" or something. 

2 I don't know. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: "Unofficial document.# 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is mark 

5 Griffon. Can I weigh in here? 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am a little 

8 afraid to, but can I add something? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Go right ahead. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: The discussion we 

11 had in L.A. was that this document is actually 

12 a series of NIOSH responses. It covers 

13 several different findings of TIB-0052. And 

14 we even talked about should they extract each 

15 one and put it in the NIOSH response box in 

16 the database or should we just add it as a 

17 .pdf document. 

18 So even though it's a little 

19 different, I agree because it is kind of draft 

20 language, but it is really responses to each 

21 individual finding. How is NIOSH going to 

22 address a certain finding? And they're saying 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 we propose to modify language as follows in 

2 the TIB to address your finding. 

3 Now, we could have separated out 

4 each one of those things and put it in the 

5 NIOSH response doc. So we said part of the 

6 problem with that is that the text in many 

7 cases was very long. And it wouldn't very 

8 well fit in the database text box. 

9 So it might be easier just to leave 

10 it in one .pdf file. It's not really a draft 

11 TIB. It's responses. That's how I would look 

12 at it anyway, is responses to each individual 

13 finding. But in this case, several of them 

14 are all in one document. 

15 We run across this a lot in the SEC 

16 process, where we have response documents for 

17 several of the findings, like we have a series 

18 of the meetings and you get the March meeting 

19 responses, actions, NIOSH actions from the 

20 March workgroup meeting. And they don't just 

21 address one finding. It's a series of them. 

22 So I don't know that this is a real 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 issue. It's just another response document in 

2 my eyes. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: The language, however 

4 -- and Emily's concern with respect for 

5 potential misunderstanding of what the 

6 document is is understandable. I would like 

7 to suggest that we take this specific issue of 

8 this document that we have been discussing 

9 under advisement for an hour or so. Over the 

10 lunch hour, I would like for us to think in 

11 terms of some wording that needs to be placed 

12 on a document of this sort that will clearly 

13 identify it as not being a final document and 

14 as being more an internal record than anything 

15 else. 

16 Yes, Ted? 

17 MR. KATZ: Why don't you just label 

18 these working group discussion documents and 

19 that be it? They're really part of an oral 

20 discussion as these are written documents, but 

21 they're part of a dialogue that's going on. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: We may be. But I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 would like to close this discussion for more 

2 reasons than one. One, most pressingly, it is 

3 11:30. And we have asked the folks who were 

4 going to status OTIB-0066 for us to be online 

5 at this time. 

6 So with no objection for anyone 

7 here, let's do plan over the lunch hour to 

8 have those of you who are most concerned about 

9 this. And, Mark, if you want to be involved 

10 in this, we will keep you online. 

11 Those of us who are concerned about 

12 the wording here, we'll have a little 

13 discussion after we have gone off the formal 

14 call at lunchtime about how to word this so 

15 that it will meet the requirements of our 

16 Legal Department. Is that okay with everyone? 

17 (No response.) 

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then let's 

19 see. Let's move on to a verbal report on the 

20 status of where we are with OTIB-0066. Who do 

21 we have on the line? 

22 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 CHAIR MUNN: Hi, Steve. Are you 

2 ready to tell us where we are? 

3 MR. OSTROW: Sure. We have a draft 

4 review. We did a technical review. And I 

5 have one problem. Basically it's a good 

6 procedure, we think. 

7 Right now it is undergoing a review 

8 with respect to two of the sites: the Mound 

9 site and the Pinellas site, where they have 

10 created the compound. 

11 There are some comments related to 

12 the Mound SEC that we're going to incorporate, 

13 but right now it is being reviewed by the DOE 

14 for complication issues. 

15 DOE has had it for about two weeks. 

16 And based on past experience, we expect them 

17 to pass on it fairly soon, get it back to us 

18 pretty soon, in which case we'll incorporate 

19 it into the document and finalize it and send 

20 it out. 

21 Basically the comments with respect 

22 to Mound, this is a classical problem. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 Recognizing that the OTIB is generally a 

2 correct procedure followed by the ICRP 

3 guidelines and all of that, the main 

4 difficulty is actually implementing it, 

5 deciding who was exposed to what because 

6 looking at the record, there is a real 

7 difficulty to say which -- you know, the 

8 urinalysis data. There is a real difficulty I 

9 think connecting the actual employees to what 

10 they were exposed to, tritiated water, the 

11 organically bound tritium, more stable level 

12 tritides, what type, and what solubilities, 

13 and so forth. 

14 We think the main difficulty is in 

15 actually acquiring the procedure to real 

16 cases. That's basically a very short summary 

17 of where we are. 

18 I know you haven't actually seen 

19 any of our comments, but we hope after we get 

20 back from DOE if they have any classification 

21 comments, then we can go ahead and issue it in 

22 a couple of weeks, maybe about two weeks after 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 we get DOE clearance. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: So you are 

3 anticipating that your document will be in the 

4 hands of NIOSH? 

5 MR. OSTROW: About two weeks after 

6 DOE passes on it. And we expect DOE is going 

7 to pass on it fairly soon. DOE has had it 

8 about two weeks. And that is about 

9 historically how long it takes them to look at 

10 these things. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: If that's been typical 

12 for you, then you literally expect it 

13 momentarily? 

14 MR. OSTROW: Yes. 

15 MR. KATZ: Steve, this is Ted. Is 

16 it two weeks to allow for Privacy Act review 

17 or what is the -- 

18 MR. OSTROW: Well, because we 

19 haven't seen what the comments are from the 

20 Mound people, the SC&A people working on 

21 Mound. So whenever it is cleared by DOE, 

22 we're going to have to incorporate it into our 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 draft document and then circulate it for 

2 internal review. So I'm just estimating about 

3 two weeks to go before we get it out the door. 

4 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That 

6 process is a little foggy for the rest of us, 

7 I guess, but the timeline is more important 

8 than anything else for us. 

9 I guess the question then becomes 

10 for NIOSH whether you're going to have 

11 adequate time if that timeline is pretty firm. 

12 Is that going to give you adequate time to 

13 address the document very thoroughly prior to 

14 our next meeting in mid December, the concern 

15 being whether we can actually address any of 

16 this at our next meeting? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's a little 

18 difficult to say without knowing what the 

19 findings are and how they are expressed and 

20 where you have to go to find supporting 

21 information for the position that the document 

22 took or to elucidate the finding more. So 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 it's a little hard to predict, but if we get 

2 it in two weeks, that's going to be 

3 essentially the end of October. And we try to 

4 get things for discussion. 

5 Are you talking about a Board 

6 discussion or are you talking about a 

7 workgroup discussion? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Talking about a 

9 workgroup discussion. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: A workgroup in 

11 Augusta? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: To me it's right 

14 now at the point that because it really 

15 depends on receipt. That would require us to 

16 get it done in about three weeks to get it to 

17 you guys in time to read it before the 

18 workgroup meeting. And so that is just a 

19 point, but that is very difficult. In fact, 

20 it is pretty difficult. I think it would be 

21 unlikely. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Steve, how extensive 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 are the findings? How many of them? 

2 MR. OSTROW: Okay. Well, so far, 

3 without any of the classification, we only 

4 have one finding. And I don't think it's a 

5 showstopper-type finding. NIOSH can probably 

6 answer it pretty easily or we can go back and 

7 forth with NIOSH. It's not going to be a big 

8 thing. 

9 I don't know the extent to what 

10 it's going to be like from the Mound 

11 SEC-related comments. That's something that 

12 is undergoing DOE classification. I haven't 

13 actually seen the comments. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We could provide 

15 what we have. We have done that in the past. 

16 And we have responded with what we have at a 

17 particular date, even if we didn't have a 

18 response. 

19 If one finding about the document, 

20 you know, the general document, -- and, as 

21 Steve described, it doesn't seem that 

22 complicated -- I would think we could have a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 response for that. But the Mound is an 

2 unknown on both sides at this -- 

3 MR. OSTROW: Yes. The technical 

4 comments we just had on the document, at least 

5 in my estimation, is something you can answer 

6 in a day or two. And you can either agree or 

7 disagree. We can go back and forth a little 

8 bit. But I don't think it's a big thing. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So that sounds like 

10 that would be available for discussion, but it 

11 sounds like neither one of us can venture a 

12 guess about any Mound-specific items that come 

13 out of it. 

14 MR. OSTROW: Well, I haven't 

15 actually seen them. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we can use that 

18 as a goal to work forward to dealing with 

19 multiple unknowns. We'll just have to wait 

20 and see. But it will be our hope that the 

21 issues will not be of such magnitude that it 

22 will prevent our addressing them in Augusta. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 If that turns out to be the case, then we will 

2 have to settle for status. 

3 Thank you very much, Steve, for 

4 giving us that. Does anyone have any 

5 questions for Steve? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Can I just say -- 

7 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Just one 

8 question. 

9 But you talked about its 

10 significance for Mound, but Pinellas? 

11 MR. OSTROW: We haven't had any 

12 comments from our Pinellas reviewers on the 

13 OTIB. So those people haven't weighed in on 

14 this. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The one comment, 

17 Steve, if, in fact, I can maybe just summarize 

18 a little bit the comment that we have is 

19 related to the handling of the organically 

20 bound tritium. Is that -- 

21 MR. OSTROW: Yes. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And we're pretty 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 happy with the way the model that is for the 

2 tritides, the tritium tritides, -- 

3 MR. OSTROW: Yes. Call them 

4 metallic tritides. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Metallic, yes. 

6 That's right. So, I mean, that's -- 

7 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Any other 

8 comments? 

9 (No response.) 

10 CHAIR MUNN: If not, thank you 

11 again, Steve, for bringing us up to date with 

12 where you are. 

13 MR. OSTROW: My pleasure. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: And we will look 

15 forward to hearing from you in the interim and 

16 possibly seeing you or at least being part of 

17 this discussion again when we are in Augusta 

18 in December. 

19 MR. OSTROW: Okay. Very good. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you so much. 

21 And with that, rather than undertake what I 

22 hope will be our next step, Ted? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. Just while you are 

2 changing horses or about to close down for 

3 lunch, whatever it is, just to let you know, 

4 update you, this is still a working group. 

5 And it will be a working group until we have 

6 put through the papers to turn it into a 

7 subcommittee. 

8 The reason I have held off on doing 

9 that is because I wanted the transcript from 

10 the Board meeting to support me in doing that. 

11 And we have just gotten the transcript. 

12 So that will be sort of a next 

13 order of business. I haven't started actually 

14 pushing the paperwork through yet to translate 

15 this into a subcommittee. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: There is no rush from 

17 -- 

18 MR. KATZ: I just wanted to let you 

19 know the status. That's all. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. I 

21 appreciate that. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: We will work much 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 more efficiently once we are a subcommittee. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 CHAIR MUNN: I am sure. I am sure 

4 all of these issues will clarify themselves 

5 instantly. If it is all right with the 

6 members that are sitting here and Mark, I 

7 would like for us to go ahead and break for 

8 lunch now. 

9 A few of us should stay around if 

10 we are concerned about the wording of 

11 reference documents that are going to go into 

12 the tracking base. Those of us who are 

13 interested in that please stick around for a 

14 little while. And we'll continue our 

15 discussion on how to address that, see if we 

16 can't clarify it. 

17 When we return from lunch at one 

18 o'clock, I would hope that we will be able to 

19 begin with the second set that's amenable with 

20 all concerned. 

21 Any objection to that? 

22 (No response.) 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 CHAIR MUNN: Set two at one 

2 o'clock. And we'll say goodbye to those of 

3 you who are online with the exception of Mark. 

4 If you want to stay and be a part of this 

5 discussion about identification of non-white 

6 papers? 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think I'll hang 

8 up, too. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: You guys have got 

11 that covered. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: We'll see you at one 

13 o'clock hopefully. 

14 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was 

15 taken at 11:44 a.m.) 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

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

2 (1:07 p.m.) 

3 MR. KATZ: Hello. This is Ted Katz 

4 with the Procedures Working Group of the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. 

6 And we are about to get going again. Is that 

7 right, Wanda? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct. We 

9 are going to start with the second set of open 

10 and in-abeyance or in-progress issues that 

11 would be dated June of 2006. 

12 Yes? 

13 MS. HOWELL: Do you want to discuss 

14 the disclaimer language now or wait until 

15 later? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Since we left Emily 

17 hanging with disclaimer language in our 

18 discussion, perhaps before we undertake, it 

19 would be a good idea for us to hear what you 

20 have come up with, Emily. 

21 MS. HOWELL: Okay. After we left 

22 the call before lunch, some of the working 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 group members and staff discussed how to 

2 alleviate confusion on the parts of both Board 

3 member staff as well as outside stakeholders 

4 about what it is in these documents that make 

5 it onto the database as well as some that 

6 perhaps do not, including white papers and 

7 other items. Specifically the specific 

8 example we were discussing before lunch was 

9 OTIB-0052. 

10 I prepared some draft language for 

11 disclaimers to go on documents. I don't have 

12 it available for the working group, printed 

13 out copies yet, but I can certainly e-mail it 

14 or make it available to you later. But I can 

15 read what I have now into the record. 

16 I would say that, in addition to 

17 any language for disclaimer, I would also ask 

18 or suggest for the working group to consider 

19 directing SC&A and NIOSH to do a more thorough 

20 job of titling the documents on the actual 

21 document itself, not the title of the document 

22 that you click on, but on the document itself 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 a title that is explanatory and that also 

2 includes perhaps some background information, 

3 maybe below the title, that would state who 

4 directed that the document be produced, 

5 specifically if the working group asked that 

6 they produce this document, for that to be 

7 included, what meeting that was directed at 

8 and what the document's kind of general 

9 purpose is. 

10 And I would leave it to you all to 

11 discuss if you think that is a good idea and 

12 if so, what kind of language you would want to 

13 include. But I think that would help 

14 alleviate these concerns about context that we 

15 have had. And that is not really something 

16 that needs to be in the disclaimer. 

17 So this is the language that I 

18 would suggest. What I did is I came up with 

19 language where you would pick one of two 

20 options depending on the type of document that 

21 it was going for, whether it's a position 

22 paper or a white paper. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 And there are certain fields in 

2 this where whoever is preparing the document 

3 will have to insert the appropriate 

4 information. And I will read it aloud and 

5 answer any questions. 

6 "This document is a working 

7 document prepared by." And here you would 

8 insert the author, NIOSH, SC&A, et cetera, 

9 "for use in discussions with the Advisory 

10 Board on Radiation Worker Health or its 

11 working groups or subcommittees. Draft 

12 preliminary interim and white paper documents 

13 are not final NIOSH or Advisory Board or their 

14 technical support and review contractors' 

15 positions unless specifically marked as such. 

16 "This document," and then insert 

17 one of the two following options. "This 

18 document represents," insert the version: 

19 Draft, preliminary, interim, final. There's a 

20 version number, whatever it is appropriate 

21 there, "positions taken on technical issues 

22 by," and then insert the author or, where 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 appropriate, the second option would be "This 

2 document is a white paper on technical issues 

3 by," insert author #and is prepared for merely 

4 informational and discussion purposes. This 

5 document does not represent any final position 

6 of NIOSH, the Advisory Board, or their 

7 technical support and review contractors." 

8 And obviously it's a little 

9 confusing. I was reading it without commas 

10 and periods and other grammar. So I will get 

11 it to the working group members in a printout 

12 hopefully later this afternoon, but I am open 

13 to comments or questions. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: It would be helpful 

15 obviously for us to have it in print form and 

16 for us to think a little bit about how this 

17 affects what we have produced internally to 

18 look at. 

19 Perhaps we can address this, not 

20 later in this meeting, but it might be a good 

21 idea for us to have an opportunity to comment 

22 on it before we undertake a final decision on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 it. But it sounds very good to me. Certainly 

2 a very short sentence or two with respect to 

3 context below the heading sounds highly 

4 appropriate and would be doubly explanatory, I 

5 think, even for us, at a later stage. 

6 Does anyone have any problem with 

7 getting that out to us in written form and 

8 having an opportunity to communicate with me 

9 specific decisions or concerns you might have? 

10 And I'll see to it. Please put Emily on copy 

11 when you communicate with me. And we will as 

12 an early item at our next meeting take action 

13 on this if that is amenable with those 

14 involved. 

15 Yes, Paul? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I would like to 

17 suggest that we go beyond that. I agree with 

18 what you said. I think we are exactly on the 

19 right track. 

20 We may have some minor 

21 wordsmithing, but I would like -- if we are 

22 comfortable with it, I would like us to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 recommend to the Board that this be adopted 

2 for use by all workgroups. 

3 Then we can discuss it here on the 

4 phone meeting if we need to. We might as well 

5 add that. But, insofar as it is at its start 

6 here, why, it could easily come as a 

7 recommendation indicating that this workgroup 

8 -- it still is -- is adopting this and that we 

9 recommend it for the full Board. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: If we can accomplish 

11 that within the next week's time or so, it 

12 would be very helpful for me. I am going to 

13 be not very involved in what is going on the 

14 last week in October and the first week in 

15 November. I will be on the phone call but 

16 won't be working very much during that time. 

17 Yes, Ted? 

18 MR. KATZ: The workgroup won't be 

19 convening again before the Board meeting. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

21 MR. KATZ: So I guess you need to 

22 decide at this point, at least in concept, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 that you're in agreement if you're going to 

2 put it before the Board as a workgroup 

3 recommendation. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: The question would be 

5 whether we can do that in the next week or 

6 whether we need to plan on doing that at the 

7 full Board meeting. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we can do it 

9 in the face-to-face meeting, too. Perhaps at 

10 the phone meeting, which is in November, 

11 perhaps we could indicate when we do the 

12 reporting, introduce the concept and indicate, 

13 that the counsel has developed some wording 

14 for us and that we will make that available 

15 for the full Board to act on at the December 

16 meeting. How would that be? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds reasonable 

18 to me. Mark, are you on? 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any 

21 problem with that? 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: That sounds good 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 to me, Wanda. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Then we'll 

3 proceed in that fashion. Hopefully those of 

4 us who have any comment will be able to get it 

5 back to Emily and to me within the next week 

6 or ten days. 

7 And we will report on what we are 

8 doing at the telephone meeting and provide the 

9 written information for a full Board action at 

10 Augusta. 

11 Now, then, are we all set for the 

12 second set of status reports and findings? 

13 Are you ready, Steve? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Let's 

16 start at the top. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: The first one is 

18 PR-5. And, actually, I don't know if it's 

19 better to use -- I provided this printout of 

20 the database to Wanda. And Wanda has provided 

21 it to the participants. And this is a 

22 printout of all of the open, not the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 in-abeyance and not the in-progress forms but 

2 just the open ones from the second set, the 

3 June 8th, 2006 set. 

4 It's a little bit better formatted 

5 than going back and using the database, per 

6 se. You will see it has the finding up here, 

7 the NIOSH initial response. 

8 And down here there may or may not 

9 be some discussion on the working group. This 

10 one doesn't happen to have any. Down here we 

11 have the SC&A follow-up action. And in this 

12 case, we recommend that the issue be closed. 

13 And so we go on. 

14 I mean, the finding in this case 

15 was "The references do not contain any 

16 citations." 

17 NIOSH comes back and says, "That is 

18 true. The procedure was written by 

19 individuals with extensive experience, and 

20 there are no references." 

21 And we basically say, "Well, if 

22 there are no references, there are no 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 references." So those are the issues. That 

2 is our recommendation. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to that 

4 recommendation? 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have none. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Mark? 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. That sounds 

8 fine. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Let us take that 

10 action. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only question 

12 I had on that one was it does say that it was 

13 based on expert opinions. Were they listed? 

14 I'm not intimately familiar with it, but were 

15 they listed in the procedure who were the 

16 experts from NIOSH or ORAU. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe the 

18 author is listed on the procedure. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. It's the 

20 author? It's not any other experts or 

21 whatever? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there is an 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 "Initiated by" and the record of revision. So 

2 that would be it. It would be the person who 

3 initiated it and the record of revision. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

5 fine. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It has now been marked 

7 as closed. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I do have one other 

9 question. Steve, do you recall, were there 

10 particular cases where you felt that there 

11 should have been a reference to back up 

12 something or was this more general? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it was just 

14 more general. I think just from reading the 

15 way the thing is written, I didn't do the 

16 review. I think Steve Ostrow did this review. 

17 But, reading the way that the issue is 

18 stated, it says, "Section 3 does not have any 

19 citations." 

20 So there is probably an empty 

21 section 3. And it was just begging the 

22 question, if you have any empty section 3, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 shouldn't there be something in it? 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: So that's my -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Can we pull up the 

5 original? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: In theory, we can. 

7 Well, we can pull up what is currently on -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This wouldn't be 

9 ours. This wouldn't be an ORAU document. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is a 

11 procedure on how to do assessments. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It is. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if you have an 

15 expert doing that, they can very easy write a 

16 procedure on how you do that. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what he did. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Right. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it probably 

20 doesn't have to say, "Yes. This comes from 

21 DOE manual" something or NIOSH manual or 

22 something. I think it's all right. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 CHAIR MUNN: One would not expect 

2 that type of citation, no, in this sort of 

3 document unless there were unusual 

4 circumstances. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: PR-005 is "Conduct 

6 of Assessments." 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It is in records 

8 revision there is an "initiated by." 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think if the 

10 person had said -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That's it right 

12 there. It says -- 

13 CHAIR MUNN: "Initiated by." 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: If he had made a 

16 statement such as "This assessment procedure 

17 is based on that used by the nuclear Navy, for 

18 example," or something, then you would expect 

19 him to cite a document. But unless he does 

20 something like that -- 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I think this is 

22 probably what generated the question. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 Basically you have a "Reference" section and 

2 it says, "None." So this is obviously what 

3 was the reason for generating the question. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: We've now marked that 

5 item closed. Next item, Steve, item 2? 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Again it has to do 

7 with PR-005. And we go back to this one. And 

8 it basically does not mention having 

9 qualifications or training. And basically the 

10 response was, "Any staff, any member of the 

11 staff, can complete assessments according to 

12 this procedure." 

13 So, again, no training is required. 

14 SC&A recommended that it be closed. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we discussed 

16 this before. I think it's in what you mean by 

17 "any staff." We're not pulling the janitor 

18 out from the building to -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: In my notes from 

20 the last meeting, I had a note that I was 

21 supposed to write a revised response, revised 

22 NIOSH initial response. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that was to 

2 clarify that the staff who do this meet 

3 certain minimum qualifications. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I can read 

5 you what I wrote. I think I had sent it to 

6 you. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know we discussed 

8 this. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I had sent 

10 this to you. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think you did. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: "There are no 

13 specific qualifications or training 

14 requirements for participating in an 

15 assessment. OCAS team leaders assign 

16 personnel to assess teams based on the 

17 knowledge, skills, and abilities of the 

18 individual." That's what I wrote, proposed. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: And we don't have 

20 that in here. We need to. I need to find 

21 out. You sent that in? I need to find -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: That was I think in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 the first. It's in a file that's action items 

2 from September 4th procedures meeting. I 

3 think it was in the e-mail message. I don't 

4 think it's an attached file. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: That's probably why 

6 I probably overlooked it. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have beef 

8 with Steve's words? 

9 (No response.) 

10 CHAIR MUNN: If not, can we 

11 instruct Steve to include those words and to 

12 close it? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Close the item. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Hearing no objection, 

15 we will pause for a moment while Steve does 

16 that live. This type of activity will be very 

17 beneficial to us, I think. But it will slow 

18 down even further our workgroup activities as 

19 we are going through them. Ultimately I think 

20 it's a time-saver. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve doesn't type 

22 that fast. Okay. I'll go on to the third 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 one. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hang on because 

3 prior to this suggestion, you folks had 

4 already recommended closure. I think when we 

5 discussed this before, we actually had an 

6 agreement. Did we go through this at the last 

7 meeting? It seems to me we had an agreement 

8 that Stu would do what he just described. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Stu would do what he 

10 has done, but it hasn't been picked up and 

11 incorporated in -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. That was 

13 your recommendation at the time. So this is 

14 what it is. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. Reality 

16 check. 

17 Item 3 details. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not clear 

19 whether an assessment checklist is always 

20 required or whether its use is discretionary 

21 at the OCAS assessor and whether the assessor 

22 has the freedom to create a unique checklist. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 The response was "The checklists 

2 are optional. They are referred to in the 

3 text as examples in terms such as 'may be 

4 used' or 'included.'" 

5 And then the SC&A follow-up was "As 

6 noted by NIOSH, the checklists are optional. 

7 And the assessor may develop his or her own 

8 checklists as appropriate. SC&A recommends 

9 this issue be closed." 

10 CHAIR MUNN: As the recommendation 

11 was made in a prior meeting and our concerns 

12 seemed to have been addressed by the exchange. 

13 Any opposition to closing this 

14 item? 

15 (No response.) 

16 CHAIR MUNN: If not -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No opposition. I 

18 am looking at my notes from August 21st. And 

19 I show that we closed it. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: August 21st. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: One, 3, and 4. And 

22 2 was reworded. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 CHAIR MUNN: I think they were all 

2 in the same boat. We had recommended closure. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: They may have been 

4 -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: They wanted a NIOSH 

6 response. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: They could be. We 

8 may be doing duplicate work here, Paul. I 

9 apologize. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. In any case, 3 

11 is now closed. We go on to the next open 

12 item, which is 4, PR-005. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And, Paul, you said 

14 that this one was also closed, 4? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: In my notes. I 

16 have it marked closed. Let me go back to the 

17 minutes. I had made notes. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I had it the 

19 same. I had it. I guess basically I should 

20 have gone through and looked at this. Okay. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: It was closed but not 

22 picked up on the -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 MR. MARSCHKE: It was closed on 

2 August 21st, right. So that should be closed 

3 as of August 21st. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I should 

5 point out that in the next subset of these is 

6 the 007s. I show those as all being closed, 

7 too. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. That's right. 

9 I agree with you. I show PR-007 -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: One through 9 as 

11 being closed. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, 1 through 9 as 

13 being closed. So I will take that as -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Action. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: -- an action item to 

16 close those nine -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Those nine. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- following the 

19 August 21st workgroup decision. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Correct, -- 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: -- which cleans up 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 PR-007 completely, correct? And it takes us 

2 to TIB-0010. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: TIB-0010. TIB-0010. 

4 We had received something on OTIB-0010, which 

5 I had forwarded to Dr. Anigstein. And this 

6 was OTIB-0010-05. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Five. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: And this is not in 

9 the, this NIOSH follow-up action is not in 

10 the, database as of yet. The initial reaction 

11 from Bob was that he agrees with the approach, 

12 I think. He understands the approach to be 

13 that this question of the angle of incidence 

14 is going to be addressed in TIB-0013. 

15 And once it's addressed in 

16 TIB-0013, the same approach will be applied to 

17 TIB-0010. And he agrees with that approach. 

18 And so he hasn't gotten to the point of 

19 documenting that agreement at this point, but 

20 that's a verbal -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's verbal? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: That's for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 TIB-0010-05, 06, and 09, isn't? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Five, 06, and 09, 

3 right. Well -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: But that -- 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Nine is just a 

6 little different. Nine refers to the 

7 comparison of risk data to whole badge data, 

8 whole body data, in the TIB about glove boxes. 

9 And the finding was that that is not really 

10 supportive of what you say it is. The TIB is 

11 not based on that data. 

12 The OTIC is based on the 

13 simulation, the computer simulation. This was 

14 a ready set of data we had available. You 

15 know, these measured values make us feel 

16 better that we were sort of in the right 

17 ballpark. And so we include them as an 

18 appendix. We don't really form any because 

19 there's not a reason why we came up with the 

20 fact that we did. 

21 We kind of included them as just a 

22 comparison of readily available data, the kind 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 that indicated we were in the right ballpark 

2 with our simulation. I mean, the only action 

3 would be to take the appendix out. 

4 We can take it out. It doesn't 

5 change the TIB at all. I would prefer just to 

6 leave it alone because we kind of like the 

7 measurements. They made us feel better, and 

8 that's why we put them in, something a little 

9 different. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, do we need to 

11 clarify in the document why the measurements 

12 are there, then? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought we were 

14 kind of straightforward on it. The 

15 development of the correction factors for the 

16 glove box is based on earlier work, you know, 

17 work in the body of the TIB. And then this 

18 kind of said, "Oh, by the way, there is this 

19 data set we have" we compared with. 

20 You know, it sort of approximates 

21 the geometry we're talking about. And so it 

22 seems like it kind of gives us the feel-good 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 that we were in the right place. 

2 It's certainly not a definitive 

3 proof. I mean, it's not a competitive support 

4 for arriving at the fact we arrived at, as Bob 

5 pointed out and as Tom meant. So there's 

6 nothing particularly wrong with this comment. 

7 It's just that we felt like he was commenting 

8 on sort of a superfluous part of the document. 

9 You know, it's just sort of an 

10 additional feel-good piece of information. It 

11 wasn't really the basis for the correction 

12 factor. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Served as a proof of 

14 principle for the Rocky Flats discussion on 

15 this, right? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, not so much. 

17 I don't know. This data set that we're 

18 talking about is risk, the whole body badge 

19 readings. And what the TIB is about, how much 

20 of the geometry correction factor do you apply 

21 to a badge reading when the cancer is in the 

22 lower abdomen? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 So that's a somewhat different 

2 geometry than a risk to a hand or a risk 

3 badge. So it's certainly not -- it wouldn't 

4 be definitive proof that that would be a 

5 factor that you could use. But it's, like I 

6 said, a readily available set of data. 

7 You know, we came up with this 

8 factor of two using the simulation. We said, 

9 "Well, does that pass the hoho test?" We had 

10 this data set we had available. We said, 

11 "Well, based on that, yes. It seems like the 

12 ballpark." 

13 I just feel like, you know, the 

14 comment, we don't take any particular 

15 objective comment defining. We feel it is 

16 kind of a superfluous issue to the TIB itself 

17 and the simulation it is based on. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: We can try and agree 

19 with that, that basically the finding is true 

20 but, really, no change is required. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It#s explained in 

22 the NIOSH response and the follow-up response. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 And, really, not change is required to the 

2 TIB. That's what we found. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: It's a little bit 

4 the problem we have because we look at these 

5 documents, these procedures and documents, in 

6 a little bit different light than what they 

7 were prepared to be looked at. 

8 They're prepared to be used by dose 

9 reconstructors and to be used as documents. 

10 And then we're looking at them as scientific 

11 documents, as opposed to implementation 

12 documents. 

13 And so sometimes we look at it 

14 with, you know, a different pair of eyes. And 

15 we're looking for information to support more 

16 of a peer review than as a document that is 

17 utilized by a dose reconstructor. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, maybe in the 

19 matrix, the NIOSH follow-up would just 

20 indicate that NIOSH explained why the table 

21 was in there and then SC&A now understands 

22 that it was an illustration or I don't know 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 what word you would use, but, I mean, how do 

2 you capture what you're just saying here? 

3 That's all I'm saying here. In other words, 

4 through the -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think you have the 

6 right idea. We should capture it in the back 

7 and forth of the working group, -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- as opposed to 

10 revising the -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I'm not asking 

12 you to revise. I'm talking about what are you 

13 showing here. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: What goes in the -- 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is the 

16 resolution? The follow-up is that NIOSH 

17 explained in the working group why the table 

18 is there. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a NIOSH 

20 follow-up action is what I submitted, which 

21 can be clipped and written. It can be clipped 

22 directly into the -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which would be just 

2 explain what you -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be our 

4 -- 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Right there on the 

6 bottom in the -- 

7 CHAIR MUNN: The bottom one, the 

8 comparison of risk in whole body goes in the 

9 -- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: It was only included 

12 because it was an available set of data from 

13 the situation. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then if SC&A 

15 accepts that, then you can recommend -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we can -- 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: You may want to -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, talking to 

19 Bob, I think he basically accepts that, but, 

20 you know, he initially says, well, if that's 

21 the case, he wants to delete it. 

22 So I'll try and get him to move off 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 from that position because we don't want to 

2 cause the extra step. You know, it really is 

3 not going to affect the dose reconstructions 

4 or anything like that. 

5 It's just, you know, revising it 

6 for the sake of revision. I will try and 

7 direct them in, you know, so that we agree 

8 with the NIOSH follow-up and no revision 

9 necessary. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Which would close this 

11 at our next review? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: If they do that. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: If we do that. 

15 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can I just ask a 

16 question with respect to this? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please? 

18 MR. KATZ: I mean, this seems like 

19 an example when there was a discussion earlier 

20 Larry was saying, you know, about bringing 

21 conclusion to issues that are not really 

22 earth-shaking or consequential when it seems 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 like in a case like this the working group can 

2 simply decide the issue is closed as far as it 

3 is concerned and move on immediately. 

4 This would no longer be an issue 

5 for the working group. And tie up loose ends 

6 and so on, but it doesn't even need to be on 

7 the plate anymore, instead of even waiting for 

8 another working group meeting. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Very true, yes. 

10 MR. KATZ: I mean, clear it from 

11 the table if it's -- 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we agree with 

13 Stu's explanation, we don't necessarily have 

14 to wait. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: That's right. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree with that. 

17 I think it should be closed. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: I will vote 

19 closure, too. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Ah, yes. Now we have 

21 a problem because we jumped ahead down to 9 

22 before we started through in order with item 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 number 1, which is still feeling its -- well, 

2 stop. I don't want to go back there before 

3 we're all agreed with where we are with 9. 

4 As far as this working group is 

5 concerned, 9 is closed. SC&A will look at 

6 NIOSH response. And unless there is some 

7 disagreement from SC&A, this item now is 

8 complete. Is that correct? All right. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't even think 

10 SC&A has to look at it any further, but I 

11 guess they can, you know. So if we close it, 

12 I think it's closed, right? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: But that's been one of 

14 our open questions, though, Mark. When we 

15 close it, is it closed? That's what we were 

16 discussing earlier. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, with respect 

18 to TIB-0010-01 -- 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I had a note 

21 from the last meeting that we were to 

22 determine what changes should be made to this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 TIB with result to the organs issue. 

2 The organs issue is actually -02. 

3 -01 had to do with sort of a the lack of 

4 description in the TIB itself about source 

5 size geometry and things like that. So it 

6 wasn't completely transparent. 

7 Our next response is yes, that's a 

8 pretty good comment. We'll take care of that 

9 in revision. So that was kind of number one, 

10 we already figured it was in abeyance anyway 

11 that we were going to come up with a revision 

12 that is going to be a little more description 

13 there of how the problem was set up, the 

14 problem being the ATTILA simulation. 

15 The comment on TIB-0010-02 had to 

16 do with the specificity of the organs, do not 

17 specify. And what the document says as it 

18 exists today is that, talking about the factor 

19 or the geometry that "This could result in an 

20 underestimate of the reconstructed dosimeter 

21 in this dose is to organs located in the lower 

22 torso region of the body (stomach, liver, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 bladder, prostate, ovaries, testes, et 

2 cetera.)" 

3 So I read that, and I said, well, 

4 some of the organs are specified, but I guess 

5 the "et cetera" is what gave rise to the 

6 comment. It's the "et cetera" in there. So 

7 they're not exactly specified. 

8 So my proposed revision here, since 

9 we're revising to pick one anyway -- this 

10 would be a simple wording change -- would be 

11 "Dose reconstructions affected by this TIB are 

12 those with cancer of the stomach, liver, 

13 bladder, prostate, ovaries, testes, genitalia, 

14 or other cancers that appear in the region of 

15 those organs." 

16 Now, the reason I said that is that 

17 we don't want to be prescriptive about the 

18 list because, sure enough, we're going to 

19 leave out something that happens in there. By 

20 describing those organs and the region of 

21 those described by those organs, that's the 

22 area we're talking about. That's where the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 geometry investment has to be made. 

2 So we'll include that in our 

3 revision that we're going to prepare anyway. 

4 And that will be part. So this will be then 

5 in abeyance, too, I think. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And, again, 

7 going back to August 21st, I think we did 

8 agree that this one was going to be in 

9 progress. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Would it be in 

11 progress or in abeyance? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: You had listed in 

13 abeyance. We put it back to in progress 

14 because Stu is going to be doing what he just 

15 described. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay. So 

17 now -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now it can go -- I 

19 think one can go into abeyance because that's 

20 going to involve a revision, right? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. One and 2 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 both involve revisions. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 2 would be 

3 involving -- I mean, both would now go into 

4 abeyance if we agreed to that. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: The wording sounds 

6 good. Any objection # 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: That proposed 

8 wording would show up in your next revision. 

9 Is that what you're saying? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Any objection to 

12 this? 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And can you verify? 

14 Was SC&A's objection to the "et cetera"? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I cannot verify it. 

16 I can verify that, yes. I cannot verify that 

17 now. I will go back and check with -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: You were objecting 

19 to the other organs in the list. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: No. There is a 

21 list of organs, but since it says "et cetera," 

22 it is not completely specified. So I assume 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 that is what they meant when they said organs 

2 aren't specified. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: To me the test of 

4 "et cetera" is does the average person know 

5 the next thing on the list? If I say "One 

6 through 5, 7, et cetera," you know that the 

7 next thing is 9 and 11, right? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Maybe. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, most folks 

11 know in the morning. So if you don't know 

12 what the next item is, that's the Ziemer rule. 

13 Don't use "et cetera." 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We will try to 

15 adopt that, then. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: If the average 

17 person can't figure out the next item on the 

18 list, then -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: "Et cetera" won't 

20 work, yes. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Now, okay. I mean, 

22 one, are we changing to in abeyance? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 CHAIR MUNN: In abeyance, yes, 

2 because it also relies on the change that is 

3 going to occur as a result of 2. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: And then 2 we have 

5 -- and this one we also change to in abeyance. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. The wording, 

8 under the NIOSH SC&A discussion, "NIOSH 

9 provided an extended list of lower torso 

10 organs." And then I just said, "See 

11 transcript for a list of organs." 

12 And then basically the working 

13 group direction is to change to in abeyance. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: And it is gratifying 

17 to see that happen as you look at your own 

18 screen. At least it is for me. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, so you can see 

20 what I'm typing? 

21 CHAIR MUNN: I can just see it 

22 change to "in abeyance," yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Magic. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. Magic. Is 

3 correct. That's wonderful. 

4 Number 3? 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: We left that. It 

6 was in progress before, I think. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. And I think 

8 my notes say, "Working group, the direction 

9 was SC&A and NIOSH to discuss an attempt to 

10 reach a decision." 

11 CHAIR MUNN: SC&A had recommended 

12 last time that we change this to in progress. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that is what 

14 we were supposed to have changed it to. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: You showed it in 

16 progress, last time. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I did or -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: On the 21st of 

19 August, you showed it in progress. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: It doesn't show in 

21 progress right now. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, it doesn't? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 CHAIR MUNN: No. It shows it's 

2 open. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, one of the 

4 problems was, I think the problem was, I have 

5 these notes from August 21st. And I didn't 

6 trust myself. Doing it here online with 

7 everybody -- 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Watching. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- watching and 

10 agreeing in real time I think is going to be 

11 very helpful. And one of the reasons I did 

12 send the list out was just to see if we needed 

13 to make changes to what the status is on it 

14 that I had not made. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: The only way we can 

16 cover each item, though, so far as I can see 

17 is to do what we're doing right now, go 

18 through them one at a time. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Now, 4 -- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did anything happen 

21 on 3? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It was changed 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 from open to in progress. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, but does 

3 anything happened between now -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There has not been 

5 any discussion between us in this -- 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Since last meeting. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I would say that 

8 it's not typically our approach that every 

9 item we put in this reconstruction has to be a 

10 worst case value, that if we have a 

11 distribution of values that we think reflect 

12 the situation and possibilities of the 

13 situation that we're facing, that we enter the 

14 distribution, which is what this, I believe 

15 that#s what this OTIB called for, is entering 

16 not just a single value but a distribution 

17 value. 

18 The comment here is that the 

19 correction factors don't represent the worst 

20 case assumption. In further discussion down 

21 below, it would concur if the distribution 

22 only for OTIB listed in the 95th percentile 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 correction factor and recommended issues in 

2 dose reconstruction. 

3 I think this is just a matter -- I 

4 don't know that we're going to come to 

5 agreement on this because our view is that if 

6 we have a value that we believe is a good 

7 value for a particular quantity, as defined by 

8 a distribution, we'll apply the distribution, 

9 rather than always in every case using the 

10 95th percentile. I don#t think we're tied to 

11 using the 95th percentile. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Hold on just a moment. 

13 We are on item 4. No. We're on item 3. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We are on 3. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That's 

16 why. I am looking at the wrong thing. Ah. 

17 There. All right. So the question now is, 

18 how do we incorporate NIOSH's follow-up into 

19 this? It goes on to an action item for -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I can provide that 

21 written. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: What you just said 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 is basically what is said in the initial 

2 response, isn't it? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It's already 

4 there. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Right. It's already 

6 there. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: So the question is, 

8 I guess the question comes back down, to the 

9 SC&A response. Does the workgroup agree with 

10 NIOSH that the distribution can be used in a 

11 dose reconstruction or do they feel that they 

12 always have to recommend use of the 95th 

13 percentile? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I think if you ask 10 

15 technical people, you will get 14 different 

16 answers to that. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, are these, 

18 first of all, dosimetry, all box users? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: This is computer 

20 simulation. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: A Computer 

22 simulation on the -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the geometries. 

2 We used ATTILA when we did the OTIB itself. 

3 That is based on ATTILA run. Subsequently 

4 it#s submit to MCNP run to pretty much confirm 

5 the bank. There's another piece of 

6 information here. I haven't forwarded it yet. 

7 I mean, there's also the aspect 

8 that we didn't even consider the fact that in 

9 many cases a glove box had a steel wall that 

10 the ports were in, a viewing port that the 

11 person left viewing the badge probably was 

12 exposed to. 

13 We have another paper that I didn't 

14 submit that even argues the fact that the 

15 badge reading could be considerably higher 

16 than the lower torso reading based on the 

17 construction of the glove. 

18 So to say that -- you know, we have 

19 taken a situation which we believe is broadly 

20 representative and friendly by not placing any 

21 additional shielding between the lower torso 

22 and the person in front of the badge. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 We believe that is a 

2 claimant-favorable position, and we developed 

3 the distribution of the value. And from that 

4 and given the fact that there is clearly a 

5 situation we can describe when, in fact, the 

6 multiplier comes to badge would be less than 

7 one, instead of greater than one, we don't see 

8 any particular reason to try to use the 95th 

9 percentile of the distribution, of the table 

10 distribution that we generated. 

11 So that's the position we've taken 

12 on it. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Which is a sound 

14 scientific principle. The question now 

15 becomes, what is the workgroup's view? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So Bob's 

17 recommendation was the 95th percentile of the 

18 correction factor? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: You're taking a 

21 correction factor, a mean correction factor, 

22 -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- in generating a 

3 dose distribution? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The bottle 

5 generates the distribution. That's the point. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: And you're doing 

7 the 95th -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We're using 

9 the entire distribution. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, using the entire 

11 distribution and generating -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Adjusting the doses 

13 accordingly. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: A combination of 

16 the distribution. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Eventually once a 

18 dose distribution gets assigned on the POC 

19 distribution is -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

21 Distribution goes -- whatever the resulting 

22 dose value is, whatever its distribution is, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 fitting the ones that are a success, it goes 

2 into IREP as the appropriate distribution. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And the 

4 SC&A approach -- 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The SC&A approach 

6 is -- 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- would be to take 

8 -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the 95th 

10 percentile of the distribution we generated, 

11 applied at a constant. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But it 

13 generates a new distribution ultimately or 

14 does it give you a -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it says 

16 to pick a point value, the 95th percentile off 

17 the distribution we generated. I believe 

18 that's what the finding is, use the 95th 

19 percentile off the distribution, the 

20 distribution that we generated, -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- apply that as a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 constant, as opposed to our position, which is 

2 to apply the distribution in its entirety. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, are you still 

5 there? 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am still here. 

7 Yes. I am just looking. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any -- 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I looked up the 

10 TIB to see what the distribution was. So I'm 

11 looking at the TIB right now. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to get 

13 Mark's take on this before we go any further. 

14 Stu certainly makes a compelling argument 

15 with respect to the fact that the actual 

16 exposure can go either way depending upon 

17 construction of the glove box. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do I understand 

19 you right, Stu, that the distribution actually 

20 can go below one but you're truncating it? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: No? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 MR. HINNEFELD: No. It would go 

2 below one, if the construction of the glove 

3 box were such that it would have a steel wall 

4 up to include like the glove ports and such 

5 like that but the viewing port, which would 

6 probably be also the badge exposed area, would 

7 be the viewing, would be through the viewing 

8 port. And that's the situation when the 

9 correction factor may actually be below one. 

10 That situation is not considered by 

11 the TIB. The TIB views essentially a uniform 

12 front face of the glove box so that the 

13 adjustment is strictly geometry. And it's 

14 always caused it, always greater than one. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: It certainly appears 

17 to be -- 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: What do we have 

19 that's in the regs as to either of these 

20 situations? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, on coworker 

22 distributions, the coworker external 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 distribution, here, this will help you out a 

2 lot. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: For external 

5 distribution, we will typically use a 

6 percentile value as I believe we use a 

7 constant value, the 95th percentile, that the 

8 person that -- we feel that they were likely 

9 heavily exposed but we don't have mocking 

10 information, we use the 95th percentile of the 

11 calculation. And if they were lightly exposed 

12 -- 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: But that's of the 

14 -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the coworker 

16 distribution. And that is a dose value. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of the dose value. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: For an internal 

19 coworker model, we do the distribution of the 

20 total of the distribution as assigned, not the 

21 95th percentile or 50th percentile, but 

22 distribution that is assigned. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 Let's see. Dose conversion factors 

2 are applied as a distribution. It's been so 

3 long since I've been in touch with 

4 construction. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to get a 

6 feel for what the effect of using a point 

7 value correction factor, regardless of where 

8 you select it. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you use a 

10 point value factor -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what he's 

12 suggesting here. You get a distribution of 

13 the correction factors and pick the 95th 

14 percentile, right? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: But whatever 

17 percentile you pick -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, the outcome 

19 -- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- it's a point 

21 value. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: The outcome in my 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 mind is going to be relatively important on 

2 which value you pick. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. I'm 

4 going to see what the effect is because you 

5 still end up with some kind of a distribution. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Presumably you would 

7 still have a distribution. And -- because if 

8 it#s a measured value should be considered 

9 log-normal and the VCF is just triangular. So 

10 you have that combination of uncertainties to 

11 make. 

12 So you will have that distribution 

13 if you use a point value of the correction. 

14 If you use a distribution for the glove box 

15 factor, use a distribution for that, then 

16 presumably it will be somewhat broader 

17 uncertainty in the ultimate dose value. 

18 The central tendency of that value 

19 if you use a 95th percentile of the glove box 

20 distribution. The central tendency of what 

21 you entered on IREP will be larger than if you 

22 used the distribution of the glove box. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 That's all I can visualize. I 

2 can't guess how anything else would be 

3 effected by that. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Would it be helpful 

5 if we tried to get back to -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: No offense, but I 

7 don't think so. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, this to me 

10 is a policy decision. Are we obliged to do 

11 95th percentiles in a situation where it might 

12 be raised as beneficial to be used? 

13 Heretofore, what we have said is 

14 that the distribution is sufficiently 

15 favorable, especially when you set the problem 

16 up sufficiently favorably, that the 

17 distribution is sufficient and should be used 

18 in dose reconstruction. 

19 And I believe -- I'll go back and 

20 confirm with everybody back in OCAS when we 

21 have got some time to think about it, but I 

22 believe we're going to stand by that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree that it's a 

2 policy decision. I mean, you can argue which 

3 is more favorable. And I don't think it's 

4 obvious necessarily that SC&A is more or less 

5 -- intuitively it seems like it wouldn't be, 

6 but I don't think it's necessarily obvious. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: The claimant 

8 favorability is the selection when there are 

9 two equally plausible descriptions. You're 

10 claimant-favorable when there are two equally 

11 plausible descriptions. 

12 In this case, the distribution is 

13 the more plausible description of the variety 

14 of cases that these people were exposed to. 

15 And, therefore, it's not the situation where 

16 you automatically choose most 

17 claimant-favorable because that is your 

18 deciding point if it's two equally plausible 

19 descriptions, explanations. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: The more cogent 

21 question is, is this the best scientific 

22 approach? Is this the best science to use for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 dose construction? 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is still a 

3 policy decision because -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: I know it is. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- some people 

6 would argue that the best science is to get 

7 the number closest to the true dose value. 

8 The true dose value is not necessarily the 

9 most claimant-favorable value. 

10 I mean, we're doing bonding, and 

11 we're doing 95th percentile. It's probably 

12 not closest to the true value in any case. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Almost by 

15 definition, of the 95th percentile. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: We would also say 

17 that we think what we have here is an approach 

18 that gives us a sufficiently accurate dose 

19 reconstruction for a specific claimant. It 

20 goes back to dose accuracy, but we don't have 

21 to be very precise to be sufficiently accurate 

22 in many cases. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: For making a 

2 compensation -- 

3 CHAIR MUNN: And so the policy 

4 issue then becomes whose to make? 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: NIOSH's. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: If you disagree with 

7 the policy, if we take that as a policy, you 

8 can recommend to the Secretary. They'll pass 

9 it down to us with his direction however he or 

10 she so chooses to deliver the message to us. 

11 MS. HOWELL: And the issue wasn't 

12 for us to be the most claimant-favorable. 

13 It's just to be claimant-favorable. It is a 

14 distinction. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, do you want to 

16 weigh in on this? 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess the only 

18 other science that I was looking at was that 

19 this is a model to calculate the correction 

20 factor, as opposed to any measured data. I 

21 guess it strikes me as the distribution is 

22 pretty tight. So I'm looking at the right 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 graph. It looks like a GSD of 1.3. 

2 I would expect -- I'm just 

3 wondering, in real world, is that realistic? 

4 I guess that would be the only argument to err 

5 on the 95th would be that this isn't real 

6 field measurement data. It's a model. 

7 And do we expect that this could 

8 vary a little more in this field and, 

9 therefore, could be more claimant favorable to 

10 take the 95th, as opposed to the full 

11 distribution? But I'm wavering between the 

12 sides right now, actually. 

13 Any comments on that, though? Can 

14 someone help me out with that? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, although I 

16 can only repeat myself, I believe we have 

17 established what we would consider aa a 

18 claimant-favorable setup of the problem. We 

19 have ignored the possibility of a steel 

20 construction to the glove box. And many of 

21 the glove boxes in the complex were. We have 

22 ignored that completely. And we have set the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 problem up favorably. 

2 Based on that, we then run the 

3 simulation after setting the problem up that 

4 way. And we have arrived at a distribution we 

5 believe is the best favorable approach that we 

6 can take. And so that is what we intend to 

7 do. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: That's our policy 

9 position. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: I have no problem with 

11 the policy position as it stands. 

12 MR. OSTROW: Another point to bring 

13 up on the technical front is that this 

14 correction factor is assuming that the badge, 

15 again, is being worn on the lapel. It could 

16 well be that the badge was actually worn at 

17 the midpoint of the torso. So that adds even 

18 more to the favorability cushion as being part 

19 of this model. 

20 We don't try to make a 

21 determination. In other words, we don't throw 

22 out or not use this correction factor based on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 where we think the badge might have been or 

2 might not have been. 

3 But if you think about -- and Dr. 

4 Ziemer can certainly add to this -- the 

5 development over the years of placement of the 

6 badge, especially when we've entered the 

7 albedo era, if a badge were, in fact, worn at 

8 the midpoint of the torso, then this model is 

9 adding even more favorability. 

10 That's all I have. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have 

13 already said I think it is a policy decision. 

14 From a technical point of view, I think you 

15 could argue for either one. 

16 But NIOSH has I think met their 

17 legal obligation as far as having a 

18 claimant-favorable approach. It's not 

19 required that it be the most favorable 

20 approach. We can keep going and going on 

21 that. I mean, if it says the 95th percentile, 

22 let's use the 99th. You can always find 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 something that is more favorable. 

2 I think this policy that Stu has 

3 articulated is in keeping with the ways in 

4 which NIOSH uses those distributions in other 

5 cases as well. So, from that point of view, I 

6 think there#s a consistency there. 

7 I mean, we have had these debates, 

8 too, at SC&A. And, again, I think it's 

9 entirely appropriate to raise the question and 

10 say #Have you thought about this? Is this a 

11 better way to do it?# 

12 And this is not an issue of 

13 technically right or technically wrong. I 

14 think NIOSH has the authority in an issue like 

15 this to proceed on the basis of their policy. 

16 If the Board felt the policy drawn, 

17 as Larry said, policy changes are not just 

18 little workgroup items. They are more the 

19 better bound of the Board in a sense that 

20 would require us to go to the secretary and 

21 say, "NIOSH is not -- the policy is screwed 

22 up, and they need to change it.# The 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 secretary would have to take the role there. 

2 I don't think we're at that point 

3 with events, personally. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: May we close out this 

5 item by indicating that the workgroup is of 

6 the opinion that this is a NIOSH policy 

7 decision and that it has been handled 

8 appropriately and close the issue? Is that 

9 amenable? 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would agree with 

11 that. Mark needs to weigh in. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Mark? 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am 

14 agreeable to that. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very good. 

16 So done. Steve is typing as we go. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. The workgroup 

18 directive is close the issue. The workgroup 

19 is of the opinion that this is a NIOSH policy 

20 decision and has been handled appropriately. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. Closed. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And we will go up 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 here, and we will close it. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Item 4? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Needlessly complex. 

4 I think on the August 21st when we went 

5 through this, -- 

6 CHAIR MUNN: We did? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- I think our 

8 recommendation was to close it. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: The recommendation of 

10 -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which one is that? 

12 Yes, item 4 is closed, August meeting. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Is that still 

14 the group's recommendation? 

15 CHAIR MUNN: It is. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. Item 5 was we 

17 talked about item 5 a little earlier. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Very briefly, yes. I 

19 don't think we came to conclusion on it, did 

20 we? That is one that NIOSH has given us a 

21 follow-up response to. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. And let's see. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 NIOSH has basically agreed that they are 

2 going to address this incidence, angle of 

3 incidence issue in both OTIB-0013 and 0010. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, 0013 first. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: 0013 first. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And then our work#s 

7 address there will effect how these two turn 

8 out. That#s both for 5 and 6. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: So we should 

10 basically change this to in abeyance? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: In abeyance. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: In abeyance, I 

13 think, because we have agreed upon an 

14 approach. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And you can 

16 incorporate the NIOSH follow-up. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is what? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Five and 6. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, 5 and 6. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Should we make this 

21 maybe in progress, instead of in abeyance? 

22 What we said is we would address the issue of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 the angular dependence. 

2 The finding description here, the 

3 subsequent, not the initial finding but the 

4 subsequent and special finding, harks back to, 

5 well, in OTIB-0013 we point out there is this 

6 angular dependence issue that this will be a 

7 part of. 

8 What we said is #Okay, well, let's 

9 deal with the angle of incidence there at that 

10 point in time.# And so that is all we have 

11 said, is that we are going to deal with angle 

12 of incidence. Angular dependence in 

13 OTIB-0013, and then that will inform us on 

14 what happens here. 

15 So we have not really promised to 

16 change anything, yet. So I think we -- 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: We are still in 

18 discussion on it. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Because when I look 

20 for in abeyance on the list, I am looking for 

21 where did we promise to change and haven#t 

22 changed it yet, you know, to try to get those 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 up to date. So these I think maybe should be 

2 in progress. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: You are correct. I 

4 think progress would be better on both 5 and 

5 6. 

6 MR. KATZ: Six as well we're going 

7 to go with? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. But, Steve, 

9 on the database, that's fine for our moment, 

10 but after we leave here, please make yourself 

11 a note to incorporate a summary of what 

12 NIOSH's response was. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I was going to 

14 incorporate, take this right off and cut and 

15 paste them in it. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Excellent. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, we can do 

19 that right now. Which one are we on? And 

20 what is the date on that? October 10th. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: October 10th, yes. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And then on the next 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 setup, we have -- 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Seven should be easy. 

3 That's one which was recommended by SC&A 

4 closed at our last meeting and just simply has 

5 not been stamped with our approval, I think. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Bob concurred with the 

8 NIOSH response and recommended that the issue 

9 be closed. So it's just a matter of closing 

10 the issue at our discretion. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Number 8? 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Number 8. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Is a very similar 

15 situation. We have concurred with NIOSH 

16 response that the weight of presentation of 

17 the confirming MCNPX calculations with the 

18 revised TBA. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: With the revised 

20 TBA. And we wanted to change that. We want 

21 to delete "in the revised TBA." 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Recommended that the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 issue status be changed to in abeyance. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: My notes indicate 

3 that from August 21st that NIOSH indicated 

4 that the MCNP calculations may not appear in 

5 the revised TIB. And so they wanted to delete 

6 this portion of the SC&A response, which was 

7 they were basically saying that we would -- I 

8 don't know -- just that in the revised TIB, we 

9 wanted to delete that or the -- 

10 CHAIR MUNN: How about a 

11 presentation -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, it doesn't 

13 really matter. I think that, as I recall -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I don't remember the 

15 discussion. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The discussion was 

17 it really doesn't matter. We just want to 

18 review the MCNP runs. It doesn't really 

19 matter where they are presented, you know, 

20 what vehicle is used to present it. 

21 So I think the August 21st 

22 recommendation was to get rid of this portion 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 here, which said, "in the revised TIB" but 

2 await the presentation of confirming the MCNP 

3 calculations, however NIOSH wants to divide 

4 those calculations for review is fine. It 

5 doesn't have to be done inside a -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Did we commit to that 

7 or did the working group direct that to happen 

8 or is this just an expectation SC&A is placing 

9 on the table? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now this is an 

11 expectation that SC&A is placing on the table 

12 in the SC&A follow-up. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I would ask so what? 

14 Why do we need to go there? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, according to 

16 my notes, I do have working group, "NIOSH to 

17 provide MCNPX comparison." Now, again, I 

18 don't 100 percent trust my notes. And that's 

19 why none of these changes are really in the 

20 database. I want to get somebody to 

21 double-check them. 

22 And the proof of the pudding will 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 164

1 be in the transcript when we get the 

2 transcript, if we already have the transcript, 

3 from the August 21st meeting to find out 

4 exactly what it says there. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Now, I admit that we 

6 say in our response that we ran the MCNPX 

7 models and obtained similar results. 

8 I wasn't at the 21st meeting. So I 

9 can't say that I recall or know of our 

10 commitments made there, but it just seems to 

11 me that we conclude our statement here that 

12 it's a matter of preference. 

13 So is it the working group's 

14 prerogative here that you're exercising that 

15 you want us to provide, those MCNPX runs for 

16 analysis? 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Larry, would you do me 

18 the good favor of allowing me to look at the 

19 transcript -- 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, sure. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: -- of what we did at 

22 our last meeting? Because I haven't had the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 benefit of that yet. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But in answer to 

4 that question, I don't need to see the runs. 

5 If you tell me you run them and get similar 

6 results, I don't feel like I need to see them. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. I don't feel 

8 like it either, but I hesitate to make any 

9 bold statements without notes of my own. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: I am not trying to be 

11 argumentative here. I just want a sense of 

12 clear direction as to what we are going to do 

13 here. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Let me take as my 

15 action to review the transcript to identify 

16 what our previous discussion said. Then I 

17 will communicate with you and the other 

18 members of the working group with regard to 

19 what that said and ask what our next step is. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, can I just 

21 ask one clarification? 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think you're 

2 proposing to use ATTILA and the MCNP runs. 

3 You know, SC&A questioned the use of ATTILA. 

4 I mean, I have no problem if you get similar 

5 results. I just want to understand similar a 

6 little better. You know, I mean, what is the 

7 magnitude of the difference? 

8 That was probably gone over before. 

9 I just can't remember. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: No. The only thing I 

11 am proposing, Mark, is that I take a look at 

12 the transcript and see what we said the last 

13 time we -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. It wasn't 

15 really a question to you, Wanda. It was just 

16 a technical question or probably something we 

17 already went over. But does anybody recall 

18 that? Is it a five percent difference? I 

19 don't understand what "similar" means. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Mark, this is 

21 Steve. Off the top of my head, I don't 

22 remember offhand. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. When 

2 we look back, maybe we can answer that 

3 question if that's okay. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I have no 

6 problem in general. If it's a different 

7 model, it doesn't matter to me. The software 

8 they use, if they're far off, I think we have 

9 a different issue. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: I will pass it along 

11 to all of you what I find out on the 

12 transcript. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We have 

15 now come back to number 9, which we were 

16 discussing earlier. Is there any additional 

17 discussion or clarification that needs to be 

18 made from what we were discussing an hour ago 

19 on number 9? 

20 (No response.) 

21 CHAIR MUNN: If not, do you know 

22 where we are, Steve, with number 9? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically what I 

2 wrote in here is "SC&A would review the NIOSH 

3 follow-up, but this issue is, nonetheless, 

4 closed." 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Any 

6 problem with that resolution that we discussed 

7 earlier? 

8 (No response.) 

9 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then I declare 

10 it legally a time for a break. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: Legally. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We will take a 

13 15-minute break and be back with our next 

14 item, which will be OTIB-0012, item 1. 

15 MR. KATZ: I am going to leave the 

16 line open but just put it on mute here so you 

17 don't have to listen to us. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Fifteen minutes. 

19 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

20 went off the record at 2:31 p.m. and resumed 

21 at 2:44 p.m.) 

22 MR. KATZ: This is the Procedures 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 Working Group. We're coming back online. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: We have I think one 

3 that will take no time at all, OTIB-0012-01. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We have nothing 

5 more on that. The next action on that is ours 

6 to do. It has to do with DCS. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0012-01. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0012-01. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Monte Carlo methods 

10 for dose uncertainty. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There was 

12 subsequent discussion on this. Actually, it 

13 may appear in the database under another one. 

14 I forget how we're going to track it, but the 

15 original findings on this Monte Carlo, we put 

16 the respite in after our initial responses on 

17 at least one of the findings. 

18 This is Bob Anigstein. He said he 

19 took issue with how the correction factors, 

20 the dose correction factors, from ID-01 were 

21 developed, the basis for trying to get a 

22 distribution the way they are drawn. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 So we decided to track that here 

2 under OTIB-0012. And I thought we were 

3 tracking it under OTIB-0012-01, but it might 

4 be somewhere else. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: The database doesn't 

6 show any recent action or discussion at all. 

7 At least mine doesn't. Am I incorrect? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: No. You are totally 

9 correct. There is only one issue ever written 

10 on 12. And that was that one about SC&A's 

11 crystal ball calculation supports the OTIB. 

12 I look for -- wait a minute. Maybe 

13 it's different dates. Could it be on 

14 different dates? No. There is only one 

15 OTIB-0012 issue. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: It is not clear what 

17 has transpired here to me. Since the initial 

18 finding was that SC&A's crystal ball 

19 calculations support the OTIB, then no 

20 response was required. 

21 Then the next thing that I see is 

22 that after that it was decided if the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 statistics were correct, if properly 

2 implemented, that the passage was worded 

3 inappropriately to reflect how these 

4 statistics should be used. SC&A presented 

5 their findings associated with OTIB-0012 in a 

6 white paper. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: That was after the -- 

9 was it before or after the technical call? 

10 They did a -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I believe it was 

12 before the technical call. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: They did a white 

14 paper, then, on the technical call. And there 

15 is no indication here of any further 

16 discussion or action or what is in progress. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know if they 

18 did a technical call, but the workgroup 

19 directed that there be a technical call. 

20 Whether or not that actually took place, there 

21 is no indication in the database. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Which date are we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 talking about here that that occurred? Was 

2 that on 8-21, the 8-21 meeting? 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: The November 7th, 

4 2007 meeting. It was a workgroup directive, 

5 SC&A and NIOSH should have a technical 

6 conference call on this issue and report back 

7 to the workgroup on December 11th, 2007. 

8 Then we have basically a workgroup 

9 meeting December 11th, 2007. We have nothing. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: In view of the fact 

11 that this has been a long time, in view of the 

12 fact that OTIB-0012 is rather important to 

13 what we do here, may I suggest that this be a 

14 NIOSH action to check what our status is and 

15 why this is still an outstanding issue? Is 

16 that fair, NIOSH actions? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I will 

18 reconstruct the history of it for you, but I'm 

19 pretty sure the white paper includes the 

20 critique of the dose conversion factors 91 and 

21 that was delivered at some point during the 

22 discussion of TIB-0012. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 And so we said, well, we'll address 

2 that. We'll put together a paper that we#ll 

3 evaluate. We will decide what we're going to 

4 do about it or address it in some fashion. 

5 And that took a long time for us to do that. 

6 Our primary player on that is, of course, very 

7 good. He#s one of our better people. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Let's just ask 

9 for an update and status clarification of 

10 where we are in Savannah at our December 

11 meeting. Okay? 

12 MR. KATZ: Augusta. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Augusta? Sorry. 

14 Close enough. 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: In there somewhere. 

17 Item 0017-03, individual monitoring for beta 

18 particles. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Can we ask about the 

20 white paper that is mentioned here? SC&A 

21 submitted a white paper discussing OTIB-0012 

22 findings. Do we want, well, does the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 workgroup want, SC&A to get a copy of that 

2 white paper and include it here as a related 

3 link with the appropriate caveats that we had 

4 discussed earlier this afternoon. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Let's wait until we 

6 have NIOSH's report on what the full status is 

7 and where we are with that. That appears to 

8 me to be an appropriate time for us to make 

9 that recommendation. 

10 We have what appears to be one of 

11 those items where we do not have any immediate 

12 expectation of agreement between the commenter 

13 and NIOSH. Am I correct in the way I am 

14 reading this? 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't read the 

16 thing. Can someone -- 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I have to get the 

18 right one here. I think it's here. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: This is 0017-03. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: It is not in here. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: 0017-03. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 Maybe I can find it someplace else. Too many 

2 things open. Let me see if I can find it, 

3 0017. Okay. This is the original e-mail I 

4 got back from John Hunt, who did the review of 

5 the NIOSH follow-up response, which may be a 

6 little easier to read here. 

7 His recommendation is to close this 

8 issue because he doesn't think that we're 

9 going to be able to get much improvement, "In 

10 my opinion, could not be improved on much 

11 further." 

12 So he thinks that, although the 

13 OTIB may be a little weak technically, it is 

14 as good as you're going to get. He did 

15 provide some additional insights in here. 

16 And, again, that e-mail is what you see here 

17 in this little box. 

18 Now, again, this comes back to what 

19 we talked about earlier this afternoon, this 

20 related link. As I said, John Hunt when he 

21 gave me his comments he also included this 

22 additional bit of information, if you will, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 insight. I'm not sure what the correct term 

2 is to call this, or evaluation, interpretation 

3 of dosimetry data. 

4 I didn't know where else to put 

5 this. So I put this as a related link. But, 

6 again, based upon the discussion we have had 

7 earlier today, particularly this afternoon, we 

8 will probably have to at least change the 

9 headings and footers, titles, so on and so 

10 forth, on this. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it appears to be 

12 a position paper with respect to this finding, 

13 correct? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I'm not sure 

15 that it's SC&A position paper. John Hunt has 

16 looked at it. And, as you say, he has a 

17 tremendous amount of work that has gone into 

18 it. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Technical 

20 interpretation. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, technical 

22 interpretation by this individual. And this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 is the official, as official as we get. This 

2 is what we put in here. 

3 And at this point, the SC&A 

4 recommendation is that we can close this issue 

5 because OTIB-0017 is as good as you're going 

6 to get it. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, I didn#t get 

8 that. And so that is not in contradiction to 

9 the last NIOSH comments. 

10 Does the workgroup have any strong 

11 feelings that would contradict this 

12 recommendation to close? If not, then the 

13 workgroup -- yes? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree with that. 

15 I in this case would question the status of 

16 this paper in the thing. I don't think it 

17 appears to be an official SC&A paper either. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't either. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: No. It's just an 

20 individual assessment. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it seems to me 

22 it could be a working document of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 workgroup and even referred to in our minutes 

2 or our transcript, but unless SC&A issues it 

3 as a work product, it's not clear to me why we 

4 ought to put it in the database. That is all 

5 I'm saying. 

6 Maybe SC&A would -- in other words, 

7 it is an individual's opinion. I assume that 

8 you called him in to -- 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: He is the one that 

10 did the initial review -- 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- of OTIB-0017. I 

13 did not want to lose that information. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: And this was the 

16 best place that I could think to put it. 

17 Initially I tried to put it all into the SC&A 

18 follow-up. And it got very -- 

19 CHAIR MUNN: It was just too much? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Too much, exactly. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: So then in order not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 to lose this information, I put it here as a 

2 related link. Now, I am open to ideas as to a 

3 better way to handle this. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or maybe with 

5 Emily's wording, we just appropriately label 

6 this and leave it in there. I mean, I am not 

7 objecting to it being per se, but I think we 

8 need to have a consistency about both what we 

9 put in and how it's identified. 

10 Particularly if it's an SC&A 

11 official position or it's just a discussion 

12 document, you might identify it in some way 

13 like that even. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I hadn't 

15 thought of, like Larry pointed out this 

16 morning, people getting into this and getting 

17 the Freedom of Information Act and getting 

18 this and misinterpreting it or doing whatever 

19 they can do to it. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: So no, I hadn't 

22 thought of it from that point of view. My 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 only goal was to not lose this bit of 

2 information. There has to be a better way to 

3 do this than what is here. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: There is going to be a 

5 fine line there. And we will probably 

6 approach it time after time to try to make 

7 that decision. Trying to balance clarity of 

8 the decision-making process against openness 

9 and transparency is going to be difficult for 

10 more than one occasion. This may be one of 

11 those. 

12 Certainly any technical person 

13 going back and trying to trap this would want 

14 to try to see the expert opinion that led to 

15 the statement that we have here on the 

16 follow-up. 

17 So this may be a good opportunity 

18 for us all to take this under advisement and 

19 look at this in a concerted individual manner, 

20 weigh the issues, and have this as a separate 

21 action item for us to address at our next 

22 procedures meeting, at which time hopefully we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 will have discussed already the kinds of 

2 classifications we want and the additional -- 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, I was going 

4 to suggest -- and this comes from SC&A -- that 

5 the burden be on them to identify what kind of 

6 a document they think it is. You said a draft 

7 discussion document. is it an SC&A white 

8 paper or what is it? 

9 In terms of the categories that 

10 Emily comes up with, whatever our appropriate 

11 disclaimer in, then perhaps leave it. I think 

12 we can still close the item. I was just 

13 concerned how this -- 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can, too, 

15 yes. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- is identified in 

17 the system. And we will need to follow. It 

18 seems to me the burden is on SC&A to tell us 

19 what this is, categorize it for us. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: I agree with one 

21 caveat. And that caveat is I think it is 

22 incumbent on the workgroup to make some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 decisions about what categories are likely to 

2 be most useable for us and most accurate for 

3 us. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then we can 

5 select one of those. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. At this point 

8 if I had to categorize it, I would basically 

9 categorize it as supplemental information. 

10 And I don't know if that means anything, but 

11 -- so the workgroup directive is to close this 

12 issue? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, with an 

14 outstanding action item regarding proper 

15 handling of related links. Okay. We are all 

16 on the same page with that one? This one will 

17 be closed. 

18 And we are going to OTIB-0017-12, 

19 which is in abeyance we have here. Is it 

20 supposed to be closed? John Hunt agrees. 

21 Will revise. And the revision has not yet 

22 been complete, correct, OTIB-0017? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 183

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Not as far as I 

2 know. I haven't been able to go check. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: So in abeyance is 

4 correct at this juncture. 

5 On to OTIB-0018. The first item 

6 open is 5. At a meeting earlier this year, it 

7 was recommended that this be closed. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Was it? Which one? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Eighteen-05. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: You had it marked 

11 closed. And I had crossed it out. It sounded 

12 like we kept it open for some reason. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I don't have 

14 that 18. I go from 18-01 to 18-06. That's 

15 why I didn't make any of these changes as per 

16 my notes. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you related 

18 blank here. It says, "Referenced documents, 

19 second set: link OTIB-0005, response pdf." 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: It seems like this 

21 was the one where we were supposed to provide 

22 evidence that the sites that were covered by 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 OTIB-0018 did, in fact, have good error 

2 sampling programs and that they took 

3 appropriate action based on control levels. I 

4 thought that is where this one was. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I know I had 

6 concerns with this one. So I might have taken 

7 it out of the closed position. I don't know. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think Mike Gibson 

9 raised that as well, in addition to Mark. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: And that would have 

11 been because? What was your concern, Mark? 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Several. The 

13 question on the definition, there is something 

14 called rigorous error sampling program. I'm 

15 not sure exactly what that means. 

16 And then I wanted to understand how 

17 they came up with a list of sites. I have 

18 some questions about -- it says that they're 

19 going to use the worst case radionuclide, but 

20 the listing doesn't include all radionuclides 

21 at some of the sites that were in the list. 

22 For example, the Mound has a few. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 And I admit that these are not the main 

2 production radionuclides, but things like 

3 actinium and protactinium are not on the list. 

4 And then I had a question of is 

5 there any change in the -- and this may be 

6 outlined in the TIB, and I might have missed 

7 it. But over time, the MPC values were to 

8 change. So when they assign 10 percent of the 

9 MPC, do they vary with the time period or how 

10 does that work? 

11 CHAIR MUNN: So do we have your 

12 concerns in a format that can be responded to? 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just in this 

14 format that I give. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We had the robust 

16 error sampling issue and the take appropriate 

17 actions. In other words, part of the error 

18 sampling program is that appropriate actions 

19 are taken at action levels. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: You also said a 

22 concern about the -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: How did you come 

2 up with the list of sites? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think that 

4 kind of was going to feed into a number one. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: The sites that are 

7 covered on here are the ones we felt had 

8 error- sampling programs sufficient that you 

9 could put some confidence in and that they 

10 would take actions if there were a bad 

11 airborne situation, -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- chronically bad, 

14 chronically bad airborne situation. So I 

15 think that's kind of all part and parcel of 

16 this same -- 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- issue, that one 

19 and 1 and 2. You said not sure that the worst 

20 radionuclides were covered in every case. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, no. I think he 

22 said all nuclides were covered. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: The worst case. 

2 That was correct. I'm not sure that -- in the 

3 listing of radionuclides, it suggests that by 

4 procedure, you say that you're going to use 

5 the worst case radionuclides depending on the 

6 organ, et cetera. But then you look at the 

7 list of radionuclides and that doesn't 

8 encompass some of the worst ones for some of 

9 the sites. I think now might be the example 

10 where that came and protactinium. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, you had I 

12 thought you said one more other thing, too. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then the 

14 question of whether -- and this may be in the 

15 TIB and I might have missed it, but I just 

16 wanted clarification on whether when you 

17 assign ten percent of the MPC or DAC, do you 

18 vary that with time periods because the MPCs 

19 change during different time periods over the 

20 course of the life of these sites? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I know 

22 we are working on 1 and 2, we will get 3 and 4 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 going, too. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: So we need to have 

4 some comment in here about workgroup 

5 directives, I guess. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I only got two of 

7 Mark's questions, but I guess Stu has got the 

8 other. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I can send you -- I 

10 can send Steve some language to put in a 

11 workgroup directive. And this would be for 

12 today's meeting, I guess. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: It would be most 

14 helpful. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I wasn't 

16 necessarily trying to make these into action 

17 items if they could be answered, you know, if 

18 someone is on the phone who can answer them 

19 now. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I am not 

21 prepared. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 189

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We have -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Liz is on there, I 

3 think, right? Yes. 

4 MS. BRACKETT: And I can actually 

5 answer a few of those questions. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, Liz, 

7 what have you got? 

8 MS. BRACKETT: Actinium-227, I 

9 noticed that it's not listed in OTIB-0018, but 

10 it is, in fact, in the tools. So that's 

11 apparently an oversight on our part in 

12 documenting what we actually did. 

13 So because there is instruction 

14 that directs the dose reconstructor to use 

15 actinium-227, specifically Fernald, Los 

16 Alamos, and ORNL. So we need to get that 

17 documented. I don't know if that will 

18 completely address your concern, but it is 

19 included for some of the facilities. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I didn't 

21 look at the tool. I was looking at the 

22 written procedures. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 190

1 MS. BRACKETT: Right. And you are 

2 right. I mean, it should be in there. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

4 MS. BRACKETT: I thought that it 

5 was, but -- 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: And protactinium? 

7 I don't know if that would be, you know, the 

8 limiting radionuclide in any cases, but is 

9 that on your -- 

10 MS. BRACKETT: That one is not 

11 included. We will have to look to see if that 

12 would be more limiting than actinium. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: It may not be but 

14 yes, just curious. And, just for 

15 clarification, if you had an unmonitored 

16 worker, it didn't matter necessarily where 

17 they were working -- 

18 MS. BRACKETT: Right. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: At Mound, for 

20 instance, you would use actinium if it was a 

21 limiting case? 

22 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. That would be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 191

1 added into the list of nuclides. And if it 

2 came up to be the most limiting, then that's 

3 what would be assigned. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

5 MS. BRACKETT: And the changing of 

6 MPCs and DACs, I haven't gone back over OTIB. 

7 That should be documented. It does account 

8 for the fact that it changed over time. 

9 The ten percent is only used in 

10 modern days. It's 50 percent up until like 

11 1989. And there are -- maybe if you want to 

12 look at OTIB-0018 again and see if it's not 

13 clear, but it does list different -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: I checked that. I 

15 saw listed time period differences, but then I 

16 thought I saw something that contradicted 

17 that. But I will double-check that. That one 

18 I'm not sure on. 

19 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. Like I said, 

20 I haven't gone back and looked at it in detail 

21 because you're right. The actinium is missing 

22 from that. So maybe it's not clear as to what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 MPCs we're using. But it does vary over time. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: I think those are 

4 the only two I can -- 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: And the only other 

6 question, back to everyone in the workgroup, 

7 the general question I had was OTIB-0018 is 

8 only used for non-compensable cases. Is that 

9 correct? 

10 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: But that hasn't 

12 always been the case, has it? 

13 MS. BRACKETT: There was a brief 

14 time when it was used for compensable cases, 

15 but that and OTIB-0033 would kind of go hand 

16 in hand. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only concern I 

18 would have there is do you know how many cases 

19 were compensated using the TIB-0018 approach? 

20 MS. BRACKETT: I personally don't. 

21 I don't know if anybody else on the 

22 conference -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have it 

2 broken down, but there were, I believe, 104 

3 cases that, arguably, during that period that 

4 were compensated that had they not been done 

5 during that period might not have been. I 

6 believe 104 was the number total, but those 

7 weren't all OTIB-0018. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: That might be sort 

9 of a separate issue, you know, apart from our 

10 findings on OTIB-0018 because this kind of 

11 gets into that equity issue. If I filed a 

12 claim and, by the luck of the draw, I got my 

13 claim done with OTIB-0018, during that time 

14 period I might have gotten compensated, you 

15 know. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this has been 

17 out there for two years. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I'm just 

19 saying if it's 105 claimed, that's quite a few 

20 people that got compensated that might not 

21 have been compensated otherwise. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Were all 104 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 compensated? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's 

3 the number. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Was it all 104 that 

5 were effected by that? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's true. 

7 There were 104 done in techniques that would 

8 not normally have been used within to be 

9 compensated. Some of those likely would have 

10 been compensated. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Should have been 

12 compensated, okay. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Some of those 

14 likely would have been compensated anyway. 

15 That was where the 104 came from. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is kind of a 

17 separate issue, but I just wanted 

18 clarification on that. And that's all I had 

19 on that one. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So Steve has 

21 all of his issues. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Liz answered the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 last two? 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, Liz 

3 answered, partially answered the one. And, 

4 really, she said that there were modifications 

5 for time periods. So I won't leave that as an 

6 action. I'll check that on my own. And if I 

7 see any discrepancies there, I'll raise them. 

8 But let me review that further because it's 

9 probably addressed properly. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And so then 

11 that leaves us with the "What does it mean to 

12 have a robust error-sampling program?" and 

13 "Did the sites do what they should have done?# 

14 And #How do we know the sites did what they 

15 should have done if they had like control for 

16 an action level?" 

17 And that kind of is related to what 

18 sites, how do we decide what sites recover? 

19 So those things kind of all link in together. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes and still the 

21 protactinium question. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Liz, are you 

2 doing protactinium? 

3 MS. BRACKETT: Sure. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: That's great. All 

7 right. So I have that as an action item for 

8 now with Stu in the lead. 

9 18-06, Mark. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, 5 is in 

11 progress, I guess. It's not open anymore. 

12 It's not open. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's right. It's in 

14 progress. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So it will be in 

16 progress. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Actually, there is 

18 action being asked. So it is in abeyance, 

19 correct? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: No. We haven't 

21 promised what -- 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I thought you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 just did -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we did. We 

3 did promise that we were going to revise it. 

4 Well, see, there are several parts of it. But 

5 it's promised that we would revise OTIB-0018 

6 in order to include the information that's in 

7 the tool. 

8 So that you can put it in abeyance 

9 if you want. There is something that is -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: There are 

11 in-progress parts, though. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: There are 

13 in-progress parts. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I think in 

15 progress is a lower -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: See, my problem 

17 with putting them in abeyance is that to me 

18 that means we're all agreed we're just going 

19 to publish a revision and we're going to be 

20 done. And there is more work to be done on 

21 this. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Eighteen-six? 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Eighteen-six. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we had 

4 actioned my notes from August 21st to indicate 

5 this one should be in abeyance. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: The reason for that is 

7 a revised OTIB is in works. Any problem with 

8 changing status to in abeyance? 

9 (No response.) 

10 CHAIR MUNN: If not, so ordered. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: So have we had this 

12 revision in process for over a year now? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we might 

14 have. Wait a minute. Okay, interesting. 

15 Good. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Finished 

17 with 18. Go on to 19, item 1, bioassay data, 

18 co-worker essay data, internal DOS 

19 assignments: NIOSH "will provide the working 

20 group with suggested revisions to the OTIB 

21 that address the issue." 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I've sent our 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 position on 0019-1. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: This is what we 

3 received from -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: -- NIOSH on October 

6 1st this year. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: And it's in the 

9 NIOSH follow-up box down here, but because 

10 there is the table, I've also included it 

11 because I can't get all of this information 

12 that's included on these backup statements. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So, actually, 

14 the ball is in the SC&A court right now, 

15 correct? 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: No. Let's see. If 

17 we look at the box next to it on the 10-10, we 

18 got a response from Harry that basically 

19 agrees with the NIOSH position or the analysis 

20 that NIOSH has done. And SC&A has come down 

21 and recommended that this issue be closed. 

22 So our recommendation is, we agree 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 with NIOSH in the results of their analysis 

2 and you can close this issue. Let's see if I 

3 have Harry's -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: This is another one of 

5 those where we will have to identify the 

6 reference document. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the related 

8 link document, Wanda, is -- 

9 CHAIR MUNN: It's just 0019-1, 

10 right? 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. It's just a 

12 follow-up response. I put it here so that we 

13 can get this table. It would have been 

14 virtually impossible for me to get this table 

15 into that little box. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: This is all part of 

18 the NIOSH follow-up. So I don't know how this 

19 falls into what we talked about. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is our 

21 response. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: This is your 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 response. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: NIOSH personnel 

3 action or follow-up action. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: It's no more, no 

5 less. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We can put the 

7 disclaimer on it and resubmit it. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right. Well, the 

9 key here is that the issue is closed. But the 

10 only thing we have to do as a workgroup is to 

11 make sure that the graphics that are 

12 necessary, that are in the charts that are 

13 necessary for clarification at a later date, 

14 are appropriate and properly carry the proper 

15 wording when we finish. So that's just -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: So basically I 

17 should put in here for the 2008 that the 

18 workgroup direction is close this issue. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to that? 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection, but 

21 NIOSH needs to label the table in accordance 

22 with the new scheme, or not the table but the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 document. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: The document, yes. A 

3 better grasp of wording that we're going to 

4 use. Item 0024-1, open, apparently never been 

5 addressed other than it's going to be a 

6 revision. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: My notes from the 

8 21st of August indicate that 1 through 7 are 

9 all in abeyance. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: And we haven't 

11 populated the database yet. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Does that -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: My notes are missing 

14 on 0024. Whether or not -- 

15 CHAIR MUNN: I'll take that again 

16 as one of my action items, since I'm going to 

17 be looking at the transcript anyhow. 

18 MS. THOMAS: It has never been 

19 discussed in workgroup, but all of our 

20 responses state that we#ll include SC&A's 

21 recommendation or finding, address those 

22 findings and revisions. So that may be why it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 is in abeyance. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Say that again. 

3 MS. THOMAS: I said we've never 

4 discussed OTIB-0024 in any technical way at a 

5 workgroup meeting, but all of the NIOSH 

6 responses state that the OTIB will be revised 

7 to address SC&A's findings. So that may be 

8 why all of the statuses are in abeyance. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Are all in abeyance. 

10 Would that be in accordance with your notes, 

11 Paul? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the chart 

13 that was given to us in the August meeting 

14 says that Bob Anigstein concurs with NIOSH's 

15 proposed solution. And the revised OTIB 

16 submitted shows them all as -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: In abeyance. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe it's 

19 recommended that they be in abeyance. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: That was the 

21 recommendation -- 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 204

1 CHAIR MUNN: -- that we didn't -- 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if we 

3 specifically accepted that or not. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the missing 

5 point. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: That is the point. 

7 MS. THOMAS: We never discussed it, 

8 because I forget who provided the responses. 

9 We have never had to have them on the phone 

10 line. So I know we haven't discussed it. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. I believe that 

12 Dr. Anigstein basically read the responses and 

13 said, "Well, it looks like they're going to 

14 redo OTIB-0024 using modern computer code." 

15 And that was basically our concern 

16 seven times over, I guess. And so if they're 

17 committed to redoing it, then we'll wait and 

18 see what develops. We agree with that 

19 approach. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. For the 

21 moment, do we have any problem with my 

22 checking the transcript to make sure that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 there wasn't any concern other than that it 

2 should be in abeyance? For the moment shall 

3 we leave it open or in abeyance? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, to me this 

5 fits the definition of in abeyance. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It does to me, too. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We said we have no 

8 complaint with the finding. We're going to 

9 rewrite the document. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: I agree. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So we promise to 

12 deliver -- 

13 CHAIR MUNN: So did Bob. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would accept that 

15 as placing it in abeyance. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem, Mark? 

17 Are you still -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am sorry. No. 

19 I'm all set on that one. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we'll just 

21 change status to #in abeyance.# And I'll 

22 double-check to make sure that the transcript 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 doesn't tell us anything to the contrary. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: And as for all seven 

3 of the -- 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0024? 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, items 1 through 

7 7, OTIB-0024, which brings us to OTIB-0028, 

8 item 2. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. I've 

10 got seven to plug in here, if you please. I 

11 guess we can go on. I guess I can catch up a 

12 little later. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: We have SC&A's 

14 revision to review, found that it had resolved 

15 their issue, recommends the finding be closed. 

16 The issue was resolved to the satisfaction of 

17 the working group. 

18 Anyone have any problem with 

19 closing this item? 

20 (No response.) 

21 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-0028. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. Wait 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 207

1 a minute. I'm still on 0024. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I've got one more to 

4 do. 

5 (Pause.) 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Are you watching me 

7 to make sure I#m doing this right? Okay. I'm 

8 up to 0028-02 now. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Two, closed. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: 0028-03, identical 

12 category. Any objection from anyone? 

13 (No response.) 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: The action item from 

15 the 21st, August 21st, was to review the -- 

16 and we did review the revision. So -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Reviewed, recommended 

18 closed. Workgroup was satisfied with the 

19 resolution. It is closed. 

20 Item 0033-01. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: This was one my 

22 notes from August 21st indicate that Mike said 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 to hold this issue for Mark, that Mark might 

2 be interested in this. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so. 

4 Remember? Are you there, Mark? 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I just had 

6 to catch up to get to that item. I will be in 

7 a second. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

9 (Pause.) 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 0033-01. 

11 And I'm trying to remember, actually, now. I 

12 mean, reading the finding, I kind of remember 

13 that there are exposure categories and the 

14 question of the judgment on how to assign the 

15 coworker, which I guess it's whether you use 

16 the 50th or the 95th percentile values. Is 

17 that -- 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there was no 

19 outstanding question with the people who were 

20 at the workgroup meeting at the time. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's 

22 what it was, though, Mark. You have to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 choose. What basis do you use to decide which 

2 percentile? I believe that was the 

3 discussion. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Thirty-three ties 

5 into those at 18. It's not co-worker. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh. So it's not 

8 based on co-worker? It's based on the 

9 standard? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: The overestimating 

11 18. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. It ties in 

13 with 18, right? Yes. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Mike was just 

15 hesitant to take a position on it without your 

16 looking at it. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: This ties in. Can 

18 I just get a clarification? I mean, this ties 

19 into OTIB-0018, but it's used for best 

20 estimate cases? Is that accurate? 

21 MS. BRACKETT: OTIB-0033 is also on 

22 the overestimate. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: So the title, 

2 though, confuses me again. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, that#s because 

4 that's the way it was initially written -- 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

6 MS. BRACKETT: -- at the time we 

7 were talking about where it was. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think, at the 

9 very least, for the public it would be good to 

10 change that. 

11 Did I lose my connection? 

12 CHAIR MUNN: No. You are still 

13 there. You just thunder-struck us. 

14 We're looking at the article on the 

15 screen of the tool user instructions for 

16 OTIB-0018 and 33. The tool was developed -- 

17 MS. THOMAS: Yes. I was just going 

18 to say, it might help him remember what his 

19 issue was. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead and read. 

21 MS. THOMAS: Okay. It is in the 

22 link in the database under finding 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 211

1 OTIB-0018-05. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: You remember there was 

3 that blue link when we were looking at 

4 OTIB-0018? There was a link to the 

5 applicability and tool user instructions. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: I am not sure that 

7 Mark had a problem with this. I just think 

8 that Mike wanted to give Mark the opportunity 

9 -- 

10 CHAIR MUNN: That is correct. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: -- to voice his 

12 concern if he had some. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: That is correct. He 

14 knew that Mark had been very closely 

15 associated with both 18 and 33 and wanted to 

16 make sure that we did not just mark one off 

17 without Mark's being aware of the fact that we 

18 were doing it. He did not express any 

19 personal knowledge of any problem. 

20 He was just leaving it open for 

21 you, Mark. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. And I do 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 remember looking back at this, but I must 

2 admit I forgot. I was focused on the document 

3 that Steve sent around, the PDF document, 

4 which is several of the ones we have been 

5 covering today, but it didn't have all of the 

6 -- I must have missed my review of this one. 

7 So I'm wondering. So this is 

8 suggesting that for an OTIB for this approach, 

9 you would not use the same value for different 

10 work categories. Is that correct? 

11 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, that's correct. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: And, Liz, 

13 basically it's separated into individuals that 

14 would very unlikely be anywhere near 

15 production operations, like 

16 administrative-type job titles versus 

17 individuals that could have been closer to 

18 production areas? Is that -- 

19 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. It is also 

20 supposed to help give some guidance on when 

21 environmentalists could be assigned to people, 

22 as opposed to assigning something more than 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 that, several different categories. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why would you even 

3 give environmentalists an -- 

4 MS. BRACKETT: Sorry. I'm 

5 confused. That's OTIB-0014. Sorry. Sorry 

6 about that. I think there#s only two 

7 categories in OTIB-0033. So they're 50 

8 percent or 100 percent basically of OTIB-0018, 

9 except when you get to the recent years. 

10 There is a ten percent category then, after 

11 the implementation of 0054-84.11, I think. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: And why would you 

13 even do 50 percent? Fifty percent or 100 

14 percent? You mean you would assign 100 

15 percent of the MPC in some cases? 

16 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. And some, it's 

17 50 percent. OTIB-0018 is extremely 

18 claimant-favorable. It gives some very, very 

19 large intake because it is not just strictly 

20 the MPC. It's using the most conservative 

21 nuclide, which in many cases you wouldn't find 

22 comprising 100 percent of the air in an area. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 Actually, the tool is difficult to 

2 explain, because it doesn't strictly pick a 

3 nuclide. It's on an annual basis. It picks 

4 the nuclide that would give the largest 

5 intake. 

6 And, even retroactively, if you get 

7 to the years following the cessation of intake 

8 and you look back and say that, "Okay. If it 

9 had been an intake of actinium, rather than 

10 plutonium, in those years, that would give the 

11 largest dose in this year. Then that's what 

12 substituted them." I think a diagram would 

13 help. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes. And I 

15 would take exception with one thing you said, 

16 Liz, that this is a claimant-favorable 

17 approach. I would say it is an efficient 

18 approach, maybe, but not claimant-favorable 

19 because these are all for non-compensable 

20 claims, right? 

21 So I don't think you're doing 

22 anybody any favors. You're just assigning a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 big dose. 

2 MS. BRACKETT: That's true, but it 

3 is intended to be larger than what you would 

4 have expected the person to have been exposed 

5 to. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I know. That's 

7 efficient, but, really, it just creates more 

8 confusion than claimant favorability because 

9 people wonder why the administrative person 

10 that was never monitored got a high dose and 

11 they got nothing, you know. 

12 Notwithstanding that comment, I 

13 think if I can -- Wanda, I'm just not ready to 

14 respond to OTIB-0033 on the fly. And since 

15 OTIB-0018 is kind of tied with this, I promise 

16 that I will have an answer one way or the 

17 other next meeting on this final OTIB-0033 

18 finding. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I am putting it 

20 on our agenda for Savannah, Augusta, Atlanta, 

21 wherever we are -- 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I appreciate that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 CHAIR MUNN: -- in December. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: In the interim, do 

3 we change the status to #in progress?# 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: In progress. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: In the interim, we 

6 change it to #in progress.# 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sorry about that. 

8 I was focused on the items in Steve's PDF 

9 document that he sent around and not all of 

10 the documents. Sorry. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I will probably 

12 put that up front on the agenda early on, 

13 rather than taking it in order, because that 

14 is a big one. We need to address that, get 

15 ourselves in the right spot. 

16 PROC-0022-01. In abeyance. No 

17 action has been taken? 

18 MS. THOMAS: It has been started. 

19 It is being revised. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. #In abeyance# 

21 is appropriate. Then under "Workgroup 

22 Directives," from sometime back, it says, "The 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 issue was resolved to the workgroup's 

2 satisfaction." But apparently it isn't. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: That is why it is in 

4 abeyance, because we have come through -- a 

5 meeting of the minds just hasn't been 

6 reissued, revised. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: We'll go on to issue 

8 2. Same revision. All right. No additional 

9 action necessary there. PROC-0060, item 1. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a note that 

11 we closed that at our last meeting. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: I think the -- yes. 

13 I think the concern was we just said close 

14 it, and we did not necessarily give you a 

15 reason. I think we add a little bit to the 

16 follow-up here. But I agree it should be 

17 closed. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right. That one 

19 goes. Sixty-one, item 1. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we closed 

21 that as well, according to my notes. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I believe so. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 0061-02. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So we can do 

3 that now, which takes us to 4. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: What about 3? 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Three was closed 

6 earlier, wasn't it? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Three was in 

8 progress. That's right. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Not showing up. 

10 Didn't we say 4? 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I show 03, they 

12 recommended closure last time and we put it 

13 into the "in progress" category. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I thought closed, 

15 it was closed, 03. I don't know why we got 

16 that. Is that another one that I need to 

17 check the transcript for? I think it's 

18 closed, in any case. Does anyone have 03? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: I am trying to bring 

20 it up. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: I filtered for 

22 openness. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 MR. MARSCHKE: We had it all. I 

2 had 3 was closed. And I had 3 closed, and I 

3 had 4 or the database had 3 closed. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I had 3 closed 

5 also. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: So basically, what 

7 was the -- I had on the 9-4-2008, change the 

8 status to #closed# for PROC-0061. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: What happened on 

10 9-4? That was -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: That was the Redondo 

12 Beach meeting. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MS. THOMAS: Harry had provided an 

15 SC&A additional response that went something 

16 like "This provision clarified for the dose 

17 reconstructor what to do" -- maximum best 

18 estimate and minimizing. So I think that was 

19 the basis for closure of 3. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. That 

21 happened after the August meeting. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, yes. Harry 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 220

1 provided data at 9, September 1st. And then 

2 at the 9, September 4th, based upon that 

3 change, we closed it. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think #closed# 

5 is correct for it, which leaves us with item 

6 4. 

7 MS. THOMAS: Item 4, Harry had 

8 provided some follow-up. And we have yet to 

9 respond to that. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, again, on the 

11 September 4 -- yes. Okay. "You" being NIOSH. 

12 MS. THOMAS: Yes. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. He gave up the 

14 study. And at the Redondo Beach, we changed 

15 the status to #in progress.# 

16 CHAIR MUNN: In progress. Correct. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: So that is for 

18 those, we had three closed and one in progress 

19 -- 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- for PROC-0061. 

22 Now to go back. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So what we have is, 

3 I guess I have an action item to change all of 

4 these PR-0007s to closed. That's my action 

5 item. We talked about that this morning. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: That is an action 

8 item. We had closed on the August 21st. And 

9 I just haven't brought the database up to it. 

10 And we have 10 is also. These are the only 

11 open items we have under the second set. 

12 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. And the next 

13 thing that comes up is OTIB-0052, which we 

14 already know about. We have talked about 

15 that, covered it well. 

16 And then our next items are 

17 PROC-0092-01. I don't know whether anything 

18 has changed on that, PROC-0092-01, 4, 5, 17. 

19 You know, we lumped them all in one big group 

20 with respect to the closeout activities. 

21 The last information I have for all 

22 of those items in PROC-0092 is #SC&A to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 222

1 provide comments and NIOSH as to need to be 

2 changed or recommended change.# That's an O 

3 item. 

4 Do I interpret that correctly as we 

5 have an SC&A action item outstanding? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought the 

7 action item on this was a revised procedure? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Is it? 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: What does that say 

10 right there? Procedure will be -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Procedure will be 

12 #changes.# 

13 CHAIR MUNN: And what date was 

14 that? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: This was back on 

16 12-11-2007. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know why I 

18 don't have that coming up for me. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: PROC-0002? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. The last thing I 

21 am seeing is a workgroup meeting on 11-7-2007. 

22 So I don't know why I'm not -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Did you hit that 

2 little button on the bottom to go to page 2? 

3 CHAIR MUNN: There it is. Okay. 

4 So we are in progress or are we in abeyance? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: We are in abeyance, 

6 I believe. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so, too. It 

8 looks to me if I am reading that 12-11-2007 

9 correctly, that entry correctly, it looks to 

10 me as though both NIOSH and SC&A have 

11 outstanding action items there. 

12 Should we revisit the issue and 

13 come back to NIOSH with suggestions of 

14 personalizing -- 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Which number are you 

16 looking at, PROC-0092 dash-- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, 25, 17, 19, 30, 

18 35 were all grouped together, right? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No. Those are page 

20 numbers. It's just 0092-02. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I see it. 

22 Basically you say SC&A should review the issue 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 and come. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wouldn't that be 

3 #in progress# by definition, not #in 

4 abeyance,# if there are still actions on both 

5 parts? 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that was a 

7 year ago. What happened after that? 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's a good 

9 question. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Discussion should 

11 continue perhaps at the next workgroup 

12 meeting. No discussion occurred, apparently. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: SC&A has an action 

14 item. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: And appropriate 

16 wording with legal counsel. It looks like a 

17 NIOSH action. So we have action for both. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: There has been no 

19 discussion on this since November of 2007. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, since forever. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: We discussed this a 

22 couple of times. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: But, Larry, we 

3 really haven't. We just keep pushing the ball 

4 down the road, you know. That's the problem. 

5 We don't have anything to discuss. We keep 

6 waiting for language. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: So I don't have it on 

8 the action item list. That was 02. And 03 is 

9 very much the same thing, same timing. I'm 

10 going to say action items for both the agency 

11 and the contractor for PROC-0092-02 and 03. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: What was the 

13 wording? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I just said I'm 

15 placing an action item for a December meeting. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically it's -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: For both NIOSH and 

18 SC&A. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: But what word is 

20 that? I'm lost. What is the action item? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Our only action is 

22 to revise the procedure. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Revise the procedure. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know, 

3 that is our only action. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, there was an 

5 action. One comment there was checking with 

6 legal counsel to -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: That's part of the 

8 wording. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That has to be done 

11 in order to accomplish what needs to be 

12 accomplished. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We've done some of 

15 this discussion. We have not come to 

16 resolution. The issue, I don't think you were 

17 involved in that. I am not 100 percent sure. 

18 MS. HOWELL: The wording on the -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: This is closeout 

20 interview. And the key defining that gave 

21 rise to this was in one of the interviews, 

22 description of closeout interviews that was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 viewed by the technical support contractor, it 

2 became apparent that the claimant believed 

3 that their case was going to be compensable 

4 when, in fact, it wasn't. 

5 It was because of the use of the 

6 claimant-favorable term quite a bit during the 

7 closeout and things like that. And so it's 

8 really apparent that this person hung up 

9 believing that their claimant is compensable 

10 when it#s not. 

11 And so the question becomes, what 

12 is it that we're allowed to say? Because we 

13 don't make that decision. 

14 MS. HOWELL: Right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So, in reality, we 

16 don't know for sure -- 

17 MS. HOWELL: And do you really -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So what is it we're 

19 allowed to say in that context, since we don't 

20 make that decision anyway? 

21 MS. HOWELL: Okay. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So we had a little 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 exchange about it. And I've probably got 

2 other things to do and didn't think about it, 

3 but the procedure itself is supposed to be 

4 being revised by ORAU. And I haven't had the 

5 status on it lately. 

6 I'm thinking this is one that's in 

7 review, in their internal review process. 

8 That could be wrong. 

9 MS. THOMAS: I think that's 

10 correct. 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Next, 

12 everything else that I am showing on my filter 

13 is set 3 and after, and they're all shown as 

14 open. So unless we have some initial 

15 responses that I am overlooking -- do we have 

16 initial responses to more of the third set 

17 that haven't been touched upon? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: What is the date of 

19 the third set, Wanda? Do you have it handy? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: 10-29-07. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: We have something 

22 called "NIOSH Initial Responses to the Third 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 Set." 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You have two 

4 things like that. One is some responses to 

5 some findings on OCAS documents. And the 

6 other file is some responses to findings on 

7 ORAU documents. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: From SC&A's point of 

9 view, I think there was a total of 32 of these 

10 initial responses, 8 from the OCAS and 24 from 

11 the ORAU. And we just started going through 

12 these. I can't recall if I put the initial 

13 responses onto the database or not. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think it's 

15 been. Let me see the -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Stu's memo was just 

17 in the last couple of days. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was. I don't 

19 think any of us have had an opportunity to -- 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look at the 

21 database, yes, we do have some initial 

22 responses from NIOSH for those 32 findings 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 that they did. They did make it into the 

2 database. Let's put it that way. 

3 SC&A had a couple of responses. 

4 I'm not sure where I could go to get them. We 

5 did respond to -- this is hot off the press. 

6 This is not in the database. I can send this 

7 file when I get back tomorrow. 

8 For OTIB-0013, we have responses 

9 from Ron Buchanan, 0013-01, 02, 03, 04, 

10 OTIB-0021-03, OTIB-0050. And in general, Ron 

11 agrees with the NIOSH initial responses. And 

12 he says -- I don't know if you want to walk 

13 through this, Wanda. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it's 

15 questionable whether we're up to it. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: And there's also the 

18 fact that you haven't had an opportunity to 

19 change the status in the database. So they're 

20 all still showing as #open.# 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, they would be 

22 open until the workgroup tells us to change 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 them. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Right. So if we want 

3 to start with 0013 -- you did say 0013, right? 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I did say 

5 OTIB-0013. Let me see if I can get that up 

6 here. 

7 CHAIR MUNN: There it is. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: There it is right 

9 here. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And this one is not 

12 in there. Make a liar out of me. No. This 

13 is OTIBs. I'm sorry. OTIB-0013. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Did I understand you 

15 correctly, Steve? We now have NIOSH responses 

16 here, but there are only two of them that SC&A 

17 has actually had an opportunity to -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: There is only a 

19 handful of them that SC&A has had an 

20 opportunity to evaluate and make a 

21 recommendation as to status change. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: What is the desire of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 the group? It would be my inclination to look 

2 specifically at those that we now have a NIOSH 

3 initial response and an SC&A reaction to, 

4 since it probably wouldn't be of a great deal 

5 of value for us to look at the NIOSH response 

6 without an SC&A reaction. 

7 What is your desire? Do you want 

8 to look at all of the initial responses here 

9 or do you want to just address the ones that 

10 SC&A has a response to? 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we are going 

12 to run out of time. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we want to do 

15 something, there are a number of them that we 

16 can probably clear out the decks pretty fast. 

17 We want to at least do a little bit of it. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do we have the 

19 SC&A responses? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: To only a few. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, we don't have 

22 any of the SC&A responses. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 233

1 MR. MARSCHKE: What would happen, 

2 Mark, is I would have to take the SC&A -- I'm 

3 the only one who has the SC&A responses. It 

4 came in, I think yesterday, from Ron Buchanan. 

5 And so I didn't get time to distribute it to 

6 even Wanda. 

7 What I would do is I would take the 

8 SC&A recommendation or responses and drop it 

9 into the O drive. And if you are on the O 

10 drive, then you should be able to pick it up. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was only 

12 referring to those where you have indicated 

13 that you agree with the NIOSH responses are 

14 the easiest to handle. I don't know how long 

15 the Chair wishes to keep going, but I think we 

16 will soon run out of steam here. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We will run out 

18 of steam, which is why I had suggested that we 

19 address only the items that SC&A may have some 

20 response reaction to already. 

21 All right. I guess -- 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, there is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 somewhere NIOSH indicated that they agreed 

2 with the finding. I mean, OTIB-0006-03, NIOSH 

3 initial response, "NIOSH agrees with the 

4 finding and is prepared to revise the 

5 document." That's pretty easy to handle. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: We can put it in 

8 abeyance right away. Other ones are more 

9 complex. And I think we'd have to study both 

10 the NIOSH response and the SC&A response to 

11 the response. That's a little hard to do on 

12 the fly. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, it is. 

14 But, you see, when we are looking at something 

15 like the item that you mentioned, 0006-03, the 

16 only real action that we can accomplish right 

17 now is to change it from, change the status 

18 from #open# to -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- #in abeyance.# 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: In abeyance. 

22 That's why I said I'm looking for easy things 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 to do. 

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Picking the low 

4 fruit. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: There is an item, 

6 let's not walk away from it. 0006-03. Agreed? 

7 The group agrees this status should be in 

8 abeyance. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I am even a 

10 little fuzzy on it. At this hour, I hate to 

11 bring this notion up, but when you said that 

12 NIOSH agrees and is going to revise the OTIB, 

13 and then we're moving in abeyance-- this is 

14 the age-old problem I have had with some of 

15 this stuff, that I don't understand what that 

16 means. 

17 Are they going to revise it exactly 

18 as SC&A requested or -- 

19 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know, we don't 

21 know how they're addressing it. So isn't that 

22 in progress until we see how they have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 236

1 addressed it or -- 

2 CHAIR MUNN: No. In abeyance means 

3 there is a direct action that is outstanding 

4 for NIOSH to provide a revision. And until 

5 they provide a revision, then SC&A can't 

6 respond to it in one way or another. 

7 Once SC&A responds to it, then we 

8 have findings, additional findings, that put 

9 it back in the in-process action for this 

10 group to address. 

11 But in abeyance specifically says 

12 there is another document coming, and we can't 

13 go further until it gets here. That's what 

14 #in abeyance# means. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

16 fine. 

17 MS. THOMAS: And this finding was 

18 kind of a generic one about organization and 

19 prioritizing and the structure of the OTIB. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: It's in abeyance. 

21 Yes. Very good. All right. Then do we have 

22 any others of similar nature? Is that true of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 the other OTIB-0006 items as well? No. That 

2 was one I was looking at earlier. That's a 

3 different kettle of fish. We can't do that 

4 one summarily. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: There are some easy 

6 ones, actually. There is one, PR-008, issues 

7 01 and 02. PR-008 is going to be canceled or 

8 revised. And so, really, PR-008-01 and 02 

9 will also go into abeyance until the document 

10 is either canceled or revised. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the 

12 procedure on how to prepare PRs. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: PR-008. There it is. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: PR-008-01. 

15 Basically NIOSH agrees with your response. 

16 And the PRA process has changed significantly. 

17 CHAIR MUNN: #PR-008 will either be 

18 revised or canceled until such time as PR 

19 activity resumes and the PR process is 

20 clarified." 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: "And the SC&A 

22 response is not shown, but we agree with that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 approach. And we would recommend putting this 

2 in abeyance. 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Any problems with 

4 putting that one in abeyance? 

5 (No response.) 

6 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds appropriate. 

7 Let's do it. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Another one that we 

9 might do quickly is OTIB-0050-02. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, before we leave 

11 PR-008, number 2 -- 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: PR-008? 

13 CHAIR MUNN: PR-008-02. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: That would be the 

15 same thing. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: It says essentially 

17 the same thing, doesn't it? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: I would think so. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: "NIOSH expects the 

20 finding will be rendered moot because of the 

21 impending calculation or revision." So that 

22 would be another #in abeyance.# 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 And now what were you referencing, 

2 Paul? 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's on their other 

4 list. It's OTIB-0050-02. The response is 

5 that OTIB-0050 has been canceled and its 

6 guidance incorporated into the site profile, 

7 where a revision is not needed. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Which one are you 

9 on, Paul? 

10 CHAIR MUNN: 0050-02, OTIB-0050-02. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's on page 14 of 

12 the other document. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically Ron 

14 Buchanan responded to 0050-02, agrees with the 

15 NIOSH response that this guidance appropriated 

16 into the revised site profile, OTIB-050 

17 deleted, and this is no longer an issue, and 

18 recommends the status be changed to #in 

19 abeyance.# I don't know why he wants to 

20 change to in abeyance. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Well, would that not 

22 apply, then, to all of the OTIB-0050 issues? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Unless they get 

2 transferred to some other -- 

3 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one, item 01, 

4 for example, says, "Modification definition is 

5 needed, since OTIB has been canceled and this 

6 guidance incorporated in the site profile." 

7 And, again, in the second paragraph 

8 -- 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: That would apply to 

10 01 as well. 02, I guess -- 

11 CHAIR MUNN: Three. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Is there a 3? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

14 got a response. 

15 CHAIR MUNN: We don't have anything 

16 from -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We didn't get an 

18 initial response from NIOSH on 03. 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Three and 04. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we got one on 

21 04, but we didn't get one on 03. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Nothing on 03. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: That really takes 

2 care of 04 in the same way, though, doesn't 

3 it? 

4 CHAIR MUNN: It does take care of 

5 04 as I see it, but that still leaves us with 

6 the question of why no response for 03. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: So basically we are 

8 basically going to close off all the OTIB-0050 

9 issues because the OTIB has been deleted, due 

10 to the fact that the OTIB has been deleted. 

11 Is that what is going here? 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are they closed 

13 during abeyance? 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. That's -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, here in a 

16 minute I will tell you how -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: And if it has already 

18 been -- 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: If it has already 

20 been canceled, we have got nothing to do. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: And if the 

22 incorporation into the site profile has, in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 fact, occurred, then it's done. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, the question 

3 is, the way it was incorporated into the site 

4 profile, is the comment still germane now 

5 through the site profile? Does it get 

6 transferred? Does the comment get closed or 

7 get transferred to the site profile? 

8 CHAIR MUNN: Now, the question 

9 arises as to whether #in abeyance# applies to 

10 SC&A as it does to NIOSH? If we say, "in 

11 abeyance" here, and the action item is yours 

12 to review the site profile to assure that your 

13 concerns have now been addressed, then that 

14 would seem appropriate since we have said 

15 earlier that when we have an issue like this 

16 that is transferred somewhere else, that that 

17 thread will be followed through to assure. 

18 It seems appropriate that in 

19 abeyance in this case would apply to SC&A's 

20 verifying that their concerns have now been 

21 addressed in the site profile. #In abeyance# 

22 seems to be the appropriate -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I would call it #in 

2 progress# myself, because #in abeyance# to me 

3 is a specific situation where there is 

4 agreement on the resolution and you are 

5 waiting for resolution to occur. 

6 In this case, there is still 

7 discussion about the technical quality of now 

8 the site profile, this issue as to the site 

9 profile. This sounds like #in progress.# 

10 CHAIR MUNN: In progress, with the 

11 workgroup instruction that SC&A will verify 

12 that the finding is properly addressed in the 

13 site profile. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that would be 

15 true for 01, 02, and 04. Is that correct? 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It would 

17 probably end up being true for 03, too. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I could send you 

19 03. I can tell you now what it delivers 

20 because I had questions about what it meant. 

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: And so since it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 would be relevant, I'll send that over to 

2 Steve. I'll send it to the workgroup. It 

3 won't be for inclusion in the database. 

4 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It will be for, you 

6 know, if it's informative or not on their work 

7 on the site profile. 

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine, or we can 

9 leave it open, whichever. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, I'll send 

11 it. I've got it. I just didn't send it to 

12 the workgroup because I had questions about 

13 what it meant. 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So 01 is going to 

16 be changed to -- 

17 CHAIR MUNN: One, 02, and 04. As 

18 much as I would like for us to continue doing 

19 what we're doing here, I think we're all 

20 drooping pretty badly. 

21 And there is one item that I wanted 

22 to make sure that we did discuss. I mentioned 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 it in my most recent e-mail message to you. 

2 It's the item that said we wanted to discuss 

3 prioritizing what we do here. 

4 We have tried to get away a little 

5 bit from a process that we fell into early in 

6 the game where we were addressing things that 

7 were pressing on us most currently, and tried 

8 to move to a situation where we covered all of 

9 those things that we have been missing out on 

10 because we keep running out of time. 

11 The question is going to I think be 

12 more obvious to us as time goes on, that 

13 although going through these items in a 

14 regulated process manner, as we have done here 

15 today, will get us far, especially as long as 

16 Steve can continue to do these things live and 

17 we can update the O drive literally while 

18 we're sitting here. That is very beneficial. 

19 Nevertheless, that doesn't change 

20 the fact that we do have outstanding items 

21 which continue to pressure us. It would be 

22 helpful if we had a feeling from everyone on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 the Board and from the agencies as to whether 

2 or not the course we're on right now seems to 

3 be a legitimate one, or whether we need to 

4 prioritize the work that we do in a different 

5 manner. 

6 If anyone else has any feelings 

7 about that, this would be an excellent time to 

8 tell me about it. Otherwise we are likely to 

9 pretty much continue the process we're on 

10 right now, with my providing you as much of an 

11 action item list-- as I have a long one today, 

12 more than usual-- with pressing items being 

13 addressed as they come before us. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: The only document 

15 that I have that may have any particular 

16 priority, at least that comes to mind, is the 

17 recent review of residual contamination of 

18 OTIB and which one is -- 0070, OTIB-0070? I 

19 am not 100 percent the document is done. You 

20 have to review, but I think it might be done. 

21 And the findings aren't enumerated in a 

22 database. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 CHAIR MUNN: No, but there has been 

2 a great deal of conversation about -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: That document has 

4 formed the basis of a number of residual 

5 radioactivity periods, and the discussion or 

6 debate about the appropriateness of those 

7 approaches sort of waiting for that 

8 discussion, appropriateness of discussion 

9 because those approaches kind of lean on 0007. 

10 So the ones that are out there, 

11 that to me is the one where there are some 

12 dealings that I know of, really where there is 

13 some emphasis in trying to get the resolution 

14 through. 

15 And then you talk about tritides. 

16 I suppose that would be relevant. And, all of 

17 a sudden, we're going to have a tritide. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: I think we will 

19 continue to have 0066 and 0052 before us very 

20 clearly until we work them through to an 

21 appropriate end. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Fifty-two is not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 stopping. We are continuing to use 0052. In 

2 fact, well, for that matter, we are continuing 

3 to use the approaches that base their base on 

4 0072. 

5 MR. KATZ: My perspective is, just 

6 as we did start today with OTIB-0066, for 

7 example, where you have ones that either OCAS 

8 realizes our priority, for some reason, or I 

9 think it wouldn't be a bad idea also to poll 

10 the other working groups since they, in 

11 effect, rely on this working group for some 

12 progress, occasionally poll them for their 

13 priority items. I think it would always be 

14 good to have up front the priority items and 

15 then work through on a regular basis on 

16 everything else, but obviously if there are 

17 matters that one workgroup or another are more 

18 important to be dealt with in a timely basis 

19 first, then we would want to do that for a 

20 workgroup. You want to have those up front. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it's 

22 helpful to focus and identify, too, what they 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 seek down the road as being critical. And 

2 there's no reason we can't jump on those 

3 things as soon as they are available. And 

4 then in the absence of that, we continue down 

5 the list, it seems to me. 

6 CHAIR MUNN: Mark? Have you left 

7 us? Have you left us? 

8 MR. KATZ: Mark? 

9 CHAIR MUNN: It sounds like Mark 

10 has had all he can take. Anyone else have any 

11 observations, thoughts, comments? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, just in terms 

13 of closure activity, some of these things we 

14 have interviewed are pretty administrative. I 

15 mean, they are reviews of old PER documents, 

16 which are essentially history. 

17 You know, they're in the bank. And 

18 there's pretty much nothing that is going to 

19 change on those anyway. 

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I would maybe 

22 suggest a pretty quick look at some of those. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 It might be appropriate to just look at the 

2 responses. I think we have got some responses 

3 on some of the PERs in the database now. 

4 I think if you can take a quick 

5 look at them, you're going to be able to see 

6 there is not a lot to discuss there, because 

7 these are essentially done deals. And they 

8 are not guiding any current or future 

9 activities. 

10 They describe something that was 

11 done in the past. So they might be some 

12 quick, easy closures, too, but I don't mean to 

13 imply that all of those are hyper or just kind 

14 of effortless. And you can kind of clean it 

15 up without a lot of effort. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, did you 

17 just call on me? 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, yes, I did. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry. I did 

20 hear. I stepped away from the phone for a 

21 second. I did hear OTIB-0070, too. I think 

22 that's also on the agenda for discussion 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 during one of the other workgroups. So it 

2 might be that we're going to work that with 

3 the Dow stuff. I saw a note from Jim Melius 

4 about convening that workgroup soon. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, 

6 certainly Dow is one of the sites that it 

7 affects. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. 

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, if we don't have 

10 any further comment, then, it sounds to me as 

11 though we have a fairly good idea of how to 

12 proceed. And we'll continue pretty much as we 

13 did today, with one or two different changes 

14 along the way as the need arises, and perhaps 

15 a little effort to take a look at a PER or 

16 two. 

17 Any other thoughts for the good of 

18 the order? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: You keep talking 

20 about a meeting in Atlanta or Augusta for the 

21 next Board meeting. 

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We're all over the 

2 place. Sometimes we're in Savannah. 

3 Sometimes we're in Atlanta. But the next 

4 Board meeting -- 

5 CHAIR MUNN: I like to move you 

6 around Georgia. 

7 MR. KATZ: Do we need to set a date 

8 for that? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I am kind of 

10 curious about that. We've got a really full 

11 agenda. I mean, that Board meeting might be 

12 three full days. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is going to be 

14 three full days. I'm fairly sure. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And so if we're 

16 going to do this, are you talking about do it 

17 in the evening or are you talking about doing 

18 it Monday afternoon or what? 

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was thinking 

20 in terms of Monday afternoon, actually, 

21 because it is on the East Coast. I think 

22 almost everybody here is going to have an easy 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 time getting there. I'll be doing my usual 

2 weekend travel anyway. 

3 Mark, are you assuming a 

4 subcommittee meeting on Tuesday? 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. I just 

6 e-mailed Ted today that I would like to get a 

7 subcommittee, actually, for November and not 

8 have it attached to the Advisory Board, 

9 because I feel like in the past, it has been 

10 too much. And it almost ends up being more of 

11 a summary than a full working meeting. So I 

12 would rather separate it from those full Board 

13 meetings. 

14 MR. KATZ: So, Mark, in November we 

15 have perhaps three working group meetings that 

16 are going to be shooting for November or the 

17 very beginning of December. So you might want 

18 to think about November or the first week of 

19 December as well. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sure. I know the 

21 calendar is filling up on everybody quickly, 

22 too. I will look at my calendar and get out 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 some potential dates for that. But I am not 

2 looking to link it to the full Board meeting 

3 because I just think it gets too busy and too 

4 much to do, too much prep also. 

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Then for your 

6 information, I won't be in person at your 

7 subcommittee meeting, but I will try to get in 

8 on the phone. 

9 MR. KATZ: So, Wanda, are you 

10 tentatively looking at the -- 

11 CHAIR MUNN: I am tentatively 

12 looking at the afternoon of the 15th. 

13 MR. KATZ: The 15th? 

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Is the afternoon 

15 of the 15th doable for you, Mark? 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. It makes for 

17 a long week, but yes, that's fine. Yes. 

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does make for 

19 a long week. But the options are not good, 

20 for me certainly. And we'll all be spending 

21 the whole week before that involved in Board 

22 activities anyway. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 So if that's all right with 

2 everybody sitting here, we'll just plan on 

3 roughly 1:00 p.m. 

4 MR. KATZ: I don't know what time 

5 people want. Maybe 1:30. I don't know what 

6 people's flights will be. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think our travel 

8 is pretty good. 

9 MR. KATZ: Is it? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'll go to 

11 Atlanta and probably over. Of course, it's 

12 still a two-hour drive. 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Or we could fly to 

15 Columbia. 

16 MR. KATZ: But you would be flying 

17 in the morning on that Monday. So you might 

18 want to make it 1:30 or something, and give 

19 people more breathing room. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I haven't 

21 looked at the flights. I don't know. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: You can't fly into 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 Augusta. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: You can, but 

3 there's not much traffic. There are flights 

4 into Augusta. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not a lot of 

6 options. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: But there are not 

8 many options. Apparently they get canceled 

9 pretty frequently. 

10 CHAIR MUNN: 1:30, then, 1:30 until 

11 5:30 -- 

12 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

13 CHAIR MUNN: -- or possibly 6:00 if 

14 we are awake and functioning. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. Sounds good. 

16 CHAIR MUNN: Then we will see you 

17 in the sunny South on the 15th if the creeks 

18 don't rise. 

19 MR. KATZ: Are we adjourned? 

20 CHAIR MUNN: We are now officially 

21 adjourned. 

22 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 257

1 was concluded at 4:36 p.m.)