THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


WORKING GROUP 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


PROCEDURES REVIEW
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on Nov. 


7, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES
 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

Nov. 7, 2007 


OPENING REMARKS 


MATRIX CONSTRUCTION 11 


ACTION ITEMS 55 


RESUME MATRIX ITEMS 91 


DISCUSSION OF THIRD SET 140 


RECAP OF ACTION ITEMS 144 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 148 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- “^”/(inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies 


speaker failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 

 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAU 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 


SIEBERT, STEVE, ORAU 


SMITH, MATTHEW, ORAU 


THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

NOV. 7, 2007 


(10:00 a.m.) 


OPENING REMARKS


 DR. WADE: This is the work group on 


Procedures of the Advisory Board chaired by 


Ms. Munn, members Gibson, Griffon, Ziemer, 


Robert Presley is an alternate. I’ve 


identified that Munn, Gibson and Ziemer are on 


the call. Is Mark Griffon with us? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Are there any other Board members 


on the call other than those identified as 


members or alternates to the work group? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so we have three members of 


the work group. There are four regular 


members, and that’s fine. We don’t have a 


quorum of the Board. What I would do is ask 


that we do some introductions so that we all 


know, particularly the principals. And let’s 


start with members of NIOSH or the ORAU 


extended team who are on the call, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

participating actively on the call. 


Again, this is Lew Wade. I work for 


the NIOSH Director, and I serve as the DFO for 


the Advisory Board. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I 


serve as the Director for the Office of 


Compensation Analysis and Support. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld, 


Technical Program Manager for OCAS in 


Cincinnati. 


 DR. WADE: Other NIOSH/ORAU team members? 


 MS. THOMAS: This is Elyse Thomas with the 


O-R-A-U team. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Elyse. 


MR. SMITH: Matt Smith, the ORAU team. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU team. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


Other NIOSH or ORAU? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: How about SC&A team? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John Mauro from the 


SC&A team. 


MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling of SC&A. 


DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Other members of the SC&A team? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Are there other federal employees 


who are working on this call? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with HHS. 


MS. CHANG: This is Chia-Chia Chang with 


NIOSH. I did not get Wanda’s agenda. Could 


someone e-mail that to me, please? 


MR. ELLIOTT: I’ll send it to you, Chia-


Chia, Larry. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Hey, Larry, I didn’t get 


it either, and I assume that Emily probably 


didn’t. Can you include us on that e-mail? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Will do. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thanks. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, beyond Chia-Chia, any other 


feds on the line? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew, Emily Howell should 


be joining us in a few minutes. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch is here with Labor. 


 DR. WADE: Jeff, as always, welcome, thank 


you for joining us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

Other feds? 


Are there workers, petitioners, 


representatives of members of Congress or 


anyone else who would like to be identified 


for the record as being on this call? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Any others who’d like to be 


identified? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: One last caution about etiquette. 


We’re doing real well. We had a rough call 


last week I believe it was so again, if at all 


possible, mute the instrument that you’re 


using if you’re not speaking, obviously. Try 


and use a handset when you speak although we 


do understand Wanda’s special circumstances, 


the Chair. 


But again, for the rest of us try and 


use a handset if at all possible and be very 


aware of background noises. Last week we had 


someone who had put the phone on hold and then 


the background music would play, and it’s 


impossible to conduct business. So think 


about those things as you do business. 


As I had mentioned to the work group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

Chair, I’ll have to leave this call in a half 


an hour or so, and I’ll identify when I do. 


Chia-Chia Chang will serve as designated 


federal official and Emily and Liz are on the 


call to deal with any legal issues. If I have 


to be reached, Chia-Chia has a number to reach 


me. So, Wanda, please begin. 


MR. GRIFFON: Hey, Wanda and Lew, this is 


Mark Griffon. I joined after you were already 


in the middle of introductions. 


 DR. WADE: Good, Mark, thank you, now the 


work group is whole. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, did you get the agenda all 


right? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did. Thank you, 


Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: And Liz and Emily, I should be 


including you as a standard thing on the 


distribution. I guess I haven’t been doing 


that. If one of you would send me at your 


convenience telling me which or both of you 


you would like to have notified when I send 


these things out, I’ll include you in a 


standard mailing. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, that would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

great. We’ll provide you with our e-mail 


addresses. 


MATRIX CONSTRUCTION
 

MS. MUNN: Now then we are hoping that all 


of the members of our work group have in their 


hands a copy of the format, the suggested 


format that our subgroup worked with Kathy on 


putting together earlier in the week. Do you 


all have that? 


(Members replied affirmatively.) 


MS. MUNN: Good, I sent it out and hoped 


you’d have an opportunity by now to take a 


look at it. I think what the subgroup tried 


to do was to capture all of the issues that we 


had discussed in full work group sessions 


while we were in Naperville. Kathy very 


helpfully put this all together for us and 


after some suggestions that she got back from 


us, provided us with this sample of what the 


entire package would look like. 


As you probably are aware just from 


thinking about it, issues tracking matrix for 


the Procedures review is going to be a bulky 


document. So I hope that as we seek 


resolution on something, that page will drop 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

out of our active group and go into what would 


be an archival that we’ve done. But the 


issues tracking system, the one-liner, would 


in my view continue to accumulate as we go 


along. 


Kathy, was that your thinking? Am I 


correctly having what you had in mind when you 


put this together? 


MS. BEHLING: Well, I’m going to defer that 


question to John. He has made up this more 


complex matrix initially, and I’m not sure if 


he thought that these longer one-page matrices 


would go away at some point in time. But I 


believe that was the thought, that once an 


issue has been resolved it would be something 


that would be archived. But we would still be 


able to track it through the table up front, 


the one-liners, to let us know that, yes, this 


item has been closed. 


Am I correct there, John? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in fact, I guess where we 


are right now in our thinking is that the one-


liners won’t be always complete. In fact, as 


I understand it, direction from the previous 


work group meeting, the one-liners would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

contain all, the first set, the second set and 


the recently issued third set. So in one 


place there would be one line assigned to each 


finding associated with every procedure ever 


reviewed collectively on the project. And 


that would be, stand as a living document. 


It would probably be on the order of 


ten or 12 pages. I think it’s about seven 


pages right now and contains many or hundreds 


of findings. But they would all be there so 


that one could quickly go down the one-liners 


and see which ones are open, which ones are 


closed, which ones have been transferred. So, 


yeah, we did not anticipate that would be 


archived. That would always be complete. 


Now with regard to the more extensive 


sheets, the one where you have all the dates, 


the tracking, which I will eventually get 


into, we could either way. Namely, we could 


keep, right now I guess my thought was we 


would keep them, the set, like for example the 


set you have right now before you that we 


prepared originally, and now, of course, we’ve 


been revising. The idea was that that would 


be coupled back to one of the three-ring 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

binder reports. 


In other words, there would be, 


there’s a three-ring binder for set one. 


There’s a three-ring binder for set two, and 


now recently you received a three-ring binder 


for set three. And that the question we could 


ask you I guess really now I’ll punt back, 


right now the thought was that we’d have a 


complete thick package for, a separate one for 


the first set, a separate one for the second 


set, and a separate one for the third set. 


However, if you would like, we could integrate 


that just like we’re integrating the one-


liners. 


And also if you would like, as issues 


or findings are closed or transferred -- this 


is your call, of course, closed would be more 


appropriate -- we could pull that from the 


big, thick package or not. I mean, that’s 


really, so we would have one which we would 


call our working package which would only 


contain open and active findings. But behind 


that, of course, in the archives there would 


be a complete package which would have 


everything in it. So we’re available to do it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

whatever way you folks would like. 


DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, this is Ziemer. I’d 


like to make a suggestion on that. I think 


John’s suggestion that we have an open working 


set of papers is more practical. I don’t 


think we want a new copy every time of closed 


items and all those pages. Once an item is 


closed, I’d like to see it archived. We could 


all have the binders or whatever with the 


closed items in it. 


But I don’t think every time we meet, 


we’re going to want to have a new copy of 


those closed items. It would seem to me that 


just the open items, we would have the packet 


of the open items which are ones which are 


changing each time we meet. Once they’re 


closed it seems to me it makes, there’s no 


reason to get a fresh copy of the closed items 


every time. 


MS. MUNN: I agree. 


Other feelings about that? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, I agree with that. 


MS. MUNN: My only variance with John’s 


vision is a small one. I’d envisioned first 


of all binders with the original findings in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

them which we probably will read at the time 


that they come to us and more than likely will 


not refer to very often after that. But that 


whole point in this matrix is to capture the 


essence of the findings, all of them. There 


would be, once issued and separated into the 


matrix, they would become a part of the 


archive itself. My vision would be that our 


active list, our active package, would 


include, would be both the one-liners and the 


individual pages for the open ^. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, this is Ziemer. I agree 


with that. I think that makes sense to have 


the, the summary should have everything on it 


as John described it, but as far as the 


detail, the working package would be the open 


items. 


MS. MUNN: If we, other people plan to do 


this individually, but my thinking was I would 


put together a gigantic three-ring binder with 


those two items in it. And as we close items, 


I would remove that sheet and place it in the 


archives as a closed item that would show on 


our one-liner but not elsewhere. So that’s my 


personal view of how I expect to juggle that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

Anyone else? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is Ziemer again. I 


just want to ask. You had a working group of 


the working group last week, and what was 


their sort of overall conclusion on the sample 


tracking matrix that John provided or Kathy 


provided? 


MS. MUNN: We were pretty much of a mind in 


the framework of what I’ve just given you 


without that just one or two twitches, we may 


need some minor revisions of one sort or 


another. But that primary change that we 


made, the original draft that was provided to 


us for our -- was to make sure that dates were 


added to all of these activities so that we 


could track the procedures that we’re looking 


at alphabetically. 


And it gets confusing jumping back and 


forth from the first group to the second group 


to the third group. There’s no rhyme or 


reason to the order in which these things 


could be coming to us before. Suggested that 


the order be alphabetized, that we add the 


date column so that it’s easy to find the item 


alphabetically. There’s the one-liner or the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

complex. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. I have a 


point of clarification regarding what you just 


stated. When we compile these lists, whether 


they’re the one-liners or the more complete 


documents, you had mentioned alphabetical. 


When we last spoke it was my understanding 


that they would be first grouped of whether 


they were OTIBs or OCAS documents. 


In other words, O-R-A-U-T documents or 


OCAS documents. And then within that grouping 


they would be grouped according to their 


number, namely, the lowest number first, you 


know, OTIB-0001, OTIB-0002, OTIB-0003 would be 


the order in which they would appear under the 


category called OCAS as opposed to 


alphabetical. We certainly could do it 


alphabetical according to title, but when we 


last spoke I did get the impression that we 


were leaning more toward numerical sequencing. 


MS. MUNN: Numerical sequencing after they 


have been sorted by their alphanumeric. The 


order in which Kathy provided the one-liners 


is exactly what I had in mind. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

DR. ZIEMER: Could you clarify -- this is 


Ziemer again -- so they would be sorted first 


as to whether they’re an OCAS or an OTIB or 


whatever and then by number? 


MS. MUNN: It would be sorted as to whether 


they were OCAS or ORAUT and then by number. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yes, okay, thank you. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, good. When you said 


alphabetical I was thrown a bit by that. I 


wasn’t quite sure what you were referring to. 


MS. MUNN: Well, to me, in my mind that’s 


alphabetized. 


DR. ZIEMER: Is the sample matrix that was 


sent out and dated modified on the seventh of 


November? Is that the one that was modified 


based on the subgroup’s review? 


MS. MUNN: Working draft and drafts that 


have the date 11/5/2007 on them. 


DR. ZIEMER: Eleven-five. 


MS. MUNN: The date that’s on the --


DR. ZIEMER: Was on the document itself. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, right now I’m looking at 


the file that you distributed, the one-liners, 


and on the bottom as a footer it has a date 


11/7/2007. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that’s what mine shows, 


11/7. I don’t see 11/5. 


MS. MUNN: That’s fine. 


DR. ZIEMER: Does that one include the 


recommendations from the subgroup then? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it does. 


DR. ZIEMER: I thought it looked very good. 


I think it will be extremely helpful in 


tracking issue resolution on all of these, and 


I’m hopeful that a similar methodology can be 


used by some of the other groups as they track 


issues. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. There’s 


one other aspect of the question I raised 


earlier that I don’t think we addressed. That 


is, for the big document that we’re going to 


be tracking, whether it’s the subset which is 


the active ones or the completed archived one 


which has everything, do you want us to 


integrate this first set, second set and third 


set into one master matrix? Or do you want to 


keep those separate where they key back to the 


individual deliverable, three-ring binder 


deliverable? 


MS. MUNN: Well, it was my understanding 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

from the subgroup that it is our desire that 


all of them be incorporated into a single 


item. That was one of the reasons why we 


thought the date was so important; as long as 


we have the date column there it’s easy to 


identify whether that item came from group 


one, group two or group three. 


DR. MAURO: Very good. No problem. 


MS. BEHLING: Wanda, just for one 


clarification from me. This is Kathy Behling. 


I assume you’re talking about the roll-up 


table or that summary table; we’re going to 


include all procedures that have been done in 


that summary table, correct? 


MS. MUNN: That’s correct. 


DR. MAURO: But what I’m hearing is not only 


does it apply to the one-liner table, it also 


applies to the big table. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it does. So we want, 


instead of having little slumps that we can’t 


identify because we think of them in terms of 


alphanumeric designations and to have to think 


then whether they are set one, set two or set 


three is too much of a confusing factor. All 


of the items on which we’re working will go 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

into one table, both the one-liners and the 


more complex. It will all be one group, all 


be organized in the alphanumeric order that we 


originally discussed. The date will identify 


for us whether it was from the first set, the 


second set or the third set. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, in that connection then 


as I look at the, I guess you’d call it a 


sample roll up, all of these seem to have the 


same dates. What’s an example of --


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling, and I 


can answer that question. The reason these 


all have the same date is because these were 


all associated with the second set of 


procedures that we submitted to the Board. 


That’s why --


DR. ZIEMER: The full table would have a 


whole other group which would have the earlier 


date, and then there would be yet another 


group? 


MS. BEHLING: That’s correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: For example, then, what you’re 


saying, let’s take OTIB-0017, there would be 


perhaps some earlier OTIB-0017 findings, and 


then these 6/28 findings, and then some later 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

OTIB-0017 findings? 


MS. BEHLING: Right, that’s correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I got you, so they would 


just be inserted in here. 


MS. MUNN: Right, that’s how the work group 


perceived it so that we would at all times be 


working from a list that would give us all of 


the findings from any given procedure. The 


date would key us whether they were group one, 


group two --


DR. MAURO: And you know what’s good about 


this as you pointed out in, for example, OTIB0017. If we did go through multiple reviews, 


let’s say the first set and then the second 


set we reviewed a new version, it would all 


appear under one-liners --


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and in the major document 


right adjacent to each other. Yeah, that’s 


good. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. The 


only thing that I want to make mention of here 


is if we, I wasn’t convinced, I wasn’t sure 


that we were going to go back to the first set 


of procedures that we reviewed and take that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

matrix and convert it into this format. And 


that’s fine. I just want to caution everyone 


that that’s going to take quite a bit of 


effort just because in order to capture what 


happened in each of the working group 


meetings, I assume it will mean going back to 


transcripts, and it will require some effort. 


MS. MUNN: I don’t think it was the intent 


of the subgroup that we go to that extensive 


effort, Kathy. I think it was the intent to 


simply transfer, to see that those items were 


placed on the roll up, but as far as the 


individual pages were concerned, that only 


information that is on the existing matrix be 


transferred. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, I misunderstood that. 


That’s fine, okay, thank you. 


DR. MAURO: Kathy, what I put together, my 


first draft of the big matrix for the second 


set, I had that problem. That is, we did have 


three working group meetings, and the 


particular package that I put together for 


consideration by the working group only picked 


up from the October 2nd, the previous two are 


not actually captured. In other words we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

don’t have any material that goes for the two 


earlier ones. 


So what I did is simply say, listen, 


we’re starting this with the October 2nd
 

working group, and I put a little asterisk 


next to it saying, listen, keep in mind that 


the information you’re looking here has been 


captured that was discussed previously, but we 


didn’t break it out by date. Because I didn’t 


go back to the transcripts for the two earlier 


working group meetings because that would have 


been a heroic effort. 


So I think that maybe the way we can 


make sure we, when we do this integrated, 


combined package including the first set, I 


think we just capture the where it is but not 


try to resurrect and reconstruct the history 


according by date of working group. We may 


want to indicate that there were three or four 


working group meetings or whatever to get us 


to the point that we reached. 


But to try to flesh out what happened 


in each working group meeting, that would be 


quite an effort. And I don’t know whether it 


would really add that much value at this point 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

in the process. 


DR. ZIEMER: So I think we use this going 


forward. 


DR. MAURO: Going forward, exactly, yes. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good, thank you for 


the clarification. 


DR. ZIEMER: I mean, what’s already been 


done and particularly items closed, we don’t 


have to go back and reconstruct all that at 


this point. 


MS. MUNN: No, they’ll be on the roll up. 


DR. ZIEMER: The purpose of the document is 


really to help us in the resolution process, 


and going back and reconstructing stuff that 


occurred a year or two or three ago, it won’t 


help us any I don’t think. 


MS. MUNN: I agree, and it was not the 


intent of the subgroup anyway for that 


extensive archive of what transpired during 


that step forward. 


We’re clear where we’re going. Do we 


have any idea how long it might take us to 


have that matrix in hand? That’s the only 


reason I’m really concerned about that because 


I have an eye to our next scheduled meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

which is a face-to-face meeting in Cincinnati 


on December the 11th, and we’re hopeful that a 


new matrix format might be available for us 


before that time. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I’ll make an 


attempt to put the entire matrix together by 


December 11th . 


MS. MUNN: Good, it would be very helpful if 


we had, if we could begin to work from that 


new matrix. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 


MS. MUNN: If it’s impossible, let us know, 


but otherwise it would be great if we could 


have that. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, I will do that. 


MS. MUNN: Any other comments with regard to 


the new matrix format? 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, by way of clarification 


to make sure that we’re looking at this the 


same way, I have in front of me the first page 


of what’s called Sample Number One where we, 


this is the sample of the new product that we 


will be putting out. I just want to make sure 


that we’re, in terms of, we understand what 


the format is and the content is, but there’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

also a process issue, and I want to make sure 


that everyone is on board, especially NIOSH 


sees it the same way we do. 


When you look at this format, you’ll 


notice that there’s a, for example, a category 


underneath working group meeting. Like right 


now if you folks have it in front of you, 


you’ll see a date called 11/7/2007, and that’s 


today. And we’re having a working group 


meeting. And you’ll notice underneath that 


there is two columns, one called NIOSH/SC&A 


discussion and one called Work Group 


Directives. 


Now I want to make sure we all see 


this the same way. What I see this as is that 


this conversation that we’re having right now 


somehow is going to be captured in that box. 


After this meeting is over someone, certainly 


we’ll be willing to participate in any way and 


support any way you like, will need to fill in 


we had this working group meeting today, 


11/7/2007, and right underneath that work 


group meeting you’ll see NIOSH/SC&A 


Discussion. Some words need to be put in 


there that says, well, what is it that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

talked about today and the exchange. 


And to the right of that you see 


another box that says Work Group Directives. 


And I would say that underneath that would be 


what direction the working group gave either 


NIOSH or SC&A. For example, just this, what I 


just heard was SC&A received a directive to go 


forward with the preparation of this matrix 


for all three sets of cases and deliver a work 


product to the working group by the December 


11th
 . 


And so I envision that that would go 


in underneath that category. So I just want 


to make sure we all see it the same way. That 


was my interpretation functionally how this 


would work. And that would occur within a 


matter of a day or two after this meeting. 


That is, someone, and myself or Kathy or 


someone from the -- I’m not quite sure how 


you’d like to do it. But that will need to be 


done. 


Then you’ll notice that the next row 


down there’s something called SC&A Follow-Up 


Action. Now that, this again, is a point of 


process clarification. Let’s say we were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

talking about a particular OTIB in this case. 


Let’s say we’re talking about OTIB-0017, and 


one of the items was that after the meeting, 


after today’s meeting, SC&A gets some 


directive that would be in the box called Work 


Group Directives, to do some analysis. Or 


NIOSH is given some directive to do some 


analysis. And that analysis has been done. 


Now my understanding is that prior to 


the next working group meeting, SC&A would 


fill in the box called SC&A Follow-Up Action, 


and we’d fill that information in which would 


be done between now and the next working group 


meeting, and we’d fill it in. Similarly, 


NIOSH would fill in the information called 


NIOSH Follow-Up Action and fill in their 


material so that then we would have our 


working group meeting and then continue the 


process. 


This is how I’m viewing the mechanics 


of implementing this table. Does everyone see 


it the same way? 


MS. MUNN: The process is a major one. It’s 


the only part of what we’re doing that has 


bothered me a little bit personally. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

question arises who owns the document. Who 


has access to the document in terms of what 


goes on it? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is Ziemer. Wanda, I 


think you’re, the Chair’s got to be the 


controller so that you would, I mean, you 


could ask SC&A to draft something, but it 


seems to me, for example, whatever the work 


group directive is you would have to agree 


that that’s what we agreed to, and that would 


go in that column. Take, for example, the 


OTIB-0006 which NIOSH, I think at our last 


meeting there was perhaps a directive or at 


least NIOSH agreed to make some modifications 


and Stu now has provided us with the modified 


-0006 and -0007 and, I think, -0008. 


Right, Stu? 


(no audible response) 


 DR. ZIEMER: And there perhaps would have 


been a directive there, NIOSH will modify 


those in accordance with the discussion. And 


the follow up is NIOSH has done this on a 


certain date and distributed the drafts to the 


committee or something like that. But it 


seems to me whatever goes in there you might 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

ask the contractor to fill that in and then 


bounce it off of you and make sure that it 


agrees with your understanding from what we 


agreed to at the meeting. Someone’s got to be 


the point person on it. It seems to me the 


Chair has got to be kind of the point person 


on resolution just like Mark is on the Dose 


Reconstruction Review. 


MS. MUNN: You’re probably correct, with 


much hesitation, but --


DR. ZIEMER: Well, for example, I think it’s 


our document, it’s the Board’s or the 


subcommittee’s document to assure that the 


resolution process goes forward, so it’s our 


tool. 


MS. MUNN: There’s no question about that. 


The question is whether --


DR. ZIEMER: And again, if the wrong words 


are in, or if we think NIOSH agreed to 


something, and they think they agreed to 


something else or likewise with SC&A, we have 


to make sure we get the right words. So there 


would have to be a kind of preliminary 


completion of those boxes. Maybe at the 


meeting itself we could agree as to what goes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

in there. 


MS. MUNN: Well, at the meeting itself --


DR. ZIEMER: The work group meeting. 


MS. MUNN: -- that the --


DR. ZIEMER: On each item or each issue. 


MS. MUNN: -- I suppose we could make an 


effort to word that --


DR. ZIEMER: I mean, for example, you have 


action items from the Naperville meeting. 


Basically, all of those are what you might 


call the work group directives that’s going in 


those boxes John described, I think. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: That’s true. 


DR. MAURO: That’s what I had in mind that 


this would have the directives. And --


DR. ZIEMER: Basically those are the action 


items. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


DR. ZIEMER: I mean, we’re already doing it. 


They would just show up in the appropriate box 


for each item. For example, here I see an 


action item that says NIOSH will reword OTIB0019 to better reflect actual procedures. 


That would be in essence I think the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

directive. 


MS. MUNN: You’re right. 


DR. ZIEMER: And I don’t think, you know, 


the word directive sounds like we’re, you 


know, do it whether you want to or not, but as 


we all know as we go through this process, 


generally we’re reaching a kind of agreement 


state where the Board says, yes, this is what 


we think should be done. And NIOSH and SC&A 


agree that that’s the direction that should go 


on an item. So it’s a mutual agreement in 


most cases at least. 


MS. MUNN: I think you’re probably correct. 


The concept of wording that needs to go there 


we’re still discussing it, is a good one from 


my point of view because not only does it 


relieve me of the responsibility of wording it 


or of anyone else wording it. It also assures 


that it is going to go on the action item 


which I like. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think if we assume that 


our action items are in essence what the Board 


directive or work group directives are and 


once those are in place and NIOSH and SC&A 


indicate how they will respond or what their 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

status is like revising language or providing 


a draft of something or preparing some kind of 


matrix or whatever it is. 


DR. MAURO: Paul, would you prefer us 


replacing the words Work Group Directives with 


Work Group Action Items? 


MS. MUNN: No, directives is fine because 


sometimes it’s not an action item. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think essentially we’re, it 


is a kind of directive in the sense that the 


contractor is being tasked. We can’t task 


NIOSH, but we can task the contractor. 


MS. MUNN: I think the wording is probably 


fine, John. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: It’s the process that we’re going 


to have to hash into shape here. 


DR. MAURO: I had one related question 


regarding the box underneath where it says 


SC&A Follow Up. Now, very often, not very 


often, but sometimes the follow-up activity 


either by NIOSH or SC&A is a white paper which 


could be lengthy, could be four, five, six 


pages which goes into some depth on the issue. 


My guess is that if the material that would go 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

in the box would be perhaps a white paper was 


issued dated so-and-so, and so that it would 


very briefly summarize the outcome of that 


investigation. So there needs to be a link, 


at least something said --


DR. ZIEMER: You wouldn’t put the white 


paper itself in there, but you --


DR. MAURO: Exactly, exactly, because 


otherwise it would be too lengthy. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. 


MS. MUNN: Might I suggest that we consider 


the paper itself go into the archive? 


DR. ZIEMER: As an attachment. 


MS. MUNN: An attachment to the archive. 


 DR. WADE: Makes sense. Wanda, this is Lew. 


I’m going to have to leave you now, so I wish 


you good luck. But if you need me, you can 


always find me. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you, Lew, and is Chia-Chia 


stepping into your shoes? 


 DR. WADE: She is indeed. 


MS. MUNN: Chia-Chia, may I ask the same 


thing I’ve asked of Lew in the past that you 


assist me in keeping track of the action 


items? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

MS. CHANG: I certainly can. 


MS. MUNN: On this call, so that you and I 


can compare notes afterwards and make sure 


we’re not missing anything. 


MS. CHANG: Good idea. 


MS. MUNN: Ask you to review what you have 


at the end of this call. 


All right, thank you, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Bye-bye. 


DR. MAURO: If I may, Wanda, bring up one 


more item. When I originally worked on the 


first crude draft of the big table, one of the 


things that was essential for me to be able to 


do that was to go back to the minutes, not 


minutes, the transcript of the October, I 


think it was the third working group meeting. 


And Ray was kind enough to forward to me the 


crude, you know, pre-processed transcript 


which is extremely important to me. In other 


words I was able to revisit everything so that 


when I fleshed out the discussion section, the 


action item section, et cetera, in the 


material that I provided, I was able to be 


faithful to what was said at the meeting as 


opposed to relying solely on my scribble in my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

notebook that I take during these meetings. 


And I guess I asked a question to Ray 


and everyone on the working group is to what 


degree do you think it would be of value to 


have available this material relatively 


shortly after the meeting to make sure that we 


flesh out this document in a faithful way to 


the minutes, to the actual transcript of the 


meeting? Is that something that Ray, I guess, 


and everyone aboard, do you think that’s 


something that can be done or should be done? 


MS. MUNN: This is what I indicated to you 


by e-mail that I wanted to discuss with you, 


and it’s something I suppose that we can put 


on the table here if we wish it. There are 


some concerns here. It doesn’t have to do 


necessarily with our Procedures group so much 


as it does with other working groups. 


DR. ZIEMER: Actually, we’ve been relying on 


the designated federal official to help 


establish priorities because we have multiple 


work groups and Ray will have a little 


difficulty if every chairman comes to him and 


wants theirs right now. So there has to be 


some priority, you know, what’s first in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

queue. We can’t ask Ray to determine that for 


himself. 


Each work group chairman probably 


thinks their stuff’s the most important. But 


I think we’re still going to have to rely on 


the designated federal official to serve as a 


sort of our clearing house for establishing 


priorities. And we probably couldn’t always 


guarantee that this set of Procedures would be 


the one that would come out like right away. 


I think it’s going to depend on what 


else is going on. What’s urgent in terms of 


main minutes, and you know, we have members of 


the public from different sites clamoring for 


minutes as well. So you have all of those 


issues that have to be taken into 


consideration. 


I think every effort’s going to be 


made to try to get these transcripts out as 


quickly as possible, but I don’t think, I’m 


not sure we can always guarantee that, for 


example, for this work group that we’re going 


to have them out in whatever timeframe we 


think we need. 


MS. MUNN: Probably what we can say is we’ll 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

do the best we can, John. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


DR. ZIEMER: John, you may be asking, well, 


once they’re out there’s an additional delay 


and that’s the redaction time. And you may be 


asking for can you get the minutes unredacted? 


DR. MAURO: That’s what Ray kind enough sent 


to me very shortly after the meeting. It was, 


you could see that it was still in a rough 


form, and then I just used it for my purposes 


and then destroyed it. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think legally, and Liz or 


Emily can tell me, but I think the contractor 


can have unredacted minutes or transcripts. 


Isn’t that correct? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, federal employees 


and the contractor on a need-to-know basis can 


have an unredacted transcript. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right, but the issue is still 


going to be that of when they can actually be 


made available, to try to get them as soon as 


we can. I don’t know what else we can do at 


that point, John. 


DR. MAURO: That’s fine. We’ve been working 


with the minutes that I write down and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

certainly interfacing with the various other 


folks involved in the meeting to make sure we 


capture correctly our marching orders. That’s 


fine. 


DR. ZIEMER: Then if we have agreed to 


action items that should help also. 


MS. BEHLING: Wanda, if I can just step back 


a second and be sure that I understand the 


process as we’ve discussed it so far and 


correct me if I’m wrong. I assume that after 


working group meeting like today’s meeting, 


possibly somebody like myself will sit down 


and attempt to, to the best of my knowledge 


and my notes here, fill in the NIOSH/SC&A 


discussion box associated with today’s 


meeting. 


During the meeting we will attempt to 


fill in the work group directives as we go 


through each of these procedures. Thereafter, 


I can send that to you and so you can give it 


your blessing. And at that point maybe we can 


send a copy to NIOSH, and we can have a copy. 


And then what I envision thereafter is 


for the follow-up actions, and this is 


typically what I do for the Dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

Reconstruction reviews, is once I have 


completed all follow-up actions for everything 


that we discussed during our working group 


meeting, I take this matrix one time, try to 


fill in everything that I can at that one 


time, send it to you and NIOSH. 


And I believe Stu tries to do the same 


thing. He really only handles the matrix 


maybe one time, fills in all of his action 


items, and then it will go back to you. And 


at that point we would have a matrix that 


would be prepared and ready for the next work 


group meeting which you would send out. 


MS. MUNN: That process sounds reasonable to 


me, Kathy. If it does to the other work group 


members, that’s fine. What I will try to 


incorporate into my personal process is during 


the work group as we identify action items, I 


will try to review them before we get to the 


end of our call in such a way that you can 


capture the words. I would anticipate, I 


think the working group would anticipate being 


^. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 


DR. ZIEMER: I agree. That sounds like a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

good way to proceed. 


MS. MUNN: For instance, right now even 


though we do not have an open matrix item 


before us, the action item that I have for the 


discussion that we’ve just had is simply SC&A 


will keep tracking matrix in a new format by 


December 11th, ’07. That would be if we have a 


matrix on which that goes. That would be the 


type of thing that would go into the 


directives box. 


DR. ZIEMER: And we can have action items 


that are outside of the matrix itself. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we will. 


DR. ZIEMER: I mean, this is a broader 


action item. 


MS. MUNN: Inevitably we’ll do that. 


DR. MAURO: I was just thinking that, Paul, 


mainly right now the way we have formatted 


both the one-liners and the full matrix really 


only addresses individual findings related to 


individual procedures. We are actually right 


now having what I would call an overarching 


discussion that has across the board 


applicability to everything we do. And, of 


course, the matrix is not designed to capture 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

this so right now we do not have a vehicle to 


capture the conversation we’re having right 


now. 


MS. MUNN: Do we have, we’re still sort of 


out there with respect to what we started all 


calling overarching issues as well. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, and in fact, we can think 


about this, and I don’t know that, Wanda, 


we’ve got to solve it today, but we may want 


to have for the work group a kind of action 


item list where we track action items and 


their closure outside the matrix. These kind 


of overarching things, I’m not sure what we’d 


even call it, but maybe just general action 


items of the work group or something like 


that, you know. 


MS. MUNN: Well, roll up or a subgroup had 


discussed a column that has status in the work 


group process. Under transfers there’s always 


the possibility that we can say transfer to 


whatever. By that means we can keep track of 


what has gone to global issues and what has 


gone to another. 


MS. BEHLING: As a matter of fact -- and I 


don’t want to deviate from the discussion that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

you’re currently having -- but when we get a 


moment that is one area that I wanted to talk 


about before we leave the matrix discussion. 


And that is I’ve made some changes and these 


were my own thoughts about what needs to go 


into the status of the work group process. 


And I wanted to discuss those terms 


with you so that we can be consistent and that 


we’re all in agreement. I’m not sure, I don’t 


want to interrupt the discussion you’re 


currently having though because I believe this 


overarching issues discussion may be something 


a little different than the status. 


DR. ZIEMER: And maybe something that would 


apply to all work groups. 


MS. MUNN: It certainly does, but it flows 


into our matrix specifically and very strongly 


because if we’re going to be a hallmark of 


tracking the progress, then we have to be very 


^ as possible without killing anybody in the 


process. 


MS. BEHLING: If you’d like I can take a few 


minutes and just walk you through the wording 


that I’ve put into these five sample matrices, 


and we can come to maybe some agreement as to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

whether these are good words for you or not if 


that’s appropriate at this time. 


MS. MUNN: Kathy, feel free to discuss at 


this time unless someone has other feelings. 


DR. MAURO: This is John. I do, I might now 


could use a little clarification. Right now 


the conversation we’re having including the 


action items and the general discussion and 


judgments that are being made regarding these 


overarching issues, I don’t see any place 


where that could be captured in the format and 


content of the current matrix. 


DR. ZIEMER: No, no, that’s why we’re --


DR. MAURO: Okay, I just wanted to make sure 


DR. ZIEMER: -- talking about maybe there 


should be a separate tracking of overarching 


issues or something. 


MS. MUNN: It’s been established that 


anywhere so far as I know in the Board’s 


activity. So as far as what we’re looking at 


here for the PST that we do focus on that, and 


this is probably the ideal time to do it. Why 


don’t you go on, Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. If you look at Sample 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

One, this is, I just selected the OTIB-0023 


and the fact that we are currently, we started 


discussing this on the matrix, and we’re 


currently in the process of attempting to 


resolve this particular finding. So in the 


Status box on the very first line all the way 


to the right I put, open-in progress because 


during our smaller group meeting, Wanda -- and 


I think correctly so -- indicated we want to 


be able to determine what is open. 


And if it just says open in this box, 


that would mean to me that we have not begun 


discussions on it. However, when it says 


open-in progress, then obviously we have 


started discussions. So that’s why I made 


these various different samples. So in other 


words open itself would indicate that it is a 


finding we ultimately are going to have to 


discuss, but we haven’t had any discussion on 


that finding yet. And open-in progress means 


that we’ve started some discussions just so we 


can make a differentiation in the roll up. 


If we go on to Sample Two, this is a 


case where a lot of times, especially with the 


second set -- in fact, John and I talked about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

this before the meeting today -- we had 


someone with SC&A put together the matrix for 


us. And this person was very thorough and 


identified every little item that was 


discussed in the discussion of the particular 


OTIB or procedures. However, as we started to 


resolve these issues we realized that 


potentially if we resolve item one, that also 


resolves item two and item three. 


So this second issue is indicating 


that we’re in discussion on this issue, but 


it’s going to be resolved under a previous 


item such as in this case it’s going to be 


addressed under Finding OTIB-0017-03. 


Initially, John had marked this as transferred 


which I felt it means it leaves the system 


here, and I didn’t necessarily want to use 


that word in this circumstance. 


And then in Sample Three, this gives 


you the case where you’re actually going to 


transfer this finding because this OTIB or 


this TIB-0009 finding that we’ve identified is 


one of these global issues. And so I want to 


indicate here that this is being transferred 


to our global issues findings. It could also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

be, another transfer in my mind would be if we 


come across a finding that really needs to be 


addressed under our Task One or site profile 


review because it’s specific to a specific 


site profile. That’s where this would be 


indicated as a transfer and then in 


parentheses we would say transferred to site 


profile review Task One. 


And then Sample Three, here again, and 


this is one that I’m still unsure about how to 


handle this because this is, again, one of 


those items I don’t want to fall through the 


cracks. This is an example of a case where we 


had a finding, and NIOSH agreed with our 


finding, and the resolution to that finding is 


they’re going to revise their procedure. And 


so it’s closed according to what we’re doing 


here, but somewhere down the road we have to 


ensure that we do, after the revision comes 


out, that we do go back to this item. 


Now I marked it as closed-revised 


procedure just so that when we look down 


through the roll-up table it’s going to be 


something when we see revised procedure that 


we have to keep in mind still is somewhat of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

an open item. And maybe I should not have 


called it closed here. And so we can have a 


discussion on that and you can correct my 


words if you desire. 


DR. ZIEMER: Maybe another terminology for 


those kind of cases is needed. I don’t have 


the words at my fingertips but we might give 


some thought to how we might designate it in a 


manner that suggests that it’s not really 


closed but is being handled in a different 


manner. 


MS. BEHLING: Yeah, we may want to come up 


with better words there, absolutely. But I 


guess what the goal was is I wanted to be able 


to, once we look at our roll-up table, our 


one-liners, you can go down that status column 


and easily be able to identify this is an item 


that still needs to be addressed in a revision 


to a procedure or in something else. And I 


don’t know if it would be a transfer. I’m not 


sure. I didn’t necessarily show it as 


transferred, but I’ll let someone else make 


that decision. 


And then finally, Sample Five, this is 


actually a case where I put an example in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

where SC&A agrees with NIOSH’s response. 


There is no further action that’s required. 


And so the status of this finding is closed. 


No further action will be necessary. 


And so I just wanted to engage the 


Board in some discussion as to what words you 


would like to see in there so that we can 


maintain some consistency as I said so when we 


look down this roll-up table, it’s going to be 


very easy for us to see where we are in the 


process and what needs to be picked up in the 


future for other revisions of procedures. 


MS. MUNN: Kathy, I think my personal 


reaction is that all of the terminology is 


fine with the exception of Sample Four. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, I agree. 


Does anyone have any suggestions as to 


what would be more appropriate? 


MS. MUNN: My suggestion would be in 


abeyance. We ^ in abeyance. That should be a 


signal to us that it’s closed as far as we’re 


concerned, but something is still hanging on. 


And not until that something that’s hanging on 


is done do we write closed. 


MS. BEHLING: Very good, I agree. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

MS. MUNN: That way we don’t lose it. 


DR. ZIEMER: And actually, and that’s fine, 


and some words you may have to spell out at 


the front end of the document what, or as a 


footnote for that column, what the different 


words mean, in abeyance means this. 


MS. BEHLING: Could we do in abeyance-dashrevised procedure or whatever the action might 


be, and just a very short note to indicate 


what --


DR. ZIEMER: Type of abeyance it is. 


MS. MUNN: Absolutely, yes. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. I think that resolves 


the status. 


MS. MUNN: My only concern still continues 


to be how we’re going to deal with global 


issues. That is something that in my view is 


currently in NIOSH. I’m not sure how the 


agency has figured that they’re going to deal 


with these things. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, the first step, of 


course, is identifying which ones those are, 


and I think we’re at that point. So then it’s 


a matter of not letting them fall through the 


cracks. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

MS. MUNN: Right, so Kathy, are you happy 


with where we are? 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, I’m fine. I appreciate 


everyone’s input. This resolves some of my 


questions. 


MS. MUNN: If no one has any objections I 


might ask Stu and Larry where NIOSH is with 


respect to identification of and what’s the 


tracking process for those global issues that 


we’ve already identified. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. What I 


can offer is Jim Neton has kind of been 


keeping track of them, but I don’t feel really 


qualified to comment on them here on the phone 


call. 


MS. MUNN: Could we ask as one of our action 


items for December 11th, that we have some 


feedback with respect to such status of the 


tracking mechanism is intended to be? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: This work group probably has some 


responsibility there, but we haven’t had the 


discussion clarifying where the lines of 


responsibility are and exactly how we’re going 


to do this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Then in our face-to-face meeting 


in December 11th, we’ll have information from 


NIOSH about where we are with the global 


issues and how the agency perceives this type 


of tracking should go. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 


Mechanistically, when it comes to transfers, 


whether it’s transferred to the global 


concerns or transferred to a site profile 


review, what I’m hearing is that once you 


designate something as transferred, the 


concern is to make sure that in fact it has 


been transferred and captured by some other 


group. And is that what the issue is here? 


Not that it’s resolved. In other 


words the resolution, you know, what I’m 


hearing is the real concern is, okay, we can 


say this is being handled under review of the 


Nevada Test Site site profile or under some 


generic science issue. But there’s a bit of 


presumption in that in terms of is it in fact 


captured by these other groups of individuals 


working the problem. 


Is that what you’re concerned about? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

Or are you more concerned that, not that it’s 


captured, but that in fact somehow the 


resolution of the issue is fed back to us as a 


working group or to you as a working group? 


MS. MUNN: That’s the concern. Once we say 


it’s transferred, then does it actually leave 


our purview or do we have the responsibility 


to follow it through to its end and make 


certain that it is, in fact, captured? I 


think that’s the concern of the whole Board 


actually. It’s not just, it doesn’t appear to 


be just a concern of ours. It’s a concern of 


the Board. 


Okay, any other issues with respect to 


matrix and tracking? 


 (no response) 


ACTION ITEMS
 

MS. MUNN: Okay, let’s move on to the action 


items listed. The first one is a no starter 


because obviously this is not a full Board 


meeting. We can move past the report on PERs’ 


status. 


The next item is OTIBs -0006, -0007 


and -0008. I believe we all should have that 


by now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

Stu, do you want to address that for 


us? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I sent, those documents were 


all revised. This is from the Set One 


procedure review, these actions from Set One. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And I did look at the 


documents, the revisions, and the revisions 


are strictly to incorporate the comments from 


the working group. So there were no other, 


another action that appears down here in a 


little bit, but any other revisions were like 


grammar and spelling. So it was strictly for 


those comments, so this is not, you know, 


that’s the only change. That was one of the 


items I was supposed to look at. 


MS. MUNN: We did all receive that, correct? 


MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Did not receive the... 


DR. ZIEMER: Do we need to approve those 


changes? Or what happens next? 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling, and 


actually I’m jumping ahead a little bit, but 


the first item under the SC&A action items is 


that we were supposed to review the modified 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

TIB-0006, -0007 and -0008 if they were 


considered just documents that were modified 


due to our previous comments. However, it was 


decided at the last meeting I believe that if 


NIOSH would have come back to us and said this 


is a complete rewrite of that procedure, then 


we would have awaited you assigning that 


procedure to SC&A. 


However, in this particular case since 


when Stu sent these out he clearly indicated 


to us that these were just in response to our 


findings. So I took it upon myself to go back 


and thoroughly review our findings and the new 


procedure, the changes that were made to this 


revision. And, in fact, I was able to clearly 


indicate, in fact, I’m going to, that will be 


included on our new matrix in December. 


I was able to state that on the three, 


there were three findings associated with TIB0006, two findings associated with TIB-0007, 


and three findings associated with TIB-0008. 


And NIOSH did appropriately address all of 


those findings and did a nice job of updating 


those procedures to accommodate our initial 


concerns. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

MS. MUNN: Well, we are clear on those 


three. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Those can be closed? 


MS. BEHLING: They will be closed in the 


next matrix. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


DR. MAURO: This is John. I’ve got a, 


again, this is again mechanistically. So when 


we issue the December 11th version of our 


matrix, the one-liners and the full matrix, 


we, I guess, would prior to the meeting not 


only fill in the appropriate material for SC&A 


and NIOSH would fill in their material, but it 


would also be an attempt, as we just did just 


now, to go actually get to the point where we 


fill in that upper right-hand corner regarding 


closure. And we would do that all prior to 


the December 11th meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, good, because this makes 


it very clear --


DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that’s the point at 


which we would take action then having in 


essence a written recommendation. I mean, we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

have the documents. I have laid them side-byside, well, I think all of them we didn’t have 


the earlier versions there. I guess I’ll have 


to go back and get it, but the other two are 


laid side-by-side and the actual changes are 


fairly minimal. They’re very specific, and as 


Kathy described in response to those findings. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: But we will have a formal 


recommendation in the matrix for the next 


meeting then is what you’re saying. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, I plan to put something 


in there as probably a SC&A follow-up action 


item indicating that we did review these 


procedures. And we were able to verify that 


the finding was resolved based on the 


revisions. And that will be specified in the 


roll-up matrix and in the individual matrix 


for that, for each of the, in other words for 


TIB-0006 as I said there were three findings, 


and there’ll be three separate sheets that 


identify Finding 01, 02 and 03. What those 


findings were. How NIOSH responded to those 


in the revision, and whether we thought that 


that was an appropriate response. Now I don’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

know if the Board still needs to approve that 


or not. 


MS. MUNN: I don’t believe so. I think if 


both NIOSH and the contractor have agreed that 


the issue’s erased, has been resolved, then 


they are resolved. 


DR. MAURO: I guess I assume then, then we 


pass this by you, Wanda, and then you would 


issue this new matrix just prior to the 


December 11th working group meeting. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. MAURO: And that would be, in effect, 


the working group’s position as of that date 


of that meeting. 


MS. MUNN: That’s correct. 


DR. MAURO: Very good. This is very clean 


now. I like this. 


MS. MUNN: And if there’s any concern that 


remains with other Board members, they can 


address it at the time we have our Board 


meeting. They will have access to it. 


DR. MAURO: Beautiful. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


DR. ZIEMER: Could I ask one clarification 


for OTIB-0008? Maybe Stu can help me. Was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

there an earlier version of OTIB-0008? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, an OCAS, it’s an OCAS 


TIB. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or OCAS TIB-0008. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There was. I think I can --


DR. ZIEMER: This is called Revision Zero. 


MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, this is Kathy. I 


think what Stu sent to us was both the older 


revision, the original that we were working 


from and then the revised document. He had 


both of them in there, Dr. Ziemer, because the 


original OCAS TIB-008 was Rev. Zero Zero, and 


that was published I believe on September 29th , 


2003. 


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay? And so let me look 


here. What I printed out --


DR. ZIEMER: What I got from Stu didn’t have 


an earlier version, and since it said it was 


Rev. Zero, I wasn’t clear whether this was a 


new --


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


DR. ZIEMER: -- in fact, under the 


description it says it’s the new document to 


provide guidance and use of ICRP 66, but it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

does replace a --


MS. BEHLING: What I’m looking at -- and 


Stu, correct me -- but what Stu sent is Rev. 


One, and it indicates that it supercedes Rev. 


Zero. And the date on this is 10/4/2007. 


DR. ZIEMER: Maybe I missed --


MS. BEHLING: We can resend that to you. 


DR. ZIEMER: What I was looking at was 


actually the earlier version. I guess I 


didn’t see the later one. I’ll go back to the 


e-mail. I only downloaded five things from 


that e-mail. There must have been a sixth 


one. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If you can tell me, if 


someone can tell me what date I sent that out, 


I’m looking for it here in my sent e-mail. I 


could look and see what I had attached to it. 


MS. MUNN: I think the fifth. 


MR. HINNEFELD: The fifth? 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m going back in mine, too, 


and looking to see what I had on that. I 


think it was sent out on the 15th of October. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, it is the 15th . 


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I found it now. Yeah, 


there was another one attached, and it got 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

covered up. You had so many attachments you 


had to actually scroll through them, and I 


didn’t see that. I found it now. It’s not a 


problem. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, we’re all okay on ICRP-66? 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MS. MUNN: If that’s the case, we can move 


on from that action item to the next one. 


There is, as you all know, a great deal of 


interest with respect to PROC-92. As matter 


of fact, I had an inquiry from the media on 


that earlier this week, and I told them that 


we would only address the status today, try to 


identify where we were, that it’s coming along 


all right, for the responses that were made. 


I said that sometime this month, but we would 


not have --


MR. HINNEFELD: We expect to have our 


response in the hands of the work group and 


SC&A probably by early next week. 


MS. MUNN: That’s great, because we will 


have that fairly high on our ^ in Cincinnati. 


We look forward to receiving it. 


Anyone have any other questions? 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. Just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

wanted to elaborate a little bit on what Stu 


offered there. We are preparing a detailed 


written response, and I think this will go out 


under a cover letter that I will sign. I will 


address it to you as the Chair, Wanda, of this 


working group and Dr. Ziemer as Chair of the 


Board. And you can handle it as you see fit 


from that, from those perspectives. But we 


will be providing detailed reaction on that to 


this review. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent, I’ll look forward to 


receiving that, Larry. Thank you for the 


information. 


Next action item is the word response 


to OTIB-0019. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we have a statistician 


working on that so it’s taking a little longer 


than other humans. But we will provide that. 


Now this kind of brings me to a question from 


my standpoint for how to submit new 


information now when we’re kind of between the 


time when we were submitting it on the old 


matrix and between the time when we have the 


complete new format matrix because there are a 


number of pieces of information, not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

necessarily 19-1, but it’s a 17, three, four 


and five. 


We have some initial responses from 


the second set of procedures. You know, 


several of those that never had initial 


responses. We have several initial responses 


to provide that are about ready that I didn’t 


send out before this meeting because I just 


assumed we would work from the matrix we 


worked from in October. So in what fashion 


should I submit things like that now? Because 


I can send them at any time to allow the Board 


and SC&A time to look at them prior to the 


December meeting. 


DR. ZIEMER: Let’s see, we don’t have the 


new matrix in place yet, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


MS. MUNN: It would be nice if the 


information that Stu has on hand and ready to 


come up were to be included in the new matrix. 


That would be helpful. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Possibly if 


Stu could send that information to me along 


with everyone else, I will try to incorporate 


it, I will make sure it gets incorporated into 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

the new matrix for the December 11th meeting. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Great. 


DR. MAURO: This is a lot like OTIB-0006, ­

0007 and -0008 where we have reviewed it and 


found favorably and in the next version of the 


matrix you’ll see it closed. So I assume that 


this might also occur with respect to OTIB0019 and -0017, three, four and five. Are we 


in sort of the same mode of operation? 


MS. MUNN: I believe so. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, good. 


MS. BEHLING: And, Stu, if you would just 


maybe include some specific words that you 


would like to have put into the matrix so that 


I don’t misinterpret anything. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I hope to be able to 


provide it to you on the old matrix so you can 


just cut and paste, you know, our initial 


response --


DR. ZIEMER: That’d be the way to do it. 


MS. BEHLING: That’s great. That’s fine. 


That’s great. 


DR. MAURO: Stu, this is John. Now, will 


you be issuing a new version of OTIB-0019 and 


-0017 similar to the way you dealt with the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

previous six, seven and eight issue so that 


when we review it, we’re actually reviewing 


the new document which has been modified to 


some extent in response to our comments? Or 


will you be providing us with what you would 


be considered something more like a white 


paper which would describe the kinds of 


changes that are being made as opposed to the 


actual document with its changes? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I would think what 


the, the way we’ve kind of thought about this 


for discussion is that we would, actually, we 


provide an initial response. We talk about in 


the meeting, and sometimes our initial 


response is, okay, we see your point. We will 


clarify this. And so sometimes we will commit 


to make a change, and then I guess we’ll go 


into that in abeyance category we talked about 


a minute ago. 


DR. MAURO: Very good. That was the reason 


I asked the question because depending on what 


material we receive, the designation would be 


either an in abeyance or closed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I can provide like a 


decision point, too, that we will revise a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

procedure, but far more quickly than I can 


provide a revised procedure. So I thought I’d 


probably continue to work kind of in that 


mode. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you. 


MS. MUNN: Anything else on 19? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: Can we assume that the next item, 


OTIB-0017, falls in the same category or is 


there some more information we need to 


discuss? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It falls in the same 


category from my standpoint. 


MS. MUNN: John? Kathy? 


DR. MAURO: That’s fine. Sounds like the 


machine is working. The system we set up and 


the format and the designations, we’re 


actually applying it right now as we speak, 


and it seems to be working well. 


MS. MUNN: All right, then we’ll assume that 


that’s going to be the case. 


I notice that on the agenda where we 


undertake SC&A with the action items, I had 


indicated that we would take a 15-minute break 


from 12:30 to 12:45. Well, it’s coming up on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

12:30. It was suggested to me before we made 


the call that I might consider the fact that 


some people have not had lunch. So what is 


the pleasure of this group? Is a 15-minute 


break at this time doable for you or do you 


feel like you need a half hour for food? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, speaking for myself, 


I’d like to have the opportunity to eat lunch. 


DR. ZIEMER: Can we get a half hour? 


MS. MUNN: A half hour is not going to be a 


problem as far as I’m concerned. Shall we 


take a half hour? Is there an objection to 


that? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: If everyone’s amenable with that 


then in lieu of --


DR. ZIEMER: Do you just dial in again? Do 


we break and then dial in again? Is that how 


it works? 


MS. MUNN: I think it would be appropriate. 


We might as well break the line now, and we’ll 


get back shortly after one o’clock, as close 


to one as we can make it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Sounds good. 


(Whereupon, a lunch break was taken from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

12:30 p.m. until 1:00 p.m.) 


MS. MUNN: John, are you there with us? 


MS. BEHLING: Some of the initial items 


until John gets back. 


MS. MUNN: Actually, I think we’ve addressed 


most of them down through the first batch. 


MS. BEHLING: I think so. 


MS. MUNN: Do that until John comes back on. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Ray, are you ready? 


 COURT REPORTER: Yes, we’re on. 


MS. MUNN: We are officially back in 


session, picking up the action items at the 


point where it says SC&A. The first item 


being reviewed modified OTIB-0008, -0006 and ­

0007 which I believe we’ve covered thoroughly. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, I believe so. I hope. 


MS. MUNN: Are there any outstanding items 


in that regard or can we mark that off as 


complete? 


MS. BEHLING: From my perspective it’s 


complete. 


MS. MUNN: Move on to the next one. I 


believe we’ve thoroughly covered that one, 


too, with respect to the format. I believe 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

we’re all on pretty close to the same page as 


to what we’re going to expect to see on the 


11th . And I think Kathy has committed herself 


to do yeoman’s work here. Is there any 


additional comment with respect to the matrix 


that we expect to see on December 11th? 


MS. BEHLING: I have no additional 


questions. I assume you’re asking the Board. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 


DR. ZIEMER: I don’t know of anything else 


there. 


MS. MUNN: All right, then let’s move on 


down to Procedure 0090. 


MS. BEHLING: This is an item that Arjun was 


intending to address. Now I know that John 


spoke with Arjun earlier today, and he was not 


in a position to participate in this 


conference call. And, in fact, I was 


anticipating an e-mail from him yet this 


morning to discuss this item. However, I 


haven’t gotten anything from him yet. And so 


I’m afraid that this is going to have to be an 


open item because we haven’t heard back from 


Arjun yet. 


MS. MUNN: I did have a message from Arjun 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

to John. He copied me. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, great. 


MS. MUNN: He said he had reviewed -- I’ll 


read it for those who haven’t heard it. 


“John, per our conversation on the task list 


below, I have reviewed your 0090, and it’s 


essentially the same as Procedure 0004, 0005 


and 0017, the point of view that the comments 


that SC&A made on the CATI procedure. 


Therefore, Procedure 0900 (sic) can be used to 


track SC&A comments and NIOSH responses.” I 


think that’s a typo on that procedure number. 


I’m sure he meant --


DR. ZIEMER: 0090. 


MS. MUNN: “It may be useful to revise the 


matrix with the new section numbers in order 


to track this, but I have not done that.” So 


that’s his response at this juncture. I guess 


until Arjun is on the call, until he makes any 


suggestion with respect to revising the matrix 


with new section numbers --


MS. BEHLING: And I can discuss that with 


Arjun so that when the new matrix comes out, 


hopefully we can incorporate Arjun’s comments 


into that matrix. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John Mauro. I’m 


sorry. I was on the other line, and I got 


caught up in a conference call, so I’m a few 


minutes late, but I’m back. 


MS. MUNN: Welcome back. We just dumped on 


Kathy while you were gone. We have gone down 


your list very quickly and determined that we 


covered virtually everything down through -- I 


was just reading aloud for the record Arjun’s 


e-mail this morning on Procedure 0090. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: I don’t think there’s more that 


we can do. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I spoke to him this 


morning. 


MS. MUNN: They’ve been incorporated in the 


matrix. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly right. When I spoke to 


him this morning he said that 90 did, in fact, 


roll up everything, but the issues are still 


there. In other words we can now zero in on 


0090 as the document that becomes the place 


where we address the issues. But the issues 


that were originally identified in four, five 


and 17 are, in fact, still alive and well. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

It’s just that now we will be tracking them 


under PROC-0090. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, that was what he 


communicated to me this morning. He’s out of 


town this week. 


MS. MUNN: That will go in our action item 


in that form. 


And the next one is the working matrix 


of the findings on Procedure 0092 of which you 


provided to us a couple of weeks ago, and I 


have that in here. And I trust all of the 


work group members have that. The next stop, 


of course, will be NIOSH responses. I think 


we’ve already covered that as well. 


Stu, you indicated that would be 


forthcoming shortly, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I was muted, sorry. I 


believe by early next week. 


MS. MUNN: That’s fine. So we’ve already 


discussed that. There’s nothing further to 


comment through that item. 


Does OTIB-0012 work up for us to 


consider in addition to the matrix? We’ve 


just received that. Don’t know whether anyone 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

else has had an opportunity to do more than 


just look through it. That’s all I have done. 


What is the pleasure of this group? Do you 


wish to address the content of that item, or 


do you wish to defer discussion on it until 


the 12th? 


DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me that doesn’t 


NIOSH need to react to this now? 


MS. MUNN: It would appear to me that --


DR. ZIEMER: I read through it, but, and 


it’s fairly technical. I think that they are 


taking issue with a couple major points so 


that we need to probably hear back from NIOSH 


or at least the response. 


MS. MUNN: Agree, NIOSH? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we believe we should 


provide a response to that. I’m trying to 


find which set of procedures was TIB-0012 in. 


MS. MUNN: Hold on. I’ll see if I can, I’m 


sure I can help you with that. 


MS. BEHLING: I believe TIB-0012 was in the 


second set of procedures. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I’m looking at it right 


now. Yeah, it’s in the second set. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, for ^ purposes will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

there then be sort of a matrix prepared or is 


there a single finding? I mean, the nut of 


the findings be captured and put in this -0012 


then so ^? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein. I’m 


the lead in preparing this white paper which 


went out yesterday, and essentially we did a 


second review. The initial review of TIB ^ 


since the TIB-0012 held the statistics we had 


it reviewed by our inhouse statistician, Dr. 


Harry Chmelynski. But that review did not 


address the OSHA construction or physics 


aspects of it. So in the process of preparing 


for an earlier working group meeting, we 


looked at it again. 


I looked at that one, and some issues 


that had previously not been captured came to 


the forefront, and that’s what the white paper 


is about. That we don’t quarrel with the 


mathematics of the statistics, but we do have 


an argument about the assumptions, about the 


distribution, and primarily, it goes not so 


much, TIB-0012 utilizes the OCAS-01 Procedure, 


Appendix B. And we have a concern about the 


triangular distribution of the dose conversion 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

factors and the way they utilize and the way 


they’re utilized in the procedures of TIB0012. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we can treat 


it as -- I think I’ve got the nut of the 


paper. I read it, and I think I kind of 


understand the gist of it. I mean, we can 


treat that as a finding in a matrix. Or if 


there are other things, I mean, other findings 


you feel like there are multiple things that 


should be addressed, then I guess I would hope 


to get a little more clarity about what the 


multiple things are. 


I mean the one thing that seems to be 


addressed is that the existing approach 


essentially assumes a uniform photon 


distribution over the energy range. Is that 


right? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it doesn’t actually. 


The point is the existing approach treats the 


various dose conversion factors for different 


energies. Let’s say, the example was 30 to 


250 keV of photon energy range as if these 


were like independent data points, and, in 


fact, they’re not. Not only that, but this is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

from ICRP-74, they’re not evenly spaced. The 


lower energies are more closely spaced ^ 


arithmetic approaches, and as you get to 


higher energies the spacing is wider and 


wider. 


And so the approach used by assigning 


the mode to the middle one of the, I believe 


there were seven that fell into this range, is 


not claimant favorable, and it’s not 


scientifically justified. So there were two 


suggestions made, and one is if it was a stop 


gap measure it would probably suffice to 


simply put the maximum ^ . 


But in the case of the colon the 


maximum dose conversion factor I think was 


something like 150 keV. It was not the 


highest. In other words it peaks and then it 


goes down again with energy. So that would be 


one way. And that’s inarguable. It can’t be 


any more claimant favorable than that. 


And then the next was a suggestion to 


replace the Appendix B distribution with doing 


MCNP calculations for each organ. It doesn’t 


have to be for each dose, dose reconstruction. 


Replace that with a set of generic tables of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

say a generic exposure scenario like you 


already have in the very difficult TIB-0004 


where there’s a generic exposure to a slab of 


uranium and to use AWEs. 


And something along that line so that 


for a given worker you say, okay, this is a 


typical exposure that this worker had. This 


is a typical radiation field which he was in. 


And then it will be possible in a single MCNP 


run to address all 16 major organs. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’ll have to --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, it’s a lot of detail 


probably. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- look through it and 


decide our response. 


DR. MAURO: Stu, this is John. By way of 


bookkeeping, as you know, we do have a 


standing concern with Appendix B dose 


conversion factors that you folks are in the 


process of revisiting. And that more or less 


had to do with the ISO and GA geometries and 


those concerns. 


Now what we have here is really 


another layer of concern that actually applies 


also to the AP. As you know, historically, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

the position was, well, the AP approach, you 


know, as long as you’re working with the AP 


you’re okay and don’t use the others. And I 


think that was generally agreed across the 


board. 


What we’re saying now is that, well, 


we also have some concerns with using the 


current version of the triangular distribution 


for AP. And now where I’m going with this is 


that this in theory could become part and 


parcel as one more aspect of your 


consideration of Appendix B to OCAS-001, and 


it could fall into that category. And in 


those terms I don’t know if you would call it 


transferred, or we could refer to it as this 


being addressed as part of the particular 


issue currently being addressed as part of 


OCAS-001 which goes back to the original first 


set of reviews. 


This is really a choice that the 


working group has. We could either deal with 


this as a stand-alone issue and incorporate it 


as a stand-alone issue in the next version of 


the matrix with these issues identified, and, 


of course, leaving a blank space for you folks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

to fill in your response to it. Or we can 


designate this as something that is being 


handled under one of the, whatever the 


appropriate issue is under our review of OCAS 


IG-001. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, I’ll make a comment. 


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: TIB-0012 and OCAS-001, 


Appendix B, are really inseparable, so you 


can’t really address one without the other. 


DR. MAURO: Well, but that’s why I bring 


this up. I mean, it may turn out that it’s 


most convenient and expedient just to 


integrate the whole issue as an Appendix B, 


OCAS-001 issue that is currently being 


addressed as opposed to breaking this out 


separately. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: If Appendix B is fixed, then 


TIB-0012 goes away. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, up until now the 


particular issue that you raised, Bob, was not 


an issue that we --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I understand that. 


DR. MAURO: Right, so this becomes an added 


item to the Appendix B OCAS concern. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 


DR. ZIEMER: Could I ask you a question on 


the white paper? This is Ziemer. Bob, I’m 


looking at Figure 1, which is the draft or the 


curve for the DCF factor ^ of energy. So are 


these the NIOSH data points? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. Well, yes, yes, I --


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, they are. What I’m trying 


to understand, I think what you’re saying is 


if they said the sixth point is the mode, 


well, fifth or sixth, and you’re saying, yes, 


but the energy intervals are not evenly 


spaced. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: So statistically to call that 


the mode of the distribution may be 


statistically invalid. And I think what 


you’re saying is instead of about 0.75 or 


four, whatever that is, use the upper end --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: It goes, it’s more than 


that. 


DR. ZIEMER: It levels out at 0.8 or 0.79, 


but --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it’s more than that 


because it’s not a triangular distribution. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

DR. ZIEMER: That’s right. I understood 


that. I was just trying to understand the 


point --


DR. ANIGSTEIN: My argument is not with the 


value of the mode as much as with the whole 


concept because when you fold the triangular 


distribution into the normal distribution of 


dosimeter errors, you come up with a mean that 


is much lower. 


DR. ZIEMER: Than this mode. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I get you. And then the 


claimant-friendly values then are different, 


is that what you’re saying? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, and my recommendation 


as the simplest method would be simply to use 


a fixed value, not use a triangular 


distribution which is a fixed value in this 


case of 0.798, and then fold that fixed value 


into the distribution of dosimeter error and 


whatever other value the distributions there 


are. 


DR. ZIEMER: And have you looked at the 


impact that that has or does that make a big 


difference? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did not run IREP to see, 


you know, to see the two different methods. 


We just simply compared that the mean of the 


distribution that is tabulated in the back of 


TIB-0012 in this instance was about 38, in 


other words, you would have 38 percent higher 


dose if you used the single value that I 


suggested of 0.798 as opposed to the mean of 


0.59. Now, I realize the mean is not a single 


value, so I’m not certain how it would, we 


didn’t go that far. We certainly could if 


we’re asked to. I mean, there would just be a 


bigger effort if we were asked to prepare 


essentially a one-page white paper which 


turned out to be three. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I guess we need to hear 


the response from NIOSH on this and see 


whether it’s significant or not. 


MS. MUNN: Can we suggest that NIOSH and 


SC&A discuss this offline? And that do the ^ 


that are enumerated in the white paper to have 


that discussion available for us then when we 


meet face-to-face in December. So can we 


capture the key issues, the interests that we 


have. Can we do that, Kathy? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

MS. BEHLING: I believe that’ll be fine. 


Bob, are you in agreement with that? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I’m not too -- I have a 


little trouble hearing, Wanda. Could you 


restate that? 


MS. MUNN: I’ll try it with my handset. 


Maybe I’m a little too far from the phone. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, that’s much better. 


MS. MUNN: I’m suggesting that we have a 


communication between you and NIOSH with 


respect to the points that you’ve raised and 


that we’ve discussed here to see if there can 


be a meeting of the minds. In the meantime, 


Kathy will try to capture the key issues on 


the matrix so that we will have written record 


on it and a proper place for this white paper 


to go when these issues are resolved. And 


that we will then address them December 11th . 


Is that reasonable? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: It’s fine by me. 


MS. BEHLING: And that’s fine by me. I can 


certainly add these items to the matrix. 


DR. ZIEMER: I just want to make sure I 


understand. There’s two issues here I guess. 


One is the issue of the triangular 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

distribution versus the point value. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-huh. 


DR. ZIEMER: Is that one? And then the 


other is the use of the mean or the mode 


versus use of the bounding value? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, if we use a point 


value, then the triangular distribution just 


goes away. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right, that goes away. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then the mode would go 


away. 


DR. ZIEMER: And the point value would be 


the upper end of this curve? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. But the other 


suggestion would be if you wanted to go that 


extra mile to make the most precise, you would 


come up with a single value. My envision is 


let’s say for this colon case, once you define 


an exposure, a generic exposure geometry for a 


particular class of workers at a particular 


facility, then you could do an MCNP run where 


you could say, okay, then the photons in the 0 


to 230 keV, 30 to 250, 250 to and above 250 


and see what the actual values are as compared 


to the HP-10. And the ratio of that would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

your conversion factor. 


And the additional advantage of that 


you would have a precise way of knowing what 


fraction of the photons to assign to each of 


the three ranges which now is not clear in the 


various site procedures that I’ve seen how 


those fractions are arrived at. And since you 


can do multiple organs in one run it wouldn’t 


be that labor intensive. 


That’s just a suggestion. But 


certainly using the maximum would do the job, 


would be claimant friendly, and there would be 


a reasonable basis for it. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. I also 


think that it just makes it cleaner. And I 


believe it might be a little bit more 


organized for us if we put these findings 


under OTIB-0012 and indicate in there that 


this also impacts Appendix B of the 


Implementation Guide. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, what I was thinking from a 


practical sense the solution, and let’s say 


there is a resolution to this particular item 


related to this procedure. It will have a 


ripple effect on NIOSH in terms of the work 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

it’s doing across the board on Appendix B to 


OCAS-001. So I mean, they’re connected at the 


hip, and it’s going to be important that 


whatever is decided and done for -0012 will 


have certainly an effect on how the bigger 


picture, the Appendix B issue, is ultimately 


resolved. 


MS. BEHLING: And we’ve done that in the 


past just like an example is OTIB-0023. When 


Hans reviewed that, he had, because that was 


also linked to the Implementation Guide. It’s 


being tracked under OTIB-0023, but the 


Implementation Guide issue was discussed and 


NIOSH is also going to address the 


Implementation Guide along with OTIB-0023. So 


this has been done before. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: So we’re back to our suggested 


process of NIOSH and SC&A discussing this 


offline to see if they can reach a resolution 


of the issues. And we will incorporate the 


two issues that were raised in the white paper 


and try to capture the essence of them on the 


matrix and discuss it at the December 11th
 

meeting, right? Is that agreeable? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

DR. ZIEMER: Sounds good. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: All right, anything else on that 


particular item? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: If not, then let’s go to response 


to OTIB-0017-06 and report the position to the 


work group. We had talked about -0017-06 


before. 


MS. BEHLING: John, that’s you. 


DR. MAURO: I was on mute, and I was looking 


at it and --


MS. MUNN: Prior adjustments LOD. 


DR. MAURO: We did not prepare anything in 


response to this. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, so it needs to be a 


carryover? 


DR. MAURO: It’ll have to be a carryover. I 


apologize. I did not take action on this. 


MS. MUNN: That’s quite all right. 


And the next items were --


DR. ZIEMER: Does that, that was a matrix 


item? 


MS. MUNN: That was a matrix item, uh-huh, 


very near the tail end where we stopped. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

NIOSH and SC&A were to discuss OTIBs ­

0006 and -0007 to determine if they need to be 


reviewed as documents that have been modified 


as a result of review or as new documents. 


And the decision is? 


MS. BEHLING: The decision was that this was 


just a modified document based on our initial 


findings, and as we discussed earlier, I’ve 


already reviewed these two TIBs. 


MS. MUNN: Fine, I think we covered that 


pretty thoroughly earlier in the call. Anyone 


have any objection to calling that one 


complete and moving on? 


DR. ZIEMER: No. 


MS. MUNN: The next item we have is 


conducting further clarifying technical 


discussions on OTIB-0023 and reporting those 


out to the work group. 


MS. BEHLING: On this item Hans and I did 


talk with Stu on Monday, the 5th, and I think 


we have come to resolution on the OTIB-0023 


findings. 


And, Stu, I’ll let you elaborate. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We believe there are some 


clarifying revisions that we can make in OTIB­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

0023 and then also it affects IG-001, probably 


a page change in IG-001. That will, that’s 


the findings. 


MS. BEHLING: And I believe, Stu, during our 


conversation on Monday, Stu also indicated 


that he would put together wording as to what 


those changes will be and that will get 


incorporated again into the new matrix. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, this is part of the 


new information I’ll provide to Kathy fairly 


quickly and should be available to the matrix 


for the next meeting. 


MS. MUNN: That’s good. All right. Fine, 


then we can anticipate that that will be 


incorporated in the next matrix, and that the 


only comment that we’ll have ^ items, 


resolution incorporated. 


The science issue is something that I 


don’t see that we can address here at all. 


That’s another one of the things that we need 


to discuss with the full Board, try to make 


sure that we’re covering this in our matrix 


process and do it adequately. 


RESUME MATRIX ITEMS
 

Now we are ready to pick up where we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

left off at our last meeting with Supplement 1 


Procedure Findings. We were on OTIB-0017-09. 


It’s page 13 of our matrix items. I believe 


it’s September 25. Are we all there? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. We’re at the point where I 


guess the ball’s in my court. This is John. 


I reviewed all of the remaining OTIB-0017-09 


through, I guess, it goes on to the last one 


on 15. And where we are, we’ll start with ­

09. 

You know, we consider that the 

response is acceptable, and as far as we’re 


concerned, number nine is closed. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent. 


DR. ZIEMER: Hang on just a second. What’s 


the date of the matrix are we working from? 


MS. MUNN: We’re working from the same 


matrix we were using at our last meeting which 


is, the original date on it was May 21st, 2007, 


but the revised draft that we were working 


from is dated September 25, 2007. 


DR. MAURO: The NIOSH responses that we’re 


looking at are all in red. 


MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: By the way, the reason you’ll 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

see for many of my comments which I believe 


you’re going to find that they’re primarily 


closed, is the general concept that we don’t 


look at OTIB-0017 in a vacuum. 


This is sort of like a policy judgment 


that we all discussed during the last meeting 


where the fact that a particular piece of 


information is not explicitly provided in this 


particular OTIB but cross-references other 


OTIBs, the site profile, the way we’re looking 


at this now is that we look at the particular 


OTIB as just one part of the suite of 


guidelines that are available to the dose 


reconstructor. 


And as long as there’s enough language 


in the OTIB to alert the dose reconstructor 


that there is ^, and there are other guidance 


out there that needs to be considered. In the 


case of number nine, for example, the response 


basically says, well, the ^ radionuclides and 


their energy distributions are all really laid 


out on a site-by-site basis in the site 


profile. And we accept that. 


So that in effect it goes without 


saying that, of course, when you implement 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

OTIB-0017, you take into consideration the 


rich information that’s contained in the site 


profile. And it is there. You know, the site 


profiles do talk about the radionuclides 


except if there’s an issue on a particular 


site profile where that issue is incomplete. 


So we have a bit of a, I guess what we 


have is a situation where we agree with the 


concept. Namely, if the site profile is 


basically complete in addressing the range of 


radionuclides that are at play, then the dose 


reconstructor is in a position to make an 


informed judgment on what the energy 


distributions may be that he’s dealing with 


when he’s implementing OTIB-0017. So that’s 


the reason why we feel the issue has been 


resolved. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, Paul? 


DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


MS. MUNN: Move on to Finding 10. 


DR. MAURO: Same thing. It’s the same kind, 


the answer is, yes, this issue is closed from 


our perspective because in effect you can’t 


expect the OTIB to do everything, and the DR, 


the dose reconstructor, has access to a lot of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

other information that’s going to allow him to 


do this in an informed way. And we agree that 


that has to be the way it’s done because it’s 


impossible for any one OTIB to capture 


everything. So again, for the same reason, 


number ten we feel is a closed item. 


MS. MUNN: Eleven skirts around the item we 


were just discussing in 12. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, it’s the same thing. 


MS. MUNN: ^. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Item 12. 


DR. MAURO: Twelve is a little different. 


It’s basically NIOSH agrees that perhaps a 


little bit more clarity is needed, but it will 


be done at a convenient time. In other words 


at the time when there are revisions this kind 


of clarification, this is more of a 


housekeeping issue than it is something of 


technical substance. 


So as far as we’re concerned, you 


know, during due process of upkeep on these 


various OTIBs, this type of comment, number 


12, is certainly easier to take care of during 


the next round of revisions. So whether you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

want to consider that closed or in abeyance 


I’m not quite sure. 


MS. BEHLING: I consider that in abeyance. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, very good. That’s helpful 


because we’re really testing the system now 


and how we’re going to classify these things. 


MS. MUNN: Does anyone disagree with Kathy? 


It’s in abeyance to me. 


DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


MS. MUNN: And OTIB-0013 is a bit of a 


different thing. 


DR. MAURO: Again, you notice the cross-


referencing to, it looks like the response 


makes reference to PROC-06, and so from that 


perspective, yes, we agree, and we consider 


this to be closed. 


MS. MUNN: And, Kathy, do we consider that a 


transfer then? 


MS. BEHLING: Actually, I just walked away 


to look for something for a minute, and I 


apologize. I’m going to have to ask John to 


repeat what he said. I apologize. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Kathy, what’s happening 


here is a concern is raised here. The issue 


is the OTIB does not identify any cases where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

a possibly high POC can be determined early in 


the investigation. So in other words, it’s 


part of the triage process. That is, when 


you’re using OTIB-0017 for shallow dose, 


there’s a triage process. 


And our concern was that it’s not 


apparent what that process is. But then the 


response appropriately so is NIOSH says, well, 


wait a minute, the triage process is described 


in PROC-06. That’s where that issue is 


addressed. So I consider that, you know, 


given the context that there’s inter-linkage 


between all these procedures, I consider that 


to be responsive to our concern, and from my 


perspective it’s closed. 


MS. BEHLING: Let me ask a question. Does 


OTIB-0017 prompt the dose reconstructor to go 


to PROC-06 for that triage process? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in the response in red 


you’ll see the last sentence says in addition 


OTIB-0017 does give guidance on the topic of a 


low-high POC potential on page six, items A, B 


and C. So there is a pointer. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay. Then that’s closed. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, so that’s why I considered 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

that this is responsive. Now I have to say I 


didn’t go back to PROC-06 and a review on that 


to see if there’s anything outstanding related 


to this matter, but I just accepted the fact 


that this is an issue that’s closed because 


PROC-06 addresses this concern. Now whether 


or not we have an issue with PROC-06, I’ll be 


the first to say I did not go back and check 


out where that stands. 


MS. BEHLING: We are addressing PROC-06. We 


addressed PROC-06 in our first set, and we’re 


also addressing it in our third set. So all 


of the findings and issues should be covered 


in the next set, the third set. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, that brings me to 


the question of one of designation. Since 


this response basically says there’s a point 


at the PROC-06, now if the fact that PROC-06 


may be still active, do we close this or is 


this in abeyance? These get awful 


complicated. 


MS. BEHLING: No, I think we close this. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


MS. BEHLING: I think the only thing I would 


suggest is maybe let’s just go back and look 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

at PROC-06 and be sure that that does satisfy. 


But if NIOSH says here that they pointed to 


PROC-06, I think that that should satisfy us. 


MS. MUNN: I agree. 


All right, item 14. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, item 14 is a long one, and 


I believe that this item is, the response is 


fully responsive to our concern, and I think 


we believe that this issue should be closed. 


MS. MUNN: The 14 is acceptable. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, and the same thing holds 


for 15. 


MS. MUNN: Finding 15. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, it’s the same situation. 


MS. MUNN: That’s a long one. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, that’s a long one very much 


related to the previous one. 


MS. MUNN: All right, acceptable. 


DR. MAURO: So we believe that that’s 


responsive and consider the item closed. 


MS. MUNN: All right, very good. We do not 


have another NIOSH response until page 17 on 


OTIB-0009. This one being addressed is a 


global issue with the Procedures working 


group. That’s, as I see it, a matter of just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

identifying that properly on our page in our 


new matrix. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, we’ll do that. 


MS. MUNN: ^ item that I see is page 18, 


OTIB-0028-01 you have been provided? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Acceptable? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: So page 19, -0028-04. 


DR. MAURO: We find this acceptable. 


Namely, that the answer is that when such a 


situation arises, they’ll be dealt with on a 


case-by-case basis. In effect, yeah, we 


raised the question that there are certain 


circumstances that are not explicitly covered 


by this protocol in OTIB-0028. And the 


response is that it will be dealt with. When 


such a situation arises, it will be recognized 


and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 


I’m not quite sure whether the OTIB 


alerts the reader to it so maybe I have to go 


back and take another look at it. But maybe 


Stu is in a position to, is there, in other 


words if this circumstance arise, in other 


words where you’re dealing with an AMAD 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

different than five micron, the concern is 


quite straightforward. 


There are circumstances when your 


aerosol may be substantially different and 


smaller than five micron AMAD. And under 


those circumstances the doses could be 


substantially higher if it’s smaller 


especially for the lung for example. And the 


response is that, well, if that situation 


arises, do you have the wherewithal for 


dealing with it. 


And I agree with that. That is, you 


know, you could put in different particle size 


distributions into IMBA and deal with it. The 


only question I had, I guess, for NIOSH was, 


is that discussed. I believe it might be 


addressed in OCAS-002, IG-02, where you 


deviate from the default on a case-by-case 


basis. 


Stu, am I correct with that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think that might be likely 


to be the place where it is although sitting 


here today I couldn’t tell you for sure. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


Here’s a question to the, this is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

almost like a generic issue. This is a great 


example. The procedures all follow standard 


ICRP protocol. So when you do an internal 


dosimetry for inhalation, automatically you go 


with the five micron AMAD. 


And my understanding is unless there’s 


reason to believe that that aerosol particle 


distribution might be substantially different, 


as might be the case if you had a fire and 


there was a fume or you were doing welding and 


you’re dealing with a fume where the particle 


sizes are less than one micron, there really 


is no reason to deviate from the five micron. 


The question becomes how explicit 


would, for example, OTIB-0028 need to be in 


terms of its guidance to the dose 


reconstructor to alert him to the conditions 


under which when he may need to deviate from 


the standard protocol and what to watch out 


for. 


Right now, I’m not quite sure. I’d 


have to check again, but I don’t think OTIB0028 goes there and gives you pointers when 


you may have to deviate from this procedure, 


but OCAS-001 does, OCAS-IG-01 does. When you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

read through that big, thick guideline, it 


does talk about particle size distributions. 


So in a way, the way I guess I’m 


looking at it, and why I would say that, 


probably this is closed is that when you take 


it, when you realize that OCAS-001 being the 


platform that you’re building from and that’s 


given as, that is, that’s what the dose 


reconstructor is fully aware, fully trained in 


the use of OCAS-IG-02 -- I’ll cite that one, 


too -- then you could use OTIB-0028 in a very 


informed way. 


So the question becomes to what extent 


does OTIB-0028 need to tell the dose 


reconstructor that. This is a recurring theme 


that we run into a lot in all our reviews. 


You know, how much information really needs to 


be put into any given OTIB? 


MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett. If I 


could throw something in here. OTIB-0028 was 


intended to just document the dose conversion 


factors that we’re using for thorium because 


the values in IMBA are incorrect. So it 


wasn’t intended to go over all of the specific 


details. We did have OTIB-0060, which is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

internal dosimetry. It’s not very detailed in 


here but there is a paragraph on particle size 


distribution that says the default is five 


microns, and this value is to be used for 


evaluating information intakes in the absence 


of known information as documented in the site 


profiles or the case file. And so this is 


supposed to be the guidance for general 


internal dosimetry issues. And maybe that 


could use a little bit of strengthening, but 


OTIB-0028 wasn’t really intended to go over 


all the details related to thorium. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I understand that, and I 


guess it’s just a matter of, I think that 


philosophy, the strategy for, as long as 


everyone really understands that we’re really 


building a system of guidance documents that 


are all interconnected and interdependent. 


And that there’s a training program so that 


everyone is fully apprised of the array so 


that they could use any one document properly 


within the context of its intent and with due 


consideration of the other documents. That 


being the case, an awful lot of our findings 


go away. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

MS. MUNN: Stu, can we be reassured IG-02 is 


such a basic tool that dose reconstruction 


would be --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the document 


that Liz mentioned, the OTIB-0060 or PROC-60, 


whichever it is, that is described, you know, 


the title is “Internal Dose Reconstruction” is 


probably a more commonly referenced direction 


and probably a more commonly used as long as 


anybody ever comes new onto the program any 


more that that would be the location where you 


would expect it. I think IG-02 is like the 


fundamental underpinnings, but I don’t know 


that very many people rely on it for a day-today instruction. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. What I 


see in dose reconstruction reviews is exactly 


that. Typically, they will go to the OTIB0060 now as opposed to the Implementation 


Guide, but I do think OTIB-0060 does provide 


an adequate explanation of this. 


MS. MUNN: We can call this acceptable given 


the circumstances. 


DR. MAURO: I agree. 


MS. MUNN: All right. ^ closed on item 6­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

04. Likely the same would apply to 11-01, 


outstanding issue there, 01 and 02. More 


issues? 


DR. MAURO: I’m sorry. I just lost track a 


bit. Are we, which OTIB are we on now? 


MS. MUNN: We’re on OTIB-0011. 


DR. MAURO: Eleven, that’s the tritium one, 


okay. 


MS. MUNN: One and two. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, we’ve resolved that 


previously I believe. 


MS. MUNN: There was just a slight addition 


there. I wanted to make sure it was 


acceptable and closed. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: OTIB-0019-01. 


DR. MAURO: Let me get there. I’m flipping 


through my big book. It’s a little easier for 


me to get oriented. 


MS. MUNN: That’s all right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, 19-01 is the one we 


talked about off the agenda. That’s where we 


owe an alternative response which is not yet 


ready. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

MR. HINNEFELD: That was one of our action 


items from on the agenda. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, we discussed this 


previously, that’s correct. 


MS. MUNN: That’s right. My action item 


that I did record back up there was reword 


OTIB-0019 in process. Forward the responses 


before the 11th, right? 


DR. MAURO: Right, I recall this. As a 


matter of fact Bob Anigstein might be on the 


line. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. If I remember 


correctly, Jim Neton said that they’re going 


to reword the OTIB-0019. 


MS. MUNN: And that’s just what I have on my 


notes, for action. All right. 


TIB-0012, no response required, that 


one’s closed? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: Twelve was just discussed. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. OTIB-0004, response from 


NIOSH. 


DR. MAURO: This has some history. A lot of 


the issues that are still active here are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

going to some global discussion regarding 


ingestion, oronasal breathing, that sort of 


thing. I’m not sure how we resolved them at 


the last meeting, but we did speak to this 


extensively. 


MS. MUNN: Well, it says in another context 


that it would go to the global issues. Is 


that the same? Is it also true here? What do 


we want to do with this one? So work group 


members take a moment to refresh your memory 


and read the wording on this one. 


(Work group members comply) 


MS. MUNN: Does this go to global issues 


under the --


DR. MAURO: I think each one has its own 


little story, and I think they’re all in hand 


so to speak. They’re being dealt with. I 


believe, you know, for example, the very first 


one, number one, goes toward the inhalation 


rate, 1.2 cubic meters per hour. And also at 


the same time if you remember when we started 


to discuss the 1.2 cubic meters per hour as a 


generic value, we also found ourselves 


diverting into, wait a minute. Is OTIB-0004 


intended solely for uranium metal facilities 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

or does it also include processing facilities? 


And that was an important issue that 


NIOSH previously reported back. This was like 


an issue that I don’t think was actually 


written up. But NIOSH reported back to 


confirm that OTIB-0004 is only for 


metalworking facilities and did not apply to, 


and that sort of closed that out. So I think 


that issue was raised. That was actually 


captured here on page 21. 


MS. MUNN: That’s acceptable, and we can 


close that one. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


MS. MUNN: ^ --


MR. GRIFFON: I’ll tell you, Wanda, one 


comment on that though just for other readers 


that NIOSH response in red doesn’t respond to 


the findings so it’s kind of confusing. 


DR. MAURO: That’s correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: I understand after John’s 


explanation, but just to, I don’t know how we 


deal with that, but --


DR. MAURO: And I get back to the 1.2. I 


only brought that up because that issue did 


come up. Somehow it emerged over the course 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

of the 1.2. 


MR. GRIFFON: I know. I was reading the 


response and saying how does this relate to 


the breathing rate? It doesn’t really. 


DR. MAURO: I think the breathing rate is 


part and parcel to the, in other words, when 


do you deviate from 1.2, and you go to 1.7? 


That was one of the concerns. And I think 


that while I know that there are times when 


NIOSH does use 1.7 as being an upper bound for 


very heavy work, and we did discuss the fact 


that since OTIB-0004 is a generic bounding 


protocol for denial only for AWE facilities 


metalworking. 


We all agree that that kind of work 


very often is very strenuous. And the issue 


had to do with whether or not it makes sense 


for OTIB-0004 to use something other than 1.2. 


I think you may have gone to 1.7 in Bethlehem 


Steel. I’m not sure. But I don’t know if 


this issue is resolved. 


MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I don’t 


consider this issue resolved. I believe this 


is still, that it could be transferred to the 


global issue, but it’s still an issue that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

needs to be discussed. That’s my reading. 


MS. MUNN: Well, my reading is that we 


captured that in two where we specifically 


said that the breathing is a global topic. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Two describes oronasal 


breathing, in other words people who are mouth 


breathers, that impact. That is the breathing 


rate, and that’s 1.2. If I’m not mistaken, 


1.2 cubic meters per hour or whatever, is a 


combination actually of at rest and heavy 


labor. So it’s not like people are taking it 


easy and breathing 1.2 cubic meters per hour. 


It’s a combination of at rest and heavy labor. 


And there’s some discussion I believe about 


can someone really work eight hours laboring 


so hard. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, we had that discussion at 


the last Board meeting. I think Jim Neton --


MR. HINNEFELD: Jim was on at the last one, 


and --


DR. ZIEMER: And Jim cited some reference 


indicating that a worker could not work at the 


heavy rate for eight hours. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: You’re right. Yeah, I recall 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

that. 


MR. GRIFFON: But I think that was kind of, 


it’s going back to the global question. I 


think that was kind of Jim’s update on those. 


I mean we haven’t seen necessarily a white 


paper on that from Jim. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right, that was a status report 


at that point. But I think the 1.2 is not 


necessarily just a light breathing rate. It’s 


some kind of a --


MR. GRIFFON: Agreed, yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: I guess the question is what do 


we do with this at this point. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think it’s going to be one 


of those topics that’s going to be in that 


generic paper. Is it not being addressed in 


addition to oronasal breathing? Isn’t it for 


also part of --


MR. HINNEFELD: I’d have to talk to Jim. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I’m not sure either. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, when we had this 


discussion, I mean, Jim certainly made a very 


convincing argument that you’re not going to 


have someone working eight hours a day at 1.7. 


He’d hyperventilate. And I know I certainly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

believe that, but that was the response. Now 


the question becomes to what degree do we need 


a white paper or something, in other words, in 


order to close this item, do we need 


something, a record, saying, listen, here’s 


the reason we, and I certainly accept that as 


being, you know, we did not investigate that. 


MR. GRIFFON: I would think we do, John, 


because on those overheads that Jim showed 


also there was some, at least to me, there was 


some numbers that weren’t intuitively obvious. 


I mean, they were kind of counterintuitive, a 


couple were --


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I’m 


sorry. I was answering, but you couldn’t hear 


me because I had you on mute, and Stu stepped 


in there thankfully. But I do want to 


reiterate that, yes, Jim will be preparing a 


summary paper on this issue, and that’s what 


you should be waiting for. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that’s where it’s at 


now. 


DR. ZIEMER: It is kind of a global issue, 


isn’t it? 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, it’s a global issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

You know, we don’t consider it to be wrapped 


up and final because, just because Jim made a 


presentation of it at the Board meeting. 


There’s got to be this delivery of this paper, 


white paper, on it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Sounds good. 


MS. MUNN: Well, our action item here is 


that both -01 and -02 are actually global 


topics, and that NIOSH will present a white 


paper, right? 


DR. MAURO: Can we label this transfer-


global issues? 


MS. MUNN: That would be my assumption. 


Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING: That’s what I believe, yes. 


And I’ll also make note that there’ll be a 


white paper being presented. 


DR. ZIEMER: In fact, notice down the next 


item, the oronasal breathing issue pops up 


again. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, that’s why I was saying 


both 01 and 02. 


DR. ZIEMER: And 02, yeah. 


MS. MUNN: They both go in the same 


direction. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

So for the next NIOSH response... 


DR. MAURO: Well, 03 and 04 are dealing 


with, I believe, recycled uranium and the 


documentation. The concern was in OTIB-0004 


there are certain default values for recycled 


uranium imbedded in the matrix. And the 


response that NIOSH gave is that they’re 


looking at that on a generic basis. I guess 


there’s an OTIB-0053 that’s coming out. So 


the way I see it is that both these items 


would be transferred to the review of OTIB0053. 


MS. MUNN: Both of the remaining OTIB-0004 


items. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, that would be number three 


and number four under OTIB-0004. 


MS. MUNN: Move to OTIB-what? 


DR. MAURO: OTIB, O-R-A-U-T OTIB-0053. 


MS. BEHLING: Stu, is that out yet? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Not yet. 


MS. MUNN: Pending. As I go through this 


looking for other responses from NIOSH that we 


haven’t addressed yet, and these items that we 


still are carrying that you know can be closed 


for any reason, please stop us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

The next item that I see is on page 


26, ORAU OTIB-0014, finding 1. It’s going to 


be --


DR. ZIEMER: Does it start on 25 or, oh no, 


I see it, 26, yeah. 


MS. MUNN: It’s 26 and it goes immediately 


to seven. Most of it’s on 27. 


DR. MAURO: I’m sorry, Wanda. We’re on 


OTIB-0014 now? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we’re on OTIB-0014. ^, Stu? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s OTIB-0014. 


MS. MUNN: OTIB-0014-01. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This OTIB concerns 


assignment of environmental internal doses for 


workers not exposed. In other words when, 


it’s a technique for environmental internal. 


The first finding here has to do with, you’ve 


got to be cautious when applying this approach 


to construction workers, and we feel like 


maybe that comment has been sort of overcome 


by the issuance of the construction worker 


OTIB, OTIB-0052. But we agree that, yeah, 


these are kind of special situations. 


DR. MAURO: Wanda, we agree with that. That 


is, OTIB-0052 on construction workers is a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

major OTIB. I believe we have already begun 


the process of that. I think it came up in 


one of our meetings, but that has, that’s sort 


of like a standalone big special one. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it is. And so -0014-01 is 


acceptable and can be closed? 


DR. MAURO: Do we close that or do we 


transfer it to -0052? 


MS. MUNN: Transfer it to -0052. 


There’s OTIB-0025-01. 


DR. MAURO: Give me one second. Oh, I 


believe this item is, well, let me tell you 


what it was. I believe it’s closed. It has 


to do with the radon breath analysis for the 


purpose of determining body burden. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And I may need a little help 


here. The way I understand it is that when 


you take the radon breath sample from a 


person, depending on his level of activity, 


that is, his breathing rate, will have a 


substantial effect on the results. So in 


other words, if he’s resting, so you’re going 


to collect a sample there to get a number of, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

I guess, picocuries per -- I’m not quite sure 


of the units -- but the breathing rate will 


affect the rate at which radon is being 


exhaled. And therefore, affect how you 


convert that measurement on exhaled radon to 


what the body burden is. 


And I believe the response was, well, 


we’re doing it the right way. We’re using 


default ICRP-66, a breathing rate of 20 liters 


per minute in performing this calculation. 


And I guess I’m not familiar enough with this 


particular protocol except I know that it was 


reviewed in detail by Mike Thorne (ph), and he 


came away favorable. In other words, he was 


very favorably, he gave high scores. 


The only thing he cautioned, and it 


was really more of a caution, that when you’re 


looking at this data and interpreting the data 


and then assigning radium body burden based on 


the data, that you could be off by, I guess, 


not an insignificant amount depending on the 


conditions under which the breathing zone 


sample was taken. And that was a caution. 


Now I guess I’ll punt at this point. 


To the extent to which your protocol and how 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

you use the data for radon breath analysis 


takes into consideration that concern. I 


mean, if your protocol takes --


DR. ZIEMER: That’s more of a sample 


handling concern though, right? 


DR. MAURO: Well, it’s sort of like when the 


original sample was collected, in other words, 


let’s say we have a record of a person that we 


can estimate his body burden based on radon 


breath analysis. And the only caution was 


that there is a standard protocol, I guess, 


that, the assumption is made, I guess, that 


the sample was taken when the person’s 


breathing rate was 20 liters per minute. So 


that’s sort of like built into the analysis. 


And the reviewer, Mike Thorne, simply 


pointed out if that wasn’t the case at the 


time of the sample whereby the breathing rate 


was substantially different, you’re not going 


to get the right number, and you could 


possibly underestimate or overestimate. And 


that was the concern. 


That’s about the best I can do to 


communicate what the concern was, and I guess 


I’ll leave it to NIOSH. If you have that well 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

in hand that’s fine. Or if it’s really an 


issue that’s a minor issue and marginal but 


that was the concern that was expressed, that 


you could be off by a lot. And I think Mike 


Thorne in his write up, you know, the big 


report, goes into that a little bit. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, my reaction originally 


is that I don’t think that we hardly ever use 


that. I mean, there are not that many 


instances where we have radon breath data at 


only a handful of sites, and so this isn’t 


used a whole lot. And I guess I can’t speak 


any more knowledgeably about it right now. 


So I guess, John, the issue here being 


that the radon is expected to emanate into the 


lungs at a particular rate, so it’s a pretty 


good rate per day that’s directly based on the 


radium body burden. And the volume or the 


rate at which the person is breathing at the 


time of sample, and he breathes out the dust 


sample would dictate what would affect what 


the concentration is. 


DR. MAURO: That was a concern, yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: ^ is measured in a radon 


concentration in the exhaled air. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, just an observation, this 


is a typical sort of a bioassay procedure. 


It’s not done during the middle of a work 


cycle. You don’t jump in and take a breath 


sample while a person is doing heavy work. 


They go to a lab somewhere. They’re probably 


sitting down. Their actual breathing rate 


would be at the low end of things rather than 


at the high end. You know what I’m saying? 


In other words they’re going to have a 


sort of a moderate or low breathing rate 


because it’s more like a resting condition 


just for sampling. And so if a higher 


breathing rate gives you an underestimate, but 


you’re not really going to have that condition 


unless you take a person in the lab and put 


them on a treadmill and then take a sample or 


something. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Paul, I would agree 


because I’m looking at the scorecard right now 


that was used in our main report, and it got 


all fives across the board. And the reason it 


made it into the matrix is that in converting 


this write up into the matrix, one of the 


observations was almost like a caution. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

But quite frankly, I accept the 


argument that, listen, this is going to be, if 


they’re doing radon breath analysis, they are 


following standard protocol which clearly they 


are because Mike Thorne did review the 


protocol. There’s no reason to believe 


they’re going to deviate and do something 


foolish. I mean, I’m prepared to accept that 


as being a reasoned argument, and that using 


the standard default value of 20 liters per 


minute is probably a reasonable way to deal 


with this problem. So I, for one, feel that ­

- Mike Thorne isn’t on the line. He’s in 


Great Britain, but he gave it all fives, so 


I’m okay. 


MS. MUNN: Particularly in light of the 


small number of claimants this is likely to 


affect. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: But I think aside from that, it 


has to be the right decision regardless of the 


number of claimants. And I think you could 


argue that you’d have to have an artificial 


construct and get a high breathing rate on a 


lab sample. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think in point of 


fact the breathing rate in a lab could quite 


likely be lower than 20 liters per minute for 


this using 20 liters --


DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you would overestimate. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Overestimate the burden. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Maybe for the purpose of, I 


mean, let us say mechanistically we’re dealing 


with this. I think that the explanation --


see, right now the explanation is pretty 


short. It says -- if you look in the matrix 


in red -- it says the default ICRP breathing 


rate of 20 liters per minute is used for all 


intake assessments. Now a little bit more 


explanation of the kind that we’re talking 


about --


DR. ZIEMER: In other words, why would you 


use that? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. And why we’re okay --


DR. ZIEMER: This is reasonable for a person 


undergoing a laboratory bioassay. 


DR. MAURO: And perhaps conservative. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think that would put 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

this one to bed. 


MS. BEHLING: The only other thing I’ll 


mention is this is going to be an issue at the 


Fernald site, and so there will be possibly a 


lot of people that this may impact, but it’s 


being looked at very closely also. So when it 


does become an issue that is being used 


especially for like I said the Fernald and 


under the SEC I think this is one of the 


issues. It’s being looked at in close detail 


as to the approach that was taken and so on so 


it’s really being covered in that aspect of 


things at the site profile level or the SEC 


level. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein. 


Going back to the discussion of the breathing 


rate for different activities, I just looked 


up. The ICRP 1.2 cubic meters per hour is 


strictly for light activity. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s called light 


activity in the ICRP, but the basis behind 


that though, the light activity number, is 


some portion of time at rest and some portion 


of time at more strenuous labor. There’s 


another document underpinning that, that term 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

light activity. That’s what they describe 


light activity as. And so for a breathing 


rate in a laboratory where they take somebody 


to the lab and have them breath aged air and ­

-


DR. ANIGSTEIN: I wasn’t referring to the 


radon exposure. I was referring to the 


previous discussion on this that we just 


finished. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: So can the action item be that 


NIOSH will augment its report to clarify the 


point --


DR. ZIEMER: Probably just need a couple 


more sentences. 


MR. HINNEFELD: A couple more sentences is 


what I would expect. 


MS. MUNN: All right. 


Page 34, PROC 0067-01. 


DR. MAURO: I’m sorry, Wanda, could you help 


me out a bit? I’m following the matrix, and I 


just lost track here. Where are we? What 


OTIB? 


MS. MUNN: We’re on PROC 0067-01. 


DR. MAURO: PROC 0067. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

MS. MUNN: We didn’t have any new NIOSH 


responses prior to that. 


MS. BEHLING: Page 34, John. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you. Thank you. 


Let me get myself oriented a bit. 


DR. ZIEMER: It looks like NIOSH has agreed 


to apply, to add a flowchart to the next 


revision. Is that how you interpret this? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, I’m getting myself 


oriented. I think we’re into all of the QA 


procedures now. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: We’ve sort of left the technical 


procedures. 


MS. MUNN: We have. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, good, good, that helps me. 


And unfortunately, the author of our review I 


don’t believe is on the line, Steve Ostrow, 


but I am familiar with a lot of the --


DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is pretty 


straightforward. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. ZIEMER: The finding was to provide a 


flowchart to help the users, I guess. 


DR. MAURO: In fact, not only that, I think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

when you go over all of, a large number of the 


reviews of the procedures, the comments, they 


all have to do with context, like the concept 


of a flowchart in terms of, okay, you have a 


comprehensive quality assurance program which 


is made up of a whole array of procedures, I 


think a recurring theme is it’s difficult to 


see where any one procedure fits into the 


matrix of procedures or the flowchart. 


DR. ZIEMER: The big picture. 


DR. MAURO: The big picture. If the big 


picture was communicated and then every one of 


the individual procedures is sort of part of 


the puzzle, that would really help us judge 


the completeness of the program and the role 


of any given procedure within the program. So 


the flowchart issue I think goes toward an 


awful lot of the comments that we’re going to 


be going over here. 


DR. OSTROW: Hey, John, this is Steve 


Ostrow. 


DR. MAURO: Oh good, Steve, great. I’m so 


glad you’re able to join us. 


DR. OSTROW: I’m awake, too, after all this 


stuff. That’s my general comment, too. It’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

a little bit difficult reviewing some of these 


procedures, QA-type procedures. Unless you 


have an overview of the entire system, it’s 


hard to see how each one fits in. Each 


procedure would benefit very much from maybe 


one standard page that shows a diagram of the 


hierarchy of procedures starting out with the 


QA procedure on the top and where all these 


little, smaller procedures fit in. 


DR. ZIEMER: Again, it appears that NIOSH 


concurs with that idea and is indicating 


they’ll consider that in a future revision. 


Is that correct? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we will, yeah. We 


agree that considering a flowchart. Now what 


Steve just talked about which is, and John, 


which is context and how the various documents 


relate, I’m not 100 percent familiar with 


these documents, but it would seem that if the 


Quality Assurance program was ^ I believe that 


was reviewed, wasn’t it? 


DR. OSTROW: Yes, it was. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Was it? 


DR. OSTROW: Uh-huh. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So then this same finding 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

would be there then apparently. Because to me 


that would be the place where the context 


should be set. 


DR. OSTROW: Well, I think you could have 


one standard page in each one of these 


implementing procedures that show how it fits 


into the overall picture. 


DR. ZIEMER: You mean the same flowchart? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Same flowchart? 


DR. OSTROW: It could be the same flowchart 


just with a different box highlighted in each 


procedure just to show the individual 


procedure. And that’s all I envision it. I 


mean, there are probably other ways to do it, 


too. It would just be the same page for every 


single procedure, same diagram. 


MS. MUNN: NIOSH and SC&A need to discuss 


this and perhaps put a straw man out to ^ work 


about being unduly burdensome for both the 


agency and the contractors. Is it possible to 


do that? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, the other way of looking 


at it, NIOSH says they’ll consider this in 


their future revisions, and they may need to 


take a look at, I could see a flowchart that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

was so complex it wouldn’t be helpful. There 


are a lot of procedures, so it may be that you 


would highlight certain ones or groups of -- I 


don’t know. I think you’d have to take a look 


at the total picture. 


DR. MAURO: In a way, Paul, this sort of is 


not unlike the conversation we had earlier 


about the suite of technical procedures, how 


they’re all interconnected, interlocked and 


interdependent. The red write up that starts 


on page 34 of the matrix --


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that’s what we’re looking 


at. 


DR. MAURO: Right, I was just reading it 


again, you know, just to refresh my memory. 


In effect what that write up is doing is it 


explains, yeah, there is this very --


DR. ZIEMER: Hierarchy of --


DR. MAURO: -- you know, now the question 


becomes do you need to, every time you write a 


particular procedure, it certainly would be 


helpful to understand the context. The 


question becomes is that something that is 


necessary to do for each procedure if, in 


fact, all of the dose reconstruction folks are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

fully apprised and trained in the overall 


program, Quality Management program, and 


understand where that particular procedure 


fits in. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. We’ve 


said we’d consider this in our efforts to 


revise in the future. So, you know, I hear 


this as a constructive comment. We’re going 


to take it to heart, and I don’t see it 


necessary for this working group to belabor 


the point. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don’t think we need to 


solve the issue here. I think it’s been 


raised, maybe need to consider how it could be 


done in an efficient way that would be helpful 


to the constructors. 


MR. HINNEFELD: My one smart aleck comment 


here, of course, is we don’t like it to be 


easy for reviewers. It serves a purpose of 


the Quality Assurance folks and whoever else 


uses them on the ORAU side because the ORAU 


procedures would generally be used by the ORAU 


staff. If it serves their purposes, then I 


think that’s the test. But that’s not to say 


that an outside reviewer can’t add value in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

making comments like this. 


I don’t want to just shut it down, but 


I think we all want to bear in mind before we 


go too far now what’s the appropriate path 


here is to make sure that the Quality staff 


that reads, you know, reads these with an open 


mind and says, okay now, realistically, what 


will be helpful to us and helpful to potential 


new hires. We don’t have very many new hires 


anymore, but potential new hires for attrition 


and things like that. 


DR. ZIEMER: And if it’s not helpful to 


them, then you don’t want to spend a whole lot 


of time on it. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, right. 


MS. MUNN: Will you use the ^ which is what 


I suggested that ^ at least some kind of a 


straw man to see how complex or how simple 


such a chart would be to evaluate whether --


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think Stu has suggested 


that it needs to be designed for the needs of 


the users, not the needs of the reviewers. So 


probably it should be approached by the NIOSH 


end of things I would think. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, isn’t it enough that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

hear this comment and we’ve accepted it? 


We’re going to give it due consideration and 


if the working group wants to add weight to 


this, you could advance it as a recommendation 


for the full Board to pass on to us. But at 


this point I think it’s really something that 


we have to take up here and evaluate in the 


scheme of things, and in a broader context, we 


have a request for proposals and a new 


contract award coming up. We have to look at 


it in that light. We have to look at it where 


things currently stand with the development of 


all of the technical tools as well as the 


quality control and quality assurance 


procedures that we want to employ as we move 


forward. So I really think it’s on us at 


NIOSH to take this to heart and to look at 


what merit it brings. 


MS. MUNN: I have no problem with that. The 


question is can we therefore close this item 


with that discussion in mind? 


DR. ZIEMER: I think we can close it. 


They’ve made the commitment. 


MS. MUNN: Is that acceptable? 


DR. ZIEMER: Obviously there has to be a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

follow up. Is this one of those things that 


is --


MS. BEHLING: In abeyance. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I don’t know. My question 


then becomes in abeyance as of when or because 


of what? NIOSH has said they will consider 


this, and we have to work on the premise that 


it would be considered an applicable tool only 


in cases where it would be applicable. 


Otherwise, how can we hold something in 


abeyance until we have made a judgment that 


this is an appropriate tool to apply? 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld, and 


this is a thought. I don’t want to sound 


cavalier about Quality Assurance here so I’m 


going to try to be careful about what I say. 


But the majority of the documents that have 


been reviewed are technical documents that 


provide technical basis for the manner in 


which a dose reconstruction is done correctly, 


i.e., in accordance with the program 


direction. So that’s a scientific or 


technical review of is this process being done 


scientifically correctly. 


Quality Assurance set of procedures 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

which describes doing them in accordance with 


the rules, the work group may want to decide 


that that’s not a place they want to go, or 


they may want to decide that Quality may be a 


place they want to go. But I’m not so sure 


looking at the Quality procedures we’ll get 


very far on that. It may be product quality 


or something else. I don’t know how to do 


that. But I just think that the Quality 


procedures may have not very fertile ground 


for meaningful assistance to the program by 


going through these and worrying too much 


about these. 


DR. MAURO: This is John. I also have an 


observation. I and Steve and others have 


prepared and have reviewed Quality Assurance 


procedures on many occasions in many different 


contexts. And usually the procedures are very 


complete, and that is they make a commitment 


to quality. What I find is the degree to 


which those procedures are, in fact, 


implemented. 


In other words, this is just my own 


perspective. The added value comes from 


determining the degree to which that any 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

organization is, in fact, following its 


procedures. That becomes more important than 


whether or not the procedures themselves seem 


to be reasonable and complete. So, I mean, I 


don’t know if that helps any. 


Basically, what Steve found in 


reviewing all your procedures is that by and 


large you’ve got yourself a comprehensive 


program except that it’s difficult to follow 


piece by piece without having a roadmap. And 


it sounds like you folks are certainly 


prepared to try to consider that. My 


observations regarding the Board’s role and 


our role in supporting the Board is the degree 


to which there is any value to actually 


auditing the degree to which the procedures 


are being followed. 


Now I may be overstepping my bounds, 


but that’s where value is added. But that 


also, of course, is incorporated into their 


own procedures. For example, they have an 


internal auditing, they have a set of 


procedures and way to audit that the 


procedures are being followed. The degree to 


which the Board wants to weigh in there is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

certainly the purview of the Board. 


So forgive me if I sort of stepped 


outside, but I’ve been involved in a lot of QA 


kind of activities in the nuclear power 


industry so I’m pretty familiar with the 


process, and I just wanted to pass that on. 


MS. MUNN: Well, can we find this response 


to be acceptable and close this item or not? 


DR. MAURO: Steve, from SC&A’s perspective 


how do you come out on that looking at the 


picture collectively? 


DR. OSTROW: Well, I think so. I think we 


could close it out. Just rely on NIOSH to 


include a roadmap if they feel it’s beneficial 


to their own reviewers, to their own use of 


the procedures. This is a suggestion, not a 


fault, that was found. 


MS. MUNN: I think this is acceptable-


closed. 


MS. BEHLING: So am I. 


MS. MUNN: Item two. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Steve. This is 


Larry Elliott. I appreciate you offering that 


as a suggestion. It certainly is important to 


me, and we will fully look at it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

DR. OSTROW: This wasn’t a criticism of the 


procedures. It was just a suggestion to how 


to improve the use of them. 


MR. ELLIOTT: That’s the way I was taking 


it, too. Thank you. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think the next one is sort of 


in the same boat, discuss how the procedures 


fit into the overall Quality Assurance 


program. That looks like another one that’s 


sort of intended to help the outsiders 


understand it, but --


DR. OSTROW: There’s a number of similar 


type comments. 


DR. ZIEMER: So does it actually affect the 


-- yeah. 


DR. MAURO: I’m looking through all of the 


remaining SC&A comments right on through, I 


guess, the last comment that’s on page 42, and 


they all basically are the same comment. 


DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MS. MUNN: Pretty much, and the response is 


primarily we’ll consider that if it’s 


necessary. Is there any objection to marking 


all of these acceptable and closed? 


DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I don’t object 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

to that. 


DR. ZIEMER: A lot of these, they’re 


understood as suggestions and will be 


considered in the future revisions of --


MR. ELLIOTT: Stu, I think we’re okay with 


that, aren’t we? 


 (no response) 


MR. ELLIOTT: Stu, are you still there? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Hi, I muted myself because 


my phone beeped awhile ago. Yes, that’s 


acceptable to me. 


MS. MUNN: All right, then the last one of 


those is on 42 of page 42 of 42. 


Very good. We managed to make it 


through the second matrix. Amazing. 


DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 


MS. MUNN: But we still have open items, but 


at least we’ve gotten through it once. That’s 


great. 


Now, we had expected for us to have a 


15-minute break about now. Probably a good 


time to do it. We don’t have a great deal 


left in front of us, that I am aware of. 


DR. ZIEMER: I don’t show a 15-minute break 


for another hour yet. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

MS. MUNN: What? 


DR. ZIEMER: You have a 15-minute break at 


3:30, but it’s only 2:30. 


MS. MUNN: Well, yes but then we’ve been at 


it for an hour and a half. If you don’t want 


to do it, we’ll just go right on. 


DR. ZIEMER: What do we have left? 


DISCUSSION OF THIRD SET
 

MS. MUNN: What we have left is I want to 


just have a brief discussion, and I know it’ll 


be brief because nobody’s had an opportunity 


to really and truly absorb it, on the 


information we just received from SC&A, a 291­

page document that’s been received. And I 


doubt, I know I haven’t had any opportunity to 


do more than just scan it very quickly. 


DR. ZIEMER: I don’t think I’ve gotten that 


one. When was it sent out? 


MS. MUNN: It’s brand new. I think it was 


yesterday. 


MR. HINNEFELD: October 30th . You talking 


about the third set? 


MS. MUNN: The third set. 


MR. HINNEFELD: The one prior to Privacy Act 


review was sent on October 30th . 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

MS. MUNN: The one that -- here it is. I’m 


trying to get back to the first page so that I 


can see it. It’s October 2007, October 29 


effective date, draft, 291 pages. NIOSH/ORAUT 


methods used for dose reconstruction, review 


of the third set of procedures. Forty-five 


procedure reviews covered. It’s very 


extensive. 


Kathy, is it your expectation that 


this will appear on the --


MS. BEHLING: I’m hoping to get that on to 


the new matrix, yes. 


MS. MUNN: There’s a lot there. 


MS. BEHLING: Yes, I know. In fact, let me 


ask this. Since there is a lot there I would 


assume that the priority should be for me to 


try to get the third set findings into the 


matrix format that we currently, or that we’re 


going to be using, the new matrix format. And 


then if I can’t get everything done, 


hopefully, that will certainly be done by the 


11th of December. And if not everything gets 


done, it might be just the first set put into 


this format. Is that acceptable? 


MS. MUNN: I would think so. There are only 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

so many hours in a day, and this third set 


document appears to be extensive, so I think 


your approach is quite acceptable. 


MS. BEHLING: Okay, so I will take this 


second set, and we will reformat using just 


the minor changes that I made to John’s 


initial matrix. I will then look at the third 


set to develop a matrix for the third set, and 


then as the last item go back to the first set 


and put that into this format. But the other 


thing I will have done by then is the roll up. 


I should be able to put everything into a roll 


up report. It’s just that the first set, the 


individual sheets I may not have done. 


MS. MUNN: The roll up is really key to 


being able to see what we have and what we 


have yet in front of us. So, yes, your 


approach is fine with me. 


Any comments, one way or the other, 


from other members of the Board? 


DR. ZIEMER: It sounds fine. 


DR. MAURO: And, Wanda, this is John. Just 


a point to let everyone know. This should be 


an interesting set because what we’ve done 


here is beside the original 30 that we were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

asked to review, during the course, while we 


were working that as you probably recall, we 


were reviewing a lot of new OTIBs that were 


coming out as part of the various site profile 


reviews that we were engaged in, especially 


Rocky, that really did not have a home. 


In other words, the formal review and 


documentation of a lot of the site specifics 


were captured here. So what we’re going to 


have is something a little, we’re going to 


deal with something a little different than 


we’ve dealt with and that includes not only 


the standard set of 30 that are, approximately 


30, that were originally authorized, but we 


also included a number of other reviews that 


were done in another venue, namely as part of 


the review of some of the closeout process 


where SEC and site profile issues. So we’re 


going to see not only generic, but we’re going 


to see some site-specific because we felt it 


was necessary to have a home for those site-


specific reviews. 


MS. MUNN: That appears to be the best way 


to capture them, John. I don’t know where 


else would they go. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

DR. MAURO: Yeah. That’s why this is such a 


large document. 


MS. MUNN: Well, 45 is a lot, but we’ll have 


to deal with it. So we’ll do the best we can 


^ as much of it as possible for December. 


RECAP OF ACTION ITEMS
 

The other item that I have listed for 


us is to look at our calendars and make sure 


that we’re squared away with what we need 


between now... I’m going to read you the 


action items that I have. Help me if I am off 


base. And, Chia-Chia, can you check your list 


against mine? If there are additions or 


subtractions, we can discuss that offline. 


MS. CHANG: Yes, I think your list will 


probably be ^. 


MS. MUNN: But let’s see what we have here. 


I have action items: 


SC&A will complete the roll up and 


tracking matrix in the new format ^ possible 


by December 11th . 


NIOSH will report on where we are with 


global issues. 


MS. CHANG: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: We will continue responses to ^ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

reword OTIB-0018. ^ to be forwarded to us. 


Responses will be available before December 


11th
 . 


^ OTIB-0017 will incorporate PROC-0090 


reforms^. 


NIOSH will respond to SC&A’s matrix 


PROC-0092. This response –- NIOSH will 


communicate with SC&A and will respond to 


issues raised in the OTIB-0012 white paper. 


Key issues will be captured on the matrix. 


Carryover of OTIB-0017-06. This was 


not addressed. 


^ of OTIB-0023, ^ issue paper on 


oronasal ^ to accommodate OTIB-0004-02. 


NIOSH will augment their response to 


OTIB-000^. 


Are there any items that I missed? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: Are you there, Chia-Chia? 


DR. ZIEMER: We lose her? 


MS. MUNN: We lost her. 


DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, are you there yet? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I’m here. 


DR. MAURO: I’m still here. It’s John. 


MS. BEHLING: This Kathy. I’m still here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

I don’t have any other items. I’m sorry. I 


thought you were waiting on someone else. 


MS. MUNN: I was. I was waiting for Chia-


Chia. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is -- Wanda, the last 


action item you had, was that 25-1? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MS. CHANG: I’m sorry. This is Chia-Chia. 


I was pushing the speaker phone button and 


hung up instead. I was pushing the mute 


button and pushed the speaker phone button 


instead and hung up. 


That was it. 


MS. MUNN: I will get this into final shape 


and get it out to you within the next few 


days. I’m anticipating that our face-to-face 


meeting in Cincinnati will start at 9:30 in 


the morning. ^ I hope so. 


DR. ZIEMER: What date is that? 


MS. MUNN: In the interim the work group 


members should please take time to review this 


document. 


DR. ZIEMER: Are we still on December 11th? 


MS. MUNN: We’re still on December 11th . 


DR. ZIEMER: Okay, just wanted to double 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

147 

check. 


MS. MUNN: 9:30 a.m. Hopefully, with any 


luck at all, at the Marriott. 


Anything else for the good of the 


order? 


DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you all. We appreciate 


your efforts. We’ll see you in Cincinnati. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting was 


adjourned at 2:50 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

148 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Nov. 7, 2007; 


and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 


testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


14th day of March, 2008. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102