STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

WORKING GROUP 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

PROCEDURES REVIEW

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in Redondo Beach, California, on 

September 4, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Sept. 4, 2008 

OPENING REMARKS 6 

MR. TED KATZ, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 8 

MS. WANDA MUNN 

SPECIFIC ITEMS: 

OTIBS 18-5 AND 3301 10 

OTIB 1901 20 

OTIB-52 21 

TIB-1006 42 

PROC-60 46 

OTIB-1201 55 

GENERAL ITEMS FOR NIOSH ACTION: 

SUGGEST ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR COWORKER IN VARYING 

USAGES 57 

CATI INTERVIEWS 59 

REVISION OF CATI SCRIPT 60 

ORAU TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS 63 

GENERAL ITEMS FOR SC&A ACTION: 

LANGUAGE COVERING CLOSED FINDINGS 70 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR POTENTIAL REVIEW 72 

ADD AN ISSUE TO ANY REVIEWED PROCEDURE WHEN AN ISSUE 

IS TRANSFERRED IN FROM ELSEWHERE 74 

FOR ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE: 

PROC-90, ITEM 23 82 

PR-5, ITEM TWO 82 

TIB-1001 83 

TIB-1100 89 

OTIB-1401 92 

OTIB-17-03 92 

OTIB-1901 95 

OTIB-2802 AND 03 95 

PROC-2201 AND 02 96 

FUTURE PLANS 96 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 111 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

KATZ, Theodore M., M.P.A. 

Program Analyst 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia

 

MEMBERSHIP

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

CHEW, MEL, ORAU 

CRAPPS, PAT, ORAU 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MARSCHKE, STEVE, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MORRIS, ROBERT, ORAU 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 

SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 

THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 

 
6

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

2 SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 

3 (1:30 p.m.) 

4 OPENING REMARKS

5 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda Munn. I'm chairing 

6 this meeting of the procedures workgroup, which 

7 is going to become -- supposedly -- the 

8 subcommittee on procedures, if our 

9 anticipations of current Board action continue 

10 to completion. Before we get started I believe 

11 our Designated Federal Official has a few 

12 things he needs to say. Ted? 

13 MR. KATZ: Right. The first thing is just to 

14 poll and see who's in attendance here, starting 

15 with the Board members. Wanda? 

16 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, chair of the group. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, alternate. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Now -- and I don't believe 

21 there are any Board members on the phone since 

22 we were all here. Now for the ORAU/NIOSH team? 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu -- Stu Hinnefeld from 

24 NIOSH. 

25 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert from the ORAU team. 
7

1 MR. CHEW: Mel Chew from the ORAU team. 

2 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. 

3 MR. KATZ: And anyone on the line -- 

4 NIOSH/ORAU? 

5 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, ORAU team. 

6 MS. CRAPPS: Pat Crapps, the ORAU team. 

7 MR. KATZ: Can you repeat that again, please? 

8 MS. CRAPPS: Pat Crapps, the ORAU team. 

9 UNIDENTIFIED: Pat Crapps. 

10 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU team. 

11 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you repeat that last 

12 one, too, please? 

13 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU team. 

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you. And now SC&A in the -- 

15 in the hall. 

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

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke, SC&A. 

19 MR. KATZ: And anyone on the line from SC&A? 

20 (No response) 

21 Okay, and now other -- other federal employees, 

22 both HHS and DOL or other agency. 

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

24 with HHS. 

25 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor to NIOSH. 
8

1 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

2 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS. 

3 MR. KATZ: Anyone on the line? 

4 (No response) 

5 And last, but not least, members of the public 

6 on the line? 

7 (No response) 

8 Okay, great. Just last thing, just to remind 

9 the few on the line that -- please mute your 

10 line when you're not speaking, mute or star-6, 

11 and don't put us on hold, please. Thanks. 

12 It's all yours, Wanda. 

13 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

14 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Ted. I recognize we've 

15 had a long two and a half days here and that 

16 everyone's tired. We don't want to push 

17 through any more of this than we can absolutely 

18 tolerate, but it's necessary for us to try to 

19 move this along as we can. 

20 I trust that all of you have the action item 

21 list that I sent out by e-mail. Is that 

22 correct? That's what we're going to working 

23 from, pretty much. If you don't have it or if 

24 you can bring it up on -- on your screen, it 

25 may give you a good feel for where we are, what 
9

1 we're going to do. 

2 MR. MORRIS: Wanda, is that something you sent 

3 just recently? 

4 MS. MUNN: I believe I sent it early last week. 

5 It's -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: August 29. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: 8/29, yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

9 MR. MORRIS: Okay, thank you. 

10 MS. MUNN: All right. It includes general 

11 items for NIOSH action, general items for SC&A 

12 action and items that we specified that we were 

13 going to address at Redondo Beach. Because we 

14 do have those specific items, it is my 

15 suggestion that we begin with the items that we 

16 broke out for Redondo Beach and go from there 

17 back up to the general NIOSH and SC&A actions. 

18 Some of those have already been taken care of 

19 in the natural course of events. 

20 We also have a series of handouts that Nancy 

21 has made available for us. I don't know 

22 whether any of you -- all of you have those are 

23 not. If not, we'll get to those -- we'll hand 

24 them out as we get to those particular items on 

25 our list. 
10

1 OTIBS 18-5 AND 3301

2 Mark, the first thing we had identified was a 

3 request for you to take a look at the proposed 

4 changes of the closed status on ATIBs (sic) 18-

5 5 and 3301. There had been some concern in his 

6 mind, I think, that you might not have the 

7 information that you felt necessary in order to 

8 close those out. Have you had an opportunity 

9 to take a look at those? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I looked at them 

11 quickly. So -- so we're -- we're not doing 

12 those first items? Is that off the agenda for 

13 this -- just the Redondo Beach stuff we're 

14 covering or -- or... 

15 MS. MUNN: No, we're starting with the Redondo 

16 Beach -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Starting with Redondo Beach, 

18 okay. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- then we're going back -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 MS. MUNN: -- to the others. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I looked at them and... 

23 MS. MUNN: Do you have any problem with the 

24 closures? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I mean I have 
11

1 questions, anyway. It's a -- I think they're 

2 both related so I guess I can talk to -- I'm 

3 trying to pull up the findings, Wanda. I 

4 apologize, I'm trying to pull them up why we -- 

5 I thought that was a little later on the 

6 schedule. 

7 MS. MUNN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to 

8 blindside you. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: That's all right, that's all 

10 right, I was looking down the li-- but if I 

11 remember right, they're very TIB-18 and TIB-33 

12 are sort of -- are very similar. I guess my 

13 remaining question on -- on the TIB-18 number 

14 five was -- was more of -- of the application -

15 - there's a -- TIB-18 -- I'm just pulling the 

16 details of this number five up now. 

17 Oh, okay, I -- I guess my -- the -- the 

18 questions I have, maybe they can be answered in 

19 this meeting, is in this TIB -- first of all, I 

20 wasn't clear on when this TIB was used and for 

21 whom it was used. The other part of it was 

22 there's an attachment in the -- on the TIB that 

23 lists the sites, and I -- I'm assuming that 

24 SC&A's review did not include -- I wouldn't 

25 expect a procedures level review to do this, 
12

1 but it wouldn't include, you know, was -- is 

2 this -- is this procedure appropriate for all 

3 those sites. I guess that would be my first 

4 question is -- you know, 'cause it seems to me 

5 that that's the -- the -- this is -- that's the 

6 critical part of this whole procedure. You're 

7 just applying ten percent of a -- you're just 

8 applying a high number, really, is what -- for 

9 people that you don't have records for, 

10 assuming they weren't exposed, and that's the 

11 big assumption is assuming that the rad control 

12 programs are in place at these sites and they 

13 effectively kept those people who were not 

14 supposed to be, you know -- were not supposed 

15 to have potential for exposure, out of those 

16 areas. So that list of sites -- I'm wondering 

17 if SC&A looked at that level or if that sort of 

18 thing goes to an application review. In other 

19 words, if we get a dose reconstruction that 

20 uses TIB-18 for a certain site, then would 

21 those kind of comments come out in that 

22 process, or in a site profile review. I mean 

23 that -- that may be where that -- that end of 

24 it's covered more, but that's my main question 

25 -- my first question, anyway, on that. 
13

1 DR. MAURO: And the response to that, we would 

2 not normally go and appl-- test it out at each 

3 of the sites on a case by case basis. We'd 

4 more look at it from the point of view of 

5 generically does it appear to be a bounding 

6 assumption. So the answer to your question is 

7 no, we didn't -- we did not go to that level of 

8 detail. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And then -- then the 

10 second part is -- is I guess -- I think for 

11 NIOSH, who does the procedure -- when is this 

12 procedure used? Is it in -- I had some side 

13 conversations but I just want to clear -- clear 

14 it on the record, when -- when would you use 

15 TIB-18? Is it only for non-compensable claims 

16 -- overestimating approach for non-compensable 

17 claims? When do you distinguish between using 

18 an ambient air model versus this -- this TIB-18 

19 approach, the ten percent MPC or DAC model, you 

20 know. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert from the ORAU team. 

22 Basically the OTIB-18 model was developed only 

23 for non-compensable cl-- cases as an 

24 overestimate. As we all know, there was a 

25 period of time where that -- it was used for 
14

1 some compensable cases for a very short amount 

2 of time, but the general meaning of the TIB was 

3 always to be a non-comp type claim. 

4 As to using it versus ambient, if we believe 

5 that the individual did not have exposure 

6 potential, we would go with the ambient as per 

7 OTIB-14, if I recall correctly. If we believe 

8 that there may have been some exposure, then we 

9 use the OTIB-18 overestimating assumptions. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: From the -- from the last 

11 workgroup meeting I wrote down a note, as our 

12 action, to provide evidence of the robust 

13 nature, what -- what evidence did we have to 

14 conclude that these sites had, you know, 

15 healthy air monitoring programs and took 

16 appropriate actions at appropriate control 

17 points, so that's an action that was ours, I 

18 believe, and we haven't done anything since the 

19 last meeting. I haven't provided anything 

20 since the last meeting. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, it's -- I have that listed on 

22 the -- for attention as possible list. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I tell you, this -- I'm -- I'm 

25 thinking about how to open this up or not open 
15

1 this up, but I mean this has a -- you know, I 

2 looked at one -- one case, because I couldn't 

3 open the -- the TIB workbook on the O drive so 

4 I looked into a case file. Kathy Behling 

5 recommended that, you know, I'd have better 

6 luck that way. It just happened that it -- in 

7 our -- in our sixth set we have a case that 

8 uses TIB-18, and it was for a compensable 

9 claim, and it was for a lung cancer, and the 

10 assigned -- you know, I looked at -- it was a 

11 short -- I think it was a short -- I'd -- I'd 

12 have to look back at the case, but I remember 

13 being struck by the fact that, number one, it 

14 was compensable, and number two, that it was 

15 like a -- the -- the lung dose was like 35 or 

16 40 rem or something like that. And it strikes 

17 me that, you know, we're -- we're -- this -- 

18 this -- this almost, in my mind, starts to get 

19 into that realm of are we -- are we looking at 

20 cancers rather than dose, you know. We're 

21 throwing a high number at it, and in this case 

22 it was weird 'cause it was a compensable claim, 

23 but would you really expect somebody, if you 

24 had an effective rad control program, somebody 

25 to get a 30-rem lung dose. The answer, I 
16

1 think, would be no. So then is it -- 

2 MS. MUNN: We would pull -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- plausible -- is that a 

4 plausible dose? Can they really reconstruct or 

5 are you just saying we have no data so we're 

6 going to throw this high number, but only when 

7 we don't have rec-- only when we know it's 

8 going to be non-compensable? I mean I think -- 

9 DR. NETON: Well, I -- I'll answer that. I 

10 think it's plausible because at 9.99 percent of 

11 the ambient air concentration you're not 

12 required to post it. Right? I mean is that 

13 not tr-- in that time period that these cases -

14 - 

15 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so you think -- 

16 DR. NETON: -- were processed? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- a pr-- a place had an 

18 effective program if they were -- 

19 DR. NETON: I'm not saying effective, I'm 

20 saying a compliant program that said that at 

21 ten percent of the DAC you had to do 

22 monitoring, or ten percent of MPC. 

23 MS. MUNN: In view of the fact that this is one 

24 of the things that we've also listed as action 

25 item for NIOSH and it hasn't been yet 
17

1 addressed, perhaps it would be wise for us to 

2 set this aside for our next meeting, which will 

3 give NIOSH an opportunity to respond to the -- 

4 to the supporting evidence for it, and perhaps 

5 the questions that you've raised will play into 

6 that answer, if we're fortunate. So -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- again, I think most of 

8 mine are on the -- on the when to use it side, 

9 so we may or may not deal with that in the 

10 procedures workgroup, but -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- just put them on the table. 

13 MS. MUNN: Will that be satisfactory with you, 

14 Stu, to postpone this -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 

16 MS. MUNN: -- until you've had an opportunity 

17 to -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- to respond? Is the same going to 

20 be true of -- of TIB-3301? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's much the same 

22 issue, because -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Yes, I thought that it was. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 33 kind of provides for 

25 less than 100 percent of the standard -- you 
18

1 know, exposure at less than 100 percent of the 

2 standard. 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes, the question in the chair's 

4 mind is whether or not the response to TIB-18 

5 is going to satisfy any question that -- that 

6 Mark might have with respect to TIB-33. Is 

7 that -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 MS. MUNN: Do you think it will? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think they're connected, 

11 is that what you're -- 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah, they are, essentially. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: So I think the response to one 

16 will lead to the other, yeah. 

17 MS. MUNN: Fine, then we'll move on from that 

18 one since there's action yet to be taken; we 

19 know what that action's going to be. 

20 The next item that we have specifically for 

21 action at Redondo Beach is for SC&A. As a 

22 matter of fact, we have one, two, three, four 

23 items for SC&A. Do you want to take those one 

24 at a time, John, or -- 

25 DR. MAURO: No, I -- I spoke to Steve last 
19

1 night and he loaded up a lot of data that -- 

2 where we were given instructions on -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. MAURO: -- actions to take. I -- you saw 

5 us -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Right, I -- 

7 DR. MAURO: -- the other night. 

8 MS. MUNN: -- I saw you working last night. 

9 DR. MAURO: That's what we were doing and -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- and Steve, I -- I'm sort of 

12 holding -- holding till Steve gets back, so -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Okay. Your timing's perfect, Mr. 

14 Marschke. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah. Well, we're not in yet. 

16 Turns out the hotel just basically allows you 

17 access on a day by day basis. 

18 MS. MUNN: Oh, yeah, this is -- this is often 

19 true. So you are not -- you're not hooked up 

20 the way you need to be? 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: I wanted to get on the O drive. 

22 I'm not on the O drive yet. 

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: Steve, I'm on the O drive. You 

24 want to use my computer? 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: I think I should be able to get 
20

1 on the O drive now. 

2 OTIB-1901

3 MS. MUNN: Let's see. Let's give Steve an 

4 opportunity to do that. And as he's doing it, 

5 I notice the first of the NIOSH actions looks 

6 to be a fairly straightforward one that is a 

7 status report only on OTIB-1901. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 1901 is the finding about 

9 the validity of using R squared to -- R squared 

10 test when you're -- when you're essentially 

11 showing or confirming your belief that there's 

12 a lognormal distribution to coworker data. And 

13 we are -- we have drafted a response. I should 

14 be able to provide it to the working group and 

15 SC&A I would think next week. I have a -- I 

16 kind of have a busy week coming up, but I think 

17 I could put that out then. So we do have a 

18 draft response on our evaluation of -- and we 

19 loo-- what we did is we looked at the 

20 populations of the sampling -- or the 

21 populations that have been used in workgroup -- 

22 or in coworker studies in the program so far. 

23 These are from -- there are like seven 

24 different sites where they've been done -- or 

25 where they have been compiled at this time, 
21

1 when -- when we did this analysis, and we 

2 looked at each individual distribution. Now 

3 those were generally done -- this is internal 

4 monitoring data. Those were generally done on 

5 bioassay cycle, so you may have weekly 

6 populations at some places for some years, so 

7 there are huge number of populations we 

8 analyzed and compared the fitted 50th and 95th 

9 -- or 50th and 84th percentiles of the data to 

10 the rank-ordered 50th and 84th percentiles, and 

11 it shows that comparison and essentially it 

12 does a little analysis of the likely -- you 

13 know, the -- what does the results mean. So I 

14 should be able to have that out next week. 

15 MS. MUNN: That's good. We'll expect that to 

16 be out so that everyone will have an 

17 opportunity to take a look at it before our 

18 upcoming meeting for our next time. 

19 Steve, how are you doing? Did you make it? 

20 TIB-52

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I'm on the O drive now and 

22 we're into one of the -- I've -- I did a sort 

23 on TIB-52, and one of the action items was to 

24 add the related link to that NIO-- the 

25 responses that NIOSH provided us last time, or 
22

1 the proposed respon-- responses that NIOSH 

2 provided us last time, and we have done that. 

3 And you can see if you click on this related 

4 link here, you can see the -- this is the 

5 document that NIOSH provided us. I added the 

6 word "draft" and the date, 8/22, on the top. 

7 That was really the only change I made. We did 

8 lose a little of the formatting. If you get 

9 down in here it says "highlighted in red," we 

10 lost the red highlighting when I went from the 

11 Word file to the PDF file. You have to have it 

12 in a PDF file in order to put it in here. So -

13 - but it is in here and, you know, all you have 

14 to do to look at it is basically click on that 

15 -- click on the link here. And if you -- 

16 again, if we go back to that -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: That was under TIB-52 finding 

18 what? What is the -- 

19 DR. MAURO: It applies to all of them -- a lot 

20 of them. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it applies to a lot -- it -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Where do you -- 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: -- it's under -- hang on -- 

24 DR. MAURO: -- get -- get -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: -- what did I just do? If you 
23

1 look under -- if you look under -- under five, 

2 it's on five. It's also on -- anywhere they 

3 basically identify the -- the responses, so I 

4 put the same words in each -- each of the 

5 findings, and so if you go to finding 13 or 

6 finding 14 here, you'll also be able to click 

7 on and -- and pull up this document. 

8 (Pause) 

9 And Arjun and I -- one of the -- one of the ta10 - the other task associated with this was for 

11 SC&A to get back to the workgroup with our 

12 preliminary evaluation of these responses, and 

13 Arjun and I have worked that up and we have 

14 that in the -- in a separate file. And once I 

15 get off the O drive we'll be able to look at 

16 that and discuss, but we did have some concerns 

17 about some of the wordings and some of the 

18 responses and so on and so forth, so that -- we 

19 will be able to -- you know, once I get off the 

20 O drive, I can -- we can put that up on the 

21 screen. 

22 MS. MUNN: All right. How can we do this best? 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I mean we can -- I can log 

24 off here and get back on the O drive, you know, 

25 if that's the way we want to go back and forth. 
24

1 DR. ZIEMER: While he's on the O drive, Madam 

2 Chairman, could I request that you go back and 

3 -- I don't have the O drive open, so can you 

4 show us what's on the O drive for the previous 

5 item, 1805, because -- is this one that we said 

6 was closed and Mark said well, they closed it 

7 but we didn't? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: No, that was TIB-8, 10 and 23. 

9 MS. MUNN: No -- yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm -- I'm showing, from 

11 what -- from the August meeting, TIB-1805 -- 

12 the handout shows it as closed -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes, that wa-- that was correct, we 

14 -- we had said -- we were suggesting that it be 

15 closed, and Mike said let's don't close it 

16 until Mark's had an opportunity to look at it 

17 because -- yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I just wanted to see 

19 what was on the O drive for that item. What 

20 does -- what does it show? 

21 MS. MUNN: For -- the current status is open, 

22 because we did not -- we didn't go there 

23 because of the concern that was expressed. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: Which one is that, 18? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: 18-5. 
25

1 DR. ZIEMER: 180-- ITIB (sic) 18-05. 

2 MS. MUNN: Slash 150-151, et cetera. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: 1085 is showing as being open. 

4 MS. MUNN: It's open, uh-huh. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: In the O drive. 

6 MS. MUNN: Because we -- we made no change 

7 because of the request for Mark to -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: It's open, so -- 

9 MS. MUNN: -- have an opportunity to look at 

10 it. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I just wanted to make sure that we 

12 agreed then. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Now -- 

15 MS. MUNN: And we -- we -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- the other comment that's in 

17 here -- is that still there, that SC&A agreed 

18 with NIOSH's response? 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: We nev-- I -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I mean what shows in the hard copy 

21 is SC&A, paren, Steve Marschke, concurs with 

22 NIOSH response. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We haven't added that to 

24 the database at this point. That -- that 

25 information has not been added into the 
26

1 database, not -- just because we haven't gotten 

2 to it. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: But I don't think -- that 

5 position has not changed. We still -- SC&A 

6 agrees with what NIOSH has done. 

7 MS. MUNN: Essentially what we need to do is to 

8 satisfy Mark's concern and -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I just was trying to -- I 

10 didn't have the O drive open and I was trying 

11 to correlate what was in our hard copy last 

12 time with what was said here. Couldn't 

13 remember the details. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I think you also said, Wanda, 

15 that NIOSH is following up on this as well? 

16 MS. MUNN: NIOSH is following up on it as well. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 MS. MUNN: They're charged with providing 

19 evidence support for robust air monitoring 

20 programs on site and that the site took 

21 appropriate action based on air sampling 

22 results. Those were the two concerns we're 

23 following up on. 

24 Steve, how are we doing? 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: If you want to look at the 
27

1 markups of the -- of the proposed NIOSH's 

2 changes to OTIB-52, I was showing how we could 

3 do that, how we could flip back and forth, so 

4 these -- these are the markups that Arjun and I 

5 had -- this is the -- had made on this 

6 document. We want to walk by -- we have some 

7 comments -- requested teleconference, I think 

8 that's one of the things that we -- one of the 

9 things that we had agreed to was that -- or 

10 that we were going to do was have a 

11 teleconference and -- or schedule a 

12 teleconference, and maybe we want to do that 

13 today after we look at all these -- at the 

14 comments. 

15 The second comment here was this paragraph on 

16 the response to finding five, this second 

17 paragraph, this is ver-- we were anticipating a 

18 little bit more general wording. This is -- 

19 this is very specific. It's very specific to 

20 Savannah River. It's very specific to 

21 pipefitters. And it's very specific to time 

22 periods. We were kind of hoping and 

23 anticipating a little bit more generic 

24 statement as to -- and I'm not sure -- that may 

25 be one of the things that Arjun and I will work 
28

1 on before we have a teleconference is what kind 

2 of wording were we -- would we suggest if we 

3 were writing this. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, what are you looking for. 

5 That always helps. 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. Yes. 

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I just say that, in 

8 clarification of Steve's comment, it was -- not 

9 to wordsmith what NIOSH is doing or anything 

10 like that, it's just that there was a sense of 

11 our review and we'd just like to reflect on 

12 that, go back to it and provide you with what 

13 the sense of our review was. 

14 MR. MORRIS: This is Bob Morris. I'd -- I 

15 actually tape-recorded the workgroup meeting 

16 and I listened to it before I wrote it, so if 

17 there's something that's nuanced in there, it 

18 wasn't clear, and I don't think it will become 

19 clear once the transcripts are published. You 

20 need to actually make more clear what you 

21 really want. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. We will come up with some 

23 suggested wording or what we're looking for, 

24 and we can discuss it when we get on the 

25 teleconference. 
29

1 The other -- the next comment going down is -- 

2 in the -- in the paragraph, talking about 

3 findings 13 and 14, the last sentence there -- 

4 I was hoping to -- this is basically -- to get 

5 a little bit more information about what is 

6 negligibly, how do -- how do we determine that 

7 it's negligible? And one of the things that I 

8 did, which helped me convince myself that it's 

9 pretty small, was I took an example of -- of 

10 two sites and compared them, the two different 

11 ways of doing it. This -- this is an Excel 

12 file with just some made-up data in here, when 

13 -- and when you calculate the ratio of 

14 construction worker dose -- the average 

15 construction worker dose to the average other 

16 worker, and you have a 1.4 multiplier here, 

17 when you do the construction worker to the 

18 total workers, you get a number which is a 

19 little less than 1.4 with the same -- exact 

20 same data. What they're doing in the -- in the 

21 OTIB is sometimes they're comparing site A, 

22 calculated this way, to site B, calculated this 

23 -- the other way, and they're saying okay, 

24 they're both .4 -- or 1.4, the multiplier. You 

25 can see there -- it's not a big difference, 
30

1 it's maybe ten percent or something like that. 

2 Here's a -- here's the ratio of the two 

3 columns, two different ways of calculating the 

4 multiplier, and you can see it -- it's about a 

5 -- maybe a nine percent difference. And if you 

6 -- if we consider nine percent to be 

7 negligible, then we agreed with -- with the 

8 NIOSH statement, but you know, that's -- this 

9 is kind of -- the exercise that I had to go 

10 through to convince myself that it was a small 

11 contribution, and -- and I think I have 

12 convinced myself. I don't know if anybody else 

13 was concerned about it or not, but -- so I -- I 

14 think that the -- you know, that -- that's what 

15 I was hoping to see in the response, something 

16 along those line -- what I just put up on the 

17 Excel sheet, some -- some mathematical showing 

18 -- showing that they -- it doesn't matter which 

19 way you go, they are -- the differences are 

20 pretty small and they're probably within the -- 

21 within the -- the noise level of -- of the 

22 values anyways, and -- 

23 MR. MORRIS: So you would prefer -- you would 

24 like us to make up data and show how it works? 

25 I'm just -- 
31

1 MR. MARSCHKE: At this point I -- no, at this 

2 point -- right now I don't think -- 

3 MR. CHEW: I think you want us to define what 

4 negligible is. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I think -- what are we defining 

6 what negligible is, within ten percent, 

7 something along those lines? 

8 MR. MORRIS: Well, if -- if you read the 

9 section 4.2 where the special -- where 

10 adjustment is defined, that -- that's 1.2 for 

11 the threshold of adjustment. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: This is below that. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: This is below 1.2, right. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I have a question. I mean 

16 if -- if -- if the total dose is -- like 

17 external dose is 30 or 40 rem, .2 could make a 

18 difference, couldn't it? 

19 MR. CHEW: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the total dose over -- over 

21 a period of 20, 30 years of employment, could 

22 be -- could be 30 or 40 rem. I mean I have -- 

23 I have certainly seen numbers like that. So 

24 I'm just wondering why the threshold is 20 

25 percent. That seemed rather high. 
32

1 MR. MORRIS: Well, that was what -- and already 

2 discussed in our -- in our meetings up to now. 

3 This -- this is going back a long way to pick 

4 that topic up. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I just -- you know, all's I said 

6 by the dataset that I made up there on -- on 

7 the example, I just wanted to get in my own 

8 mind what was -- how much of the impact, what 

9 was the impact, and I see it's probably less 

10 than ten percent. And if you're saying you 

11 have a -- you think the data is -- is -- is -- 

12 has a plus or minus of 20 percent, then it 

13 really doesn't matter. 

14 DR. NETON: Yeah, I'd suggest that, you know, 

15 we haven't had time to look through these 

16 comments that you're presenting here, and it's 

17 probably not productive to engage in some -- 

18 some real time discussion here. Rather maybe 

19 we should just hear these out and ask for 

20 clarifications as we go and -- and move from 

21 there. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe there's still the 

23 obligation of a technical conference call on 

24 these issue anyway, so -- 

25 DR. NETON: Well, exactly, so we're -- you 
33

1 know, we're -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this is an update. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: This is just our -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: This is not supposed to be the 

5 technical conference call. 

6 MS. MUNN: No. 

7 DR. NETON: I mean it's helpful for us to hear 

8 these in person because we can go back and 

9 reflect on them, but I -- I would -- from both 

10 sides, NIOSH as well, I think we should refrain 

11 from really getting into the weeds on these 

12 particular issues. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: The third comment we had is 

14 purely an editorial comment or -- or -- I 

15 guess. We wanted to add the word -- not -- the 

16 HPAREH data alone, we wanted to add the word 

17 "alone" in that response, just to be clear that 

18 you were talking -- that's what you were 

19 talking about. That's more or less editorial. 

20 We -- the next comment we want to look at a 

21 little bit more befo-- and we will revisit and 

22 discuss on the phone call is -- is -- we'd like 

23 to look at that a little bit more. 

24 I think the last three of these comments are 

25 still in that same vein. We haven't really 
34

1 looked at the document and the -- and the 

2 response to the -- or the modification for 

3 finding 11. We have not reviewed the document 

4 that's -- that's in there and so we would like 

5 -- you know, take a little bit more time to -- 

6 to see that we agree with -- with that. And 

7 the same is true for the fol-- the last one, a 

8 little bit more time. And then the -- you go 

9 to the end of the document. 

10 What we'll do is we'll send this -- or I can 

11 either give it -- give you this file or I can 

12 send -- e-mail this file to -- to everybody 

13 when I get back, over the weekend or whatever, 

14 and this is -- the last comment is, you know, 

15 again, just a little -- when everybody agrees, 

16 then we -- then we can put this statement in, I 

17 guess. 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes, it would be the request that 

19 you do provide the workgroup and NIOSH with 

20 your comments. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

22 MS. MUNN: And it would -- would it be 

23 productive for us to try to establish a time 

24 for your technical conference call now, or do 

25 you need to do that off line? 
35

1 DR. NETON: From -- from at least my 

2 perspective, I'd like to go back to my office 

3 and figure out what we've all committed to in 

4 the last two days here and look at the schedule 

5 a little bit. 

6 MS. MUNN: Can we assume that it's probable to 

7 be able to do that a couple of weeks from now 

8 so that we will have some information, some 

9 feedback on the same item at our next meeting, 

10 or is that pushing it too far? 

11 MR. MORRIS: Well, these are fundamentally easy 

12 questions. They're editorial at this point. 

13 MS. MUNN: Correct. Very good. If we could 

14 prevail upon you to attempt the conference call 

15 in a -- in a couple of weeks so that we can 

16 look forward to a report next time, without 

17 pushing anyone too hard. Okay, next time. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, you want to be advised 

19 when that conference call is -- is going to be 

20 taking place so that you can participate if you 

21 wish? 

22 MS. MUNN: I would appreciate that very much. 

23 Thank you, Steve. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I would appreciate if all the 

25 workgroup members were advised when the -- 
36

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- technical call is taking place 

3 'cause that seems like where the meat's going 

4 to be discussed these days, yeah. 

5 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yes. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Question. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering if Steve's annotated 

9 item here now, is this going to appear in the 

10 record in some form or... 

11 MS. MUNN: I don't believe so. I think it's 

12 just going to come to us until it has been -- 

13 it's -- it's a temporary document, internal 

14 document. It will end up on a -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: It does represent in a sense the 

16 basis of today's discussion, however, and -- I 

17 -- I'm sort of asking -- 

18 MS. MUNN: It does. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- that in terms of how this -- 

20 you know, we -- 

21 MS. MUNN: Getting familiar with how we do 

22 this. Uh-huh. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- how we are tracking progress on 

24 these, and obviously you can go too far, but 

25 this annotated document basically identifies 
37

1 issues that SC&A has asked to focus on in sort 

2 of response to the NIOSH document, so I'm -- 

3 I'm just wondering how we capture that. 

4 DR. NETON: I have a thought, not necessarily a 

5 rec-- maybe a recommendation, but we will have 

6 a -- a conference call, tele-- technical 

7 conference call that are us-- are always 

8 captured with meeting minutes that go point by 

9 point over all the issues that we just talked 

10 about. And I think that would be the vehicle -

11 - a good vehicle to capture our discussions on 

12 -- on these issues -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah -- 

14 DR. NETON: -- rather than have a document -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- the discussion will be 

16 captured. I'm again asking about the database, 

17 what -- does anything show up there -- 

18 DR. NETON: Well, I just wonder the relevance 

19 of having a -- a Word document in redline mode. 

20 If we capture each of those points in the 

21 meeting minutes and discuss them point by 

22 point, you would essentially have the same 

23 thing. I don't want to advise the Board. I 

24 mean that's just my personal opinion. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: We have a problem with the 
38

1 database in that we can only -- for each issue, 

2 we can only have one related link, so if we 

3 want to put the annotated version in, then we 

4 would have to remove the -- what's in there now 

5 and replace what's in there now with the 

6 annotated version. So it's whichever way the 

7 workgroup wants to go, but we're only allowed -

8 - each issue is only allowed one link. 

9 MS. MUNN: On the other hand, if in the 

10 database itself, under our -- our individual -- 

11 rather than have a related link there, in our -

12 - our statement of -- of what has transpired at 

13 this -- this meeting, if we indicate that 

14 wording was provided in draft form by SC&A and 

15 indicate there that a technical teleconference 

16 is anticipated for the next meeting, then we 

17 are aware of the fact that there's a document 

18 out there. It refers to it, but not 

19 necessarily places it in permanent record for 

20 us. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: In fact, it occurs to me, Steve, 

22 that maybe a few sentences in the meeting 

23 record could summarize the items in the 

24 document that you were focusing on. 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: Exactly, right -- right here we 
39

1 have basically -- this was the -- the last time 

2 we met this was basically what we -- we put the 

3 -- the document in. Now we have an SC&A 

4 follow-up, we have a space right here where we 

5 could add, you know, today's -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- discussion and just say that, 

8 you know, kind of capture the -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: You know, you asked about what 

10 "negligible" means and -- 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: What "negligible" means -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- so on, you -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and so on and so forth, we 

14 could capture that in there -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and it could be -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Identify the specific items -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Exactly. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- we discussed. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, and we could do that for 

21 iss-- each one of the issues, yes. 

22 MS. MUNN: That we can do, and probably it's 

23 more effective in the long run than trying to 

24 capture the document itself. 

25 DR. MAURO: I think this is a -- a -- we're 
40

1 getting to the point where trying to find that 

2 special place of balance between granularity 

3 and not, and I think that we're rap-- it's 

4 becoming -- I was wondering myself about the 

5 level of granularity, and I -- and I think that 

6 as long as the -- for example, getting the 

7 white paper in, I think that was -- was needed. 

8 Now we're working off that white paper and 

9 there's discussion. To try to capture 

10 everything is going to make this too 

11 cumbersome. I think that we should capture 

12 enough that if we want to know more about that 

13 particular topic, that's when we go to the 

14 transcript. It al-- so we have to always 

15 remember we do have the transcript. And all 

16 we're really doing here is -- is trying to 

17 create a shortcut that we can address issues 

18 expeditiously without having to continually 

19 resort to the transcript. But I -- but I do 

20 think that, you know, the -- the -- the safety 

21 net is always going to be the transcript, and 

22 use this to facilitate -- we have to navigate 

23 our way through our decision-making process, so 

24 I -- I was -- last night when sitting down with 

25 Steve and we -- we engaged in this discussions, 
41

1 we don't want to make this try to in effect 

2 capture the transcript in here, and so I -- and 

3 I think we just found that balance. You know, 

4 we got -- we got a major white paper that is 

5 respons-- I think it was good that we captured 

6 it. Now we're really working off that white 

7 paper and -- and there will be some notation 

8 from this meeting regarding what we discussed. 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. MAURO: The reali-- and to the ext-- and 

11 try to capture that in abbreviated fashion. 

12 But in the end, if you really want to get into 

13 the nuts and bolts of it, you're going to have 

14 to go back to the transcript. But that's okay, 

15 it'll get us there if we need to go there. So 

16 it -- I -- I like where we're coming down. 

17 MS. MUNN: The key issue is the database will 

18 give us an up to date status of where we are at 

19 any given time, and will point us to the last 

20 discussion so that we know which transcript to 

21 look for the information in if we need it. Are 

22 we happy with where we are on this one? And we 

23 have our marching orders. Right? 

24 (No responses) 

25 That was TIB-52. We started at the bottom. 
42

1 You want to work up with TIB-1006? 

2 TIB-1006

3 MR. MARSCHKE: 1006, okay, that was basically 

4 talking to Dr. Anigstein and seeing whether 

5 1006 and 1005 could be combined. 

6 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: And basically Dr. Anigstein 

8 feels that they are two distinct issues. The -

9 - the issue -- they're related to -- to the -- 

10 to the angular dependency of the flux, but -- 

11 but they are two distinct -- actions have to be 

12 -- or different actions have to be taken to 

13 solve each one. But you can take those two 

14 actions and implement them both in a single 

15 MCNP run, so it's -- it's really -- we feel 

16 that they are two distinct -- they should be 

17 kept as two distinct issues, but the solution 

18 to them may come out simultaneously when -- 

19 when you make your MCNP run, it would be a 

20 simple -- a single MCNP run where you would 

21 make a change to correct for -- to -- to -- to 

22 adjust for the -- that this -- five was the 

23 photon flux versus the dose, and -- and -- 

24 because of the strong angular dependency, and 

25 six was the model of the glove-- glovebox, as I 
43

1 understand. Let me see if we can pull those -- 

2 actually we can pull those up here. 

3 DR. MAURO: And if I recall, the -- there -- 

4 oh, you have it in front of you -- conceptually 

5 I guess it had to do with simply -- in one 

6 respect -- we're talking about the inverse 

7 square law, the -- the -- whether if you -- you 

8 know, if you're wearing the film badge on your 

9 lapel but you're being exposed at the waist at 

10 a glovebox, and I thought we agreed with that, 

11 even though we didn't think they used the best 

12 model -- I think they used Attila and we used 

13 something else -- but we both came to the same 

14 place, it was about a factor of two. So I 

15 guess I didn't think there was a substantive 

16 difference of opinion in the -- in the 

17 adjustment factor -- 

18 MS. MUNN: I didn't think there was, either, in 

19 my -- 

20 DR. MAURO: -- but I thought there was a 

21 substantive opin-- concern regarding the angle 

22 of incidence because -- because -- and that 

23 needed to be explicitly addressed. So in my 

24 mind, I thought the first issue was a non25 issue, and I don't want to -- but the second 
44

1 one was a real issue where -- you know, if you 

2 don't take angle of incidence into 

3 consideration when you do this, you -- you 

4 could really miss the dose. And I think that 

5 it -- when -- that's what it really came down 

6 to. 

7 Steve, did I misrepresent that in any way? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: It might have been wrong -- I 

9 don't -- I don't -- I don't know, to tell you 

10 the truth, John. Let me -- let me try and pull 

11 up the comments. 

12 First comment was we question the angular -- 

13 the analysis compares the prodigal* flux over 

14 the location of the torso rather than modeling 

15 the variation of dose emitter response with 

16 location. 

17 And our response was -- you know, the -- the 

18 NIOSH response was that -- one of the things 

19 was SC&A analysis of similar correction 

20 factors. I think at the time we did come up 

21 with similar correction factors of -- I think 

22 if we had to do it now, we might not come up 

23 with the same correction factors. We -- we did 

24 not take into account the -- the angular 

25 dependency, I don't think, when we -- when we 
45

1 did our verification at that point. And when 

2 we looked at TIB-13, I believe it was, which is 

3 very similar, we -- we -- we came up with -- we 

4 did do the angular dependency and we came up 

5 with some differences. So the bottom line is, 

6 we would like to -- the question that was posed 

7 at the last meeting was can we change the 

8 status of six to say "addressed in five" and -- 

9 and I don't -- and -- and the thing is, I don't 

10 -- we don't think that you can do that. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: My point is address the issue. I 

12 don't care how -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- if it comes up once or twice 

15 in the database, I mean -- 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- if it's one response, let's 

18 get the response. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 MS. MUNN: So where are we? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I know that you -- we owe the 

23 response to the finding -- or to the -- 

24 actually to the follow-on. I believe we added 

25 -- we provided an initial response but there 
46

1 was some additional discussion after, if I'm 

2 not mistaken, and so it's up -- it's up to us, 

3 you know, the next action. 

4 PROC-60

5 MR. MARSCHKE: The next -- I guess in the next 

6 -- moving back up the -- the table was PROC-60 

7 -- 61. 

8 MS. MUNN: 61 three and four. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Three and four? 

10 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I did ask Harry Pentingale* to -

12 - to give some additional reasons. He did 

13 provide those additional reasons for -- in case 

14 of three, why we agreed with NIOSH that this 

15 should be closed. Basically his response was he 

16 felt the revision to PROC-61 added a lot of 

17 clarity and examples, and that would help the 

18 dose reconstructor decide which approach to 

19 take, and so he -- he's made that explanation 

20 as to why he agrees with -- with the NIO-- or 

21 he -- he thinks the issue should be closed. 

22 And again, I have his e-mails and I can send 

23 them to -- to the workgroup and to NIOSH. 

24 On item four, I unfortunately -- unfortunately 

25 I cannot bring them up on the screen at this 
47

1 point. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: PROC-61. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: This is PROC-61. Item four, we 

4 do not agree with the -- and we wanted to keep 

5 item four in abeyance, and he -- Harry has 

6 given me a -- an e-mail which describes why he 

7 wants to do that. I unfortunately have not had 

8 an opportunity to add that into the database at 

9 this point and I was hoping to be able to bring 

10 it up, but I don't think I can bring it up on 

11 the screen. 

12 MS. MUNN: Do you remember the sense of why -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I can read it to -- I can 

14 read it to the workgroup if -- if that would -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Good. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: As for PROC-61 four, NIOSH has 

17 never really responded other than to refer to 

18 the Trout study. The problem as I see it is 

19 the black lung survey was a special group study 

20 where they tended to do the radiography often 

21 at a federal center using similar equipment, 

22 the same X-ray technique, some -- same 

23 processing procedure, and often limited readout 

24 by a select group of radiologists. It should 

25 surprise no one the retake rate would be low 
48

1 under that circumstances. During the time 

2 frame in question, 1950 to 1970, remember there 

3 were a lot of different equipment, uses, 

4 techniques, and unbelievable problems in 

5 processing. Every large medical facility has 

6 done retake reviews at some point because it 

7 affects the bottom line. Film was never cheap. 

8 I have often seen it range from ten to 50 

9 percent in the worst case. It appears NIOSH 

10 doesn't want to look at it relative to the 

11 institution, but rather use one value for 

12 everyone. I would accept it if they hadn't 

13 chosen such a low value. 

14 MS. MUNN: So what we need here is kept in 

15 abeyance for the moment and NIOSH response 

16 necessary. Yes? No? 

17 DR. MAURO: What I just heard is that we don't 

18 agree. What I'm getting at is that it's not 

19 tha-- usually wha-- we put something in 

20 abeyance when we agree in principle, and it 

21 stays in abeyance until the procedure is 

22 revised. What I just heard is that the retake 

23 assumption embedded in the way in which medical 

24 X-ray dosimetry is performed -- there's an 

25 assumption, but it's too low. In Harry's 
49

1 experience, the basis for the number selected 

2 by NIOSH for retakes was obtained from a 

3 situation where it was unusually low because of 

4 the circumstances under which that particular 

5 activity took place. In the real world, in his 

6 experience, the retake rates are likely to be 

7 much higher, especially in some of the earlier 

8 years. So -- I -- I mean -- so what I'm 

9 hearing is no, we don't -- we don't agree. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: It should be -- 

11 DR. MAURO: And so it's -- yeah, so it's open. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: We think it should be in 

13 progress. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yeah, in progress. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: That would be our 

16 recommendation. 

17 MS. MUNN: What is the workgroup's reaction? 

18 In progress? 

19 This gives us an opportunity to address 

20 something that we had a brief discussion about 

21 off line last night with John and Steve and I 

22 when we were discussing whether it's going to 

23 be feasible for us to manipulate this database 

24 in such a way that when we do what we just did 

25 here -- that is, when we say does the workgroup 
50

1 agree and I see a group of nodding heads -- 

2 that we can in real time, on the screen, change 

3 the rating that we have to -- from in abeyance 

4 to in progress. Is that going to be -- do all 

5 of you feel that that's workable in some cases? 

6 Not all, but in some cases? Shall we undertake 

7 to do that as a routine whenever we have the 

8 material up and access to make that change? 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I can change it right now. Can 

10 it be changed in the -- I have to go back and 

11 add Harry's paragraph into the -- in to the 

12 SC&A follow-up section -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Right. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and I guess what we're doing 

15 now is we are changing this one to in progress. 

16 MS. MUNN: Progress, uh-huh. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And what we would do is come 

18 down here and say -- 

19 MS. MUNN: And the status date is automatic 

20 there. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- 9/4/2008, change -- 

22 DR. MAURO: I think when we can do this, it's 

23 really the way to do it, and not wait until we 

24 go back to -- to try to do it on our own. I 

25 mean if we can do it in real time, boy, that 
51

1 makes it a lot easier -- 

2 MS. MUNN: That's very helpful. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- because we're here now, and if 

4 it's a sentence or two in a -- let's just do 

5 it. 

6 MS. MUNN: Then we know tomorrow when we check 

7 where we are. But for the moment, now that 

8 it's in progress, we're back in the realm of -- 

9 of technical negotiation between NIOSH and 

10 SC&A, and the action is NIOSH response. 

11 Correct? 

12 That covers the specific items that I had 

13 listed for SC&A for certain action at Redondo 

14 Beach. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Can I just clarify what happened 

16 to PROC-61 03 Rev. 2, and there's an e-mail -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Nothing has happened to it. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: So it's open or -- 

19 MS. MUNN: We are going to get an e-mail seeing 

20 the suggested language, and after we see the 

21 language, then at our next meeting we'll have 

22 an opportunity to identify whether or not we 

23 agree with the closed status. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- right now it's listed 

25 as open. 
52

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Did you say 03? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 03, yeah. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: 03, we had -- we would agree 

4 with -- that that could be -- we would 

5 recommend closing that one. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: But we haven't even seen the 

7 response, the workgroup hasn't. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I just -- what Harry wrote 

9 is basically -- as for PROC-6103, the reason 

10 you suggest is exactly why I suggested closing 

11 it. And the reason I suggested wa-- what I 

12 suggested was the revised PROC removed our 

13 concern. 

14 And then Harry goes on to state the revision to 

15 PROC-61 seemed to add a lot of clarity and 

16 examples to help define -- to help the dose 

17 reconstructor decide which approach to take. 

18 And that was -- that was Harry's clarification 

19 as to why he would recommend closing 03 -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: In essence he's saying you 

21 withdraw your comment then. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: In essence we're saying we're 

24 withdrawing our comment in light of the 

25 revision to PROC-61. 
53

1 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: So the finding kind of goes away. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it -- I think the revision 

4 took care of the finding. 

5 MS. MUNN: That's correct. So it's now closed. 

6 And we can, if we have it on screen, close it. 

7 Correct? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Well, SC&A's recommending 

9 closing, I guess, would -- if we're in 

10 agreement -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Well, it was my understanding that 

12 the purpose in reissuing the procedure, one of 

13 the reasons, was to take care of this finding, 

14 and they've just agreed that it did in fact 

15 take care of it. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- this is a -- not 

17 completely nuanced, but I mean it's the 

18 workgroup's decision to close it, and I'm in 

19 agreement with it, I'm saying. It's not SC&A 

20 closing it. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: They're recommending -- 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: We're recommending -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: They're recommending to us -- 

24 MS. MUNN: No -- no, they're recommending that 

25 we close it, and -- yeah. 
54

1 MR. GRIFFON: The workgroup, yeah. 

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Is there -- is this -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm good with that. 

4 MS. MUNN: Happy? Good. Closed. Now I think 

5 that closes the issue for us. Steve, you may 

6 want to send that e-mail to us anyway -- 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

8 MS. MUNN: -- just so we'll have it for the 

9 record. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I was hoping to be able to put 

11 it up on the screen, but I have a different -- 

12 MS. MUNN: That's all right. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- browser here or whatever; I 

14 can't get it up. 

15 MS. MUNN: Only so many things can go up at one 

16 time, so if you'd just e-mail us -- 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I will do that. 

18 MS. MUNN: -- we'll all be aware of the fact 

19 that it is closed in the database. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Could -- could I ask one -- 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- one process thing going 

23 forward, the -- the -- I mean if we have -- if 

24 -- if we have these kind of items, it really 

25 would -- is nice for the workgroup to get those 
55

1 e-- you know, those e-mail -- I mean I don't 

2 have a problem with that last one, but if we 

3 can get those ahead of time, then I can look at 

4 the rev, make sure I'm in agreement and, you 

5 know -- I mean I want to vote with all the 

6 facts in front of me. I'm looking at this real 

7 time and trying to -- so, just like we always 

8 do, if we're going to change -- 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Understood. We'll try and get 

10 that to you -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: -- or we'll get -- in the future 

13 we'll get that to you be-- be-- you know, 

14 before the meeting, as much as -- in advance of 

15 the meeting as -- as we can. 

16 MS. MUNN: We all have problems with getting 

17 action items closed in adequate time for all of 

18 us to think about it before the meeting. 

19 OTIB-1201

20 The one last item under specifics is for NIOSH 

21 and SC&A to report the result of your 

22 conference and correction to OTIB-1201. Did 

23 that happen? 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what happened was, I -- I 

25 confirmed what the actual item was, what the 
56

1 finding was, because at the last meeting we 

2 were kind of pondering now which finding is 

3 this, is this -- and it is in fact the one -- 

4 the finding about dose con-- dose conversion 

5 factors in IG-1 and the way that they were 

6 developed, the way the triangular dose 

7 conversion factors were developed. So you 

8 know, I found that in the -- in the notes of 

9 the earlier meeting, or maybe even on the 

10 database response, but that is -- that's the 

11 issue that's being tracked. It didn't actually 

12 come up in the original review of that 

13 document. It came up sort of in the review of 

14 our initial responses to that document. We 

15 kept it in that -- in that finding, tracking it 

16 under that -- under that document. 

17 MS. MUNN: So what's the status of the -- of 

18 the item right now? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess it's open because 

20 we owe you our response to the DCF finding. 

21 It's either open or in progress. 

22 MS. MUNN: I can't get my screen back. The -- 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: The O drive doesn't seem to be 

24 responding. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I couldn't get my screen back 
57

1 at all. 

2 (Pause) 

3 I can't get to where I need to be. I hope we 

4 can blend this on the O drive. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Which one are we looking at? 

6 MS. MUNN: We're trying to take a look at OTIB7 12-01. 

8 (Pause) 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: The status right now is listed 

10 as in progress, and I gue-- I think that's 

11 probably correct. We've had some discussion on 

12 this, but there's more discussion due, and the 

13 next product is ours to deliver. 

14 MS. MUNN: All right. Can we put a time on it, 

15 or do we -- no? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

17 MS. MUNN: Very good, we'll continue it as 

18 open. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: In progress. 

20 SUGGEST ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR COWORKER IN VARYING 

21 USAGES

22 MS. MUNN: Having reached the end of our 

23 specific items, let's turn to the general items 

24 before we undertake the "as necessary"s -- 

25 general items for NIOSH action, suggest 
58

1 alternate language for coworker or varying -- 

2 in varying usages. Have we had an opportunity 

3 to pursue that? That's going to be -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: No -- well, that -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- a fairly pervasive issue that -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: That's going to be a lot of 

7 things to do and -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there may be a way to 

10 describe -- you know, to -- to do a better job 

11 of explanation in the -- you know, in the 

12 places where we use that coworker, as what -- 

13 what we mean in this instance. 

14 MS. MUNN: That's -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean if you choose a word 

16 like "colleague" or, you know, whatever you 

17 want to -- whatever word you choose, you're 

18 going to have to explain what you mean anyway. 

19 MS. MUNN: That's true. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think probably just -- the 

21 key issue is -- 'cause it came up originally I 

22 believe in CATI, the -- 

23 MS. MUNN: It did. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- meaning in the CATI review, 

25 and -- 
59

1 MS. MUNN: And in the closing reports. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and -- and so I think a 

3 -- a better explanation of what -- the kind of 

4 person we're asking about is -- is probably 

5 what's needed because no matter what word you 

6 choose, you're going to have to explain it. 

7 MS. MUNN: Let's continue it on our "pay 

8 attention to this" list until we sort of reach 

9 a resolution with it. It really is a bit of a 

10 thorny issue and may vary from one time to the 

11 next, much less one case to the next, so -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, that doesn't really fall 

13 under an item -- 

14 MS. MUNN: No, it doesn't. It doesn't, no. 

15 This is -- but it comes up in several 

16 procedures, which is why we're keeping it as a 

17 general thing rather than specific. 

18 CATI INTERVIEWS

19 Report on the number of coworkers contacted as 

20 a result of CATI interviews. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I can send that pretty soon, to 

22 -- to the extent that we can reconstruct it, 

23 we'll be able to find specific interviews that 

24 were done and collected on a specific form-- 

25 name in a particular convention in the 
60

1 database, when the file was saved to the 

2 database. There could very well be other 

3 interviews that are simi-- that were done for a 

4 similar purpose or like purpose or to provide 

5 that interview that we won't be able -- you 

6 know, we won't be able to find because they 

7 just weren't filed under a naming convention 

8 that allows us to find it. It'll be a low 

9 number. 

10 MS. MUNN: The report will -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It will not be -- 

12 MS. MUNN: -- have to be -- 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a large number. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- as reported, yeah, not -- not as 

15 -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it'll be a very -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- actual -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- small number. 

19 REVISION OF CATI SCRIPT

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah, understand. Provide the 

21 workgroup with revision of CATI script for 

22 comment and review. Is it done yet? 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not prepared yet. We will 

24 -- we'll -- we'll do that. We have -- the 

25 process for the resubmittal, what's happening 
61

1 here is we have to resubmit those forms to OMB 

2 because our approval to use the form, you know, 

3 expires. And so we have to go back to OMB to 

4 get a renewal of the approval. At that time 

5 we're going to make some modifications to the -

6 - to the form at that -- when we submit it. 

7 We'll provide the modified form when we have 

8 it. And -- and there is -- you know, from the 

9 time of the Federal Register announcement, 

10 there is a -- a public comment period as well, 

11 I mean, so you know, we'll -- we'll be -- you 

12 know, any public comments we would happen to 

13 get, we would be resolving at the same time as 

14 we can resolve any comments we get here at the 

15 same time. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, is -- 

17 MS. MUNN: Yes? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- can you tell us, 'cause I've -

19 - we've gone around on this a little bit. Is 

20 this Rev 2, Rev 3? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the form? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Of the form. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: No, this -- this will be the 

24 first revision of the form. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: First revision of -- of the 
62

1 questionnaire? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Of the CATI -- of the CATI 

3 form. 

4 MS. MUNN: It was my understanding it had been 

5 reviewed, but hadn't been -- I mean it had been 

6 renewed, but had not been changed. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right, it was but not changed. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, renewed -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: So you've never -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- but not revised. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- used a different 

12 questionnaire? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No, I don't -- I think the 

14 questionnaire's been the same all along. 

15 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, I think it has been. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Now we're going back like six 

17 years. 

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it's been the same 

20 script all along. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: There were -- had been a 

22 suggestion on the floor by Larry earlier this 

23 week that it might have -- might have been an 

24 intermediate revision, but that was not clear. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: That's why I was asking -- 
63

1 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause Larry was referring to this 

2 as rev 2 or -- 

3 MR. KATZ: I believe that we've had to resubmit 

4 just to get another approval, but I believe 

5 they didn't make any changes in the script as 

6 part of that resubmittal. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Just to extend the date. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right, 'cause you have to re-- 

9 resubmit every three years, even if you make no 

10 changes. You have to get a new approval. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That -- so that may be the case. 

12 MS. MUNN: Now that was my understanding, that 

13 it had been renewed, but this is -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: But not revised. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- the first time -- this is the 

16 first time we were talking about the revision. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And this is the -- when you're 

18 talking about the script, it's the same -- is 

19 that the questionnaire itself or is this a 

20 different entity? I'm -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a questionnaire. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) the term. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- it's a questionnaire. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 ORAU TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
64

1 MS. MUNN: The next question was provide a list 

2 of ORAU technical documents, both current and 

3 in preparation. I have a copy of those. Has -

4 - has anyone else received them? I did not 

5 make copies for distribution. I should have. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I sent that to the working 

7 group and to SC&A. 

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we received them. 

9 MS. MUNN: I have it, so I was impressed at the 

10 number of potential -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Now I didn't delete ones that 

12 have already been -- have already been reviewed 

13 -- 

14 MS. MUNN: You know what, I -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so the -- the issued ones, 

16 you know -- a lot of the ones that have been 

17 reviewed should be on the -- the current -- not 

18 the proposed list but the current -- the ones 

19 that are currently issued. That would include 

20 ones that have already been reviewed. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, but the proposed TBDs and OTIBs 

22 and PROCs were significantly greater in number 

23 than I had anticipated. I don't believe that 

24 there was any action for us to take. I think 

25 it was a matter of information more than 
65

1 anything else, so that we could assess whether 

2 or not there was something really pressing 

3 coming down the pike immediately that needed to 

4 go to SC&A's attention. 

5 DR. MAURO: Steve just -- Steve, I -- I see you 

6 put up that form that you -- you talked about 

7 last night. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: This is -- yeah, what we did was 

9 we took the Excel file that Stu gave us and we 

10 -- in column F here, we compared the document 

11 number to all the documents which are in the 

12 database. And so -- 

13 MS. MUNN: We have hard copies of that, if 

14 anyone wants it. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: We -- basically then we identify 

16 -- if it shows up in the database, we say -- in 

17 column F here we say it's been reviewed, and if 

18 it doesn't show up, then it's not reviewed. 

19 This is not perfect. There are some that -- 

20 John has pointed out that there are some 

21 documents that were reviewed but are not in the 

22 database -- OTIB-54 being one of them. 

23 DR. MAURO: Yeah -- yeah. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: So -- but as you can see, I 

25 guess the -- the big thing here is, like -- 
66

1 like Stu was saying, most of these documents 

2 have already at least gone through one revision 

3 or one review of one revision. It's not 

4 necessarily the revision that's listed here 

5 that we reviewed, but we did review a revision 

6 of that particular document. 

7 DR. MAURO: Version. We -- we were trying our 

8 best -- given the magnitude of the number of -- 

9 of procedures, both generic and site-specific, 

10 that have been issued and have been reviewed by 

11 SC&A, this is I guess our first attempt to say 

12 okay, let's -- let's put this all in a -- one 

13 place. And -- and that's what Steve did, so 

14 this way we have a table that, perhaps 

15 periodically, might be worth updating, say 

16 okay, listen, here's all the procedures, both 

17 generic and those that are site-specific, that 

18 -- that are on the system, that have been 

19 issued by -- by NIOSH, and here's all of the 

20 ones that SC&A has reviewed. And you know, you 

21 can run down the list and see which ones we 

22 have and haven't reviewed. Now it doesn't 

23 capture I guess revision one, rev 2, rev 3, but 

24 at least there was at least one review. We -- 

25 we thought that would be useful for us and 
67

1 perhaps for the working group to have something 

2 like this. And when we were working on that 

3 and talking about it last night, it's apparent 

4 that it -- it's -- you know, we have to -- it's 

5 not only -- for example, we missed OTIB-70. 

6 Well, we just sent that out last week. We -- 

7 we did recently review I believe OTIB-54, which 

8 is the fission product one, and -- and we -- 

9 you know, and that -- so I mean we were trying 

10 to do this. We think that this could be a 

11 valuable -- us-- useful for all concerned, but 

12 right now I think there's still some 

13 imperfections in the way in which we've 

14 characterized whether or not we reviewed a 

15 given document. But I think it's something 

16 that we'd like to be able to have. 

17 MS. MUNN: Certainly when the time comes that 

18 we're ready to send a second report to the 

19 Secretary, this kind of information will be 

20 particularly helpful I think to incorporate 

21 into that report. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing you can see from 

23 this is that most of the documents that we have 

24 not reviewed are site-specific documents. The 

25 one that we got highlighted here now is for Y-
68

1 12, not reviewed; Mound, not reviewed -- 

2 DR. MAURO: And that -- that's another 

3 limitation. We have a little bit of a dilemma. 

4 We did review a lot of those as part of a site 

5 profile review. Other words -- so we're in a 

6 funny kind of place. We -- we have a -- it 

7 might be a little misleading. We've reviewed 

8 the -- we reviewed many, many site-specific 

9 OTIBs as part of the closeout process or part 

10 of the initial site profile review, and that's 

11 not captured in this table. So it might 

12 indicate here that we didn't review it, but I'm 

13 -- I'm pretty sure, for example, there was -- I 

14 recognize a lot of these that I remember we 

15 reviewed as part of the site profile process. 

16 So I think it's important that we don't miss 

17 that. And we -- we don't want to -- and this 

18 is a good -- good a place as any to keep an 

19 accounting, so I would say all -- all 

20 procedures, whether site-specific or generic, 

21 that have been issued, the -- you know, we -- 

22 there should be something that indicates 

23 whether or not SC&A has reviewed them. And I 

24 think that there's a little work on our part to 

25 make this thing current. 
69

1 MS. MUNN: Perhaps an additional category. 

2 Instead of reviewed, perhaps considered in site 

3 profile review? 

4 DR. MAURO: Well, we are actually mandated -- 

5 when we're given a site profile review, our 

6 scope and the budget is to review that -- 

7 MS. MUNN: I understand. 

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

9 MS. MUNN: I'm just thinking about language in 

10 this particular format. Perhaps language of 

11 that sort would be helpful in defining, even 

12 though it says not reviewed, you know you have 

13 -- have in fact considered it. So that's a 

14 partial rev-- it's certainly a review, if it's 

15 identified as being not an individual review 

16 but as a part of the site profile, if that's 

17 what you're saying. 

18 DR. MAURO: Well, ye-- yes, right now I was 

19 just planning on saying yes, we did review 

20 this. But you're saying that it's probably a 

21 good idea to clarify that it was reviewed not 

22 as part of Task III, but reviewed as part of 

23 Task I, or part of Task V when we were doing an 

24 SEC petition -- perfect example is the -- the 

25 high-fired plutonium, OTIB-49 -- I think that 
70

1 was the number -- we reviewed that very 

2 thoroughly, but that was done as part of the 

3 Rocky Flats -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Rocky Flats. 

5 DR. MAURO: -- SEC petition review. 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah, but reviewed with site profile 

9 would be appropriate, it seems. 

10 All right -- became so engrossed in that I 

11 forgot where we are. 

12 LANGUAGE COVERING CLOSED FINDINGS

13 General items for SC&A action is where we were. 

14 Provide language covering the reason for 

15 closure when findings are adequately addressed. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I believe Kathy sent an e-mail 

17 to the workgroup -- 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- for -- that was for OTIB-52 -

20 - not OTIB-52, that was OTIB-10, 23 and 8. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, she did. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: And she attached the file that 

23 had indicated her changes, and so I -- 

24 MS. MUNN: She did -- 

25 MR. MARSCHKE: -- there's one where the route -
71

1 - I mean we did -- Kathy did do that for those 

2 -- those three particular OTIBs and I believe 

3 the working group has that. We als-- 

4 MS. MUNN: I believe we do. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: We also -- 

6 MS. MUNN: I can't find mine. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- added for PROC-5 and 7, Dr. 

8 Ostrow added his comments -- clarification as 

9 to why he was recommending status changes to 

10 closed, and it -- the workgroup does not have 

11 Dr. Ostrow's recommendations and they have not 

12 been added. Dr. Ostrow's recommendations have 

13 not been added to the database at this point. 

14 This is another item which I will send to the 

15 workgroup when I get back to my office. 

16 MS. MUNN: All right. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: But this is the type of -- I 

18 guess this is the type of lev-- level of detail 

19 of information that we are -- are anticipating 

20 to include when we have to, you know, provide 

21 the reason for closure. 

22 MS. MUNN: If we can have that, then I'll leave 

23 this item open until we've all had an 

24 opportunity to review this language and see if 

25 the members of the workgroup agree that this 
72

1 language is adequate for our purposes in the 

2 database. Is that fine with all of you here? 

3 We'll see the -- see the e-mail and address 

4 this next time. 

5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR POTENTIAL REVIEW

6 Second item, maintain list of documents for 

7 potential review. I think that's essentially 

8 what we just saw, so that's continuing and 

9 current. We may just simply ask to see that 

10 from time to time to see where we are. 

11 Add an issue to any reviewed procedure when an 

12 issue is transferred in from elsewhere. 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: We did this -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I almost hate to -- to do this, 

15 Wanda, but can I go back to the last item -- 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes, you may. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- just for a second? 

18 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-10, I'm looking at the PDF 

20 files that -- because I got kicked off the O 

21 drive for some reason so I'm on -- Kathy 

22 Behling sent out the PDF files with those 

23 responses. I'm looking at TIB-10 response, and 

24 I would think -- I was hoping it would be the 

25 newest -- like the latest response at the 
73

1 bottom of the -- the document, but I don't -- 

2 maybe -- 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Which -- which -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'm -- I'm assuming 

5 there's ano-- an SC&A response in this -- it's 

6 ten pages, first of all. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's ten -- because there's 

8 -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-- 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: -- a response for each -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it's broken up -- I see what 

12 you did -- 

13 MR. MARSCHKE: -- issue. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- okay. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So the issue is -- and the SC&A 

16 response is at the end of each -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Each issue, I see. 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: -- each issue. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: So for that one there were 

20 multiple issues, that's why I couldn't find it. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Multiple issues. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: So they should be entered around 

23 August of '08, whatever the newest response is. 

24 Right? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: August 21st. Right? 
74

1 MR. GRIFFON: August 21st. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: She's got them issued -- I think 

3 they were -- she's got them in here as June 

4 17th, it looks like. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- 

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, she's got them all in here 

7 as June 17th. 

8 MS. MUNN: OTIB-10 -- 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that might be -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the 21st is when we actually 

11 looked at them. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, that's fine. 

13 MS. MUNN: Are we okay, Mark? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I just wanted to find what 

15 I have to look at later, so I... 

16 ADD AN ISSUE TO ANY REVIEWED PROCEDURE WHEN AN ISSUE 

17 IS TRANSFERRED IN FROM ELSEWHERE

18 MS. MUNN: Back to general items for SC&A 

19 action, add an issue to any reviewed procedure 

20 when an issue is transferred in from elsewhere. 

21 The ones that we had outstanding have been 

22 done. Correct? 

23 MR. MARSCHKE: The -- that got started, I think 

24 -- the -- the reason we came up with that 

25 general guidance was there was an issue in 
75

1 PROC-90 which we felt needed to be transferred 

2 to PROC-92 -- 

3 MS. MUNN: 92, uh-huh. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and you can see here that I 

5 have -- if you look at the general summary of 

6 PROC-92 issues, I have added one here which -- 

7 which has a odd issue finding date of -- of 

8 1/17/2005. That is the one that we brought in 

9 from -- it was form-- you can see up here in 

10 the issue, it was -- it's now 92-9. It was 

11 formerly PROC-90-23, and before that it was 

12 PROC-17-3. So we basically transfer-- I mean 

13 what happened I guess was we -- we closed those 

14 three PROCs and collapsed them all into PROC15 90, so this issue got transferred from 17 to 90 

16 and then we decided that it had to go from 90 

17 to 92 -- 

18 MS. MUNN: 92. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- so this issue has been moving 

20 around. And that's -- for this one particular 

21 issue, that's the -- I have made that transfer 

22 and opened a new issue in 92. This is a -- I 

23 think right now, if you look at -- do a summary 

24 status of the database, you'll find that there 

25 are 29 issues which we identified as being 
76

1 transferred, and this is really my analysis of 

2 those 29 issue. A lot of the ones that were 

3 transferred are going over into the new 

4 workgroup -- the TBD-6000, 6001 workgroup, the 

5 whole -- 13 out of the 29. And we have a 

6 couple -- four of them which are global issues, 

7 which are not in the -- we're not tracking 

8 global issues in this database so they -- they 

9 wouldn't have to open anything new. PROC-90 

10 has I guess three issues we identified to go 

11 into 92. I only transferred one, or opened one 

12 new issue in 92. I've got to open I guess two 

13 more in 92. 52, we were going to transfer a 

14 couple issues from 52 to -- to OTIB-20, and 

15 they would have to be opened. OTIB-4 and OTIB16 18 had a couple of issues, or three issues 

17 total, that were being transferred to OTIB-53, 

18 which is the recycled uranium OTIB which has 

19 not been issued yet so it has not been 

20 reviewed. It's not in the system. 

21 So I guess the question -- one of the questions 

22 to the workgroup is do we want to open an OTIB23 53 issue in the database to receive this and so 

24 that if and when we get to review OTIB-53 we 

25 would already have a starting point of these 
77

1 three issues that have been transferred into 

2 it, or do we just want to not -- not do that, I 

3 guess would be the other option. 

4 MS. MUNN: I guess the first question would be 

5 to NIOSH, how close are we on OTIB-53? Is that 

6 -- is that hanging over someone's head 

7 somewhere? Is it in -- has it been written 

8 yet? 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

10 MS. MUNN: And -- so where is it? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It's gone -- it's gone back and 

12 forth. I'm trying to remember which one it is 

13 exactly. 

14 MS. MUNN: But it's not yet -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Recycled -- recycled uranium -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I know that, but I'm 

17 trying to remember in my head which -- what -- 

18 what status it is, where it is. Do you 

19 remember, Jim? 

20 MS. MUNN: Not quite ready for prime time, in 

21 any case. 

22 DR. NETON: Yeah, I don't recall. I know we're 

23 down to like basically one issue that we're 

24 looking at, and it's close but I can't give you 

25 a date at this -- at this point. 
78

1 MS. MUNN: What's the feeling of the group? 

2 When we know something's coming and we know 

3 we're going to have to track it -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me you can put a 

5 marker in there and have the place ready for 

6 it. 

7 MS. MUNN: It would seem logical from my point 

8 of view. Does anyone disagree with the idea of 

9 opening the -- the page for it and getting 

10 ready to receive it? 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that would be safest. 

12 That way we wouldn't lose it. 

13 MS. MUNN: Will the first item be -- yeah. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: And then the -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Be ready -- ready to transfer, I 

16 guess. Uh-huh, good. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Could I ask two questions? 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: One, is the table that was just 

20 passed out to us, does that get generated 

21 automatically from the database -- 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- by an inquiry -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- where you'd simply ask it to 
79

1 sum all the categories? 

2 MS. MUNN: It's a query. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Here, basically just click on 

4 that button. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I mean is there -- oh, you're 

6 doing it here, okay. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 MS. MUNN: Click on their status summary -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right, so that -- 

11 MS. MUNN: -- and it'll come up for you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: So -- good. 

13 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: My second question is, the other 

15 table that you just showed us which is the 

16 status of the -- of the transferred items -- 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: No -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that something you're just 

19 tracking manually? 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. Well -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: This, yeah. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the only thing you have is 

23 what you -- the only thing what you get now is 

24 under the summary where you can -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: You have to go back in each one, 
80

1 look at it -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: You can't go to -- you go to 

3 filter and sort, you can cross off all these -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Everything but transferred. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: -- everything but transferred -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And then they'll come up. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and then just the transferred 

8 -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: -- will come up. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- you're doing that, then 

12 it makes sense to have a marker in for like -- 

13 that other one, so it would show up. Right? 

14 Maybe it would, anyway. 

15 MS. MUNN: It would. 

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know if we have a -- we 

17 don't have a status -- when we transfer it, we 

18 don't have -- I don't know if we'd be able to 

19 track it on the -- when we open an issue to 

20 receive it. Those receiving issues, there is 

21 nothing -- a marker in there to identify those 

22 as receiving issues -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I see. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: -- as something that received 

25 the transfer, except for -- you know, that we 
81

1 could sort on at this -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I like the idea that you 

3 could tell us where each transferred item was. 

4 I just -- you know, as you go forward you say 

5 well, are you going to continue to be able to 

6 do that in a simple way or does somebody have 

7 to get back and sort of count things up 

8 manually. 

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I think the only way you can do 

10 it is go back something like this. This will 

11 tell you -- this usually tells you where it 

12 went to, and if it goes to an issue, like this 

13 one goes to OTIB-53, so if you were wanting to 

14 -- interested in this, you would know that this 

15 went to OTIB-53. Now you could get the issues 

16 for OTIB-53 and -- and see -- and find this. 

17 It's a little bit convoluted. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: No, I was wondering if you could 

19 sort of do a double filter where you filter out 

20 -- get all the transferred one, and with a 

21 separate filter show where they went, but -- 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now you can't. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- but I'm not suggesting you do 

24 that, I'm just asking. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's a bit much. We need to 
82

1 take a 10-minute break here, just a quick one, 

2 so that we can come back and we'll go through 

3 some of the "for attention as possible" and 

4 probably when we get to the end of that I don't 

5 think any of us are going to be up for 

6 addressing the third set. So let's take a very 

7 quick 10-minute break, not disconnect from the 

8 phone line, and we'll be right back. 

9 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:05 p.m. 

10 to 3:22 p.m.) 

11 MS. MUNN: We're back, folks. 

12 MR. KATZ: Is anyone on the phone line? 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: Is that -- did I hear a yes? 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, great, we're -- we're about to 

17 start up again. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 

19 PROC-90, ITEM 23

20 MS. MUNN: For attention as possible, first 

21 item, PROC-90, item 23, change status from 

22 abeyance to transfer to PROC-92. I think Steve 

23 just showed us that had happened. Didn't we 

24 see that? I believe we saw that. That's done. 

25 PR-5, ITEM TWO
83

1 PR-5, item two. NIOSH was going to reword it. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't done that yet. 

3 MS. MUNN: Next time. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah -- yeah, that won't take 

5 long. 

6 TIB-1001

7 MS. MUNN: TIB-1001, SCA was going to add 

8 "Workgroup has determined that transferred 

9 issues remain in the database until closed by 

10 the receiving document language." Did we not 

11 just talk about that? Have we closed this 

12 item, from previous discussion? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Is this the ones that Kathy sent? 

14 MS. MUNN: TIB-10, no. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No, this is the -- this is the 

16 one that Anigstein -- you know, we were having 

17 a conversation about Dr. Anigstein and his view 

18 of the five and six, what Anigstein had said. 

19 We have not submitted our next round of -- our 

20 next response. 

21 MS. MUNN: Item 10 -- TIB-10 two. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it hasn't been changed -- 

23 status has not been changed yet. 

24 MS. MUNN: No action yet. 1005, have you had a 

25 chance to talk yet? 
84

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean we talked earlier -- we 

2 talked earlier about it here, but no -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Right, but -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we've not had a -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- you haven't had a resolution 

6 call. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Can I -- can I understand that, 

8 too, Wanda? I -- the -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- what's a resolution call? I 

11 mean -- 

12 MS. MUNN: A technical ca-- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- isn't our -- 

14 MS. MUNN: -- a technical -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- workgroup to resolve -- 

16 MS. MUNN: No, a technical call between the 

17 contractor and the agency to attempt to resolve 

18 this, with a notification to us if we want to 

19 listen in on what they're doing. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- I -- I would -- I -- I 

21 would just hope -- I'm hearing this more, and I 

22 would hope that that would be the exception 

23 rather than the rule, 'cause that's why we have 

24 the workgroup or the subcommittee is to discuss 

25 the technical parts of it, not just the status. 
85

1 So I -- I mean I -- I unders-- I accept it, but 

2 I just want to -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Since we had -- we've -- the item 

4 has been discussed. There's a disagreement. 

5 We've asked that the technical issue be 

6 discussed further and bring back to us the 

7 result of the discussion. That's essentially 

8 what I'm -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- I'm saying when I say resolution 

11 -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- I just don't want the 

13 workgroup to miss out on -- on all -- I mean 

14 that's what we're here for, not to hear that -- 

15 NIOSH and SC&A come back and say we're in 

16 agreement and -- 

17 MS. MUNN: We wouldn't do that if we -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean we look at each other 

19 and go -- 

20 MS. MUNN: -- if we didn't have the -- if we 

21 didn't have the issue defined. If you'd like, 

22 we can pull this up and look at what the issue 

23 is. I wasn't intending to do that. But when I 

24 say report progress of resolution, I mean see 

25 if you can identify where, if -- if there is a 
86

1 common ground that can be agreed to, and if so, 

2 tell us what your discussions led you to and 

3 why. Otherwise, we can't -- we as a group 

4 can't resolve this if the technical issues 

5 haven't been clearly defined and moved along as 

6 far as they can be -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: No, I agree with that, I'm -- 

8 MS. MUNN: -- between the two. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- just saying we -- when at all 

10 possible, we should -- we should have those 

11 technical discussions here. That's what the 

12 workgroup's for. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I think any kind of 

14 conversation would be -- I'm not exactly sure 

15 100 percent clear on the -- the nature of the 

16 finding. You know, it says -- the finding I 

17 think Steve had up on the screen here has to do 

18 -- is that the right -- 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: (Off microphone) 

20 (Unintelligible) 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah, 1005. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, TIB-10. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-10 -- TIB-10, number five. 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: Number five. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: It has to do with -- you know, 
87

1 this is the -- the glovebox TIB. 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- the calculation of the 

4 glovebox TIB looked at phot-- at the fluence, 

5 photon fluence and the variation of fluence. 

6 And -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: So you think there might be some 

8 talking past each other and you want to talk to 

9 -- that -- that's fine. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's just it. I think the -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- conversation was to get the 

13 nature of the finding -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- not to try to get to the 

16 resolution. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I was just making a generic 

18 comment that we don't do this too often. It's 

19 needed once in a while, I agree, but just that 

20 we don't -- okay, that's fine. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- or they weren't sure how 

22 NIOSH was doing it or NIOSH wasn't sure how 

23 they were doing it. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the -- the 

25 question might come -- the question really 
88

1 comes down to why -- we -- we -- our analysis 

2 looked at variations in fluence and, to our way 

3 of thinking, that's the same. I mean the dose 

4 to the -- the dose will vary in the same manner 

5 'cause you have a spectrum, the spectrum's not 

6 going to be that much different from place to 

7 place. And so the -- the dose will vary in the 

8 same manner as -- as to fluence and so that's 

9 what our response was. That wasn't accepted. 

10 You know, that wasn't -- you know, Bob -- or 

11 Dr. Anigstein didn't necessarily agree with 

12 what we said, so we've got to kind of 

13 understand what the source of disagreement is 

14 in conversation. Once we have that, then we'll 

15 be able to better respond. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Dr. Anigstein did write some 

18 additional explanation in an e-mail to me as I 

19 was leaving the house on Tuesday, and I will 

20 forward that -- it's up on the screen now and I 

21 will forward that to the workgroup and to 

22 NIOSH, along with everything else that I 

23 forward. I hope that helps explain our 

24 concerns and so on. 

25 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Steve. You're going to 
89

1 have a real e-mail load. 

2 Next item is TIB-10-09, NIOSH was going to 

3 respond to the comment. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We haven't done that yet. 

5 OTIB-1100

6 MS. MUNN: No? 1101 and 02, SC&A would bring 

7 data fields up to date in the database. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: We haven't done that. 

9 MS. MUNN: 1101? Do we -- my memory isn't 

10 working well enough to tell me what bringing it 

11 up to date would entail. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I think the -- there were some 

13 actions that didn't get put into the database, 

14 wasn't that -- 

15 MS. MUNN: I think so, uh-huh. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: But I don't recall what they were. 

17 MR. MARSCHKE: We need to get the history -- 

18 okay, yes, basically what we have to do is 

19 NIOSH provided us with the Excel spreadsheets 

20 that they utilized when they revised the TIB. 

21 We sent them down to Joyce and she reviewed 

22 those and she was in agreement with what NIOSH 

23 has done. They -- they made some modifications 

24 to the -- to their models and so on and so 

25 forth, and she was in agreement with the way 
90

1 NIOSH was doing that and what we need to do is 

2 we need to add that history -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: That piece of information. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- to -- to the database and we 

5 have not added that history. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: And NIOSH provided the 

7 spreadsheets, could those -- can those be put 

8 on as a link or something that the rest of us 

9 can look at those? 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now the only thing we can 

11 put on is we can -- if we can convert them to 

12 PDF files, we can put them on as data links. 

13 The only thing -- the only thing that we can 

14 put on as links is PDF files. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- we can provide them; we 

16 can provide them. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you may -- you may have, 

18 so... 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's a -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we -- it was -- we had to 

22 revise the document. I mean there was valid 

23 findings about the information in the document, 

24 and so we revised the document and -- and then 

25 I believe the comment was where -- where's your 
91

1 -- what about the num-- where'd you get these 

2 numbers that are in the -- in the new document, 

3 so we provided them the Excel spreadsheet on 

4 which they had been calculated. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: If you can send those to the 

6 workgroup, or let us know -- maybe you already 

7 sent those and -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I can -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- sent -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'll -- I'll -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: You probably, Stu -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: But the specific thing here was to 

13 enter what SC&A had done on that item, just 

14 enter it into the record. Right, Steve? 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Yeah, NIOSH gave us the 

16 Excel file and SC&A agreed with their approach, 

17 the approach used. 

18 MS. MUNN: This is another one of those issues, 

19 I should think, where the real question is do 

20 we want those files to be the only link, and my 

21 personal instinct would be no, that -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: As long as they're identified that 

23 we can get to them in some way, they're -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, he just answered that I 

25 think, the Excel file. 
92

1 DR. ZIEMER: But you can identi-- you can 

2 identify that -- what that is so that someone 

3 can find it somewhere -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the O drive or wherever it 

6 is. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: And Stu's sending them out 

8 independently anyway, so we'll have that. 

9 MS. MUNN: How you can reference them without 

10 linking them, you know -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

13 OTIB-1401

14 MS. MUNN: -- that's all we'll need. OTIB15 1401, NIOSH provide closure language referring 

16 to OTIB-52. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, we haven't done that, 

18 but it -- it shouldn't take us long to do it 

19 actually in the office a couple of days. 

20 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. It's nice when one can go 

21 to the office, isn't it? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, depends on what's waiting 

23 for you in the office. 

24 OTIB-17-03

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah. SC&A was to provide follow-up 
93

1 to the latest NIOSH response on OTIB-17-03. 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't believe we have. 

3 MS. MUNN: Okay. SC&A was to add missing text, 

4 quote, workgroup direction -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Wait, was that -- was it there or 

6 not in the previous -- 

7 MS. MUNN: He said no. At least I wrote no. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: The last thing -- the last thing 

9 in the database was 2007, so it hasn't been 

10 done. 

11 MS. MUNN: So we're due a follow-up. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Due a follow-up. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: Excuse me, it's very hard to 

14 hear the gentleman speaking. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm -- I'm sorry. 

16 MS. MUNN: What we said was that we're due -- 

17 SC&A is going to provide a follow-up to the 

18 latest NIOSH response on OTIB-17-03. 

19 SC&A add missing text "workgroup direction" to 

20 OTIB-1708. 

21 MR. MARSCHKE: What was added was this issue is 

22 closed. I... 

23 MS. MUNN: Is there -- 

24 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm not 100 percent sure that 

25 that's the correct -- I was -- 
94

1 MS. MUNN: The transcript would -- 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- hoping to find the original 

3 transcript so that I could -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: There was -- this identifies that 

5 there was some direction given by the workgroup 

6 that was supposed to be inserted. 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what happened was, if you 

8 recall back in -- at the last meeting when we 

9 pulled this one up, I think the issue was 

10 closed. The -- the phrase ended "proposed -- 

11 proposes this" and it was not a complete 

12 sentence, so something was missing. And I was 

13 -- went back and I looked -- tried to find the 

14 -- the original document that had the workgroup 

15 directives in it, and I was not able to find 

16 it, so I'm -- I guess I'm proposing that we 

17 complete the sentence by saying -- again -- I 

18 don't know. I put in "this issue is closed" -- 

19 that we complete the sentence by saying "this 

20 issue is closed," primarily from the fact that 

21 the status shows this issue being closed. Now 

22 I guess the workgroup would have to really 

23 concur that that is the way this sentence 

24 should end 'cause right now I cannot find the 

25 original notes from this 10/2/2007. Maybe if 
95

1 we have the -- the transcripts -- I'll have to 

2 go to the transcripts and find that, so I guess 

3 this is still open. 

4 MS. MUNN: I -- I would suggest that we not 

5 accept this language quite yet until we have 

6 verified in the transcript what we actually 

7 said at that meeting and -- 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: I -- we -- I will remove that 

9 language and -- and go to the transcript. 

10 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Steve. We can use this 

11 as a test case to see if the last date that 

12 appears there is of any value at all in 

13 identifying the proper transcript to search 

14 out. 

15 OTIB-1901

16 We've already discussed 1805. OTIB-1901, NIOSH 

17 to provide completed response. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We talked about that one, too. 

19 That's the R squared test in the coworker data 

20 thing. 

21 MS. MUNN: Ah, yes, that's 01, and that's 

22 coming next week. That's a duplication, 

23 essentially. 

24 OTIB-2802 AND 03

25 OTIB-2802 and 03, SC&A was to revise -- to 
96

1 review the revised OTIB to see if the findings 

2 were then resolved. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: We have not had an opportunity 

4 to do that. 

5 PROC-2201 AND 02

6 MS. MUNN: No. PROC-2201 and 02, NIOSH provide 

7 status on revisions. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not revised yet. This is 

9 administrative procedures, making additional 

10 requests to DOE, you know, and so it's sort of 

11 administrative, and so we've had it kind of low 

12 on the priority list for revision, you know. 

13 MS. MUNN: All right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we can drag it out, 

15 though, and get something moving on it. 

16 MS. MUNN: We'll continue to carry it, but will 

17 not expect immediate action on it. 

18 FUTURE PLANS

19 That's the end of the workgroup action items 

20 that you were provided with earlier, and the 

21 hour is approaching 4:00 o'clock. What is your 

22 pleasure? Shall we attempt to take a look at 

23 the third set, or shall we call this the best 

24 we can do for the day and we move on to greener 

25 pastures and plan to take up the third set and 
97

1 the remaining items on the list that we have 

2 not yet had an opportunity to address at our 

3 next meeting in October? What is your 

4 pleasure? I -- I saw a lot of heads nodding 

5 when I said October. 

6 October? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: Very good. Let us -- is there any 

9 other specific item that anyone wishes to 

10 address before we close this session of the 

11 workgroup -- which may, by the way, be the 

12 final session of the workgroup, or not, 

13 depending on what transpires in the next few 

14 weeks. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: As a workgroup, you mean. 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's what I mean. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: That may take a while to get the 

18 status changed, so -- 

19 MS. MUNN: I expect so. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- don't let that hold you up. 

21 MS. MUNN: We won't let -- we won't let that 

22 hold us back. You all have on your calendars 

23 October 15th, 9:30 a.m., Cincinnati Airport 

24 Marriott, Blockson -- excuse me, mark that out. 

25 That's what I did this morning. It's not the 
98

1 procedures workgroup. 

2 Are -- are the members of this group going to 

3 be available during that week of -- during that 

4 second -- second week of October for the next 

5 workgroup meeting? 

6 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, you said October 15th? 

7 MS. MUNN: Well, no, the October 15th -- 

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, I misunderstood. Okay, so -- 

9 MS. MUNN: I'm being selfish here. I'm trying 

10 to organize my own schedule around when I'm 

11 going to be in Cincinnati. And since the 13th 

12 is Columbus Day, then the only logical thing 

13 for us to do, since we still would be 

14 infringing upon the NIOSH staff's real life if 

15 we went for the 14th, is it possible for us to 

16 meet on the 16th of October? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: 14th's better for me if we made 

18 it -- 

19 MS. MUNN: The 14th's better for you? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- if we made it at 9:30, 

21 traveling in that morning -- I know some people 

22 can travel in the day of the meeting, but... 

23 MR. KATZ: Can I ask -- is there a workgroup 

24 already meeting on the 15th now? 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes, Blockson is. 
99

1 MR. KATZ: Blockson? 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, correct. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I mean I have a -- a 

4 general concern, which was raised earlier by 

5 David Staudt, which is several members are 

6 going to be needed one of these weeks, and 

7 they're starting to fill up with workgroup 

8 meetings and I'm concerned about that because 

9 they're going to need time, not just at -- at 

10 the meeting, but they're going to need time to 

11 actually do some analysis and thinking, so -- 

12 MS. MUNN: I thought I had heard that they were 

13 looking at the week of the 20th for those 

14 meetings. 

15 MR. KATZ: It could be -- 

16 MS. MUNN: I didn't -- 

17 MR. KATZ: -- the week of the 15th or the week 

18 of the 21st, which there's a lot of wishes for 

19 workgroup meetings that week, too, but... 

20 MS. MUNN: Well, we have -- we have three 

21 identified for the week of the 27th -- the 

22 27th, 28th and 29th, but I did not hear 

23 anything during our full Board meeting with 

24 respect to the week of the 20th -- the 

25 19th/20th of October. 
100

1 DR. ZIEMER: Do we know what week is most 

2 likely for the -- 

3 MR. KATZ: Well, it's -- it's hard to be 

4 certain, but it's -- the week of the 20th is a 

5 -- is a likely one. 

6 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. I'm not available that 

7 week, nor the following one, so -- 

8 MR. KATZ: But it is -- David particularly 

9 wanted to keep as many days as possible 

10 available the week of the 13th and the week of 

11 the 20th. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: If we meet in October, is the 

13 focus going to be on the third group then? 

14 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Because some of these other 

16 issues, if -- if SC&A or if NIOSH is unable to 

17 address them, then the time is rather short. 

18 We don't accomplish much just by learning that 

19 they haven't been able to do anything -- 

20 MS. MUNN: No, that's true. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- so -- yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: That's -- it had been the original 

23 intent -- I think I -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And on the -- 

25 MS. MUNN: -- relayed that in my -- my 
101

1 transmission -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- the third set, without pulling 

3 it out, can you remind us where we are on the 

4 matrix? 

5 MS. MUNN: We have not -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Are we at a -- are we at a point 

7 of -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: We owe -- we owe initial 

9 responses on the third set. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: That's what I -- I'm asking the 

11 question then, if we -- if we don't have 

12 initial responses, there won't be too much 

13 point in meeting, and -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we'll have some by 

15 then. I think it'll be unlikely we'll have 

16 initial responses to all 145 findings by then. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MS. MUNN: But we will at least have an 

19 opportunity to identify what we do know and how 

20 many are outstanding. We have not even touched 

21 -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

23 MS. MUNN: -- the third set yet. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

25 MS. MUNN: So it -- even with a limited number 
102

1 of responses -- of initial responses, at least 

2 we will have again exercised our electronic 

3 ability with the O drive and have identified 

4 where we are with that third set. We haven't 

5 even done that in a -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I would be -- 

7 MS. MUNN: -- in a cursory fashion so far. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- concerned if -- maybe we'll 

9 know as we get closer, but if -- if NIOSH has 

10 been able to address only a handful of them, 

11 then it seems to me we ought to think twice 

12 about whether it's worthwhile doing anything 

13 but maybe a phone review of where we are or 

14 something. 

15 MS. MUNN: Well, I've been working on -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: But I think it's wise to keep the 

17 date available. 

18 MS. MUNN: -- been working on the premise that 

19 any time we have the agency and our contractor 

20 preparing for a full Board meeting, they're 

21 going to be very fully involved. We don't have 

22 another Board meeting coming up until December. 

23 And that being the case, I would hope that the 

24 bow wave of -- of activity that always precedes 

25 a Board meeting might make it possible for 
103

1 folks to have a little bit more schedule time 

2 to address these kinds of issues. If that's 

3 not the case, please advise me. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's not a lot of time 

5 between now and then. It's just -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Well, it's -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- basically one month. 

8 MS. MUNN: That's a month, uh-huh. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it -- 

11 MS. MUNN: And no more holidays. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Some -- some information can be 

13 added, and some of the things that weren't done 

14 today will -- are not long -- you know, long 

15 lead time on. Some of the things we talked 

16 about today can be done fairly -- fairly 

17 quickly. Initial responses, contractor is 

18 working to develop initial responses for the 

19 third set for the documents that are contractor 

20 documents. You know, but a big chunk of those 

21 are OCAS documents and, frankly, no one right 

22 now so far is working on developing initial 

23 responses on the OCAS documents. So it's hard 

24 to predict how much progress will be 

25 accomplished in a month. We have -- you know, 
104

1 in terms of complicating issues right now -- 

2 and we're -- right now, I personally am pretty 

3 heavily involved in procurement discussions on 

4 our own -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and your -- your -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- contractor. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- contractor is somewhat 

8 handicapped also right now in terms of -- 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: They are somewhat handicapped 

10 by the fact that they work on extensions. But 

11 you know, we don't worry too much about that. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, I was thinking, what if we 

13 -- because I'm considering a subcommittee 

14 meeting in early November for the dose 

15 reconstruction subcommittee, and what if we did 

16 like a two-day in early November and that gives 

17 -- not too far -- not too close to December 

18 'cause, like you said, there's a lot of prep 

19 work for the full Board meetings, but that way 

20 -- and a lot of the -- the same people are 

21 involved in procedures, so I think in the 

22 procedures responses and the dose 

23 reconstruction responses, and they've got 

24 outstanding actions on both, so what if we 

25 piggybacked meetings for that in Cincinnati -- 
105

1 DR. ZIEMER: Now we do have a conference -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- one of those two weeks in 

3 November -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- call -- Board conference call 

5 is on the 6th. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, in November. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Election day is on the 4th, unless 

8 you want to do an absentee ballot. 

9 MS. HOWELL: Veterans' Day is November 11th. 

10 MR. KATZ: That's right. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, it's just an idea. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Veterans' Day -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have those holidays on my 

14 calendar. 

15 MS. MUNN: Actually my desire to -- to schedule 

16 this is pretty much bound up with the fact that 

17 I know I'm not going to be in physical 

18 condition to be traveling in November, and I -- 

19 I literally am marking the month of November 

20 out for travel. I could be available by 

21 telephone, but not otherwise. And in -- in 

22 this group, more than any other workgroup that 

23 I'm involved with, it seems reasonable that I 

24 try to be here in person if we're going to 

25 meet. It's very difficult to do this by 
106

1 telephone when I'm trying to chair it. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

3 (Unintelligible) 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah -- well, you could all come to 

5 my house. Would you all like a trip to 

6 Richland? 

7 That's -- I -- I guess I'll leave it in the -- 

8 in the hands of either NIOSH or -- or the group 

9 to make that decision with respect to 

10 establishing an October date. I can't do the 

11 last two weeks in October, and that's one of 

12 the reasons I'm focusing on that preceding 

13 week. But if it's not going to be worthwhile, 

14 then -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our standpoint, we 

16 can proceed with a plan to meet on that date, 

17 if -- if that's acceptable, and we could -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: What's the date, the -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The 16th, probably, right? 

20 MS. MUNN: I'm looking at the 16th, uh-huh. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And we could, you know -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The 14th is bad. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: The 14th -- well, a late start 

24 on the 14th would be okay, for people who 

25 travel in in the morning. 
107

1 MS. MUNN: That's one, two, three, four -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I would prefer, I -- 

3 I have a -- 

4 MS. MUNN: -- five -- that's -- that's almost 

5 six weeks from today. 

6 MR. KATZ: Well, let's scratch it in for the 

7 14th, and if this other issue arises and is a 

8 problem, we'll have to make other provisions. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Some will be staying over for 

10 Blockson anyway. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: So you could even start a little 

13 later if necessary, like 10:00 o'clock. 

14 MS. MUNN: We could start at 10:00 on the 14th 

15 -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, but if -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- if NIOSH is -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- people are going to have to 

19 travel to Cincinnati -- 

20 MS. MUNN: -- if staff -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you'll be traveling on 

22 Tuesday. Do you know the travel ability? You 

23 know, what's -- when can you get to Cincinnati? 

24 'Cause you know, I don't travel to Cincinnati 

25 all that much so I don't -- 
108

1 MS. MUNN: Well, I'd be -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't know what the 

3 traffic's like and -- 

4 MS. MUNN: I'd be traveling Monday, so it's not 

5 a -- not an issue for me. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but DC folks and maybe -- I 

7 don't know -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: DC folks and Atlanta folks. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- and John, we can all get in 

10 one of those early flights. 

11 MR. KATZ: So we're talking about a 9:30 or 

12 10:00 start? Is that -- 

13 MS. MUNN: No earlier than 9:30. 

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, let's -- 

15 MS. MUNN: If it's -- if it's -- 

16 MR. KATZ: -- make it 10:00, just to -- 

17 MS. MUNN: 10:00 will be fine. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: If -- as long as -- you know, I -- I 

20 really don't want us to do this if it's not 

21 feasible for the agency. 

22 MR. KATZ: Let's scr-- let's -- let's plan on 

23 doing it, but if it gets scratched -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Easier to cancel than to add 

25 later. 
109

1 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

2 MS. MUNN: 10:00 o'clock on the 14th, 

3 procedures, face to face. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Will we -- would SC&A be able to 

5 look at the NIOSH responses before this 14th? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: What we'll do is, as we get 

7 them available we'll send the -- we'll probably 

8 send them to you to put in the database. 

9 You know, or we may distribute them to 

10 everybody -- you know, the -- the working group 

11 members and -- and the SC&A principals, and you 

12 know, say here are our initial responses on 

13 these findings, and then ask you 

14 (unintelligible) the database. So far at least 

15 it seems they have read only over on the ORAU 

16 side, and on our side we don't -- we don't -- 

17 we just can't -- 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: You know, if we -- if we get the 

19 initial responses and we can send it to the 

20 reviewers, send them to the reviewers, and we 

21 will be able to give you our recommendation at 

22 -- at -- on the 14th, whether we agree with the 

23 response or disagree. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: That’s a plan. 

25 MS. MUNN: That's fine. Then with no objection 
110

1 from the group, this workgroup is dismissed. 

2 We will see you in Cincinnati in six weeks. 

3 Thank you all, and thank you folks who are on 

4 the phone. We appreciate you sticking with us. 

5 Bye-bye. 

6 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:54 

7 p.m.) 

8 
111

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 Sept. 4, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

24th day of Oct., 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102