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 the 


WORKING GROUP 


PROCEDURES REVIEW 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Mason, Ohio on February 7, 


2007. 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

February 7, 2007 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 

6 

PROCEDURES REVIEW 

MS. WANDA MUNN, CHAIR 

7 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 56 
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) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


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
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:32 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: On the line, Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes, Lew, I'm here. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. Okay. Mark's here, 


Paul's here, Bob's here. This is our workgroup 


on SC&A procedure reviews, and we have, as I 


see it, two jobs in front of us. You have the 


information that was provided from Stu 


Hinnefeld giving us the full list of all of the 


OTIB and Procedure numbers and topics that are 


out there. You have --


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have hard copies of these 


or do we have them electronically? 


 MS. MUNN: I think electronic copies. I didn't 


make hard copies for you because we -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sure I have them, I'm just 


trying to pull them up as -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we had all those. And that's 


why I -- I sent my e-mail asking if we were all 


okay, because otherwise I'd -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm sorry. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7

 MS. MUNN: -- have to make copies, just want to 


make sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, that's fine. 


 MS. MUNN: And then we have the January 9th 


information from John Mauro to Lew that gave us 


the tables indicating the status of the 


documents that had been reviewed and had not 


been reviewed. And we had Kathy Behling's 


letter giving us the additional list of ORAU 


TIBs and Procedures that had not been on the 


original list. 


PROCEDURES REVIEW
 

So we have the two questions. It has been 


suggested in our last Board meeting that we 


accept the asterisked Procedures in Table 2 as 


a part of -- to be incorporated as those that 


were being reviewed already by SC&A for other 


purposes. We need to decide whether we're 


going to recommend to the Board that we do 


accept those in that context; and decide 


whether the six that were listed at our last 


meeting as being possibilities to add are in 


fact the ones we want to add, or whether we 


want to choose some of those and some of the 


additional Procedures that were listed in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Kathy's memo as our suggestions to the Board 


for the additional six. 


So the first question first, do we want to 


assume that the -- how many of them are there; 


one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (On telephone) (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: -- on Table 2 there are seven items 


UNIDENTIFIED: I can hear people talk. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm sorry? Hello? 


UNIDENTIFIED: No, I'm just -- I'm just 


waiting. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay. There are seven with 


asterisks there, and my personal view is that 


we should set that issue aside for a moment to 


decide whether those that are shown in Table 3 


and those that are shown in Kathy's memorandum 


would take precedence over some of the 


Procedures that we originally agreed in Table 2 


as being appropriate for our list of additional 


six. Any thoughts? 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right. Wanda, if you could 


give us just a minute, I'm trying to locate 


Table 2, and --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9

 MS. MUNN: All right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what's the date on that one? 


 MS. MUNN: January --


 DR. ZIEMER: And Mark's trying to locate Table 


2 also. 


 MS. MUNN: -- January 1, memo from John to Lew. 


That is also -- that same information is 


included in the -- in the report, the Task III 


report, that SC&A made on -- I'm sorry, I'm 


working from hard copies here. I should go 


back and --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: -- give you an opportunity to find 


your electronic copies. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, I've got the spreadsheet 


with all the procedures listed -- 


 MS. MUNN: You have the spreadsheet from Stu, 


right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: From Stu, I think, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yeah, and from that you gave 


us -- you had indicated that there were some 


additional things that you were interested in, 


a letter from -- e-mail from Kathy gave us that 


list, including -- I can read to you what -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is it real extensive -- yeah, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

could you read out --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I can read you --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the numbers maybe? That would 


help. 


 MS. MUNN: -- you -- as a matter of fact, just 


let me read this entire memo aloud for the 


record, probably get us off on the right track. 


(Reading) As a follow-up to yesterday's 


discussion regarding selection of additional 


procedures for SC&A's review, I've attached 


John Mauro's memo to Dr. Wade which contains 


the list of procedures already selected by the 


Board for review in FY 2007, as well as a list 


of ORAU and OCAS guidance documents not yet 


reviewed by SC&A. In summary, this memo 


identifies (1) the 24 Procedures previously 


selected by the Board; (2) seven OTIBs that 


have already been reviewed by SC&A under our 


site profile Task I and our SEC Task V 


projects; and (3) eight additional OTIBs 


identified with asterisks in the attached memo 


that SC&A is currently reviewing as part of 


Tasks I or V. Based on our current budget, 


SC&A believes that if the Board desires we are 


in a position to formally review the eight 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

OTIBs identified with an asterisk, as well as 


six additional Board-selected documents. 


During yesterday's Board meeting I suggested 


the following six Procedures for your 


consideration. 


 She had suggested OTIB-36, OTIB-40, PROC-44, 


PROC-86, and PEP-009, as well as TIB-12. 


(Reading) Based on comments provided by Mark 


Griffon, I have since reviewed Stu Hinnefeld's 


complete list of ORAU Technical Information 


Bulletins and Procedures and would also like to 


bring to your attention the following list of 


Procedures which should be published in early 


2007. 


 These expecting to come out, and the question 


is do we want to include any of those in our 


review: OTIB-44, Historical Evaluation of the 


Film Badge Dosimetry Program at Y-12, Part 1, 


Gamma Radiation; OTIB-45, same Historical 


Evaluation of Y-12 Neutron Radiation; OTIB-46, 


Historical Evaluation of Y-12 Facility Beta 


Radiation; OTIB-60, Internal Dose 


Reconstruction; OTIB-61, Coworker Internal 


Dosimetry Data for Mound; 62 -- OTIB-62, 


Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Los 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

Alamos; OTIB-63, LANL Bioassay Data Project; 


OTIB-64, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for 


Y-12; OTIB-65, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data 


for Lawrence Livermore; PROC-96, Initial 


Quality Control of Technical Editing and Final 


Quality Control of Dose Reconstruction Reports. 


So question one remains. Are we all right with 


the asterisked Procedures that are being done 


under other tasks, to incorporate them as being 


complete in terms of SC&A's work with procedure 


review? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If we start adding tasks, it 


sounds to me like that the tasks that -- that 


have been selected to add will -- are of SEC 


petitions and things like that out in the 


future. The stuff that we're working on right 


now that we've asked them to do, is that not 


more current stuff that if we go ahead and get 


this done it's going to be able to -- to get 


some of our SEC petitions and our site profiles 


complete? 


 MS. MUNN: It is current, and in some ways what 


I just read to you on that last list is more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

current, because some of these items -- for 


example, I'm particularly interested in OTIB60. I don't know where that is right now, the 


internal dose reconstruction. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: That is a kind of global procedure 


which, from this perspective, is of 


considerable importance. I'd like to see that 


that is in fact viewed this year. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's going to help all of the ­

- all of our --


 DR. WADE: Could NIOSH add to the clarification 


here? Of the list of things anticipated in 


'07, could you tell us which ones will be 


completed in '07 and therefore are candidates 


for review? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Says they're all '07. 


 MS. MUNN: Do you have that list that I just 


read, or do you need it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: To the best of our knowledge, 


the items that are expected to be completed in 


2007 will be. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have not received information 


to the contrary that would indicate that -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

well, we're no longer proceeding, 'cause these 


are mainly ORAU documents that are being 


prepared. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We've not received information 


that would indicate that they have -- have 


changed direction on any of those that were due 


out in early '07. 


 DR. WADE: All right. Thank you. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, good. 

 DR. WADE: So basically SC&A's been assigned 

work this year 24 of the 30 slots. You're 


telling us that there's a number of things 


you're doing that really are happening 


independent of this task and are not limiting 


your work on those six slots. And so the 


question is, what do we task you for the six 


other slots. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly. I mean -- well, the 


bottom line is we're waiting on six additional 


Procedures, OTIBs, that you'd like us to 


review; 24 already have been identified, locked 


in, we're working on them. There are another 


15 -- seven of the eight that we just talked 


about -- we've done those. Not part of Task 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

III, but they're done. And quite frankly, what 


we're saying is it's a freebie. In other 


words, we've already done them. Might as well 


wrap them up, put them into the right format, 


have them in one place, you've got them. So 


that -- don't worry -- so therefore, 24 we're 


working on; 15 we basically have done, we're 


just going to wrap them up. So we're left with 


six that we have not been authorized, and the 


six will come from -- as we understand -- 


either the list that are already in place up 


there on the web right now that we can draw 


from, which are quite a long list, there are -- 


then there's a list of six that are imminent 


that you may -- not six, I think it might be 


eight -- I don't know how many there are. 


 MS. MUNN: There are --

 DR. WADE: Ten. 

 MS. MUNN: -- more like ten, yeah. 

DR. MAURO: So really there's quite a large 

number of procedures right now that you can 


choose from to fill in those last six, and I 


guess that's where we are right now. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But John, you're suggesting that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

the ones with the asterisks -- there's eight of 


those --


DR. MAURO: What I'm recommending, suggesting, 


is that since we've already -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that since you're sort of 


reviewing those for other purposes -- 


DR. MAURO: We'll just put them in. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that -- that those should be 


the six. Or that --


DR. MAURO: No -- no, I'm sorry, I'm -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's the freebie. 


DR. MAURO: -- I'm -- I'm not being clear. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Six plus those. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. In other words, those 


asterisked ones -- what we're saying is we'll 


take care of those, put them in the report, 


they're not part of the six. We're just going 


to put them in anyway because they've been 


done, paid for as part of Task I and Task -- 


Task V. So just for a convenience, we might as 


well just put them in this package so that -- 


so you have a complete set in one place. So 


no, the -- what we're really looking for is a 


new group of six out of -- not including the 


asterisks 'cause we're going to do -- we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

going to do those anyway. I hope that --


 DR. WADE: So of the six slots, there was a 


proposal of six -- OTIB-37, OTIB-40, OTIB-44 -- 


that was out there. And now the question has 


been complicated by saying what about those 


anticipated in '07; should they be considered 


as candidates for those six slots. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MS. MUNN: That's right. 

 DR. WADE: That's what you got? 

 MS. MUNN: Right. Uh-huh. And Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: If I could, I'd like to speak to 


what we anticipate in '07 beyond what Stu 


mentioned. In my program status report for 


this afternoon you'll find that I mention in 


there there are 12 Technical Basis Documents 


that are currently in various stages of 


development. And I'm not sure that all 12 of 


these were captured in the list that you just 


read there, Wanda. Actually there are 14 


total, but 12 of them are being developed by 


the ORAU team, two are being developed by the 


Battelle team. The 12 that ORAU have in 


development are Harshaw, Sandia National Lab, 


NUMEC Apollo Site, NUMEC Parks Township, Metals 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

and Controls Corp., Sandia National Laboratory 


Livermore, West Valley, Ames Laboratory, 


Battelle King and Jefferson Site, Peek* Street 


Site, Extrusion Plant RMI, and GE Vallecitos. 


And then the Battelle folks are producing two 


Technical Basis Documents that I believe are 


almost finished now, or -- if they're not 


already signed off on. We're using one, I 


know; the other one I think is still 


forthcoming. Uranium Metal Technical Basis 


Document that speaks to a large number of 


similar processes at AWE sites -- 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, good. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and Uranium Refining Technical 


Basis Document, which does the same. So I'm 


just not sure your work-- we have a -- we have 


a comprehensive list of -- of future -- 


 MS. MUNN: I'm not sure whether those were on 


Stu's list at all. And --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We excluded site profiles from 


this list --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because site profiles would 


be Task I. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right? Isn't that the task for 


separate (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. And -- and Larry, did I 


understand you correctly, we're going to have 


that list from your presentation this 


afternoon? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: But those --


 DR. WADE: But that would be captured under the 


site profile review task. 


 MS. MUNN: Those are all TBDs. Right? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They're all Technical Basis 


Documents. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Some will stand as a site 


profile, some will stand as a chapter to a site 


profile. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Okay, good. But that's --


that's a different task than the one we're 


approaching here right now. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I have just a question on -- on 


these other elements that are out there that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

I'm very interested why they -- I -- I don't 


know that we're officially reviewing these 


things anywhere, things we've called tools 


constantly -- workbook tools, whatever they 


are. Sometimes they're associated with 


particular TIBs. I'm not sure always that's 


the case -- maybe I'm wrong. And the other -- 


the other documents that I've seen which I'm -- 


I really think that -- that -- that -- that are 


critical in our review but they -- they sort of 


fall into a funny territory, these are these D­

- DR methodologies that have been developed for 


different sites. And I know at Rocky Flats, 


which we've been around the block a few times 


on, there's -- there's DR methods for internal 


and external, which -- which is sort of a -- 


sort of a methodol-- it really steps the dose 


reconstructor through how they go about doing 


the dose reconstructions for a given site. I 


think these were developed for the more com-- 


complex sites. It --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- looks like they're mostly 


available for the more complex sites. But 


they're not necessarily Procedures or TIBs. 
I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

think they're -- they're sort of guidance -- 


guidance documents that were developed for the 


dose reconstruction teams, and I don't even 


know if there's -- my understanding is that 


they're not even revised. They're just kind of 


modified as they need. They don't keep 


revisions of them over -- over time. My -- my 


concern here is that, you know, as we're 


auditing cases, that a dose reconstructor is 


using a certain DR method or template and -- 


and we're not -- we don't even see that 


template when we're reviewing the case. So I 


think that's a big vacuum in what we're -- in 


what we've looked at so far. So the -- one 


question is the tools, are we covering all the 


tools that we'd like to look at. And the other 


question are these DR methods that are out 


there. 


 MS. MUNN: Two things, before anyone says 


anything, is someone on the line trying to say 


something? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, I'm just waiting to talk 


to somebody. 


 MS. MUNN: All righty, go right ahead. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Well, I just called in about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

this meeting you're having today at Mason. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes? 


UNIDENTIFIED: And do we have to be there? 


 MS. MUNN: No, you do --


UNIDENTIFIED: I'm a -- I'm a former worker at 


Fernald and I have been denied over my cancer. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, no, you do not have to be here. 


What you need to do is to be on the line when 


we are having public comment session and at 


that time the Chair will ask whether anyone is 


on the line who wishes to speak. At that time 


you may identify yourself and speak. Our next 


-- you're -- you're welcome of course to listen 


to any of the proceedings, but we have time 


specifically set aside for people who wish to 


address us. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I -- I really don't know what to 


say to them. I mean I -- I've been denied. 


 MS. MUNN: Dr. Ziemer, when do we have our 


first public hearing? 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's a public comment period at 


4:30, so if you wish to comment at that time 


you can do so. Right now we have just a 


working group that's meeting on a specific 


issue here, so you're welcome to listen in. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23

 UNIDENTIFIED: I really don't have to do that. 


If -- if they're -- if these people are okay, 


the rest of us would be okay, I suppose, the 


ones that has been denied? 


 MS. MUNN: I guess I really didn't understand 


your question. Would you repeat it? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Well, see, I have cancer and -- 


bladder cancer and NIOSH said every-- I talked 


to them and they sent everything in and Labor 


Department denied me. And -- I mean if -- I 


know these people won't be okay today going to 


the meeting, but I really don't know what to 


say to them. 


 MS. MUNN: Your best -- your -- your most 


logical course of action is to talk with your ­

- the representative that you've been working 


with from the Department of Labor and -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, I (unintelligible) call 


(unintelligible) --


 MS. MUNN: -- ask them -- ask that individual 


what your next step should be. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24

 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Our -- the question before us was 


with respect to the workbooks and whether, as 


my perception had been, that that particular 


activity was covered by the dose reconstruction 


efforts of -- of the specific cases that we 


were choosing. It was my understanding that 


SC&A was working with the same workbooks and 


the same instructions when they reviewed those 


cases. Am I incorrect? 


DR. MAURO: Not exactly. Our scope of work for 


the 30 procedures that we are reviewing right 


now and the additional six and so forth 


includes the workbooks. Any procedure, whether 


it's an OTIB or a PROC, any procedure that we 


are reviewing as part of our responsibilities 


under Task III includes reviewing any 


accompanying tool, workbook. So that is part 


and parcel to Task III, so it's being taken 


care of. 


There are a number of workbooks that are -- 


have been identified from previous Task III 


activities that are currently also undergoing 


review. So right now in -- in the oven, so to 


speak, is the review of ten generic workbooks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

that we're finishing up and will be delivering 


that was a part of what I call last year's 


scope of work that carried over into this year, 


and that's close to completion. On top of that 


are all the workbooks and tools that are 


associated with the, quote, 30 procedures that 


we're currently reviewing. Of course currently 


we're only doing -- everything but the last 


six, so if there's any tool there -- now Kathy 


Behling is in close communication with Stu and 


other members to make sure that we're working 


with the latest version of the tool. One of 


the difficult problems with -- as -- as 


correctly pointed out by Mark, is that the 


tools are -- are sort of a living, evolving 


resource. We're doing our best to stay current 


with that so that when we do go through the 


review of a particular tool, we're using the 


most current version. 


Now Mark, you had mentioned another device 


that, quite frankly, I'm not familiar with 


that's another type of tool, and you made 


reference to it I think particularly with 


regard to Rocky Flats? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

DR. MAURO: Is that -- is that correct? 
I 


believe as part of the Rocky Flats process that 


we're in the middle of right now, that's very 


much part and parcel, the exchange and 


interchange that's taking place during these 


working group meetings and how particular 


issues are being dealt with, so I -- but I 


can't really answer that question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know, but it -- it -- it's -- 


it's not --


DR. MAURO: It's not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean it's not only Rocky 


Flats. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's -- Fernald has one, Mound 


has one. You know, there's several of the 


sites -- several of the bigger sites that have 


these --


DR. MAURO: Okay. I have to admit -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- these DR methods that -- 


DR. MAURO: -- I -- I'm not familiar with those 


DR methods. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Perhaps Kathy may --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I know -- I know --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

DR. MAURO: -- have some information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- others on your team are, and 


they're -- you know, they're -- they're -- I 


just want to know -- I think they're important 


documents and either -- either the case review 


-- they're not really Procedures, I don't 


think, but somewhere we have to sort of make 


sure we're capturing -- capturing those and 


maybe it's (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: They're certainly important -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe it's in the case review, I 


don't know. 


 MS. MUNN: What's the sense of the Board? My 


sense has been, as I said earlier, that these 


documents were captured by the reviews that 


were being done in the DRs. Is -- is that the 


sense of the Board or do you feel we are 


missing something significant? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I assume the question is is there 


kind of an inherent review of -- of that -- of 


those procedures as you do a dose 


reconstruction review. 


 MS. MUNN: That's my question, yeah. And 


again, I was under the impression -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28

 MS. MUNN: -- that it was. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- are Hans or Kathy still on the 


line? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I can talk and then maybe 


Kathy can add to it. But when we do a dose 


reconstruction review or audit, we actually do 


look at a workbook that was used. And in fact, 


we have found errors in the workbook. I'll 


give you an example. In one of the workbooks 


the dose reconstruction makes use of a 


triangular distribution for DCFs, and they will 


use a minimum, a mean and a maximum. And we 


found that the minimum is an inappropriate 


value because it was oftentimes a DCF that 


corresponds to an isotropic source geometry 


when in fact we've all concluded at this point 


that a P geometry is the only means that we 


should accept a DCF value, so the triangular 


distribution should be based on a -- on the AP 


DCF as opposed to all geometries. That was one 


example where we looked at the workbook and 


identified an error. So I wouldn't say 


serendipitously, but we do make a conscious 


effort when we look at a workbook in saying 


what is the methodology that they would have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

used had they used a hard copy document, 


because workbooks frequently parallel a hard 


copy document. So we do in fact look at that 


very carefully. 


Kathy, I don't know if you have any additional 


comments. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do. First of all, let me 


just go back to the workbooks that we are 


reviewing, and I think one of Mark's questions 


was do we look at only workbooks associated 


with certain TIBs. Under our generic workbook 


review, and under some of the current workbooks 


that we're looking at now, we're trying to look 


at all of the workbooks out there. One example 


is the CADW workbook, which is not tied to OTIB 


that I'm aware of, and so we are trying to look 


at all workbooks used, even if they're not 


associated with an OTIB. 


Now -- and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mark, 


I --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's good, Kathy, 'cause that 


was one of the examples I was just pulling up, 


the Chronic Annual Dose Workbook, the CADW -- 


 MS. BEHLING: We're in the process --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- was one that I wasn't sure -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

yeah, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. We're in the process 


of reviewing that as we speak. The other --


and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mark, but I 


believe you might be referring to some 


documents that I believe we talked about before 


called user's guides. Now as far as I'm aware, 


there has been only one user's guide that is 


actually published and available on the O 


drive. When -- and I agree with you, the dose 


reconstructors do have -- I'll call them again 


user's guides, but they're not published and 


they're not typically included even in the dose 


reconstruction report. There is a folder 


called "Reference" in that dose reconstruction 


report, or the dose reconstruction file that we 


get. However, there's typically nothing in 


that folder. And if the dose reconstructors 


are using specific guidelines, and I -- I do 


know they exist but they're not formally 


published, we -- we do not have any way of 


reviewing that because, number one, it's not in 


the folder that we get for a particular dose 


reconstruction report -- or audit, and they're 


not officially published under what is now a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

section called the user's guide. I believe 


there's only one user's guide, at least the 


last time I looked. It might have been for ANL 


West. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, there are -- there are 


definitely more on the O drive. I'm not sure ­

-


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- what folder you're looking in, 


but -- for that -- I mean I gue-- I just -- I 


guess I just raised that question/concern 


because I think one -- one way that I think it 


becomes problematic for us in reviewing the 


cases -- maybe it's not a Procedures review 


question, but in looking at the cases, the DR 


meth-- there are different drafts of these user 


guides or DR methods. There's -- there's 


slightly different names for them. But they --


they do evolve and we don't necessarily know 


what evolution was used when a certain case was 


done. So they're not available when we look in 


the case files and it sort of puts -- it -- it 


makes the audit function difficult, is what I'm 


saying, 'cause we don't have -- 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32

 MR. GRIFFON: -- we don't know what script they 


were following when they were doing -- and 


these -- these really seem to -- they're -- 


they're very -- fairly prescriptive, you know, 


set of instructions for the DR on what -- you 


know, a step by step sort of process to go 


through and what TIBs to pull on for certain 


types of cases, depending on -- on the 


individual case. So I -- I think, you know -- 


I'm not sure it's in the Procedures Review 


section, but I think we have to know this -- 


we're interested in this universe of things 


that are out there. And I don't know if Stu -- 


if you can speak to how many there are of these 


or how they're used or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know how many 


there are. I have a general sense that they 


instruct the dose reconstructor which choices 


to make if there is more than one approach that 


may be relevant or usable, or more than one 


tool that may be usable. It may be what 


approach to take and which to choose. I have a 


general sense that that's what they say. 


I -- my -- if I'm -- what I believe to be true, 


I'm not 100 percent sure this is true, is that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

these instructions -- they're essentially dose 


reconstructor instructions, and they're 


disseminated in a variety of ways. It's not a 


normal distribution like you would give in a -- 


it's not a normal controlled procedure type 


publication, but they'll be distributed at dose 


reconstructor meetings, for instance, or 


training sessions. And so you -- there will be 


-- if we get these, there will be a fair amount 


of inconsistency among them because they're -- 


they're not trying to be prepared in a formal 


document sense. They're to -- to be given out, 


and they're given out different ways. 


 Having said that, I've discussed this with the 


guys over there since I -- (unintelligible) 


know anything about it, and I'm a little 


unclear right now as to where we are in 


compiling them. I've talked to them about I 


think we're going to need to get these for 


exactly this reason. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I'll have to -- have to 


find out. I don't know if I can find out 


anything this week or not, but I'll see what I 


can find out about -- and get back to the -- to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

the workgroup members about that issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- and this -- what 


you're saying is consistent with what Mutty 


Sharfi reported on Rocky Flats that -- that 


these things are -- are really modified real 


time on some of these -- is it Group B 


conference calls or whatever the dose 


reconstructor --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, the Group B is one -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- conference calls, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- group of dose reconstructors 


-- yeah, Group B conference call -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Where they might actually -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- say here's what you should 


do (unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and they may -- they may 


make changes --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- choose this now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, to these -- during 


these meetings, but they're never really 


formally proceduralized or whatever. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But they're very -- I mean I've ­

- I've found, for Rocky Flats, they were -- 


they were very (unintelligible) into what -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

why the DR would -- why the dose reconstructor 


was doing certain things. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They should explain why -- what 


choices --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- why the dose reconstructor 


made the choices they made when they did that 


dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what they should -- 


that's what they should explain. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I guess I just bring up -- as 


the universe of things that are out there, 


that's -- that's the way I (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and insofar as those, in a 


sense, do have some impact on how things are 


done, the extent to which there's appropriate 


consistency in instructions I think is an 


important issue. At some point it seems to me 


-- and maybe those should be formalized, I 


don't know -- but at some point there ought to 


be some kind of process to kind of review that 


and -- and independently say yeah, that was the 


-- that's the right decision to make in this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

kind of a case. So it seems to me that it 


should be candidates at some point for review. 


Maybe it's premature at this time. 


If I could follow up, I'm wondering, for -- we 


have Table 2 and 3, which are the ORAU and the 


OCAS documents, and --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm having a little trouble 


prioritizing, myself, from titles. And I don't 


know if either NIOSH or SC&A are in a position 


to tell us which of those are important in 


terms of frequency of usage or particular 


applications. I mean if there's a procedure 


here that's used once every 12 months or 


something, versus something that's -- you know, 


a high frequency of use, that would be 


important. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, of course Kathy gave us her 


selection of six. You have those, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's basically the SC&A 


priority, I assume --


 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's -- that's -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I'd like to see if we could 


sort of get feedback from NIOSH on that and -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 -- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37

 MR. HINNEFELD: My comment on the six is that 


the -- the one OCAS PEP-009, Evaluation of the 


Change in Target Organs for Dose 


Reconstruction, I think will provide limited 


information that I don't -- I don't think will 


 MS. MUNN: Agreed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- help you out much because -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I don't think so either. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what it will describe is the 


-- the policy change that was made on target 


organs from lymphoma and how to find the cases 


that have to be reconsidered, the completed 


cases that have to be reconsidered to see if 


they change in light of this new target organ. 


And the outcome of that evaluation is not 


included. This just starts the process, so 


this is the change that was made and this is 


how we'll find the cases. And in that 


particular case, it's fairly apparent how you 


would find the cases. You would find all 


completed cases with the affected ICD-9 codes 


that have a probability of causation less than 


50 percent. So I mean it's readily apparent. 


I mean I don't think you'd learn a lot than -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

more than what I just told you if you have PEP 


number 9. 


 MS. MUNN: Agreed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So that one struck, you know -- 


you know, struck me as one that I -- I kind of 


know something about. Some of these I'm not 


familiar with. Case Preparation, I don't know 


that one. That could be very administrative, 


or it could be very informative. I don't 


really know about that. That's PROC-0044 -- 


or, I'm sorry, PROC-0086. 


 MS. MUNN: 86. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That one I just don't know, it 


could go either way. 


 MS. MUNN: It looked important. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Internal and external coworker 


data TIBs will -- you know, the internal will 


have a particular look and an external will 


have a particular look. But when you start 


looking at several from different sites, I 


think they're going to look pretty similar. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, agreed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, and there's not going 


to be -- so you may keep that in mind in 


choosing what to review. Like the external do­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

- coworker dataset for Portsmouth, you know, 


that TIB is probably going to look like 


external coworker dataset for Y-12 National -- 


 MS. MUNN: Y-12, uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Security Complex, which is 


one down below, TIB-64. So external coworker 


TIBs will probably look pretty similar. But I 


guess there is the question of what data was 


used to assemble it, which would have to be 


site-specific. So if you want to know what 


data was used to assemble it for Y-12 versus 


Paducah, you would have to look at both of 


those TIBs to see what the dataset was. 


I'm afraid I'm not being very helpful here. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, you are actually, Stu, because 


those are points that needed to be made and 


points that I expected to be into our 


discussion by now. But before we go there, I 


want to make sure that Mark's questions with 


respect to the guidance documents were answered 


or where we are with those. I do -- had not 


incorporated those in any of my thinking with 


respect to this particular workgroup simply 


because, as I said earlier, working on the 


assumption that a significant number of them 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

were already being reviewed by SCA in the 


normal course of events for them. I could not 


see a point in trying to set aside yet a 


separate set of guidance documents or -- 


they're not really procedures, they're guidance 


documents and they're changing all the time, so 


it did not seem to fall in this same category 


of what I had interpreted our charge to be. 


 Are you -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I --


 MS. MUNN: -- satisfied with what we're doing 


or do you feel we need -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think my sense is 


that those documents are important but probably 


belong in the case review question, and maybe 


we need to figure out how -- you know, how they 


might be integrated in the case file so that we 


have so-- you know, some sense of what the DR 


was working from. But I don't think it's a 


procedures review issue. On the workbook side, 


I think I'm satisfied in looking through the 


listing I have that -- that we're either 


covering them in case reviews or site profile 


reviews or in this review, so I think we're -- 


think we're --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 MS. MUNN: So you're okay with that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 


 DR. WADE: John, could you -- John, could you 


give us some idea of the criticality of -- of 


time in terms of naming this next six. Is this 


something you need immediately or how does it 


affect your -- your pace of work? 


DR. MAURO: We're right now in the home stretch 


of finishing up the review of the 24 and the 


other seven and eight. Okay? Our plan right 


now is to deliver to the working group and the 


Board our work product that would address the 


24, the seven and the eight in the spring. If 


the six additional come in let's say in May 


instead of today or perhaps at one -- at one of 


the conference call Board meetings, I think 


it's -- you know, we won't deliver in April or 


May. We'll deliver a little later. But 


certainly we will be able to deliver this 


fiscal year, so it is not critical that we get 


the list of six at this time. And in fact, in 


theory, we can deliver our work product for the 


scope that we currently have and then 


supplement that at a future date with the 


additional six --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42

 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


DR. MAURO: -- so I don't think it's essential. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd like to propose -- at least put 


forward a suggestion for the workgroup to 


consider. The items that we had -- the eight 


items that were asterisked, which are already 


underway and, as John points out, are 


essentially done already, I would propose that 


we propose those to the full Board as 


acceptable and incorporate them in our list of 


procedure reviews. What's the sense of the 


workgroup in that regard? Is that acceptable? 


Then the next issue becomes the outstanding 


six. Stu made several good points when he was 


looking at this list of possibilities before 


us. When we look at OTIB-36 and 40, these are 


internal and external dosimetry coworker data 


for Portsmouth, we have done similar kinds of 


things with some of the asterisked data -- 


procedures for other plants which are very 


similar to this. Although the plant itself 


obviously is different than the others, the 


approach undoubtedly would be parallel in many 


respects and may not be as productive as some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

of the other things we might want to do. 


PROC-44 SEC is clearly something we'll want to 


look at. PROC-86, the case preparation, 


complex internal dosimetry claims, appears to 


be a crucial one. Of those cases -- of -- of 


the procedures that have been placed before us 


as coming along in 2007, later on, there are 


several that appear really compelling. Note 


the first three, the OTIBs with respect to the 


film badge dosimetry at Y-12, all three of 


those are probably of interest, but they may be 


very similar in their approach. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which ones --


 MS. MUNN: It might be wise to choose one of 


those. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which ones? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which ones again? 


 MS. MUNN: OTIB-44, 45 and 46. They're 


historical evaluations of film badge dosimetry 


programs at Y-12. One's gamma radiation, one's 


neutron and one's beta. It would seem wise to 


have a look at how that -- those historical 


evaluations were undertaken, not necessarily 


for all three types of radiation, but certainly 


the film badge dosimetry program is worthy of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

some attention, one would think. 


 OTIB-60, internal dose reconstruction, would be 


of global interest. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps 63, the LANL bioassay data 


project, and possibly 96, quality control 


technical editing and final quality control of 


dose reconstruction projects (sic). That would 


seem extremely interesting to us. 


What I'm proposing is that we consider PROC-44, 


PROC-86, as suggested by Kathy; that we 


consider one of the OTIBs, the ORAU OTIBs for 


the badge dosimetry program at Y-12; and the 


last three that I just read, OTIB-60, OTIB-63 


and PROC-96. Those are personal choices here. 


What's the sense of the group? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Question. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have a personal reason in this 


because I'm looking at the stuff from NTS, and 


I know that we have some OTIBs coming up, Stu, 


that once that we -- you all finish up your 


review, there's going to be some OTIBs out 


there that need to be reviewed by the Board and 


by SEC (sic) for completeness. If we pick six 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

more, then are these OTIBs that are coming up 


for NTS or Savannah River or some of these 


other sites, will they be put on the back 


burner and not be looked at? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean John Mauro may 


want to help me out here, but my -- my 


understanding would be that, for instance, in 


the NTS case where we have an NTS site profile 


review and the questions that are -- have 


arisen there have given rise to these OTIBs 


we're talking about, that that -- their review, 


those OTIB reviews would fall right into that 


site profile review activity. And so those 


things -- things that are written for that -- 


for those reasons would be addressed through 


the site profile review activity and would -- 


we don't need to worry about keeping space for 


them in procedure review activity. 


 MS. MUNN: Different task. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: As long as it gets done. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which is this number 86? I've 


got all the other ones and I'm missing -- is it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

a PROC or --


 MS. MUNN: 86 is case preparation, complex 


internal dosimetry claims. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: The word "complex" is always 


compelling. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I guess I agree with 


that one. I -- I had -- I mean my -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on. That's the -- that's the 


one that is an administrative procedure. 


Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're not sure. We're not... 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- that's how it seems -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's the one that I 


said I don't know, I'm not familiar with. It 


might be administrative, or it may be very -- 


very fruitful. I'm not exactly sure what the ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: On the SCA chart it says it is, 


but where did --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: It says NIOSH recommended not 


reviewing since it is an administrative -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I may have been the one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

that did that, and the fact of the matter is 


I'm just not terribly familiar with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 DR. WADE: Can you find out, Stu, quickly? 

 MS. MUNN: Kathy, are you familiar with that 

one? 

 (No response) 

Is Kathy still with us? She's gone? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the 


question. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, Kathy, can -- do you have any 


knowledge of PROC-86, case preparation, complex 


internal dosimetry claims? 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I don't, and I -- I will tell 


you that of the six that I selected from the 


original list that you are looking at right 


now, that you're considering, I -- I have to 


admit many of those we were getting down to 


these administrative type procedures, and I was 


struggling to pick six that I felt would be 


really worthwhile. And that's why when the 


suggestion was made to look at those that are 


coming out in early 2007 -- and I will stress 


that I tried to go through Stu's list and 


select what I felt would be interesting and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

pertinent procedures or OTIBs that, at least 


according to Stu's list, indicated early 2007 


so it would be easier to incorporate them into 


this current selection. But I am -- to answer 


your question, I'm not very familiar with that 


-- with -- with that OTIB. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you for pulling this 


information together, Kathy. It is helpful. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm glad. 


 MS. MUNN: So we're operating blind on that. 


Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm looking at the SC&A 


chart on PROC-44, which says the review has 


been completed, so I'm a little confused as to 


why that's being proposed. Am I missing 


something? 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- excuse me, this is Kathy 


again. I believe that PROC-44 is -- I 


(unintelligible) -- is the SEC -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's the SEC. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and I believe that we 


informally looked at that, and it may have 


gotten onto the list as if it was completed, 


but in fact -- and Arjun, I believe -- Arjun 


may be able to help me out here, but I do not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

believe that this was formally reviewed yet. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, it's shown on --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's --


 MS. MUNN: -- it's shown on --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- reviewed under Task V, so 


that's why -- so it's not a part of the formal 


review process then, I guess is what you're -- 


this is one of those that appears to have been 


reviewed as a part of another task. 


 MS. MUNN: On Table 2 it's listed as an ORAU 


team document not reviewed by SC&A. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but I'm looking at the SC&A 


table that they gave us in September which says 


that it was reviewed. 


DR. MAURO: This might be in error. I have to 


check. In other words, on -- I'm looking at a 


Table 2 that says PROC-084 was not reviewed. 


 MS. MUNN: Was not reviewed. 


DR. MAURO: I'd have to confirm, that might be 


in error. We may very well have reviewed that. 


So my apologies. We'll confirm that. 


 MS. MUNN: In any event, it appears to me it's 


one that does need to be reviewed. If it 


hasn't already --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50

 MS. MUNN: -- been reviewed, it certainly 


should be on the list. Yes? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm -- I'm... 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can we go ahead and go with five 


and -- and --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- come back -- or has somebody 


got one you want to put in there? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I got a few more questions. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I -- I'm -- I'm 


wondering how to parse this between site 


profile reviews and -- and this review. For 


instance, 36 and 40 are Portsmouth. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I don't know that 


we're doing a site profile review for 


Portsmouth. That would be the only -- as 


opposed to the three Y-12 -- we are -- I think 


we actually still have a Y-12 review underway. 


We finished the SEC period, but we -- the 


broader site profile is still open, I think. 


DR. MAURO: We have -- there's a confounding 


problem here. Whenever we're authorized to 


review -- let's say Portsmouth, which we were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

recently authorized to review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you were? Okay. 


DR. MAURO: And so automatically that's -- 


every OTIB that accompanies Portsmouth becomes 


within that envelope, so the problem we're 


having is this -- we did the best -- we had to 


make this list as --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- current as we can, but in the 


interim we've been authorized to do Portsmouth. 


So automatically that's covered. So in 


reality, we are going to get a Portsmouth 


review done. Of course it's not going to be -- 


it's going to be reviewed as part of the 


Portsmouth site profile review. Now it's going 


to be like one of the other asterisked ones. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Someplace along the line we could 


very readily take that Port-- that review that 


we do of that OTIB as part of our site profile 


and repackage it and get it into a deliverable. 


So quite frankly, I -- we're in sort of a 


dilemma. When you sta-- as new site profiles 


are authorized, effectively they're going to 


capture a lot of the procedures that right now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

we have here -- not a lot, but some -- that 


were identified as not having yet been 


reviewed. So we're in a very dynamic 


situation. I hope that helps. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and then 44 through 46 are 


all these Y-12 dosimetry papers, which are -- 


are to be released still so I don't even know ­

- they -- they weren't in our original site 


profile review, obviously. 


DR. MAURO: That's correct, we did -- now we 


are going to be engaging, even though the -- I 


know the Y-12 SEC working group has completed 


its mandate, but we still have the Y-12 site 


profile --


 MR. GRIFFON: Site profile. 


DR. MAURO: -- closeout process. Now what may 


very well happen is during that -- the working 


group meetings on Y-12 for closeout, those 


procedures will -- probably will emerge as 


being responsive to perhaps some of the 


concerns that we have raised on the site 


profile side --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and will be reviewed, so you can 


understand that we have a -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53

 MR. GRIFFON: So that's my question, sort of 


whether to assign them here or are we capturing 


them in other -- you know. 


 MS. MUNN: A large number of them obviously are 


going to be captured in other tasks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, as long as we don't -- and 


-- and --


 MS. MUNN: But I th--


 MR. GRIFFON: -- they won't be double doing the 


work, so --


 MS. MUNN: No, no, it won't duplicate any 


effort, and it appears that the really focus 


question is what specific titles are of 


interest to us that we want to make sure get 


done, whether under this task or some other 


task. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Which is why the original suggestion 


included at least one of those historical 


evaluation of film badge dosimetries at Y-12. 


The others will clearly get covered, but at 


least the workgroup will have an opportunity to 


assure that one of them gets a little special 


effort if we accept the proposal. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think I'm okay with your other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

choices. I -- I would select 45 out of those 


three. I'd focus on the neutron one maybe 


first -- OTIB-45, if you're going to select one 


of them to start with this work-- with this 


workgroup. 


 MS. MUNN: So let me summarize, if I believe I 


have the sense of the working group correctly. 


We agree that we will recommend to the Board 


that the asterisked Procedures that were 


discussed at our last Board meeting be 


incorporated in the formal list that SC&A will 


cover under this task. In addition, we would 


suggest the addition of PROC-44, PROC-86, OTIB45, OTIB-60, OTIB-63, PROC-96. Correct? Are 


we all on the same page? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: I'll make that recommendation to the 


Board, with your agreement. 


Do we have any other issue that we need to take 


up at this time? 


 DR. WADE: Well, before you go to lunch, just 


with an eye towards the future, I think we 


should add to the agenda of the next Board 


meeting maybe NIOSH helping us with a 


presentation of sort of defining the universe 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

55 

of documents that are out there so the Board 


can consider whether or not its varied review 


functions really gives coverage to that 


universe. I think that's an issue that it 


would be well to have on the Board's agenda for 


the next meeting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I do want to take up 


the user guide questions specifically in the 


subcommittee, so yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. No other issues? Let's have 


lunch. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 12:30 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

56 

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 February 7, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


12th day of April, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102