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 

MEETING 12 

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION AND 

SITE PROFILE REVIEWS 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 12th 

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

and Site Profile Reviews held at the Westin 

Casuarina, Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sept. 19, 2006. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Sept. 19, 2006 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 8 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

SUBCOMMITTEE CHARTER AND MEMBERSHIP 11 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS 21 

- CLOSE ON 2ND AND 3RD

- DISCUSS 4TH

- STATUS ON 5TH AND 6TH 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, ABRWH 

PROCEDURES REVIEW 52 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, ABRWH 

WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES 58 

WORKING GROUP CHAIRS 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 60 

 
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

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 
5

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

STAFF

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

 
6

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

ANSPAUGH, LARISA 

ANSPAUGH, LYNN, SC&A 

BEATTY, EVERETT “RAY”, SR., FERNALD ATOMIC CO. 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 

BUCHANAN, RON, SC&A 

CALLAWAY, ALLEN 

CARMOUCHE, ROBERT, NTS 

CHANG, C, NIOSH 

CHEW, MELTON, ORAU 

CLAYTON, DOROTHY 

COMBS-CROFTON, SYLVIA, OCHA NTS 

COOK, PATRICIA 

ELLENBERGER, JIM, ORAU 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW K., INTERNATIONAL GUARDS 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

FUNK, JOHN R., AVV NEVADA 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

HYATT, SALLY 

JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, CONG. TOM UDALL 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

LEWIS, MARK, ATL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MARSHALL, KENNETH 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 

MINGUS, RICHARD, FSI-LLNL WSI 

PAZ, DR. JACOB 

PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY 

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR 

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A 

ROGERS, KEITH, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL 

ROHRIG, NORMAN 

ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH OCAS 

ROZNER, KATHLEEN, SEN. REID 

RUIZ, HARRIET 

SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC 

SHELL, LULA, AVV NEVADA 
7

SMITH, BILLY P., MH CHEW AND ASSOCS. 

STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 

ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

ZACCHERS, MARY JO, ORAU 

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
8

P R O C E E D I N G S

(9:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

1 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'm going to 

2 call the meeting to order. This is a meeting 

3 of the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction and 

4 Site Profile Reviews. Again let me emphasize 

5 it's a subcommittee meeting. The full Board 

6 will not be meeting until this afternoon, so 

7 just make sure you're aware of that. 

8 Also I want to call attention to the fact that 

9 about mid-morning, actually around 10:00 or 

10 shortly thereafter, most of the members of this 

11 subcommittee will have to depart from this 

12 hotel because a portion of the work involves 

13 some classified information and those on the 

14 subcommittee who are Q-cleared -- that's not 

15 the full subcommittee, but at least four of 

16 these folks who are Q-cleared -- plus some 

17 NIOSH Q-cleared people will have to depart to a 

18 secure site in some secret location in Las 

19 Vegas where they will be considering some 

20 issues on classified information that relates 
9

1 to some of the Board's deliberations. So we 

2 will actually, from the point of view of the 

3 public, it will be a recess at that point until 

4 the full Board meeting after lunch. 

5 So during this open session we're going to try 

6 to cover most of the items on the agenda of the 

7 subcommittee, which -- if you have not got 

8 copies of the agenda, they are on the table, as 

9 well as related documents that will be 

10 discussed this morning and throughout the Board 

11 meeting. 

12 Also I do want to remind all present, if you 

13 haven't already done so, please register your 

14 attendance with us in the registration book 

15 which is out in the foyer. 

16 We're pleased to have a variety of folks here. 

17 We know we will have other members of the 

18 public as the full Board goes into session 

19 later. There will also be opportunities for 

20 public comment. Those are shown on the agenda. 

21 I'd like to take just a moment and ask our 

22 Designated Federal Official, Dr. Lewis Wade, if 

23 he has any initial comments before we get 

24 underway. 

25 DR. WADE: Thank you, Paul, just very few. 
10

1 Welcome, and I bring you welcome on behalf of 

2 the Secretary and the Director of CDC, and 

3 certainly John Howard, the Director of NIOSH, 

4 who hopefully will join us for some of our 

5 deliberations. 

6 One slight addition to what Paul said. There 

7 will be a group of people going to look at 

8 classified material. That group will include 

9 representatives of the Board's contractor, 

10 SC&A, as well, and we wish them well in their 

11 deliberations. 

12 Just to be clear, this subcommittee as it 

13 currently is constituted looks at dose 

14 reconstructions and site profile reviews. It's 

15 made up of all of the members of the Board. 

16 This morning the subcommittee, and then later 

17 in the week the Board, will be discussing 

18 recasting this subcommittee to focus on dose 

19 reconstruction and not be made up of members of 

20 the Board -- all members of the Board, and 

21 that's something we'll talk about more. 

22 The Board is starting to do a great deal of its 

23 work in working groups, so we have a full 

24 Board, we have a subcommittee, we have a 

25 variety of working groups. And the Board is 
11

1 trying to best use its time when we come 

2 together in meetings like this to allow for 

3 workgroups to get together, do work in 

4 anticipation of the Board meeting, and you'll 

5 see some of that discussed now and I just 

6 wanted to give you context on that. 

7 So again, welcome. Thank you for coming. It's 

8 very important that we do our business in the 

9 public eye, and without you we couldn't do 

10 that. So thank you for being here. 

11 SUBCOMMITTEE CHARTER AND MEMBERSHIP

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Lew. We'll 

13 proceed now with the agenda as it's specified. 

14 The first item in fact being that which Lew 

15 just described, and that is the makeup and 

16 operation of this very subcommittee. 

17 The Board had a telephone meeting, a public 

18 telephone meeting last month on August 8th, at 

19 which time the Chair proposed restructuring of 

20 the subcommittee and in fact we at that time 

21 had a -- an early draft of what that recasting 

22 or reorganization of the subcommittee would be. 

23 And that, Board members, is the Tab One -- 

24 subcommittee members, let me call you by your 

25 right title this morning, is Tab One in your 
12

1 booklet. I promised you a cleaned-up copy from 

2 the -- from the version that we had available 

3 during our telephone meeting, and this is it. 

4 You all received this by e-mail about a week 

5 ago and hopefully have had an opportunity to 

6 review it. 

7 I would like to point out that the main 

8 difference between this new subcommittee 

9 charter and the existing one is -- there -- 

10 there are two main differences. The first is 

11 that the original subcommittee was given the 

12 responsibility of reviewing both dose 

13 reconstructions and site profiles. Over the 

14 past roughly two years we have moved to a mode 

15 where we actually have a number of separate 

16 working groups addressing the site profiles, 

17 because it's an extensive job and each -- each 

18 site profile that is prepared now by NIOSH -- 

19 or at least certainly the major ones -- there 

20 is a working group that works together with the 

21 Board's contractor to do the site profile 

22 reviews. So this subcommittee then would no 

23 longer have the responsibility of the site 

24 profile reviews and would focus then mainly on 

25 the dose reconstruction reviews. 
13

1 The second change is that rather than naming 

2 the full Board as the members of the 

3 subcommittee, which we did originally thinking 

4 it would be more flexible, we decided to 

5 specify the particular individuals on the Board 

6 who would in fact constitute the subcommittee. 

7 And that would be a chairman and three other 

8 members, plus two alternates. 

9 At the August 8th meeting we named some names 

10 for potential members of that subcommittee. At 

11 that time there was some -- I don't want to 

12 call it confusion, but some uncertainty about 

13 the status of Board member Wanda Munn in terms 

14 of whether or not her term in office would be 

15 renewed, as it were, and it was uncertain at 

16 that time so, although she had been an active 

17 member of the -- of the subcommittee prior to 

18 that meeting, at that time we weren't in a 

19 position to include her in the consideration of 

20 names. We now know for sure she's back -- and 

21 incidentally, welcome back Wanda Munn. We're 

22 not sure if it's welcome back or if you were 

23 always a continuing member. It's been 

24 uncertain, but either -- 

25 MS. MUNN: And I can't shed light on that, 
14

1 either. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- either way, we're pleased that 

3 you're able to continue another term with this 

4 Board. 

5 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And with -- with that in mind, if 

7 I might suggest, Board members, if -- or 

8 subcommittee members, if you would look at page 

9 3 of the document and based on our discussion 

10 on the telephone and the fact that Wanda Munn 

11 is indeed present, I'd like to suggest a 

12 modification in the document as we consider it. 

13 This is based on the original plan and the -- 

14 Mark Griffon as Chair, Mike Gibson -- the third 

15 name actually I had my -- in comparing our 

16 notes, I had inadvertently put down the wrong 

17 name. The third name should be John Poston. 

18 Dr. Poston was on the phone conversation, 

19 agreed to. For some reason I had jotted down 

20 Melius. I -- I can tell you apart, John, but -

21 - 

22 DR. POSTON: I'm the quiet one. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And then originally we 

24 would have had Wanda Munn in there. We 

25 actually replaced her name with Robert Presley 
15

1 because of that, so my suggestion is is that we 

2 return to the original plan, and that would be 

3 to include Wanda Munn, if -- if Mr. Presley's 

4 agreeable to that. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: That's fine. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and then the -- the 

7 alternates that were named -- Gen Roessler was 

8 an alternate and actually originally I believe 

9 Brad Clawson, you were also in the phone 

10 conversation, enlisted as an alternate. So -- 

11 and then our Designated Federal Official, Lewis 

12 Wade. So if that's agreeable, without 

13 objection, that would be the list of names. 

14 DR. WADE: Let me just read it so that we're 

15 all clear. It would be Mark Griffon as Chair, 

16 members would be Michael Gibson, Wanda Munn and 

17 John Poston, alternates Robert Presley and Brad 

18 Clawson. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Alternate -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: That is correct. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I thought Gen Roessler -- 

22 MS. MUNN: Gen Roessler. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler would -- Gen Roessler 

24 -- who did you list? And Brad Clawson. Did 

25 you list? 
16

1 DR. WADE: I had listed Robert Presley. The 

2 orig-- well -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's right. I -- I think 

4 Gen had volunteered, but -- that's right. 

5 DR. WADE: When Robert stepped up to take 

6 Wanda's place, Gen stepped up to -- 

7 DR. ROESSLER: To take her -- so I should be 

8 after -- 

9 DR. WADE: Right. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: -- after Bob. 

11 DR. WADE: Right. So that was the sense. It 

12 would be Presley/Clawson as alternates. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

14 (Unintelligible) 

15 DR. WADE: Okay, one more time. Griffon, 

16 Chair; Gibson, Munn, Poston as members; 

17 alternates Presley, Clawson. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: That is correct. 

19 DR. WADE: Okay. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: So with those changes, 

21 subcommittee members, I think since this was 

22 agreed to or at least a draft of this was 

23 agreed to, I think we can consider this a 

24 motion before the subcommittee, and we would 

25 need to make a recommendation to the full 
17

1 Board. 

2 Discussion? Brad Clawson. 

3 MR. CLAWSON: I have a question. On the very 

4 first page, maybe I'm just reading this wrong, 

5 but where it says "a reasonable sample" -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Repeat into the mike -- 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Sorry. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're not picking you up. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: I'll do it. Okay? 

10 THE COURT REPORTER: Can I just say something 

11 real quick? You need to have your microphones 

12 as close as Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Wade have theirs 

13 'cause -- they just need to be close to you. 

14 You've got to speak into them. Okay? 

15 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. My question is is on the 

16 purpose of this, at the very beginning this -- 

17 about the third line down you have "very a 

18 reasonable sample," I'm -- that's -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: It's a typo. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: I believe that's a typo 'cause 

21 it's -- I'm having a hard time understanding 

22 that. I know I'm from Idaho, but what's -- 

23 what's that supposed to be in there? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Is it "verify"? 

25 DR. WADE: Verify would make sense to me, but 
18

1 we'll -- we'll look at the charter -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: It's -- yes, requirement to verify 

3 a reas-- it should be verify. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks. 

6 DR. WADE: Had a lot of the letters right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Only an "if" missing. Okay, other 

8 comments or questions? 

9 DR. WADE: I'm required to make a comment. 

10 There are new procedures that govern 

11 subcommittees, and it really won't affect this 

12 Board, but the -- the decision on chartering a 

13 subcommittee and disbanding a subcommittee 

14 really needs to be made by the Secretary. So 

15 what I'll do is I'll take your work and I'll 

16 bring it to the Secretary as a recommendation, 

17 with every expectation that the Secretary would 

18 act consistent with your recommendation. 

19 The only new intellectual content I'll need to 

20 develop for that is that I'll have to tell the 

21 Secretary why the full Board can't do what the 

22 subcommittee is being chartered to do. And 

23 what I'll tell the Secretary, if you agree, is 

24 that this subcommittee will do very detailed 

25 work. And I think it's much more efficient to 
19

1 have that work done by a small group in a 

2 subcommittee setting, and then bring that work 

3 to the Board to -- to comment upon. I don't 

4 think it serves us to have this detailed level 

5 of work done by the full Board, and that's the 

6 reason I'll give the Secretary. But I would 

7 expect that the recommendation I bring forward, 

8 based upon what you say here, will be approved 

9 and I'll let you know that as soon as it has 

10 been approved. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, and that's 

12 exactly right because as we've developed our 

13 review procedure over the year -- several years 

14 that we've been at this, the development of the 

15 matrix and the resolution of issues through the 

16 matrix not only is fairly detailed, but also is 

17 more time-consuming and the subcommittee is 

18 able to meet with NIOSH and our contractor in 

19 between meetings to take care of those details. 

20 I might also add that all subcommittee meetings 

21 are open to the public. They are announced in 

22 the Federal Register, so in that sense there is 

23 not a difference from a regular Board meeting. 

24 It simply involves fewer people and the 

25 opportunity to carry out the more detailed 
20

1 work. 

2 Brad, did you have an additional comment? 

3 MR. CLAWSON: No, sorry. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments or 

5 questions? 

6 (No responses) 

7 So if the subcommittee recommends to the full 

8 Board that this new charter be adopted, the 

9 charter would -- Lew -- Lew would transmit this 

10 in the appropriate form and it actually goes as 

11 a kind of memo and would go to the Secretary 

12 for his approval and action. 

13 Are we ready to act then on this document? 

14 (No responses) 

15 Any further comments or questions? 

16 (No responses) 

17 Okay. Those in favor please say aye. 

18 (Affirmative responses) 

19 Those opposed, no. 

20 (No responses) 

21 And any abstentions? 

22 (No responses) 

23 The motion carries, and this will be a 

24 recommendation for the Board at our regular 

25 meeting later in the -- in the week. 
21

1 

INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

- CLOSE ON 2ND AND 3RD

- DISCUSS 4TH

- STATUS ON 5TH AND 6TH

2 Next we come to individual dose reconstruction 

3 reviews. And Mark has been really spearheading 

4 this effort. Mark, why don't you take it from 

5 here. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we -- at the August 

7 8th phone call meeting we had a draft of a 

8 letter. It's under the second tab of the 

9 handout, I believe -- it's probably available 

10 on the -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- as well -- 

13 DR. WADE: Right. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- which summarizes the findings 

15 for the second and third set of case reviews, 

16 which would be cases number 20 through 60, I 

17 believe. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Twenty-one. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-one, I'm sorry -- 21 

20 through 60. And the -- I -- I offered a draft 

21 of this letter at the August 8th meeting on the 

22 phone call, probably sent it to the Board hours 

23 before the phone call so really nobody had a 
22

1 chance to review it much. I -- since then I 

2 sent out one -- this is a slightly revised -- 

3 and I can point out -- the only revision was in 

4 -- on page 3 under the third item. I changed 

5 the last sentence based on a comment that I 

6 received from -- from NIOSH from Stu Hinnefeld. 

7 So Stu's -- Stu's reviewed this letter and -- 

8 and basically expressed to me that he's 

9 comfortable with -- that -- that it reflects 

10 our discussions and our workgroup process in -- 

11 in finalizing these findings and -- with -- 

12 with that change, and I did incorporate a 

13 slight change that basically says that the TIB14 8 and TIB-10 were -- were consistently 

15 misinterpreted. I think prior to this I had a 

16 different description of that but -- but I -- I 

17 think he's absolutely right in that change, so 

18 we made that change and that's the only thing 

19 that's been changed in this letter. 

20 The matrices I just sent -- I -- I think I e21 mailed the matrices, as well, but they -- they 

22 were not changed from the last set of matrices 

23 that you all received, so nothing's changed 

24 with those. 

25 And then we added -- Stu Hinnefeld did send 
23

1 this table to me, which just is a description 

2 of the cases that we reviewed, to be included 

3 with the letter. So that's really where we're 

4 at with that. I'm hoping that we can close out 

5 this on the subcommittee level and offer it as 

6 a motion to the Board as well. 

7 That's all I have. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So what we would need from 

9 the subcommittee is action on this document 

10 that would be the letter report to the 

11 Secretary. Accompanying this report there 

12 would be four attachments. Attachment 1 would 

13 be a description of the 40 cases -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that description gives 

16 information on the -- the type of cancer, the -

17 - well -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: It's in there, too. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, there it is. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: POC of the cancer model -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- the facility and years worked 

23 and decade worked. These are some of the 

24 parameters that we've been basing our selection 

25 of the cases on, so we thought it would be good 
24

1 to -- we'd put that in the letter. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That would be Attachment 1. 

3 Attachment 2 is a -- that would be SC&A's table 

4 that enumerates their findings. The third 

5 attachment is the -- the matrix itself and the 

6 resolution of all of the items -- help me 

7 remember, did we agree to all those in the 

8 phone call or -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I believe -- yeah, I believe 

10 we -- we closed out all the matrix items. 

11 Several of them -- I think we -- we have to 

12 still maybe -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Follow up on them. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- examine more -- Stu Hinnefeld 

15 put together the -- the actions that NIOSH -- 

16 the tracking of those actions -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I think we have to -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- go through those with NIOSH. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And then -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: As far as the matrix items -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think they -- everybody 

25 agrees they -- 
25

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- reflect -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And then the fourth item is simply 

4 a description of how the Board evaluates and 

5 what -- what the numbers in the matrix mean, 

6 the Board actions one through seven. So those 

7 are the four documents that are attachments. 

8 So the main action here then is to approve this 

9 as a report to the Secretary on the second 20 

10 and third 20, which we're basically putting 

11 together as one report. 

12 DR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, sir, John. 

14 DR. POSTON: In my book there's only one 

15 attachment. Are we going to be able to see the 

16 others? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, the matrix as was described 

18 has been distributed -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: These have been -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- to the Board by Mark, I think 

21 prior to the phone meeting. Right? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I e-mailed the matrices and 

23 the letter, I believe, so -- and they're -- I 

24 see copies here -- 

25 DR. POSTON: Okay. 
26

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- so they must be -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Are they here on the table? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: They were handed out 

4 (unintelligible). 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, they're not -- they're not 

6 in the books, but they're -- yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they should be on the table 

8 there. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: And then the methodology is the 

10 same attachment that we have for the first set 

11 of cases, which I know that Paul has a copy of 

12 somewhere. 

13 DR. WADE: What I can do is see that all Board 

14 members will have those materials before them 

15 before they're asked to vote as a full Board. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this has already been acted 

17 on. And Table 1 is a -- there's not an action 

18 required. It's simply a description of what 

19 cases were handled. The third one is simply a 

20 description identical to the previous report of 

21 how the Board does its rating. 

22 DR. WADE: I'll get that to them. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then -- but what we -- the 

24 other thing we do need is the -- the SC&A table 

25 which basically, item by item, shows up as the 
27

1 matrix items. And in the SC&A table they also 

2 indicate whether the -- 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: Sir, this -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- finding is a low, medium or 

5 high -- 

6 UNIDENTIFIED: -- is a conference coordinator. 

7 Is anybody calling from the -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- significance in terms of its -- 

9 UNIDENTIFIED: -- (unintelligible) line? 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- potential for affecting 

11 probability of -- 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? Is anybody on the -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- causation. 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: -- line from (unintelligible)? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And I believe that table showed up 

16 in two parts -- I'm looking to see if Kathy's 

17 here, but that should -- that table basically -

18 - 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: I'm not sure if (unintelligible) 

20 -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- is in your SC&A reports -- 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: -- but the guy that's talking is 

23 calling from Las Vegas right now. I would 

24 assume that's -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- which the Board -- the Board 
28

1 has also had for quite some time. And again 

2 that doesn't require an action. It's simply an 

3 SC&A report. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) number so I can 

5 have his (unintelligible) -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro. 

7 DR. MAURO: Hans and Kathy -- Hans and Kathy 

8 will not be here, they -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: That mike may not be on, John. 

10 Start again. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) people to hear. 

12 They're not close to the (unintelligible) -- 

13 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: -- or something. They're not 

15 close to the phone where you can hear it real 

16 well. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, I believe -- 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: I was trying to alert that line 

19 -- whoever's on that line to speak up. 

20 DR. MAURO: -- everything up through 

21 (unintelligible) -- 

22 DR. BEHLING: This is also Hans Behling, and I 

23 can also not hear anything that's going on -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Hans is on the phone and -- 

25 Kathy there, too -- but you can't hear 
29

1 anything. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) and they can't 

3 hear anything at all. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Hans, can you hear me? 

5 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) going on, if 

6 they realize that or not. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Obviously not. 

8 DR. WADE: We'll work on that. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: At any rate, those -- those were 

10 the execu-- we're planning on including the 

11 executive summaries from the two SC&A reports 

12 on the second and third set as -- you know, in 

13 the attachments. 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: The only thing I can do 

15 (unintelligible) -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: We should piece it all together 

17 so -- 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: -- disconnect their line and 

19 call back in. I don't know what -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- everybody can see it as one 

21 big package, is what you're suggesting -- yeah. 

22 DR. WADE: Yeah, that's what -- 

23 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm sending an e-mail to 

24 some of the people who are there right now to 

25 try to get them -- 
30

1 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, that -- 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: We can't hear anyway, so if you 

3 want to disconnect -- if it helps it work. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know whose voices we're 

5 hearing. 

6 DR. WADE: I recognized Liz's. If you can hear 

7 me, don't disconnect. Can you -- 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) to let them 

9 know? 

10 DR. WADE: -- solve the problems of the people 

11 on the phone? 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

13 (Unintelligible) 

14 DR. WADE: He's -- 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: Do you want me to go ahead and 

16 disconnect that line then -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: -- or just leave it? 

19 MR. GIBSON: Whatever you think would be the 

20 best, just -- 

21 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Leave it for right now. Let 

22 me see if I can get ahold of somebody in the 

23 room. I'm going to call them. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me suggest the 
31

1 following, John, if this is agreeable. We will 

2 -- we need a recommendation for the Board on 

3 this -- on the report letter, so this will come 

4 up on the Board agenda later this week as well. 

5 And if we could make sure that Board members 

6 have copies of the related documents, just for 

7 completeness of action, we'll do that. 

8 DR. POSTON: It's a little hard for us rookies 

9 to know what we get by e-mail and what -- how 

10 it all fits together. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Actually it's pretty hard 

12 for -- for the rest of us, too, to fit it all 

13 together. But that -- that will be the package 

14 and what we're asking now is a recommendation 

15 on this cover letter report, and I will take it 

16 as a -- as a motion before us. Wanda Munn. 

17 MS. MUNN: Because the things that we send may 

18 truly need to be considered individual 

19 submissions, all on their own merit, and 

20 because our paragraph in this letter is not 

21 very clear about how we do define low level, 

22 medium, et cetera -- and I can understand for 

23 the reasons of brevity that it would not be -- 

24 but I know, speaking as an individual, 

25 receiving a large packet of material with 
32

1 several different items in it makes it very 

2 unlikely that I'm not going to carefully read 

3 each one of the items. Because it is, in the 

4 view of many I think, important to convey the 

5 idea that, of these cases that we have 

6 reviewed, this large number of low level 

7 deficiencies indicates that they really had 

8 little or no effect on either that individual's 

9 POC or on more extensive applications, 

10 including those words -- I realize it makes 

11 this particular item a little more wordy, but 

12 in my view it clarifies and would be beneficial 

13 to -- 

14 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don't know if anybody's 

15 still on, but they said they're working on the 

16 problem. 

17 MS. MUNN: -- to the recipient -- 

18 MR. GIBSON: Okay, thanks. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- to have that spelled out a little 

20 more clearly, because this is a -- the largest 

21 number of the findings is essentially low 

22 level, minor issues -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

24 MS. MUNN: -- that really don't affect either 

25 the individual's case or broader applications. 
33

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay. Other comments? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Are -- are you suggesting a 

3 specific line where -- 

4 MS. MUNN: I'm -- I'm -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- where that could be changed, 

6 Wanda? 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes. Yes, I am. Where we say -- in 

8 the fourth paragraph -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Page? 

10 MS. MUNN: -- on page 2, summary of findings 

11 impacting estimates of individual doses, there 

12 where we say (reading) The majority of 

13 deficiencies, 131 of 147, were low level 

14 deficiencies with little or no effect on the 

15 individual POC or other, more extensive 

16 applications. 

17 I think those words simply clarify that low 

18 level really means exactly what it says -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's see -- 

20 MS. MUNN: -- that it would not have affected 

21 the outcome of -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The suggested -- and I -- I think 

23 I'll declare it to be a friendly amendment, 

24 unless someone objects, the suggestion is to 

25 add the words "with little or no effect on the 
34

1 individual POCs" -- 

2 MS. MUNN: "On either the individual POC or 

3 other, more extensive applications." 

4 MR. GRIFFON: More extensive applications, 

5 which (unintelligible). That's my question. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: What -- what is that last phrase 

7 again? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: "Or other, more..." 

10 MS. MUNN: "Or other, more extensive 

11 applications" or perhaps "other, broader 

12 applications." The point I'm trying to make 

13 is neither in this individual case nor -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- in other cases -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- other individual -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- would this -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: On the individual POCs or on the 

19 dose reconstruction process -- 

20 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you're talking about -- 

22 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- as a... 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean I -- I can see your 

25 point on the first part. I think the second 
35

1 part sort of -- sort of is in disagreement with 

2 what we were saying -- in the matrix, anyway, 

3 that there are, you know, several findings that 

4 could have had a broader effect, you know, 

5 beyond one individual case. They may not have 

6 affected that case as -- as we've discussed at 

7 length in this process. 

8 (Audio interference) 

9 Yeah.. They -- yeah, most of these were -- 

10 were worst-case estimates or overestimating 

11 techniques or underestimating techniques, so 

12 the likelihood that the finding affected those 

13 cases was -- was probably not likely, but some 

14 of them -- some of them at least potentially 

15 impacted a broader number of cases within that 

16 site that we were reviewing or program-wide, so 

17 I think that's why we tried to reflect that in 

18 our finding -- or matrix in the broader impact 

19 ranking. And that next paragraph sort of 

20 addresses that. There were a number more that 

21 we felt were medium -- of medium significance, 

22 not just low level significance, so I -- I just 

23 am worried about your last phrase there, maybe 

24 -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Mark is suggesting that the issue 
36

1 -- 

2 (Audio interference) 

3 -- it's really the issue of program-wide impact 

4 and that -- that actually is handled in the 

5 next paragraph, so perhaps -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes, and was -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- let that last phrase -- or 

8 perhaps not include that last phrase since it's 

9 dealt with in the next paragraph. 

10 MS. MUNN: That's -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- or let me say it in a 

12 different way. Mark I think is suggesting that 

13 the fact that it has little or no effect on the 

14 individual case -- 

15 DR. BEHLING: Mike? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) mean that -- 

17 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- doesn't impact on the -- 

19 DR. BEHLING: Can you hear? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- wider system. 

21 MR. GIBSON: Just faintly hear a voice every 

22 once in a while. 

23 DR. BEHLING: Yes, so do I, so I guess the 

24 problem has not been resolved. I was just -- 

25 wanted to be sure I wasn't the only one. 
37

1 DR. ZIEMER: But you know, it may or may not 

2 have a wider programmatic impact. Just because 

3 it doesn't on that case doesn't mean it -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, because of the type 

5 of cases we're reviewing I think and -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Most of those, however -- excuse me. 

7 Were not most of those that did have potential 

8 broader impact specifically categorized as 

9 medium or high? My memory was that that was 

10 one of the criterion we had used for 

11 establishing medium or higher impact. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Well, if -- if you look at the 

13 breakdown of the numbers, I mean we've been -- 

14 we've been through this matrix a lot, but 131 

15 out of 147 were low level on the case ranking. 

16 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And if you look in the next 

18 phase, 72 low level deficiencies were on the 

19 broader ranking. So obviously there's quite a 

20 few more medium -- several more were bumped up 

21 to sort of the medium category. And a lot of 

22 times it was because of the potential, and I 

23 emphasize potential, impact on a broader number 

24 of cases. It wasn't just a finding related to 

25 a specific technical issue in the individual's 
38

1 record. It was a finding that could have 

2 impacted all the people from that site or all, 

3 you know, DOE/AWE sites or something like that, 

4 so it was considered a potential broader impact 

5 so it had a higher broader ranking. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not disagreeing with the 

8 first part of your statement, I just -- 

9 MS. MUNN: I understand. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and perhaps since the 

11 paragraph in question is one dealing with the 

12 individual cases, maybe it would be sufficient 

13 to point that out and just end -- end the 

14 insert with "the POCs" and allow the next 

15 paragraph to deal with that other sort of 

16 system-wide issue. 

17 MS. MUNN: No objection to that. This is 

18 probably a slight difference in personal 

19 perception of how rankings fall, in any case, 

20 so I have no objection to that. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think -- and Mark has 

22 suggested obviously some of the low ones for 

23 individual cases have moved up to the medium 

24 category. 

25 MS. MUNN: Later, uh-huh. 
39

1 DR. ZIEMER: Later. 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes, uh-huh. I have no objection to 

3 stopping at "POC". 

4 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing I -- I mean I 

5 think that -- that phrase with -- with like-- I 

6 don't know if you had likely in there, maybe I 

7 added this in -- "with likely little or no 

8 effect on the individual POC" -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- I know we've -- and -- in -- 

11 bringing back memories here, but I know we've 

12 had this discussion before with SC&A and how 

13 they -- how they reference this in their report 

14 because they were not looking at POC in their 

15 review. So I think we phrased it "with likely 

16 little or no effect on the overall dose" or 

17 some-- I think we want to be careful that 

18 that's phrased consistently with the way we've 

19 done it in the past and SC&A's executive 

20 summary or whatev-- John, you're nodding 

21 approval, I think. I think I'm right here, 

22 huh? 

23 DR. MAURO: Yes, we were trying to be very 

24 careful not to go into the POC area and limit 

25 our observations and findings and scoring more 
40

1 toward the dose as it applied to a particular 

2 case, whether or not it was important to that 

3 case or perhaps might have general 

4 applicability. But no, I -- we -- you know, 

5 with regard to the implication on a POC, from 

6 very early on we were -- we -- in fact, we 

7 originally offered that maybe we -- the high 

8 end may have an implication, so we -- we were 

9 careful to keep away from POC. I believe Hans 

10 in fact might -- I didn't know that he might be 

11 on the line. I -- if he is, I'd love to ask 

12 him to -- 

13 DR. WADE: I think he's on but I'm not sure 

14 he's hearing us at the moment. 

15 DR. MAURO: I see. So the answer is -- is yes, 

16 we're dealing with dose. And if it gets a low 

17 score, it means really for that particular 

18 case. But definitely for that particular case 

19 it does not have a substantial or significant 

20 effect in terms of changing the dose in any 

21 significant way. It's just pointed out as a 

22 quality issue. That is, they didn't actually 

23 follow their procedures as they were laid out. 

24 Now the -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I think that -- that's -- the 
41

1 word you threw in there was one I was jotting 

2 down, the significant effect. I think that 

3 might -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- we might want to put that -- 

6 significant effect upon the dose reconstruction 

7 -- the individual's dose reconstruction. I 

8 think we all agree that there is likely no -- 

9 little or no significant effect on the 

10 individual's dose reconstruction. I think that 

11 kind of phrase might work. 

12 MS. MUNN: Or perhaps, if I might offer a 

13 friendly amendment to my friendly amendment, 

14 perhaps simply "with little or no effect on the 

15 individual evaluation" -- "on the individual's 

16 evaluation". 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I think that might work. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: How would you -- how about 

19 "individual dose evaluation"? 

20 MS. MUNN: Fine. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Or "case evaluation". 

22 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

23 MR. PRESLEY: I think that clarifies it. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I think I'm happy with that last 

25 -- yeah. 
42

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, if there's no objection, the 

2 friendly amendment will be to add the words 

3 "with little or no effect on the individual 

4 dose evaluation." 

5 MS. MUNN: Right. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions on the 

7 document? 

8 (No responses) 

9 Then we will vote on recommending this 

10 document, as amended, to the Board for action 

11 later in this week's meeting. 

12 Those in favor say aye. 

13 (Affirmative responses) 

14 Those opposed, no? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Abstentions? 

17 (No responses) 

18 The ayes have it and the motion carries. 

19 DR. WADE: If I might just go on record, I 

20 believe Mike Gibson is -- who is not with us 

21 this week for reasons of family health 

22 considerations -- on the line and was trying to 

23 vote. I would suggest, Dr. Ziemer, that we 

24 secure Mike's vote on both of these issues -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 
43

1 DR. WADE: -- when we make contact. I assume 

2 that those out there on the telephone cannot 

3 hear me at this point. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If you can hear Lew, please say 

5 so. 

6 DR. WADE: So we have to keep working on it. 

7 Guys, we need to work on it. 

8 Okay, they're working on it. They look very 

9 capable to me. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Mark, what 

11 about the next -- actually there's 40 more 

12 after that. Where do we stand on that, or can 

13 we get an update from SC&A? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think just a -- you know, 

15 a quick update on the fourth set, and I'll -- 

16 I'll just -- I'll try to describe the process, 

17 where we stand, and John, you can check in. 

18 But SC&A has delivered a report on this. We 

19 had the Board calls with the individual teams, 

20 how we've done it in the past, sort of followed 

21 this six-step process -- and I don't remember 

22 all six steps right now, but teams are formed 

23 and -- and individual teams meet over certain 

24 cases with SC&A, usually via the -- via the 

25 phone. They go through the case reports that 
44

1 SC&A has got. And then SC&A develops a matrix 

2 with the findings, and these findings have been 

3 provided to NIOSH. And at this point Stu has 

4 indicated to us that, because of other 

5 priorities -- some of them very obvious -- that 

6 -- that we don't have full NIOSH responses yet. 

7 Is that -- I just saw you, Stu. I didn't 

8 realize you'd joined us. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Stu Hinnefeld. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right, we've -- we've 

11 done the initial work, we've -- with ORAU in 

12 terms of reading the findings -- you know, 

13 going back to the original report, you know, 

14 from the findings matrix and pulling up the 

15 original report, make sure we understand the 

16 nut of the finding. We've drafted some initial 

17 responses they've provided to us and we need to 

18 get with them, talk with them to kind of flesh 

19 out some of those. I mean some are fine, some 

20 we need to flesh out a little more. So we need 

21 a little more work to be prepared then for what 

22 -- the next normal step is a workgroup meeting 

23 where we meet with SC&A and the workgroup to -- 

24 to go over the findings and our responses and 

25 the bases for the various -- if there a 
45

1 disagreement anywhere, the bases for the 

2 disagreements. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And actually that will be with -- 

4 with the subcommittee as rechartered. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: The newly formed -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'm sorry. I was out of 

7 the room for a minute. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Stu. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: So that's all I was going to say 

10 is I think we'll pick this up with the newly11 formed subcommittee, assuming that the Board 

12 votes it in and -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And then the fifth and 

14 sixth groups, 20 -- oh, a total of 40 

15 additional cases are sort of in line now. John 

16 Mauro, if you can give us a status report, I 

17 don't think the Board members have actually 

18 looked -- well, they haven't interacted yet 

19 with SC&A on those, but give us a status 

20 report. 

21 DR. MAURO: That's correct, the -- in fact, the 

22 fifth set is complete, and one of the reasons 

23 Hans and Kathy are not here today is they are 

24 putting the final touches on that deliverable 

25 which we have -- are trying our best to get 
46

1 into your hands very soon. 

2 But we did leave a bit of an open question in 

3 that e-mail that I sent to the Board on this 

4 particular matter. As you know, part of the 

5 process that we use is once the reviews of the 

6 20 cases are completed, we normally hold what 

7 we call our one-on-one discussions with two8 member groups of the Board where Hans and Kathy 

9 and perhaps myself who have worked on these 

10 sets would go -- have an -- a dialogue 

11 regarding here's our fundamental findings. We 

12 have a question for the subcommittee. We will 

13 have our complete set of audits -- draft audits 

14 completed this fiscal year. A question 

15 becomes, we have not yet had the one-on-one. 

16 We could do one of two things. We could hold 

17 off on delivery of the full set, the big thick 

18 report with the 20 audits in them, until we 

19 have a chance to have the one-on-one discussion 

20 with the Board members and then make any final 

21 editorial changes. Or we could deliver the 

22 report as -- without the benefit of the one-on23 one. 

24 I -- I asked Hans and Kathy to go forward, 

25 complete the set 'cause I have -- I would like 
47

1 to deliver all our fiscal year 2006 

2 deliverables to you by the end of this month. 

3 If we do go through the one-on-one, it will 

4 push that fifth set probably a week or two into 

5 October, so I guess I -- I do have a question 

6 for the subcommittee, whether you have a 

7 preference. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, we'll get some 

9 individual Board reactions. I suspect the 

10 Board members would rather interact before -- 

11 before they had the report out. I know you're 

12 trying to meet a federal calendar deadline for 

13 the end of the fiscal year, and I'll have to 

14 ask if there's any problems if the deliverable 

15 is delayed. But Board members, what is your 

16 pleasure on this? 

17 MR. PRESLEY: I would like to see it delayed, 

18 for the simple reason of -- of perceived 

19 biasness (sic). I think everybody ought to 

20 make their own decisions before that -- 

21 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: -- you all make your -- your 

23 comments known. 

24 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that's fine. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn? 
48

1 MS. MUNN: Those one-on-ones are very 

2 informative for the Board members and gives 

3 them much better flavor of what has really 

4 transpired with -- not only with respect to the 

5 original dose reconstruction, but with the 

6 contractor's overview as well. I've found them 

7 very beneficial personally and would prefer to 

8 have that take place before the report's 

9 issued. 

10 DR. MAURO: Well, on that ba-- if that -- I'll 

11 let -- I'm sorry. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Let's -- that's two that -- I 

13 don't know if that's a consensus. Who else 

14 wants to comment? Mark. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I agree with that. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: I agree, too. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 MR. CLAWSON: We've got to have time to go over 

19 it. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. The Chair certainly does 

21 agree with that. I think you have a consensus; 

22 we'd like to have the input before you release 

23 the reports. 

24 Now -- 

25 DR. WADE: Contractually, there is no -- 
49

1 DR. ZIEMER: Contractually? 

2 DR. WADE: -- problem. We do have the 

3 contracting officer, who's nodding at me, and 

4 there is no problem. We'll work that out with 

5 you, John. 

6 DR. MAURO: Very good. By way of the -- I 

7 guess the logistics of it, we will have the 

8 entire -- the entire document is actually 

9 moving through the process, is probably close 

10 to completion right now with all 20. What we -

11 - we can do is break it out into each piece and 

12 send them out individually, or send the whole 

13 thing out to everyone. And then of course the 

14 one-on-one, you would just deal with the items 

15 you have before you. Is there a preference 

16 there? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: I think the way you did it before 

18 worked pretty well. We each got our individual 

19 cases -- 

20 DR. MAURO: I see. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

22 DR. MAURO: Fine. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- and then you compiled all the 

24 Board's comments in -- 

25 DR. MAURO: Okay. 
50

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- to the total. Is that -- any 

2 objection to -- 

3 MS. MUNN: No. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- following that? I think it 

5 worked pretty well in the past. 

6 DR. MAURO: Well, then we'll -- we'll begin to 

7 schedule that as soon as we get back for -- and 

8 get that arranged. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. 

10 DR. WADE: John, while you're at the 

11 microphone, just to -- to look a bit into the 

12 future in terms of scheduling, you now have the 

13 fifth and sixth cases identified. We'll need 

14 the Board -- the subcommittee will need to work 

15 on the seventh set, and could you speak to when 

16 you would need to hear from the Board on that 

17 in terms of your workload? The Board has a 

18 call scheduled for October 18th and a face-to19 face meeting the week of December 11. When do 

20 you need to hear from the Board on the seventh 

21 set with specificity in order to keep you on 

22 schedule? 

23 DR. MAURO: I would say our pipeline is full 

24 right now, and starting in November it would be 

25 very nice to have the next -- the seventh set. 
51

1 So in other words, we're basically moving the 

2 cases through. This is the one task where our 

3 pipeline is full and -- but if we can see the 

4 next disk with the next set of 20, the seventh 

5 set, let's say November, maybe even December, 

6 we'll be okay. 

7 DR. WADE: All right. 

8 DR. MAURO: By the way -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: So the December meeting would be 

10 soon enough then? You're not going -- 

11 DR. MAURO: It's -- it'd probably be okay on 

12 that, but let me point out one other thing. We 

13 recognize that when it comes to these Task IV 

14 activities we're the bottleneck. That is, we 

15 can only push through so many. We have added 

16 two new individuals who are going through the 

17 training. This is one of the more difficult 

18 challenges to get individuals up to speed on. 

19 There's a very complex set of procedures and 

20 audits. So we're hoping that we will -- after 

21 November we won't be the bottleneck. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one item -- just one 

24 item to add on the potential seventh set 

25 coming. I think -- and this can come up in our 
52

1 next subcommittee meeting, but I think we need 

2 to be aware of it and remember that it was in 

3 our original scope of work, this notion of 

4 blind reviews. And we've never sort of gone 

5 anywhere with that, but I -- I think we need to 

6 consider that maybe in the next set, so just to 

7 have that out there. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks for that reminder 'cause 

9 that certainly was -- and we discussed that a 

10 bit last time, said we -- we still wanted to do 

11 something along that line. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 PROCEDURES REVIEW

14 DR. ZIEMER: Our next item on our agenda is 

15 procedures review. Actually we don't have any 

16 actions to take here but simply to report. And 

17 Mark, you were heading that effort up, too, and 

18 my recollection is the initial procedures 

19 review was completed, and in the process we've 

20 identified a number of new procedures that SC&A 

21 was going to undertake. I think -- has the 

22 task been developed already for that on the 

23 follow-up procedures review? Where do we stand 

24 on the tasking for that? 

25 DR. WADE: Right, it -- 
53

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'm asking Lew right now. 

2 DR. WADE: Well, I think we need to instruct 

3 SC&A -- the Board needs to instruct SC&A on the 

4 procedures it would like to see reviewed in 

5 next year's work. Towards that end, John Mauro 

6 had shared with us -- and it's included in the 

7 -- your tab "Procedures Review" -- a list of 

8 procedures not reviewed as of June 2006. So I 

9 think this provides fodder for the Board to 

10 consider as it instructs SC&A. 

11 John, anything you would like to add? 

12 DR. MAURO: Just to point out that we are in a 

13 position to accept additional work. In other 

14 words, the pipeline is not full right now. We 

15 are -- we are ready to take on new procedures 

16 for review when the Board, you know, is 

17 prepared to give us those instructions. 

18 DR. WADE: Right, and we have a Board item for 

19 tomorrow -- no, excuse me, today at 3:45, to 

20 discuss this issue. So I would just point out 

21 to the subcommittee members that you have that 

22 material. We'll be discussing it in more 

23 detail, hopefully giving SC&A an instruction on 

24 the procedures to -- to begin to review for 

25 this fiscal year -- for next fiscal year. 
54

1 Now I'm told that our friends on the phone can 

2 now hear us. Liz Homoki-Titus, can you hear 

3 us? 

4 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes, much better. Thank 

5 you. 

6 DR. WADE: Okay. Sorry about the -- the delay. 

7 Mike -- 

8 MR. GIBSON: I still can't hear -- 

9 DR. WADE: -- Gibson, are you with us? 

10 MR. GIBSON: -- anything. 

11 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Did you hear Mike say that 

12 he can't hear anything? 

13 DR. WADE: I could not hear that. So Liz, you 

14 can hear us but Mike cannot hear us. 

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That's correct. 

16 MR. GIBSON: It's very vague. I can just hear 

17 a word here and there. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

19 DR. WADE: Wait a minute -- Mike, can you hear 

20 us? 

21 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) Mike, yeah. 

22 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy and Hans Behling. 

23 We're also having difficulty hearing. We can 

24 hear some people, but not everyone. 

25 DR. WADE: Well, let's just pause for a minute. 
55

1 Now this is Lew Wade. Kathy, can you hear me? 

2 MS. BEHLING: Yes, but it's -- but it's very 

3 broken up. I can -- it sounds as if when 

4 people are -- are speaking directly into the 

5 microphone, then we can hear, but otherwise we 

6 cannot. 

7 DR. WADE: But can you hear me now? 

8 MS. BEHLING: Just marginally. 

9 DR. WADE: Okay, but I'm speaking as -- 

10 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Whoever's talking right now, 

11 I can't hear you although I could hear Lew. 

12 DR. WADE: Okay. Mike Gibson, can you hear me 

13 now? 

14 MR. GIBSON: Just barely, Lew. 

15 DR. WADE: Okay, we'll be working on it. I'm 

16 sorry. 

17 I do want to identify to everyone that Mike has 

18 been on the line. Mike, Dr. Ziemer will secure 

19 your vote on the motions that were taken to 

20 this point. They were all taken unanimously, 

21 but we will take the effort to get your vote 

22 recorded. 

23 And what's going to happen soon now is this 

24 subcommittee is going to have a break as 

25 members go to a secure room to look at 
56

1 classified information for some of their 

2 deliberations. There will be no work going on 

3 here. 

4 We will use the time to do the best we can to 

5 rectify our current phone problem. 

6 So the sub-- the committee will reconvene at 

7 1:00 o'clock after several more minutes of the 

8 subcommittee. I would ask those of you who are 

9 going to call in, call in a bit early and we'll 

10 do everything we can to make this as quality as 

11 we can. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, do you have an additional 

13 comment -- Mark Griffon? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Just one thing on the procedures 

15 review -- I know we're all getting ready to 

16 leave here -- there was a matrix created out of 

17 the first set of procedures review. I have not 

18 drafted any kind of letter report for that yet, 

19 and I'm not sure -- you know, my sen-- I talked 

20 to Paul before the meeting. Maybe we should 

21 have an interim report on that. Part of my 

22 reluctance to do so was that a lot of the 

23 actions in the matrix were to review an updated 

24 procedure, so it was -- I -- I felt like really 

25 be-- because of the time in which we did this, 
57

1 a lot of the procedures we're reviewing were 

2 out of date or replaced by subsequent 

3 procedures and we needed to -- it wasn't going 

4 to be a very fruitful report, so I -- my 

5 tendency was to wait until we complete the 

6 procedures review and do one report. But I 

7 think Paul had a -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- a different sense of that, but 

10 I don't know. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it seemed to me that 

12 perhaps, although no action is required in 

13 terms of what we would recommend, I think 

14 reporting to the Secretary what's been done -- 

15 since it did expand over -- or it did cover a 

16 period of more than a year of effort -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- that perhaps a report 

19 indicating what has been done on procedures and 

20 what -- what is -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: And come forward kind of? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. I think a letter report 

23 would be worth doing. Lew, do you concur with 

24 that? 

25 DR. WADE: Yes, I do. 
58

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So we'll -- we'll perhaps 

2 draft something and we could do that in our 

3 phone meeting and -- and -- it would be a one4 pager, simply indicating the status of the 

5 procedures review, so that there's an official 

6 record with the Secretary, even though it's 

7 already in -- in the public record. We have an 

8 official record with the Secretary that in fact 

9 we and our contractor have in fact carried out 

10 that responsibility. 

11 WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES

12 I think on the working group activities, Lew, 

13 that we can report later in the meeting on 

14 those assignments and so on because we -- we do 

15 need to allow our colleagues to get to the 

16 classified meeting. 

17 So without objection, I will declare that we 

18 are in recess until the full Board meeting at 

19 1:00 o'clock. 

20 DR. WADE: And I will ask those on the phone 

21 who are very interested in this, call in at ten 

22 of 1:00, quarter of 1:00 and we'll try and -- 

23 and do whatever work we can do to make sure 

24 we've got the system working properly. Thank 

25 you. 
59

1 DR. ZIEMER: And for clarity, this is not a 

2 recess. It's really an adjournment of the 

3 subcommittee meeting, so I declare the 

4 subcommittee meeting adjourned. 

5 (Whereupon, an adjournment was taken at 10:00 

6 a.m.) 

7 

8 

9 
60

1 

2 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. 19, 

2006; 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 

18th day of November, 2006. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102