THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

WORKING GROUP 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

PROCEDURES REVIEW

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Jan. 7, 

2008. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
2

C O N T E N T S

Jan. 7, 2008 

OPENING REMARKS 6 

DR. LEW WADE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 10 

MS. WANDA MUNN 

DATABASE DISCUSSION: 10 

SC&A, REVISE TITLE OF DATA BASE 11 

SC&A, MATRIX REVISIONS AND UPDATES 17 

SC&A, PAGE NUMBER DETAIL 56 

SC&A AND NIOSH, DATA BASE CHANGES 60 

NIOSH, RESPONSE TO OTIB-0017 SC&A WHITE PAPER 63 

NIOSH, CLARIFY WHEN OTIB-0019-01 IS USED 63 

SC&A, RE-EVALUATE EQUATION USED IN OTIB-0025-01 76 

NIOSH, CONTINUE REVIEW OF OTIB-0012 78 

PROC-0092 78 

NIOSH, PROC-0090 MATRIX ITEMS 85 

NIOSH AND SC&A, INCORPORATE CONTEXT OF 

OTIB 0023 INTO IG-01 85 

FUTURE PLANS 89 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 105 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

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 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

LOOMIS, DON, SC&A 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MARSCHKE, STEVE, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

SMITH, MATTHEW, ORAU 

THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 

 
6

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

2 

3 

JAN. 7, 2008 

 (1:15 p.m.) 

4 OPENING REMARKS

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade, and I have the 

privilege of serving as the Designated Federal 

Official for the Advisory Board. And this is 

a meeting of the subcommittee on Procedures, 

work group on Procedures -- I’m sorry -- for 

the Advisory Board. It’s chaired by Ms. Munn, 

members: Gibson, Griffon, Ziemer, Robert 

Presley is an alternate. All of those Board 

members mentioned with the exception of 

Presley are present in the room. 

 Is Robert Presley on the phone? 

DR. ZIEMER: Presley’s flying in this 

morning, and he thought he would be at the 

airport around 11:30. 

 DR. WADE: Well, he might join us. 

DR. NETON: I saw him at the elevator. 

MS. MUNN: I think he’s in the building. 

 DR. WADE: Are there other Board members 

that are on the call right now other than 

Munn, Gibson, Griffon and Ziemer? Other Board 

members? 
7

1 (no response) 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: So we don’t have a quorum. We’re 

free to begin. We’ll go around the room here 

and identify. I guess I’d ask the people on 

the flanks to shout out your information, and 

then we’ll hear from the people on the 

telephone. We’ll do a little bit of telephone 

etiquette discussion, and then we’ll begin the 

important work of this work group. 

 Again, I’m Lew Wade. I work for NIOSH 

and serve the Advisory Board. 

MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Advisory Board. 

DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, Advisory Board. 

DR. ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Advisory Board. 

MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Chair of this group. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, NIOSH. 

DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 

MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, contractor to 

NIOSH. 

MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang, NIOSH. 

MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus, HHS. 
8

 DR. WADE: That’s the extent of those in the 

room except for Ray, who’s busily doing his 

function. 

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 

 Kathy, could you hear those 

introductions? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I could. 

 DR. WADE: Very good. Let’s then ask for 

other NIOSH or ORAU team members who are 

connected to this call. 

MR. SMITH: This is Matthew Smith of ORAU 

team. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome, Matthew. 

 Other NIOSH/ORAU team members on the 

call? 

 MS. THOMAS (by Telephone): Yes, this is 

Elyse Thomas with the O-R-A-U team. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome. 

 Other NIOSH/ORAU team members on the 

call? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Members of the SC&A team on the 

call? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 

Behling, and Hans Behling is here also. 

 DR. WADE: We’re honored to have you both 
9

1 with us. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. MARSCHKE (by Telephone): This is Steve 

Marschke. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome. 

MR. LOOMIS: Don Loomis with SC&A. 

 DR. WADE: Welcome, Don. 

 Other SC&A team members? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: What about other federal 

employees who are working on this call? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Other federal employees, the 

Department of Labor, the Department of Health 

and Human Services, Department of Energy? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Is there anyone else on the call 

who would like to be identified for the record 

as being on the call? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Again, this is a meeting of the 

work group on procedures. Again, as always I 

would ask if you’re not speaking, then mute 

the instrument that’s close to you. Be 

mindful of the need to maintain good phone 

discipline so that this work group can be 
10

productive but also share its deliberations 

with people on the phone. 

1 

2 

3 Wanda. 

4 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

MS. MUNN: I trust that most of you have a 

copy of my e-mail of January 3rd in which I 

indicated that we would use the action list as 

an agenda. If anyone does not have that 

perhaps you should have it before you because 

it’s my intent to just go down these items one 

at a time until we encounter something that 

takes us off on another tangent. Hopefully, 

that won’t happen. 

14 DATABASE DISCUSSION

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I’m assuming that Kathy’s going to 

take the lead with respect to these first 

items relative to page number detail, titles 

and the presentation of the new matrix. Is 

that correct, Kathy? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

MS. MUNN: Very good. Why don’t you start 

with telling us what we’re going to do with 

the page number detail and just follow down 

those first three items? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, Wanda. 
11

If you don’t mind, I’m going to cover the page 

number issue a little bit later in the 

presentation when it’s a little bit more 

appropriate if you don’t mind. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 MS. MUNN: That’ll be fine. 

6 SC&A, REVISE TITLE OF DATA BASE

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I hope that 

everyone received the presentation that I 

prepared in Word. Initially, I thought that 

it might be beneficial for all of us to have 

the ACCESS data base in front of them so that 

we could work real-time from that database. 

However, after giving it some thought, I think 

we might be better just using the presentation 

that I sent to everyone on Saturday. 

 Does everyone have that, and did John 

Mauro bring some extra copies with him? 

DR. MAURO: I did not, and, Kathy, I have to 

apologize. I did not download it. I have in 

front of me your actual ACCESS program, not 

the material you just described. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Do the other -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, is this called ACCESS 

DB screen views? Is that -- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Let me see what 
12

1 I called it, just one second. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, screen view, yes. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, I sent it 

out on Saturday. 

DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, you had one last month 

with the same title. I assumed you have 

revised it somewhat. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, here’s 

the name of the file. It’s Task Three Matrix 

Mod, M-O-D, pres-dot-doc. It’s a Word file, 

and it was sent on the 5th. 

DR. ZIEMER: I don’t think that’s the title 

that it came to us on. 

DR. NETON: Yeah, it is. 

DR. ZIEMER: It is? 

DR. NETON: Uh-huh. 

MR. GRIFFON: I have another one called Task 

Three Matrix in mod pres. Is that -- 

MS. MUNN: May have to find it by date. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, can you 

find it by date? Because I apologize that you 

don’t have this. Like I said, initially, I 

thought we would work from the actual 

database. But I think this will be easier. 

MS. MUNN: Well, added to our difficulty, 
13

Kathy, is the fact that the room in which we 

are meeting apparently does not have wireless 

access. So we are doubly hampered. 

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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, so that 

would not have worked anyway. Can we get 

copies of that made? 

 John, I had tried to call you earlier 

to make sure you had -- 

DR. MAURO: Kathy, I brought the ACCESS 

program instead of the actual copies you sent 

earlier, and I downloaded it, and I have it on 

my machine, but not the Word version. 

DR. ZIEMER: Does somebody need it? I’ve 

got it. 

 Do you have it? 

MR. GIBSON: I have it, uh-huh. 

DR. ZIEMER: Mike has it. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: They didn’t send it to 

the attorneys so if we could just get a copy 

of it at some point, I can just take it maybe 

to the Business Center. Not right now. We’ll 

do it afterwards. 

 DR. WADE: Who around the table of the 

principals needs it? Wanda, do you have it? 

MS. MUNN: I’m trying to see if I do. I’m 
14

1 not quite sure what I downloaded. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. ZIEMER: Paul, could you put it on a 

flash drive and we’ll... 

MS. MUNN: It is new format mod 

presentation? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): It’s Task Three 

Matrix Mod Presentation, P-R-E-S for 

presentation dot-doc. 

MS. MUNN: I got it. 

 DR. WADE: But Stu needs it so, Paul, if you 

could... Stu and Wanda are going to share for 

now. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, tell me 

when you are prepared for me to begin. 

 DR. WADE: I think we are prepared for you 

to begin. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): First of all 

let me start by saying that we have also, SC&A 

has also been working with Stu Hinnefeld and 

ORAU team to actually get this database up on 

the O drive, and that did happen today. So 

when you are in a position that you can log 

onto the O drive, this document or the 

database has been uploaded to the O drive, and 

it’s been put into a separate directory that’s 
15

entitled “Advisory Board-dash-SC&A” with a 

subdirectory that has the title of “Tracking 

System”. 

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 

 And then you will open up the database 

by going into Tracking System and there will 

be two files there. One file, the file name 

ends with data, D-A-T-A. That is not the file 

that you use to access the database. You use 

the other file. It has a long name to it, but 

you want to open the file that does not have 

the data in the file name. And then you will 

be able -- this is considered a read-only 

version of the database, but you’ll actually 

be able to go in and look at this data and 

work with the database yourself. So we were 

pleased to have that up there. 

 We’re also working with ORAU that 

there’ll be a select number of people from 

SC&A that will have privileges to write to 

this particular file. Now, NIOSH -- and Stu 

can maybe add to this -- NIOSH will also be 

updating this file, but apparently they use a 

different system. They don’t necessarily get 

onto the O drive, and so we’re working out 

details as to how NIOSH will update the 
16

1 database. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Is that correct, Stu? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we don’t actually see 

the O drive. Things get replicated back and 

forth between the ORAU system and our system. 

And I’ve been talking to Jack Gibson who’s the 

manager of the IT function for ORAU about some 

delicacy, I guess, in terms of having a 

database like this with multiple users trying 

to write to it. You have a chance to corrupt 

it. So for the time being I just don’t plan 

to, we don’t plan to replicate anything back 

over to ORAU. 

 If it comes to me, and I enter 

something in it, then I would probably have to 

e-mail it to SC&A to be updated. Or we can 

work out some other administrative approach 

around. I’ll just have to talk to Jack Gibson 

about what would be a good way to do this. 

Chances are we may want to think about going 

past ACCESS to some other system that will 

replicate back and forth and keeps track of 

everything so you can replicate and make 

changes on both sides. 

 We have a number of programs that do 
17

that now. We have a number of applications 

that do now between us and ORAU. We can write 

to it. They can write to it, and it gets 

replicated and keeps track of everything. So 

we may think about moving it to something like 

SQL, that’s a SQL-based system that does that 

or some system like that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 SC&A, MATRIX REVISIONS AND UPDATES

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): And before I 

get on to page one of this presentation, you 

heard earlier Don Loomis is on the line with 

us. He’s the one that has developed this 

ACCESS database, and I have asked him to 

please interrupt me anytime I say something 

that’s not accurate because he is the designer 

of this database. 

 Okay, now I’m going to prepare 

everybody to be wowed because this is really 

very nice. We’re going to start off on page 

one of what I’ve sent to you, and this is just 

the opening screen. And let me also tell you, 

when I went onto the O drive today to open up 

this database, one thing you have to remember 

is to be a little bit patient because when the 

ACCESS database opens up, before you actually 
18

see this screen, it sits there awhile and 

looks around or whatever it is doing. But it 

takes a little while until this screen will 

open up so you just have to be a bit patient. 

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 

 This screen looks very similar to the 

initial database that I had presented to you 

during our last meeting. But as you’ll see on 

the very top of the screen in the yellow 

section, we did change the title of this 

database, and that title is reflected on 

anything that is printed. And you’ll now see 

A-B-R-W-H Procedures Issues Tracking, and 

underneath there it indicates the last time 

that this database was updated. And we’ll 

talk a little bit more about that later. Also 

in the room if anyone has any questions along 

the way, just please stop me. 

 This first screen I printed a screen 

that shows everything that currently exists in 

the database which is 376 records. Now that’s 

the same number of records that was in there 

the last time. I had hoped to update and add 

some records to this, but we were not able to 

do that. We just finished putting all of the 

finishing touches on the database at the end 
19

1 of last week. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The other thing that you don’t see at 

the top of this screen is we previously had a 

button that said, I believe it said includes 

closed items or includes closed. We no longer 

have that button, but we are able to do that 

with our filter sort button which I will 

discuss in the next page. Does anybody have 

any questions so far? 

MS. MUNN: I have only one, Kathy. Looking 

at the buttons, trying to identify how I’ll 

use this when I do use it, under your headings 

you have summary details, procedures -- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I should 

have mentioned that. What you’re looking at 

here is the summary sheet. If you take 

notice, that’s white. The other two are gray. 

So we’re actually looking at the summary 

sheet, just the first page of that summary 

sheet or what appears on the screen. If you 

kept scrolling down, you’d be able to see all 

376 records. 

MS. MUNN: Excellent, all right, so the one 

highlighted is what I’m looking at. That’s 

what you’re saying? 
20

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

Yes, and we had gone through those tabs last 

time, and we’ll do that again this time to 

show you some of the differences. But I 

should have mentioned that this is the summary 

screen. 

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 

MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): As I said we’ve 

added a filter sort data button. And if you 

turn to page two of the presentation, you will 

see what shows on your screen when you select 

that button. And in fact, I took notice today 

when I was on the O drive. I believe -- on 

the left-hand side of the screen are the ways 

that we can sort any of the data that we’re 

looking at. 

 And as you can see Don gave us lots of 

options here. We have a first, second and 

third level sorting mechanism. And that’s 

actually written in now. I believe that was 

just added, and that’s what’s showing on, 

above each of those buttons it will say first, 

second and third, and so you can sort on three 

different levels. 

 On the right-hand side of the screen, 
21

this is where it gets fancy. One of the 

things that we talked about during the last 

meeting was we wanted an option to be able to 

go in and search on a certain word or a 

phrase. Well, under the filter on section, 

the very first field is, contains phrase. 

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 

 And for an example here I typed in the 

word ingestion because that’s one of our 

global issues, and I wanted to see if based on 

the information that we have in this current 

database, and like I said, it is by no means 

complete at this point, how many records will 

show up putting the word ingestion in that 

contains phrase. 

 And if you move on to page three, you 

will see the results of that filter of 

ingestion. It’s only showing five records, 

and it is showing those records where 

ingestion is part of any of the major text 

fields. In other words if the very first item 

on there is the OCAS-IG-001, that should have 

been actually 002 or 01 or in our finding 

number, but IG-001-07. 

 You don’t see in the procedure title, 

ingestion, but if you look on page four of the 
22

data that I sent to you, you can see under 

NIOSH’s initial response the term ingestion is 

located there. And that’s why this record was 

identified among these five records that have 

ingestion somewhere in the major portion of 

the text in the detailed report. 

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 

 The other thing I’ll point out to you 

if we can go back to page three which is the 

result screen for the ingestion search, is you 

take notice under the title of this database 

there’s now in red it says, “Filter is on.” 

This is indicating that we’re not looking at 

the entire database. We are looking at 

whatever filter selection we have made from 

the previous sort filter screen. 

MS. MUNN: That is nice. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, that was 

something I was surprised we were going to be 

able to do. 

MS. MUNN: Very good. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We can move on 

now. If we move on to page five -- 

DR. ZIEMER: One question -- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, clarify for me the sort 
23

levels. There’s three sort levels. Is that 

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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

The sort level means let’s say we decide we’re 

going to sort on, as we have here, procedure 

number. 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, it’s the thing to the 

-- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, whatever 

is to the right of that. So what’s been 

selected in this example it will first sort by 

procedure number. The second sort will be by 

finding date, and the third sort will be by 

the status in the work group process. 

DR. ZIEMER: Got you. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): If we move on 

to page five -- 

DR. ZIEMER: Now the only thing that may not 

be clear is what, I guess you’re just assuming 

everybody works from left to right. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, and as I 

said, when you get into the database, there 

has been, on the O drive, it is now marked 

that that left side, that very first column on 

the left, is now marked first, and there’s a 
24

second and a third above each of the columns. 

That has been added. 

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 

MS. MUNN: Oh, good, that will help. 

DR. ZIEMER: Once it gets the first sort, 

then it goes to the second. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

Probably more sorts in there than we needed, 

but we wanted to cover all bases. 

MS. MUNN: I gather. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Can we move on 

to page five? 

MS. MUNN: Please do. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This again I’ve 

pulled up the filter and sort box that we can 

select from. And if you take notice here, the 

second item under the filter is status of work 

group process. Here we have the option of 

selecting how we want a filter on that status 

column alone. We can select all of the 

status, and then as you saw in the first 

screen, we get the 376 records. Or we can 

pick and choose any of these, and we will get, 

the database will then eliminate anything that 

is not checked here. 

 And in this example I unchecked the 
25

closed box, and if you look at page six, this 

is the result of un-clicking that closed box. 

So you can now see that in your right-hand 

column under the status of work group process, 

there should be no closed items that appear 

here, and it appears now that there are about 

213 records of those. If you look at the 

bottom of that screen, there are 213 records 

of those initial 376. 

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 

 So we have a lot of options here with 

this sort that we can look at only open items. 

If we want to look at only items that have 

been transferred, we can do that. We can look 

at any combination of this six status items 

that we agreed upon. Any questions? 

MS. MUNN: No, so we have 150 closed items 

essentially. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Based on the 

information that I have in the database to 

date, yes. 

MS. MUNN: That’s great. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): And again, if 

you look on page six, again you’ll see in red 

that filter is on, and so you know you’re 

dealing with a subgroup of the entire 
26

1 database, the entire population. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 All right, we’ll move on to page 

seven. And here what I’ve done is open, the 

very first item on page six is in the summary, 

I’ve now opened up the details page. And as 

you can see the highlighted item under the 

tabs is the details. And we’re looking at, I 

want to point out some of the modifications 

that we’ve made to this detailed screen. 

 The first modification that you’ll see 

up in the gray portion of the screen is called 

related link. And here is where we indicated 

that during our previous meeting that we would 

like to have the option of linking our white 

papers to this database. And this is where 

we’re going to do that. 

 I typed in an example here of the SC&A 

web page or home page because initially I was 

not sure if we were going to be able to upload 

this information onto the O drive, and perhaps 

we could make, we were initially thinking we 

would make a location on SC&A’s website for 

our white papers and the same thing with 

NIOSH. 

 However, since we’re all going to be 
27

using this database on the O drive, ORAU has 

indicated to us that they should be able to 

set aside another directory with those white 

papers in there. And we can link those white 

papers directly to the ACCESS database. 

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 

 So when you type in the location -- 

we’re still working out the details of this -- 

but when you type in the location of where 

those white papers will exist, or the actual 

file name, it most likely will be a PDF file, 

we will type that in there. And once you 

leave this field and you come back and click 

on that field -- it’s like opening a website -

- you will open up that white paper. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the record, Robert 

Presley has joined us at the table. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Hello, Mr. 

Presley. 

MS. MUNN: He’s grimacing. He’s still 

catching his breath. 

 And, Kathy, I think you either lost me 

or I got off on the wrong page when you 

started talking to us about that, yeah, the 

modified detail screen. 

DR. ZIEMER: She said go to seven, page 
28

1 seven. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct, 

page seven, the modified detail screen page. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay, I was not following 

all that you were saying there. So links, 

links, links. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): On the lefthand side in the gray box, about midway down 

on that screen, you’ll see a title of a field 

called “Related Link”. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Inside the 

field or the box associated with that I have 

typed in www-dot-S-C-A-I-N-C-dot-com for 

SC&A’s web page. That was just an example 

that I had used at the time. Since preparing 

this and talking with ORAU, it appeared -- 

they’re going to be working on this for us -- 

that we will be able to type a location in 

here with the, and we will have an 

understanding of where these white papers will 

exist and the name of that white paper. And 

it’ll be linked directly to the database so 

that if you’re in this ACCESS database, and 

you go to that field, you should be able to 
29

click on that field, and it will open up that 

white paper. 

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 

MS. MUNN: So I can actually go from the 

database to your database? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, and it 

actually -- I’ve confused things a little bit 

here -- it’s not going to be our database 

anymore. It is, everything is going to reside 

on the O drive. And so when we enter this 

data or when NIOSH enters their data, they 

will be able to put in the location of where 

that white paper exists in the exact location 

and then white paper name. So that when you 

as a Board member looks at that, you’ll be 

able to click on that field, and it will open 

up automatically on the O drive while you’re 

in this ACCESS database. I know that Jack has 

indicated we’re working on the details of 

that. 

 And, Don, do you have anything more to 

add to clarify this? 

MR. LOOMIS: Yeah, I do, just a little bit. 

 What that does presume, however, if 

we’re going to the -- 

MS. MUNN: Can you speak just a little 
30

1 louder, Don? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. LOOMIS: Yeah, I’ll do my best. 

 If we’re going to use the O drive that 

way, that means that that’s presuming that the 

people on term serve to access it because it’s 

looking at O which is the map drive on the 

term server, the terminal server, to get to 

that data. 

 We set it up so it can work that way 

or it can work off of an internet U-R-L. This 

is more a configuration question that has to 

be resolved. But if we do use the O drive 

with a folder on the terminal server, then to 

have that feature work, the person will have 

to be using terminal server. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, that makes sense to me. I 

was a little surprised to see the U-R-L. I 

think that’s what was confusing me. I was 

trying to figure out how you could reasonably 

access that from the O drive. It didn’t sound 

like a good idea to me. 

DR. MAURO: As I understand it then once 

this is transferred to the O drive it sounds 

like there’s also a SQL trans. In other words 

you wouldn’t work from ACCESS. You’d work 
31

1 from SQL. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right now I would not 

because I don’t have this front end in Sequel. 

Right now we’ll just have to work out an 

administrative process where, for making sure 

that SC&A is completely off of it, and then I 

could use the update to the database as it was 

replicated over, but it would be in ACCESS. 

And then replicate that back over to ORAU, and 

it would go back on the O drive while no one 

else is using it. Only one person is using 

it. So there would have to be an 

administrative process right now. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): From the 

Board’s perspective you will be on the O drive 

to access this database so you will simply, 

once we have these details worked out, there 

will be something in there that will allow 

you, some words in there that will allow you 

to click on that field, and it will open up 

that PDF file or that report for you. 

MS. MUNN: Okay, we’ll have to have some 

idea of where it is we want to go. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Actually, it 

will be between SC&A and NIOSH that we would 
32

most likely enter this information. And so 

once you’re looking at this detail screen, and 

there’s been a white paper associated with a 

particular finding, that information should 

exist there, and you should be in a position 

just to click and that file will open. 

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 

MS. MUNN: Oh, okay. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): So it won’t be 

anything where you will have to know where the 

file location is. It’ll just be the 

appropriate people from NIOSH and SC&A that 

will need to do that, enter that data. 

MS. MUNN: Paul? 

DR. ZIEMER: I have a question, and it’s for 

the work group and maybe Kathy to give us some 

input. But if indeed this procedure and this 

methodology is extended to our other work 

groups as part of the matrix resolution 

process, then I can anticipate that 

petitioners or people from sites are going to 

want to have access to this matrix in this 

form. If it’s on the O drive, does that 

present some problems? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: In other words we, is there 
33

anything in this database as it stands that 

would require it to be on the O drive? I 

think this is all public information except 

for these links perhaps, but I just want us to 

think about that as we go forward. If this is 

exclusive for the O drive, how do the 

petitioners get at those issues? 

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 

DR. MAURO: And if it wasn’t, then it 

becomes a question is there any material in 

there that may be sensitive from a PA point of 

view? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the comment I was 

going to make not so much as it relates to 

procedures but with respect to dose 

reconstruction review, expand it to that. 

Very frequently the discussion and resolution 

of the dose reconstruction review findings 

would not be acceptable from Privacy Act 

standards because it just provides too much 

information about the EE, energy employee. 

And so it wouldn’t be acceptable to just put 

the DR part in the open. 

DR. MAURO: I think we have a problem. 

DR. ZIEMER: What about the other matrices? 

MS. HOWELL: I wanted to just add to what 
34

you’re saying here. You’re also talking 

about, you’re talking about an electronic 

version that’s going to be in draft form. And 

while we’ve made matrices available to members 

of the public in the past, these have always 

been previously reviewed by either OGC or 

NIOSH staff for Privacy Act. And they’re also 

at a point where, while it may still be a kind 

of draft, it’s not -- Larry, maybe you can 

help me out on this -- but you can’t be giving 

out information that is not finalized at least 

somewhat yet -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. ZIEMER: I realize that. 

MS. HOWELL: -- because you’re waiving all 

sorts of protections that way. So if you guys 

want to try and think about coming up with a 

way where you have specific dates where you 

have meetings, and you have kind of a screen 

shot of what is in the matrix at that time and 

that can be passed along to the correct people 

for Privacy Act review and then be made 

public, that’s possible. 

 But I don’t see how making available 

an actual database, that’s just going to 

create a wealth of problems. So I think 
35

you’re going to have to kind of go back to 

this whole paper matrix idea when you talk 

about getting it available to the public. And 

it will still have to be reviewed. There is 

going to be a delay. Those problems are going 

to be significant. 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: So at the time of a particular 

meeting, for example, you can say, okay, 

here’s how the database is as of some date. 

MS. HOWELL: Right, and you know what you 

would need to do would be to pick a date a 

week ahead of time or something and say that 

this is the date that we’re cutting it off 

because it’s going to take time to get the 

right people to review it. 

MR. ELLIOTT: When you say database, Dr. 

Ziemer, I assume you’re talking about 

everything that’s in, that’s captured into 

your system. If that’s what you’re saying you 

want a snapshot of, that’s going to take a lot 

of effort to -- 

MS. HOWELL: Because it’s different than 

what we had on the matrix. 

DR. ZIEMER: I raise the issue because we’ve 

had this already in our work groups and the 
36

petitioners in terms of issue resolutions they 

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 

MR. ELLIOTT: The work groups on special 

exposure code work and site profiles, those 

matrices have been treated as a work in 

progress. They’ve been treated as predecisional. They’ve been treated as if a 

person wants to see them, they have to give us 

a request in that case. We treat it as a FOIA 

request and pass, pass what they request in a 

Privacy Act review, and then we turn that 

around. And we do that as timely as we can, 

and in some instances we make the deadlines 

for a meeting, and others we’re pushing 

against it so we don’t have it. That’s where 

this is all at. 

MS. MUNN: Let me articulate for just a 

moment what I believe the thinking of most of 

this group was when we undertook this. I 

believe, at least what I was thinking was, we 

needed to have more detail in our matrix and 

be able to follow where we had gone with each 

individual item with an end expectation of 

closing the item and putting it in a different 

box and dropping it off the active matrix. It 
37

was never the original intent I believe for 

the entire matrix, the operating matrix, to be 

out there. It was intended as a working 

instrument in my mind for this group. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Now if we talk about we now are in a 

situation where we can filter the closed items 

out from the entire set of procedures that 

we’ve looked at, if we want to talk about the 

possibility of having closed matrix items 

available some place other than on the O 

drive, then in my view there’s probably no 

major obstacle to that but individually. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Post that on the website. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, individually I would be 

very reluctant to consider the matrix material 

that we are working with at this time as being 

fully available. 

DR. ZIEMER: That’s helpful. I think Emily 

caught the idea then that a summary matrix 

with just the page without the details which 

tells you which items are in progress and 

which are closed and so on probably is fairly 

easy to review. You wouldn’t be putting all 

the details on something like that. 

DR. MAURO: Or at least in this case, the 
38

summary level, certainly Emily and Liz could 

take a look at what kind of information is 

there, in other words these one-liners on the 

summary level. Now whether or not the summary 

level for, let’s say a case for close out, 

dose reconstruction close-out matrix would 

contain that material. 

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 

 But I have to say when we initially, 

as you said, started the process it was really 

to serve the working group process. This is 

the first time, frankly, when you start to 

think about it in a practical sense, how do we 

open this up and can we open this up. And my 

initial reaction is there’s so much material 

that’s going in, perhaps not so much under 

Procedures but certainly under dose 

reconstructions. 

 It’s going to be a monumental 

undertaking to go from a living interactive 

machine that we’re building right now to 

something that then could be made readily 

available in an open session. I think that is 

going to be a challenge. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, let 

me just, I didn’t hear all of the discussion 
39

about the Privacy information, but let me 

interject this with regard to let’s say we do 

want to make some portion of the database or 

some summary information available to a 

petitioner or to some member of the public if 

the Legal team feels that that’s appropriate. 

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 

 It’s very easy to do that with this 

database because, remember, we’re now sitting 

here looking at the ACCESS database, but we 

can print, we can filter this data in all of 

the ways that we’ve talked about so far, and 

then we can print that filtered data to either 

in a summary form with all of the detailed 

sheets behind it or simply the summary form to 

a PDF file which could be made available on 

the NIOSH website or associate it with the 

agenda or anything that exists that says we 

have, let’s say we do -- well, I guess that 

would be too many people. But if we wanted to 

give a petitioner access to the, let’s say the 

open items so that if they attend a meeting 

and we allow them to participate at that 

level, we could certainly do that by just 

giving them or sending them a PDF file that’s 

filtered in whatever way meets the Legal 
40

1 team’s permission. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: Arjun has a comment. 

 Arjun, maybe come closer to the table 

if you could, Arjun. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: I do most of my work on 

SECs, as you all know. But I think for SC&A 

so much detail might not be useful because 

it’s a more limited period of time and I’ve at 

least found -- Jim, you also do a lot of work 

in that area -- I’ve found a matrix format 

that we have comes in quite useful, and if you 

could just maybe, here with Procedures you 

have over 100 procedures each with many action 

items, and we’re talking about hundreds and 

hundreds of items. 

 Whereas with SECs I would at least 

want to think a lot before recommending that 

we go to this level of detail because where we 

close-out items or one close-out item a lot 

faster, you can have an index maybe as to what 

white papers we’re preparing because right now 

it’s not systematized. We might come back to 

you if you wish with some procedure on that. 

I don’t have an opinion about the dose 

reconstruction. 
41

DR. MAURO: There is a big break between the 

level of detail from the procedures and for 

the dose reconstructions where we’re dealing 

with hundreds. And each one of those ^ a ten 

as opposed to a site profile SECs where we’re 

really dealing with ten or 12. So I think 

that maybe we separate those at least for the 

time being. 

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 

DR. NETON: The only thing I would offer -- 

this is Jim Neton -- is that the SEC matrices 

is really subsets of the site profile review 

matrices. And so I would segregate that out 

separately. I don’t know how you would do it 

on a practical basis. They do have a shorter 

lifespan, you’re right, because they get 

closed out. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: What we’re doing right now 

was I think with Hanford the first time is, 

I’ve sent a draft to Jim Melius, because it’s 

not on the agenda, he’s not circulating it yet 

and maybe that’s a comment for you if you want 

to circulate it. But what he asked us to do 

was to compare an SEC specific matrix using 

the site profile matrix ^ of the evaluation 

report and make a matrix for the SEC review 
42

1 itself. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. NETON: That’s my concern then they’ll 

be, because that has to be fed back into the 

site profile issue which we make. I mean, 

they’re pulled out, but they were issues that 

were raised, and they have to be somehow 

documented that lead to closure. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right, and we’ve done that in 

other site profiles. We indicated SEC issues 

over ^ SC&A address that -- 

 DR. WADE: We did it at Rocky Flats. 

 Let’s just pause for a minute and sort 

of take stock of where we are on this issue of 

making public materials through this process. 

What you have here is two very laudable values 

that sometimes come in conflict. I mean, we 

all believe in the value of transparency in 

what we do, and Lord knows this Board and this 

working groups have lived consistent with 

that. 

 We also realize that for the Board to 

be productive, its work groups have to be able 

to work at a fairly rapid pace, and sometimes 

those two issues come in conflict. We have 

the protection for a member of the public that 
43

if at any point in time a member of the public 

would like access to the work in progress, 

then as Larry said, they could make a request 

under the FOIA Act for information, and it 

would be dealt with in a timely way. So I 

think that protection is there. 

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 

 What you folks can consider at some 

point now or in the future is if you would 

like to do a moment in time print screen kind 

of version of the material prior to a work 

group meeting and get that cleared through the 

Privacy Act and make it available, you could 

consider that as a vehicle. Again, I’m not 

advocating that. 

 I think you should consider that. I 

think being able to let the work groups work 

and continue to make progress is the dominant 

value here, and I would ask you to keep that 

in mind. Again, looking at mechanisms to 

allow the public to have access to what you’re 

doing would be a good thing. But again, I 

don’t think you want to do that and put in 

jeopardy the ability of the work groups to 

make progress. 

 We do have the protection if someone 
44

wants information, they can request it under 

FOIA, and we’ll deal with that. If you want 

to do the added courtesy to the public of 

saying a week before our work group meeting 

we’ll try and do a print of the summary view, 

make that available for Privacy Act review, 

and then make that available, we could 

consider that. But I wouldn’t hold hostage 

your progress to 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 

MS. MUNN: Well, then too is the fact that 

nothing goes into these matrices that has not 

been aired in one of the public work group 

meetings. Any member of the public who is 

deeply involved to the point that the need for 

detailed information is great for them has 

access to these telephone calls and has access 

to the minutes of the meeting. The data is 

there. It’s just our intent with these 

matrices to have them in a much more 

effective, but more efficient manner for us to 

deal with on a regular basis. 

DR. MAURO: On this particular product it 

would seem to me, not to over-generalize 

though, but in general the summary level and 

the detail level are really not going to have 
45

Privacy Act information. But what might have 

Privacy Act information is when you click on 

the related link where a special analysis was 

done where we dive into some literature, some 

cases because very often we do case studies as 

part of an analysis. And that’s where I think 

the real danger lies of possibly having as 

part of this PA material. But that’s 

certainly something that General Counsel can 

determine being familiar with this matrix. I 

really don’t often see the kinds of 

information in this particular Procedures 

matrix, that we run into that situation, but 

we can on the links. I can see it happening 

there. 

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 

MS. MUNN: I could, too, and that’s one of 

the reasons why I tried to go back over again 

where we were in this, and exactly what that 

related link material was likely to be. It’s, 

I think, a legitimate reason for concern. But 

by the same token for our purposes here in 

this working group looking only at procedures, 

it’s quite valid. If it goes off the O drive 

then it appears to me there’s a concern. We 

may have to address that. 
46

DR. ZIEMER: I’m satisfied the O drive is 

the place for it to reside. I just wanted to 

clarify what the public did and did not have 

access to. And it’s clear that if there’s a 

need for a snapshot in time of these or other 

matrices resolution process, a snapshot in 

time, that there’s a mechanism to do that. So 

I think we’re fine. 

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 

MS. MUNN: I believe so, too. And from this 

work group’s point of view it’s my feeling 

that we appear to be going in the right 

direction. If this turns out to be a pattern 

for other work groups who want to adopt it, 

then there are other issues which, depending 

upon the material that they deal with, will be 

more salient than they are for us in the 

Procedures group. 

 I’m sorry, Kathy. That was a long 

discussion right in the middle of your 

presentation. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, that was 

worthwhile discussion, too. 

 All right, if we’re ready, I’ll 

continue. We’re still on page seven, and this 

again is the modified detail screen. 
47

 And if you look to the right of this 

related link field, you’ll see “Last Updated”. 

And what this field is, any time, if I went 

into this particular record and started typing 

something into the section on SC&A follow up 

to the work group meeting that you see there 

on 1/15/2005 -- this is from our first set of 

procedures that were reviewed -- that date 

would automatically change. So that date 

represents the last time this record was 

updated, and it’s an automatic stamp. It 

happens when you type something into this 

record. And we’ll talk a little bit more 

about again this date field when we get 

further into our print screens. 

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 

 I think that the only thing that has 

been added to our detail screen, and again, we 

can work with this related link item and get 

some further direction. 

MS. MUNN: Paul has another question. 

DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, on the updating is there 

any way to identify who did the updating or is 

there a need to know who did the last update 

on a certain date by SC&A or by Kathy or by 

Larry Elliott? Do we need, is there a need -- 
48

I’m not sure. It just occurred to me that 

maybe we need to know who did the updating, or 

do we? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Currently, we 

don’t have that built in, and –- 

DR. ZIEMER: I don’t know if it’s important 

or not. I’m raising the question here. 

DR. MAURO: Well, the reason we put that in 

-- remember the last –- 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I know –- 

DR. MAURO: We want to make sure we’re all 

on the same page, remember? That was one of 

the problems. But now this is another –- 

DR. ZIEMER: I don’t want to keep pursuing 

this too far, but I guess there will only be 

certain people authorized to do updates.

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct.

DR. ZIEMER: I’m not going to see, you know, 

Bob Presley is not going to be updating it or 

Paul Ziemer is not going to be. There’ll be 

somebody from SC&A authorized and NIOSH 

authorized. 

 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Did we 

not say though that on these updates that 

there would be a central location like Larry 
49

Elliott’s office that would keep up with these 

updates and make sure? Did we not do that? 

There was somebody, did we not talk about 

that? That there was going to be some central 

area to keep up with these things? 

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 

MS. MUNN: We did talk about the fact that 

there would be key personnel both at SC&A and 

at NIOSH who would be the prime individuals 

responsible for overseeing it. I don’t know 

that we indicated there would be a specific 

office. I think we talked about -– 

 MR. PRESLEY: We need to do that. If we set 

that down, if we put one person or one person 

in two groups, then if you’ve got a question, 

that’s who you call. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, if there’s a go-to person 

that each organization has identified. 

DR. MAURO: You’ll notice in the bottom half 

of the details there’s the, it’s the bluegreen color. Whenever there is new 

information, let’s say SC&A, in response to a 

working group directive, SC&A’s asked to do 

certain things and those things are done. 

Well, you’ll notice on the left-hand side in 

the blue area on the bottom left there’s a 
50

date, and then there would be the material, a 

summary of the SC&A material, and similarly 

there would be a date in the NIOSH material.

 So I think it’s all track-able back to 

that. In other words if you want to know who 

put what material in at what time, it should 

be there with the date. Now the last time 

that’s updated, whenever that last action was, 

should be the date that’s in the last update. 

So in other words if you want to get into the 

^ structure, it should be track-able. 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. 

MS. MUNN: And we had discussed in our 

previous conversations about this that when 

this is up and running we would anticipate 

that Kathy would be the person who would be 

doing most of the actual data input into that 

blue area and that she’d run it by me as Chair 

of this particular group before it went to 

NIOSH for any final placement in the material.

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

And with regard to Bob Presley’s question. 

I’m not sure if you were in the room when I 

first introduced some information about the 

database, but it will be maintained on the O 
51

drive, and the Board access will be read-only 

access, and there’ll only be a select number 

of people from NIOSH and SC&A that will have 

the ability to write to this file. Now 

perhaps -- and Don Loomis can correct me or 

please add to this -- perhaps we can tie 

either an SC&A or NIOSH tag to that date. I’m 

not 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 

 Don, can you help me out? 

MR. LOOMIS: There’s a couple different ways 

that we can do that. Right now there’s no 

identification of the person using it so we 

would have to get that. Either having a sign 

on at the beginning or having a, just adding a 

field that let’s somebody put in NIOSH, SC&A 

or their initials. To do it automatically you 

would have to have some sort of sign in so we 

know who the person is so that we can tag it 

with their -– 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I don’t know that it’s 

necessary. I was really just asking the 

question. It looks like perhaps the material 

that John report to may take care of that. It 

shows what the changes are and when they’re 

made. 
52

DR. MAURO: And if it’s in the box called 

“SC&A Follow up” with the date and then some 

words in there, SC&A is responsible for that. 

And if the words in there are inappropriate 

or, that’s SC&A, you know, falls on us when 

putting in bad information. So I know if we 

have to actually name the person, we have to 

control our people to make sure that the right 

information gets into that box. And I’m held 

accountable for 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 

 I think in a similar way NIOSH would 

be populating that section, again someone at 

NIOSH that would be held accountable to make 

sure the correct information gets in there. 

So I mean, I don’t know if we need, there may 

be several people working on the science in 

the background, but eventually it comes 

through you or it comes through Kathy or me 

and finds its way into this database. So in 

other words who you hold accountable is pretty 

self evident. It’s the project manager. 

MS. MUNN: And we just have to all know who 

the go-to person is. 

DR. ZIEMER: One follow up though. Don or 

Kathy, if the authorized person opens the file 
53

but doesn’t make changes, does that date 

change on this last update? 

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 

MR. LOOMIS: No. 

DR. ZIEMER: They have to actually change 

something. 

MR. LOOMIS: That’s correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

MS. MUNN: That’s good. So just reviewing 

it doesn’t cause any data change, good.

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, should we 

move on? 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, back to you, Kathy. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We’re going to 

go ahead to page eight now, and we’re back to 

this filter and sort screen so that I can just 

show you a few more elements of the screen. 

Under the filter on section on the right-hand 

side, you’ll see procedure number, below that 

finding date and rating. 

 I opened up the drop-down box 

associated with the finding date. The reason 

we put this in there is because, again as we 

discussed previously, the finding date is 

going to be associated with, for the first set 

of findings all the finding dates should be 
54

the same which was January 17th, 2005. So if 

we wanted to go into this database and sort, 

let’s only look at what SC&A submitted to the 

Board during our first set of reviews or our 

second set or third set. We can do that with 

this particular field. 

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 

 Above that field, the procedure 

number, again there’s a drop-down box that 

lists all of the procedures that have been 

entered into the database so far. If one 

decides that they only want to look at ORAU 

OTIBs, they can type in just that portion, and 

then that drop-down box will list all of their 

OTIBs. Or if you only wanted to look at the 

PROCs, the procedures, that are out there, you 

can type in just ORAU-dash-PROC, hit the dropdown box and that will open up all of the 

procedures that have been entered into the 

database. 

 And then lastly, the rating, and again 

I know we said we weren’t going to include 

that on the summary sheet; however, as we’ve 

done in the past, Wanda, there have been times 

where we had a working group meeting and you 

said let’s focus on those findings that are a 
55

one or a two. We can sort on that field, or 

we can identify only those findings associated 

with, that have a specific rating with them, 

you know, a one as opposed to a five which 

we’re not really concerned about. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And then lastly, again is updated on 

or after. This is again a field that if we 

wanted to look at only items that were updated 

since January 1st, 2008, we could put a date in 

there, and we can filter the database on that.

MS. MUNN: That is remarkable. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): It gets better.

MS. MUNN: That’s really wonderful. I can 

imagine this saving all of us enormous amounts 

of time when we’re trying to follow through 

the history of one of these items. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): If we move on 

to page nine, here again is our filter-sort 

page. And for an example, I just, I wanted to 

sort the database or filter the database using 

only on the ratings that were findings where 

we’ve identified a one, or we rated them as a 

one. So I’m showing you that screen to show 

you. 

 Then on page ten, this is the results 
56

of just the information in the database 

currently. And again, this database has not 

been updated with any of some of the newer 

information on the newer procedures we’ve been 

working with. But as you see on page ten, the 

results of that filtering for items that were 

rated a one identified 15 records. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

 Then in some cases we have multiple 

ratings associated with one finding. If one 

is in any of, if the one is a rating in 

anything there under that rating file, that 

will show on this particular screen. In fact 

the last two items are PROC-92 items. If you 

could read the entire ratings there is a one 

listed later on in that rating box. So that’s 

why that was identified on this screen. But 

I’m just trying to show you how this filtering 

works. 

MS. MUNN: You’re right. It did get better. 

20 SC&A, PAGE NUMBER DETAIL

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Now what I did 

for the, what we’re going to view on page 11. 

I took just a subset of data, these 15 items, 

and I said, I hit the print summary button as 

you see at the top. And the result of hitting 
57

that print summary button is what you will see 

on page 11. This is at least the first page 

of two pages, and this is where our page 

number comes into play. The fourth column on 

that summary sheet identifies the page number 

of the details or the detail record that will 

follow this summary. Don was able to -- and 

if we sort this database, if we went back to 

the original screen that I showed you, and I 

were to say let’s print a summary of that 

particular screen, it would have 376 detailed 

records behind it, and it would renumber this 

column accordingly. That’s impressive to me.

MS. MUNN: That is really impressive.

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I was amazed 

that he was able to do 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 

 Now you’ll see in the third column we 

still do have, we have included the SC&A page 

number, but that page number is associated 

with our hard copy report that was sent to 

you. 

MS. MUNN: Right. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): But this fourth 

column is the page number of the detailed 

records behind this summary. 
58

1 MS. MUNN: That’s incredible. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): And then just 

to show you how that works, on the very last 

page I actually printed the detail for the 

very first record so that you can see this is 

page one of 15. If you went to page ten 

again, and you put your cursor on, let’s say, 

the last item or any of the findings here, and 

you were to hit on the top right-hand button, 

“Details for Current Procedure Number,” it 

would open up that detail page and you’d see, 

“This is page 15 of 15,” for that last record. 

I think that that hopefully resolves our page 

number issue. 

MS. MUNN: It does indeed, very nicely. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, I was 

amazed that Don was able to do that. 

 But that’s the modified database in a 

nutshell here. I don’t know if there’s any 

other questions or changes that you’d like to 

see introduced. 

MS. MUNN: It looks wonderful. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Thank Don for 

that. 

MS. MUNN: Does anyone else have issues, 
59

1 questions, problems? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (no response) 

MS. MUNN: If not, even though we have only 

been at this for an hour, in view of the fact 

that we are, all of us are in a kind of 

tentative state here this afternoon, I think 

it’s a good opportunity for us to take a tenor 15-minute break so that we can be ready to 

take up our, move away from the database and 

go on to our next items when we get back. If 

that’s agreeable with everyone here? 

 DR. WADE: We’re not going to break the 

line. We’ll just mute the phone, and we’ll be 

back on in ten or five, ten or 15 minutes, 

depends on the whim. 

MS. MUNN: Fifteen with any luck at all.

 DR. WADE: Okay. 

MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

(Whereupon, a break was taken from 2:20 p.m. 

until 2:35 p.m.) 

 DR. WADE: We’re going to go back into 

session in the work group. 

 Kathy, can you hear us? 

 (no response) 

 DR. WADE: Kathy, are you with us? 
60

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I am. I 

can hear you. 

1 

2 

3 DR. WADE: Wanda, please? 

4 SC&A AND NIOSH, DATA BASE CHANGES

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: Let’s continue going down our 

action item list, the next one being item 

four, SC&A and NIOSH work out changes to the 

databases. 

MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, (unintelligible). 

MS. MUNN: We’re looking at -- 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh, this is good, the e-mail 

agenda? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, the e-mail agenda, item 

four. 

 I’m not at all sure that there’s 

anything to be reported on that. Is anyone 

aware of any specifics that we were concerned 

about when we were discussing this last time? 

I think we were just concerned about what we 

discussed earlier. That is primarily who was 

going to be the key individual with respect to 

how changes were going to be made. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Kathy, and I have talked 

about, and Don has helped me out. And as far 

as I know there’s nothing more to worry about. 
61

We kind of both understand how it’s going to 

work. It has to be loaded, and so, you know, 

because a lot of the information hasn’t been 

loaded into it yet that we’re supposed to 

load. Maybe everything you’re supposed to 

load is in there, but not everything we’re 

supposed to load is in there now. So that’s 

all 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 

DR. MAURO: Kathy, am I correct -- this is 

John -- when you go into the database and get 

to the details, like for example, we’re having 

the working group meeting right now. I’m 

assuming that we’re going to be adding in a 

date. I’m looking at the details first page 

for the very first issue. Well, loading that 

in should be intuitive. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 

We will just be putting another section under 

the working group that, another working group 

meeting and identifying discussion, what went 

on and any directives from the work group and 

so on. 

DR. MAURO: Now that would be a continuation 

of the very first page. I’m looking at the 

very first line item, OCAS-IG-001, the very 
62

first line item, and that would just be a 

continuation of that page. 

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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct, 

a continuation of the detailed screen. 

MS. MUNN: So I’m prepared to drop item four 

off of our list on the assumption that NIOSH 

and SC&A have agreed on who’s going to be the 

key people and how those process that’s going 

to take place and make the changes to the 

database. We have that now, right? 

MR. HINNEFELD: We can work it out. I mean, 

the process of changing it while it’s still 

accessed is something that we need to agree 

on. But I think if it can be a simple matter 

of just SC&A essentially suspending working in 

it for a particular part of time, a particular 

day or whatever, we could make our changes on 

that day, replicate and send it to ORAU, and 

have them load it up. Yeah, we definitely can 

do it administratively. 

DR. MAURO: How will this conversation that 

we’re having right now be captured in this 

database? In other words from a practical 

standpoint you’re going to have another set of 

number, date, this meeting, and there’ll be a 
63

section NIOSH-SC&A discussion. Is that right? 

In other words in this discussion that we’re 

having will be captured here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

MR. HINNEFELD: You think so? What detail 

page do you capture it on? See, it’s a sort 

of meta, meta discussion. It pertains to all 

of the findings, and it’s an administrative 

process. 

DR. MAURO: So discussions relevant to this 

machine that we’re building really are, is a 

meta issue as opposed to outside -- good, 

okay. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, and administrative issues, 

to be resolved? 

DR. ZIEMER: It’s all here in our 

transcript. 

17 NIOSH, RESPONSE TO OTIB-0017 SC&A WHITE PAPER

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

MS. MUNN: Then we’ll move on to item five. 

I don’t believe, Stu, there’s nothing to, is 

there anything to report in the way of 

progress on this? We don’t really and truly 

anticipate anything until March. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right, March, we, should be 

a good date. 

25 NIOSH, CLARIFY WHEN OTIB-0019-01 IS USED
64

MS. MUNN: Item six, look at clarifying OTIB 

0019, item 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: I did do another response to 

19-01 and our view of the, what’s being done 

by that R-squared test when you test data, you 

know, coworker data. And I submitted that 

back in December. 

DR. MAURO: Is it in your latest procedure 

package that you sent out? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It’s in the last matrix I 

sent which was either December 11th or December 

17th. It has under Finding 19-01, that’s OTIB 

0019-01. There’s an addition dated December 

11th in NIOSH response. So I provided that. 

Now, it occurs to me that our discussion at 

the last meeting was in the event that we’re 

going to use the 95th percentile in dose 

reconstructions at that point, then at that 

point we would want to worry a bit about 

whether the parametric 95th percent that we 

normally generate is sufficiently favorable or 

whether we should use a nonparametric method. 

DR. MAURO: That was the discussion. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That was the discussion we 

had last time. We’ve not made a revision to 
65

OTIB-0019 then to reflect that. It’s going to 

be essentially a one or two sentence revision, 

but that part has not been made. 

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 

 But our take on the R-squared just, 

you know, we come to these, we come to the 

situation of coworker data with a sort of an a 

priori assumption that the data is lognormally 

distributed. And so the R-squared just makes 

us feel good about our a priori assumption. 

It’s not a true test as the comment points 

out. 

 It’s not a valid test to prove 

lognormality. It would just identify a 

serious deviation from lognormality, a 

significant deviation from lognormality. So 

that’s the point, that’s why we use it. And 

as we talked about in our last discussion, 

very often for coworker datasets we use the 

distribution. And if you use the 

distribution, you have to make some assumption 

about the shape of the distribution. So 

you’re kind of driven to a parametric that 

would be very close to what the data says 

anyway. So that’s the nature of our 

discussion last time. 
66

 And then in our discussion we said in 

the event that you’re going to use the 95th

though, you need to make a check, and make 

sure that whether it’s parametric or 

nonparametric is more favorable or if there’s 

a particular reason to choose one over the 

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 

DR. MAURO: And we agree with that. That 

was during a previous meeting when you 

suggested that strategy the response was, yes, 

that’s a reasonable way to go. Because when 

the fit deviates from the ranking there is a 

concern. And it sounds like you folks are 

going to look into that. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That would be our approach 

just look in that situation where it’s going 

to be, where you’re going to use the 95th or 

the 84th, whatever you’re going to use. In 

that situation then you have to worry about is 

it the appropriate one. You want to use the 

appropriate one. 

DR. MAURO: And, Wanda, all I was going to 

say, that response is acceptable to SC&A. So 

from our perspective as long as Wanda and the 

rest of you agree, we find that issue closed. 
67

MS. MUNN: The second part of the issue was 

whether, talk to Jim Neton about whether a 

page change is necessary. 

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 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think it would certainly 

do that. 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess I was going to ask how 

does the decision outline how you 

quantitatively define deviates from the 

ranking? When you say that it deviates from 

the ranking, how are you going to, because 

that seems, the interesting ones that are 

pretty far apart or at least very low Rsquared. 

DR. NETON: It’s not so much the R-squared 

as if it’s fitted 95th percentile value is 

lower than parametric, not parametric, but, 

you know, the value, you go with that. More 

often than not with large datasets those tend 

to be a tail off. The fitted value 95th

percentile’s higher than the actual rank order 

number. And if there were large deviations, 

we’ve done that in the past. Chapman Valve’s 

a good example. 

MS. MUNN: So the question’s still hanging 

at do we need a page change. 
68

MR. HINNEFELD: Mark, in response to your 

question, remember, OTIB-0019 is the general 

OTIB about using, about coworker models. Each 

coworker model there’s a site specific OTIB 

written, and so the description of why did we 

identify a significant or which, whether we 

use parametric or nonparametric, that would be 

documented after we documented in the site 

specific document. I mean, there may be some 

actually some review of those, look back and 

make sure they’re all copasetic the way they 

are or should we adjust them based on this 

issue. There may be some discussion about 

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 

DR. NETON: It’s not as trivial as it 

sounds. 

MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

DR. NETON: You’ve got a basis for like 

urine data at Oak Ridge, for example, we had 

decades. There are a lot of distributions 

that have been fitted, but we’re prepared to 

do that. 

DR. MAURO: In light of this just for this 

particular OTIB, is this something that’s in 

abeyance or is this closed? 
69

MS. MUNN: Well, that’s my question, too. 

Do we need to somehow document what we’ve just 

said here in the OTIB document itself? 

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 

DR. NETON: I think we should. 

DR. ZIEMER: I think last time we talked 

about just putting some words in 19 that 

clarify this very issue and how 19 is used to 

do the other site specific cases just 

basically explaining what we just said which 

is not a change but simply a clarification in 

the procedure so that it sort of eliminates 

the original question. 

MS. MUNN: Could we -- 

DR. ZIEMER: In that sense it’s closed but 

maybe kind of a commitment to make a minor 

wording change. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, normally, when there’s 

a document to be changed it’s in abeyance. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy. 

I would consider that in abeyance just because 

we’re waiting on NIOSH to make a change. And 

so it’s something that we will want to just 

follow up on, and once that change is made, we 

can turn this into a closed item. 

MS. MUNN: The technical issue is closed. 
70

1 The administrative issue is... 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: I think it’s important to point 

out that in abeyance means really we’re on the 

one-yard line, at least in this case. My 

guess is there are some in abeyances where 

there’s a commitment to make a change, a 

substantive that is not analysis. For 

example, we were talking high-fired plutonium, 

and there was commitment. We’ve got this new 

methodology and a commitment to put out a new 

OTIB. And that’s a big abeyance. But this 

one is a little one. 

MS. MUNN: Possibly one we might be able to 

clear up by April meeting? 

MR. HINNEFELD: We might. 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, you modify the language 

in OTIB-0019, but you -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: -- I think we can do it, but 

I think we can do it -- 

MR. GRIFFON: -- but the bigger piece, as 

Jim said going back and looking at all of 

these may take a little more, that may be your 

bigger -- 

DR. NETON: I think it could be closed 

before that happened and where the commitment 
71

1 (inaudible). 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. ZIEMER: And you’re not talking about 

changing what you’re actually doing 

procedurally. 

MS. MUNN: No. 

DR. ZIEMER: You’re talking about clarify 

the procedure -- 

DR. NETON: In a sense that is a slight 

change what we’re doing procedurally because 

if we have not to my knowledge been looking 

strictly at the nonparametric versus 

parametric fit. And we have done that. Like 

I said Chapman Valve comes to mind where it 

was obvious that there was a discrepancy using 

a fit. But there may be something that we 

use, one or the other, without a conscious 

thought process. 

DR. ZIEMER: More intuitive or judgmental. 

DR. NETON: Well, I think since the language 

was pretty straightforward it fitted the 95th

percentile; usually there’s one requirement 

though to assure that it was more 

conservative. 

MR. GRIFFON: I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Dr. 

Bryce. I mean it must have been Joyce, we 
72

1 were discussing that. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. NETON: We had the discussion, right. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

DR. NETON: Well, let’s think about this 

though. We expect that fitted data were truly 

not fit to be higher half the time and lower 

half the time. So in that sense it doesn’t 

make good science. 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t know if -- 

DR. NETON: We might want to rethink that. 

DR. MAURO: You know, we only brought this 

up because if it’s an automated system where a 

dose reconstructor goes in, that’ll give you 

the kind of thoughtfulness as an issue. The 

way we see it is that as long as they’re 

thinking in those terms, that is, is this 

dataset and the way in which we fit it seem to 

work for this particular case. And that’s on 

a case-by-case basis. But I think that 

judgment has to be made, made in a consistent 

way. I realize that in the end you really 

can’t turn it into a, I don’t know if you want 

to, you can’t automate it. But your analyst, 

eventually it comes out to someone’s judgment. 

That is, in this particular case it looks like 
73

95th works or, no, there’s only, let’s say, a 

very limited number of build up. I’m not sure 

what to do in those cases. I’m not quite sure 

if the 95th really catches 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 

DR. NETON: Like I said we go with the 

higher value. 

DR. MAURO: And that’s what you did at 

Chapman? 

MS. MUNN: Yeah. So I’m concerned about how 

to word the action item so that we’re all on 

the same page the next time we meet. The page 

change to OTIB-0019 is not a major problem. 

You can do that by (indiscernible). But my 

concern is the action with respect to 

reviewing and rethinking how this process was 

used in the past in already closed cases. 

It’s an entirely different kind of action item 

to me. And I’m not sure exactly how to word 

that or what sort of time constraint to put it 

in whether we are asking NIOSH to consider 

establishing a process or how you look at 

these things. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there particular procedures 

that you would say we could go back and look 

at these in light of this that come to mind? 
74

Or you sort of implied that you needed to go 

back and take a look at something. What 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 

DR. NETON: Those coworker models have all 

been fitted. 

MS. MUNN: I think we’ve covered the site, 

the individual site issues. The question is 

now can you go back and take a look at those? 

Is there an outstanding action item that we 

need to be following other than your 

rethinking whether -- do you see my problem? 

I’m struggling with what the action item is. 

DR. NETON: I think you have to go back and 

rethink exactly what we would do if you looked 

at them again. I’m not sure, again, like just 

picking the ones higher is the most 

appropriate. 

MR. GRIFFON: That’s why I was asking, how 

do you respond? How do you plan to evaluate 

this? 

DR. NETON: I think that we’re going to have 

to go back and think through that approach. I 

hadn’t thought about it. 

DR. ZIEMER: It’s something along the lines 

of thinking about the implications of this and 
75

not addressing particulars like this, but what 

are the implications of 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 

DR. NETON: Well, there may be some 

instances, and I’m not aware of any where we 

fit the 95th, straight line through it with the 

95th percentile and the data may be, and R 

squared could be something like 0.7 which is 

allowed. The data had an upward turn, some 

crazy turn to the upper end of the 

distribution so that we were inappropriately 

biasing the 95th. I mean, I don’t know. 

MS. MUNN: What I’d like to do with your 

agreement of the rest of the working group is 

bring this into two factors. The easy one is 

the page change. And the second one will be 

NIOSH’s rethinking the approach and reporting 

to us. We’ll have a discussion on it, not at 

our meeting with the Amarillo session, but at 

the following full Board meeting when the work 

group meets prior to that. Does that, that 

would probably be two, maybe three months out. 

Is that a reasonable way to approach this? Am 

I off on the wrong track? I see nodding 

heads, shaking heads. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That seems doable. 
76

DR. NETON: We may have a proposal at that 

point because I’m thinking if the data are, if 

there is a test that we can make that is 

higher, then maybe one should just fit and 

demonstrate there truly is lognormal 

distributed and the distribution’s valid. 

We’re going to have to look. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

MS. MUNN: You’ll think that through, and 

we’ll just make that, we’ll talk about at 

after you’ve had a chance to discuss it a 

little bit. 

DR. MAURO: We just make it into direction 

by the working group into our matrix. 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

15 SC&A, RE-EVALUATE EQUATION USED IN OTIB-0025-01

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Number seven, SC&A re-evaluate 

equation being used in OTIB 0025-01 and 

provide comment by the next working group 

meeting. If no significant comment arises, 

this item is closed. 

MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, that last one was TIB0019? 

MS. MUNN: TIB-0019, yeah, 19, item one. 

MR. HINNEFELD: John, is SC&A going to enter 

that, that work group direction -- 
77

DR. MAURO: Yeah, I guess, my thinking right 

now is that Steve Marschke and Kathy are 

sitting down and taking notes. And right now 

the notes should say something to the effect, 

directive provided by the working group. Now 

this would be a directive that goes to NIOSH 

responsibility. We’re going to write that 

down anyway. We should write it. You folks 

will be doing the same. So eventually when we 

start to populate this particular work group 

meeting we’re all on the same page. So I 

don’t think we should -- We should all just 

take notes. 

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 

MS. MUNN: And now we’re on OTIB-0025, item 

one. Have I seen anything from SC&A? I don’t 

think I have on -- 

DR. MAURO: Yes, we put out a, we are, the 

issue had to do with radon breath analysis. I 

think the action item was, in fact, let me 

open up so you can see how this thing serves 

us. No, I’m looking at OTIB-0021, 21 you 

said? 

MS. MUNN: No, it’s 25. 

DR. MAURO: Twenty-five, I’m sorry, 25, and 

it’s closed. We did resolve it at the last 
78

meeting. I have it here on my sheet as 

closed. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

MS. MUNN: Okay, because my wording was if 

no significant comment has arisen -- 

DR. MAURO: No significant comment has 

arisen. 

MS. MUNN: Very good, the item is closed. 

DR. MAURO: So far it’s serving us well. 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

DR. MAURO: It’s helping. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, one step at a time. 

12 NIOSH, CONTINUE REVIEW OF OTIB-0012

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

 Item eight, NIOSH continue review of 

OTIB-0012 with the expected report by the 

March meeting. Nothing to do now, that’s 

still -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: That should be a good date. 

MS. MUNN: -- in progress, good. 

19 PROC-0092

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 PROC-0092: SC&A assures the sense of 

items four through eight is captured in items 

one and two. And NIOSH review procedure 

language indicated in item two and HP reviewer 

terminology throughout. Provide suggested 

changes that we talked about in item three. 
79

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from our standpoint we 

don’t have the revision of PROC-0092 available 

yet which is there were a number of, as I 

recall, there were a number of things that we 

said this is, we agree, there are a number of 

things from the recommendations of PROC-0092 

we agreed should be altered. And we don’t 

have that revision. 

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 

MS. MUNN: We were particularly concerned 

about that identification of the health 

physics interviewer. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Health physics interviewer, 

that’s one of the items on the, I mean, there 

are a number of things to go in there. I 

mean, some of the other specific items were 

criteria to ask when does a question from a 

close-out interview go to a dose 

reconstructor’s criteria for that. So there 

are a number of things that are going to take 

some deliberation in order to get in there. 

And so we don’t have that revision ready yet. 

DR. MAURO: I have a question for Kathy and 

Don. I noticed sitting at the meeting and I 

have in front of me the summary of the 

database. And I’m just scrolling down as 
80

we’re talking when a particular PROC or OTIB 

comes up. I go down to summary and I go find 

it on the sheet, which I can find very 

quickly. And I see whether it’s open or 

closed, and question. I would sure like to be 

able to click right here on the summary sheet 

and go right to the details. Is there a way 

to do 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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, you should 

be able to do that when you’re in the 

database, John. 

DR. MAURO: Okay, I’m in the database, and 

I’m on PROC-0092 where it says, you know, 

closed, closed, open, whatever. How do I 

click on this to make it go to the full page 

for this one? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, make sure 

that the cursor is on some place in that line 

where PROC-0092 is, and then select the 

detailed tab at the top. 

DR. MAURO: Print detail. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Not print 

details, no, on the left-hand side. There’s a 

summary tab, and there’s a details tab, and 

then there’s a procedures tab. Once you have 
81

your cursor in a summary line, and then you 

hit the details tab, that should open up the 

details for that particular finding. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Thank you, I got it. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, good. 

DR. MAURO: If it works for me, believe me -

- 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, great. 

MS. MUNN: So we’ll expect -- Stu, do you 

think you’ll have an opportunity to look at 

that before our next Procedures meeting which 

is February 14th? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I hesitate to say 

because this competes with every other ORAU 

procedure change and OTIB change and the other 

work that they’re doing. So I hesitate to say 

sitting here, but we can make an objective. 

We can make an objective and try to have this 

in place, you know, have a revision and have 

it by then. But I don’t know that I can 

commit to it. I mean, since it’s on the to-do 

list, I don’t like to leave them hanging out 

there so we’ll work on it. But I hate to 

commit, I hate to promise anything, but I will 

promise that we will try to get it. 
82

1 MS. MUNN: We’ll request it for February. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. HINNEFELD: February, the beginning or 

the end of February? A mid-term one? 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, we said we would. 

MR. ELLIOTT: We’ll give you a status. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I can give you a 

status in February. 

MS. MUNN: That’s fine. 

 And SC&A, my note had said assure the 

sense of items four through eight, but I’m not 

sure that I have four through eight for PROC0092 in front of me, were captured in 102. 

But you can’t do anything until those changes 

have been made, can you? That’s in abeyance 

for you. 

 Until we have those changes you can’t 

assure that because when we looked at PROC0092 last time, we essentially had items one, 

two and three that were broad enough that they 

pretty much covered the items in, the 

subsequent items. And what we had said at the 

time was they can be addressed in items one, 

two or three. So until the procedure rework 

is done, you really can’t address that, right? 

DR. MAURO: I’m reading. Well, looking at 
83

number three, the actual details, they had to 

do with the current Health Physics review. 

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 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, and that’s just one of the 

three. 

DR. MAURO: And that’s one of the, is that 

captured in, that was one, two -- bear with 

me. So we have one, two and three were the 

three ones that we felt were, and then when 

you move onto four you’re saying now, or 

further down. 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, four through eight we are 

anticipating will be captured, will be taken 

care of in the changes to one, two and three. 

DR. MAURO: I see what you’re saying. 

MS. MUNN: That’s what we said last time. 

DR. MAURO: Okay, but did that particular, 

is that one I’m looking at four right now to 

see what we have, details, I’m looking at it. 

And we do not cross it back to OTIB^. I 

agree, that’s -- I agree that’s what we 

discussed, and we agreed upon. That is it 

collapsed back to one, two, three. However, 

that does not appear to be captured in our 

database. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, 
84

John. The reason that we didn’t capture 

everything in the database yet is because I 

had to turn the database over to Don Loomis 

while he was working on this. And so I 

couldn’t update a lot of the information from 

the PROC-0092 discussion and from our last 

meeting. So unfortunately, you may not be, 

you’re obviously not looking at the most 

updated information. What we were focusing on 

is just making the modifications that the work 

group had requested, and I wasn’t able to get 

all of the new data into the database yet. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: Okay, thanks, Kathy. I didn’t, 

it sounds like that we’re heading in that 

direction. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We certainly 

are, and, in fact, I think we have a method. 

We’ve been collating a lot of this data even 

into an ACCESS database, and Don assures me 

that we should be able to potentially automate 

the process right from ACCESS or from Excel -- 

I’m sorry. We’ve been collecting this data in 

Excel. 

 So I have had people working on trying 

to put together the additional data that have 
85

to go in there. And he indicated if we do it 

into an Excel database, we should be able to 

fairly quickly convert it into the ACCESS 

database. But because it was Friday when we 

were still testing the database and making 

changes, I wasn’t able to do that yet, and I 

apologize. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

DR. MAURO: That’s fine. Thanks, Kathy. 

MS. MUNN: So essentially, you can do 

nothing more until the actual changes -- 

DR. MAURO: And in our database we will 

reflect that. 

MS. MUNN: Right. We’ll see in February 

where we are with that. 

15 NIOSH, PROC-0090 MATRIX ITEMS

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 And item ten, NIOSH is to write the 

summary for each box of PROC-0090 matrix items 

by the March meeting. Still in process, on 

track. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that we can do. I 

mean there was no point in, we couldn’t 

rewrite them until we had the database. When 

we have the database... 

MS. MUNN: Very good. 

NIOSH AND SC&A, INCORPORATE CONTEXT OF 

25 OTIB 0023 INTO IG-01
86

And the last item that I have is item 11. 

NIOSH and SC&A working together to determine 

whether further wording is needed and 

incorporate -- excuse me -- whether further 

wording is needed and incorporate the context 

of OTIB-0023 into IG-01. I believe that Stu 

has provided us with all that. Does everyone 

have copies of what’s been provided? 

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 

 (no response) 

MS. MUNN: Stu, do you have anything to say 

about that? 

MR. HINNEFELD: I provided it in two pieces. 

The first piece I submitted was the page 

change for IG-01, and the second piece I 

provided very recently was the mark-up of 

OTIB-0023. Now I believe that those two, the 

modification to IG-01 and the modification to 

OTIB-0023, comply with the discussions, the 

offline discussions, I had with Hans and Kathy 

about rephrasing or rewriting these documents 

to remove some of the inconsistencies in the 

reading of the two of them and to reflect 

what’s truly what OTIB-0023 was intended to 

direct people to do. 

 So the action that I had was to 
87

provide the mark ups, actually, IG-01 is 

already revised and published. That was a 

pretty simple change. That was one single 

page. OTIB-0023 is not yet revised and 

published, but there’s a mark up and it’s even 

in track changes to show the revisions that 

were made. 

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 

 And so barring something else, we 

intend to proceed with the publication of 

essentially that marked up version. Now it 

still needs to go through our technical review 

so there may be some word-smithing that’s 

done, but since I’ll be involved in the 

technical review, I’ll make sure they’re 

smithed to the way we read in that 

calculation. 

DR. MAURO: Now you had sent out, I saw in 

your correspondence, is the ball in our court 

to look at that or is there still more -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: I guess unless you, if you 

look at it and say, hey, this isn’t what we 

agreed to. This isn’t what we thought you 

were going to say, if you could let me know 

that, then we can go back through. I know you 

weren’t the one -- 
88

DR. MAURO: I saw it come out on my desk, 

but I did 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 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, when I’m looking at 

you, I’m talking SC&A. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, this 

is Kathy again. I did look at that, both Hans 

and I did review the track changes report that 

Stu sent, and we believe that it does reflect 

the conversation that we had, the technical 

conference call that we had. And we’re in 

agreement with everything that Stu has done on 

this issue. 

DR. MAURO: It’s always important to 

recapture that in the database, and is this in 

abeyance or is this closed? 

MS. MUNN: This is closed. 

DR. MAURO: This is closed, all right. 

MS. MUNN: Because the only thing that is 

still outstanding is just the routine process 

at NIOSH. Items that we were concerned about 

have been addressed, and it’s just in process 

in terms of administrative, no technical 

action. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, this 

should be closed. 
89

1 DR. WADE: What a world. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

MS. MUNN: Yes, what a world. And for those 

of you who are on east coast time and for whom 

it is now 6:15, you will be pleased to know 

that I have no other items on my list. 

 DR. WADE: What about getting together 

again? We need to. 

8 FUTURE PLANS

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MS. MUNN: When we get together again is our 

next issue. We have agreed that we would try 

to have an interim, at least, phone 

conversation before the Amarillo meeting to 

see what we were going to need to do for 

Amarillo. And my calendar says the 20th. 

That’s not a full Board meeting, is it? 

MR. HINNEFELD: If you’re talking about the 

calendar for the next Advisory Board meeting 

is the first week in April. 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 

MR. HINNEFELD: The seventh through the 

ninth. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I know. And we had 

discussed the possibility of having a face-toface meeting in March for this working group. 

MR. HINNEFELD: You’re right. The Board has 
90

a teleconference on February 20th 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 

MS. MUNN: And we were expected to have a 

face-to-face meeting in Cincinnati of this 

group on the 13th of March originally. Is that 

still a viable date for all of us? 

 No? Where you going to be, Mr. 

Presley? 

 (inaudible response) 

MS. MUNN: Oh, dear, that’s not a good one. 

 MR. PRESLEY: After the fourth of March, you 

can count me out. I’ll be on the telephone. 

MS. MUNN: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: A face-to-face March 13th in 

Cincinnati airport is our -- 

MS. MUNN: Yes, uh-huh, at which time we 

anticipate having all kinds of progress on the 

new database and with any luck at all have it 

in condition so that we may be able to have it 

on the full Board agenda in Amarillo. Is that 

reasonable, Kathy? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, it is. 

MS. MUNN: And then we were discussing the 

further out actions for NIOSH with respect to 

some of the rethinking on the 95th percentile 

question. Since the next Board meeting that I 
91

have scheduled shows in June, that bill is 

going to fit okay? Jim, are you still here? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. NETON: Yes, I am. 

MS. MUNN: Does that sound reasonable? 

DR. NETON: (Inaudible) 

MS. MUNN: We were talking the next full 

Board meeting is in June so by that time 

you’ll have an opportunity to rethink that. 

Report to us before that time hopefully. 

 Any other outstanding issues? 

Anything new? 

MR. HINNEFELD: For agenda items for next 

time, there are some procedures that NIOSH did 

not provide initial responses on promptly. 

And when we started working through the 

matrix, there were no initial responses to 

discuss. Some of those have since been filled 

in. I think of OTIB-0010 in particular 

because it’s first on the matrix. 

 And I think there may be some others 

where at first blush we did not have -- I can 

come up with a list here. We don’t have to 

keep the whole group here. But I think it 

might be worthwhile to send out notice and to 

prepare for those discussions at a future 
92

meeting, and to see do these initial responses 

fit the bill or what needs to be fleshed out 

on these initial responses. 

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 

DR. MAURO: On the database for each of the 

pages for every comment, now we were talking 

about all ones where there was no initial, 

like we have our findings in the database. 

Right below that is NIOSH’s initial response. 

Some places there aren’t any. You have to go 

back. But there’s a whole bunch now in your 

third set of procedures ^ couple months ago. 

So I guess we’re going to start to populate 

all of that. I guess that’s the goal. That 

is, many of the NIOSH responses that we loaded 

up, because you know once they’re loaded up, 

let’s say we get to that point. Well then 

we’re in the homestretch of closing out. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): John, this is 

Kathy. Yeah, and Stu, I apologize because I 

had sent Stu our database. I thought it was 

the final database on Friday morning and then 

I found some changes that I wanted to 

introduce. And so Stu did attempt to put some 

new data into that database; however, we 

changed it thereafter, and I apologize. We 
93

will take care of updating that, and, in fact, 

we will take care of updating all of the NIOSH 

responses that were provided at the last 

meeting and that you introduced into the old 

style matrix. In fact, Don is in the process 

of doing 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 

 The only thing that I do need from 

you, Stu, if you saw the e-mail that I sent 

out along with the database to the work group 

members, when you send me this file, Outlook 

will block any ACCESS database files, anything 

that ends with the md db. That’s why we have 

to zip these things into a file and send them 

via e-mail because the information that you 

sent me I did not, I was not able to open 

anything because of restrictions in Outlook. 

So if you could just zip that information to 

me and resend it, we’ll take care of updating 

the database. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank you. 

MS. MUNN: Are you going to be able easily, 

Kathy, to identify -- I can do it manually. I 

clearly have the printout of the last whole, 

old typed matrix that we have. But are we 

going to easily be able to identify those for 
94

which we do not yet have any response from 

NIOSH? 

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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That is a good 

question. I don’t believe Don is -- 

MS. MUNN: Stu says he can do it manually. 

DR. MAURO: Just as a question, Don, are you 

on the line? 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, he’s not. 

I asked him to just stay on for the first 

portion here. I, what I can do is go back to 

our original matrix, and I can identify them 

through that original matrix and provide you 

with that information. 

DR. MAURO: My question was, I know Don’s a 

magician with these. It sounds like one more 

sort. And I don’t know if that’s a sort that 

can be done easily. In other words please 

list every finding that does not have a NIOSH 

response. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m sure he can 

do that, no doubt in my mind, and I can have 

him do that once we’ve loaded the database 

also. That would probably be the quickest 

method. 

MS. MUNN: Well, I’m wondering whether 
95

that’s the correct sort or whether the correct 

sort is, are responses outstanding. Because 

when we get in a situation where NIOSH 

responds, we expect SC&A to review their 

response and get back to us, I guess what I’m 

trying to say is the response we’re looking 

for is not always a NIOSH response. Sometimes 

it’s an SC&A response. 

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 

DR. MAURO: We’re layering. I’m looking at 

it from a singular, in other words when we put 

out, let’s talk about our third set of 

procedures. They’re not even on the table 

yet. What happened is we could populate this 

database which will have all the information 

and all there’ll be in the first row will be 

SC&A’s findings. And right below that where 

eventually there will be a NIOSH response, 

there’ll be a blank. Appropriately so, you 

haven’t gotten it yet. 

 So see that’s like a pre-work group 

meeting. That’s when you populate the 

database before you even have your first work 

group meeting on that, you know, pertaining to 

that. In reality until the NIOSH initial 

response to our initial finding finds its way 
96

into the database, we really haven’t triggered 

the dialogue yet. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And so I guess my understanding of the 

conversation was that you may find it 

desirable to know are there issues that may 

have been raised a year ago that NIOSH really 

hasn’t had a chance to present its initial 

response. And if you wanted to, we could sort 

on that, and it’ll make it a little easier for 

you. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That would be very helpful 

for us. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I’m sorry, I’m 

being a little bit slow here. I just realized 

we already have that sort capability because, 

we have that sort capability because we can go 

in. We have separated open items, which are 

items that are in the database where we’ve 

submitted our report to the Board but we have 

not had any discussion on those items yet -- 

DR. MAURO: Well, that’s it. So it’s there. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, because 

the discussions that we have, that status is 

in progress. So I think we can easily sort on 

that. 
97

MR. HINNEFELD: Now, Kathy, I want to make 

sure I’m clear. The last database you sent 

which was, was that Saturday? 

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 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, I sent it 

out late in the day Friday, and the only 

change that we made to that in the filtering 

screen, you’ll know you have the correct 

version when the filtering screen, the second 

item where all of the status items, where you 

have a check box for the status items, that 

was added. That was not in there in the 

previous version, and I asked for that, and 

that’s what was added. So if you’re looking 

at an ACCESS database that has those boxes 

under the status filtering, then you have the 

most recent version. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So then I can do that. I 

can sort. I can do that filter on that 

database for items that are open. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, but I’m 

reluctant to say yes because, as I said, not 

all of the data has been entered, and so you 

can see based on the information that exists 

out there and even some of the data that has 

been entered, I went back and had Don take 
98

some of our initial matrices that from the 

first set, let’s say, and items such as the 

implementation guides. And he automatically 

entered that data into the database. 

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 

 I have not had the opportunity to go 

in and add things such as rating or additional 

information because some of the findings have 

been resolved and through the third set now 

there were left findings. And so I haven’t 

been able to go back and fine tune everything 

that’s been put in so far. So I would be -- 

you can do that sort. It may give you more 

open items than actually exist. 

MS. MUNN: So someone tell me what the exact 

action item is. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I would suggest 

this. We can, as soon as we are able to load 

most of the data -- and like I said, some of 

it is just sitting in the wings waiting to be 

transferred over -- I can do the sort or I can 

make Stu aware that, okay, now if you want to 

go out and sort on the open items, this is a 

good time to do it if that seems appropriate 

to everyone. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, isn’t the action for us, 
99

the working group, we’re going to need to go 

back to look at the NIOSH responses. 

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 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the first item is 

we’ve got to put them in. 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah, but that’s a bit of 

an administrative thing. I think for the work 

group we need to go back and say we haven’t 

looked at these. It’s really the first round 

on a number of those. 

DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

MS. MUNN: So I’m trying to get a feel for 

our time here, and I’m getting the feeling 

from Stu that a number of these items actually 

are resolved or responded to in one way or 

another. They’re just no longer, they’re not 

on the -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: They’re not in the ACCESS 

database. 

MS. MUNN: Right. You know what goes in 

there, but they’re not there yet. And so the 

first item is you’re going to populate the old 

matrix. 

MR. HINNEFELD: No, that was -- 

MS. MUNN: The open items from the old 

matrix. 
100

MR. HINNEFELD: From the last matrix I sent 

was December 17th. I will work from that once 

the database is ready for me to work with. 

I’ll work from the matrix I sent on December 

17th, and place all the initial responses that 

are on that December 17th matrix but are not 

yet in the ACCESS database, I will then put 

those in the database. And I will identify at 

that time which findings those are. So those 

are presumably the open ones that now we would 

click into in progress, and I will let you 

know. These are ones that the work group has 

had no discussion about, and they now have a 

NIOSH initial response. 

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 

MS. MUNN: So the work group will be getting 

a set of new responses from NIOSH. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: Before our next full meeting. 

MS. MUNN: Before our next full meeting. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Our next full meeting is in 

March? 

MS. MUNN: March. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That should be doable. I’m 

presuming that the database, I’ll get the, the 

database will be ready for me to work on 
101

relatively quickly because it’s a cut and 

paste because they’re written on the matrix 

now, and so it’s strictly a cut and paste. 

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 

DR. MAURO: Will you be trying to add even 

more? In other words -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I may, yeah, there’s 

at least one that I don’t have yet. At least 

one I’ve not even written them on the matrix 

yet. And it’s possible I’ll have those as 

well. 

DR. MAURO: And then once all that’s 

populated into the new matrix, just to point 

out, I just went on the blue screen that says, 

you know, the filter on screen? Do you have 

it? And there’s those check marks, open, in 

progress? If you just leave the check mark 

open, leave that check mark in, and take out 

all the other check marks, all that will come 

up is every issue that has a finding and that 

has no response. 

MS. MUNN: So we can anticipate for the 

March meeting to have a significant number of 

new items that we will need to review at that 

meeting and make sure that we either can come 

to a conclusion then or make a decision as to 
102

what the status of that’s going to be. That’s 

good. We’ll look forward to new items in 

March. 

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 

DR. MAURO: When we get into this process, 

will we begin everything that’s in progress? 

Start from the top? Because previously we 

sort of jumped around a bit based on score. I 

have to say that tripped me up a little bit 

when we were jumping to 19 and then, but if 

we, let’s say, once we have this machine in 

place where we just start with everything 

that’s either open or in abeyance and we just 

start marching down the top of the list. 

MS. MUNN: That is my hope, and it’s one of 

the reasons why I wanted it in alphabetical, 

numeric order so that we could just click from 

one to the next. And also at this juncture I 

think we’re in the position of having looked 

at most of the procedures that were really and 

truly giving us great grief and have resolved 

-- 

DR. MAURO: The ones and the twos. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, the ones and twos we’ve 

really done a decent job with. And now we 

need to see whether there are any demons 
103

1 hiding in the details. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DR. MAURO: There is a third set that we 

haven’t looked at, and there are probably some 

ones and twos in there. I don’t know. 

MS. MUNN: I suspect so. But we’ll 

hopefully be able to address that in March. 

 DR. WADE: So a March meeting is, do you 

want a call before the March meeting or not 

necessary? 

MS. MUNN: We may need to call before the 

March meeting just to make sure that everyone 

has the material that they need in order to 

get to that meeting. 

 DR. WADE: What’s your pleasure? 

MS. MUNN: Well, we’re going to have a full 

Board call on the 20th of February. And the 

only reason we would have a call I would think 

is to make sure that both SC&A and NIOSH are 

happy with the material that’s at hand and 

that there are no really crucial outstanding 

issues we need to look at. 

 DR. WADE: What’s happy, what’s happy really 

though, Wanda, when you come right down to it? 

What’s happy? 

MS. MUNN: I think perhaps if there are 
104

major issues we may be able to identify them 

by e-mail. If we have any problem, then we 

can try to establish a phone date later. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. WADE: Okay, a call we can do at a 

moment’s notice so we’ll proceed with e-mail. 

If that works, we’ll next see you, this work 

group, in March, the Board call on the 20th. 

Very good. 

MS. MUNN: Everybody happy? 

 DR. WADE: Most productive. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Are we going to use this 

meeting room here for the seven o’clock 

meeting? 

 DR. WADE: Surely. You can just stay on if 

you like and work through. 

MS. MUNN: Is there anything from anyone on 

the phone who has any final comments? 

 (no response) 

MS. MUNN: Thank all of you for your very 

kind attention and for your hard work, and 

Kathy, you and Don have done a great job out 

there. We really appreciate it, and now we’ll 

look forward to talking with you later. 

 (Whereupon, the working group meeting was 

adjourned at 3:33 p.m.) 
105

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 Jan. 7, 2008; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

14th day of May, 2009. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102