NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

+ + + + + 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW 

+ + + + + 

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 The meeting came to order at 

9:30 a.m., in the Zurich Room at the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron, 

Kentucky, Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member 

MARK GRIFFON, Member* 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

 Official 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 2

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH contractor* 

HANS BEHLING, SC&A* 

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A* 

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU 

STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

PAT KRAPS, ORAU* 

ROY LLOYD, HHS* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A* 

STEVE MARSCHKE, SC&A 

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS* 

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU* 

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU 

MATT SMITH, ORAU* 

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU 

*Participating via telephone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

Welcome and Introductions 4 

Database Update and Summary Report 11 

CATI Discussions 

 Responses to Previous Questions 

 Review of Proposed New Wording 

 Recommendation to Board Discussion 45 

Review PDF File Tracking History 

of OTIB-0027 Issues Transferred 196 

New OCAS-IG-004 Findings Review 258 

Result of OTIB-029-03 

Technical Discussions 286 

Housekeeping Items 303 

Adjourn 313 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

9:34 a.m. 

 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz, Acting 

Designated Federal Official. This is the 

Subcommittee on Procedures Review, and if we 

will just do roll call starting with in-theroom board members. 

 CHAIR MUNN: This is Wanda Munn, 

Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee and 

member of the board. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, work 

group or its subcommittee member now, 

subcommittee. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

subcommittee member. 

 MR. KATZ: And then just to check, 

do we have any board member on the phone yet? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay and then we will 

just carry on with NIOSH OCAS, either OCAS or 

Contractor or ORAU staff in the room. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH. 

 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU 

team. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett, ORAU 

team. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

team. 

 MR. KATZ: And then on the 

telephone, ORAU, NIOSH, ORAU? 

 DR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

team. 

 MS. KRAPS: Pat Kraps, ORAU team. 

 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith, ORAU 

team. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then in the 

room, SC&A? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line, SC&A? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Okay and then we don't 

have yet anyone from HHS in the room, but let 

me check on the line. HHS, either contractor 

to NIOSH or HHS staff or other government 

staff? 

 MR. RAFKY: Yes, this is Michael 

Rafky from HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Michael. 

 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Roy. 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay and then any 

members of the public on the telephone who 

want to self-identify? 

 MS. ADAMS: Ted, did you hear me? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, perfectly. 

 MS. ADAMS: Okay, because I didn't 

hear you come back. Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I should 

have said welcome to you, too. Yes, thank 

you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay, that is it for roll call. 

And I don't know, Wanda, if you have any 

administrative matters you want to cover 

before we check for Mark again. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, just the one that 

we were discussing informally, the business of 

whether or not 9:30 or 10:00 is the 

appropriate starting time for this particular 

group. I always have a tendency personally to 

push for 10:00 because I selfishly find that 

it is easier for my West Coast body to adjust 

to 10:00 than it is 9:30. But that means that 

in most cases we will in fact run well into 

the afternoon and will seldom disband before 

4:30 or 5:00. 

 So I was getting the feeling as we 

discussed this around the room that I am 

probably the only person who would be 

preferring a 10:00 start time. Is that 

correct? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Either is okay with 

me. Since I drive in, it is a three-hour 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

drive, so 10:00 is always a little better. 

But I am good with 9:30. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We have two either 

ways. Mark isn't on yet. The local folks 

don't seem to matter. Arjun? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Either way is fine. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well then, why 

don't we, if it makes it easier for Paul and 

you and -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay but -- 

 MR. KATZ: -- then we can start at 

10:00. I mean, there is -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think the body 

time adjustment is harder than the three-hour 

drive. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think it 

probably is. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, so going forward -

- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Without any real 

adverse comment one way or the other, I think 

in the future we will go back to our 10:00 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

start time, which is what we used to do. And 

for those who do fly in, that gives them a few 

extra minutes to get here from the airport. 

 MR. KATZ: Sure. I will make that 

just a habit then. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. I 

appreciate that. 

 MR. KATZ: Mark, have you joined us 

yet? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to delay 

actually starting our discussion on that CATI 

until Mark is on the phone. During our last 

meeting, he was not able to join us at all. 

And much of the material that we discussed had 

been items that he had raised. That being the 

case, it would be helpful, I think, to make 

sure that Mark is here when we begin to 

discuss the material that we now have with 

respect to the CATI. 

 Do all of you have the material 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that Stu sent, the responses to the questions 

that have been raised? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I got five of them. 

 That's all. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think that is 

about right. And Steve is getting us up on 

the screen here so that we can be following 

what we are doing with our procedure 

transactions as we go along, even though the 

CATI information will not be a part of that. 

 The database and summary report 

were the first thing that we had following the 

CATI on our agenda. You do all have a copy of 

the agenda, I trust. In view of the fact that 

that is a little bit more straight forward, it 

is just a review of where we are, perhaps I 

could ask, Nancy, are you going to try to do 

this by phone or is Steve going to do it for 

us here? 

 MS. ADAMS: Whichever. I sent out 

a spreadsheet updated this morning. I had 

trouble, as always, in the last few meetings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

getting into the database, but Steve was kind 

enough to ship me the numbers and I produced a 

spreadsheet which I emailed to everybody. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I do have that 

and Steve has the tracking system from the O: 

drive up on the screen now. So if you would 

like, Steve, if it is okay with you, you want 

to just run through those for us? Is that all 

right with you, Nancy? 

 MS. ADAMS: That is perfectly fine. 

 Thanks, Wanda and Steve. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: This is a summary of 

the tracking database that I ran last evening, 

and it is very little changed since the 

beginning of April. The only thing that was 

changed was at the bottom, the finding date 

3/30. We added seven new issues which are 

associated with OCAS-IG-004. SC&A did a 

review of OCAS-IG-004, and it was transmitted 

to the board recently. And in that review we 

identified seven issues. And so this tracking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

database has identified those seven issues. 

 And with those, now we have a total 

of 538 findings; 155 of those are open, 

meaning that we haven't discussed those yet; 

28 of those are in progress; 75 are in 

abeyance, which means that basically we are in 

agreement on the solution we just haven't 

implemented the solution; 15 of them have been 

identified as being addressed in other 

findings; 29 of them were transferred; and we 

have 236 issues which are closed or about 44 

percent of the issues have been closed. And 

if you combine the 44 percent in closed and 

the 14 percent in abeyance, we have 58 percent 

which are essentially in agreement; we have 

come to a consensus on. 

 DR. MAURO: Steve, this is John. 

How does that compare to say a month or so 

ago? It seems that we are making some 

progress here in getting this backlog cleared. 

 Do you recall the percent? I always look to 

that bottom line percent, namely, a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

combination of in abeyance and closed as being 

a good indicator as to our percent completion 

of this particular assignment. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, you have 

identified one of the weak points of the 

database tracking system is it doesn't allow 

you to go back in time. But what we have done 

here is what I have put up on the chart now or 

on the screen, obviously you can't see, John, 

but which the people here in Cincinnati can 

see is an Excel bar graph which tracks the 

numbers of issues and their status as either 

closed or in abeyance. And you can see that 

the number of issues have been growing 

recently, somewhat, up to the 538. And you 

can see that, and there is another chart, if 

you will, that shows the percentage 

completion, and this always adds up to 100 

percent. 

 And the bottom, on the bottom, you 

see the ones that are closed, and as the 

percentage goes up, you can see the percentage 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

closed has been increasing since -- March of 

2008 we were down around 30 percent. In 

August 2008, we are approaching 40 percent, 

and now in April or May first of 2009, we are 

up at 44 percent closed. 

 So, yes, we have been making some 

progress percentage-wise. And that also 

includes the fact that the number of issues 

have changed slightly. Again, back in March 

of 2008, we were down 480 issues. And now we 

are up to 538 issues. So even though the 

number of issues have been increasing and the 

percentage that have been closed has also been 

increasing. So we are making some progress. 

 DR. MAURO: And, Steve, a second 

matter that might be of interest to the work 

group -- to the subcommittee is everything 

that we are doing right now, including, I 

believe, this latest OCAS-004 set of findings, 

this is all work related to carryover from the 

earlier contract, previous contract. 

 I do not believe there is any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

material in your database that we are looking 

at in the process we are going through that 

represents what I call new procedure reviews, 

new issues. The only reason I say that, I 

think it is important for the subcommittee and 

the board in general to have I guess what I 

would call a very dire view of the burden that 

old work is placing on the new budget, so to 

speak. 

 The extent to which when the day -- 

I don't know the feasibility of doing this, 

but when the day comes when we start to load 

up our findings related to new procedures that 

we are reviewing under the new contract, which 

hasn't happened yet, by the way, I don't know 

whether there would be a way in which we could 

make the distinction between those and whether 

or not the subcommittee considers it something 

that we'd like be able to track. 

 You see, the way I am managing the 

project is I have allocated a budget for old 

Task 3 work that represents carryover and new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Task 3 procedures work. 

 And I guess I am doing my best to 

clear that old work as quickly as we can, keep 

track of it, see the progress we are making, 

so that we have a good appreciation of the 

degree to which this old work is in fact 

burdening our new budget. 

 CHAIR MUNN: John, this is Wanda. 

Won't we just simply see the new work that 

comes along as, the way we are handling 

material, as the next set of material? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, if it is that 

simple. That is when we do the roll up -- I 

guess I am talking not so much about the 

individual findings and the way in which they 

are loaded into the system, I guess it goes 

toward this roll up that you have right now 

where a demonstration is made, for example, I 

just heard 54 percent of the backlog of issues 

have been falls into purposes resolved. I 

would like to keep tracking that. 

 Because as we close that out, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

gives me a good sense that we are getting to 

the point where we are not carrying the old 

backlog into the new contract. So it is 

really the roll up that I am interested more 

than I am, certainly, with regard to the 

actual database itself. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well since we have 

been tracking these by date of origin, it 

appears to me that it would be a fairly simple 

matter, we have it all electronically on the 

database, to simply segregate the first three 

sets of data and the individual procedures 

that have fallen to us in between those times 

in our minds, in one group, and simply call 

those the first three sets for your purposes. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And then simply look 

at anything from this point forward as being 

fourth set and on. That should be a fairly 

easy distinguishing factor, shouldn't it? Is 

that going to come -- 

 DR. MAURO: That would be great. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

If it is straight forward, that is terrific. 

I guess I was really asking the question is it 

that simple for us to do. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well I believe it is 

simply because we have made the decision early 

on to have our initial point of tracking 

following the name of the procedure we are 

looking at to be the date of origin. And that 

very clearly defines what was in the old 

contract and what is in the new, just by the 

date itself. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, it absolutely 

would. That would be fine. Thanks. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Paul? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, everything has 

a finding date, and I assume that any new 

findings, John, will be under the new 

contract. Is that correct? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. The only one, the 

last batch we just loaded. Namely, OCAS-IG004. I believe that was done under the old. 

And that really concludes, the way I see it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right now, with the loading of those set of 

findings, that concludes all work that was 

done under the old contract, and we have now 

loaded up our database with everything that 

was, even though the date that you loaded it, 

the actual authorization of that work was 

under the old contract. 

 But the boundary line right now has 

been set. That is it. I do not, there may be 

certainly changes, and there may be even some 

additions to the set that is in there right 

now, everything, the 500 or so findings. But 

anything that we add new, as a result of a new 

procedures review, which has not occurred yet, 

would represent new work, under the new 

contract. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: A follow up 

question. Do you close out the old set of 

findings under existing or carry forward money 

or are you closing out under new funds? 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. No, this is 

really -- think of it like this. We have 3.44 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

million dollars in our budget for the year, 

the calendar year 2009. The way our contract 

is currently written, we can spend that; the 

board can spend that any way they like. That 

is, you can spend it on dose reconstructions, 

procedure reviews, SEC petition reviews, any 

way you like. There are no boundaries. 

 What I do, though, and that 

includes the carryover work that we have been 

authorized to do and new work that emerges at 

each one of our full board meetings. So those 

are the resources available to the board. 

 Now we have been authorized to do a 

certain amount of new work, as you know. And, 

of course, we have also been authorized to 

continue to close out issues related to the 

old work. I feel that -- what I have been 

doing is tracking old work and the cost and 

the progress we make on all of the tests from 

SECs to dose reconstructions to procedures, on 

old work and also on new work. This way, and 

you will see, I am preparing a special report 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for this upcoming meeting which will apprise 

the board of the amount of resources that we 

have expended to date closing out and dealing 

with old work, including these issue 

resolution issues on the subcommittee and the 

amount we expect it will cost to finish all 

that up. So that, and which really means, 

here is how much money we have available, you 

have available, to do new work. Some of 

which, of course, there has been a great deal 

of new work authorized. No new procedures, 

but there has been new work certainly on site 

profile reviews, dose reconstruction reviews, 

and SEC petition reviews. And that, of 

course, places -- is additional resources that 

have been committed. 

 So you could see why even though 

our contractors are really from the point of 

view of perhaps the board, listen you have got 

3.4 million and you can authorize as you go 

and do whatever you feel you would like to do. 

 But I feel as if it is our obligation to keep 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you apprised of where the money has been spent 

and where we think it has been committed and 

what might be left. 

 So that is why I bring this up. I 

feel that it is important that I am in a 

position to track how we are doing on closing 

out issues associated with the old contract 

related to procedure reviews. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well this would be 

a report similar to what you provided at the 

last meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. Exactly. I 

have actually finished the draft, and I am 

refining it, and I will be mailing it out. As 

soon as I get our actual billings, I will know 

our actual costs through the end of April in 

about two days. As soon as I get that number, 

I put it into the report that I have already 

written. It is just waiting for that number, 

and I will be sending it out to the full 

board, and it will be another one of those 

reports like I had the last time. And you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will have a good view, a good bird's eye view, 

of where things stand and how much 

discretionary funds the board has with respect 

-- it turns out it is going to be about 1.4 

million. 

 In other words, in effect, out of 

the 3.44 million available to the board, the 

obligated money, the committed money between 

old work and new work such that you have about 

a little less than half of that remaining to 

work with. And that is the story that is 

going to come out in this report. I am sorry 

to go on and on like this. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well that will be 

similar. It is the same situation for all of 

the work groups and subcommittees. 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is an overall 

thing. So that will be helpful, I think, 

aside from this subcommittee, just for the 

overall thing. You will be tracking it. We 

will be knowledgeable of it, and that will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

help us in our decisions -- 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. Exactly. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- going forward. 

So I don't think we have to make a separate 

decision for this subcommittee. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, no. I'm sorry for 

going on like this. It is within the -- the 

reason I brought the question up in the first 

place regarding the tracking was within that 

context. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it is 

helpful. I like Steve's bar chart, and, 

Madame Chairman, I wonder if Steve couldn't 

provide us each time -- you are going to do 

that anyway, I guess, as you track things. 

Steve, are you? It's fairly simple to 

generate that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It is fairly simple 

to generate. Yes, I can make a note just like 

Stu is going to bring the projector each time; 

I can make a note to myself to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Ted is going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

remind me to bring the projector. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, there's a chain 

here. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I will make a note 

to myself to make a bar chart and bring it to 

each meeting that we go to. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And isn't 

NIOSH going to provide all of the board 

members with a pocket projector, those 

miniature ones now? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: They haven't bought 

us one yet. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They haven't bought 

you one yet. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It probably won't 

quite work. 

 MR. KATZ: And John, just to cap 

the discussion that we just had, I just would 

like to make the point from a sort of 

contractor/officer point of view. I mean, it 

is not old work that you are doing. It makes 

it sound like it is remedial and that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

didn't get your homework done. But this is 

new resolution work that you are doing under 

the current contract. It relates to 

deliverables that you delivered as you needed 

to under the first contract. But just 

understand that that is current resolution 

work under the new contract. It is not old 

work that you are remediating. 

 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. But I am 

telling you why it is important to make this 

distinction. When we put in place our new 

contract, it had a budget and a SOP which 

included six site profile reviews, 60 dose 

reconstructions, six SEC petition reviews, 30 

procedure reviews, plus project manager. And 

that budget to do all of that work was 3.44 

million. 

 So right now -- now what happened 

is when we did that, when we put that contract 

in place, the budget and the SOP, it did not 

include this item called issues resolution 

related to work completed under the previous 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contract. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: So it is important that 

the board knows that -- now, fortunately, the 

nature of the work has been unfolding in a way 

that we are okay. That is, we are burdened -- 

that 3.4 million for calendar year 2009 under 

the new contract, is in fact burdened with a 

lot of closeout activity associated with work 

completed under the previous contract. 

Fortunately to date, things have unfolded in a 

way that we are able to manage that. But I 

think it is important that the Board 

understands that the current, you know, the 

budget we do have is burdened. And it was 

never planned. In other words, when we 

originally wrote the contract, it wasn't an 

item, a line item that said okay, you also 

include the cost associated with closeout 

issues associated with the old contract. That 

was not a line item in our contract. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, that is correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and that is okay. 

 I mean, we have discussed this matter, if you 

recall, Ted, with David, and I think you were 

very helpful in helping resolve that issue. 

 But at the same time, it is 

important that the board has that bird's eye 

view where things are so that they could make 

informed decisions about where they would like 

to invest their remaining resources. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. No, I agree 

completely, John. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well John, I think we 

have that bird's eye view to which you refer 

here in this particular group. It might be a 

good idea for you to point that out to the 

full board at the time that you are giving 

your contractor report. It may not be obvious 

to all the amount of -- the volume of work 

that might be involved in closing some of 

these earlier decisions. 

 DR. MAURO: It is substantial. I 

certainly would be prepared to discuss that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

if you would like. I do plan to distribute 

this material beforehand. If you would like 

me to go over it a bit, I would be happy to 

come to the microphone. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We will take a look 

at it at that point. You actually did talk 

about this some the last time when you had 

that initial report. So I think the board is 

somewhat cognizant of this, and we can 

reemphasize it. But it will be very clear if 

your report at the Amarillo meeting is similar 

to the last one. I think it is quite obvious 

what the separation is there. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Are we all 

comfortable with the review we had regarding 

the material that is on our current screen? I 

agree with Paul that the bar chart is always 

very helpful in getting a quick look at 

progress. We will look forward to continuing 

to see that, Steve. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hey Wanda, this is 

Mark Griffon. I just wanted to let you know I 

am on the phone. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sorry for being 

late. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, that is quite all 

right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I also have 

one question for Steve about the database. I 

am looking at the database, and I am assuming 

that no one has had a chance to attempt the 

improvement that I requested for the database, 

which is that these fields, you know, somehow 

if you click on a finding or whatever, you can 

blow it up so that it fills the screen so that 

you can actually read more than one line at a 

time instead of scrolling down a line at a 

time in some of these fields? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That is correct, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mark. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I am getting -- this 

is one of the -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is very 

difficult to follow along with the findings 

and the responses when you have to like cursor 

down every little individual line reading six 

words at a time. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: This is, again, 

going over to the SQL version of the database 

-- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- I mean, we -- I 

am assuming that we would implement that 

suggestion at that point in time. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I figured 

there is no sense in doing it now. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I know when we were 

working on the dose reconstruction database, 

this is one of the features that Kathy Behling 

wanted to talk to me about and wanted to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sure the dose reconstruction database had that 

feature incorporated into it. 

 So it should be, again, maybe if 

Kathy wants to but I am assuming that it would 

be incorporated into that database but at this 

point, we are not making any changes to the 

Access version of this database. So it is on 

hold. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

Behling. And, yes, that has been incorporated 

into the database that you have in hand, Mark. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. I guess 

I should look at that a little closer, too. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay, but it has been 

incorporated into the database. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is great. Thank 

you. 

 MR. KATZ: Do we have a status on 

the SQL work? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ready today. I believe the intention is it 

will be available or become available about 

the time the board has their accounts because 

it will be running on our system although this 

one can be shared readily between us on our 

contracts. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, good because the 

board is about ready to come online. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it is ready. 

I mean the application is, it is a document 

review application that has many, many uses. 

And so this is one module of it. I don't --

and the data from these tables is not loaded, 

but that is, I think, just a simple matter of 

moving the data. It is not like it has to be 

entered. It is just a matter of moving the 

table. 

 And I need to get back with our TST 

people about what they call the front end, in 

other words what we see, and make sure that it 

is as similar to what we are used to as we 

can. The reason I say that is that many of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our document review processes don't follow 

quite this. You know, they have evolved other 

standard practices that are sort of built in. 

 And I want to make sure that we are together 

on that, that this is going to look pretty 

similar. I don't know that it is going to be 

exactly the same, but I would hope that it is 

fairly similar. 

 I really have to go find out. I am 

not exactly sure what the capability is. For 

instance, can an access front end just be 

brought over and masked and used in that. I 

don't know if it can or not. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, I will probably 

poll the board members then at the Amarillo 

meeting to see if everybody is ready to come 

online at that point so that you will have 

that heads up. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It seems that would be 

an excellent juncture for this group to give a 

little thought to whether or not we are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comfortable with our current filtering and 

sorting system. I certainly have found it to 

be useful, but from time to time we have had 

some questions about whether or not we can 

filter some way other than what we are doing. 

 I would suggest that certainly for any 

members of this particular subcommittee, if 

you have any thoughts or concerns with respect 

to how we filter and sort, it would be very 

wise to get that information to Stu certainly. 

 Right? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, best in 

writing because if you tell me, I will not be 

able to reproduce it faithfully for our TST 

people. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So we are right 

on the cusp of a change of process here. At 

least a change of behind the scenes process. 

So anyone who has any grief with what we have 

been doing in the past relative to filtering 

and sorting, please do get your concerns in 

writing to Stu at the earliest possible 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

moment. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I was just going to 

expand upon that a little bit, Wanda, and 

suggest that there are several other updates 

that we have kind of put on hold. Like one of 

them was to associate a little text, a 

description field with each of the finding 

dates so that we can find what these dates 

were really representative. And we have kind 

of put that on hold. And there is Mark's 

suggestion about expanding in the field. So 

there are a few other updates to the database 

that we may want to collect all these 

suggestions and then present them to NIOSH or 

whoever is going to be doing the SQL 

programming to kind of upgrade or make a 

general upgrade to the database. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is a good 

suggestion, Steve. And in light of the 

discussion that we have just had with John 

relative to keeping track of his previous 

contract, as opposed to this contract, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kind of notation would be very helpful. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We could add that 

feature to the database as well. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Steve, you are 

talking about here just information on, for 

example, what procedures were reviewed or the 

findings represent what procedures. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: For example, the 

9/20/2007, that covered the following 

procedures or something like that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Or this one 

was the first set of general procedures or the 

second set. This one was, I think, OTIB-52. 

This one was -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever defining 

characteristic you have -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, so we know -- 

right now we have got a bunch of numbers and 

dates up there -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and it is hard to 

keep track of what they are. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we wanted a column 

that indicate this is set one, set two, 

individual, individual, that type of 

designation. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: Does it make sense if we 

have, I don't know if it is Steve or Kathy 

Behling, but we have an SC&A point of contact 

to work with the software folks? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think if we 

were to work with software folks, we would 

work with -- 

 MR. KATZ: Steve? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Steve or your 

programmer guy. I can't think of his name 

now. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Don Loomis. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Loomis, yes. And I 

know, I think there has been some contact 

between -- I don't know specifically about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this but it has been a while, I think. But I 

think they did talk once or twice about some 

stuff. 

 MR. KATZ: So I think if we hook 

them up, we can make sure that -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll make entry to 

Steve and let Steve arrange it on their side, 

if that needs to be done. But my first task 

is to go back to our TST and get a better 

understanding of really timetable and what -- 

is this really going to look like what we 

think. You know, is this going to be what we 

think. So I may need to get with the 

developer and actually do some more building 

there. I don't know what I have to do. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, again, I emphasize 

if Stu is going to do this, he needs written 

comments from anyone who wishes to see any 

additional information or any change in 

process. So if you and I do not take it upon 

ourselves individually to submit that 

information, then a change is not likely to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

occur. 

 MR. KATZ: I was just going to say, 

I think it would probably be best to do that 

all through Steve so that really their 

computer people have just one person providing 

all of the sort of design information, as 

opposed to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You can send it to 

both of us. I would just suggest sending it 

to both of us, and we will work it out. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, it goes to 

Stu and to Steve. Thank you. Anything else 

on the tracking system before we leave it? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well the only other 

comment, I would make the comment that it 

might be that in working along with something, 

you know, I get the bright idea that I would 

like them to be able to sort on some obscure 

thing that may occur so rarely that it is not 

worth the time and effort doing. 

 I would not -- I think it might not 

be good for us as individuals to be tasking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

those kinds of things. I mean, I would like 

to make sure they cleared through the chair of 

the subcommittee. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to make 

sure -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If I say I would 

like you to be able to sort on, I don't know, 

some parameter which you could do with a lot 

of effort and which might only need to be done 

or the sort may occur so rarely, it is just 

not worth the time and effort. I have the 

feeling as we have progressed here and we have 

looked at a lot of kinds of sorts, we have 

probably covered 99.9 percent of how you would 

use the database. 

 Now things like expanding the text, 

I think that is a great idea. It would be 

very helpful. So as your cursor hits a line, 

that text blows up. I know it can be done 

because I see it all the time on other 

applications. Your cursor hits a line, and 

the full paragraph expands. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 But anyway, but otherwise, just to 

sort of at my whim or Mike's or Mark's or 

whatever, well, you heard what I said. That 

is my feeling on it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think you are 

absolutely correct. And I am not suggesting 

that they act on them once they get them. I 

had assumed that the suggestions would then 

come back to us in this group and that 

Procedures Subcommittee would review those. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or Steve could say, 

this is really easy to do and we will do it or 

tell you that. Or this is going to be a major 

effort, so do you really want to do it. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think when we are 

converting to SQL; it gives us an opportunity 

to make a general upgrade. And so we can come 

up with a laundry list at this particular 

point in time and go through and do it now. 

After we get done with this general upgrade, 

if we get trickling in, little requests 

trickling in, then we will table them and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bring them to the meeting and present them to 

the subcommittee and get their opinion or 

blessings before we do anything. How does 

that sound? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Probably reasonable. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And even the general 

upgrade, I think, before we start it, we 

should probably, if we collect a list, we will 

get it and we will basically present it to the 

subcommittee and get the okay before we go off 

and start implementing it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Actually, the intent 

of my original comment was precisely that, 

regardless of how inarticulately it was 

presented. 

 MS. ADAMS: Wanda, this is Nancy. 

I have also created a list that actually I 

have shared with the folks in the NIOSH 

computer groups of things that, from a 

reporting perspective that I thought the 

subcommittee and the board might be interested 

in having. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: That would be very 

nice if you would share that with us when you 

have an opportunity, Nancy. Certainly before 

we make any actual changes, we would like to 

see that. And perhaps you will be able to be 

with us at our next meeting and provide that 

to us prior to that time. 

 We also need to bear in mind, 

especially with issues like the expansion of 

the text, that our ultimate purpose in 

maintaining this database is to have a 

reliable archive. So text expansion needs to 

be a high priority for us. 

 Anything else? If not, then let's 

move over to our CATI discussions and begin 

those. We are a little disjointed with 

respect to where we are with the CATIs. 

 I have one question for Mark before 

we go forward. Mark, at our last meeting when 

we carried on without you, you had provided a 

number of questions and concerns that you had 

relative to the EE forms but had not seen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

anything from you with respect to survivor 

forms, I believe. Do you have any specifics 

that you want considered today on that 

survivor form or shall we continue down our 

road focusing more closely on the EE form? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I don't 

have any more specifics right with me, but I 

think a lot of them -- some overlap, anyway. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, a great many of 

them. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It would be 

applicable to both, but I need to go through 

the survivor form the way I did the other one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Okay, just 

wanted to make sure you didn't have something 

in hand or some major concern that we were 

missing. 

 All right. If it is amenable to 

the group, I would like to ask Stu to give us 

the information that he has already provided 

us. I would like to go through those items 

one at a time with response to the issues that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have already been raised to see if we can come 

to an agreement on some of those points. Stu, 

do you have some preference as to how to 

address this? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No, I don't 

have any preference. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then I will leave it 

to your discretion. My thought was that we 

would start with the letter itself to see if 

there was any concern with respect to that 

letter and the single correction that was 

intended there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Now when you say 

letter, are you talking about the letter that 

was, the cover letter that provides the blank 

CATI interview form, essentially, to the 

claimant? Is that the letter? 

 CHAIR MUNN: This letter, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Can I look at it 

real quick? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't read it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from far that away, no. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It is on the 

screen. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, good. Okay, 

on that letter. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Entitled "ORAU Team 

Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH." 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I have -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It starts with a 

tracking number. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I have 

submitted a letter to the subcommittee 

members. Let's see. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it is 

called proposed revision May 1 '09. Is that 

the one? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be CATI -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: CATI Letter. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: CATI Letter 

Proposed Revision May 01. I sent that to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's it right 

there. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So the idea here is 

to compare this to the previous version, which 

was the previous one on the screen there. I 

think that we have revised, we are proposing 

to revise this letter to incorporate some of 

the, a number of the comments, at least as I 

took notes from the last meeting, that should 

be addressed in this letter, in the tone of 

the letter. In particular, it was additional 

emphasis on the fact that the interview is 

voluntary and that if they don't want to 

participate or if they cannot provide, they 

cannot answer the questions or don't feel like 

they can provide much information, to provide 

some reassurance to the claimant that that is 

okay, we can still do an appropriate dose 

reconstruction anyway. So that is sort of the 

nature of how we tried to revise this cover 

letter. 

 Like I said, this is proposed. 

This has not been put into effect yet. But we 

felt those comments were certainly well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

founded, and we didn't want to introduce that 

additional level of stress into a claimant to 

say that if I mess this up or if I don't know 

the answers, then everything is going to go 

badly for me and they won't know what to do. 

So that was the intention of it. 

 Now with respect to specific 

passages, we didn't really start with one 

letter and mark things out and so on. We 

wrote another letter that tried to accomplish 

what we wanted to accomplish. And so there is 

not really a markup version to go look at. 

This is what we have to look at. 

 So I realize I only just provided 

anything in the last couple of days. I 

suspect people may want to look at this. But 

I have also provided, I sent the previous 

version as well so that at their convenience, 

people could look at these two side-by-side, 

see the changes, and particularly what I 

consider the change in the tone, about sort of 

this, there was this sort of urgency in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

earlier part that kind of imparted a lot of, 

you know, felt like a lot of responsibility on 

the claimant that we didn't really intend or 

at least we don't intend. And so that is why, 

you know, so it is written with that in mind. 

 So other than that, I don't know how to cover 

this one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now the rereading -- 

the removal of that last sentence in the first 

paragraph of the original letter makes a great 

deal of difference in the tone of the entire 

letter. And the additional emphasis on the 

voluntary nature of the interview seems very 

helpful. Does anyone have any concern with 

the new wording, or do you need some time to 

look it over? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is what we saw in 

the letterhead right there different from your 

-- I mean -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I can't get them 

side-by-side. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, but the one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on the letterhead looks different than the 

letterhead copy I have. For example, oh, 

there. There are two -- see, those two are 

different. See that one that says Oak Ridge, 

request -- okay, wait a minute. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well there is no 

letterhead on the proposed change. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. I see that. 

But this first one or this one right here says 

in the second line, ORAU is the contractor 

assisting NIH and NIOSH. The other letterhead 

one doesn't have that phrase in it. I'm 

looking at it right here. I think it is good 

to have it in. But you must have two versions 

with letterheads up, Steve. Do you have two? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: This one doesn't 

have a letterhead. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. Do you 

just have two things open? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, one of them is an 

EE and one of them is a survivor letter. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The only ones I have 

open are the scripts. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, I am looking 

at a letterhead, the letterhead CATI letter 

for EE. Okay, that does say ORAU is the 

contractor assisting. So, that is the right 

one. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I am 

matching that. That is good. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I see it now. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay maybe I read 

that wrong. But I am good. Go ahead. I've 

got the right one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, do you have any 

comment with respect to the letter as 

proposed? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just saw the 

document. So, you know, I don't really have 

any comment to this. It is a little difficult 

to, I guess, for me to comment on a letter 

regarding a questionnaire that I still have 

outstanding issues with. So, I mean, it seems 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

like it is, I don't know. But other than 

that, I mean, I don't have -- I think the idea 

of putting voluntary in there is okay. That 

is fine. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Would you like us to 

set this letter discussion aside for a moment 

and address your issues? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well maybe that 

would be -- yes, I don't -- yes, maybe that 

would be better. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is simple enough 

to do. Let's set this aside for the moment 

and begin our discussion addressing Mark's 

issue. 

 Mark, I am sorry that you weren't 

with us the last time we met because we 

encountered several minor issues inside your 

stated issues that we were at a loss to 

resolve without your input. Would you like to 

-- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry I wasn't 

there, too. I was in a non-disclosed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

location, unfortunately. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we were aware of 

what was going on. And when the man says go, 

we wouldn't have you do anything other than 

go. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It would be helpful 

for us then if you would -- have you had any 

feedback at all with respect to the 

deliberations that were undertaken in your 

absence? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no. Maybe, I 

mean, maybe you can summarize where things 

stand or summarize the discussion from last 

time, if you can recall. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It would be difficult 

to summarize because you had some very 

specific information there. We did go through 

the material, the questionnaires that we had 

before us and had a considerable amount of 

discussion relative to the wording of many of 

the questions. And I think, in most cases, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were wordsmithing material that was not as 

pertinent as your questions were. 

 I think at that time Paul had made 

a statement which appeared to me to cover the 

issues quite well with respect to wording of 

the questions when he said, "Despite how the 

question is worded, the bottom line really is 

whether we are getting the information that we 

need when we ask these questions." There was 

never a universal response to that but that is 

in fact the question that was proposed. 

 My attempting to summarize for you 

what was essentially about a three hour 

discussion centering around that issue and the 

questions that you had raised, would probably 

fall very short of the reality of where we 

were. 

 Perhaps the smartest thing to do is 

for us to address your questions again, now 

that you are here. And if you want to propose 

those questions, then one of the principles 

who is involved in the discussion perhaps can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bring you up to speed on that question. Would 

that be a feasible way to approach this? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that is fine, 

Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Why don't you just -- 

why don't we do that. I need to try to get 

back to what your questions were. And having 

lost a great deal of my personal database on 

my computer since that time, I may not be 

doing a very good job. But you certainly must 

have those questions in front of you and you 

may also have -- you have Stu's information 

with respect to some of the responses that 

were made to the CATI questions themselves. I 

don't know whether you have had an opportunity 

to go through those. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I'm not sure 

what -- I have these two sample questionnaires 

that Stu sent. Is that what you are referring 

to or is there other information? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, he sent action 

items from this meeting, which included 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

responses to much of the discussion that went 

on relative to the wording of the questions. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, I just found 

it. I did just find that document. So yes, I 

have that pulled up. Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If you have that, then 

that may address some of the questions that 

you had. But there is also a document that 

has been provided specifically responding to 

your comments on the CATI letter. That is 

dated May first. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Have you had an 

opportunity to absorb any of those? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Response to Mark 

G. comment on CATI letter. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I have it pulled 

up. I mean, it is only one page so I guess I 

can look at it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, Stu's 

or NIOSH's response basically is that the new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questionnaire proposed has the expanded work 

history section. Right? Is that basically 

it, Stu, and that that would cover --? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the work 

history form accommodates as much work history 

as the person has. You know, it is the CATI 

interview process is, you know, we show a 

static picture of, when we distribute the 

picture of the interview form, we show you the 

static picture. But it is entered, you know, 

the CATI information is entered directly onto 

a computer in a computer application. And so 

the fields expand to accept, you know, 

everything that, you know, all of information 

that is provided. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And those would go 

into -- where would those print? I mean, 

those would end up in like comment sections or 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a couple 

places they could be. I mean, it depends on 

what they are saying. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If what they say 

kind of fits in line with the question of, you 

know, that is on the form, then it would go 

there and if there is additional information, 

that would go in the comment section. You 

know, if the interviewer feels like it is 

additional information but it is not exactly 

responsive but it is additional information, 

so it would go in like a comment section. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Right. 

Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The additional 

information that we received recently included 

two completed CATI interviews. Did you 

receive that? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, and -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is a good 

demonstration of how expansive the comment 

section can be. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is a great 

demonstration and actually I would propose to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hire Heather because I have never seen this 

many comments in the current questionnaires 

that we did. But I have never seen, you know, 

I mean, those who have been involved in the DR 

reviews, I have looked at a lot of cases and I 

never recall seeing anywhere near -- now maybe 

with this new form, it will give the 

opportunity to have this, you know, more 

expanded information. Stu, is that what you 

are trying to get at? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the form 

has always expanded in that fashion. I think 

that the comments, you know, certain 

interviewees are very expansive and so they 

end up with a lot of comments and other 

interviewees are not. 

 I, to be honest with you, don't see 

any more, very few more dose reconstructions 

than the dose reconstruction subcommittee 

does. I just, it is not part of the role I 

play. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So I don't really 

have a real clear view. I know I have seen 

some CATIs with essentially no comments and I 

have seen some CATIs that I thought had really 

nice information, good information to know in 

the comment field. But I don't really have a 

kind of a meter, a metric of what I would 

expect in the comments field. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, I, 

too, have only seen the ones on our 

subcommittee. But like I have said, I have 

never seen this level of comments added. And 

I guess, you know, the notion is that our, I 

mean, I guess the proof is in the pudding, you 

know, that kind of thing. If they are 

capturing all of this additional information 

that is very important, that is different than 

if it is just, you know, check boxes and any 

additional information is kind of, you know, 

it is sort of up to the phone interviewers to 

decide is this important enough to expand my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

field and take it down or is it, you know, not 

important enough or not relevant to dose 

reconstruction, that sort of thing. 

 And my sense from the cases that I 

have looked at anyway, I mean a couple 

hundred, not, maybe 150 total, you know, is 

that I see very sparse, you know, once in a 

while they will mention an incident or two. 

And that is about it, as far as the comment 

section goes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: They might mention 

another cancer that wasn't included on their 

thing and they don't know why. But beyond 

that, I have never seen this kind of expanding 

comments. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Pat Kraps, I 

believe, is on the phone. She is a team 

leader for ORAU's interview personnel. I 

don't know, Pat, did you have anything you 

wanted to offer about how the interviewers 

conduct that portion of it and collect the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comments on the CATI? 

 MS. KRAPS: We essentially report 

anything the claimant would like to provide to 

us during the questioning process, as we are 

going through the script. 

 So, you know, if the claimant gives 

us a lot of detail, there is going to be a lot 

of detail. If the claimant does not give us a 

lot of detail, then we can only, naturally, 

record what they have provided to us. 

 So, some CATIs will be much greater 

in detail than others, obviously, you know, 

depending upon the history of the claimant 

themselves, whether it be an EE or a survivor. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And when you say 

record, I mean, these aren't recorded. You 

mean write down or logged down. 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, which is -- we use 

a computer program. That is what CATI stands 

for, is a computer aided telephone interview. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. KRAPS: So when I use the term 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

"recorded," I am merely reflecting that we are 

typing every single response that they give us 

and we put it into the appropriate section. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, that being said -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Wanda, this is Kathy 

Behling. I just wanted to make a comment here 

also because I am looking at these comments. 

And from the CATI reports that I have looked 

at, I do agree I have never seen this level of 

detail. And I think it is one of the issues 

that I seem to bring up all the time. And 

that is the fact that we often don't know 

where these workers work and sometimes you 

will just, they will give you three different 

job descriptions and you don't know what time 

period those job descriptions covered. 

 And what I am seeing in these 

comment sections, this comment section, is 

something much more expansive than I have seen 

before. And it would be very nice to have 

this level of detail in the other cases that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we have looked at. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well Kathy, 

understand we can only put the level of detail 

that the interviewee tells us. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well maybe I can 

rephrase that question. I think it would be 

useful for, I mean, these hypotheticals are, I 

guess, useful to look at in terms of 

considering the questionnaire. But can we get 

just an example of the range, maybe five 

different, you know, you guys can go through 

and give me five and show me one that has this 

level of detail? And then I will get off this 

soap box? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, Mark -- 

 MS. BEHLING: When you are actually 

dealing with the Energy employee and he tells 

you that he had three different job functions, 

does it get asked, when did you work in this 

particular job function as opposed to the next 

job function? 

 Right now, I am putting together 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

some data for the Fernald SEC work and one of 

the things I see often is the individual will 

write down job descriptions from various 

different activities and job activities. 

However, there is nothing that lets me know 

when those -- what job period, or what 

employment period covers what job function. 

And that is what I am impressed with on this 

particular example. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We discussed these 

concerns at considerable length in our last 

meeting. This was true with respect to the 

job title and the type of work, as well as the 

supervisor's name and the buildings and 

locations we worked in. 

 We all agreed that if you are 

talking to an employee who was in that job for 

only one or two years, they can probably tell 

you what their job descriptions, what their 

titles were, and some of them may even 

remember who their supervisors were. But if 

you have done what many of these individuals 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have done, who even though they were 

specifically a carpenter or a pipefitter, or 

had some title of that sort, they have worked 

in so many different kinds of jobs, in so many 

different types -- you know, I have a hard 

time telling people where I lived during any 

particular year, even though I have not moved 

around the countryside very much. 

 So, if you have an employee, which 

is often the case from what I have seen, that 

has worked 20 or 25 years and is now retired 

and has an infinite number of jobs that he or 

she has performed, telling people when they 

performed those jobs is a gargantuan task. 

 We have to be realistic with 

respect to what we can expect from the 

claimants themselves. If they are unable to 

give us the information and if we ask them 

that information, the question that we had 

earlier when we were talking about it, is 

whether or not this is even a capable thing 

for the ordinary claimant. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, another thing 

I would be curious about Kathy, are there 

instances when in that situation where the 

dose reconstruction didn't sufficiently 

address the uncertainty in particular, in 

different job titles? 

 If there is a situation like that 

where a person has moved around or has had 

several jobs or in several locations, the dose 

reconstructions that I have seen and, like I 

said, I don't see that many, but as a general 

rule, if you don't know what years they worked 

in what places, you generally -- and it makes 

a difference. You know, if they have got an 

exposure record, it may or may not make a 

difference, depending upon whether there are 

location-specific adjustments you have to make 

to the exposure record. If it makes a 

difference, aren't they placed in the position 

and in the spectrum that gives them 

essentially the highest risk factor in the 

dose reconstruction pretty consistently, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unless there is evidence? 

 For instance, some radiation 

exposure records, some bioassay records placed 

the person in their work location. I mean, 

the record itself says they worked in the one 

hundred area or whatever building. So 

sometimes there is additional evidence to 

place them. And so, you would have that 

evidence, aside from the interview. And if 

there is not that evidence, the ones I have 

seen pretty consistently say if you don't 

know, we are going to pick the one that, and 

if it makes a difference, we will choose the 

one that provides the highest risk factor to 

the worker. 

 I mean, there is a number of things 

to consider here about exact -- you know, 

other than just how precise the information 

you are going to ask the person for, how many 

times is it going to really matter. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Are we getting the 

information we need if we ask that question? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not clear to 

me at this point what the issue really is. Is 

the issue the fact that the form that goes to 

the claimant looks very different from a 

completed computer-generated CATI interview? 

I think there was concern initially that the 

form, it looked too simple. Like it wouldn't 

cover all of the jobs or this or that. 

 But the form that they get is sort 

of, as Stu described it, a static picture. It 

simply gives them an indication of the types 

of questions that will be asked. But it does, 

in fact, look quite different than the detail 

on a completed form. But it is not clear to 

me if our initial charge is to determine 

whether or not the things sent to the worker, 

sent by mail, I guess, and as approved by OMB, 

do we need to change that in some way. Isn't 

that what we are looking at? 

 Are we recommending changes in what 

is sent out? Isn't that the issue? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, there 

are a number of things here. 

 This started with a review of the 

CATI process. And within the CATI process, 

there were a number of findings related to the 

CATI itself, the questions on the CATI. And 

so the issue is in this subcommittee 

essentially because of that. It started as a 

review of the CATI procedure and then 

associated with that, there were these 

findings. 

 During this discussion, you know, 

there has been an issue that it is an OMB 

approved form. If you are going to get 

information for more than nine people, you 

have got to get OMB approval of your vehicle. 

 And so it is in that arena. So, I guess, 

it's wrapped into it. But we recently renewed 

it and we started this conversation thinking 

it might be timely at renewal to issue an 

alternative. So, the discussion kind of went 

longer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And so we said well, we will just 

renew the one we have because we can change 

it. We don't have to wait until the next 

renewal date to change the form if we want to 

change it. We just have to submit it and get 

approval of the revised form. So, we are 

proceeding on that path now. So, I mean, that 

is where it is. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well we did, Stu 

this is Mark, if I can interject. We did, 

Paul, talk about two sets of different -- you 

are right, in a sense, because we talked about 

trying to separate these things into questions 

or concerns about the process and questions or 

concerns about the form and the letter. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And my comments 

that I sent to Wanda for that last meeting 

were focused on just the letter and the form 

that is attached to the letter. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And that is 

what I was trying to pin down. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, so if you 

want to do that first and then maybe talk 

about the process stuff. But that might be a 

way to proceed. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, originally, 

we were sort of under pressure to recommend to 

the board some changes so that the OMB thing 

could be taken care of. For example, we have 

that issue about asking them if there were 

other coworkers who could verify their work 

and so on. And we found out that that was 

never used and, therefore, we said why ask 

that question, since it is not a piece of 

information that is ever used and that sort of 

thing. 

 So, it wasn't clear to me, as we 

got to talking about the detail on the 

computer-generated response, whether we were 

saying that we want the claimants to see what 

a real response looks like, versus the 

original form. It seemed to me that the 

original form, which is much simpler looking, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be more useful for the recipients, as a 

means of indicating to them the types of 

questions that would be asked. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The fact that the 

fields can be expanded in much more detail can 

be generated, I think is not that critical at 

that point to the recipients, as long as they 

sort of know what to expect and also not to 

ask questions for soliciting information that 

will never be used. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, that is a 

separate comment on my, you know, the coworker 

question is another question but if I can 

stick to the one that NIOSH gave a response 

on. 

 I am still, the example CATIs you 

sent out, Stu, those are from the current 

CATI. Correct? They are not from the new 

proposed -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is correct. 

The new proposed form is proposed. It has not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

been used at all. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So the new form of 

the questionnaire has more, if I recall, has 

more extensive fields for collecting job 

information by, you know, I mean, you look at 

your exposure information for each job over 

time. I mean, it is broken out more on the 

questionnaire, the new proposal, if I am 

getting this right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Boy, I am trying to 

recall. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I know. I know 

and I can't find my copies of the new draft 

questionnaires, the blank questionnaires. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is one called 

CATI Letter in Form EE, all Changes and 

Deletions, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that is the 

one. Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- which I think is 

the proposal from NIOSH. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is the one I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was commenting from. Yes. Thank you, Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it had some 

things highlighted in yellow. And it has some 

deletions indicated in red. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. So for 

example, even in that current version, you 

know, employment, number one, what jobs, blah, 

blah, blah, you asked for facility and job and 

start and end date for each job, which is what 

Kathy was kind of eluding to. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That is -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then you also 

have a column for supervisors' name. So you 

know, that goes into my first question, which 

is if you are going to ask for supervisors' 

names, you sort of deleted the section on 

coworkers but you are still asking for 

supervisors' names, why ask for it if you are 

not going to use it. And I would argue why 

delete it. Is it just to be expedient? I 

mean, you are not using it when -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it ever used? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Maybe you should 

be. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well this is one of 

those things that we discussed with respect to 

the fact that very few people can remember who 

their supervisor was 25 years ago. 

 And it was suggested that if we are 

going to use it, it should include a 

parenthetical, "if known" statement. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, "if known" is 

fine. I mean, my experience, I have 

interviewed hundreds of workers and I think it 

varies greatly. I mean, I have got some 

people I interviewed that were at sites for 40 

years and they, you know, they would come to 

the interviews with a listing in a written out 

form of every job they had, detailed dates of 

when they started and stopped and they would 

have their supervisors' names. They have 

incredible memories. But then you are right, 

Wanda, it ranges all the way to the other end 

where they can't really remember those times 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or supervisor information at all. 

 So, I think "if known" would be 

good but I think some people do know it and it 

could be valuable. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So would you be 

comfortable with "supervisor's name, if known; 

job title, if known?" 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, you 

know, or some clause in the introductory 

question, you know, complete fields to the 

best of your memory or whatever. That is 

fine. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, because even 

the dates might have caveats. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, exactly. 

Because I found oftentimes, they don't know 

month and year. They can give me year 

ballparks but not -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: That would be most 

common. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And Arjun is chomping 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

at the bit to say something here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I am never 

chomping at the bit. I'm calm. 

 CHAIR MUNN: There is no bit. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The proposed 

questionnaire in section seven of the proposed 

questionnaire, question seven, there is a new 

proposed addition "time period worked." So, I 

think the issue that we were talking about 

earlier actually proposed to be addressed in 

the new questionnaire, further down from where 

we are looking at. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Down at question eight 

or something. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I would just 

suggest that perhaps the job title question be 

addressed there. Where it says duties, it 

could just say "duty/job title" and that might 

kind of -- you have already got building 

location. So I think that pretty much would 

cover all of the possible issues that might 

enter into a dose reconstruction. For 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

instance, if you are using air monitoring data 

or something, which is the only case that I 

can think of where you have something like 

this potential would be useful to you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Is there any 

feeling one way or the other about that? Is 

that reasonable and going to be one of our 

suggestions for adoption? 

 We realize, of course, that we 

can't tell anybody what to do but we can 

certainly provide the questions. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What was the 

suggestion again? I have lost track. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The suggestion was 

two-fold. One, that we incorporate the "if 

known" concept. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay that is -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is in question 

one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: In question one, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well you have job 

title in question one. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well yes, but a lot of 

people don't know what it was, can't remember 

what it was. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark's suggestion, 

I think, on that was to include that before 

the table because the "if known" might apply 

to not only the supervisor, it might apply to 

the dates. 

 Mark, weren't you suggesting that 

we add the sort of "if known" comment ahead of 

that table? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Incorporate it -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, 

something like that. I would, you know, for 

the whole section, you know, below is 

questions on employment history, complete the 

fields to the best of your memory. You know, 

da, da, da. I don't know. I haven't thought 

about the exact language. 

 But I think Wanda is right that 

some people, you know, and especially it 

strikes me that month/year would definitely be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a problem with some of the people I have 

interviewed. You know, it was the early '50s, 

you know, they might say '51, '52, whatever. 

They are usually nailing down month is the 

exception rather than the rule. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Unless we have a 

lifelong OCD practitioner who has kept track 

of every paycheck that has ever been received 

-- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and some 

people have like their work cards. 

 CHAIR MUNN: There are a few people 

who do that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, do you feel 

like that is necessary beyond the letter, 

saying that we are only interested in what you 

can provide easily and you don't have -- you 

know, the letter is supposed to indicate that 

we are only interested, we don't want you to 

research, this, this is just what you are 

supposed to provide readily. Do you think it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be necessary to modify this question in 

addition to that? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't personally 

think it hurts to re-emphasize that. I mean, 

they skim through the letter and then they 

start focusing on this. Maybe under 

employment history, simply say please provide 

the following information, if known, or 

something like that. I mean, it would apply 

for everything under employment history. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or as best as you 

can remember. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: As best as you can 

remember. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, my concern 

sometimes is that they, you know, they are 

concerned to sort of guess because they are 

afraid that if it is wrong, they will be in 

some way -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, penalized or -

- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- penalized if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they wrote down the wrong dates or something. 

 So, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And that, I think, was 

the primary concern that moved a great deal of 

our issue forward from the outset, was the 

concern that we were placing undue stress on 

people leading them to believe that they 

needed to do research and work out the answers 

to these questions, if they didn't already 

have them, or otherwise, we actually had that 

sentence that led people to believe it would 

be to their detriment to not be able to 

provide information. 

 Having removed that or change the 

language, whichever we opt to do -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is helpful, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- is considerably 

helpful. And I can guarantee you that every 

person sitting around this table has already 

spent more time reading these letters than any 

claimant ever has. 

 So what an individual picks up -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We are preparing 

for later. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would suggest we 

do the same thing on the detailed work 

history. Just repeat the same phrase again. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Re-emphasize it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The real question here 

is what do we want that specific phrase to be? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We can probably 

write it, unless you have a real specific 

interest on what you want it to be. 

 I mean, it would be easier for us 

to have one person, a technical writer write 

it than for us to try to write it in the 

subcommittee. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It certainly would. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I just wanted to make 

sure that there wasn't anybody with -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it is along the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

lines of "if known" or to the best of your 

recall. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: As you can easily 

provide it, or as you can easily provide it. 

You know, to the extent that you can recall, 

whatever words we decide. Okay. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm sorry. 

The second part of the recommendation, did 

that go to question number seven or what was 

the second part of that recommendation? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I actually withdraw 

that suggestion to put job titles in question 

number seven again because you have got it in 

question one and it is just confusing If you 

are asking for duties, routine duties in 

question seven. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And duties, I 

think you are getting at job tasks, right, or 

whatever? I mean, that is what you are trying 

to -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Correct because that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really and truly is what bears most -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- heavily on the 

potential for exposure. What were the duties? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And Larry and 

NIOSH assured me that this is not a problem 

with regard to classification at all. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I can't see how it 

would be. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I hate to bring up 

this issue, but, you know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If the individual -

- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- people start 

talking buildings and on your form, you are 

linking together, inadvertently, exposures, 

buildings, and time periods, and tasks. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And nuclides. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And nuclides -- 

that is what I said, exposures. Yes. Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but the question 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is, is anybody of questionable security ever 

going to have access to that information. And 

the answer is no. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, the other -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well now, wait a 

minute. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Those can't have 

classified information on them. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This should not 

have classified information in it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What Mark is saying 

is that if a person says I was exposed to this 

magic radionuclide in this building at this 

facility, I am not even cleared, but I think 

that is one of the things that gets kind of 

dicey in terms of what you are able to talk 

about. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: All I am saying is 

from my experience that I had to get my 

questionnaires for Y-12 cleared by Y-12 

security before I could use them in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

medical screening program. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will note -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And we had to 

actually have some defaults that if you were 

an assembly worker, please do not complete the 

following details. I mean, there were certain 

-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will check -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or do not provide 

information that you think may be classified. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Right, 

just don't put it down. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we pretty 

much tell them that. We tell them don't tell 

us things you think are classified. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, but 

sometimes, you know -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The problem is, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- people don't 

think about -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They don't think 

about that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- the linking of 

the different sections. You know what I mean? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Because it 

is they say well, you are clearly asking me. 

If you are asking me about my radionuclides 

and you are asking me about my place, I mean, 

that must be okay -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to answer it. 

And a lot of people may not have that ready. 

Just because you are cleared doesn't mean you 

are an ADC and you are prepared to judge 

things as being cleared or un-cleared. 

 CHAIR MUNN: This material that is 

being gathered is not going to be available, 

is it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is available to 

everybody that works on the project. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It would be 

available to un-cleared people. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Un-cleared people 

on the project, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is available to 

everybody who works on the project. Most of 

us do not have clearances. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I guess that is true. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Until DOE finds out 

it is there and they shut down the computer 

system. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well knowing how 

difficult it is for me to have access to some 

of this, to get access to some of this 

material, it is difficult to imagine -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We clearly can't 

have -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there is a 

question. There is an issue. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I hate to bring 

this up in a way but I don't want it to be a 

problem. I mean, it can be a nightmare later. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will get another 

check at this. We will make sure that some of 

our guys who are in a position, who are 

cleared, who may be able to render judgment. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

They still may say I can't render judgment on 

this. We will have to get somebody in DOE to 

render a judgment on it, on how specific we 

can ask about your exposures, meaning, what 

were you exposed to and at what building were 

you exposed to it. 

 MR. KATZ: But just for memory's 

sake, I mean, you are correct, Mark in 

recollecting that Larry was asked this same 

question and that he did state that this was 

not an issue for DOE -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- at that time. But 

that is not to say that Stu shouldn't follow 

up. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I would like to 

follow up on that anyway. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Because this is an 

old, except for the time period, it is an old 

question. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, Stu will 

question about that. So, that will have one 

piece of feedback we can anticipate. 

 Next issue. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, going back 

to my -- that was NIOSH's response to my 

second question on the letter. Really, where 

we started, we ended up going a little bit 

into the sections. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But the first 

question, I still don't -- we have touched on 

it but I don't know where it is being left, 

Wanda. It is the question in the first 

paragraph, why was this sentence deleted. And 

the sentence is related to or the sentence was 

if we need additional information that may 

only be available from supervisors, coworkers, 

or others, the interview is also an 

opportunity for you to help us identify, 

locate, these persons. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And I understand that you are 

saying well, we -- you know, it is sort of a 

self-fulfilling prophecy. NIOSH never -- 

NIOSH very rarely went to these people. So, 

now you are just deleting it out of the form. 

 And my question is, you know, do we feel like 

it is something that they maybe should have 

been going to more often and just haven't been 

using. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now the question was 

not so much is it being used; the question is, 

more properly I believe, are we getting the 

information that we need without asking that 

question. Are we getting it in other ways? 

 And my memory of our discussion 

from our last meeting was it was generally 

felt that we were getting that information in 

other ways and it seldom was used, simply 

because there are other methods for doing the 

dose reconstruction. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: One of the original 

points that we raised in our review was, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

didn't go exactly to the point that Wanda is 

making but it was the question is there a 

level playing field between employees and 

survivors. 

 And clearly, you know, there is 

going to be some asymmetry because the 

employee was there and they know a lot of 

stuff. And the way we viewed the coworker 

question was it brings some more symmetry if 

you actually go to those coworkers, especially 

in cases where you are going to deny the 

claim, in case those coworkers know something 

because the survivors usually don't. 

 Now the question comes in if none 

of the information that energy employees 

themselves provide is used in the dose 

reconstruction, then of course, there is 

automatically a level playing field. But if 

it is, then there isn't. And the question 

about coworkers really is about equity and 

fairness, which is supposed to be part of the 

process. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And just to remind you that our 

original review had raised it in that context 

because the board-approved checklist that we 

had, had a fairness item in it. And so that 

was the context, just to remind you, that was 

raised. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe one way to 

address this would be to word it in such a way 

that there wasn't a very clear expectation 

that we are automatically going to contact 

coworkers, that there may be the possibility 

if it is necessary. I mean, in many cases, 

even if it is a survivor, there is enough 

information about either the worker or the 

workplace that it is not necessary to 

specifically interview people, but if it were, 

then this would be important. 

 I think -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- one of the 

things we run into, we hear from people, I 

gave all these names and nobody ever contacted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

them. There is clearly an expectation when 

the question is asked that it's some kind of 

follow-up. So maybe the question has to be 

worded in such a way that would say if it 

became necessary for us to either confirm 

something or to get additional details, if it 

could be worded in such a way that would make 

people think that you are always going to do 

this. 

 It looks here like we are looking 

for a confirmation. It is almost like you are 

applying for a job, who are your recommenders, 

and I expect that you are going to contact 

them. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would accept 

that, Paul. I mean, I would agree that it is 

the exception rather than rule, where you are 

going to have to follow up with coworkers. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the respondents 

think it is the rule, rather than the 

exception. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right. I mean, I would accept that kind of 

modification that if you made it pretty clear 

that it is a small percentage of ones that are 

going to be, you know, but these people may be 

needed if we can't find whatever. 

 I don't have the words but I mean, 

-- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That is the 

concept. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- instead of just 

dropping it completely, I would rather see 

something like that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well it is pretty 

important that these people not develop the 

idea that everything they say must be 

corroborated or else it is not adequate. And 

from comments that we have had in public 

comment sessions, it would appear that this 

has developed in the minds of many people. 

Without corroborating evidence, what they had 

to say is not being heard, which we don't find 

to be the case. But if that impression is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

being imparted, we do need to try to 

circumvent that, squash that now. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, this is from 

memory four or five years ago when we were 

developing this report. And at that time, you 

remember that Denise Brock was one of the sort 

of early organized advocates for workers in 

the Mallinckrodt situation and I interviewed 

her about this. One of the difficulties that 

she was having is that people go through a lot 

of trouble to collect these names because they 

don't necessarily know them. They will call 

up a coworker and so on. 

 And I would agree with the idea 

just from the perspective of the interviews 

that I remember and the questions that were 

raised is that if NIOSH says in exceptional 

cases we might need this and we may contact 

but normally we don't, so that it is very 

explicit that you normally don't. So when 

survivors get the dose reconstruction and they 

call this coworker and say did they contact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you and they get no, then it kind of creates 

an upset. That was the main kind of problem 

that came up at the interviews. And the main 

problem that came up in the assessment, 

evaluation, was the question of a level 

playing field. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So are we going to 

recommend that Stu wordsmith something for us 

here or not? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can take it back. 

I mean, I am not the one person who has an 

opinion and decides what OCAS does. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I understand that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know, but you get 

the idea of what we are saying here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I have that note. 

This is about -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not to necessarily 

delete it fully but to word it in such a way 

that there is not a high expectation that all 

of these folks will automatically be 

contacted. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: As a matter of fact, 

there is an expectation they will not be 

contacted. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But that is a 

normal practice. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, because it would 

be unusual. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And again, if they 

can identify these. Again, I don't think we 

want them going back and making a big effort 

to track down all these people. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Track people down, no. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well that is 

certainly one of the things that we felt like 

we wanted to change in this because we have 

heard those complaints also. That I gave you 

these names, you never even contacted them. I 

went to all this trouble or whatever and you 

never even contacted them. 

 MR. KATZ: And just to give you an 

OMB perspective because OMB reviews, I mean, 

the whole issue of OMB review is burdened on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the public. And so a natural question for the 

OMB person examining this is are they asking 

for information that they are not using? 

 And OMB routinely cuts out from our 

studies, from our research, from all of our 

work, where we survey material that they don't 

believe is actually going to be utilized or 

utilized with enough frequency to justify the 

burden. So you just, it is good for you to 

understand that expectation on OMB's part. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But if the burden 

is reduced by simply asking them if they know 

of these, if it could be worded in such a way 

so that it is making clear that we are not 

asking them to spend hours, and hours, and 

hours, and coming up with this detailed list, 

which most of the time won't be used. 

 MR. KATZ: I am just going to say 

that would be the concern that OMB, if these 

people are going to go and do some research to 

figure out who their supervisors were and so 

on, if 99.5 percent of the time that is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to be used. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Most folks will 

know a coworker or two, if it is the claimant. 

 If it is the survivor, it would be very 

different. But some survivors say yes, 

because I know they worked, you know, this was 

his co-worker, they worked together. They may 

not know anything about the job but they know 

who the close workers were. 

 MR. KATZ: Stu, can I just ask one 

other question that is sort of germane to 

this, or maybe this is an ORAU question. But 

do you have the opportunity if you find 

yourself in a situation where you feel like 

you want to know something from coworkers, 

isn't there an opportunity to go back to 

someone you have interviewed and obtain more 

information? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We always tell them 

if something comes up, we may need to call you 

back. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: What I was going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say is in the May first proposed revision to 

the letter, there is a sentence in there that 

says we do not expect you to be able to answer 

all questions and we do not expect you to 

search for records or information. 

 So I mean, it looks like they 

started to address these concerns. Now, I 

don't know if that is the great wording or 

not, but it looks like it is something -- 

that's a starting point anyways. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think there is 

any problem with the wording of the letter. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But I think what 

you are saying, though, is that the letter 

removed completely this that we may want to 

contact a coworker or a supervisor, although 

we did still ask for a supervisor or a 

coworker. And that I think is Mark's point, 

is why abandon coworkers all together. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If it might provide 

useful information. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it is a fact, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as Ted pointed out, that if we get into a dose 

reconstruction and we say we really need to 

find out more about this, we call the person 

back, we could at that time do it. In that 

case, that is not an interview of a lot of 

people. That is one conversation with one 

person. You don't need to go back to OMB to 

get anything approved for that. 

 So that is a part of things. So, I 

don't, you know, I will take the 

recommendations back to the staff. I am not 

the person who decides, necessarily what OCAS 

does. You know, OCAS decides what to do and 

then I tell the contractor what to do is the 

way it works right now. So, I am kind of the 

one that decides, the person who decides what 

the contractor does. 

 So, I can take them back and I 

don't know what kind of reaction I am going to 

get on this. My own view of interviews is 

maybe not as good as other people's. Because 

like I said, I rarely ever see a dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction anymore, except in that 

subcommittee. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Stu, one other 

question is, and Kathy Behling -- Kathy are 

you still on the line? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Kathy are you on 

the line? 

 MS. BEHLING: I'm here, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: One of the equity 

questions that arises, how often do you use 

the information from the energy employees? 

That is in the CATI because if you have 

monitoring information then, obviously you are 

not using that information. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it could be 

a matter of looking at some cases, if you 

want. You know, look at some cases and see in 

which of these cases did the CATI -- the dose 

reconstruction should say if the person in the 

CATI says I was in this incident or there were 

all these uranium chip fires where I worked, 

the dose reconstruction should acknowledge 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that and say that we did in fact address that 

and his monitoring record would reflect his 

exposure from those situations. And so it is 

included in dose reconstruction. 

 Dose reconstruction would say that 

but in terms of the outcome of the dose 

reconstruction, in terms of what dose was 

reconstructed, how many times did the CATI 

affect the dose that was reconstructed? And 

you know, that would be a situation to think 

about before you want to wrap yourself around 

the axle or maybe not. Maybe that is way too 

much work and that is wrapping yourself around 

the axle. I'll just go ahead and write some 

things that are suitable that don't burden the 

claimant. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The reason I asked 

for it, and Kathy is on the phone, is Kathy 

has looked, you know, I have looked at some 

and not recently but Kathy looks at these 

things repeatedly from the point of actually 

looking at your dose reconstruction. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 From my memory, letters and dose 

reconstruction usually don't explicitly 

acknowledge. Now my memory is of some years 

ago because these days I am not looking at any 

of that documentation since I am mostly 

involved, almost completely involved in SEC 

work. 

 Kathy, what is the current 

situation in regard to when a person says they 

have been in an incident, actually reflecting 

that in the dose reconstruction letter that is 

sent? 

 MS. BEHLING: The information that 

we have on the CATI report from the dose 

reconstructor, they do have a section that 

they complete that identifies any incidents 

that they were involved in. It is, obviously, 

very specific that they are asked those 

questions. And it is one issue I think that 

during our issues resolution meetings NIOSH 

has really looked at that data, at least in 

the current dose reconstructions that we are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reviewing, they do seem to look at that and 

they try to ensure that the data that they 

have either identifies the incident or their 

approach to reconstructing dose covers 

anything that might have been mentioned in the 

dose reconstruction or in the CATI report. 

 The other thing that we try to 

encourage is even if they don't feel that it 

is necessary to reconstruct doses or add any 

additional doses from an incident that is 

identified, that they least mention that in 

the report. And I think that they have been 

doing an adequate job of that. 

 DR. MAURO: I would like to weigh 

in on this; this is John, as it applies to 

AWE. I have reviewed just about all of the 

AWE cases and I have an interesting 

observation. 

 The AWEs generally are performed 

using an exposure matrix, so that the nature 

of the dose reconstruction is different for 

AWE than it is for the DOE facilities. And it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is my observation that I can't think of an 

occasion where any of the information in the 

CATI was used by the dose reconstructor. The 

dose reconstructor typically goes straight to 

the matrix and applies the matrix to the 

person. 

 However, when I review it, I do 

look at the CATI and I often notice that often 

there will be information in the CATI that 

would reveal that the exposure matrix, which 

is often a one-size-fits-all, did not take 

appropriate consideration some of the very 

unusual unique nature of the job that the 

person themselves did and described, as far as 

the CATI. 

 So, what I am saying is the 

information is valuable, especially when I 

review AWE cases and I think it is important. 

 However, to be somewhat critical, however, I 

don't think as much attention is paid to that 

when the dose reconstructor has a matrix that 

he is using. I think he just applies the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

matrix fairly, you know, one-size-fits-all. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well John, we are 

kind of getting into another discussion. I 

would like to comment on that first. We are 

getting into another discussion here. 

 But you are saying that and I know 

why you are saying that. And it has to do 

with the dose model and how the dose model is 

generated and how it is described. Now, I 

will agreed with you that based on how they 

are described, they don't seem to be 

describing the maximum dose anybody could have 

developed, could have received at that site. 

But I believe that is what they are intended 

to do. 

 They are intended to say, okay, we 

have got a dose here from these people who 

machine uranium of you know, 2 rem a year. We 

know it and certain of us know that at a 

uranium machine plant, that is all they did 

every day all year long and they had loads of 

uranium sitting around. Nobody got 2 rem a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

year. So even though our model doesn't 

describe the fact that this is the highest one 

anybody was exposed to, that should be what 

that dose model is. And we don't try to 

distinguish people in to high exposed and low 

exposed because we can't reliably count on 

having the information on each claim that 

allows us to do that. And so we give people a 

one-size-fits-all dose and it is as high as we 

think anyone there could have received. So 

that is how that is. 

 Now, the models don't describe them 

as being developed that way but I believe that 

is what the end result was. And I don’t know 

that based on that, you want to draw judgments 

about the value of a CATI for the whole 

program. 

 DR. MAURO: I understand what you 

are saying, Stu. I think there are occasions 

when some thought needs to be given to the 

information about this particular worker. And 

we have discussed this in a DR case. And I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

agree. What we have in the circumstance, well 

we have information that is in the CATI that 

does bear on how you would model the person's 

dose. But at the same time, the exposure 

matrix is designed, in general, to be fairly 

claimant favorable and you often never really 

have the intention to try to tailor it to that 

extent. 

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

dilemma. The information is there. It can be 

helpful. The degree to which the dose 

reconstruction decides to use that information 

is a judgment call, especially in light of the 

fact that the exposure matrix often was 

intended to be a one-size-fits-all. 

 So, I agree with you but at the 

same time, I think this observation needs to 

be put on the record. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: John, can I just 

weigh in on this one? I mean, I agree with 

what you are saying. One thing that you have 

to remember though, in terms of the CATI 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information being useful, and that is why I 

think Paul's suggestion of sort of qualifying 

that language that we are not going to call or 

try to contact most of these coworkers but we 

may. You know, it may be necessary. 

 But this stuff, even for 

interviewees, I would hope and I know that 

although I have never seen it that there is a 

database that has all this CATI information in 

it. And the people for the interview side of 

the shop that put together the site matrices 

or whatever, can look at this stuff in 

aggregate. And I think it is being used and 

may be beneficial in terms of them developing 

their exposure matrix or their site profiles 

for some of these interviewees. They may find 

out things that they didn't know from other 

research. 

 So there are different uses for 

this for the individual claims but also the 

CATI information can be used in aggregate. So 

I think it serves two purposes there. So, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think as long as we qualify some of those 

these things that we may contact these 

coworkers but however we phrase that, given 

the suggestion that it is not likely but we 

may, or NIOSH may, I think that is the way to 

proceed on this. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have given 

that charge to Stu to go off and follow the 

thread to see where it leads and bring us back 

something at our next meeting, I suppose. I 

had hoped we would be able to close that issue 

today but it doesn't sound as though we are. 

 We are in need of -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think, Wanda -- 

oh, I'm sorry. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are in need of a 

break here. So the question is what is the 

first thing before us when we come back? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I can run 

down these other comments when we get back 

from break. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That will be very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

good. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think that will 

be much quicker. You know, the other, they 

are more form-specific things. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Let's hope so. We are 

going to take 15 minutes. We will be back at 

11:35. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

 matter went off the record at 

11:23 a.m. and resumed at 11:37 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: This is the Procedures 

Subcommittee. We are getting back going 

again. Mark, are you with us? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We will let you take 

the lead, Mark. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, just 

going down my questions. After the first two, 

I had some comments on the form. And I think 

some of these we have already sort of gone by. 

 I mean, there were just little suggestions on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the time period. I'm using this thing because 

we learned over time with our questionnaire 

that we put examples so they didn't -- again, 

I gave an example of years because people tend 

not to know month and year but that is just my 

preference. 

 On 8.2, I think I have the answer 

to some of these other questions. Stu, you 

mentioned earlier that these fields, basically 

when the person is entering them, they open up 

into a broader, so the person is not filling 

this out and sending this in, obviously, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- in the field, 

so they have more room. So some of it was, 

you know, you ask for a lot of information you 

give one little line. But that is not the way 

it is on your screen or whatever. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: The other things 

for 8.2, the only other concern I would have, 

this goes back to my earlier classification 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concerns, this even scares me a little more, 

you know, when you start talking nuclides and 

amounts and tests. You know, you get the 

point there. You are going to follow up on 

that anyway. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was that the 

security issue, Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, the security 

issue. 

 Number three, 8.5; these are the 

same, so-- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, before you go 

on, may I ask a question? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Do we say somewhere 

here that these fields can open up and you are 

free to, you know, while you may just see a 

line or two, you are free to give as short or 

long an answer as you like? That might -- 

because it was a little confusing to look at 

it initially and then to look at the 

completed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I guess it 

was my sort of notion for the person that is 

doing this, if they get this ahead of time and 

they see that little tiny amount of room, you 

know, then they are going to be gearing 

towards a short answer. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So this goes to the 

letter, in a way. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But as we pointed out, 

this is not a form that they are filling out. 

 This is an interactive process. And it is an 

interactive process being directed by 

individuals who have been trained to do this. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And that being the 

case, it really shouldn't matter how long the 

line is. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But all I am 

saying is if I was to get this in the mail and 

you know, you say don't do any research but I 

might kind of for my own purpose jot some 

things down and then, you know, some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

indication that NIOSH on the other end, you 

know, you don't need to limit your answer to 

three words or whatever. I mean, I don't know 

how you do that but that was sort of where the 

comment came from was that, you know. 

 Anyway, you got the gist of it. 

I'm not how you correct the thing but that is 

the idea. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And my suggestion is 

that it probably doesn't need to be corrected 

because it is interactive. This is not 

something that people are filling out. If 

they are filling out, for example, to use your 

own words, if you were to receive this, I 

would suspect that you would probably end up 

with a legal pad with eight different pages of 

information on it, which some folks may do. 

 But the interviewer certainly knows 

that the interviewer cannot in any case put a 

complete answer in any of these things. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. I think it 

is fine, as long as the interviewer gets a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sense, yes, and they will, that they can 

expand on their answer. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I have let that 

one go because I understand that the field 

opens up and they have more room. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Fine. Okay. Then the 

same for 8.5? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry; the 

next one is 8.7, the time period thing. I 

guess this one, the only thing I was 

questioning was the word "special work." That 

is terminology that I think came out in the 

late '80s maybe and I didn't know if there was 

any other examples that we could use, you 

know, that would be more reflective of the 

earlier times. But maybe there is not and 

maybe they get the gist of it with that 

wording. 

 If nobody has other suggestions, I 

guess that would be fine. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you thinking a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

generic title or other special -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Controlled jobs or 

something like that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Controlled? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Special 

projects or controlled jobs, or I don't know 

how to. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well now, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because you know, 

remember we have heard for example that for 

some of the thorium work at Fernald or for 

some of the tritide work at Mound, it was very 

controlled. You know, there was a log that 

had certain people that were only allowed to 

access those areas. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well doesn't that feed 

right into question 8.6? Isn't that what 8.6 

is there for? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Maybe it does. 

Hold on. Let me look at 8.6. 

 Oh well that is more protective, I 

guess 8.7 is more where you would do like -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you know, 8.7 implies that if you were on this 

special work permit or rad work permit, it was 

another indication that you were working in 

contaminated or controlled areas, rad areas, 

like I was just saying. 

 CHAIR MUNN: My question is -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Earlier than the 

late '80s, that doesn't really apply, those 

terms. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But my question would 

be why are those two even broken up because 

the question, "What exposure or contamination 

control measures were used to protect you" 

should include special work permits or 

radiological permits. Should it not? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I guess it 

could. I guess you could put that into there, 

yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It just depends on 

how you feel about that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Another form of 

control, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well what is the 

original purpose of this question? Because 

there is no follow-up on the work permit. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

wasn't here for the original drafting of the 

form. I don't know. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it intended to 

be an indicator of the level of formality of 

the program or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is the only thing 

it could be. A determination whether this 

individual was working -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think it might be a 

radiation, I'm sorry, a radiation work permit 

on file somewhere that might contain 

information regarding a particular operation, 

a type of class of operations that might 

contain a richer set of information to help 

establish the work environment. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I guess my 

question is, is that in fact what happens? If 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

somebody says they had worked under a work 

permit, does NIOSH, for example, try to locate 

work permits? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. Not for every 

individual under those permits. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not per se. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. I would 

doubt it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If a facility had 

work permits and you found a vast file of 

them, what would you do with it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in the 

instance of say a task that was done for short 

periods of time or a limited period of time in 

a limited area, like thorium work at some 

place that normally didn't do thorium, if they 

have radiation work permits for that work or 

the equivalent of a radiation work permit, you 

would expect that you would have some pretty 

good characterization information about what 

these people were working around on these 

permits. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Then you would 

compile that may assist in dose reconstruction 

for that specific work. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there were 

probably a lot of radiation work permits that 

if we ran across them we wouldn't make any 

attempt to capture them at all. You know, 

because they just wouldn't be any more 

specific than, it wouldn't give you any more 

information than the person's, you know, 

monitoring information would give you. 

 So it really depends on the 

situation. I don't know that -- 

 DR. MAURO: This is John again. 

Interestingly enough, we find that when doing 

our work related to data validation 

completeness for SEC work, the more hard copy 

or electronic copies of documents like 

radiation work permits that are available to 

us to sample from, the more insight we could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get, we often get related to data 

completeness, data adequacy. 

 So, in an interesting sort of way, 

nowhere we are talking about this matter 

within the context of CATIs or dose 

reconstruction and I can see why one would say 

"well we really don't go there." I know I 

never found myself ever even thinking in terms 

of going to check something like that when I 

do my reviews. 

 But I can tell you, going to 

something like that and the work we are doing 

in support of SEC petition reviews, it would 

be very valuable. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is true. I 

mean, I think we are doing a lot of that at 

NTS and I think -- well, John said it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So maybe the only 

thing we need here is a generic term, special 

work permit -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is what I 

would suggest -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or radiological 

permit. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- because like 

you said, you know, they may have the rad work 

permit or equivalent you had just said. And I 

am trying to think of some generic term that 

would imply for the earlier years. And that 

was the only suggestion by my comment. 

 If anybody can come up with that 

term, that would be great. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well it probably -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we can, if 

you guys would want us to try to do that, we 

could try to do that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that is fine 

with me. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, why doesn't it 

just say did you conduct your work under 

special controlled situations such as a 

special work permit or a radiological? 

 That, essentially covers it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

something like that probably would work. Yes. 

 I mean, Stu, you can take that 

back, too. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, got you. Got 

it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think something 

like that might work. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Number nine is a 

minor thing. You know, under "wore a badge" 

and you may get at this in another field 

anyway. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, question nine is 

talking about -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wore a badge 

weekly, monthly, you know, ask -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Time periods. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and the time 

period, again, you know, I would suggest the 

year thing. But then "wore a badge" was where 

I was talking about, you know, it is sometimes 

nice to know monthly, annually, quarterly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And they should know what that means. 

 But you have frequency in the 

bottom section, I think 9.2. I'm sorry. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So maybe you 

should have it all on the table. You know, it 

seems like you are asking kind of redundant 

information there in the little table in 9.1 

and 9.2. I don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm just trying to 

capture that all in one spot, instead of 

making them reenter time periods and 

frequencies. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I read those a little 

differently. I read the table as whether or 

not they were assigned a badge to where I read 

9.2 as to whether or not they actually wore 

it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh. Oh, I didn't 

really read it that way but maybe you are 

right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is probably an 

incorrect interpretation. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, Stu, do 

you think, I mean, I would put "wore a badge," 

check yes/no and then insert a little column 

in there. And it might, you know, I would say 

frequency. And then you know, W/M/A, you 

know, weekly, monthly, annually. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well that is what the 

badge exchange is about, isn't it, 9.3? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: How often was your 

badge changed? Yes. How often did you wear 

your badge? 

 CHAIR MUNN: All the time, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's true. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- once in a while. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: 9.3 is how often was 

it exchanged. That is a whole different 

question, really. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right. I guess I was just trying to get those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

all on one table instead of repeating it. I 

guess it is okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And where is it worn? 

 Okay. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we will leave those 

alone. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But either way, 

even under frequency, if you leave it like 

9.2, 9.3, 9.4, I guess for those I would put 

under frequency. You know, like frequency, 

always, periodically, or never, or whatever. 

And then the second frequency you are looking 

for weekly -- example, weekly, annually, 

quarterly, whatever, for the exchange. So I 

am not sure that is intuitively obvious when 

people read the form. But anyway, it is a 

minor thing. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Can we get by with 

just saying in 9.3 how often was your badge 

exchanged, i.e., weekly, monthly -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- semi-annually, 

annually? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can see doing the 

badge exchange under a frequency statement, 

monthly and so on. How often did you wear 

your badge is a very different question. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it's a 

different question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: At our place, for 

example, and the university is not necessarily 

like an AWE lab or a DOE lab but I think the 

principle is the same. A professor, who has a 

research project involving radioactive 

materials, is not required to wear his badge 

into the lecture room. In fact, we want him 

to wear his badge when he goes into the lab. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. That might 

be -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so that is not 

like weekly or something. It is, for example, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the right answer is whenever I go into the 

restricted area. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so, it is not 

necessarily -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That could be more 

of an open-ended question, really. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How often did you 

wear your badge? So, I am not sure what, you 

know, owning one, working in restricted areas, 

or something. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think some other 

titles are appropriate. It is not like I wore 

it every other week or once a month or 

something like that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I agree. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But there is no way 

that we can possibly imagine the range of 

responses one might get to that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have to be more open-ended if you -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would think so. How 

your badge is exchanged was an entirely 

different thing and that probably changed from 

time to time, too. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But where was the 

badge worn, that is -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think they can -

- yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: They can -- that is 

pretty straight forward. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is okay, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, I think 

your next one -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Anyway then, yes, 

my next one is down to -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- 17. You didn't like 

the word elect. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I know. I am 

trying to -- did you ever -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: There are a lot of us 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

who do not care for elections but -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: To be sure. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What number is it? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Seventeen. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well the reason 

why I didn't necessarily like the word elect 

is because we have heard at least some people 

suggest that they were strongly encouraged not 

to wear their badges. So I thought maybe just 

instead of implying either way, we could just 

say did you ever not wear or you know, not 

turn in your badge. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So we don't weigh 

whether it was their decision. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Elected or not. 

Elected or demanded by your foreman or 

whatever. You know, we don't imply either 

way. We just leave it open that did you ever 

not wear or not turn in your badge. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I don't recall the 

result of our conversation on this point when 

we discussed it last time. But my sense is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that there would be very little conflict over 

the idea of removing the word elect. Does 

anyone disagree with Mark's position on that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't think 

we had a problem with it. It is just, that is 

coded into the form that shows up on the 

screen. We will just take it off. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there a 

difference between not wearing it and not 

turning it in? I think many people turned it 

in but didn't necessarily wear it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they are 

allowed to, I would expect them to tell us 

that in the answer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, well it says 

did you elect not to turn it in. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well Mark's 

suggestion is -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That might have 

been -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say did you ever not wear or turn in your 

badge. That was Mark's suggestion. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So if we just put 

that in there, I think that would be all 

right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, that 

suggestion will go in. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Number 19. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I don't know. 

 I think my concern here was the incident, 

incidents thing. And it does pick up that in 

19.1, you know, in the line before 19.1 it 

does imply -- again, this is this form versus 

you are not limited to one choice of an 

incident but in the opening statement, were 

you ever involved in an incident. I would 

just put parenthesis S. You know, 

"incident(s)" involving radiation. You know, 

so that they know they can list more than one 

if they feel it is necessary. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about "any 

incidents?" "Were you ever involved in any 

incidents?" 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or in any 

incidents, yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I can be any number 

then. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Right. I 

guess that was my point. 

 And then I have a note here and I 

couldn't find the old form so I am not sure 

what this is. This might be a co-worker 

question but why is question 18 deleted. And 

I can't find the old form to find question 18. 

 So, I need some help here. 

 I mean, number 18 on the current 

form is not the one I was concerned about. I 

don't think it is medical x-rays and stuff. 

It must have been an old question number 18. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think -- we 

didn't change any of the questions, did we? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, we did. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Did we? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and there was 

some renumbering done and stuff like that. 

But between the old form and what we proposed 

and what we gave you to work from, there were 

some changes. I think that is what he is 

commenting about. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it is. The 

final question is identifying coworkers and 

other witnesses. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, that is what 

I thought. So it is the coworker question. 

And coworker or other incident. Anyway, I 

don't have it in front of me but I was 

questioning why it was deleted. 

 MR. SIEBERT: If you are looking at 

the one that is all changes and deletions, it 

is actually at the end of the form that it was 

removed. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes. There it 

is, at the end of the form. Thank you. Is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that Scott? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Any time. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. Yes, 

identifying coworkers and other witnesses. 

Right. 

 So I think, given our discussion 

earlier, I still believe that should stay in 

with the caveat that Paul was saying that we 

may, you know, it is likely we won't contact 

these individuals. However, we may need to if 

your dose reconstruction requires it, or 

something like that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But Mark -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That way, it is 

not expected but it could happen. 

 CHAIR MUNN: There are also some 

serious issues surrounding the words that are 

used here. This is a very legal sounding 

question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which one are you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Way down at the bottom 

of the form. All the way down to final 

questions that have been eliminated. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That question said, 

"Can you name coworkers or other witnesses," -

- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- which immediately 

puts people in a courtroom in their mind. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So does "consulting 

industrial hygienists." Most of them don't 

even known what consulting industrial 

hygienists are. "Or radiation safety 

specialists who can confirm" -- again, you are 

back in the courtroom. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Can you substantiate 

what you are saying here? How can you prove 

it? And that is the one thing that no one has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ever tried to do and which for some reason is 

firmly entrenched in the minds of many that 

they have to have confirmation of what they 

say. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I totally agree 

with you, Wanda -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Plus the 

instruction to obtain the names. This 

instructs them to obtain the names. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I totally agree 

with you, Wanda. This should be, I would say, 

identifying coworkers. And it should say can 

you name coworkers, not other witnesses. You 

know, such as industrial hygienists, radiation 

specialty. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I wouldn't even say 

can you name them, I would -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I would just 

say coworkers. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, do you know of 

other coworkers -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or others, period. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, or anyone who -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Who can expand on, 

not confirm. I agree with you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- who might have 

additional information that would help. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But then there is the 

caveat that we have already discussed. We 

have to make it very clear to them; this 

doesn't mean we are going to contact them, 

even if you give them to us. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. I 

completely agree with what you said, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So the question as I 

identify it before us is, one, does this type 

of question stay in; and two, how should it be 

worded if it does. Is that the correct 

interpretation of the question? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

would suggest the modification you just laid 

out for us, Wanda, would be appropriate. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

then I think NIOSH, we should recommend that 

to NIOSH and see if they agree or disagree. 

But you know, the language you have with the 

note that Paul was talking about that we 

likely won't use, be contacting these 

individuals, but we may want to depending on 

the need for reconstruction, whatever. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, what is the 

action here, to request that and to ask 

wording from NIOSH? Do we want to approve the 

wording? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, or can we -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: You're up. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry. I have 

got my other phone ringing, too. Sorry. 

 Can we suggest language similar to, 

and then lay out what you just sort of framed 

it as. Because I think the legal language 

that is in there already, you are right, it is 

a problem. So, in this case, can we sort of 

suggest language similar to, you know, this be 

included for question number 18? And then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question 18 be reinserted in the 

questionnaire. 

 And then NIOSH has the liberty to 

edit it but they, you know, they get the gist 

of what we want. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So what I 

am going to do is say that our action as a 

subcommittee is recommending to NIOSH that 

this type of question be returned to the 

questionnaire with complete revision and 

wording, so that there is neither expectation 

nor pressure on the interviewed employee to 

provide this data. Right? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine, for 

me anyway. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone have any 

heartburn with that? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry. Am I 

supposed to write something for you or are you 

going to write something and then send it to 

me? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda will put some 

words together for a recommendation and send 

it to you with a "for instance" language. And 

actually, I will send it to you and the rest 

of this body so that if anyone has any grief 

with the wording, we will relay that to you. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That sounds good, 

Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Does that come 

-- have we covered your general comments in 

our other discussions here? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I believe so. I 

was just looking through there. The one is 

that it is a lengthy questionnaire but I think 

we understand that. You know, you could have 

done these with people that have six, seven, 

eight, jobs, so it could be a lengthy process. 

 And the last one is really getting 

to the security question in the end. So I 

think we have covered both of those, though. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we can consider 

your list now having been gone through and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

actions for NIOSH and one for me to NIOSH. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I have got the same 

count. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

they are the same actions, but I have the same 

count. 

 Are you going to share yours with 

me or should I share mine with you? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I am not sure 

that one can interpret from my scribbles what 

it really and truly means. 

 I have an action item for Stu and 

Steve to list the changes that have been 

suggested from board members to the overall 

database as we change over to SQL. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, that is not 

relevant to CATI. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That doesn't have 

anything to do with the CATI. That was my 

first action item, though. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: He may have more 

CATI items than you do. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is possible. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's all right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The first CATI item I 

had had to do with Stu checking to see how, 

what security problems exist with respect to 

our requesting information on buildingspecific nuclides. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I had that for a 

second item. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. What did 

you have for a first item? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The first item had 

to do with that employment history -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: If known. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- if known 

business. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If known, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: On the form. Yes, 

that is what I have for the first one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Well that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my next one. 

 And then change of expectations of 

are we getting into contact with coworkers or 

supervisors. We were going to reword. You 

were going to seek wording on that, how we 

would make sure that it was emphasized again, 

that when they give us this information, when 

we ask for additional information -- when we 

ask for information on coworkers, supervisors, 

things of that sort, it does not mean that we 

are going to contact those people. We will 

only contact them if we need to expand on 

information that they have given us. 

 Then I had a note we are going to 

change 8.7 with respect to the wording of 

special radiation work permits. And number 

17, we are going to remove the word elect and 

change it to wear or turn it badges. Number 

19, we are going to say and any incidents, 

rather than incidence. 

 And then I am going to deal with 

the wording and recommendation that we insert 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

something like section 18. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I have one 

other comment for either 9.2 or 9.3. It is 

about the frequency of badge exchange when 

talked about, you know, there are some 

examples in the frequency heading. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Frequency of use 

versus of frequency of exchange. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now, I want 

to make sure that we are clear on that. 

Because you were saying that frequency of use 

is sort of an open-ended thing. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think, in my mind 

it is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In which case, you 

know, for instance, if I wore a badge every 

time I went into what we called the controlled 

area, I would answer that way, as opposed to 

weekly or monthly. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Other people might 

say I wore my badge every day, or daily. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Okay, so you think there might be some benefit 

in not listing examples there and just letting 

them describe the situations in which they 

wore their badge. Or you could say instead of 

asking how frequently did you wear your badge, 

under what situations did you wear our full 

badge or something like that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or something like 

that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Your last 

comment is probably the more broad way to ask 

the question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I had one other and 

I am not sure this was an action item but I 

jotted down that Stu, you were going to check 

back on the wording relating to security 

issues. Were you going to have the DOE at 

some point look at this? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or you were going 

to talk -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 MR. KATZ: Check internally. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Internally to see. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I will check 

internally. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Internally, we may 

decide that DOE needs to see it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I got you. 

But there was that security question, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- the one I 

thought was sort of an action item. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, an action item. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It relates to time, 

place, location, and amount. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Time, place, yes, it 

covers several things. 

 All right. I think we have 

responses to the previous questions. Now, I 

have revisions of the proposed new wording on 

I guess the CATI letters themselves is what I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was thinking about at the time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we looked at 

the two CATI letters, the proposed revision 

and the original version. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And then also we 

were asked what is the introduction or the 

introductory script to the CATI. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we produced 

what appears on the interviewer's screen. And 

Pat told us at the last meeting, well the 

interviewer doesn't read that verbatim, they 

introduce in the fashion that we want in 

introduced. And so we have prepared a revised 

introductory screen, despite the fact that the 

interviewer doesn't use it. You know, 

theoretically at some point you may hire a new 

interviewer and you wouldn't want to 

necessarily have a screen up that shows them 

the incorrect wording. You want to show them 

what you want it to be. And so should we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

revise that as well. Now, I sent those out as 

well. Both for the current existing language 

and a proposed revision to that. And we might 

figure out what I called those. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, let me see. 

Those went out on the 24th. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It wasn't very long 

ago, probably. 

 Yes, one is called "Introduction to 

CATI Script Original" and the other is called 

"Introduction to CATI Script Proposed Revision 

May First." 

 CHAIR MUNN: And I believe was it 

the introduction to the CATI script item that 

I had said last time I would look at some 

words for that I just sent you yesterday? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They are not 

included in what I sent you. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What was that that 

you were calling them? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was 

"Introduction to CATI Script." 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: "Introduction to CATI 

Script." 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And then one of 

them is underscore "Original" and the other is 

"Proposed Revision May First." 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that a Word 

document? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they are a 

Word document. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, because the 

wording that we were complaining about was the 

end of the second paragraph that said, 

"However, if you choose not to be interviewed, 

this would hinder NIOSH in conducting the dose 

reconstruction for your claim. Choosing not 

to be interviewed may also result in a dose 

reconstruction that incompletely or 

inaccurately estimates the radiation dose to 

which you may have been exposed." 

 We took exception to that in our 

last meeting and said we feel that was 

inaccurate and left the impression that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is undue pressure on the person being 

interviewed to provide more information. And 

that isn't necessarily the case. 

 So I sent you, since I accepted 

that as an action item last time, I sent you, 

let me see, did we have any other correction 

to that, that introduction? We didn't, did 

we? I didn't see that there was any change 

made to that. 

 So, I sent you yesterday, I 

believe, no, day before yesterday, maybe 

yesterday. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, you sent it to 

me yesterday. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, before I left. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually at 5:29 

Eastern Time. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right. And it 

was entitled "Procedures Subcommittee Proposed 

Revised Language Action Item." And what I 

submitted was "You alone can choose whether 

not to be interviewed." Dose reconstructions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for your claim can be made only on information 

that is available to us. So any additional 

facts might help complete or expand the 

information we have and could be very helpful. 

 That was my suggested change from 

the two sentences that I just read you 

previously. That was script. 

 Yes, Paul? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I like what you 

say. I have a minor suggestion that might 

make it feel less -- it still feels to me like 

there is a little bit of pressure on them 

here. And what I am thinking is something 

like "This dose reconstruction for your claim 

can be made with information that is already 

available to us but additional information 

might help us complete or expand what we 

already have." 

 CHAIR MUNN: I have no problem with 

that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you see what I 

am saying? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Like we only have 

so much and so we really need your additional. 

 It is a very slight nuance. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But it is a worthwhile 

nuance. And I have no objection to it at all. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Could I propose 

that I ask that you send to me in the proposed 

revision I sent you, how you would like this 

incorporated or accommodated in that? Because 

it is going to be a little bit -- I mean, we 

wrote a new introduction. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we wrote a 

new introduction and so this may or may not be 

particularly fitting. 

 MR. KATZ: Someone put us on hold, 

I think. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they did. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably. 

 CHAIR MUNN: At least they have a 

nice carrier. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are the others on 

the line hearing music? 

 MR. KATZ: Is anyone on the line 

who can hear this? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we can. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'm sorry about 

that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Somebody put us on 

hold and we are getting music. Could you all 

sing along with it? 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIR MUNN: If you could just 

consider us properly directed via Hollywood. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there anyway to 

cut that off? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, someone probably 

just did that. 

 AUTOMATED VOICE: The pass code you 

are attempting to enter 9933704 is invalid. 

Please check your pass code and try again. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, I assume that will 

be the end of it. If it comes back, we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get her to cut the line. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, you should have 

that on your email. 

 AUTOMATED VOICE: The pass code you 

are attempting to enter is invalid. Please 

check your pass code and try again. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we out? Are we 

going to get thrown out of the conference? 

 MR. KATZ: Folks on the line, can 

you still hear us? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we can. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay. 

 AUTOMATED VOICE: This entry is 

invalid. Please confirm your pass code and 

try your call again. 

 MR. KATZ: I am going to get her to 

cut that line. 

 AUTOMATED VOICE: Or call your 

conference leader for assistance. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So the action item is 

for Paul to clean up my language and send it 

to Stu. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Preferably in the 

proposed revision as it stands. Because -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, where 

in there you want it. That kind of thing, the 

addition. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is the last two 

sentences of the second paragraph. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but those 

don't exist any more. Those are gone. The 

two sentences you objected to, that paragraph 

is gone. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Is gone. The entire 

paragraph is gone. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the whole 

thing was rewritten. So, in order to 

incorporate this language, I would like you to 

let me know where you want it in there. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Oh, okay. 

 MR. KATZ: If you look at the 

rewrite, I just would suggest that this sort 

of really has been handled already. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it has. 

 MR. KATZ: So, I am not sure that 

there is anything to be done. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there may not be. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: The third paragraph 

in the proposed, I think captured it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In the letter 

itself? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is the 

introductory, the introduction to the CATI 

script. The introduction to the script. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now, it is in the 

third but it really and truly doesn't say. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: The first sentence 

seems to me to real simply just tell it. It 

is voluntary. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, you see it hasn't 

been fixed. Because look at the last sentence 

of the second paragraph. That is, if I am 

looking at the correct introduction to the 

CATI script, the last sentence of the second 

paragraph still says -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That may be the 

original one. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The last sentence 

in the second paragraph says, the one I sent 

says if we need to divide this interview into 

a couple of shorter calls, we can do that as 

well. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So, I am 

looking at the wrong CATI introduction. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was looking at 

the old one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And the introduction 

to the CATI script. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, it is the title of 

the file is "Introduction to CATI Script 

Proposed Revision May 1, '09" 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I've got it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And why it is not 

where I want it to be, I don't know. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, it was up on 

the screen a few moments ago. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's there. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: It doesn't even 

address the issue. Therefore, it is fine with 

me. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I just moved it 

down to the third paragraph. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well yes, but it 

doesn't even -- all it really says is that it 

is voluntary. That is fine with me. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The second 

paragraph, I think, covers it in the sense it 

says, "We would like you to help us gather 

additional information to ensure that what we 

use is as complete as possible." I think that 

covers it, doesn't it? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think so. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is not at all 

like it is their burden to -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, it does not. 

 Mark, are you seeing this? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, I 

looked at it and I think it is okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No grief? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No grief. Can we 

make as a statement that the subcommittee 

approves the selected, the proposed new 

introduction to the CATI script? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any opposition to 

that? Stu, you may pass that on. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I was thinking that 

could have been a little easier. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, do we want 

to take up any other items? Are we complete 

with as far as we can go right now on the 

CATI, absent the action items that we have 

today? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well what about the 

other CATI form for the survivors? I think 

that there are a lot of parallels and maybe to 

the extent that things apply to both, we can 

say that they are covered. But are there any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

differences we need to look at between the EE 

form and what is the other one? 

 CHAIR MUNN: SV. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: SV? 

 CHAIR MUNN: For survivor. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Or were 

you going to handle that separately? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I did not have any 

issues with it. We originally undertook to 

look at both of them at the same time. But I 

think the issues that we were discussing with 

the EE form were among those that were 

overlaps for both of them. 

 It has been a couple of months 

since I, personally have reviewed the language 

on the SV form. Does anyone have any specific 

concerns that they are aware of at this moment 

on the SV form? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me ask first, 

does the same letter go -- is the letter 

itself the same one for both groups? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the letter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is the same. I think the letter is the same 

but the questions are somewhat different for 

the survivor. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The letter says 

employee/survivor, I believe. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So we are okay. It 

is the same letter. There is not a different 

letter. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it is the 

same letter. It is the same text of the 

letter. Electronically they may be filed 

differently and they may have different names. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Just for file 

handling. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So the question is 

really do we need to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is there anything 

we have to attend to out in the survivor form 

or is everything overlapping? 

 CHAIR MUNN: And of course, 

everything is not overlapping. It is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

slightly different form, as I repeated 

earlier. I will repeat what I said earlier. 

I personally did not identify any problem that 

I had with that form but if anyone has done 

so, we should know about it now or we need to 

make the decision that we will address that 

form completely separately. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am presuming that 

this coworker question, parallel things will 

apply to the earlier comments we made. You 

are asking for any new comment. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That was my intention, 

yes. 

 I don't hear any strong feelings 

with respect to setting aside a time on our 

next agenda to go through this. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: To go through it 

on the next agenda. Is that what you are 

saying? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, because -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That would be -- 

okay, I was trying to scan through it quickly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I mean, I agree with Arjun's comment that the 

coworker comment would still apply here. But 

I haven't gone through this as much as I did 

the other one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Is it the desire of 

the subcommittee that we accept the changes 

from the EE questionnaire as being applicable 

also to the SV questionnaire or do you wish to 

move this into a separate agenda item for our 

next meeting? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I think, my 

opinion, Wanda, is that not all the changes we 

made are applicable. You know, the comments 

on the first, the EE questionnaire, not all of 

them will be applicable to this one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, of course not. 

But those that do overlap, will. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Those that do not, 

obviously drop off the table. 

 Do I hear any desire to -- yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Let me just ask a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

procedural question here and I guess Stu may 

have perspective here about this but I thought 

our aim was to provide recommendations, 

whatever they will be, at this next Amarillo 

meeting. Because then otherwise, we are 

waiting for another, there is that long gap. 

And I don't know how quickly OCAS wants to go 

forward and get the improvements implemented. 

 But the longer it takes for the Board to make 

its recommendations, the longer that is 

delayed. So, I just, if this work can get 

done today, that would be great, I would 

think, so that you can report out to the full 

board. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I agree. I would 

prefer that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can we go, can we 

just step through the sections, Wanda? I 

mean, I think we got the gist of it from the 

other one and I am willing to just go through 

this one as I am looking at it, if you want to 

do it that way, that is fine with me. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: May I suggest that it 

is our lunchtime and that if we take ten 

minutes of lunchtime or so to read through the 

survivor's questionnaire, as opposed to the 

one we have just looked at, that may give us 

the answer that we need. Can we, is that 

amenable with everyone? 

 MR. KATZ: We could have an hour 

and 15 minute lunch break if you want and that 

way, everybody has plenty of time to read and 

think a little bit about differences. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any problem with at 

that? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is fine. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good. 

 We are going to break for lunch. We will be 

back at 1:45 Eastern Time. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 12:31 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:57 p.m.) 

 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

 1:57 p.m. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz with 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health Procedures Review Subcommittee and we 

are coming back into session after a break. 

 Mark, do we have you on the line? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm here, Ted. 

 MR. KATZ: That's great. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Mark, this is Wanda. 

Do you have anything that you want to call to 

our attention with respect to the survivor 

CATI questionnaire? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Not a lot 

but there is a few things, I think, in 

addition to the ones that overlap from the 

first one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I had a 

question as to whether we should have 

somewhere included, and I was thinking maybe 

it was a possibility around question 14 where 

we asked if they had, did the covered employee 

receive any biological monitoring. Oh, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

says after an incident, though. I don't know 

if I like the way that reads either. But 

anyway, I mean, what I was trying to get at 

was I know the exposure, the whole list of 

radionuclides was dropped out for the survivor 

questionnaire and I agree with that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I wondered if 

somewhere we wanted to include an opportunity, 

an open-ended question on like exposures to 

radiation. And I thought maybe one place to 

do it was related to biological monitoring 

where we say if they have biological 

monitoring and then we could follow up with a 

question saying if you know, do you know what 

the monitoring was for or something like that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Do you not feel that 

is redundant from question 15? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Fifteen, did I 

miss that? 

 CHAIR MUNN: If yes, tell us 

everything you know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well that is kind 

of asking about conditions, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Situations or 

practices. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

think overall it looked good. And I know why 

you wouldn't. I mean, I don't want to ask 

them do you know what radionuclides you were 

exposed to because I think people would say 

what is a radionuclide. 

 CHAIR MUNN: What is a 

radionuclide. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You don't want to go 

there. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But if they had 

monitoring and if they knew they had urine 

monitoring they may remember it was for 

uranium or whatever. That is all I was 

getting at is some sort of follow-up where we 

would, you know, an open ended question where 

you know, if they have that information they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can include it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Do you feel strongly -

- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure 15 

gets to that part of it. You know, that sort 

of talks about -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Would you think 15 

covered it if we inserted a word like 

biological monitoring or situations or 

practices in there? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Have we missed 

asking about any conditions, situations, or 

practices where that occurred? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Practices, 

parenthesis, including monitoring and 

biological testing practices. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I don't know, 

I think it would be easier to add it onto 14 

and say do you know what they -- if yes to 

14.1, do you know what they were testing for, 

or something like that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How does that help 

us, Mark? In other words, will it make a 

difference in record retrieval? I'm trying to 

think of -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well it may not 

make a lot of difference, unless, you know, 

because you are not asking a lot about 

exposure anyway. But it is an opportunity for 

them to add if they knew something about that 

end of it that, yes, I know -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well if the person 

said they took urine samples, it was for a 

particular nuclide, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And you don't find 

any records related to that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well whether or not 

they knew what the nuclide is, I am sort of 

saying how important is it for us to know what 

nuclide it is, in most particular cases. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I guess it 

depends on where they work. But I will give 

you an easy example is Fernald and they say, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

yes, they tested urine for uranium but also 

they did thorium. I remember them talking. I 

remember them saying some special projects for 

thorium. And we looked at this list of people 

that NIOSH has and the person is not included. 

 You know -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I see. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that sort of 

thing. I doubt that many people are going to 

have it so I don't want to make it like a big 

matrix. I agree that that is a good idea 

dropping that. But I just thought an openended question like that, if they know 

something that could be helpful. I don't 

know. 

 That was the only real thing I had. 

 And then as I was reading 14 again, the only 

other comment I would have is on 14, I guess 

14 is lumped under incidents. This section in 

incidents. And I wonder if we don't want to 

keep that more generic. In other words, did 

they monitor -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 This is after the incident. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well there is 

biological monitoring in the general, earlier, 

under the general monitoring. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, did it? Okay, 

I'm sorry. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it gets 

redundant. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry. I 

missed that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, under monitoring, 

we have the whole thing. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Item 9 covers 

regular monitoring. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe the same 

comment would hold for you there, though, what 

nuclides. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, so the 

same comment would hold there. And then to 

relate that one to the incidents. And that 

was really it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I am not 

objecting to asking that. I mean, I was just 

kind of trying to get a feel for whether it is 

something, in what way that helps NIOSH. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: yes, I mean, that 

was the only hypothetical that I could give 

you, Paul, is that it may help. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, maybe it might 

suggest that they work with something that we 

don't know. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And from my 

perspective -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or that you don't 

have any urine uranium records for the 

individual at all. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But my perspective is 

there are enough open ended questions in there 

that -- and remember, we have trained people 

asking the questions. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes and I felt, 

and rightly so, I felt like they were focusing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on duties and process and sort of practices, 

which I think is right. Because there, 

especially a survivor is most likely to know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And much more likely 

to get information in that regard, too. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right but I 

thought at least maybe one open-ended on the 

economy sort of that might get into the 

radionuclides would be okay. And I thought it 

would be valuable to add in in that section. 

I guess those two sections, now that I am 

looking at it again. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That was my only 

comment, really. Other than that, I thought 

it looked pretty good. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well I have one thing 

that bothers me as I go through this. And 

that is, there are three or possibly four, I 

can't remember, questions on here, which is 

the very last, when you get to the very tail 

end of the information, the folks are asked if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they have , and if they do have records, would 

they be willing to provide copies to us. And 

then there is the question, if they say no, 

"Why not?" And if I were a survivor and were 

getting that question and if somebody asked 

well why won't you, I think my response would 

be well it is none of your business. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It can't be 

included on the transcript? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think it 

probably wouldn't be wise to include it on the 

transcript. But I guess that is another one 

of those questions that what purpose does that 

serve. Does it get us anything? Does anybody 

ever say why they wouldn't give you the 

information? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If they are not going 

to give you the information, they are not 

going to give you the information. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the reason 

why that is there is they are afraid I won't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get them back. Because I want to keep them or 

something like that. It would be to reassure 

them that it would be duplicated and see if 

they have anything we want. 

 I don't know why it is on there. 

This survey was drawn up more than six years 

ago. And I don't know why it was put on there 

at the time. I will go back and find out if 

anybody thinks that really needs to be on 

there. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or maybe somebody 

thinks it would reveal some classified 

information that they don't think they can 

share. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That they 

shouldn't have themselves. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if they can't 

share it, then they shouldn't have it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, in any case, if 

that is the case, they are not going to tell 

you I have classified information and, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

therefore, I am not going to share it with 

you. I think it is highly unlikely. And I 

can't imagine you are getting anything of 

value from that question. 

 So my only action that I have then 

is Stu is going to ask whether that is serving 

the purpose. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I mean I 

think I agree with you on the no part. Some 

people have supplied records, I know that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, but those 

are people that answer yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If they answer no, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- then they are not 

going to -- I mean the probability you are 

going to get an honest answer as to why not is 

probably remote and what would you do with it 

after you got the answer? That was my point. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is Stu will get back to us with a response to 

whether or not that gives us anything. 

 Anything else? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is agreed now 

going with the March first issue? Are we 

going to ask for the nuclides or not going to 

ask for them? 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are not going to 

ask for nuclides on the SV. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not necessary? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Not necessary. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: We are not going 

to ask for them? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Mark wants a 

conversation saying that it might be something 

to ask. Something like that, you know, some 

additional follow-up. If they say yes, I know 

my spouse or whatever was monitored. Some 

more than -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you know what 

they were monitored for or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Or do you know why 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or do you know what they were monitored for. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, something 

like that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Something like 

that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would leave the 

wording up to NIOSH. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that is what 

he suggested. I am not advocating it or 

arguing against it. I am just trying to 

repeat what I believe he has suggested. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Under the radiation 

monitoring section, we were talking. Right? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Under Section 9 

and 14 I was looking at. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think 14, it 

almost comes out in the description of the 

incident. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well yes, so it 

might not be necessary in 14. But for 

consistency, maybe you just want to put it in 

both places. And yes, I would keep it very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

simple and open-ended. 

 CHAIR MUNN: An open-ended question 

and it probably along about 9 or 10. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I would make 

it a subset of that, like 9.1(a) or whatever, 

under 9.1. But I will leave the formatting up 

to NIOSH to consider how they want to get that 

in there or if they want to get that in there. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think Arjun 

had an item, too, he was going to leave here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Did he say he left 

it with me? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What he said, what 

he left with me was that the survivor does not 

make any mention of coworkers. And that -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry, Stu, I 

can't hear. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry. I'm 

behind my screen. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: He said that the 

survivor CATI makes no mention of coworker at 

all. And he thought that the same sort of 

gentle solicitation of coworkers, if you want 

to call it that, -- I am only saying what he 

told me -- would be useful, he thought would 

be useful there as well, the same thing as in 

the EEs. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well yes, I agree. 

 I thought we -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well the end of 

this form, in the cross-out section, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The same cross-out. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- has the same 

cross-out as the other one that we thought -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Was going back in. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- perhaps could go 

back in -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: As modified. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- with some 

modified wording, so it didn't sound like a 

legal -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is what he 

told me and he must not have just seen that. 

Because it is kind of down at the end and 

crossed out, if I am not mistaken. He just 

must not have seen it but that is what he told 

me. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, can you name 

supervisors, coworkers, or and here it had 

that potential witnesses business. So 

whenever that wording changed, we probably 

need to parallel what we did on the other one, 

I would think. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So that gives us three 

recommendations. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay and what were 

the three? Are you counting mine and 14 as a 

separate one? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think we should 

decide that right here. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm trying to 

figure out what you have as three because I 

only have two. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Oh. Well, the no 

answers. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: One was 12.4, Stu, 

do we need to ask, or how do we ask why not. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that one I 

got. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The earlier 

bioassay one about nuclides. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then this third 

one, -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes, the 

survivor one. Got you. Thanks. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but that, "if no, 

why not" question occurs on more than one of 

these. Under it is 10.2, and in 12.4 -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You know, it keeps 

coming up again. And in 14.3, so it recurs. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Are we 

content with what we have suggested? Then we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will leave Stu with those three suggestions to 

proceed on and we are, unless someone stops us 

now, going to leave the CATI for the moment. 

 Yes? 

 MR. KATZ: For the moment or for 

the meeting? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, for the moment. 

Unless you feel it is important for us to 

identify exactly what our recommendation is 

going to be at this juncture. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, by the end of this 

meeting, I think you need to sort your 

recommendations. But what order you do that, 

I don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would like for us to 

do that, too, but we have a significant number 

of items that are going to be involved in that 

recommendation. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before we can make 

them. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and I am not at 

all sure that we can wordsmith those and get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the answers that Stu is going off to get yet 

this meeting. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You weren't 

proposing to get this today. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not going to 

write anything today. 

 MR. KATZ: So will there not be 

recommendations at the Amarillo board meeting 

from this work group/subcommittee? 

 CHAIR MUNN: The only way we can 

have a recommendation is if we have some 

communication between now and then with 

respect to feedback that Stu gets. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be very 

hard. I am not in the office. I am barely in 

the office next week until Friday. Monday 

morning and Friday are my only times in the 

office next week. 

 So, I will not have anything back 

to you next week. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, there are a 

number of NIOSH actions. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: We can indicate we 

accepted the language of the letter but I 

don't know how we can proceed otherwise. 

 I don't believe we have a choice. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The next item we have 

on our agenda is Steve reviewing a PDF file 

that tracks OTIB-0027. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. This came out 

at the last meeting when we were talking about 

some of these OTIBs that we reviewed. I guess 

in the third setup of procedures that we 

reviewed we got a lot of procedures from some 

of the other working groups. For example, in 

this example it is the Rocky Flats working 

group. We were looking at the, I think it was 

the SEC for Rocky Flats and we reviewed a lot 

of procedures. As part of that effort, we 

rolled all those procedures into the third 

report that we prepared. And during the last 

meeting that we had here back in March, we 

were looking at OTIB-0027 and we saw that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there were four findings associated with OTIB0027. And I think three of the four we have 

closed. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: What is OTIB-0027? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0027, 

Supplementary External Dose Information for 

Rocky Flats Plant. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is the one that I 

am supposed to give you a formal indication 

for that we have -- what the status is because 

it refers to Rocky Flats. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I am supposed to 

transmit information to you but I have 

hesitated to do that because I need to draft 

an email to send it to you. And what Steve, I 

think, is preparing to do is tell us what that 

email is going to say. 

 Essentially we closed two, wasn't 

it? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Three. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Three? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We closed three out 

of the four and the status of the one that is 

in progress, we can look at and see. I'm not 

sure -- okay. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess this is 

the, my concern was this, and several of these 

ones in the document that you sent along was 

shouldn't we just transfer these to the work 

groups? I mean, there are profile issues in 

these coworker models, especially the one you 

are talking about. This neutron coworker 

model, I mean that TIB that is under 

discussion, I think, I don't even know if it 

still exists or does it defer to the CIB 

profile? 

 I mean, I don't even know if that 

TIB is still being used. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Twenty-seven? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Maybe I was 

looking at the wrong one. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, Mark, it says 

basically -- yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Supplementary External 

Dose Information for the Rocky Flats Plant. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That was the, 

actually Mark, that was the NIOSH response was 

the information in this ORAUT had been 

transferred to the Rocky Flats site profile 

document. And then what we did is we asked 

Ron Buchanan to track down or go into the 

Rocky Flats site profile document and follow 

this issue into the site profile. 

 And for the first one anyways, he 

went in there and he felt that the issue had 

been resolved. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, I guess my 

feeling with any of these, these kind of, you 

know, they are procedures but they are all, 

almost, you know, well a lot of these ones in 

the package that you sent are coworker models. 

 And I am not sure they even belong in the 

procedures review. You know, because I mean, 

maybe I missed the discussion at the last 

meeting but I think this one is because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

neutrons, assigned neutron for exposures for 

coworkers. Is that correct or am I wrong? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I am not sure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Does 27 involve 

neutrons? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: If Ron Buchanan 

was reviewing it, I am assuming it is 

neutrons. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I have to look at 

our historic. It is not current. So I 

believe it has been canceled. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So it is canceled, 

it is deferred? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It is not on my 

list of active ones. I will tell you that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It has been 

canceled, yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is canceled. 

It is deferred to the site profile and then 

you have got someone looking at the -- I still 

think these should be on the site profile 

review and I say that not only because I am 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sharing Rocky Flats but because I have got 

this Ruttenber database hanging out there with 

Rocky Flats, which may or may not have 

different neutron information. I mean, there 

are a lot of other tangential issues that I am 

afraid to, you know, if we say this is closed 

and I get on the site profile work group and 

we disagree with what we have done here in the 

procedures, it is going to create problems 

down the line. You know? So I don't know how 

to deal with it. 

 But the same thing with all these 

coworker models. You know, I am not sure it 

makes sense to go into them on the Procedures 

Work Group and you do have to go into them to 

really -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well weren't we, in 

effect, doing that, we were -- was this a 

transfer, do you call? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well that is the 

question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well only in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sense that we basically said you guys have 

already closed it. Wasn't that what you were 

saying? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. We closed it in 

the -- I mean, Ron Buchanan is going to look 

at it from SC&A's point of view. He is going 

to look at it whether it comes in through the 

Rocky Flats work group or whether it comes in 

through this work group. 

 Now, he has looked at it -- so, he 

has looked at it and his recommendation is 

that it be closed. He presented that 

recommendation, I guess, to the procedures 

subcommittee last time and the procedures 

subcommittee on three out of four of these 

OTIB-0027 issues agreed with that they should 

be closed. And the fourth one, Ron 

recommended that it remain in progress. 

 And so the subcommittee agreed with 

Ron's recommendations and closed three of 

them, left one in progress. Now again, out of 

the and I am just trying to remember here, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as I recall, the last time we got together, it 

was decided that we shouldn't be doing this 

stuff in a vacuum because these are sitespecific OTIBs and so let's inform the work 

group chair of that site-specific work group 

chair of what our status is and how we have 

changed this. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But what was Ron's 

basis for recommending that it be closed? He 

went into what the Rocky Flats site profile 

folks had done and basically said they have 

dealt with this issue. Did he not? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That is correct. He 

opened up the revised site profile that had 

taken the information from OTIB-0027 and now 

incorporated it into the site profile. He 

went -- this was under our, what we perceived 

to be our charter to track the issues to their 

closures. And so he went into the site 

profile, looked for where this information was 

being presented in the revised site profile, 

you know, looked at it, and he was satisfied 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that the issue was resolved. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and maybe 

Mark, maybe what you are saying is does the 

work group agree that the issue was resolved. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well yes, 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because I don't 

think we are saying we resolved it here. We 

are saying that it was resolved by your work 

group but maybe you don't agree with that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well I just heard 

Stu say that the subcommittee agreed that 

these things were closed. And I don't know 

that -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Only in the sense 

that it appeared that your group had closed 

them, I believe. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, no. I think 

Ron looked at the site profile and it would be 

his opinion. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I don't think 

the work group -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The work group 

didn't necessarily. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, the Rocky 

Flats Group didn't. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No, Ron just looked 

 at it for his own self. And because SC&A, we 

don't close issues. We make a recommendation 

that an issue be closed. And in the past, it 

has been this subcommittee who basically had 

been closing, or at least on issues that I 

have been associated with, it has been this 

subcommittee who has closed, you know, acted 

upon our recommendation. 

 Either accept them or to come up 

with some different status. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am suggesting, I 

mean, this is a blanket suggestion that, it is 

site-specific, if we have site-specific 

procedures, we should just defer them back to, 

if a site-specific work group exists. And if 

it doesn't exist, that is a different issue. 

I mean, we should keep them here, probably. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

But if a site-specific work group exists, then 

I think we should refer them back. 

 Because in this version I have here 

is that, you know, it may be that Ron's 

analysis is fine but Ron hasn't looked at this 

Ruttenber stuff that we have got in. And that 

is kind of on the table and everybody is 

curious of whether that is going to make any 

difference or not. And I don't know one way 

or the other. I mean, I am assuming all the 

original data is the same and these 

conclusions are likely to be fine. 

 But, you know, we did tell the 

petitioner and the public and everybody that 

we would look at this Ruttenber data. It is 

all the neutron data related to Rocky Flats. 

So, before we jump the gun and close the 

coworker model, I think we should, you know, I 

think I would like to keep it in the loop with 

the site profile. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well you are correct, 

Mark that this would be a change in process. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Our process in the past has been this 

subcommittee gets only what the Board has 

recommended that we get. It doesn't just 

magically appear to us. 

 The Board has recommended that we 

get these things and following your 

recommendation that any procedure which is 

directly relevant to a specific site should 

not be dealt with in this committee, should be 

dealt with in the work group, if that exists, 

and in almost all cases, I believe it would 

exist, then we need to probably ask the Board 

that question, since we never get anything 

that the Board hasn't already presented to us. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well is John Mauro, 

John Mauro, are you on the line? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think I can help 

out here because and this came up the last 

time we had this work group meeting and it 

actually came up in the context of OTIB-0029. 

 The reason we have this dilemma is 

about two years ago we were all working hard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on reviewing site profiles and part of that 

work very often ended up reviewing OTIBs. And 

we did prepare white papers related to various 

OTIBs or various site profiles, which stood 

alone. And what happened was, we were also 

simultaneously reviewing lots of generic 

procedures, which are also OTIBs. And our 

mandate originally, this goes right back to 

the beginning of the first contract, was the 

procedures group was primarily focused on 

generic procedures. 

 But what happened was along the 

way, I had mentioned before the full Board, I 

said listen, we are putting together our next 

package of procedures, review documents, big 

three-ring binders and by the way, we also 

have about ten OTIBs that are site-specific 

and they are all written up more like white 

papers. And I asked would it be appropriate 

for us to simply take those and it was at a 

modest marginal cost, and convert those into 

the standard format and content of a procedure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

review and package it along with all of the 

other generic procedures that were undergoing 

review. 

 So, it was a good intention that 

now has created an administrative dilemma. 

What we have now is a number of site-specific 

OTIB reviews that are commingled with a large 

number of generic OTIB and PROC reviews. And 

it has created this administrative problem. 

 So I think that this issue, when 

the subcommittee received its mandate from the 

Board, quite frankly, we didn't really give it 

much thought that there were these two 

different types of procedure that were in the 

package. And there is certainly room for 

discussion here how best to proceed from here. 

 So, I don't think there is any real 

problem other than agreeing on 

administratively how would you like to move 

forward. 

 It sounds like that Mark has 

certainly a reasonable approach. That is, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can transfer the ones that are active and not 

transfer others. We could theoretically do 

them here but not close them and make this 

almost like a service being provided to a work 

group. For example on Y-12, which we will get 

to in a minute, I don't think there is an 

active work group. And it is possible that if 

we could make some progress in closing OTIB0029 issues, at least from the perspective of 

the Procedures Work Group, we can use that 

process and documentation of it, as a service 

being provided to a Y-12 work group that may 

or may not formulate some time in the future. 

 With regard to Rocky, which has an 

active work group, I sort of agree with Mark. 

 In fact, I agree with the Mark that it does 

create a bit of a dilemma and that transfer 

probably would be a reasonable thing to do in 

that case. I hope that helps. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Maybe we should 

transfer it with a recommendation or something 

 like that. If the subcommittee agrees with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Ron's recommendation, SC&A's recommendation, 

maybe we could transfer back to the work group 

and say we have finished our work on this. We 

recommend that it be closed but we are leaving 

it open until we hear from the Rocky Flats 

work group chairman. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Steve, could you 

follow up a minute on that? The work group 

meeting was 3/24. And it says Wanda is to 

inform the Rocky Flats chair that the issue is 

in progress. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's for 

issue number three. There was -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: The work group 

meeting? You mean the subcommittee meeting 

was 3/24. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes at the time 

we were a work group. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now below that is a 

follow-up action. Is that on the same item? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this follow-up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

action is on the same item. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Follow-up to what? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It is a follow up to 

actually it is NIOSH response. Then SC&A 

follows up NIOSH response. So we are a little 

bit off -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that follow-up 

was before the work group meeting? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- follow-up was 

before the work group meeting, and the work 

group meeting gave us this direction based 

upon SC&A's recommendation that it be closed, 

the subcommittee agreed with that, and we 

agreed also that Wanda would contact Mark to 

let them know that this is the action we had 

taken on this particular -- and this is what I 

entered into the database based upon our, what 

was it, March meeting, March 9th meeting. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, can I -- I can just 

remind you of what was discussed, although you 

are fresher, you read the transcript. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

didn't actually read the transcript, but I 

recall this discussion. And we went around on 

this, what the procedure would be for a little 

bit, but the resolution was that this 

procedures committee, when it was dealing with 

a site-specific issue and resolving it, that 

the procedures subcommittee would close it, if 

necessary, whatever, if it decided it was 

ready to close it but that it would inform, 

just as it is shown in this matrix, that it 

would inform the working group chair that it 

had closed it. 

 That would not prevent the working 

group chair from continuing with the issue 

itself, but it would be closed as far as the 

procedures subcommittee. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is out of our 

hands. 

 MR. KATZ: Out of the procedures 

subcommittee's hands. So that was, at least 

that was the thinking at that meeting as how 

we would go forward with these because the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

procedures subcommittee, at this point, is 

finished with it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That doesn't close 

it necessarily -- 

 MR. KATZ: It doesn't close it for 

the Board. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- for the Board or 

-- 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- the other work 

group. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But my interpretation 

was that this information was going to be 

communicated from me -- 

 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- directly to Mark 

and give him what we, from our perspective, 

what the status is now, including that item 

number three is still in progress not closed. 

 But from this subcommittee's point of view, 

all of these items are now closed and 

transferred to him. And that was going to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the thrust and actually the content of my 

email. 

 You know, this, as you pointed out, 

we keep going around this what is the process 

when we come to these things, especially with 

respect to transferring things. And since we 

are not going to be transferring our 

responsibility, we are going to say our 

responsibility is closed and we are not going 

to be dealing with this anymore. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Is that making sense 

to you? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, yes, I 

guess. To me, it just creates a little 

confusion because if, you know, what if we 

pick it up in the work group and then we 

decide that, no, the issue wasn't resolved and 

yet it was posed in the procedures -- I just 

as soon transfer it right away and not deal 

with it in two places. I mean, I think we are 

going to have similar people handling it from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

SC&A's standpoint. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, Mark, I mean 

that whole idea is that procedures 

subcommittee has nowhere to go with it. But 

in notifying the work group chair, you in this 

case, with Rocky Flats, that the Procedures 

Work Group has done its work on this and this 

is what it has found, you are certainly, as a 

work group chair for Rocky Flats, you are 

welcome to keep this as a live issue for the 

Rocky Flats work group. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then why just 

transfer it all? We are not going to lose the 

work. I agree that any work that was done 

could be transferred but just transfer it 

instead of saying closed and transferred. 

That is confusing to me. 

 MR. KATZ: But Mark, if you agree 

that it should be closed, there is no reason 

to adopt this open issue and have to close it 

in your work group. I mean, if you were to 

agree with these, then you would have nothing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to do. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I kind of agree with 

Mark, actually. I would recommend, I would 

like to see it transferred to the Rocky Flats 

work group with a recommendation that it be 

closed. Because once it gets closed, you 

know, if they disagree with our 

recommendation, then basically they have to 

reopen it or something like that. It becomes 

confusing to people who are looking at the 

record. 

 Because if all of a sudden we have 

an issue that is going along, going along, it 

is closed, and now all of a sudden it is 

reopened, you know, I think it would be 

cleaner if we went along, went along, and 

transferred it with a recommendation to be 

closed and then it was either closed in the 

work group. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How did we handle 

TBD-6000 stuff? Did we show it just as 

transferred? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, just 

transferred. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, those are all 

just transferred. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It was my intention 

that this would show simply transferred and 

that the communication would say we closed 

this, we closed this, but it doesn't 

necessarily -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But that's on TBD. 

 Did we show it as closed -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or simply 

transferred and that is it? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, we didn't 

-- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or is it out of our 

hands as a transfer? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: On the TBDs we 

didn't get into, well, we did get into some 

discussion on it. But we just transferred it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

started to resolve the -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right, but in the 

-- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In fact, some of 

the items were resolved in this work group, 

not on the appendix BB but on TBD-6000, I 

think some of them had been dealt with before 

the transfer. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know, I just 

think as a long as -- I don't think it's good 

to close it because then -- I agree with 

exactly what Steve was saying. Then if we get 

it on the Rocky Flats Work Group and something 

-- we find something else and then we decide, 

you know, that it is a problem or whatever. 

And then what do you do? 

 Do I contact Wanda and it is 

reopened? I think that creates confusion. I 

think it would be easier just to say, you 

know, we have got this initial findings, we 

have got initial comments from or response 

from NIOSH and then transfer them on ones 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

where the work groups exist. 

 I mean, there are several, like Y12, I would say arguably it should stay here 

because we don't have an active work group, 

and I don't think there was actually ever a Y12 work group. I mean, it was always done in 

a larger subcommittee. So the ones where we 

don't have any, just keep them here. I think 

K-25 is another example that we don't have an 

active work group so we could handle that 

under procedures, for lack of a better place 

to handle it. You know? But I think that 

would be cleaner just overall. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well my concern 

remains the one that I stipulated earlier. We 

don't get these things unless they have been 

given to us by the Board. And if this is the 

way that we are going to handle it, then it is 

fairly clear to me that the Board needs to be 

made aware of what the issue is and, in the 

future, simply avoid selecting any sitespecific procedure for which a work group of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

any kind exists. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. I think it 

was sort of a mistake. But I think part of 

what we were was trying to do, if I remember 

right, was SC&A needed a workload and we were 

in the process of tasking and we assigned a 

lot of these procedures and nobody really, 

like John said, we didn't really look that 

closely at the facts or the implications down 

the line that they were -- DR. MAURO: 

Yes, Mark, it really was something that we 

thought would be, this was way before the 

workload, we had already done all of this 

review work, and we really -- it didn't really 

have a home other than white papers and as 

part of the work group meetings that were 

addressing site-specific issues. And we said, 

why not convert, in order to get a nice, clean 

complete record, let's turn these reviews into 

procedure reviews and package them and deliver 

them as official deliverables because it 

really didn't have much of a cost impact. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And it was really wellintended. But now we are here, and I think 

that whatever decision the subcommittee makes 

on how you would like to proceed, you know, 

that is fine. Please, go ahead. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, Wanda, if 

you want to bring it back to the Board, that 

is fine. I am not sure, Paul, how you feel, 

if we need to vote as a board, I mean -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think 

Wanda's point is appropriate, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- in a general 

sense. And in a sense we did that on TBD-6000 

because the Board established a new work group 

to specifically handle those. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think it 

would be fairly simple to mandate as we go 

forward, and then the transfer could be done 

but to mandate that site-specific procedures 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for which there is a work group should be, as 

a matter of course, turned over to that group. 

 And it seems to me we can still 

track them here and show the transfer as 

having occurred, so that we are still tracking 

the procedures -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- as a procedure 

work group and then just show it in the table 

as having been transferred. And that way we 

still have it in the starting database and 

then show where it is going. 

 So, I think we can do that in a 

formal way. I think that was Wanda's concern. 

 Otherwise, we are doing something that was 

not mandated by the Board to start with. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is fine. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And perhaps it 

would be appropriate for the chair of the 

subcommittee to make such a recommendation to 

the full Board as a method or a way of going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

forward on these things. And if that passed, 

then I think what would happen here, is we 

would just revert to that as the policy and 

then we would show it as transferred. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So right now 

basically we are -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And we wouldn't 

close it then. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It would be their 

job to close it. Because once we show it as 

transferred, in a sense, it is out of our 

hands. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, correct. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It has the effect 

of closing it for further work by this work 

group. 

 MR. KATZ: Just for clarification, 

does that mean, will procedures subcommittee 

continue to track it until the work group 

closes it or does the work group have its own 

tracking then? What happens in tracking? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well one thing that 

we could ask for as part of your 

recommendation is that the appropriate work 

group inform us when they have closed it and 

then we could show it as having been closed by 

them. That is one way of handling it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that would 

work. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If you want to 

close the loop here within the Procedures Work 

Group. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look at the 

one that we talked about there, this is the 

TBD. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It is basically, it 

is still being tracked. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: But it is being 

tracked, and it is showing that all 13 of them 

have been transferred. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Now essentially, 

maybe the TBD work group will come back and 

say we have looked at these 13 and we have 

closed them all out and basically they can 

move over into this column. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and if the 

Board so mandates that whenever a transfer 

occurs that the appropriate work group report 

back. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Report back to the, 

yes, with an email saying that yes, we have 

closed these out. And so that would be, but 

to answer your question, Ted, right now, we 

are still carrying them on the books. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: As a transfer. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: As a transfer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They are tracked 

but only tracked out, right, and then that's -

- right now we don't have a formal follow-up 

on these. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's right. Like 

I said, I mean, once it gets transferred, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

's more or less off the subcommittee's books. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is off our books. 

Right. We will not take further action on it. 

 And so, unless we are advised by the work 

group at a later time, it remains forever 

simply a transferred item for us. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, so we will want 

the work group to advise -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: To advise. 

 MR. KATZ: -- to advise the 

subcommittee when it has closed the issue. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. This is the -- 

 MR. KATZ: That is the piece of 

instruction that is needed. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- feedback loop that 

we have not even discussed in the past. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

Hinnefeld. I have just one thing to offer on 

this. If we could have the transfers occur 

quickly rather than after a while because we 

would readily rather avoid going through a 

resolution process in one forum and having it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

transferred to another forum for another 

resolution process. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think if we take 

this action, it becomes automatic. If it is a 

site-specific procedure for which a 

subcommittee or a work group exists, it goes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It does directly to 

the work group. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And that 

can show up immediately and -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I can go through and 

make a list of the procedures which are sitespecific that are currently in the database 

and -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That are sitespecific for which we have work groups. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, site-specific. 

 It would be, well, if you look at the list of 

procedures, you can go down, there is one with 

SRS in it here. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: A couple with SRS on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that screen. Y-12, but there doesn't seem to 

be a work group for Y-12; X-10; K-25; Rocky 

Flats, there is one Rocky which is the 27 that 

we are talking about; Hanford, Savannah River; 

Paducah. 

 I can go through this rather 

quickly and pull out the procedures that have 

a specific site in their title, and I can work 

with John or somebody who can tell me whether 

or not these are, there are work groups 

associated with these procedures and then let 

the subcommittee know via email that these are 

the ones that have work groups associated with 

them and do we want to transfer all the issues 

associated with these procedures to those work 

groups. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If you will provide me 

with that list when you have completed it, so 

that it identifies specifically work groups 

exist, work groups do not exist for those 

specific procedures, I will include that in my 

discussion to the full Board at Amarillo when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I am giving our report. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that would be 

important for the Board to make the decision 

because it is shifting workload -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- to other work 

groups, too. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They need to know 

that in advance. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MS. BRACKETT: In some cases, I am 

thinking particularly the internal dosimetry 

coworker study, since that is what I am most 

involved in, where there is multiple 

documents, several of the issues are not sitespecific. They are related to how the 

coworker studies are done. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Across the complex. 

 MS. BRACKETT: And even within this 

group, we get conflicting comments because 

different people have reviewed them and they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

give, you know, kind of opposite comments. 

And I am concerned that if they start going to 

different groups, they will be even more 

divergent than they are now. It is very 

difficult to answer questions when you have 

different opinions coming in. 

 MR. KATZ: That sort of relates to 

what Stu was saying earlier. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, she said it 

better than I did. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, about recovering 

ground that one thought was resolved. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Even more so 

though, I think, having heard her say it now 

is if these are very similar, the approach on 

these internal coworker studies, even though 

it says coworker for Y-12 or coworker for 

Paducah, the approach that is done to build 

that coworker model tends to be the same. And 

so when you have one review group look at it, 

now I think we would have the benefit of 

having SC&A be the constant, would be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 229

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

constant. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well both NIOSH and 

SC&A are a constant. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, so then you 

would have that as a constant, but now you 

have one body with comments and resolutions to 

resolve and then another body with a very 

similar document with comments and 

resolutions. And so the difficulty here will 

be will we get the same type of resolution on 

comments from these two different resolution 

bodies since it will be the work groups and 

not SC&A who actually determines the status 

and when a case is closed or not. So that is 

just going to be, you know, somewhat 

difficult. I mean, is that -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it seems to 

me that that is the point at which both SC&A 

and NIOSH need to point out to whatever work 

groups are working on this to say this was the 

approach done at this particular facility and 

if some other approach is completely out of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

whack with that, they need to know that those 

two things are not sort of in parallel. 

 Now I don't know the resolution to 

that, if we have strongly held views on one or 

the other, but it would seem to me it would be 

important for people to be involved who have a 

more detailed knowledge of a particular site 

who have been looking at all the related 

documents. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask Liz a 

question? Isn't there a, I mean, looking at 

many of these internal coworker models, I 

can't remember the procedure number but there 

is a procedure for, a generic procedure on how 

to develop these internal coworker models, 

isn't there? 

 MS. BRACKETT: There is OTIB-0019 

and there is procedure 95. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, 19 is the one 

I was remembering. 

 MS. BRACKETT: That is not 

extremely detailed. It gives kind of the high 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

level view of how they are done. Well, and 

maybe -- you're right. Maybe the resolution 

is to move some of the comments that are on 

the individual coworker studies to that OTIB 

because some of them are more geared towards 

what would come from following OTIB-19. It is 

just that there are conflicting comments on 

some of the individual coworker OTIBs. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I think we have, this 

is John, a dilemma on both sides. Namely, I 

could envision that you would have conflicting 

comments coming in from SC&A, if different 

groups of people are involved. We also 

noticed that the implementation of, I have 

noticed in being involved in many of these 

groups that on some occasions, one approach 

would be used and one application at a site, 

and another approach would be used at another 

application at a site. And it's not always 

immediately apparent why two different 

approaches were taken. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I think we are all -- it is 

difficult to keep things in a very consistent 

manner, especially when we are talking many 

years of work, where there is a maturation 

process, where the approaches are evolving. 

So I think this is something that we have to 

deal with, and it is really a matter of crosstalk between the different groups of people 

involved, whether we keep them here or if 

everything is distributed to separate work 

groups dealing with site-specific, there is 

still the issue that each of those work groups 

must resolve their issues in a consistent 

manner, if there are site-specific work 

groups, separate ones. 

 So, I mean, this problem with 

consistency is going to always be a challenge. 

 And so I think the way in which this issue is 

handled, whatever you decide administratively, 

we are still going to have to struggle with 

the consistency issue because it will exist 

amongst different work groups dealing with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

different site profiles. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is a shame we 

didn't have this thorny issue a little more 

completely fleshed out. We could have very 

easily spent that third day in Amarillo 

dealing with this. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think the 

third day is already -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The third day in 

Amarillo has been spoken for. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes, I know it 

has been gone. I am not suggesting that. I 

am just saying I do not see any simple way to 

work through these issues. It appears to me 

that it is going to take a significant meeting 

of the minds and a rather large group of 

people. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I mean, one 

possibility for cutting through it, and this 

is difficult but we do have, you know, our 

procedures review, the one thing that we could 

look at is, just reflecting on what Liz said, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is we have the benefit of seeing all of these 

coworker internal models in front of us and we 

could say, you know, finding number 1.1, 2.1, 

2.4, are all sort of generic, you know, 

overriding issues. We are going to look into 

that on our Procedures Work Group because we 

want consistency on the generic policy going 

forward, you know, application of the coworker 

models. And then these other findings get 

more data-specific or site-specific and we are 

going to transfer those immediately. So we 

may discuss some of the more -- I don't know. 

 That gets complicated, too, I know. 

 As I am saying it, I realize that. But it 

may be a way to maintain sort of some level of 

consistency on the -- I can see that point. I 

mean, TIB-0019 is an overriding document but 

it is a little bit, you know -- so there could 

be some findings that come up that may benefit 

from you know, we want to have some 

consistency. But there is definitely a 

utility to transferring some of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information to the site-specific work groups. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Here is another 

thought. If it becomes evident, let's say, to 

NIOSH or ORAU or to SC&A that a couple of work 

groups are quite divergent in addressing some 

sort of issues and maybe neutron related issue 

or whatever it may be, it would be quite in 

order to ask two work groups to get together 

to have a joint meeting to address how we 

approach this particular issue that in one 

sense is common to both sides. They will have 

some individuality but why not, and you know, 

ask the Designated Federal Official to ask 

both work groups to get together, and we have 

to work that out, in terms of -- 

 MR. KATZ: We have a numbers issue. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well often, it is 

the same people. We are making one 

recommendation here. 

 No, I mean, we would have to work 

that out and if it is a quorum, it is a public 

meeting. We can take care of that, too, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

suppose but -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Or just have the 

chairmen of the work groups get together. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or the chairmen or 

a couple of people from each work group. 

Maybe a work group of the work group. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, we could 

hold a Board meeting where not all Board 

members have to come to every Board meeting. 

You could -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am just saying I 

think there are ways to address this if it 

becomes evident that we are going off on 

tangents. We can get the appropriate folks 

together. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I will 

restate what I was saying, Paul, maybe and -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I heard what 

you were saying, there are some issues very 

site-specific and some more generic anyway. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, but I was 

thinking what we would do in the procedures 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

review, you know, maybe instead of, you know, 

you said going forward immediately 

transferring them to a work group. Maybe we 

can provide sort of a triage function on the 

procedures review process that we -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Once Steve 

identifies all the -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, well, we 

look through and we say, you know, procedures 

review looked at finding number one, three, 

and seven, because we felt they were generic 

and we don't trust many of the coworker type 

procedure. 

 Two, four, six and eight we didn't 

address at all. We will transfer them all to 

your work group for consideration but hear 

their input on one, three, and five, or 

whatever, you know. So we do sort of a triage 

approach where we defer the obviously sitespecific issues and we discuss and try to 

resolve the more generic issues on the 

procedures review work group before we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

transfer, if that makes any sense. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But then the work 

group chair, if they react as you just did and 

say I am not so sure I am enthusiastic about 

accepting your recommendation, then -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, yes at least 

we let it out for consideration and maybe we 

can, I don't know. Yes, I know what you mean, 

Wanda. It is more of, you know in an attempt 

to try to get some consistency, you know for 

some findings, we would just say, well, we 

look at this and you can tell right away that 

it belongs in said profile group. I am not 

even sure what I am saying. I'm not even sure 

what an example of that is. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But then another 

finding clearly looks more generic and we try 

to at least say -- and then we give it to the 

other work group you know, here is -- we 

looked into this a bit. Here is what our 

subcommittee identified. And you can consider 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this and agree or not agree with it, but here 

it is. So, we try to do some work ahead of 

time for you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: My concern continues 

to be how many times we reinvent which wheel. 

 We have gotten into this early on in our 

program by, for example, going through the 

whole list of radionuclides. Have you 

considered this, have you considered, have you 

considered this, at each and every site that 

we encountered. 

 But there is, I don't have a 

recommendation and I certainly don't have a 

resolution. But if we are going to pursue the 

possibility of what you have referred to as a 

 triage function, then there needs to be, 

seems to me, some sort of agreement by the 

full Board as to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well you might even 

work something into your recommendation Wanda 

but one concern I have, if you make the 

analogy with medical triage, medical triage, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

those are very quick decisions. You can't 

spend a week trying to decide which patients 

are going to die and which aren't. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And we don't want 

to end up in a situation where we are debating 

for days which ones to transfer. It has got 

to be very rapid. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That was part of 

my point, Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If it is obvious 

from the title of the finding or the item, and 

we can make that decision rapidly, I would say 

great. Otherwise, it seems to me -- well, you 

understand what I am saying. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, that 

was part of my point, using that term was if 

we look at the finding and say we just talked 

about this with whatever model and we knew, 

you know, this is what it is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we can decide 

very quickly, boom, boom, boom, -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- then I think 

that is great. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. I could 

 offer a perspective. I see the process of 

the Board, the concept of the Board, the 

concept of the subcommittee and the concept of 

work groups as a hierarchy of organization 

where the subcommittee, the procedures 

subcommittee, maybe we should think about the 

procedure subcommittee as a vehicle to help 

ensure that all the work groups are consistent 

in the way in which they make their decisions 

regarding technical issues. 

 So, in other words, we never talked 

about this before but the very fact that there 

would be work groups working problems at 

particular sites, they are doing their job as 

best they can for that site. I see the 

Procedures Work Group as a higher level 

organization whose part of its mandate 

certainly should be to make sure that those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

decisions and judgments that are being made 

amongst all the different work groups are 

consistent. So, I mean, it is a different way 

 to think about what we are doing here in the 

Procedures Work Group. We never talked about 

it that way. So the very fact that we may, 

because of the way things unfolded on this 

subcommittee, let's say we do start to 

transfer, particular OTIBs over, I still 

believe the Procedures Work Group has a 

mandate to make sure that whatever is going on 

in the individual work groups, with the way 

they are dealing with a particular issue is in 

fact consistent and compatible, not only 

amongst the different sites, but also 

consistent and compatible with the generic 

procedures, the ones that Liz had mentioned 

before. 

 So in other words, I see us as an 

integrating function across the program. And 

that may help in terms of thinking through the 

best way to move forward. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well I think also, 

John, along the same lines, if you look at, 

just looking at what I have got on the screen, 

we have half a dozen internal dosimetry 

coworker data procedures that are in the 

procedures database. And we can go through -- 

the next step that we can take when we look at 

these is identify those as being site-specific 

procedures. But then we can go through and 

take an action item to look at the issues in 

each one of those and compare them. Like 

compare the issues that are in the Y-12 

associated with OTIB-0029 for Y-12 and compare 

those with the issues that we have raised in 

OTIB-0034 for X-10 and see whether or not 

there are similar issues or whether they are a 

completely different set of issues. 

 Because if we find out that we look 

at all six of these internal dosimetry 

coworker procedures and we find out that nine 

out of ten of the issues that we raised in 

each one of these are the same, then we have, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically we come back and we have generic 

issues that maybe need to be addressed by an 

overall body like the subcommittee. But if 

all of the issues that are in these individual 

 site-specific procedures are more or less 

site-specific issues, then I think, you know, 

transferring them back to the site-specific 

work group would be the right thing to do. 

 Does that make any sense? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does, to a 

degree. But like you, when I run my eye down 

that list and I see internal dosimetry 

coworker, external dosimetry coworker, 

internal, external, internal, external, the 

instinct is to make an assumption up front 

that a significant number of these issues is 

going to be duplicative. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That is what we want 

to confirm. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and how we go 

about doing that without putting them all out 

on the table at the same time and looking at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

them issue by issue, I don't know. Being a 

slacker by nature, it is the amount of work 

that might be involved in that seems rather 

large to me. I don't know how else to do it. 

I can't think of any other approach. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That is why I would 

suggest that, you know, we can, somebody here 

at SC&A, we can do that for the subcommittee. 

 At least take a first shot at doing that for 

the subcommittee. I don't know if we would 

have it ready for the, that portion of it 

ready for the Board meeting because like you 

say, it would be a rather large undertaking. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That would be too much 

to ask, I believe. But maybe definitely by 

the time this subcommittee gets together again 

and I think it is in about a month or so, we 

might be able to have something that we would 

be able to put on the table and discuss. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I think after 

we look at it, we will get a better feel for 

what direction we might have to go and a feel 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for how much commonality there is from siteto-site, on these findings. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If we do that, we 

can bring some examples and say, you know, 

these are from Y-12, X-10, K-25. We think, 

you know, these are three or four different, 

these are three or four issues from these, we 

think they are all basically the same issue, 

show them to the Board and say or show them to 

the subcommittee and the subcommittee says 

yes, we agree with you or no we disagree with 

you or what. 

 But we can get that piece of work 

for the subcommittee probably by the next time 

we get together in June. 

 CHAIR MUNN: This discussion just 

keeps moving into deeper and deeper water from 

my point of view. For example, when we 

started this discussion, it was my expectation 

that I was going to recommend to the full 

Board that anything, any procedure which was 

site-specific and had an existing work group 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not be recommended to the subcommittee to 

begin with. Now, I look at this and I see up 

there are several items which have 

subcommittees, I mean which have work groups, 

several items which do not have work groups. 

The identifying title is the very same for 

them, except for the name of the site. 

 And if we are going to perform this 

function we were just discussing with respect 

to commonality, then I cannot make this 

recommendation to the Board because if we are 

going to address the commonality issue, then 

we must see each of these procedures as they 

come to us, whether there is a work group 

attached or not. 

 So, this becomes stickier and 

stickier. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: And then there is 

also the point that once we look at these 

similar documents from different sites, then 

we are going to have this, discuss some common 

issues, separate procedures, so it is, even at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that level, down in the weeds and it is -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Stickier and stickier. 

 Paul? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it is going to 

turn out that for some sites, such as Y-12, 

the procedure defaults back here. So, we are 

going to have the same discussion as some of 

the other work groups, just not on their sitespecific issue. So, it is almost hard to make 

the recommendation until we see what we have 

have. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is. 

 DR. MAURO: I think this -- when we 

do get to OTIB-0029, item 3. We are going to 

find out something interesting that what is 

happening there, and it goes right to what you 

just said Paul, there is the implementation of 

the generic approach has taken a special form 

on Y-12. And there is reasons for it that 

need to be discussed and whether or not the 

judgments, the way in which OTIB-0029 

implements its coworker model, is especially 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

designed for Y-12, for a variety of reasons. 

 So, you know, what I am getting at 

is that in the end, I think that, and this is 

something you know, I will say it again, I 

think that the procedures subcommittee does 

have a mandate to help ensure consistency 

across the Board. And I am not quite sure of 

the vehicle by which it will do, perform that 

service. And one of the things that is going 

to happen when we do get to OTIB-0029 is we 

will see it in action. But still, we really 

never discussed the role of the Procedures 

Work Group in ensuring consistency across the 

board and how it will do that. 

 I can't see any other place, except 

at the Board level, where there is the 

machinery in place to make sure that 

everything is being implemented in a 

consistent way. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But if it is tough 

here, it is impossible at the Board level. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 250

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: And if you are 

suggesting that there is something OTIB-0029 

item 3 that might lighten the load of this 

batch of albatrosses that we have around our 

neck, perhaps we should go directly there. 

 DR. MAURO: Well you will see very 

quickly what was done there and why, for that 

item 3 in particular. There are other items 

that have different problems. And I think 

that it goes right toward consistency and 

there will be a very nice example. Whether 

you want to continue this or move on and try 

that out and see what happens but I just want 

to let you know that OTIB-0029 number 3 is 

going to be a very nice example of the very 

problem that we are talking about. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for the 

heads up. Paul? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a suggestion 

for moving forward here. And that is, why 

don't we take specific action on Rocky Flats. 

 My suggestion would be that we simply change 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that status to transfer to the Rocky Flats 

group and delay the other recommendation that 

we talked about that you described where you 

were going to recommend -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: To the Board. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- to the Board, 

until we see the outcome of what Steve 

prepares on kind of the breakdown of these. 

And then we can have that discussion in more 

detail. I don't think there is an urgency 

today to get that recommendation to the Board. 

 I think we can deal with the Rocky Flats 

issue for Mark if we have that right before 

us. We need to get the rest of the 

information as to what these look like in more 

detail. 

 And then in relation to that, we 

can discuss John's idea of our responsibility. 

 I don't like the idea that we are going to be 

the policemen for the other work groups but we 

do want to ensure consistency in the review of 

the procedures not on how they do their work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but on how they evaluate their procedures. 

 So my suggestion is that we only 

take an action on the Rocky Flats thing and 

defer action on this Board recommendation 

until we have a chance to look at more detail 

on these other items. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If we are seriously 

going to consider performing an integrating 

function then clearly we have to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't feel like 

we are ready to go to the Board with the big 

picture yet until we see this. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. I have no idea 

where the frame is, much less the picture. 

And we don't even know how big it is. So, we 

really can't do that. 

 Mark, do you have any problem at 

all with our just simply showing 27 as 

transferred and sending you -- you have all of 

the information with respect to what the 

recommendation of this group was regarding the 

respective items. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 253

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is fine, 

Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I will in 

fact -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I opened up this 

can of worms but -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well yes, it is, -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- we had to deal 

with it. You know? 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is a can of worms. 

 Yes, Mike? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: We could also think 

about possibly continuing to operate as we do 

currently. And if the work group, chair sees 

a particular procedure that he feels should be 

in their domain rather than this one, to make 

that request, to give his reasons why, just 

like Mark just did. And then that way, it 

might put some of the worms back in the can. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In the meantime, 

yes, sure. Or if we see something that should 

be transferred. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GIBSON: It is obvious. 

 MR. KATZ: I was thinking along the 

same lines, Mike. I mean this is a natural 

place because of the consistency issue for 

these things to have a home base, in effect, 

but that in every case where there are 

particulars that might matter to the work 

group, where there is a work group, that there 

is that opportunity to send it to them, for 

them to address their issues. It can still 

come back here for consistency manner, if 

there is any final closure. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Or for the work 

chair to request the procedure. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Absolutely. 

Either way, whether this group sees that it 

needs to go there or the work group chair 

requests it. I think that makes a lot of 

sense in sort of simplifying it away about 

having to do all of this analysis. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And probably it doesn't 

have to be formalized, as long as all of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

parties involved understand what the general 

process would be. 

 Nevertheless, it requires a full 

Board discussion, so that all involved will 

have some understanding of what the general 

consensus appears to be. 

 And I am still going to need the 

list from you, Steve, definitely. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Are we talking just 

about the one list where we identify the 

procedures or the detailed list? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. My, I didn't 

expect that to happen. Do we need to plow on 

here or do we need a five minute break? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: A break would be 

helpful to me because I have a phone call I 

need to make. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, let's do five 

minutes. 

 MR. KATZ: Is five minutes enough, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Stu? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well let's be 

realistic, ten minutes. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 3:18 p.m. and resumed 

at 3:32 p.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, folks on the 

phone, we are back, or most of us are back. 

Mark, do we have you? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am here. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are going to take a 

look at new OCAS-IG-004, review findings. 

 So, Steve, would you like to do 

that for us? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I will start 

anyways. And John and Hans, I think are both 

on the phone and they were the ones who 

actually did the review so if they want to 

jump in, they can jump in. 

 Back on March 30th, we sent to 

NIOSH our review of OCAS-IG-004 in the draft 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

report. And there were, if you look in the 

executive summary, there were seven findings 

that we identified and they have been entered 

into the database. Actually, when I looked at 

it, I found there were six findings and one 

really observation which was, basically, SC&A 

was in agreement. We put it in based upon 

previous items, similar type items, I did 

enter that into the database as well. 

 If we want to look at the -- if we 

want to walk through all seven of these items, 

we can do it here on the database or we can do 

it in the report itself. I'm not sure it 

might be easier to read in the report because 

we can get more on the screen at one time. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It probably is, yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The first one is 

Part 82 has no explicit language permitting 

the use of data from other sites for the 

purpose of performing dose reconstructions. 

And I don't know if you want to read the whole 

thing or if we just want to -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 258

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, just the gist of 

it. Just the sense of what the finding is. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We believe that this 

ambiguity in Part 82 should be brought to the 

attention of the Board because the manner in 

which Part 82 is interpreted with respect to 

this matter has profound implications with 

respect to SEC petitions, evaluation of the 

Board site profiles, dose reconstructions. 

 So that is really, I guess this 

issue is, was brought forward so that the 

Board would be aware that there is no explicit 

language in Part 82 about permitting the use 

of other site data. 

 And John or Hans, you want to 

expand on that at all? 

 MR. KATZ: Let me just suggest 

first, -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: -- I think, because I am 

not even sure this is properly characterized 

as a finding if findings are actionable items. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I mean, the Office of General 

Counsel has already given a legal 

interpretation that surrogate data is 

allowable under Part 82 and has informed the 

Board of that. I mean, it notified the Board 

that it has made that finding. And really, to 

me, it is sort of out of scope. 

 The Board, of course, already was 

engaged on that issue but it out of scope for 

SC&A to be questioning this as an ambiguity 

because it is not ambiguous anymore. It is a 

matter of HHS interpretation which governs all 

legal interpretations of EEOICPA, as far as 

the OCAS work is concerned and the Secretary's 

work, under the Secretary's responsibilities 

is concerned. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That being the case, 

there really is not anything that this body 

can do with respect to that finding, other 

than to make a notation, which seems 

appropriate, that the content of this finding 

has been covered by a legal interpretation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and I think we 

should maybe even identify that the Designated 

Federal Official has informed the work group 

or reminded the work group -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Sure. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- of what you 

said. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Of what he said. 

 MR. KATZ: That the Office of 

General Counsel of HHS has rendered a legal 

guidance on this matter, which is that 

surrogate data-- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: My 004 isn't 

matching up with his 004. 

 MR. KATZ: -- is allowable under 

Part 82. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: His shows 0011, IG. 

 CHAIR MUNN: IG-004. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got the wrong 

one. It is the wrong one, I guess. It's task 

three, it says that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The Designated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Federal Official has stated that the HHS IG 

has rendered his opinion. 

 MR. KATZ: Office of General 

Counsel. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The Office of 

General Counsel. 

 MR. KATZ: The OGC is the acronym. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: OGC. 

 MR. KATZ: -- has rendered its 

opinion. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Its opinion. Its 

opinion that Part -- 

 MR. KATZ: -- 82. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- 82 -- 

 MR. KATZ: -- allows -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- allows for the -- 

 MR. KATZ: -- the use of surrogate 

data. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- the use of data. 

 CHAIR MUNN: From other sites, 

right? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, which is by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

definition from other sites. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Do we need to add 

that or is that just understood with 

surrogate? 

 MR. KATZ: I think it -- well, you 

can. Either way. You can be redundant if you 

want to be, for clarity. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, redundancy is 

sometimes a good thing. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Therefore, this is 

a non-issue and closed. 

 MR. KATZ: Not an issue. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Not an issue and is 

closed. And today's date is 5/1/2009. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is very good. 

Can we do as well for two, three, four, five, 

and six? 

 Item 2. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Item 2 is, you know, 

if we go back and read from the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Maybe I can help out on 

Item 2. Because the finding on Item 1 and its 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

closure basically makes Item 2 moot. I will 

explain why. 

 Item 2 simply states that the 

arguments made in OCAS-004, whereby the 

statements are made that precedent regarding 

surrogate data that they draw upon, basically 

this is a section of IG-004 that describes the 

reason they feel it is appropriate to use 

surrogate data is by drawing from experience 

in other venues, mainly, the use in 

epidemiological studies. 

 We find the arguments made in 004 

not to be convincing. Mainly, the use of 

surrogate data in epidemiological studies for 

the reasons discussed at length in our report 

really are not applicable to the use of 

surrogate data in dose reconstructions. 

 So but nevertheless, the issue, 

number 2, only goes toward one, namely, we do 

not find the arguments made related to 

epidemiological studies and the use of 

surrogate data to be convincing. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So it really is not important any 

longer in terms of the judgment that the 

interpretation of the regulations of 82 are in 

fact embracing and provide for the use of 

surrogate data. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So John, as I 

understand what you are saying, basically we 

are going to retract or withdraw issue number 

two, in view of -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well let me -- can 

I weigh in? Can we slow down on that one? 

 DR. BEHLING: The reason I 

obviously went through a lengthy discussion 

regarding the use of surrogate data that is 

defined under epidemiologic studies, radiation 

compensation program, and general exposure 

modeling, those are the three areas that I 

discussed at length because it was really 

those three areas that were used to justify 

the use of surrogate data in 29 or in 

implementation guide 004. 

 And as a result of that, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically went through each of those and said 

I can't buy in on the justification but as has 

already been said on behalf of finding number 

one, if the Office of General Counsel has 

decreed that surrogate data are okay, you 

don't need to justify on the basis of the use 

of epidemiologic studies, radiation 

compensation programs, or general exposure 

modeling. 

 And so it doesn't go away. It just 

simply has no value left in terms of its own 

justification for being binding. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I weigh in on 

this one? I think it does have some value, 

Hans and John. 

 I think that the first item is a 

legal question. Ted answered that correctly 

that the regulation, I mean interpretation 

from counsel was that it is allowed. Allowed 

doesn't necessarily mean that we believe it is 

 -- I mean, we can still question the basis 

for it. It is allowed. I think that is what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our surrogate work in the subcommittee is 

looking at actually, surrogate work or work 

group, whatever, that you know, we don't 

dispute the fact that NIOSH has that 

interpretation but we are questioning what 

kind and what circumstances would allow for or 

should we have some ground rules on this when 

a surrogate worker can and cannot be used or 

at least in terms of our recommendation. I 

mean, NIOSH can or cannot accept those. 

 So I think this is still relevant, 

a relevant discussion. I don't think it 

necessarily goes away because it gets to the 

sort of background of when do we think it is 

prudent to use surrogate workers and when do 

we think it is not so scientifically 

defensible. And I would like to hear more 

discussion on this, quite frankly, because I 

think it is important. 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Mark. And I 

just want to confirm completely that your 

interpretation, that is exactly right. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 267

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

SC&A certainly is charged with helping the 

Board think through when it is scientifically 

and technically defensible to use surrogate 

data. That is absolutely intended to be sort 

of the subject for discussion. And HHS' legal 

interpretation is limited just to that, as to 

whether it can be used, not how it is to be 

used. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That certainly is 

under discussion by the surrogate data work 

group. And Dr. Melius has already presented 

the group with his hierarchy of data and 

plenty of thought-provoking information is 

available to that work group, which has been 

unable to meet. Unfortunately, there has been 

too many conflicts among the members but for 

whom we do have a scheduled teleconference 

coming up prior to the upcoming Amarillo 

meeting. 

 So that group will be meeting by 

telephone and I am quite sure that this issue 

will be part of that discussion. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Well, let me just update 

you on that surrogate data. Jim is convening 

the meeting next Friday but that meeting is 

not going to take up this issue of looking at 

this IG and the surrogate data in general. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, it isn't. 

 MR. KATZ: It is limited to 

addressing one site where he wants to get some 

resolution as to what technically needs to be 

done to go forward with one of [Identifying 

Information Redacted] sites. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Texas City. 

 MR. KATZ: Texas City, thank you. 

That is the limit, the scope of it. It is 

just going to be a several hour meeting, I 

believe. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I didn't 

realize that. Thank you, Ted. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But Texas City is 

kind of a test case on the draft criteria for 

which the surrogate data can be applied. 

 MR. KATZ: That is correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because there are 

currently four criteria that are being looked 

at. 

 But this one, Hans, your argument 

is that it is inappropriate to base surrogate 

data on epi studies. Is that -- 

 DR. BEHLING: No, no, no. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 DR. BEHLING: It is not 

inappropriate. What I was, the central theme 

here is to say that the reasons for surrogate 

data, just because they are used in 

epidemiologic studies or in the other 

radiation compensation programs, do not 

necessarily, they are not transportable to the 

Energy employee issue. 

 And as I have mentioned before, the 

exact write-up that I had written, and I 

elaborate extensively as to why. In 

epidemiologic studies oftentimes there is no 

alternative because you really start out with 

a premise that there is a correlation or that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there may be a correlation between a given 

agent, whether the physical, chemical, or 

radiological agent and a certain health impact 

that we are looking to study. But the intent 

is never to reconstruct an individual dose. 

It is just to show a dose-response 

relationship so that if you have a positive 

dose-response relationship, you can reasonably 

conclude that there must be a causal effect 

between an agent and what it is that you are 

looking at. 

 And as I mentioned in my final 

statement with regard to epidemiologic 

studies, which is if there is any of the three 

categories, this is still the one that has the 

largest or highest level of credence. But 

even in the case of epidemiologic studies, we 

know that there was very early indication that 

as you increase the dose, so you increase the 

cancer risk. But it never really mattered 

whether or not the early leukemia risk 

coefficients were off by a factor of two or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

three, as long as you showed a positive trend. 

 So my argument here was that the 

epidemiologic studies don't have it as their 

principal incentive or objective to do a 

reconstruction of individual doses other than 

to show a positive correlation between a given 

agent and a studied health effect. And as I 

said, this is the best of it. 

 The worst of it is obviously the 

last one, which is the general exposure 

modeling. And in the case of the RESRAD 

building, you are looking at facilities that 

essentially have been completely or an attempt 

was made to completely clean these up. And so 

when you use some of these surrogate numbers 

or data, this has very little to do with the 

reconstruction of doses on behalf of Energy 

employees. 

 So I found all three categories to 

be of limited value in convincing me that this 

can serve as a justification. 

 DR. MAURO: So in a way, it goes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

back to the statement I was saying before. 

This doesn't go toward the implementation of 

surrogate data and how to go about when it is 

being used properly and when it is not. I 

think other findings go toward that. 

 This particular Item 2 went more 

toward the use, the arguments being made that 

it is okay to use surrogate data -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Exactly. 

 DR. MAURO: -- because we did 

elsewhere. And felt that that argument, that 

it is okay to use surrogate data because of 

these other places where it is used because it 

was an inappropriate justification. 

 So you see the distinction between 

Item 2 being an item that goes toward when you 

use surrogate data and when you don't within 

the context of this program and the use of 

Item 2 as being more of a critique of using 

those examples as a rationale for why you can 

use surrogate data. 

 So that is why I think Item 2 goes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

away. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, folks, I am 

going to interject something here. And that 

is, I don't know what the intent of the other 

members of the subcommittee was, but my intent 

in putting this item on the agenda was to have 

us take a quick look at what those specific 

findings were, so that we would know they were 

out there. Bear in mind that NIOSH has had no 

opportunity to respond to any of these. 

 It was not my expectation that we 

would attempt to resolve them here today. I 

simply wanted them to be covered so that we 

would be aware of what NIOSH is looking at, 

with respect to this particular procedure. 

 So rather than discuss this at 

length, although we appreciate your rationale, 

my personal feeling is that we need to move 

quickly through these items because we aren't 

prepared to discuss them today and until NIOSH 

provides some response to them, it is probably 

inappropriate for us to discuss them at too 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 274

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

great a length. 

 Does anybody find any fault with 

that reasoning? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We won't be able to 

provide a detailed response. Some things come 

to mind but I would rather really get a 

response from the organization. 

 I think I should tell you, though, 

that today I was getting, I had some update 

done to my computer and an automatic restart. 

And since it restarted, I can't get back onto 

my account. I can get back onto the internet 

but I can't get back onto the CITGO and get 

back to my stuff. 

 So I will be able to speak from 

what I can recall but I can't look up any 

references that I submitted. Sorry. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well it is not 

expected that we would do so for 004. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Wanda, I don't 

have a problem with what you said, I just 

would say just in response to what John said, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 275

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I mean, I see that last one as more of an 

observation. I don't think it should go away 

because it is good information on how SC&A 

views the IG. But maybe an observation. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We will have NIOSH 

make a response to it at a later time. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Let's move on to take 

a look at Items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm going to be very 

brief. Three simply says it is going to be 

very difficult to implement. That is, in 

order to implement the protocols, procedures, 

requires a great deal of judgment to know when 

you can and when you can't apply the criteria. 

 So I mean, it is really not -- if 

anything it is really an implementation issue 

that will not come to life until we try to 

apply it. And that is why I think the Texas 

City example is interesting and other places, 

where surrogate data are applied. Bethlehem 

Steel and the list goes on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 276

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I don't know, you know, just to 

alert you that all really number 3 says is 

that it is going to be a challenge for the 

reasons given there. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is more of an 

observation, then. 

 DR. MAURO: It is more of an 

observation, yes. 

 The next item, number 4 is 

interesting. Our sense is that when you read 

OCAS-IG-004, it appears that it really was 

written for AWE facilities. In other words, 

when you get into the more technical substance 

of it, it is clear that it goes toward the 

application of surrogate data to AWE 

facilities. 

 And number 4 simply says if that is 

the case, then do you really need OCAS-IG-004? 

 Because you have got TBD-6000 and TBD-6001, 

which does a much better job in terms of 

building a matrix of surrogate data from a 

perform range, a vast amount of information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 277

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that is out there and a construct for applying 

that data from other uranium handling and 

processing facilities to other facilities of 

the same nature. 

 So in a funny sort of way, what we 

have here is an IG-004 that is written as if 

it were generically to be used across the 

board to all types of facilities when in fact, 

when you look closely at it, it clearly seems 

to be more applicable to AWE facilities. And 

then given that, you don't really need it 

because you have got TBD-6000 and TBD-6001 and 

its associated appendices. 

 So perhaps that is an observation 

also. I will move on. 

 Five, we are in agreement. I think 

six we are in agreement. 

 There is a little qualifier there, 

where we just make a suggestion with respect 

to the discussion of using other site film 

badge data. It is one thing to use models as 

a surrogate in Item 6 for external exposure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We believe it is a lot easier to use surrogate 

data and models for external than it is for 

internal. But we also recommend that if you 

are going to use, and here it goes toward an 

example, the examples of when using film badge 

data is appropriate and perhaps when it is 

not. 

 So that will get you a little bit 

more into the granularity of the use of 

surrogate data. There are certain conditions 

under which film badge data might work well 

for you and certain conditions where it won't. 

 And that is the point that we are making in 

number 6. 

 Finally, what we did in number 7 is 

prepare a table comparing the four draft 

criteria prepared by the surrogate work group 

against the criteria prepared in OCAS-004. 

And we found them to be entirely consistent, 

with the exception of one that has to do with 

the time frame. 

 In OCAS-004, the statement is made 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 279

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that it is okay to use data from one facility 

to another, even if they are in different time 

frames. That is, the data may have been 

gathered much earlier here, much later here, 

but it is being applied to another facility 

for an earlier date. And the point is made 

that we have to do that very carefully and of 

course we agree with that. 

 However, our interpretation of 

reading the guidance provided by the surrogate 

work group is that you really can't do that. 

That is, you have got to make sure that the 

data set from the surrogate site comes from a 

time that is about the same time as the time 

period for the facility that you are going to 

apply it to. 

 So there is a bit of, I guess, 

incompatibility between that criteria. Just 

to alert the work group to that. 

 And finally, there is the issue of 

plausibility. OCAS-004 has adopted the 

concept of plausibility. However, the four 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 280

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

criteria by the surrogate data work group does 

not explicitly include plausibility. 

 Plausibility is going to become an 

important subject when we talk about Texas 

City and when we talk about a number of other 

sites where surrogate data is used in the 

various capacities and they are used in a way 

where one could argue that they are bounding. 

 And the surrogate data is clearly bounding. 

But in some cases it is bounding to the point 

where it is really not a plausible exposure 

scenario. 

 In other words, the doses that you 

would get from the surrogate data as applied 

to the site of interest overestimates by 

orders of magnitude. You know, not by two or 

three but by orders of magnitude. 

 So there is some point, and 

plausibility is a word that is actually used 

in the regulations, Item 3. And so we believe 

it is important that the Surrogate Data Work 

Group and this, the Procedures Work Group 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

engage the issue of plausibility when 

discussing surrogate data. 

 And that really covers the scope of 

what we have to say on OCAS-IG-004. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very much 

John and Hans, we appreciate that. Now we 

know better what to expect and NIOSH knows 

what needs to be responded to, I think. And 

we will move forward from IG-004 to our next 

item. But before we do that, even, I 

understand Mark is going to be leaving us here 

very quickly. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am sorry. 

I planned around the adjourn time of 4:00 p.m. 

for another call. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I know, things 

run over. I understand that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and I tried to 

get that across in my preliminary statement 

before the draft agenda. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 282

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wanted to stay on if we were going to try to 

get some summary statement for the CATI. Or I 

just didn't know how you were going to handle 

that in terms of having something to say at 

the upcoming meeting. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I am going to provide 

you with some notes. I am going to provide 

the entire subcommittee with notes from what 

I understand we can and cannot bring to the 

Board in my report. And you will have an 

opportunity to comment on that. 

 But I am not going to try to do it 

tonight. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It takes too much 

wordsmithing. There is too much involved in 

what we have discussed today. 

 The other issue that I wanted to 

make sure to touch base with you about, Mark, 

is your availability for Procedures meeting on 

June 9th. You are okay with that. Right? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: June 9th? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we had set aside 

June 10th and 11th -- I mean 9th, 10th and 

11th as possible dates. And the LANL Work 

Group has taken the 10th. The 9th is my 

preferred date. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: June 9th I have 

the Procedures on my calendar already. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. So 

hopefully you can plan to be in Cincinnati on 

the 9th. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I will try to 

actually make it out there. I am sorry I 

didn't make it out there this time. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, very good. 

 MR. KATZ: The last thing before 

you go, Mark, is just, if he is leaving right 

now, is we will need an agenda for that June 

meeting because I am going to need to do a 

Federal Register notice. So Mark, if you have 

any particulars you want to contribute towards 

that agenda, this would be a good time for me 

to know that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I will email them 

to Wanda and let her -- 

 MR. KATZ: That's good. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Thank you. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I have got 

the internet up. 

 MR. KATZ: Bye, Mark. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Bye, bye. And now we 

are going to look at 0029-03. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: 0029-03 -- do you 

want -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please, Steve. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: 0029-03 was one that 

we discussed again back in March, the last 

time we got together and it was one item which 

SC&A and NIOSH have kind of come to an 

agreement to disagree at this point. And the 

subcommittee instructed us to get together and 

have a technical teleconference to resolve the 

issue. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 285

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 That teleconference has not 

occurred due to a number of reasons. It 

hasn't occurred but as I understand it, there 

was a meeting of the Fernald Work Group that 

occurred back on April 22nd. And at that 

meeting, I guess John Mauro and Jim Neton both 

attended that work group meeting. And many of 

the same issues that are being discussed in 

OTIB-0029-03 were discussed at the Fernald 

Work Group meeting. 

 And I think John, if you want to 

help me out here a little bit? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would be glad to 

and now I am going to ask Hans to help me out. 

 So I will introduce it in the broadest of 

terms. 

 On Y-12, the fourth model for 

internal exposure basically says we have all 

this data for, bioassay data for 

reconstructing internal dose and to build a 

coworker model. And for those workers who do 

not have any bioassay data and want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruct their internal dose, we will 

simply use that distribution. 

 Our position is well, there is more 

to the story. We argue that there are times 

when the whole distribution doesn't really, 

isn't necessarily claimant favorable. In 

fact, we would argue it is claimant neutral. 

And there are times when it may be more 

appropriate to use the upper end distribution. 

 And Jim and I agree on that philosophy. So 

in that regard we agree. 

 And then it comes down to, and here 

is where it becomes -- remember earlier I said 

here is where the application of this 

particular concept is where we differ as it 

applies to Y-12. It is Jim's position that 

because of the extensive nature of the 

bioassay program, one can argue generically, 

one can argue that those workers who would not 

monitor, were not part of the bioassay program 

at Y-12, by definition means they probably had 

a low potential for exposure. And as a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

result, universally, we will apply a full 

distribution. 

 And Jim's argument is, and it is 

understandable, given that is the case, given 

you accept yes, the people who were not part 

of the bioassay program, you accept that as 

correct, probably add little potential for 

internal exposure, then using the full 

distribution is certainly claimant favorable. 

 And for a variety of reasons, we believe that 

that may not be the case. 

 And Hans, here is where I pass the 

baton off to you, where you have a couple of 

examples of where that may not really be 

appropriate. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I will start out 

with actually the section one purpose in the 

implementation guide 29, which states the 

following. There are instances of Energy 

employees who, for a variety of reasons, were 

not monitored for internal exposures due to 

the course of their employment at the U.S. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 288

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Department of Energy facility or whose records 

of such monitoring are incomplete or 

unavailable. And those three words, either 

they were not monitored or whose records are 

incomplete or unavailable, those are not 

necessarily identical. 

 And for instance, as John already 

pointed out, you have a situation where there 

was a conscious decision to say let's focus on 

people who have a reasonable chance of being 

exposed to uranium and we will monitor 

everyone who has a reasonable chance. And 

forget, for instance, office workers, or 

someone who carries a document through a 

facility on occasion and we will not monitor 

them. I will be the first to say let's use 

the 50th percentile as a full distribution and 

assign that and consider that a very claimant 

favorable assumption. 

 On the other hand, the potential 

exists, and I will give you an example because 

I am also reviewing the Harshaw TBD, where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 289

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

especially for early years, the people who may 

not have been monitored do not necessarily 

fall in the category of an office worker or a 

secretary or something like that but may very 

well have been process workers who were simply 

not part of the sampling program. Much like 

the practice in the early days was to cohort 

badging of people where you have ten people 

going into the same location with the 

potential for almost identical exposures but 

you would only assign one person a badge and 

assume that that particular value would be 

applied to everyone who was not badged. 

 And I will give you an example of 

this because I am reading and I will give you 

the actual section in the Harshaw TBD. It 

occurs in section five for internal dosimetry 

and in section 5.3.1.2 and it is under the 

heading of routine urine program. 

 And I will read to you just a 

couple of sections that basically points to 

that issue. In the first paragraph under that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

section, it says Sergeant, an attorney, 

somebody who worked for the NRC, 1950 he gives 

a sample. And it is a reference that says 

while it referred to a previous line of 

sampling program as of late of December 1949, 

Sergeant -- no, I'm sorry. I misread the 

line. While it referred to a previous line of 

urine samples, also requested that Harshaw 

institute a urine sampling program on a 

running basis to sample about 100 workers per 

month, including occupations that the AEC 

specified. Thus, the January 1950 time point 

could represent an acceleration of urine 

sampling rather than its start. And then it 

goes on to say it starts in 1958, another 

reference, stated that 200 workers were 

subject to urinalysis which appears to have 

included workers in all three major areas of 

Plant C. While there was no tally kept by 

Harshaw, the number of people exposed to 

uranium who had left their employment in 

November 1951, Harshaw provided an AEC 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 291

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

estimate of several hundred of such people who 

had been exposed for more than a year. 

 What it means, how I interpret that 

to mean, is that the initial phase in 1950 at 

Harshaw was obviously looking to sample people 

who were exposed to uranium. But it was not a 

comprehensive sampling program. 

 And so you have people who may all 

have been process workers and out of that pool 

of several hundred, a hundred people were 

sampled; which means that if you are now a 

member of that group who was not sampled, and 

you have no particular information on your 

bioassay available to you to be judged as a 

50th percentile value using a full 

distribution, will clearly not be a claimant 

favorable assumption because you could have 

also been a member at the 95th percentile but 

you were just not part of that sample who was 

in fact monitored during that time. 

 I think that the whole issue 

centers around who was not monitored as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

opposed to people whose data are perhaps 

incomplete or there was only a sampling 

protocol in place where other people who were 

equally exposed to the high level were simply 

not monitored. And I think the collective 

argument that John had started to talk about 

is that the 50th percentile in full 

distribution may not be claimant favorable to 

those people under that condition. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Hans, just listening 

to what you said, it seems to me like the 

issue is still open and the teleconference is 

still necessary and we have got to get 

basically the right people involved. And I 

don't think we have the right people involved 

at this particular point in time because Jim 

is not here. So I think -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well Jim and I did 

talk about this. I can comment a little bit 

here. First of all our conversation, our 

finding moved from Y-12 to Harshaw during the 

course of the discussion. And I don't know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that you should judge the sampling practices 

at Y-12 by the sampling practices at Harshaw. 

 There is evidence that there were 

cohort sampling done early at Y-12 and in 

fact, this storage database of data doesn't 

include what appears to be a comprehensive 

sampling but is in fact a cohort sampling, 

then I think that would call into question the 

use of the 50th percentile for those years 

when cohort sampling was done. 

 Now, as far as I know, that is not 

the case. And if in fact the Harshaw site 

profile describes a coworker approach that 

uses the full distribution, I think there is 

probably evidence that there should be some 

changes made to the Harshaw site profile. But 

with respect to the Y-12 site profile, I don't 

see any particular evidence in here of that. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I am not 

saying. I was using that strictly, Stu, as an 

example. And of course, we are talking a few 

minutes ago about surrogate data. And it is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 294

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

possible that somebody may make reference to 

that. But it does occur in the same time 

frames. We are talking about 1950, 51 and 

that is also the time frame that this OTIB 

provides surrogate or coworker data for. 

 But there are a host of other 

questions. In fact, just to jump the gun, we 

did try to establish a technical discussion 

between SC&A and NIOSH that would include Jim 

Neton, you, and Liz Brackett. And we made 

that request back on March 30th and we never 

got a firm date for doing so. So, we may be 

jumping the gun here in discussing things that 

should be best left for a reduced technical 

discussion among SC&A people, and the NIOSH, 

and ORAU people. And perhaps include people 

like members of the work group because we did 

in fact contact Wanda and others so that if 

they chose to participate in that luminary 

technical discussion, they would be more than 

welcome to do so. 

 DR. MAURO: One more thing, Stu, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think that we are not that far apart. I think 

that in fact we may not be far apart at all. 

 Our main concern is that if you are 

going to use a full distribution, I think you 

have to make an affirmative argument why it 

applies to a worker when you can't. Then I 

think you have go with a more conservative 

approach. Your argument is that you could 

make the universal affirmative statement for 

all workers. I don't know if you are saying 

this but that is how we are interpreting it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is not how I 

tried to make the argument. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay and let me say, I 

will be the first to say if it is the intent 

of 0029 to implement the full distribution 

only when it appears to be appropriate to a 

given worker at a given time, that is exactly, 

we are in full agreement and I think that has 

been the intent of NIOSH all along. 

 But I didn't read it that way. But 

when we reviewed Y-12, it looked as it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to be a universal. And if the 

appropriate qualifiers are in the OTIB of the 

nature that for example Hans just pointed out, 

I think we are in agreement. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think Jim's 

point was, I talked to Jim about that, and his 

point was the judgment almost has to be made 

on a dose reconstruction-specific basis and 

the information, and do you have sufficient 

information about this person who has no data, 

has no bioassay data, to understand that while 

there is a reason why they had no bioassay 

data, he wasn't probably heavily exposed. Or 

if there is not that evidence or if there is 

evidence that they were in fact a heavily 

exposed person, a chemical operator, at 

Fernald it would be a chemical operator, 

someone who would be in one of the higher 

exposed categories, then what you are saying 

is that there should be a statement to that 

effect in the TIB that in that situation you 

just can't go ahead and apply this coworker as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it is described. You would have to have some 

other application to provide that. 

 I think that is what you said. And 

I think Jim is onboard with that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought Jim said 

that at the last meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Now of course now 

the question becomes -- so we agree in 

principle on all levels here. The only 

question becomes when it comes to Y-12, it has 

a universal position to take it there. You 

know, we really don't have to go through that 

step. That is, if we are going to reconstruct 

a person's dose at Y-12, we are automatically 

going to use the full distribution. That is 

the way in which I interpreted it. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay if we were to 

say, for instance, if we were to come back and 

say this is valid that we should point this 

out in the OTIB so that someone just didn't 

pick it up and use it regardless of the 

situation of the dose reconstruction, then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 298

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that would essentially resolve this without 

the technical conversation? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I think there 

are a couple of other issues, John. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well maybe we 

better have a technical conversation but not 

today. 

 DR. MAURO: Well we are only to 

Item 3 here now. I mean it is important that 

there are other items here that still need 

some discussion. 

 But anyway, Hans, was there any 

other -- 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I mean, the real 

second issue and maybe even a much more 

important one and that is the issue of the 

Monday morning versus Friday afternoon 

samples. 

 DR. MAURO: I just want to point 

out, now we are leaving Item 3. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so this is a 

different finding. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So I could 

still resolve 3. 

 DR. MAURO: I believe we have 

agreement that Item 3 is in abeyance. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I will send 

you something -- until I send the subcommittee 

something promising that we are going to make 

some sort of change to the TIB, I wouldn't put 

it in abeyance. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, then we will keep 

it in process. But I think we both understand 

each other and I think we are in agreement in 

concept that that kind of language would 

resolve our concern on Item 3. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is good. We are 

-- Steve, can you capture that? That we are 

not -- the ball is -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or it just stays. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically it just 

states that, well okay, the one to capture 

here, what did we talk about and I will see if 

I can go to it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, I just wanted to 

point out that it was discussed at this 

meeting but still awaiting technical 

discussion and resolution. 

 DR. MAURO: Confirmation. I guess 

that is the word. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Technical confirmation 

from NIOSH. 

 MR. KATZ: OCAS is going to provide 

some qualifying language -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we are. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks. We think 

you are. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't want to 

promise to do that yet, is what I said. 

 MR. KATZ: That's right. Okay. 

Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 301

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 (Pause.) 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are typing. Just a 

moment. So NIOSH is going to pursue and 

respond. 

 All right, that is the only action 

we are going to take on OTIB-29. Now it is 

time for lunch. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm really not 

hungry. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let's waive lunch 

and go ahead. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Let's see if we can 

press through that. 

 I was going to discuss, get some 

feelings from this subcommittee with respect 

to when we might be reporting next to the 

Secretary and the scope of that report but I 

think that can wait until our June meeting so 

that we will take that up then. 

 We verified our next meeting date 

for June 9th but we have not identified 

anything any further than that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Agenda items. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Agenda items for our 

June 9th. Yes. Anyone who has agenda items 

for June 9th, please let me know. I will be 

compiling -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You mean other than 

what -- we already know the CATI stuff is 

going to be there. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We know the CATI stuff 

will be there. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We already know 

that -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: My stuff, whatever 

you want to call that stuff will be there. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I will need to send out 

a Federal Register notice Monday. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Monday? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, I can make it 

up? So the CATI will happen -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Site-specific 

procedures, disposition or something like that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

creative word. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I assume we will 

come back to this item. Right, or will we by 

then? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it could be. 

 I mean, it kind of fits in a broader category 

of discussion of additional responses. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We would hope that 

that would have gotten over with. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about responses 

on the surrogate data stuff? Will that be 

ready by then? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

don't know. That is kind of surrogate data 

stuff. I mean, unless we are going to just 

transfer everything to certain date. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are not going to do 

that yet. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no, these ones 

that just went through, the OTIB -- oh, no 

what was it? No, OCAS-IG-004. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we will, whether 

there will be any responses from NIOSH by 

then? It is June. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean how 

about fitting in the general category of 

discussion of new responses? Because 

responses haven't been discussed yet. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Because I did 

submit some just this past, in the last couple 

of days that are essentially our second back 

and forth on some findings. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Actually we did 

get those. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So those are out 

there. Those will be with Steven -- I think 

we can actually load those now. So I will 

have to do some of that stuff. 

 And then there may be other things 

out there where we have written like an 

initial response or SC&A has written a 

reaction to our response. I don't know if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there are or not -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: There are some. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we haven't 

had sorted through. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We basically, at the 

end of last March, we didn't make it all the 

way through the third set. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, we didn't. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So that is the item 

that you have here that was supposed to start 

at 1:30 this afternoon. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that item can 

go on there. 

 Yes, I mean, that essentially 

covers everything, everything I just described 

kind of falls into that, including the IG-004 

falls into that. 

 Yes, IG-004 is in the database so 

IG-004 falls into that, too. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So essentially 

three. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: So we have three items, 

then. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Three items and 

anything else that happens between now and 

then. 

 So do you need anything from me or 

will you just -- 

 MR. KATZ: No. So I am square. 

And we will start at 10:00. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. 

 MR. KATZ: And we will go to 8:00 

at night. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We will start at 10:00 

and we will go until at least 5:00. We will 

use the 10:00 to 5:00. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I do have to catch 

a plane the day after that. 

 MR. KATZ: There is another work 

group the next day. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can just drive by 

the airport, just work overnight and I will 

just driver over there and catch it the next 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

morning. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You might just as well 

stay. It will be much more convenient if you 

do that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: My wife is going. 

I have a date night. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Anyone, although that 

satisfies the need for the public record 

notice, that doesn't change my need for any 

additional items that any other subcommittee 

members may wish to see for sure on the 

agenda. Please get those to me so that I will 

know that. 

 My item with respect to the impact 

and timing of the new security measures, we 

may not have enough information to even know 

how that is going to affect us. I don't think 

we have enough people with a system up and 

running yet to even talk about what the new 

computer security system is going to mean for 

us. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think, the Agency is not ready either. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MR. KATZ: So what I said is I 

would poll the Board members in Amarillo to 

see if everybody is set up in terms of having 

the wherewithal. I think everybody should 

have their computers but for example, Mike 

notified me that he doesn't have his key fob 

yet. So that I will pull. And I will also be 

consulting with Stu to see what stage OCAS is 

in getting the website ready for paperwork. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the most recent 

communication that I had was essentially hold. 

 I had my computer. I had my key fob. But it 

runs but I don't know what anybody wants me to 

do with it. 

 MR. KATZ: Well you have 

instructions for how to -- did you receive -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Paul, you said you 

received instructions for how to get to CDC? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. No, they told 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

us they would let us know. They are not 

ready. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I talked to the 

girl yesterday. 

 MR. KATZ: They are not ready to 

have you. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They are not ready. 

 I have my PIN number now. You have to have a 

PIN number. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: With your old 

flashing, yes. You have your own four-digit 

PIN number that you enter into the same -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. You have to 

call them by phone to get that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I called them but I 

don't recall having received a PIN number but 

that is all right. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, everybody will 

need a PIN number. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that is your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

only need it does not change it goes in front 

of the digits that go on here. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, well -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In any event, she 

told me that they are not ready yet, that we 

will hear from them with instructions at some 

point. I got the feeling it may be several 

weeks or more. 

 MR. KATZ: Do you know who you 

spoke with? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Her name is 

on the -- I think I brought the sheet. 

 MR. KATZ: We can do that offline. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we can do that 

offline. 

 MR. KATZ: But that would be helpful 

for me to know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I had the impression 

that Amarillo was going to be too soon for us 

to put that in full motion. So we probably 

will have that as another item on our -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Until they are up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and running, we are to operate as we are. I 

mean, we have access to the O: drive -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- as normal. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. 

 DR. MAURO: By the way, this is 

John, it is my understanding that the current 

system and the new system will be running in 

parallel for some time, so that the transition 

going from what we are doing now and what we 

would be doing in the future by using the 

computer will be online at the same time, to 

ease the transition. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I got that 

impression but I wasn't quite sure exactly how 

that was going to work. 

 So we will just have to put our 

faith in the electronic gurus that surround us 

and hope that they have a better understanding 

of what they are doing than I do. 

 Is there any other item that we 

must bring before us before we adjourn? If 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 312

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

not, I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank 

you, folks. We appreciate your having been 

here. And thank you to you folks on the 

telephone. We can't get along without you. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 

adjourned at 4:28 p.m.)