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 

+ + + + + 

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 The Subcommittee convened at 10:00 

a.m., in the Zurich Room of the Cincinnati 

Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron, Kentucky, 

Wanda I. Munn, Subcommittee Chair, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

 

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair* 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 
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

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor 

HANS BEHLING, SC&A* 

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU* 

MICHELLE FERGUSON, ORAU* 

STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

PAT KRAPS, ORAU* 

ROY LLOYD, HHS* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 

STEVE MARSCHKE, SC&A 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A* 

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU* 

JAMES NETON, OCAS 

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A* 

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU* 

MATT SMITH, ORAU* 

SCOTT SIEBERT, 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 

Introductions and Housekeeping 5 

Review of Database Summary 12 

 Action Item - SC&A - pursue a better 20 

 method for current update 

 database 

Status and Discussion of CATI 20 

Interview Exchanges 

 Action Item - to make the 45 

 two-sentence suggested revision 

 to NIOSH 

 Action Item - writing the wording 68 

 of a proposed recommendation to 

 NIOSH for full Board approval and 

 circulating it to the Subcommittee 

 for agreement 

 Action Item - NIOSH will report 114 

 back on clarification of details 

 regarding how work history is used 

Status and Discussion of Specifically 185 

Designated Procedures 

 OTIB-0052 185 

 OTIB-0054 190 

 OTIB-0066 199 

 OTIB-0070 222 

 Action Item 238 
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

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Review SC&A Comments to Third Set 240 

of Procedure Reviews 

 OTIB-002-14 240 

 Action Item 248 

 OTIB-005-03 248 

 Action Item 249 

 OTIB-0015 249 

 OTIB-0027-01 251 

 Action Item 290 

 OTIB-0029-01 291 

 OTIB-0029-02 292 

 OTIB-0029-03 292 

 Action Item 304 

 Action Item 307 

 OTIB-0029-04 309 

 Action Item 321 

 OTIB-0029-05 321 

 Action Item 324 

 OTIB-0030-01 324 

 OTIB-0030-02 325 

Items from Agenda for Canceled 330 

1/28/09 Meeting Not Yet Covered 
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 

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

10:03 a.m. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, so let me get 

started with roll call then. 

 This is the Subcommittee on 

Procedures Review of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health. 

 I'm going to begin with roll call, 

starting with Board members in the room. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Board 

member. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board 

member. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, Procedures 

Subcommittee Chair, Board member. 

 MR. KATZ: And by any chance, do we 

have Mark Griffon this morning? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that we are 

not going to have either Mark or Bob Presley. 

 It's my understanding that both of them were 

summoned late last week 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 

 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: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- a meeting of the 

Department of Energy relative to sensitive 

materials that they could not get changed. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay. I knew 

Mark was traveling this morning. I didn't 

know what time. 

 Okay, so that's it for Board 

members. 

 Then the NIOSH ORAU team in the 

room? 

 Jim? NIOSH ORAU teams in the room. 

 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, OCAS. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

team. 

 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU 

team. 

 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH ORAU team on 

the line? 

 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

ORAU team. 
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 

 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

team. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. So Matt 

Smith, ORAU team, and who was second? 

 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi. 

 MR. KATZ: Mutty Sharfi. 

 MS. KRAPS: Pat Kraps is on the 

line with ORAU. 

 MR. KATZ: And Pat Kraps. Thank 

you. 

 MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett with 

ORAU. 

 MR. KATZ: Liz Brackett, welcome. 

 MS. FERGUSON: Michelle Ferguson, 

ORAU team. 

 MR. KATZ: Michelle Ferguson. 

 Okay, in the room then, SC&A? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke, 

SC&A. 

 MR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, 

SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line 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 

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

SC&A? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everybody. 

 Federal employees and contractors 

in the room? 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor. 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: On the line, federal 

employees or contractors? 

 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then do we 

have any members of the public on the line? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That want to 

identify themselves. 

 MR. KATZ: That want to identify 

themselves, absolutely. 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, none heard. 

 Then, just to remind everyone 
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 

listening on the line, if you would just mute 

your phones when you're not participating, 

that would help. Thank you. 

 Wanda, it's all yours. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 As all of you know -- and by the 

way, I need to check to make sure -- did the 

transcriptionist get our comments with respect 

to the absence of Mark Griffon and Bob 

Presley? That is a part of the official 

record? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you. 

 As all of you know, we've had quite 

a difficult time scheduling this particular 

meeting. My apologies for not being there 

personally myself. I did see my surgeon 

yesterday, and he said he thought I could 

probably travel in the future, which will be 

most helpful. But, for the time being, we're 

going to try something that we haven't tried 

before, which is working with this electronic 
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 

database with part of us in one spot and part 

of us somewhere else. 

 We were canceled from our original 

meeting, which had been planned in January, 

due to the rather severe weather conditions 

that Cincinnati was suffering during that 

week. This seemed to be the ideal date for us 

to try to review this, but, as you can see, we 

have had other conflicts arise in the interim. 

 So we are going to do the best we can with 

this and hope we can get through it. 

 I need to make sure that all of the 

people who are working with us have 

essentially the same documents before them, 

and if not, we need to make sure that you have 

them. 

 The first thing I want to make sure 

that you have is my very rough agenda for this 

particular meeting, which was sent on the 

22nd. 

 The second item that you should 

have is the original agenda, which was sent 
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 

out to you on January the 26th. 

 You should have information 

relative to the CATI activity that Stu 

Hinnefeld sent to you last week. 

 You should also have Mark Griffon's 

comments on the CATI letter and form for 

Energy employees themselves. He was unable to 

get to the same type of material that goes to 

survivor claimants. 

 And you should have -- now I guess 

Nancy Adams will have passed out to you, 

hopefully, the summary of our electronic 

database standings at this particular moment. 

 Do we all have those things or is 

anybody lacking something that needs to be 

forwarded to them? 

 (No response.) 

 Good. Sounds like we're in great 

shape. 

 Then the first thing I would like 

to do before we get started with the CATI 

interview activities, which I hope you 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 

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

lead off with, Stu, is a quick review of the 

database summary that Nancy has handed out to 

you, so that we can get a feel to begin with 

where we are. 

 Nancy? 

 MS. ADAMS: Thanks, Wanda. 

 The summary that was passed out 

delineates the status of items for all of 2008 

from the meetings and the reports that we did 

produce for March 10th, May 12th, June 18th, 

July 9th, and December 5th. Then I have just 

added at the bottom the status for March 23rd. 

 In looking at this, there's an 

apparent discrepancy in the total findings 

from December 5th, which is 497, to today, 

which is 486. I've got to go back through and 

figure out what happened there, and I have not 

yet had the opportunity to do that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: May I ask you 

something, Nancy? 

 MS. ADAMS: Sure, Steve. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: There's a glitch in 
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 

the database program, and when you log onto 

the database program -- it doesn't 

automatically do the updates. If you add 

issues through the database when you 

immediately log on, it does not automatically 

recognize those additional issues. 

 So a workaround is to click on the 

sort/filter button; do not select anything to 

sort or filter on. Just click the Okay when 

that screen comes back up, and then you should 

get over 500 issues. There should be about 

530 issues or so that are currently in the 

database. 

 When we bring up the database, 

either later this morning or this afternoon, I 

can show you how basically to go about that. 

But I mentioned this in one of my emails back 

in January, that there is this glitch that I 

noticed that it's not automatically updating. 

 So that when you log on, it doesn't reflect 

all the latest revisions. So there are 50 or 

so issues which may not be representative, 
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 

which is about the number that is missing 

here. So that may be why it went down in this 

instance. If you weren't aware of this and 

you did not do a sort/filter on nothing, then 

those issues would not be picked up. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, essentially, it's 

a time lag? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's a time 

lag, but every time you go in you have to do 

this sort/filter to update it. It's not like 

a one-shot thing and then it's fixed. It's 

every time you log onto the database you have 

to do that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question: does 

every person have to do that or, once it 

updates for somebody -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No, as far as I 

know, every person -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The next person 

that comes on, it's still back in the default? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's my belief, 

yes. And the question becomes then: do 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 

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

want to take an action item, does SC&A want to 

take an action item to fix this or are we 

basically -- right now, we've kind of frozen 

the database in anticipation of going over to 

the SQL database, which is going to be behind 

the firewall on the NIOSH computers when we 

get them. 

 So we haven't really been, you 

know, taking charge and making fixes as they 

come up. We're keeping a list of things which 

are wrong, but not really fixing them. 

 So that's something that the 

Subcommittee, if the Subcommittee feels that 

this is a high enough visibility thing that we 

should take care of it, we can take care of 

it. If it's basically something, you know, 

let's just postpone it and do this workaround 

until we get the SQL version -- go ahead. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, at what point 

does it get updated? I mean, does this sort 

of happen indefinitely? Somebody's got to be 

authorized to say, put the next 50 in, so 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 

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it's updated. At what point does that happen? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The 50 are out there 

someplace. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: They just don't get 

-- there's probably like a temporary file, and 

that temporary file gets -- I've been noticing 

this for a few months now, Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this indefinite 

or does -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's going to be 

indefinite, is my understanding. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now let's point out 

that we discussed not this specific item, but 

one of the reasons the database has been 

frozen, awaiting for the new SQL process, we 

discussed that at our last meeting in 

December. Because that was not really and 

truly clarified, this is probably the first 

time that this specific issue has been so 

clearly raised for us. 

 This was the type of issue 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 

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had in mind when I identified our 4:30 p.m. 

item on our agenda today relative to database 

status. So we can either discuss this now or 

we can postpone it until this evening when 

people have had an opportunity to think about 

-- not this evening -- this afternoon, when 

people have had an opportunity to think a 

little bit about what we really and truly do 

need, and perhaps we can get a better 

definitive response with respect to what we 

can expect in terms of frozen data or very 

rapid update. 

 MR. KATZ: Can I make a suggestion, 

Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please. 

 MR. KATZ: Stu, we don't have any 

definite date still for the SQL to come 

online, and we also don't have a date for when 

SC&A will all be equipped with computers and 

be coming through the firewall either. That's 

at least a month off. 

 I mean I would just suggest -- 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 

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean I know some of the improvements; it makes 

a lot of sense to put those off until we're on 

SQL rather than doing double work. But this 

is sort of a real glitch that confuses matters 

and seems like it would make sense to just 

correct it; I mean do whatever it takes to 

sort this out, right? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it certainly 

seems obvious to me that that's what we need 

to do. From my perspective, once the change 

has been made by one of the authorized 

entities who is able to do so, it seems to me 

that that should automatically update the 

database, so that anyone logging in 15 minutes 

later would have the new data. 

 MR. KATZ: I just don't think we 

want to live with this confusion for several 

months possibly. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, certainly I don't. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So we'll take action 

on it. When I get back, we'll get somebody 

started on looking into the problem -- 
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 

 MR. KATZ: That's great. That 

sounds great. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- and seeing if we 

can get it fixed. 

 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John 

Mauro. 

 In the past, when we have had 

discussions like this regarding action items, 

I do want to -- so am I hearing that we have 

an action item here -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and SC&A has the 

green light to go ahead and make the next 

repairs? 

 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And, John, thank you 

for making that statement. I would appreciate 

it if each of us, as we accept action item 

statements, do, in fact, make that statement, 

that this is an action for whoever the action 

is assigned to. This will make it much 
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 

simpler for all of us to verify, just from 

checking transcripts of prior meetings, what 

our action is, if I have been too late to get 

the information to you. It's an easier way 

for us to ascertain that. 

 As I have not had any feedback from 

the list of action items that I sent for the 

meeting back in January, nevertheless, it is 

easy to lose the given number of individuals 

we have working on them. So thanks, John. 

 SC&A's action item is to pursue a 

better method for current update of our 

database. 

 Now I can mark that off of the 

tail-end of our 4:30 item, unless something 

else comes up in the interim. 

 Stu, do you want to get us started 

with the CATI interview exchanges? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I guess to 

bring us up-to-date, the CATI form discussion 

really started with the Subcommittee's, or 

Working Group at the time, review 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 

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

CATI's procedure. That is where there were a 

number of comments made relative to the CATI 

form, in addition to the procedure. 

 Based on that discussion, we and 

our contractor had proposed, well, here are 

some changes that we think at least some 

address some of the findings on the form. I 

don't think all the findings on the form were 

considered appropriate to put into the CATI, 

and so they weren't all addressed. So a 

modified or a markup of what had been used was 

then prepared and shared with the 

Subcommittee. 

 In the meantime, the OMB approval 

of the CATI form was getting ready to expire. 

 It expired, I think, in December. So, in 

order to have authority to continue to use it 

to collect information from the public, we 

submitted a request for renewal. What was 

submitted was the form that has been used so 

far. This was just a request to renew the 

authority to use that form, just 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 

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sure -- so we hadn't really arrived at, if we 

would change anything, what would we change it 

to? So that is the request that is out there. 

 There is a public comment period. 

I have forgotten when that ends. I've asked 

Dave Sundin in an email just now. So I think 

maybe I'll know in a little while when that 

comment period ends. But I have no knowledge 

of whether we're getting any comments on it or 

not. So that is kind of where the process is. 

 Now the Board, we shared with the 

Subcommittee, as I said, a markup of what's 

being used now. That is what I forwarded to 

people earlier today. CP5 I believe is the 

file that is for a surviving -- or I mean for 

an Energy employee. Energy employee is the 

claim, not for survivor. 

 So that is, I believe, the one Mark 

commented on. Mark submitted some comments 

that Wanda distributed last night, and I 

believe that is the one he commented on. 

 Arjun, is that not the case? 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am puzzled 

because the numbering in the form that you 

just sent is not the same as I find on Mark's 

comments. He's got a lot more questions than 

what you have. His numbering goes up to 19, 

and it got like 8.2, 8.5, and I don't find any 

of that in the form that you sent out. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I believe he was 

working from both the letter and the form, 

Arjun. Unless my email did not come through 

well, what Stu sent this morning was the 

letter itself. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you have the 

employee form? Or the claimant's form -- or 

the family form? There's two -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm looking at the 

wrong one. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And it is for the 

employee claimant. That's where Mark made his 

comment. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The employee form, 

Wanda, has decimal points, like 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 
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 

and so on, whereas the family form does not. 

So I think maybe Arjun is looking at the other 

form. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, he is. Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, Wanda, we have 

this sorted out. So it is the employee form. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That is correct. I am 

working at a disadvantage because, among the 

other catastrophes that we had to deal with, 

that I had to deal with in setting up this 

time and meeting, is the fact that my data, 

all of my Board data for the past 15 years has 

disappeared into electronic ether somewhere. 

So I do not have many of the things that I 

otherwise would be using. 

 But I think we can at least get 

through perhaps some discussion about how we 

need to approach the letter and form relative 

to the employee specifically, rather than the 

survivors, and see if we can follow through 

with some of the Mark's comments. 
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 

 Arjun, have you read Mark's 

comments, and are you or someone else from 

SC&A prepared to follow through with that and 

lead the discussion to some extent? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I have read 

Mark's comments, you know, but I'm not able to 

-- actually, I got two of the same forms from 

Stu. So I'm still looking. I'm still looking 

for the form. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The document 

numbers were different, but it was the same 

document. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, could I 

comment on this? I noticed, in checking back 

on the transmissions of those, one of the 

transmissions identified two different forms, 

and they were identical. So I had to go back 

to an earlier transmission of the forms. 

 So I think the last time they were 

presumably resent, but both the EE -- and what 

was the other 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 

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Survivor. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It was actually the 

same document identified differently. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I don't believe 

I was on that earlier email. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I have them 

both on the stick if you want -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It would be very 

helpful if you could resend those since mine, 

as I have said, have disappeared somewhere 

into electronic heaven. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And those are 

identified on that stick as -- I think they 

are .pdf documents, and they are the CATI 

letter and Form EE, CATI letter, and Form SV, 

which is the survivor. They are both .pdf 

files, Arjun. 

 MR. KATZ: So, Wanda -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

 MR. KATZ: -- can I make a 

suggestion? With respect to Mark's comments, 

I mean since they are not really SC&A'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 

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comments, they're Mark's -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they are. 

 MR. KATZ: -- it seems like one of 

us here could read into the record both -- the 

comments on their own, since they reference 

the document, I'm not sure how intelligible 

that will be, if we don't have -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: If we don't have the 

documents in front of us. 

 MR. KATZ: Not just the comment, 

but the element in the document that is being 

commented on, but we could -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It would be very 

helpful if we had the form. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, we do have - 

 CHAIR MUNN: Is there anyone other 

than myself and Arjun who does not have access 

to the form? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: These are also the 

same form, survivor -- 

 MR. KATZ: We still have a problem? 

 Is that what you're 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 

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, then I put 

the wrong ones on the stick. I had printed 

out the right ones. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MR. KATZ: A comedy of errors. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Can you help us out, 

Stu? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to. 

 MR. KATZ: We're working on this. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Let's hold on just a 

moment until we see if we can't make sure we 

have all of the documents in front of us. 

When I was speaking of documents that we 

should have, I failed to mention the most 

voluminous of them all, which was Steve 

Marschke's SC&A commentary on our Set 3 that 

he provided for us. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you say that more 

clearly, Wanda? It's hard. You're sort of 

fading out. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I'll try 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 

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

speak up a little bit. I haven't had my 

Wheaties yet. 

 But I had said that I did not 

mention that we should also have Steve 

Marschke's comments, which have been 

incorporated into the database, but there are 

extensive responses from SC&A with respect to 

the Set 3 material that we covered during our 

last meeting. 

 MR. KATZ: So, Wanda, Paul is just 

copying the document for Arjun. As soon as we 

get through with that, I'll let you know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And hopefully, for me 

as well. 

 MR. KATZ: I think it's the same 

file. Have you emailed that to Wanda? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I haven't. I 

don't have my email open. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I can do it. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, Mike Gibson is 

going to email you, Wanda. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Mike. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: While we're 

waiting, could I ask whether or not we could 

look at Stu's introduction, which is separate 

from the two documents? 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's appropriate. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If that's all 

right, I have a question on Stu's document. 

Let me ask this first: Stu, is this currently 

in use? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: This introduction? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it used verbatim 

pretty much? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so. Pat 

Kraps is on the phone. She might be able to 

help us out there. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Pat, is that used 

verbatim? 

 MS. KRAPS: Are you referring to 

the introduction from the software -- 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes the one-page 

here. It's called, "Introduction to CATI 

Script". 

 MS. KRAPS: The script? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it appears on 

-- Pat, it's what you sent to us. It appears 

on the screen when the CATI interviewer is 

conducting the interview. 

 MS. KRAPS: Right. We do not read 

that verbatim. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. You're not? 

 MS. KRAPS: No, we do not. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you just use it 

kind of as a guide to -- 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, that's exactly how 

we use it, as a guide to introduce the series 

of questions that we go through with the 

claimant. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Well, in any 

event, let me ask you then -- and maybe you 

can interpret this for us -- in the end of the 

second paragraph, where you point out that 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 

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

interview is voluntary -- 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- there is kind of 

a threatening statement after that. It says 

-- 

 MS. KRAPS: I'll save your breath. 

 We do not read that verbatim. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. KRAPS: We do let them know the 

interview is voluntary, and that's about all 

we do. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. KRAPS: We also let them know 

that, if they choose not to be interviewed, 

that's okay; we're going to be able to move 

forward with dose reconstruction. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So the 

business about hindering the dose 

reconstruction, and so on, is not really 

mentioned or -- 

 MS. KRAPS: No, we do not make that 

statement during the introduction. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. KRAPS: That's within the 

interview. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because I was 

concerned about the statement that says: this 

would hinder, not that it could or might, but 

that it will. 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that's out then? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Although the last two 

sentences do have a tendency to be the exact 

kind of thing that we hear the claimants as 

having interpreted the information to be, 

which gives them the feeling that if they 

don't get it somehow, it's all wrong. There 

are certainly gentler ways to say that, 

because they're not going to get it wrong. 

It's impossible to get it wrong. 

 This is an attempt to get as 

complete a set of information as we possibly 

can, and to threaten that if you don't get it 

and get it voluntarily, that it may result in 
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 

an inaccurate dose, I think that's the kind of 

statement that has been giving so many people 

heartburn. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so this 

document, though, is not part of the OMB 

package, is that correct? Is it OMB or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is correct; it 

is not a part of it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is not part of 

the OMB package. So we don't have to comment 

on it officially for the public record as far 

as commenting on the document that will be in 

The Federal Register? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. OMB is only 

interested in - 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the parts where 

we're asking for recommendations. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But, nonetheless, 

if this is a guide that is given to 

interviewers, I certainly would suggest that 

the guide be changed. Particularly if you're 
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 

not using that anyway, why have it in there? 

It would make sense to me that you modify it 

and show what you actually ask, and are there 

things that you do state that aren't in here? 

 I mean, it sounds like this is -- 

yes, here it is, but we don't use it. Well, 

are there things that you do say that aren't 

in here, and are there other things that are 

in here that you don't say, in some form or 

another? 

 CHAIR MUNN: And in either case, I 

would strongly suggest that those last two 

sentences in the second paragraph be reworded, 

so that the person who is conducting the 

interview has very specific direction, though, 

with respect to how to elicit that specific 

information and make the non-voluntary 

statement. These two really do sound 

threatening. 

 MR. KATZ: Can I address a process 

issue that Paul just raised, Dr. Ziemer, with 

respect to OMB? Given what we have, which 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 

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in effect, we're extending the use of the 

existing CATI script, not the proposed revised 

one that you all will be commenting on, I 

think your recommendations to NIOSH, they will 

not be to OMB because OMB doesn't even -- 

they'll be incorporated and then OMB will get 

a package, I believe, from OCAS that reflects 

both changes that you recommended and the 

changes they have already decided to make as 

one. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Let me suggest 

something in regard to these last two 

sentences. I mean I don't know if I'm out of 

turn here. 

 After saying that the interview is 

voluntary, we might disclose to them that, you 

know, you sometimes use information in CATI, 

but they normally complete the dose 

reconstruction without that information, which 

is as I understand how it proceeds normally. 

Anyway, 50 percent of your claimants are 

survivors, and you don't have very much 
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 

information in those in CATI. 

 DR. NETON: There are certain 

segments, though, where we verify the types of 

cancers that the person has. We will discover 

certain pieces of information. It may be in 

there or supplemental information. So it does 

provide some utility. I mean these are 

not worthless interviews. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. No, no, that's 

not what I'm suggesting. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: What you said I 

believe is correct, that regardless of what 

they can tell us, we're confident we're going 

to be able to complete the dose reconstruct, 

whether they tell us anything -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: What I might 

suggest is that you inform them so far as the 

technical number work part is concerned, you 

can normally proceed, and that if they choose 

not to be interviewed and you have some 

problem, that you will get back in touch with 

them and inform them that you need more 
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 

information, or whatever. It might be more 

clear to the other side, so they feel freer to 

say yes or no. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a feeling 

that the interviewers are already doing this 

in a sense, and I think our only concern is 

that the script suggests otherwise, and maybe 

it needs to be brought into what practice 

really is. 

 DR. NETON: I suspect this was 

written at the very beginning of the 

program -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: -- when we really 

didn't have a feel for -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: -- how the interviews 

were going to inform this. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's similar to 

the language on the original attachment to the 

introduction for the packet, the original 

language, which has since been modified. 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, that's what I 

was going to say. This seems like a leftover 

from the letter that we used to send. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that would be a 

recommendation to NIOSH separately. If we 

choose -- does this go to the Board also? 

Wanda, I'm sort of asking you, I guess. This 

could be a work group recommendation to the 

Board that we recommend to NIOSH that the 

script be amended to reflect more current 

practice and remove threatening-sounding 

language. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

appropriate. It seems also appropriate to me 

that, since in my head it's very clear what 

those two sentences ought to say, the 

direction they ought to take, but I don't know 

whether that's clear in other people's minds 

or not. 

 I definitely have no objection to 

taking a personal action item to make the twosentence suggested revision for the rest 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 

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the Subcommittee to take a look at. I would 

be glad to do that if no one has any strong 

feeling about that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Might I make one 

other comment? Maybe I'll ask Pat this 

question because this may be a tempest in the 

teapot. 

 But I assume that you would use 

this script in training new interviewers in 

terms of how they should approach the 

interview process. No. 1, are we likely to 

have new interviewers? I mean do you actually 

have to use this in the future or is that a 

pretty sort of stable group? Well, I know 

you're all stable, but I mean -- a constant 

group that you're not going to be bringing in 

new people anyway, so we don't need this 

anymore? Or what do you see as we go forward 

on this? Is this document going to be used 

even? 

 MS. KRAPS: Well, the document that 

you all are referring to is actually 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 

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

software program that was developed by NIOSH 

back in 2001-2002. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. KRAPS: And I believe it was 

stated that this was built way back when. So 

what you are referring to is actually a 

software program. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. KRAPS: And to answer your 

question, no, we haven't brought any new 

interviewers on for the last eight months, and 

the one that we did bring in is a former DOE 

worker and was able to be trained fairly 

quickly as to what we do say and what we do 

not say during an interview. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it's conceivable 

that you might have some use for the document 

in the future in sort of training new people 

as to what the ground rules are for the 

interviews? 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, 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 

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. KRAPS: But we've had the same 

corps of interviewers since roughly 2002. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John 

Mauro. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, John. 

 DR. MAURO: I've got a question. 

I'm looking over Mark's material, and in a 

sense he has some comments related to the CATI 

letter and to the form. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And he has a couple of 

comments on the letter. Now my concern is 

that the introduction to CATI script that Stu 

distributed, is that material that is like a 

third type of thing? 

 I'm seeing that we have three 

things. We have this introduction to CATI 

script. Apparently, there's a letter that 

goes with the CATI, and then there's the form 

itself. 

 Mark had a comment on 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 

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

His comments on the letter that goes with the 

form also apply to the introduction. In other 

words, I'm trying to organize information in 

my mind, and Mark had two comments that he 

refers to as comments on the letter. Are we 

going to capture that in this discussion? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Does it apply to 

this introduction to the CATI script or we 

haven't gotten to that one yet, the letter? 

 MR. KATZ: Well, we haven't gotten 

to Mark's comments or the letter. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. I just wanted to 

make sure. So there really are three 

different elements? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I understand. Thank 

you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there are. But, 

to the best of my knowledge, Mark did not 

comment on the introduction to the script. 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. That'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 

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my understanding also. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think he was working 

specifically with the letter and with the 

form. I didn't see any indication that he had 

anything to say or whether he even had an 

opportunity to see the introduction to the 

CATI script, which is probably -- well, no, I 

was on the verge of saying the less strictly 

formulated of the three, but I'm not familiar 

enough with the process to make that 

statement. So I best not do that. 

 I think, however, looking at the 

comments that Mark put together, he was 

specifically directing his attention to the 

form and the formal letter. 

 Is there any objection to my 

submitting to the Subcommittee a suggestion 

with respect to those last two sentences of 

the CATI script? Or would we rather just 

leave an open suggestion that they be revised? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, my 

recommendation is that, if we make this 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 

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

recommendation to the Board, that we recommend 

to NIOSH -- actually, we don't officially 

advise NIOSH, but I think we can make a 

recommendation to them that they consider 

revising that or having their contractors 

revise it to reflect current practice and 

removal of threatening language, insofar as 

that document might be used in the future to 

train new interviewers. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then we'll 

just simply take that as an action for us to 

identify a request to NIOSH. I'll put that as 

an action item for us to do. 

 Do you agree, Mike? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. I'll list 

that as a proposal for us to -- I'm assuming 

that this particular discussion is an adequate 

direction to NIOSH. Is that correct? Or 

shall I submit an email? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I've written 

it 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 

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, I think we 

can formalize it in our Board action. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other words, you 

can report to the Board that this is a 

recommendation from the work group and the 

Board can endorse it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Will do. 

 Now can we address Mark's comment? 

 Ted, would you like to take this 

opportunity to determine whether this needs to 

be read into our transactions, since without 

Mark being present, there's no other direct 

method for us to insert this in our 

transcript? 

 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean I've 

provided these comments to the 

transcriptionist. They could be appended, I 

guess, to the transcript as an alternative, 

but if you want it said aloud on the record as 

part of kicking off your discussion, I 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 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

read them. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It might be easier for 

it to be located if it were incorporated in 

the basic transcript rather than added 

elsewhere sort of thing. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So would you like 

me to read these comments --? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would appreciate it 

if you would. 

 MR. KATZ: -- one by one, I guess? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: It probably would help 

for me to read what he is referring to. Maybe 

I will read the comment and then I will, in 

this case, have to read what he is talking 

about. 

 So his first comment is on the 

letter, the CATI letter that's sent to the 

person to be interviewed, the employee to be 

interviewed, prior to them having an 

interview. 

 It says, Mark says, in the first 
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 

paragraph, "Why was the last sentence deleted? 

 It makes the process easier for NIOSH/ORAU if 

you leave out this line, if we need additional 

information that may only be available from 

supervisors, co-workers, or others, the 

interview is also an opportunity for you to 

help us identify and locate these persons. 

However, does it make it a better 

questionnaire?" 

 Now let me read the last sentence 

that is proposed for deletion. The sentence 

reads, "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 and 

locate these persons." 

 So that is the line that has been 

deleted from the letter as it stands now that 

goes to employees. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Do we need to 

address these one at a time? 

 MR. KATZ: I think so. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer, 

Wanda. 

 I think one of the issues that was 

on this co-worker business, I think the 

experience was that the co-workers are almost 

never contacted. I think they said like five 

times out of 20,000 or something they had 

been. 

 I don't know about supervisors. My 

guess is that they were deleting this because 

they don't do it, and so it's a little 

misleading. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's 

another part. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Part of what we're 

trying to do is not be burdensome on the 

interviewee. So, if they read this sentence, 

first of all, "If we need additional 

information that may only be available from 

supervisors, co-workers," -- first of all, how 

does the claimant know if we're going to need 
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 

that information? I mean, when they get that, 

they have no way of knowing if we who sent 

them this letter are going to need that 

information. So they, presumably, some of 

them, will decide: I'd better try and 

remember and find supervisors, co-workers, and 

so on, so I can tell them at the time, so that 

they can talk to them. 

 So it's part of the burden, 

essentially, that is being placed on the 

claimant -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In advance. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in advance of 

the interview, to have to worry about this 

issue, and then add to that the fact that it's 

rarely done. It's rarely necessary to hunt 

down individuals that this person would know 

with direct-hand knowledge because it's not 

that common to be told about an event that is 

sort of an "oh, my gosh" event in the dose 

reconstruction that you can't find out about 

without tracking down the specific people 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 

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tell you about. 

 So it is a combination of those two 

things. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, directly to the 

point, I think, this has been deleted in the 

proposed new script, Stu? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: We would not routinely 

ask them for these individuals. So there's no 

reason to forewarn them of that because 

they're not going to be asked within the 

script for their co-workers, et cetera. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Now if they 

recount something and they say, "And Joe Smith 

was there and he was there," and we feel like 

we need to talk to Joe Smith, if we can't 

figure out some other -- if, first of all, 

what he's telling us is really different than 

what we thought would happen anyway, what 

happens very often is people will describe 

work conditions that we expect and that the 

dose reconstruction accounts for. That 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 

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

very often what happens. 

 So, consequently, since they are 

describing things that you would expect them 

to encounter in their work, and your dose 

reconstruction technique accounts for that, 

you don't really feel the need to learn 

additional or have somebody confirm that it 

happened, and things like that. 

 So there are a number of reasons 

here why -- well, the main reason is we want 

to decrease the expectation that we're going 

to go out and talk to everybody, the people 

they knew when they worked, decrease that 

expectation, and, also, in that sense, 

decrease the burden on them that some of them, 

some fraction of them feel obliged to, gosh, 

I'd better try to figure out, you know, 

remember who these people were and see if I 

could figure out how to find them. 

 Actually, we've heard stories, 

accounts of people who went through a lot of 

work to find co-workers and supervisors, only 
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 

to tell us about them, and then we did nothing 

about it because we understood the situation 

it was describing okay from other sources. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I take Stu's 

point well because I think when I interviewed, 

started interviewing claimants, especially 

survivor claimants early on, this was a very 

big frustration that they took some time and 

effort to find co-workers and then nothing was 

done. They were never contacted. So it was 

creating a lot of problems. 

 Now leaving aside the question of 

whether NIOSH should be interviewing coworkers in the case of survivors for the 

moment, I think if you're not going to use 

them, it doesn't make sense to tell them in 

advance. But I do think it might still be -- 

the question of incidence and the incomplete 

record of incidence in dose reconstruction is 

kind of a technical point that is very 

important. 

 They might be told in some way 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 

 54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- and this is the same sentence which appears 

in both letters, for the employee and for the 

survivors, that they might be told that, if 

you know of some particular incident that 

you're especially concerned about that you 

can't inform us, and some co-worker might be 

helpful, but then you would interview that 

person. 

 You might add, again, that normally 

we are able to complete these without 

information on co-workers because records are 

normally complete or you're using maximizing 

and efficiency methods, or whatever, which is 

mostly the case. I mean, mostly, you are able 

to complete these because either you've got a 

minimum or a maximum, and you don't need the 

co-worker information, as I understand. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Rather than delete 

the sentence entirely, you could rephrase it. 

 You could rephrase this, because it's written 

there because the original form didn't 

specifically ask who your co-workers were. 
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 

That's why it was written. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The revised form, 

the proposed revised form, does not. But you 

could put in a different sentence that would, 

just first of all, make sure, you know, 

reassure them that we don't want them to go to 

a lot of work to find people. But if they can 

readily identify people who observed things 

that they feel is important for their dose 

reconstruction, they will have the opportunity 

to call us with this. 

 So the problem is, when you try to 

really flesh this out, you're getting a longer 

and longer and more and more complicated 

letter. So I'm not going to attempt to write 

anything here in this meeting, but, you know, 

there could be a way to try to see, is there a 

sentence we can write there that kind of 

conveys that message that you can identify 

these people to us? We don't want you to go 

to any work to try to identify them for 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 

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

But, if there are some readily available ones 

you want to tell us, we certainly will listen 

to you. 

 I don't know that we would promise 

that we would talk to them, though, because, 

again, depending on what the person tells us, 

we may be completely comfortable or they may 

describe an event that we know all about; 

we've had other accounts or we found records 

of and we got the whole investigation report. 

 So we don't want to promise that 

we'll call, but you could leave the avenue 

open for them to provide names, if they're 

readily available, without deleting this all 

together, or you wouldn't even have to say 

anything about it here and just account for it 

in the interview itself. 

 I mean there are a lot of things 

you could do besides just delete it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have an 

additional comment. It relates to what you 

said, 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 

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It seems to me -- and I think I 

made this comment several months ago or 

something along this line -- I don't think 

either of these cover letters conveys to the 

claimants why they're being contacted for 

information. 

 It says that NIOSH needs their help 

to reconstruct the dose, which I guess I'm not 

even sure that's a good statement. But it is 

not at all clear that NIOSH is prepared in 

general to reconstruct doses anyway. It's not 

at all clear that you're in a sense looking 

for any supplementary information that they 

may wish to provide. 

 I believe it still has the tone 

that there's a burden on them to provide 

information without which the dose cannot be 

reconstructed, if you understand what I'm 

saying. 

 It's true it says it's all 

voluntary. You don't have to have the 

interview, but it seems to me the tone 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 

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

still there that there's a much greater burden 

on the claimant than we really believe there 

is in terms of how we carry out dose 

reconstruction and how we proceed. 

 If somehow it could be conveyed to 

them that much of the information that is 

needed will be available, and is already 

available to NIOSH from existing records, and 

that to the extent that the employee may wish 

to supplement that or comment on that -- in 

other words, if there could be a tone that 

made it clear that NIOSH has a lot of 

information, but recognizes that, as the 

claimant, you may have additional information 

that you may wish to make available to us. 

 I think the deleted part here could 

be put in the form of a general statement that 

we may wish to get back to you later if we 

seek additional details, or something like 

that. It doesn't have to be couched in terms 

of supervisors or co-workers or anything of 

that sort. It could simply be pointed out 
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 

that, if we get into your dose reconstruction 

and we have questions, we would like to be 

able to come back and ask you if you have 

additional details on some specific thing. 

 And I know that this letter I don't 

think goes to OMB. So we're talking about, 

again, I think, recommendations to NIOSH and 

the ORAU team. Again, I'm thinking in terms 

of the tone of the letter and what the 

expectation of the claimant is when they get 

this letter, what they feel their burden is. 

Because they're going to go back and look at 

the questions, and I know you're suggesting 

deleting a lot of that, and that should help. 

 But I think the tone of the letter 

needs to match that in some way. I don't have 

specific wording, but it's kind of a feeling 

that I have in terms of how it's presently 

stated. 

 And I guess the other thing I would 

add to that, it seems to me that it would make 

sense not to have an identical letter for 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 

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

family member, the same letter as the claimant 

gets. We already know the family members, 

almost across the board, know much less, and 

the letter should recognize that and tell them 

that we understand that they may know very 

little about the claimant's details, but in 

case they do, we are soliciting that 

information. 

 And again, I don't have specific 

wording, but that's kind of the tone of what I 

feel. I'm concerned about, and, Mike, I think 

you have similar concerns, about the families. 

 You've expressed this before, that they often 

know very little about what the claimant did. 

 Why do they get the same letter as an 

employee? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, I agree it 

should be two letters. I think one to the 

Energy employee. 

 You know, I agree with part of your 

comments, Paul, that it should kind of give 

the feeling that, in general, the process 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 

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get along without this interview, but I like 

part of Stu's comments, too, that somewhere in 

there we want to conduct this interview 

because you may have news about an incident or 

something that our records don't show. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I agree with 

that. Right. Right. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: It kind of pulls 

it both ways. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think Paul and Mike 

have articulated pretty well the concerns that 

we have expressed previously. Perhaps it 

feels to me that we're a little bogged down in 

terms of how to accomplish what we're talking 

about here. 

 If there is something other than a 

recommendation that we can make to NIOSH, then 

perhaps we should try to identify what that 

is. If not, then it seems it would be very 

helpful from the Subcommittee's point of view 

to be more specific with respect to what 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 

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

expect from NIOSH. 

 What's the feeling there with 

regard to how to proceed to make this happen? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'll be 

willing to respond to that. 

 It seems to me that if there's a 

general agreement -- and, yes, I'm looking for 

feedback from NIOSH and ORAU, if we're off 

base here, to set us on the right track. 

 I think we can certainly -- well, I 

guess with the work group I want to be the 

same way as we are with our Board contractor. 

 I don't think we should do the work of NIOSH 

or ORAU. I think if we want to delineate 

something about the tone of the letter, I 

would like to put the burden back on them to 

suggest some modifications. 

 I mean I can wordsmith and Mike can 

wordsmith and Wanda can wordsmith and Mark 

can, but I don't think we should be rewriting 

the letter per se, is my view on it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, I agree. I agree. 
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 

 So if I identify as our action item that I 

will circulate to the Subcommittee members my 

suggestion of wording for a recommendation to 

NIOSH, and with the expectation that at our 

next meeting of the full Board we will provide 

that recommendation to them with respect to, 

one, differentiating clearly between the 

employee letter and the family survivor letter 

and, two, making very clear, making more clear 

in the letter that dose reconstruction can 

proceed without any further information, but 

for their own benefit, in the event that there 

may be significant information that they're 

unaware of, these interviews will go forward. 

 If that's agreeable to the other 

members of the Subcommittee, then I will try 

to word that recommendation and get it around 

to you. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, does that 

include two different letters or how do you -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes. More 

distinct the differentiation between 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 

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

employee letter and the family member letter 

and the survivor letter. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Should there be 

something in there that actively said that we 

have issues of special concern that we may not 

know about, especially the employee letter? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I can hardly hear what 

you're saying. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I was saying that, 

especially in the employee letter, there might 

be some mention in there of issues you are 

especially concerned about or you feel records 

might be inadequate, especially, Wanda, here. 

 Because this is a frequent 

complaint in SECs, for instance, that people 

feel records are inadequate and incidents 

haven't been recorded. 

 Since you're proceeding with a 

normal dose reconstruction without the routine 

information provided, what radionuclides were 

involved, what buildings people worked in, and 

so on, it would seem that the special purpose 
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 

of the CATI, if it is to be useful, is to 

elicit that kind of information that may then 

help the dose reconstructor. 

 I mean you may not need it, but -- 

 DR. NETON: There is a section in 

the CATI that does talk about, is there 

anything else you would like to offer in the 

interview? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. 

Essentially, you need supplemental 

information. Now I'm thinking required 

information. 

 DR. NETON: Maybe something in a 

warning to that effect or a cover letter to 

suggest that they prepare, present that 

information? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It could be more 

specific. I mean, is there anything else? 

Usually, you know, sometimes at the end of an 

interview, your mind will blank and you'll 

say, "There's nothing else. I've said it 

all." 
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 

 The thing that I'm pointing out is 

very often in SECs you see this concern here 

pretty much across the board. Records are not 

adequate. Incidents haven't been recorded. 

You know, "I've worked with contaminated 

equipment that was considered to be clean, and 

it was sent back to the field." This kind of 

thing that people feel is not in the records. 

 So I don't know whether you want to indicate 

that in the letter or not. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't see why it 

couldn't be indicated, and it is part of the 

interview. In fact, I think, Mike, you 

suggested this. This is one of the areas that 

you do want to solicit information perhaps. 

Do they know of something that they at least 

wish to have in the record that might have 

been overlooked? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Because I mean, to 

say, "We really don't need your information, 

but we're interviewing you," it's kind of, you 

know, it seems like going to the other 
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 

extreme, from saying, "We really need your 

help in dose reconstruction" to saying, "We 

really don't need your help, but we're 

interviewing you." 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I hope I didn't 

convey that we tell them we don't need their 

help. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think you 

can say that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was talking more, 

there's a feeling that the burden is on them 

to provide the information for it to be done. 

 I would like to see a letter that they didn't 

feel like the burden is on them to get the 

information. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, I subscribe 

to your sentiment. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Back to the issue, how 

to proceed, is there any objection to my 

writing the wording of a proposed 

recommendation to NIOSH for full Board 
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 

approval and circulating it to the 

Subcommittee for agreement? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good with that. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, sounds good 

to me. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good, I'll take 

that action. I will get it to you in 

reasonable fashion here. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, just a process 

issue: Paul and I were discussing before the 

meeting opened, we have a teleconference 

meeting of the full Board -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: -- a week from today, I 

believe. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: So it depends really on 

how this day proceeds with respect to the CATI 

discussion, but you could possibly be looking 

at being able to make recommendations to the 

full Board a week from today, just to help you 

with the timing question. If you don't 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 

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it, if you can't get that much done, then 

that's not an issue, that date. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would like it if we 

could. I think a great deal of it depends 

upon the current schedules of the Subcommittee 

members, and from what I can identify right 

now, that schedule is looking pretty bad. But 

I will try to get this information out as 

early as possible with an idealized goal of 

attempting -- there's an item on the agenda on 

the 31st. I'm not at all sure that it is 

possible, but I will give it a try. 

 Now that was -- 

 MR. KATZ: So that was item one 

from Mark. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That was one issue. 

Now issue No. 2? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. So issue No. 2 

from Mark also references this same letter 

that we've been discussing to the employee. 

He says, "On page 2, second paragraph, the 

text reads, quote, this interview provides 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 

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

with the opportunity to inform NIOSH of any 

additional information regarding your work 

history that might not be contained in the 

exposure monitoring and information we receive 

from DOE or AWE, close quote." 

 And his comment is, "Nothing wrong 

with the sentence. However, I'm not sure 

where this other information is brought out 

during the interview process and captured." 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think from 

our standpoint, there are two places. One is 

in the incident. You know, we ask them to 

describe the incidents they were involved in 

because oftentimes people will feel like 

something worthwhile is an incident to them, 

and they would want to report that. Then, at 

the end, when we ask for additional things you 

want to tell us about, "Anything else you want 

to say?" 

 And we do, in fact, get a number of 

people who provide a number of comments at 

that part of the interview. So I would 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 

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that's where it's done, if that is what Mark 

is suggesting here. That would be what we 

would say. 

 DR. NETON: In fact, occasionally, 

we find people that bring to light work 

histories that aren't even documented by 

either the DOE or the DOL. I mean they will 

say, "Well, I worked two years before that," 

or something to that effect, in an interview. 

 That will be added to the interview and 

captured. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, it would 

have to be verified. 

 DR. NETON: It has to be verified. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we don't just 

add it. 

 DR. NETON: No. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It has to be 

verified by the Department of Labor. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: My personal reaction 

to Mark's second comment was that 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 

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

perspective of what existed in the CATI 

indicated that his concern was already 

covered, but that's open for discussion. 

 Does anyone have any strong 

feelings that the existing process and the 

existing form does not call for that 

additional information adequately? It seems 

like it does to me. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: This goes to some 

of Mark's comments on 19 and mine and, 

actually, relates to what we just talked 

about. 

 In the question on incidents, you 

might add something like: "Do you know of 

incidents that were not recorded or that we 

might find more information about and 

documentation that might not be in your file?" 

 To give you a specific example, in 

some site -- I can't remember; I don't 

remember the name of the site, but there was a 

particular requirement, I think, or something 

like that. I don't remember the site. 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 

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

said that their records individually did not 

contain incident information. It was part of 

the site information that didn't show up in 

the employee record. 

 So, in Question 19, we don't 

solicit a specific like that. I think this 

would probably be most applicable to records, 

things that happen to them, but they feel the 

records don't exist. And incidents would 

probably be the most important category. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I notice in 

20, under "other relevant information," they 

say, "Have we missed asking you about any 

conditions, situations, or practices that 

occurred during this job which you think might 

be useful to us in estimating your dose? If 

yes, describe in detail what occurred, when, 

where, how long, and who was involved." 

 That seems to me like a means of 

capturing other information. Maybe it's not 

complete, but it sounds like it is pretty 

open. That's in addition to the incidents 
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 

section. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I mean it is 

open. I think the open parts are fine. You 

know, people do get the opportunity to 

describe what's on their mind that might have 

been missed in the specific question. 

 I was referring to the question of 

records, and did they feel that what they 

experienced was captured in the records? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, and then it 

says, "Are you aware of any records related to 

this information that may help us estimate 

dose?" 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean the 

questions I think are there. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe it's 

adequate. I don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: In direct response to 

Mark's concern, I think that several areas 

have been pointed out here that would address 

his concern. 
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 

 My only question here is, how do we 

relay the information we've discussed here 

briefly and succinctly to Mark in response to 

that specific question? 

 NIOSH, can you very quickly respond 

to that by electronic means to this 

Subcommittee, just as a cover and for the 

record, to respond to Mark's question? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You want us to 

provide a response to No. 2 about where we 

believe that -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- is called for in 

the interview? Yes, Mark may have -- you 

know; Mark is pretty thoughtful about this. 

He may have a slant on this that didn't really 

come across as comments. So I think that's 

probably a good idea, to just provide that to 

him and then let him explain further. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Based on the comments 

that we've just made here that have pointed 

out responses to that, I think we can say 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 

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are going to respond to Mark's concern, Item 

No. 2, and move on to the next comments, with 

respect to the form. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So now comments 

on the form, and this is the employee's 

script, interview script. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I have a 

question. Before we get to the script, and on 

the page 2 item, I just want to ask, do the 

recipients already know the acronyms? Do they 

know what an A-W-E is? Many of these people 

didn't work for the Department of Energy. 

They worked for a contractor of the Atomic 

Energy Commission. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, don't the basic 

rules of grammar apply still to all of the 

communications that go out from any 

governmental agency? Aren't all acronyms 

first spelled out before they are used 

subsequently in any material? Or has that 

rule gone by the wayside with electronic text? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe, Wanda, 
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 

that is normally what we try to do, is we 

write it out the first time and use the 

acronym following, and then, after that, we 

put the acronym. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but even if you 

say what it is, do they know what an Atomic 

Weapons Employer is? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember. 

Jim, do you remember the application form? I 

mean that they submit to Labor. 

 DR. NETON: I don't recall. I 

suspect they do, but I can't think of where 

they would become aware of that in the 

process, off the top of my head. It's worth 

checking into. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean there's many 

of these individuals that will say, "Well, I 

never worked for the Department of Energy. I 

worked for, you know, Union Carbide, and they 

were a contractor of the Atomic Energy 

Commission." 
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 

 DR. NETON: Somehow, applying to 

the program now, I suspect that they are 

asked, what kind of weapons employer they 

might have worked for. I'm not sure. We need 

to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think there's a 

lot that the claimant goes through before we 

ever see them. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't really 

know, sitting here. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They would get that 

from the Department of Labor? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There are these 

series of EE forms that are the application 

forms. There's one if it's a living Energy 

employee, and there's one for survivors, and 

there are other forms. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That explains it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

don't know. All I'm saying is that there is a 

lot of opportunity early in 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 

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

before the case ever comes to us, for them to 

understand why it is that they're in the 

program. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So they 

probably -- we haven't had a problem with 

people saying, like when we say, "Were you an 

A-W-E employee," they don't say, "Well, what 

is that?" 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

haven't heard of a lot of problem with that. 

I don't know if Pat has anything to offer or 

not. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Pat, are you still 

on the line? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Pat is not on 

the line. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Who else on the 

ORAU team works with Pat? Do we know --? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, nobody else 

who is on the phone, right? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Can't we just leave an 

action item that NIOSH will verify for us how 
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 

the claimant is informed of the exact meaning 

of -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a feeling 

it's probably not an issue if it's not 

written. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean they get a 

glossary from us with their receipt packet. I 

would think the Atomic Weapon Employer is in 

that glossary. So, I mean, this should not be 

the first time they've seen the term, I don't 

think. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Does that 

come with this packet? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that goes 

earlier. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Earlier? Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The acknowledgment 

packet is when we first get a claim -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I got you. 

All right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we send an 

acknowledgment packet. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Are we satisfied on 

that point? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think I'm fine. 

I don't want to make extra work here. I just 

was concerned as to what level of sort of 

knowledge people had about these acronyms when 

they get this thing kind of at the front end. 

 But they, apparently, have had -- well, 

they've filled out all the forms at this 

point. So they have to have had -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think we've 

never had any trouble with anybody not really 

understanding why they're in it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean they know 

they worked for Bethlehem Steel, and that's 

why they're in, or something. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. Okay, I'm 

all right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

 MR. KATZ: Would you like me 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 

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

proceed? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Again, before we go on 

to the form, thanks to Mike for the email. 

Unfortunately, Mike, your email came as a 

winmail.dat file which, for some reason, my 

system does not want to open. So whatever the 

format was that you sent that file, it's not 

helping me out. I still don't have the form. 

 MR. KATZ: So that's the script? 

Mike sent you the script. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that a .pdf 

file? 

 CHAIR MUNN: If it were a .pdf 

file, I would not have a problem. 

 DR. NETON: You might be able to 

open it with Acrobat Reader. 

 CHAIR MUNN: My system doesn't want 

to acknowledge it. I don't know whether it's 

Vista or what, but -- 

 MR. KATZ: Jim was suggesting you 

might want to try Acrobat Reader since it was 

a .pdf file. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I have Acrobat 

Reader and I tried -- 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- changing the suffix 

to .pdf, and it didn't help. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, we'll have 

someone else send you, in case somehow -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We're talking about 

the form, is that we're talking about? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I would like the 

form. 

 MR. KATZ: The scripts. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, which were lost 

from my other files when I destroyed whatever 

I did. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I just 

forwarded an email to you that I think has the 

version we're working on. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Stu. I 

appreciate it. 

 Now we can go back to Ted. 
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 

Comments on the form? 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So Mark's first 

comment -- again, this is the employee's 

script, for the Energy employee -- and his 

first comment, and I guess Paul will follow 

along with the form itself; I don't have that 

-- is: "In several places, including Question 

7, you ask the claimant to list, quote, time 

period worked or time period." 

 He's just suggesting that that 

include in parenthetical, e.g., He says, 

"e.g., 1960 to 1965". But, in other words, a 

clarification that you're talking about what 

years. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Like don't write 

down five months -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Exactly. 

Exactly. He is meaning be specific about 

dates, in effect. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then -- 

 MR. KATZ: That seems just pretty, 

the comments, pretty straightforward. Does 
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 

the Board -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does. 

However, would it not be good just to change 

the year, from time period to the years 

worked? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you don't 

want them to say 10 years either. Dates or if 

you put -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Date of the time 

period worked. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: "yyyy to yyyy" or 

something. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Does that create a 

change that gives anybody heartburn? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That's what's 

intended, I think. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean keep in mind, I 

think, that this is an interview with a live 

person on the line. So if there were any 

confusion, I'm sure the interviewer would 

clarify that they're looking for dates. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You would think so. 
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 

 MR. KATZ: You probably don't need 

to edit this if this were a standalone written 

document that they were going to respond to 

through the mail, the questionnaire. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone feel that 

we need to take any action on this, since, as 

Ted points out, this is really and truly a 

question that is asked by an interviewer who 

is going to be very specific about needing 

years? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it's fine. 

 I wonder if we might go back, though, and go 

through these items one by one and maybe bring 

in Mark's comments when we get to the 

particular item? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, we could do that. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I had some comments 

on one and two. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I did, too. 

 MR. KATZ: Why don't we do that 

then? That will be the last for now, and when 

you all come in when we get to the items 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 

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mark's -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that okay, 

Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's fine with me; 

if that's the way you want to do it, if you 

think that's more effective. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't know 

if it's more effective. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my concern here 

is the only comments that I've had have been 

from Mark. Unless other members of the 

Subcommittee have formulated some concerns of 

their own that they wish to bring forward, 

then there doesn't seem to be any reason for 

us to go through the form item by item again, 

is there? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in fact, I 

have some comments. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And Mike does, too, 

I guess. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: 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 

 88

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. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I guess we do 

have some -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then is it your 

preference that, rather than follow through on 

Mark's issues, that we begin an item-by-item 

review of the form itself? Would that serve 

our purpose better? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We can do it 

whatever way you want, Wanda. It's your call. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, if the two of 

you there also have comments about one or more 

of the items that we are going to be looking 

at on the form, then it would appear 

reasonable that we start marching through the 

form beginning from item one, if we all have 

the form in front of us. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Shall we do that? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good with that. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'm going to have 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 

 89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wait until the form gets to me. It hasn't 

yet. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, until that 

happens, we can just, where there's a comment, 

they can read the item. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You can go right 

ahead, yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now item one is the 

same for both the employee and the family 

member form. Are we just looking at the 

employee form right now or both? 

 CHAIR MUNN: It seems wise to me 

for us to take these forms one at a time. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Otherwise, we are 

going to be jumping back and forth, and it 

will be doubly confusing, certainly for your 

Chair. 

 Let's begin with the employee's 

form since that's the one on which we appear 

to have a mass of questions here. 
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 ZIEMER: I notice that NIOSH 

is recommending that the facility name be 

deleted. I'm not sure, when they say, 

facility here, if they're talking about like 

Los Alamos National Laboratory or building 

something or other or the hot lab or how you 

would use the chart if the facility was 

eliminated completely. 

 Some of these people have worked in 

multiple places. Some have worked in multiple 

buildings. So I would like to sort of learn 

why they are eliminating facility but I'm not 

even sure what facility means. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that is an 

addition. A yellow highlight is a -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's yellow 

highlighted. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's an addition. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's an addition? 

 DR. NETON: Something has changed, 

but I think it is meant to be deleted. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if it's an 
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 

addition, then my original question is, does 

the recipient know what we mean by facility? 

Remember, they're going to be looking this up 

in advance, right, getting ready for the 

interview? Do we want to know that they 

worked at the test site or do we want to know 

that they worked in Building 505 of something, 

or what are we asking them there? I think it 

needs to be made clear. If we say, you know, 

"building" or -- 

 DR. NETON: That's a good question. 

 I'm not sure what was intended. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not 100 percent 

sure. I believe it means like a building, 

not -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you have a 

separate question on buildings later on, No. 

7. "What building or location did you work 

in?" 

 So I also got a little confused by 

that when I saw "facility" because we often 

have the buildings question come up. But 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 

 92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think you're asking them which site they 

worked at. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is to ask 

if the employment that has been referred to us 

is correct. We have a referred employment. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Then we need 

to specifically earmark this so they know, I 

think. If it's site, e.g. and give them an 

example, e.g., Los Alamos National Lab or 

something like that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, so you might 

say, "What site did you work at? What job did 

you hold there?" That might make it, I guess, 

clearer. 

 I had another comment, if I might, 

Dr. Ziemer. Especially in the construction 

worker thing, it's come up that very often DOL 

is referring to the union people to verify 

employment because they lost track of the 

subcontractors and things like that. 

 So here you might have an 

additional column for contractor 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 

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

subcontractor or maybe AEC/DOE, who they 

worked for, although they might have worked -- 

it might be a complicated question because a 

lot of people work for a lot of different 

companies. So I don't know whether or how you 

want to get into that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They may not be 

real familiar whether they know if they're a 

contractor or subcontractor. You know, they 

know they work for J. A. Jones, and they don't 

know if J. A. Jones was contracting with the 

DOE or with somebody else. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe that's a 

separate question, is: who did you work for? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The employer may 

be -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Who was your 

employer? Right. Is that useful here? I 

don't know. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

 DR. NETON: I think there are 

pluses and minuses when asking 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 

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 One thing that just dawned on me, I 

think facility is in here because I think 

we're referring to covered facility, and that 

is sort of jargon in our business, because 

there are plants that only a specific building 

is covered versus the entire site. Maybe 

that's where this confusion arises from. 

 I'm not sure what level of detail 

you are trying to elicit from that box there. 

 Maybe we need to clarify that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask another 

one on this table? And it will come up again 

when we get to the other claimants, that is, 

the family members. 

 But under "supervisor's name", and 

we're talking about people going back quite a 

ways, I think in the form, again, it would be 

helpful to put, for example, in parentheses, 

if known, or something like that, so that they 

don't spend a lot of time going back into 

records saying, "Gee, I can't remember who my 

supervisor was in 1957." You know, it's 40-50 
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 

years later, and "Gee, who was it?" So I'm 

just suggesting that that be clarified. 

 And then job title, I think the 

same thing. If you asked me what my job title 

was at a certain place 40 years ago, let's 

see, I'm not sure. But why not say "job title 

or type of work"? Like, if you're a pipefitter, I'm not sure if my job was pipe-fitter 

level 3 or -- name something. Do you know 

what I'm saying? 

 Wouldn't it be just as good just to 

say, "job title or type of work" or something? 

 I mean, we would want to know if they were a 

carpenter, but do we need to know that they 

were some specific named title? I'm just sort 

of asking that question. 

 Is the actual title the critical 

piece of information? I don't know. It's a 

question to me. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think job title, I 

mean job title or job performed would be 

more -- 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, see, the 

other thing we have found is that job titles, 

the person may know their job title, but we 

may not have that information in the system as 

far as what we can retrieve in terms of 

information. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Or job performed. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

have an observation. 

 I think that there are 

circumstances when job title is important when 

we're going in and, let's say, we're doing a 

search related to a SEC. I realize we're not 

talking SECs. So there is value of knowing a 

person's job title, if he knows it. 

 But, at the same time, for the 

purpose of dose reconstruction audits, when we 

do our work, knowing the kind of job the 

person does is relevant. So I could see both 

types of information have value. 

 DR. NETON: Question 8 asked, 

"Describe what you did on a job as routine 
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 

duties." So that is to elicit that type of 

information. 

 I really think this "job title" is 

just sort of a placeholder because they might 

have had three or four different jobs in the 

plant, and then they go through every single 

job and ask these series of detailed work 

history questions. So I'm not sure -- I don't 

think there's any harm in making it more 

broad. 

 Is your concern that, if we ask for 

job titles, they have no idea, and they 

wouldn't provide any additional information 

or -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or that they spend 

a lot of time and effort trying to get the 

exact title where that may or may not be that 

important; you know, that "I was a level 3 

secretary" versus a level 2, or what year. "I 

don't remember when I got promoted to level 

3." 

 I don't know. I'm just concerned, 
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 

how much specificity do they need? 

 DR. NETON: Because this is an 

interview where you can elicit that response 

from the person, but maybe your concern is 

this is mailed in advance to the claimants, 

and they would pore over this and try to fill 

it out. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: You could use your 

parenthetical "if known" -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or "if known." 

 MR. KATZ: -- to avoid the problem 

of them searching forever for something that 

maybe you don't need. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you do want to 

know if they were a hot lab or hot cell worker 

or a fuel-handler versus, you know -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right, but when they're 

interviewed, that's when that is elicited. 

This is just being provided in advance. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: So you're just trying 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 

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

avoid them spending time basically -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. I'm 

okay with "if known." 

 CHAIR MUNN: As long as work done 

gets in here somewhere in the interview, 

that's really and truly -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that will 

come out in the work history. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So are we okay 

with that one? 

 (No response.) 

 Sounds like we can move on to the 

next one? Since I still don't have the form, 

I can't identify that or read it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the next 

several questions had to do with detailed work 

history. So I guess I don't know yet what the 

yellow means on the mark-up sheet. Does that 

mean we're adding or deleting? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: A yellow, addition. 

 The yellow is an addition. A yellow 

highlight is an addition. 
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 

 DR. NETON: I think it is at least 

something that is changed on the form. I 

think when this form was modified, any area 

that was changed is highlighted in yellow. 

Now I don't know whether that was an exact 

addition or whether it had moved from 

someplace else. I'm not certain. 

 MR. KATZ: I guess what's germane 

is whether you have any issues with what's 

there, right? 

 DR. NETON: So the yellow is there. 

 This is the form as it would be used. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean at the 

end of the form there's some line-outs. So 

things that are removed are lined out, and 

things that are in yellow are additions. I 

believe that is the -- yes, changes. 

 I mean it could be that this is 

being used to replace the way the question was 

previously phrased. 

 MR. KATZ: I suspect that's -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that 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 

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

probably what happened. 

 DR. NETON: It could have been some 

changes in verbiage or a word or two. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. NETON: I'm pretty certain 

we've asked a lot of these questions before, 

maybe in a slightly different format. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have 

several questions. So let me ask the 

questions. 

 No. 1, how important is it that you 

know that they did shift work? It's Question 

5. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably only in a 

radon environment like Fernald. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I don't know if I 

necessarily agree with that because, if you 

try to use co-worker data to establish a dose, 

an upper-bounding dose, whatever, there could 

have been a difference in what the day shift 

workers were exposed to and as to what the 

second shift workers were exposed 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 

 102

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 I'm 

really asking you is, does NIOSH use that 

information? Do you use shift -- do you say, 

well, this is a second-shift guy, so we'll use 

a different worker/co-worker model? See, I 

don't know if they are doing that. That's why 

I'm asking. 

 DR. NETON: I can't think of an 

example, but I can't guarantee that we haven't 

done something. We've done a lot of -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't even know 

what the Fernald radon model says anymore. I 

just remember the measurements were higher 

overnight than they were during the daytime. 

 DR. NETON: I would have to go back 

and look. I can't answer that question. But 

Mike raises a valid point. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm just 

asking whether it is used. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know if it 

is germane, but on the one of the petitioners 

on the SECs, he had a concern that the off-
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 

shift workers were not being monitored as 

rigorously as the first-shift workers were 

being monitored. So that is a concern. I 

mean that was his concern about differences 

between the shifts. 

 He claimed that working the 

weekends, he was not getting the monitoring 

that he got when he worked the normal 40-hour, 

8:00-to-5:00 shifts. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, but maybe I 

am feeling like the interviewers are tied too 

closely to this. If the answer is yes, do 

they solicit the information about the shift? 

 Because it's a yes/no thing right here. If 

they say yes, that's still not helpful unless 

you follow it up and say, okay, what shift is 

it? Is that what happens then? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think maybe 

what we can take from here is maybe an 

explanation for why or how this would be used, 

and maybe even some modification to it. 

 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 

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: It seems like on the 

surface it's a very simple question. Do you 

think it would be overly burdensome to have 

someone remember if they did shift work or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it would be 

hard to remember when you worked shift work. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, here's the 

other part of it, and it applies to 3 and 4 as 

well. If a person says, "I worked overtime," 

how is that helpful unless you know when that 

occurred? I mean there are very few people 

that work overtime every year, year-round for 

40 years, or whatever the lifetime is. 

 So if they say yes, and they say 

this is how many hours, how do you apply that? 

 So there's a lot more information needed 

here. 

 DR. NETON: But I would think this 

is an instance where it might apply 

generically to a model overall. If we receive 

consistent responses from a particular 

facility that everybody said they worked 10 
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 

hours of overtime a week for this AWE period, 

we would consider it in development of some 

sort of a -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and I know 

we've seen facilities where people have 

pointed out, in fact, even some of the ones 

that involve the civilian workers and the 

tests, where they're talking about 50- and 60-

hour weeks were the norm, and we can take that 

into consideration. 

 But somehow this needs to be tied 

in with years. 

 DR. NETON: Well, this is for a 

particular job that he's claiming at one 

point, right? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: It's the first job. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Well, I'm 

trying to get a feel for what the interviewer 

does with this information because, if a 

worker just says, "On average, I worked 10 

hours overtime," how do you use that unless 
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 

you know what years it occurred in, and so on? 

 So what happens with the information? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll go back and 

find out. This is a direct resolution of a 

comment that has been made on the form, when 

they did the -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: To solicit this 

information? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sort of saying 

that's great information, but without any 

specificity, how can you use it? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I'll find 

out. I mean the best we can do is go figure 

out the intent and how it is going to be 

utilized. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then does that 

put a burden on the worker? Yes, I remember 

working overtime, but I don't know whether 

it -- was it five weeks in 1957 or was it 

year-around or what? Again, it is sort of -- 

 DR. NETON: It really depends 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 

 107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the case. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: For example, if this 

work was completely monitored, his overtime -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then it makes no 

difference. It's irrelevant. That's the 

other part of it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Ziemer, the 

overtime question is separate from the shift 

question, I think. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I understand 

that. Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The overtime 

question has come up from the beginning when 

we've done interviews and talked to workers, 

and you're using eight-hour days, and it is 

relevant when you're using air concentration 

data. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So it becomes quite 

important in the individual dose 

reconstruction to have that information. 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 

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they tell you they worked 10 hours a day or if 

they slept at work -- actually, one of my 

comments here was it came up not only at the 

Nevada test site, it came out of Mallinckrodt. 

 People said, "During the heavier 

periods of work, we worked two shifts and we 

were so exhausted we had to get up again to 

work two shifts that we just slept right 

there. You know, we ran to the office and 

slept." 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I 

understand. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So I think the 

hours of work question, besides overtime that 

might be supplemented by, you know, "Did you 

sleep at work" or, you know, "Were there 

periods when work was so heavy that you 

actually slept there? -- I think that is a 

very important question. 

 The shift question I think would 

need to be amplified to be meaningful. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think they all 
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 

would need to be amplified, and maybe what has 

to happen here is, if the answers to any of 

these are yes, then you give more detail on 

the extent of this, or something that would 

provide more useful information. 

 If this is it, it's not very 

useful. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right, 

because no quantitative information is 

solicited. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

Either "Yes, I did" or -- well, it does ask, 

on the average, how many hours overtime, but 

even that, unless you plug it into some 

periods of time -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Don't you just use 

that -- sorry -- don't you just use that 

generally when somebody says 10 hours a week 

and you just apply that? 

 DR. NETON: Right, but it's very 

rare I think that we would do a claimantspecific adjustment. Again, it would be more 
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 

of a facility. 

 If we knew that all certain job 

categories worked 10 hours a week, we would 

probably just default to that. So this is 

almost a way -- are you going to get the 

upper-bracket exposure or the routine 

exposure? Maybe if you were a secretary and 

didn't work overtime, you would get a certain 

dose model versus someone who was involved in 

overtime work or maybe if there were a 

specific shift model -- for instance, radon at 

Fernald -- it would allow us to make some 

first-order corrections. These wouldn't be 

second-order corrections like, how many 

additional hours are we going to add, that 

sort of thing. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. KATZ: Paul, with respect to 

the period of time, though, the point you're 

making about when he worked overtime, when the 

person -- they go through this interview 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 

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

each job, for each era of that person's work 

history. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So these are 

repeated for each of these? 

 MR. KATZ: Repeated for each of 

their jobs during their career. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. Got 

you. 

 But, even there, suppose they 

worked at one place for "X" -- 30 years? If 

they said they worked overtime, that doesn't 

help you unless you know it occurred sort of 

across the board for 30 years or if it 

occurred for 10 weeks in one year, or 

something. 

 A lot of people do shift work for a 

couple of years and then they're on regular 

shift or they switch. So it is sort of the 

issue of, are you soliciting the information 

that you're actually going to use? If you 

don't need that detail, I think it is fine. 

 I'm sort of asking, are we getting 
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 

what we need for what we do? 

 The questions on both forms are 

identical, both for the employee and the 

family member. 

 DR. NETON: Well, did we agree, 

Stu, we're going to go back and just try to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we'll get a 

little more insight into how the question is 

going to be used. 

 MR. KATZ: So that's still 

Questions 4 and 5. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Three through five, 

I think. 

 MR. KATZ: Three through five, 

right. 

 DR. NETON: In AWE model 

development, we will go back and they'll look 

through all the CATIs and say, "Is our AWE 

profile consistent with what we've heard from 

all the claimants?" It could possibly result 

in modifications to our profile. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So am I hearing 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 

 113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH action to report back more fully on how 

the work history questions are used? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, are or would be 

because it sounds like at least one of these 

questions was added at the behest of SC&A. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask this 

question? This is sort of a process question 

because NIOSH is talking about clarifying 

something here, but these are also the 

documents that have to be formally commented 

on for -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, you can submit 

these comments directly to us. You don't need 

to comment to OMB. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because right now, 

the only thing that OMB has is the extension 

of the existing -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The extension of 

the existing. Once we arrive at -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So there will be 

another modification before you -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We won't wait 
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 

until it has to come up for recertification. 

We'll make a change -- we'll make an amendment 

to the form once we arrive at what it will 

look like. 

 Then we will resubmit to OMB saying 

we want to replace this form we have been 

using to perform the audit and that we want to 

use for this form. So that is how this works. 

 So these comments should come directly to us. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So the action 

item is NIOSH will report back on 

clarification of details regarding how work 

history is used. 

 Am I stating that correctly or not? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You may just want 

to take Questions 3 through 5. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. All right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Or, Paul, do those 

comments pertain to 6 as well? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Sorry, I'm not hearing 

you clearly, 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 

 115

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'm just 

wondering if Question No. 6 has that same sort 

of thing. "How many hours per week did your 

job involve potential exposure to radiation 

and to radioactive materials?" 

 Again, that is something -- isn't 

that Question 6? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, that is Question 

6. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That is something 

that would change over a person's employment 

or employment at a given site, the same way as 

the amount of overtime they worked and things 

like that. It could anyway. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Sure. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just trying to 

scope out the extent of the things I want to 

reply back on. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Well, one would 

expect that to change over time, yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Wanda, I sent you 

the form. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I have them now. 

 Thank you. I appreciate Scott and Arjun both 

responding to that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, on number 

six, and I hadn't noticed this before, but 

your use of the term potential exposure I 

think you could argue that if a person worked 

in a laboratory that had materials on hand, 

their job always involved potential exposure. 

 You're after the actual exposure. What does 

potential mean here? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I believe the 

intent would be, if you -- well, I may be 

speaking out of school. But there are 

probably some jobs where you work in an office 

for at least a part of your day or the bulk of 

your day. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And some part of 

that, you would not be in a production area or 

something. 

 I suppose it still is, 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 

 117

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, again, you can ask the 

same question, how helpful is this actually? 

How necessary this is going to actually be for 

dose reconstruction because a lot really 

hinges on that answer. You could ask that 

question. I'm not sure what would hinge on 

that answer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, what I'm 

saying is, if you worked in that office but 

you're from time to time going to be sent out, 

potentially that could be anytime and, 

therefore, all the time. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You want to know, 

on average -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: The intent is not 

that, well, when I'm working in my office, I'm 

potentially going to be exposed because I may 

be -- I think the one indication or point 

where this may come into play would be if 

you're going to decide for a co-worker, was 

this person constantly exposed or occasionally 
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 

exposed person, because that makes a different 

category usually on a co-worker application. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: So I'm not sure we 

make that distinction based on the CATI 

answer, to be completely honest with you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, Paul does make a 

good point though, the point being that a 

staggering number of people assume that if 

they work anywhere onsite or even near-site 

that they have a potential for exposure. 

Whether that is true in a strictly 

categorical, scientific sense is an entirely 

different issue. But the use of the word 

potential pretty much covers almost, in the 

minds of the claimants, covers pretty much 

anyone who goes through the gate. 

 DR. NETON: Right, except that we 

do go on to elicit a lot of additional 

information about what did you do, what type 

of potential nuclides were there. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right, right. 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 

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understand that. I'm just hovering in on the 

use of the word potential. I've seen that as 

a trigger in so many minds. 

 DR. NETON: I really thought this 

was more sort of to establish some sort of a 

dichotomy. I mean the administrative staff, 

who rarely visited the areas where radioactive 

materials were used, secretarial types, I'm 

not sure we haven't got an answer that zero 

has shown up in some of these interviews. I 

mean that's helpful information to begin with, 

when someone says, "Oh, I had very little 

potential," or "Maybe I walked out there one 

hour a month or two hours." 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: I think it is a helpful 

question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So they understand 

what it means then? 

 DR. NETON: Well, I think the 

interviewer has an opportunity to explain it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: 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 

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: I think it is a 

reasonable question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay then, as 

long as the interviewer is approaching it that 

way. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Can we 

move on from work duties to item 8? 

 DR. MAURO: Item 8, Mark had a 

comment. 

 CHAIR MUNN: With respect to 

routine duties and the handling of materials. 

 Mark's comment was 8.2. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll read it, if 

you would like. 

 The overall 8 is "Describe what you 

did on the job as routine duties." 8.2, Mark 

says, "What quantities of radiological 

material over what time? If the interviewee 

has enough information to answer this 

question, it doesn't seem like the field 

provided on the form is appropriate for 

collecting the information. One problem 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 

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that it could vary tremendously by 

radionuclide. For example, was there tons of 

uranium, ounces of plutonium, etcetera?" 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'm assuming the 

interviewer is not constrained by the space on 

the form. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I think I can 

shed some light on this question. That 

response was originally in the form when it 

was drafted. After some interagency review, 

the response on what types of quantities was 

taken off the form. There were issues with us 

determining what quantities of plutonium were 

in various facilities at various times, that 

sort of thing. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So is this question 

disappearing then or they are just asking -- 

 DR. NETON: It doesn't ask what 

quantities. Mark is saying, why don't we find 

out what quantities? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it says, 

"What quantities" -- 8.2 on the employee'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 

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

form, not on the -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: "What quantities of 

radioactive materials were present or 

processed, ounces, pounds, kilograms, drums?" 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I think it had 

more to do with the specific isotopes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, this is 8.2. 

 DR. NETON: This would be the 

isotopic -- but I guess if you have generic 

quantities, that's okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But Mark's question is 

that, if they have enough information, the 

field on the form isn't large enough. And my 

response is that the size of the field on the 

form really doesn't have anything to do with 

it, does it? The interviewer can write as 

long as the interviewer is getting 

information. Correct? 

 DR. NETON: But I think Mark is 

getting into this; it varies tremendously by 

radionuclide. I think that is where we ran 

into trouble with this. This is a generic 
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 

question, were there tons, pounds? But if you 

get into specific information about what 

quantities of individual nuclides such as 

plutonium or maybe enriched uranium, you could 

get into some issues with other agencies. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But there are very few 

people other than very specific laboratory 

personnel who had that kind of detail. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think Pat's 

back on the phone. Pat, the first question, 

8.2. 

 First of all, I know this is done 

on a computer. Does the field expand to just 

accommodate however much you want to write in 

there? 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what I 

thought. 

 MS. KRAPS: We can put in as much 

as the claimant would like to have put in 

under that particular topic. 
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 

 The other thing, in the electronic 

software program itself, that's not called out 

as a separate question, but rather as a tie-on 

to the question. In other words, if the 

employee or the claimant says, "Yes, I was 

exposed; we handled tritium," then we would 

ask very generically, you know, "Did you 

handle it daily? Was it a lot? Was it 

liquid," et cetera, et cetera? 

 So we do ask the question very 

generically, trying to stay away from the 

specifics, as Jim was referring to. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, Pat, each of 

these nuclides that are listed in 8 as well as 

the unknown ones or the blanks in 8, those 

expand to allow you to enter quantities, at 

least in a general sense? 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, absolutely. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That could, in some 

cases, be in terms of millicuries or is that 

always in mass? 

 MS. KRAPS: Well, we can put it in 
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 

in whatever format that the claimant is 

stating. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. But when you 

get into certain ones like plutonium, are you 

even permitted to ask that question? 

 MS. KRAPS: Well, I can tell you -- 

and this is a very general, broad brush here, 

if you will -- very rarely do the claimants 

actually give us quantities. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. KRAPS: Okay, when they do give 

us quantities, it's usually in terms of, you 

know, daily eight hours a day and it was 

solid, and leave it at that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I see. 

 MS. KRAPS: Or I had a gentleman 

that I did an update with a week ago, and he 

referred to it as tons, just because he worked 

there for so long. So, again, we don't get 

into the nitty-gritty specifics. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's why there is 

enough flexibility for the interviewer 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 

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

pursue the issue, right? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: On Question 8, 

might it be useful to ask whether in the 

portion where materials got suspended, you 

know, radionuclides were suspended, was the 

environment dusty? Because these questions 

sometimes come up in assessing area, air 

monitoring, and all of this. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It seems, in response 

to Mark's specific concern, is that the 

question and the interviewer are flexible 

enough to be able to accommodate essentially 

any type of material that the employee wants 

to provide. Am I correct in that statement? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, you are correct 

that they can provide as much information as 

they want. These fields are expandable. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. Then that 

should put the 8.2 question to bed. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let me ask, 

though, a follow up on Arjun's question. I 

don't think this is soliciting 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 

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about releases here. You're asking about 

whether or not something became airborne, and 

I think they're only asking here what form it 

was in. Was it solid, gas, and so on? But 

you're asking about a follow-up, I think, 

Arjun, are you not? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. My comment 

wasn't directed at 8.2 particularly, but at 8 

more generally, in that seems to be, from my 

memory, the only place where the materials 

question comes up in all of the subcategories. 

 The other questions are about monitoring. 

 And so since that would appear to 

be the place to ask about whether the 

processes were -- you know, whether you had 

machining or something that was suspending the 

materials, or whether the environment was 

dusty or not -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: There are questions 

further down with respect to control measures 

and whether special work permits were 

required, et cetera, and monitoring questions 
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 

come up in 9. So there's material further 

down that, if the questions that we're coming 

to further down don't respond, don't seem to 

fit the bill, would you bring the question 

back up again, Arjun, when we get down there? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Absolutely. I mean 

I guess it could be more than one -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes, 8.3 kind of gets 

to that issue. It says, "What type of 

production process involving radioactive 

material occurred in the area?" I mean, a 

person could describe whether they were 

rolling uranium rods or running a lathe or 

something of that effect. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but it doesn't 

get at what I was -- and that's the context. 

That's why I raised it in the context of 8 

because over there you get information like "I 

was machining" or "We were producing green 

salt and some metal," or whatever. 

 Then the corollary of the process 

description would be, was it dusty; 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 

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

clean; was there visible suspension as a 

result of the process? 

 Maybe it's not useful. It occurred 

to me in going through Question 8 in the way 

it is structured. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know. I'm not 

sure what you would make of a response in that 

area if you know the area is already -- I 

guess -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we've had 

this -- this, I guess, goes to our discussions 

on Bethlehem Steel, how dusty it was -- 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- whether at the 

workplace people were able to see the dust. I 

remember we actually tried to quantify from 

that, and that turned out to be quite useful 

information. 

 That came out of interviews. Both 

NIOSH and SC&A spent quite a lot of time and 

effort trying to find out which workplaces 

were dusty enough for visible dust. This 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 

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from memory of -- 

 DR. NETON: No, you're right. 

You're right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe, just as a 

follow-up to that idea, there are some other 

questions here in 8 that somewhat relate to 

that but don't ask the specific question. 

 For example, "What specific tasks 

did you perform? What are the processes?" 

Maybe a corollary to 8.3 even would be, "Are 

you aware of any processes where radioactive 

materials were released to the work 

environment," or something like that, I think 

is what you're getting at, are you not, Arjun? 

 CHAIR MUNN: But isn't that covered 

much further down in any incidents or 

activities that haven't been covered here? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think 

partially it does, but you might consider 

certain processes where you have sort of 

general partial releases that maybe wouldn't 

be qualified as incidents. I'm not sure 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 

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Bethlehem Steel that they were considered 

incidents. It was the normal work environment 

in the sense that it was kind of dirty work or 

messy work. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And especially in 

the period. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, for that 

period. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You're asking for a 

depiction of, essentially, the appearance of 

the workplace, was it clean or dirty, however 

you want to phrase that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right, 

right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be 

relevant to whether we build the same -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: There are other 

questions here about contamination control 

measures. So maybe something would fit in 

here to ask the question in some form or 

another about work conditions. I am not sure 

what the wording would 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 

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: You're getting the 

dusty environment-type questions. That is 

relevant for maybe a uranium facility, but 

when you get into a plutonium facility, it's 

not really important. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. You would hope 

not. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It had better not 

be. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know. I could 

see it potentially useful. Although many 

workers confuse chemical dusty environment 

with a radioactive dusty environment. It 

doesn't necessarily get you a definitive 

answer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because they do 

have a question about contamination control 

measures and respirators, and so on. I mean 

it is sort of like, well, why are you using 

those potential or real -- 

 DR. NETON: But I guess you could 

argue that if they answer "never" to all 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 

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

8.6, it still doesn't mean it wasn't a 

dusty -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. So 

you may need the specific question. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I mean the 

suggestion really was from the uranium 

environment being awfully dusty, trying to 

establish what that means quantitatively. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So is there a 

Subcommittee recommendation with respect to 

this concern? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to me it 

would be appropriate to have a question that 

solicited the type of information that was 

described. I mean I don't know what the 

wording would be, but it would fit in with the 

other questions, I think. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we can -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: May I suggest that we, 

at the moment, put this in a sidebar for our 

own thinking until we have gone through the 

forms to see if other questions further 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 

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are a more appropriate place for this issue? 

Or do you want to address it right now, right 

here, right now? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay with that. 

 I just don't want to lose it. 

 MR. KATZ: There's another comment 

from Mark that falls in this range of 

questions. It is on 8.5. 

 He asks, he says, "8.5 asks a very 

specific question and, once again, no 

systematic way for the information to be 

collected." So it's not so much that there 

isn't a field for it, but it isn't systematic. 

 The question 8.5 is, "What specific 

task did you perform, using what types of 

radioactive materials (in what quantities) 

and/or radiation-generating equipment?" So 

what specific task did you perform? 

 So Mark is saying that the response 

field there doesn't give sort of a systematic 

way of collecting the information. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I suspect 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 

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

computer form does. 

 Pat, are you still on the line? 

 MS. KRAPS: I'm on the line. I'm 

not sure that I understand the -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question 8.5, what 

kind of a field do you have when you collect 

that information? 

 MS. KRAPS: We have a field where 

we type in the type, the quantity, and the 

specific task. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it sounds like 

you have exactly what Mark had in mind. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I guess my 

question would be, I mean, if the claimant is 

attempting to fill this form out before the 

interview, he gets this in the mail, as I 

understand, and he's maybe attempting to fill 

it out before the interview, I mean, how does 

he know what the -- he doesn't have access to 

the electronic form. So he may be spending 

time or he may be looking at the same field 

and have the same question that Mark 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 

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

what's the specific way that I should put the 

information in that field? 

 Do we need to tell him more 

information or to use additional sheets of 

paper or not to be limited by the size of the 

fields that are shown on the form, or 

something along those lines? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: They do provide for 

suggested tables in some of the others. I 

think the computer, apparently, is doing it 

that way. Does that help the person to 

organize their stuff, to have a little table 

for themselves? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the question 

I'm asking, I guess. Does the person -- I 

mean your question earlier on, Paul, was like 

the individual is trying to fill this out in 

anticipation of the phone call, and he may be 

stumped by, you know, well, what do I put in 

here? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it says what 

he needs. They need the type and the quantity 
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 

and the type of equipment, which is what Pat 

said the array does. We're just not showing 

the array here. You're sort of saying, why 

not, I guess. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Why not? I mean 

he's not limited to that little space. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, he knows 

he's not limited to that little space. He 

realizes that he can expand that as large as 

he wants to or needs to, I guess is the 

question, or does he know that he can expand 

that to as big as he needs to? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is the electronic 

form different before it's filled out than the 

hard copy? Is the electronic form different 

than the hard copy of the form that is sent 

out to the claimant? I wasn't aware of that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it appears on 

the screen probably very similar to the way it 

appears here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: 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 

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. HINNEFELD: But as you enter 

the -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: But it's expandable 

electronically. As additional information is 

provided, you can expand it to whatever size 

it needs to be. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the field is 

expandable. I mean -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it probably 

looks like this. As you put things in there, 

you keep typing, and it expands to accommodate 

what you type in. I think that is how it 

works. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, but Pat noted 

that this field actually includes these three 

columns or -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, what she 

said was it includes the type, quantity, and 

the task. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: She didn't say 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 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was a table. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is there a table, 

Pat, or not? 

 MS. KRAPS: I'm sorry, was that 

directed to me? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We're on Question 

8.5, Pat. 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You said the form, 

you put in the type of material, the quantity, 

and the task. 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is that a table 

that pops up or you just enter it in that 

fashion when you enter it into the field? 

 MS. KRAPS: It's literally the type 

has a field; quantity has a field, and the 

task has a field. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: So it seems like the 

question you are raising, Steve, is whether 
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 

this form should also be sort of a job aid for 

the employees, to make it easy for them to 

prepare, because this is really to give them 

just advance notice of the interview and what 

will be covered, but it wasn't really 

designed, I guess, as a job aid to them so 

much. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, for example, 

on Question 8.1, we don't say what types of 

radioactive materials were present and give 

them one little line. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We give them the 

whole array to help them. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So how is this 

different --? 

 MR. KATZ: I think that array is to 

help the interviewer. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, this was not 

designed to help the claimant. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, 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 

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: It happens that we send 

it out to them to give them a heads-up that 

these types of questions are coming, but it 

was really not the intent to have -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it helps both, 

I understand that, right. No, it's sort of -- 

I don't know -- it's sort of the little 

line -- 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 I guess I don't have the cover 

letter in front of me, but that might be an 

important point to make. That is, when he 

receives this, he should be alert that he's 

not expected to fill out all this information 

before the interview, just we're going to call 

and discuss this. 

 Is that something that is made 

clear in the cover letter? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they tell 

them, you know, don't fill this out and send 

it in; this is just to help you organize your 

thoughts. 
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 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. No, that's fine. 

 I just wanted to check that. Thank you. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: What would be the 

harm in sending out the actual electronic 

version that pops up before it's filled out? 

 CHAIR MUNN: It's an issue of how 

much detail you want to end up sending these 

folks, for goodness sakes. This is a 

formidable number of pages for people to look 

at and a formidable number of questions. If 

you're going to just keep adding all of the 

potential expandables that the software gives 

you that the interviewer has, you will have a 

document that would literally stagger an ox. 

 You just have to anticipate that 

your folks are going to read the letter, so 

that the letter essentially tells them do not 

send the questionnaire back. We'll take the 

information by telephone. 

 If we put every potential format 

for a response into each one of these 

questions, it becomes an overwhelming burden. 
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 

 We're trying to eliminate the burden on the 

claimant, not expand it. 

 We want them to know these are the 

types of questions that are going to be asked, 

but they can expand it, whatever links they 

wish, in the telephone interview. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe we would be 

just as well to leave off the little line, 

just leave the question there, that that's a 

question that they're going to ask you. Do 

you need that little line that asks the same 

thing on 8.3 and 8.4? Do you need those 

little lines? Or even on 8.2? Outside of the 

tables, and so on, why do they need those 

little lines? 

 CHAIR MUNN: The only reason in the 

world they need those, from my perspective, 

would be for the claimant to scribble some 

notes, so that they would have them fresh in 

their mind at the time that they did the 

telephone interview. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, why not leave 
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 

out the little line and just put some space 

there, so they can write their notes? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it might be -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That little short 

line doesn't give them much to scribble on. I 

don't know. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, it doesn't. Blank 

spaces would probably be better, but that's a 

minor point. We can certainly discuss that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and, actually, 

remember, this is something to go to OMB. So 

OMB needs to know what the question is. I 

don't think they necessarily need to know how 

much space is devoted to the answer, do they? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think not. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or how it is 

arrayed? 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we've reached the 

witching hour, and I know folks there need to 

go get lunch and I certainly need to go get 

breakfast. 

 So if we can come to an agreement 
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 

about where we will take this up in an hour, I 

would like to break for lunch. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Good idea. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Can we say that, when 

we come back from lunch, we will reach some 

sort of consensus with respect to items 8.2 

and 8.5 that we have just been discussing? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sure. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And hold that in 

abeyance until we come back and pick up where 

we left off with discussion of 8.2 and 8.5, 

and some decision as to whether or not real 

changes are merited here? Okay? 

 MR. KATZ: That sounds good, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. My 

electronic clock says 9:17 my time, if you can 

trust anything electronic today. So is 1:15 

your time adequate for lunch? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, Wanda. So 

we will recess until 1:15. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. We'll see 

you at 1:15. Bye-bye. 
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 

 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone on the 

phone. Bye now. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:19 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:20 p.m.) 

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

1:20 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 

 147

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. I've 

just reconnected the phone for the Advisory 

Board on Radiation Worker Health, Subcommittee 

on Procedures Review. We're reconvening after 

a lunch break, and I would just like to check 

who is on the line, starting with Wanda, of 

course, who is the Chair of this Subcommittee. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Are we joined by any 

other Board members, by any chance? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I had the impression 

they were going to be -- 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Yes, I know. I'm 

just checking. There are 13 folks on the 

line. 

 John Mauro, have you -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great. Great. 

 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great, Steve. 

 Pat Kraps, are you back on? 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, I'm back 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 

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Great. Okay, Wanda, it 

looks like -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Let's take 

up where we left off. 

 Before we actually get into that, I 

would request that all of you take a look at 

our agenda, see what we've done to ourselves 

today, re-evaluate what we've been doing. 

 There is concern -- and I think 

reasonable concern -- that we at the 

Subcommittee are drifting away a bit from our 

actual task, which is probably being 

overburdened by an extreme attention to 

detail, to process, and to the finer points of 

how things are done rather than whether they 

are, in fact, being done in a reasonable, 

scientific, and appropriate manner, as 

anticipated by legislation. 

 Let us do our very best to try to 

get through very quickly some of the issues 

that have been raised by Mark's questions that 

he brought to us and accept the fact that, 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 

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we are going to do this kind of thorough 

parsing of each of these forms, we need to be 

honest with ourselves about it and set aside 

an entire meeting date for nothing except this 

activity. 

 Clearly, this is, in my view, 

beyond the purview of what we are expected to 

do. But, if other members of the Subcommittee 

feel that this is an appropriate use of our 

time and energies, then we need to pursue 

that. 

 I don't want to ask at this moment 

whether we are, in fact, going to establish a 

specific day for doing nothing but this, but 

if this is the manner in which we are going to 

pursue the question which was originally, 

should the CATI be improved in any way, can we 

make this easier for claimants, and we seem to 

have drifted quite a ways away from that 

initial question. 

 Even though all of our issues that 

are being raised bear on that in some way, 
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 

it's not the direct inference that one could 

easily see as being an oversight, at least a 

high-level oversight function for this kind of 

procedure. 

 That being said, we had indicated 

that we would take up where we left off, which 

was in the middle of Question 8. We were 

discussing both Section 8.2 and 8.5 and a few 

things in between that bore on that. 

 So, if we want to continue that 

now, the question that I would like to pose to 

you is whether there are specific 

recommendations that you would like to see 

this Subcommittee bring to the Board for their 

approval to pass along to NIOSH, only on these 

issues that we have been discussing, that is, 

8.2 and 8.5. 

 Do we have any specific requests? 

We've discussed it at length. There are 

several concepts of what might be done. The 

real issue here is whether the form in its 

current format is not getting the 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 

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that we need. If it's getting the information 

we need, then our individual preferences with 

respect to verbiage and perhaps other syntax 

may not be the best use of our time. 

 Any thoughts? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I'll make a 

comment and break the silence here. I'm fine 

with 8.2 and 8.5. I think we got to debating 

about whether the form should show a table or 

have more space or something, but it certainly 

elicits the right information. That's the key 

thing, as you have identified. So I'm fine if 

they leave it as it is on those two. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'm hesitant to make 

any final commentary with respect to these 

items, specifically because two of our members 

are not present. I'm sure that both of them 

have input that they would like to have heard. 

 But unless I hear comments to the 

contrary from our Subcommittee members, I am 

going to suggest that we very quickly move 

through the other comments that have been 
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 

made, see if we can address them in sentences 

of 25 words or less, and then toward the end 

of our meeting, when we are doing 

housekeeping, debate whether or not a specific 

date should be set aside for no purpose other 

than to address the CATI issues that people 

may have. 

 So unless I hear objection to that, 

we're going to move on to the next question on 

Mark's list. Do I hear objections? 

 MR. KATZ: No, no objections here. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then let's go on to 

his item 4 under "comments on the form". 

 MR. KATZ: His item 4 is similar to 

what's above. For 8.7, he says, "Once again, 

is this time period specific?" Then he asks, 

"Prior to a certain time period, there were no 

special work or rad work permits," or he 

states that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that we have 

already heard from the individuals who work 

with these forms on a daily basis that 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 

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

interviewer has adequate flexibility to obtain 

that type of specificity needed in the 

response. Is that correct? 

 MS. KRAPS: This is Pat Kraps. 

 Yes, that's correct. If the 

claimant answers in the affirmative, then we 

ask during what time period. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which is 8.8. So 

it is covered. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Should I move on, 

Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. The next issue he 

has is on Question 9. "Similar problems as 

mentioned above." Okay, which we've dealt 

with in general. "Plus, in 9.2 and 9.3, I 

would give an example of time period; e.g., 

1960 to 1965," is the comment he has made 

elsewhere, "and frequency; e.g., weekly, 

monthly, annually." 

 But this is something, again, these 

are interviews. They are oral, and 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 

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

interviewer can elaborate. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. Any 

objection to that response? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let's move it 

on then. 

 "Question 17 should be worded in a 

neutral way," and he gives as an example, 

let's see, "Did you ever not wear or not turn 

in your badge?" Versus, he's saying you 

shouldn't say, "Did you ever elect," I don't 

know what the rest of his sentence is. 

 CHAIR MUNN: "Not to turn in your 

dosimeter badge because you were approaching a 

radiation dose limit?" 

 MR. KATZ: Got it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Again, here we have a 

question of semantics. The basic issue of 

whether or not the question as it is written 

is adequate to elicit this information that's 

needed is the outstanding question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We have heard 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 

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cases where the badge was not turned in 

because the worker was basically made by a 

foreman or someone in charge to not turn it in 

or to not use it. 

 So I suppose the worker might 

argue, "I did not elect to do that. I was 

told to do that." 

 It's more neutral if we leave out 

the word "elect." The issue is not whose 

fault is it at this point. This looks like 

it's the worker's fault. It may not be. I 

think that may be what Mark is -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't want to 

assume necessarily, but it sounds like he's 

concerned about the implication of the word 

"elect." Leaving it out simply leaves that -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Would we like to 

recommend in our suggestions to the Board that 

the words "elect" and "to" be eliminated from 

the form? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, or you could 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 

 156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

state generally that, as Mark suggests here, 

he says it should be worded in a neutral way. 

 In other words -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Which would be, "Did 

you ever not turn in your dosimeter badge" -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- "because you were 

approaching a radiation dose limit?" 

 MR. KATZ: There may be other 

reasons. I wouldn't limit it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. That's what I 

was about to say is at NTS we've heard other 

reasons. So I think the briefer version that 

Mark has suggested would probably be better. 

 But, as a sub-question, if yes, you 

might ask, not only how frequently, but for 

what reason. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: For what reasons, 

yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If it was dose 

limit or if they were afraid of damaging 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 

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

badge? Then you would get that information. 

So that's sort of become neutral and you're 

not kind of prompting them. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I will include 

that in our list of recommendations that we 

send around to take a look at. 

 The next one? 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So now we are on 

Question -- it relates to Question -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before we jump 

ahead, I just want to point out, on 13.2, 

"What types was performed?" should read, "What 

types were performed?" Just editorial. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. This relates to 

item 19, and Mark says that it should be 

asking, "Were you involved in an incident?" or 

plural "incidents", and he says, "And 

obviously, 19.1 through 19.17 apply for each 

incident." 

 CHAIR MUNN: And of course, again, 

we go back to the fact that the interviewer 
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 

would clearly be obtaining that for each 

incident. Correct? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's correct. 

 Pat? 

 MR. KATZ: That's correct. 

 MS. KRAPS: Excuse me. For each 

and every incident, it's captured in its own 

unique entity. In other words, we don't lump 

all these incidents together. They have their 

own field per incident. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Might I ask another 

question here, Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Please do. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wonder if the 

employee, at the time that they get this form, 

knows what we mean by incident. I mean, 

semantically, you can say, "Well, anything I 

did was a particular incident." 

 We use it more like accident. I'm 

wondering if it would help clarify if we did 

something like "incident/accident," to sort 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 

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

help the person understand what we mean. Or 

is this defined in the materials that they get 

with this, so that they know what we mean by 

an incident? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Actually, don't we 

mean more off normal occurrence rather than -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's what 

I'm asking. Does the claimant know what that 

is? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we're 

fairly comfortable letting the claimant decide 

because that means it is important to them. 

Okay? To the extent that they want to 

describe something, they describe something 

that's important to them, then that would be 

what we account for, and make sure we've 

accounted for, in the dose reconstruction. 

 I think we're just as comfortable 

leaving it defined in the mind of the reader 

or interviewee. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If they think it's 

an incident. 
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 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If they think it's 

an incident, then it is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right. 

 DR. NETON: Oftentimes, we will get 

people commenting on setting off portable 

monitors or something like that, and it might 

have been a radon-related issue. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: But it's important to 

them, and we can capture that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Are we all comfortable 

with that? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I make a 

comment on 9.2? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Please. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It goes to what Dr. 

Ziemer had said earlier. Is this where one 

brings up the question of incidents that 

workers believe were not logged or recorded or 

dealt with? 

 So this isn't a badge 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 

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

You've asked that. There might be a parallel 

question here. I mean it might be recorded. 

They might not be aware of it. Or is it 

captured in just asking of what incidents they 

went through? I mean I'm not sure. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could you clarify? 

I'm not sure I understand your question. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, to take the 

specific example of Savannah River Site, when 

we did the site profile review, we went 

through the hazard investigation database and 

we found that it was incomplete, and that 

there were incidents that we could identify 

that had happened. I mean radiologically that 

you could specify spills and things, that were 

not in the database. Actually, quite a number 

of them. 

 So I am wondering whether the dose 

reconstructor might benefit from being alerted 

to that because normally they rely on the 

written record that is in the claimant's file 

to reconstruct the 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 

 162

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, I thought we 

just heard, though, which sounded like a very 

sensible response, that whatever the 

claimant's concept considers to be an incident 

is what we are looking for. The need is to 

obtain additional information over and beyond 

what the records already show. 

 If the records show that an 

incident has occurred, then during that period 

of time then the dose reconstructionist 

certainly would have that incident included in 

the material that's already a part of that 

data file. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it's up to 

the pleasure of the Working Group. You know, 

it's just an issue that's come up. 

 I would agree with Wanda that the 

way the question is phrased, it is open-ended. 

 So whether the incident is recorded or not, 

the worker would bring it up if he thought it 

was important. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think Stu 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 

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

indicated -- because they wouldn't necessarily 

know what's in the official record anyway, 

would they? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a good 

chance they may or may not. I mean I don't 

know that, depending upon the practices, they 

may not know. They say nobody -- well, they 

might be able to say nobody even came around 

and asked any questions, in which case you 

would probably think, well, then no record was 

generated of it. But that's not necessarily 

true. 

 Or they may say, well, they asked 

us some questions, but I don't know that they 

did anything or wrote a report or anything, 

because they very commonly, certainly back a 

number of years, I don't think they would have 

known if a report had been written about it or 

not. So you could ask them -- I mean I don't 

know how many of them are going to know. I 

have also talked to claimants who were sure 

there was a record of the incident they were 
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 

involved in, despite the fact that it wasn't 

in their exposure record. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I mean I 

don't know how helpful it would be, but it is 

a suggestion because this has come up in 

interviews pretty commonly. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But what are you 

suggesting -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it comes up 

interviews in what way? People will say, 

well, nobody knew about this; none of this 

ever got written down, that kind of thing? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, with the 

suggestion that the dose reconstruction is 

incomplete; we don't take that into account. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean we just did 

a whole bunch of -- 

 DR. NETON: But I think that's 

always the case. I mean we always review this 

record and ensure that anything they've 

asserted in this interview is somehow covered 
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 

in our dose reconstruction. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. Yes, which 

is why I'm saying I'm not sure whether it's 

helpful or not. I'm just saying that this 

particular thing has come up quite often. 

Whether the dose reconstructor needs a flag or 

the worker needs a prompt to kind of review in 

their mind situations that they may think 

important that were not recorded, I'm not sure 

how the incident might be interpreted more 

broadly and less broadly by different people. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think that 

is what this is intended to do, though, isn't 

it, to solicit such information? 

 DR. NETON: I'm not sure we behave 

any differently if we asked the question and 

they said, no, it wasn't recorded. We take it 

at face value that this occurred to the 

person, and then the dose reconstruction is 

supposed to document why we believe that was 

or was not important in their exposure 

history. 
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 ZIEMER: Fair enough. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So it is covered by 

current practice. 

 Item No. 8. 

 MR. KATZ: Mark asks, "Why is 

Question 18 being deleted? I believe it 

should stay in." 

 And the question is -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: I was not aware that 

18 was being deleted. Is it, in fact, being 

deleted? "Were you ever requested to have a 

medical x-ray?" 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It doesn't appear 

to be. 

 MR. KATZ: It doesn't appear to be. 

 I don't know -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it got 

renumbered. If you go down to the very bottom 

of the document, it shows they removed 18, 

asking about co-workers -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, the original 

18. 
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 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. "Can you name 

co-workers and other witnesses such as," et 

cetera. That's the co-worker question that 

was discussed in this Working Group, the 

deletion of that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And we discussed that 

to some degree earlier. I'm not at all sure 

that our discussion ended with a concrete 

finding. Did it in the minds of others? Is 

there a recommendation here? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we said 

that if NIOSH needed to go back and get such 

information, they would do so. It doesn't 

have to be solicited at the front end. 

 This does the same thing as the 

original concern, and that was asking them to 

come up with names of co-workers and 

supervisors in advance of us having any real 

need for that information. I mean it goes 

hand-in-hand with that original issue, which 

was the deletion that Mark asked about on the 

first page. I think those two are tied 
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 

together. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: But it seems a 

little different to me, though, because this 

is like, after you went through this whole 

process, are there any co-workers or 

specialists that could expand on the 

information he was given, rather than just 

mentioning a specific incident for a co-worker 

that you worked with that knew something about 

your work. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'm not sure how to 

proceed with that one. It appears to me that 

it is covered by other questions. It's very 

simply -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe we could do 

this in a different way because this looks 

like you're going to try to independently 

confirm what they have said -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- as opposed to 

accepting what they have said. Maybe -- and I 

don't have a wording suggestion right now -- 
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 

but maybe we can ask them if they would like 

to identify other individuals such as workers, 

and so on, that should be contacted if 

additional information is needed, or something 

like that, without indicating that we 

necessarily plan to do that or - 

 CHAIR MUNN: That could easily be 

incorporated -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I'm not sure how 

to -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: That could easily be 

incorporated in Question 20. "Have we missed 

asking you about any conditions, situations, 

or practices that occurred during the job 

which you think may be useful to us in 

estimating your radiation doses? Or are there 

other workers" -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: "That we should 

contact?" 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- "we should contact 

if additional information is needed." 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: However it is done, 
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 

it needs to be done in a way that doesn't make 

them think that we have to go back to confirm 

their assertions with other people, right? 

 DR. NETON: Right. That's the 

problem, is raising the expectation that we 

will be contacting people. And if they go 

through a long soul-searching to try to 

remember names from 50 years ago and then we 

don't use them, we get some disgruntled 

claimants on our hands. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Do we need to 

determine this right now? Do we need to set 

this aside at a time when Mark and Bob are 

amongst us to express their concerns and 

opinions? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's your call, but 

I'm willing to set it aside. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, my personal 

opinion is, it can be covered in 20, but I 

understand what NIOSH's concern is with 

respect to raising the expectation of a 

claimant that hears something else they need 
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 

to do, and if they don't do it, they're 

missing out on something. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it might be 

worded in such a way that they have the 

opportunity to identify individuals without 

its being suggested that we're automatically 

going to follow up and contact them for 

confirmation of something. 

 DR. NETON: It almost seems, if 

they could go to the trouble to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: -- provide the names, 

then they believe that you should probably 

contact them -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: -- because they believe 

that they have information they'll offer that 

might be relevant. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If I were a claimant, 

that would be my expectation. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, in Larry's 

presentation of this several work groups ago, 
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 

I mean the pitch he made to the work group was 

that OCAS doesn't want to lead these people on 

in any way that believe that there will be 

contacts made of co-workers unless NIOSH 

determines that they're needed for a special 

case but that OCAS didn't want to raise their 

expectations in any way about making such 

contacts. 

 That is just to remind you of what 

Larry basically said. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We continue to discuss 

the pros and cons of this but can't quite seem 

to come to a concrete conclusion. 

 I would really like to request that 

we put this specific issue aside and address 

it when we are addressing the survivors' 

questionnaire, as it should logically, I 

think, apply to both. And it would be helpful 

for all of us, I believe, to have the folks 

who are concerned about this to be present and 

voicing their concerns individually. 

 Do we have any objection to 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 

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Mike and Paul agree. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If not, let's plan to 

do that, and I will make a note to that 

effect. 

 Now, general comments that Mark 

had? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. First, he says, 

"This seems like a very lengthy and 

complicated questionnaire, since many workers, 

based on my experience doing questionnaires at 

several DOE facilities, have had, on average, 

four to five job titles and worked in many 

different buildings over their career. This 

would mean four to five times through that 

entire form or questionnaire." 

 That's his first comment, general 

comment. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And I believe we have 

heard from Pat that they make every effort at 

the time they are doing these interviews to 

capture all of that simultaneously, without 
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 

the individuals having to go through the whole 

form each time. Am I incorrect there? 

 MS. KRAPS: No, that's correct. 

The other thing I want to point out is that it 

is entirely up to the Energy employee. We 

have some Energy employees who want to cull it 

out very specifically by time period or by job 

duty, and we'll do that as many times as they 

would like. 

 So it is really up to the 

individual as to how we format the information 

that we are obtaining. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And I certainly agree 

with Mark that it is lengthy and complicated. 

 I can't, however, perceive any more 

simplistic way to get as thorough a set of 

data as we would like for the interviewers to 

be obtaining. 

 Does anyone have strong feelings 

that this can be abbreviated in any way? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, certainly the 

more places they've worked, the more 
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 

information you have to elicit. In a sense, 

no matter how you format it, you are going to 

have to go through that many sets of 

information for the person. If they've worked 

at five places, you've got five different sets 

of information. 

 So, in fairness, you have to go 

through that. I mean, whether you do it 

sequentially or in parallel, you still have to 

gather the information. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think the sense 

of the concern is known and understood. Any 

way to change it is not clearly evident to 

those of us who are sitting here now. 

 Question No. 2? I mean Comment No. 

2. 

 MR. KATZ: Comment 2 is actually a 

question, which is, he asks -- so this is, I 

guess, for Stu and Pat -- "Are participants 

allowed to answer some of the questions in 

this survey? For example, what if an 

individual was employed as an assembly worker; 
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 

could they mention the buildings, duties, 

radionuclides? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If they are 

concerned having to talk about classified 

information, we would conduct a classified 

account. 

 Isn't that right, Pat? 

 MS. KRAPS: I'm sorry, I'm not sure 

that I'm following what the question is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If we send these 

questions to the claimant and the claimant 

says, "I can't answer some of these because 

the information is classified," then what do 

we do? 

 MS. KRAPS: We stop the process 

right there and we set up a secured interview 

at the facility with a Q-cleared interviewer. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And so the answer is 

yes to Mark's question. 

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

 What were you going to say, Mike? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I think Mark may 
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 

be asking something more similar to this 

recent involvement with DOE, worrying about 

all the different pieces of information that 

come together. Because this all of a sudden 

forms some kind of information without its 

being -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It could. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It could. I think 

the purpose, then, is, if we're doing the 

classified interviews at a secure facility, is 

then the interview report can't leave that 

facility until -- you know, the DOE has to 

look at it and make sure it's okay to go 

before it can leave. So that's the intent. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, I understand 

when it is known classified information, but, 

just like we sit around the table here at the 

work group meetings, and all of a sudden we 

start talking about this, in light of this, 

and somebody says, "Stop. We can't talk 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 

 178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Well, what if the claimant and the 

interviewer does not know that those pieces 

could fall together in this form? 

 DR. NETON: Well, I know very early 

on in the process we vetted this interview 

form with the Department of Energy, and we did 

make some modifications, but at that time, 

there was no issue with the questions that we 

were asking in terms of the mosaic effect or 

whatever that you would like to call it. 

That's my recollection. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: I'm just saying I 

think maybe that is what Mark is asking. I’m 

certainly not carrying the water for DOE. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: If the interviewee, 

if the claimant doesn't know the information 

is classified, our interviewer won't know it 

is classified. I mean that is a fact. It 

will end up in the CATI report. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now in advance, it 

seemed to me that we told the claimants 

somewhere that if they had classified 
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 

information, or if the information they needed 

to share, if they knew it was classified, they 

could request -- but that doesn't show up 

here, does it? 

 DR. NETON: I thought it used to be 

in one of the letters, but -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought it was, 

too. 

 DR. NETON: Maybe I'm mistaken. 

 MR. KATZ: Why don't we ask Pat? 

Can you hear this, Pat? 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, I can hear it. 

I'm trying to flip through the paperwork. It 

used to have that in here. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I thought one of 

the earlier versions had that statement in 

there. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: It's still in 

there. 

 MS. KRAPS: Yes, it's still in 

here. It's right behind the cover letter, 

right before the questionnaire, right before 
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 

the descriptive questions. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Right before the 

public segment, the paragraph above that, the 

last sentence. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I think that 

takes care of it, doesn't it? 

 CHAIR MUNN: "Dose reconstructions 

can be completed without discussing classified 

information. We will arrange for a secure 

interview for those claimants who believe such 

an arrangement is necessary." 

 MR. KATZ: It takes care of the 

question, as Mike was saying, that takes care 

of the question as to whether it's clearly 

classified information. It doesn't address 

the issue of the mosaic effect, or whatever, 

of bringing together unclassified information. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: And maybe that is 

not what Mark's asking. So maybe we could 

wait and see what he means by that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think the 

answer to Mark's has to be that, if you're 
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 

dependent on the claimant to identify if they 

think it's classified. Otherwise, I think 

what described could happen. If the worker 

doesn't know it, it's not going to happen. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But they are allowed 

to answer the questions on the survey. 

 MR. KATZ: But the answer to the 

question is, yes, they are allowed to 

answer -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: -- the questions on the 

survey. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Which was Mark's 

question. 

 MR. KATZ: That is Mark's question. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Are we 

prepared to leave this particular CATI right 

now, the employee's form and format? We have 

several suggested items that we are going to 

put together to circulate, and we are going to 

make a decision with respect to whether or not 

we will have a session devoted only to these 
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 

and nothing else. 

 This is probably as good a time as 

any to make that decision. I recommended it, 

personally. I would like to hear from anyone 

else who has either similar or opposing 

opinions. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm ready to leave 

this one. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: That's fine. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mike's ready. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We do, however, still 

have to address the survivor's CATI form. And 

if it takes us as long as this has taken us, 

then it will take the better part of a day in 

any case. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think it 

will take very long. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly hope not. 

 MR. KATZ: We don't have any 

comments from Mark on the survivors -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, it was because he 

did not have adequate -- his email to me 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 

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

he hadn't had adequate time to spend putting 

together his comments. 

 MR. KATZ: Got it. Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So my guess would be, 

given his language, that he would anticipate 

doing exactly that at some juncture. 

 Then we will assume, then, at this 

juncture, that our next meeting we may have to 

have two more. But at our next meeting we 

will set aside the first half of our session, 

specifically for the remaining CATI form and 

for the verbiage and outstanding issues that 

we identified as we were going through this 

one. 

 We'll set that date a little later. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, let's go to 

the next agenda item, which is the status and 

discussion of specific procedures, which we 

had designated from either other work groups 

or from the Board generally to address at our 

early opportunity. 
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 

 The first one that I have listed is 

OTIB-0052, then 54, then 66, and then 70. 

 Who wants to take the lead on 

identifying where we are and what action this 

group needs to be undertaking? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: For OTIB-0052, 

Wanda -- this is Steve -- as I recall, back in 

December, oh, actually, back in October, Mark 

had sent me an email with four specific 

questions regarding OTIB-0052. I had drafted 

up responses to those four questions and sent 

them back to Mark. 

 Then, in December, we asked about 

the status of those four questions and 

responses. I guess at that time, we were not 

prepared to get into that detail. 

 So the question is, from an 

OTIB-0052 point of view, do we want to talk 

about those questions and responses? Since 

Mark is not here, I don't know if he will be 

able to say that he's satisfied with the 

responses. 
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 

 Again, if NIOSH looked at them, and 

whether or not they're satisfied with them, or 

if they want to make changes or things along 

those lines -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Have we had any 

response? Do you have any response to any of 

the material that's been generated? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, Wanda. This is 

Jim. 

 I wasn't at that meeting, but I got 

the message from the Stu. The question that I 

heard was, does NIOSH agree with SC&A's 

responses? And the answer is, we've gone 

through these responses to the four questions, 

and we're in agreement. We have no issues 

with what they've prepared. 

 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris -- 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you speak 

up, please? It's very hard to hear you. 

 MR. MORRIS: Sure. This is Robert 

Morris. I'm with the Chew and Associates team 

that authored OTIB-0052. 
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 

 I guess the only thing I would add 

to what Jim just said is that, at this point, 

we don't think that anything that has come out 

of this question-and-answer process prompts 

any change in the bottom-line recommendation 

of acquiring a factor of 1.4 to any 

construction trade worker's measured external 

dose. 

 DR. NETON: All right. Thanks for 

that clarification, Bob. I meant to say that 

the answers in general did not in any way 

change our approach to what we're doing. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I agree, 

actually, with that conclusion as well. 

 DR. NETON: Exactly. I think that 

is where we are at. Mark indicated, though, I 

think, that these were just the beginning 

questions. Somewhere I saw in the transcripts 

or somewhere that he had a few questions to 

start with, but there may be others that 

follow. So I don't know that we can concur 

that we're completely done. 
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 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, so it is just 

some starting questions here. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, I don't know 

if we can -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Just looking at our 

issues-tracking phase and the database, we 

show item 4 as in progress, item 9 as in 

progress, 9, 10, 11. Twelve is in abeyance. 

The ORAU dose database was not used. Items 13 

and 14 are in progress, and 15 and 16 were 

transferred. 

 So I guess the real question is, if 

there's general agreement, then am I hearing 

from you that before we close the items, which 

are in progress and in abeyance, you would 

like to have Mark present and have each of 

those items identified as we go through them? 

 DR. NETON: I think that's probably 

going to have to happen, Wanda, because my 

recollection was that NIOSH responded to each 

of those questions by modifying text 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 

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

OTIB. 

 I think at one point SC&A and NIOSH 

were in agreement, and the issues were ready 

to be closed, but then at that point Mark 

opined that it was not SC&A who could close 

this issue; it was the Working Group, and 

rightfully so, or the Subcommittee. So he 

still has some unanswered questions, 

apparently. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Then 

OTIB-0052 will appear on our next agenda list. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing, 

Wanda, I believe NIOSH has updated -- you 

indicated that some of the issues were 

addressed elsewhere -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: -- either 

transferred or addressed elsewhere. I believe 

OTIB-0020 is the location that some of those 

issues were going to be addressed. Wording 

was going to be added to OTIB-0020, and I 

believe would be the revision of OTIB-0020 
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 

that just went out. Perhaps those words have 

already been added. I think when I looked at 

OTIB-0020 there were some additional words in 

there regarding OTIB-0052. 

 CHAIR MUNN: When we pick this up 

on our next go-round, we will be able to close 

those without any issue, unless Mark has a 

problem with them, correct? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we should -- 

yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

 The next item that I show is 

OTIB-0054. Where were we? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this is 

waiting for our responses to the findings. 

Isn't that where we are? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I can't hear you, Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's waiting for 

our responses, our initial response to the 

finding. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's where the 

database shows it. Everything on OTIB-0054 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 

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

open. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we need all 

responses from NIOSH for OTIB-0054? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That is correct. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: There's 26 issues, 

and we haven't gotten -- 

 MR. KATZ: Do we have a timeframe 

for -- an estimate for -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Not today, no. 

 MR. KATZ: -- for that? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We'll continue to 

carry it on the database until we do. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you just send me an 

email when you guys figure out what -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see what I can 

find out. I think it might be more likely to 

have some rather than all. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

 This might be helpful. On our list 
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 

we've got 26 issues, but in going through the 

report -- I read it before the meeting -- many 

of them are supportive. In other words, I 

can't say how many, but in reading the summary 

description of the 26 findings, a large number 

of them, some of them are actually supportive. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It's we agree or we 

concur, or certainly there are others that are 

of varying degrees of concern. Reading it, 

there really are only a handful that are of 

substantive concern. 

 So what I am getting at is I just 

want to let everyone know that, of the 26 -- 

there are 26, but what it boils down to, 

there's only really a handful that are of some 

substance. It would probably be a good idea 

for Joyce Lipsztein to be a party when we 

eventually get to those issues because I think 

it is going to come down to four or five that 

are of substance. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: May I ask whether 

there was a separate matrix or are these all 

in the main database now? 

 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-0054 -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: When you log on, 

basically, you're going to have -- remember 

when we talked about that thing this morning, 

Paul? Is that what you're asking about? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, no, I was 

asking whether there was an initial matrix 

aside from this or is this one that we were 

able to put the findings directly into this 

matrix? At one point, we had the initial 

matrices, and then they got merged, but was 

there an initial one for this? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe so. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow. 

 I was the one who put SC&A's report 

together. John is right, we have 26 comments 

total, out of which only 16 are findings, and 

10 we just called observations. Out of the 16 
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 

findings, just taking a quick look, there's 

maybe about half of them that maybe somewhat 

require further discussion. About half of 

them are probably smaller items. So, out of 

the 26, there's maybe a third of them or so 

that will require some thought to go over. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. If the 

database has been peopled with those, that is 

one of those items which does not come up 

easily. 

 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

 I just went online and opened, and 

you need to do what Steve said. You know, you 

go to the filter and just turn it on, the 

filter section, and it all comes up. So it's 

all populated. In other words, the database 

is, in fact, populated, but you've got to go 

through that one really quick step that Steve 

described earlier, and it will be there. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I had mine 

filtered, apparently, in a different way. So 

it doesn't come up in the unfiltered data 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 

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

all. So if I ask for something other than 

procedure numbers, the first filter, what 

should the first filter be? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Don't ask for any 

filters. Take off all the filters, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Take off all the 

filters and just click the Okay button. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It should come back. 

 If you look at the bottom of the screen, when 

you come back to the summary screen and you 

look at the bottom, it should be 532 issues. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And just FYI, there 

was a matrix that was submitted on July 30th, 

2007. At least that's to my computer -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, there was? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: July 30th? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. There were 16 

issues. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: 2007? 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: At least that's 

what my computer says. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that should be 

-- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That should have 

been transferred into the -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: What was the 50 -- 

the report itself -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's 54. We're 

all talking about 52. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're talking about 

54. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sorry about that. 

Okay. I have no record of 54 matrix. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No luck, Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's not working 

for me. I took off all the filters, and I'm 

still not getting what I want to see. So 

there's some sort of evil demon between me and 

the O drive, and I'm not sure exactly what it 

is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, in any event, 
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 

we need the NIOSH responses. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we do. So my 

indication will be our next agenda will need 

NIOSH responses before we can proceed. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'll provide, 

when I can, I'll provide a date when we can 

have responses. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

 Am I correct that our modus 

operandi now is that NIOSH will just go ahead 

and load up the data into the system that we 

have now, or is that somehow we're going to 

treat it separate? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's correct. 

That was my understanding. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, very good. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we will have 

to see if we can get -- we tend to get a readonly version, isn't that right? Even on the 

ORAU side, it tends to open as a read-only. 

 We will work with our data people 
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 

and see if we can get that fixed. We should 

be able to open it in as a write version. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: You should. Some of 

your people should have write access. We gave 

them write access as far as our software -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll work 

it out between our computer folks and your 

computer folks, so that we have write access 

on the ORAU side. This is on the ORAU side. 

It's not on our side. So that ORAU will be 

able to write them in. We'll work on that, 

and then we will work on getting responses and 

then just putting them in there. 

 If we can't get that worked out, we 

will write our responses and we will send them 

to Steve and John and impose on them to do the 

data entry for us. 

 MR. KATZ: And, Wanda, I will wait 

to hear from Stu about timing before I put 

this on the agenda for the next Subcommittee, 

because there is no point in putting it there 

until we get the NIOSH responses. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's true, and 

certainly not for anything more than just 

status update, where we are with it. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-0066. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-0066, we 

received from Stu the NIOSH responses back on 

January 16th. SC&A, Steve Ostrow, actually, 

drafted the SC&A recommendations. I forwarded 

those to the Working Group a couple of weeks 

ago, I guess. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: They are also in the 

database, I guess if you can find them in the 

database, but they should be also in the 

database. 

 So we can either work with the 

database or we can work with the Word file 

that I sent back on, I guess it was about 

January -- actually, oh, I didn't send the 

file until a couple of weeks ago. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What is it called? 
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 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The file is called 

-- oh, it's got a long name. Let me see if I 

can find it. 

 Do you want the name of the -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What you 

transmitted to us. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 I'm looking at the electronic 

version, and I notice that the NIOSH responses 

are here; that is, they have been loaded. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The NIOSH responses 

should be loaded, and also the SC&A replies 

should be loaded as well, John, if you look at 

them. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I see. Yes. Yes, 

it's on my version here. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm accessing the 

O drive, and it seems to be working for me. 

I'm probably going to find out what's going 

on, why some people can do it and some folks 
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 

can't. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm just trying to 

find where -- I don't know that I brought that 

email, have a copy of that email with me, 

Paul. Shoot. I brought the file; I didn't 

put in the email. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I know, I'm 

looking in the wrong place. I brought it on 

my disk or my stick here. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It was a file that I 

sent back on the 23rd, and the email's title 

was, "Regarding Information for Procedures 

Subcommittee Meeting - OTIB-0066 - 

Disclaimer". And it was sent by me on March 

23rd. 

 Here's one right here that is 

highlighted, Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I found it. 

I was looking in the wrong drive. 

 And your responses are in red? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct, yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I've got 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 

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If I can summarize -- 

Wanda, did you -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: I have no idea. 

 DR. MAURO: They are four, five, 

four of them. I think everything is pretty 

straightforward. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: This is what I was 

going to suggest: I mean, basically, we agree 

with NIOSH's responses. So the four items are 

either -- I think there's two of them that we 

recommend be closed and two of them that we 

recommend be put in abeyance. One and 3 I 

think recommended be put in abeyance, and 2 

and 4 we recommended to be closed. 

 DR. OSTROW: That's correct. 

 DR. MAURO: Let me help out a 

little bit, too. 

 There was really only one technical 

comment where we thought there was something 

wrong that needed to be fixed. It had to do 

with a factor of 1.4 in the organically-bound 

tritium dose conversion factor. NIOSH agreed, 
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 

yes, that they will fix it. Right now, of 

course, that's in abeyance until it is fixed. 

 The other comments, if you recall, 

Wanda, really have to do with implementation, 

and implementation on a site-by-site basis. 

It was something that I think we agreed at the 

last meeting needed to be handed over to the 

site-specific work groups like Pinellas, 

Savannah River. 

 It really becomes a matter of, can 

you implement this protocol? The protocol is 

fine, but can you implement it? Do you have 

the data? That is very much a site-specific 

issue. 

 In addition, it is an issue that is 

subject to some classification concerns. In 

fact, I believe that meeting that Mark and 

Robert are attending today is exactly this 

subject. 

 So the way I recall -- and I think 

as expressed on the information sent to you -- 

is that, from this Procedures Group'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 

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

perspective, it is SC&A's position that we're 

done, I mean in terms of making our technical 

comments on this particular document, and it 

really now becomes a matter of how we 

implement it in the real world at real sites. 

 I don't know whether this is 

something that -- when we last spoke, it was 

something that I believe this work group said 

it probably should be handled by each separate 

work group dealing with the sites where it's 

effective. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And how do we relay 

that information to those individual work 

groups? We're back in that loop that we have 

never smoothed out completely of followthrough, because we haven't established a 

process that is known to all. 

 DR. MAURO: I think you are 

correct. Right now we haven't passed the 

baton, so to speak. 

 MR. KATZ: But may I just raise a 

point, Wanda? 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, SC&A is saying 

they're finished and they believe the issues 

have been resolved or there's one in abeyance 

but it will be resolved, according to their 

views. 

 But doesn't the work group have to 

do its bit in terms of it has to accept that 

before you go on to referring issues for the 

implementation questions on -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's correct, we do, 

absolutely. Yes. And at this juncture, it's 

very difficult without the data in front of 

me, which I apparently am unable to find, 

unable to get to come up for me. It's 

something in the way I'm set up here that is 

not doing the right thing. 

 When I say no filter, what I get is 

a response that there is no filter and no 

data. 

 (Laughter.) 

 So I'm sorry. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

 We do have a separate document from 

Steve that was sent out a couple of weeks ago. 

 Steve, I don't know what the date was. Was 

it late January or -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I sent it out on the 

23rd. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Of January? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No, of March. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: March? But what 

was the date on the document? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The date on the 

document, Steve Ostrow wrote it on January 

25th. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It shows the 23rd, 

but -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The 23rd on the 

name, but if you're looking at the document 

itself, it comes to -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Anyway, I think 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 

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can find it. It's called, I think the file 

that was attached is called, it was called, 

"2009-01-23 NIOSH responses to SC&A comments". 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then I must have it 

on -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, "SC&A 

comments on OTIB-0066." It goes on, 

"Comments," dah, dah, dah, dah, with a 

disclaimer, and so on. It's a long, long 

title. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I obviously -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It was an 

attachment to an email. It has the findings 

and the SC&A responses in red. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If you look in your 

email inbox, Wanda, on March 23rd, you should 

have an email from me. Or, actually, there 

should be two emails from me. Or not the 

23rd; it's the 10th, right? March 10th. Yes, 

March 10th. I'm sorry. 

 If you look on March 10th, you 

should have two emails from me, and this 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 

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

attached to the one that has, in the email 

name, it has "OTIB-0066" in the email name. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I just sent them 

both to her again. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I have two, you are 

correct. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And one of them 

should be for OTIB-0066 and the other one 

should be on the third set of procedures. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And I thought I had 

already downloaded this to my personal data, 

but -- I have already downloaded it, as I 

thought. I guess it has to be downloaded 

again. 

 It's a long way to get to the 

information. But I now have the January 16th 

document. Fine. 

 And so we need to go through these 

responses one by one to identify whether we 

can, as a work group, accept them or not 

before we go further. 

 So the first issue was, NIOSH 
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 

agreed. SC&A says it is in abeyance. 

OTIB-0066 will be corrected in the next 

revision. 

 Is there any objection to that 

finding and that status? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no 

objection. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: No. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mike has none. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, next item, 

No. 2, NIOSH says, "It's not within the scope 

of 66 and should be addressed in the site 

profile." SC&A agrees with that assessment. 

 "Selection of the appropriate 

fitting compound must usually be based on 

process notice. No further action required 

with respect to the OTIB." 

 This is the discussion we just had, 

John, correctly? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, from the 

standpoint of this current discussion, 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 

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

item is closed. The outstanding issue here is 

how we transmit this information to the 

respective site groups, correct? 

 DR. MAURO: That's my 

understanding. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Has anyone at NIOSH 

given any real thought to how we can make sure 

this happens? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Not terribly much. 

 Other work groups don't use similar 

databases, so you can't just write it onto a 

database. 

 As a general rule, there is a 

findings matrix at some sites, sites that have 

had either a site profile review that's under 

discussion or an SEC evaluation report that's 

under debate. There will be an issues matrix 

assembled for that that this could 

theoretically be added to. I mean, it just 

has to be a manual system because those 

matrices are kept up-to-date manually, no 

matter what. What do you think, Jim? 
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 

 DR. NETON: I'm not sure there's an 

issue here. I mean, if a site profile review 

that addresses a tritium dose reconstruction 

has a finding that says we -- and I think this 

relates to an inappropriate solubility type -- 

it would be handled in that fashion. I mean 

it's a site-specific issue at that point. 

It's no different -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: And OTIB-0066 will 

automatically come into play? 

 DR. NETON: Right. It's no 

different than Super S. I mean what we don't 

say here is all the sites in the DOE complex 

where Super S plutonium might exist. It's up 

to the individual site profiles to identify 

the existence of those types of materials, and 

that would bring in the OTIB to address it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think there's an 

entirely different issue than the one that we 

have where we specifically transfer any 

procedure -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I don't 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 

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there's a transfer, unless I'm missing 

something, I don't see a transfer issue. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it doesn't look 

like it is, either. It shouldn't 

automatically come into play. 

 DR. NETON: I mean, the only thing 

I could think of is that one might put a 

caveat in the OTIB itself that one needs to be 

careful about applying this and developing an 

adequate source term at the individual sites 

to which it applies, or something to that 

effect. 

 CHAIR MUNN: But that still would 

not get to the root of the real issue 

necessary for the technical people involved to 

know and understand the caveats that exist in 

OTIB-0066. 

 We have to rely on professional -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you recall if in 

OTIB-0066 is there already a statement, a 

general statement about the fact that specific 

dose-bounding for a site is not within 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 

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scope of OTIB-0066? 

 DR. NETON: That was certainly in 

our comment to the SC&A comment. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I mean, does 

the profile or does the OTIB -- 

 DR. NETON: I don't recall if it 

says that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- give the reader 

a heads-up that this is -- 

 DR. NETON: I don't know. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- was not expected 

to be -- I mean SC&A is kind of saying, okay, 

you've talked about developing -- how did they 

word it? You've talked about bounding 

techniques, but you haven't developed any or 

something, but they're saying you can't do 

that, and you're saying, yes, it wasn't 

intended for that. 

 DR. NETON: Well, "The purpose of 

this OTIB is to provide guidance" -- I'm 

reading from the OTIB -- "on how to use your 

bioassay data to calculate the best estimates 
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 

of the annual organ dose for intakes of 

tritium-bound organic compounds and tritium in 

a metal matrix." 

 So, if one encounters those at a 

site -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: -- then one would apply 

this OTIB. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: It's not in the scope 

of this OTIB to go and delineate all the 

existence of those types of compounds 

throughout the DOE complex. I think that is 

what we are saying. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: And it would be 

impractical to do so. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The title of the OTIB 

itself should be the flag to any future 

activities at any site. 

 The calculation of dose from 

intakes of special tritium compounds would 
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 

automatically be a reference for anyone who is 

dealing with a site where intakes of special 

tritium compounds were a potential. 

 DR. NETON: Right, and I think 

SC&A's concern -- and maybe just apparently so 

-- is, how would we guarantee that we would 

always use tritides appropriately throughout 

the complex? I think that Ted mentioned that 

it is the subject of this meeting today in 

Washington, is what we can or cannot say. 

 If best practice with other 

radionuclides like Super S plutonium is any 

indication, we would probably default very 

conservatively to the presence of tritides if 

we didn't know, and where it would tend to 

bound with dose. It's not that it would 

always be a bounding case, but if there were 

selection of organically-bound tritides and 

water-borne tritium, we would run the dose 

reconstruction three different ways and pick 

the dose that is highest. 

 So I don't really see that there 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 

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

an issue here. 

 DR. MAURO: Jim, I don't think the 

protocol that is written up right now says 

what you just said. I think there might be 

good reason for that because my understanding 

from at least a couple of the sites is that 

the use of tritides, because of the total 

curie through-put, the curies moving through a 

facility being handled for various reasons, 

the amount of tritides is 

minuscule -- minuscule -- compared to the 

amount of tritium or tritiated water. 

 As a result, it was my 

understanding that it might be difficult to 

parse workers whose bioassays, when you take 

the urine sample and you look for tritium in 

the conventional techniques, and you don't see 

anything, it might be because there was none 

there or there could have been a considerable 

amount of tritides, but it doesn't show up. 

 In a way, it is a lot like -- I 

guess you're right, it's a lot like 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 

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fired plutonium, but I think, in the case of 

the high-fired plutonium, there was a large 

fraction of the exposures, especially from the 

fire. 

 In terms of scale, my understanding 

is that the quantities are very, very small. 

Depending on the facility and the time period, 

and the job the person was doing, you know, 

you certainly may want to use the approach you 

described, but it would be what I would 

consider to be off the charts bounding. 

 DR. NETON: Well, John, I think -- 

and I haven't looked at this in a while, but 

my recollection is that this would really only 

apply to lung doses. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: So really, you're only 

lung doses, which are already compensated 

approximately 80 percent of the time in this 

program to begin with. So I don't know that 

it would make a huge difference overall. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think you're 
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 

right. The systemic doses, I don't think they 

are affected by any means the way the lungs 

are. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think that is 

what your model shows. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I guess our 

response is this is outside of the scope -- 

the document, I think, clearly defines the way 

to address dose symmetrically. How 

operationally we address it I think is a 

different issue. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and the OTIB 

itself in the recommendations does 

specifically state that it's not its position 

to make that decision. It says, in the 

recommendations, the first one is, "Therefore, 

the selection of an appropriate tritium 

compound in an intake evaluation must usually 

be based on process knowledge of the source 
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 

terms in the workplace." 

 MR. KATZ: Can you hear that, Wanda 

and John? 

 DR. MAURO: Very clearly. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right. But that's 

different than saying load the bounding 

assumption, you see. I agree with -- the 

words that are in the OTIB right now are right 

on target. I guess the question becomes: 

that's easier to say than done in terms of 

knowing who you're going to assign this to. I 

guess that was our concern. 

 There's really a question, I guess, 

for the work group, whether this is something 

that they want to hand off and make sure is 

picked up by the affected ones or treated the 

way you treated the other OTIB -- was it 

49? -- on high-fired plutonium. There was not 

a handoff. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, there was not. 

The procedure exists. It will be used in 

situations where it is applicable. 
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 

 DR. NETON: I mean I can think, for 

example, there's Mound on the table with that 

potential issue, maybe Pantex, maybe Pinellas. 

 So there are sites already we know that are 

currently undergoing review for other issues, 

including tritium exposures, and that would be 

up to the individual Working Groups themselves 

to identify the appropriateness of those 

reconstructions. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't see a 

handoff here because it's really not an open 

issue. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It doesn't appear to 

be. 

 I have no objection to accepting it 

as closed, item 2 as closed. Any objection? 

 (No response.) 

 If not, let the record show that we 

have closed that item. 

 Item 3 is in abeyance until NIOSH 

incorporates the air monitoring data. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, we need 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 

 220

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

agree to that, too, right? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I believe so. 

 Any disagreement with the in 

abeyance status of No. 3? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that's 

appropriate. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then item No. 4, NIOSH 

made the recommendation -- "It is not possible 

to identify the compound responsible, 

including excretion resulting from intakes. 

Most claimant-favorable models consistent with 

the source terms. SC&A agrees. Closed." 

 Any objection? 

 (No response.) 

 Thank you. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for getting 

me back to your original information, Steve. 

I'm sorry that it is not coming up for me on 

the ORAU database, but it's not. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, it has been 

changed in the ORAU -- when you can get to 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 

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Wanda, I have made the changes. I have made 

the four changes that the Subcommittee has 

just agreed upon. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So the database has 

been updated. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 Can we now move on to OTIB-0070? 

 MR. KATZ: Can I ask a question of 

process here with respect to -- I mean, so you 

all disagreed and closed all the issues for 

OTIB-0066 with the Subcommittee -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Two are closed and 

two are in abeyance. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, two in abeyance, 

okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But that just means 

they are moved into -- 

 MR. KATZ: So my process question 

is just, does the Subcommittee then just 

report back to the full Committee of the Board 

as a recommendation? Is that what happens 
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 

next? 

 CHAIR MUNN: We have not 

traditionally done that. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think we can 

close these out. 

 MR. KATZ: Independently? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Board is not 

going to be looking at these all in detail. 

My recommendation is that Wanda report what 

we're recommending, and if there's any 

objection or something like that -- but I 

don't think the Board is in a position to look 

at these procedures and all these in detail. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we've 

traditionally not done that. We worked on the 

assumption that that's the purpose of our work 

groups and our subcommittees, to do this 

detailed work, and only bring a very general, 

broad -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We did provide in 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 

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

report to the Secretary the status of the 

first set of procedures. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but that was 

essentially what their status was -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: -- not the individual 

items. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But, in essence, 

the Board was signing off on what the work 

group had done, yes. 

 DR. NETON: I thought a Working 

Group, though, could not independently come to 

the conclusions or decisions. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: At some point, we 

would have to get the Board's blessing, which 

would be, for example, a wrap-up and say, 

"Here's the package." 

 CHAIR MUNN: The other thing that 

we could do is we made a point of providing 

information on how to access this database and 

how to follow each of these items for any 

individual who was interested in doing 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 

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

That's been presented to the entire Board, 

with the hope that anyone who has specific 

concerns over any one of these issues that has 

been cleared by both NIOSH and our contractor 

would have an opportunity to see the entire 

history of where we've gone with it. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, my point is 

this: I mean it's clear. It's just that it 

seems to me there needs to be at some point 

closure on these procedures from the Board's 

perspective. That's all. How that gets 

done -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think it 

has to be incremental. 

 MR. KATZ: No, that's right. It 

could be in wrap-ups. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wrap-ups 

periodically, yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I am also not getting 

OTIB-0070 coming up for me for my summary. I 

do not know why. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, it's the same 
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 

problem again. It could be the same problem 

that you had with 54 and 66. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If you didn't get 

one of them, you're not going to get any of 

them. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think I'm 

going to get -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And I didn't send 

you a -- well, actually, am I correct, Stu, 

that we haven't received NIOSH's responses on 

OTIB-0070 yet? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct. 

OTIB-0070 is re-suspension, right? We did 

radioactive, yes, not re-suspension of jobs, 

but dose reconstruction where there's no 

radioactive period; then we have not submitted 

our initial report. 

 MR. KATZ: So I guess, similarly, 

there can I just get a message from you, Stu, 

about timeframe? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I still get 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 

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

when I do that. 

 So what can we do with OTIB-0070? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, since we're 

awaiting NIOSH responses -- 

 DR. NETON: Was there one issue 

that was transferred to OTIB-0070 from the GS 

5 -- TBD-6000 working group meeting? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to 

remember. 

 DR. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling. 

 Yes, it is -- there were really 15 

findings that I introduced into that review, 

but many of which are shared findings because, 

essentially, they center around four issues. 

 The first is the source term 

depletion factor that was assumed at 1 percent 

per day. 

 The other real important one that's 

multiply-involved in these findings is the resuspension factor of 1E-6, and there was also 

some concern about the use of the Battelle 

team -- I guess it's referenced here, but it'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 

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the TBD-6000 that raised some question. 

 Lastly was NUREG-1400 that was also 

an issue that I cited as a finding. 

 So those are real four common 

issues, and they represent all of the 15 

findings. 

 DR. NETON: No, I understand that, 

Hans, but my recollection was that we had a 

Working Group meeting a week or so ago on 

TBD-6000. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: One of the findings in 

TBD-6000 had to do with the re-suspension 

factor or handling the re-suspension of 

material at AWE facilities. I thought that we 

had agreed that, since we were going to change 

TBD-6000 to just reference OTIB-0070 for its 

approach, that way the finding in TBD-6000 

could be captured in the OTIB-0070. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That's 

exactly correct. 

 DR. NETON: So I don't know 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 

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

action would need to occur with this 

Subcommittee, but I think that needs to 

somehow get transferred. Maybe we're not 

prepared to do that today, but we probably 

need to remember that. 

 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John. 

 Yes, I remember when we discussed 

that, and I could say, I mean if this helps 

any, when we get to the point on OTIB-0070 

where we address the re-suspension factor and 

we get to the point where we come to some 

resolution, whatever that might be, that 

would, for all intents and purposes, resolve 

the issues on TBD-6000. So I mean, it's 

almost like automatic. 

 DR. NETON: Right, but, I mean, 

does there not need to be a crosswalk here 

somewhere in the database to say that that 

TBD-6000 finding is now tied in with a 

resolution of comments on OTIB-0070? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The question is, is 

it addressed in -- is TBD-6000 addressed in 
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 

the OTIB-0070 findings or is it kind of a new 

finding from TBD-6000 that is being 

transferred to OTIB-0070? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sort of the same 

finding in both. I think in TBD-6000, we said 

in the hierarchy this is an overriding one 

that's more system wide. So we're not going 

to separately develop a response and impose it 

upward. Rather, we will bow to the hierarchy 

of this one being the response from NIOSH, 

whatever that is. 

 So we're not transferring it so 

much as saying that we are -- we don't even 

have a word for it. Did we put in abeyance? 

I don't remember, but we said, basically, we 

are going to accept whatever their approach is 

as the proper one and would refer to that 

finding. 

 But I don't think we're 

transferring ours to you because you already 

had it as an issue, right? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. If you 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 

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

go through and tell me which of the OTIB-0070 

findings you think addresses this one, we can 

then put a little, you know, into one of 

the -- 

 DR. NETON: That's what I was 

getting at. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Into one of these 

boxes here, we can put a little thing saying, 

when this is closed or in abeyance, please 

notify the TBD-6000 Work Group, so that they 

can handle theirs. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In fact, it might 

apply to other work groups as well. 

 DR. NETON: The findings, any 

finding in TBD-6000 as related to estimation 

of residual contamination at an AWE facility 

would be transferred to OTIB-0070 because 

that's what OTIB-0070 is. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: OTIB-0070 is, how do 

you calculate residual contamination in a 

facility? It gives you different methods, 
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 

approaches. 

 So there's no reason to have this 

depletion model, for example, in TBD-6000 

because that's what's in OTIB-0070. So we're 

going to take -- our comment resolution for 

TBD-6000 is to say, if you want to calculate 

resuspension in a residual contamination 

period, go look at OTIB-0070. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: OTIB-0070. Yes, 

that will be our solution. 

 DR. NETON: Our addressing that 

finding is to say we're going to the OTIB to 

say it's -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it, basically, 

puts it in abeyance by saying it's being 

addressed there. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically, yes, 

you're -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We didn't transfer 

the findings there. They were already dealing 

with it. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's basically 
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 

referring to the OTIB-0070 -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, as the 

hierarchy of -- 

 DR. NETON: But it can't be closed 

really because it's still -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's in abeyance. 

 DR. NETON: It's in abeyance? Is 

that the right word? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It will be closed as 

soon as this is resolved -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is like saying 

you are going to modify some other thing. 

 DR. NETON: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it would be 

fine to have the note, but I think it's going 

to apply to other facilities, not just 6000 or 

not just that particular -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And it sounds like 

it applies to generically many of the comments 

that were made on -- it will go through all 

the comments that were made on OTIB-0070. 

Basically, you're waiting for OTIB-0070 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 

 233

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

resolved. 

 DR. NETON: But anything to do with 

residual contamination in these populations is 

going to be -- OTIB-0070 is the repository of 

that approach. 

 DR. MAURO: I would go as far as to 

say there are probably a hundred findings out 

there, and all the site profile reviews, all 

the dose reconstruction audits, they're all 

where there are comments made that all pertain 

to how you do your dose in the residual 

period. 

 When we close out OTIB-0070, we're 

going to close out a hundred other issues all 

over the place. So I think this is the very 

efficient way to achieve a great deal of 

progress very quickly, if we can engage this 

particular OTIB. 

 MR. KATZ: So it's a high priority, 

Stu. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'll put it 

on a list of high priorities. 
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 

 DR. MAURO: I'll take it a step 

further though. Since it deals with the 

residual period, it is sort of like a tempest 

in a teapot. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You can take a 

number. 

 DR. MAURO: The doses during the 

residual period, unless that's the only 

exposure a person experiences, usually are 

dominated by the operations period. But 

nevertheless, we commented on all the dose 

reconstructions. Whenever a person had a 

residual exposure, it's in there. 

 If you look at them, and if it was 

only exposures during the residual period, 

well, then, of course, that was the dominant. 

 But very often, the person is exposed across 

from operations, and then you will see the 

residual period is always very small compared 

to the operations period. 

 So in a funny sort of way, we have 

an issue that is not of that great magnitude 
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 

in terms of affecting the outcome of doses, 

but there are an awful lot of findings out 

there that, once we close this, they are going 

to all close out. All of sudden, progress is 

going to just leap in terms of SC&A's ability 

to sort of like clear the backlog, carrying 

over from the last contract, something that I 

would like to do. Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. So 

OTIB-0070 becomes focus for what we're going 

to be doing. 

 In our next session, hopefully, my 

database will be the same database everyone 

else is looking at. 

 I do see that in my version of the 

TBD-6000 information our work group meeting 

discussions simply say issue transferred, and 

all of the TBD-6000 issues, apparently, are 

carrying the transferred designation, but it 

does not say what it is transferred to. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It was transferred 

to the Working Group. All the TBD -- you're 
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 

looking at the database, Wanda? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I am. It's what 

it is presenting itself to me as the database. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. The first 13 

or so were -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Transferred from 

issues to the TBD-6000 Work Group. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, they were 

transferred from the Procedures Work Group to 

the TBD-6000 Work Group. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We probably should say 

where they were transferred to. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Let me see. 

 CHAIR MUNN: My follow-up just 

simply says the issues have transferred. It 

does not say to whom. 

 The Work Group Directive says to 

transfer it there, I see. The SC&A follow-up 

did not. I guess one place is fine enough. 

Sorry. All right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it says that it 

transferred to the -- 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 

 237

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, in the Work Group 

Directive it says where it goes to. I was 

just looking under the follow-up and didn't 

see it there. 

 So the action item for 70 is whose? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Stu is going to 

notify me when he has sort of a timeframe, and 

then we will put it on the agenda for this 

work group. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: When we have NIOSH 

responses, in other words. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

 Do you want to take a 15-minute 

break? 

 MR. KATZ: There's nods positive, 

affirmative. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good, 

15 minutes. We'll be right back, when we will 

start with the comments on the third set of 

procedure reviews. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, so about 10 past. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm just putting the 

phone on mute. I'm not breaking the line. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 2:55 p.m. and 

resumed at 3:10 p.m.) 

 CHAIR MUNN: We're ready to start 

with the third set of responses that SC&A 

provided us earlier this month, which, 

remarkably, seem to show up on the database 

that I have in front of me. 

 So the first item that we have is 

OTIB-002-14, the SC&A recommendation. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now which version 

of the third set are we looking at? 

 CHAIR MUNN: We are looking at 

the -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this the 

December 5th version? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. It should be a 

version that I sent to you on March -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: 3/9/09 is what shows 
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 

on my database. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Right. Yes. And 

the email that came was -- I sent the email 

out on March 10th. So there should be an 

email from me to the Subcommittee on March 

10th, a second one, and the name of it should 

be -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it "Selected 

Issues, Third Set" or is it -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct, 

"Selected Issues, Third Set - SC&A" -- yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we have a 

recommendation from SC&A on finding 

OTIB-002-14, that "the issue status be changed 

to In Progress. NIOSH needs to state that 

OTIB-002 should be used only as a last resort 

and for denial only." 

 Does NIOSH have a response to that? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think so. 

I mean we got these -- what? -- two weeks ago. 

 So we have not prepared anything after 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 

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: So our action here is 

to -- essentially, we don't have any agreement 

or response on the -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Changing the status 

to in progress means that we're still, I 

guess, negotiating the resolution. 

 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

Brackett. 

 I can say that the dose 

reconstructionists have already been told that 

this is a last resort. It doesn't state that 

in the OTIB, but they've been given that 

verbal direction. 

 It's only ever been used for denial 

only. I haven't gone back and looked at the 

wording, but I thought that it already said 

that in the OTIB. I think indirectly it does 

because an overestimate is not allowed to be 

used for a compensable case, and I'm pretty 

sure it does say an overestimate. 

 We can make it more clear, but we 

pretty much do this 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 

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any problem 

with changing -- does NIOSH have any objection 

to changing the status from open to in 

progress? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection from 

anyone else? 

 DR. MAURO: It sounds like -- and 

I'm looking at the words right now -- it 

sounds like we're almost at an in abeyance 

state. That is, in concept, we agree on what 

the intent is of this OTIB. That is after 

denial only as a last resort for placing an 

upper bound on internal dose. I mean it 

sounds like we're in agreement with that, the 

concept. 

 So I don't know, I'm just making 

the suggestion that maybe this is actually in 

abeyance. 

 DR. NETON: But John, wouldn't in 

abeyance imply that we were going to modify it 

to state that 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 

 242

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. 

 DR. NETON: I don't have any 

fundamental -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Abeyance promises 

that we'll change it. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, sitting 

here today, we would -- normally, what happens 

is we come back with a response that says, 

okay, we will change this thing, something, 

and that's usually what prompts something to 

be placed in abeyance, awaiting that change. 

 So in this case, you know, just 

strictly speaking pro forma, we do agree 

pretty much with the findings. We haven't 

come back with our response on top of this 

latest one that says, yes, we agree we're 

going to change it. 

 We may take a look at it and say, 

you know, "It really says everything it needs 

to say. We don't really think it needs to be 

changed." Because we don't really like to go 
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 

around and change things if we don't feel like 

they're really called for. 

 These tend to be fairly lowpriority changes, if it's just to reflect what 

we're doing anyway. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I guess, on 

that basis, I mean if the work group -- I mean 

I'm comfortable with that -- I guess I'm 

speaking on behalf of myself and Joyce -- with 

that resolution. That is, you know, in 

effect, you're saying you believe the language 

as it is right now, for all intents and 

purposes, says what we would like it to say. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, I don't 

know. I mean we've got this -- 

 MR. SIEBERT: Right now, the OTIB 

does say, "If the outcome yields a probability 

causation greater than 50 percent of dose 

reconstruction, using more reasonable 

assumptions will be performed." 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: So the use for denial 
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 

is already in there. 

 DR. MAURO: So for all intents and 

purposes, it says these are denial only? I 

guess what you just read to me, I'm fine with 

that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, in the absence of 

a written response, a formal response from 

NIOSH, in progress is probably the appropriate 

designation right now. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But we don't have 

-- is that the official response? I think Stu 

is saying they haven't really -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's what I 

said: in the absence -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In progress is the 

appropriate thing. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, in progress, 

yes, okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Because we haven't 

decided yet whether we think, yes, this 

warrants change or no, it doesn't warrant 
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 

change. If we say, yes, it warrants change, 

then when we say that, then I would think it 

would go to in abeyance. If we say, no, it 

doesn't warrant change, then there is going to 

have to be some sort of agreement whether 

everybody agrees with that. Then it could be 

closed that way, right? 

 DR. NETON: It sounds like we have 

that agreement here. 

 DR. MAURO: I think we've got it. 

 DR. NETON: Is it so formal that we 

have to have this all in writing or can the 

record of the meeting serve as -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's okay with me if 

you guys want to close it. We've got the 

transcript of the meeting, which basically -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes, if we're all in 

agreement, I say we close it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The record of the 

meeting should suffice. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fine by 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 

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: And Steve, you can 

actually load that into the database, I mean 

if the work group is okay with that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay with that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 MR. KATZ: Mike's nodding his head. 

 He's in agreement, too. 

 CHAIR MUNN: There is no objection? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's closed. 

 Then, Steve, you're authorized to 

make the appropriate change. 

 The next item we have is 

OTIB-005-03. 

 We have SC&A's recommendation 

following NIOSH's response. They agree with 

the NIOSH response and recommend the issue be 

closed. 

 Does anyone want to take additional 

time to review the response and the closure 

statement? 
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 

 (No response.) 

 Any objection to accepting it as 

closed? 

 (No response.) 

 Hearing none -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Which one are we 

closing? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: 005-03. 

 CHAIR MUNN: 005-03. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Got it, and we're 

closing that. Thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The next response that 

they had was OTIB-0015, items 1 through 4. 

 "SC&A recommends all issues be 

closed in accordance with the March 2 email 

from NIOSH Document Control that OTIB-0015 has 

been canceled because Bayesian methods are no 

longer used for dose reconstruction. 

Therefore, information in OTIB-0015-00 is no 

longer relevant." 

 Any objection to having this 

closed? 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It has to be closed 

if it's not used anymore. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How is that going 

to show up here now? It just shows up as 

closed -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Items 1 through 4 will 

show this recommendation and will show as 

closed. 

 DR. MAURO: I think the language 

that's in why it's closed, Steve, could that 

be put in as -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's already in 

there, John. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm 

looking at your email. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. No, it's in the 

recommendation. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: It's already in this 

database, John. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It's in the database? 
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 

Great. Thank you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It's a mystery to me 

why this material of Steve's is in the 

database, but I'm glad it's there. Thank you, 

Steve. 

 DR. MAURO: So Steve, I could work 

from the database as opposed to your email? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: You can, but it's a 

little -- you have to jump around a little 

bit. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'll stay with the 

email then. Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then the next item is 

OTIB-0027-1. 

 SC&A's recommendation is that the 

issue be closed, but there are number of 

issues in the finding. Some issues were 

corrected, and other issues are no longer 

applicable because of changes in wording of 

the procedure in the revised Rocky Flats Site 

Profile. 
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 

 The information in the document 

NIOSH had said was transferred to the Rocky 

Flats Profile document. 

 Any objection to showing item 1 as 

closed? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have one 

question on this. It's not clear to me if 

there are some items that are in abeyance. I 

mean there's a number of parts to the finding, 

right? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And some are 

corrected; others are no longer applicable, 

but does that cover everything or are some of 

them being addressed still by the Rocky Flats 

Group and thus, are in abeyance? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. What this 

means, Ron Buchanan looked at the Rocky Flats 

Site Profile. He filed this issue over to the 

Rocky Flats Site Profile, and he's comfortable 

with the way the Rocky Flats Site Profile has 

addressed -- either the Rocky Flats Site 
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 

Profile has either addressed all the issues or 

they're not really -- what are his words 

there? What does he say? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's what 

I'm asking. Are any of them still open in the 

Rocky Flats --? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Not in Ron 

Buchanan's mind. Not in SC&A. In SC&A, we 

think all the issues have been addressed. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: But has the work 

group agreed with that? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No. That's what 

we're talking about now. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Then I think 

they're in abeyance. Some of them must be. 

If they haven't been closed out by Rocky 

Flats, aren't they still in abeyance? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that's two 

separate questions. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They weren't really 

on the list at Rocky Flats, right? I mean 

Rocky Flats didn't raise these during 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 

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Rocky Flats debate specifically. 

 CHAIR MUNN: This is only item 1. 

Item 2, 3, 4 are all still open. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: As I understand it, 

these fines came up because of a review of 

this document independent of the work that was 

going on at Rocky. Independently, there was 

work going on with Rocky to resolve the 

questions associated with Rocky. That 

resolution, be it the Rocky Flats side, 

arrived at a revised site profile and probably 

several other technical documents as well, in 

order to get that whole discussion over. 

Okay? 

 Then, in looking at these findings 

from this OTIB, the findings from the OTIB 

could be found, and the resolution to these 

findings could be found in these revisions to 

the site profile and the other technical 

documents that were prepared as part of the 

discussion on Rocky Flats. I think that is 

the status now. 
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 

 But the Subcommittee has not gone 

back to see where in the Rocky Flats documents 

are these findings taken care of. Ron doesn't 

point that out. You know, Ron says, yes, it's 

taken care of, but he didn't say -- he didn't 

really point out where it was taken care of in 

the Rocky Flats documentation. 

 So that's how we got where we are. 

 So I don't know what that makes the status of 

the finding. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If you read the 

original finding, Paul, the original finding 

was that it was written fairly clear and 

unambiguously. However, some of the errors 

contained in the text create confusion and 

require several re-reads to clarify the 

issues. SC&A's pages 123 and 124 of their 

report list the errors that were identified 

during their review, and many of the issues 

raised in the finding were addressed when they 

transferred the documents. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's 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 

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

point. It says, "Many of the issues were 

addressed," and it implies that they were not 

all addressed, which implies some of them are 

still open in the Rocky. 

 Let's assume there was one issue, 

for example, and we moved it, transferred it, 

quote, "to Rocky." In your mind, the Rocky 

thing has come to resolution, but the Rocky 

Flats Work Group has not yet signed off on it. 

 What's its status? That's what I'm saying. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: If the Rocky Flats 

Work Group has not signed off on it, that's 

different. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other words, are 

any of these issues still officially open in 

the Rocky Flats Site Profile or have they all 

been closed? Have they been transferred? 

 CHAIR MUNN: This is the question 

that we discussed at considerable length in 

our last meeting in December when we were 

discussing precisely this question: whether 

SC&A had the responsibility to follow through 
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 

to see that those things did, in fact, 

transpire, and it was agreed -- I believe John 

Mauro and I actually had a brief email 

correspondence recently verifying their 

understanding that when we make a transfer of 

this sort, it's SC&A's responsibility to 

follow that through to its conclusion, only 

that part, not the entire new procedure, not 

the entire new document, but to follow the 

items that we had said were closed through to 

the new document to assure that that portion 

of the document did, in fact, address the 

original finding. We did have that exchange, 

John and I. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do we call them 

closed at that point or in abeyance? 

 CHAIR MUNN: They're closed at that 

point because SC&A has followed through to see 

that their concerns were addressed in the new 

document, whatever it is. They haven't 

reviewed the new document in its entirety. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, no, 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 

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understand that part. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: In abeyance is 

usually when we're waiting for a document to 

be issued that implements an agreed-upon 

resolution. In this case, we have a 

resolution that we already agreed upon and 

it's already in a published document. So 

we're really not in abeyance on this type of 

thing. 

 The way I read what Ron wrote here 

is he's got -- we had this list of issues on 

pages 123 and 124 of our original report. Ron 

is saying some of those issues were corrected 

and other of those issues are no longer 

applicable. When you add the "some issues" 

and the "other issues" together, you have the 

total list of -- that constitutes the total 

list of issues. So all the issues are either 

corrected or they're no longer applicable. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Corrected by? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: By the site profile. 

 MR. SIEBERT: They're all 
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 

editorial issues. So the first one, it says, 

"Page 5, `occupational external dosimetry' 

should read `occupational environmental 

dose.'" 

 So what I'm assuming he did was 

crosswalk over to the other document. If that 

section isn't named that way anymore, that 

would be one where it's not applicable 

anymore. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. 

 MR. SIEBERT: Whereas, if that 

section is in the new site profile 

information, he would have checked to make 

sure it was accurate, and then he said it was 

correct on it. So it would be one or the 

other. 

 CHAIR MUNN: What this finding is 

telling us, what SC&A's comment is telling us 

is that they have tracked their concerns to 

the document that was to address their 

concerns, and it does, in fact, do so. They 

are now recommending that this item be closed 
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 

because it's been done. 

 It's a part of their job to track 

that through. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, and I was 

sort of asking it this way: let's suppose it 

was -- in this case, it's editorial. So it 

seems fairly simple. 

 But let's suppose it was not 

editorial. Maybe it was a technical issue. 

Suppose the NTS Work Group had not yet weighed 

in on the SC&A recommendation to close it. 

What is its status? Is it still closed for 

our work group here? 

 CHAIR MUNN: The point I'm trying 

to make is it's not an outstanding issue 

anymore, either for us or for the other work 

group. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that's what I 

meant. Do we know that that's the case? 

 DR. MAURO: Paul, you're raising 

something that's a first, and I think it is an 

important 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 

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, it may be 

editorial, but has it been accepted? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean your laws 

say that, well, this case is editorial, so 

it's not as looming. But let's say it was a 

technical issue in our review of a procedure, 

and the answer is, well, that problem has been 

solved in the site profile of some other OTIB, 

and we go look at it. 

 Let's say it's a site profile, 

which means it leaves the Procedures Work 

Group area of responsibilities. But we go 

take a look at it in the site profile and it's 

technical. What does it mean? It looks like 

they did a good job. They solved the problem 

the way we would like to see it solved. We 

recommend it be closed in the Procedures Work 

Group. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: You're asking a 

question, is it legitimate? I guess it's a 

procedural 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 

 260

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Should we be closing out Rocky 

Flats issues in a Procedures Work Group when 

isn't that the job of Rocky Flats Work Group 

to close out -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Yes, 

but -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's a great 

question. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How are we showing 

other ones that are transferred? Once they're 

transferred out, how do we show them here? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but you see, all 

this depends upon several things. One of it 

is whether we're transferring an action out to 

another -- whether we're transferring an open 

issue out to some other work group or whether 

the closure of our open item requires a piece 

of our documents that are being corrected, are 

being revised in any case? 

 If there is a Rocky Flats Profile 

Work Group that has their own set of issues, 

then that should be clear to SC&A at the time 
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 

that they follow through their closure of our 

outstanding issue. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and I 

understand. If it is a matter of we said it 

ought to read this way, and they go to the 

Rocky Flats thing and it says, yes, in that 

document it already reads that way, so it was 

never an issue there, and it's already taken 

care of. 

 I was basically asking if there's 

anything that is still in that the Rocky Flats 

Group hadn't already covered or was somehow 

open there. That's all I was really asking. 

In other words, if it is already, like this 

editorial thing, and you go and look at their 

documents and say, well, they have it correct 

in their document already, so it's a done 

deal. 

 But if that weren't the case, what 

do we do with it? Or maybe it's that way for 

everything. If it is, I'm good with it. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 
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 

 Could I offer a suggestion? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I think that the 

Procedures Work Group could certainly transfer 

items out to a Sites Profile Work Group. It 

sounds to me, though, what we're asking 

ourselves is, can we track a technical issue 

raised in the Procedures Work Group? Then the 

answer is, well, this is something that is 

addressed, will be addressed or is addressed, 

in the Rocky Flats, which we just left the 

domain of the Procedures. 

 It seems to me that we can't -- I 

would say that, procedurally, it would be 

inappropriate for us to sort of leave our 

domain, go into someone else's domain, go read 

the technical issue, decide we think it's 

good, come back and report to Procedures that 

everything is okay, close. 

 We just sort of went into somebody 

else's domain. I don't think we could do 

that. If it stays within our domain, namely, 
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 

Wanda says, okay, this particular issue that 

we're looking at right in front of us was 

transferred to a different procedure, so it is 

still within our domain, then we can go over 

to that other procedure, review it, and come 

back and report, because it's all within our 

domain. 

 But I would say what you just 

brought up, Paul, is it would be inappropriate 

for us to go and leave our Procedures domain, 

go into the Site Profile domain on some 

technical issue, and then report back that 

everything is okay. This is really something 

that we really can't say. This is something 

that should be transferred to the Rocky Flats 

Work Group. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Unless it's a 

technical issue they've already addressed. 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. Absolutely. 

Unless they have already taken care of it, 

then we could report back to the work group, 

listen, the Rocky Flats people have resolved 
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 

the issue or it has been resolved or it will 

be resolved. Then, of course, we have to 

decide whether we want to close it or put it 

in abeyance. 

 But I don't think we could follow 

the trail out of the Procedures and into a 

Site Profile Work Group or an SEC Work Group 

and say, we looked at the site profile and we 

think that it does a good job in solving this 

problem, and we should close it. 

 I think it's something we have to 

transfer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, for example, 

where Ron Buchanan, talking about the 

probability of distribution, goes to the Rocky 

Flats Site Profile and says, "They already 

covered this topic. It's not an open issue," 

just confirming that they have covered it, 

then I'm okay with us closing it. 

 I was really asking, are all of 

these issues that status or are any of them in 

the category of open issues at Rocky? 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 

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

everything closed? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Once more, we're 

getting back to the concern that we've 

expressed many times and have not come to 

closure on, which is the details of how 

transfers are communicated to other work 

groups. Whether it's in Procedures, whether 

it's an SEC or a Site Profile, or some other 

document is secondary in my mind. The issue 

remains, we have not codified our process for 

notifying others of this transfer. 

 It seems imperative that we close 

this loop and that we make that decision once 

and for all. We may not have, as John has 

said, the authority to say: "This is closed 

for us and therefore, closed for you," whoever 

you are, but we certainly need to identify 

that we have notified the appropriate 

individual or individuals of some other work 

group or if a work group does not exist, to 

whom do we send this information? We need to 

be notifying people when we are transferring, 
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 

and we're not doing that. 

 DR. MAURO: Wanda, it's really an 

action item that the work group has to decide 

what you would like to do. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. 

 DR. MAURO: Let's say we had 

something we would like to transfer over to 

Rocky right now, or whatever. It's leaving 

our domain, our Procedures domain, and it's 

going into a Site Profile or an SEC domain. I 

think it is the work group that, if you wanted 

to make it an action item and then report 

back, that NIOSH does or SC&A does, or it is 

something that you, as the Chairperson of this 

work group, may want to speak to the 

Chairperson of the Rocky Work Group. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's what we do -- 

 DR. MAURO: However you want to 

proceed. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's what I've been 

trying to identify that we should define for 

at least the last year, are we doing this 
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 

appropriately, and we're not doing it 

appropriately. 

 DR. MAURO: Why not make that 

decision right now? How do you want to do it? 

 CHAIR MUNN: I would like to do 

that. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, let me make a 

suggestion. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: There are really two 

different cases here, because we're not 

talking about a transfer here necessarily, but 

there's transfer cases, too. I think they 

both can be handled similarly. 

 I mean, where the Procedures 

Subcommittee comes to a finding and they close 

their issues, whether it applies to another 

work group or not, if they close an issue that 

applies, that may apply to another domain, 

like you say, John, a Site Profile Group, for 

example, I mean if this Procedures 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 

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

decides, okay, it's addressed in the Site 

Profile; we're happy with it; we close our 

issue. It's not a transfer, but they're 

closing it because it was a Procedures issue 

in the first place, not that Workgroup's. 

 The Procedures Subcommittee can 

close it on their books and simply send a 

memo, an email, to the Chair of that work 

group informing them that we had this issue 

that relates to your site profile. We believe 

-- you know, this was our findings; we've 

closed it. 

 If that Chair of that other work 

group decides there's something there for them 

to pursue further, they can. Otherwise, it's 

a non-issue for them. But they're informed. 

 On the other hand, if you have a 

transfer, where the Procedures Work Group is 

working on an issue and you say, "Oh, this is 

really just germane to this other work group 

dealing with this site profile, and it's not 

really necessary to be handled by 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 

 269

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Procedures because it's not complex-wide," or 

what have you, then the Procedures Work Group 

does a transfer, where they summarize the 

issue and the information that's been 

developed so far. They package that up and 

email it to the Chair of that work group, and 

that work group picks it up and decides what 

to do with it there. 

 In either case, I think with all of 

these, whether you close an issue that you are 

not transferring or you're actually 

transferring, you send a message to that work 

group Chair letting them know what transpired 

here, what the findings were, and that would 

be that. It seems fairly simple. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It seems simple to me. 

 It is just that we have never formalized it. 

 I would like very much to formalize it in 

exactly that way. 

 My only concern personally is that, 

as long as there exists another work group, 

then this becomes a fairly simple 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 

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

straightforward thing. I can do that, as the 

Chair of this group, or whoever succeeds me 

can do that very easily just by sending an 

appropriate message. That's not complicated. 

 It does become a little complicated 

when we have an issue that we wish to transfer 

out of Procedures, but there is not an 

existing work group. 

 MR. KATZ: So let me supplement, 

then, what I just suggested, which is if there 

is not another work group, but there's an 

issue that is just germane to a specific site 

and a specific site profile, say, then this 

Procedures Work Group can make a 

recommendation to the Board that a work group 

be formed to take up this issue for that site 

profile, if it is something of that 

importance. 

 If it's something that's sort of 

minor, like we were just talking about where 

we're just talking about editorial changes to 

a site profile, there's no need to do 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 

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mean that information is communicated to OCAS, 

and they can decide whether to make the 

changes in the site profile. 

 But if it's an issue of importance, 

there's no work group extant right now to deal 

with it for that site profile, and this 

Procedures Work Group doesn't think, the 

Subcommittee doesn't think it's appropriate 

because it's only related to one site. I mean 

you make the decision as to whether you deal 

with it here, because there is no work group, 

or you recommend to the Board that there be 

constituted a work group to deal with that 

site profile. It seems like that would work. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It probably would 

work. 

 Are there any objections to Ted's 

recommendation? 

 (No response.) 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: We're surprised. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any other suggestions? 
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 

 MR. KATZ: Mike, does that sound 

okay to you? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Tell them nothing 

will fall through the cracks. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, absolutely. 

 Mike says okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I couldn't hear 

what he said. 

 MR. KATZ: He didn't want anything 

to fall through the cracks. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, very good. 

 If it doesn't fall through the cracks, the 

Chair's responsibility is to send a message to 

the effect that this Group has taken an 

action, what that action is. That is directed 

to the appropriate Chair of an existing work 

group or if not, then to the Board. Then I'll 

be glad to do that. 

 DR. MAURO: I assume that's going 

to be captured in our matrix? That is, in the 

place on the electronic database where this 

particular issue is in this special status, 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 

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will be so indicated. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we are going 

to have one of those coming up. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Issue No. 27-3, SC&A 

is recommending that we -- this is the same 

type of thing where it was filed, we filed it 

through the Rocky Flats Site Profile, and 

we're recommending that the status be in 

progress. 

 So in other words, we still want to 

negotiate with NIOSH on the wording and the 

resolution of the issue. So that one, you 

know, I guess the better thing would be to go 

back to issue No. 3 here. 

 Issue No. 3, SC&A, we recommend for 

issue No. 3 -- the question remains, what is 

the default full-time energy distribution of 

the source material, is not listed in Table 

6-10. 

 So on this issue, we want to still 

negotiate, I think, and it is still open. Now 
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 

the other three issues on OTIB-0027, when we 

filed them to the Rocky Flats Site Profile, we 

were satisfied with the way the site profile 

addressed those three. So in our opinion, 

they can be closed. 

 Again, if I understand what Wanda 

is saying, we can send the Chair of the Rocky 

Flats Work Group a memo to that effect, 

basically, this portion of the back-and-forth 

probably. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If we say here 

that's -- I mean the statement is made here 

that it has been transferred to them. So you 

say, well, do they know it? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that would be 

Wanda's -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda's email would 

be saying, you know, we feel that this issue 

should be more appropriately resolved in your 

work group than in the Procedures 

Subcommittee. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Let me jump in here for 

a second. 

 I think I see the root cause of a 

bit of a dilemma that I created. It goes back 

about two years. 

 There was a time when we were 

identifying procedures for review. We made a 

distinction between those procedures that were 

generic and complex-wide and those that were 

site-specific. We were given the green light 

to review lots and lots of procedures, some of 

which were generic and some of which were 

site-specific. 

 We had all of the reviews done, and 

we had a whole bunch of Rocky’s and 

Portsmouth’s that we reviewed as part of our 

work in support of all of these different site 

profiles. 

 I said, listen, when we put 

together our procedure review work products in 

our documents, in order to capture everything 
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 

in one place, I said let's just gather them 

all up and here they are. All of a sudden, 

we're looking at a bunch of procedures we use 

that are really site-specific. 

 Never thinking that the day will 

come when we realize, well, wait a minute, 

what the heck are we doing over here looking 

at a Rocky Flats procedure, or whatever it 

was? This has got to be a site-specific 

procedure and here it is sitting in the 

Procedures Work Group. 

 It's almost like an unanticipated 

consequence of a good intention where, wait a 

minute, here we are closing out a procedure 

that deals with a site-specific issue. We 

shouldn't be doing that. This is something 

that the Rocky Site Work Group should be 

doing. 

 I believe that's what this 27 is. 

What's the title of 27, Steve? Do you have it 

here, by any chance? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Supplementary 
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 

External Dose Information for Rocky Flats 

Plan. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. So you see, you 

have to understand, we -- me -- with the good 

intentions of trying to put in one place all 

our procedures reviews, so we don't lose track 

of it, find ourselves in the very unusual 

circumstance. Here we are in the Procedures 

Work Group or Subcommittee 

commenting/reviewing on a Rocky Flats 

procedure. 

 I'm sorry to say this, but I think 

we've got to discuss this a little bit. We 

find ourselves in an unusual circumstance. I 

think we have to deal with it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's similar 

to the General Steel Industries, which, by 

reviewing TBD-6000, we end up looking at those 

various appendices that are site-specific. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. But if this is 

the only place -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: When those were 
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 

transferred, they show up -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- on a different 

matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. That's what 

I'm saying. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but we make 

the statement here on these that they have 

been transferred to Rocky Flats. Or is that 

just a recommendation -- I mean it says it was 

transferred to Rocky Flats. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Or that it was taken 

care of in the site profile, and that's -- 

well, let's see if I can put together a 

communication -- 

 DR. MAURO: What I'm saying is 

that, should we be just transferring the whole 

procedure out of here? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 DR. MAURO: It shouldn't be within 

our domain. I mean I'm just putting it right 

out there naked before the world. 
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 

 I mean there are going to be a 

whole bunch of procedures that we're going to 

hit in our matrix here that are site-specific. 

 And the question becomes, should we be 

looking at it? 

 CHAIR MUNN: And the answer is yes, 

unless we change our attitude and our charter 

with respect to what we were challenged to do 

to begin with. What we were challenged to do 

to begin with was to review procedures, to 

look at selected procedures that SC&A had 

reviewed -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- regardless of 

whether they were site-specific or whether 

they were general in nature. We were not 

limiting the charter of the Procedures Group 

to only non-site-specific procedures. 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. 

 DR. MAURO: So I mean, but here we 

are now transferring. We are in a funny place 
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 

because here we are making judgments, either 

transferring or making judgments on matters 

that might be where -- are we stepping into 

someone else's area of responsibility? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, not if we notify 

them that we have looked -- they are 

anticipating that we will be looking at these 

procedures. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And if we notify them 

that we had, in fact, done so, and that our 

current finding is thus, at that juncture, 

certainly the Site Profiles Group can choose 

to take issue with that -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- and move it 

forward. 

 DR. MAURO: No, there's no doubt 

that the Site Profile Group will benefit from 

what we have to say. I guess I just wanted to 

put it out on the table, that we have a little 

bit of an unusual circumstance. As long 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 

 281

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

administratively we could deal with this, 

great. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can, given 

what we were charged to do to begin with, 

unless we find that it is too much for all of 

us. 

 I will try to address both finding 

one and finding two, and finding three is not 

quite the same. It's in progress. 

 Four is another one of the closed 

issues. So I will attempt to put together an 

email that will identify the Rocky Flats folks 

of what our finding has been. We will 

continue to have item 3 open and in progress, 

if that is the agreement of our Subcommittee 

today. 

 Have you all had an opportunity to 

look at those three, four items? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So three is in 

progress in this Subcommittee or is it 

transferred to -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It's in process in 
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 

this Subcommittee. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. And four 

would be in abeyance? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Four is closed for us 

because it is covered in the site profile, in 

the newly-revised. In the revised site 

profile it is covered. 

 So I will notify RFP of those three 

findings; that is, Nos. 1, 2, and 4. We will 

retain No. 3 on our database unless I hear to 

the contrary from our Subcommittee members 

now. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, on No. 1 now, 

you were talking sort of theoretically, but it 

is still not clear to me if the statement that 

some -- let's see how it is worded. Get the 

right one here, 27-01, the statement that, 

"Some issues were corrected and other issues 

are no longer applicable." Is that the whole 

population? When he says, "some" and 

"others," is that everything? 

 MR. KATZ: Steve indicated that 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 

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

should be all others, in other words, because 

that's the whole universe. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's the whole 

universe. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We can double-check 

if you want, Paul. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that's all 

right. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If we insert the word 

"all," is that -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: All the issues? 

 CHAIR MUNN: "All other issues are 

no longer applicable." Will that satisfy the 

concern? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: When you say they 

were corrected, they had already been 

corrected? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Have already been 

corrected. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Have been by the 

other Group or -- 

 DR. MAURO: Do you want me to give 
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 

Ron Buchanan a call? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. I'm just 

trying to understand what is meant here. 

These were mainly editorial? 

 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and another 

example is changing to "contribution was," 

where it says "contribution is/was." 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. SIEBERT: I mean they're all 

relatively minor comments. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Got you. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So it is the whole 

population. Then all other issues should take 

care of that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So there's nothing 

that the other work group would have to do 

anyway, right? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. I'm okay 

with closing that. I just wanted to 

understand what it meant when we said we would 

transfer them throughout the class. 
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 

 In a sense, were they really 

transferred? The Rocky Flats people, are you 

going to tell them that we're transferring 

these issues, but they are closed? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now that we have 

determined that we have them, they are closed 

and explain to them why. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So the information 

was transferred. The information in this 

OTIB, the information in this OTIB has been 

transferred to the Rocky Flats -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay, I see, 

yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We don't ever say we 

transferred the issues. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. I'm 

with you. Yes, that's the difference, I 

think. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Again, the next 

then would be No. 2, a different set of 

circumstances, but the same results with 

respect to communion with Rocky Flats. 
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 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So it's not 

an issue there for them either. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And really it is 

closed by assuring that it had already been 

taken care of in their document. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And similarly, No. 4. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So is there 

anything that needs to be transferred to the 

Rocky Flats Group? 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, there's no real 

transfer. It's just notification of them that 

we are closing issues that relate to them 

because of changes that have been made to that 

profile document. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think what John 

was suggesting, or maybe Steve, or what Ted 

was suggesting is a notification process if we 

actually transfer something or Wanda transfers 

something. I think we're saying, now, that -- 

 MR. KATZ: Or even if it is closed. 

 But if we close an issue that would 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 

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

relevant to them, just to notify them that we 

took up these issues, they related to your -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: What we can do is we 

can print out or make a .pdf file of these 

four issues. I can make a .pdf file of these 

four issues that basically includes all the 

information that's up on the screen, and I 

will give that to Wanda. Wanda can then 

forward that, and it will have the information 

like, you know, that we are continuing to work 

on this; it's in progress and we're continuing 

to work on it. 

 Then Wanda can take that .pdf file 

and email it to the Chair of the Rocky Flats’ 

 Work Group. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And then we'll all 

be on the same page. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I'll take an 

action item to make a .pdf file of these four 

OTIB-0027 issues and send it to Wanda. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. 

 All right, I think have that action 

item. 

 Do we have any concerns with the 

status of item 27-3, remaining with us as in 

progress? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: And 4 is okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And 4 is okay. It 

goes with 1 and 2 and will be a part of 

communication with the Rocky Flats Profile 

Group. 

 Any other issues with respect to 

OTIB-0027? 

 If not, we will go on to 

OTIB-0029-01. 

 The SC&A recommendation is fairly 

long. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I guess the 

NIOSH response was, please provide some 

specific documents. 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And this is what the 

recommendation really -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: And where are the 

recommendations? 

 It appears to me that this status 

would not change. It would be awaiting a 

NIOSH response to the items provided. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So you want to 

maintain it as open? 

 CHAIR MUNN: It remains open. Or, 

at the very least, in process, in progress. I 

would say in progress. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If not, then let's go 

on to OTIB-0029-2. No, we don't have anything 

from NIOSH yet. 

 OTIB-0029-3. 

 SC&A recommendation -- agrees the 

full distribution is fine where people we 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 

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are not in a position to be chronically 

exposed. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: This is one where I 

think SC&A and NIOSH have kind of a 

disagreement. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: And this is where I 

have inserted the words or I put down here 

that we were looking for some guidance from 

the Subcommittee on how to proceed, what the 

next steps should be. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, typically, when 

we come to this juncture, what we do is 

request that the NIOSH and SC&A technical 

folks have a technical exchange, that they get 

together on the telephone and talk about it, 

see if there is any possibility that they can 

reach a consensus that we can move forward 

with in this group. 

 Is there any objection to our using 

that technique, which we've used to good 

advantage in the past? 
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 

 DR. MAURO: That's fine. This is 

John. 

 I guess I'm one of the root causes 

for this difference of opinion on the way to 

deal with this. Jim and I have spoken about 

it on numerous occasions. I think, in 

principle, we agree, but with regard to how 

you actually are going to accomplish it -- in 

other words, for real people, real cases -- I 

think it's going to be a challenge. 

 The degree to which we air this 

issue -- I mean I'm prepared to talk about it 

now, if you would like to, or we can wait for 

another time. But it is a very important 

issue because it goes to the heart of using 

your data from a site, internal dosimetry data 

from a site in a co-worker model for internal 

exposure, and the fundamental philosophy of 

how to apply your pooled data of internal 

dosimetry data for a site and apply it to a 

worker who was not bioassayed. 

 All I am saying is that Jim 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 

 292

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have had quite a bit of discussion on this. I 

think we both in concept agree. Where the 

disagreement comes out is in its application 

to a real person. Because I feel as if you're 

really never going to be sure. 

 I feel that the way in which NIOSH 

is implementing this philosophy is not 

necessarily in the claimant's favor. This 

issue comes up time and time again. 

 But, unlike the last one we talked 

about, our residual radioactivity, this one, 

whereby the significance is small, in this 

case the significance is large. So it is one 

of those issues that has implications for 

many, many dose reconstructions and for many 

site profiles. 

 When it is resolved, it's going to 

resolve many of them, but it is an important 

one. How it is resolved is going to have an 

effect, significant effect, on how dose 

reconstructions are done and their outcome. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I agree with you 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 

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this is an extremely important issue, and you 

are correct, it does come up again and again. 

 DR. MAURO: I would say that this 

warrants some dedicated time by the work 

group. But, unfortunately -- I say, 

unfortunately or fortunately -- it affects so 

many other work groups, Site Profile Work 

Groups. So we are in a very interesting 

position. If we do engage this issue, it 

bears not only on Y12, but it bears on just 

about every other site and how co-worker 

models are built. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does. It is 

extremely annoying and time consuming to 

address the issue repeatedly in a half dozen 

different forms. 

 DR. MAURO: Is Jim still on the 

line? 

 CHAIR MUNN: He is. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm here. 

 DR. MAURO: Jim, isn't this 

OTIB-0060? I recall there being a generic. 
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 

 DR. NETON: Yes, this is the Y12 

specifically. I can't read it from the screen 

here. 

 DR. MAURO: No, I'm sorry, I'm not 

making myself clear. It's surfacing here on a 

Y12 proceeding, this specific procedure, but I 

believe you do have a generic internal 

dosimetry that is complex-wide -- 

 DR. NETON: Correct. 

 DR. MAURO: -- that it affects this 

strategy. 

 DR. NETON: Correct. 

 DR. MAURO: And perhaps the move 

here is to transfer within our domain this 

particular issue. Just like we've transferred 

everything over to OTIB-0070 related to 

residual radioactivity, everything related to, 

I believe, how you implement an internal 

dosimetry co-worker model -- 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- could be transferred 

over, I believe it's OTIB-0060, but I'm 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 

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sure. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It is internal dose 

reconstruction. 

 MS. BRACKETT: It's OTIB-0019. 

 DR. MAURO: It's OTIB-0019? Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: That might be the 

cleanest way to deal with this generic issue. 

 DR. NETON: But I don't know if -- 

Liz, this is Jim. Correct me, but did 

OTIB-0019 specifically recommend the 50th 

percentile? 

 MS. BRACKETT: No, I was going to 

say that it goes through and gives that 

example, but it leaves it open as to what you 

choose. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 MS. BRACKETT: It does not dictate 

that you must use the 50th percentile. 

 DR. NETON: Right. But I guess 

that still could be the sort of repository for 

all the discussion because maybe OTIB-0019 
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 

does need to provide guidance at some point. 

We've got to put it somewhere because John's 

right, this has come up at a few different 

sites. 

 But I would also suggest that there 

are several different flavors of this. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: There are co-worker 

models when you have chronic exposures using 

internal bioassay data. There are also 

internal co-worker models using air 

concentration data. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: And we approach them 

somewhat differently. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and, all of a 

sudden, it becomes site-specific. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: So, yes, Wanda, I guess 

we sort of are on the horns of a dilemma. I 

think that there are aspects to this issue 

that are universal, but, like OTIB-0066, 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 

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are aspects of it that need to be implemented 

on a case-by-case basis. The wisdom of how to 

come at the problem on a particular site, Y12, 

is unique to Y12. Whether you take the full 

distribution, the 50 percentile, the upper 

95th percentile from a pooled set of data, of 

bioassay data, or air sampling data, would 

very much depend on the operation and the 

data, and the job that the guy had. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but hang on, 

John. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. 

 DR. NETON: In thinking about this, 

John, though, maybe this would be a good 

poster child for tackling this issue because I 

find it is helpful to have real data and look 

at real consequences as opposed to sort of 

modeling this on the general concepts. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: I think there's a lot 

of valid, good discussions that could come out 

of this if we sat down, as Wanda suggested, 
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 

and sort of have a frank technical discussion 

about how this would play out for Y12. Once 

we, I think, sort of iron that out, it might 

sort of fall in place for the other sites 

where we use the internal co-worker model. 

 DR. MAURO: I agree with you. 

There's nothing like a real-world problem -- 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and see how the 

rubber meets the road. I agree with that. 

 My recommendation would be let's 

tackle this one. 

 DR. NETON: Let's look at this 

specific issue with modeling chronic exposure 

using bioassay data and -- 

 DR. MAURO: At Y12. 

 DR. NETON: -- at Y12, and we will 

see where that takes us. If we can resolve, I 

think a lot of the other ones will fall in 

place. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That would be very 

helpful, especially in view of the fact 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 

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unless my flawless database that I'm looking 

at is incorrect, we do not seem to have 

assigned OTIB-0019 to SC&A for review. Am I 

correct in that? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think so. I 

think you are correct, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That being the 

case -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, no, wait a 

minute. We do some OTIB-0019. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We do? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we don't. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I don't see it on 

my database. 

 DR. NETON: Interestingly -- I'm 

sorry, Wanda; I didn't mean to cut in. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's quite all 

right. Go ahead. 

 DR. NETON: Interestingly, I don't 

recall that this was an issue on the Y12 site 

profile review, which is kind of interesting 

in itself. 
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 

 DR. MAURO: Remember the Y12 Work 

Group is still active. 

 DR. NETON: Well, it is. It's in 

the process of being reconstituted. That is 

why I am pretty sure it wasn't an open issue 

on the site profile review, but that may be 

because this approach was embedded in an OTIB 

that didn't get looked at. But, 

nonetheless -- 

 DR. MAURO: Y12, we were zeroed 

right in on that 1960 timeframe and the coworker model to use later data for earlier 

data and the SEC. 

 DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And there was a 

strategy developed that, in the end, we all I 

think agreed upon. 

 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so. 

 DR. MAURO: But I think now we're 

in -- yes, I agree with you, especially if it 

hasn't -- even if it was OTIB-0019 Work Group 

and it was active, I like the idea of trying 
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 

to take this one on in a real-world problem at 

a real site and see how it works. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I think it will benefit 

the whole process. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now once you did 

that, couldn't you go ahead with the 

-- OTIB-0019 is sort of generic, right? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that the generic 

one? 

 DR. NETON: OTIB-0019 shows how to 

tell distribution -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Right. But 

then you could also talk about how to apply 

those in different kinds of situations, could 

you not? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, we could. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: That would match up 

with -- 

 DR. NETON: I think part of the 

problem is we do that sort of on an ad hoc 
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 

basis, but there is no current guidance for 

that. 

 I would like to get this 50th 

percentile, this full distribution issue -- 

well, I don't think we can resolve it, but at 

least we can discuss it and see where we both 

end up, and agree to disagree if that's where 

we end up. 

 DR. MAURO: I agree, Jim. I think 

the whole process will benefit from engaging 

this. It's an important one and it is time. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So I am recording an 

action group for NIOSH -- I mean an action 

item for NIOSH and SC&A to have significant 

technical discussions with respect to 

assigning of percentiles, and specifically as 

it relates to OTIB--0029-03, and in a broader 

sense as it relates to the entire site-wide 

concern, which may crop up literally on any 

site. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda? 
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 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: We did do, back on 

June 8th of 2006, the second set of reviews, 

did review OTIB-0019. We had one finding, and 

the status of that one finding is closed at 

this point. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have a record 

of what our finding was? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: The finding was the 

OTIB's recommendation for interpreting the 

regression R2 do not take into account -- R 

squared -- do not take into account the fact 

that there is a conditional dependence within 

the data and that there is censored data. The 

R squared value needs to be adjusted to 

account for conditional dependence. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So it's an R squared 

issue. We didn't have any percentiles? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Wanda, let me 

help out here. 

 It's all coming back. This was 

very much a statistical treatment of data. 
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 

Harry Chmelynski, our statistician, looked at 

it purely from a statistical point of view. 

We are really talking about now what I would 

call a more classic health physics 

interpretation of, how do you assign what 

percentile to a person? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Applications in the 

real world for different things. 

 DR. MAURO: The real world, and 

this is something that we really never engaged 

when Harry was looking at it. He looked at it 

from statistics. 

 I think Jim and I both understand 

what the issues are. I think this whole 

process will benefit from airing this thing 

out, even though OTIB-0019 may very well be 

closed. But I think that when we engage it 

here, it will unfold in a way that will 

benefit many sites. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Excellent. Let's do 

that. I will leave OTIB-0019 out of it for 

the time being and simply refer only to 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 

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

site-specific issue here, which is it affects 

numerous sites. 

 We will use that as an action item 

for our next meeting, hopefully, or the one 

following that. That may take more time 

between now and then. 

 MR. KATZ: Let me just get 

clarification about that -- does more time 

mean more time than the Subcommittee has? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I mean more time 

than the Subcommittee may have at our next 

meeting when we finish up with CATI. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Okay. I just 

wanted to be clear for agenda purposes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Change the status to 

in progress from open? 

 CHAIR MUNN: In progress. Yes, and 

indicate that there will be technical 

discussions, extensive technical discussions 

to try to resolve the differences in approach. 

 MR. KATZ: And do you want the 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 

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

group members to be informed when discussions 

occur? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, please. We may 

want to -- well, some may want to sit in. If 

they are telephone discussions, they may want 

to sit in. 

 DR. MAURO: What we usually do, 

Wanda, is let's say Jim and I agree it's a 

good time for us talk. At that time, we might 

schedule something tentatively, get in touch 

with you, let you know that -- and the rest of 

the work group -- that we would like to have a 

conference. This will be a technical call. 

So it is not something that would need to be 

recorded. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's true. 

That's true. 

 DR. MAURO: But what I would do 

after that is I would prepare detailed 

minutes, so that there will be a record of the 

technical call. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and 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 

 307

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Subcommittee members are interested in 

listening to that; others are not. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I keep 

referring to work group. It's the 

Subcommittee. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's all 

right. We know who we are. 

 That would be most helpful. Thank 

you, John. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So, basically, it is 

Jim Neton and John Mauro will set up the 

conference call? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Correct. 

 Moving on, OTIB-0029-04. The 

recommendation is that the status be changed 

to in abeyance. Asking for a demonstration 

from NIOSH for all periods of time. Forty 

percent or more of the samples were not 

collected on Monday. So they're requesting 

additional information from NIOSH. In 

abeyance would, therefore, be the 

appropriate -- is it in abeyance; is it in 
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 

progress? Is it not in progress? 

 DR. MAURO: I think it's in 

progress. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I think in progress 

because we are not waiting for a specific 

change in documentation. We are asking for a 

technical resolution, right? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Wanda, I see that 

we are recommending in abeyance, but I guess I 

was surprised to see that because I think the 

NIOSH response seems to say, oh, it's okay. 

It's only 40 percent or more samples we've 

collected on other dates. 

 But it seems to me that there is -- 

 MR. KATZ: John, you seem very 

remote from the mike. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I'm looking 

at my computer screen, reading it, and trying 

to speak loud. I'm looking at the issue. 

 This has to do with this Monday 

versus Friday sample collection and issue that 

Joyce has brought up on other occasions. 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 

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know that it appears that the response, the 

initial response here by NIOSH is that -- 

well, I'll read it. 

 Our review of the database shows 

that, while many samples are collected on 

Monday, or some timeframes, 40 percent or more 

of the samples are collected on other days. 

 This significantly diminishes the 

impact that we make reference to, this two-day 

delay. But I don't know if that solves the 

problem. I mean it may for those workers, 

that there was a two-day delay. 

 I think that Joyce was able to show 

that it is not insignificant. When you ignore 

this, it could be significant for that worker. 

 So I guess I see that we're saying 

in abeyance, but, like I said, I'm kind of 

surprised we said that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I disagree. I do 

believe that it needs to be in progress. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, me, too. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So, clearly, there 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 

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

more technical discussion that needs to take 

place here. 

 Does anyone disagree with the in 

progress rather than in abeyance? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I want to ask the 

question, it looks like NIOSH went back and 

looked at the data and they reported on this 

40 percent, 60 percent business. Is SC&A 

asking to see -- what are they asking when 

they ask for demonstrate that that's the case? 

 Do they want to see the data or --? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that's what 

Joyce is asking for, is to provide the support 

data for the fact that NIOSH is saying that it 

significantly diminishes the impact. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, to demonstrate 

that? They're not asking to see the actual 

data that demonstrates that it was 40 percent 

or whatever that is? They just want to see, 

if you have a 40/60 ratio, how that -- anyway, 

what are you asking for? It's not clear to me 

here. 
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 

 MR. MARSCHKE: NIOSH should 

demonstrate that at all periods of time 40 

percent or more of the samples were not 

collected on Mondays. 

 But that's documentation of the 

fact that, you know -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: What constitutes 

documentation of that? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess it is the 

data. 

 DR. MAURO: Maybe I can help out a 

little, I mean in terms of how I understand 

it. 

 If you have a worker that, as a 

matter of routine -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I understand 

the Monday/Friday issue. I'm asking, is she 

asking to show that 40 percent of the workers 

weren't collected on Monday? What is Joyce 

asking for? 

 DR. MAURO: We are looking for a 

demonstration that the sampling for workers 
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 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was -- in other words, there aren't any 

workers really, for all intents and purposes, 

that were always sampled on Monday morning 

after a two-day retreat over the weekend. 

 The argument that can be made here 

is that that wasn't the usual circumstance. 

That is, the workers were sampled on Monday, 

on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday. 

Therefore, reality is there's not going to be 

any one worker that over and over again worked 

40 hours in a week, stopped work on a Friday 

afternoon, and came back to work Monday 

morning and delivered his urine sample. That 

went on year after year after year. 

 In other words, our understanding 

is that it's NIOSH's position that that really 

didn't happen. What really happened for any 

given worker was sometimes they took a sample 

on Monday morning, but sometimes they took it 

on Thursday week after week after week. 

 So, therefore, the calculations 

that we presented showing the degree to which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you could underestimate a worker's exposure, 

if, in fact, you always took his sample on 

Monday morning, would be significant. That 

is, you could significantly underestimate his 

dose. 

 NIOSH's position is, well, that 

really never really happened. That is, there 

really aren't any workers where that was 

always the case, you know, week after week 

after week, and month, year after year. 

 As a result, the degree of 

underestimate that we showed in our 

calculations really is overstated. We're 

looking for some assurance that that is true. 

 Right now, we don't know that. 

Right now, we have no choice but to say, 

listen, as far as we know, the guy was sampled 

on Monday morning every Monday and after the 

weekend and, as a result, you could be low by 

some factor. All of this is written up in our 

detailed analysis. 

 Before we let go of this and 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 

 314

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

okay, I see what you're saying, I'm not sure 

how you would demonstrate it, but I think, in 

effect, that is what NIOSH is saying; that is, 

there really aren't any people where that 

scenario holds, you know, month after month. 

 If that is the case, the 

significance of this comment really greatly 

diminishes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, how is the 40 

percent determined? 

 DR. NETON: I don't recall. I do 

remember the database -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Did you guys take a 

random sample of all the data and -- 

 DR. NETON: It's been a long time 

since we've looked at that. I can't comment. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know. 

 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

Brackett. 

 First, I would like to point out 

that, keep in mind, this is for co-worker only 

that we are discussing this. We are 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 

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

looking at individual workers. We do have an 

OTIB -- I'm not sure it was published yet, but 

we did look at correction factors. If an 

individual worker did have his samples 

collected on Mondays, then that adjustment can 

be applied to the individual worker. We were 

looking at the dataset as a whole. 

 I believe it was Dave Allen took 

the database, because it is electronic, and I 

thought that that 40 percent was based on the 

entire database, but I would have to check 

with Dave on that. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So he can sort 

readily in the database -- 

 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that what 

SC&A -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that's what 

SC&A is asking for. I mean exactly what Joyce 

is asking for here is basically, if you read 

the NIOSH's responses, they did a review of 

the database and they came up with the 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 

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that 40 percent or more of the samples were 

collected on other days. 

 So the first thing Joyce is asking 

for, well, let's show how you came up with 

that 40 percent. How did you do the review? 

What was your review? How did you do it? And 

how did you come up with that 40 percent? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that could be a 

sort and give us the chart, how many came in 

on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 

Friday, or do you need to see the data? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: I think if we look 

at the sort, and again I'm -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: How you got the 

numbers? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: How you got the 

numbers, and so on, yes. 

 Then the second part of the NIOSH 

response is, it says, this significantly 

diminishes the impact of assuming that there 

was no great prior sample collection. 

 So the next thing that Joyce 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 

 317

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

asking for here is, you know, while you say it 

significantly diminishes the impacts, well, 

let's show the analysis that constitutes that, 

the basis for that statement. 

 Then the reason why she puts it in 

abeyance is she's assuming that NIOSH will be 

able to come back and provide those two pieces 

of information, and therefore, QED; we're 

really all done with this issue. It's just a 

matter of getting the documentation in -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean that part I 

think is fairly straightforward. 

 DR. NETON: I think I understand 

that, and I understand the concept of why it's 

clearly underlined all periods because it 

could be 40 percent for the whole database, 

but maybe they went to random samples starting 

in the last 20 years, and the first 20 years 

were all on Monday. I don't know. 

 We'll provide that. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: So, I mean, I think 

what she is saying is, I think what Joyce 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 

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

saying, why the recommendation was in abeyance 

is, yes, we agree with the NIOSH response, 

provided there is the documentation behind it. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I've got it. 

 DR. NETON: I think that is pretty 

clear, at least to me, what we need to do. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So that being said, do 

we accept the in abeyance or do we call this 

in progress? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's in progress, 

isn't it? 

 DR. MAURO: I have to say I think 

it's in progress. We're pretty far away. 

It's not that we've agreed in principle on the 

solution. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You want to see how 

they got it? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. I'm more 

comfortable with in progress, I have to say. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to that? 

 In progress it is. Can you do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that, Steve? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Done, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

 The next item is 29-05. SC&A 

recommendation -- believes that NIOSH has an 

obligation to make sure type in S approach, 

that it is appropriate on a case-by-case basis 

type S can be ruled out. 

 SC&A recommends that the issue 

status be changed to in progress and requests 

guidance from the Subcommittee on how to 

proceed with resolution. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Again, I added that 

because, again, when I read the finding, the 

NIOSH initial response, and the SC&A 

recommendation, it seems to me like we have 

come to kind of an impasse between NIOSH and 

SC&A. So, again, this may be one of the 

topics of the telephone conversation, I guess, 

or a technical telecon that is going to take 

place. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It appears logical 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 

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me. 

 NIOSH? 

 DR. NETON: Could you just read the 

finding because I can't see it from here and I 

don't have this on my -- 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Which one are you 

looking, the finding? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, the finding. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: SC&A finds that the 

assumption that doses should be assigned based 

on exposures to uranium compounds with 

solubility types M and S, without considering 

type F compounds, not claimant-favorable for 

many cancer sites. 

 Furthermore, this assumption does 

not follow inhaled materials solubility 

classification instructions given in 42 CFR 

82. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And NIOSH's initial 

response had said these choices were based on 

site profiles, the TKBS 14-5, which says, all 

the exceptional cases with unusually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

protracted lung clearance are important. It's 

more important that, for the vast majority of 

individuals, lung clearance took place in 

approximate accordance with the ICRP 

publication 2, 1960, insoluble model, which 

fits within the current type M framework. 

 So it appears that there is a 

technical discussion that needs to take place. 

 DR. NETON: I don't think this 

would be a good place to take it up in that 

other call, though, because -- 

 DR. NETON: Oh, no. No. 

 DR. NETON: -- this is a very big 

issue. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. 

 DR. MAURO: Let's keep this 

separate. I have to say I'm looking at the 

response to SC&A's concern, and I guess I 

don't quite understand how it solves the 

problem. 

 DR. NETON: I haven't looked at 

this in a while. I need to go back. We need 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to go back and revisit this issue. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I'll record an action 

item for technical exchange to occur between 

NIOSH and SC&A. Okay? 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The next item 

OTIB-0030-01. 

 SC&A's recommendation is that the 

issue status be changed to Closed. Use the 

1.4 factor. SC&A accepts the NIOSH response. 

 Any objection? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If not, closed. 

 The next item, OTIB-0030-02. NIOSH 

recommendation is that the issue status be 

changed to Closed. Reference to other 

OTIBs -- SC&A accepts NIOSH's response. 

 This is external co-worker 

dosimetry data. 

 Any disagreement with closing 

30-02? 

 DR. MAURO: It looks like this 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 

 323

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

being transferred as opposed to -- I don't 

know whether the OTIB-0017 deals with external 

dosimetry, non-penetrating I believe, and I 

think Ron, who was reviewing this, is 

certainly familiar with the other OTIB. He is 

basically saying, listen, this issue is being 

dealt with very well. Well, it's being dealt 

with in OTIB-0017. But it seems to me that 

means it should be Transferred as opposed to 

Closed. It is not apparent to me that -- let 

me just take a quick look. Give me one 

second. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I took it that 

since the staff had been instructed to use the 

different OTIBs -- 

 DR. MAURO: I believe there are 

still lots of open issues on OTIB-0017. That 

is what I am concerned about. If we resolved 

all the OTIB-0017 issues, then I guess maybe 

this goes away, but I think there is still 

active discussion on OTIB-0017 in this work 

group, in this subcommittee. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 OTIB-0017 -- 

 DR. MAURO: I think this business 

of the shielding -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: We still have one, 

two, three outstanding issues. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think one of them 

deals with attenuation by clothing, or 

something like that? 

 CHAIR MUNN: One of them is cancer 

sites, skin particles -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- and logical order 

of information. Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I recall the clothing 

attenuation. Well, I don't know. We may have 

closed the issue. I have to be careful here. 

 It may turn out that the clothing 

attenuation question, which, of course, is -- 

well, we did have concerns in OTIB-0017 

regarding that. We might have resolved it. I 

just don't recall. If we have resolved it, 

then the way this should read is this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

particular issue is a generic issue that is 

addressed in OTIB-0017 and has been closed 

under the issues resolution process, under 

OTIB-0017. I just don't know if that is, in 

fact, the case. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we have closed 

most of them addressed in finding three -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, John. 

 The way this finding is written, 

30-02, it really just says that, while the 

OTIB-0030 says non-penetrating doses are 

assigned such-and-such with corrections to 

account for clothing attenuation and other 

applicable considerations, but it just says 

that, but it doesn't tell the dose 

reconstructor where to go to find those. 

That's the nature of the finding. 

 DR. MAURO: I see. So what you are 

saying is the very fact that OTIB-0017 is the 

place you go -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- resolved 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 

 326

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I think most of the deeper issue, which is, 

well, does OTIB-0017 address this issue 

adequately -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's a 

subject for a debate on OTIB-0017 -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but I don't 

think that's particular relevant to this 

finding. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's not 

something you can transfer, I don't think. 

 DR. MAURO: I think I understand 

what you are saying. So this isn't really an 

issue. This is simply saying, listen, you 

need to say something about attenuation, and 

the answer is, yes, this is dealt with and we 

do say something about attenuation in 

OTIB-0017, and that's the extent to which this 

is an issue here. 

 That being the case, yes, then I 

guess that would close the issue. Okay, I 

understand what you're 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 

 327

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any objection to 

close? 

 If not, will you please do that, 

Steve? 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Closed it, Wanda, 

yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Now we -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now is that 30 -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: It was 30-02. 

 And we've come to a decision point 

here. We are getting close enough to five 

o'clock, and I know we're all getting weary. 

 We do have several housekeeping 

issues with respect especially to looking 

forward to our next meeting. We have not yet 

even begun to address the issues that were 

originally planned for our earlier January 

meeting. We know what everyone's calendar is 

beginning to look like. 

 I would suggest, unless I hear 

arguments to the contrary, that we stop our 

group 3 responses at this point, with 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 

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

expectation that we will take them up again at 

our next meeting, beginning with OTIB-032, and 

that we take a look at what we have yet to do 

and whether we have an enforced timeframe in 

which some of this needs to be completed. In 

any case, give our calendars some attention. 

 Is everyone amenable to that? 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Then let's take a look 

at the extent of that earlier agenda for 

January 28 and see that we have a number of 

action items still outstanding from that that 

we did not even begin to address here. 

 Verifying the plus and minus 10 

percent related -- we did 60-02. 

 Take a look at your calendars and 

see what we can do in the next month and a 

half. 

 MR. KATZ: Keep in mind that we 

need 30 days to announce the Subcommittee. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I recognize 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 

 329

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and I'm also very concerned that neither Mark 

nor Bob are on the line, so that it's very 

hard to try to do this with two key members of 

the group missing. 

 MR. KATZ: We'll have to actually 

confirm. We can just look for likely weeks, 

but we'll confirm after we have everybody. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We can. It is 

unfortunate that we need a full 30 days, too, 

because we have a meeting, another work group 

-- I'll be in Cincinnati on the 17th of April. 

 So either the 16th or 20th would have been a 

good choice for me for the next meeting. But 

that's too soon, isn't it? 

 MR. KATZ: That week is booked 

anyway. 

 CHAIR MUNN: So we have to move to 

the 23rd or 24th of April. 

 MR. KATZ: The 23rd and 24th I 

believe -- 

 DR. MAURO: The 23rd is NTS. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, NTS. No, that week 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is smothered already. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The entire week? 

 MR. KATZ: Well, except for Monday, 

and, frankly, I can't take the 20th through 

the 24th in Cincinnati. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, goodness, I would 

think you would be really looking forward to 

that. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MR. KATZ: I love Cincinnati. No, 

don’t misinterpret what I just said. It's my 

family that I need to placate. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I understand, yes. 

That's perfectly understandable. 

 MR. KATZ: And the next week, the 

27th, 28th, 29th, let me just see. I've got, 

oh, there's a NIOSH Lead Team meeting those 

three days which I cannot miss, which means it 

would be -- and those are out of town. So I 

would hate to have it that week. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Which means that we 

are already up against a rock and a hard place 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 331

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because no one is going to want to schedule a 

subcommittee or a work group meeting the week 

before we go to Amarillo. 

 DR. MAURO: When is Amarillo? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Amarillo is the 12th 

through the 14th. 

 MR. KATZ: The 12th, 13th, 14th. 

 DR. MAURO: The 12th through the 

14th, okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Of May. 

 So the week preceding that is 

almost an impossibility to even consider. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm not sure that is 

true. I mean I am amenable to that, but it's 

up to -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Normally, we've 

prepped in advance, although Jim has a lot to 

do. 

 DR. NETON: I'm out of town that 

week, the 12th through the 14th. 

 MR. KATZ: That's right, he's out 

of town. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: I'm looking at the 

Board meeting. The week before I'm gone in 

Washington, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Any possibilities 

between now and then? I see Friday, May the 

1st, is about the only available day. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, like I said, I'm 

out of town Monday through Wednesday. To go 

home on Thursday and then get on a plane 

Thursday night to come back here, I would like 

not to face that. It would be better just to 

push it to after the -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: If we have to obey the 

30-day rule, then we are out of luck. Our 

people are not available between now and 

Amarillo. That is catastrophic. We've got 

far too much to do. 

 DR. MAURO: Let me pose a question. 

 I know that this meeting was a little unusual 

in that many of us are on the phone. I have 

to say we were pretty effective, even though 

many of us were on the phone. If it turns out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 333

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we are between a rock and a hard place, could 

we do it by phone? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I have found it 

very difficult. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All it takes is one 

electronic glitch for one or our key people. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda, here's another 

option which isn't ideal but would work: I 

mean we have the meeting, the Board meeting, 

the 12th, 13th, and 14th. I'm assuming the 

most important thing would be to get done with 

the CATI material, computer-assisted, so that 

you can make a recommendation to the full 

Board? 

 CHAIR MUNN: We really do have to 

get through that. 

 MR. KATZ: Then what about doing 

that on a half-day? Do we think we could get 

through that half-day on Monday, just devote 

it to that, get that done before the Board 

meeting? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 334

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, we could, but 

I think the Board is going to object to 

getting something -- 

 MR. KATZ: So late, right. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- so late and 

having to take an action on something that is 

going to go to them. 

 MR. KATZ: No, you're right. 

That's absolutely correct. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And the folks who are 

involved in it probably would object to flying 

on Mother's Day in order to get there. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, look, I can 

do Friday, May 1st, given the circumstances, 

if that works for everybody else. That would 

give a whole week for the full Board to 

consider whatever comes out of the 

Subcommittee. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have almost two 

weeks. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If you can do it? 

 MR. KATZ: 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 

 335

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 looks like the only 

alternative right now. Of course, we still 

don't know whether -- 

 MR. KATZ: We don't know whether 

Mark can do it. 

 CHAIR MUNN: -- it's going to work 

for Mark and Bob. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I will pencil 

it in. 

 MR. KATZ: May 1, okay. And I will 

communicate with Mark and -- well, Bob doesn't 

have to be in attendance. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That's true. He is an 

alternate. 

 MR. KATZ: But I will communicate 

with Mark. On the way to the airport, I'll 

send him an email. 

 I'm just looking back, just to see 

if there was a half-day somewhere otherwise. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that going to be 

just dedicated to CATI or -- 

 MR. KATZ: Well, that 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 

 336

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

first priority. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We basically have to 

do the CATI business. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean OCAS can't 

proceed with submitting OMB a new, improved -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We will not submit 

a revision to the existing form until we get 

some sort of -- until we've decided with the 

Board's input and address the Board. 

 MR. KATZ: And the sooner, the 

better, right? That's fairly important, I 

think. But then if you get through with that, 

you can continue on with others. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, because, 

myself, I don't have to be here for the CATI 

discussion. But if we go through the issues 

resolutions, then I should have to be here. 

 CHAIR MUNN: One alternative that 

we could consider is, if we did only a halfday and did nothing but CATI, we probably 

could do that on the telephone without any 

problem, which, again, raises the idea 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 

 337

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

whether there is any time in April that we 

could address that. 

 I hate to get to Amarillo and not 

have addressed anything except the CATI issue 

because we have a lot on our plate here, 

folks. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, May 1st, Wanda -- 

Paul is saying, what about doing that by phone 

on May 1st? Just the CATI? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and I'm just 

saying, if all we are going to do is the CATI, 

then perhaps we could do it some other time, 

but we have so much that's hanging out there 

that we have not addressed, that we really and 

truly need to get moving. 

 I hate to go to Amarillo with 

nothing except the CATI in hand. That's 

pretty appalling. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, what specific 

products does the full Board need at Amarillo 

besides the CATI? 

 CHAIR MUNN: You know, I would 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 

 338

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to go back and review those, especially the -- 

we have been kicking OTIB-0054 around forever. 

 The same is true of 60. 

 MR. MARSCHKE: Fifty-two? 

 CHAIR MUNN: Sixty, item 2. 

 MR. KATZ: Fifty-two. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and we need to 

get these things off the hanging list. If we 

don't address them, if we don't even talk 

about them, we can't change them. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I'll grant you 

there's tons of work for the Subcommittee to 

do, but it looks like you have very little -- 

there's not a lot of options for when to do 

this other work. 

 CHAIR MUNN: No, we don't. 

 MR. KATZ: We just ran through the 

weeks that are available, and they're heavily 

booked already. 

 CHAIR MUNN: If we can possibly use 

the whole day on Friday, the 1st, we can 

certainly use 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 

 339

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, I'm saying I'm 

amenable to -- I will show up for a whole day. 

 That's fine. That's what everybody, what we 

were saying. We can do a full day. We can 

get the CATI done as quickly as we can and 

move on to the next priority item. 

 CHAIR MUNN: It looks like that is 

the only option that we have. If Mark says he 

can go, then we're probably in business for 

the 1st. 

 MR. KATZ: But, Wanda, I'm going to 

recommend you let OCAS, particularly OCAS and 

SC&A know -- whatever the priority issues are 

for the full Board to consider, those should 

come first for that one day there -- 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they should. 

 MR. KATZ: -- rather than spending 

time on set three and other things that aren't 

really time-dependent. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they certainly 

should. No question about that. 

 MS. HOWELL: For Federal Register 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 340

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concerns, you all might want to start 

scheduling meetings a couple of months out, 

like go ahead and put it on the calendar. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: You mean the one 

after May 1st? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm amenable to 

that, too. We can try to schedule -- we have 

May 1 we are going to try to book. Let's 

hope, keep our fingers crossed about Mark. 

 If May 1 doesn't work, you know, I 

could conceivably do the 30th instead. That 

April 30th, it's terrible for me, but does 

that work for the rest of you, April 30th? 

 CHAIR MUNN: It's certainly okay 

with me. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: May 1st would be 

better. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: If May 1st is 

better, I could do the 30th, but I would have 

to leave early. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and that sort 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 

 341

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

defeats trying to get -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, by early, I 

mean like three o'clock. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have to be home 

by 6:00. 

 MR. KATZ: The 30th is a poor 

alternative, but it's an alternative. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Let's push for the 

1st, if we possibly can. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes, that will be 

my first -- we'll find out. As soon as I find 

out from Mark, everybody else can comply with 

that. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Right. 

 Oh, my, following the Amarillo 

meeting, there's -- good grief. 

 MR. KATZ: That next week looks 

okay. 

 CHAIR MUNN: That next what? 

 MR. KATZ: That week following 

Amarillo in my calendar looks okay, 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 

 342

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I'm saying. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I expected to be 

in Texas that whole week, but -- 

 MR. KATZ: That doesn't work for 

Paul. 

 CHAIR MUNN: You get into Memorial 

Day. 

 MR. KATZ: The Mound Work Group is 

meeting the 27th and the 28th. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The 27th and 28th. 

 MR. KATZ: And the 26th is out 

because Memorial Day is the 25th. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's correct. 

 MR. KATZ: So the option that week 

would be the 29th. 

 CHAIR MUNN: The 29th, which would 

be fine for me. 

 MR. KATZ: May 29th, is that -- 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wouldn't be here. 

 MR. KATZ: That wouldn't work for 

Dr. Ziemer. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm missing 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 

 343

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mound, but I'm trying to call in part of the 

time. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then we're into 

June. 

 CHAIR MUNN: We're into June. What 

about early June, the first week in June, 

Tuesday? 

 MR. KATZ: The first week in June I 

have nothing, no conflicts at this point. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm out all week. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer is out all 

week. 

 The second week in June? 

 CHAIR MUNN: The second week in 

June is okay for me right now. 

 MR. KATZ: And that's okay for me 

right now, too. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have the 

teleconference the next week. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 CHAIR MUNN: June 9th? 

 MR. KATZ: June 9th, does that 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 

 344

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for everybody here? June 9th would be the 

first choice then. 

 And what about elsewhere in that 

week, if June 9th doesn't work for Mark. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I could do the 9th, 

10th, or 11th. 

 MR. KATZ: Is everybody good for 

the 9th, 10th, and 11th? 

 I am. I'm okay for those dates. 

 Dr. Ziemer is okay for those dates. 

 Mike, are you? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: So far, yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So the 9th 

through the 11th, we'll see what Mark can do, 

if he can do those. 

 CHAIR MUNN: All right, let's do 

it. 

 If you can follow up, Ted -- 

 MR. KATZ: I'll follow up with 

Mark. 

 CHAIR MUNN: Good. I appreciate 

that. Please do let me know so that 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 

 345

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

get the word out as quickly as possible. 

 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. 

 CHAIR MUNN: And I'll have to do my 

homework in doing some cherry picking with 

respect to what we are going to focus on this 

one single meeting that we have beforehand. 

 Anyone who has any specific 

concerns and comments regarding the other 

CATI, the one for survivors, please try to 

make an effort to, at the very least, mark up 

your copy, so that we can move through 

everyone's concerns as quickly as possible, 

and address as many other things as we can. 

I'll try not to overload our plate for what we 

hope to do on May 1st, and we'll just go from 

there. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, and I'll remind 

Mark about that, too, the survivor form. 

 CHAIR MUNN: I appreciate it. 

 Any other crucial item that we need 

to address before we leave where we are? 

 I have a fairly lengthy action list 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 346

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here. I'm assuming that other people do as 

well. I will not be able to get it out to you 

this week, but I'll try to get it out to you 

next week, so that any additions that are 

necessary can be made. 

 Anyone else have anything that 

needs to be addressed? 

 If not, then it appears to me that 

it's time for us to sign off. 

 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. 

 CHAIR MUNN: To all of you, I look 

forward to seeing you, hopefully, on May 1st. 

 Bye-bye. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled was 

adjourned at 4:57 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 

 347

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8