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

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

 SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 WORKER OUTREACH WORK GROUP 

 + + + + + 

 WEDNESDAY, 

 AUGUST 12, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 The Work Group meeting convened in 

the Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott Hotel, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:30 a.m., Michael H. Gibson, 

Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Chairman 

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member* 
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

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor* 

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE* 

TERRIE BARRIE, ANWAG* 

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE, Linde Petitioner* 

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH OCAS 

MARY ELLIOTT, ATL 

EMILY GUNN, GAO* 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS* 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A* 

J.J. JOHNSON, NIOSH OCAS 

MARK LEWIS, ATL 

VERNON MCDOUGALL, ATL* 

KATHRYN ROBERTSON-DEMERS, SC&A 

MARY JO ZACCHERO, ORAU Team 

ABE ZEITOUN, SC&A 

*Present 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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Welcome and Opening Remarks 4 

Introductions 4 

Review of Mission Statement 8 

Status Report from NIOSH on 37 

the Action Items from June Meeting 

 Larry Elliott 

Status Report from SC&A on 71 

the Action Items 

 Kathryn Robertson-DeMers 

Draft Implementation Plan 81, 221 

 Objectives 121, 221 

Public Comment Period 185 

 Terrie Barrie 186 

 ANWAG 

 Antoinette Bonsignore 190 

 Linde Ceramics Facility and ANWAG 

Discussion of Next Meeting 258 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

9:35 a.m. 

 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone. 

 This is Ted Katz, the Acting Designated 

Federal Official for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health. This is the 

Worker Outreach Work Group, and we're getting 

started, as usual, with roll call, beginning 

with the Board members in the room. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

Chair of the Work Group. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, member of 

this Work Group. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, Work 

Group member. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line, do we 

have Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield, 

Board member. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Phil. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Thanks. 

 MR. KATZ: I think that is all 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 

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

expect of Board members; that's members of the 

group. 

 In the room, the NIOSH ORAU team, 

NIOSH ORAU and other OCAS contractors. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

Director of OCAS. 

 MR. JOHNSON: J.J. Johnson, OCAS. 

 MR. LEWIS: Mark Lewis, ATL, 

subcontractor for OCAS. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line, do we 

have any of the OCAS contractor team or OCAS 

members? 

 MR. McDOUGALL: This is Vernon 

McDougall from ATL. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Vernon. 

 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

contractor. 

 MR. KATZ: Hi, Nancy. 

 Okay, and in the room for SC&A? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Abe Zeitoun, 

supporting the Board. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Kathy 
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 

Robertson-DeMers from SC&A. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, 

SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the line, do we 

have any SC&A staff? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. John Mauro, SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: Hi, John. 

 DR. MAURO: Good morning. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then other 

federal employees on the line? 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

DOE. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Isaf. 

 MS. AL-NABULSI: Thanks. 

 MS. GUNN: Emily Gunn, GAO. 

 MR. KATZ: Emily Gunn, welcome. 

 MS. GUNN: Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Very good. 

 Then are there any members of the 

public who would like to identify themselves 

for the 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 

 7

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie 

with ANWAG. 

 MR. KATZ: Hi, Terrie. 

 MS. BARRIE: Good morning. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then just let me 

remind everyone on the line to please mute 

your phone except when you're addressing the 

group, and use *6 if you don't have a mute 

button, and then use *6 to come back on to 

unmute your phone. Please don't put the phone 

on hold at any point. Just hang up and call 

back in if you need to leave for some time. 

 Thank you. 

 Mike, it's all yours. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Good 

morning, everyone. Thanks for attending the 

meeting here. 

 Do you all have the agenda? It's a 

pretty full agenda. 

 Just for the workers and the reps 

on the phone, we do have time scheduled in the 

agenda at two o'clock for your comments. 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 

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just want to make you aware of that. 

 We are going to start out by the 

first thing on the agenda -- is a review of 

the mission statement that we approved at our 

recent meeting here in Cincinnati. 

 It was kind of a fluid thing up 

until the time we adopted the language, and 

there seemed to be some concern by some of the 

Board of the language. So I just wanted to 

run it by the Work Group to see if everyone is 

comfortable with the language or we have 

anything we want to talk about or discuss that 

we may want to take back to the Board next 

time, an action to modify it or adopt it. 

 So the language as we adopted it 

was: 

 The mission of the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health Worker Outreach 

 Work Group is to monitor and assess the 

effectiveness of NIOSH and other sources of 

assistance for potential EEOICPA claimants and 

assure this information is available to 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 

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

many current and former workers of the U.S. 

weapons complex as possible. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Mike, one of the big 

concerns was the word assesses, is that 

correct? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think one of 

the Board members mentioned monitor and 

assess, yes, monitor and assess was a concern 

to them. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I think the concern, 

as I understood it having been expressed, was 

a clearer understanding being needed of what 

we were thinking when we said assess, because 

that word implies that there will be some sort 

of evaluation made. 

 The question was, what type of 

evaluation that would be? Is that, in fact, 

our mission, as I understood the question 

being asked by Dr. Lockey at the time? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think that was 

his concern, that in his opinion it appeared 

that we were taking on some kind of management 
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 

function, is I think the words I heard him 

say. 

 But I guess, if you go back to the 

language that is posted on the website 

currently for this Work Group, it said the 

Work Group should consider developing a formal 

assessment instrument. So, earlier in the 

language, it also says that we are to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the program. I mean 

that's kind of been out there for the world 

anyway. So I don't know -- I don't see that 

there is taking on any additional 

responsibilities or trying to overstep anyone 

else's bounds. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps we could 

clarify, consider the possibility of another 

word that would not carry as many implications 

that might be of concern to others. I haven't 

given much thought to what that word might be, 

but I hoped others might as well. 

 So weren't there one or two 

suggestions made, either out loud or under our 
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 

breaths, during that Board meeting? 

 MR. KATZ: I mean what I think you 

could say is to evaluate the effectiveness and 

leave out monitor and assess and be saying the 

same thing. I mean certainly all the Board's 

work groups have these evaluative roles. 

That's not going beyond the Board's function 

whatsoever. That is what the Board does. It 

does a lot of evaluation, and that's the 

Board's role in this. It's not a management 

function. 

 I'm somewhat indifferent about it 

because really the rubber hits the roads with 

your evaluation plan, not these few words that 

you put at the top of the banner. But you 

could just say evaluate. It would be the same 

thing, and leave out monitor and assess. 

Evaluate will cover any kind of activity you 

want to do, to make judgments about how things 

are going and to identify potential 

improvements. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Does the Work 

Group believe that we should develop a formal 

assessment plan, instrument? I thought that 

was part of what, at least, I anticipated our 

implementation plan to have. Part of the 

agenda today I believe was to try to outline 

what is an assessment and how do you rate and 

how do you look at it fairly. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That was part and 

parcel of our discussion last time. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Whether we would, in 

fact, establish some sort of numerical or 

other criteria that would give us a better 

feel as to the effectiveness of the program, 

since we don't have that currently in hand. 

But that is going to be a long, difficult 

discussion. 

 It certainly would appear to fall 

under the aegis of the word evaluate. We 

would not have to further define evaluate, it 

seems. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree with 

that comment there of Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So maybe Ted's 

suggestion is the logical one, if we remove 

the potentially confusing words that seem to 

have a different definition for different 

people, and simply leave the word evaluate. 

If the verb is going to be evaluate, it covers 

a multitude of activities, including the ones 

that we may or may not establish in proper 

terms. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Any other 

comments? 

 Larry, does OCAS have any feelings, 

pro, con, either way? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think I understood 

Dr. Lockey's perspective, but I share Ted's 

suggested option here and your discussion 

about it. I think the word evaluate provides 

more than ample opportunity for this Work 

Group to do what you want it to 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 

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It leaves out the opportunity for 

some perspectives to interpret, if you use the 

words monitor and assess, things that you 

might not want to do. So I mean those might 

drive somebody to say, if you're monitoring, 

then you have to have certain periodic 

scheduled events that happen that you want to 

test or evaluate and get a pulse of. You may 

not want to go there. 

 We welcome whatever review this 

Work Group wants to perform. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I personally didn't 

think we needed to take out monitoring, just 

assess, and change assess to evaluate, but 

leave monitor. So that was my thought on it. 

 Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness, I 

have no problem with that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think the only 

problem with the word monitor that I heard at 

the Board meeting was that it implies perhaps 

more perpetuity in this Work Group than work 

groups have. If the charge to the Work Group 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is ongoing and not discrete, then it becomes a 

subcommittee. 

 MEMBER BEACH: It is going to be 

ongoing, though, I believe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that is one of 

the discussions. That's on our agenda and a 

further discussion to come up. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But there are a 

number of things that need to be said about 

that, I think. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, for the record, 

I have sent a number of emails just before 

this meeting. So one is on the issue of that, 

of a subcommittee, which I think is premature 

at this point. 

 But I am perfectly happy to pursue 

that down the road, when we come to that point 

where we need to. But at this time we would 

just be engaging in more administrative work 

without any benefit whatsoever to be creating 

a subcommittee at this point. We would have 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 

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hard time even making the case for a 

subcommittee since we haven't done any 

evaluation yet. So we don't have the ongoing 

activity to justify the subcommittee at this 

point. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Nor have we had the 

discussion. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, anyway, that is 

just a process thing down the road. I don't 

think that is a big issue. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: But it could be one 

of the outcomes of this working group, to say 

what should be monitored, to say to the 

Board -- 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- here's what we 

think should be monitored, and whether that 

requires a working group or the Board can 

handle it or a subcommittee is necessary, let 

the Board decide. 

 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. Absolutely. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think we also, 
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 

if we look back, I think we committed to Paul 

that, when we come back to the implementation 

plan, to give our recommendation again on 

whether we thought this would be ongoing. I 

think it is scheduled somewhere later on, in 

June, and we can discuss the pros and cons or 

what we do. 

 MR. KATZ: So evaluate covers 

monitoring in a general sense. It doesn't 

matter to me whether you include both terms or 

keep them both. You cover the waterfront with 

evaluate. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest we 

remove monitor and assess and simply use the 

word evaluate. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Either way you 

look at it, we're going to have to evaluate 

and then, after we look at that, definitely 

you will have to make an assessment as to what 

is important or is not important, what is 

being done right, what things maybe are strong 

and what things may be weak. 
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 

 MEMBER MUNN: And that's an 

evaluation. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I guess where I'm 

concerned is, you know, and this is very 

probably insignificant, but every time 

something changes in the program, it can tend 

to cause an uproar. Again, from the original 

language that was in there, we had evaluate, 

we had assess, and no one seemed to have a 

problem with it, whether it was the government 

or the Board members or anyone else. 

 So I am willing to do anything that 

the Work Group wants, but I don't see why this 

is all of sudden an issue. 

 MR. KATZ: It is not an issue from 

my perspective, which is what my preface was, 

that what these words say doesn't matter too 

much to me because the evaluation plan is 

going to define what you do. So whatever kind 

of banner you want to put up there that makes 

you comfortable, I think you should 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 

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: One advantage to not 

being prescriptive, however, is that it gives 

you more flexibility in the long run. The 

fewer prescriptive words you have 

incorporated, the more flexibility you have. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: The only counter 

I would have to that, that it has been my 

opinion at times the less prescriptive the 

language is, the more times we are told that 

is beyond the scope. That wasn't the intent. 

 Someone would have to go back and dig back 

through the years of transcripts to see what 

the intent was. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Have you recently 

read your original motion, Mike? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: No. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I have a copy of it, 

if you want to look at it, but it is fairly 

descriptive. Do you want it read for the 

record? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes, go ahead. 

 MEMBER BEACH: This goes back. 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 

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was on page 188. I believe it was February 

8th or February 9th. 

 It said, the Work Group would be 

trusted and tasked with reviewing all 

activities of the Worker Outreach Program, 

including but not limited to, No. 1., the 

NIOSH ORAU approach to organizing the worker 

outreach meetings; No. 2, to approach and to 

look at how the meetings are conducted; No. 3, 

the impact of the claimants and/or survivors' 

information that is gathered at worker 

outreach meetings that is included in the dose 

reconstruction program, (b) the site profiles, 

and (c) the site-specific petitions. 

 I just thought it was important, 

when I found this, based on what we did our 

mission statement to, but I didn't find it 

until after this one was voted in. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, it's longer 

than -- I mean one of our concerns, I think, 

was we wanted to be short and sweet, so to 

speak, in our mission statement and put 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 

 21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of the meat in the implementation. 

 But any other feelings? Wanda? 

Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: It seems to me 

you're going in the right track. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Could you say 

that again, Phil? 

 MR. KATZ: He thinks we're going in 

the right track. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Oh, okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I personally feel 

strongly about leaving monitor and evaluate in 

there. So that's how I feel. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I am comfortable 

with that. 

 Wanda, are you comfortable with 

that? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Yes, I'm 

comfortable with it, with the monitoring. But 

since one Board member has expressed concern 

with assess, it seems to me that evaluate 

ought to be able to incorporate any concerns 
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 

that anyone has. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Phil, is 

that all right with you? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Could you repeat 

that? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: We would 

recommend, next time we meet as a Board, we 

would recommend that we strike the word assess 

and put the word evaluate. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I fully agree 

with that. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Then 

that's what we will do. 

 MR. KATZ: Going back to my emails, 

the other email, the prior email that I sent, 

I just made the point that this mission 

statement as it is written right now focuses 

on getting information to the claimants, but 

it leaves out the function of obtaining 

information from them that is included in the 

original, which Josie just read, the original 

idea, and which is in the actual evaluation 
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 

plan that you're working on. It is not 

reflected in this mission statement right now 

and probably should be. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Can I just 

supplement what Ted has just said? Our 

original work that we did to support you, just 

as a kind of background reminder for your 

discussion, was to evaluate the NIOSH 

procedures for the kind of worker outreach 

that was in your original motion that Josie 

just read. 

 And the comments were, how is it 

being documented?, is all the expert 

information about the workers' work being 

documented?, when is it and is not used?, and 

so on. That was reflected, I think, in your 

original motion. 

 This particular mission statement 

seems to be about information to and from 

claimants, which is quite a different thing, 

it seems to me. Of course, claimants are also 

workers, and they give information that could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be useful in site profiles, and so on. But I 

think some of the things that are in our 

original evaluations that led up to the 

formation of the Work Group are not currently 

in the mission statement. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

would like to weigh in. 

 I agree with Arjun in that, in 

thinking back over the years of doing our 

work, and whether it is dose reconstruction, 

audit, or it is a site profile review, or SEC, 

the thing that struck me as being very 

important is paying a lot more attention to 

the information we're getting from the 

claimants and petitioners, and making sure 

that the product, whether it is dose 

reconstruction or a site profile review, et 

cetera, reflects the full range of information 

that came in, giving it its appropriate 

weight. 

 So I agree, I think that, in my 

mind, I always thought that the power 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 

 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outreach and the role that would be played by 

the outreach, we need to make sure that we 

don't lose that connection, and make sure all 

that information is obtained and finds its way 

into the work products that are produced by 

NIOSH. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that has been 

sort of a developmental process, has it not? 

Originally, we were primarily concerned with 

whether the process was established as it 

should be. 

 But I don't think that our concern 

so much in recent times has been process, as 

making sure that the process captures the 

information that is necessary for adequate 

dose reconstruction to be done, which is more 

reflective of the current mission statement 

that we have just been discussing. 

 I don't have the feeling personally 

that that has in any way lessened the concern 

the Work Group has with regard to the process 

and the organizations involved. It just seems 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to me that we fairly well-established how that 

goes now. The operation is fairly mature, and 

now it is a focus on information to make sure 

that the process is handling the information 

correctly, my interpretation. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Josie, is there a 

sentence or part of a sentence that we may 

consider moving up, recommend moving up to the 

mission statement that would lead us to the 

bulk of that, if it is inserted in our 

implementation plan? 

 MEMBER BEACH: That is a pretty 

darn long sentence, Mike. Let me pass it to 

you and see if you can pick something out of 

it. I highlighted where you started. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I don't see an 

easy way to -- 

 MR. KATZ: Can I make a suggestion? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I think it would be 

easy. So I think if you add ahead of what you 

have here about monitor and evaluate, 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 

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

piece that you're missing is you want to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the program's 

efforts to obtain and make use of information 

from workers as well as, then, the rest of 

what you have here. And if you just add that 

clause, then you're covering the waterfront 

because you're evaluating both how well the 

program obtains and makes use of information 

from workers as well as how well the workers 

were informed about their rights, et cetera, 

the process, the results. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Can I use the same 

terminology that NIOSH used before and say, 

information-gathering process, the 

effectiveness of the information-gathering 

process and the effectiveness of such-andsuch-and-such, of passing the information to 

the public? Which is exactly what was 

presented last time. Do you remember that? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: It was in the Board? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I do remember 
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 

that. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. As Ted 

mentioned, we concentrated on that element 

only. However, that element, we did not 

really pay attention to it, although it's part 

of the original mission, which is the 

gathering aspect. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, can you repeat 

what you said, please? 

 MR. KATZ: I will try to repeat 

what I said. 

 So you want to add to the front of 

this that you're evaluating the effectiveness 

of the program's efforts to obtain and make 

use of information for the workers at these 

sites, workers and former workers. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Make use, okay. 

 MR. KATZ: And then you are just 

adding that as well as and then and, and then 

you have the rest of what you have here. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: All right. I 

think I like Ted's suggestion. The obtain 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 

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the information-gathering, but the make use of 

is -- 

 MR. KATZ: Correct. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I would say that 

that really reflects what your original motion 

was. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Exactly. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You captured it in 

very few words. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So, Phil, 

is that okay with you? Wanda, is that okay 

with you? 

 MEMBER MUNN: You want to read it 

all the way through now, the way the new 

language -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I don't have that 

inserted just yet. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Let's wait and 

insert it, and then see how it reads. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Ted, you 

were suggesting inserting it where now? 

 MR. KATZ: So ahead of to monitor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and assess, ahead of that. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: To obtain and 

make use of -- 

 MR. KATZ: So do you want me to try 

to say it? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: I haven't written it 

out, but The mission of the Advisory Board -- 

I'm just going to shorten that -- that the 

Worker Outreach Work Group is to evaluate the 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities, I would say 

I guess, to obtain and make use of information 

from workers and former workers, however you 

want to do that. Then go on to and to monitor 

and assess the effectiveness of NIOSH, blah, 

blah, blah. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay, I must have 

missed something on this. I thought you said 

to add the obtain and make use of after the 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities. Did you 

insert that somewhere else? 

 MR. KATZ: So I am saying 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 

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through Work Group, is to evaluate the 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities, to obtain 

and make use of information from current and 

former workers. 

 I guess to redo the last part, 

current and former workers of the U.S. weapons 

complex. Then you would go on to say, and, 

and then you would just continue as you have, 

to monitor and assess the effectiveness of 

NIOSH. That would all continue as it is, but 

just in terms of grammatical things, you 

wouldn't need to repeat the U.S. weapons 

complex. You could just end with is available 

to as many of these current and former workers 

as possible. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: You know, Ted, 

that statement about the weapons complex, I 

don't think that really adds into it. 

Considering a lot of these AWE sites really 

were doing more, in many cases were just 

assisting other facilities on a very shortterm basis -- 
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 

 MR. KATZ: So, Phil, we could leave 

out that U.S. weapons complex completely, that 

phrase, because you all know what you're 

talking about. It's very clear current and 

former workers means workers involved at any 

of these sites. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: So I agree with you, 

Phil, I think we could leave out that 

terminology completely. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But they were 

contracted members of the weapons complex at 

the time they were doing the work. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. It's just that you 

know which workers. You know who the workers 

are and the former workers. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: This is 

Kathy. 

 Can we add something to current and 

former workers and say worker representatives 

also, because not everybody that NIOSH is 

making contact with is a current or former 
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 

worker? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps we should 

say, claimants rather than workers. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, the 

representatives aren't claimants, but no -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: No, it's not 

just claimants either. 

 MR. KATZ: And their 

representatives. 

 MEMBER BEACH: That wouldn't cover 

the gathering-information part of it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Like the 

petitioner, one of the petitioners at Rocky 

Flats was not a claimant, but she was a former 

worker. 

 MR. KATZ: How is it looking? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Like a mess. 

 Okay. So I am just going to read 

this out loud. It is probably not right yet. 

 The mission of the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health's Worker 

Outreach Work Group is to evaluate 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 

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities, to obtain 

and make use of information from U.S. current 

and former workers and their representatives 

or advocates, and to monitor and assess the 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities -- I don't 

have that other sources in there -- of 

assistance for potential EEOICPA claimants, 

assure the information is available to -- 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I like that 

better. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Did you put in the 

evaluate or did it say assess again? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It probably still 

said assess. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: You want me to just help 

you with it? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 Okay, let's try this. 

 The mission of the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health's Worker 

Outreach Work Group is to evaluate 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 

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effectiveness of NIOSH activities, to obtain 

and make use of information from current and 

former workers and their representatives, and 

to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 

NIOSH and other sources of assistance for 

potential EEOICPA claimants, and to assure 

this information is available to as many of 

these current and former workers as possible. 

 Is that okay, Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Sounds good to 

me. Wanda is our English teacher, though. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I'm thinking 

there are an awful lot of and's in there, and 

then, and then, and then. But if it covers 

the waterfront for everybody, then grammar is 

secondary. The purpose is covered. 

 It's longer than I would like, but 

so is most of the documentation that we 

produce. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, Larry, 

OCAS, any comments to the changes we are 

proposing to the 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 

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No comments from me. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: SC&A? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: No comments. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Well, I 

will get this sent out to the members of the 

Work Group, and we can take this back to the 

Board at the next Board meeting or in the 

Board conference call. Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Will you email that 

to all of us? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps we can all 

have an opportunity to read it and later in 

our agenda perhaps we can confirm that that 

meets our needs. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: What I'll do is 

we will go ahead and get started on the next 

item on the agenda, and while we are doing 

that or during one of the breaks, I will go 

ahead and email it to the Work Group members, 

and that will give you time to look at it for 

the rest of the day. 
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 

 MEMBER MUNN: Good. Great. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. The next 

thing on the agenda is we're going to get a 

status report from NIOSH on the action items 

from our June meeting. Then, following that, 

we will have a status report from SC&A on the 

action items. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. I will try to 

hit the high spots and let J.J. or Mary fill 

in. 

 We at the last meeting put up on 

the Board a diagram, an explanation of how we 

saw our worker outreach, what outreach means, 

how we get information and we address that 

information, et cetera. 

 And then I think an action item was 

to provide that back to you in hard copy form 

or in a form -- I think Abe's got a copy of 

that with him today. So we did that. 

 We also talked about the status of 

our tracking system, Outreach Tracking System, 

that it was being populated. I think J.J. 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 

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Mary can fill us in on the advances or 

progress we have made therein because I think 

we have populated some more of it. 

 It is all the system that alerts -- 

I answered Ted's email the other day. This is 

also the system that provides announcements 

and notices of scheduled events that we see as 

outreach efforts, such as today Laurie is with 

the DOL Ombudsman's Office at Mound. So they 

asked us to participate in their meeting 

there, and Laurie is the representative doing 

that. 

 So you will see those announcements 

come to you as an email. 

 Ted, I apologize. When I looked 

into it, I found out you weren't on the 

distribution list, and you certainly should 

have been. 

 So other action items, I'm not 

recalling. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I had four of them 

listed 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 

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Four of them? Oh, 

good. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Do you want them? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're very wellprepared, Josie, and I'm not. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I don't even know if 

I got all of them there. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So provide a copy of 

the different databases that NIOSH maintains 

worker comments. I don't know where we are at 

on that. I don't know. I don't recall. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Larry, are those 

different databases being combined into one? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I guess I don't 

recall this action item. So I'm not sure 

what -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: It was an early one 

of our last meeting. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The February meeting? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Actually, 

yes, I think it was from a previous meeting. 

 MEMBER BEACH: 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 

 40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we talked 

about this a little bit at the last meeting, 

that one of the prior ORAU systems is not 

available, right? Was it Whisper or -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Whisper is still up. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Whisper is still up, 

but the one before that, Top Hat? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Top Hat, it was not. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Top Hat is not 

available. 

 You've got the access to the OTS, 

the Outreach Tracking System. You don't have 

that yet? 

 MEMBER BEACH: No. We have the 

documents, but we haven't been able to get on. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Is that because of 

the IT security constraints? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Possibly, yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, we're still 

dealing with the IT security constraints of 

getting you access, but it is there. It is 

what we would point to, where we maintain 
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 

worker comments and how we have addressed 

them. So, as soon as we get over the IT 

security obstacles, you will have access to 

that. 

 We were, I guess, to review the 

outreach history document and wondering if it 

provides useful information. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I think that 

was from a previous meeting also. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: The OTS is basically 

the outreach history information. That is the 

function of the OTS. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't recall 

this being tasked to us. So I'm not going to 

respond to this today. You know, if you need 

me to respond to action items, I guess I 

should have known about this or been aware of 

this, but we didn't talk about this one at the 

last meeting. I came here prepared to talk 

about action items from this meeting or from 

the most recent meeting. 

 So, NIOSH ATL to compile a list 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 

 42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outreach activities, including upcoming worker 

outreach activities. So I think we have done 

that, and we provide that in our notices. 

 MEMBER BEACH: The only question I 

have on that, Larry, and I have a list of all 

of the meetings so far, does that include all 

the site expert meetings that you may call up 

and just ask for one or two people? Will that 

be included? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Is that in there, 

Mark? 

 MR. LEWIS: No. We go. Mary and I 

are with ATL; that's captured, but from my 

understanding, if you send some HPs or 

somebody out there to capture data or 

something, you know, I don't think that is in 

there at all. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: No, it's not. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So we still need to 

understand how you are going to inform us of 

those. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But is that really 
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 

worker outreach? 

 MR. LEWIS: I don't know if that 

would be classified as worker outreach. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I want to understand 

what Josie is asking. I'm sorry. You're 

asking to notify you folks of when we go out 

to do a data capture? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I believe it 

would be data capture. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, I 

think what she is saying is, for example, the 

meeting that Brant held on the neutron issue 

at Mound. 

 MEMBER BEACH: That was the biggie 

for me. It was 12 people put it together. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. They 

called in 12 workers to ask them about a model 

that they had adopted. 

 MEMBER BEACH: They were looking, 

they were soliciting specific information. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. I 

understand the interest and motivation 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 

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

participate in those. I don't know that we 

have factored that motivation and interest 

into our thinking here. 

 In some instances, those meetings 

can be chilled very quickly by the number of 

participants and who the participants are. So 

we want to avoid that. 

 But I'm not using that as an excuse 

or an obstacle toward accommodating your 

interest. I think we have to work through 

this one. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, this 

is Kathy. Can I make a suggestion? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: When I go 

out and I do interviews, and NIOSH wants to 

sit in on those interviews, I turn to the 

interviewees and ask them if it's okay and if 

they're okay. Then I'm okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Very good suggestion. 

 That is certainly one good way of handling 

it. I need to talk with the folks who do 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 

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

regularly and get their feedback to this. 

 I thought where we were working on 

an issue at a given site concurrently, I 

thought there was an agreement that we would 

notify, alert, make an opportunity available 

for co-participation. 

 Where we're not in a concurrent 

work situation at a site, you know, we are 

going out and developing our technical basis 

document and SC&A is not really involved in a 

review or an SEC evaluation. I want to make 

that distinction, and I'm okay, if the Board 

and the DFO feel that they want to have a 

participatory level of effort in that, we can 

talk about that, too. But I think there is a 

distinction where we're out developing 

something on our own versus where we are 

dealing with an SEC evaluation report or a 

site profile review at the same time SC&A is 

conducting their evaluation. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But this is a key 

point we are discussing here. The key point 
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 

we are discussing is whether all of NIOSH 

activities that involve any other workers is 

an outreach activity. This is far more 

expansive than the term worker outreach in my 

perception, and I think the perception of many 

of the other Board members as well. 

 We've talked about worker outreach 

in the context of making sure that workers are 

aware of the program, how to participate in 

the program, and what the law is, but we have 

not talked about worker outreach in terms of 

obtaining site data and technical data that 

has to do with individual or other dose 

reconstructions. That is an entirely 

different aspect of the work that goes on 

here. 

 If we are asking to be involved in 

the Agency's technical work, then we need to 

clarify that in our mission statement as well. 

 My personal feeling is that that is beyond 

our purview. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I guess 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 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comments would be Josie gave us this copy of 

the original motion, and it clearly to me 

states that we want to determine if the 

information from the workers is being used in 

the dose reconstruction, the site profiles 

properly. So I think that is clearly within 

at least the intent of the Board adopting this 

Work Group. It may have gotten lost somewhere 

in the time and in the language that we have 

developed here, but I thought we were going to 

try to pull that back out. 

 But the issue that we are 

discussing here is, from my perspective, I 

wanted to make sure that the workers in the 

field, their information carries as much 

weight and is used when appropriate in dose 

reconstructions and site profiles, and if 

there's meetings to go on with folks from the 

sites, or formerly from the sites, that are 

helping NIOSH essentially develop their 

policies, their procedures, how they are going 

to do business, I agree that it may 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 

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

important for us to sit in on that. That is 

going to help us assess how much the average 

Joe out in the field, how much his information 

is going to input the program as far as 

opposed to how much weight is given to some of 

the potentially technical people who were 

formerly in a rad program. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But there is no 

possible way we can evaluate that unless we 

evaluate every technical exchange that goes on 

with NIOSH, not only with the workers, but 

with non-workers as well. If we are going to 

say it is our job to evaluate how much weight 

is given from the technical data that is 

obtained, then we are going to say that this 

Work Group has the responsibility to be 

involved in every technical exchange that the 

Agency is involved in, whether it is with 

workers or whether it is with what you 

consider non-workers. 

 I am not sure exactly what you 

consider non-workers. From many perspectives, 
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 

anyone who is involved in this program is in 

one way or another a worker. But that is 

really asking a great deal. That is not a 

simple, straightforward, well, just tell us if 

you're going out to do some data capture. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And I didn't mean 

to indicate -- I mean we are not involved in 

-- we are not going to be able to monitor and 

assess every worker's input as a claimant. We 

are going to do an assessment, figure out how 

we want to monitor the program as an overview 

of it. 

 So I certainly didn't mean to 

indicate that we would be involved in every 

technical discussion that OCAS has with a 

group of workers. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And I think really 

this discussion is a good discussion, but when 

we get into how we're going to do our work, I 

think that will cover most of what we are 

talking about now. The document that is 

before us that we are going to discuss later 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 

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think will cover it. It should cover it. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, this is an 

issue that -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: A framework, I 

should say. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Make sure it 

doesn't get lost in the -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. Right. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: But, in reality, last 

time we discussed, and it came from NIOSH when 

they defined their outreach program, they 

defined it, that it is a focus group that 

always meets, and it's part of that outreach 

program. So, if we say, outreach, we are 

using what they gave us as their outreach 

program, and we are talking about it. 

 Like, for example, this also came 

with this document that they sent to us or 

sent it to everybody. It said, there is an 

audience. This are SEC evaluation report 

issues: The audience is a focus group of 

current and all former workers to discuss 
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 

specific issues identified by OCAS or its 

contractor during the SEC evaluation process. 

 This could cover certain issues of 

this kind of nature. What's the neutron 

issues? How the technology is, you know, so 

we, as the Board, will learn the process with 

them and along with them, so we can be in 

parallel. 

 So some of it may not be needed, 

but just looking at what NIOSH defined to us 

last time on 6/16, this issue could be 

covered. I'm just looking at this here. 

 MEMBER MUNN: What I'm trying to 

get at here is the definition of data capture. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Right, right, right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It is one thing to 

talk to workers about what transpires. It is 

an entirely different thing to be looking 

through records and capturing data. 

 MEMBER BEACH: In my mind, we 

weren't talking about looking at the records. 

 MEMBER MUNN: With or 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 

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers involved, and if you are saying, if we 

are going to define interactions between the 

Agency and workers as worker outreach, when 

the purpose is to obtain data, then we need to 

clarify that. It has not been clear to all of 

us that interviewing workers with respect to 

data is worker outreach. I guess if that is 

what we are going to do, then that needs to be 

clearly defined. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I thought I heard 

Larry say that they met with some of the Mound 

folks to discuss how to use their model. It 

wasn't necessarily to get data from them, was 

it? Or is there a distinction between that? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It was to better 

understand a technical issue about exposures. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: It was to 

pass the model by the workers, so that they 

could concur with it or not concur with it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just going back to 

some of the earlier work in which I was 

involved, and having helped with the draft 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

document that is before you, it seems to me 

that a central part of this is not about 

individual dose reconstructions and the CATIs 

and the information, which has been separately 

evaluated under your Work Group, but the 

systematic information that would affect the 

understanding of the sites, what went on over 

there, working conditions, the kind of thing 

that we did when we got a diagram of the 

Bethlehem Steel plant and we didn't understand 

the full layout thing, and we consulted with 

workers and created a diagram so we actually 

understand how the uranium went from one place 

to another, rather than something that would 

affect one person's dose reconstruction. 

 I think, in my mind at least, that 

is one of the main things that was captured by 

what Ted said, obtain and use the information 

from workers more in their capacity as site 

experts. We are treating all workers as site 

experts that have information that could help 

the overall process, and not just their claim. 
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 

 At least that is how I am understanding it, 

but maybe I am mistaken. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we are on the 

same page. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So it isn't 

as broad as all interactions or all 

conversations. I think it is more focused. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: And it has been 

defined in the NIOSH Outreach Program itself 

last time. It has been this is the type of 

meetings and this is information-gathering 

that includes smaller groups. We need to 

refine what we understand are the certain 

issues to really then define. That is why we 

worked with that frame that was defined to us 

last time, on 6/16. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I kind of lost track 

of what we're talking about here because I 

envisioned that this working group would 

somehow look at how we talk to workers, what 

our purpose in talking to workers is, and how 

that benefits the program. 
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 

 So, in that light, I think, yes, 

you are going to have a presence in these 

conversations, in these discussions, on 

technical issues. I'm glad to hear it wasn't 

data capture because that is a whole different 

problem and ball game, and I don't consider 

data capture outreach. 

 So what's the rub here? I'm lost 

in what -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: My original thought 

was, when we were on the action item No. 3, to 

compile a list of worker outreach activities, 

and we have been sent those, and I just said I 

wanted to be informed or we needed to be 

informed of the smaller meetings, and was 

there an avenue for us to be able to be 

informed of those? That is kind of where we 

got started. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The smaller meetings. 

 MEMBER BEACH: The two or three -- 

the outreach where you are looking for 

specific information on specific -- 
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 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't make a 

distinction in my mind. That's outreach. 

 MEMBER BEACH: But we just haven't 

been notified of those. To this date, we have 

not been notified of those. So that is where 

my question came in. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: If I may make a 

point, when we made those four types of 

meetings, basically, we were talking about 

trips that go out during the SEC evaluation 

period when the HPs have questions that need 

to be clarified from people who worked at the 

site. So that is during the evaluation 

process, before the evaluation report is 

submitted to the Board. 

 The other ones, where they go out 

to talk to site experts, are often after those 

evaluation reports are submitted and the 

working groups have questions, and that leads 

to more investigation. So there is a 

difference. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So in 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 

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

difference, you are saying you don't see that 

latter part being outreach? 

 MS. ELLIOTT: Well, I am not going 

to say that. Okay? I'm not going to say it 

is not outreach, but it is connected in a 

different way. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It is not outreach in 

my mind because it is not driven by our 

interest to find, you know, to establish our 

position. It is driven by the review process, 

the deliberation process. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: Correct. That is my 

point. That is what I am saying. That is the 

bottom-line clarification right there. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, this 

is Kathy. 

 In the case of this Mound meeting, 

we have already been tasked with reviewing the 

SEC evaluation report, and NIOSH went out and 

pulled together a group of experts, which is 

what I would call a focus group, to obtain 

information on neutron exposure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: In reaction to your 

review comments. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: They were 

developing a white paper. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. And so can I 

stop you right there? 

 In that instance, when does it 

become the Agency's prerogative to develop the 

position without the Board or its technical 

contractors' involvement? Is there a bright 

line here? And if there is no bright line, 

then how do you play into that? How do you 

sit there and not drive the development of our 

position or at the same time develop your 

position? Do you see where I am coming from? 

 I am not trying to be obstructive 

here. I am just trying to think through this. 

 MEMBER MUNN: This is the point I 

was trying to make. There is a dividing line 

somewhere. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You perturb the 

process, in my opinion, if you are even 
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 

sitting in the room and you come out of the 

room, you haven't said a word, but you come 

out of the room and you have already got your 

position, and you start taking your actions, 

based upon what you heard. 

 So there is going to be some 

interaction there. I mean we can all work 

together to get done what we all want to do 

here, and that is do the best thing for the 

claimants. But I want to be clear about how 

this is going to work. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 I think, Larry, you really brought 

something that I haven't thought about, and I 

think it is very important. I would like to 

just jump in. 

 I think that there is a front end 

and a back end of the process. I think that 

way. Most of our discussions in the mission 

statement, I guess when we were thinking, was 

really oriented toward the front end of the 

process. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now you are bringing in something 

very important on the role of, let's say, the 

Board and the Work Group on the back end of 

the process. That is, okay, now we are moving 

down a road where all the work products are 

in, the site profiles are in, the evaluation 

report is in, and we're in the process of 

preparing white papers, where NIOSH is taking 

some actions, perhaps SC&A is taking some 

actions, gathering information. 

 I think when we are in that mode, 

and this is just a thought, things become a 

little simpler. What I mean by that is that 

I guess I see the thing that I am most 

interested in is that the information that is 

gathered in that back end of the process is 

recorded in a way that everyone has access to 

it and could review it. 

 So that when we go into our 

deliberations regarding the information we now 

have available to us, the Board is in a 

position to feel confident that all of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information that was gathered has been 

documented and can be evaluated, so that 

judgments could be made whether or not the 

issue is being properly closed or dealt with. 

 It is a lot different, I would say, 

this living dynamic that occurs in the back 

end of the process is something that I would 

say would be very difficult to monitor to 

terms of as it is going on, but it is 

certainly not difficult to monitor to see to 

make sure that the information that was 

gathered was, in fact, documented and it was, 

in fact, taken into consideration in the 

products, the white papers that are generated 

as a result of that process. 

 So I never thought about that 

distinction, but I think it is an important 

distinction, the front end and the back end, 

and the role of the Work Group in terms of 

monitoring and assessing -- I'm sorry -- 

monitoring and evaluating the acquisition and 

use of 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 

 62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We may want to make a distinction 

here. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It seems that a 

distinction is almost required. The 

difference that Larry mentioned seems very 

logical, the difference being the motivation. 

 With respect to worker outreach, it 

is an outreach activity if it is an effort on 

behalf of the Agency to incorporate workers 

into the information-gathering process that is 

ongoing. 

 If it is an interaction with 

workers as a result of either an SC&A or a 

Board request for such an action, then that's 

not really a worker outreach. That is a 

followup to a directive that has come from the 

Board's contractor or from the Board. That 

doesn't appear to be the same thing as a 

worker outreach, per se. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Per the Procedure 

012, it is considered one of the Outreach 

Focus Work Group meetings, which is exactly 
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 

what we are talking about. You are bringing a 

group of individuals together for a specific 

reason, and it is covered in this procedure. 

So that is why I looked at it as a Work Group, 

Worker Outreach. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think we are 

looking at two different things. I certainly 

understand Larry's concern here. 

 If you are developing a draft 

document internally, say a site profile on 

something that hasn't been studied, published, 

or presented to the Board, every institution 

needs to have some room to develop, you know, 

to be able to talk internally and publish a 

document, go through their own internal review 

process. We do that as SC&A. 

 So this thorium thing that just 

came up must have gone through eight internal 

circulations before it went out. It was a 

complicated document, and it required a lot of 

assessing the data. There's statisticians 

involved, and so on. You want to be able 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 

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

do that. 

 But there are two other things 

where I think the confusion creeps in. One 

was the original purpose where we started, if 

I remember right, is NIOSH was conducting 

outreach activities, gathering information 

from workers. The idea wasn't that SC&A would 

be evaluating the substance of what NIOSH was 

gathering, but simply the process of gathering 

that information, whether NIOSH would be 

effective, whether it was being properly 

documented, and whether the workers, what they 

said meant anything to NIOSH, independently of 

our views of whether the document you produced 

was good, bad, indifferent material, led to 

good or bad dose reconstruction, or whatever. 

 This other thing that we are 

talking about with Mound, now we are in the 

middle of an SEC evaluation process. The 

evaluation report is published, and now we 

actually have been working in parallel, and it 

has gotten more and more mixed up because 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 

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are trying to be efficient. That is a third 

issue. 

 I think we should keep these three 

things separate because they have all gotten 

mooshed into one discussion, and I think they 

ought not to be in one discussion. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And that must be 

spelled out in our implementation language. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I think we 

should do that. 

 DR. MAURO: Well said, Arjun. I 

agree. These differences are very important. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I appreciate 

your input. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So why don't we 

try to move ahead with action items? It 

sounds like this trying to develop this 

implementation language is going to take the 

better part of the day or more. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Can I make it clear 

for the record here? This Mound example 

really stimulated the agreement that I spoke 
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 

about, that when we are concurrently working 

together on an issue, we agreed to include 

each other in our interview process. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We did. That is what 

came out of this Mound experience. So it is 

not like we are resisting. It is like this is 

an evolution of understanding. We are walking 

into these things and finding out here's a 

better way to do it. 

 Certainly Hanford is a different 

example where we have got concurrent efforts, 

and all I can say is we have been tripping 

over each other out there for too long. We 

finally on our side have decided that we have 

come to the realization that we aren't going 

to find the data we need. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Well, you 

know, then I think -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And I hope you guys 

will verify that for us -- that is where we 

are 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 

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, and we have 

tried to -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We tried to work 

together. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Nobody has done 

this before, and we are all trying to conclude 

it properly and efficiently. Hanford was an 

experiment. That is I think why we tripped up 

a little bit, because it was an experiment -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That is the point. 

We are evolving. We are coming together. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, and, Larry, 

thinking about this, the procedures that are 

in place in terms of when we collaborate and 

coordinate all of our activities when we are 

at the back end of the process, in effect, the 

Board and its contractor and NIOSH and its 

contractors have already written a procedure 

for very closely communicating and cooperating 

in the back end of the process. So, in a way, 

I think we have advanced tremendously in terms 

of that part of the process. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 At the front end of the process, 

where really SC&A has no involvement -- what I 

mean by that is, when you are in the front end 

preparing your ER, preparing your site 

profile, SC&A is not active. That is, we have 

not been asked to take any action, and 

appropriately so, until NIOSH has an 

opportunity to put its products out. 

 So it seems to me that built into 

the back end of the process we already have 

all of this very close interaction, 

documentation, exchange of information, 

evaluation of information. So, in a way, I 

think we have matured very, very nicely in 

terms of, and without realizing it, we've got 

the outreach oversight, if you want to call it 

oversight, of the Board because of the close 

interaction between all our organizations in 

the back end. 

 So maybe it is the front end that 

is really the one that requires the most 

attention. I throw that out just as a thought 
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 

because it seems to me that, working through 

Mound and working through most recently the 

procedures we are using, and it was all driven 

really because of efficiency, the need for and 

the classification of information, and the 

need to coordinate with DOE. 

 That all forced us to work very, 

very closely together, document things in a 

way that seems to work very well, and we are 

getting even better at it. It is the front 

end of the process where, that might in fact 

be the one where there is a need for 

monitoring and evaluating. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So does 

that take us through the NIOSH action items? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I had a 

question. 

 At the last meeting, I think Arjun 

brought up the audio tapes, and you were going 

to go back to the Legal Department and ask 

them. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, I was not. No, 
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 

no. There's no action item on that. The 

audio tapes are not a deliverable under the 

contracts. The audio tapes are not going to 

be retained. So I have no action item on 

this. This has already been determined by 

Office of General Counsel and the procurement 

folks. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I guess that is the 

piece we weren't clear on, whether it has 

already been determined by the General 

Counsel. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. We will 

move on to SC&A action items. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Okay. We 

still have an open action item to attend 

worker outreach meetings. We originally went 

to an unofficial information-gathering meeting 

in Albuquerque during the Board meeting. We 

still haven't gone to an information -- sorry, 

that was an information-giving. We still 

haven't gone to an information-gathering 

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 

 71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: So can I ask a 

question here? Do you mind? 

 Does SC&A need the Work Group's 

permission, for lack of a better word, to 

attend the meetings that we are sent out or 

can they automatically go to the ones that 

they have the availability to go to? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I would say, 

since the work groups charge them to help us 

review the program, they could just make their 

own decision, unless the government has some 

problem -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: It may be an email 

to the Chair or -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, I would like 

to be informed. 

 MR. KATZ: Me, too. The DFO. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I know for me and my 

schedule there's a couple here that I would 

like to go to. Some of them you can't get to, 

and I know SC&A is probably the same. So I 

didn't know if we needed to come back to 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 

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

meeting every time or we could just try to hit 

the ones we were available for. Okay. I just 

wanted to make sure that was clear. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 Procedurally, it is important to 

keep in mind that usually SC&A is not tasked 

to take any activity on a site profile that is 

being developed or even an evaluation report 

that is undergoing development. 

 MEMBER BEACH: This isn't for that, 

John. This is just to attend the worker 

outreach meetings that are on the schedule. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. No, no, and 

that's fine. So, in effect, what we would be 

saying is the Outreach Group may very well, as 

part of its mission, task SC&A to perform 

certain activities, participate in particular 

meetings that might be related to a site 

profile or an ER that we are not actually 

evaluating, we haven't been asked to evaluate, 

but, on behalf of the outreach aspect of it, 

we would be tasked to do 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 

 That's fine. I just wanted to make 

it clear that normally we are not tasked on a 

particular site until the work is done by 

NIOSH and a work group is formed for that 

review of that work product. 

 We are in the circumstance here 

where, however, that will change. That is, we 

might actually be tasked to do certain things 

related to a site profile or an ER while it is 

being developed, and that is fine, but that 

would be a little bit different than the way 

we did things before. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, John. Let me just 

add to that to say, in terms of doing this 

right and for tasking and all, I mean I think 

it would make sense to sort of develop your 

evaluation plan and then figure out what sort 

of meetings and where you want SC&A to attend 

within the context of that evaluation plan, 

rather than just sort of leaving it open-ended 

for SC&A to attend what meetings it might 

think would be useful, sort of open-ended like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that without any kind of guidance. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: This is 

Kathy. 

 I guess the question about that is, 

we have an information-gathering meeting 

coming up I think on September 2nd. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: We? Who is the we? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: No, no, 

NIOSH. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: NIOSH. Just for 

clarity. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And I can 

foresee that we will want to go to more than 

just that one, if we can make arrangements to 

go to that, in the future that we don't know 

exist. 

 MR. KATZ: Sure. No, I understand 

that, but I think some planning needs to be 

done because OCAS certainly does planning 

pretty far ahead of time in developing some of 

these outreach meetings, too. I think it 

would make sense to sort of get a roster 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 

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

opportunities and look at sort of the nature 

of the different characters of these different 

activities, so that you are covering whatever 

kind of complexity of different outreach 

activities you mean to cover under the 

evaluation plan. 

 As far as the Weldon Spring coming 

up shortly, I mean if that is just sort of 

opportune, that seems fine to me, but I just 

think ultimately the Work Group is going to 

want to have a pretty organized plan as 

opposed to just sort of willy-nilly going to 

this meeting or that meeting, and so on. 

 MR. LEWIS: I would need to know, 

you know, if you were planning on attending, 

too, because, like you said a while ago, I 

need to make sure the audience is okay. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that was, 

hopefully, one of the issues that had been 

asked that we address when we look at this 

list of known meetings that we have. Let'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 

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

hope that later in the day this entire group 

can take a look at those and give some thought 

to who sitting around this table might be 

available to go to some of those meetings we 

know about because, as Ted has already pointed 

out, often our presence there is very helpful 

and encouraging to the workers. 

 MR. KATZ: The other point I would 

just make about this is you need a 

methodology. I mean right now it is go and 

attend, and that is not a methodology. 

Really, that comes under the plan which you 

are going to be developing because, otherwise, 

it is going to be difficult for the SC&A staff 

to know what exactly they are supposed to be 

doing at these meetings other than paying 

attention and taking notes. 

 MR. LEWIS: On this meeting coming 

up -- this is Mark Lewis -- on this meeting 

coming in September, I may add that it is more 

of an informational-giving meeting than a 

gathering meeting because, with this 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 

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is the first time I've got a chance to talk to 

this local about Weldon Spring, and it is 

their very first meeting. So I expect followup meetings with them later, but this initial 

one is to arm them with what they need to know 

about the law and the site profile. It is an 

introductory meeting, this next meeting. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. But, on that 

point, the Board will have a methodology for 

evaluating both the information-giving aspects 

of these and the information-gathering and 

making use of. I mean that all needs to sort 

of be fleshed out. 

 Again, for what is coming up, since 

it is opportune to sort of just familiarize, 

to get familiar with what goes on at these, it 

makes sense. But I wouldn't go far down the 

road of just attending ad hoc versus attending 

with a purpose and methodology under an 

evaluation plan. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, I 

think that the methodology that we would use 
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 

is compliance with OCAS PR-012. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, it seems to 

me to put together an implementation plan and 

just fleshing all this out is what we really 

need to do. I mean everything we have done 

today focuses into something that is going to 

be in that plan or it is going to be excluded. 

 So, if we can just kind of finish 

up the open action items, and let's take a 15-

minute break, and let's just get back. We can 

start, just jump in. 

 We have the draft implementation 

plan from SC&A. We can use that as a strawman 

and just start down through, and see if we 

can't get some framework around this. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes, and the 

other two action items I have down are: 

prepare a mission statement, which we did at 

the beginning, and then prepare a plan for 

evaluating the effectiveness of worker 

outreach, which is the implementation plan. 

 And that is all I had for our 
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 

action items. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Let's take 

a 15-minute break, and let's come back and get 

into that draft implementation plan. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 10:57 a.m. and 

resumed at 11:17 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: We are back online. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay, we are back 

from break. 

 The agenda at 11:00 calls for 

defining the oversight role of the Board, 

working group, contractor, and the NIOSH 

program, and at 1:00 the agenda calls for 

discussion of the evaluation criteria. 

 Unless there's any strong 

objections, I propose that we just take this 

whole two- or three-hour period and just move 

right to the draft implementation plan that 

SC&A sent out on the 22nd, I believe. Does 

everyone have that available to them? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Twenty-second 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 

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

which month? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: June. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: There's one that 

says August 10th. Is that the one? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes, it is 

August 10th. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So does everyone 

have that available to them? 

 What I propose we do, everything we 

have discussed today leads to a deeper issue, 

and in statements people agree and disagree 

with certain things. Just to bring it all 

down to a point, let's just try to get 

something in writing in draft form somewhat 

today, at least get closer to this program as 

to what we agree and what we disagree on, so 

that we can try to get this thing moving. Is 

that acceptable with everyone? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So, Kathy 

or Arjun or Abe, if you guys want to start 
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 

with the draft implementation plan, and if 

there's issues that we don't see are defined 

clearly enough or issues that we have 

questions on, then let's just get into the 

discussion. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: The very 

first section of it is the mission statement, 

which is obviously going to change, based upon 

changes we made this morning. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Correct. We need 

Board approval for that. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: That forms 

the basis for the implementation plan in 

total. 

 The first thing I did was to try 

and define worker outreach. The first portion 

of the implementation plan includes verbatim 

what the NIOSH OCAS-0012 procedure says. 

 I also put in there the further 

clarification that NIOSH provided in their 

table, in their other attachments, describing 

the meetings and processes on the 24th. 
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 

 Then there are some worker outreach 

activities that we felt were important that 

may or may not be incorporated into either the 

first worker outreach procedure or OCAS 012. 

I guess that is where we need to start. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So are you right on 

page 2 of 2 -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: -- under 

"information-gathering?" Is that where you 

are starting, Kathy? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Actually, 

I'm on page 1. That's where we define what 

OCAS 012 has defined as worker outreach. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, we are just 

quoting. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Right. Then 

it continues on page 2 and into page 3. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So where 

are the things that you said you added above 

and beyond the NIOSH procedure and the handout 
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 

they gave us after the June meeting? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: One of the 

things that got kind of confusing with J.J.'s 

response to the review of the original mission 

statement was whether the Advisory Board 

public comment periods were being included as 

worker outreach. 

 So I guess that is not specifically 

called out in OCAS 012, but is certainly a 

part of worker outreach. And I am talking from 

a generic standpoint, not about a particular 

claim. Okay? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But, Kathy, just to 

clarify, that is not NIOSH worker outreach, 

right? That is the Advisory Board's open 

public comment period, which we have talked 

about this before in that it might require a 

followup as to what is happening, whether 

those comments are being taken into account. 

But that would equally apply maybe to us -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- at SC&A as 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 

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH or, depending on how the Board decides, 

I personally think that is kind of a separate 

track that should be part of this in terms of 

whether we are taking seriously into account 

what workers say. But it is a little bit of a 

separate track then, say, evaluating OCAS 

PR-012 -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and how the -- 

NIOSH has done. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- covered under 

PR-012. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Right, it is 

not covered under PR-012. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't see it as 

our effort to reach out. We see it as an 

opportunity. If we hear matters of general 

concern or even claimant-specific concerns, we 

pull those aside, talk to the individual 

claimant, and we deal with matters and general 

concern in a different way. We take them up. 

 We talk about them in our scientific 
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 

discussions within OCAS or our communications 

discussions. How can we improve? What do we 

make of that comment? 

 It is not transparent, I grant you 

that. You don't know what we do, what we say 

about those kind of things. We perhaps can 

talk about ways to make it more transparent, 

what we do with regard to what we hear at 

public comment. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and so the 

question, I guess, on that track that I have 

is, is there a Board interest in making sure 

that there's some followup on actionable 

items, or whether there is a piece of 

technical information that comes up, whether 

it is falling through cracks or whether it is 

actually being -- 

 MR. KATZ: Well, just let me, this 

is sort of in process, I think. Larry and I 

have discussed issues related to the Board's 

public comment session, and I've discussed 

them, too, with John Mauro. 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I would like to work on 

something in this regard. But it is really, 

as far as this Work Group is concerned, I mean 

the Board is welcome to evaluate its own 

outreach, but that is sort of a separate 

issue, I think. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, right. 

 MR. KATZ: So I am very interested 

in the issue, absolutely, and I am trying to 

work on something right now in terms of the 

public comment session. Because I think all 

of us on the Board, at OCAS, at SC&A, when we 

sit at those public comment sessions, we all 

feel it is a little bit unfortunate that it 

isn't practical for it to be an interactive 

session. So I am looking at options right now 

for what can we do, so that people get a 

little bit of feedback from those sessions. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And that was the 

spirit of my comment, in the sense that it 

seems to me like a separate track than 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 

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were talking about before the break. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. Right. I agree. 

 I agree completely. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think you need 

to work on what you're talking about, but I 

guess the question I would pose is, if someone 

makes public comment and, for example, our 

Chairman says, "There are NIOSH people in the 

audience and they will meet with you. We will 

point you to them." And then if there is a 

followup, if they meet with the people and 

there's going to be a followup, then I think 

there would be some limited involvement there. 

 I think that would sort of trigger sort of a 

worker outreach, in a way. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, I 

guess I am confused because you have Board 

meetings on your diagram. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We have Board 

meetings on the diagram. It is an opportunity 

for public health advisors to meet with 

claimants. So we set up scheduled interviews 
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 

with active claimants. That is an outreach 

effort. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: From the 

public health advisor? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. That is not to 

be implied as our dealings with public comment 

because I don't see that as outreach. I see 

that as following up on either specific claim 

matters or general matters of concern. 

 It may result in an outreach. What 

we hear, what is revealed to us may say to us, 

hey, you had better go find some -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Follow up on that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's happened more 

and more, sure. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But, by far, the 

Board's public comment sessions are focused on 

individual claims. People have individual 

concerns about their claim that they bring. 

 I would hazard a guess any 

specificity at all to support it, that easily 

90 percent of what we hear in public comment 
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 

is on an individual basis. On the rare 

occasions that we hear broader issues that 

might be either generic in nature or encompass 

more than one or two claims, that may be a 

reasonable point for this group's focus, but 

otherwise it does not appear to be applicable 

generally. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, when I 

am bringing up these additional items, I don't 

mean comments on specific claims, and I will 

give you an example with the CATI interviews. 

 I'm talking generic issues. That is what we 

need to say. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I agree, Kathy, that 

-- well, I don't know that I agree. I beg to 

differ with you on that. I am not sure that I 

hear 90 percent of the public comment being 

claim-directed. I wouldn't even assign a 

percentage to it because the claimant matters 

are important and the general matters that are 

brought up are as important. 

 Some of those general matters go 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 

 90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

like Terrie Barrie being concerned about the 

NIOSH review. That is a general matter. You 

know, the -- John Funk's talking about the 

Nevada Test Site workers and their plight, 

that is a general matter, and whether badges 

were left behind or not. 

 Those kind of things we take 

seriously. We hear them out. So I think they 

are equally important, claimant matters and 

general matters. We do things to address them 

when we hear them. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I was not making an 

effort to dismiss them. What I was trying to 

say was those matters may very easily be a 

proper concern for this group in terms of 

following up, but individual claims are not 

though. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, I guess my 

only thoughts, even on the individual claims, 

there are times when the individual gets done 

speaking and the Chairman says, "Thank you 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 

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

your comments and stuff," and that is 

something that I think probably the whole 

Board ought to do more about. But whether it 

was something significant enough that it is 

looked into, that NIOSH is going to meet that 

person about that claim, then at least my 

original thought is just that then becomes a 

part of worker outreach. 

 It becomes a part of our mission as 

far as evaluating how information is used and 

applied, or whatever this language was we came 

up with today. 

 I am not trying to make it 

complicated and this one counts and this one 

doesn't, but I just want to hash this out, and 

let's decide what is scope and what is not. I 

don't want to start circling back on issues 

five pages later. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, let me 

deal with some of the other things that I 

thought would be included in worker outreach. 

 That would be finished site expert 
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 

interviews. They often provide generic 

technical data. We need to make sure that 

that data is being integrated into technical 

work documents. That would be like NIOSH 

going out to Hanford and reviewing a reactor 

operator on neutron dosimetry and that type of 

thing, which is a little bit different than 

what Mark does. 

 As far as the CATI interviews, the 

 closeout interviews, and the public health 

advisory interviews, from an individual 

standpoint, when they are commenting on their 

claim, that is not what I am talking about 

here. I am talking about recurrent issues 

that come up out of these items. 

 For example, one of the recurrent 

issues that is coming up at Sandia National 

Lab, Livermore, that came up in our own 

evaluation interviews, but also frequently in 

the CATI interviews, was the fact that they 

visited other DOE complex sites frequently. 

Something like that is important to the 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 

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

profile. 

 So, in those terms, I am talking 

about recurrent issues that have to do with 

the sitewide population, and I think that that 

is a part of what we need to evaluate. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Based on how the 

worker input is being used? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Used. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And not 

specifically for this claim? 

 MEMBER MUNN: And how do we do 

that? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, we can 

determine some criteria as to whether it is 

pertinent to a subgroup or a group of workers. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: As far as how we 

do it, let's hear from OCAS, your comments 

about this concern, and how is it -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't understand 

the concern. The concern, as I understand you 

express it, is that many people who worked at 

Sandia traveled to other sites. Many 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 

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

who worked at Nevada Test Site traveled to 

other sites. Many people who worked at 

Lawrence Livermore traveled to the Nevada Test 

Site. 

 So what's the rub here? What's the 

issue? Because when we make a request to DOE 

for dose information for these folks, we ask 

for visitor badges, a visitor dose. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Actually, in 

this case, you are requesting visitor records 

for those facilities that are named by the 

individual in the CATI interview. 

 What I am saying is that, in the 

course of our interviews, this is a much 

larger issue than just one person. In fact, 

the people at Sandia are saying, "That's why I 

received a majority of low dose." Okay? But 

if they don't call it out in their interview, 

you are not requesting visitor data. 

 I think that this lends itself to, 

one, a worker outreach meeting to obtain 

additional information on this or, two, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

further consideration because it is recurrent. 

 This is not the only recurrent comment in the 

CATI interviews. This is just one example. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So it is not this 

particular issue. It is that there appears to 

be recurrent issues in the program that you 

have concern that may not be given the proper 

weight -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: -- possibly by 

NIOSH? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: If I could make 

a quick comment on what Kathy was just talking 

about, that is a common practice with people 

from Sandia and Albuquerque, Livermore, and 

people from Los Alamos that traveled to Pantex 

and the Nevada Test Site on a weekly basis for 

many of them; for anyone from a day to several 

days. So this is actually almost a generic 

thing for many of the people. Again, there 

are large numbers over the years that 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 

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

done this. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So let me recap. If 

I'm understanding correctly, Kathy, what you 

are saying is that it is your understanding 

that, unless a worker or a claimant has 

indicated visits to other sites in their CATI 

interview, that their dose that may have been 

received there would not be captured? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Be 

requested. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Would not be 

requested. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And it may 

or may not occur in the home facility's 

records. 

 But I guess I am using that example 

because it comes up frequently in the CATI 

interviews. It is frequent -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The comment being? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: "We visited 

other sites." Okay? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So, once we hear 
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 

that -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: 

Generically. Generically. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So, once we hear 

that, we ask which sites, and then that 

formulates our request. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Actually, 

there is no question on the interview that 

asks that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: There doesn't have to 

be. It is a follow-up question. We can ask 

the interview folks, but they should say, 

"Well, which sites did you visit?" because 

they know -- it is probably proceduralized at 

ORAU. I don't know. We would have to look in 

the procedures, and I am sure she is taking a 

note. 

 But it is common sense that the 

interviewer would say, which sites? Because 

we are going to have to request your visiting 

dose there. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And 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 

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

guarantee you, as far as an official question, 

it is not on there. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I know it is not on 

there, Kathy. I am not arguing that point. I 

know it is not on there because -- this is an 

OMB-approved instrument. It allows you to set 

the stage for the questions you need answered, 

and if you have follow-up questions, you don't 

have to add those in the instrument. You can 

use those. You know, there's a place on the 

CATI where additional questions and responses 

can be captured. That is what should be 

happening here. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, let me 

take it to another level here. 

 MEMBER BEACH: It seems like we are 

just getting a little bit off-track. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, let me 

take it to another level. If people are 

visiting other sites frequently, spending two 

weeks out of the month at another site, then 

that is reflected in the site profile. 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 

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this case, it is briefly discussed. 

 Taking those comments, taking 

generic worker comments and integrating them 

into technical documents is part of what we 

are about. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think there's, 

you know, again, a little confusion about what 

we're trying to do here, and maybe I'm 

offbase. But as I understand this 

implementation plan that we are presenting, 

the CATI thing is just an example. If 

something comes up frequently, does NIOSH have 

a procedure for extracting that and putting it 

in the site profile or some generic document 

that will alert the dose reconstructor to know 

that? 

 So, for instance, there's a spouse 

that is doing the interview. They may not be 

able to give you that information. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They may not know how 

many places were visited. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 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 

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they won't know to tell you, even if you ask. 

 I think, as I understood this CATI item, it 

is just one illustration of the kind of 

information provided. So we are saying we are 

not going to review CATIs as part of this. We 

have already done that. We have given you 

comments on the form, and through Wanda's 

committee, we have gone through faithfully, 

and it is done. 

 So I just want to clarify this. As 

I understand the discussion, the CATI piece of 

it is done. The concern in this context is if 

something comes up repeatedly. So my concern 

of longstanding has been, what happens for the 

50 percent of claimants who are not workers, 

who can't give you the information themselves? 

 So you need something to be able to 

extract the frequently-occurring pieces of 

technical information, whether it is some 

radionuclide you didn't think about or some 

time where monitoring might have started, to 

take it out of the context of CATIs, 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 

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

something that comes up in the CATI, whatever 

comes up in contact with workers, that it is 

reflected if it is a generic issue. That's 

what I think -- so extracted from, you know, 

what NIOSH is -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I didn't take it as 

another review of the CATI. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: But I think this 

should have come out in that review. 

 MR. KATZ: Can I just make a 

suggestion? This is absolutely germane, I 

mean this question. But it is sort of several 

steps down in your evaluation. 

 This is then a criterion or 

something you would be looking at in 

evaluating intake. So are there frequent 

issues that are being addressed? That is sort 

of one of your questions, sort of how is 

information being made use of? But it is a 

very detailed single element within that, what 

you would be developing this evaluation plan. 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: So it is not at the same 

level as what sources do you go to for your 

information, and so on, your general process 

for doing the evaluation. It is a detailed 

criterion. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, I 

think the definition of what worker outreach 

is is relevant to this Working Group. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, I think it 

is, too, but I think at this point, it seems 

to me the question on the table is, are 

recurring issues and how they are dealt with 

part of this Work Group's function? Then, if 

it is, if we decide it is, which I believe it 

is, then when we get down further in the 

weeds, as Ted said, then we will flesh out 

this particular issue, other issues, how they 

are dealt with, how we assess them. 

 Do we agree that reoccurring issues 

and how they are dealt with is part of our 

duty? 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 

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Reoccurring issues 

which are the result of outreach meetings are, 

indeed, a part of what we are looking at here. 

 There shouldn't be any question about that. 

Once we have identified that, then formulating 

the larger question, which I think we have 

already done, is what we need to focus on at 

the outset, is this, this, and this of what we 

are going to seek. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Josie, Phil, any 

other additional comments? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No, just the one 

comment I had because this is actually a 

fairly generic issue as far as people visiting 

other facilities throughout the complex. It 

was not uncommon for people to go to Rocky 

Flats, Savannah River. I know a lot of people 

from Mound came to Los Alamos. So there was 

this interchange. That almost is a generic 

issue for the CATI interview. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But it seems it is of 

no real concern whether it comes from 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 

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

CATI, whether it comes from public comment, 

whether it comes from activists, whether it 

comes from claimants. The real question is, 

if you have a recurring issue, how is it dealt 

with, and is it being dealt with properly? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I guess, if 

I could ask a question, and this would 

encompass all the non-OCAS PR-012 forms of 

questioning or reaching out to workers. 

 Are we going to include reoccurring 

issues? Is this going to facilitate some 

action on NIOSH's part? Maybe that action is 

already completed. 

 For example, if people raise 

questions about high-fired oxide being handled 

at a site, well, there is an OTIB. It has 

already been addressed. 

 But are we going to address some of 

the other issues that come up for more than 

one claimant that reoccur? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Maybe I was 

offbase here, but what I was trying to convey 
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 

a minute ago is there are multiple reoccurring 

issues. Are they, each one, dealt with? Is 

it in our scope to see if they are dealt with 

effectively? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And I believe 

everyone around here said yes, and I think 

OCAS even indicated they agreed. So I have 

that down as that is one of the issues covered 

in our scope. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I would like 

to decide as a Work Group what is our scope, 

first of all, the framework of it, and then 

take each one of those and decide how we are 

going to do that. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So I guess, instead 

of getting down into all the -- and that's 

what I thought was a little offbase on that 

last discussion because we need to develop the 

framework of exactly what we are going to look 

at 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 

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I agree. I think 

kind of what I would propose is all that SC&A 

has come up with thus far about the definition 

of worker outreach, not all of it, but that is 

basically part of our scope. If we agree with 

what's in the procedure, the types of things 

that were included in NIOSH's handout to us 

after the last meeting, that is two issues 

that are our scope. We just discovered a 

third issue in our scope, which is this 

reoccurring issues. 

 The top section here is kind of a 

defined scope by procedure and NIOSH's input 

to us in these meetings, and we are also 

defining scope in other ways as we go along 

here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you know, 

part of what I read in the first sections 

here, we made a review of OTIB-0097, and we 

had a bunch of findings. There was a 

documentation procedure for that worker input. 

 I don't believe we really reviewed Whisper 
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 

because it was not up when we finished 97. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: No, it 

didn't include Whisper, which was a companion 

document. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. So my 

memory is still good for some things. 

 But now that NIOSH has a new 

procedure and a new tracking system, a 

starting point that you might consider might 

be for us to review what's being resolved from 

the prior findings in this new procedure, to 

review some portions of this tracking system, 

in that context, maybe attend a few of these 

meetings to see how the outreach is being 

conducted and documented, and so on. 

 Because we already have an 

evaluation framework in our previous findings, 

and we can set those aside if they've all 

being resolved, and we can move ahead. If 

not, then we've still got issues. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, I agree that 

that is a part of the evaluation, is a review 
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 

of that procedure. If it effectively 

incorporated the concerns, you know, a review 

of the previous procedure 0097, then that to 

me it is still further down on the 

implementation. We have identified that the 

procedure is part of our scope. So, if we get 

our hands around exactly -- everyone agrees 

with -- let's encompass our scope here, and 

then we can move on down in the document. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I just want 

to list one, two, three, four, five of 

everything that we feel is our responsibility 

to review, real simple to start with. Then 

take it apart from there. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I would like 

that, too. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Personally, I 

don't think it is going to be simple. I 

think, No. 1, is going to be OCAS PR-012 is in 

our scope. However we define this handout 

that was generated from our previous meetings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be No. 2. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and then the 

associated database, OTS, would be in our 

scope. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: It should have been 

addressed, too, you know, in the last meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It is 

incorporated in this or -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: It was discussed in 

the last meeting, yes, I remember. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So was this in 

your draft? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: We need to add that. 

 We need to add that. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: A lot of 

these things are integrated into the 

evaluation criteria. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Should we just open 

up the chalkboard there, I mean the board, and 

start to make a list of those things? 

 MEMBER BEACH: That sounds like a 

great idea. 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, I didn't get 

what you just meant, that this is part of the 

evaluation criteria. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: At the end of the 

document are certain evaluation criteria. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: On pages 5 and 6? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that what you 

are talking about? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: There is not 

a listing. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I know. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: That is what 

I call under the evaluation -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: But I'd like to see 

a list of what our mission is, and what our 

mission is and what we are going to evaluate. 

 MR. KATZ: Could I make a 

suggestion for a way to go about this? This 

relates to what Arjun just said. 

 At the back of the document, 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 

 111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have evaluation objectives. They are not 

complete, and I think I sent you guys an email 

about it because they all relate to the 

intake, I mean, of information, versus the 

giving out. There's that side of the house 

that needs to be addressed with evaluation 

objectives, too. 

 But, anyway, that is sort of your 

overarching framework. And all of this stuff, 

sort of these bits and pieces that we just 

were talking about that are within your scope 

are going to come under your evaluation 

objectives in a more detailed way, because you 

have these general objectives for evaluation, 

and then you are going to have to have sort of 

a plan for how you fulfill that objective. 

Then you will need criteria, and so on. 

 So, for example, the recurring 

issues, is that a criterion? Are recurring 

getting addressed or do they just continue to 

sit on the shelf and pile up? So that is just 

an example. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I think, if you start off by 

just sort of framing out, do you have all the 

evaluation objectives you need, that is your 

big framework, and then if you build 

underneath that with your specific processes, 

how are you going to go about satisfying those 

objectives, you will then have a whole plan 

that is complete and you won't have to worry 

about missing anything because everything will 

fit under one of those, if you have a proper, 

complete framework. 

 Then you can more readily go 

forward and task SC&A, here's what we want to 

get done in the next two months or three 

months, and so on. But I think that would be 

the most efficient, even though I know 

everybody wants to talk about what is sort of 

present on their mind as a concern. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So you are 

talking about the evaluation objectives that 

begin on page 5 of this draft that is being 

offered? 
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 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. I would suggest to 

you that there are more evaluation objectives 

to be identified than are here right now, but 

I think that would be the easiest way to do 

this plan, develop this plan. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 I am going to second that because I 

found that there's a lot of preamble material 

here. In other words, we have our mission 

statement. Then there is the section on 

definition of worker outreach. That goes on 

for a bit. Then there's applicable findings 

from previous reviews. 

 But, to me, what we really are 

talking about is you don't need all that. 

What you need is you need to go right to the 

evaluation objective one, because all of the 

things we are talking about, all the things we 

are concerned that we might be missing and not 

doing, the question is, in other words, 

notwithstanding how the information is 

delivered or obtained, that is what it is. 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 

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

guess is it may evolve. 

 For example, all the elements that 

we try to parse out in this writeup from 

reading PR-012 or from the discussion and the 

chart, et cetera, that is all fine, and that 

could change, but, ultimately, notwithstanding 

how information is obtained and how 

information is delivered, it is what it is. 

 The Work Group and the Board 

ultimately is concerned that the information 

that is obtained and delivered is done so in a 

way that is satisfying to all concerned, and 

that information is used in a way that is 

meaningful. 

 So, in my mind, I don't think we 

should be dwelling on all the preamble 

material. I think we should move right on to 

the objectives and say, listen, do these 

objectives capture everything that we think 

the Board and the Work Group should do? 

 By the way, I don't think SC&A's 

name should be anywhere in this thing. 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 

 115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

should be a Board-approved procedure that is 

going to be implemented by a work group or a 

subcommittee, and the degree to which the work 

group or the subcommittee decides to implement 

it and use their contractor is certainly their 

choice, and how it is to be done. 

 So, to me, I think we could make 

most progress by seeing whether or not we have 

missed anything when we go to objectives one, 

two, and three. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Josie, do you 

think that would meet your concern? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Absolutely. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Is it okay 

with that feature? Okay. 

 So the next question is, we have 

two objectives. Do we go eat lunch and come 

back fresh and get our heads around this or do 

we just plow into it? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: I only have one 

comment, just because it is really important 

for me to address Josie's comment, too. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 NIOSH has done a lot of work into 

their procedures and into explaining how they 

are doing their program. They already define 

it really in detail. 

 Trying to rehash it in this 

implementation program is just redoing that. 

I think we should use everything by reference 

to what they have done and proceed with the 

objectives, because the implementation plan 

will be a huge document if we are going to go 

with everything and rehash everything that 

NIOSH already has prepared. I'm just thinking 

this is big. It is a lot of information in 

front of us. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And I am okay 

with that, as long as once we reference a 

procedure or something, we go to that 

procedure and look at the specific point and 

make sure it is addressing what is in this 

document, so it doesn't circle back. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Exactly. Exactly. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, then once 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 

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have identified whether these three evaluation 

objectives that we have are the correct three, 

or if there need to be more, then it would 

seem logical that we would want to address the 

findings that have already been put before us 

and identify how those are going to be closed 

in our efforts to meet these evaluation 

objectives, whatever they turn out to be. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It could also be 

part of our assessment of how this program is 

working. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Well, 

let's try to stay on schedule here and take 

lunch at 12:00. We will be back at 1:00 and 

make some progress. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone on 

the phone, and we will rejoin you at 

approximately 1:00. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

the record at 12:00 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:06 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 

 118

1 

2 
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 

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

 1:06 p.m. 

 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and we 

are coming back after a lunch break. 

 Let me check to see on the phone 

whether we have -- Phil, do we have you with 

us? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Phil, let me just note 

your audio, the quality of your phone, the 

audio is really poor. I don't know if you are 

using a speaker phone or the headset, but if 

you are using a speaker phone, maybe the 

headset would be better. 

 Otherwise, John, do we have you 

back online? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here. 

 MR. KATZ: Great. 

 MEMBER MUNN: His quality is not so 

good, either. 

 MR. KATZ: No, I had the volume 
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 

down. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We are on. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, and I wasn't going 

to run through the list. 

 Mike? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Well, 

before we broke for lunch, we decided that we 

were just going to go right to the evaluation 

objectives. So, with that, we are back to 

SC&A, and we will start at the evaluation 

objective one that is included in the draft. 

We will see if the three objectives cover what 

we want, or should we add or modify? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Okay. First 

of all, these three objectives were loosely 

based on the objectives defined by Mike when 

he established the working group. 

 What we have is objective one. "Is 

OCAS taking appropriate measures to solicit 

worker input into site profiles, SEC 

petitions, evaluations," and that probably 

should say, "and other technical 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 

 121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 No. 2, "Is OCAS obtaining and 

documenting input from workers?" 

 No. 3, "Is OCAS giving thorough 

consideration to information received from 

workers through the worker outreach efforts 

and adequately communicating the impact of the 

substantive nature of the comments?" 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: You mean prior 

consideration in preparation of its technical 

documents or what do we mean there? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, along those lines, 

I have a suggestion here. 

 This is John. 

 No. 3, this is a suggestion. The 

when I read it -- it says, "Is OCAS giving 

thorough consideration to information received 

from workers through the worker outreach 

efforts?" And I suggest incorporating the 

following words: "incorporating that 

information as appropriate into OCAS work 

products," comma, and then continue, "and 

adequately communicating the impact 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 

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

substantive comments to workers." 

 So I think that one little phrase 

is needed because that captures the aspect of 

it to make sure it is making it into the work 

products. 

 MEMBER BEACH: John, can you -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, say it 

again? Just write this phrase down and I'll 

tell you where we are going to put it. Okay? 

 The phrase is: "incorporating that 

information," comma, "as appropriate," comma, 

"into OCAS work products." That's the phrase. 

 That phrase goes right after the word 

"efforts." There is a comma after "efforts" 

and then that phrase goes in. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Or perhaps a 

semicolon after "efforts." 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I just want to 

make sure that phrase makes it in because that 

is covered in the bullets. The bullets do 

take that into consideration, but I thought it 

needed to be identified specifically 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 

 123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

objective. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I think you 

felt like we didn't have the other side of the 

coin, the information-giving covered -- 

do you have any suggestions? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. My general comment 

is that, and actually there's a little bit of 

mix in this last evaluation objective. But, 

in general, these objectives cover well, I 

think, all the intake of information and how 

it is then used, but it doesn't address how 

well the program is informing workers. 

 There is sort of a what, who, and 

how I think that you might evaluate there, 

which is what information, the what meaning 

whether all the information that is 

appropriate to be informing workers, are those 

being provided? So that is sort of the 

content. What are they being informed about? 

 Who, whether the information is 

making it to the individuals that it should be 

making it 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 

 124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And the how, I guess if you wanted 

to look at issues of timeliness and adequacy 

of explanation, and so on. 

 But that is the general idea. I 

haven't framed it in terms of the evaluation 

objectives exactly, but that is the piece that 

I think is missing from these evaluation 

objectives. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Shouldn't that 

perhaps be in the evaluation objective No. 4, 

the communication aspect, rather than the 

gathering of information? 

 MR. KATZ: No, I'm saying it is not 

part of one, two, three, absolutely, I agree. 

 This would be in a separate objective or 

objectives, however you end up framing it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It would seem 

appropriate to have a fourth evaluation 

objective that focused specifically on 

communication of necessary information, 

whether it is relative to only information 

necessary to file claims, but also covering 
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 

feedback of perhaps responses to concerns that 

have been raised, because that has been a 

major topic here earlier this morning. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Kathy, did you get a 

chance to formulate any wording for that? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Not really, 

but Ted's got a good start on that. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Could I suggest 

something, based on what Ted said? 

 MR. KATZ: No, go ahead. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: "What information 

is NIOSH providing to workers regarding dose 

reconstruction, site profiles, SECs, 

evaluation reports, and other technical 

documents, and how effectively is it 

communicating that information to workers?" 

 I think we had a "when" item, too. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That was a lot of 

words. "What information is NIOSH providing 

to workers" -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Regarding, 

basically, it is technical documents, and 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 

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effectively is it communicating that 

information. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, is it only 

technical documents? Is it not the entire 

process? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am repeating what 

I heard. Maybe I didn't hear it well. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Tell me if my 

perception is incorrect. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Wanda, can 

you give an example of something? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, worker outreach 

at its very core, the initial point was 

intended to advise the worker of the program, 

how it operates, and how they could proceed in 

becoming a claimant. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: So like the 

website? Or the dose reconstruction reports? 

 MEMBER MUNN: This was really 

Labor's job, that is the labor organization's 

job, but it was incumbent upon the Board to 

see that the proper direction was given to any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

potential claimant, and worker outreach was at 

the outset concerned with making sure all of 

the people who might be covered by the law 

were, in fact, covered by it and tell them 

where to go to get claims initiated. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Is that the spirit 

of what you're -- 

 MR. KATZ: No, because just to be 

sort of parallel with the other objectives, 

what I'm saying, the general, overarching 

thing would be, if we are going to frame it as 

a question to be sort of parallel, which I 

think it should be, the general question is 

then: is OCAS effectively informing workers 

in relation to its dose reconstruction and 

Special Exposure Cohort activities? 

 That is sort of the most general, 

broad statement, because that is not the DOL 

outreach business. That is not OCAS's 

mission. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: When we talked about 

information-giving, when I categorized it into 
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 

information-gathering and information-giving, 

our thinking is that that information-giving 

should address the NIOSH responsibilities 

under this program. So we feel obligated to 

explain how we do dose reconstruction. We 

have a pamphlet. We have a brochure. We have 

a trifold thing to hand out to people on how 

to file a petition. 

 We have the SEC counselor and 

ombudsman, townhall meetings, which are 

focused totally toward educating folks on the 

petitioning process. That is informationgiving. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right, and clearly 

outreach. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And clearly outreach, 

and clearly not claim recruiting. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: As you say, that's 

DOL's job. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John. 

 There is no doubt that the three 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

objectives here are very well-developed with 

respect to obtaining how does the program 

obtain information from knowledgeable 

individuals out there and make use of that 

information properly, and even communicate 

back to those people who said, yes, we are 

using the information that you gave us. 

 So these three objectives do not 

include the topic that we are discussing right 

now; namely, the initial communicating out to 

the world at large, you know, what's the 

program's about, et cetera, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

 So I agree, maybe we do need a 

fourth objective that goes toward this other 

aspect of the program. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, let me try 

again. Are we making notes? 

 (Laughter.) 

 "What information is NIOSH 

providing to workers regarding various 

responsibilities under EEOICPA" -- 
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 

 DR. MAURO: Excellent. No. 4. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- "dose 

reconstruction, petition process, et cetera?" 

 Question mark. "Is it communicating that 

information to workers effectively and in a 

timely fashion?" 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's too long and too 

much, but it covers the -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I broke it up into 

two questions for your sake. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I know. I know. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's why I 

eliminated the "and." 

 (Laughter.) 

 MR. KATZ: To help you, Arjun, I 

would just say, the question is what you want. 

 Then underneath that you have sort of subissues. I'll agree you have to know what 

information, you have to look at what 

information is being provided, and so on, but 

that is not the evaluation question. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The evaluation 
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 

question is really: is the information being 

provided adequate for -- 

 MR. KATZ: Are they being 

effectively informed -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, are they being 

effectively informed? Right. 

 MR. KATZ: -- in relation to the 

dose reconstruction and SEC activities? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That sounds good. 

 Everyone agree? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Any discussion? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Do we have the words? 

 MEMBER BEACH: He is working on it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: "Is NIOSH 

effectively informing workers regarding its 

various responsibilities under EEOICPA, 

including explaining dose reconstruction, the 

petition process, et cetera?" 

 MEMBER BEACH: And the other one 

became a bullet? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's the end 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 

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that objective. 

 Then I guess -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, but it is not 

informing them of its responsibilities. I 

mean that is why I just made it very broad 

because there's all sorts of informing. It is 

about processes. It is about all sorts of 

things. It is about opportunities that they 

have, whether it is as a petitioner or as a 

claimant. So there's a whole range of 

information. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Adequately informing 

them about all aspects of the program, really. 

 MR. KATZ: Adequately informing 

them in relation to dose reconstruction and 

SEC activities. I think that is as broad as 

you can put it. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John again. 

 So it sounds like there's agreement 

in concept on what the fourth objective is. 

Maybe what we really need is some bullets that 

-- okay, how do you do that, just like we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on the first three. There are bullets that 

explore it a little further. 

 Now, once we get a basic concept 

out, which I think we've got with Arjun's 

words, the question is, do we need some 

bullets underneath there? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, Arjun, got any 

bullets? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I'll give you 

one. Can I give you one? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, sure. 

Absolutely. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, we have 

developed -- I have told you about a number of 

things that have been developed to communicate 

in this regard, getting information out. That 

should be, in my opinion, one of the bullets. 

 You want to look at those things. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Review 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 

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

developed -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: A review of all of 

those developed communication vehicles. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Documents, and are 

there other communication vehicles? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. There's -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Pamphlets. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- pamphlets. 

There's workshops. There's the website. 

There's -- 

 MR. KATZ: Those are the things you 

want to look at, but, I mean, you want, I 

think, to answer questions like how well are 

claimants receiving dose reconstruction, being 

informed about the dose reconstruction 

process, and their opportunities thereunder. 

That is sort of a question that you would look 

at. Then there's all sorts of things you go 

to look at, documents, et cetera, and ways, 

means of communication that you will look at 

when you evaluate that. 

 The same with the petitioners, 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 

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

well are the petitioners being supported to 

submit and pursue their petitions? Then 

there's a whole variety of support means that 

are in place that you would look at, including 

the counselors, both Denise, the ombudsman, 

and in-house, Laurie Breyer's work, and so on. 

 But those are all details. Those 

are all activities that you would look at to 

examine how well that work is getting done. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So we define them 

in the bullets? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. One, in general, 

would focus on dose reconstructions, but I 

mean I think you want them to be well-informed 

about their rights in the process and their 

opportunities, whatever, to provide 

information, and their understanding of -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Now what 

about the process itself? Because a lot of 

them, you know, are going to go out and talk 

to people, are still having trouble 

understanding the process 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 

 136

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 a question 

though. Because I think OCAS's aim is for 

every claimant that gets a dose reconstruction 

to have some general understanding of what 

services have been provided there, right? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Successful if 

understanding. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, and that's the 

aim. It's challenging. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Some are going to 

understand better than others. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And we need 

to make sure that they understand the 

difference between the regular dose 

reconstruction process and the SEC process 

because they often get them interchanged. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: They could go 

even further down to where we've heard 

complaints, misunderstandings of people where 

they have a dose reconstruction and it's PoC 

of 45. They redo the dose reconstruction and 

do a best estimate, and still 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 

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Overestimate. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: -- upper estimate 

comes out lower. Like, if I give you more 

information -- 

 MR. KATZ: That's another just sort 

of example of the sort of things you would be 

looking at in how well are they being 

informed. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So now I 

have three bullets. 

 Now the overall question, as I have 

it, is: "Is NIOSH effectively informing 

workers about dose reconstruction, the 

petition process, and other aspects of 

radiation?" 

 Then the bullets are: 

 "Examine the communication vehicles 

that NIOSH has developed." 

 "Communicate with claimants, 

including pamphlets, claimant meetings, the 

website, media announcements, et cetera." 

 "Evaluate whether NIOSH'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 

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

communications result in an understanding 

among claimants of their rights in the 

process, and determine if claimants understand 

the dose reconstruction process as a result, 

and the differences between dose 

reconstruction and the SEC process." 

 That's what I had so far. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And I have 

one more, I think. 

 Within their understanding of the 

process, they need to know how their input in 

their CATI interview is being used in their 

dose reconstruction. 

 MR. KATZ: Again, that's another -- 

when you are looking at how well they are 

being informed, you know, that is an issue 

that can come up to be certain. But I mean 

that is just a detail, like these other things 

are details. 

 But you will come up with a plan 

for what you consider to be a well-informed, 

say, claimant for a dose reconstruction. 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 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will come up with a plan for how do you 

evaluate whether the things are being done 

that are needed to produce a well-informed 

claimant for a dose reconstruction, and then 

you will look at the processes and see, well, 

are they doing all these things? 

 The same would go for the SEC 

petition process. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is another one 

of those things that we looked at fairly 

extensively when we were looking at the CATI 

process and procedures. Of course, there is 

no reason why this group can't go through that 

all over again, but we looked very closely at 

the preliminary information that was given to 

the claimant, and we had numerous discussions 

about the flexibility of the interviewer to 

ask additional questions and to fill in 

additional information. 

 So that the claimant, by the time 

they finished the CATI, really should have had 

a full understanding that their 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 

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be used to the extent that it could be, 

and that they were not taking a test of some 

sort that was a pass or fail. Their 

information would all be used as it was 

applicable to the claim. That was the major 

concern in the Procedures Group when we were 

looking at it. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Can I ask a 

more generic question here? Now, Ted, you 

keep referring to a plan, and I thought we 

were working on an implementation plan. What 

are we working on? 

 MR. KATZ: I think you are, but 

right now you are trying to frame out the plan 

in a general sense. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I am just saying that 

some of these issues you are raising are 

details that you would look at under that 

plan, but they are not the plan itself. It is 

not the general framework. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 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 

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I just had an idea. See, a lot of 

very specific examples are given that are the 

result of many years of experience on where 

the claimants, petitioners, et cetera, 

sometimes misunderstand. We only know that 

through the school of hard knocks, you know, 

going through it. 

 Couldn't we have a bullet that says 

something to the effect that, in providing the 

information -- I am going to give you a 

concept now. Of course, we have to get the 

words right, but that we take into 

consideration, based on past experience, areas 

where the petitioners, claimants, et cetera, 

may have misunderstood the process. 

 In other words, we don't actually 

identify the specific things, such as the 

example you gave before about the bounding 45 

percent and then the doses come down. But 

there are a whole litany of things like that 

that have caused some concern by claimants. I 

don't think we should identify them here, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we should say something to the effect that 

some effort is made to help inform the 

petitioners, et cetera, of areas that we know 

from past experience sometimes cause some 

confusion. 

 That would be like an overarching 

bullet that would capture the sensibility. 

Then, when we later on, for example, if we are 

all going to do any kind of review function or 

the Work Group is going to do a review 

function, we will then at that point say, yes, 

it looks like every effort was made to cover 

all these important issues, but someone else 

may say, "But, wait a minute, there are a 

couple of things that we saw before maybe in 

the future you want to address." 

 So we could pick it up at the back 

end, but at least we have a placeholder that I 

guess informs the process that an effort will 

be made to try to anticipate or provide them 

with information that we know could be 

confusing, without identifying what those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

things are. 

 MR. KATZ: To me, that makes a lot 

of sense, John. I mean that is just like that 

is a generic issue, as would be ensuring that 

workers are aware of their rights in the 

process, appeals, et cetera, their rights for 

the dose reconstruction process or their 

rights for the SEC petition process, and their 

opportunities for participation in the SEC 

process. 

 Right, those are all sort of 

general areas that I think you can frame 

generally in this plan, and then you go forth 

and see how everyone is doing. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, rather than try to 

actually articulate them explicitly here; I 

don't think that will work. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You might think of it 

as a checklist under each objective, and 

perhaps even agree that the checklist can be 

expanded at 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 

 144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Perfect. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Because you might 

come into a situation that you hadn't thought 

of, but it should have been on the list 

anyway. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, we are kind 

of specific in the other objectives, and they 

are overarching in one way, but they do spell 

out certain things. So we have to at least be 

consistent, however you want to word it. 

 The third objective, the secondfrom-the-last bullet, we call out work groups 

that result with the workers providing the 

comments, and how substantive comments were 

related to SEC evaluation reports or other 

technical documents. So it is framed 

generally, broadly, but it is defined. It 

should be consistent. 

 MR. KATZ: It is very hard to do 

this, just in my opinion, it is very hard to 

do this in committee. But I guess one value 

of all being together is to think about things 
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 

that you want to see that they get addressed 

as the framework is fleshed out. Then maybe 

people can contribute by email, because it is 

very hard to write sort of this kind of 

procedural document live. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: But maybe people raise 

issues that they think will need to be 

captured, and then actually writing the 

framework to cover all that could get done -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So we agree with 

objective four, the first sentence. Then we 

can just work on the bullets individually. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, and discuss them. I 

mean you can discuss them here as to, well, 

here's something I want to make certain 

somehow that gets evaluated. You know, other 

ideas people have for that, I think lay it out 

now, because then it will help everybody in 

thinking about the framework, to make certain 

that it covers all that. 

 So any thoughts anyone 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 

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That and/or any 

other objectives we want to list today. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: To remind, I have 

these three bullets that I wrote down, maybe 

just for people to elaborate on. 

 So one is examining the 

communication vehicles, like the pamphlets and 

PowerPoints and letter notifications and the 

website, and so on. I have that list from the 

NIOSH. 

 Then evaluate whether NIOSH's 

communication is resulting in an understanding 

by claimants of their rights in the process, 

rights to file a petition, how it might be 

done, et cetera. 

 And determine if claimants 

understand the dose reconstruction process, 

its results, and the differences between dose 

reconstruction and the SEC process. 

 Then we might add a bullet, and 

that's what I wrote down of the discussion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that was going on. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and I wonder 

if we might go through each of the objective 

bullets and either add to those or -- some of 

them are pretty long. I wonder if we could 

separate them out into more than just that one 

big paragraph bullet. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I was going 

to add maybe one thing, and maybe this is 

under one of the three. But we need to 

evaluate the existing procedure as it relates 

to information-giving meetings. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think it is 

covered under one of these. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean that is a 

process for doing that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Didn't we say under 

No. 2, 3 -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, that is what 

I'm saying. Let's just go through bullet by 

bullet and make sure we are happy with the 

wording, if that is okay with you, Mike? 
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 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Unless you have a 

better idea? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes, I guess 

I was meaning not just from the informationgathering, but information-giving side also. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Let's go 

to objective one. 

 "Is OCAS taking appropriate 

measures to solicit worker input into site 

profiles and SEC petition evaluation?" Then I 

think Arjun or someone suggested adding, "and 

other documents." 

 MEMBER BEACH: "Other technical 

documents." 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: "Other technical 

documents." 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think that is what 

Kathy said. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, "and other 

technical documents." 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Then let'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 

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

go to the first bullet and see if we want to 

modify that or add to it. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I just thought it 

would be nice if we could shorten these from 

paragraphs to maybe bullets, unless they need 

to stay together. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That probably 

kind of goes to what Ted had said earlier 

about just defining things and breaking them 

down deeper in the document. Is that what you 

meant, Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean this is a 

general idea, and then I would, under it, sort 

of lay out some specifics as to how that is 

going to get achieved. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: You could 

get rid of the second sentence if you wanted 

to stay more generic. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I think we don't 

necessarily want to be generic here. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, one thing we 

could put at the top of this whole list 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 

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

objectives is a checklist will be prepared for 

examination of each objective specified in a 

bullet point. So when we go away from here, 

maybe one of the things that SC&A could do for 

you is to take each of these bullet points and 

prepare this checklist that I think Ted or 

somebody was talking about a checklist. I 

think it was Ted who mentioned the checklist. 

 But like the procedures checklist, 

you actually have a checklist that will be the 

specific criteria for evaluation and how we 

will go about this under each of these 

objectives. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Let me ask this 

to OCAS and SC&A. When you all do your own 

evaluations or assessments of something on 

yourself internally, one of your groups, do 

you have an in-house resident expert that 

develops that process, the evaluation, and how 

to implement it? Could we see an example of, 

if there's no personal data, could we see an 

example of how that operates? We have 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 

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

same question to SC&A, John. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: There is 

technically the last review. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I just wondered, 

if we got that type of input for the Work 

Group, if that would help us determine how we 

want to put ours together. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I would be happy to 

share examples of assessments. In fact, some 

of them the Board has seen in the past. 

 An assessment in our shop is 

tailored to what we are trying to evaluate, 

and it is driven by different people. J.J. 

actually works on that team, on Grady 

Calhoun's team. He gets tapped every once in 

a while to do an assessment. So they have to 

write up an assessment plan. They have to 

follow the plan and provide a report at the 

end. There's usually corrective actions 

recommended. 

 So I think you are doing what you 

need to do here. I don't know that our 
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 

providing examples would step you along any 

faster or farther, Mike, but I can do that, 

absolutely. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Not an example, 

but just what you talked about. You have a 

team, and do they have a generic background 

criteria of how to write up a plan, how to 

write up an assessment, or is it tailored just 

to each -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know. Do you 

want to speak to this, J.J.? 

 I mean there is a format. There is 

a document format that is used both for the 

plan and the report. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Is there 

educational knowledge that people have that 

would help us put this together? 

 MR. JOHNSON: I can go back and 

look at our procedures. If we have something 

out there that is worth putting out, I will do 

that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we can do 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 

 153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

too. But, to answer your question, I mean 

J.J. has had training -- he even carries a 

certificate -- in doing this kind of 

assessment work. So, yes, there are those 

kind of people. 

 Does that answer you? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, that's good. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, are 

you talking about, for example, what we look 

at when we look at a site profile, and the 

process of reviewing, and the elements? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: No. I am looking 

at something Larry just answered. J.J. is 

certified as the assessment person, if you 

will. I just wondered -- 

 MR. JOHNSON: Certified Quality 

Auditor. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Certified Quality 

Auditor. 

 MEMBER MUNN: He is the QA guy, 

makes sure it's right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, quality 
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 

assurance is what we are talking about. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is what it is. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You do an assessment 

to assure that you are performing against your 

requirements that you established, whatever 

those may be, quality or production or -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Does the 

Work Group believe that we may need to try to 

tap some kind of resource to help us -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, maybe, but I 

think what we need to do right now is look at 

the objectives that we have right now today. 

For an instance, for the first objective one, 

we are saying, "Is OCAS taking appropriate 

measures to solicit worker input into site 

profiles, SEC petition evaluation, and other 

technical documents?" 

 Then we look at bullet No. 1. 

Let's just say what I would do is I would get 

rid of "discuss" and I would start the 

sentence with, "Examine the procedures by 

which OCAS solicits worker involvement," 
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 

period, and then go from there. "Do we need 

to make any recommendations for improvement?" 

 That would be sentence No. 2. 

 But let me just break these apart 

and spell out what we want that evaluation to 

be. If we need to add something, add another 

bullet or add another sentence, but let's 

start with what we have, and then decide if we 

need something more. 

 MR. KATZ: All right. So just to 

add onto what Josie just said, so we are 

starting with the first bit, "Examine the 

procedures by which OCAS solicits..." So then 

you need a plan for what documents do you need 

from OCAS that may document some of this. 

Then, also, you will need a plan for -- 

because I will bet not all of it is 

documented. In a sense, I think some of it is 

in people's heads who run these operations. 

Then you will need sort of a plan for who do 

we interview to get this information for how 

it is solicited. 
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 

 MEMBER BEACH: Maybe if we get the 

sentences -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: -- the plan could 

come together. We may not have everything we 

need today to do that, but at least get the 

basics under each one of those. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes. I mean then 

you have a plan, and then you can figure out 

who is going to do the work -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: -- to fulfill the plan, 

yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Let's just try to 

walk down through these sentences then and do 

that, and keep in mind that we have about 20 

minutes before it is time for public comment. 

 Since that is on the agenda, I want to -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, absolutely. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. So, Josie, 

go ahead. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, the very 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 

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one, and I just got rid of "discuss" and I 

started with, "Examine the procedures by which 

OCAS solicits worker involvement." Then we 

can come back later and type in whatever the 

checklist that SC&A was talking about. They 

can put in all the procedures that we need. 

 Then do we need to make any 

recommendations for improvements as necessary? 

 Is that relevant? We already know that is 

what we are about, right? So we can probably 

get rid of that? 

 MEMBER MUNN: It seems extraneous, 

yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Because that is what 

we are here for. 

 Then the next sentence, "This would 

include how OCAS determines whether an 

outreach meeting is to be conducted for a 

facility and how OCAS advertises this 

ability." I think that needs to be broken up 

into two sentences, personally. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

probably a whole set of questions you want to 

ask. How does OCAS determine -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: How does OCAS 

determine -- yes. So, if anybody is better at 

sentences than I am -- so, "How does OCAS 

determine whether an outreach meeting is to be 

conducted for a facility?" Period. Then, "How 

does OCAS advertise," and I don't know if I 

would say, "the opportunities for input." We 

might want to reword that. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: "How does 

OCAS inform?," you know, "inform workers of 

the worker outreach opportunities." 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, that sounds 

good. 

 Is somebody capturing all these? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: This could actually 

be maybe sub-bullets under that, your short 

sentence there, "Examine the procedures..." 

There are things you want to do in the 

examination or things you want answered by the 

examination. 
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 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: And these are just two 

questions that I had. Whether we have more 

questions about that, it's open. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: These were just obvious 

ones to me. 

 MEMBER MUNN: What were your 

obvious ones? 

 MR. KATZ: What we just specified. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, all right. 

 MR. KATZ: Because this was one of 

the bullets I wrote. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know if we 

want them as sub-bullets to the bullet or 

actual bullets. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Actually, if it is 

the same purpose, it could be sub-bullets. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Let's exactly go back 

to what Ted was saying earlier. Instead of 

going to many points, just go to one point 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 

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

later on you can even expand on these subbullets later. 

 MR. KATZ: Because the next bullet, 

as it stands right now, is another process. 

See, this is one process. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: Looking at what is the 

documentation for how they do their work, and 

again, interviewing people, whatever else you 

have to do to flesh that out. 

 But then the second was, well, once 

you know how they do their work and what their 

sort of game plan is, looking at some examples 

to see how that was actually implemented, in 

effect, just to summarize what I have there. 

 So then you will need a game plan 

for selecting some actual case examples that 

you want to delve into to see how it works. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Okay. So, 

for bullet No. 2, you could say, "Examine 

several examples to focus solicitations and 

followup associated with particular 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 

 161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

products." Period. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Period, yes, because 

what we decide to do with it may change from 

this. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I don't 

know. We haven't gotten there yet. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We know we are going 

to do what's here. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And then, 

"Determine whether procedures were followed" 

-- "and effective" would be a separate bullet. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: But that is the 

common sense of the examination, to determine 

if they are acceptable or not. So you don't 

need to say anything -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Instructionally, just 

examine the examples of -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- solicitations -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Examine -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- "and followup 

associated with several particular 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 

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

products." So take out "particular." 

 MEMBER BEACH: So, Kathy, would you 

repeat that? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: "Examine 

several examples of OCAS solicitations and 

followup associated with several particular 

work products." 

 MEMBER MUNN: Did you say, 

"implementation" in there? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: No. 

 MEMBER MUNN: "Examine several 

examples of OCAS implementation" -- 

 MR. KATZ: No, "solicitations." 

 MEMBER MUNN: So we took out 

"implementation" entirely? 

 MR. KATZ: It was never in there. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I know, I put it in 

there. 

 (Laughter.) 

 Because I thought that's what we 

were talking about. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Arjun has got some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

words in here. Would you read that? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. In the spirit 

of how we did the first one, the second one 

would be, as Kathy said, "Examine several 

examples of OCAS solicitation and followup 

associated with several particular work 

products." 

 Then under it there would be three 

questions: 

 "Were the procedures followed and 

effective in practice?" 

 "Did OCAS make an appropriately 

extensive effort to obtain adequately broad 

and substantial participation from workers?" 

 And "Are there additional or 

improved methods for OCAS to consider?" 

 We're just splitting it up like we 

did before. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that looks 

good. 

 Because, Kathy, I wasn't quite sure 

what you meant by "particular work products." 
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 

 I guess if that is going to be in there, it 

needs to be -- 

 MR. KATZ: That's my wording, 

"particular work products," but I meant you 

are actually going to be looking at some 

specific case examples. As opposed to the 

front end where you are just learning how they 

do their business, now you are going to say, 

okay, well, let's see how it worked for Site 

Profile X, TBD-X, or for SEC petition Y, 

whatever. But I mean you are going to want to 

look at how it worked in actuality. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: For that, obviously, you 

can't do it across the waterfront. You are 

going to have to choose a few examples. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Some specific 

examples. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: All right. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Is there 

anything else under objective 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 

 165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: Is there anything we 

could add for site profiles? Because we talk 

about soliciting worker input into site 

profiles. Has anything captured that? 

 I think the spirit of that is, what 

happens once a worker gives their input? 

 MR. KATZ: That goes to the next 

objective? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Does it go to the 

next one? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean this is 

really just saying how the net is thrown out 

there in the first place versus what is hauled 

in. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I just want 

to make sure the net is capturing 

everything -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: -- under that 

objective, since it is listed under objective 

one in the very first sentence. 

 MR. KATZ: Objective one is 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 

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

OCAS is soliciting it. Objective two is, is 

OCAS obtaining and documenting the input from 

the workers? Then three is, how is it being 

put to use? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Got it. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That would be 

several examples. There would be a site 

profile. That would be it, I presume. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, I got it. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. Impact, site 

profile was changed based upon worker input. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It says that right up 

in the revision of the document. They could 

ask, "How many site profiles have been changed 

because of worker input? Let's see them." 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, and you could look 

at a site profile where there might have been 

a lot of input and no changes, and look at 

what happened there and why. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: So do we need 

anything else under one? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Not for the first 

draft, I think. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Evaluation, 

objective No. 2. "Is OCAS obtaining and 

documenting input from workers?" How do we 

want to change and modify this? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Probably bullet two, 

we can stop after "ORAU." We know what we are 

going to do. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Actually, I 

think that would be ATL now, right? Under 

bullet two? Or NIOSH and its contractors? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Yes. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Although the 

fourth bullet, "Evaluate the conduct of worker 

outreach" -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Arjun is working on 

breaking that up a little bit. 

 MR. LEWIS: Can I ask, in what ways 
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 

you evaluate? I mean like the demeanor of the 

people, the procedure? What ways are you 

talking about evaluating? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Like if you 

say that you are going to inform the people 

that the audio tapes are just for your purpose 

of developing the minutes, did you do that? 

 MR. LEWIS: So you are talking 

about procedures evaluation? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, this fourth 

bullet isn't transparent to me. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So which part of it? 

 Which part of it? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am lost in this. 

 "Will include participation in select worker 

outreach and solicitation." I am confused as 

to what we are trying to do there. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: We are 

trying to evaluate the meeting itself. We are 

at the meeting and we are trying to evaluate 

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 

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: What aspect of it? 

Whether it is conducted properly? Whether it 

is getting the information out? Whether there 

is adequate participation? Whether it is 

adequately interactive? Whether it is long 

enough? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Well, first 

of all, whether they are following their 

procedures. There are certain elements that 

are outlined when they conduct a meeting that 

they have to do. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So, "Evaluate 

outreach meetings in light of established 

procedure." or "to assure conformance to 

procedure?" 

 MR. LEWIS: It seems to me the main 

thing for having an outreach meeting is to get 

the information. It is not whether or not we 

are following things by the "T" -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

 MR. LEWIS: -- or our own 

procedures. The bottom line, to me, is, 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 

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

effectively get the information to and from 

the people? Everything else is fine and dandy 

that we are talking about here, but when I'm 

sitting here and I'm doing a meeting, I don't 

want to have to worry about somebody 

critiquing me while I'm doing my meeting with 

these people. That's a conflict of interest 

to me. So I hope you appreciate my position 

on this. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely. 

 MR. LEWIS: I mean I am speaking 

right off my heart of hearts, but I don't want 

to sit there and do a meeting and wonder what 

someone sitting in there from you guys is 

saying, whether you're rating me on my 

procedure or are you listening to what these 

people are saying. 

 So I think we need to have a clear 

understanding here with that, if you don't 

mind. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Let me give 

you an example where this would play 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 

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

part of this is they do a worker outreach 

meeting, and they prepare minutes. The 

minutes are sent back to some of the 

participants, all of the participants, however 

it is done. 

 We would be interested in knowing 

that that happened. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So that has to be 

clear in the way we are saying this then. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: But we can check that 

by the tracking system. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right, and the 

website, it's there. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And who is 

responsible? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, I must say 

that I am confused about these bullets 

because, as Larry said, we have this -- what 

happens after the meeting is over is what the 

Outreach Tracking System reflects, the 

meeting, what happened to the minutes. You 

know, did the minutes reflect what happened 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 

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the meeting? Did the workers respond? 

 There's a set of things that 

happened after the meeting. But my question 

was about this fourth bullet, which is about 

what happens during the meeting. 

 I am confused. At least that is 

what I was trying to think. I'm just trying 

to listen and think, and I don't know which 

one I'm thinking about. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Think of the 

objectives as preparation to the meeting, the 

meeting, and after the meeting. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So how the 

meeting was prepared? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: How they 

prepared. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 1. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: And I am 

talking about the three objectives. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. So we did 

the No. 1, preparation. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Preparation. 
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 

 Now we're in the meeting. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So objective two 

covers in the meeting? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: During the 

meeting and the activities that take place up 

to the point where it is put into the OTS 

system. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So the only bullet 

we are talking about -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: So action 

items are followed through on. 

 Then the last would be, okay, now 

that you have conducted these action items, 

have they been adequately reflected in the 

work documents? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So the fourth 

bullet is what we are trying to -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: No, I'm 

talking the objectives here. 

 MR. KATZ: She has gone back to the 

objectives. 
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 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: Let me see if I can help 

with this evaluation, objective two. Because 

I have sort of a bit of, I think, Arjun's 

confusion about the fourth bullet under 

objective two because the second bullet is, 

"Review a sample of interviews and meetings 

where above procedures were implemented by 

NIOSH or NIOSH's contractors to determine 

whether procedures were followed and 

effective." 

 Under that bullet two, for example, 

you would consider both what information is 

obtained and how well it is documented. So, 

for example, I mean one of the things I know 

that gets done in the interviews, and probably 

gets done with these meetings, too, is the 

information is fed back to the participants, 

so they have an opportunity to say, "That's 

what I meant" or "That's not what I meant." 

So that is sort of part of the quality -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: That's covered 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 

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the fifth bullet. 

 MR. KATZ: No, I know. What I am 

saying is there are more bullets here than 

there probably needs to be because some of 

this comes under -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I see. 

 MR. KATZ: -- the three first 

bullets, I think. 

 If you are evaluating how well the 

meeting is obtaining and documenting 

information, you would be looking at something 

like that. Did they confirm that what they 

thought they heard they actually heard from 

the participants, and that's what the 

participants meant? That is just an example. 

 If, during a meeting, the meeting 

facilitator did some things that sort of 

quashed participation, that would be an issue, 

right? You would be concerned if somehow it 

wasn't really facilitated, but in a sense it 

sort of closed people down. That would be, 

again, how well are we obtaining 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 

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 That's just examples, but I think 

those come under looking at a sample of 

meetings and interviews, how it went. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I don't mean 

to say that looking at the meetings is just 

about looking at whether you are following the 

procedures. It is also about, "X" kind of 

meeting, does it do what it intended to do? 

 So, if you want to gather 

information, are you gathering information 

effectively as a part of that meeting? If you 

are giving information, are you giving 

information that you are supposed to be giving 

to that type of meeting? 

 So it is more than just the 

procedures. 

 MR. LEWIS: I guess the word 

"conduct" is one -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: We can take 

"conduct" out of that. That's just a word. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: I am going to give 

you an example. I had a meeting 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 

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this is when I was doing NEPA. Part of the 

evaluation, self-evaluation of the 

contractors, we evaluated ourselves. Some of 

the issues that came in one of the meetings, 

that I wish we had posters there, we would 

understand the subject better. So, a week 

later, when we put this second meeting, we 

already prepared posters. 

 The issue here is we were going to 

be sitting, the Board, the contractor will be 

sitting among the members, and they will 

understand the issues that would improve and 

come back to you and say, "This issue could 

make it better." 

 I have gone through that when I was 

doing NEPA work before, when I did the scoping 

meetings. We self-evaluate to ensure that the 

next meeting will be better, the next meeting 

will be better, and that is the whole purpose. 

 I think this is what I read inbetween the lines of the purpose of it. It is 

not sitting trying to evaluate you or evaluate 
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 

the presentations. It is the issue of how it 

becomes better. 

 MR. LEWIS: I needed to hear that 

comment. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Right. 

 MR. LEWIS: I needed to hear this 

discussion. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Right. I think it 

should be improved to make it in a more 

positive tone because we are not here -- I 

don't believe that we are here just trying to 

catch something. It's not the issue. 

 The issue, I know it and I went 

through it before, and it becomes a better way 

of exchanging information. If somebody raises 

an issue -- and a lot of the public are 

nitpickers. Sometimes they need other things. 

 They need more information. 

 If the more information can help 

portray the program, then do it. It doesn't 

matter. And that is our job, is to make this 

evaluation. I think this is what I read 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 

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

between these lines. I think this is the 

purpose of it, if we can reflect it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Mary was trying to 

say something. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: I would like to point 

out that the procedure -- every meeting is not 

A, B, C, D, E, F, G. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Correct, correct. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: They're all very 

different, depending on how our stakeholders 

are reacting at meetings to what they're 

hearing. Sometimes they go into a totally 

different thing than what we expected them to, 

and it's beneficial. Every single time they 

interact and give us good information, it is 

beneficial. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Good. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: So we can't predict 

that they are all going to be the same, and 

they have not been. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Sure. I am not 

saying that I am expecting all of them 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 

 180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the same, but there are certain methodologies 

of communications -- 

 MS. ELLIOTT: Correct. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: -- which there are 

experts doing this communication. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: Correct. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: They can add to the 

value of the exchange, and that is all this 

is. 

 MEMBER MUNN: But the bottom-line 

question here or bullet here should be for us 

to evaluate whether the objective of the 

meeting was being achieved. That is really 

what we want to know. 

 I have seen Mark at work many 

times, and he has a real talent at getting to 

the nub of what the people in the audience 

want to hear. He gets them to tell him what 

they want to hear. 

 Whether that follows any process or 

not is secondary to the question: is the 

objective of this meeting being met, which 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 

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my mind is the question for No. 4. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it is 

important for us to talk about where the line 

is. I think what I hear from Mark's concern 

is that he doesn't want to be facilitating or 

running one of these meetings and be worried 

about whether or not he is making a misstep in 

the evaluator's eyes. 

 So are there meetings that we 

should really focus and target to, to make 

sure that you have the ability to observe, 

versus others that you would agree to exclude 

yourself from because we think it is just too 

difficult to conduct a meeting? I would like 

to go there and have that kind of a discussion 

at some point. 

 I would also like to make sure that 

-- because my people find it hard enough to do 

their job. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And on that note, we 

are not going to try to critique your people. 

 It is the process that we are wanting to look 
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 

at. This is a work-in-progress. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: This is draft number 

one. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. 

 MEMBER BEACH: We are still trying 

to figure out what we are doing. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And I think you have 

ample opportunity to make decisions about when 

and where you choose to intervene at that 

level. Okay? 

 What I am saying there, I believe 

that once you find you have access to this 

Outreach Tracking System, you are going to 

find it very helpful in doing your reviews 

because, as Mary passed across to me just a 

moment ago, you would be able to go into that 

system today if you had access -- I'm sorry 

you don't -- but you could go in there today 

and see what's going on with the meeting 

tomorrow in Kansas City. I don't know whether 

any of you are going to go or not, but there'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 

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a presentation already approved and loaded up. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: It is not in the 

system yet. I just got it this morning. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, well, I approved 

it earlier in the week. So it is not in the 

system yet, but it is going into the system. 

So you can see what kind of communication 

vehicles are being prepared. You would see in 

the tracking system what the purpose of the 

meeting, who the attendees are, what's the 

function, what's the desired outcome. So it 

is going to help you, I think. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Realize this Work 

Group is two years in the making. So a lot of 

the things that we have problems with have 

probably been fixed, and we are going to find 

that out through this process. 

 Are you ready, Arjun, for the 

bullets? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It is time now to 

shift to public comments. Then, if time 

allows, we will get back to evaluation three. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Or if not, we will decide what our homework 

assignments are for the next meeting. 

 So, at this time, if there is 

anyone on the line, any workers, claimants, 

workers' advocates or representatives, please 

identify yourselves and make your comments. 

 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie 

from ANWAG. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Hi, Terrie. 

 MS. BARRIE: How is everyone? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Good. Go ahead. 

 MS. BARRIE: Yes, I just have a few 

comments. 

 First of all, Mike, I really, 

really appreciate that this working group 

allows the public to make a few statements. I 

still wish that the other working groups would 

adopt this plan. 

 One question, or not one question. 

 When I received the agenda yesterday, it 

mentioned action items, and I couldn't find my 

notes on what they were. So I decided 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 

 185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to NIOSH's website and look up the transcript. 

 The transcripts were not there. So I had no 

idea, and another advocate came to me with the 

same problem of what the action items were. 

 That would have been really helpful 

to follow along with these meeting, if the 

transcripts were posted there when they should 

have been. 

 MR. KATZ: Terrie, can I just 

interject right here with this? The 

transcripts take time to be produced, and they 

take a minimum of 30 days just for them to get 

a draft to us. Then they have to be reviewed 

and then quality issues have to be addressed. 

 Now the Board is discussing, and I think is 

on the path of, having actually a work group 

chair review the transcript before it goes up, 

too. So there is just necessary time that 

goes into that. 

 We get these transcripts up as soon 

as we can, but there's nothing that can be 

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 

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't have it. It 

is not that it is in OCAS's hand and we 

haven't loaded it up. 

 MR. KATZ: No, it's not. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We don't have it. 

 MS. BARRIE: Okay. I thought there 

was an agreement for the working groups to 

have their transcripts up in 45 days. Am I 

wrong about that? 

 MR. KATZ: There is an agreement -- 

no, the 45 days actually applies to the Board, 

full Board meetings. The work groups come 

secondary to the full Board meetings, and we 

would love to get them all up in 45 days, but 

it simply can't be done. 

 This Work Group met in June, late 

in June, I think. 

 MS. BARRIE: Right. It looks like 

June 16th, I think. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MS. BARRIE: So it is right around 

two months, and that is why I thought, 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 

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, I think the Idaho one was published. 

 So maybe my suggestion would be 

that, if they are not published, maybe the 

Board members can have a little bit more 

detailed agenda, so the advocates can follow 

along. 

 And the other part that is a 

concern is, and Larry mentioned this earlier 

today, about when I raise issues, that they 

are taken seriously, which I do believe. But 

I don't get any feedback. Like, for instance, 

the Rocky Flats SEM for Building 460 is a 

serious concern to me because it says that 

there was radioactive materials in that 

building, and supposedly it was a cold 

building. 

 I understand that DOL had sent 

NIOSH the documents for them to review. I am 

wondering how long that process is going to 

take. Is there going to be a white paper 

released? Will I need to FOIA that white 

paper? How will I know if a white paper 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 

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

available? 

 So I think a little bit more 

transparency, openness, just communication 

would be a great help to the advocates. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I have no idea what 

you're referring to at the last there, Terrie. 

 I am not aware of DOL sharing any information 

with us for review at this point on a 

building. 

 MS. BARRIE: Okay. Well, I will 

send it to you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I appreciate 

that. 

 MS. BARRIE: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay, thanks, 

Terrie. 

 Anyone else on the line? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. This is 

Antoinette Bonsignore for the Linde Ceramics 

facility and ANWAG. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Glad to 

have you. Go ahead. 
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 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, there are 

three issues I would like to address. 

 The first being that, on July 16th, 

ANWAG had a teleconference with the Department 

of Labor, Rachel Leiton in particular, as well 

as other members of her staff, to address some 

issues that the advocates are concerned with 

with regard to the program. 

 It became quite clear to all of the 

advocates who participated in the call that 

input is needed from NIOSH and the Advisory 

Board in any future teleconferences that the 

advocates schedule with Ms. Leiton. I had 

addressed this issue with Lew Wade and with 

Dr. Melius about a month ago. 

 Our next teleconference is going to 

be on August 25th with Ms. Leiton and her 

staff. I think it is incumbent upon NIOSH and 

the Advisory Board or representatives from 

NIOSH and the Board to participate in this 

teleconference. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: 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 

 190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

very much. I will see if one or more of the 

Work Group members can't try to participate, 

and I will send an email to Paul Ziemer and 

let him send it out to the rest of the 

Advisory Board. 

 MR. KATZ: Mike? 

 Do you want a member of the Linde 

Work Group meeting to participate in this 

phone call? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I would like any 

member of the Advisory Board to participate, 

and also any member, any staff member, from 

NIOSH to participate as well. 

 The teleconference is not Lindespecific. It is advocates from all of the 

facilities are participating in it. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I am sorry. 

Antoinette, this is Larry Elliott. 

 So this is a conference call that 

ANWAG has established with Rachel Leiton? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: 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 

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And you're proposing, 

you're suggesting, you're strongly 

encouraging, I think, that NIOSH and/or a 

Board presence be there, included? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Absolutely. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. I will talk to 

Rachel about this, as far as our 

participation. The Board, Ted and the Board 

can decide how they participate, but I will 

talk to Rachel about our participation, 

because we certainly want to be a participant 

in those kinds of discussions where our work 

is talked about. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. Well, just 

to elaborate on that point, many of the issues 

that we were addressing with Ms. Leiton, she 

was unable to discuss with us because, as she 

put it, "That is a NIOSH issue and I have no 

authority to discuss that point." 

 That became a repeated refrain for 

many of the issues that we were raising. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Antoinette, 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 

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Wanda Munn, a Board member. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: What is the topic of 

these telecommunication conferences? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, we are 

putting together, we are actually right now 

putting together the agenda for that meeting. 

 I can forward that to Larry, if he would 

like. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I would appreciate 

that, Antoinette. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You have my email, I 

think. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I believe I 

do. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I think we would be 

hard-pressed to find a member of the Board who 

would eagerly leap forward to participate in 

the conference without pretty clear 

understanding of what the topics were and 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 

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

part they might be playing, other than just 

listening. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, how would I 

be able to facilitate this then? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I believe that if you 

send your information to Larry, I suspect that 

he would be glad to forward that to the full 

Board. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I will certainly 

forward it, yes. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And at that time, my 

personal feeling is I can't speak for the 

other members of the Board, but the Board, 

generally speaking, prefers to have all of the 

information that is applicable to the Board 

provided to it in its entirety, rather than 

having a single member bring information to 

it. But that depends largely on the scope and 

specificity of the topic that you are going to 

be covering, I think. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Antoinette, 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 

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is Phillip. 

 I have been following the emails on 

the agenda from you and Terrie. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Parts of the 

agenda definitely, you know, could be things 

addressed by NIOSH, but a big portion of that 

is actually out of our reach. It is in the 

Department of Labor's jurisdiction. 

 It would be helpful, though, if 

some of that information, those same questions 

were forwarded to the Board, so people can at 

least understand some of the concerns people 

have. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I haven't been 

forwarding these emails because I have kind of 

kept them, unless I'm specifically released 

from you, I've kind of kept them in 

confidence. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Well, I've 

provided, you know, I was providing Dr. Melius 
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 

with updates about the meetings. 

 I think maybe the more optimal way 

for us to proceed is for me to, or Terrie to, 

start providing those updates to Dr. Ziemer. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Well, I mean a 

lot of the questions and the concerns that 

have been addressed by the various members of 

ANWAG definitely would be of interest to Board 

members. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: But, like I 

said, I do get most of these from you or 

Terrie, and I appreciate that. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: But, also, I 

don't feel I'm free, without explicit -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understand. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- to release 

those. Whereas, if you were to forward them 

to Paul or even Larry Elliott -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- I think 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 

 196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of us would benefit from seeing some of those 

questions because some of them definitely have 

an impact on what we are doing. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Absolutely. I 

agree with you, and we will start doing that. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Antoinette, this 

is Larry Elliott one more time. 

 I would certainly want to say here 

that we would welcome hearing any NIOSHrelated concerns. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, I don't 

expect DOL to answer for us on those. So, if 

you can share those with us, we will certainly 

try our best to respond. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 

 The second issue I wanted to raise 

dealt with the discussion that preceded the 

public comment period about worker outreach 

agenda items. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I am particularly interested in 

getting more information about the way NIOSH 

decides whether program evaluation reports 

will be issued upon the issuance of revised 

site profiles, and what the checks and 

balances are for that process. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

Elliott. I'll speak here. 

 Is that a suggestion for the 

working group's consideration in their 

evaluation plan or are you asking of NIOSH to 

provide you with some information or 

background in that regard? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Both. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Both? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: And just to 

elaborate, this is a particular issue for 

Linde Ceramics right now because there was a 

revised site profile issued in November of 

2008, but there was no program evaluation 

report issued at that time. Many of the 

claimants that I work with have submitted 
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 

requests to the Department of Labor to have 

their cases reopened based upon the issuance 

of that revised site profile, and those 

requests have been summarily denied. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Okay. So I 

need to hear again, if you would, frame what 

you are really asking for. Because the first 

time I thought I heard you wanted to know how 

a site profile is squared up against an SEC 

evaluation report, but now you are talking 

about a program evaluation review. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Or did I mishear you 

on the first one? It's the program evaluation 

review? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, it's the 

program evaluation review. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. Okay. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: The workers are 

confused as to the fact that there have been 

changes in the site profile. There have been 

changes that were implemented from the SC&A 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

audit from July of 2006. Yet, their claims 

are not being re-evaluated. Workers who have 

had their claims denied -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- under the 

previous site profile, their claims are not 

being re-evaluated to determine, at the very 

least, whether NIOSH should redose those 

claims. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Okay. I 

understand clearly now what you're seeking. 

 Where to start? There's not an 

automatic rework of denied dose 

reconstructions, denied claims with dose 

reconstructions, when we issue a new revised 

site profile. 

 What our rule requires us to do is 

say, is the change in the site profile going 

to possibly increase dose substantially for a 

set of claims? And if it does, if the answer 

to that is yes, then we have to go through 

what we call this program evaluation review, 
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 

where those claims that are so affected, where 

an increase in dose might be factored into a 

rework, those have to be identified; those 

have to be screened within this process and 

identified. Those are requested from the 

Department of Labor for rework. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

 One of the tasks that we were 

directed to perform, oh, it must have been 

about a year ago, as part of the Procedures 

Review Committee under Ms. Munn, was to review 

the PER procedure and process and how it was 

actually implemented on one particular PER. 

 So we do have on the record a 

review of that procedure itself -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: -- that is being used 

by OCAS for dealing with the program 

evaluation reports and how they are selected, 

implemented, and actually the implementation 

of one for one actual site, where there was 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 

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

full-scale implementation of a PER and a 

review of potentially-affected dose 

reconstructions. 

 Certainly, we haven't done anything 

like that for Linde, but we have done it for 

others. 

 You may get an idea, and I don't 

have it at my fingertips, but certainly I 

could find the work because all of it has been 

published. It's all on the -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I've seen the 

web page. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay, very good. Very 

good. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: John, that wasn't on 

a site. That one review was on lymphoma, was 

it not? 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. I'm 

sorry. Yes, you're absolutely right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Just so everybody 

understands here, a PER can be site-specific, 

and in other instances it is across sites, 
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 

like the Super S PER was across a number of 

sites. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: My concern is 

that, from what you're telling me, Larry, is 

that NIOSH makes a decision whether the 

changes in the site profile will potentially 

affect dose estimates for denied claims. Am I 

correct? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Our rule says 

that, if there's a potential for -- I think 

the words are -- a substantial increase in 

dose, and we take a very conservative view of 

that, meaning that we don't see it being as 

much as 5 rem, it could be 5 millirem. That's 

an increase in dose. We want to apply that to 

those denied claims that are affected. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. So that 

evaluation is done by NIOSH. My question is, 

is there any oversight of that decisionmaking 

process? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I think the 

Board, as you heard, has reviewed 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 

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

procedure and that process. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we have. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They're not, I don't 

believe, you're not all done with that. You 

have the opportunity, the Board has the 

opportunity to pick up and look at any other 

PERs and/or the process itself. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And as of this 

moment, so far as I know, the reviews that 

have been made have not found any deficiency 

in the process that is currently active. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. The other thing 

to understand about this is that, as I 

understand it from the Department of Labor, if 

a claimant wants to file an appeal on their 

recommended decision, that they know of a 

change in a site profile or a program 

evaluation review, and they don't feel their 

claim has been addressed under that, that the 

FAB will reopen that for us to respond to that 

specifically. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: That's 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 

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

accurate. I have about, I would say, about 10 

workers who have filed requests to have their 

claims reopened, and the response from the 

Department of Labor has been, because NIOSH 

has not issued a program evaluation report, 

the issuance of the revised site profile does 

not qualify as new evidence under the cited 

section of the CFR. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, that is 

interesting to hear, Antoinette. I'm sorry 

and disturbed by what you say. I think that I 

don't have anything that I can use to convince 

DOL otherwise. I think I would encourage you 

all to go back to DOL and say what you're 

saying. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I have. I 

have, but essentially, what they are telling 

us is that their hands are tied until NIOSH 

issues a program evaluation report, and that 

they have no authority to remand cases to be 

redosed or even re-evaluated to determine if 

they should be redosed because NIOSH has not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issued a program evaluation report. 

 MR. KATZ: Antoinette, this is all 

very informative, and I think everybody 

appreciates hearing about this here. 

 I mean, to get back to your point 

about the Board or oversight, so the Board has 

looked at -- has as a general charge, and it 

is in the contract for SC&A to help the Board 

with it, to the extent it gets tasked to help, 

to look at PERs or the PER process. But I 

think this is an interesting question, you 

know, to raise for the Board, which is whether 

it wants to ever look at the decisions to 

issue a PER. I don't think that has been the 

focus of the Board, to look at the decisions. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: OCAS does inform the 

Board when it does issue a PER. I mean it 

keeps the Board informed as it does, but I 

mean there has never been any kind of analysis 

of when is a PER issued and when it is not. I 

think that is an interesting issue 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 

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certainly we can share. It is not really this 

Work Group's terrain, but we can certainly 

share that with the full Board, that issue, 

which I think the Board will be interested in 

considering. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you. That 

was the point that I was trying to get to. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I guess I wasn't 

expressing it well. So I would appreciate any 

action on that issue specifically. 

 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John. 

 This is interesting in that it goes 

to the heart of the meeting we are having 

right now. Would this, what we are talking 

about right now, would this be something that 

would be embraced by this Work Group and 

followed up on to see the degree to which this 

concern, as expressed by an interested member 

of the public, a claimant, petitioner, et 

cetera, was, in fact, adequately addressed? 

Would this be something that would be within 
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 

the mandate of this Work Group? 

 MR. KATZ: Well, John, I mean this 

is just raised now. 

 DR. MAURO: No, no, no, but I guess 

we're actually struggling with defining scope. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it's within my 

scope, John. I have taken a note that I need 

to follow up and determine whether or not a 

Linde PER is on the horizon, first of all. 

 Secondly, I need to follow up with 

the Department of Labor and Rachel Leiton and 

see, you know, is this a District Office 

issue, where they are telling one set of 

claimants from one site one thing, but if I go 

to another District Office, I know they are 

telling another set of claimants a different 

thing? 

 So I've got some to-do's already on 

my list from this, just so that the folks 

around this table know what happens when I 

hear one of these matters of general concern 

raised. So I have a to-do list 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 

 208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: But down the road, when 

this Work Group is actually engaged in 

evaluation, as opposed to planning, as it is 

doing now, yes, this is exactly one of those 

examples that the working group could follow 

up on. 

 DR. MAURO: Good note. And that's 

why I raised the question -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thank you. 

 DR. MAURO: -- because it helps us 

 appreciate the richness of the scope. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. I think that's 

nice. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 

 One last very brief issue with 

regard to the SEC petitioning process. Back 

in February of this year, I suggested that the 

Board consider establishing a blanket policy 

of tasking SC&A to review any petition 

evaluation report wherein NIOSH is not 

recommending SEC status. I wanted to know if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there has been any further consideration of 

that suggestion. 

 MR. KATZ: Could you repeat? I 

missed something there. I'm aware of your 

communication to the Board about the Linde. I 

am not aware of a request to the Board that it 

start a process of evaluating any petition 

that was not qualified, if that is what I just 

heard you say. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. Yes, I 

submitted a letter to Dr. Ziemer back in 

February requesting that the Board consider 

instituting a blanket policy. As far as I 

know, there has been no disposition of that 

request. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. I don't recall 

that letter because I guess I recall a later 

one that came much later, where you asked him 

to do some tasking of SC&A, which I have 

addressed and we know about with respect to 

the Linde one. I don't recall the one from 

February to the Board. Normally, those 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 

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through me, so I see them. Maybe I have just 

forgotten. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: So let me just give you, 

though, some context about that. 

 Mike, if it is okay with you, I 

will send a note to the Board about this other 

issue that Antoinette raised. 

 I can also send one about this, 

Antoinette, on your behalf. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: But let me just let you 

know as context that the Board had a working 

group that looked at, that spent some time 

looking at the petition qualification process, 

and concluded its work. You know, I don't 

recall -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Made recommendations. 

 MR. KATZ: Made recommendations. 

It didn't consider an ongoing process of 

looking at every petition that doesn't 

qualify. 
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 

 I think Dr. Ziemer has told you, it 

seems like, in the full Board meeting in a 

comment about this general issue, or maybe it 

was Dr. Melius. The Board decided it did not 

want to be in the business of evaluating the 

qualification of petitions. That came about 

during the consideration of the SEC rule, as 

we were promulgating the SEC rule. 

 But in any event, I will raise this 

issue to the Board since you have raised it 

here. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: If I may just 

clarify, I am not talking about the actual 

qualification. I am talking about, once the 

petition is qualified, and NIOSH issues a 

petition evaluation report, and if NIOSH is 

not recommending that SEC status be granted -- 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, oh, I'm so sorry. I 

completely missed that. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I completely 

missed 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 

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So you're saying that you want it 

to be automatic that SC&A evaluate? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Exactly. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, well, I mean, again, 

I don't want to speak for the Board, but the 

Board uses discretion in using its contractor. 

 There are petitions. It seems to me, I 

cannot think of a case where the Board hasn't 

involved SC&A in a -- well, maybe there are, 

actually. I think I can think of cases where 

the Board has, even where OCAS has recommended 

against adding a class, the Board has 

concurred without involving SC&A in some 

simple cases. So I am not sure that they want 

a blanket policy of contracting with SC&A for 

tasking SC&A. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well, if I 

may just comment on that, the reason why I 

requested that the Linde petition evaluation 

report be evaluated by SC&A in advance of the 

full presentation of that petition to the 

Board was in order for the petitioners 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 

 213

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

able to understand the reasons why NIOSH is 

recommending SEC status not be granted. 

 That is the problem here. When 

petition evaluation reports are issued, 

petitioners are at a loss to understand the 

complexities of why NIOSH is recommending that 

SEC status not be granted. Therefore, when 

petitioners go before the full Board to 

provide a presentation on that petition, we 

are at a disadvantage in trying to counter the 

arguments that have been presented by NIOSH. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, a couple of 

things, just to say -- and I don't want to 

drag this out too long. But one, when NIOSH 

presents, as the normal course of business, 

NIOSH presents an evaluation report to the 

Board, that is just the first step. It is the 

first step for the petitioners, too, to 

present to the Board, but it is not the last 

opportunity for petitioners to engage the 

Board. 

 So the Board takes that 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 

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

presentation and then any initial other input 

from the petitioners, and its own thoughts, to 

consider how to task SC&A. That is important 

that that occur, generally speaking. That is 

important because that gives the whole Board 

an opportunity to help direct SC&A before a 

Working Group is involved with SC&A on a more 

sort of iterative, constant basis in 

evaluating that petition. 

 I think we need to have -- I don't 

want to have this whole discussion with 

everyone captive here, but there are reasons 

why the Board operates the way it does. I 

would be glad to explain those more in detail. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. The only 

thing I would like to add is that the fact 

that SC&A has provided a report on the 

petition evaluation report from NIOSH just a 

couple of weeks ago that I've been able to 

start reviewing it has been very helpful to 

me. 

 I think it would be very helpful 
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 

for that kind of information to be provided to 

petitioners at the earliest possible date. 

The Board may disagree with that, but from a 

petitioner perspective, I have found it to be 

a very useful tool. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I could see that, 

Antoinette. This is Larry Elliott. 

 I understand, essentially, you are 

suggesting a process change, where the 

evaluation report from NIOSH that recommends a 

denial of a class would be picked up by and 

reviewed scrupulously by the Board, its 

contractor, and then you are better able to 

present your case. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, exactly. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Because you know, 

I don't believe anyone at NIOSH or on the 

Board would suggest that the technical nature 

of petition evaluation reports or 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 

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction reports are readily accessible 

to a layperson. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand and 

agree. We try to make them as readable and 

layperson-friendly as we can, but the nature 

of the subject impedes our ability to do that. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me just follow 

up. You know, J.J. stepped out of the room 

here and made a phone call back to the office. 

 Just so that you know, there is a program 

evaluation review and report on the horizon 

for Linde. It is about one to two months 

away. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So with that armed in 

my arsenal, now I will go to Rachel Leiton and 

I will ask her about what's going on with the 

Linde claims, are those folks being told 

something different than other sites in other 

Districts are being told? Because it may be 

that they know about this PER coming 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 

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doubt it. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: But at any rate, yes, 

there is a PER on the horizon. I thought 

there was. It is one to two months away -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- before we issue 

it. Then, in that, we would identify those 

Linde claims that are so affected and need to 

be reworked. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you. 

 Thank you very much. I will relate that 

information to the Linde workers. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Let me ask a 

question. Ted, if she wrote a letter or 

presented a letter to the Board, isn't it the 

responsibility of the Board to send her back 

an official letter? Or am I missing 

something? 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer sends back 

letters from individuals, and he gets 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 

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

approval of the Board when it is from 

congressional staff. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So is this one case 

where maybe -- 

 MR. KATZ: This is one case -- I 

just don't know about what happened with the 

response. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Because I kind of 

remember the letter, but I don't -- yes, the 

response should be forthcoming, I would think, 

unless it didn't require that. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, it should be -- 

or it should have been, she said it was in 

February, so it should have happened already. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

 MR. KATZ: But I will follow back 

on whether -- I will have to find the original 

correspondence and check with Dr. Ziemer about 

the response because I don't believe I ever 

saw the response. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I don't, either. 

 MR. KATZ: I could be mistaken. 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 

 219

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have an incredibly bad memory for some things. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you 

very much. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. 

 Are there any other workers or 

representatives, advocates, on the line? 

 (No response.) 

 Any other public comments? 

 (No response.) 

 Okay. If not, do we want to go 

back to this work evaluation or do we want 

to -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: I don't think we 

ever finished the third. I know Arjun has the 

words here. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: We didn't finish 

the second. 

 MEMBER BEACH: We didn't finish the 

second? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, didn't 

finish the second. Go back to the third. 

Finish the second and go to the third. 
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 

 MEMBER BEACH: Arjun has been 

working on both of them. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I took notes on the 

second. I am happy to read my notes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I bet they're 

bulleted, too. 

 (Laughter.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Bulleted, subbulleted, sub-sub-bulleted. 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Go ahead. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. Under the 

first bullet, "Review all NIOSH procedures," I 

wrote down two of them. I don't know how many 

there are. Actually, Kathy has been tracking 

this. 

 This would be OCAS PR-012 and 

OTIB-31. Are there others, Kathy? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: PROC-0031. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: PROC-0031, is it? 

Okay. Sorry about that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me just say 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 

 221

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 in certain aspects of the program, there are 

procedures. Like, in the CATI procedure, you 

know, there is a procedure for CATI and it 

speaks to doing certain things that you might 

be interested in. So there are a number of 

those kinds of ancillary procedures that you 

haven't listed there. 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: Can I ask a 

question? Is there a procedure on documenting 

communications with site experts? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I would have to get 

back to you. I don't believe -- I don't know 

the answer to that question. 

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

 I see that in this first bullet, 

Arjun, you started to list specific 

procedures. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: It seems to me that -- 

well, I will throw my hat in the ring. I 

don't think we should be doing that in this 

document, and I think it should be up 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 

 222

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tasking of its contractor; namely, that is, 

given a mandate to review procedures under 

objective No. 2 -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: We are not going to 

do any of this. We are just writing the list. 

 MEMBER BEACH: This is just the 

list. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. So this is not 

something -- 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I am presuming 

that, before we do anything, the Work Group is 

going to say do or do not do it. I am just 

trying to -- 

 DR. MAURO: I hear you. Then my 

question is, the list, the two that you just 

mentioned, are they going to go in as part of 

this bullet? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: It says, "Review 

all NIOSH procedures." So I assume that we 

should make a little list for the Working 

Group to see what they want done. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I would argue 
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 

that it shouldn't go in the implementation 

procedure, the thing we are working on. That 

should be something that is deliberated by the 

Work Group and judged by the Work Group, 

whether they want to look at a particular 

procedure. 

 Because once you open that door, as 

pointed out by Larry, there are a lot of 

ancillary procedures whereby you might miss 

one. I would sooner say here's the place 

where ambiguity is going to serve us better. 

That is, the Work Group could make its own 

judgments. When the Work Group meets in the 

future, one of the items on the agenda would 

be, okay, is there anything we should be doing 

under evaluation objective two at this time 

that we think would benefit -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: So, John, what you 

are saying is leave this general and let us 

task those things later? Is that what I am 

hearing? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, as a living 
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 

process, rather than try to be prescriptive at 

this point in time. 

 I think, as long as it is agreed 

that, listen, one of the objectives is to 

review procedures, and what those procedures 

are is something that will be judged in the 

future. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: When in doubt, be 

vague, a very good motto. 

 (Laughter.) 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't want to 

be vague. I mean I think when you start to 

become that prescriptive here now, it creates 

expectations or constraints that I don't think 

will serve us well. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: All I have done now 

is make a list. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 (Laughter.) 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: For pure pleasure. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's good. We will 

need to see it anyway. 
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 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mike? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, go ahead. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. The next 

one, in the next bullet I addressed that one 

there, and then the fifth bullet, which Ted I 

think had suggested be consolidated. 

 So, "Review a sample of interviews 

and meetings where the above-referenced 

procedures were implemented by NIOSH and its 

contractors to determine whether procedures 

were followed and effective in practice." 

 So under that, there are a bunch of 

questions: "What information was obtained? 

How was the information documented? Did 

workers have opportunity to comment on the 

record of the meeting, including meeting 

minutes? Did they avail themselves of the 

opportunity, and were their comments 

incorporated?" 

 Next -- oh, okay, I should stop 

there. I have just been trying to follow the 

discussion and write it down. One or two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

things were, to be honest, from a sidebar here 

with Josie. 

 Then the next one is, "Evaluate 

completeness and adequacy of the Outreach 

Tracking System. Does the OTS reflect the 

breadth and depth of information provided by 

workers at the meetings?" 

 I don't know whether that is 

superfluous or -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: That was back in 

bullet three, right? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, that is bullet 

three. 

 Bullet four, "Evaluate the conduct 

of outreach meetings." I deleted the stuff I 

didn't understand and replaced it by, "Was the 

meeting approach open enough to enable workers 

to provide input to the extent they wanted, 

and did the participants feel that meeting 

achieved the stated purpose?" 

 So this implies that we might do a 

little survey, but we may not want to. I mean 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I just wrote this down from what I was 

hearing, and then I also heard what Mark said. 

 So I just want to call attention to that 

because I am sensitive to what -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: The first question 

that rises to mind is, how do we do that? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Well, that is 

why I am raising it. I am just trying to 

document the discussion, not tell you what I 

think. 

 Then the fifth bullet already 

incorporated the second bullet. 

 You should now tell whether you 

like this or want changes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think it pretty 

much -- I think it is the flavor of the 

discussions we had. So I think that will be 

good for us to work from. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Homework, right? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Homework, yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: No question about 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 

 228

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 have this in edit 

mode from the thing that Kathy sent. So one 

thing I could do is simply send it in edit 

mode, so you can see what all changes have 

been made. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Did you have time 

to look at evaluation No. 3 or objective No. 

3? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I was instructed to 

do so by my neighbor. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. Good. 

 (Laughter.) 

 Go right ahead. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. In No. 3, 

okay, so we already looked at the objective. 

Then, under the first bullet, "Examine the 

process by which NIOSH and its contractor 

evaluate worker input." 

 Under that, I had just one 

question. "How does NIOSH catalog and 

consider worker input for inclusion into its 

technical documents such as site profiles?" 
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 

So that is a process question of how NIOSH 

follows up internally and its contractors. 

 The second bullet, "Conduct a 

systematic review of worker outreach databases 

at a point in time in relation to its impact 

on technical documents." 

 Then, under that, "Select a sample 

of site profiles and SEC evaluation reports 

where worker outreach meetings have been done 

to document whether and how worker input has 

been considered and included, and evaluate if 

exclusions were appropriate." 

 So that is what I got of the sense 

of what was there. 

 And the last bullet, "Evaluate 

NIOSH's tracking system for identifying trends 

in worker comments." This was something that 

came up earlier that Kathy said. "Has NIOSH 

documented repetitive or recurring issues on a 

sitewide or programwide basis?" 

 So that is No. 3. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Arjun, could you read 
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 

that again, please? 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: "Evaluate NIOSH's 

tracking system for identifying trends in 

worker comments. Has NIOSH documented 

repetitive or recurring issues on a sitewide 

or programwide basis?" 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Thank you. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So that is what I 

had. Well, we hadn't discussed three. I just 

did this at my own liberty because I was 

instructed to do so. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Does that sound 

good to work from for everyone else so far? 

 MEMBER MUNN: It is certainly a 

good place to start. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So is it appropriate 

to do some tasking or -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Tasking of SC&A. 

 MEMBER BEACH: SC&A in preparation 

for our next meeting or thoughts? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Well, I think we 

could have SC&A help us, send this out 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 

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

draft edit form to us group members, so we can 

take a stab at it. Then they could also try 

to hone it up a little bit on their own. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Before sending it 

to you? Before sending it to you, because I 

would like to send this to Kathy, with your 

permission. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, absolutely. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Since I have been 

kind of taking liberties with her work. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Sure. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you certainly 

have. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: And then, Josie, 

are there some other actions or tasks? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was just 

wondering, we keep throwing around tasking 

SC&A with reviewing OCAS Procedure 0012. Is 

that something we can have them do at this 

time? Then, of course, the associated 

database, once we have access to it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: We haven't done 0012? 
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 

 MEMBER BEACH: No, we have not done 

0012, 97 was done and kind of thrown out at 

the last meeting, kind of. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: What happened with 

97 was it was a partial review. We had 

reviewed the paper document, and it is being 

rescinded, and there was another database at 

the time, the Whisper database, which we 

didn't have access to at that time. So we 

didn't review that. 

 MEMBER BEACH: But there were 

findings still kind of floating that may 

pertain to 0012 that could be incorporated in 

the review of 0012, I believe. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. So 

that has been rendered obsolete, but we don't 

have a measure of where we are until we look 

at the new procedure, until you ask us to look 

at the new procedure. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It is obviously 

going to be part of the scope of our 

implementation plan. I guess I would ask 
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 

SC&A, do you think it is appropriate to do it 

now? Would it have benefit now? Or should we 

wait until we get more meat on the 

implementation? Or do you have what you need 

to look at now? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Can I add to that? 

There are some other associated procedures 

that we might want them to look at, like 031. 

 I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I 

know there is some worker outreach in that 

procedure. I just didn't want to limit it to 

0012. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Here is my 

concern, and I will just let SC&A make their 

-- I don't want them to review a procedure and 

then, once we walk down through this thing and 

get it set in stone, the review has missed 

something that we have added with this. 

 So do you think -- 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I think it 

would benefit the implementation plan. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Could you speak 
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 

up? 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I think that 

if we did it simultaneously, obviously, the 

implementation plan is going to come before 

the release of the view of the OCAS 0012 

procedure, but it would help us in defining 

some of what should be in the implementation 

plan. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: We do have precedent 

for doing things like this. Very often, it is 

sort of like an iterative process. You are 

trying to lay out an overarching procedure, 

and you do that without actually doing a 

little bit of implementing it. But you do a 

little implementing, and then you have learned 

from that. 

 That all happened, by the way, with 

the surrogate data. If you recall, we were 

tasked to help write an overarching, help the 

Work Group with an overarching set of 

guidelines for surrogate data. But 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 

 235

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

parallel, we were actually to review the use 

of surrogate data in a couple of cases. I 

think it was Texas City and Blockson, I 

believe. I'm not sure. 

 But in any event, what I'm getting 

at is the idea of doing these things in 

parallel is sometimes very helpful because it 

enriches your understanding on both ends. 

 So we are certainly prepared to 

review one or more procedures while we are 

helping the Work Group develop its overarching 

implementation procedure. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I agree with 

John and Kathy with one caveat. We haven't 

looked at the tracking system, and it is new. 

 We shouldn't put a completed document on the 

table until we have done that, so we don't 

repeat the kind of problem that occurred last 

time where we did a paper review and we hadn't 

had access to Whisper. There was a lot of 

confusion in the discussion of the procedure 

because of that, I think. I see Larry 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 

 236

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

nodding his head. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Is it loaded? 

 I'm sorry, this is John. 

 How far in terms of maturation of 

the attached -- I know there were a number of 

attachments that were part of PROC-0012 where 

you will be populating a database. If that 

database really isn't very well-populated yet, 

it would be premature for us to move forward. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: The database actually 

begins in June of 2007, when ATL became 

attached directly with OCAS. There are 

historical documents and things in question 

that have not been populated, and that is 

being worked out. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: But since 2007, the 

meetings that you have had are documented in 

OTS. 

 MR. JOHNSON: July. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, so about two 

years. 

 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. 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 

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

meeting was at the end of July. It is pretty 

much complete. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The other thing I 

would request, if we are going to go down this 

road, is that we actually attend a couple of 

these meetings, you know, an on-the-ground 

feeling for the procedure and how it is 

working. 

 I agree with Mark, and everybody 

who has done these meetings or interviews 

knows that they have a momentum of their own. 

 You have to respect what people are saying. 

It is sort of not different than CATIs or any 

other kind of thing. 

 It would help in the implementation 

plan and refine the stuff, and give you -- you 

know, maybe what we ought to do is go down the 

road and give you a progress report on how all 

of this stuff is going at the next Work Group 

meeting, so you have an idea. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Here's my 

feelings, unless the rest of the Work Group 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

overrides me. 

 The main objective is to get the 

implementation plan, have it ready for the 

next full Board meeting. If doing the 

procedure review and developing this plan 

slows the process down, then I don't want to 

do it. If it is not going to slow the process 

down, that's fine. But I think we need to 

work on this first, so we can get a final 

product out before the Board. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think Kathy would 

probably have the best judgment -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: I have one comment to 

add to Mike's. I think that reviewing the 

procedures is going to help for one reason, 

because we talked earlier, before lunch, 

before the break, that we are going to have -- 

in the implementation, we are going to use 

many things that the NIOSH has produced -- and 

Larry is nodding his head -- by reference, to 

make it a readable document, instead of just 

going and recreating the whole program from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

scratch. 

 So this would be allowing us to add 

this into perspective. So the review is going 

to help, and this will not impede the progress 

in developing the implementation plan. It 

actually may enhance it and make it better. 

That is one. 

 The second thing, I am really 

encouraging everybody around the table here, 

and whoever listens, if you have any comments 

on what we have now, because it is really 

interesting that I am sitting here with a 

document that has been in circulation for a 

while, and there are a lot of good comments 

coming up. It is better for us to know it, 

and we go and finetune this document in a 

meeting like that, so it becomes more and 

meets your objectives of trying to get it out 

to the Board. 

 So if there are any more comments 

on this document right now, please produce it 

to us, so let us work and make something 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 

 240

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

productive to you in the next meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: Abe, I've got a 

question though. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: During the conversation 

on tasking SC&A, I got the sense that the next 

round on revising this implementation plan is 

in the hands of the Work Group, not in SC&A's 

hands. Is that correct? 

 DR. ZEITOUN: I think we are going 

to be helping them. That is what I understand 

from Mike. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. So the lead 

on putting this together -- certainly, we are 

always there to help. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: We are going to be 

drafting it for them, and they will make the 

final decision. We don't make final 

decisions. 

 DR. MAURO: No, I just want to know 

whether we are tasked to make -- in other 

words, Arjun has done some editing. 
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 

 DR. ZEITOUN: It is going to come 

to Kathy, and we are going to centralize 

everything in one document. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Then we will 

turn that -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: And we will work with 

Mike and the Board members to finalize 

everything. Then the whole thing will be 

done. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. So I guess, 

Mike, the action item then is we'll quickly 

put together another version of this 

implementation plan, that we will do the best 

we can to capture the sensibility that was 

communicated during this meeting, and get that 

into your hands within a week. Then, at that 

point, it becomes a working document within 

the Work Group. Of course, we will be on the 

sidelines to help out any way you would like, 

but it really will be in your hands at that 

time. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: John, can I 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 

 242

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

something? The week is really hasty here 

because we are talking about reviewing some of 

the procedures to be encompassed in the 

implementation plan. So for you to say a 

week, I didn't hear that from Mike. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, I know that. 

But what I did hear is that our role now is to 

capture what was communicated and not do too 

much research. 

 This is important. You see, we 

have a meeting, a lot was said, and there's a 

sensibility that we have that we could quickly 

put on paper and change the construct and the 

content of the draft procedure. 

 Now the next tier, of course, is, 

oh, let's do a little more homework. You 

know, there's more things we can do before we 

revisit this construct. 

 In my mind, well, I want to make a 

suggestion. We turn something around quickly, 

so that the Work Group says, "Okay, yes, I 

believe this is a faithful representation 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 

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the discussions we had." Then, at that point, 

then the Work Group could make its judgments 

on where do we go from here. 

 Otherwise, if we spend a lot of 

time doing special research, that is an openended problem. I would rather avoid openended problems. I would rather keep it 

simple. 

 Let's get what we believe to be a 

faithful representation of the dialog we had 

today into the Work Group's hands. Then let 

the Work Group decide what the next step is. 

That really makes it a lot easier for us in 

terms of turning something around and putting 

it back in the hands of the Work Group. 

 Because if we have to do some 

procedure reviews and other investigations, 

I'm always worried that is an open-ended thing 

and that it never ends. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And John, with that 

in mind, I want to ask Mike -- Mike, what's 

your plan from here? Are you planning 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 

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

trying to reconvene the Work Group before the 

next Board meeting, so we have a chance? 

 So maybe once we decide that, then 

you can come up with a timeline for SC&A? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Does that make 

sense? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I would like to 

get the draft document, as we believe it 

exists for today, out within a week or so. 

Let the Board members, Work Group members take 

a stab at it. That is not to say for SC&A to 

stop. We want you to keep providing your 

input also. Let's try to schedule a meeting 

maybe within a month. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So basically, they 

turn around what we did today to us to review. 

 We give our review back to them. It is a 

working document until we meet back, say, 

whenever the next Work Group meeting is, with 

them reviewing 0012? Okay. 

 I just wanted to make sure I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

clear. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That is what I 

think would be the best. 

 Any other comments? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. In Procedures, 

we have agreed two meetings ago, which would 

have been about three months ago, that when we 

have procedures under review and have findings 

that we were in the process of resolving, when 

those procedures refer directly to a specific 

site or to an existing work group, we will not 

attempt to resolve those findings. We will 

refer them to the site-specific work group or 

in this case, it would be to the Worker 

Outreach Work Group. 

 I just want you to be aware of the 

fact that that's what I was talking about at 

our last Board meeting when I mentioned that 

this had transpired, and that we would be 

transmitting those things to work group chairs 

in the future. 

 So with that in mind, I want you 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 

 246

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be aware of the fact that, if you are asking 

SC&A to review this procedure and to respond 

with findings, the resolution of those 

findings will be in the hands of this Work 

Group, not in the hands of Procedures. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Right. Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. I just wanted 

to make sure. 

 DR. MAURO: And this is John. 

 And what I heard, too, is that we 

are not going to allow the review of PROC-0012 

to impede progress made on development of the 

implementation plan. It will enrich it to the 

extent it can, since the idea sounds like they 

will be moving in parallel. The degree to 

which what we learn as we do the review of 

PROC-0012 could feed into the finalization of 

the draft of the implementing procedure, 

great. But what I am hearing is, though, we 

don't want to hold up -- because we don't know 

what we are going to run into when we start 

reviewing a procedure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 What I am hearing is we do not want 

to hold up progress on the implementation. 

You take a best shot at the implementation, 

and the degree to which the review of 

PROC-0012 could help that, great, but we 

shouldn't deliberately, let's say, hold up 

progress on implementation while PROC-012 is 

moving forward. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Right. To me, I 

don't want to rush the plan, but it is time to 

get the plan in motion and it is time we start 

doing something for the workers and the 

claimants. 

 If, throughout the process of these 

reviews, procedures, and everything else, we 

find we will need to change the recommendation 

plan, then we will take it back to the Board 

and we will modify it. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, I see it that way, 

yes. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: But it is time to 

get it out there and make something. 
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 

 MR. KATZ: So just two 

clarifications. One, did you task PROC-0012? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, as long as 

it doesn't impede the progress -- 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good. No, I just 

wanted to be clear myself on that. 

 Then, secondly, we have a Board 

teleconference on September 8th, I believe. 

Paul, in response to the email that I sent 

that I discussed at the beginning of this 

meeting, said that we could discuss the charge 

during the teleconference. We've gotten that, 

more or less, hammered out. Do you want to 

address that at the teleconference or do you 

want that to wait for the rest of it, for 

October? It's up to you. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: If we have a 

period of time for updates and stuff, we could 

give a brief update, but I would rather 

concentrate on having the plan ready for the 

full Board meeting in October. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, then I 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 

 249

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just leave that. I won't put it as a separate 

agenda item. You can cover that in your 

update. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Is that what you would 

prefer? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: That's fine. I just 

wanted to be clear with that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The Board does need 

to make the charge, correct? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: The Board needs to 

make the charge to SC&A. 

 MR. KATZ: Not to SC&A, no. We are 

just talking about the charge for the Work 

Group. 

 MEMBER BEACH: What about the 

mission statement? 

 MR. KATZ: That is what I am 

talking about, the mission statement. 

 MEMBER BEACH: 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 

 250

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 is what I am 

talking about, whether you want the mission 

statement -- 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: The revised 

mission statement. 

 MR. KATZ: -- the revised mission, 

whether you want to bring that up for this 

teleconference or do you want that to wait 

until October? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: No, we can do 

that at this time -- 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. That is what I am 

asking about. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I'm sorry. 

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

 DR. ZEITOUN: So just the mission, 

right, the mission statement? 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then I will have 

that as a separate agenda item, and you can do 

the rest of your Work Group update after we 

discuss that. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: 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 

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: But I was talking 

about the procedure, the charge to SC&A to 

proceed. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, the Work Group can 

task that. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, really? 

 MR. KATZ: The work groups task all 

the time, SC&A work. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mike, what I have 

for our team is that we send you these 

revisions that we have been discussing by 

August 19th, which is a week from today. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Actually, we have a 

little problem because the people who are 

going to be working are going to be in 

Savannah River next week. So give us 10 days, 

if it is okay with you. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Sure. Okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean I am just 

reading out what I have in terms of what's 

final. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes, 10 days will 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 

 252

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fine. Is that okay, Mike? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: So August 21st? 

That would make it Friday of next week. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Fine. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And SC&A to start 

reviewing PROC-0012 and post-August 21 

continue working on the implementation plan in 

light of continuing review by the working 

group, right? The Working Group will send us 

comments? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: And then send a 

redraft for consideration to the working group 

a week prior to the next working group 

meeting? Will that be adequate? Or two weeks 

or whatever? I don't know when you want to 

cut off that. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Does that seem 

reasonable? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: 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 

 253

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've got a question for 

the Work Group. During this meeting, we 

discussed the three -- certainly, the mission 

statement, and of course we now have a new 

draft mission statement that I think everyone 

is comfortable with. 

 We also discussed the three 

objectives and the language, you know, the 

bolded three objectives, and I think we added 

a fourth. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we did. 

 DR. MAURO: And I think that there 

was general agreement on the language in that 

part of it. 

 So what I am hearing now is the 

main mission that we are going to try to do 10 

days from now is put the bullets in in a way 

that it meets the intent of the discussions we 

had. 

 So in terms of what we have 

accomplished, I guess, we now have a revised 

mission statement. We now have four 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluation objectives that we agree on the 

statements. What we are still working on, 

though, are the bullets that sort of further 

develop what will be done or the subject -- 

 DR. ZEITOUN: John, we have to add 

also the comments that Josie raised earlier -- 

 DR. MAURO: Go ahead. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: -- defining the 

framework of what we are evaluating. That is 

what we reached before the lunch. So we are 

going to reference in the document also, by 

reference, what's the outreach program that we 

are evaluating, and we are using the 

objectives towards. 

 DR. MAURO: I think I have a 

question though. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: So it becomes 

comprehensive. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, then my question 

 is, do we still have ambiguity on what the 

evaluation objectives are, the overall, one, 

two, three, and now No. 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 

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, we do. 

 DR. MAURO: We do? Okay. I'm 

sorry. Good. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, they are not 

settled certainly. The working group said 

they are going to work on it still. 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right? 

 DR. MAURO: And that's why I asked 

the question, because I wasn't quite sure 

whether we settled on that or not. I know we 

didn't settle on the bullets, but I wanted to 

know whether we settled on the objectives, but 

that is up in the air also. Okay. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: That's a work in 

progress. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: You are right, John. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So can we talk about 

the next meeting, okay, before some of us have 

to run off? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes. So 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 

 256

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

time looks good, Ted, as far as -- I know 

there are some problems with the shiftover. 

 MR. KATZ: Give me a general 

framework for how far out you want me to look. 

 MEMBER BEACH: How does October 

15th look? I know a bunch of us are already 

going to be here. 

 MR. KATZ: Well, October 15th -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there's the 

6,000 -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: That is on the 14th. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Hasn't it been 

settled on the 14th? 

 MR. KATZ: It's not settled because 

we haven't heard yet back from Dr. Poston. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I see. 

 MR. KATZ: Everyone else has said 

okay with the 14th. So it is pretty likely 

that that will be on the 14th. 

 So there is the 15th. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: That's a 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 

 257

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

before the full Advisory meeting, right? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is. 

 MR. KATZ: But it is kind of brutal 

to have a full week of work group meetings 

right before the full Advisory. But you know, 

it is worse for me than it is for you guys. 

 MEMBER BEACH: What about the last 

week in September? 

 MR. KATZ: Now September, that we 

would have to -- let's see, the last week of 

September is what you are saying? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Let's see what we have. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We are tied up on the 

morning of the 30th. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, it can't be the 

30th. I'm just checking which of those days. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: There is an Oak 

Ridge Hospital Work Group meeting on the 7th. 

 So you might want to follow up and connect it 

with that. 

 MR. KATZ: Wait. 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 

 258

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 don't know who is 

on the Work Group. 

 MR. KATZ: Wait. I thought we were 

in September, the last week of September. 

 MEMBER BEACH: We were, but he 

jumped ahead to October. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: I was just pointing 

out that there is a Cincinnati meeting on 

October 7th. 

 MR. KATZ: Oh, right. There's 

that, too. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: In my calendar at 

least, there is nothing around it indicated. 

We might want to join it before or after. 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, that is exactly 

what I am checking right now. We have, 

actually, the Procedures the day before. Then 

Oak Ridge is on the 7th. So the 8th of 

October, how does that work for all of you? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: How about toward 

the end of September? 

 MR. KATZ: Okay, you want to do 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 

 259

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

earlier? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I think after 

this next meeting, I don't think everything is 

going to be locked in stone. I would just 

like to have a few weeks to maybe have to work 

out some final details and email it back and 

forth. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. And October 8th 

doesn't give you enough time? Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: No. It's just a 

bad day. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it's a bad 

day, okay. 

 So then it would have to be the 

28th or the 29th of September because the next 

is the beginning of the fiscal year, and the 

first couple of days of the fiscal year we 

don't even know if we have money. 

 (Laughter.) 

 That is the way the federal budget 

process works. It's a real problem. 

 MEMBER BEACH: How is the 29th? 
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 

 MS. ROBERTSON-DeMERS: I think we 

are talking about the week of the 22nd. 

 MR. KATZ: No, no, we are talking 

about the week of the 28th. So does the 29th 

work? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Give me your 

thoughts. 

 MR. KATZ: Anybody have a problem 

with the 29th? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I can't be there, but 

I could call in. I can't be there. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you be by 

teleconference? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Maybe. I will be 

lost somewhere in Utah. Who knows? If the 

Senator there will allow me to call. 

 MEMBER BEACH: So was the 1st -- 

oh, you said October 1st was -- 

 MR. KATZ: October 1st will not 

work for an in-person meeting. Now if you 

want a teleconference, that can work. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: It would probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have to be a face-to-face. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then the 28th or 

the 29th, those are your options. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Either one is fine 

for me. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We are talking 

September here, right? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, we are, Phil, 

September 28th or 29th. Do those work for 

you? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: The 29th would 

work better for me than the 28th. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Okay, the 29th it 

is. 

 MR. KATZ: Now if you were a 

subcommittee, you couldn't do this because 

there's not enough notice time. 

 MEMBER MUNN: And I still hope that 

at some juncture, either on this agenda or on 

an upcoming one, we can continue to discuss 

that, that subcommittee issue. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: 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 

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: So you'll start at 

9:30 that morning? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Yes, 9:30 would 

be good. 

 MR. KATZ: 9:30, I will set it up. 

 That means, all of you Board members, you 

need to get your travel in for that by this 

Friday, if you want to do this, this Friday. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: Let's be sure, 

everyone, to get to work on this, and don't 

have any 3:30 flights next time. 

 (Laughter.) 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So we will 

make it a full day? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: No, I'm just 

kidding. I just hope we can get something 

done. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Are there any action 

items? 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: I didn't catch 

any for NIOSH. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I thought we got 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 

 263

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

lot done. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I have some personal 

action items, but none that this working group 

is expecting of NIOSH OCAS. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: None that I 

jotted down, unless I missed something. I 

think it is just the Work Group and SC&A -- 

 MR. KATZ: Yes, everybody has a 

task to flack SC&A with any ideas. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Probably there is one 

issue, the database, if we can expedite it. 

But yes, that is the only one, yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Get you access. 

 DR. ZEITOUN: Yes. And your inputs 

to any comments to be forwarded to us. 

 CHAIRMAN GIBSON: We will adjourn, 

I guess. 

 MR. KATZ: We are adjourned. Thank 

you, everyone on the telephone. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 3:20 p.m.)