10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19)

20

21

22

23

24

25

290

five be included.

DR. ZIEMER: Charles is speaking against a
motion to amend that has not yet been seconded, so
let me ask if there is a second to Dr. DeHart’s
motion to amend.

(No responses)

There appears not to be a second, so that
motion to amend dies for lack of a second, so you
don’t need to speak against it, Charles. The jury
will disregard his remarks.

Okay, Richard, you have a comment?

MR. ESPINOSA: It might be more of a
question. The five that we just suggested,
motion, seconded, are these being listed as a
priority, one, two, three, four? Or just said all
five and expect all five?

DR. ZIEMER: My interpretation was that it
was not a prioritized list, that the contractor
would have flexibility in scheduling and
reviewing. Is that the understanding of the
movers, that this was not necessarily listed in
some priority, it’s just simply the group of five?
Is that -- was that the understanding?

MR. OWENS: That was my intent, Dr. Ziemer.

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

2

13

14

15

16

17

18

alse)

20

2A

22

23

24

25

295

We have no Idaho folks here. Nevada Test
Site, all in favor, aye?
(Affirmative responses)
Opposed?
(No responses)

Abstentions? We have two abstentions. Okay.
Where am I on the list?

Rocky Flats.

UNIDENTIFIED: You may want to give for the
record who the abstentions were because --

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we did indicate the
abstentions. We have that on the record. Right?

THE COURT REPORTER: I don’t have the names.

DR. ZIEMER: I’m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED: The names for the last one you
didn’t do.

DR. ZIEMER: The last abstentions were Mark
Griffon and Robert Presley. That was on Nevada
Test site.

Rocky Flats, all in favor, aye.

(Affirmative responses)

Opposed, no.

(No responses)

Abstentions?

(No responses)

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

alia

12

a3

14

15

16

17

18

a)

20

21

22

23

24

25

292

metals there, and I think we need to put one of
the production plants in there.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Mark?

MR. GRIFFON: Can I propose to amend the
motion to add Y-12, notwithstanding the clearance
issues? I think -- I think that’s kind of what
Bob might have been getting at --

DR. ZIEMER: Don’t put words into Bob's
mouth.

MR. GRIFFON: I won’t, I’m not, but --

DR. ZIEMER: Is this --

MR. GRIFFON: -- that was also on my --
DR. ZIEMER: -- a motion to add it to the
list or ==

MR. GRIFFON: That was the one difference in
my original list of five with Leon’s and I'm
proposing to amend his list to include Y-12.

DR. ZIEMER: That’s six to be --

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

DR. ANDRADE: I second that motion.

DR. ZIEMER: That’s seconded. Okay. Now,
anyone wish to speak for or against the motion to
add Y-12 to the list?

MR. OWENS: I'll speak in favor of that

motion, Dr. Ziemer. That was an oversight on my

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

alls)

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

291

MR. OWENS: Those were not ranked in a
priority order.

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

DR. MELIUS: Can I ask just one other
question on the Y-12 or any of the other sites
where clearances may be at issue, I assume that
would be in process anyway or -- I don’t know --
quite understand the --

MR. ELLIOTT: We do need to get with Sanford
Cohen & Associates and if they have clearances
that need to be reinstated, we need to get started
work on that right away. We don’t have to wait
now for the other two tasks to be awarded. We
need this to start right now.

DR. ZIEMER: And that would not necessarily
preclude them from beginning their process on
these sites, either.

MR. PRESLEY: Paul, can I speak without
getting in trouble?

DR. ZIEMER: You can’t mention Oak Ridge.

MR. PRESLEY: I would like to see one of the
production plants also put in here, and that’s as
far as I will go. When you look at what we have
here, we don’t have any of the plants that have a

lot of production on a lot of different types of

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

cs

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

294

recuse myself?

DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps what we can do -- the
Chair will divide the vote into six parts. The
Chair’s allowed -- you can divide a motion into

parts, and you can vote on those parts for which
you have no conflict of interest. Is that
agreeable?

The record will then allow people to recuse
themselves on particular votes, or abstain. And
it would be -- an abstention would be in order.
Are you ready to vote in six parts?

First -- the first part would be to approve
Hanford as being on the list of site profiles to
be reviewed initially. All in favor, aye.

(Affirmative responses)

All opposed, no.

(No responses)

Abstaining? One. Let the record show that
Wanda has abstained.

Idaho, INEEL, all in favor, aye.

(Affirmative responses)

Opposed?

(No responses)

Abstentions?

(No responses)

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

aly

12

13

14

alls)

16

17

18

ale)

20

21

22

23

24

25)

286

I think some of these are not on the web site yet,
like the Y-12, all those sections aren’t up yet,
but -- okay.

DR. TOOHEY: Dick Toohey, ORAU. The ones
that, from what I know of what’s going on, are
farthest away from completion would be Los Alamos,
Mound, Pantex and X-10.

DR. ZIEMER: Now let me ask the Board -- Oh,
Tony, you have another comment?

DR. ANDRADE: Not really a comment, but I
wanted to start the -- the auctioning process, I
guess. Based on the chart on the degree that --
that indicates the degree of completeness for the
site profiles, as well as what I think are
objective criteria, and that is to look at the
different types of radionuclides that were
processed or handled, I would suggest the
following to start with. I’d say Rocky Flats
because of the plutonium finishing activities that
went on there. Number two, Y-12 for all of the
uranium work that went on there and continues to
go on today. And third, to step into a deeper,
somewhat more complex set of operations, I would
suggest Hanford for the variety of types of work

that went on there from reactor -- different

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

LS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

296

None. Savannah River Site, all in favor,
aye.

(Affirmative responses)

Opposed?

(No responses)

Abstentions?

(No responses)

Y-12, all in favor, aye.

(Affirmative responses)
Opposed?
(No responses)

Abstentions?

Roy DeHart abstains, Robert Presley abstains,
the Chair abstains.

Then I declare that those submotions have all
carried and those six sites will be identified to
our contractor as the first group to be audited.

Now does the Board wish to identify on AWE
facilities some initial sites? In this case we
have for the total contract -- I think it was a
maximum of four, was it not?

UNIDENTIFIED: Two to four.

DR. ZIEMER: Two to four. Do you wish to
identify any of these at this time for initial

review?

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

alae

12

413

14

iS)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

293

part. I did have -- I did have Y-12 was -- within
the group, not of five but of six, so --

DR. ZIEMER: So you had -- you had six.

MR. OWENS: -- I’1ll speak in favor of that.

DR. ZIEMER: The mover is therefore telling
us that this is a friendly amendment. Does the
seconder agree that that’s a friendly amendment?
Who seconded this original motion?

MR. OWENS: Dr. Melius.

DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? It sound friendly
to you?

DR. MELIUS: Yes, very friendly.

DR. ZIEMER: Then the Chair declares that as
part of the original motion and it -- we don’t
even need to vote on this amendment.

Now Rich.

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, can you repeat the list
of five with addition of the six?

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the list now, as I
understand it, is Hanford, INEEL, National --
well, Nevada Test Site, Rocky Flats, Savannah
River Site and Y-12. That’s six sites. Does that
-- everybody agree that those are the six? Are
you ready to vote? Comment, Robert?

MR. PRESLEY: Can I vote, or do I need to

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

ara

ake]

13

14

45

16

any

18

LS

20

21

22

23

24

25

289

second that?

DR. MELIUS: I’11 second it.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there further
discussion on this motion? Yes, Richard then Roy.

DR. DEHART: We have three gaseous diffusion
plants. I would like to see one of those added to
the list.

DR. ZIEMER: Is that a suggested amendment or
just a comment right now?

DR. DEHART: I’11 make it in the form of an
amendment.

DR. ZIEMER: Are you asking that it be added
rather than substitute, so we can have six?

DR. DEHART: Add.

DR. ZIEMER: Add.

MR. OWENS: In all due respect to Dr.
DeHart’s amendment, I think that, based on
comments that were made yesterday, the gaseous
diffusion plants, as we all know, are included in
the Special Exposure Cohort and I think that for
the ongoing credibility of the program, those
individuals, those workers at those sites are
being compensated, and I think that while there is
a need to review the site profiles, I think that

that can wait and I’d like to see these initial

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

all

12

ate

14

5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

288

five, and my other one was Idaho. One thing I do
want to mention is that -- from the contractor's
standpoint -- Y-12, although I have it on my list,
it might be a little tricky for them. They have
to reactivate clearances, and I think they have to
talk to NIOSH about how to go about that, and I
don’t know how timely that can be achieved, but
that could be a little holdup as far as getting
(Inaudible) rolling too quickly.

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I'd like to possibly
structure a motion. I have five sites -- Nevada
Test Site, Idaho Falls, Hanford, Savannah River
and I would agree with Tony on Rocky Flats.

DR. ZIEMER: Your motion is for us to
designate -- let’s see if I have this correct --
Hanford, INEEL, Rocky Flats, Savannah River Site
and --

MR. OWENS: Nevada Test Site.

DR. ZIEMER: -- Nevada Test Site.

MR. OWENS: As the initial --

DR. ZIEMER: Initial group of five.

MR. OWENS: -- group of five that’s submitted
for review.

DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask -- we can certainly

treat that as a motion. Does somebody want to

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

43

14

aL

16

iv

18

19

20

2d

22

23

24

25

287

reactor type enrichment to -- activities to other
types of activities. So that’s my opening gambit
there, those three sites.

DR. ZIEMER: Let’s hear a comment from Mike
first, and then we’ll get some other -- I don’t
know if that was a motion, but I’m going to just
treat it as a suggestion right now. Mike?

MR. GIBSON: Yeah, just to step back -- in
process, which is the last in the -- in the review
process? Is it the OCAS review or the ORAU
review?

MR. ELLIOTT: It’s the OCAS review.

DR. MELIUS: I guess to that list for
consideration I would throw in Savannah River
because of the fact that it’s first, it’s complete
and that there’s a lot of individual dose
reconstructions that have been done for it, so I
think -- I think they almost, in a practical
sense, have to look at it.

DR. ZIEMER: I have Mark and then -- who was

next? Tony, did you have another comment? No.

Mark?

MR. GRIFFON: I actually -- I don’t have a
problem with Tony’s list or Jim’s addition. rd
throw out a possible -- if -- I was thinking of

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES