STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING 52 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

VOL. IV 

DAY THREE 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 52nd 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Suncoast Hotel and Casino, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, on Jan. 10, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Jan. 10, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

SEC PETITION UPDATE 10 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: 22 

CHAPMAN VALVE, DR. PATRICIA WORTHINGTON, DOE 23 

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, DR. PAT WORTHINGTON, DOE 34 

FERNALD, MR. BRADLEY CLAWSON 60 

SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY-LIVERMORE 70 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH 

SUBCOMMITTEE, WORK GROUP REPORTS 72 

WORK GROUP CHAIRS 

BOARD WORKING TIME: 108 

REVIEW OF SEC PETITION WRITE-UPS, DR. PAUL ZIEMER 108 

REDACTION OF BOARD TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES POLICY 114 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

TRACKING STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES 118 

DR. LEWIS WADE, NIOSH 

TRACKING OF BOARD ACTIONS, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 129 

FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 133 

SC&A TASKS 144 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 169 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

4 MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

AND IDENTIFIED TELEPHONIC PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

AKRAM, M. 

BALDRIDGE, SANDRA, FERNALD 

BLOCK, SHARON, SEN. KENNEDY 

BREYER, LAURIE, OCAS 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

CAMERON, BUCK, ATL INT 

CANO, GINA, DOE 

CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

FUNK, JOHN R. 

GIOVACCINI, GERALD, SANDIA 

GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 

HILL, STEVEN, CONG. SHAVITZ 

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

JERISEN, DEB, EECAP 

KOTSCH, JEFF, U.S. DOL 

LEWIS, GREG, DOE 

LEWIS, MARK, ATL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU 

MCKEEL, DAN, SINEW 

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 

RICHLOW, CALVIN C., SEN. REID 

ROBERTS, LAURIE 

ROZNER, KATHLEEN, SEN. REID 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 

STEPHAN, ROBERT, SEN. OBAMA 

TACK, JEFF, DOE 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:40 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. All the Board 

2 members are present here, with the exception of 

3 Dr. Roessler and -- and Mark Griffon. Gen 

4 Roessler, are you on the line this morning? 

5 (No responses) 

6 Gen Roessler on the line? 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: She intended to be. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll -- we'll check again 

9 later. I believe Mark does intend to join us 

10 later, at the time of the reports. 

11 Oh, John Poston had to leave, actually. John -

12 - I'm sorry, John is flying overseas today. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

14 (Unintelligible) 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I didn't hear that Gen was on the 

16 line. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Can we please test the line? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Is -- are the telephone lines 

19 open? 

20 Oh, I think I hear -- Gen Roessler? 
8

1 (No responses) 

2 I don't hear -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: We're trying to hear if she's on 

4 the line. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- I can't tell if Dr. 

6 Roessler's on the line or not. I think I'm 

7 hearing some background sound. I'm not hearing 

8 -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: If everyone in the room could sit 

10 down, we're trying to establish the phone 

11 connection. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not hearing it, though. 

13 Somebody's talking, but I can't really -- can 

14 we -- can we check the volume a little bit? 

15 MS. MUNN: It may be the attorney who was 

16 conversing with his wife for a long period of 

17 time. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler, are you on the line? 

19 (No responses) 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Is anybody on the line? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any others on the line? 

22 We're trying to check and see if we have any 

23 callers on the line. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, Dr. Ziemer. 

25 MR. HILL: This is Steven Hill from Congressman 
9

1 -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, very good. 

3 MR. HILL: -- (Unintelligible)'s office. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: At least we know that the lines 

5 are open. Thank you very much. 

6 Before we get into the agenda items for today, 

7 a couple of housekeeping things. Board 

8 members, I have -- this was left here at the 

9 Board table. It appears to be a phone charger 

10 connection, Motorola, if any -- Phil, it's 

11 yours. Well, good, because they found it by 

12 your spot, but everyone claimed it -- oh, okay. 

13 I guess they checked everybody but you, Phil. 

14 Okay, thank you. 

15 Usual reminders to register your attendance, if 

16 you haven't already done so today. Also some 

17 comments from Dr. Branche. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Good morning. I'm going to be 

19 your Designated Federal Official this morning, 

20 but Dr. Wade will wink at me if I'm doing 

21 something wrong, so I thank you. 

22 For those of you participating by phone, if you 

23 would please mute your phone until the time 

24 that you're speaking, we would very much 

25 appreciate that. Can't express enough the 
10

1 quality of the line so that everyone 

2 participating by phone can hear. But also to 

3 let all of you who are participating by phone 

4 know that we really can hear quite a bit of 

5 what's happening at your -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Especially if your dog is barking. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, so the person with -- there, 

8 I think we got rid of that. Okay. 

9 Also for those of you participating in the 

10 meeting room, if you could please mute or 

11 silence your phone, that also will help with 

12 the quality because we are really having a 

13 difficult time hearing everyone speak. 

14 So Dr. Ziemer, it's a pleasure to be working 

15 with you today. Thank you. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We're pleased to have 

17 you here at the table with us, as well. 

18 SEC PETITION UPDATE

19 We're going to begin this morning with a report 

20 on SEC petitions status -- that is the status 

21 of SEC petitions, plural. LaVon Rutherford 

22 from the OCAS staff will make that 

23 presentation. Good morning, LaVon. 

24 MR. RUTHERFORD: Good morning, Dr. Ziemer. 

25 Thank you very much. As Dr. Ziemer mentioned, 
11

1 I'm going to give you an update on the status 

2 of existing SEC petitions. Again, this is to 

3 provide an update to the Board and hopefully 

4 this will give the Board enough information 

5 that they can prepare for upcoming workgroup 

6 meetings and future Board meetings. 

7 As of December 14th we had received 104 

8 petitions, and we have four petitions that are 

9 in the qualification process. We have 

10 qualified 51 petitions. Of those 51, we've 

11 completed our evaluation on 39, and 12 of those 

12 are in progress. We did not qualify 49 of the 

13 petitions. This may have changed just a little 

14 bit over the last few weeks, but again, it's as 

15 of December 14th. 

16 Now I want to talk about existing evaluation 

17 reports that are with the Board and awaiting 

18 recommendation. We have Chapman Valve, the 

19 Chapman Valve -- the evaluation report was sent 

20 to the -- was approved and sent on August 31st, 

21 2006. We presented our evaluation at the 

22 September 2006 Advisory Board meeting. The 

23 Advisory Board established a workgroup at that 

24 meeting, and the workgroup presented its 

25 findings in May of 2007. At that time a 
12

1 decision was made to postpone a recommendation 

2 until SC&A was -- report could be received by 

3 the petitioners. At the July meeting a vote 

4 was taken to -- to not add a class and came up 

5 with a six-six vote. In light of that vote, 

6 the Advisory Board asked Department of Labor 

7 and DOE to address potential -- additional 

8 areas that may be covered at the -- at the Dean 

9 Street facility. Prior to the October 2007 

10 Board meeting Department of Labor provided a 

11 response to the Advisory Board. DOE provided a 

12 response during the November 2007 Advisory 

13 Board conference call, although DOE is 

14 continuing its investigation. The current 

15 status is the petition and evaluation report 

16 are with the Board for recommendation, and I 

17 believe the Department of Energy is schedule to 

18 provide an update at this meeting. 

19 Blockson Chemical, Wanda did give us an update 

20 on Blockson yesterday, but the evaluation 

21 report was initially approved and sent in 

22 September 2006. We presented that evaluation 

23 report at the December 2006 meeting. However, 

24 we withdrew that evaluation report after it was 

25 discovered that we had not addressed all 
13

1 covered exposures at the facility. The 

2 Advisory Board established a workgroup at that 

3 meeting and NIOSH issued a revised evaluation 

4 report at the -- in July -- early July of 2007. 

5 We presented that evaluation report at the July 

6 2007 Advisory Board meeting and a workgroup 

7 meeting was held in August in Cincinnati and a 

8 public meeting was held in September -- in 

9 September to explain the dose reconstruction 

10 technical approach. Then the workgroup held a 

11 conference in November, and the current status 

12 is petition and evaluation report are with the 

13 workgroup. And as of the discussion yesterday, 

14 there are a couple of issues that Dr. Melius is 

15 looking into for that workgroup. 

16 Feed Materials Production Center, the 

17 evaluation report was approved and sent to the 

18 Advisory Board and the petitioners in November 

19 of 2006. NIOSH presented the evaluation report 

20 at the February 2007 Advisory Board meeting. 

21 The Advisory Board established a workgroup led 

22 by Brad Clawson at that February meeting. In 

23 May of 2007 SC&A issued their draft review of 

24 the evaluation report and the workgroup met in 

25 Cincinnati in August and in November of 2007. 
14

1 Current status is the workgroup review of the 

2 Feed Materials Production Center evaluation 

3 report is ongoing. 

4 Bethlehem Steel -- again, a reminder these are 

5 petitions that are with the Board right now for 

6 recommendation. Bethlehem Steel, the 

7 evaluation report was approved and sent to the 

8 Advisory Board and the petitioners in February 

9 2007. We presented -- NIOSH presented the 

10 evaluation report at the May 2007 Advisory 

11 Board meeting, and at that time the Advisory 

12 Board determined that it needed further 

13 information before making a recommendation on 

14 the SEC. The Advisory Board tabled the 

15 discussion on Bethlehem Steel until the 

16 workgroup -- the surrogate data workgroup 

17 evaluates the use of surrogate data at 

18 Bethlehem Steel. Current petition -- the 

19 current status the petition and the evaluation 

20 report are with the Advisory Board for 

21 recommendation, and an update was provided at 

22 this meeting. 

23 Sandia National Lab Livermore, this is a -- 

24 actually an evaluation of a small class of 

25 workers at Sandia. The evaluation report was 
15

1 approved and sent to the Advisory Board on 

2 March 2007. However, in late April of 2007, 

3 just before the May meeting, we received new 

4 information from the petitioner. We went ahead 

5 with our presentation at the May meeting and 

6 discussed the new information. The Advisory 

7 Board asked NIOSH to provide an update that 

8 addressed that new information. We issued an 

9 addendum to the evaluation report, presented 

10 that addendum at the October 2007 Advisory 

11 Board meeting. The Advisory Board tabled the 

12 vote at that meeting until further -- until the 

13 information that the petitioner discussed at 

14 that meeting could be reviewed by the Board. 

15 And I do have an additional -- we did ensure 

16 that all the information that the petitioner 

17 had identified was made available to the Board, 

18 and at the November conference call the 

19 Advisory Board had indicated they wanted to 

20 review that information before they made a -- a 

21 recommendation. Status is an update is 

22 scheduled for this meeting. 

23 Hanford Part 2, as you know, we had -- we broke 

24 it into two parts, Hanford 1 being the early 

25 years and Hanford 2 being the later years of 
16

1 '47 to '90. The evaluation report was approved 

2 and sent the Advisory Board and the petitioners 

3 in September of 2007. NIOSH presented our 

4 evaluation at the October Advisory Board 

5 meeting, and the Advisory Board sent the report 

6 to their contractor, SC&A, and the Hanford 

7 (sic) Board workgroup for review. Current 

8 status is the petition and evaluation report 

9 are with the Advisory Board and SC&A for 

10 review. 

11 Nevada Test Site, we -- the evaluation report 

12 was approved and sent to the Advisory Board and 

13 the petitioners in September and we presented 

14 the evaluation report at this Advisory Board 

15 meeting. And after yesterday that evaluation 

16 report was sent to the Nevada Test Site 

17 workgroup, the one that's dealing with the site 

18 profile. 

19 Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the evaluation 

20 report was approved and sent to the Advisory 

21 Board and petitioners in December 2007. NIOSH 

22 presented our evaluation yesterday at this 

23 Advisory Board meeting and the Advisory Board 

24 took action on that presentation, agreeing with 

25 NIOSH's recommendation to add a class. 
17

1 Mound Plant, the evaluation report was approved 

2 and sent the Advisory Board and petitioners in 

3 December, and we presented our evaluation 

4 report and path forward at this Advisory Board 

5 meeting. The Advisory Board concurred with our 

6 recommendation to add a -- add a class from 

7 those earlier years and agreed that continued 

8 work should -- should go on with the later 

9 years. 

10 Combustion Engineering, 19-- the evaluation 

11 report was approved and sent to the Advisory 

12 Board and petitioners in December and we 

13 presented our evaluation report at the Advisory 

14 Board meeting yesterday. The Advisory Board 

15 concurred with our recommendation to add a 

16 class for Combustion Engineering. 

17 Currently there are a number of SEC petitions 

18 that have qualified or in the evaluation 

19 process. We have a Pantex petition that covers 

20 1950 to 1991, and we expect this evaluation to 

21 be complete in April of 2008. 

22 We have Texas City Chemical, which is a January 

23 1, 1952 to December 31, 1956. We have held 

24 onto issuing that evaluation report. We wanted 

25 to -- till the Board made a decision on 
18

1 Blockson Chemical. After the meeting yesterday 

2 I think there'll be further discussion with Dr. 

3 Neton and Larry Elliott to determine whether we 

4 want to go ahead and issue that report. 

5 Santa Susana Field Lab, we anticipate the 

6 evaluation report being complete this month. 

7 Horizons, Inc., we have an evaluation report 

8 that we anticipate completing in February of 

9 2008. 

10 At this time, due to some review issues -- back 

11 on the Pantex one -- we don't anticipate having 

12 the -- the evaluation report complete in time 

13 for the April Board meeting. However, we do 

14 anticipate Texas City, Santa Susana and 

15 Horizons, Inc. all being ready for the April 

16 Board meeting. 

17 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development, we 

18 anticipate having that evaluation report 

19 complete in March and ready for the April Board 

20 meeting. 

21 The next three are 83.14s where we've 

22 identified that -- to an existing claim that 

23 dose reconstruction was not feasible. 

24 Kellex/Pierpont, we anticipate that evaluation 

25 report complete in January. MIT, which is 
19

1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be 

2 complete in January -- again, of 2008; SAM 

3 Laboratory in February of 2008. All of these 

4 we anticipate presenting at the next Apr-- in 

5 the April Board meeting. 

6 In addition there are seven sites that are in 

7 the early phases of the 83.14 process. We have 

8 a little due diligence work that we're doing on 

9 that. And one of those, the NUMEC (Parks), we 

10 anticipate having that approved and ready to 

11 present at the April Board meeting. We had 

12 hoped to have that one done for this Board 

13 meeting, but we ran into some review issues 

14 that held us up a little bit. 

15 And that's it. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, LaVon, for that 

17 summary. Let's take a moment to see if there 

18 are questions from the Board members. Dr. 

19 Melius. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Just a comment that if the -- if 

21 you're certain that the Pantex report isn't 

22 going to be ready by the April meeting, I think 

23 we need to reconsider our schedule out there 

24 then. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: We will in fact do that -- 
20

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that's on the agenda for 

3 today. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: For a variety of reasons, it's 

6 fairly clear that that is likely not to be 

7 ready, and therefore we will look at an 

8 alternate site for that next meeting. 

9 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And that will come up during our 

11 work session. Thank you. 

12 Other comments? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Okay. Thank you, LaVon. It's a very helpful 

15 summary for us -- oh, yeah, another comment. 

16 Okay, hold on. 

17 DR. MELIUS: I think -- I'm not sure we -- just 

18 want to -- for -- procedurally need to be sure 

19 on this, but with those 83.14 petitions, we -- 

20 I don't know if we have sort of a standing 

21 policy on how we're doing that, but the SEC 

22 evaluation workgroup at times has been 

23 reviewing these -- trying to review these ahead 

24 of the -- the meetings to try to move it along 

25 -- 
21

1 DR. ZIEMER: Actually -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: -- I think -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- actually we don't have a -- 

4 really a sort of codified policy. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I think it's been somewhat comme 

7 ci, comme ça, as they say, but it certainly 

8 would be helpful if those are ready -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- in advance that the SEC 

11 workgroup could take an early look at those, 

12 partic-- particularly those 83.14s -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: Right, yeah, there's a -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- there's what, three of those? 

15 DR. MELIUS: Looks like -- 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actu-- 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- looks like -- 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Four. 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- there's four listed on -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, okay. 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- the last slide. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

23 MR. RUTHERFORD: I would anticipate there being 

24 more, though. I mean you are going to get 

25 NUMEC (Parks) as well. 
22

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, so -- 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: And -- and what we'll do is -- 

3 at -- what I did in December with the past 

4 83.14s, I will make sure that -- that that 

5 workgroup is -- we -- we get -- I will make a -

6 - send an e-mail to you, make -- to Dr. Melius, 

7 letting him know that they are ready and they 

8 are available on the O drive for review. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 

10 DR. MELIUS: That was my Christmas present from 

11 LaVon, Christmas Eve this year. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Happy -- Happy New Year. Okay, 

13 thank you very much. 

14 Again, any further questions for LaVon? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Okay. Thank you, LaVon, for that presentation. 

17 (Pause) 

18 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES

19 Next we have updates on some particular sites 

20 that include Chapman Valve, Dow Chemical, 

21 Fernald and Sandia Livermore, and we're going 

22 to begin with Chapman Valve. We -- we're going 

23 to hear from Dr. Worthington from DOE on that, 

24 and also I believe -- I was informed that 

25 Sharon Black (sic) from Senator Kennedy's 
23

1 office is on the line as well. Sharon, are you 

2 there this morning? Sharon Black -- or Block, 

3 it is. I'm sorry, Sharon Block -- get the 

4 correct name. 

5 (No responses) 

6 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

7 (Unintelligible) they have confirmation of 

8 (unintelligible). 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Stand by just one moment. Let's 

10 check here. 

11 (Pause) 

12 Okay, we're going to proceed with Dr. 

13 Worthington's report, and then we'll check 

14 again to see if Sharon Block has joined us. 

15 Thank you. Welcome again, Patricia. 

16 CHAPMAN VALVE

17 DR. WORTHINGTON: Good morning. Can you hear 

18 me okay? 

19 I want to give you a couple of updates today, 

20 and -- and certainly I want to start off in the 

21 beginning by saying that we were -- we'll come 

22 to you with the updates and the final decisions 

23 as soon as we could. Certainly we recognize 

24 the need to be timely on these matters, but we 

25 want to follow all the leads through. 
24

1 Sometimes a quick response is not necessarily a 

2 comprehensive or complete one, so we wanted to 

3 follow all the leads and then to come back with 

4 you in terms of where we are. 

5 Again, I'll start with Chapman Valve, and the 

6 Chapman Valve facility's currently covered 

7 under EEOICPA as an Atomic Weapons Employer for 

8 1948 to 1949 for work with uranium for the 

9 Brookhaven National Laboratory. NIOSH asked 

10 the Department of Energy to research whether 

11 there were any additional sources of 

12 radioactive material -- for example, transfer 

13 points of manifolds from Oak Ridge for testing 

14 at Chapman Valve Dean Street, which may have 

15 contained enriched uranium. So that's what we 

16 were -- we were asked to do. 

17 DOE tasked our research specialists with 

18 researching the relationship between Chapman 

19 Valve Dean Street location and work done with 

20 AEC. We went to a number of locations to 

21 gather information, both within DOE and outside 

22 sources, and I'll just mention a few of them. 

23 We looked at just -- many records from the -- 

24 the MED history book. We did FUSRAP reviews, 

25 we've -- Y-12 searches -- extensive researches 
25

1 on a wide range of keywords, went to various 

2 sites -- Savannah River -- and so there were 

3 many places that we actually looked. We looked 

4 and read very carefully the worker affidavits, 

5 the worker testimonies from public meetings, 

6 and we actually traveled to one person's home, 

7 a former Chapman employee, and talked with them 

8 and gained some valuable insights. And again, 

9 I want to thank all of you that actually 

10 provided information -- questions, insights, 

11 data, things that we should look at. We 

12 certainly appreciated that. 

13 Based on our research -- which we believe was 

14 comprehensive -- evaluation of the documents 

15 that we were able to review -- I want to give 

16 you kind of the -- the results in terms of two 

17 parts. Based on our research, DOE recognizes 

18 that the Chapman Valve building located at Dean 

19 Street was considered part of the parent Indian 

20 Orchard facility and not a distinct and 

21 separate facility. DOE will update the DOE 

22 facility list database to specify that the Dean 

23 Street building was part of the main facility, 

24 and also covered during the designated period, 

25 1948 to 1949. 
26

1 With respect to looking for additional sources, 

2 again, we -- we believe we had a fairly 

3 exhaustive review. We were unable to 

4 substantiate that work involving additional 

5 sources of radioactive material were conducted 

6 on behalf of the AEC. 

7 So this is where we are with Chapman Valve. 

8 This is -- we've finished our work. We have 

9 now forwarded these findings in a letter report 

10 to DOL and to NIOSH, and we are available now 

11 to ask -- answer any additional questions that 

12 you might have. Gina Cano is here with me 

13 today, as well as Greg Lewis, and we have one 

14 of our researchers on the line, Jeff Tate -- 

15 Jeff Tack is on the line. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's open it 

17 for questions, begin with -- Dr. Melius, do you 

18 have a question or -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: No, I'm sorry. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- your sign is just up from 

21 habit. Okay. Let -- let me ask also, or I'll 

22 give you the floor here, Jim. I just want to 

23 ask the NIOSH folks if they can give the Board 

24 in a moment some idea of what the path forward 

25 is with this addition. What -- what are the 
27

1 next steps that will occur? 

2 DR. MELIUS: Oh, Gen can't hear. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Gen -- I -- is she on the line? 

4 You got an e-mail from her -- 

5 DR. ROESSLER: Hey, Paul. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we can hear you, Gen. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. What's happening on the 

8 phone line is we are alternating between talk 

9 mode and silent mode, and I think that's 

10 probably why you didn't get a response from the 

11 person you wanted on the line earlier. 

12 MS. BLOCK: Yeah, I'm on the line now. This is 

13 Sharon Block from Senator Kennedy's office. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, thank you, Sharon. Okay. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: But we seem to be okay right 

16 now, but it is going back and forth between us 

17 not being able to respond and also not being 

18 able to hear the presentation. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Do we have some way to -- 

20 how will we know when that's occurring? 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Well, if Christine got my e-mail 

22 -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: I did. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: -- then I -- I will try and 

25 communicate with you whenever we seem to have a 
28

1 problem. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. But I do know that 

3 when a -- the mute -- I go back to the muting 

4 'cause I know that it seemed as if someone's 

5 line was open. When a person on the line 

6 doesn't mute, it makes it difficult for 

7 everyone else participating by phone to hear. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Oh, that might be what's 

9 happening. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: And so throughout LaVon's 

11 presentation, as well as Dr. Worthington's, 

12 someone's line was open. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, let us hear from Jim 

14 Lockey, and then Sharon, if you have some 

15 comments, we'll -- 

16 DR. LOCKEY: That was my only -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, that was Jim's comment. 

18 Sharon, did you have some comments? Did you 

19 hear Dr. Worthington's presentation? 

20 MS. BLOCK: I did, yes, thank you. I was -- I 

21 was able to -- to see, and I -- you know, I 

22 just want to thank Pat for all the work that 

23 she's obviously put into researching this and 

24 appreciate that and -- and getting some notice 

25 that -- of what her results were was very 
29

1 helpful. Senator Kennedy's just very 

2 concerned that Chapman Valve petitioners have 

3 come this far and just want to make sure that 

4 this new information that Pat has brought and 

5 information about the scope of the search that 

6 -- that she and her office have done, you know, 

7 that the Board is given some time to -- to make 

8 sure that, you know, really every stone has 

9 been unturned and that -- and that, you know, 

10 every possible avenue for these petitioners has 

11 been pursued. So that's just -- that's our 

12 perspective, is that we just want to be sure 

13 that the Board is given an ample opportunity to 

14 review what Department of Energy has brought 

15 them today and that, you know, we can make the 

16 best decision -- you can make the best decision 

17 you can for these petitioners. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And indeed we -- we 

19 need to determine what the impact of this 

20 change will be overall. I'm assuming that 

21 NIOSH will examine this at the appropriate time 

22 and there may be some addition to the 

23 evaluation report of some sort. But -- 

24 DR. WORTHINGTON: As NIOSH is coming forward, 

25 we provided the report to NIOSH just on the 7th 
30

1 of January so -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right -- 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- we were just getting it to 

4 them. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- and has the official change in 

6 the designation actually been made by Labor, 

7 or... 

8 DR. WORTHINGTON: No. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Probably hasn't even occurred yet, 

10 but -- there will be a series of steps, I 

11 guess, but what happens then, Jim, as you 

12 understand it? 

13 DR. NETON: We certainly need to look at the 

14 report and evaluate it in a little more detail. 

15 But from what I'm hearing, DOE's research did 

16 not identify any additional sources of radioac17 - 

18 DR. WORTHINGTON: That's correct. 

19 DR. NETON: -- radiation exposure, so in 

20 effect, if that is true, nothing changes in our 

21 evaluation report. The only identified source 

22 of exposure that we are evaluating is the 

23 machining of the uranium slugs for the 

24 Brookhaven Reactor that occurred at Chapman. 

25 And we maintain in our evaluation report that 
31

1 we can reconstruct those doses. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

3 DR. NETON: I don't -- if it's what I bel-- 

4 DR. WORTHINGTON: The AWE itself will -- now 

5 will show that the Dean Street location is the 

6 same as the -- as -- as the others, and so -- 

7 DR. NETON: Right, and so Dean Street becomes 

8 part of the (unintelligible) -- 

9 DR. WORTHINGTON: That's correct. 

10 DR. NETON: We -- we know of no radiation work 

11 that went on at Dean Street that would change 

12 our -- our evaluation report, but -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: But there would -- 

14 DR. NETON: -- we certainly will -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- be a slightly -- a slight 

16 modification of the -- of the description of 

17 the class. 

18 DR. NETON: The class definition -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 DR. NETON: -- would possibly change. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So once we have that final 

22 description, I guess we'd be in a position then 

23 to -- to take further action. I would assume 

24 that this might be ready by the time of our 

25 next face-to-face meeting. 
32

1 Brad Clawson. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: I guess my question is, is we had 

3 three samples, two of them that showed low4 enriched and one that was enriched. What are 

5 we going to -- what are we going to do with 

6 that? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that -- that can certainly 

8 be a part of the deliberations then. 

9 DR. NETON: We covered that in the evaluation 

10 report, and -- and we pulled the thread 

11 further. We've gone to the FUSRAP regulatory 

12 document that was filed in the cleanup of that 

13 site. There's no indication that there was 

14 enriched material that was processed there. We 

15 just cannot identify the source of that 

16 material. 

17 I would state that if there were additional 

18 sources, it could be covered under an 

19 additional Special Exposure Cohort evaluation. 

20 All we're saying is with the radiation 

21 activities that we know occurred there, we've 

22 evaluated them and we're saying that we can 

23 reconstruct the doses that occurred based on 

24 that campaign to machine those slugs. If 

25 something else would come out in the future, it 
33

1 could be evaluated under a separate Special 

2 Exposure Cohort. It doesn't have to be done 

3 all at one time. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other questions or 

6 comments for Dr. Worthington, or in general? 

7 Okay, Jim Melius. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would only ask that if 

9 we're going to try to deal with this at the 

10 April meeting that we also have SC&A follow up. 

11 They've been -- already I think done a review 

12 on the SEC evaluation report or the site 

13 profile, I can't remember the -- the details. 

14 But they ought to also follow up on this issue 

15 since they are -- I think actually interviewed 

16 more people at the site and more familiar with 

17 the site than anybody else. So far as I 

18 understand, the DOE was -- report is -- there's 

19 a number of documents that were put onto the O 

20 drive, but there's als-- they've interviewed 

21 one additional person and I think we need to 

22 pull this all together and SC&A's in the best 

23 position to do that. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and we can -- we can -- we 

25 can certainly ask -- we do have a Chapman Valve 
34

1 workgroup and -- and ask them to work on -- on 

2 any follow-up that's needed on this particular 

3 issue. 

4 Okay, any further questions or comments? Brad, 

5 did you have an additional com-- no? Okay. 

6 (No responses) 

7 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

8 Okay. Next let's move on to Dow Chemical. 

9 Again Dr. Worthington has some remarks on that, 

10 and... 

11 (Whereupon, an off-microphone conversation 

12 ensued.) 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Robert is -- Robert Stephan 

14 has arrived, and we're just going to discuss 

15 Dow now. So Dr. Worthington, go ahead. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: But before you do, Dr. 

17 Worthington -- again, if you're on the line, if 

18 you could please mute your phone if you're not 

19 speaking, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. 

20 DR. WORTHINGTON: I'll continue with the Dow 

21 Chemical Madison, Illinois information. Again, 

22 this is a final report from Department of 

23 Energy. There've been a number of questions 

24 raised as to whether or not Dow Chemical in 

25 Madison, Illinois sold magnesium/thorium alloys 
35

1 to the AEC; and if so, whether the sale of the 

2 product -- if that would be sufficient basis to 

3 satisfy the statutory requirements for 

4 additional coverage as an Atomic Weapons 

5 Employer under EEOICPA. I want to talk a 

6 little bit about the things that we did, and 

7 kind of the rationale that we used. 

8 DOE has determined that sheets and plates made 

9 from magnesium/thorium alloys did go directly 

10 into atomic weapons from 1956 to 1969, and that 

11 Dow Chemical in Madison, Illinois produced and 

12 sold magnesium/thorium sheets and plates to the 

13 AEC during the late 1950s. Therefore, the 

14 selling of magnesium/thorium alloys sheets and 

15 plates, which required an AEC license, to the 

16 AEC meets the definition of an a-- an Atomic 

17 Weapons Employer as defined by EEOICPA. DOE 

18 will be updating the description of the covered 

19 facility to state that Dow Chemical Madison, 

20 Illinois as having supplied magnesium/thorium 

21 sheets and plates to the AEC from 1957 to 1958. 

22 We want to thank the workers and many of the 

23 other interested parties that -- for providing 

24 us with information that helped us to come to 

25 our decision. Cooperation and sharing of 
36

1 information is -- is indeed very helpful to us, 

2 and we feel that we had enough information to 

3 render what we believe to be a -- a fair 

4 decision, a fair position. 

5 A little bit more specific information. 

6 EEOICPA establishes that three conditions need 

7 to be met in order to be designated as an 

8 Atomic Weapons Employer. One was that 

9 materials was produced -- was processed or 

10 produced for use by the United States; 

11 materials emitted radiation; and materials were 

12 used in an atomic weapon. 

13 We reviewed purchase orders from Mallinckrodt 

14 Chemical Works from 1957 to 1963 to Dow 

15 Chemical Madison, Illinois. The purchase 

16 orders were obtained from the Dow Chemical 

17 attorneys. Invoices from 1957 and 1958 

18 established that Dow Madison supplied 

19 Mallinckrodt with magnesium/thorium sheets and 

20 plates. That supported number one. 

21 We also reviewed worker testimony that 

22 discussed the production of sheets and shipment 

23 of this material to the AEC. The Bureau of 

24 Mines and Minerals' annual yearbooks, that was 

25 another source of information for us, from the 
37

1 early 1950s indicated that Dow Chemical 

2 Corporation was a primary developer and 

3 producer of magnesium/thorium alloys. Dow 

4 Chemical Corporation also held a patent for a 

5 process related to magnesium/thorium alloys. 

6 The production of magnesium/thorium alloys 

7 required an AEC license -- or what we now know 

8 as an NRC license. Mallinckrodt Chemical 

9 Works, Uranium Division, conducted a variety of 

10 activities that supported research, development 

11 and production programs for the nuclear weapons 

12 complex. 

13 DOE has determined that sheets and plates made 

14 from magnesium/thorium alloy did go directly 

15 into atomic weapons from 1956 to 1959. So this 

16 is what we've done and we'll be happy to answer 

17 any questions that you may have regarding DOE's 

18 research and its conclusions on this particular 

19 topic. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I'm going 

21 to give Robert Stephan an opportunity if he 

22 wants to comment on this at this time. You 

23 don't need to, Robert, but you're welcome to. 

24 MR. STEPHAN: You know me, Dr. Ziemer, I'm not 

25 going to shy away from a chance to comment to 
38

1 you guys. 

2 Thank you, number one. And number two, thank 

3 you to DOE, Pat, and to -- 

4 DR. WORTHINGTON: Gina and Greg. 

5 MR. STEPHAN: -- Gina and to Greg, and to Mr. 

6 Podonsky. I think this decision is a long time 

7 coming and took a significant amount of hard 

8 work, and so I just want to commend you, you 

9 know, for -- for, you know, what we've been 

10 fighting for for almost three years now. We 

11 think the evidence is -- is very clear. 

12 We would like to see some relatively swift 

13 action on this item by the Board, if that is 

14 possible. I believe we have a couple of 

15 outstanding items. Number one, we do need to 

16 hear from DOL -- is that correct -- in an 

17 official way as to their... 

18 DR. WORTHINGTON: We provided the -- the 

19 letters to DOL just on January 7th, so -- 

20 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

21 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- they just received the -- 

22 the letters, and so we will look to them, and 

23 we will update our designation. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I might note that Dr. 

25 McKeel, with perhaps some bit of perception, 
39

1 has already kind of figured out the path 

2 forward. He suggested to us what that might be 

3 and I suspect he was fairly close to the mark. 

4 Labor will have to take some formal action. I 

5 believe that NIOSH has some action in terms of 

6 what they do on the class designation. This is 

7 the cleanup period comes into play here now. 

8 And then there would be perhaps a -- another 

9 recommendation to the Board that would cover 

10 including this time period. 

11 I don't know, Jim, if -- if you're prepared to 

12 speak to that, but I think roughly those steps 

13 have to occur. But I don't see any reason why 

14 they can't move ahead with reasonable velocity. 

15 Jim Neton. 

16 DR. NETON: There -- there are some things that 

17 NIOSH has to do now that thorium is considered 

18 covered exposure under -- under EEOICPA. And 

19 most -- most significantly, that is we now have 

20 to determine if we can actually reconstruct 

21 doses for thorium exposure during the residual 

22 contamination period. We haven't even 

23 attempted that yet because up till now it was 

24 not required to be reconstructed under the Act 

25 and so we'll have to pursue that. 
40

1 DR. ZIEMER: So we can anticipate what will 

2 amount to an evaluation report from NIOSH, and 

3 there's a fair likelihood we may want our 

4 contractor to review that evaluation report, as 

5 well, and then come to a decision. But those 

6 things will need to occur and we'll move ahead 

7 on that. 

8 MR. STEPHAN: Jim or LaVon, can you guys speak 

9 to a time frame that -- that you anticipate? 

10 Sorry to put you on the spot, LaVon, but the 

11 main thing I'm wondering is, you know, with 

12 this being done in time for the April meeting. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's a little pow-wow 

14 here and Mr. Hinnefeld is coming forward, too. 

15 He might be able to speak to this. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH. 

17 While we -- you know, we intend to give this a 

18 -- like the highest, or a very high, priority 

19 in the research efforts in order to arrive at 

20 an answer as quickly as possible, I'm 

21 pessimistic about April. And -- but we will -- 

22 I really can't provide a -- I don't think a 

23 good date with any -- with any certainty. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. But committed to treating 

25 this as high priority and moving ahead on it as 
41

1 rapidly as possible. 

2 MR. STEPHAN: So my understanding is that the 

3 April meeting was going to be in Amarillo and 

4 maybe that's not the case, but the -- the 

5 meeting after that, do you have a location for 

6 the meeting after that? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we have a location, 

8 but we do have a date. Let's see what the date 

9 is -- 

10 MR. PRESLEY: May the 14th. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have a -- we have a -- 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

13 (Unintelligible) 

14 DR. ZIEMER: We have a face-to-face meeting in 

15 June -- in June, right. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: And no locations for... 

17 DR. ZIEMER: No -- no location yet established 

18 on that. 

19 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. I'm just wondering if -- 

20 if we know roughly that it's -- this is not 

21 going to be done by April, if we can kind of 

22 work together with NIOSH to get a sense that if 

23 they'll be ready in June, they -- I believe 

24 this is roughly 100 workers -- is that right, 

25 Dr. McKeel, we're talking about? So -- 
42

1 DR. MCKEEL: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

2 MR. STEPHAN: We don't know? But -- but 

3 several, potentially -- several dozen, 

4 potentially. So if that's the case, then I 

5 think it would warrant -- unless you -- there's 

6 another site that it would need -- that would 

7 be a higher priority, that maybe we'd come to 

8 St. Louis for these Dow workers. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Dr. McKeel, 

10 who's the petitioner, may have some additional 

11 comments here on this issue. 

12 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah, I had one specific question 

13 for Pat Worthington while she's here. I'm of 

14 course thrilled by this new development. I do 

15 know that we still have to go through the 

16 formality of having Department of Labor change 

17 the coverage period formally. And one of the 

18 issues that they raised is that e-- even if we 

19 had proven that mag/thorium was sold to 

20 Mallinckrodt, that they would impose the burden 

21 on us of proving that it went into nuclear 

22 weapons. And my -- my argument, made a long 

23 time ago, was that the very fact that they sold 

24 mag/thorium to a facility, the Uranium Division 

25 of Mallinckrodt, whose only function was to 
43

1 produce nuclear weapons was, by definition, 

2 proof of that. But I -- I'm delighted that DOE 

3 came to the same conclusion, and the question 

4 is, was there any additional information that 

5 was turned up in your research that proved that 

6 particular point, or basically did you accept 

7 my rationale. 

8 DR. WORTHINGTON: We did not use a single data 

9 source or a single datapoint to reach our 

10 conclusions. We looked at the actual invoices 

11 themselves and determined if there was 

12 something about the invoices that specifically 

13 tied them to the weapons-related activity. We 

14 looked at the -- the mission of the 

15 organization. We looked at materials. I mean 

16 -- so it was not -- we looked at the -- the 

17 information from -- testimony from the -- from 

18 the workers and other things. It was not a 

19 single -- so I do want to clarify it was not 

20 just -- you know, this is what they were doing; 

21 we assumed it went into the weapon in that 

22 location. We took the various pieces together 

23 and collectively those pieces led us to believe 

24 that it was a -- a strong likelihood that this 

25 was the case. 
44

1 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. Well, thank you. The -- 

2 the other comment I have for the Board is that 

3 we do have a report from SC&A from August of 

4 2007 that the Board tasked SC&A to look at some 

5 specifics of the thorium operations at Dow. 

6 However, in that report they state explicitly 

7 that, based on recommendations they got, or 

8 instructions from the Board, that they did not 

9 look at any of the petitioner-submitted 

10 information, which would actually include, for 

11 example, the reports that I presented to the 

12 Board last May that Pangea Group is actively 

13 and has been since 2003 doing licensed 

14 decommissioning work at that site. And as late 

15 as 2005 there was really quite a large amount 

16 of thorium metal product scattered around the 

17 entire plant at Dow Madison. So I'm going to -

18 - Paul, you mentioned this, that maybe SC&A 

19 would take another look. And -- and certainly 

20 the work they did in that report stands on its 

21 own. But in addition to that, I -- I -- I wish 

22 that you could extend that tasking to involve 

23 looking at our informa-- looking at the 

24 totality of the information, including this new 

25 information that we, again, are delighted that 
45

1 Department of Energy concurs with and -- and 

2 has established now as a -- as a formal 

3 finding, so... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. We have 

5 somebody by phone trying to make a comment? 

6 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: We can't -- if there's someone on 

8 the phone trying to make a comment, we cannot 

9 hear you. 

10 Okay. Robert, did you have an additional 

11 comment? 

12 MR. STEPHAN: Yeah, the -- the main interest 

13 here is -- you know, now that we have this 

14 development, is to be expeditious as we move 

15 forward, obviously. I mean you -- you guys 

16 will recall that we had fairly significant 

17 discussions in Denver about this issue and were 

18 very close to voting, so it will be almost a 

19 year from then that we're going to pick this up 

20 again. So my question is, if we determine that 

21 dose can be constructed on thorium, and you 

22 would seek to ask for SC&A to give an opinion 

23 about that, can we make the request now that 

24 they do some preliminary work so that we can 

25 jump-start that process if that's the event 
46

1 that we end up in so that we don't have to come 

2 back in June and I make the request in June and 

3 we're prolonging this out into August or 

4 September. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We can -- 

6 MR. STEPHAN: Is that reasonable? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can certainly do that, and 

8 actually we have a -- be-- before our next 

9 face-to-face meeting even, we have a conference 

10 call and I -- Board conference call, at which 

11 time I think we will have a better feel, both 

12 for the status of this from a legal point of 

13 view and an idea of where NIOSH is on their 

14 evaluation because I think we're going to need 

15 a NIOSH evaluation also before we dig into 

16 this. 

17 DR. NETON: I -- I guess I'd like a little 

18 clarification on what Robert Stephan was -- was 

19 requesting. NIOSH has not yet developed a -- a 

20 methodology for -- or determined if we can 

21 reconstruct the dose. We would need to do that 

22 first before SC&A could review our product. 

23 Otherwise, we'd be developing these 

24 methodologies in parallel, which is not 

25 something that -- 
47

1 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

2 DR. NETON: -- we -- we normally -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And that was my point, that by -- 

4 by our next meeting, we may have an idea -- by 

5 our phone meeting -- as to where NIOSH is on 

6 this and we can make a determination of at -- 

7 at what point we can come in and ask our 

8 contractor to assist. 

9 MR. STEPHAN: Yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause obviously it's NIOSH's job 

11 to develop that methodology. That's not the 

12 work of this Board to do that. Ours is one of 

13 review. 

14 MR. STEPHAN: Uh-huh. No, I -- I think we're 

15 in agreement. I just want to make sure we have 

16 some consensus today that -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and -- 

18 MR. STEPHAN: -- we don't want to wait until 

19 June. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: No, and we have the ability to 

21 task NIOSH on -- 

22 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- very short -- or not -- not 

24 NIOSH, to task our contractor on very short 

25 notice, once we know what the task is going to 
48

1 be. 

2 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. Is -- is there some 

3 preliminary work that -- that SC&A could and/or 

4 should be doing as we proceed now -- from 

5 today, or no? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: It's not clear to me that there 

7 is. I think we need to have some idea of what 

8 that -- 

9 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- evaluation's going to be -- 

11 look like. 

12 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I -- comment, Jim. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I recall that -- a long 

15 time ago, probably in Denver or whatever, that 

16 you actually tasked the SEC working group to 

17 follow the Ma-- Dow situation, and we 

18 essentially haven't had to do anything 'cause 

19 we've been dealing with this issue since that 

20 time. But I would suggest that we get the 

21 workgroup involved again and -- and -- 

22 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 

23 DR. MELIUS: -- then deal with some of these 

24 issues like, you know, timing and so forth. We 

25 can do that between meetings. That way we 
49

1 don't have to hold things up and can keep 

2 things moving, and we'd also have a mechanism 

3 to report back to the Board -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right, the -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- on it. 

6 MR. STEPHAN: Excellent. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- the SEC workgroup is in place 

8 to -- to monitor this, so I -- I'm anticipating 

9 that we will have a better feel by the time of 

10 our phone meeting as to where we are and at 

11 that point, if tasking is needed, we can do 

12 that. We can do that before that if indeed we 

13 have -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: I was going to say if NIOSH can 

15 keep us informed on what their plans are -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: The work -- the workgroup -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- if there are any visits to the 

18 site or what's going on -- 

19 MR. STEPHAN: Right. 

20 DR. MELIUS: -- that would be helpful. 

21 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The workgroup can step in if 

23 needed and define some tasking. 

24 DR. WORTHINGTON: Dr. Ziemer, if I could -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 
50

1 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- follow up on the -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- Patricia and then Dan. 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- on the one thing when I 

4 said that we didn't take any single pieces of 

5 information in terms of making the decision, it 

6 was a collective -- collection of a number of 

7 pieces, one of the key points was actually the 

8 -- the information from Livermore, the fact 

9 that the weapons design information they gave 

10 us was key in making a determination that 

11 material did go into the weapon. Thank you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

13 MR. STEPHAN: Ju-- just a final point, Dr. 

14 Ziemer -- two -- two final points. One is that 

15 now -- now that we have this information, and 

16 it will lead wherever it leads, I -- I am 

17 sympathetic to the restrictions that all of the 

18 agencies have, by statute or by regulation, et 

19 cetera, but I'm hopeful that as we proceed we 

20 will not get back into a situation where we -- 

21 we not only don't accept eyewitness testimony, 

22 we don't accept, you know, pretty much rock 

23 solid testimony. We -- we put ourselves into a 

24 situation where we're back to, you know, having 

25 to -- to be in 1960 again and having every 
51

1 single document and every single transcript and 

2 -- and every worker is alive again and can 

3 testify to all these issues in real time 'cause 

4 that's not the situation that we're in. And it 

5 is not -- it is not something we can 

6 necessarily deal with now, but some of these 

7 restrictions, through regulation and through 

8 the statute, that these agency have are 

9 obviously burdensome -- extremely burdensome, 

10 to the point that they do -- do not accept 

11 eyewitness testimony, a standard that is not in 

12 any of our judicial system whatsoever. So I 

13 would just hope that that high standard the 

14 Board will not be trying to meet as we go 

15 forward. 

16 And then just one last point is to again thank 

17 DOE for their work. It just -- excellent work, 

18 I think. You guys have been working very hard 

19 and I just can't say enough -- you know, Pat 

20 and Gina and Greg and Mr. Podonsky -- how 

21 thankful we are just to get us to this point. 

22 Thank you. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. McKeel. 

24 DR. MCKEEL: I have one final comment. Now I'm 

25 talking as the co-petitioner for Dow. I -- I'm 
52

1 extremely disturbed, because in this whole 

2 process, which I -- I would remind everyone, we 

3 got the call about this being an 83.14 SEC from 

4 NIOSH and LaVon Rutherford September 5th and 

5 6th of 2006. And you know, in all due respect, 

6 in -- on May 4th information I presented to the 

7 Board was basically exactly the same conclusion 

8 that we're coming to today. But for instance, 

9 Pat mentions these documents from Livermore, 

10 and I think she alluded to those in e-mails and 

11 at the November the 27th meeting. And 

12 subsequent to that, I asked repeatedly what 

13 were those documents, when would we get to see 

14 those. I have never seen those documents. And 

15 so without going into a -- a lot of detail, I 

16 can just say this: I -- I do not feel like 

17 everything has been shared with me as the 

18 petitioner all the way along. And I -- I think 

19 that's extremely unfortunate because I -- I do 

20 have the task, when all is said and done, of 

21 defending whatever conclusions there are before 

22 this Board. And I take that as a very serious 

23 responsibility. Just like you, I cannot do my 

24 job unless the documents are put in my hands. 

25 Also not mentioned or part of the documentation 
53

1 is a revised report from the FBI, and I 

2 understand that that document has been 

3 delivered to DOE and I have never seen that 

4 report, either. So I -- I'm just making a plea 

5 that I -- I can actually try to help and 

6 facilitate all of this, among the agencies, 

7 with the Board, and I think you all know by now 

8 I take that seriously and try to do that. But 

9 I can't do it unless people share things with 

10 me right along. And this process needs to be 

11 as open as possible. So I'm -- I'm just making 

12 that plea to everybody. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 DR. WORTHINGTON: I would like to make a quick 

15 comment. We certainly appreciate your efforts 

16 and the efforts of many others in trying to 

17 address the concerns of the workers. I -- I 

18 believe that DOE is very serious about being 

19 open and -- and working with everyone. 

20 Sometimes people may misunderstand the 

21 information. If we say that we've contacted 

22 Livermore and Livermore is in the process of 

23 looking for the documents, or meeting to try to 

24 determine, or give us specifics regarding 

25 whether it was used in a weapon or not doesn't 
54

1 mean the documents are in our hands right now. 

2 And the people that we're dealing with 

3 typically are juggling many types of activities 

4 and so we have to wait for them to certainly 

5 come back to us. And I -- I thought that I 

6 made it clear in my discussions with you, but I 

7 obviously failed and so I will try one more 

8 time. We have not received the report from the 

9 FBI, which is what I told you. When I left the 

10 office on Monday night I had not received that 

11 report. When we receive the report we will, as 

12 we promised, forward it on to you. And so I 

13 think that in some cases there's some 

14 misunderstanding about what we're telling you. 

15 We are sharing information that can be shared 

16 and we're being as timely as we can in 

17 everything. And again, we appreciate your 

18 efforts and the efforts of everybody else, and 

19 we are working and juggling all these things to 

20 the best that we can, and so -- 

21 DR. MCKEEL: I understand that, but -- 

22 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- we're not withholding 

23 information that can be made available. 

24 DR. MCKEEL: -- can -- can I get the Livermore 

25 reports? 
55

1 DR. WORTHINGTON: We may have already provided 

2 you with Livermore reports. In -- 

3 DR. MCKEEL: No, no -- 

4 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- some cases there were 

5 meetings that we had with experts at Livermore 

6 regarding discussions on weapons and what kinds 

7 of things went into weapons. But we will look 

8 to see if there is any other material that -- 

9 DR. MCKEEL: I a-- 

10 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- we have not provided that 

11 should be provided to you, and then we'll make 

12 every effort to do that, so again, thank you 

13 very much. 

14 DR. MCKEEL: As far as I know, I've gotten no 

15 records of meetings or reports, technical 

16 reports -- 

17 DR. WORTHINGTON: We've sent you -- 

18 DR. MCKEEL: -- for any -- 

19 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- numerous e-mails and 

20 responses to e-mails. In some cases you've 

21 asked questions in e-mails for which we have 

22 responded. But again, in fairness to the 

23 others, I think there are a number of things 

24 coming on after this. I don't want to delay 

25 the schedule. We will review your requests to 
56

1 us and to see if there are -- anything that's 

2 still outstanding and make every effort to get 

3 it to you. 

4 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

5 DR. WORTHINGTON: Thank you. 

6 DR. MCKEEL: Then the final thing I need to 

7 say, Paul, is that there is one thing that it 

8 seems -- bit of business that might be taken 

9 care of in April, and that is that the August 

10 2007 SC&A report, as far as I'm aware, has 

11 never been presented to the Board about Dow. 

12 And there are actually quite a number of 

13 details in that report that I would like to 

14 respond to before the Board. There -- there's 

15 a lot of use of data from other Dow sites, not 

16 at Dow Madison, and that are applied, I think, 

17 inappropriately to the Dow Madison site. And 

18 that's something -- that's sort of an interim 

19 thing. It's not the -- maybe the complete 

20 report that Dow might -- that SC&A might issue, 

21 but we could -- we could get that out of the 

22 way and that might facilitate actually the 

23 NIOSH deliberations as well, so I'd be pleased 

24 if we could -- just something -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I'm going -- 
57

1 DR. MCKEEL: -- for the Board to think about. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- to suggest -- we'll -- we'll 

3 ask the SEC workgroup to take a look at that 

4 issue and then they can make a determination on 

5 how to proceed on that as well. 

6 Again, we thank you for your input. And I -- I 

7 might say, I've -- I know this has been kind of 

8 a long process, and of course it's involved 

9 Labor and it's involved DOE, as well as NIOSH 

10 and Health and Human Services. But I -- I 

11 think in the past maybe six months or so, with 

12 -- particularly with Pat's efforts, we've had a 

13 kind of breakthrough on this. I know that it 

14 has seemed like a long, long effort, and I 

15 think they've -- they've really dug in, and 

16 I've been impressed because, you know, at the 

17 front end of this, this -- and you're aware of 

18 this -- this whole issue was kind of outside of 

19 this Board's purview per se. So we got to sort 

20 of dabbling in other people's business, to some 

21 extent with the prodding of Dr. McKeel, to some 

22 extent with our own concerns, but I think in 

23 fairness to the other agencies, I think they 

24 have really responded beyond what we typically 

25 see in -- in the bureaucracy. So Pat, we do 
58

1 thank you, as well as those in Labor, who -- 

2 who have been responsible. 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: Thank you for your attention. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, do we have any other 

5 comments on Dow? Board members -- I think 

6 Wanda -- Wanda Munn. 

7 MS. MUNN: Just a point of information I think. 

8 Dr. McKeel, did you say you didn't think that 

9 the Board had seen SC&A's August report? 

10 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I'm sure that the report was 

11 delivered to the Board, but I -- what I don't 

12 think -- I don't thi-- I have not heard the 

13 Board discuss that report, and I've not heard 

14 SC&A come before the Board to present their 

15 findings to them. 

16 MS. MUNN: I think that's probably correct. I 

17 just wanted to -- 

18 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- reassure you that if I have that 

20 report, which I do, then certainly the Board 

21 has the report. 

22 DR. MCKEEL: Yes. 

23 MS. MUNN: It doesn't come to me if it doesn't 

24 go to everybody else. So we have it. 

25 DR. MCKEEL: No, no, I was sure that you all 
59

1 had the report -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Oh, right. I misunder-- 

3 DR. MCKEEL: -- I just don't think it's 

4 formally -- 

5 MS. MUNN: I misunderstood you. Thank you. 

6 DR. MCKEEL: No, I think it's not been formally 

7 considered. 

8 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I think you're correct. Okay, 

10 before we go on to Fernald, Dr. Branche has an 

11 additional comment here. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, we really understand that 

13 there's a struggle for some of you who don't 

14 have a mute button on your phones, and so 

15 technology has finally caught up with us and if 

16 you do not have a mute button at your disposal, 

17 if you could use star-6 on your phone to mute 

18 your line when you're not speaking, you can 

19 then use that same star-6 to un-mute your phone 

20 line when you are ready, and we would 

21 appreciate everyone making every opportunity to 

22 use whatever they can to mute the line when 

23 you're not speaking. Thank you so much. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) One person 

25 (unintelligible). 
60

1 FERNALD

2 DR. ZIEMER: It works. Thank you. Okay, next 

3 item is report on Fernald, but -- well, let's 

4 see, we do have a comment to bring to the 

5 record. 

6 MR. BROEHM: Some filler for you. We have a 

7 letter from Senator Sherrod Brown on Fernald 

8 site, and it reads (reading) Dear Dr. Ziemer, I 

9 write to express my support for the Special 

10 Exposure Cohort status number 0046 petition 

11 filed by the former employees and their 

12 survivors of the Feed Materials Center, also 

13 known as Fernald. 

14 The Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

15 Compensation Program was created by Congress in 

16 2000 to ensure that American Energy workers 

17 were compensated for the serious diseases 

18 resulting from their exposure to radiation and 

19 other toxic substances during the course of 

20 their work. Workers at Fernald in Cincinnati, 

21 Ohio were involved in important, often top 

22 secret work during the Cold War, and the 

23 dangers of this work were frequently hidden or 

24 unknown. The lack of information about their 

25 exposure is especially troublesome, as under 
61

1 EEOICPA it is claimant's responsibility to 

2 demonstrate exposure levels and prove the 

3 relationship between exposure and illness. 

4 However, as claimants and program 

5 administrators noted in the Senate's Health, 

6 Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing 

7 on EEOICPA in September, the lack of available 

8 information prevents full and accurate dose 

9 reconstructions. 

10 For many employees at Fernald the exact 

11 exposure amount is extremely difficult, if not 

12 impossible, to determine and so they cannot 

13 obtain benefits. Special Exposure Cohorts were 

14 created so that workers and their survivors 

15 would not be denied benefits due to incomplete 

16 information. Because much of the necessary 

17 Cold War information is imprecise, inaccurate 

18 or simply non-existent, the former employees of 

19 Fernald should be granted SEC status. Granting 

20 SEC status to all Fernald workers will fulfill 

21 the intentions of EEOICPA. 

22 I encourage the Advisory Board to make a prompt 

23 decision in favor of Fernald's SEC petition. I 

24 thank the Board for its attention to this 

25 matter and its serious consideration of SEC 
62

1 Petition Number 00046. Sincerely, Sherrod 

2 Brown, United States Senator. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for reading that 

4 into the record, Jason. Now we earlier had a 

5 brief report from LaVon Nelson (sic) on the -- 

6 or -- LaVon Nelson; I know a LaVon Nelson -- 

7 LaVon Rutherford on -- on the Feed Materials 

8 Production Center, Fernald. You recall he 

9 reported on the workgroup meetings, including 

10 the November meeting, and gave us a brief 

11 status report. 

12 The chairman of that workgroup is Brad Clawson, 

13 and Brad, do you want to add -- give us some 

14 additional comments on the status of the SEC 

15 evaluation for -- or the workgroup's work on 

16 Fernald? 

17 MR. CLAWSON: I'd love to. Fernald, we've 

18 already had two meetings. SC&A established a 

19 matrix that we have worked through. November 

20 7th we finally got through with it. There's 

21 several issues that we're dealing with right 

22 now to be able to work through the process and 

23 so forth. We're hoping to be able to set up 

24 another meeting in probably mid-February or 

25 maybe even late January, somewhere in there, to 
63

1 be able to go through this, but we've still got 

2 to get documentation back to be able to be 

3 reviewed. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that is -- as LaVon had 

5 indicated, that work is ongoing and hopefully 

6 we'll be approaching some conclusive steps or 

7 points fairly soon. 

8 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask, Board members, any 

10 questions on Fernald or its status? And for 

11 the record, the members of your workgroup, can 

12 you -- 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Mark Griffon, Bill -- Robert 

14 Presley, myself and -- aren't you, Wanda? 

15 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I am. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, Dr. Ziemer -- you know how I 

18 -- I con-- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: This is -- this is just -- 

20 MR. CLAWSON: -- I confuse you two -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- a test, Brad. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: -- I'm sorry. Okay, sorry. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

25 Phil (unintelligible). 
64

1 DR. ZIEMER: Phil was added recently as well, 

2 that's correct. Okay. 

3 Very good. Let's go on to Sandia -- 

4 MS. BALDRIDGE: Dr. Ziemer? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, hold on. Yes? 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: This is Sandra Baldridge, the 

7 petitioner. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Sandra, I'm sorry, we didn't 

9 check to see if you were on the line. Please 

10 go ahead. 

11 MS. BALDRIDGE: That's okay. You were talk-- 

12 they were talking earlier about interference. 

13 It seems private conversations -- I don't know 

14 if they're, you know, around the table there or 

15 on the line, but -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I think they're on the line, as 

17 far as I can tell. 

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: They were data capture 

19 discussions. Anyway, it makes it difficult to 

20 hear. 

21 I do have a question concerning the revisions 

22 of the site profile. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

24 MS. BALDRIDGE: At the last working group 

25 meeting Mr. Elliott suggested that the 
65

1 environmental portion of the site profile 

2 revision was in the neighborhood of three weeks 

3 from being ready and submittable. And I was 

4 wondering if there has been any progress in the 

5 preparation of the site profile revisions for 

6 Fernald. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Stu Hinnefeld is going to 

8 address that, Sandra, and he's approaching the 

9 mike here. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't speak precisely about 

11 where that document is in its publication 

12 process, its revision process, but as a -- as a 

13 -- I guess a tactical matter, we at NIOSH 

14 intend to publish, or at least finalize and 

15 publish, several chapter revisions which we 

16 think will occur because of the discussion 

17 that's going on now. This -- the site -- the 

18 SEC evaluation discussion and ultimate decision 

19 will -- will essentially dictate not only how 

20 the environmental chapter of the site profile 

21 will change, but other chapters as well. And 

22 since we -- when we change an approach for dose 

23 reconstruction, we then have to -- we then have 

24 to re-evaluate cases previously completed. We 

25 would like to do that re-evaluation once, and 
66

1 therefore publish the revisions, you know, 

2 essentially simultaneously and look at all 

3 those changes as we evaluate the impact on 

4 previously-completed claims. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: So the -- the three-week estimate 

6 that was originally mentioned may not be 

7 accurate. Is that what you're suggesting? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I think three weeks 

9 would not -- is not going to fit. I think this 

10 thought process sort of arrived since probably 

11 the last workgroup meeting because we were -- 

12 you know, when there's discussion of a changed 

13 -- when there's discussion of a changed 

14 document or revision to a document or revision 

15 to the way we do things at a site, it's 

16 certainly far better for us to capture all 

17 those at one time and revisit these claims 

18 once. And I think really it's -- it's probably 

19 better to the -- for the claimants, as well, to 

20 revisit them once rather than to keep telling -

21 - you know, sending them the letters -- well, 

22 we're going to revisit your claim again, or 

23 we're going to revisit your claim again. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Right. In any event, we need to 

25 be sure that the petitioners are kept abreast 
67

1 of -- of those changes as they come. 

2 Sandra, do you have additional questions or 

3 comments? 

4 MS. BALDRIDGE: Well, this discussion was at 

5 the October 24th meeting in Cincinnati and 

6 we're looking at how many months now since that 

7 time -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, two months have gone 

9 by, or a little more. 

10 MS. BALDRIDGE: Right, and my concern is with 

11 the timeliness issue that is supposed to be 

12 utmost in the processing of information as well 

13 as claims. And when I had contacted NIOSH 

14 after submitting the petition and the 

15 additional data concerning thorium, which has 

16 been over two years now, I inquired as to when 

17 that data would be used in -- in the 

18 reconsideration of previously-denied claims. 

19 And I was told that it was NIOSH's policy not 

20 to re-evaluate any claims until the site 

21 provision (sic) is complete, which is what Stu 

22 just referenced to. But in Section 82.27 of 

23 the rules and regulations, it permits NIOSH to 

24 review a completed dose reconstruction on its 

25 own initiative when it obtains records or 
68

1 information on radiation exposure of DOE or AWE 

2 employees that could substantially increase the 

3 level of radiation doses estimated in the 

4 completed dose reconstruction. 

5 The problem that I have with -- with the -- the 

6 delay and the directives to wait until a site 

7 profile is complete. I see where it, you know, 

8 could entail more work, but the information on 

9 the thorium that was submitted with the 

10 petition was available to NIOSH prior to the 

11 petition's presentation. 

12 The documents that I provided in the SEC 

13 petition were Fernald documents used in the 

14 1994 trial. And at that time the court ordered 

15 that those records be earmarked for future use 

16 for dose reconstruction. Now former Fernald 

17 workers are employed by NIOSH. The trial was 

18 conducted in Cincinnati, the home of NIOSH, and 

19 I feel that NIOSH was remiss when they failed 

20 to locate and use those Fernald documents at 

21 the onset of the site profile development 

22 process. The result has been a delay which I 

23 do not feel falls into the timeliness 

24 requirement for the evaluation of information. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any -- 
69

1 any further comments, Stu, from NIOSH? No. 

2 Okay, they've heard your concerns -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we're at a little bit 

4 of a disadvantage because our Fernald people 

5 are not here anymore -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the people who've been 

8 working on -- I mean the people who've been 

9 working on the Fernald SEC evaluation are not 

10 here. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I know the workgroup will keep 

14 Sandra informed in the course -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll do that as well. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think and she'll be able to 

17 attend that meeting, hopefully, that Brad 

18 referred to which is coming up. And Sandra, 

19 we're -- we're aware of your concerns. We 

20 certainly want to try to minimize further 

21 delays on this. 

22 MS. BALDRIDGE: I appreciate it. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have additional questions 

24 or comments? 

25 MS. BALDRIDGE: No, actually I don't. I think 
70

1 the remainder of my concerns will be discussed 

2 at the working group meeting. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and we'll keep you informed 

4 of the dates on that. 

5 MS. BALDRIDGE: Okay. Thank you very much. 

6 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY-LIVERMORE

7 DR. ZIEMER: We have Sandia listed here next. 

8 LaVon, do we have additional material on 

9 Sandia? 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, I really 

11 don't have additional material. As we 

12 presented at the Novem-- at the conference call 

13 in November, all the documents have been 

14 provided to the Board. And if anyone does have 

15 a technical question concerning that evaluation 

16 and our decision, Dr. Glover, who is our lead 

17 on that one, he is available to answer those 

18 questions. But I think we have provided 

19 everything to the Board. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

21 (Pause) 

22 Is there anyone amongst the Sandia petitioners 

23 that is on the line that wishes to comment? 

24 MR. GIOVACCINI: This is Gerald Giovaccini, the 

25 petitioner. 
71

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Go ahead. 

2 MR. GIOVACCINI: I just wanted to wish everyone 

3 a happy new year and I have no new comments at 

4 this time. I -- you can proceed. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, at this point it was 

6 simply a status report, so this is an ongoing 

7 item under consideration and we'll certainly 

8 keep you informed as we mo-- move forward on 

9 this in the future as well. 

10 MR. GIOVACCINI: Thank you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: We're a little bit ahead of 

12 schedule. I think perhaps I'll go ahead and 

13 start the workgroup reports and -- oh -- or the 

14 subcommittee reports -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: If you could just check to see if 

16 Mark Griffon is on the line. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we -- we do want to involve 

18 Mark if he's on the line. Mark Griffon, are 

19 you with us this morning? We're a little 

20 earlier than -- we -- we can delay the 

21 subcommittee report till after the break, but 

22 maybe we sh-- could go ahead and start the 

23 workgroup reports. I know some of the Board 

24 members have flights out early afternoon so we 

25 need to be as concise as we can on the 
72

1 schedule. 

2 SUBCOMMITTEE, WORK GROUP REPORTS

3 DR. BRANCHE: Shall I go down the list? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe we'll just go down the list 

5 on the -- on the workgroups to get updates, 

6 particularly for those that have not already 

7 reported. So Christine, if you would go ahead 

8 and kind of do us a roll call here and we'll 

9 just go through the -- the workgroup reports 

10 first. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Certainly. We're going to skip 

12 Rocky Flats 'cause Mark Griffon is the chair. 

13 Nevada Test Site site profile? He stepped 

14 away. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we've had -- 

16 DR. BRANCHE: We've had a lot of discussion. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- a Test Site report already. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Hanford site profile and 

19 SEC petition? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And Jim -- 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- sort of reported, but 

23 additional comments on Hanford? 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, only -- I don't think I have 

25 anything additional to report to what we've 
73

1 already talked about. We're -- we're -- we're 

2 in progress and I think -- I think, as I 

3 mentioned earlier, the main issue has been 

4 holding up on the access to records. We will -

5 - as said, we are -- we will have some reports 

6 to circulate shortly among the group. We have 

7 one that's in review now I believe, Privacy Act 

8 review, and then we have another one that will 

9 go in there shortly. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Savannah River Site site profile 

11 -- I didn't have any notes from Mark Griffon 

12 about this one. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I don't believe Savannah River 

14 workgroup has met since our last meeting. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: No -- if I could speak for Mark 

16 Griffon, I'm on the Savannah River workgroup -- 

17 we haven't met since -- we did go down and 

18 review some of the data in the incident 

19 database and we've been processing through 

20 that. Now it has changed over -- Mark Griffon 

21 has become the chair of that one in the last 

22 little while. In speaking with him, we're 

23 trying to set up a workgroup to be able to 

24 process through some of that information that 

25 we did get at this time, but we had -- we do 
74

1 not have a precise date set. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And Jim, do you have a -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- question or comment? 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- let me bring up one issue 

6 regarding Hanford, though I don't have an 

7 answer yet from NIOSH, I don't think, on this 

8 issue. We had a conference call with the NIOSH 

9 group -- what, about a week ago or so-- 

10 something like that, just Arjun and I, just to 

11 sort of figure out where things are. One of 

12 the things we would like to be able to move 

13 forward with is the -- the parts of the SEC 

14 evaluation actually recommended that there be a 

15 SEC granted for the parts of -- parts of the 

16 facility. We had questions about the scope of 

17 that and I think NIOSH agrees with us that 

18 there are some scope issues, what buildings and 

19 -- and areas are -- are covered for that. 

20 We're trying to reach an agreement on -- on -- 

21 on a particular new designation and so forth 

22 that was based on SC&A's review of the -- of 

23 the site and some information that was 

24 available at the time. We're in a little 

25 difficult position because if we actually have 
75

1 to go back and forth with NIOSH to do some of 

2 this -- resolve some of these issues, then this 

3 records access issue becomes important. But I 

4 think we'll be able to reach agreement at least 

5 on an initial designation (unintelligible) 

6 would allow parts of the facility for -- number 

7 of years to be added to -- to the SEC. If we 

8 do that, we may very well want to be able to do 

9 that at the -- even at our next conference call 

10 meeting rather than have to wait until April. 

11 NIOSH is going to -- was going to look over 

12 some of the information and decide, and we 

13 should hear about that shortly. So if that -- 

14 that does take place, if we can reach agreement 

15 on that, then we may very well have something 

16 to present at our next conference call. We'll 

17 also -- we've -- already been some discussions 

18 with the petitioners about that and -- and we 

19 will probably do a workgroup meeting or -- 

20 probably about -- more likely a conference call 

21 prior to the next Board conference call in 

22 order to get the workgroup involved and make 

23 sure we've, you know, reached ap-- appropriate 

24 agreement on that, so that -- that -- sort of 

25 an action item that's -- that's coming up. 
76

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that's part of the 

2 Hanford workgroup report. 

3 And Brad, did you have additional things on the 

4 Savannah River? I think you pretty much 

5 completed that. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: We -- we've pretty much completed 

7 that. In speaking with Mark, we're -- we're 

8 trying to get off and get processing 

9 information that we do have and go from there. 

10 There's been several stumbling blocks, but I 

11 think that we've passed through them at this 

12 time. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: SEC issues group, including 250-

15 day issue and preliminary review of 83.14 SEC 

16 petition; Dr. Melius, chair. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we have -- we have had a 

18 meeting in -- in Cincinnati, I can't remember 

19 when it was, a month or two ago, on that which 

20 was a -- a very good meeting and if -- update 

21 everybody. We have been discussing, in terms 

22 of the 250-day issues, two particular sites, 

23 one being the Nevada Test Site issue, the other 

24 being the Ames Laboratory in Iowa. After some 

25 discussions on the Ames Laboratory about -- one 
77

1 (unintelligible) there's a whole number of -- 

2 of incidents within the thorium facility at -- 

3 at Ames and SC&A had done a report on that. 

4 After sort of discussions of that we decided 

5 that -- that maybe the approach to dealing with 

6 -- with Ames is to not to deal with it as an 

7 SEC issue but to deal with it as a dose 

8 reconstruction issue. So NIOSH -- Jim Neton is 

9 looking in -- into the feasibility of doing 

10 that, may be in the situation of where while it 

11 may not be feasible to estimate chronic 

12 exposures there, it may be feasible to estimate 

13 short-term exposures from these very frequent 

14 fires that oc-- that occurred within the 

15 facility there. So NIOSH is working on that 

16 and I don't have a schedule but I suspect we'll 

17 have a report from them sometime in the near 

18 future on that. 

19 On the Nevada Test Site issue we've actually 

20 reached out to DTRA for some information from 

21 them. SC&A's working on that and to try to 

22 work out an approach that might be used to deal 

23 with short-term exposures with some of the 

24 nuclear weapons testing that went on at -- at 

25 the Nevada Test Site and that's ongoing. And 
78

1 again, I suspect we'll have another workgroup 

2 meeting to discuss that sometime in the next 

3 couple of months. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Procedures review, Ms. 

5 Munn chair. 

6 MS. MUNN: The procedures review group met 

7 Monday morning -- rather Monday afternoon at 

8 1:00 o'clock. We have a number of items that 

9 we have approaching closure. We spent a great 

10 deal of our efforts in recent weeks working 

11 with our technical contractor to revise the 

12 format that's being used. I know I've 

13 mentioned this before and you're hearing a 

14 great deal about it, but we consider it a 

15 significant change in the way we approach the 

16 presentation of material and archiving of 

17 material. We further project that this type of 

18 reporting may become much more widely used by 

19 the Board and by its other groups as -- as we 

20 go through these issues, simply because it 

21 provides such an excellent method for archival 

22 retrieval of information. After we've done 

23 what we've done we're being able to follow 

24 through step by step what's been done. 

25 The problem with respect to setting that 
79

1 database up has been resolved very promptly and 

2 very efficiently by our technical 

3 subcontractor. The population of the data is 

4 now the major issue and that will take a 

5 considerable amount of input on the part of our 

6 same technical contractor. So we're -- we're 

7 working very closely with that. 

8 We have anticipated for the March meeting -- 

9 before the March meeting that the agency will 

10 have at least one white paper with reference to 

11 OTIB-17 -- white paper which had been presented 

12 to us by our technical contractor. That will 

13 be forthcoming in March, we believe. 

14 We've also had considerable discussion with the 

15 discussion of the use of parametric and non16 parametric 95th percentile data effects, 

17 especially as regards OTIB-19. Those 

18 discussions are ongoing and have not yet been 

19 resolved. 

20 We're re-evaluating the occasion -- the 

21 equation that's being used in OTIB-25, and our 

22 review of that particular document I believe is 

23 now complete. There's no further data to be 

24 included, so that's one of our totally closed 

25 items. 
80

1 We have had need to expedite review of two of 

2 the procedures that have been issued during the 

3 last year and have spent significant effort on 

4 Proc. 92 and Proc. 90. Those are, for the most 

5 part, complete at this juncture and we 

6 anticipate that those will be wrapped up in 

7 their entirety quite quickly. 

8 We have at this point responses to virtually 

9 all of the open items from our first and our 

10 second set of procedures. We will be 

11 addressing those at a teleconference between 

12 now and the March Board meeting to see where we 

13 stand with those if it's necessary to do so. 

14 Otherwise, we plan on undertaking very shortly 

15 the next set of procedures which we have not 

16 yet addressed the full matrix for. We're 

17 hoping by that time the new format will be 

18 before us and we will be able to populate that 

19 differently than we have our preceding 

20 matrices. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Blockson Chemical SEC petition, 

22 Ms. -- oh, I'm sorry. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Let me ask a question. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, a question. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Again, just to follow up on 
81

1 some discussion yesterday, I think it would be 

2 useful if we could have some sort of process 

3 where we could reach closure on some of these 

4 procedure reviews, much like we have a process 

5 with our dose reconstruction reviews. I'm not 

6 quite sure what the process should be for doing 

7 that, but perhaps to schedule something for the 

8 next meeting where the -- the workgroup, in 

9 conjunction with SC&A, will provide some sort 

10 of report or something to the -- the Board, 

11 maybe that -- next meeting's premature, but at 

12 some meeting in the future I think it's -- 

13 concern that we have ongoing activity and then 

14 -- other than the group -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Actually on this one I think, 

16 Wanda, your -- your workgroup is fairly close 

17 to closing out all the items on the first set 

18 of reviews, is it not? 

19 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's correct, and as -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: That would be an appropriate time 

21 I think to bring that to us, highlight issues 

22 that were of -- I -- I don't think you need to 

23 highlight every item in the matrix, but issues 

24 that were of sort of primary concern and -- and 

25 the nature of the closeout. I think that's 
82

1 perhaps what's being suggested so that the 

2 Board has a feeling for what occurred and how 

3 it's been closed; and if we need to give it a 

4 final blessing, that would be fine. 

5 MS. MUNN: I can provide the Board 

6 electronically, within the next week, a list -- 

7 a bare list indicating what we have addressed, 

8 what has been closed and what the status of the 

9 existing matrix is. I will see that every 

10 member of the Board receives that. You will 

11 not be able to tell from that precisely what 

12 transpired from each one of those items, which 

13 is the reason why we're spending so much time 

14 with the new format. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

16 MS. MUNN: Under the new format you will have a 

17 sheet which will give you a blow by blow, date 

18 by date description of what transpired, what 

19 instructions were given, what action was taken 

20 and what closure was received. You will not be 

21 able to see that from what I send. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: One thought I have here is that 

23 perhaps at the April meeting -- I mean you can 

24 give the Board that in advance. Perhaps at the 

25 April meeting we could have a summary report to 
83

1 cover that first group. And the other part I 

2 think might be helpful would be an introduction 

3 to the new database, the access database that 

4 this workgroup is now using and actually how 

5 the Board can go into the O drive and -- and 

6 actually look at items there and track them if 

7 they wish. Perhaps Kathy could help make such 

8 a presentation to the Board. 

9 MS. MUNN: It was our hope that the example, if 

10 not the completed database, would be available 

11 for the Board in the April meeting. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: That would be good. We could have 

13 a two-part report; one on the actual procedures 

14 reviewed and one on the new format that's being 

15 used. 

16 MS. MUNN: It was our plan to attempt to do 

17 that. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

19 DR. MELIUS: So this may be one of these 

20 questions, be careful what you ask for, but the 

21 -- I -- I don't believe the Board -- all the 

22 members of the Board have access to the 

23 individual reviews -- procedure reviews from 

24 SC&A. I don't know if that's there on the web 

25 site or -- or -- or what the nature of those 
84

1 are, but I think some way of linking to those, 

2 if we have questions, would help us to... 

3 DR. ZIEMER: The procedures review report? 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, reports. We -- I may -- we 

5 may have received it and I may have missed it. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I thought we did. John, didn't -- 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, there are three major reports 

8 that were delivered, these big three-ring 

9 binders -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- hard copy. The first set had 30 

12 procedure reviews that was delivered. That's 

13 the one that was referred to earlier as being 

14 close to having all items and issues addre-- 

15 associated with every one of those -- 

16 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

17 DR. MAURO: -- so that's -- second set had 

18 another 30 that has been delivered, hard copy 

19 bound, loaded into this database and -- and 

20 we're well along on the closeout of that one. 

21 And the third set, which is the more recent 

22 deliverable over the last couple of months, a 

23 third large, thick volume -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

25 DR. MAURO: -- 45 procedures were reviewed, 
85

1 delivered to the -- to everyone -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- and -- but that one is the one 

4 that only has recently been populated by SC&A 

5 and is yet -- I believe it's in the process of 

6 being populated -- and when I say populated, 

7 I'm talking about this new matrix -- with 

8 NIOSH's response to each of the findings for 

9 each of these -- so yes, you do have the three 

10 volumes. And if anyone doesn't, because it's 

11 so much paper, we'd be happy to provide you 

12 with another copy. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: And what I was suggesting that we 

14 have these three sets of reviews, that we come 

15 to closure on the first set that's close to 

16 being done as far as the workgroup, can be 

17 brought to the full Board with a summary 

18 report, including highlighting the major issues 

19 -- I don't think we need to go through every 

20 item in the matrix, but at least highlight some 

21 of the -- the key ones and then show the 

22 closeout. 

23 DR. MAURO: Ar-- Arjun just reminded me of 

24 something that's very important. In addition 

25 to those three big ones, we did have some 
86

1 special deliverables -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- like OTIB-92 -- 

4 MS. MUNN: 92. 

5 DR. MAURO: -- OTIB -- fif-- the one dealing 

6 with the construction workers, the -- 

7 MS. MUNN: 53 -- 

8 DR. MAURO: -- 52. These were actually 

9 delivered in hard copy separate -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: As separate items, right. 

11 DR. MAURO: So in addition to the three big 

12 ones, there are -- I believe there might be 

13 three or so smaller ones. As I said, if anyone 

14 needs any of that, we'd -- happy to provide it 

15 electronically or hard copy. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, well, what -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Wade has a comment here, and 

18 then -- 

19 DR. WADE: I mean I think Dr. Melius raises an 

20 interesting question. If you think about the 

21 Board's work on individual dose reconstruction 

22 reviews, you naturally coalesce through a 

23 letter you'll write to the Secretary. If you 

24 think of your work on SEC, that comes to a 

25 vote. There are some things like procedures 
87

1 where the Board has no natural mechanism to 

2 draw these things to closure. I think you need 

3 to decide what that is. I think that's a good 

4 discussion to have. It's a new issue you're 

5 facing and procedures would be a good one to 

6 sort of sharpen your wit and your knife on. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And actually, just as a matter of 

8 course, there's nothing that would prevent us 

9 from reporting to the Secretary that in fact 

10 we've reviewed these certain sets of procedures 

11 and -- and how we closed them out. We wouldn't 

12 be advising him on anything specifically, but 

13 we could do that as well if the Board so 

14 wished. 

15 Other comments on this? 

16 MS. MUNN: There's a staggering amount of data 

17 here. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 MS. MUNN: And if you do want to undertake to 

20 review each of the items -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: I was not suggesting that -- 

22 MS. MUNN: That have been placed before you, 

23 then -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- for the full Board meeting -- 

25 MS. MUNN: -- certainly you are free to delve 
88

1 through those notebooks -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

3 MS. MUNN: -- at will, but they're -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: As I say, look for highlighting 

5 particular issues of -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Summary. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- major concern and go from 

8 there. 

9 DR. MELIUS: We're asking the workgroup to, you 

10 know, synthesize for -- synthesize that for us, 

11 so... 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Ready? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Let's take one or two more before 

15 the break. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Blockson Chemical SEC petition, 

17 Ms. Munn chair. 

18 MS. MUNN: I believe that's been adequately 

19 covered today. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Blockson we covered, so I 

21 think we can -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: All right. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- proceed. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Fernald as well? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Fernald has been covered. 
89

1 DR. BRANCHE: Chapman Valve as well? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius -- use of surrogate 

4 data, Dr. Melius chair. 

5 DR. MELIUS: I've reported on that. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that was reported on in 

7 connection with Bethlehem Steel. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: All right. Worker outreach, 

9 Michael Gibson chair. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Michael Gibson. 

11 MR. GIBSON: There's nothing new since the last 

12 conference call we had. Wanda and Josie and 

13 Phil and I have got some common dates together 

14 and so hopefully we're going to have a meeting, 

15 maybe in Cincinnati later this month, and get 

16 things rolling. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Linde Ceramics site profile, Dr. 

19 Roessler chair but Dr. Lockey presided over the 

20 last meeting. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Actually -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, Gen, just before you go, I 

23 just want to let Dr. Ziemer know that we also 

24 have something to be read into the record from 

25 Senator Schumer. 
90

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll do that in just a 

2 moment. I also note, and maybe Gen Roessler 

3 provided this, we do have a report on the 

4 workgroup's January 8th meeting. I think it 

5 was just distributed to us a few moments ago. 

6 Gen, is that your report? 

7 DR. ROESSLER: That's my report. I'm on the 

8 line and I'm not muted. Can you hear me? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: We can hear you very well. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. Are you ready? I'm going 

11 to present a brief oral report so it goes into 

12 the record -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's do that -- 

14 DR. ROESSLER: -- (unintelligible) -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- and then we'll hear from 

16 Senator Schumer's office as well. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Do you want me to go first? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. Our workgroup met this 

20 past Tuesday morning, workgroup members Josie 

21 Beach, Mike Gibson and Jim Lockey were present. 

22 I presented -- I participated by phone. Joe 

23 Guido, NIOSH, and Steve Ostrow of SC&A and 

24 others were present. To save time today I 

25 prepared the written summary that you have 
91

1 gotten so I'm not going to read it, but I do 

2 want to orally point out several pertinent 

3 points. 

4 The Tuesday morning was the second meeting of 

5 the workgroup. We first met March 26th, 2007. 

6 Steve Ostrow presented the matrix of the 22 

7 issues that SC&A had raised at the March 

8 meeting. He did this Tuesday morning. He 

9 stated Tuesday morning that SC&A agrees that 16 

10 are now closed. Steve then discussed the six 

11 remaining open issues with Joe Guido of NIOSH, 

12 the workgroup and others, and these are the 

13 items that I have summarized in the written 

14 report that you have. A resolution was reached 

15 on five of the six issues. 

16 There now remains one open issue, and that's 

17 the one I want to just mention a few things 

18 about. And this has to do with the burlap bags 

19 that were used to bring ore to Linde. After 

20 these bags were emptied, they were stored 

21 behind Building 30. In an interview a site 

22 expert stated that workers would sit on these 

23 bags while resting or eating lunch on into the 

24 1950s. NIOSH says that documents that they 

25 have indicate that the bags had been removed by 
92

1 1946. Recall that the Linde SEC covers the 

2 time period from October 1942 -- October 1st, 

3 1942 through October 31st, 1947. So this 

4 discussion about when the bags were there and 

5 when they might not have been there is very 

6 important. 

7 We spent quite a bit of time on this and our -- 

8 our workgroup decided that there's not enough 

9 information at this time to properly evaluate 

10 the validity of the site expert's statement and 

11 the documented information presented by NIOSH. 

12 So NIOSH was then -- in consultation with SC&A 

13 -- was asked to summarize all of the facts on 

14 this issue as soon as they could get to it, and 

15 present that summary to the working group. At 

16 that time then a technical call or -- will be 

17 set up to do this discussion and workgroup 

18 members will participate. 

19 So that summarizes what happened at our meeting 

20 Tuesday. I wonder if any workgroup members 

21 have any comments. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I don't see -- oh, Wanda Munn has 

23 a comment. 

24 MS. MUNN: Just have one question, Gen. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Or a question. 
93

1 MS. MUNN: What kind -- was -- was it uranium 

2 ore? What was in the burlap sacks? 

3 DR. ROESSLER: Yes, it was ore that was being 

4 brought into the facility -- 

5 MS. MUNN: Okay, okay, so it was untreated ore. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: That's my recollection on it, 

7 and some of it surely would be assumed to be 

8 fairly high in radioactivity. As I understand 

9 it, the bags had been emptied before they were 

10 -- and maybe even washed, I'm -- I'm not sure 

11 about that. In fact, one of the problems with 

12 our meeting on Tuesday morning was that I was 

13 on the phone and, again, that's always 

14 difficult. I couldn't hear much of the 

15 discussion. But this will all be covered when 

16 NIOSH and SC&A get together on this technical 

17 call. 

18 MS. MUNN: Okay. I just wanted to -- to know 

19 whether it had been processed ore of any kind. 

20 Thank you. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Perhaps somebody in the audience 

22 there can more specifically answer your 

23 question. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Gen. Okay, here 

25 we go. 
94

1 DR. OSTROW: Hi, this is Steve Ostrow. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Steve. 

3 DR. OSTROW: Your recollection is correct, Gen. 

4 This was unprocessed ore that was brought into 

5 the site. That's how they used to get it there 

6 and literally they had something around 100,000 

7 burlap bags that they were bring the ore into -

8 - and it's not a technical question we have 

9 right now, it's a -- it's sort of doing a 

10 little bit -- research. When were the bags 

11 actually there, when were they taken off the 

12 site. That's what we're really trying to 

13 determine with NIOSH together. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Steve. We do 

15 have a record from -- or a letter from the 

16 Senator's office to read into the record so 

17 we'll do that now. Go ahead. 

18 MS. CHANG: Testimony of Senator Charles E. 

19 Schumer, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

20 Health, Linde Ceramics site profile and dose 

21 reconstructions, January 8 through 10, 2008. 

22 Thank you very much for the chance to address 

23 the Board regarding the ongoing efforts of 

24 former employees of Linde Ceramics to receive 

25 compensation for the illnesses they incurred 
95

1 while working at the Department of Energy 

2 during the Cold War. 

3 I understand that no one has yet submitted a 

4 petition to have these later periods at Linde 

5 added as classes of the Special Exposure Cohort 

6 under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

7 Compensation Program Act. This is -- this is 

8 due in part to several ongoing difficulties 

9 that applicants for former Linde employees have 

10 had in obtaining important documents from the 

11 National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

12 Health. I ask the Board to please direct NIOSH 

13 to cooperate fully with the people representing 

14 Linde workers so that their case can be 

15 promptly decided on its merits. 

16 Specifically, I encourage the Board to expedite 

17 the necessary privacy review of the NIOSH/Oak 

18 Ridge Associated Universities' document so that 

19 it may be made public. Advocates for Linde 

20 need to have access to this document as soon as 

21 it is practicable in order to continue either 

22 (sic) important work obtaining restitution for 

23 the former workers of Linde. 

24 While other difficulties in this petition have 

25 arisen, they are outside the scope of the 
96

1 Board's authority. I, and all the former 

2 workers of Linde Ceramics, appreciate the 

3 Board's patience as this application is 

4 prepared, and I look forward to a time when I 

5 will be able to testify in support of it. 

6 The men and women who worked at Linde Ceramics 

7 are veterans and heroes of the Cold War. We 

8 owe our continued safety to their hard work and 

9 sacrifices. That many of these Cold War heroes 

10 have become sick as a result of their service 

11 is a great tragedy, and one which we must do 

12 everything we can to rectify. Their great 

13 sacrifice merits our greatest thanks, and we 

14 can show some small share of what we owe to 

15 these men and women by supporting their appeals 

16 for restitution. 

17 Again, thank you for the opportunity to address 

18 the Board on this important issue. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 

20 DR. ROESSLER: Paul, I would like to comment on 

21 one of her comments. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, Gen. 

23 DR. ROESSLER: And I think one of our lawyers 

24 present could probably verify this. She asked 

25 for the NIOSH document to be made available as 
97

1 soon as possible, and I believe that that was 

2 cleared and made available several weeks ago, 

3 if I'm thinking of the right document. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Liz is approaching the mike 

5 and maybe she can enlighten us here. Is it the 

6 -- what document is it that's being referred 

7 to? 

8 DR. ROESSLER: I think she's referring to the 

9 NIOSH response to our meeting of March 22nd. 

10 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I actually -- 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Is that correct? 

12 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- can't really help you 

13 much because we only assist the DFO by 

14 reviewing SC&A documents, so I don't know where 

15 a NIOSH response would be. 

16 DR. ROESSLER: I'd -- I'd ask the speaker to 

17 maybe contact me and I think we can clarify 

18 that. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm wondering if we're -- 

20 are we talking about NIOSH input to the matrix 

21 that's -- that was developed? 

22 DR. ROESSLER: I'm -- I -- I'm thinking that's 

23 what she's referring to, and that was cleared 

24 and -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
98

1 DR. ROESSLER: -- made available several weeks 

2 ago. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, if the workgroup 

4 could -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- workgroup can -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: -- Senator Schumer's office. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- and make sure that they have 

9 the documents. If there are some that they 

10 have not yet received, why we can make sure 

11 that that occurs. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: We'll -- we'll do that. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I think this 

14 would be an appropriate time for us to take a 

15 15-minute break. Those on the phone, we'll 

16 simply mute the phone here until we return, 

17 so... 

18 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:20 a.m. 

19 to 10:35 a.m.) 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I know some have planes to catch 

21 shortly after lunch, so let us return to our 

22 seats and we will continue in our discussion of 

23 the workgroup reports. Again we want to check 

24 the line. I'm going to ask Dr. Branche if she 

25 would just remind the folks on the line of 
99

1 their telephone etiquette. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: People in the room, we're 

3 starting. Everyone in the room, we're 

4 starting. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Dr. Wade. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, this is -- thank you, 

8 this is Christine Branche, and we are starting 

9 again. For those people who are participating 

10 on the line, before I ask you to mute I would 

11 like to know a couple of things. Mark Griffon, 

12 are you on the line? 

13 (No responses) 

14 If there are members of Congress or their 

15 representatives on the line, would you please 

16 identify yourselves? 

17 MR. HILL: This is Steven Hill from Congressman 

18 Shavitz's office. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you so much. Now, for 

20 those of -- for those of you who are 

21 participating by phone, if you would please 

22 mute your phone. If you don't have a mute 

23 button, then please use the star-6 option to 

24 mute your line. And when you're ready to speak 

25 you can use that same star-6 to un-mute your 
100

1 line. That really is enhancing the quality of 

2 our deliberations today. 

3 And so Dr. Ziemer, if Mr. Griffon is not on the 

4 line, I do have his report that I can read into 

5 the record. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that'll be fine. Let's 

7 check first to see if Board member Gen Roessler 

8 is on the line. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: I'm on the line. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. Roessler. And 

11 again, we'll kind of check once again -- Mark 

12 Griffon, if you're on the line, please 

13 identify. 

14 (No responses) 

15 Apparently not. Mark did have to deal with 

16 some health issues in his family. 

17 Christine, I think it would be appropriate -- 

18 are we at that point -- 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- as far as the workgroup list? 

21 DR. BRANCHE: We have the subcommittee and the 

22 Rocky Flats workgroup -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Let's do the Rocky Flats 

24 workgroup. We have the report from Mark he's 

25 left with Christine, so -- 
101

1 DR. BRANCHE: You want to start with Rocky 

2 Flats or the subcommittee? 

3 DR. WADE: I don't think you have a quorum at 

4 the moment. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: We don't have anybody else out 

6 yonder in the hallway, either. 

7 DR. WADE: Well, with Gen on the line, you have 

8 a quorum; Robert's in the room. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: We have -- we have a quorum. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: We have a quorum. 

11 DR. WADE: Robert’s in the room. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, would you like me to 

13 begin -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: -- with Rocky Flats? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Do Rocky Flats. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Mr. Griffon writes 

18 (reading) Since the last Board meeting we had a 

19 workgroup conference call where we discussed 

20 the questions of the implementation of the SEC 

21 class. Essentially how was -- how was 

22 "monitored, or should have been monitored, for 

23 neutrons" being determined. This call was 

24 initiated due to some concerns raised in Rocky 

25 Mount-- in the Rocky Mountain News stories. 
102

1 The data referenced in the news articles was 

2 from the University of Colorado research, 

3 specifically Martin -- excuse me, Margaret 

4 Ruttenber. The workgroup asked, as an action, 

5 for NIOSH to discuss this with Margaret 

6 Ruttenber. Mark Griffon would be on the call 

7 representing the Board. 

8 This technical call took place just before the 

9 holidays. Mark took minutes from the call and 

10 will provide a draft later to be reviewed. 

11 Resulting actions from the meeting include: 

12 NIOSH is to work with Margaret Ruttenber to 

13 obtain the database developed by the University 

14 of Colorado. Both NIOSH and Margaret believe 

15 that the data are the same, and that the Board 

16 has had access to it, just in a more useable 

17 format. These data will be reviewed to make 

18 sure they are based on the same raw data that 

19 the Board had access to. 

20 A second action is that the workgroup will have 

21 another conference call meeting to discuss the 

22 implementation of the class. The primary 

23 problem is if you have workers with work 

24 history cards showing that the worker worked in 

25 a non-neutron building -- for example, a 
103

1 maintenance building. The analysis included in 

2 the Rocky Mountain News article shows that you 

3 can't be sure that the worker didn't go to 

4 other areas where they may have been exposed to 

5 neutrons. This, therefore, makes it hard to 

6 base the determination on building. 

7 And that is all that he writes about Rocky 

8 Flats. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's continue 

10 with the next report. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: The subcommittee? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: This'll be the su-- are -- do we 

13 have any other workgroups? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: No. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: The only one -- wait -- rather, 

17 the only one that remains, Dr. Ziemer, is the 

18 one for which Mr. Griffon is the chair, the Los 

19 Alamos National Lab, but he's not provided a 

20 report -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: I don't believe they've met since 

22 -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: I don't think so, either. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- the last meeting so there would 

25 be no report. 
104

1 Then we'll go to the subcommittee on dose 

2 reconstruction, which Mark also chairs, and 

3 that subcommittee met earlier this week. We -- 

4 they have identified a list of suggested dose 

5 reconstructions, the next 60. And my 

6 understanding now, and again I'll turn it back 

7 to you, Christine, but my understanding is Mark 

8 simply -- is not asking the Board to approve 

9 those today, but is giving those -- the list to 

10 us for information because there's a 

11 possibility that some of these may drop off the 

12 list. 

13 I believe it is important, though, as you look 

14 at the list, if the Board members wish to add 

15 any to this list, they have that prerogative. 

16 Even though we will not be approving the final 

17 list, this will be a list which will be the 

18 basis for the next group, recognizing that some 

19 of these, for a variety of reasons, may fall 

20 off the list. I think they perhaps are not all 

21 fully completed yet. We only review completed 

22 dose reconstructions, but -- do you have 

23 additional comments from Mark on this? 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. For the subcommittee on 

25 dose reconstruction Mr. Griffon writes 
105

1 (reading) You have the 60 cases that the 

2 subcommittee pre-selected. He wanted to remind 

3 us all that this is only a preliminary list -- 

4 list. NIOSH -- specifically Stu Hinnefeld -- 

5 is going to take the list and add the 

6 additional information for these cases -- 

7 specifically more detail -- which will allow 

8 the subcommittee to determine what procedures 

9 were used for internal, external -- I guess 

10 internal and external, and if the case had 

11 neutrons before 1970 or after 1970, et cetera. 

12 Therefore, at this point we don't need the full 

13 Board to vote on this as the final list for 

14 SC&A to start working on. We should be able to 

15 vote on a list, which Mark expects to be close 

16 to the one that they came up with in their 

17 meeting on Tuesday, at the next Board phone 

18 call, which would be in February. 

19 And that is the conclusion of his com-- of his 

20 remarks. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Board members, do you 

22 all have a copy of the list? And I believe -- 

23 at least on the copy that I have -- the circled 

24 cases begin on page 6 of the list called "full 

25 internal and external". There's a separate 
106

1 readout called "random selections", which is 

2 just the original ran-- well, I guess they're 

3 circled on that one as well, let's see. 

4 DR. WADE: Yeah, there -- there are circled on 

5 both lists. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 DR. WADE: Since I was at the subcommittee 

8 meeting, the subcommittee started at the back 

9 of the list because it wants to review the most 

10 recent cases and therefore work back. It used 

11 a cutoff date of like 2003 to say we don't want 

12 to go to anything older than that. But they 

13 did select from both lists. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: So now I'd like to ask the Board 

15 members if -- and you had this list last night, 

16 as we suggested you take a look at it. Are 

17 there any cases that you wish to add to these 

18 suggestions by the subcommittee? And the 

19 reason we ask that is because if other Board 

20 members have cases they think should be 

21 included, we recognize that in the end of the 

22 subcommittee's process they may lose some of 

23 these 60 and so additional cases may be 

24 necessary anyway. Are there any Board members 

25 that wish to add to this list? If not, this 
107

1 simply will be the list. We're not approving 

2 it. The subcommittee's going to gather some 

3 additional information and I think, perhaps at 

4 our phone call meeting, will present us with 

5 the final recommendation on this. Is that 

6 correct? 

7 DR. WADE: Yes, two -- two things could take 

8 something off the list that's on it. The -- 

9 the subcommittee asked for a first pull that 

10 looks at best estimate dose reconstructions. 

11 Sometimes they find with -- when they look at 

12 it with more detail that they really weren't 

13 best estimate dose reconstructions. That's 

14 simply a field checked by someone that might be 

15 misleading. 

16 The other things are you can't look at 

17 something that might be under appeal, so the 

18 list has to go to DOL to make sure that there's 

19 nothing that has been preliminary selected 

20 that's under appeal. That could par the list 

21 down. If it was, other additions by the Board 

22 or the subcommittee would hopefully get us to 

23 the 60. They're trying to give SC&A the full 

24 60 in one gulp so that they can have a -- a 

25 jump-start on doing all 60 for this year. 
108

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, any comments or 

2 questions on this? 

3 (No responses) 

4 I believe that completes the report of that 

5 subcommittee then. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Then that concludes the update. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: That then re-- concludes the 

8 updates on subcommittee and workgroups. 

9 BOARD WORKING TIME

10 Next we will move into the Board working time. 

11 REVIEW OF SEC PETITION WRITE-UPS

12 The first item is review of the SEC petition 

13 writeups. These are the two actions that we 

14 took earlier in the week. We have the hard 

15 copy drafts of the formal recommendations that 

16 would go to the Secretary. Did you all get 

17 copies of those? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, they were in the -- They 

19 were in the documents that I handed out along 

20 with the Linde report. Those were the 

21 additional two pages. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: One of these was already read 

23 fully at the -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, they -- it wasn't -- 
109

1 DR. MELIUS: Combustion Engineering. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Combustion Engineering was 

3 read, so you haven't given us that copy. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, these are the other -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry. So these are the other 

6 two. Combustion Engineering basically is 

7 completed because you read the full motion to 

8 us and it was approved. 

9 We don't have to take formal action on this. 

10 What I want you to do is indicate if there are 

11 any editorial changes. This is the formal -- 

12 we've already approved these two motions. 

13 Also, if copies have been made available to 

14 counsel and to NIOSH, I want -- and to Labor, I 

15 want to make sure that if there's any questions 

16 on the description of the classes, that those 

17 are identified. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Could -- can -- can I comment? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly may. 

20 DR. MELIUS: First of all, on the Mound draft 

21 there are a couple of typos. I was -- I don't 

22 know what, stuttering, what do you call -- I 

23 repeated some language, I was cut and pasting 

24 some stuff, so there's a -- in the second 

25 bullet towards the bottom, thorium is repeated; 
110

1 and in the second paragraph, the Board 

2 respectfully twices -- twice, so it needs to be 

3 a -- just cut out that -- that line and so 

4 forth. The -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: What line is that? 

6 DR. MELIUS: The third -- fourth line down, the 

7 Board respectfully recommends, that's repeated 

8 later in the -- in the fifth line. 

9 Now it actually -- both of these definitions 

10 came from -- for both Mound and for Lawrence 

11 Livermore came from NIOSH in consultation with 

12 the Department of Labor, and I have shared 

13 these drafts with -- with NIOSH staff ahead of 

14 time. I don't know if Jim Neton or anybody 

15 wants to comment 'cause these are different 

16 than what are in the evaluation reports, and I 

17 believe on both of them NIOSH was sort of going 

18 to amend the evaluation reports to clarify -- 

19 you know, to -- to match these -- thi-- this 

20 wording and -- and this has to do with -- with 

21 how their discussion with the Department of 

22 Labor on how to best implement these two SECs, 

23 so... 

24 DR. NETON: That's correct, the definitions 

25 have changed from what you have in the proposed 
111

1 definitions for the evalua-- that are in the 

2 evaluation reports, but they are consistent 

3 with the -- with the write-ups that are 

4 contained in those evaluation reports and so we 

5 just tried to better match what's in the write6 up, after consultation with Department of 

7 Labor. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: So you're in concurrence with -- 

9 DR. NETON: We're in concurrence, yes. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- the wording here? 

11 DR. NETON: We've reviewed these and are in 

12 concurrence with the words, right. 

13 DR. MELIUS: So -- so in Mound they're -- the 

14 language of "monitored, or should have been 

15 monitored" is not included. And in -- 

16 DR. NETON: Right. 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- Lawrence Livermore it is now 

18 included and -- 

19 DR. NETON: Right. 

20 DR. MELIUS: -- deals with the issues related 

21 to that, I think is the -- 

22 DR. NETON: This will help the Department of 

23 Labor adjudicate the class. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 
112

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Are there any 

2 other editorial modifications or questions? 

3 Okay, Chia-Chia? 

4 MS. CHANG: For both of those, in the first 

5 line (sic) where it says "predecessor agencies, 

6 contractors or subcontractors who worked in all 

7 areas", I would suggest changing that to "any 

8 area" 'cause "all areas" implies that they need 

9 to work in every single area to be covered. I 

10 think all you mean is "any" -- anybody who 

11 worked in any area. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Well, that's okay with your -- 

13 MS. CHANG: 'Cause "all areas" -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: -- other staff at NIOSH 'cause 

15 it's their wording. Don't -- don't blame me. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Chia-Chia, can you say again 

17 where you are? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: What line are -- 

19 MS. CHANG: Let's say in LANL it would be line 

20 two, four, six -- eight. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Second paragraph? 

22 MS. CHANG: Second paragraph, line two, four, 

23 six, seven -- two, four -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, yes. 

25 MS. CHANG: Yes, change the "all" to "any". 
113

1 DR. MELIUS: And -- and then "area" becomes 

2 singular, not plural. 

3 MS. CHANG: And do that -- and obviously do 

4 that for both. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: That's all employees. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: "And all" becomes "any". 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's all areas. I see it on 

8 the Mound, where you say "all areas," it 

9 implies they have to have worked in every one 

10 of those areas. And that one would say "any 

11 area"? "Any area," and the LANL draft where -- 

12 MS. CHANG: It's ac-- it's actually not in LANL 

13 so don't worry about LANL. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's only that one. Thank 

15 you. 

16 We all agree to make that editorial change, and 

17 Jim, you -- be sure to make that -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'll make that when I -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the -- in the electronic 

20 copy. 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- when I electronically submit 

22 this to -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any others? 

24 DR. MELIUS: -- Paul -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Chia-Chia. 
114

1 DR. MELIUS: -- and you and everybody. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: I will, as I always do, send each 

3 of the Board members a copy of the -- of the 

4 draft that I'm sending to John Howard for 

5 transmittal to the Secretary, and you'll have a 

6 final look at the -- at the formal letter that 

7 goes to the Secretary at that point, and 

8 that'll be within the next three weeks. 

9 REDACTION OF BOARD TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES POLICY

10 Okay, that completes that item. It was 

11 requested that we have a discussion relating to 

12 redaction. The -- first of all, everybody's 

13 aware of the new redaction policy, and let me 

14 ask if there are any questions on the new 

15 policy per se. It's been read to us several 

16 times in the course of this meeting. I -- I 

17 think, Jim, you asked that we discuss this 

18 relative perhaps to previous documents. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, my -- my question was about 

20 whether it was going to be feasible or 

21 appropriate to do this retrospectively. I 

22 think it was -- Dr. McKeel had raised that 

23 issue and -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- I just wanted some 
115

1 (unintelligible). 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- question was what happens to 

3 the documents that were redacted during that 

4 time period, and I've -- I'm not sure exactly 

5 how long that was. It may have been as much as 

6 a year or roughly a year, but whatever it was, 

7 there's a series of documents that were 

8 previously redacted under the -- the prior 

9 policy. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: I'm ready. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Branche, can you speak to that 

12 issue in terms of either the agency's position 

13 or whatever concerns may relate to that? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Certainly. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And in -- and -- and maybe in that 

16 regard, I think the Chair would certainly ask 

17 the Board what their feelings are on the issue 

18 of -- of un-redacting, if I can use that word, 

19 the -- the transcripts and documents that were 

20 redacted during that period. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Would you like me to respond 

22 first -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: -- or you'd like the Board first? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: No, go ahead, and you can make a 
116

1 statement, then -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Apparently Lew -- Liz, yes? 

3 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, I'm -- I just wanted to 

4 make one comment because I think there's some 

5 misunderstanding of the new policy by some 

6 members of the public. This policy does not 

7 mean that these documents will not be redacted 

8 at all. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Understood, that's -- 

10 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: They will be redacted for 

11 third-party personal information -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that is -- 

13 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- and (unintelligible) 

14 issues. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the -- that's in the 

16 information -- 

17 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, but it's -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- that we give. Right? 

19 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Some people from the 

20 audience apparently didn't understand that. So 

21 just so that you know, just because you're 

22 going back and un-redacting those documents, 

23 they are still going to have to be then re24 reviewed -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Something may still be redacted -- 
117

1 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's the -- the names of the 

3 presenters would appear, and the other -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Right, according to -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- items identified -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: -- the policy. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- yes. Go ahead, Christine. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Well, we appreciate all the 

9 comments that people have had to make about the 

10 redaction policy. And as you know, at the -- 

11 towards the end of 2007 and at our November 

12 29th (sic) conference call we talked about a 

13 revised policy. And it appears as well in the 

14 Federal Register notice. We've had some 

15 deliberations and appreciate all the e-mails 

16 and comments that people have made about what 

17 to do about the transcripts from these -- from 

18 the Board meetings and conference calls during 

19 the period of time when the redaction -- the 

20 more stringent redaction policy was in place. 

21 And we've made the decision to go back and 

22 apply this new policy -- I don't want to say 

23 unredact -- apply this new policy to those 

24 meetings. We have some additional staff who 

25 can assist with that -- I'm looking at Chris 
118

1 Ellison's face -- some additional staff who can 

2 assist in getting that done, and we want to do 

3 it in a timely fashion. But yes, we will apply 

4 this -- this revised policy to those Board 

5 meetings, face-to-face meetings and the Board 

6 conference calls -- to those transcripts. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. And I 

8 might point out and -- and the Chair certainly 

9 recognizes that this imposes some additional 

10 work, so there may be a little time lag in 

11 getting that done, but we ask for patience on 

12 the part of those who have those -- had those 

13 concerns, both Board members and members of the 

14 public, that we will achieve that, hopefully in 

15 a relatively timely fashion. Thank you very 

16 much. 

17 Other comments? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Okay, I think that then completes that item. 

20 TRACKING STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES

21 We're ready to talk about tracking of Board 

22 actions. Oh, incidentally, talking about 

23 transcripts, we do have the -- you -- you 

24 should have an update on the status of all the 

25 transcripts at your place. 
119

1 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, this has a green border or -

2 - yes, yours is black and white. And I -- Dr. 

3 Ziemer, I have a comment about this as well. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, go ahead, Christine. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: I've got my body armor on. In 

6 our due haste to apply the -- a couple of 

7 different policies, the redaction policy under 

8 which the Board was living -- all of us were 

9 living through most of 2007, as well as 

10 promises that were made to the Board to get the 

11 transcripts from our court reporter and have 

12 them go through all of the different policy 

13 offices in a timely fashion, and we promised 45 

14 days. We did that for the Naperville meeting 

15 in October and the Board confer-- and some 

16 other meetings. We've only -- we -- what we've 

17 come to understand is that we overloo-- in our 

18 haste to get that done, we did not get the July 

19 transcripts posted on the web site. And I can 

20 offer you my sincere apology and our efforts to 

21 re-- to get that taken care of as fast as we 

22 can. And so I do apologize. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well, this gives you an 

24 update as to where we are on all of those -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Wade. 
120

1 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Wade, additional comments. 

2 DR. WADE: Yeah, Christine mentioned something 

3 that I really need to stand in front of you and 

4 report on. There was a discussion at the last 

5 meeting about how quickly we could get stuff on 

6 the web site. Dr. Melius advocated for 30 

7 days. I said I would go back and -- and do an 

8 analysis. I think we can commit to having 

9 Board meeting transcripts on the web site in 45 

10 days. We will -- will require them in 30 days 

11 from our court reporter. We think now with the 

12 streamlined redaction policy we should be able 

13 to have redacted Board transcripts on the web 

14 site within 45 days. We worked very hard to 

15 get that for the call that was just completed, 

16 and that we did. 

17 As Christine mentioned, in the confusion of the 

18 changing policy, July was let sit fallow and 

19 that's something we will fix immediately. But 

20 45 days is our proposal back to you. We stand 

21 to hear your concerns about that. We think 

22 that's a reasonable compromise and doable. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

24 DR. MELIUS: We'll agree to 38 days. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Obviously as a -- as a practical 
121

1 matter, particularly with the increased number 

2 of SEC petitions, this -- the use of these 

3 minutes (sic) has become more critical than it 

4 may have been several years ago. So we 

5 appreciate the efforts to be timely in getting 

6 these minutes (sic) into -- really into the 

7 public arena so they can be utilized, both by 

8 the Board and by petitioners and others. 

9 Board members, I'm not going to ask for a vote 

10 on the time. I think we recognize there are 

11 some limitations, both for the court reporter 

12 and for the staff, but that certainly seems 

13 like a reasonable goal to achieve. 

14 DR. WADE: We'll come back -- before each 

15 meeting you'll get this report and you can see 

16 how we're doing. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 DR. WADE: The workgroups are a different 

19 issue. You know, for workgroups, if a 

20 workgroup chair wants an expedited transcript, 

21 then we'll get them an expedited transcript. 

22 That means that some others might slip, so 

23 we're not saying 45 days for workgroups, but we 

24 will produce an expedited workgroup transcript 

25 if asked by the chair. 
122

1 DR. ZIEMER: And workgroup chairs, I want to 

2 remind you, please don't go to Ray directly and 

3 ask him to do that for you. We want to 

4 coordinate all of this through Christine or Dr. 

5 Wade, or both, and gradually it's going to be 

6 Christine as Dr. Wade phases out, but in any 

7 event, they need to coordinate because 

8 everybody -- every workgroup chairman is -- is 

9 quite confident that their minutes (sic) are of 

10 highest priority and somebody's got to referee 

11 this. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, if I can -- I -- I 

13 appreciate Dr. Wade's comments. I just want 

14 the Board members and the public to understand 

15 that any request for a workgroup report really 

16 will delay the other work that's in the stream. 

17 And -- the same number of hands are involved in 

18 the process. There aren't any new resources 

19 that are put to this, so please understand if 

20 we end up telling you that Board transcripts 

21 are delayed, it's likely because of a request 

22 for other transcripts before that. I just -- 

23 just want everybody -- full disclosure. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 
123

1 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) number one 

2 court reporter. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I hope the court reporter ignores 

4 that remark. He can legally -- 

5 DR. WADE: Our court reporter is doing the best 

6 he can. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Question. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Question, yes. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Re-- re-- regarding workgroup -- 

11 re-- for -- regarding various workgroup 

12 documents and -- and SC&A documents and so 

13 forth in here, we-- we're getting these updates 

14 at the times of the meetings. I mean they're 

15 being handed out, so we're not always aware of 

16 what's going on. Christine, are -- are you 

17 taking responsibility for assuring that when we 

18 have something on the agenda that's being dealt 

19 with, a SEC petition evaluation review, 

20 whatever it is that's -- that's on the agenda, 

21 that the petitioners are -- when it's on the 

22 agenda and we are taking action on it, in 

23 particular, I -- I want to be assured that 

24 someone is communicating back to the 

25 petitioners about, one, that that item's on the 
124

1 agenda; number two, makes them aware of -- of 

2 documents that are relevant to that -- 

3 workgroup documents, so forth -- become 

4 available, and those are being made available 

5 in a timely fashion so that we're not in this 

6 position of having to take action on a 

7 particular SEC evaluation report at a time when 

8 the petitioners have not had an ample 

9 opportunity to review the documents relative -- 

10 relevant to our decision. And -- and it's very 

11 difficult for us to, you know, determine that 

12 particularly since the agenda's kind of a last, 

13 you know, minute and we're not always sure what 

14 -- what the actions are and -- and so forth and 

15 I don't want to have us take an action and then 

16 find out in retrospect that people haven't been 

17 properly informed. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Basically you're asking who -- 

19 who's going to assure that the appropriate 

20 documents are distributed, both to the Board 

21 and to the petitioners, for such actions. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe we have a partial answer 

24 here as well. 

25 MS. BREYER: Well, I typically take the 
125

1 responsibility of making sure all the 

2 petitioners know of the workgroup meetings -- 

3 if I get the agenda in advance for a workgroup 

4 meeting, which a lot of times there's not 

5 agendas -- will get a copy of that either by e6 mail or by phone -- a lot of people I have 

7 constant e-mail contact with; sometimes they'll 

8 get an e-mail and a phone call, usually within 

9 a day or two of me receiving notification that 

10 there's going to be a workgroup meeting. 

11 As far as the Board meetings, as soon as I get 

12 the agenda, petitioners get copies of that. I 

13 speak to them by phone and again by e-mail as 

14 well. Any documents that come out of a 

15 workgroup meeting from SC&A or from NIOSH that 

16 are passed to me get FedExed to the petitioner 

17 so they get that the next day. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

19 MS. BREYER: So the process has been 

20 streamlined a little better and we're trying to 

21 do the best job we can of tracking everything 

22 that comes from the different workgroups -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

24 MS. BREYER: -- the different petitioners, from 

25 SC&A, from the Board, making sure that they get 
126

1 everything. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And I've seen a lot of 

3 those e-mails now that -- that indicate to me 

4 that that -- there's much more attention being 

5 paid to that. But a comment, Christine, did 

6 you have -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Well, Dr. Melius asked me what I 

8 was taking responsibility for, and I want to be 

9 very careful about my parameters. I'm 

10 responsible for developing the agenda, and I 

11 appreciate Laurie and others who are, in their 

12 roles, trying to make certain that the 

13 appropriate petitioners and others are aware of 

14 the documents. One thing I can assure is that 

15 in the deve-- in developing the agenda, which 

16 I'm tr-- I'm certainly trying to do earlier, we 

17 did have this bit of a calendar challenge 

18 because we had a major holi-- couple of 

19 holidays in advance of this meeting. But in 

20 working with the NIOSH staff, who in turn are 

21 working with the workgroup -- and we're working 

22 with the workgroup chairs to make certain that 

23 whatever is on the agenda really -- that the 

24 timing of that topic is appropriate. And so in 

25 my note-taking and in my conferring with 
127

1 various members of you over the next couple of 

2 days, I have a Federal Register announ-- notice 

3 that I need to prepare for the February 20th 

4 call, and I want to make certain that the 

5 things that we're due to discuss during the 

6 call and in April, we can get these items 

7 identified as early as possible. 

8 Several things happen with earlier notice. We 

9 can get the materials for your review so that 

10 you can be much more prepared to discuss 

11 issues, whether it's at a call or at a meeting, 

12 and have those materials distributed to you 

13 earlier than on a key fob. The key fob really 

14 should be -- or sorry, the thumb drive should 

15 be something that is available to you for your 

16 -- for your ease during this meeting, but I -- 

17 I certainly understand the challenge of getting 

18 an SEC profile or other large documents the day 

19 before the meeting. Again, we did have a 

20 challenge of the holiday just prior to this 

21 meeting. 

22 And we're trying to use the web site or the O 

23 drive to get as much information to you as 

24 possible. I would say in turn to the workgroup 

25 chairs, my own observation in my relatively 
128

1 short time beginning to assume this role, is 

2 that some workgroup meetings are scheduled on 

3 the short. And so the staff and everyone else, 

4 and getting travel, there are a lot of things 

5 that have to fall in place, as I know you're 

6 aware. But it's -- I -- I have to ask you as 

7 workgroup chairs to use your -- to use your 

8 calendars with as much sensitivity in 

9 scheduling your workgroup meetings as well. 

10 Thank you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Just one -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Comment? 

14 DR. MELIUS: -- comment. I think we've 

15 discussed this before. It would help I think 

16 the Board members when we receive the agenda to 

17 sort of know what's ex-- what's going to be 

18 happening with that item on that and just if 

19 it's -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Whether it's an action item or a 

21 report or whatever? 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, li-- li-- listing -- the 

23 listing was helpful, but it was the -- I wasn't 

24 sure what to expect on a number of these and -- 

25 yeah. 
129

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Is it just -- just a -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: I will take responsibility -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- a status report or is -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: -- for amending that. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- it ready for action or what, 

6 that -- that would help everyone. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, right. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Particularly now when we have so 

9 many of them that are -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- various stages of development, 

12 which ones are ripe and going to be acted on 

13 and -- and so on, I think probably would help 

14 all of us. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: So I'll be working with workgroup 

16 chairs and NIOSH staff to make sure that we can 

17 better identify what action is likely to occur. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: We've already talked about 

21 tracking status of transcripts and minutes. 

22 TRACKING OF BOARD ACTIONS

23 Tracking of Board actions, I think that's the 

24 master document that's under development, which 

25 tells us what -- where we are on site profile 
130

1 reviews -- 

2 DR. WADE: We do -- we do have the master 

3 document. I think the effective thing to do is 

4 to make that presentation when Wanda lets the 

5 Board know about this tool that's being 

6 developed because the tool will really become 

7 the substance of -- of that overall tracking 

8 activity. So I think that's the most effective 

9 way to proceed. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. I -- I think we also 

11 originally thought that that -- an update on 

12 that might even be helpful in ad-- in advance 

13 of meetings, in connection with, for example, 

14 the information on what action items we have, 

15 to have that as backdrop. 

16 Any other comments on tracking of Board 

17 actions? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Okay. I've made a note here that we were going 

20 to appoint a Mound workgroup. Did -- did we 

21 commit to doing that today? 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

23 (Unintelligible) 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- well, I think -- didn't -- 

25 did you get some names already, Lew -- do you 
131

1 have those? 

2 DR. BRANCHE: For Mound? Wait a minute, I 

3 don't have it. No, if they're -- if they're 

4 names, you would have them. Our attorneys to 

5 the rescue. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I -- I didn't write them down 

7 because I thought Lew was writing them down, 

8 but maybe Emily did this and -- 

9 That was -- that was your suggestion. Right? 

10 DR. BRANCHE: This is -- this is the Mound 

11 workgroup? 

12 MS. HOWELL: Beach, Schofield, Presley, 

13 Clawson, Griffon and Ziemer. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Could you say it one more time, 

15 please? 

16 MS. HOWELL: Beach, Schofield, Presley, 

17 Clawson, Ziemer. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Beach, Presley -- who was the 

19 third one? 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Schofield. 

21 MS. HOWELL: Schofield, Clawson -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Clawson. 

23 MS. HOWELL: -- Griffon, Ziemer. 

24 DR. WADE: And Mark. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and actually I'm -- I'm 
132

1 going to leave Mark off of this one. He's 

2 overloaded with workgroups and there's some 

3 health issues in his family right now that I 

4 think we'll let Mark take a breather on this. 

5 And actually I think Ms. Munn also volunteered 

6 to be on this and -- Beach, Presley, Schofield, 

7 Clawson, Ziemer -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: I'm reading -- I'm reading five 

9 names. Is that you as well? 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Actually we only need 

11 four. I'll go on as an alternate and that -- 

12 therefore let -- and Josie, if you're willing 

13 to chair that, I will so appoint you. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: She's not saying no. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: She's not saying no. 

16 MS. BEACH: I said with help. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Presley will help, Schofield will 

18 help, Clawson will help and Ziemer will make 

19 sure they help. 

20 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So that workgroup is 

22 appointed. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Is there supposed to be another 

24 workgroup appointed? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's the only one I had 
133

1 for now. 

2 FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS

3 Let's talk about future meetings. We -- we 

4 have already had an indication that there's a 

5 high likelihood that the Pan-- Pantex report -- 

6 evaluation report and the SC&A evaluation would 

7 not be ready for the April meeting. We had 

8 tentatively scheduled the April meeting for 

9 Amarillo based on an anticipation that we would 

10 be in a position to discuss that petition. And 

11 since that appears to be unlikely, it would be 

12 appropriate for us to think of alternate 

13 locations for that April meeting. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Pinellas has been suggested. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Pinellas has been suggested. The 

16 -- one reason that's been suggested is that 

17 there are -- we are beginning to get some 

18 activities relating to Pinellas in terms of 

19 worker outreach meetings, a specific 

20 Congressional request that we have a Pinellas 

21 workgroup -- and that's the other one. We had 

22 not yet appointed one, but that would -- that 

23 would be a next step. We don't -- we -- and I 

24 do -- do not believe we have a Pinellas 

25 petition -- 
134

1 DR. BRANCHE: Not yet. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- so -- so it's not that far 

3 along. So there's not an urgency for Pinellas. 

4 The one reason it came up is there is some 

5 Congressional interest, number one; there are 

6 the worker outreach meetings, number two; 

7 number three, we've talked about visiting the 

8 Pinellas location for at least two years or 

9 longer and we've not done that. But the 

10 Chair's open to other suggestions as well. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

12 (Unintelligible) 

13 DR. BRANCHE: No, in fact at the time we 

14 discussed it we said it would likely be up for 

15 discussion at the June meeting. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Outside chance for April, but not 

17 so likely probably. 

18 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

19 think Pinellas (on microphone) would be the -- 

20 we -- we never time these very well, I mean in 

21 terms of it's hard to have them coincide with 

22 action. But given that we've never visited the 

23 site and have never had any -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- public meetings -- 
135

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- keep in mind that at any given 

2 time -- for example, at our next meeting -- we 

3 know that we're going to have four or five SEC 

4 petitions, so -- to -- to deal with anyway -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- and they're from all over. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: So it's -- it's hard to coincide 

9 with a -- certainly on large sites like Nevada 

10 Test Site we -- we do want to try to be ther-- 

11 or -- if we can, when the action is being 

12 taken, and I think in the case of Dow Madison 

13 we want to try to be in that area if we can 

14 when -- 

15 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- that action is taken. But -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: The -- the -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- we need to give instruction to 

19 the staff as to whether it's Pinellas or 

20 somewhere else. I assume if we go to Pinellas 

21 we're -- are we talking basically Tampa as the 

22 major city? I think it's Tampa. 

23 MR. PRESLEY: Tampa or Clearwater. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Or Clearwater. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Tampa or Clearwater, which -- I -
136

1 - just as you consider this, and I know Ms. 

2 Munn has a comment, I guess I'd like the 

3 flexibility, if we have scheduling problems, 

4 because Tampa and Clearwater in April are very 

5 popular venues and we might need -- if it -- if 

6 you would give us the permission to consider 

7 Pinellas for the September meeting as an 

8 alternative if we have challenges in scheduling 

9 a proper location for April. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and if -- if that is a 

11 challenge, we need a Plan B -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- for you to go to. Ms. Munn. 

14 MS. MUNN: Earlier we had talked about where we 

15 might be with Sandia by then. Are we -- are we 

16 in a point where it would make good sense to 

17 consider New Mexico? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you're talking about Sandia 

19 Albuquerque or Sandia Livermore? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Sandia 

21 Albuquerque. 

22 MS. MUNN: Albuquerque. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Albuquerque? 

24 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

25 MR. PRESLEY: I don't think we're anywhere 
137

1 close on Sandia or -- or Los Alamos. 

2 MS. MUNN: Or Los Alamos. We -- we had simply 

3 talked about it earlier and I wasn't sure where 

4 we were, but our -- Lawren-- the same is true 

5 of Lawrence Livermore. Right? We're not there 

6 yet. 

7 MR. PRESLEY: Would it help if we went back to 

8 the -- as an alternate, to Cincinnati? You've 

9 got Fernald close. It's a -- it's a hub if 

10 people want to come in. You've got your -- 

11 you've got your -- that time of year should be 

12 -- weather shouldn't be too bad. 

13 DR. MELIUS: It's getting to be less of a hub 

14 and -- you try to schedule flights through 

15 there, you'll find -- 

16 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, yeah. 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- recently, yeah. No-- not from 

18 your area, but I think from other areas. But I 

19 really think we've gone there enough and -- and 

20 I really think we ought to try to reach out to 

21 an area that we -- we haven't been to before, 

22 if we have sort of an open date. Which is why, 

23 again, Pinellas is good. Again, if it's not 

24 going to be feasible because of the time of 

25 year, then -- then I'd rather think of a place 
138

1 we haven't been. We -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Just to clarify as far as 

3 Pinellas, we will certainly try to schedule the 

4 April meeting for Pinellas. I just want the 

5 flexibility to be able to move that venue to 

6 the September meeting if we have challenges 

7 because it -- for Florida venues you need a 

8 good six to nine months -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Well -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: -- advance to schedule things. 

11 DR. MELIUS: But if -- are we thinking that 

12 we'll do the Amarillo meeting in June? 

13 DR. BRANCHE: I would think not. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we know at this -- 

15 DR. MELIUS: Then we've never -- we've never 

16 been there and if -- I mean if we're going to -

17 - how long do we put that one off, too? I -- 

18 it's -- 

19 MS. MUNN: We may never go. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I think there's some limitations 

21 at the moment, and perhaps they'll be resolved 

22 by then, as to our ability to discuss their 

23 site -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- at that time, if I -- that's 
139

1 about all I can say on it at the moment. 

2 DR. MELIUS: I understand. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: That's right. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Phillip Schofield. 

6 MR. SCHOFIELD: There's -- Livermore, we've got 

7 both Sandia workers out there -- Lawrence 

8 Livermore workers out there -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: What city is that? 

10 MR. SCHOFIELD: -- same facility, effectively. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh, and we haven't been out 

12 there for -- that area for a number of -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: What -- what city -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: We have been there, but it's been 

15 several years ago. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: What city is that? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Livermore, California. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Would you want to consider 

19 Livermore, California for the April meeting and 

20 Pinellas for the September meeting? 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: Sounds fine. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Try Pinellas for April -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Try Pinellas and if not -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: -- and use Plan B as Liv-- 

25 Lawrence -- or Livermore as our -- as our 
140

1 alternate. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Do you want Albuquerque, New Me-- 

4 that word is Albuquerque -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Alkeberky (sic). 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, that one. The New Mexico 

7 site -- I'm sorry. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, LaVon has a -- 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: I just wanted to mention -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- question or comment. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- Santa Susana will be ready 

12 for the April Board meeting as well. You know, 

13 that's the ETEC site, so -- 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Where's that? 

15 MS. MUNN: California. 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's actually California -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- 

18 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I hear (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: That's actually in that general 

20 area. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: You've got quite a few beryllium 

22 people involved out there in that area, too. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Well -- well, given what Mr. 

24 Rutherford said, would you want to move the 

25 Livermore location as -- as a higher consider-- 
141

1 I mean -- Lew's saying no. 

2 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

3 try Pinellas. If you can do Pinellas, 

4 (unintelligible). 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Try it -- try Pinellas -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: And Mr. Rutherford is saying -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- I know you're not optimistic, 

8 but you might try it. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: I was going to say Santa 

10 Susana is closer to Los Angeles. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Same problem as Pinellas. 

13 DR. MELIUS: It's a hike. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: That's the same challenge as -- 

15 as Clearwater and Tampa. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

17 DR. MELIUS: No, actually I don't think it's 

18 quite -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: There's a lot of facilities, 

20 though, in -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- both those -- those areas, 

23 actually. I mean Pinellas -- you can actually 

24 -- I mean there's such a big support system for 

25 the Orlando area that it -- there's a corridor 
142

1 between Orlando and Tampa that I think there 

2 should be something available. 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the only question's going to 

4 be -- I mean E-- Easter's early this year, but 

5 I don't know what the, you know, vacation 

6 schedules'll be and you -- and what will be the 

7 big week. There may not be a single big week 

8 like -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: The only big week that's not a 

10 big week is the week of Thanksgiving. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And for that. 

12 The other request I would just have if -- if we 

13 -- can let us know as soon as possible 'cause, 

14 for those of us on the east coast, a California 

15 trip adds another day and, for those of you on 

16 the west coast, the opposite, so... 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Well, wait a minute, I -- I need 

18 a tear in my eye for you. I -- I agree with 

19 you, Jim. The -- the better we can because a 

20 lot of us that small -- fly out of small 

21 airports, we -- we need at least a month 

22 because a lot of flights are all booked up. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Understood. Dr. Ziemer, just a 

24 quick question for clarification. As we -- as 

25 we anticipate the June meeting, there were 
143

1 comments about trying to go -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Greyhound? 

3 DR. BRANCHE: -- go back to I believe Illinois. 

4 Was that the request? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think if -- if we're ready 

6 for Dow Madison by June, then we might try to 

7 find something in that general area, but -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Are we -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- I mean we -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Are we -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- we've been -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: -- suggesting that that's the 

13 location for the -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: What's the best location for the 

15 Dow Madison contingent? I -- 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: St. Louis. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: St. Louis? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so St. Louis, would you 

19 like to consider the St. Louis location for the 

20 June meeting? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: All right. So as I understand 

23 it, Dr. Ziemer, we're going to look at Florida 

24 for the April 7th through 9th meeting; St. 

25 Louis for the June 24th and 26th meeting; and 
144

1 either Livermore, California or Los Angeles, 

2 California for the September meeting. And if 

3 we have trouble scheduling the Florida venue 

4 for the April meeting, then we'll switch those 

5 out. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: That sounds good. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Thank you. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, let me ask if -- I 

9 -- I believe that we have completed the agenda. 

10 Have I overlooked any items? 

11 SC&A TASKS

12 DR. MELIUS: I -- I thought we were going to 

13 talk about SC&A assignments. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, we were going to talk 

16 about SC&A. 

17 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Off microphone) 

18 (Unintelligible) announce the dates for the 

19 September meeting and announce the dates of the 

20 working -- the worker outreach (unintelligible) 

21 meetings (unintelligible). 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: I don't know that Mr. Gibson has 

24 set a meeting for the work -- a worker outreach 

25 meeting. 
145

1 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Off microphone) 

2 (Unintelligible) 

3 DR. BRANCHE: He just said that before the end 

4 of January. 

5 The request has been made that I read out the 

6 dates. The conference call -- the next meeting 

7 of the Board -- and actually let me also own up 

8 to a mistake I made. I didn't count, in the 

9 counting of the meetings, that our November 

10 29th (sic) conference call actually was meeting 

11 number 51, so our meeting over these last two -

12 - thr-- two and a half days is officially 

13 meeting number 52. Our conference call will be 

14 meeting number 53, and that is scheduled for 

15 February 20th. It will begin at 11:00 a.m. 

16 Eastern Standard Time and we'll be coming up 

17 with a Federal Register announcement and a 

18 proposed -- first and then a proposed agenda as 

19 soon as -- thereafter as I can. 

20 April 7 through 9 is a full face-to-face Board 

21 meeting. We're considering first a Florida 

22 venue for that meeting. May 14th is a 

23 conference call with the Board. June 24th 

24 through 26th is a face-to-face Board meeting 

25 and we're proposing that St. Louis be the 
146

1 location for that. August 5th is a Board 

2 meeting by teleconference. September 2nd 

3 through 4th is a face-to-face Board meeting and 

4 we're considering either Livermore, California 

5 or Los Angeles, California as the venue. 

6 Please understand that's pending our ability to 

7 schedule Florida for the April meeting. 

8 November 4th is a teleconference Board meeting. 

9 December 8th is a face-to-face Board meeting -- 

10 sorry, December 8th through the 10th we're 

11 scheduled for a face-to-face Board meeting, 

12 venue to be announced. And then January 13th, 

13 2009, a Board meeting by conference call. 

14 February 17th through 19, 2009 is a face-to15 face Board meeting. And for our February 20th 

16 conference call I plan to propose additional 

17 dates for the remainder of 2009 and at least 

18 January of 2010. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: Question. On that December the 

20 8th, 9th and 10th, we had east Mississippi -- 

21 DR. BRANCHE: That's what we had. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: -- as a location. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: That might be subject -- 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Do you have a town or anything 

25 like -- 
147

1 DR. BRANCHE: No, at our Board meeting at 

2 Naperville, I believe, that was the request. 

3 But given -- I -- the only reason I said to be 

4 announced is because, given the locations that 

5 we've discussed just now, you may wish to 

6 change where that Board meeting would occur. 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

8 (Unintelligible) suggest (unintelligible). 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll ignore that one. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Actually I think it is east of the 

11 Mississippi. It had to do -- 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

13 DR. MELIUS: -- with a conflict I have -- 

14 MR. PRESLEY: I think that's right. 

15 DR. MELIUS: -- meeting scheduled that I -- 

16 DR. BRANCHE: So we still need to -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- on the west coast I would have 

18 trouble. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: Right, I think -- 

20 DR. BRANCHE: So we still need to ad-- adhere 

21 to that. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: If possible. 

24 DR. MELIUS: If possible. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 
148

1 MS. MUNN: I was just observing that our 

2 September meeting has been set at a time when 

3 public schools are either going into session or 

4 are starting into session. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Your schools don't start till 

6 September? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: A lot of -- a lot of schools are 

8 starting in -- in August. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- I know -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Mid-August for -- 

11 MS. MUNN: -- and a lot -- public schools -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

13 MS. MUNN: -- I'm not talking about -- 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, public schools. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- colleges. A lot of public 

16 schools start the first week in September or -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Really? 

18 MS. MUNN: -- the second week. The only -- the 

19 only comment that I'm making is that our choice 

20 may need to take into consideration the fact 

21 that there are an awful lot of people traveling 

22 that first week in September. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Also Labor Day's the... 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Labor Day is the first this year. 

25 MR. PRESLEY: Labor Day, that is the first. 
149

1 DR. BRANCHE: The first, right? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, the first -- you have to 

3 travel on Sunday. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we tried both directions. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We were looking more at conflicts. 

6 I think -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

8 DR. WADE: We tried. 

9 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, didn't work. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Labor Day is not like Thanksgiving 

11 and some of the other holidays. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: What we also do on that first day 

13 is we don't start that -- the Board meeting 

14 until the afternoon. And it -- and... 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we may have to -- 

16 DR. BRANCHE: I'm still new at this -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- revisit that, but -- 

18 DR. BRANCHE: -- I'm still new at this. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's -- let's take a look 

20 at the SC&A tasks. Just to -- I'm going to go 

21 through the list here. We won't necessarily be 

22 in order so I'm going to start with Task IV. I 

23 think that's easy. We're in the process of 

24 assigning the 60 cases for the next year and 

25 that will take care of that task. There will 
150

1 also be a selection by the subcommittee of the 

2 two blind reviews. 

3 DR. MAURO: Select two more. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Two more for next year. 

5 Well, I don't think you have them yet. Mar-- 

6 Mark -- yeah. Okay. The subcommittee has that 

7 in hand, though. This year's two and they will 

8 choose two for next year, I believe. 

9 DR. WADE: They have last year's. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: That's what I -- all right, 

11 whatever it -- whichever those years are. We 

12 all mean the same thing. 

13 Task V is the SEC task. We already -- the NTS 

14 review is on this year's funds, as I recall. 

15 We assigned Mound I believe this week, so you 

16 have that. The -- the original assumption was 

17 that there would be six SEC reviews. 

18 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

19 also assigned the -- 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Please come to the microphone. 

21 DR. WADE: -- post-'73 -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Please come to the microphone, 

23 Dr. Wade. 

24 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) Do you have 

25 (unintelligible)? 
151

1 DR. BRANCHE: No, I don't. 

2 DR. WADE: You also assigned I think the post3 '73 task, and I -- the site escapes me. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Post-1973? 

5 DR. WADE: Right, it was one of the sites that 

6 we reviewed today. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that was LLNL. 

8 DR. WADE: Right, so they were asked to look at 

9 the question that -- that went to ending the 

10 proposed covered period at 1973, I believe it 

11 was. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right, or at least we were going 

13 to say the -- the workgroup had the prerogative 

14 of asking them to do that. But for the moment 

15 let's consider that as possibly a second 

16 assignment. 

17 I think we talked about the possibility of 

18 Weldon Springs being considered, and I don't 

19 know if we're at the point of actually wanting 

20 to make that assignment or not at this point. 

21 DR. MAURO: I believe it was discussed within 

22 the context of a site profile, or as a -- since 

23 the evaluation report is -- is not out yet. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: That is correct. 

25 UNIDENTIFIED: No SEC. 
152

1 DR. MELIUS: No SEC. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: There -- there's no petition, but 

3 one could say -- and we may not want to make 

4 that assignment today, but to say okay, that 

5 could very well be one of the six for this 

6 year’s, so let's sort of keep a marker for 

7 that. I -- I think, Dr. Melius, you may have 

8 raised that question based on a memo we got 

9 from -- I think from Dr. McKeel, actually. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, actually Phil and I both 

11 raised that issue and the Board -- actually I 

12 think if SC&A has the, you know, available 

13 capacity, we ought to get some assignments done 

14 and that would be -- I would suggest would be 

15 one of them. I think there were a number of 

16 other site profiles that they haven't started 

17 the review on. I bel-- Sandia, did you -- 

18 DR. MAURO: We ha-- 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- to -- 

20 DR. MAURO: We have reviewed Sandia, but we 

21 have not been asked to look into the Sandia 

22 evaluation report -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: So -- 

24 DR. MAURO: -- for the SEC. I thi-- are we 

25 talking right now Task I or Task V? 
153

1 DR. ZIEMER: Task V, SEC. 

2 DR. MAURO: SEC, so -- so Sandia certainly 

3 would be one that we have not been authorized 

4 to act on. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

6 DR. WADE: And if you go to -- to LaVon's 

7 report of today, he pointed out the fact that 

8 Santa Susana is an SEC petition evaluation 

9 report that will likely be before the Board 

10 early this year. You could let your contractor 

11 get a jump start on looking at the background 

12 there and be prepared to evaluate that petition 

13 evaluation report. I mean that would be fairly 

14 logical. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: He talked to Texas City Chemical, 

17 he talked of Horizon, Incorporated. Those are 

18 potentials for you to consider tasking them to 

19 get a jump start. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I mean I think Te-- as I 

21 recall, Texas City is sort of dependent on 

22 Blockson right now before NIOSH finishes it up. 

23 Santa Su-- Susana is certainly a complicated 

24 enough, you know, site and so forth. It's -- 

25 that may very well be worth looking into. I'm 
154

1 not sure about the others as much, but Santa 

2 Susana -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I don't have a good feel for Santa 

4 Susana in terms of its complexity and -- LaVon 

5 or somebody, can you confirm -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: I think -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- what -- or -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: It's not only the complexity of 

9 the site, it's also the complexity of what -- 

10 the evaluation that's done. Sometimes the -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: -- more complex sites have a very 

13 simple -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the absence of an evaluation 

15 report, sometimes it's hard to make a decision 

16 as to whether we need assistance if it's very 

17 straightforward. What can you tell us about 

18 Santa Susana? 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I can try -- I can tell 

20 you that it is in final review and -- and you 

21 know, I will say that part of it will be easy, 

22 I believe, in your review. The other part will 

23 be -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Famous last words and -- 

25 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- much more difficult. Okay? 
155

1 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: And there is a number of 

3 different things that are going on -- that went 

4 on at that site, so -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- I -- I can't -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: So -- so -- 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- I don't want to give you -- 

9 you know, I can't say anything else on that 

10 till we prove it, you know. 

11 DR. MELIUS: I mean I -- I -- based on those 

12 clues, I think Santa Susana may be ap-- 

13 appropriate. I have a question, back to 

14 Sandia, though. If we've got the site profile 

15 review, we've had this SEC petition sort of 

16 pending for a while and -- I may have been out 

17 of the room when part of the discussions of 

18 that, but I'm not -- think we not -- need to 

19 reach closure and to do closure if -- I think 

20 it very -- may very well be helpful that SC&A 

21 take some action. I -- I think NIOSH still has 

22 some stuff to do. Is that the -- 

23 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, actually we've done 

24 everything with that one, but I would remind 

25 you that this was a very small class of three 
156

1 individuals. And I know that we had provided 

2 everything to the Board back in October and in 

3 a November conference call everybody one -- we 

4 reminded everyone that it was provided, but I 

5 know Brad and a couple of others indicated that 

6 they wanted to review that document -- those 

7 documents before a decision was made on that. 

8 And so everything's been there and I'd just -- 

9 reminding it was a small class, very specific 

10 scenario. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and wa-- were we supposed 

12 to get something back from the petitioner on 

13 that as well? 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: We got it. We got everything 

15 from the petitioner back -- after the October 

16 Board meeting we -- we got everything from the 

17 petitioner, which actually was -- the only 

18 additional information was actually a letter 

19 that he read during the Board meeting in 

20 October. All the enclosures that he had 

21 identified were already provided. Those are in 

22 the Board's folder and we updated this at the 

23 November conference call. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: So there was no new information at 

25 that time. 
157

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct. 

2 DR. MELIUS: I think the issue there is either 

3 the Board needs to take action or we need to 

4 refer to SC&A if we want to continue to punt on 

5 this I think. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

7 DR. WADE: To drift back to Santa Susana, John 

8 Mauro mentioned to me that, you know, you might 

9 consider asking your contractor to begin a site 

10 profile review of Santa Susana that would put 

11 them in a good position then to move to a 

12 petition evaluation report review. When I had 

13 asked John what site profiles he would 

14 recommend that they be asked to consider, he 

15 had listed Santa Susana. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: And if we did that, we could -- we 

17 could defer asking for specific SEC issues 

18 until we were at that point in -- in terms of 

19 where we -- when we get the evaluation report, 

20 I suppose then. 

21 DR. MAURO: In general, the transition from the 

22 site profile reviews, as Hanford -- then at the 

23 appropriate time, tr-- when the evaluation 

24 reports might come out, we are ver-- we are 

25 able to move very expeditiously, as you know. 
158

1 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) So are we 

2 (unintelligible) Santa Susana or not? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: My suggestion is that we think 

4 about, when we get to Task I, to task that as 

5 the -- the kickoff, and then we could follow up 

6 later, if needed, with an SEC review, but -- I 

7 mean we don't have to task all six at the 

8 moment. 

9 DR. WADE: I think -- I think wisdom would be 

10 to realize that something is going to come up -

11 - 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

13 DR. WADE: -- so you don't need to task all 

14 six. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Right -- right now we have Mound 

16 and Lawrence Livermore -- 073, and we'd talked 

17 about Weldon Springs but we haven't formally -- 

18 DR. WADE: For -- for SEC this year, we have -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have a petition at the 

20 moment, do we, from -- 

21 DR. WADE: No. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: No, so we -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Was only supposed to be a site 

24 profile. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 
159

1 DR. WADE: We have Mound, we have Nevada Test 

2 Site, we have this one small issue that might 

3 come from the -- the workgroup that's been 

4 identified, and that's where you are. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

6 DR. WADE: You don't need to do anything else. 

7 You could look down the pipeline and anticipate 

8 -- you could get them started on Santa Susana 

9 in anticipation of an SEC petition, having them 

10 do that first as a site profile. There would 

11 be some wisdom in that, I think. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: You've got two site profiles that 

14 -- that have been proposed, Santa -- Santa 

15 Susana and Weldon Springs. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The Chair's question is 

17 does the Board wish to make any other SEC 

18 taskings today, aside from the Mound and the 

19 Lawrence Livermore? 

20 (No responses) 

21 Dan? 

22 DR. MCKEEL: Just one second. I think the Dow 

23 SEC extension SEC is going to come before the 

24 Board -- if we're going to try to look at that 

25 by June -- right, 'cause in a way that's a new 
160

1 -- that's an addition -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for -- 

3 DR. MCKEEL: -- SEC class. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- reminding us of that. Again, 

5 we may not want to assign that today but to 

6 hold a spacer for that, as it were, because -- 

7 I'm hopeful that we will know by our face-to-- 

8 or our phone call meeting that -- where the 

9 evaluation report on that stands and what our 

10 next step will be. But can -- can we agree to 

11 hold a spacer for that? That would be a 

12 priority one and most likely will be before us 

13 very rapidly. 

14 Let's look then at Task I, site profile 

15 reviews. John, can you remind us of this 

16 year's tasking? What -- what ones were on this 

17 year's list that were completed? Do you ha-- 

18 DR. MAURO: The -- that are active -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- remember, top of your head? 

20 DR. MAURO: Argonne East and -- I left my list. 

21 Would you have that, by any chance? Thank you. 

22 (Pause) 

23 The -- I have -- we have Argonne East was 

24 authorized and Sandia, those are the two that 

25 ha-- we have been authorized to proceed on. 
161

1 And then -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Sandia Albuquerque. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 DR. WADE: 6000 and 6001. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, and what we've done also -- 

6 but these are done. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's what I meant. 

8 DR. MAURO: You see -- I mean the TB -- TBD9 6000 and 6001, Appendix BB, all of those are 

10 being done under Task Order I, but they're all 

11 done. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

13 DR. MAURO: You have 6000, 6001 and Appendix BB 

14 is -- we're a couple weeks away, so those we 

15 sort of finished up under Task Order I -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

17 DR. MAURO: -- so we're -- at present we really 

18 only have two active Task I site profile 

19 reviews and -- Sandia and Argonne East -- and 

20 we have room for -- well, our scope of work 

21 could in-- we could add more, but that brings 

22 us to this issue I mentioned earlier of -- a 

23 budget issue, where I have $800,000 sitting on 

24 ice wi-- to be used for closeout. So if we do 

25 add more site profile reviews, we do run into a 
162

1 situation where someplace down the road when 

2 the day comes when we do a -- att-- attend to 

3 the closeout of these 11 or 12 that we haven't 

4 started yet, we could run into a budget problem 

5 -- very difficult to predict. It's based on 

6 the assumption that each and every one's site -

7 - closeout process for the ones that we haven't 

8 begun yet will require 400 work hours. It may 

9 turn out that it will -- you know, it's hard to 

10 predict, but I do have that money set aside. 

11 If we do authorize additional site profile 

12 reviews at this time, that would put us in a 

13 position that a year from now when there might 

14 be some closeout activities we could start to 

15 run short of -- of funds, or not, depends on 

16 how -- how much is involved in the closeout 

17 processes. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

19 DR. WADE: As the Technical Project Officer I 

20 would offer you the suggestion that there are 

21 many factors competing here, one of which is 

22 making sure that we keep the contractor fully 

23 engaged. Anticipating SEC petitions, I would 

24 suggest that there might be wisdom in asking 

25 your contractor to start a site profile review 
163

1 of Santa Susana in anticipation of SEC work. I 

2 think that would be a very good middle ground, 

3 leaving some resource left for closeout, but 

4 also keeping them engaged. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. That's helpful. 

6 DR. MELIUS: I would agree with that 

7 (unintelligible) add Weldon Springs to that. 

8 Gi-- given their previous work -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: -- on Mallinckrodt and so forth, I 

11 think it would be -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I think with the experience at 

13 Mallinckrodt, they could move into the Weldon 

14 Springs quite readily and utilize a lot of 

15 previous knowledge from that location. 

16 What about the rest of you? Let's -- let's 

17 make sure we have agreement on these, yea or 

18 nay, any -- any disagreement with tasking -- or 

19 tasking Santa Susana and Weldon Springs as -- 

20 as at least a start for this -- this year's 

21 assignments? 

22 There appears to be consensus. Okay. Then we 

23 have Task III, and where do we stand on Task 

24 III as far as -- 

25 DR. WADE: Well, our original plan was 30. 
164

1 When John sharpens his pencil and looks at the 

2 budget, he really only has resources to do 

3 another handful. And I think the procedures 

4 workgroup has decided there might be benefit in 

5 waiting to see what might emerge and not 

6 spending those last five slots or so, although 

7 that's up to you. But I think the task is 

8 fairly well assigned and pretty well on budget. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Wanda, do you have any 

10 comments on that? Do you see any new things 

11 that we need to have them work on, 'cause we 

12 have -- you still have a lot of closeout issues 

13 also on Task III. 

14 MS. MUNN: We do, and we have our third set 

15 that's already been assigned that we haven't 

16 really and truly begun to address. So I 

17 believe we have adequate work in front of us 

18 already scheduled. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 

20 DR. WADE: It does bring up the new issue that 

21 we talked about, which is -- under the project 

22 management task -- might you want to ask the 

23 contractor to begin to think about ways in the 

24 future of accomplishing reviews of site 

25 profiles that -- that might not be this 
165

1 complete site profile but might focus on an 

2 aspect of a site profile or a cross-cutting 

3 issue. If it would be the Board's pleasure, I 

4 could work with the contracting officer to try 

5 and develop some language for a task and bring 

6 it to you in February to consider. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I think we had sort of general 

8 agreement that that would be a good idea, and I 

9 think David told us that that could actually be 

10 done under one of the existing tasks. Was it 

11 the management task? 

12 DR. WADE: It could be -- he -- we said -- we 

13 explored it could be done in the site profile 

14 task or the management task. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Either one. 

16 DR. WADE: I think it'd be well to bring some 

17 language to you to say here's what we think 

18 should be the tasking, and then you could 

19 approve that in February and we could get them 

20 started. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection to making such a 

22 task? I think we had -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: I -- I-- no -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- basically agreed to that 

25 earlier this week. 
166

1 DR. MELIUS: -- I -- I'd just like to get it 

2 done sooner rather than later. I have no 

3 problems with language being developed and the 

4 Chair ap-- approving it and... 

5 DR. WADE: Okay, so we'll -- I'll work with 

6 David -- try and develop language very quickly, 

7 maybe get something on the e-mail to the Board 

8 next week, not asking for uniform Board action, 

9 but just for Chair action. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I think that completes 

12 our tasking for our contractor. Now I'm 

13 looking for any additional items that we need 

14 to address for -- at this meeting. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Un-- un-- under meetings, I'm a 

16 little disappointed at our 52nd meeting being 

17 held in Las Vegas, we didn't get a set of like 

18 playing cards with, you know, Board locations -

19 - 

20 DR. ZIEMER: You didn't get your set? We all 

21 got ours. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, and I would hope we 

23 could look forward for our 100th meeting to -- 

24 that the Board gets to choose a location -- 

25 DR. WADE: We did -- 
167

1 DR. MELIUS: -- really choose a vacation. 

2 DR. WADE: We did give your playing cards to 

3 Wanda to deliver to you, so... 

4 DR. MELIUS: I got the aces -- no, I... 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

6 MS. MUNN: Don't hold your breath. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Ray Green has a question. Is this 

8 on the record, Ray? 

9 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Use the mike, 

11 please. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Who's keeping track of it? 

13 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not aware of any 

14 workgroups being scheduled. Has -- 

15 DR. WADE: Procedures workgroup is scheduled 

16 for the 23rd -- is that my -- 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Of January? 

18 DR. WADE: No, what's -- I just put it in my 

19 calendar. 

20 MS. MUNN: No -- 

21 DR. WADE: That was sometime in March. 

22 MS. MUNN: -- that was too soon. No, we were -

23 - we were looking at before -- 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Well, no, what I was going to 

25 say, Ray, we're trying to come up with a date 
168

1 for the NTS site profile, as well as the SEC, 

2 and we'll get it done just as soon as we can 

3 get everybody's input back. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: So Wanda, what are your dates? 

5 DR. WADE: Procedures is May -- March 13th? 

6 MS. MUNN: March 13th. 

7 DR. WADE: Cincinnati Airport for procedures 

8 workgroup. 

9 MS. MUNN: Procedures, face-to-face in 

10 Cincinnati. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson, when can -- Mark -- 

12 Michael, when can we expect to hear from you 

13 about an out-- worker outreach? 

14 MR. GIBSON: Next week. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Is there anything 

17 actually for the good of the order? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Okay. If not, thank you very much, everyone, 

20 for your good, hard work. We are adjourned. 

21 (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 

22 a.m.) 
169

1 

2 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Jan. 10, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

10th day of February, 2008. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102