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 the

TWENTY-FIRST MEETING

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel, Two Tenth Street, 

Augusta, Georgia, on February 5 and 6, 2004.
2 

C O N T E N T S

February 5, 2004

REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary . . . . . . . . 12

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 19

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

Ms. Martha DiMuzio, NIOSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 

STATUS AND OUTREACH - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mr. Pete Turcic, DOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

SITE PROFILE STATUS, USE IN DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS, AND ROLLOUT

Dr. Jim Neton, NIOSH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

RESEARCH ISSUES WORKGROUP REPORT

 Dr. James Melius, Workgroup Chair . . . . . . . . . . 102

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION 

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . 116

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

PUBLIC COMMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

ADJOURN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
3 

C O N T E N T S

February 6, 2004

REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary . . . . . . . 223

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING

Ms. Cori Homer, NIOSH; Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Mr. Larry 

Elliott, Executive Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . .226

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION FOR SANFORD COHEN

 AND ASSOCIATES

Dr. John Mauro, SC&A

Mr. Joseph Fitzgerald, SC&A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW PROCESS. . . . . . . . . .279

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

ADJOURN PUBLIC SESSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . .363 
4 

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.

In the following transcript (sic) denotes an incorrect 

usage or pronunciation of a word which is transcribed in its 

original form as reported.

In the following transcript (phonetically) indicates a 

phonetic spelling of the word if no confirmation of the correct 

spelling is available.

In the following transcript "uh-huh" represents an 

affirmative response, and "uh-uh" represents a negative 

response.

In the following transcript "*" denotes a spelling based 

on phonetics, without reference available.

In the following transcript (inaudible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone.

In the following transcript (off microphone) refers to 

microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect to depress "on" 
5 

button.
6 

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 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

ELLIOTT, Larry J.

Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Cincinnati, Ohio

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health

Madison, Wisconsin 

ANDRADE, Antonio, Ph.D.

Group Leader 

Radiation Protection Services Group

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico

DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 

Director

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine

Professor of Medicine
7 

Nashville, Tennessee

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee 

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49

Johnson Controls

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico

GIBSON, Michael H.

President

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200

Miamisburg, Ohio

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire

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

Director

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington

OWENS, Charles Leon

President

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550

Paducah, Kentucky

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

University of Florida 
8 

Elysian, Minnesota
9 

AGENDA SPEAKERS

(in order of appearance)

Ms. Martha DiMuzio, NIOSH

Mr. Pete Turcic, DOL

Dr. Jim Neton, NIOSH

Dr. James Melius, Workgroup Chair

Dr. John Mauro, SC&A

Mr. Joseph Fitzgerald, SC&A

STAFF/VENDORS

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

ANFIELD, ISAIAH L.

BEARD, MORRIS O.

BEATTY, EVERETT "RAY", SR.

CALLAWAY, ALLEN

DAVIS, ALLISON

DEHART, JULIA

DIMM, MOSES

DIMUZIO, MARTHA

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH

FRANSON, WILLIAM C.

GANTZ, JULIE M.

HENSHAW, RUSS

HILLS, WARREN, SR.
10 

HOFFMAN, OWEN

HOMOKI, R

HOMOKI, STEVE

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ

HUTCHISON, JOHNNY

JERNIGAN, CHARLES L.

KAHAL, ED

KATZ, TED

KIRR, JAMES W.

KOTSCH, JEFF

LAWSON, JACOB HOWARD

MAIER, ALDA

MAURO, JOHN

MILLER, LYNDA K.

MILLER, RICHARD

MILLER, STEVE

MORGAN, BENYOEL T.

NAIMON, DAVID

NESVET, JEFFREY L.

PRESLEY, LOUISE S.

ROCQUE, DENNIS G.

ROESSLER, CHARLES E.

ROWE, GORDON

SINGH, L.P.

TOOHEY, R.E.

TURCIC, PETER M.

UTTERBACK, DAVID

WARREN, BOB

WASHINGTON, GRACE

WILLIAMS, LARRY S., SR.
11 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

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

2

3 (9:00 a.m.)

4 REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

5 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. We welcome you to 

6 Savannah River and to Augusta. Savannah River is more 

7 than one thing. It's right outside the door, the 

8 beautiful Savannah River, and it's also one of our 

9 important sites in terms of the DOE program.

10 I'm Paul Ziemer, Chairman of the Advisory Board on 

11 Radiation and Worker Health. This is the 21st meeting of 

12 the group, which started its deliberations in this area 

13 just two years ago in January of 2002.

14 I have several announcements and pieces of information for 

15 you all. First of all let me point out for those who are 

16 visiting and members of the public, the Board members are 

17 seated at the table here. I'm not going to introduce them 

18 individually at this time, but they do have name placards 

19 so you can identify who they are. The record will show 

20 that all of the Board members are here with the exception 

21 of Henry Anderson and Jim Melius. Henry will be joining 
12 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 us tomorrow. Jim has had some I think travel difficulty, 

2 but we expect him to arrive yet sometime today.

3 We'd like to ask everyone to register their attendance. 

4 There is a book in the back and we ask that all individuals, 

5 including Board members, do this. That registration book 

6 is on the back table near the doorway.

7 If you're a member of the public and wish to sign up for 

8 our public comment period, there's a separate sign-up 

9 sheet for that, and we ask that you do indicate your 

10 intention to address the Board by signing up there. In 

11 connection with the public comment, I would like to point 

12 out that we have scheduled at this meeting, for the first 

13 time, an evening public comment session. That public 

14 comment session begins this evening -- I believe it's 7:00 

15 o'clock -- yes, 7:00 o'clock this evening. It will be here 

16 in this room and that will be another opportunity for 

17 individuals who perhaps could not attend the meeting 

18 during the daytime hours.

19 There is an information table. It's over here on my right, 

20 about the middle of the room, and that table includes 

21 copies of the agenda, handout materials and other items 

22 that may be of interest to you.
13 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 I would also like to call attention to the fact that the 

2 Board session tomorrow afternoon, the session following 

3 the lunch period, is a closed session. That is, it is 

4 closed to the public because of the fact that the Board 

5 will be addressing a matter which is in a sense restricted. 

6 It involves the cost proposal for the Board's -- for the 

7 selection of the Board's current contract for support in 

8 the area of dose reconstruction. At that time the only 

9 business will be that of considering the cost proposal that 

10 the Board has before it.

11 One piece of information for Board members on the mikes 

12 that you have near your chair. If you use the mike, 

13 there's a pressure pad. You have to hold that down, Board 

14 members, in order to use the mike. And you have to hold 

15 that down while you're speaking, is my understanding. 

16 That pressure pad I guess is at the base of the mike, near 

17 the middle. Okay?

18 The record can now show that Dr. Melius is -- has arrived 

19 and is joining the Board here shortly. We're glad you made 

20 it, Jim.

21 I'm now going to turn the chair over to Larry Elliott for 

22 a few introductory comments.
14 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, good morning, everyone. I too would 

2 like to welcome you all to Augusta and to Savannah River 

3 and the Savannah River site. Look forward to this 

4 meeting, the 21st meeting of this advisory body. On 

5 behalf of the Secretary of the Department and Dr. Howard, 

6 the director of NIOSH, we look forward to a productive 

7 meeting.

8 We also, I would make sure that you're aware, we have a 

9 public comment period tomorrow at 11:30 to 12:00, so we'll 

10 have public comment on both days. And we're hopeful that 

11 we'll have a good session in that regard and we hear --

12 we hear perceptions and comments from the -- from the 

13 public, so thank you.

14 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 19

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. The first item on our 

16 agenda involves the review and approval of the minutes for 

17 meeting 19. That was the meeting held in Las Vegas, Nevada 

18 on December 9th and 10th. Copies of those minutes were 

19 e-mailed to Board members earlier in the week. They are 

20 also in your packet. I don't know if all of the Board 

21 members -- it's a rather long packet -- if all the Board 

22 members have had a chance to go through these. I'm willing 
15 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to consider a request for deferral if you have not had an 

2 opportunity to look over the minutes yet. Is there anyone 

3 that wishes to defer action until tomorrow?

4 (No responses)

5 It appears not. Okay. I know that some who got theirs 

6 and got a chance to actually read them before the minutes 

7 feel so -- the meeting feel so good about it, they want 

8 to take action right away.

9 Let me ask then if there are any corrections or additions 

10 to the minutes. I'm looking for substantive corrections 

11 or additions. If you have typos and minor punctuation 

12 things, you can simply pass those on later, but any 

13 substantive corrections or additions, and we ask that you 

14 look particularly at things where you may yourself have 

15 been involved in the discussion and if you've not been 

16 recorded properly. Wanda Munn.

17 MS. MUNN: Actually it isn't substantive. It was simply 

18 something that was not clear to me when I read it. On page 

19 5, the second sentence where it says Mark inquired into 

20 questioning options following the presentation. I wasn't 

21 sure -- my memory failed me. I didn't recall what that 

22 was and couldn't tell from reading it what the inquiry 
16 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 really was.

2 DR. ZIEMER: This is page 5, executive summary?

3 MS. MUNN: Page 5, Board discussion, Wednesday, December 

4 10, second sentence.

5 DR. ZIEMER: I see it, uh-huh.

6 MS. MUNN: I wasn't sure -- the meaning escaped me.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's unclear to me there, too, but I 

8 think the -- the thrust of it was that we were wondering 

9 if we could -- what we could discuss in the open meeting 

10 as opposed to in the executive session, I think that's 

11 where -- what we were talking about.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I agree, and I think it's -- this is one 

13 sentence, and it -- the following sentence where Martha 

14 and I try to explain the restraints. I think they're tied 

15 together. They're probably a little bit nebulous in their 

16 meaning, but that's what we were trying to get at.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Can we clarify that --

18 MR. GRIFFON: If we just drop the word "options" from that 

19 sentence, just to say questioning -- you know, questioning 

20 following the presentation.

21 DR. ZIEMER: It would say Mr. Mark Griffon inquired into 

22 questioning following the presentation -- inquired into 
17 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 questioning? That still sounds -- actually sounds a 

2 little strange to my ear, actually. What act-- Mark, 

3 clarify for us. What -- what was it you were asking there?

4 MR. GRIFFON: I was -- I was asking what we could ask SCA 

5 in the open meeting, as opposed to what we could not discuss 

6 in the open meeting.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. How about Mark Griffon inquired about 

8 limitations on questions that could be raised following 

9 the presentation. How would that be? If the recorder was 

10 able to record what I said, we'll accept that, whatever 

11 it was. Mark Griffon inquired into -- or inquired about 

12 limitations on questions that could be raised following 

13 the presentation. Is that agreeable?

14 (No responses)

15 We'll take it by consent that that -- that that is 

16 acceptable.

17 Okay, others? No other changes?

18 (No responses)

19 Now a motion to accept the minutes with that change?

20 DR. MELIUS: So moved.

21 MR. PRESLEY: Second.

22 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. All in favor of approval of 
18 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the minutes, say aye.

2 (Affirmative responses)

3 DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, no?

4 (No responses)

5 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? Roy, I'm sorry, I missed 

6 -- did you have a comment or...

7 DR. DEHART: Not at this point. I was going to ask a 

8 general question about minutes generally, not these 

9 particular minutes.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. You may proceed.

11 DR. DEHART: I would find, I think, with the number of 

12 pages that we review, that at the end of the minutes, action 

13 items drawn from the minutes be listed.

14 DR. ZIEMER: You're asking for a summary -- just a summary 

15 page of action items?

16 DR. DEHART: That's correct. Thank you.

17 DR. ZIEMER: I think we can agree to do that, and we'll 

18 ask our recorder to help us pull those together. Thank 

19 you. Good point.

20 I would like to point out to the Board that for our closed 

21 sessions there are generated -- for the Federal Register

22 actually -- what is called a summary. We're required to 
19 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 get those back in to the Federal Register within two weeks 

2 of our closed session. Generally what happens is -- and 

3 these are very brief -- is that Cori generates those. They 

4 come to me for signature and then they appear in the Federal 

5 Register. They don't come back to the Board for action. 

6 I simply want to let you know that. The summary of those 

7 closed sessions simply reiterates when -- when we met, who 

8 was there and the subject of the closed session, and 

9 affirms that that is the only item that was discussed. So 

10 unless the Board wishes to take formal action on those, 

11 do you agree that the Chair can simply sign those and send 

12 them back? There's no detail, of course, on the content 

13 -- or the actual discussions.

14 (No responses)

15 Thank you. We're now ready to move to the Program Status 

16 Report. Martha DiMuzio is going to make the presentation 

17 today. Martha?

18 And you should have a handout on this, as well.

19 PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

20 MS. DIMUZIO: Good morning, everyone. I'm going to give 

21 you the program report for OCAS and what we've been doing 

22 since the last Board meeting we had in Las Vegas in 
20 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 December.

2 Since that meeting we've received approximately -- well, 

3 for this year we've received approximately 216 requests 

4 from the Department of Labor. We are seeing a gradual 

5 decline in the responses that we have received. You can 

6 see there the number of cases that are AWE and the number 

7 of cases that are non-AWE. The number of cases in process 

8 is 13,550. That represents the numbers that are actually 

9 in OCAS's hands that are requiring some type of dose 

10 reconstruction.

11 Here's a graph that's showing by quarter -- fiscal year 

12 quarter the number of cases that we received from the 

13 Department of Labor. The 216 for the second quarter of 

14 FY '04, that represents just the month of January since 

15 that's when the quarter started, so as you can see, there

16 has been a cyclical decline in the number of cases 

17 received.

18 To date, as of January 30th, we've requested 14,453 

19 exposure requests to the Department of Energy, which 

20 represents 13,148 cases. So obviously if an individual 

21 worked at various sites, we would be sending multiple 

22 requests to the Department of Energy, to the appropriate 
21 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 office. And to date we've received 23,000 responses. 

2 And again, that represents 12,000 cases.

3 The age of the outstanding requests greater than 60 days, 

4 126; greater than 90 days, 156; 120, 97; and then greater 

5 than 150 days, 230.

6 This represents the eight largest sites that have 

7 requests, and I would like to make one update on -- for 

8 the Savannah River Site for greater than 60 days. We 

9 received a large bolus of responses earlier this week, so 

10 the number that's greater than 60 days has been reduced 

11 to 50, and the number greater than 150 days has been reduced 

12 to 11. And that's a result of information we received 

13 earlier this week, so that number has been significantly 

14 reduced.

15 We have been working with the Department of Energy on 

16 getting in the responses correctly and the type of 

17 information that we require to complete the dose 

18 reconstruction, and we send them monthly updates on each 

19 of the cases that we're still waiting for a response on. 

20 And we attend all major meetings with the Department of 

21 Energy when they're talking about their records and so 

22 forth, and we're really beginning to develop a really good 
22 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 relationship with the Department of Energy and beginning 

2 to see more of the type of information that we need to 

3 complete the dose reconstruction on the first pass through 

4 of requesting information, so...

5 This is our CATI information. Again, we've completed case 

6 interviews for at least 10,830 -- excuse me, not completed, 

7 but we've conducted at least one interview for 10,830 

8 cases, and summary reports sent to all claimants. The 

9 reason that number's higher is because you can have 

10 multiple claimants per case. Again, they're handling 

11 about 200 to 300 per week, and the CATI operation runs very 

12 well. They're very quick in conducting interviews and so 

13 forth, so this is a very good process that's been moving 

14 along very well.

15 Cases staged for dose reconstruction, that number 

16 represents a case where ORAU has sent a letter providing

17 them a listing of potential dose reconstructionists who 

18 may be assigned to their case. And then the claimant is 

19 given the opportunity to either select someone or -- from 

20 that list.

21 DR -- DR's that are assigned, 679, those are actual cases 

22 that have actually been given to a dose reconstructionist 
23 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 and they've started work on the dose reconstruction.

2 325 claims are currently with claimants. They've 

3 received a draft of the report and we're waiting the OCAS-1 

4 from them. And final DR's that have been sent -- dose 

5 reconstructions that have been sent to the Department of 

6 Labor for adjudication is 1,502. And also that -- that 

7 1,502, that represents a 50 percent increase from when we 

8 reported to you in December, so we are getting more and 

9 more out every day.

10 And this graph shows the numbers by month that we have 

11 submitted to the Department of Labor. As you can see, 

12 we're continuing each month to send more, and this should 

13 continue.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Martha, is -- could you go back on that slide? 

15 Is the last month on the right then January?

16 MS. DIMUZIO: Yes. I might be able to go back. Yes, so 

17 you go back -- the 284 was for January, the 241 was 

18 December, 211 November, 237 October.

19 This chart here represents the number of claims that --

20 the blue line represents the number of claims that we 

21 received from the Department of Labor. The pink line is 

22 the number of drafts that have been sent to claimants, and 
24 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the yellow is the finals that we have sent the Department 

2 of Labor. So you can see we're finally starting to address 

3 the backlog, and we are now sending out more dose 

4 reconstructions than requests that we're receiving. In 

5 the month of December we sent out 17 percent more claims 

6 to claimants than we received from the Department of Labor, 

7 and in January we sent out 44 percent more. So we are 

8 beginning to handle the backlog and get those issues 

9 resolved.

10 Phone calls, we continue to receive many phone calls from 

11 our claimants. We respond to those calls, both NIOSH and 

12 ORAU, and we also continue to receive e-mails from 

13 claimants, so we're using all of the communication methods 

14 available.

15 Recent accomplishments, we've appointed 167 physicians to 

16 the panels. That's an increase of eight appointments 

17 since we last met in December. We're continuing to 

18 recruit actively for additional physicians.

19 And again, as I said, for the months of December and 

20 January, more claims were forwarded to the Department of 

21 Labor for decision than claims received from the 

22 Department of Labor.
25 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Additional site profile documents have been posted on our 

2 web site for review by claimants, and NIOSH -- in October 

3 we initiated a quarterly communication with our claimants. 

4 We send each claimant an update on their specific case, 

5 and we also provide them with a three-page activity report 

6 which gives them an update on what's happening within the 

7 program.

8 Like I said, our first communication was in October. From 

9 that communication we received phone calls from claimants 

10 asking questions about what was contained in the activity 

11 report, or questions about the information that was 

12 provided in a specific -- in their specific update. As 

13 a result of those questions, for the January mass mailing 

14 we were able to answer their questions, one of their 

15 questions being -- in the October report where it said have 

16 we received a response from the Department of Energy, it 

17 may say no, that we had not received a response, so they 

18 wanted to know what the ans-- they didn't understand the 

19 word "no", so they wanted us to explain what "no" was. So 

20 in our January mailing we had a topic of conversation, what 

21 "no" means, so that they could have an understanding.

22 As a result of the January mailing, we've received 
26 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 additional questions about what does "pending" mean, so 

2 in the update that we send out in March we'll be telling 

3 them about what "pending" means and explaining that to 

4 them.

5 We've received many compliments from the claimants that 

6 they're getting this information, and so they're very 

7 happy about that. We've also had, you know, responses 

8 saying please don't send this to me again; I don't want 

9 that. And we're taking the steps necessary to, you know, 

10 accommodate their wishes.

11 So that's all I have. Does anyone have questions?

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. We'll start with Roy.

13 DR. DEHART: The web site for the site profiles, you may 

14 not be aware that DOL has just put together a CD that 

15 incorporates all site profiles that they currently have, 

16 and those will be mailed to each physician who's 

17 participating in the program.

18 MS. DIMUZIO: Oh, okay.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? Yes, Jim?

20 DR. MELIUS: I would -- number of questions. First, it 

21 would be helpful for the slides, the handouts that we get, 

22 to make sure that the things are labeled, 'cause when we 
27 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- on the page here all I have is bars and no axes, labels 

2 or anything and I may be able to see them now and remember 

3 them now, but when I look at this two months from now or 

4 something, I'll have no idea what I'm looking at. So I 

5 know it's -- it's tricky to do 'cause you want it to look 

6 good on the screen and it doesn't print out in black and 

7 white as well, but anyway, it would be helpful.

8 MS. DIMUZIO: Sure.

9 DR. MELIUS: Secondly, I think I've -- may have talked 

10 about this before, but on the DOE requests, it's clear that 

11 you're getting multiple responses for each request for 

12 information from -- from DOE and -- but I'm assuming that 

13 when you get back an aknowled-- I mean can you sort of 

14 describe that process so that we can understand what these 

15 statistics are? Are you getting back more than an 

16 acknowledgement from them when you say that you have a 

17 response? Is it actual information that's useful and then 

18 describe a little bit of why there'd be more than one 

19 response per person. Is that worked at different sites 

20 or is it adding additional information?

21 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a variety of those different 

22 circumstances. A person could have worked at more than 
28 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 one site, so we request for all sites that they worked at 

2 so we get response in that regard. We can also get a 

3 response that says we're still looking and we count that 

4 as a response. We could get a response that says we don't 

5 believe we have any data at all. That's a response, as 

6 well, so that's counted in that number. We -- we -- as 

7 we -- as we go through and screen the responses we have, 

8 if there are data quality issues or if the information that 

9 was provided is not in the right format, we send another 

10 request back with more specific detail on what we need and 

11 why we need it again, and so there's another -- hopefully 

12 another response comes back that provides the right 

13 information. So there's a variety of reasons as to why 

14 that number is inflated more than just the single cases 

15 we've received.

16 DR. MELIUS: I know it's hard to summarize that 

17 complicated a process, but I think it's -- you know, what 

18 I believe and I -- that you have a process in place that 

19 keeps track of those that when you don't have the 

20 information, you know that. And I think it's important 

21 to make sure that what's being portrayed to us reflects 

22 that to some extent, particularly if -- if you're having 
29 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a site that just responds yeah, we got your request, and 

2 then you don't hear from them for a year, that we're not 

3 portraying as saying that they've been -- they've been 

4 responsive. And so, you know, if there's -- there's a way 

5 of sort of having some sort of a date on -- keeping track 

6 of if a site's not really giving you meaningful information 

7 and -- I assume from what I'm hearing that you're getting 

8 it, realizing that for individual cases there are going 

9 to be, you know, difficulties in getting complete 

10 information.

11 DR. NETON: I'd like to offer --

12 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton.

13 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) Jim Neton from NIOSH. I'd 

14 offer some -- a little clarification on what Larry said. 

15 It's rare that we do get a response (Inaudible) we got your 

16 request (Inaudible). Most of the additional response 

17 we've received are -- we ask for a number of different types 

18 of information -- internal dosimetry results, film badge 

19 TLD results, medical X-ray results -- and oftentime (sic) 

20 they don't come over in a package. I mean they come in 

21 different pieces (Inaudible) organization, so we may get 

22 two or three individual responses to one request 
30 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 (Inaudible).

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's get Tony, then we'll come 

3 back. Tony?

4 DR. ANDRADE: I just wanted to mention that -- a couple 

5 of points. Number one is I certainly appreciate your 

6 concern, and it would probably be good to differentiate 

7 between responses that really have no data and those that 

8 -- that do send in pertinent data. However, two points 

9 for clarification and for just the general knowledge. By 

10 law in CFR 830, sites are supposed to make a reasonable 

11 effort to collect dose data from all previous employers. 

12 And I know that we certainly make a wholehearted effort 

13 to do that, and so that information is also collected. And 

14 as a matter of efficiency when we used to be doing this, 

15 we would send in several responses for several people at 

16 one time.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, does that count as one response, 

18 though? If it's several people at one time, you count 

19 those -- a response for each person.

20 MS. DIMUZIO: No, it counts as a response for each person. 

21 We load it up that way and it matches up to the claim number.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Back to Jim.
31 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: And acknowledging it's a complicated 

2 situation, there may be situations where the initial 

3 response provides enough information to, you know -- that 

4 NIOSH doesn't need more, so -- you know, sort of -- may 

5 -- I don't -- some kind of a system telling you we -- you 

6 know, we really don't need to keep looking for that missing 

7 information, but -- but again, just so we're not in a 

8 situation where, you know, a lot of cases can't be dealt 

9 with because there's just no information or not adequate 

10 information. That --

11 Like to obviously congratulate you on several things. 

12 One, getting the -- the communication to the claimants. 

13 I think that's -- I think that will be helpful. Again, 

14 it's going to raise questions to -- that you have to answer, 

15 but I think that people usually appreciate knowing what's 

16 going on, even if, you know, it isn't -- they're going to 

17 be delay that -- has there been -- we had received a 

18 communication and -- about updates to the web site in terms 

19 of how you're going to track the status of the claims. And 

20 I know I sent in comments, I don't know if other people 

21 did, but I was just curious in terms of the implementation 

22 of that and particularly I -- again, my comment mainly 
32 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 addressed the issue of can you have site information on 

2 there so people know the general status of how things are 

3 -- claims are being handled at Savannah River, for example.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: We are -- we have your comments and we 

5 appreciate those. Also solicited comments from DOL and 

6 DOE on this piece and we are working to revamp our web site. 

7 There's a number of new things that we are putting together 

8 to place on the web site. And it's not as -- you know, 

9 I would think it's just straightforward, let's just make 

10 it happen. But my IT folks tell me that there's a number 

11 of issues associated with putting that new process -- flow 

12 that you saw and making it work the way we want it to work 

13 and making sure the numbers are built and done in an 

14 accurate manner. So we're testing that piece right now, 

15 and before it goes on the web site we want to make sure 

16 it reports what we want it to report and we don't confuse 

17 people or give them misinformation. So I think in the next 

18 few weeks you're going to see a multiple number of changes 

19 on our web site and I think they'll be more informative 

20 than we've been in the past, and I hope they'll be 

21 well-received.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Let me insert a question here and then I'll 
33 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 come back. My question is along the lines of manpower 

2 issues, and it may be that Dr. Toohey will have to help 

3 answer it, but now that you're at a place where you're sort 

4 of cranking out a goodly number of dose reconstructions 

5 and kind of getting ahead of the backlog, how are we doing 

6 manpower-wise in having dose reconstructionists available 

7 to actually handle the flow?

8 MS. DIMUZIO: Yeah, Dick, do you want to -- I mean -- I 

9 know approximately how many staff you have, but...

10 DR. TOOHEY: That's okay. That's why I come to these 

11 meetings.

12 Dick Toohey, ORAU. We have -- let's see, 20 full-time and 

13 three or four part-time external dose reconstructors, and 

14 we feel that's adequate. That -- that's going very well.

15 We have about the -- half a dozen full-time and 20 part-time 

16 internal dose reconstructors. As I'm sure the health 

17 physicists on the Board are well aware, that's a rarer 

18 breed. And to be honest, right now that's where we're 

19 encountering a bit of a bottleneck. More of the claims 

20 are needing detailed internal dose reconstruction than we 

21 anticipated. We've developed some grouping methods which 

22 basically looks at do they actually have positive bioassay 
34 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 results in their monitoring data, how -- any of these 

2 results exceeding the MDA, are there incident reports or 

3 things indicative of an intake or a wound or something like 

4 that. And as it's turning out, a higher fraction of the 

5 cases really need to be handled by experienced senior 

6 internal dosimetrists, and we're short on those people. 

7 So we've taken a two-pronged approach. One is to try to 

8 find more. And to be honest, I'm not optimistic we will 

9 -- can find a whole bunch more available. And the other 

10 way is continuing to develop some more graded approaches 

11 to doing internal dosimetry so that more of the cases can 

12 be adequately handled by less experienced internal 

13 dosimetrists.

14 We're also looking at some improvements in the IMBA 

15 software package and things like that. There are still 

16 some exposure circumstances where the program can take an 

17 inordinate amount of time to do a dose calculation, like 

18 three hours or something like that. And we're working 

19 with Tony James to resolve and improve some of those 

20 issues. But basically we're doing everything we can to 

21 get more internal dosimetry capability available.

22 DR. MELIUS: I'm getting to the end of my questions. In 
35 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- again, I'd also like to congratulate Larry and the staff 

2 for the lines crossing in the right direction now. I think 

3 that is a, you know, significant achievement and I really 

4 think you -- and it's good. It's good for the overall 

5 program and for the claimants out there to know that we're

6 starting to eat into the backlog.

7 I do think it would be helpful for us as a Board, and I 

8 also think for you in these meetings, to present some of 

9 your projections. Where -- where are things going, where 

10 do you think -- what will happen over the next quarter or 

11 so forth? And -- and where issues like the one that Dick 

12 Toohey just mentioned are coming up that may slow down 

13 certain cases, but -- 'cause I -- 'cause I think, if I 

14 understand the process and this data so far, you are --

15 you're sort of accelerating the rate at which you're doing 

16 dose reconstructions, so I think the line's going to keep 

17 going in a very positive direction. We don't know the 

18 claims coming in, obviously, but we certainly -- I think 

19 you can have some projection on where you're going, and 

20 I think that would be useful to present and show to us and 

21 so forth with that.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your thoughts and your 
36 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 comments, and we're -- we're confident that the dose 

2 reconstructions that we have completed are done so with 

3 sound science and they are sufficiently accurate. And 

4 what we're working on right now is the timeliness aspect, 

5 and we are trying our best to ramp up and bring as much 

6 capacity to bear as we can on that particular aspect of 

7 finalizing dose reconstructions.

8 We're not, however, very good prognosticators. We -- our 

9 crystal ball is not as clear as we'd like it to be and we 

10 don't tend to do as good a job in forecasting as we would 

11 like. Obviously so 'cause we hoped we'd be -- we'd seen 

12 that line cross the blue line back in December or even 

13 November, but we'll take your comments to heart and see 

14 what we can -- we can project for you.

15 DR. MELIUS: Even if it's just a quarter or six months or 

16 something, I think -- where you feel confident -- more 

17 confident about the forecasting and its -- do.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: I think -- when I say "project", what we can 

19 talk about is issues like what Dick mentioned that we 

20 hadn't anticipated as clearly or as well, obstacles in our 

21 way toward success, and we surely need to communicate those 

22 to you so you understand what we're facing and -- and these 
37 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 come up almost on a weekly basis, some little scenario that 

2 we hadn't anticipated that requires us to go back to the 

3 drawing board and figure out a way to work through it and 

4 -- or work around it.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Larry or Martha, could you also very briefly 

6 speak to manpower issues within NIOSH with respect to the 

7 flow and so on? How -- how are we doing there?

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we have 41 full-time staff. We have 

9 not experienced any particular bottlenecks with regard to 

10 our work in reviewing and providing direction to ORAU.

11 We have -- we're in the process of adding a health 

12 communication specialist to assist Chris Ellison because 

13 we have huge work to do in that regard. We realize that. 

14 And she's a one-person shop and certainly needs the 

15 additional help and support.

16 We are finishing up filling the last two health physicist 

17 positions that we've had open. We think we've got the 

18 final two candidates identified and we think they're very 

19 good, and one will add to our staff some internal dose 

20 experienced.

21 We have -- we feel we have an adequate public health advisor 

22 team. These are the folks that are the front line points 
38 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 of communication with the claimants and handle the phone 

2 calls and they are the champions of the claimant. These 

3 are the folks that I -- I supervise directly and I ask them 

4 to be champions of the claimant, and I want them to identify 

5 ways that -- identify claims that need to be moved through, 

6 identify ways that we can improve processing of claims, 

7 and they're -- they're all the time busy speaking with 

8 health physicists trying to put a new claim under their 

9 noses and say can't we move this forward for this reason 

10 or that reason.

11 Right now I think -- I think we're adequately staffed and 

12 I don't see any need to try to request more at this point 

13 in time.

14 DR. MELIUS: Seeing Ted Katz in the audience, I have to 

15 ask this question, though. What is the status of the SEC 

16 regulation?

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, the status of the SEC rule is that we

18 have addressed the public comments that we had been 

19 provided and redrafted the rule, and it is in review and 

20 clearance.

21 DR. MELIUS: I think that the -- I guess I -- I have 

22 concerns about -- and I know Larry can't be more precise 
39 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 in giving us a forecast on that and I don't mean to ask 

2 him to do that. But I have some real concerns that this 

3 has gone on for so long and we as a Board have been very 

4 patient with this. We understand some of the difficulties 

5 involved. But at the same time I'm -- there are a lot of 

6 claimants out there that are very concerned about this. 

7 It -- we're about to enter, I -- we hope, into our review 

8 of the dose reconstructions. And without knowing what's 

9 going to be in the SEC rule, there's some limitations to 

10 what we can do in terms of dose reconstruction review. And 

11 I would like us as a Board to, you know, consider, you know, 

12 sending a letter to the Secretary asking that this be 

13 expedited as much as possible at this point in time. It's 

14 been a long time. It's a major part of the legislation. 

15 As I say, I think it's really -- the point where it is 

16 impacting what we as a Board are charged with doing from 

17 the original statute in terms of reviewing the individual 

18 dose reconstructions. So I don't know if anybody else has 

19 thoughts on that, but...

20 DR. ZIEMER: Any comments?

21 DR. ANDRADE: My only comment is that I'm as anxious as 

22 you are to see something out on the SEC. However, as you 
40 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 recall, the bases for the SEC legislation is such that it 

2 really has nothing to do with DR's except for the fact that 

3 it has been proclaimed that DR's cannot be done. So I 

4 don't see the connectivity between the DR program as it 

5 is ongoing and -- and our ability to review that DR program.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Roy?

7 DR. DEHART: I think, as many of you know, legislation is 

8 being proposed to go around and establish certain entities 

9 as special cohort sites. I think we'll see more of that 

10 if this legislation -- if this action doesn't take place 

11 very soon.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Jim?

13 DR. MELIUS: In response to Tony's comment -- and actually 

14 Larry raised the issues earlier. I disagree, I -- with 

15 what you said, Tony. I don't -- the test for the SEC in 

16 the legislation is sufficient accuracy and feasibility. 

17 And we are asking someone to review what NIOSH has done 

18 without knowing what the test will be of sufficient 

19 accuracy and feasibility, our -- our reviewer. And I 

20 think -- I find -- you know, I've said this at great length 

21 many times before, I don't see how you can do -- start the 

22 dose reconstruction process or go through all the claims 
41 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- there are some claims obviously you can do without 

2 having some sort of a way of evaluating sufficient accuracy 

3 and feasibility, but at some point I think you hit the wall 

4 or you hit a questionable area where guidance in that area 

5 is needed. When we ask our contractor or the contractor 

6 to review individual dose reconstructions, at some point 

7 they're going to see the same issue. I mean it's -- I think 

8 it's integral to the legislation and -- and I think it 

9 becomes very problematic. Now do we defer in that case? 

10 I mean we don't know how long this issue's going to be out 

11 there. As Roy said, there's legislative issues involved 

12 now and so forth because of the delays. And I think us, 

13 you know, drafting -- sending a letter up just pointing 

14 out that there has been delay and it would be very helpful 

15 for this Board to do its activities to have that 

16 information. I think it'd be very appropriate right now.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments?

18 MR. GIBSON: I concur with Dr. Melius's comments. I 

19 believe that the problem we're having with getting 

20 experienced health physicists for some of the more 

21 complicated data, just all of these issues seem to fit 

22 hand-in-hand and I believe that the third issue that ties 
42 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 it all together would be the SEC rule. So you know, I see 

2 no harm in raising our concern to the Secretary that we 

3 need this -- this rule finalized.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments relating to 

5 that issue? Jim.

6 DR. MELIUS: Maybe try to get this addressed, I will make 

7 a motion that the Board communicate with the Secretary our 

8 concerns about the long delays in finalizing the SEC rule 

9 and how we feel that it is important that this be finalized 

10 in order for us to carry out our functions.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. A motion has been made --

12 MR. ESPINOSA: Second.

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- and seconded. I'm going to ask the mover 

14 and seconder if they would be willing to postpone action 

15 on this motion till the afternoon session so that we can 

16 go through the presentations here. And also I'd like to 

17 ask, when does Henry arrive?

18 DR. MELIUS: Henry I believe arrives late tonight. If you 

19 think this will help, if you want to put off to this 

20 afternoon, that's fine with me -- or tomorrow. But I'd 

21 be willing to try to draft some specific language that --

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that --
43 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: -- work with other people that might -- that 

2 might be helpful to --

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- that would be the -- one of the reasons 

4 for delaying this so that we can agree on what the language 

5 should be and exactly how to proceed on that. If this is 

6 going to go to the Secretary, I would want to make sure 

7 that the language was carefully crafted.

8 By consent, we will table this motion. I'm saying by 

9 consent 'cause we're not -- as no one seems to be objecting 

10 and we won't even vote on tabling, which itself requires 

11 a vote, but we'll agree to remove it from the table later 

12 in the meeting, either this afternoon or tomorrow.

13 Are there other general questions for Martha?

14 (No responses)

15 Thank you very much, Martha. Now I'd like to call on Pete 

16 Turcic from Department of Labor to give us a status report 

17 on the program from their perspective.

18 STATUS AND OUTREACH - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

19 MR. TURCIC: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here again 

20 and to give you a status update of the Department of Labor 

21 program -- portion of the program. And based on some 

22 questions that the Board had requested, I'll try to also 
44 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 update you on where we are with our outreach efforts.

2 Just briefly going over the claims status, the number and 

3 types of claims as of January 29th, we've received over 

4 50,000 claims. Of that, 35,000 are claims for cancer; 

5 beryllium sensitivity, 2,252; 2,700 -- little bit over 

6 2,700 for chronic beryllium disease; almost 1,000 -- 977 

7 silicosis; and RECA, over 5,000; and then claims for 

8 non-covered conditions, we received -- about 25,000 of the 

9 claims were for conditions not covered by Part B.

10 The status of the cases that we have, those 50,000 claims, 

11 there's a little bit over 38-- that represents a little 

12 bit over 38,000 cases, with cases pending at NIOSH a little 

13 bit -- and these numbers fluctuate and, you know, they're 

14 not going to match one-for-one with what, you know, NIOSH 

15 gave because of time frames and things like that -- 13,900. 

16 Cases pending a final decision, that means there's a 

17 recommended decision and it's between the stage of a 

18 recommended and final decision, 1,873. Cases that we have 

19 final decisions on is 26,000 -- over 26,000. And cases 

20 pending action in our district office, which -- case 

21 development and so forth, 1,131.

22 As of the 29th of January our final decisions, we've issued 
45 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 final decisions to approve benefits in over 11,000 claims 

2 -- or -- yeah, 11,000 claims and to deny benefits in about 

3 15,000. Recommended decisions, 11,800 recommended 

4 decisions to approve benefits, 17,551 to deny benefits. 

5 15,300 -- little bit over that -- cases referred to NIOSH 

6 for dose reconstruction. We've issued over 10,000 

7 payments now and over $742 million. And our medical 

8 benefits, that's starting to go up pretty rapidly now, 

9 about $25 million in medical benefits.

10 Our initial decisions -- and what we call initial decision 

11 is either a recommended decision or a referral to NIOSH, 

12 it's a -- it's the point at which Department of Labor has 

13 made a decision, an initial decision that the claimant has 

14 a -- has covered employment and a covered disease. 

15 Initial decisions, recommended decisions in 29,000 -- over 

16 29,000 claims or 22,500 cases, and so from the initial 

17 decisions that we've -- from the cases that we've received 

18 since the beginning of the program, about -- initial 

19 decisions have been issued in 97 percent of all those 

20 cases.

21 Final decisions, again, we're final decisions in 26,000 

22 claims or 20-- about 21,000 cases, and that accounts for 
46 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 about 54 percent of the cases that we've received since 

2 the inception of the program on July 31st, 2001.

3 The final decisions, looking at that, right now -- and this 

4 is starting to change, naturally -- our denials -- for the 

5 final decisions that we've denied, but nine -- over 9,000 

6 of the denials at this point are for non-covered 

7 conditions; 2,400 were that the employee was not covered; 

8 728 that the survivors were not eligible; 103 that the 

9 condition was not related to employment -- and those would 

10 be things like individuals that may be filing a cancer 

11 claim at a beryllium vendor, you know, that it's -- it is 

12 a cancer, but cancer is not covered for beryllium vendors; 

13 2,000 where the medical information was not sufficient --

14 and I think that's an important -- very important point 

15 there, that if you look at it, of the 15,000 cases -- we 

16 hear a lot about how, you know, the lack of medical records. 

17 Of the 50,000 cases -- 50,000 claims, only 2,000 have been 

18 denied because the individual could not establish the 

19 medical condition -- you know, showing that they had a 

20 covered medical condition. And this is rapidly 

21 increasing, we're at now 700 where the cancer was not 

22 related or the POC was less than 50 percent.
47 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Just some -- some questions have been raised about our 

2 final adjudication branch, and just to give you some 

3 information relative to that, we have been requested and 

4 held and have completed 380 hearings. And of the 26,000 

5 cases that have final decisions, almost 1,600 have been 

6 remanded by our final adjudication branch.

7 The processing -- one of our standards that we use is that 

8 we -- we set standards that our claims -- if it's a 

9 beryllium vendor, an AWE or DOE subcontractor, that an 

10 initial decision be made within 180 days and if it's a DOE 

11 or RECA -- DOE facility or RECA, that that initial decision 

12 be made within 120. Just to show you, in FY 2003 the 

13 average time for the beryllium and AWE claims was 183 and 

14 a half days. For this -- we worked off our backlog last 

15 year, so that's -- you know, that -- that inflated those 

16 numbers. There were some old cases in there. Average 

17 time for 2004 is that 99.1 days we issue a recommended 

18 decision. An average time again for a DOE facility is down 

19 from 148 down to 73 days.

20 The status of the cases that we've gotten back from NIOSH, 

21 of the 1,403 as of this time period, we're showing that 

22 1,314 had completed dose reconstruction, 89 did not 
48 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 require completed dose reconstruction -- could be 

2 anything. There was a lot of CLL cases originally sent 

3 to NIOSH. Those came back, so there's -- that's the 

4 numbers that are in that 89. Cases that we have 

5 recommended decisions that have come back with dose 

6 reconstructions, 409 to accept benefits and 862 to deny 

7 benefits. The final decisions, those that went on to the 

8 final decision, with 357 to accept and pay benefits and 

9 384 to deny benefits.

10 There was some question about Special Exposure Cohort and 

11 what our experience has been there. Total cases from a 

12 Special -- the three -- I mean the four Special Exposure 

13 Cohorts, 3,032 cases and we paid 2,608 of those. 2,772 

14 cases from Special Exposure Cohorts have been denied. The 

15 reasons, 138 was the employee worked less than the 250 

16 working days at the three gaseous diffusion plants. Or 

17 then 2,594 were that the employee either claimed a 

18 non-covered condition and then we -- 16 were denied because 

19 we received a dose reconstruction back from NIOSH that had 

20 a -- resulted in a probability of causation less than 50 

21 percent, and then another 24 because the survivor was not 

22 eligible.
49 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 There was some question on our efforts in -- in outreach, 

2 and we're -- we have a focus -- we're trying to focus a 

3 lot of attention in the next two years on outreach, and 

4 some of the -- some of the tools that we've used is our 

5 web site, press releases, local outreach, a lot of efforts 

6 with Congressional delegations, traveling resource 

7 centers. We're putting a big focus and have been working 

8 very closely with a number of labor unions, and that has 

9 been -- that has really just paid off and we're getting 

10 great cooperation and we're getting claims in areas that 

11 we were not getting claims from before. And then we also 

12 have a major effort in media outreach.

13 Just to look at some of the areas and what we're trying 

14 to focus on from an outreach standpoint, if you look at 

15 our -- this is our Jacksonville office, the major -- with 

16 the major sites, and we have some of the -- the major DOE 

17 sites, the number of cases, along with what we initially 

18 had from Department of Energy in the program as an estimate 

19 of the number of workers. And looking at those and -- to 

20 give you some idea, you know, at -- at the Oak Ridge, you 

21 know, with a -- if we're looking at -- this doesn't -- this 

22 doesn't include the construction folks, you're looking at 
50 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 an estimated worker population of about 60,000. We've 

2 gotten 4,800 claims received. Again, at K-25 with an 

3 estimated number of 51,000, we have 4,600, 4,700 claims. 

4 Savannah River, 33,000; we have 40-- little bit over 4,000 

5 claims from Savannah River, and so forth. Our largest 

6 percentage is Paducah, and one of the things that we're 

7 looking at and trying to analyze is what worked so well 

8 in our outreach effort at Paducah versus some of the --

9 some of the other sites.

10 Cleveland, again, here is the major DOE sites. Our 

11 Cleveland district office kind of covers the rust belt 

12 area, has the lion's share of the AWEs and beryllium 

13 vendors. These are just the DOE sites and you can see the 

14 percentages are -- are very low and they are even lower 

15 when we look at AWEs and beryllium vendors.

16 Denver, again, the major DOE sites, with Rocky Flats 

17 showing about a 16 percent of what -- you know, of the 

18 expected population.

19 And Seattle, again, just briefly -- the one site that we 

20 are really focusing on that we don't seem to be able to 

21 get a handle on is the Hanford site. With it being so 

22 large, we have relatively few claims from Hanford. So 
51 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 we've -- we have a pilot project that we are working on 

2 with PACE to try to, you know, make some inroads there.

3 We have ten resource centers that we operate jointly with 

4 the Department of Energy. We'll be opening another one 

5 in the Bay area in California, and this just shows the 

6 regions. They're regional centers and the regions that 

7 they operate in.

8 From the beginning, we've -- we've had, you know, some 575 

9 town hall meetings about the Act, and we've conducted, you 

10 know, 29 traveling resource centers. Give you some idea, 

11 in 2001 the areas -- Amarillo, Simi Valley; Buffalo, New 

12 York. For 2002 these are the areas that we had the 

13 traveling resource centers. We found that this is a very 

14 effective method. We'll go into an area -- when we go into 

15 an area for a week or two at a time, we're able to get a 

16 lot of good press, and that -- that seems very helpful when 

17 you can just see, you know, when we target specific sites 

18 that we do start receiving claims from those areas. And 

19 in 2003. So far this year we've been into Pleasanton, 

20 California and San Diego.

21 We have -- as I was saying, we have a major effort in 

22 outreach going on. Our goals are to inform as many 
52 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 potential claimants as possible about the compensation, 

2 about the requirements of the Act, how to file a claim, 

3 and to provide whatever assistance is necessary in -- in 

4 filing those claims.

5 And our strategy is to try to maximize the claimant contact 

6 and using the resources of our national office staff, our 

7 district office and our resource centers. We have a --

8 we're targeting specific potential claimant populations 

9 based on analysis that we're doing. For example, we're 

10 putting a big push -- for several reasons -- in the area 

11 of our beryllium vendors, particularly subcontractors. 

12 We have virtually no -- very few claims from 

13 subcontractors. They are covered. And from beryllium 

14 vendors, so we're trying to put a focus on that. We're 

15 also going to be focusing in the area of the AWEs. Our 

16 AWEs, we're trying to put a big focus on outreach for the 

17 AWEs and we're trying to provide improved outreach 

18 materials, you know, to reach these targeted populations.

19 We're trying to expand the participation of our 

20 stakeholder groups. And again, we've gotten great 

21 cooperation with the labor unions, and we're working very 

22 hard in that area to try -- we've also gotten great 
53 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 cooperation from, you know, many of the corporate 

2 verifiers from the AWEs and getting us the information and 

3 contacts to -- to find potential claimants.

4 Some of the -- some of the analysis that we're doing --

5 we're trying to look at each individual site and do an 

6 analysis and some research to find potential claimants. 

7 Some demographic studies, one of the things that we looked 

8 at which was very interesting that we've -- we've done the 

9 Hanford site and now we're doing some of the other sites. 

10 What we looked at was based on the mortality studies that 

11 were conducted at Hanford, for example. We went back and 

12 looked at the state where the death certificates came from, 

13 and it was very interesting. We found that there were more 

14 death certificates from those former workers at Hanford 

15 in California, Florida was a surprise to us, Utah was a 

16 surprise, and Texas than there was from the state of 

17 Washington. So you know, there was more death 

18 certificates in -- from those states than -- than those 

19 -- than the state of Washington.

20 Some of the other demographics we're trying to look at, 

21 we're -- we're looking at our claims, where they're coming 

22 from, particularly survivors versus employees. And we're 
54 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 trying to also tie in with the former worker programs to 

2 make as many contacts as possible. And then we have some 

3 -- we're looking at a marketing strategy -- we're 

4 developing a marketing strategy to try to get into some 

5 of these retirement locations where you're trying to pick 

6 out a few people, you know -- you know, that may have worked 

7 in this program out of, you know, many, many people in 

8 retirement areas.

9 And with that, I would take any questions that you might 

10 have.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Pete. Who wants to begin 

12 questioning? Roy and then Jim.

13 DR. DEHART: In December there was some discussion about 

14 the medical portion of the payment to the claimant who had 

15 been found eligible. Basically I was -- if I understood 

16 correctly, there was difficulty in getting those payments 

17 through. Quite a sum of money has now been paid, as you're 

18 reporting. Are you using a third-party administrator? 

19 Are you requiring the claimant to make the payment up front 

20 and then be -- you would reimburse? How's the procedure 

21 operating?

22 MR. TURCIC: Okay. We -- we do -- we use a third party 
55 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 payer, we always have, and the third party payer will pay 

2 directly to the medical providers. It's a simple task of 

3 getting the medical providers, you know, signed into the 

4 program, and we will make the payment directly to the 

5 medical provider. I think where some of the issue came 

6 from is tended to be many of the people who, on an annual 

7 basis, travel to either National Jewish or somewhere like 

8 that for the beryllium testing, and ORISE, when it was part 

9 of the -- when they were part of the DOE screening program, 

10 they paid up front for the medical -- I mean for the airfare 

11 and all that. What we have instituted and we have 

12 procedures in place that when -- when the claimant is 

13 authorized for that, the information is -- all that they 

14 need is sent to them with a pre-- FedEx package that they 

15 get it back to us and we have been making those payments 

16 in like three days. Within three days our payments are 

17 being made. So it is a change, but you know, there is 

18 a -- there's a change in that we don't make -- you know, 

19 it's a compensation program, unlike, you know, a screening 

20 program, and so we have not been making the appointments 

21 for the claimants and we don't pre-pay, you know, their 

22 airfare and things like that, if they're...
56 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. DEHART: My other question deals with the statistics 

2 as you've reported them. Does that include the Worker 

3 Comp filing?

4 MR. TURCIC: No, that's -- this is only Subpart B. That 

5 does not include Subpart D.

6 DR. MELIUS: Following up on the medical information, has 

7 there been an increase in re-- in requests for 

8 reimbursement on the cancer side, also?

9 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, it's -- it's -- everything seems to be 

10 going up. We've done a lot of outreach in that -- in that 

11 area, and what we've found there was a number of claimants, 

12 even though they were receiving medical -- you know, 

13 received benefits, they -- and we are -- by law, we are 

14 first payer -- they would still maybe have their insurance 

15 company pay their medical bills. And we've also entered 

16 into an agreement with the State of Ohio because 

17 especially, particularly with the beryllium folks, 

18 there's a number of joint claimants, and so we now have 

19 ways to cross-match with the state of Ohio to ensure that, 

20 you know, we're the ones that are paying the medical bills 

21 as opposed to the state of Ohio.

22 DR. MELIUS: 'Cause I would think that one of the problems 
57 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 with the cancer is that you're eligible from the time you 

2 apply. The process takes a while, and meanwhile you're 

3 having your regular insurer handle the bills. So getting 

4 people to -- informing them about the retrospective 

5 ability to collect it -- and do you do that as part -- like 

6 at the time when people do file, is there communication 

7 with them telling them, you know, save your bills, you know 

8 --

9 MR. TURCIC: Yes.

10 DR. MELIUS: -- even though you send them someplace else, 

11 you can, you know, get -- 'cause there --

12 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, there is, there's contact and then when 

13 they receive the benefits, they receive a packet of 

14 information and -- and again, we've also tried to do as 

15 much outreach to the providers that if they were paid by 

16 somebody else that we could reimburse that -- that payer. 

17 But it's tough to get -- you know, it's -- it's very tough.

18 DR. MELIUS: Separate question. In terms of the -- I 

19 think it was about 2,000 claims that you said had been 

20 turned down, or 2,400 'cause they were not eligible. To 

21 what extent are you having problems verifying employment 

22 and -- if -- I mean some of them would be turned down 'cause 
58 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 they -- they don't meet the requirement or they actually 

2 -- you know, there's a record that they really didn't work 

3 there. But what about people that -- where there's 

4 problems verifying -- particularly among subcontractors 

5 and so forth.

6 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, subcontractors are difficult. One of 

7 the things that we've just done there is that we have gone 

8 in -- entered into a contract with the Center to Protect 

9 Workers Rights and they have access to a lot of other 

10 information for subcontractors that -- you know, such as 

11 dispatch records and other -- but you're absolutely right, 

12 the subcontractors are a -- they're a -- they're a 

13 difficult situation. But the vast majority of those that 

14 were denied because of employment really -- I -- probably 

15 half of them, maybe -- maybe a little less than half of 

16 those were claiming employment at sites that aren't 

17 covered.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Gen Roessler.

19 DR. ROESSLER: I think I'm talking about the same figure 

20 as Jim is. On the final decisions and claims, the total 

21 that have been turned down or the final decision denied, 

22 there's so many, 9,000 out of about 15,000, that are 
59 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 non-covered conditions. And I'm trying to figure out why 

2 that's so high.

3 MR. TURCIC: People in -- in certain areas there seem to 

4 be a belief, and we try to explain to people, they were 

5 either filing claims with no condition at all or filing 

6 claims for things like heart disease or other toxic 

7 illnesses probably is more appropriate under, you know,

8 Subpart D of the program. It's just -- you know, if 

9 someone wants to file, they have a right to file. What 

10 we do and the way we process that is if they're not at least 

11 claiming a covered condition, we -- in our first 

12 developmental letter we will ask them and, you know, we'll 

13 explain to them what are the covered conditions under --

14 under the Act, and we give them the opportunity and then 

15 we deny the claim.

16 DR. ROESSLER: So do you think it's misunderstanding or 

17 they're just hoping that it will go through?

18 MR. TURCIC: There was -- there was some misunderstanding, 

19 but there was also some areas where it was -- you know, 

20 there were groups that were telling people to file. They 

21 wanted to up the numbers maybe so that, you know, you could 

22 say here we're being denied from Part B. So it was a mix.
60 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ROESSLER: It seems that a number like that portrays 

2 a lot of negative feelings about the program.

3 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, but we're forced -- you know, if an 

4 individual wants to file a claim, our -- if they go -- and 

5 a large percentage of our claims go through our resource 

6 centers, and the resource center staffs are very good at 

7 explaining to people, you know, when they come in and 

8 they're filing a claim for a condition that's not covered. 

9 However, they're instructed, because they're entitled to 

10 have, you know, the whole adjudication process, that if 

11 they insist on filing under Part B that they go ahead and 

12 take the claim.

13 DR. ZIEMER: Richard Espinosa.

14 MR. ESPINOSA: I know in Los Alamos there's a lot of people 

15 that have filed just for the simple fact of getting it on 

16 record. My question is, though, is under what reasons are 

17 the survivors not eligible?

18 MR. TURCIC: It -- the survivor issue now, most of the 

19 non-eligible would be things like maybe they weren't 

20 married for a year prior to the death of the worker. We 

21 have a lot of survivor issues where, you know, you may have 

22 -- there could be -- they can't demonstrate that they are 
61 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a child of the -- of the worker, things like that.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius.

3 DR. MELIUS: Well, first of all, I think -- really 

4 appreciate your -- the outreach program and the effort that 

5 the -- the agency is making in -- in this overall program. 

6 One thought that came to mind -- maybe this has been tried 

7 -- but one way of reaching some of the retirees is through 

8 the pension programs, mailers and so forth to them --

9 MR. TURCIC: Yeah.

10 DR. MELIUS: -- and I think a concentrated effort there 

11 may be able to -- I mean both the construction and other 

12 tradespeople do move after retirement and --

13 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, we -- we welcome that. Sometimes it's 

14 hard because of privacy issues to get, you know, the 

15 administrators of those funds to allow us -- I mean we don't 

16 -- we don't need the names. You know, we'll give them the 

17 material that they could stuff the envelope. Yeah, that 

18 is in fact one of -- direct mailings have been our most 

19 successful method of outreach. And if anybody has any 

20 contacts or ideas, you know, we -- we appreciate them all.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Charles Owens.

22 MR. OWENS: I'm aware of the efforts that the Department 
62 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 is making at Hanford. Do you have a -- do you have a phased 

2 approach that you're going to do in regard to the outreach, 

3 and if you do, could you provide that approach to us, too?

4 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, we -- I sure will. What we -- what 

5 we're trying to do is we have a long-range plan and I'll 

6 get a copy -- you know, I'll get that to Larry and he can 

7 get it to the Board, and then we're -- you know, we have 

8 a quarterly plan. We try to stay -- you know, focusing 

9 in certain areas. Like I said, we just completed our plan 

10 for the Cleveland office and where we're going to focus 

11 in Cleveland is Fernald and Mound because they are sites 

12 that are closing. And then the beryllium vendors, so 

13 that's where we're focusing in, you know, this -- this 

14 upcoming quarter. But we'll get that -- we'll get that 

15 plan to Larry and he can share it with the Board.

16 MR. OWENS: Yeah, I think that -- you know, we've been very 

17 involved -- PACE has --

18 MR. TURCIC: Yeah.

19 MR. OWENS: -- in ensuring that workers who've been 

20 under-represented from a number standpoint are contacted. 

21 And I know there are some very good folks out at Hanford, 

22 and I'm hopeful that your efforts will be successful.
63 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. TURCIC: Yeah. We'll be out there next week.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Robert Presley.

3 MR. PRESLEY: Pete, I know that we get a lot of complaints. 

4 I want to pass on a good comment. A person at Oak Ridge 

5 came to me last week that had gone through the beryllium 

6 program. She was very complimentary about how well she 

7 was treated --

8 MR. TURCIC: Good.

9 MR. PRESLEY: -- the fairness of the people that she worked 

10 with on your program, and she was very complimentary and 

11 she wanted me to pass on thanks.

12 MR. TURCIC: Thank you.

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Larry has a comment, then we'll 

14 go to Rich.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Pete, on your slide on the Special Exposure 

16 Cohort, this is the slide that appears right before your 

17 outreach set of slides, you talk about the total number 

18 of cases denied. I just wanted to make sure that 

19 everybody's aware here that in the total approved cases 

20 there's a couple of cases that we have done dose 

21 reconstructions on and sent back that were approved.

22 MR. TURCIC: Absolutely.
64 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: These are skin cancer cases.

2 MR. TURCIC: Exactly.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Richard?

4 MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, as far as outreach, I know pretty much 

5 all the local unions have newsletters that go out on a 

6 monthly basis, and I would imagine that all the 

7 internationals have magazines that go out on a monthly 

8 basis to reach a lot of the people.

9 MR. TURCIC: We've found that what works the best is the 

10 local unions and -- 'cause a lot of times they'll have, 

11 you know -- they'll have the contact list that, you know, 

12 the internationals don't. So we -- we try whenever we can 

13 to also get the -- and we've done a number of direct 

14 mailings, you know, with the local unions -- and are 

15 willing to do that any time we can.

16 DR. ZIEMER: Pete, I was impressed by the remarkable 

17 reduction in initial claims processing time for this 

18 fiscal year. But it also at the same time raised a 

19 question. For example, on the AWEs you've gone from 183 

20 days to 99, but since we're only four months or so into 

21 the fiscal year, how -- how do you account -- there can 

22 be no claims 180 days old this year anyway, so --
65 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. TURCIC: Yeah -- yeah, there can.

2 DR. ZIEMER: How --

3 MR. TURCIC: Let me explain what the num-- where the number 

4 --

5 DR. ZIEMER: So I'm really asking how you count them.

6 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, I'm sorry. That's a good point. It's 

7 -- we count it when it is processed, no matter when it came 

8 in. So whatever quarter --

9 DR. ZIEMER: So the completed processing --

10 MR. TURCIC: It's -- yeah --

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- so far this --

12 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, so -- so -- and all the claims, you know, 

13 on the average, the claims that reach that -- that level 

14 of processing started, on the average, 99 days prior to 

15 that.

16 DR. ZIEMER: Gotcha. So it really is comparing completed 

17 claims to completed claims.

18 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, and that has been the trend really for 

19 about the last three quarters. It was the beginning --

20 the beginning of FY 2003 we had a effort to work off our 

21 backlog, and so we came up with a plan for our district 

22 offices to focus on those claims. We worked off that 
66 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 backlog, which -- you know, 'cause we started out with 

2 something like, you know, 20,000 claims on day one. And 

3 when those got worked off, then that added to the average 

4 time in the beginning of that year.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Pete, for the very informative 

6 presentation.

7 The Chair is going to declare a 10-minute comfort break 

8 before our next speaker, and so let's recess till five 

9 after 11:00.

10 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

11 SITE PROFILE STATUS

12 DR. ZIEMER: We will come back to order. We're going to 

13 have a session now dealing with site profile status. Jim 

14 Neton will be the presenter from NIOSH. Jim, you have the 

15 floor.

16 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Good morning. It's 

17 my pleasure to present to you an update on the status of 

18 our site profiles. It's an area I think we've made some 

19 fairly significant progress in a number of efforts, and 

20 I've just outlined here the three subtopics that I'd like 

21 to discuss during my presentation. That is, one, where 

22 are we with the site profiles, progress-wise. What have 
67 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 we done since the last Board meeting.

2 Also to talk a little bit about the status of the worker 

3 input effort. At the October meeting in St. Louis the 

4 Board requested that NIOSH draft a plan related to 

5 developing worker input or obtaining worker input on the 

6 site profiles.

7 And thirdly, I'd like to go off in a little bit of a 

8 different direction, talk about examples of dose 

9 reconstructions using what's -- what we call complex-wide 

10 technical basis documents. I think this came up at the

11 Board meeting in Las Vegas, and I thought -- I think the 

12 Board was interested in hearing a presentation -- an 

13 example of one of those dose reconstructions, so I'm 

14 prepared to discuss that in some detail this morning, as 

15 well.

16 Just as a reminder -- you've seen this slide I think a 

17 couple of times, but I just want to reiterate that -- what 

18 a site profile is. They're a limited-scope document 

19 specific for a site. They are essentially a road map to 

20 be used by dose reconstructors that contain site-specific 

21 information -- TLD measurement detection limits, exchange 

22 frequencies, that sort of stuff. And what it does is help 
68 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 standardize interpretation of data. As Dr. Toohey 

2 mentioned earlier this morning, we have a number of dose 

3 reconstructors working on this project in various parts 

4 of the country, so they need some sort of standardized 

5 documentation to refer to when they are doing these dose 

6 reconstructions so that we have some consistency in our 

7 approach. Again, basically used as a handbook. And as 

8 important, they are dynamic documents. We do our best 

9 effort to obtain and retrieve all possible sources of 

10 information that we can. However, we cannot predict that 

11 something won't come out of the woodwork in one of these 

12 data capture efforts or a claimant might provide 

13 something, so we are committed to reviewing these things 

14 on an as-needed basis and updating them as new information 

15 becomes available that may change the dose reconstruction 

16 effort for a particular site.

17 As you recall, there were 15 DOE facilities being worked 

18 on in parallel by ORAU. This is a fairly huge effort, a 

19 large number of people working on this, a number of good 

20 HPs out there. The 15 were -- represent a combination of 

21 the biggest sites -- you know, the ones where we have a 

22 lot of claims, also, but also some of the sites where we 
69 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 have information that was readily available and we could 

2 move forward with them. If we complete these 15 DOE 

3 facilities, we'll have documents that address about 77 

4 percent of the claimants. So you know, with 15 DOE site 

5 profiles done, that will allow us -- at least theoretically 

6 -- to move forward on processing claims for almost 80 

7 percent of the claims.

8 Where we're at right now is over -- if you'll recall, a 

9 site profile for the major DOE sites is a six-section

10 document. They're called Technical Basis Documents, so 

11 six Technical Basis Documents make up a site profile. 

12 ORAU has completed 85 percent of the individual sections, 

13 or they're under review. So essentially what I'm saying 

14 is they're either in draft form or approved and completed. 

15 So the major work has been done on 85 percent of these 

16 chapters. I think that's a pretty good start. I've got 

17 a slide after this that'll show it a little more 

18 graphically.

19 On the complex-wide documents we've actually developed a 

20 few documents to help us move some claims through the 

21 process, even if we don't have a site profile. I believe 

22 the Department of Energy complex-wide profile or --
70 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 profile was discussed at the Las Vegas meeting, and I'll 

2 get into that a little later. It's a little bit of a 

3 different flavor document. It's not specific to the site, 

4 but they use certain maximizing assumptions that we can 

5 use for specific blocks of claimants. There are two 

6 complex-wide documents out there now. One is the 

7 complex-wide document that addresses Department of Energy 

8 facilities, and we also have a complex-wide document that 

9 addresses Atomic Weapons Employers.

10 Okay, this little graph just displays where we are. If 

11 you notice, there's sections 2 through 6 labeled here. I 

12 didn't include section one. Those are typically 

13 executive summary type sections. They're not really 

14 subject to delays based on availability of data and that 

15 sort of thing. They kind of naturally come along for the 

16 ride after these five major sections are completed. But 

17 the important thing to point out on this slide are the green 

18 dots. The green dots indicate that the -- that chapter 

19 is either approved and out there on our web site or 

20 currently in the hands of OCAS undergoing comment 

21 resolution -- review and comment resolution. So you can 

22 see three, four, five -- six of them -- all but six -- nine 
71 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 of those sections are in our hands or out there and 

2 approved. And of the ones that are -- the ones that are 

3 green, 24 of those sections actually are already out there 

4 on our web site, so about a third of them are actually 

5 already out there and published -- or soon to be published. 

6 They may have just been released in the last couple of days.

7 The blue squares represent the ones that are actually 

8 drafted and in ORAU review. So we've got a number of them 

9 that are just about ready to come over to OCAS for review. 

10 But the important thing is the data capture efforts, the 

11 collection, the writing has been done. They are in the 

12 process of being refined.

13 And the red triangles represent that the draft is not 

14 complete yet, not in ORAU internal review. However, since 

15 I developed this slide a couple of days ago, two of the 

16 red dots have now become blue. This one is now internal 

17 ORAU review, that one is the Los Alamos environmental dose 

18 chapter, and the X-10 internal dose chapter is in ORAU 

19 review. So the only ones remaining with a red triangle 

20 right now is the X-10 external dosimetry chapter.

21 So a lot of progress has been made. I think you recall 

22 -- you know, we were hoping to get these all completed by 
72 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the end of the calendar year this last year. We're pretty 

2 close. We're a little bit off and there's been some 

3 reasons for delays, but we're not too far off the mark.

4 Okay, what's the site profile status for the AWEs. There 

5 are of course a lot more of those. There are several 

6 hundred plus AWEs out there. We have completed at least 

7 some of them -- Bethlehem Steel, Blockson Chemical, 

8 Huntington Pilot Plant, Mallinckrodt. We have out on our 

9 web site, although I will say that some of these have 

10 sections that are marked "reserved", and by reserved, that 

11 means that there is some issue that is preventing us from 

12 completing that particular section. It could -- that 

13 could come from a num-- for a number of different reasons,

14 but we still publish them with the idea that claims that 

15 can be done, even though those sections are still reserved, 

16 we'll move them out. And in fact we have done that for 

17 a number of these facilities.

18 The AWE -- I mentioned that we have this complex-wide TBD 

19 for uranium facilities, and I'll discuss that after I'm 

20 done with this part of this presentation. We have two new 

21 ones that just came in, Aliquippa Forge and the Tennessee 

22 Valley Authority, and they are in our hands right now and 
73 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 currently being reviewed.

2 There's a large number of AWE profiles that are currently 

3 being worked on by ORAU. I believe there's somewhere in 

4 the vicinity of 24 different ones that are being looked 

5 at right now. There's about 24 that are being looked at 

6 and have actual scheduled completion dates.

7 There is a point of diminishing returns, though, when you 

8 work on these AWE site profiles. Many of these sites have 

9 small numbers of people, so we are currently undergoing 

10 deliberation as to how best to handle a lot of the remainder 

11 of small sites. It may well be that we end up having 

12 addenda placed on the back of some of the ones that are 

13 already completed because the processes were very similar. 

14 Just with some minor modifications we could accommodate 

15 the other facilities.

16 I just briefly want to talk about the status of the site 

17 profile rollouts with the worker input effort that we've 

18 put in place since the October Board meeting. We have a 

19 worker input plan drafted. It's currently undergoing 

20 review, but it does establish a worker outreach group. 

21 We've tasked ORAU with heading up the effort for us. Some 

22 of you know Bill Murray that works for ORAU now is heading 
74 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 up that effort in their shop, along with Vern McDougal, 

2 who's a subcontractor to ORAU. So we have the plan 

3 drafted, and it provides a framework for obtaining worker 

4 input. We are encouraging workers to provide input to the 

5 e-mail sites -- addresses that we've established for each 

6 of these documents. There are individual e-mail 

7 addresses that a person could mail into and provide written 

8 comments. We're also encouraging input prior to the 

9 release, when possible. Of course we're moving these 

10 things fast and furious because we're trying to get claims 

11 processed in a timely manner. But where possible, we're 

12 encouraging input before the release. And of course after 

13 the release we -- in cases now we're going around the sites 

14 and having meetings with union representatives.

15 Public briefings are planned when necessary. There are 

16 some sites that may not have organized labor 

17 representatives, some of these AWEs for example, or 

18 stakeholders, survivors may require some briefing, so we 

19 are open to having public briefings as necessary.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, could I interrupt here?

21 DR. NETON: Sure.

22 DR. ZIEMER: It's safe to assume that the SRS meeting was 
75 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 last November rather than scheduled?

2 DR. NETON: Sorry, yes.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you.

4 DR. NETON: Yeah, my mistake. Appreciate the input.

5 And we have adopted a format of taking minutes at these 

6 meetings and -- with the sign-in sheets at the meetings, 

7 making them available to participants so that they can 

8 review what the salient points were discussed at these 

9 meetings and have a record for them. And also we hope to 

10 develop a list from these sign-in sheets of contacts for 

11 future -- future discussions, as necessary.

12 As Dr. Ziemer pointed out, the meetings are ongoing. We 

13 met at SRS in late November -- or early November. And 

14 Hanford, we were at the -- there on January 13th and 14th 

15 with -- had two meetings, one with the metal trades and 

16 one with the construction trades. Both of those meetings 

17 I will say I think were very productive for us. At the 

18 SRS briefing we had a -- some very good verbal input from 

19 the workers. We heard some interesting things, and as a 

20 result of that, we are committed to looking at the site 

21 profile for Savannah River to address the unique needs and 

22 exposure conditions of the construction workers.
76 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 At Hanford we also had some verbal feedback that was useful 

2 to us, and we are looking at revising some sections, as 

3 well, from that meeting.

4 The ones down the pike are Portsmouth, Mound and Oak Ridge, 

5 and they're being scheduled -- currently in the process 

6 of being scheduled.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Jim, are these minutes available on the web 

8 site at all or --

9 DR. NETON: Yeah, they will be. We did not do that at the 

10 Savannah River meeting, and then after we -- you know, in 

11 hindsight we decided that was -- probably would have been 

12 better to do and as they come available we'll certainly 

13 have them on our web site.

14 Okay, I want to spend a little bit of the remainder of my 

15 time talking about these two complex-wide efficiency 

16 documents and giving you an example of dose reconstruction 

17 for each flavor. The first one I'll talk about is a DOE 

18 complex-wide, and really it's a -- it's based on a number 

19 of different -- and I'm going to throw another term out 

20 at you, a technical information bulletin. I wouldn't get 

21 too hung up on the nomenclature, but these technical 

22 information bulletins are sort of small versions of 
77 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 technical basis documents. I don't know how else to 

2 describe it, but they're more even focused than a site 

3 pro-- a profile -- a technical basis document talks about 

4 a major chunk of the site. These things talk about 

5 specific processes.

6 For example, technical information bulletin 002 talks 

7 about maximum internal dose for certain DOE claims; 008 

8 talks about how to interpret external dose measurements, 

9 and so forth. So there's one, two, three -- four different 

10 technical basis documents or technical information 

11 bulletins that are used for the DOE complex-wide approach.

12 The summary of the approach is to take advantage of some 

13 of the claims where we have better monitoring programs. 

14 If we limit the applicability to more recent employment, 

15 and specifically after 1970 time frame at DOE facilities, 

16 the radiation protection programs were at least somewhat 

17 more mature than they were in the very early days of 

18 operations in the late forties and fifties. There were 

19 some evidence of active air monitoring programs, bioassay 

20 programs, that sort of thing. And so we could take 

21 advantage of that.

22 We can also apply these maximizing factors where instead 
78 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 of having a number of different site profiles for all these 

2 sites, we could take, for example, the highest detection 

3 limit for any site in 1975 and use that as the missed dose 

4 for the worker. So we go through the whole complex and 

5 use the maximum assumptions by default, and then apply that 

6 to the worker, knowing that they're more than likely above 

7 what the worker had been exposed to.

8 In a similar fashion we'd use the maximum credible 

9 undetected intake. What is the largest intake, given that 

10 there were some RAD protection controls and processes in 

11 place that could have occurred and not been detected.

12 And as usual, to be claimant-favorable, these things would 

13 choose parameters that maximize probability of causation. 

14 Examples of that are things such as claimant-favorable 

15 solubility classes. If you're calculating a dose to the 

16 gallbladder, you would assume that it was soluble uranium, 

17 so it was absorbed from the lung and deposited maximally 

18 in that organ.

19 Okay. Just to go over a little -- a single example, and 

20 I tried to pick something which is typical, kind of 

21 mid-range of this approach. Here's an example of a 

22 claimant or an Energy employee who worked somewhere in the 
79 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Oak Ridge reservation as a security guard for 16 years and 

2 he worked from the late 1970s through the early nineties. 

3 Subsequently developed prostate cancer, which was 

4 diagnosed two years after end of his employment, and he 

5 was 63 years old at that time.

6 So we requested the information from the Department of 

7 Energy from the Oak Ridge reservation and we received a 

8 reported DOE dose for his entire 16-year period for 

9 external exposure of 84 millirem.

10 The individual was monitored, though, every quarter, and 

11 obviously most of those quarters came back with a zero 

12 dose, no detectable dose. So what we did was we 

13 reconstructed the person's dose assuming that all 70 

14 dosimeter readings that were taken for the person were 

15 equal to the detection limit that's in the profile -- or 

16 in the document -- not necessarily the detection limit for 

17 the Oak Ridge reservation, but for the highest one of the 

18 DOE sites that we've evaluated. So doing so, 70 dosimeter 

19 exchanges times detection limit ended up assigning 2,840 

20 millirem external dose to the prostate, just based on a 

21 missed dose calculation using an upper limit for the 

22 detection limit.
80 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Okay, in the internal dose area, the worker had no evidence 

2 of urinalysis bioassay at all, but there was one 

3 non-detectable in vivo exam, which was below the detection 

4 limit of the measurement system. So the complex-wide 

5 approach would assume that the worker inhaled -- had a 

6 hypothetical intake of a mixture of 28 separate 

7 radionuclides that were likely to be present on DOE 

8 facilities during these time period. So there was an 

9 acute inhalation intake of 28 radionuclides that were 

10 equal to ten percent of the maximum permissible body burden 

11 at that time. In doing that, it was -- the estimate --

12 the overestimate or the dose was 11,923 millirem to the 

13 prostate gland.

14 I will say that when we do these, we take into account any 

15 existing bioassay data that we've received, such that the 

16 predicted intake must be above the value of the bioassay 

17 levels, so you'll never assign a dose lower than what the 

18 bioassay would predict. You're always going to be on the 

19 high side, the curve would be on the top of it.

20 So the results of this dose reconstruction -- did I miss 

21 a slide? Yeah.

22 Okay, occupational medical dose. Of course we're 
81 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 including that in our dose reconstructions, so we assume 

2 that there was an annual medical X-ray for this worker for 

3 each year of employment, whether or not we actually had 

4 any evidence of that. We would just automatically assume 

5 that at the most he would have had an annual medical X-ray. 

6 We would have no evidence that there was any more frequent 

7 than that, let's put it that way. And we would assign the 

8 highest dose received by any organ from that X-ray other 

9 than skin. So what I mean by that is an X-ray is taken 

10 with a collimated beam -- a collimated beam. Other organs 

11 that are not in the field of view would be irradiated. In 

12 this case we would have taken the lung dose as the highest 

13 dose and assigned it, and that ended up assigning 1.4 rem 

14 -- 1,411 millirem to the prostate gland from the X-rays 

15 -- the hypothetical medical X-ray.

16 So the results of this are that the total assigned dose 

17 to prostate was 14,922 millirem versus the record that was 

18 provided by Department of Energy for his occupational 

19 monitoring of 84 millirem, which resulted in a probability 

20 of causation of 10.4 percent at the 99 percent credibility 

21 level. I always -- it's sort of interesting to me to just 

22 keep track. The probability of causation at the 50th 
82 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 percentile in this particular case is one percent, given 

2 even these very extreme -- we believe -- overestimates for 

3 this particular case.

4 So that's an example of what we do with these AWE -- or 

5 the DOE complex-wide. I'd like to now talk about what we 

6 do in the AWE area. It's a little different.

7 There's a technical basis for estimating maximum plausible 

8 doses to workers at AWE facilities that's out on our web 

9 site, as well, and it includes an internal dose evaluation 

10 protocol that covers all the major modes of exposure. 

11 That would be internal, both inhalation and ingestion; 

12 external exposure, and residual contamination being 

13 present at this facility.

14 The approach here -- most of the -- this approach for 

15 complex-wide only is applicable to Atomic Weapons Employer 

16 facilities that handled natural uranium. A lot of the 

17 facilities handled natural uranium -- hang on, I think I 

18 have a number here. About 100 of the AWE facilities 

19 handled only natural uranium, and a large number of those 

20 -- more than 70 percent -- operated less than five years. 

21 So you've got a situation with a natural uranium exposure, 

22 similar processes or maximized -- processes that you could 
83 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 maximize, and you're actually only covering five years of 

2 exposure, and then any residual contamination from that 

3 exposure up to the point of diagnosis.

4 So in looking at a number of the AWEs that were out there, 

5 and in particular the ones in the early years, the seven 

6 that were evaluated early on, it was decided that if we 

7 assumed a constant internal exposure to 100 times the 

8 maximum allowable air concentration during the entire 

9 period of operation, we would overestimate the internal 

10 exposures for these workers. What we mean by that is we 

11 would assign -- and many of these operations only happened 

12 for like a six-month period, two days a week, six months, 

13 something like that. We assumed for the entire year that 

14 the person received 100 times the maximum allowable air 

15 concentration, eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 

16 weeks a year. That covers the internal exposure.

17 And the external exposure is modeled by -- it turns out 

18 that there were maximum-size cylinders that were handled 

19 at these facilities, and so it was actually a Monte Carlo 

20 model to model the external exposure coming off of a big 

21 block of uranium metal, essentially. And so that was 

22 modeled both as a cylindrical and a rectangular ingots, 
84 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 and I believe the rectangular one came off higher, so we 

2 ended up using that one. There's not much difference 

3 between these two. So the worker was also assumed then 

4 to have been exposed external at a distance of one foot 

5 from this uranium metal for the same time period, the 

6 entire year, eight hours a day, five days a week.

7 We also made provisions in this document for external 

8 exposure from contaminated surfaces. If you generate 

9 this huge amount of air concentration, there's a certain 

10 settling that happens that one can calculate with a certain 

11 terminal settling velocity of the particles that will 

12 accumulate on the surfaces. We assumed no removal of that 

13 material, and then calculated, using standard models, the 

14 external exposure from a person walking around all these 

15 hypothetically-contaminated surfaces.

16 And then we also -- there's a model in here for ingestion 

17 of contamination on those surfaces. There's certain 

18 assumptions for transfer factors, settling into coffee 

19 cups, that sort of thing. So we tried to do a -- covering 

20 all the bases here with some fairly maximized assumptions 

21 to see how we could use this for these claimants.

22 As I mentioned, it was restricted to uranium only, and it 
85 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 does exclude dose reconstructions for the lungs, skin, 

2 breast, eyes and tissues. It just won't work for those. 

3 Obviously for lung cancer, if you're breathing this type 

4 of a air concentrations, it's just not going to work.

5 Okay, let me just briefly go over one case. This is a 

6 person who worked at an AWE that was located in 

7 Pennsylvania. He was employed as a millwright from the 

8 mid-fifties through the late seventies. The DOE 

9 operation only occurred in one year during that 

10 employment. And in fact, this is one of those facilities 

11 where it was for six months, and they actually only worked 

12 two days per month -- or they were contracted to work two 

13 days per month.

14 We assumed for this particular dose reconstruction, 

15 though, that the person worked the entire year, eight hours 

16 a day, five days a week, 52 weeks, breathing that 100 times 

17 the maximum air concentration. That's pretty -- that's 

18 fairly typical of how we would process these claims. The 

19 person did have -- was diagnosed with colon cancer one year 

20 after the end of his employment at the age of 54.

21 In the external dose area -- we have no external dose 

22 measurements for this facility at all, but as I mentioned 
86 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 before, there was a Monte Carlo simulation given these 

2 large blocks of uranium -- natural uranium present in the 

3 facility. What would be the continuous exposure for one 

4 year at one foot from the uranium metal itself -- basically 

5 that's what I said. If we do this calculation, we would 

6 assign 4,100 millirem to the colon from exposures from 

7 working right next to this derby for the entire year. The 

8 residual radioactivity model, which is walking around 

9 these theoretically-contaminated surfaces for the entire 

10 year, adds another 1,032 millirem. And -- oh, this is from 

11 -- this is from the contaminated surfaces, 43 millirem. 

12 This is from residual -- ingestion of residual 

13 radioactivity.

14 I think these are somewhat different than your slides. I 

15 apologize. I'll make sure that we get copies of this out. 

16 These numbers are a little higher. What I neglected when 

17 I was pulling these off the dose reconstruction is there's 

18 two classes of gamma exposure, 30 to 250 keV and greater 

19 than 250. I inadvertently only pulled up one column, so 

20 that's why these numbers are higher. I apologize for 

21 that. I'm glad I caught this looking it over last night.

22 So at any rate, we have these three modes of exposure that 
87 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 we've covered for external.

2 In the internal dose area, no bioassay results were 

3 available for this worker. Again we assumed this 

4 breathing of 100 times the MAC for the entire year. We 

5 used the claimant-favorable solubility class, which means 

6 that, you know, all the activity would have been absorbed 

7 -- or the more rapid clearance from the lung through the 

8 GI tract and absorption. If you do the calculations --

9 it's always kind of interesting to me to put this sort of 

10 on a mass scale -- we would have assumed that the person 

11 inhaled 4.7 grams of natural uranium during that year, 

12 which is quite a bit of uranium, mass-wise, to inhale. And 

13 again we included the dose from residual contamination.

14 Doing that, we ended up with 5,870 -- that should be 

15 millirem -- boy -- to the colon. I need to fix these, I'm 

16 sorry.

17 Medical dose, we assume one annual medical X-ray during 

18 the year of the contract. The highest dose, again, 

19 received by any organ other than skin, and that ended up 

20 assigning 95 millirem to the colon.

21 So when you add all that up -- I'll get to my last slide 

22 -- the total dose to colon was 5,870 millirem for the 
88 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 internal exposure pathway, 5,270 from external, which 

2 resulted in a probability of causation of almost 18 percent 

3 at the 99 percent credibility level. Again, I like to look 

4 at the 50 just to see the spread between these two numbers, 

5 and it was three and a half percent at the 50th percentile.

6 I believe that's all I have to say. I'd be happy to answer 

7 any questions.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I've got Tony and then Gen.

9 DR. ANDRADE: (Off microphone) I'm curious about why --

10 THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Andrade...

11 DR. ANDRADE: Sorry about that. I was curious as to why 

12 some of these all-ranging site profiles, especially if 

13 you're dealing with natural uranium, did not include your 

14 radon exposures or radon intakes. If you're going to be 

15 dealing with that, you know, and people work, even for a 

16 long period of time, it may not add significantly to the 

17 POC, but nevertheless, it perhaps would give more 

18 credibility to the AWE-wide profiles.

19 DR. NETON: That's a good question. I think -- I failed 

20 to communicate to you, this is for natural uranium only 

21 and does not apply to facilities that processed uranium 

22 ore that may have radium-226 in the stream. So if you 
89 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 receive natural uranium, you just can't grow in radon in 

2 that decay chain in any quantity that would make any 

3 difference in the dose calculation.

4 DR. ANDRADE: So this is for processed uranium.

5 DR. NETON: Exactly.

6 DR. ANDRADE: You're not dealing with ores at all.

7 DR. NETON: That's correct.

8 DR. ANDRADE: And when you say "natural", it is processed 

9 naturally.

10 DR. NETON: It is processed uranium, already refined, in 

11 either powder or metallic form of some type. We did allow 

12 for a 100-day decay so that the protoactinium 234-M beta 

13 would grow in and you'd optimize that exposure, but 

14 radium's been taken out of this natural uranium already. 

15 Sorry for the confusion on that.

16 DR. ANDRADE: Thank you.

17 DR. ROESSLER: Jim, I want to I guess just comment on the 

18 claimant-friendly aspect of some of this. I was 

19 particularly struck when you were talking about the DOE 

20 site occupational medical dose. Now aren't most of those 

21 for the lung or the chest -- they're chest X-rays, aren't 

22 they?
90 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. NETON: Correct.

2 DR. ROESSLER: So you assumed -- or what you assume is that 

3 the primary beam includes the prostate --

4 DR. NETON: Correct.

5 DR. ROESSLER: -- in that example, which --

6 DR. ZIEMER: And no collimation.

7 DR. ROESSLER: -- yeah, and no collimation. To me, that's 

8 an example of being extremely claimant-friendly or an 

9 example of very poor medical procedures. I just wanted 

10 to make the comment.

11 DR. NETON: I agree with you. The bottom line is that we 

12 don't have any information about the processes, and if we 

13 can -- we feel very comfortable that the exposures are 

14 certainly less than this. They assume no filtration at 

15 all on these beams and open collimation. We -- there's 

16 a pretty -- Ron Cathryn* did a very good job working out 

17 the defaults for these X-ray exposures. I think it's 

18 pretty solid science.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius.

20 DR. MELIUS: I appreciate the commitment to doing a -- I 

21 don't know what to call it, a site profile outreach plan, 

22 but I was curious when that will be sort of public. When 
91 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 will we know about it and -- beyond the sites you've --

2 you've listed there, and I believe, if I understood you 

3 correctly, you mentioned doing pre-publication meetings 

4 at -- at a number of other sites. But could you sort of 

5 fill in a little bit on the time -- time frame, at least 

6 when we will know when something's going to happen and what 

7 sites you will visit, what ones you'll do public meetings 

8 out, to the extent that you can predict that ahead of time?

9 DR. NETON: I'm not prepared to address any more than what 

10 I discussed with the where we're at with the reach-out 

11 program with the individual sites. But we certainly --

12 I think the plan itself is going to be approved and in place 

13 within -- I'll let Larry help me -- a week or two? I mean 

14 it's -- it's drafted, it's --

15 MR. ELLIOTT: It's very imminent, yes. It'll be on the 

16 web site very soon. I think we also have a tentative date 

17 for INEEL visitation, too, that wasn't on your slide.

18 DR. NETON: There was, yeah.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: That's in April, I believe.

20 DR. NETON: April. But we will get the plan out there, 

21 and then as the schedule is developed we'll make sure that 

22 it's out there with the plan so that people know where we 
92 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 are.

2 DR. MELIUS: That was what I was specifically asking. I 

3 wasn't asking you to give me the plan.

4 DR. NETON: Okay.

5 DR. MELIUS: Okay?

6 DR. NETON: Okay, that's fine.

7 DR. MELIUS: Secondly, at the last couple of meetings 

8 we've raised the issue of conflict of interest among the 

9 people conducting the site profiles under -- under 

10 contract. And if I understood correctly from the last 

11 meeting, Larry or Jim, somebody was working on a plan to 

12 address that and I want -- again, like have an update on 

13 that.

14 DR. NETON: Again, we heard the comments. We took it very 

15 seriously. We've had ORAU go back and take a look at their 

16 conflict of interest plan and there is a revised draft out 

17 there -- it is being internally reviewed right now -- that, 

18 again, we should be able to have out very soon. It's not 

19 finalized yet, but there is a plan to address some of the 

20 Board's concerns.

21 DR. MELIUS: On this one I'm a little bit more concerned 

22 about the timetable for that because you seem to be moving 
93 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 so rapidly with these and assigning -- if I understood you 

2 correctly, assigning new ones or subcontract, whatever you 

3 call it, new ones. And I'm assuming they're being 

4 subcontracted under the old plan. We've had several 

5 examples of at least what I consider to be very disturbing 

6 assignments under the old site profile contracting, and 

7 I guess -- when you say soon, I guess if you could be a 

8 little bit more specific, I might feel more comfortable 

9 with it. But you know, if it's going to drag on again, 

10 I think -- and we continue to assign under the old rules, 

11 I think we're just compounding what's already a serious 

12 credibility issue.

13 DR. NETON: Yeah. It's difficult for me to predict. I 

14 know it's been drafted and it's being internally reviewed. 

15 I can't give you a date on that. Dick may want to address 

16 the other issue, though, about people who are working --

17 DR. ZIEMER: Dick Toohey?

18 DR. NETON: -- on the plan.

19 DR. TOOHEY: Dick Toohey, ORAU. Let me just comment that 

20 subcontractor assignments for the next round are being 

21 made under our new proposed rules, so we are assuming OCAS 

22 will approve those. So your concern that we're making new 
94 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 assignments based on the old rules is not the case.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's see, Mark, you have a 

3 comment?

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just looking at the matrix that you 

5 presented, Jim, I had a question. The one dot I didn't 

6 see on there was which -- which of the DOE site profiles 

7 is -- are ready, completely -- all sections completed and 

8 ready so that the Advisory Board and their contractor can 

9 start --

10 DR. NETON: Good question.

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- to review --

12 DR. NETON: I meant to inform you of that. The Savannah 

13 River Site of course has been done for some time, and 

14 Hanford is fully complete, as well, at this time. Those 

15 are the only two that we have fully completed DOE site 

16 profiles on. However, there are a number that have two, 

17 three sections done that could be -- could be reviewed, 

18 although the total picture is not there. I think I said 

19 -- I think there's 24 individual chapters that have been 

20 drafted or Technical Basis Documents.

21 MR. GRIFFON: And also with the site profiles, I'm just 

22 thinking in terms of review, there's a lot of support 
95 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 documentation or references listed. Are those kept in an 

2 administrative record for the site profile or are they 

3 available electronically --

4 DR. NETON: All the documents I've discussed here or any 

5 of our site profiles are on our web site. All the ones 

6 I mentioned today are out there, available to the public.

7 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe I -- the ref-- even the references 

8 listed in a site profile, that's what I --

9 DR. NETON: Oh, the references in the site profile 

10 themselves? They're not included, but most of them --

11 it'd be difficult -- I mean some of these reference -- some 

12 pretty voluminous documents, so it's a -- sort of where 

13 do you stop? You reference references of references. I 

14 mean -- so we -- we do have them and we can make them 

15 available to the dose reconstruction contract-- the 

16 reviewer, if that's where you're heading with that.

17 MR. ELLIOTT: The references are not on our web site. As 

18 Jim says, they're voluminous and they are available upon 

19 request. And we have provided them, in a number of cases, 

20 to the public upon request. And certainly your 

21 contractor's going to be able to access them as they 

22 desire. We have them on a special drive on one of our 
96 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 servers and so they'll have that access.

2 MR. GRIFFON: So you have most of that stuff 

3 electronically. I'm just -- I'm not saying on the web 

4 site. I'm saying available for the review contractor or 

5 for --

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah.

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- the Board so that it'd be easily 

8 accessible --

9 DR. NETON: We can make it available electronically.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius.

11 DR. MELIUS: Specific question and then a -- sort of a 

12 follow-up comment. The question first. Last time -- I 

13 think we actually -- last two meetings, I believe, I may 

14 be wrong -- we've heard from Richard Miller with some 

15 concerns about the site profile for Blockson, and I think 

16 we've heard sort of his -- his concerns about that, and 

17 I believe at the last meeting I requested, maybe somebody 

18 else did, that we get briefed on that so we'd have an 

19 understanding -- it came up sort of obliquely in some of 

20 the question here about sort of natural uranium exposures 

21 and so forth. And I guess I'm asking are we going to hear 

22 about that? I would at least like to understand what the 
97 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 issue is, if it's a legal issue or if it's a, you know, 

2 policy issue that -- request or a technical issue.

3 DR. NETON: All I can say on the Blockson issue is that 

4 we -- the radon section remains reserved on our web site. 

5 It is not completed yet, and we are going -- internally 

6 deliberating how to handle radon and Blockson at this 

7 point. I can't really say any more than that.

8 DR. MELIUS: I know I'm ask-- okay. Well, that's more 

9 (off microphone) (Inaudible) -- than I recalled, so that's 

10 --

11 DR. ZIEMER: At the last meeting I think the issue was 

12 discussed to some extent, and had to do with the definition 

13 of what was -- what was the site in this case and it involved 

14 the radon exposures of a portion of the site. I gather 

15 that internally that's still being addressed and reviewed 

16 and -- is there any more that can be said today or no?

17 DR. MELIUS: I'm not looking for more then, if you can't 

18 say it, but -- and I think I've used up my three wishes 

19 in terms of scheduling, but if we could -- if it is -- when 

20 it's ready and can be presented, I would like to hear it 

21 presented.

22 DR. NETON: I'd be more than happy to do that.
98 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: And I think that raises a bigger question that 

2 comes up with some of these site-wide documents that you're 

3 doing that I think we as a Board need to look at. And I 

4 think it applies more to this issue of individual dose 

5 reconstruction review. But when we did the initial set 

6 of dose reconstruction regulations, we indicated that if 

7 there were -- and I may not have the language right, but 

8 if there were policy issues or things that would change 

9 how NIOSH would do -- conduct dose reconstructions, sort 

10 of fill in further details, that there was a process put 

11 in place where those would be announced in the Federal 

12 Register and then reviewed, comments reviewed by the 

13 Board, also, or presented to the Board in some way -- and 

14 I may have the details of that wrong.

15 I think we also are now entering into this process where 

16 we are looking at individual dose reconstructions, and 

17 then -- and then in between those two -- and I -- I don't 

18 personally see where any of the documents you talked about 

19 today represent, you know, a major change. I think 

20 they're pretty straightforward technical guidance. But 

21 we ought to think about what -- where the line is in some 

22 of these places in terms of -- and what is the most 
99 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 efficient way of looking at -- for us to do the individual 

2 dose reconstruction reviews in a way that -- I mean do we 

3 just do individual dose reconstructions till we run across 

4 one of these documents, in which case then it has to be 

5 reviewed, or is it more efficient to do it in some other 

6 way. And then at what point does -- does the decisions 

7 that you're making, the technical decisions sort of reach 

8 more of a policy issue that -- that ought to get more --

9 more complete public review. And whether we do that as 

10 part of our discussions or at some later point, but I think 

11 it's something -- it'd be better if we could think it 

12 through ahead of time rather than having an issue come up 

13 where -- if it -- if a large issue comes up through an 

14 individual dose reconstruction, I don't think that serves 

15 everybody very well 'cause undoubtedly that may have, you 

16 know affected a lot of other cases and then if -- if we're 

17 debating or having questions about a -- some sort of a 

18 technical policy that you've set in terms of dose 

19 reconstruction, then -- through an individual -- through 

20 a single case, then I think that's not the best approach 

21 and most efficient nor the most fair to the claimants. And 

22 if we could think about some criteria for that. And also 
100 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to get a little better idea of where you're going with these 

2 types of documents and seeing, you know, what's the 

3 spectrum from the original regulations to various kinds 

4 of guidelines you develop down to these sort of technical 

5 reference documents that are in place, and maybe that would 

6 help us decide it. And maybe it's not an issue yet, or 

7 maybe it won't be, but I would like to avoid that becoming 

8 a major issue.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And actually these kind of issues 

10 cut both ways. I think Dr. Roessler was hinting at it that 

11 it's -- it could also be when does an assumption go beyond 

12 becoming claimant-friendly to becoming -- ridiculous? 

13 Some of the assumptions are -- push the envelope, I think. 

14 They're certainly claimant-friendly. They make some 

15 assumptions that clearly go well beyond that, I would --

16 in my mind. It's hard to know -- it may be hard to say 

17 well, you can't rule out the possibility, for example, that 

18 even though work was only done two days a week, that 

19 somebody might not have had -- worked longer than that. 

20 So it's hard to draw those lines, I realize.

21 But insofar as these kinds of things drive the process, 

22 I think you're in essence asking to make sure that the Board 
101 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 is aware of these. Insofar as they represent perhaps a 

2 policy change, we need to be on top of that. I think they 

3 keep with the policy. It's hard -- it's hard to separate 

4 the application of the policy from the assumptions that 

5 are built into the policy, I suppose.

6 Okay. Mike?

7 MR. GIBSON: But on the other hand, Paul, you know, some 

8 of these assumptions are just that, they're assumptions, 

9 and it's admittedly a limited document. And so -- on the 

10 other hand, there could be a lot of missed dose for people 

11 that legitimately deserve it.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understood, and certainly they are 

13 taking worst-case scenarios. And I'm not suggesting at 

14 this point that -- that they change that. It's certainly 

15 -- has -- in most cases appears to me has been a -- really 

16 a worst-case scenario.

17 Other comments before our lunch break?

18 (No responses)

19 Okay, there appear to be none. Thank you again, Jim, for 

20 a very informative presentation.

21 We're now ready for the lunch break. We will reconvene 

22 at 1:30. Thank you very much.
102 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

2 RESEARCH ISSUES WORKGROUP REPORT

3 DR. ZIEMER: We're now back in session. Our first topic 

4 for the afternoon session is a report on the research 

5 issues workgroup. Dr. Melius has headed up that 

6 workgroup. They've had a teleconference meeting 

7 recently, and Jim, if you'll bring us up-to-date and...

8 DR. MELIUS: The research -- IREP and other scientific 

9 issue workgroup, I think is our official title, that had 

10 another meeting this week. The meeting was Henry -- Henry 

11 Anderson, myself and Russ Henshaw. Leon was caught on an 

12 airplane and I believe Paul, you were -- though not an 

13 official member of the group, you were going to sit in and 

14 you were caught in travel status, also, under that. And 

15 then subsequent to that meeting, I had some e-mail 

16 correspondence with Larry to -- and with Russ to update 

17 some of these issues, and I will refer you to them in a 

18 second for -- for some of this.

19 The -- if -- to refresh your memories -- 'cause I had to 

20 refresh mine -- the last report from the IREP and 

21 scientific issues workgroup was about a year ago. And we 

22 -- at that time we presented a report that included two 
103 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- two things. One was a recommendation for a set of 

2 procedures for how we would deal with scientific issues 

3 that would -- and other change -- significant changes to 

4 IREP and so forth that would come up and -- this was a policy 

5 the Board did adopt. It was a fairly flexible policy, 

6 depending on the extent of the change and depending on how 

7 NIOSH had worked to come up with a document, but it would 

8 involve some sort of a peer review or through a workgroup 

9 or a scientific meeting -- there were lots of different 

10 avenues. And then a presentation to the Board with all 

11 that information in a way that we could then make a 

12 endorsement of that change, if -- if appropriate that...

13 At that report a year ago we also presented a number of 

14 IREP and other health-related scientific issues that we 

15 recommended be something that get priority in terms of 

16 being addressed. And we ended up with a list of five 

17 issues. We put them into first and second priorities. I 

18 don't think their priority is as important for my 

19 presentation today, but we had gone through that and as 

20 a group adopted those.

21 And so what I will do is direct my report back to you based 

22 on that list because it -- that and I'll maybe add another
104 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- couple of other items to it in terms of just updating 

2 you.

3 Our first priority was the issue of how to deal with 

4 occupational exposures, that these were exposures in the 

5 workplace and the fact that a lot of the scientific data 

6 that was being used to develop IREP were derived from 

7 non-occupational exposures that -- and whether that --

8 there should be adjustment or something for that, taking 

9 -- that -- that deals with a number of technical issues, 

10 healthy worker effect, some changes in the dose rate and 

11 so forth on that.

12 After -- subsequent to our meeting last -- a year ago when 

13 we discussed this, we also had an update from NIOSH on where 

14 they stand with their studies, and -- 'cause they have 

15 underway a number of occupational cohort studies that --

16 and I think -- at least our discussion after that, although 

17 I don't think we ever formally talked about this, was that, 

18 you know, there was just a lot of work underway and NIOSH 

19 was addressing this issue, but it was more of a longer-term 

20 research issue. And I think the only conclusion we'd come 

21 or rec-- that and my discussions with Larry is that it --

22 at some point we ought to be updated on where NIOSH is with 
105 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 their work, and particularly focused on this issue, and 

2 maybe at that time generate some more discussion of to what 

3 extent we need to deal with occupational exposures in the 

4 context of the IREP model and what would be next steps. 

5 And maybe there's nothing that needs to be done even then, 

6 but that would be I think the appropriate time for that 

7 discussion.

8 Second issue was age at first exposure that we -- we 

9 discussed as issue that'd been brought up. And NIOSH has 

10 been wrestling with that issue, also, and -- do that, and 

11 -- ask you to address this so I don't -- distracted, Larry 

12 -- and is think -- thinking of various approaches and let 

13 me let Larry address that since he's the one doing it.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: This is on age at exposure --

15 DR. MELIUS: Age at exposure --

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- workshop, and we are working with the 

17 Health Energy-Related Research Branch, HERB, in NIOSH to 

18 put together this workshop. We are in deliberation about 

19 how to go about that and where we're going to out-source 

20 that to -- which contract we would employ that under. 

21 Basically the approach that HERB has proposed is that a 

22 set of experts would be convened in a workshop setting, 
106 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 and they would use some pre-developed datasets to come up 

2 with a standard methodology of analysis for issues 

3 surrounding age at exposure and how to go about this.

4 The problem here is that there's a number of approaches 

5 that have been used by different epidemiologists, 

6 different biostatisticians, on evaluating age at 

7 exposure. And there are limitations and there are 

8 advantages to each -- each of those different approaches. 

9 And so using a standardized dataset and gaining consensus 

10 across some experts we think makes a lot of sense. That 

11 would enable OCAS to use a consensus approach methodology 

12 in examining age at exposure. It would also enable the 

13 HERB researchers to examine age at exposure within their 

14 various study designs using a standardized approach.

15 Time line, I can't give you a time line. We're hoping that 

16 we can get this put together and a workshop held this year. 

17 We want to -- we have -- in OCAS we have money dedicated 

18 to support this for this year. We're working with HERB 

19 to see where we can find some additional resources and how 

20 we can best go about doing this. But it's our intent to 

21 get this on a fast track as quickly as possible because 

22 we do believe that it has considerable benefit and merit 
107 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to compensation, as well as to research.

2 DR. MELIUS: And I think, again, that procedurally sort 

3 of fits in with the way we talked about approaching these 

4 -- these issues and would allow them to come back with a 

5 report or, you know, an update for us, and maybe even a 

6 recommendation at some point.

7 The third issue was -- we classified as sort of the rare 

8 cancer issues, and grouping of different types of cancer. 

9 And there's really not much to update on that, other than 

10 there is some funding, we believe, in the omnibus spending 

11 package that was just passed, I think within the last few 

12 days, that would allow some further analysis by NIOSH on 

13 the chronic lymphocytic leukemia issue, and maybe help 

14 expedite addressing that issue. And I don't know, Larry, 

15 if you found anything more out in the last 24 hours about 

16 that. I think -- is all you know this huge appropriates 

17 for all the agen-- many of the agencies, I can't remember 

18 how many are included, has just been passed finally and 

19 there's some language issues and so forth. And there's 

20 a while for somebody to wade through it and get the language 

21 down so you can even look at it.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: I haven't seen the language. I've talked 
108 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 with David Utterback -- who's here today -- a little bit 

2 about it, so we know it passed. We have to take stock of 

3 what it says and how the earmark is couched.

4 Attendant to that, though, Russ Henshaw is working on a 

5 listing of -- a frequency, if you will, of the cancers that 

6 we have in our claimant -- claim population, looking at 

7 various types of cancer -- primaries and -- and what we 

8 can say about that, as well, how many -- how many of those 

9 truly rare, rare, rare type of cancers do we see and what 

10 do we need to do in light of those. So he is coming up 

11 with that and we plan to have something to present to the 

12 Board in a very short time.

13 DR. ZIEMER: Can you tell us a little more about the thrust 

14 of the funding? What's the intent there in the bill that 

15 you referred to? Is that for studies or --

16 DR. MELIUS: That is for studies, yes. My understanding 

17 -- at least the language I've seen earlier, and I haven't 

18 seen final language, was it would allow -- NIOSH is doing 

19 -- well, maybe we should ask --

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Maybe Dave Utterback could come up and speak 

21 to that. I haven't seen the language myself, but 

22 originally we understood it to be dedicated to -- money 
109 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to be dedicated to CLL, examining CLL.

2 DR. UTTERBACK: David Utterback, I'm with NIOSH, 

3 Health-related Energy Research Branch, and -- I mean I 

4 can't cite the language verbatim, but the way that it does 

5 read is that there is $7 and a half million from the amount 

6 of money allocated to DOE for public health activities, 

7 to be given to NIOSH to investigate, through epidemiology 

8 studies and other activities, the relationship between 

9 chronic lymphocytic leukemia and radiation.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

11 DR. MELIUS: I would also add -- I was going to put this 

12 at the end but Larry raised it -- Russ has been working 

13 on a -- I don't know what to call it, but it would be an 

14 analysis of the claims information, the claims information 

15 database that would allow -- to address issues like 

16 frequency of cancers, frequency of sites and so forth. 

17 And I think this has been talked about at a previous 

18 meeting, but it would allow some better information, 

19 particularly in addressing these types of more general 

20 issues that would be I think useful not only for the 

21 program, but also for the Board in thinking about how to 

22 prioritize or address some of these issues in the future. 
110 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 And there's been a lot of progress on that and I think, 

2 as Larry said, we'll be hearing about it shortly.

3 The fourth area that was the issue of smoking and how to 

4 adjust for smoking -- that, and -- actually when I -- when 

5 we did this conference call on Tuesday, NIOSH was still 

6 waiting from (sic) an analysis to come in from Pierce, and 

7 by the time we -- the next day, it had come in -- or had 

8 just received the report, if I understand right, and --

9 MR. ELLIOTT: It does help to have you apply a little 

10 pressure so that we can turn that pressure over and our 

11 colleagues at NCI complied, so...

12 DR. MELIUS: It was soft pressure. I just asked Russ, 

13 well, when do you think it might come in? He said I don't 

14 know, I'll check with Larry, and today I got a note from 

15 Larry saying it was in, so it's good from that. And I 

16 think, in all fairness to NIOSH, they need to review the 

17 report and then I think there are some steps that can be 

18 taken, you know, relatively soon to at least think of ways 

19 that the smoking issue can be addressed. And Russ, if you 

20 want to elaborate, you're...

21 MR. HENSHAW: I just want to say -- is this on? I can't 

22 tell from -- yeah. We have something from NCI. We 
111 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 haven't really had a -- we just got it -- well, Tuesday, 

2 I believe -- Monday or Tuesday. We haven't had a chance 

3 to really look at it very carefully, so there's a 

4 possibility, maybe a probability, we'll need to go back 

5 and get some additional data to understand the few pages 

6 of information we have so far.

7 DR. MELIUS: Epidemiologists always have an odd view of 

8 time and so forth -- trouble predicting when something will 

9 get done or complete. And it's never complete, always got 

10 to have more analysis.

11 The final issue really is related to the first issue, which 

12 is the issue of how to address other occupational exposures 

13 that might take place, particularly within the DOE sites. 

14 And I think that's really part and parcel of the first 

15 issue, the occupational cohorts that are being looked at. 

16 And so when we get an update from HERB, I think we'll be 

17 able to ask more questions about that.

18 The final thing I wanted to just mention is that the update 

19 to BEIR is underway and I don't think we're expecting 

20 anything very soon on that. But that will clearly have 

21 a -- could have a large impact on -- terms of possible 

22 changes that might need to be made to IREP or something 
112 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 from the analysis and reporting that's underway there, 

2 that's at least a year away, as I recall, maybe even longer 

3 before we see that. You remember the --

4 MR. ELLIOTT: My understanding from one of the members of 

5 the BEIR committee was that the report was due to surface 

6 in public last November, and we haven't seen that yet. So 

7 I had a call in to Eula Bingham to find out where it's at 

8 and what the holdup is, and I haven't got a comment back. 

9 But I don't believe it's a year away. I think it's closer 

10 than -- than maybe that, that we think -- should be here 

11 soon, I hope.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Now I believe that report is dependent upon 

13 official issuance by RERF of the new risk coefficients. 

14 Is that correct?

15 DR. MELIUS: I believe so, yeah. That's my 

16 understanding.

17 DR. ZIEMER: I have heard, unofficially, that those risk 

18 coefficients are not likely to change very much. I don't 

19 know if any others have heard rumors, and certainly the 

20 record shouldn't show that to be definitive in any way, 

21 but my understanding is that the changes in the dosimetry 

22 -- which goes back to the Japanese dosimetry -- have been, 
113 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 for the most part, rather small changes and hence the risk 

2 coefficients, though they will change, will not change by 

3 great amounts. But it still remains to be seen what the 

4 impact will be on -- eventually on IREP and we want to 

5 certainly be tracking that.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: I certainly agree. That's similar to what 

7 I've heard. We were also anxious to see what the report 

8 would say, though, about occupational studies and their 

9 effect or non-effect on risk --

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: -- estimates, so I think that's our focus 

12 on this report. That's where we want to see it come in.

13 DR. ZIEMER: That may be of greater importance, actually, 

14 than the coefficients, which may not change very much.

15 Could I also ask, on the smoking issue, once you've 

16 digested that information, is there a plan to report --

17 maybe at the next meeting -- what those findings were? Or 

18 what -- what do we expect to get from NCI on the smoking 

19 issue?

20 MR. ELLIOTT: What we -- what we're talking about in 

21 receipt from NCI is basically the Pierce analysis data that 

22 was done to support their modifications on smoking and lung 
114 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 cancer. And what Russ alluded to was that we've got four 

2 or five pages of really what looks to us like a SAS* 

3 printout with no data dictionary and no explanation and 

4 no interpretation, and so that's what we're after right 

5 now. It would be our intent that we analyze that bit of 

6 information and come back to the Board with a proposal on 

7 the impact on the NIOSH-IREP cancer risk models for lung 

8 cancer and what we should do in that regard, what changes 

9 or non-changes should be made. And so we would present 

10 that to the Board. Of course we would have that 

11 peer-reviewed and vetted and then brought to the -- those 

12 comments and the resolution that we provide to those

13 comments brought to the Board, as well.

14 DR. MELIUS: And that's my report.

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Jim. Let's see if there 

16 are additional questions relating to the report of the 

17 research group.

18 (No responses)

19 It appears that there are not, and there's no specific 

20 recommendation beyond these general things that we're 

21 looking forward to.

22 DR. MELIUS: Correct. Yeah, it's -- I think it's more of 
115 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 an information update at this point in time.

2 BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. If you would look at 

4 your agenda and make sure that you have the correct version 

5 of the agenda -- which I didn't have. But the correct 

6 version of the agenda now for our next item -- except for 

7 (off microphone) the break, which (Inaudible) since we're 

8 a little ahead of schedule -- there's a Board working 

9 session for dose reconstruction review process --

10 THE COURT REPORTER: His mike's gone.

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you should have. Does everyone 

12 have that version of the agenda? And the reason I call 

13 that to your attention is because the earlier version 

14 showed the item as being Sanford Cohen & Associates as the 

15 next item, where in fact that has been --

16 THE COURT REPORTER: It's in and out.

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- that has been scheduled for tomorrow at 

18 9:00, Board discussion/working session on Stanford Cohen 

19 & Associates with respect to the Board support for dose 

20 reconstructions. So our focus at this moment will be on 

21 the dose reconstruction review process. And we had set 

22 aside time on this I think from our last meeting to do any 
116 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 follow-up on that item, and I'm trying to recall, Mark --

2 and I'll ask if you can help me out on this -- where did 

3 we stand as far as the working group's recommendations were 

4 concerned after the end of the last session? I'll put you 

5 on the spot here a little bit.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know. I thought this was on the 

7 schedule for tomorrow, actually. You know, I'm not sure 

8 where we left off. We had a draft procedure for our review 

9 process, but beyond that, I don't know where the working 

10 group left off or if you...

11 MR. ELLIOTT: I, too, am at a little bit of a loss here. 

12 I think -- maybe we could recap to -- to the point of --

13 as to where we're at right now. We -- you -- we haven't 

14 announced yet, but we have -- you have awarded two of your 

15 tasks, and that's what you will be able to talk to Sanford 

16 Cohen & Associates tomorrow about. Tasks two and four 

17 have been awarded and they can start work under -- under 

18 those tasks. So you might want to think about those two 

19 tasks and whatever questions of clarification you have for 

20 your contractor or anticipating what questions they might 

21 have of you.

22 The other two tasks, one and three, are -- are not awarded. 
117 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Those are still in the negotiation process. Those are 

2 what you're going to discuss in closed session tomorrow, 

3 so you're -- you're limited in what you can discuss in open 

4 session about those. You could discuss -- you know, we've 

5 still I think been wrestling with how you're going to come 

6 up with your selection of cases in a stratified --

7 representative or stratified random sample. What are the 

8 variables -- we would ask you what are the variables you 

9 want to target for your selection of those cases.

10 We have bantered around this idea of a subcommittee or not 

11 subcommittee. I think you've come to grips with that. 

12 You want the whole Board to be involved, but you might still 

13 think about -- you know, as you proceed here, do you really 

14 -- is that the way you want to go. You know, there's some 

15 work here to be done as far as identifying cases for review 

16 when that task three is awarded, and assigning who's to 

17 review those cases and what that process really looks like.

18 So I mean I'm just trying to throw out ideas for topics 

19 for discussion here for this afternoon and perhaps 

20 tomorrow. And I'm certainly not -- want to lead you in 

21 one way or the other here, but these are things that kind 

22 of we have questions in our mind about how -- how do --
118 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 how do we go about doing these reviews. We're still --

2 we're still wrestling with what your approach and your 

3 process is going to be and how we will attend to making 

4 sure that we protect the privacy of individual claimants, 

5 how -- what your report is going to look like at the end 

6 of your review, you know. We're still awaiting to hear 

7 your thoughts on that, so those are just my thoughts off 

8 the top of my head.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. And tomorrow during the 

10 official session with SC&A -- that is, during the morning 

11 session -- we will have a chance for them to ask questions 

12 and for us to ask questions pertaining specifically to task 

13 two and four, which have been awarded. That is -- and John 

14 Monroe (sic) and Joe Fitzgerald I understand will both be 

15 here from SC&A and there will be an opportunity for them 

16 to seek clarification on those tasks and for us to ask them 

17 questions and discuss those in more detail.

18 Okay. Now Jim and then Wanda.

19 DR. MELIUS: Well, one question they might ask us tomorrow 

20 is what site profiles do they want us to review, so I think, 

21 you know, sort of meaty issue is going to be how do we select 

22 those to get them underway -- get those reviews underway, 
119 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 but -- and I was thinking that in a more general sense the 

2 way of approaching this is to think -- much as some of the 

3 examples Larry just used is to think about what are the 

4 different activities that are involved here. How do we 

5 as a Board want to handle them. How do we want to select 

6 the site profiles, then the individual cases. We've still 

7 got work to do on that. How are we going to interact with 

8 the contractor. Is that going to be done -- you know, the 

9 contractor has questions, who do they call, how do we get 

10 clarification on that. There's some issues that I think 

11 we have to be -- be careful both from the contracting point 

12 of view, but also in terms of the credibility of the process 

13 and making sure that's taken care of. And I think we just 

14 need to work through those and decide what's the best way 

15 to do that and are we going to need a subcommittee to do 

16 that, how much guidance do we give the subcommittee, do 

17 we do it as a committee -- the whole committee for -- for 

18 each of those. And then try to categorize them and come 

19 up with a timetable for dealing with them.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda?

21 MS. MUNN: I hate to admit this, but I no longer remember 

22 what tasks two and four were. I remember what one and 
120 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 three were because -- for obvious reasons, but not having 

2 brought previous notes with me, I'm at a loss. Will 

3 someone please refresh my memory?

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I'll try to do that, and I'm certain 

5 that Mark will correct me in any way that I might err here. 

6 Task two is to review site profiles, and task four is to 

7 develop a database, a data management system for you all. 

8 Remember, task four was to design that, develop that, put 

9 that into place. And I think that involves, you know, 

10 tracking the cases that are assigned, when they were 

11 assigned, who's working on them, what the findings were, 

12 perhaps even -- you know, database management aspect of 

13 -- of how many site profiles have been examined within, 

14 you know, task two, as well as under task three where we 

15 -- you're looking at individual completed dose 

16 reconstructions. So you know, I think there's a lot to 

17 be talked about under task four. It may seem apparently 

18 obvious what has to be done, but I think you need to 

19 probably talk through that.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Task -- task two more specifically was --

21 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Paul, (Inaudible) the 

22 mike.
121 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Sorry. Task two was to prepare a site 

2 profile review procedure, not to do site profile reviews.

3 MR. GRIFFON: The task was to develop the methodology and 

4 also to do the reviews of I think ten to 12 DOE sites and 

5 two to four AWEs, so it involved both.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, you're right. You're right. The 

7 first step was the procedures, and then ten to 12 DOE sites 

8 and two to four AWEs. So it may -- it may be that the actual 

9 determination of selecting the sites, we can start to be 

10 talking about that, but we have to have a -- we also need 

11 to know what the procedure is that the contractor will use, 

12 and we've asked them to do that as a first step in the 

13 process.

14 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to say, I wondered if we 

15 have a copy of the procedure for processing individual dose 

16 reconstruction reviews, the one that we voted on and 

17 approved. I have it on the computer here, but I don't have 

18 a hard copy. The reason I say that is a lot of the bullets 

19 right at the front end of this procedure -- maybe we didn't 

20 flesh out everything, but we at least identified several 

21 of these issues that Larry and Jim have brought up that 

22 maybe we just need to run through again and clarify how 
122 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 it's really going to work now that we know a little more 

2 of what the contractor's proposed, et cetera.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know if Cori brought that particular 

4 document along for reference, but we can certainly I think 

5 get it printed if we can get it off your laptop.

6 We could put it up on the screen. Let me find Cori and 

7 we'll see if...

8 (Pause)

9 DR. MELIUS: While we're asking for what information's 

10 available, that -- I don't know if Martha or somebody has 

11 with them the award for tasks two and four that would lay 

12 out the timetable we -- 'cause -- gave the contractor 

13 because I think -- we're going to have to know that 

14 timetable on those tasks in order to sort of figure out 

15 meeting schedules and how -- when they're going to get 

16 feedback and so forth, so...

17 MS. DIMUZIO: I don't -- I have them upstairs in the room, 

18 so I'll go upstairs and get a copy of that and I can bring 

19 it down.

20 DR. MELIUS: You actually make copies for the Board?

21 MS. DIMUZIO: Yeah. Yeah.

22 DR. MELIUS: Would it be best to take a short break or 
123 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 something, get some of this stuff copied?

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let's -- let's take ten. Uh-huh, 

3 that's fine.

4 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

5 DR. ZIEMER: I have a technical instruction for the Board 

6 and for myself. We've been instructed that when you're 

7 holding down the push button on your mike, be sure to hold 

8 it in the center or push it in the center and hold that 

9 steadily. Don't rock to the right or to the left 'cause 

10 it cuts the mike in and out.

11 Now Cori is distributing the document that came from the 

12 working group on procedure for processing individual dose 

13 reconstruction reviews. Task two, which we had been 

14 talking about, on site profiles -- task two has as a first 

15 item, prepare a site profile review procedure, and that's 

16 a deliverable one month after the authorization to 

17 proceed. So we're -- we're actually two weeks into that, 

18 aren't we, John?

19 DR. MAURO: One day.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you didn't get your authorization as fast 

21 as I thought you --

22 DR. MAURO: Just got the authorization yesterday.
124 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I was thinking you'd be ready to 

2 report on the -- just kidding.

3 Okay, he's -- but the clock is ticking on that one.

4 The issue of selection -- well, there will be an issue we 

5 want to talk about with regard to that. That procedure 

6 will be ready in one month. Then we have the issue of who 

7 then looks and reviews and approves that procedure and how 

8 the Board wishes to do that. Then the selection of the 

9 sites to be reviewed, and it may be that the Board would 

10 like to identify some criteria. I mean we have a number 

11 of sites -- we saw the matrix earlier today -- that are 

12 close to being ready for review. Some are already 

13 completed. But given that list, even after it's all 

14 completed, how do we decide which ones to review. And you 

15 might want to identify some criteria. For example, one 

16 criteria might be a site that has generated a large number 

17 of dose reconstruction cases. Or we might say let's look 

18 at the top five sites as a kickoff, or something like that, 

19 in terms of cases. So think about criteria of that sort 

20 that we could use so that selection of the site is not just 

21 based on gut feeling -- I like one site better than another 

22 -- but some sort of objective criteria on which to make 
125 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 those decisions.

2 Now let's open the floor -- Jim, your flag is up. You have 

3 a point to make?

4 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible).

5 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Since -- the document that was 

6 distributed is focused mainly on the individual dose 

7 reconstructions, and since the task that's been awarded 

8 already has to do with the site reviews, I wonder if it 

9 wouldn't be more appropriate for the moment for us to talk 

10 about the site review issue since that's already been 

11 awarded and the clock is ticking. So could we talk a 

12 little bit about the process for reviewing and approving 

13 the procedures that are generated by the contractor? Who 

14 has some input on that or discussion or ideas or 

15 recommendations or questions?

16 DR. MELIUS: I have a question. And it's been answered 

17 before, but I've forgotten, I'll admit that. Is can we 

18 delegate approval to a workgroup for an issue like this, 

19 that we would get back a -- you know, a procedure, whatever, 

20 from -- from the contractor for the site profile reviews, 

21 can we delegate approval of that to a workgroup?

22 DR. ZIEMER: I think that question of delegating authority 
126 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to act on behalf of the Board was answered last time. My 

2 recollection is it can be delegated to a subcommittee, but 

3 the subcommittee -- you can't delegate something till the 

4 subcommittee is in place and exists. And the appointment 

5 and approval of a subcommittee goes through a process with 

6 the Agency.

7 DR. MELIUS: I'm aware of that answer, but was that the 

8 answer on the workgroup?

9 MS. HOMER: No. Excuse me, I'll interrupt, but --

10 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think the workgroup cannot act on behalf 

11 of the -- is that correct, Cori?

12 MS. HOMER: That's correct, we -- we really don't want to 

13 get into the habit of providing written delegation for a 

14 workgroup or a subcommittee to act on behalf. We can do 

15 so for a subcommittee, but I really -- although there's 

16 no specific guidance saying no, I really hesitate to say 

17 that we should do that or can do that. It's a practice 

18 we don't want to get into. It's not something that the 

19 Board would have to spend a lot of time on, you know, 

20 approving or reviewing something provided -- you know, a 

21 product or recommendations provided by a workgroup. Are 

22 we talking about something lengthy or time-consuming?
127 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: No, we're talking about -- I'm just trying 

2 to work out the timetable for dealing with this. We're 

3 going to have -- presumably have a report from the 

4 contractor in -- beginning of March sometime. We don't 

5 have another meeting scheduled until April. That will --

6 what we receive from the contractor, as I understand it, 

7 is a -- their proposed procedure for doing site profile 

8 reviews.

9 MS. HOMER: Uh-huh.

10 DR. MELIUS: I believe the way, and I don't have the 

11 document in front of me, but I believe that it presumes 

12 that once that is approved, then -- then they would -- we 

13 would be able to assign them site profiles to review, but 

14 they couldn't really start that process until it's

15 approved. So if -- and we don't have time to set up a 

16 subcommittee between -- and get a subcommittee approved 

17 in the next 30 days, I don't believe, if --

18 MS. HOMER: It's possible.

19 DR. MELIUS: Well, we'd have to have the charter agreed 

20 to at this meeting, so that's one option. And -- or we 

21 have to deal with the issue of a workgroup or we either 

22 -- we either wait till the next meeting.
128 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MS. HOMER: Well, we're not -- we don't have to charter 

2 -- specifically charter a subcommittee. We just need to 

3 prepare an establishment memo, which is a two-page 

4 document.

5 DR. ZIEMER: This -- a procedure of the type we're talking 

6 -- that is, the procedure that comes from the contractor 

7 -- I believe the Board could address in a conference call 

8 situation because if -- if a subcommittee's going to act 

9 on behalf of the Board, don't they still have to go through 

10 that same process, Cori?

11 MS. HOMER: Yes. Yes, they do.

12 DR. ZIEMER: In terms of being announced and so on?

13 MS. HOMER: It does. Everything that happens for a

14 subcommittee must take place under the same FACA 

15 guidelines as a full committee.

16 DR. MELIUS: And so -- that's fine, what I was trying to 

17 get to was --

18 DR. ZIEMER: So they would have to announce it, anyway, 

19 in the Register and so on.

20 DR. MELIUS: I think our option is to do it as a conference 

21 call, you know, given time for review and so forth, then 

22 we probably should think about maybe our criteria for 
129 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 reviewing it, but all's (inaudible) is then be ready to 

2 go with the next step, which is going to be the selection 

3 of the site profiles. Now that could also be done in the 

4 conference call if we worked out a -- you know, we may want 

5 to work out a procedure and we may not be able to score 

6 that or, you know, do the selection here with the 

7 information we have, but then be able to do it by that time 

8 of that conference call.

9 DR. ZIEMER: I would imagine that we could in fact identify 

10 the sites yet today or tomorrow, because we would know what 

11 the basis was going to be. I don't think that would be 

12 dependent on the review procedure, per se. That's my --

13 Roy, then Mark.

14 DR. DEHART: To begin with, I don't want to see a 

15 subcommittee taking the action on behalf of the Board and 

16 -- with this being our initial product under our contract. 

17 I think we all should actively review that, and my 

18 recommendation would be a panel or a workgroup to do the 

19 initial review, prepare a summary -- point summary, and 

20 that each of us be responsible for reviewing the proposal 

21 -- the solution. And then conference call to resolve any 

22 issues or questions.
130 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. GRIFFON: That's actually very close to -- I mean 

2 that's what I was going to say is maybe we could set up 

3 a workgroup to deal with, you know, reviewing drafts with 

4 the contractor and come to the conference call with a 

5 proposal from the contractor, and then have the full Board 

6 vote on, you know, the method for reviewing the site 

7 profiles, the final product. But have a workgroup, and 

8 that gives -- the workgroup would have the flexibility to 

9 have some conference calls, if need be, with the 

10 contractor.

11 The only question I raise in that process is if -- if the 

12 contractor, in working on this, has questions or needs 

13 clarifications, I don't know who can respond to those on 

14 behalf of the Board or...

15 DR. ZIEMER: I want to make sure that the Board is not 

16 expecting to develop the procedures. That's the 

17 contractor's job. I don't think we need a workgroup to 

18 take the contractor's proposal and redo it. What we need 

19 is the Board to react to the contractor's proposal, and 

20 if they have comments, the contractor can -- if this is 

21 an open call, the contractor can be there, can hear the 

22 comments and we either approve it or we say go back and 
131 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 take these comments into consideration. I don't -- I 

2 don't see us having a working group that sits down and says

3 this is what it ought to look like. That's the 

4 contractor's job.

5 DR. MELIUS: But I think we need to answer Mark's other 

6 question there 'cause I think that's more what -- at least 

7 what I was -- felt that he was driving at was this issue 

8 of what if the contractor seeks clarification this -- in 

9 dealing with this contract before the meeting or in terms 

10 of what is presented --

11 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry.

12 DR. MELIUS: -- to the Board. Yeah.

13 DR. ZIEMER: You mean before they submit --

14 DR. MELIUS: Before they -- the con-- before they submit 

15 and the con-- and the question come -- and -- or -- and 

16 then we have to deal with the issue of afterwards, you know, 

17 how do we -- what -- what if we say well, the procedure 

18 needs to be revised and submitted. I think we can -- could 

19 delegate -- so that would be at our conference call 

20 meeting. Do we -- we let the workgroup -- if we delegate 

21 that to the workgroup, or more appropriate we would -- may 

22 be more appropriate to delegate that to the Chairman to 
132 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 review --

2 DR. ZIEMER: It appears that --

3 DR. MELIUS: -- (Inaudible) we have to schedule another 

4 conference call, I guess.

5 DR. ZIEMER: It appears that a workgroup, if it did make 

6 comments, could not officially do so on behalf of the 

7 Board.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct.

9 DR. ZIEMER: They could make individual -- they could 

10 reflect individual views, but it would not be the view of 

11 the Board, necessarily, and therefore the contractor would 

12 have -- be in a difficult place of having to make a change 

13 that somebody recommended that maybe the Board didn't 

14 like.

15 DR. MELIUS: Again, what about this clarification issue? 

16 If not, I think we then need to at least schedule a couple 

17 of conference calls just on a contingency basis to make 

18 sure that, you know, we're not delaying things because just 

19 -- you know -- again, suppose we get in the conference call, 

20 there's a -- we say part A of your procedure we don't like, 

21 we think it should be changed and so forth. Then do we 

22 need another conference call to approve what they 
133 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 resubmit? I mean --

2 DR. ZIEMER: It's problematical, depending on the nature 

3 of the changes. If they're minor and everybody agrees 

4 that if they make a certain group of changes, they can 

5 proceed, that would be one thing. If we said no, we want 

6 to see it again -- I mean that would be the Board's call 

7 at that time. The issue of clarification -- I don't know 

8 how we address that from a legal point of view. I can't 

9 speak on behalf of the Board. The staff can't. But if 

10 there's a question on, you know, what does -- what does 

11 something say, we can probably provide that kind of 

12 clarification. You have a solution there, Larry?

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know if I have a solution, but I do 

14 have to speak to some procurement ground rules here so that 

15 everybody's operating out of the same hymnal. One 

16 procurement ground rule would be that for the Board to 

17 interact with its contractor, there needs to be some 

18 designated or delegated point of contact, and maybe Martha 

19 can speak to this. Maybe there are ways that that can be 

20 done in, you know, like a change order fashion where it's 

21 written -- written direction is given to the Board.

22 What we want to avoid and what is a distinct procurement 
134 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 ground -- ground rule here is that individual members of 

2 the Board can't be giving direction to the contractor, 

3 because that's when we get into an unauthorized 

4 procurement, the contractor gets confused about what the 

5 desire of the Board is, and you don't want to be providing 

6 direct-- what could be interpreted as direction. So even 

7 a point of clarification might fall under that. So I don't 

8 know if Martha can help me out here or if there are change 

9 order procedures we could employ here or -- or what. But 

10 this is a knotty issue here that you're wrestling with.

11 MS. DIMUZIO: I think there are probably a couple of 

12 different options that you have. You could look at sort 

13 of doing a two-tiered approach to a conference call where 

14 the Board meets first, discusses what changes they think 

15 need to be completed, and then a half-hour, 45 minutes 

16 later the contractor comes into the conversation on the 

17 conference call and -- and you discuss it and -- and you 

18 resolve it that way, and sort of that approach because I 

19 think it's very important that the Board has to -- and I'm 

20 sure it would -- but with the contractor it has to speak 

21 with one voice so that in a meeting where the -- in 

22 conference call or a meeting where the Board and the 
135 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 contractor's there, we don't want to be giving them mixed 

2 messages, even with, you know, just comments that happen 

3 through -- through the conference call or whatever. So 

4 I think it would be important that -- that the Board, you 

5 know, consider sort of some type of a two-tiered approach. 

6 But you have to -- you know, Larry's right, you do have 

7 to be cognizant that we can't provide specific direction 

8 to the -- to -- to the contractor. Excuse me, one 

9 individual cannot provide specific direction to the 

10 contractor 'cause we could just be getting into a phase 

11 where they might be thinking that, you know, John Smith 

12 of the Board said to do it this way and Jane Doe of the 

13 Board said to do it this way and, you know -- and how do 

14 we resolve this issue. So I think it -- it is important 

15 that you guys resolve how you're going to resolve issues. 

16 I mean there's not a whole lot, from a procurement 

17 standpoint, that I can tell you other than it has to be 

18 with one voice, and clear direction and understanding has 

19 to be given to the contractor on what they're supposed to 

20 do. And they have to clearly understand to whom they are 

21 receiving direction from, you know, and -- and that, you 

22 know -- and when there are questions and, you know, that 
136 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 kind of stuff, how do we handle that, you know, I'm not 

2 -- I'm not 100 percent positive, I'll tell you that right 

3 now. I mean I think it's an issue.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'd like to ask this question, and it 

5 may have ramifications beyond this particular issue, but 

6 on something like this where procedures are being 

7 developed -- the task order's been awarded -- are the 

8 procedures not okay for development in the open forum, or 

9 does that require a closed session such as we had with the 

10 cost proposal?

11 MR. ELLIOTT: No, that --

12 DR. ZIEMER: There's no proprietary information at that 

13 point, is there?

14 MR. ELLIOTT: I think perhaps the way Martha introduced 

15 that, with the Board talking and discussing it and then 

16 bringing the contractor in, might have led you to believe 

17 that you have a closed session issue here. You don't have 

18 a closed session issue. The tasks have been awarded. You 

19 know, the money's set aside for those tasks, you know, 

20 based upon the award, so we're not talking a closed 

21 session. We're talking in open session.

22 Another ground rule. A working group cannot be delegated 
137 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 authority to take action on the Board, so keep that in mind. 

2 An individual, the Chair of the Board -- I think -- could 

3 be delegated that authority. You could tell your Chair, 

4 handle these kinds of situations on behalf of the Board. 

5 A subcommittee can have that delegated authority, as well.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, as far -- as far as the open discussion

7 thing is -- for example, it seems to me that we could have 

8 that open discussion, whether it be face-to-face or on the 

9 phone, and the contractor could hear what disagreements 

10 there are. It's only what -- the final decision that we 

11 agree to that becomes binding. I mean it's like any open 

12 meeting here. We may disagree on what to do or how to 

13 proceed, and that's all in the public forum, it's -- but 

14 if we finally agree to a procedure and say okay, this --

15 and we vote on it, if necessary, then the -- then the

16 contractor knows what's been approved. So I -- I would 

17 -- when I was hearing you say meet and talk first and then 

18 have the contractor, it sounded like -- more like a closed 

19 meeting.

20 MS. DIMUZIO: No, I'm sorry. No, I just meant that, for 

21 clarification, when you were speaking with the -- with the 

22 contractor that you would -- you would know what procedures 
138 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 you wanted or you would know what changes that you wanted 

2 to -- to give to the contractor and therefore you could 

3 --

4 DR. ZIEMER: No, but what I'm --

5 MS. DIMUZIO: -- provide that to them.

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- saying is we may not know that till we talk 

7 and the contractor --

8 MS. DIMUZIO: That's true, too.

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- then will be there to hear those debates, 

10 as will members of the public.

11 MS. DIMUZIO: Uh-huh.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

13 MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct. Can I -- this procedure 

14 for processing individual dose reconstruction reviews 

15 that's been handed out, has that been approved? I mean 

16 has the Board taken action on this? Is this still a draft 

17 or is this --

18 DR. ZIEMER: No --

19 MR. ELLIOTT: You have -- I thought you had approved this.

20 DR. ZIEMER: We approved -- we approved all the procedures 

21 two or three meetings ago. I believe we did.

22 DR. MELIUS: Can I make a recommendation before we get more 
139 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 confused?

2 DR. ZIEMER: To make what a recommendation?

3 DR. MELIUS: For processing this first part of task order 

4 two. I think what we need to do is to schedule a conference 

5 call of the committee roughly a month from now that would 

6 do the -- do our review. We need to discuss our comments 

7 on what the contractor submits to us, either resolve at 

8 that meeting -- I think we need, as a contingency, to have 

9 a follow-up conference call, say two weeks later or a week 

10 later, that -- that would allow us to -- in case it's needed 

11 if they need to resubmit something to the Board that is 

12 of such a scope that we feel it cannot be delegated to the 

13 -- you know, the Chair to review. And I think that would 

14 take care of -- of this issue as to -- I don't think we 

15 need a separate workgroup to deal with it, though. I think 

16 we should ask that the members of the original workgroup 

17 who are the ones I think we may end up relying on -- on 

18 for advice here and for -- within the Board 'cause they've 

19 been -- talked a lot more about this than some of the other 

20 -- others of us have. You know, just -- you know, pay 

21 special attention and, you know, we'll be looking to them 

22 during the committee --
140 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well --

2 DR. MELIUS: -- or conference call to -- for that, but --

3 but I think we just keep it to one sub-- one meeting of 

4 the Board conference call, with a follow-up one scheduled, 

5 if needed.

6 DR. ZIEMER: That makes a lot of sense and I think is the 

7 direction we were heading. Whether or not a second 

8 meeting is needed, we need to look at a timetable. For 

9 example, the -- the proposed procedure from the contractor 

10 will be ready in one month. That would get distributed 

11 -- as I see it, would get distributed to the Board members. 

12 We would have -- we would want a few days to look that over, 

13 and so roughly five weeks from now you would want to have 

14 a conference call meeting. And then we would look at the 

15 calendar again and say now does -- if we -- if we have 

16 another two weeks after that or whatever -- I mean if we 

17 go back to the contractor and say we want changes, you've 

18 got to give them another couple of weeks, and then we get 

19 it back and then we look at it again. And now we're getting 

20 very close to our next meeting, so we have to look at that, 

21 as well.

22 DR. MELIUS: But I think if that happened within -- I think 
141 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 our meeting's the middle -- end of April?

2 UNIDENTIFIED: That's correct.

3 DR. MELIUS: Correct? So if -- again, beginning of March 

4 for the first meeting, two weeks later would take us to 

5 the middle of March. That'd still give a one-month lead 

6 time, so I -- I think that's -- it's worth gaining the 

7 month, if -- if possible. It may be that when we talk to 

8 the contractor more they may, you know, have -- give us 

9 a better sense of the timetable. They've had a whole day 

10 to think about it now and look at the task, but -- but in 

11 sense then -- and make sure that that's realistic for both 

12 the original -- and then I think, you know, we'd be ready 

13 to go.

14 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know if you're making a formal motion, 

15 but let's get Mark's comment here and then we'll come back.

16 MR. GRIFFON: I guess -- not to harp on this workgroup 

17 notion, but I -- I mean the way I envisioned this was --

18 was that the workgroup could assist the contractor in 

19 triaging the procedure before submittal to the full Board 

20 on the conference call. I mean I was hoping that that 

21 would -- could expedite the process because I think there 

22 is some interpretation in this task -- not that we'd be 
142 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 making any -- the working group wouldn't be making any 

2 final decisions on behalf of the Board, but it might --

3 I mean I can just see a case where we can end up with two 

4 or three conference calls just to get this methodology 

5 through, and that's my only concern.

6 Then -- then the other notion I guess to keep in the back 

7 of our minds is that if we -- we had the notion on the 

8 individual reviews -- I know we're not talking about that 

9 right now, but we had the notion of -- of Board members 

10 working with the contractor, and I'm just wondering how 

11 that's going to fit into this -- these new -- these 

12 procurement issues. If we're working on a group of cases 

13 and there's three Board members assigned to work on those 

14 cases, we can't speak on behalf of the entire Board, so 

15 -- I guess that's something I'm -- want to understand 

16 better.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Let's maybe come back to that and address this 

18 first one. Jim?

19 DR. MELIUS: Go at it first, then you can correct me. 

20 Yeah, I'd be a little leery, based on what we heard now 

21 about the -- us -- possible problems from a workgroup 

22 talking to the contractor before the first meeting. I 
143 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 think the onus is on us, though, as a committee --

2 individual members -- is to -- is to be ready with good 

3 comments, you know, to do a good review and really work 

4 hard to come up with a set of consensus comments that the 

5 -- that, should we want changes in the procedure, that the 

6 contractor can work with and address, you know, that's 

7 agreed. We can't sort of say well, just change this, we 

8 don't like it. I think we have to -- and I think we have 

9 the leeway to be able to do this. It's -- it's not what 

10 the other -- secret process we've been -- been going 

11 through.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, this --

13 DR. MELIUS: So there's more --

14 MR. ELLIOTT: -- is not a procurement process.

15 DR. MELIUS: -- room for interaction on that conference 

16 call, and we just have to be sure that we're -- that we're 

17 together with what -- you know, pay attention to it so that 

18 we get a good -- have a good call, give good comments to 

19 them. If changes are needed, those can be addressed, and 

20 so that when we come to that second conference call we're 

21 saying oh, yeah, by the way, you know, that -- and -- and 

22 I just think that trying to do anything -- to sort anything 
144 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 else between -- in terms of contact in that process I think 

2 is potentially dangerous.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: No correction, I just would support that. 

4 I'm very concerned about a working group working with the 

5 contractor to try to come up with the procedure, the 

6 process, because I can envision that there are going to 

7 be questions raised about well, how do you want to do this, 

8 what's the approach you want to -- you know, questions of 

9 clarification that then become well, the working group's 

10 providing advice and direction, essentially. Whatever 

11 they say in response to those questions is on behalf of 

12 the Board, and we can't go there.

13 As far as the individual dose reconstruction reviews and 

14 a member of this body working with your contractor, I think 

15 you've got to come to grips with a very well-defined 

16 structure of that process so that you avoid this situation. 

17 You're not going to sit there as one member of this advisory 

18 body working with two members of your contracting staff 

19 and tell them we want to go off in this direction, which 

20 has not been couched and a consensus approval gained from 

21 the body.

22 DR. ZIEMER: The suggestion is to have a conference call 
145 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 meeting in -- shortly after a month from now, and set some 

2 time aside a couple of weeks later, if needed, for a 

3 follow-up. Is -- is there any objection to proceeding on 

4 that basis? Because if there's none, we want to look at 

5 some dates right away. Are there any that think that there 

6 should be some other path to follow on this? Here's your 

7 opportunity to suggest an alternative.

8 (No responses)

9 If not, let's -- I'm going to take it by consent that we 

10 agree that we should proceed on that basis. Today is 

11 February 5 and the month for the contractor basically ends 

12 or is over March 5 then 'cause they just got their go-ahead 

13 one day ago. So if you allow a little time for review, 

14 you could look at the end of the week of the 8th or the 

15 beginning of the week of the 15th of March. How many days 

16 do you want to allow? We need a little time for 

17 transmission and distribution. How about March 15th? 

18 It's a Monday.

19 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) the contractor 

20 (Inaudible) they're going to be (Inaudible) time or maybe 

21 a little early or going to push the deadline?

22 DR. ZIEMER: Probably not going to want to say, but we're 
146 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 going to assume they're going to be on time. Right?

2 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

3 DR. ZIEMER: 11th?

4 MR. PRESLEY: Is that going to give us time to get it out? 

5 Got to allow two days to FedEx to get it to us and a couple 

6 of days to read it.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Would it be electronic or...

8 MR. PRESLEY: Electronic?

9 MR. ELLIOTT: We will do both. We'll try to make both 

10 happen. I am -- I'm -- we'll talk to the contractor 

11 tomorrow, make sure we get it in electronic format so we 

12 don't have to try to convert it, and we can produce it to 

13 you in both formats.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Which means you would have it in your hands 

15 presumably by the 8th, and you'd have several days to look 

16 at it. The 11th? Did you say 11th was bad? We're on 

17 March 11th. Is that bad? Any conflicts March 11th?

18 MR. ESPINOSA: It's not so much the day as much as it is 

19 the time for me, so...

20 DR. ZIEMER: 6:00 o'clock in the morning, Eastern Standard 

21 Time.

22 MR. ESPINOSA: (Inaudible)
147 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: No, how about early afternoon on the east 

2 coast? Or late morning east coast? Okay. How about 

3 1:00 p.m. on the 11th?

4 MS. HOMER: How much time? How much time?

5 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Give it two hours?

6 DR. ZIEMER: Two hours.

7 MS. HOMER: Okay.

8 DR. ZIEMER: (Off microphone) Okay, that's what we'll 

9 shoot for. Then we want to (Inaudible) task four -- task 

10 --

11 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) I get to (Inaudible) FedEx 

12 (Inaudible).

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- task two proposal, task 2-A or two 

14 whatever-it-is, site profile review procedure. And then 

15 how about a follow-up meeting the week of -- how about March 

16 -- or April 1st? That would actually be three weeks later. 

17 That would allow -- would allow two weeks for the 

18 contractor plus a little time for us -- or the week of the 

19 29th of March.

20 DR. ROESSLER: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

21 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler has a question first.

22 DR. ROESSLER: Did we decide the contractor -- I guess it's 
148 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a public meeting, the contractor can listen in on the --

2 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct --

3 DR. ROESSLER: So out of --

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- and members of the public can, as well.

5 DR. ROESSLER: Out of courtesy, should we check to see if 

6 they're available on these dates, or one of them are 

7 available on the dates, also, when we have these calls? 

8 They're working for us. I think we should find out.

9 DR. ZIEMER: John will make somebody available. Right?

10 DR. MAURO: We'll be there.

11 DR. ZIEMER: They'll be there. March 1st okay -- April 

12 1st -- April 1st.

13 MS. HOMER: What time?

14 DR. ZIEMER: 1:00 o'clock again, same thing?

15 MS. HOMER: 1:00 o'clock?

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.

17 MS. HOMER: Two hours?

18 DR. ZIEMER: Now I would hope that that second call would 

19 not require two hours. We can set it aside, but assuming 

20 that the -- if there were significant changes and the 

21 contractor's responsive to them, we should have a pretty 

22 -- pretty sound document by then and just take a formal 
149 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 approval.

2 DR. MELIUS: And we can hope that it's not needed at all.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, but we'll set the time aside in case we 

4 need it. Is that agreeable to everyone? Okay, we will 

5 hope that Henry has those times available, as well.

6 Okay, so that takes care of when and who approves the task 

7 two kickoff. Do you want to now -- let me ask if the Board 

8 is ready to discuss some criteria related to selection of 

9 this first group of sites that might be reviewed? And we 

10 don't necessarily have to identify, for example, ten of 

11 them at this time, but we might want to think about 

12 identifying the first batch. Roy?

13 DR. DEHART: Before we leave this specific topic, would 

14 it be wise to get a consensus as to who can represent the 

15 Board for clarification on part of the contractor?

16 DR. ZIEMER: That would probably be wise, and I -- I guess 

17 when we say clarification, I'm not sure -- could somebody 

18 clarify what we mean by clarification?

19 DR. MELIUS: Cori will clarify the clarification.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

21 MS. HOMER: Well, no, I won't clarify that, but I want to 

22 remind you that no group or Board can take action for --
150 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 or no group or subcommittee can take action for the Board 

2 under any circumstances unless there's very specific 

3 written authority, even if it's clarification.

4 DR. DEHART: That's why I brought this up.

5 MS. HOMER: Okay.

6 DR. DEHART: Clarification would be if the contractor had 

7 a question on something within the statement of work as 

8 they've started pursuing trying to lay out the -- the work 

9 effort and they need someone to talk to. Who do they call 

10 and who would represent the Board in that conversation?

11 DR. ZIEMER: And in connection with that, does there need 

12 to be an Agency person also available or present at that 

13 time?

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes -- yes, there would, and I think what 

15 we're talking about here is delegation of authority, if 

16 you will. And we would also like to know what the Board's 

17 pleasure would be with regard to payment of vouchers that 

18 come in. Do you want to delegate that to -- to like, you 

19 know, Martha to do without having to come back to the Board 

20 and get a Board approval on, you know, paying out on a 

21 voucher. So these are delegations of authority that --

22 that you do need to establish.
151 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if I could ask -- and perhaps staff 

2 can help us with this at some point, Martha or others --

3 am I making all that noise?

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And that is, on things like payment 

6 of vouchers, perhaps -- perhaps you could identify those 

7 kind of sort of mechanical things for which we are 

8 responsible -- not necessarily today, but -- and for which 

9 the Board could clearly say we will delegate this on our 

10 behalf and require some kind of reporting back on where 

11 the budget is and so on. If we could identify what those 

12 things are and maybe at that point we could approve some 

13 kind of process. Clearly the Board does not want to get 

14 to -- have a meeting every time we act on paying a -- an 

15 invoice. I think that's the case. Jim.

16 DR. MELIUS: What I was going to say is yeah, I think we 

17 ought to get a list of those circumstances, but that --

18 I think the only times it would be -- at least I can think 

19 of that -- where would be questions is when it's contingent 

20 on receipt of a satisfactory product, when have we approved 

21 it so therefore it's released to, you know, NIOSH. I think 

22 -- I know -- I don't know what the financial -- other 
152 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 financial things are on the document -- in the contract, 

2 but to the extent that they're contingent on acceptance 

3 by the Board, then I think that's where we need to have 

4 a clear procedure to sign off --

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think that could be spelled out in 

6 what I'm talking about here because clearly there will be 

7 regular billing of time and effort against the contract 

8 by the contractor, I assume, on some basis -- monthly or 

9 as work proceeds. And if that requires some kind of 

10 blanket approval or specification of who signs off on it, 

11 we need to know what that is and who does it.

12 DR. MELIUS: Also just speaking to the immediate issue 

13 here with this task, I think -- the contractor has an 

14 opportunity tomorrow to ask us questions about this, so 

15 hopefully those -- everything will get clarified tomorrow 

16 and then I think we go to our next meeting and not -- 'cause 

17 otherwise I think this delegation gets pretty awkward --

18 do that. At the next meeting we can then, you know, do 

19 a formal motion that -- say there's some minor changes that 

20 -- either directing the contractor to do it with these 

21 minor changes or, you know, contingent on those being 

22 submitted and approved by -- you know, reviewed by -- by 
153 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Paul. I think that's probably the most direct way of --

2 of doing it, but I think we can do -- make it a very specific 

3 delegation at the time of that conference call, and we --

4 what we have to do is remember to do that.

5 DR. ZIEMER: The question that was raised, though, on 

6 clarification, who does clarification, I don't know that 

7 we've answered that, really, for -- for this -- for the 

8 next four weeks or however long it is. I know that on the 

9 task order bidding process, the Agency has a person on deck 

10 that is available to respond to questions of clarification 

11 because that arose. Right? The contractor says what 

12 does this mean; I'm bidding on this, what does this phrase 

13 ask me to do?

14 MR. ELLIOTT: And let me speak to that so that everybody 

15 -- everybody understands what we did there. Yes, there 

16 were some questions that came back through the procurement 

17 office to us about what does this particular piece mean 

18 or what -- how can I better understand that, and we tried 

19 to craft a response. But we didn't give that response up 

20 until we had Dr. Ziemer's approval on it. So that -- we 

21 weren't working in a vacuum without the Board -- some --

22 some insight from the Board, so we used Dr. Ziemer as the 
154 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Chair, and these were things that we felt -- and I hope 

2 you agree, Dr. Ziemer, were not issues that needed to be 

3 brought before the whole body. They were simple points 

4 of clarification that we thought our answer would 

5 enlighten the contractor and we had your approval to 

6 provide that information back to the contractor.

7 DR. MELIUS: I would think that for this proc-- you know, 

8 this activity that we're underway now that we'd follow the 

9 same process. And if it gets beyond that, then I think 

10 it almost behooves us that it has to go to the full Board, 

11 under the current circumstances. And I mean it's a very 

12 awkward situation because we're reviewing NIOSH, NIOSH 

13 doesn't want to be in the process of making decisions about 

14 this review, and we've also got the FACA and procurement 

15 thing to balance out. And I think we just -- you know, 

16 err on the side of being careful, but again, I think --

17 you know, this -- most -- clarification, if it takes place, 

18 should take place tomorrow when we talk to the contractor. 

19 And if not, if it's something significant, it's going to 

20 have to wait till the next meeting and hopefully that won't 

21 take place.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: The distinction I'd like to make here, 
155 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 though, is that what we were doing as I just described it 

2 was under the closed session type of process. Okay? It 

3 wasn't going to be done in the public venue anyway. What 

4 we're talking about now, though, where you're dealing with 

5 a specific task and points of clarification, questions 

6 about how to proceed from your contractor, I don't want 

7 to be in that situation where I'm crafting a response and 

8 getting somebody's reaction to it. I think that response 

9 needs to be crafted by somebody this Board designates.

10 DR. MELIUS: And when that comes up, I think -- and if we 

11 have to formalize this, we should -- is that we'd say you 

12 go -- you go to the Chair. For this particular activity, 

13 you'd go to the Chair. But I think in terms of the public 

14 transparency of that process, that we would then expect 

15 Paul to report back at the conference call, look, during 

16 this process the -- you know, I was, you know, asked these 

17 questions. This is what I told them. And then the Board 

18 knows, the public knows and -- and I think, you know, we're 

19 within, you know, the spirit and -- and probably the 

20 actual, you know, regulations regarding the -- this 

21 process.

22 DR. ZIEMER: It may be, for example, that there are very 
156 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 simple clarifications needed that have nothing to do with 

2 policy or actually how things are going to proceed, but 

3 something needs clarification -- something as simple as 

4 do I provide this in Word or WordPerfect? That doesn't 

5 -- very simple. So there's a sense in which either the 

6 Chair or the NIOSH staff person, if it's Jim or Larry, has 

7 to make a judgment as to the significance of what's being 

8 asked and whether or not the answer can be given without 

9 Board input. And as you say, hopefully we'll make 

10 whatever clarifications are needed at the session tomorrow 

11 afternoon when the folks are here with us.

12 Okay. Other comments before we move on? Tony, yeah.

13 DR. ANDRADE: I think it'd be very helpful to have, as Jim 

14 suggested, a list of those activities -- general 

15 activities, items -- administrative type actions that we 

16 should be able to delegate to other offices within NIOSH 

17 without any further Board action -- for example, the 

18 approval of invoices -- and/or such that we can begin 

19 discussion on when the Board should be looking at -- and 

20 I'm not sure if these timetables exist; I've forgotten, 

21 as well -- as to when products are due. And based on those 

22 products, whether or not the Board should approve the work. 
157 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 But not until we have that list in front of us can we start 

2 to intelligently make decisions about those sorts of 

3 things. Now I'm sure there are simple things that we can 

4 take care of by tomorrow if NIOSH staff would be willing 

5 to put that list together.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments?

7 (No responses)

8 Now the other item I was suggesting we proceed with is the 

9 issue of selection of sites for the initial group of 

10 reviews. Now there are a number of large sites, and if 

11 you looked at the -- our suggestion of -- or our -- our 

12 statement of work was that we would do ten or 12 DOE sites 

13 and several -- I think it was up to four of the AWEs. The 

14 ten to 12 DOE sites -- I think intuitively most of us said 

15 well, that's the ten big sites or something like that, but 

16 it may not be all of the sites on the list. I forget how 

17 many were on that list that we had -- 15? So there needs 

18 to be some kind of reason for not doing some of these, at 

19 least during the first year. We may eventually do more 

20 later, but I think it would be useful if we could identify 

21 some objective criteria on which to make the decision so 

22 that we're not doing it just based on our warm fuzzy feeling 
158 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 about some particular sites. And I wonder if any of you 

2 have suggested criteria that might be used for that 

3 purpose. I will suggest some if no one else does, but --

4 open the floor for that. I had already suggested one that 

5 might be a possibility and that was the number of cases 

6 -- DR cases generated by a site. Jim, Wanda? Wanda's 

7 first.

8 MS. MUNN: I was very interested in seeing the figures that 

9 Jim gave to us earlier today with respect to the percentage 

10 of claims received as opposed to worker population. It 

11 seems to me that those figures may be one of the criteria 

12 that we may want to consider when we're thinking about 

13 which sites we want to look at and which ones we do not. 

14 It appears that it might be wise for us to look at a couple 

15 of the sites with the larger percentage of claims to worker 

16 personnel, and that we would similarly want to look at a 

17 couple of the very lowest and fill in in between. Those 

18 -- those percentages probably tell a story of their own, 

19 and whether the site profiles are a key part of that story 

20 I don't think we can tell unless we decide that we want 

21 to look at both ends of that spectrum.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Wanda, I think the percentages you're 
159 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 referring to were in Pete Turcic's presentation, and those 

2 are not -- not clearly related to the number of cases we 

3 have in dose reconstruction, but I have a report here that, 

4 if you want to know how many cases we have and how many 

5 we've completed for a given site, I can share that with 

6 you upon your request.

7 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Jim and then Michael.

9 DR. MELIUS: It might be helpful if we had that 

10 information, Larry and -- I mean not right now or tomorrow 

11 morning or whenever we want to talk about this. Also, with 

12 some input from Jim Neton as to how complete these site 

13 profiles are. I haven't gone through what's on --

14 comprehensively what's on the web site, but there are 

15 reserved sections and so forth that -- that we may want 

16 to think about in terms of scheduling issues that -- that 

17 they're partially done now but you know that within three 

18 months or whatever that -- that major sections will be 

19 completed and may be more appropriate at that point in 

20 time. And I think if we also had that list arrayed we could 

21 also think about the diversity of processes at those sites 

22 that we -- and just as -- you know, for example, do we need 
160 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to do both Portsmouth and Paducah or -- or, you know, 

2 uranium -- uranium enrichment -- how alike are some of 

3 these sites and -- and so forth in terms of some of the 

4 issues that might be encountered there on a site profile. 

5 So I think if we arrayed that -- again, it's going to come 

6 down to -- I don't think we can have completely objective 

7 criteria, but I think if we had that type of information 

8 arrayed in front of us, then we could make a selection. 

9 And we may tier it. You know, these are the first three 

10 or five or whatever and then, you know, defer choosing some 

11 others or delay -- delay some at some point in time. But 

12 I think if we had that it would be a pretty straightforward 

13 process. And I think we could probably do the same with 

14 the AWE sites or AEC sites, also.

15 MR. GIBSON: I pretty much agree with Jim's comments. I 

16 just wanted to add that I think it would be important to 

17 look at some of the sites that had a very diverse operation 

18 and had a very diverse amount of isotopes on site to 

19 determine the adequacy of the site profile.

20 MR. OWENS: I think it's important, particularly in regard 

21 to the SEC sites, that we consider those sites that are 

22 not SEC status currently and the number of workers who have 
161 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 worked at those particular sites versus the number of 

2 claims that have been filed at those sites. I think that 

3 if we review the procedures based on that, that might aid 

4 the credibility of the program overall from the standpoint 

5 of the under-represented numbers of workers who have filed 

6 in those areas.

7 DR. ANDRADE: Actually I had two suggestions. This 

8 morning, after one of the presentations, I was sort of 

9 surprised at the number of claims denied from SEC sites, 

10 and some explanations were given. Nevertheless, I think 

11 that it would be interesting to look at one or more of those 

12 sites, especially with the high turn-down rate.

13 And my other idea, which purely addresses my health physics 

14 curiosity, would be to look at a site which we're looking 

15 at heavy external dose, and also another site with a fairly 

16 healthy amount of work in which one could potentially have 

17 received or there are records to show that there were --

18 that there were significant intakes. I think -- those 

19 would be my suggestions.

20 DR. DEHART: I don't know all the sites specifically, but 

21 I'm sure there are some sites that have rather unique 

22 energy levels or sources that's not common among the other 
162 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 sites and I would like to add that to the list so we'd be 

2 sure to pick up the unusual.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Sites with unusual nuclides or sources of 

4 radiation?

5 DR. DEHART: Sources of radiation. Specific different 

6 kinds of isotopes that are unique to a facility, for 

7 example.

8 MS. MUNN: I was writing down what other people were saying 

9 and thinking about how I might go about that myself, and 

10 I wound up with five different bullets which I thought 

11 perhaps we might be able to put into a matrix of some sort 

12 to get a good cross-section. Those five bullets I had were 

13 number of claims or workers; the type of activity, which 

14 would include internal or external dose and different 

15 types of sources; years of operation; geographic 

16 distribution; and SEC sites. If we were to place those 

17 specific -- consider those as being basic items that we 

18 wanted to assure were included, then we could make some 

19 decisions about how many might fit one or more of those 

20 categories.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Jim?

22 DR. MELIUS: I would modify that slightly and say I think 
163 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 we should look at both the number of workers potentially 

2 there -- I think is what Leon was getting at a little bit 

3 -- as well as the number of claims that have come in so 

4 far, 'cause that would sort of give us a sense of both what 

5 NIOSH's immediate priorities are, which are going to --

6 you know, what's covering the most cases with the site 

7 profiles, as well as down the road.

8 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

9 DR. MELIUS: I thought you said (Off microphone) 

10 (Inaudible).

11 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

12 DR. MELIUS: I wanted both.

13 DR. ZIEMER: Tony, you have another comment? Actually 

14 there have been -- about a dozen different criteria have 

15 been suggested here, and there are sites that -- any given 

16 site probably meets a number of those criteria. We would 

17 need to -- we would -- we would need to determine which 

18 of these criteria are the important ones. You could 

19 probably make a case for most any site, based on one or 

20 more of these criteria. But the whole point is I think 

21 that when we're ready to select sites -- and I'm going to 

22 suggest that we might want to wait till tomorrow to 
164 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 actually do that 'cause you need to think about this --

2 but one would then couch the selection in terms of some 

3 of these criteria. I'm not sure that it's worth trying 

4 to say one of these criteria is any more important than 

5 the other. They're probably all important in their own 

6 way. But at the point at which we're ready to make that 

7 selection, it seems to me that with the selection we have 

8 a rationale that couches or expresses why that site was 

9 selected, perhaps in terms of one or more of these, as 

10 opposed to simply saying I like that site better or I used 

11 to work there or whatever it might be.

12 DR. ROESSLER: This might be a dangerous suggestion, but 

13 another approach would be, since we have -- since we could 

14 include most of the sites that are on the list, maybe we 

15 should look at it from the point of view of eliminating 

16 a site because it overlaps with another site or because 

17 -- for some reason. Would it be easier to approach it that 

18 way?

19 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know.

20 DR. MELIUS: I think we might need a little bit of both 

21 and, you know, not to avoid some of the overlap but -- do 

22 that. Can we delegate -- and since Larry has the numbers, 
165 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Larry have one of his staff people do -- give us a listing 

2 that we can -- both as a handout and as a power point 

3 tomorrow that would list the sites with some of these 

4 numbers involved and maybe some of these other 

5 characteristics, but more importantly just the numbers so 

6 that we have an array --

7 DR. ZIEMER: Or at least the ones that they have readily 

8 available -- numbers of case --

9 DR. MELIUS: Right.

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- numbers of workers at the site --

11 DR. MELIUS: Right.

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- percentages of cases submitted. They'd 

13 certainly know which have mainly external/internal --

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think we --

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- which are the broad sites as far as 

16 diversity of operation.

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and long -- and then maybe status of 

18 the site profile. If we don't have a site profile, it's 

19 hard to review it, so -- that -- and if we could have that 

20 for -- for tomorrow morning for discussion, I think we can 

21 then talk -- go through some of these other criteria and 

22 make an initial selection and --
166 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Is it feasible to at least get that for the 

2 15 sites on the chart -- or the two groups of... I think 

3 much of that you already have.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: It's very feasible. I could just read it 

5 to you right now and you could write it down. The 

6 feasibility comes into play as to what we have scheduled 

7 for this evening and rest time for staff to get through 

8 the night, I guess. But we certainly have, in Jim Neton's 

9 presentation, this one slide that shows you the top 15. 

10 I can present to you the number of claims that we have in 

11 our hands for those 15 and how many we have worked through.

12 DR. MELIUS: Well, whatever is feasible to do, if you could 

13 get that organized, either into a quick briefing and we'll 

14 write it down tomorrow morning, or into an overhead and 

15 handout, that's -- that's fine, also. But I think just 

16 so we're all working from the same numbers and the same 

17 list of sites, then I think we can go from there and --

18 I'm not trying to keep you up too late.

19 DR. ZIEMER: We can do that in our work session tomorrow 

20 and just all do it at the same time. That's good.

21 Rich, you have another comment?

22 MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, I do. Along with the percentage on 
167 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- on all these sites, I'd also like to see it done by 

2 district, you know, the Denver -- one out of each one, not 

3 maybe three out of the same district, like Jacksonville.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Get some national spread on these is what 

5 you're saying.

6 MR. GRIFFON: Geographic, yeah.

7 MR. PRESLEY: Geographic spread.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Good point, yeah.

9 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, something else you might want to ask 

10 to be put in there is whether a national lab, production 

11 area or a gaseous diffusion plant.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. National lab, a production 

13 facility or a gaseous diffusion.

14 MR. PRESLEY: Gaseous diffusion.

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. We still have a little 

16 time. Maybe if we have the data, we should go ahead and 

17 do some jotting-down now. Do we have it or not?

18 DR. MELIUS: Can I make one more -- I hope it's a practical 

19 suggestion -- possible. But there's the one -- that one 

20 power point slide in Jim Neton's that listed all the sites 

21 for the site profiles and the documents and the stars and 

22 so forth. If you could blow that up, you know, into a --
168 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 so it's printed out in a single page, that would be a pretty 

2 good list to work off of and then we can write in the numbers 

3 tomorrow.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Is that do-able, Jim, or...

5 DR. MELIUS: And that also has some idea of what the status 

6 is of the -- that presents the status of the site profiles.

7 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

8 DR. ZIEMER: We have a little tiny thing we can barely 

9 read. Yeah, that -- that's -- Jim, is slide five of your 

10 presentation I think is the one you're referring to. 

11 Right?

12 MR. GRIFFON: Can you -- can you read down the number of 

13 claims now, by site, or is that -- why don't -- let's just 

14 do it now and get the numbers down.

15 DR. ZIEMER: What is it you're going to read?

16 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm going to read for Fernald and for all 

17 subsequent sites on the slide that Jim had of site profiles 

18 for the top 15 DOEs -- sites, the number of claims that 

19 we have current --

20 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we have 443 claims for Fernald; we've 

22 finished 51.
169 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

2 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) I'd have to go through 

3 these. They're not in (Inaudible).

4 DR. DEHART: If we're going to do that, let Jim put the 

5 slide up and then we can figure out where it goes on this 

6 chart.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Jim, can you (Inaudible) that slide?

8 MR. ESPINOSA: Or could we have somebody type it in or...

9 Paul, can we get somebody to type that in up on the screen?

10 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Can you put your slide --

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, can you pull that slide up, Jim, slide 

12 number --

13 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- slide number five, or not?

15 DR. NETON: What I would propose is a slight modification 

16 of the slide where I could -- if you recall, I had green 

17 dots for just whether it was finalized or in OCAS review. 

18 I would suggest that I would make it a little more detailed 

19 and put in the ones that have actually been approved that 

20 are out on our web site.

21 MR. PRESLEY: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: That's not a problem.
170 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. PRESLEY: Larry, are you going to take these in the 

2 order they are?

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I was planning to.

4 DR. MELIUS: The thing I think we need to talk about is 

5 for tasks one and three, which we'll deal with in closed 

6 session. But someone needs to take a look at the task 

7 order for those and the schedule for that 'cause depending 

8 on our decisions tomorrow there may be deliverables for 

9 those that come due within that next two-month time period 

10 and -- and, you know -- and for the work that's contingent 

11 on that, and I think we need to figure out how that's --

12 might -- how that might fit into the schedule and if this 

13 -- may be as simple as just defer -- deferring that to the 

14 conference call, also, but that may be a little bit --

15 again, the schedule --

16 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we'll know till we talk 

17 tomorrow, though, because recall that last time we changed 

18 some deliverable dates.

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I just get a little concerned that --

20 this sort of mix of closed session and open issues, and 

21 I agree with you, it's -- till we -- made some decisions, 

22 we don't know, but at least we ought to be thinking about 
171 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 it so we can talk that if this is what needs to be done 

2 and -- and what's the contingency schedule 'cause 

3 presumably if it's something -- a task is awarded, then 

4 there'll be some time for NIOSH to process it, so what will 

5 that time frame be. Maybe it's something -- the second 

6 conference call becomes something we have to do something 

7 at.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, here's the chart. Fernald is the first 

9 one, 443 claims.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: In-house and 51 completed. And when I say 

11 completed, these are the -- over to DOL for decisions.

12 DR. NETON: I'd just like to point out that there is no 

13 site profile completed for Fernald at this time. Those 

14 are in house -- many of those chapters are in house for 

15 review, but those must have been completed under the DOE 

16 complex-wide technical bulletin I talked about this 

17 morning, just so the Board's aware of that.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Hanford -- Hanford would be 1,631 claims, 

19 64 completed. INEEL, 566 claims, 26 completed. The IOP 

20 is Iowa Ordnance Plant, 554 claims, zero completed. 

21 Mound, 273 claims in house and --

22 DR. ZIEMER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, you skipped --
172 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: On, LANL, I'm sorry --

2 DR. ZIEMER: K-25.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, well, let me give you Mound -- I'm on 

4 Ohio, so let me give you Mound, 273 in house and 18 

5 completed.

6 Let me go back to Tennessee and get K-25. K-25, 972 and 

7 30 completed.

8 Los Alamos, 551, nine completed. Mound, 273, 18 

9 completed. Nevada Test Site, 868 claims, 21 completed. 

10 And you can make any comment about this while I'm 

11 searching. I mean there's several comments you might want 

12 to make about some of these -- like you did on the first 

13 one, you know --

14 DR. NETON: I need to -- I need to fill out these circles 

15 tonight with some little finer detail. I can do that.

16 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) Might you also put some of 

17 these numbers into a slide and give us (Inaudible)?

18 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) Well, I was hoping one of our 

19 people were taking these down, but (Inaudible) -- I'll get 

20 the numbers and I'll (Inaudible). I'll put them on a 

21 slide.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Paducah, 732, ten completed. Pantex, 279 
173 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- or excuse me, 297, eight completed. Portsmouth Gaseous 

2 Diffusion Plant -- is that next? Yeah. Okay, that's 314 

3 and 12 completed. Rocky Flats, 807 and 26 completed. 

4 Savannah River Site, 1,965 claims, 515 completed. Oak 

5 Ridge National Laboratory, X-10, 997 claims, 2-- I think 

6 it's 25 completed. And Y-12, 1,989 claims, 120 completed.

7 You want to go into AWEs?

8 DR. ZIEMER: Can you give us the ones on that next slide, 

9 Bethlehem, Blockson, so on?

10 DR. NETON: You want that next slide for AWEs?

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Bethlehem Steel, 494 claims, 448 completed. 

13 Blockson Chemical, 107 claims, 49 completed. Huntington 

14 Pilot Plant, 63 claims, 23 completed. Mallinckrodt 

15 Chemical Company -- and this is on Destrehan Street -- 163 

16 claims, 24 completed, so that does not include the other 

17 Mallinckrodt sites. That's only Destrehan Street. 

18 While we're there, though, Weldon Spring plant, 129 

19 claims, seven completed. Aliquippa Forge, 21 claims, 

20 three completed.

21 I can't report on -- my report is not generated so that 

22 I can easily provide you numbers on complex-wide uranium 
174 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 facilities. That's a large number of different sites. 

2 Nor can you -- I don't think I've got anything here for 

3 Tennessee Valley Authority. I don't believe we've done 

4 any.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, when you provide your slide tomorrow, 

6 will that then indicate the status of the -- the reviews 

7 on the --

8 DR. NETON: I can break it down into whether -- whether

9 the green means that it's actually approved and available 

10 for review now or --

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's what I'm asking.

12 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) -- under -- under 

13 (Inaudible).

14 DR. MELIUS: Some idea whether it's comprehensive or 

15 complete. There aren't large sections that are reserved 

16 that would -- that you're working on that --

17 DR. NETON: Right, I think --

18 DR. MELIUS: I don't think we want our contractor to review 

19 something that's half done. I mean and -- or where there's 

20 large, important things that are going to affect a lot of 

21 claims completed. Now if it's something that affects a 

22 small number or whatever, it's not an important issue, then 
175 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 I think that's different.

2 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) My gut feeling, there are 

3 very few that have large, gaping holes. An exception may 

4 be residual contamination in AWEs we haven't figured out 

5 yet (Inaudible). I hope I can fit it all in one slide. 

6 I mean this is already kind of crowded and (Inaudible). 

7 I might try to break it into two.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We will return to this topic then 

9 tomorrow as part of our work session. Now we're going to 

10 adjourn here momentarily. I do want to ask Jim if you 

11 would provide a straw man wording on your proposed motion

12 for tomorrow concerning a letter to the Secretary, and 

13 that'll give us an opportunity then to do some 

14 wordsmithing, if necessary. Okay?

15 Any other comments before we recess? We're going to 

16 recess until 7:00 p.m., at which time we'll reconvene for 

17 the public comment session of our meeting.

18 DR. MELIUS: Just one more thing just to reiterate for 

19 tomorrow morning if Martha or somebody could provide for 

20 us what any other scheduled tasks should -- scheduled 

21 products or deliverables, should tasks one and three get 

22 awarded in the near future so that we can figure that --
176 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Or at least if there's some items that we need 

2 to take action on right away, then --

3 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible).

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right, thank you. Then we'll recess until 

5 7:00 o'clock this evening. Thank you.

6 (Inaudible) this room and you should be able to leave 

7 things here if you need to.

8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken to 7:00 p.m.)

9 INTRODUCTION

10 (7:00 p.m.)

11 DR. ZIEMER: Good evening, everyone. This session this 

12 evening is the public comment period portion of the 21st 

13 meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

14 Health. I'd like to remind you, if you haven't already 

15 done so, to please register your attendance with us 

16 tonight. There's a book at the back table. Most of you 

17 I think have already registered. If you neglected to do 

18 that or missed it, please do so so we have a record of your 

19 attendance with us here tonight.

20 My name is Paul Ziemer and I serve as Chairman of the 

21 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. I would 

22 like to spend a few minutes here at the beginning, 
177 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 particularly for the benefit of a number of visitors who 

2 we have -- and we do welcome, particularly those from the 

3 Savannah River Site that are with us here this evening. 

4 I'd like to take just a few minutes and familiarize you 

5 with the role of the Advisory Board with respect to the 

6 larger program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

7 Compensation Program. And then we will have an 

8 opportunity for -- primarily for public comment, hearing 

9 from you.

10 We do actually ask that if you wish to make public comment, 

11 you also sign up to do so. Some of you have already done 

12 that. If you do want to make public comment and have not 

13 already signed up to do so, Cori in the back has the sign-up 

14 sheet for public comment. The reason we ask you to sign 

15 up is simply so we have an idea of how many wish to comment 

16 and whether or not we need to restrict or apportion the 

17 time accordingly.

18 But let me begin then and take just a few minutes to talk 

19 a little bit about the role of this Advisory Board. I 

20 already indicated this is our 21st meeting. This Board 

21 has been meeting regularly for the past two years, 

22 actually, which means that we meet nearly every month. 
178 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 And one of the questions is what do we do. And I want to 

2 familiarize you with that so that when you make your public 

3 comment, what you say might be helpful to us in carrying 

4 out our role and our function. Jim, if you'll advance the 

5 slide there.

6 First of all, to remind you that the program of which we 

7 are a part involves a number of groups. There are a number 

8 of Federal agencies involved with this, and I'm not going 

9 to discuss their roles -- Department of Labor, Health and 

10 Human Services -- particularly NIOSH or National 

11 Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, Secretary 

12 of Energy or Department of Energy, and the Attorney 

13 General. Those individuals and their agencies all have 

14 various roles that are defined by the legislation that 

15 brought this program into existence.

16 In addition to those Federal agencies then, this Advisory 

17 Board exists. This Board was appointed by the President 

18 under authority that is spelled out in the legislation. 

19 Could we have the next slide?

20 The Advisory Board is specified as consisting of no more 

21 than 20 members appointed by the President, who also 

22 designates the Chair of the committee. Now in reality, 
179 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the committee does not have 20 members. The White House 

2 has appointed just a dozen of us, plus there is a Federal 

3 official, and I'm going to introduce those folks in just 

4 a moment.

5 The Executive Memorandum that spells out the operation of 

6 this Advisory Board also specifies that the membership 

7 should include affected workers and their 

8 representatives, and representatives of the science and 

9 -- or scientific and medical communities, as well.

10 So with that as a little bit of background, let me introduce 

11 the members of the Board. I'm going to put their names 

12 here on the screen -- Jim, if you'll give us the next slide 

13 -- and I will identify to you the various members of the 

14 Board. The slide also contains a phrase or two giving you 

15 a little idea of what their background -- indeed, we have 

16 quite a cross-section of people.

17 I've introduced myself as Chair, Paul Ziemer. Our Federal 

18 official, who serves as our -- essentially our Executive 

19 on this committee -- is the Director of the Office of 

20 Compensation Analysis and Support for NIOSH and that's 

21 Larry Elliott. Larry, make a motion here -- no applause, 

22 please.
180 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: (Indicating)

2 DR. ZIEMER: Then absent this evening, and he'll be 

3 joining us tomorrow, we believe, is Dr. Henry Anderson, 

4 who's a medical officer from the State of Wisconsin.

5 Antonio, or Tony, Andrade from Los Alamos over here.

6 DR. ANDRADE: (Indicating)

7 DR. ZIEMER: Roy DeHart, Dr. DeHart is from the State of 

8 Tennessee, so glad to have Roy on the committee.

9 DR. DEHART: (Indicating)

10 DR. ZIEMER: And then Richard Espinosa.

11 MR. ESPINOSA: (Indicating)

12 DR. ZIEMER: Richard is from the Los Alamos National 

13 Laboratory. And then continuing, Michael Gibson, with 

14 Babcock and Wilcox* in Ohio.

15 MR. GIBSON: (Indicating)

16 DR. ZIEMER: Mark Griffon is an entrepreneur, has his own 

17 consulting firm.

18 MR. GRIFFON: (Indicating)

19 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. James Melius, who is from New York and 

20 involved with the New York State Labor's Health and Safety 

21 Trust Fund.

22 DR. MELIUS: (Indicating)
181 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn, a retired nuclear engineer from 

2 the Richland, Washington area near the Hanford site.

3 MS. MUNN: (Indicating)

4 DR. ZIEMER: Charles Owens, who's with U.S. Enrichment 

5 Corporation in Paducah.

6 MR. OWENS: (Indicating)

7 DR. ZIEMER: Robert Presley, retired from the Oak Ridge 

8 facilities, an engineer.

9 MR. PRESLEY: (Indicating)

10 DR. ZIEMER: And then Dr. Gen Roessler, a retired 

11 professor, previously of Florida and now living in the warm 

12 state of Minnesota.

13 DR. ROESSLER: (Indicating)

14 DR. ZIEMER: So that is the advisory committee. Could we 

15 have the last slide?

16 The role of the Advisory Board is three-fold, and this is 

17 also spelled out. One is that the Board is specified as 

18 being responsible for commenting and assessing what is 

19 being done, specifically by the NIOSH group, in terms of 

20 the rule-making that has occurred dealing with how one goes 

21 about determining probability of causation. The exact 

22 words from the legislation are specified here on the slide, 
182 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 but basically that is a role that the Board is required 

2 to carry out.

3 The Board is also required to advi-- and this advice goes 

4 to the Secretary of Health and Human Services -- to advise 

5 the Secretary on the validity and quality of the dose 

6 reconstruction efforts. And that's an ongoing process. 

7 In fact, the Board is in the process of -- of using a 

8 contractor to help it in -- help "it", the Board -- in 

9 carrying out this responsibility in evaluating the dose 

10 reconstructions that are being done by NIOSH and its 

11 contractor.

12 And then finally, at the request of the Secretary, the 

13 Board is to advise the Secretary on whether or not there 

14 is a class of DOE employees for whom it is not feasible 

15 to estimate dose and whether or not there's a likelihood 

16 that such individuals may have health endangerment due to 

17 their exposures to radiation. That then is related to 

18 what's called the Special Exposure Cohort.

19 The Board does not -- does not -- carry out the dose 

20 reconstructions individually. We do not process the 

21 cases, the claims that are made. We do not in fact deal 

22 with individual claims, but rather the evaluation and the 
183 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 review and the examination of the process by which these 

2 things are going on.

3 So in terms of the public comment, I need to tell you that 

4 we are not here at this meeting and our other meetings 

5 specifically in the role of a question/answer type of 

6 session. We do like to get public comment so that we 

7 understand what things look like out there. And even 

8 though we -- we do not deal and cannot in the public forum 

9 deal with people's individual cases, we're glad to -- if 

10 you want to share something about a case you may be involved 

11 in, we're glad to hear that insofar as it helps us 

12 understand how things are going, how people are -- how 

13 cases are being handled; are there things in the system 

14 that need to be looked at.

15 And so as we open it for public comment tonight, again, 

16 the Board is not here necessarily to answer questions you 

17 might have on your case or a case you might be involved 

18 in. In fact, we can't do that in a public forum. We are 

19 here to listen. If you have concerns about the process 

20 or observations or things of that sort that will help us 

21 as we move forward, that -- that's the sort of thing we 

22 would like to hear. So you are free to tell us what you 
184 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 wish. And as I say, it's a -- it's a comment period as 

2 opposed to a Q and A, question and answer, period. We're 

3 primarily here to listen.

4 If you do have specific issues that may need to be raised 

5 with the Agencies -- Department of Labor, Department of 

6 Health and Human Services -- those can be brought to them 

7 and your answers to those kinds of questions could be 

8 individually handled by staff later, or we can relay them 

9 on.

10 Now let me -- with those sort of preliminary comments, I'm 

11 going to open the floor, and those that do have comments 

12 to make, we do ask you to approach the mike here. A public 

13 transcript is kept of these proceedings so our public 

14 recorder here needs to be able to hear through is phones 

15 what you are saying. So --

16 Oh, one other thing. Before we do that, it's been 

17 requested that we find out who is here tonight, and so I'm 

18 going to move into the audience here. This is not "What's 

19 My Line" or -- but I'm going to start passing the mike 

20 around here. Just introdu-- tell us who you are, if you 

21 represent a -- some -- some of the people are I know Feds 

22 and represent agencies. You can -- if you're willing to 
185 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 admit it -- tell what agency you're with. But otherwise, 

2 identify yourself and where you're from. Don't take too 

3 -- this is not the public comment period.

4 MR. NESVET: Hi --

5 DR. ZIEMER: And you can pass it on down.

6 MR. NESVET: -- I'm Jeff Nesvet. I'm the Associate 

7 Solicitor for Federal Employees and Energy Workers 

8 Compensation at the Office of Solicitor for the Department 

9 of Labor.

10 MR. NAIMON: David Naimon with the Department of Health 

11 and Human Services.

12 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Titus with the Department of Health 

13 and Human Services.

14 MR. BEATTY: My name is Ray Beatty. I'm a representative 

15 from the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council, here as 

16 a representative from Fernald, Ohio.

17 MR. CALLOWAY: I'm Allen Calloway, vice president of the 

18 Fernald Council.

19 MR. ROWE: Gordon Rowe, construction electrician from 

20 1579 in Augusta, Georgia.

21 MR. ROCQUE: Dennis Rocque, construction electrician, 

22 IBEW 1579 here in Augusta and also secretary/treasurer of 
186 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Augusta building and trades.

2 MR. JERNIGAN: Charles Jernigan, manager for the Augusta 

3 building and trades medical screening program in Augusta, 

4 Georgia.

5 MR. BEARD: Morris Beard, construction electrician, 

6 Augusta, Georgia; Local 1579 and training director for the 

7 CSRA electrical JATC, also with the Augusta building 

8 trades.

9 MR. KATZ: Ted Katz, and I work -- I work for NIOSH.

10 MR. WARREN: Bob Warren. I'm a lawyer from Black 

11 Mountain, North Carolina.

12 MR. MILLER: Steve Miller, assistant business manager for 

13 the IBEW.

14 MR. HUTCHISON: Johnny Hutchison, IBEW electricians 

15 organizer for local union 1579.

16 DR. MAURO: John Mauro. I'm a health physicist with 

17 Sanford Cohen & Associates.

18 MR. ROESSLER: I'm Chuck Roessler. I'm an interested 

19 health physicist.

20 MS. TOOHEY: Beverly Toohey, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

21 DR. TOOHEY: Dick Toohey, Oak Ridge Associated 

22 Universities. I'm the project director for the dose 
187 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 reconstruction contract with NIOSH.

2 MS. HOMOKI: Zee Homoki, Aiken, South Carolina.

3 MR. HOMOKI: Steve Homoki, Aiken, South Carolina.

4 MS. WASHINGTON: Grace Washington, North Augusta.

5 MR. TURCIC: Pete Turcic. I'm the director of the Energy 

6 Employees Compensation for the Department of Labor.

7 MS. MILLER: I'm Kay Miller. I'm a previous employee with 

8 DOE, Savannah River Site.

9 MS. GANTZ: Julie Gantz from Augusta, and I'm a former 

10 employee of Westinghouse, Savannah River Site.

11 DR. UTTERBACK: I'm David Utterback. I'm with NIOSH in 

12 Cincinnati, Ohio.

13 MR. MILLER: I'm Richard Miller with the Government 

14 Accountability Project and I am not with the government.

15 MR. HILLS: I'm Warren Hills, Sr., president of the 

16 Georgia/South Carolina district council, business manager 

17 for the laborers local 1137 here in Augusta, 

18 secretary/treasurer for the South Carolina building 

19 trades.

20 MR. MORGAN: I am Benyoel Morgan, president of local 527 

21 of transport workers union.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Larry Williams, U.S. Department of Labor,
188 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 from Jacksonville, Florida.

2 MR. LAWSON: Howard Lawson, Y-12 plant, electrician and 

3 also the atomic trades and labor council, health and safety 

4 representative. And also the representative for X-10.

5 MR. ANFIELD: My name's Isaiah Anfield. I'm a former 

6 employee at duPont and I'm a member of local 1137, general 

7 mason's local union, and I have a personal injury.

8 MS. DIMUZIO: I'm Martha DeMuzio. I'm from NIOSH.

9 MS. MAIER: Hilda Maier, Nuclear Test Personnel Program.

10 MS. DAVIS: I'm Allison Davis with NIOSH.

11 MR. FRANSON: I'm Bill Franson. I'm the district 

12 director for the Jacksonville district office, U.S. 

13 Department of Labor.

14 MR. KOTSCH: I'm Jeff Kotsch, the health physicist with 

15 the DOL energy program.

16 MR. HENSHAW: Hi, I'm Russ Henshaw. I'm an

17 epidemiologist with NIOSH in Cincinnati.

18 DR. HOFFMAN: I'm Owen Hoffman. I'm president of SENES 

19 Oak Ridge, Incorporated. We're the consulting firm that 

20 has developed the Interactive RadioEpidemiological 

21 Program that calculates probability of causation.

22 DR. NETON: I'm Jim Neton. I'm with NIOSH in Cincinnati.
189 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Cori?

2 MS. HOMER: I'm Cori Homer and I'm with NIOSH Atlanta.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate 

4 everyone being here.

5 PUBLIC COMMENT

6 We're going to begin with Dennis -- is it Rocque? Just 

7 Rocque, R-o-c-q-u-e, Rocque. Okay. I'm going to put the 

8 mike up here, Dennis, if you'd come on forward.

9 MR. ROCQUE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

10 the committee. I bring you greetings of welcome to 

11 Augusta on behalf of T.S. Yarborough, business manager of 

12 local 1579 and International Brotherhood of Electrical 

13 Workers, and also the president of Augusta building and 

14 construction trades council. I apologize for Mr. 

15 Yarborough's absence, as he is at home recuperating from 

16 surgery.

17 My name is Dennis Rocque, and I'm the organizer from local 

18 1579 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical 

19 Workers and also secretary/treasurer of the Augusta 

20 building and construction trades council. It is in this 

21 capacity that I am here tonight. Our case is also on 

22 behalf of the South Carolina building and construction 
190 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 trades council. It is my understanding that this Board 

2 is responsible for reviewing the dose reconstruction 

3 program that is part of the radiation compensation 

4 program. I wish to thank you for your cooperation and your 

5 commitment at the request of national building and trades 

6 for, first, holding meetings near DOE sites, and secondly 

7 for having this session in the evening, which enables 

8 workers and their survivors to come and ask questions or 

9 express their concerns.

10 Mr. Chairman, not only does the national building and 

11 construction trades have a stake in this program, we in 

12 Augusta have a very big stake. There have been 37,000 

13 construction workers at Savannah River Site with potential 

14 radiation exposure. We're not here asking for charity. 

15 We're here asking you for justice, the justice working men 

16 and women so adamantly deserve. We don't just want a 

17 program, we want one that is fair and consistent and 

18 timely. This can only be achieved by making special 

19 considerations for construction workers. Let's not kid 

20 ourselves. We all know the individual dose 

21 reconstruction program does not work for construction 

22 workers.
191 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Look at the life of our members. They are employed

2 intermittently. They are on and off the site. They work 

3 for subcontractors, and when they are on the site they work 

4 all over the place. No two construction workers are alike 

5 in what they do.

6 We know through experience at SRS. Our members had 

7 experiences with very high exposures that were not 

8 properly monitored. Radiation monitoring and dose 

9 recording was not systematic or accurate. Construction 

10 workers didn't recall details of their employment on the 

11 site, or can't recall, and the survivors can't be expected 

12 to do this, either. Look at what SRS is. As you know, 

13 people were drilled -- it was drilled in workers' heads 

14 that you didn't talk about what you did out there. On top 

15 of that, we have dangerous work, and you don't want to go 

16 home and tell your families what you do every day and have 

17 them worry for eight, ten, 12 hours a day.

18 Construction workers -- it's a tough life, as you know, 

19 and for these reasons we think that our members and 

20 survivors need much more assistance with the claims they 

21 process. They need someone who understands construction 

22 to give that assistance. They're either elderly workers 
192 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 with cancer or their survivors. Either way, they are 

2 mostly old and frail.

3 Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons we think construction 

4 workers should be included in the special cohort, which 

5 is a special section of the law that covers workers with 

6 radiation exposure but lack adequate monitoring records.

7 The program is taking too long. Over 15,000 claims have 

8 been filed and less than 1,500 completed after three years. 

9 It is unbelievable, inconceivable that DOE has burdened 

10 these members with the long slow process of just providing 

11 -- or just proving employment. We know for a fact that 

12 DOE has medical, dose and security records that go back

13 to 1951. DOE should have to produce that information.

14 Mr. Chairman, our members have stopped filing claims 

15 because they don't believe in or trust the program. To 

16 get them to file claims, they need to know that the program 

17 is for them and the program is real.

18 Again, Mr. Chairman, we ask you for justice. We ask you 

19 to put our members in a special cohort, and I thank you 

20 for listening. Thank you for your time.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Mr. Rocque. We 

22 generally allow the Board members, if they wish, to ask 
193 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 any questions, and if you're agreeable -- they may not have 

2 any, but if they do, give them the opportunity to ask 

3 anything of Mr. Rocque at this point. Yes, Richard 

4 Espinosa.

5 MR. ESPINOSA: On the SRS site, about how many building 

6 and constructors work on the site on a day-to-day basis?

7 MR. ROCQUE: Well, I mean it -- today, I don't -- I don't 

8 know. I don't have the exact figures today because 

9 they're laying off -- 700, 800.

10 MR. ESPINOSA: Okay, what about --

11 MR. ROCQUE: We have had as many in the early eighties as 

12 just 1,200 electricians out there alone, so I mean it --

13 2,000, 3,000, 4,000.

14 MR. ESPINOSA: What about with IBEW?

15 MR. ROCQUE: With IBEW today we have probably somewhere 

16 in the vicinity of about 200.

17 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you'll need to approach a mike, sir. 

19 Identify yourself for the record, please, again.

20 MR. ANFIELD: My name is Isaiah Anfield and I'm a former 

21 employee of E.I.DuPont back in the eighties, and at the 

22 present right now I have a medical problem and I just want 
194 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to know what -- I mean what y'all doing, going to wait on 

2 me to die or what? That's all I got to say.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments or 

4 questions? Yes, Jim.

5 DR. MELIUS: You're familiar with the screening program 

6 --

7 MR. ROCQUE: Yes, sir.

8 DR. MELIUS: -- here for that? And is the kind of history 

9 and the information that comes from that program, is that 

10 something you think could be useful in providing a better 

11 description of your work out there and activities?

12 MR. ROCQUE: I think that it would be, yes.

13 DR. MELIUS: I know it's real hard to, you know, figure 

14 out what you did and what people -- where they worked and 

15 so forth out there --

16 MR. ROCQUE: Right.

17 DR. MELIUS: -- and NIOSH is -- sort of has to do one 

18 interview for everybody, and -- and if we could get 

19 something more focused, and I'm just wondering if that --

20 that kind of a -- tools they've developed and the 

21 questionnaires or something you think better gets at what 

22 kind of work you did and what, you know, your members were 
195 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 exposed to.

2 MR. ROCQUE: I mean it could be helpful, but you know, from 

3 my experience, I worked out there for 12 years, and I 

4 couldn't tell you every place that I worked, every area. 

5 I couldn't tell you every test that I performed. And you 

6 know, when you get up there and -- 60 years old, 65 years 

7 old, you -- you certainly don't remember. And like I said, 

8 even -- when these folks are dead and gone, you have 

9 families that won't even know what they did out there, you 

10 know. It was just a mystery. All they know is you -- my 

11 daddy worked at the bomb plant. My mother worked at the 

12 bomb plant. That's -- nobody talks about it. So you 

13 know, even -- even with that, can you go back and 

14 reconstruct -- trying to say, it may be helpful, but I doubt 

15 it.

16 DR. MELIUS: Thank you.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dennis, we appreciate 

18 your --

19 MR. ROCQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- input to the Board. Now I have no other 

21 names on my list, and I don't -- I know that you don't want 

22 me to sit here and tell my favorite attorney jokes and so 
196 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 on, so I'm just going to open the floor and ask, even if 

2 you didn't sign up, you now have an opportunity to -- to 

3 say anything you wish.

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)

5 DR. ZIEMER: Again, we do need to have you use the mike 

6 in order to be able to record this, so if you don't mind, 

7 you'll need to identify for the record who you are.

8 MR. JERNIGAN: I'm Charles Jernigan. I manage the 

9 screening program for the building and construction trade 

10 here in Augusta. And just to comment on your question as 

11 to whether it would be helpful or not, we've been doing 

12 these screenings for about five years now, and we struggle 

13 through these interviews trying to help people remember, 

14 and it is a -- a young guy can come in, he remembers what 

15 he did two years ago or five years ago. But like Mr. Rocque 

16 said, a lot of these people are getting up in age and a 

17 lot of them are 75, 80 years old. And to ask them what 

18 they did in 1951, it's a mystery to them.

19 Those interviews can be helpful because we do an in-depth 

20 interview, and we really do all we can to help them 

21 remember. And they do remember more than what they think 

22 they can, once we get to talking to them. But it is very 
197 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 hard to get those people to remember where they worked, 

2 even the years. Sometimes they're four, five years off 

3 from when they think they work out there. But as a general 

4 rule, we do get some good information in those interviews 

5 that probably would be helpful to you.

6 DR. MELIUS: Can I just ask you a follow-up question? 

7 Have you ever, as part of that program, done any work 

8 looking at employment records or, you know, other exposure 

9 information records that might -- does that help any more 

10 or is that just --

11 MR. JERNIGAN: We don't have access to any records.

12 DR. MELIUS: Okay.

13 MR. JERNIGAN: All we get is what the individual can 

14 remember. And if he has anything personally that he wants 

15 to bring in with him, now we look at that. But as far as 

16 having access to records from DOE or from the plant, we 

17 have no access to that. We have to pretty much rely on 

18 what he -- he can remember.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Any other follow-up -- yes, Richard, please.

20 MR. ESPINOSA: I know within my local union -- it's not 

21 a question, it's more of a comment. Within my local union 

22 dealing with the retirees throughout the sheet metal 
198 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 workers, as well as building trades, you know, my -- the 

2 retirees with my local can tell me how to build an ogee 

3 offset just out of memory, but they can't remember the 

4 areas, the facilities and the people that they worked with. 

5 And I imagine that's the same thing that's going on --

6 MR. JERNIGAN: It's a very big problem, and especially 

7 when you get into, in your case, survivors having to get 

8 involved in placing claims. Like Mr. Dennis said -- Mr. 

9 Rocque said, years ago they were not allowed to even talk 

10 to their families about what they did on that plant. Even 

11 people come in today to go through the screening process, 

12 they want to know if we have permission for them to talk 

13 to us. And they never told anybody where they worked. 

14 They just knew they -- families just knew they worked at 

15 Savannah River Site, so unless -- I don't know, you'd have 

16 to have a crystal ball with those people to figure out where 

17 -- where those people worked. And from my experience with 

18 DOE and Savannah River Site, you get very little help from 

19 out there.

20 DR. MELIUS: Just along the same lines, when you use 

21 various -- I don't know exactly what you use. I know I've 

22 helped with the -- when they set up the Fernald program 
199 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 in terms of sort of pictures and buildings and -- from the 

2 past to help people remember where they might have worked 

3 or where a project took place. Have you used that, and 

4 also have you -- to what extent have you tried to piece 

5 together what happened in a particular job out there that 

6 -- you know, from fellow workers or from what information 

7 people have that at least --

8 MR. JERNIGAN: We go through a process, like we do have 

9 overviews of every area out there that has all the 

10 buildings on it. We have maps on the wall which we walk 

11 them through and -- and you ask them questions like do you 

12 remember if the building was above ground or below ground, 

13 was it a tall building or a short building. You know, you 

14 go through a pretty lengthy process of trying to help them 

15 remember anything they can -- do you remember your 

16 foreman's name, do you remember anything about the people 

17 you worked for. We -- we train our interviewers to really 

18 do an in-depth interrogation with these people, and we 

19 start off with maps and pictures. And sometimes you get 

20 very little.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Again we have another 

22 comment here.
200 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ROWE: I'm Gordon Rowe, construction electrician out 

2 of Augusta, Georgia. I worked at the Savannah River plant 

3 for approximately 15 years. As construction workers, we 

4 were moved about to various areas wherever they needed 

5 help, wherever there was a need for workers at a certain 

6 time, depending on what areas were building up or revamping 

7 and what-not. We were told to go into various buildings 

8 and what-not. There was -- lot of times we were -- there 

9 was no markings. We would dress out, go into various areas 

10 -- radiation exposure areas, but there was no markings as 

11 to what we were exposed to or anything like that. And a 

12 lot of times we worked in areas that the maintenance people 

13 -- the production workers, we helped them out. There was 

14 areas that they didn't -- didn't have worker for -- workers 

15 enough to do it or for various reasons, we were loaned out 

16 to production doing work that they were supposed to do. 

17 We as workers just went in and did our jobs. Then when 

18 we -- when I came down and went through this screening 

19 program, I was asked about various chemicals, all kind of 

20 situations and products that I had never heard of before, 

21 had -- had there been -- my point is, if Savannah River 

22 Plant had pointed out the exposure or the things that were 
201 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 harmful to construction workers, they would have been more 

2 careful and therefore would have probably -- the health 

3 conditions would have been better in the long run.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Follow-up questions?

5 DR. MELIUS: Just one quick question. When you were 

6 working alongside production workers, were -- were there 

7 situations where they were being monitored, they had film 

8 badges or whatever, and were you monitored in those --

9 those situations?

10 MR. ROWE: Yeah, we were given -- whenever we had to dress 

11 out and go into a -- a danger or radiation -- where there 

12 was radiation, we were given commonly a radiation monitor, 

13 a pencil badge, as we normally called it. And -- but we 

14 had to turn it in when we left the plant site and then we'd 

15 pick it up, and at times there -- we found out that these 

16 monitors were not always accurate, you did not always get 

17 the same monitor, and when you turned it in -- in short, 

18 there was -- there was room for a lot of mistakes. And 

19 I personally have seen reports where at the end of -- you 

20 get a quarterly report as to how many rems of radiation 

21 exposures you had, and I personally have seen reports where 

22 a man that worked in a radiation area lot of times during 
202 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the month would have the same exposure record as the man 

2 that never went into radiation, that worked in the tool 

3 room on the outside of the buildings and what-not. So as 

4 construction workers, we were doubtful about whether 

5 records were accurate or not.

6 DR. MELIUS: Thank you.

7 MR. ROWE: Okay.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. Are there others 

9 who wish to make comments?

10 MS. GANTZ: Hello, I'm Julie Gantz. I worked out at 

11 Savannah River Site approximately four and a half years. 

12 I was clerical. The office -- the last office that I 

13 worked in backed up to a fab lab where they were constantly 

14 melting stuff. There was no retaining wall. Myself and 

15 two other women and my boss all came down with cancer. My 

16 boss has since died, two years ago. You know, we were 

17 always told we were safe, but we weren't. There were --

18 we always had to monitor out when we left the building, 

19 and a lot of times those monitors would go off and tell 

20 you, you know, that a part of your body was contaminated. 

21 And we were always told if -- if the monitor went off, to 

22 go back around and if it gave you the all clear sign, you 
203 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 were free to go. Or health protection would stick their 

2 head out and say oh, the monitors aren't working right 

3 today; go on and go, you're fine. You never knew what was 

4 going on out there. It was always a need-to-know basis, 

5 and if you didn't need to know it, you did not know it, 

6 so...

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Again, follow-up 

8 question -- here's one, if you --

9 MR. GIBSON: Did the company do any additional monitoring 

10 on you like they did the production workers?

11 MS. GANTZ: No. And also in the area that I worked in, 

12 they had -- the way the hallway was shaped, it was kind 

13 of like a U-shape with labs in the middle of the hallway, 

14 and I could stand and talk to a lab worker who was fully 

15 dressed out, and all there was was a door in between us 

16 with a glass window. She was fully dressed out and I was 

17 not, and it was as -- and we could talk as if we were 

18 standing right next to each other.

19 MR. GIBSON: And so you -- you folks were never afforded 

20 the same opportunity to bioassay testing --

21 MS. GANTZ: I never did any kind of bioassay samples. 

22 There were other -- other people that worked back in the 
204 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 area where I did, they had to do that, but I never had to 

2 get an-- only testing I ever had out there was a drug test, 

3 right before I left.

4 MR. GIBSON: That seems to be more important to them. 

5 Thank you.

6 DR. ZIEMER: One more question, I think. Dr. Andrade?

7 DR. ANDRADE: I'm curious, without revealing a name or any 

8 sort of information about your supervisor or personal 

9 information, can you tell us what type of cancer the person 

10 passed away from?

11 MS. GANTZ: Cancer of the esophagus.

12 DR. ANDRADE: Esophagus?

13 MS. GANTZ: Uh-huh. Thank you.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. Are there others?

15 MR. HILLS: I'd like to say good evening again, and my name 

16 is Warren Hills, Sr. I just want to make some comments 

17 for the benefit of the committee here with our screening 

18 program here in Augusta. Charles I think explained pretty 

19 well what we did and what we went through with the 

20 screening, until the point of filing the claim.

21 Going through the screening, after explaining everything 

22 to those that were interviewing -- where you worked at, 
205 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 how long you were there, whatever you was in, was it under 

2 the area, was it in the reactor area, whether you were 

3 around radiation, was it inside, outside, was there a lot 

4 of dust or whatever the case may be. After having done 

5 all that, they send you to get a physical. After the 

6 physical -- the physical comes back, most time when they 

7 come back they say you had a hearing loss or you have an 

8 enlarged heart. As far as skin cancer, nothing was 

9 mentioned there if you had any type cancer on your skin. 

10 We had a lot of folks that had lung cancer. In my local 

11 we had about three that worked at Savannah River Plant. 

12 They found a spot on their lung. They removed the spot. 

13 A couple of years later they died from lung cancer. Those 

14 cases haven't been settled yet, and that's what a lot of 

15 the families in this area are wondering why that Savannah 

16 River Plant is being, we feel, looked over as far as 

17 settling these claims or NIOSH finding some way to figure 

18 out a dose and say if you do have cancer and your doctor 

19 say you had it and you worked at that plant at least six, 

20 seven, eight, nine, ten years, some of them 20 years, and 

21 there's still no settlements. Some of the folks even had 

22 colon cancer and we know that cigarettes has a lot to do 
206 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 with lung cancer, but the thing is that these people worked 

2 at Savannah River Plant most of their lives.

3 We understand that Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Portsmouth, 

4 Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky, even Alaska -- all the uranium 

5 workers in the Paducah and in the Oak Ridge area have been 

6 paid -- their families have been paid or whatever. Over 

7 $13 million has been paid out to date for this program in 

8 all of these areas I just mentioned. Nothing has been 

9 spent -- not one penny, I think -- as far as compensation 

10 for any worker in the Savannah River area. We feel that 

11 we should be under that Special Exposure Cohorts. And the 

12 other reason we feel that they're just looking over 

13 Savannah River Plant 'cause when duPont was there, even 

14 after duPont left in '89 and Westinghouse-Bechtel took 

15 over, duPont supposed to have been the most safest plant 

16 in the world, and right now we're under the star program. 

17 So if this plant was so safe, how can anybody get exposed? 

18 They say there wasn't any belenium (sic) on the site, and 

19 after going through some of these physicals, these 37,000 

20 people, they found about eight that did have it. But to 

21 date these people still haven't received any compensation 

22 and the families don't know who to go to, who to talk to. 
207 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 And you go over and you file a claim, everybody help you 

2 -- they even come to your house to help you file a claim. 

3 Well, once the claim is filed, they say everything is up 

4 to NIOSH. And all these other areas except Savannah River 

5 Plant, the bomb factory, the one that did the thing that 

6 was supposed to be done to defend this country, and now 

7 the families and the relatives of gets nothing except 

8 committees, committees, committees. I think this is the 

9 fifth year, and that's my comments.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for your comment. Again, let's see 

11 if there's any follow-up questions here.

12 MR. HILLS: I'm sorry?

13 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's okay. I guess there are none. 

14 You're okay.

15 MR. HILLS: I apologize.

16 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps there are no comments. Okay, thank 

17 you, sir.

18 Now others?

19 (No responses)

20 There will be another public comment period tomorrow, late 

21 morning. It's scheduled for the end of our morning 

22 session at 11:30, so if there's anyone here this evening 
208 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that has second thoughts and said you know, I really should 

2 have said something, you can come back tomorrow and we'd 

3 be glad to hear you. Again, I don't want to cut things 

4 short. If anyone else has a comment they wish to make --

5 another gentleman. Thank you.

6 MR. BEATTY: Again, my name is Ray Beatty. I'm from 

7 Fernald site, and the reason I hesitated coming to the 

8 mike, I wanted to not infringe upon my brothers and sisters 

9 of the unions here. This is, you know, your site, your 

10 time to speak. But a couple of things were mentioned --

11 specifically one Board member mentioned Fernald site --

12 and we do have some baseline summaries, books that shows 

13 what went on in specific buildings, what those people did 

14 in those buildings, and it's probably very helpful. But 

15 I'd like to tell you another side of the story where an 

16 individual on our site has been there for over 20 years, 

17 he applied through the program. And I'm not sure if in 

18 the Federal program he was compensated or not. It doesn't 

19 really matter at this point on -- on this particular issue 

20 that I'd like to share with the Board. But he has applied 

21 through the Workers Compensation or the Subtitle D, as I'm 

22 informed that -- upon the time of his hearing, and I'd like 
209 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 for my brothers and sisters to hear this very clearly --

2 you do get an opportunity to go before a panel and to hear 

3 your case heard. Watch and see just how many adversaries 

4 come to that same table. It happened to my friend at the 

5 Fernald site, where the subcontractor that's there now 

6 came there and opposed his application for this fee -- or 

7 this -- for this award, and he's -- he's been there for 

8 over 20 years. That subcontractor's been on our site for 

9 12 years. He is affected with beryllium disease and this 

10 has all been documented by the tests and various things 

11 in Colorado. He shared a great deal of this information 

12 with me personally, but I was under the impression talking 

13 with him that that sort of adversarial result was not 

14 supposed to happen, and this subcontractor did this. They 

15 sent their own industrial hygienist to the hearings to 

16 oppose his application. So please take note of that for 

17 what it's worth. It did happen. Verification is there. 

18 Thank you.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. Let's see if 

20 there's any questions any Board members have.

21 (No responses)

22 Was there someone else? Yes.
210 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MS. MILLER: I'm a little short. I'm a little bit nervous 

2 so please bear with me. I just wanted to reinforce what 

3 Ms. Gantz --

4 DR. ZIEMER: Identify for the record, please, your name 

5 and --

6 MS. MILLER: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Kay Miller, and 

7 I just wanted to reinforce what Ms. Gantz had previously 

8 said. Three of us clerical ladies worked in the same 

9 office. Within about a year's time of being in that 

10 office, we all developed cancer. As she said, our boss 

11 had worked in there prior to the three of us. He died about 

12 two years ago.

13 There was no retaining wall between our office and a 

14 fabrication laboratory in the basement underneath us that 

15 was classified as an RCA. We were not told the wall was 

16 not there and had no knowledge that it wasn't there. I 

17 found out by mistake, actually when a maintenance worker 

18 was changing fluorescent light bulbs in the office. We 

19 had been getting real horrendous odors in that office and 

20 no other office on that hallway, and they would be so bad 

21 that you could only be in the room about five minutes before 

22 you developed a severe headache. And I asked the worker 
211 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to lift the ceiling tile to see if he could see where those 

2 odors may be coming from, and at that point we discovered 

3 there wasn't a wall separating our office from that 

4 laboratory.

5 I guess the thing that concerns me the most is both my claim 

6 and Ms. Gantz's has been denied, and it seems that that 

7 was based primarily on our TLD readings. We believe that 

8 we were exposed to something, that the probability of four 

9 people working in the same office all developing cancer 

10 is just a little bit for me to believe that it wasn't due 

11 to something we were exposed to, and that's all I've got 

12 to say.

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me again ask for questions.

14 (No responses)

15 Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any others yet this 

16 evening?

17 (No responses)

18 It appears that we have no other individuals to make public 

19 comment, in which case we will recess for the evening. 

20 Again remind you that the Board will reconvene in the 

21 morning. We reconvene at 8:00 o'clock. Our actual 

22 session will formally begin at 8:30. The Board will be 
212 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 discussing a number of matters and then have another public 

2 comment session at the end of the morning. Our session 

3 in the afternoon is a closed session that will involve 

4 discussion and review of a task order proposal and 

5 independent government cost estimate and therefore will 

6 be a closed session.

7 With that, again, I thank all of those who came out tonight. 

8 We appreciate the input that you provided, your comments. 

9 Again, you recognize that on an individual basis, the Board 

10 does not deal with those cases, but in a collective basis 

11 those experiences that you have and have relayed to us will 

12 help us as we go forward in doing our task, and we 

13 appreciate your all taking the time to come and be with 

14 us and share with us this evening. And with that, I'll 

15 declare that we're -- oop, yes, Richard Miller. I know 

16 --

17 MR. MILLER: I -- I -- I promised I wouldn't speak this 

18 evening.

19 DR. ZIEMER: No, I --

20 MR. MILLER: My name is Richard Miller with the Government 

21 Accountability Project. I have a procedural question for 

22 both the Board, for NIOSH, for ORAU, for the audit 
213 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 contractor, and all the people who are getting paid to work 

2 on this program.

3 The woman who just spoke raised a really, really, really 

4 interesting and important question. I don't know what the 

5 causes of her or her colleagues' cancer were or whether 

6 she was exposed to chemicals or radiation. We don't even 

7 know the details. But what we do know is this much: That 

8 the Savannah River site profile probably skirted over that 

9 issue at about 25,000 feet.

10 And the second thing that sort of strikes me, just from 

11 having listened to Dr. Neton's presentation today about 

12 the efficiency guidelines that are developed is they 

13 assume that where you have unmonitored dose it couldn't 

14 possibly exceed more than ten percent of the maximum 

15 permissible body burden.

16 Now the procedural question I guess I have is this. What 

17 inquiry is anybody in this room going to make about the 

18 testimony we've heard today to figure out whether your site 

19 profile missed the specific circumstances in that case by 

20 a mile? Is anybody going to look into that, or is this 

21 just going to stay on the record and collect dust and people 

22 can read it on the web site if they're interested? What 
214 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- what specific follow-up will take place, if anything?

2 DR. ZIEMER: Richard, you pose a question that probably 

3 is not answered on the spur of the moment but certainly 

4 is a thought-provoking question in terms of saying could 

5 in fact this kind of exposure not be captured, is what 

6 you're asking, in the assumptions made.

7 MR. MILLER: I'm making no assumption about the 

8 individual's case or her story --

9 DR. ZIEMER: No, I understood --

10 MR. MILLER: -- but I am saying an unshielded 

11 circumstance, if as-described is true, is a very 

12 interesting item uncaptured and clearly will be well 

13 disposed of through the efficiency methods -- very 

14 efficiently disposed of. And I don't know whether NIOSH 

15 or anybody in this room is going to make a commitment to 

16 deal with that situation, but I would really like to hear

17 somebody on the Federal payroll step up and say we're going 

18 to take a look at it. And since the record remains silent, 

19 I guess it speaks for itself.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Michael?

21 MR. GIBSON: I'm not certain, Paul, but I believe that the 

22 Department of Energy was instructed not to oppose Workers 
215 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Comp claims -- Subtitle D claims, and I was wondering if 

2 there's any Department of Energy officials in the 

3 audience, or will be tomorrow, that could address this, 

4 which seems to be in direct violation of what

5 then-Secretary Richardson ordered when this law was being 

6 enacted.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Is there anyone here that -- DOE people that 

8 can speak to that, or can any of the other Feds?

9 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't believe there's any DOE folks here 

10 tonight, and I -- I'm -- I don't know if L. P. Singh will 

11 be here -- is L. P. here tonight?

12 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)

13 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, we -- we're not picking that up 

14 on the transcript here. We'll need to have you use the 

15 mike again.

16 MS. MILLER: Again, my name is Kay Miller. We received 

17 a letter stating that workers -- our state Workers Comp 

18 had been notified that our claim was denied, and our 

19 understanding is that if your claim is denied you do not 

20 receive any benefits from state Workers Comp. That was 

21 the gist of the letter that I received.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. The other question had to 
216 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 do with the opposition in the testimony. Right? And I 

2 -- again, we -- I guess we don't have anyone here from DOE 

3 to respond to that.

4 MR. GIBSON: Paul, I was mainly referring to -- well, not 

5 only to this case, but the case that the brother -- that 

6 the gentleman brought up from Fernald.

7 MR. ANFIELD: My name is Isaiah Anfield. I'm a former 

8 employee with E.I. duPont, local 1137 union. Referring 

9 to the lady just stepped up to the ball plate, they did 

10 me the same way, and I don't see why DOE keep playing with 

11 all these people that really actually something that 

12 happened. I done been to three or four different doctors. 

13 You're still getting the same -- same correspondence. You 

14 know, it's clear to me they're just playing simple ball 

15 game. You know, and a lot of people dying, and it's not 

16 about the money, you know. It's about my health. I got 

17 my paperwork right here with me 'cause they did me the same 

18 way, writing all that bull junk talking about ain't nothing 

19 wrong with me, and there something is wrong with me. I 

20 got all my -- all -- I done (Inaudible). I done went to 

21 three or four different doctors. Now... So what is DO 

22 (sic) going to do? Y'all can have all that Advisory Board 
217 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to meet and committee meeting. That ain't worth nothing 

2 if you ain't going to compensate them employees over there. 

3 You know you're just playing games. That's what it seems 

4 like to me. You can have 20 different meetings. You can 

5 have a meeting every month. That's not comprehending 

6 (sic) nobody and that ain't helping nobody. What is the 

7 deal? What you going to get out of it? You go to four 

8 or five different -- and then another thing, DOE want to 

9 send them to they own doctors 'cause they -- they pay them 

10 by the government 'cause the government going to stick by 

11 one another.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any further comments 

13 tonight?

14 (No responses)

15 Again, we thank all those who made comments and 

16 participated. We will recess until tomorrow morning, as 

17 indicated, and declare this session adjourned.

18 (Whereupon, an adjournment was taken to Friday, February 

19 6, 2004 at 8:00 a.m.)

20
218 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 FEBRUARY 6, 2004

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

3 (8:00 a.m.)

4 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'll call the 

5 meeting back to order. This is -- we begin this morning 

6 with administrative housekeeping items. Let me ask Cori 

7 Homer if she will approach the mike and inform the Board 

8 of any specific items that she needs handled.

9 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) She's not in here at the 

10 moment.

11 DR. ZIEMER: She's not here. Oh, she is running something 

12 off for me, actually. Okay. Okay, Larry, do you have any 

13 items that you need to call to our attention? If you don't 

14 have anything, we can proceed.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: While we're waiting on Cori, let me offer 

16 this, and I will try to -- what does that thing do 

17 (Inaudible). Too few jokes and a dance or two.

18 Just to let the Board know, in Vegas we talked -- y'all 

19 talked about holding a session like we held last night and 

20 how we get the word out about our meetings and all of that, 

21 so I wanted to just brief you on what we tried to accomplish 

22 about notification of this meeting. One, we worked 
219 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 through our contractor and -- using the points of contact 

2 that they have for who we talked to down here back on 

3 November 11th, and I know Dr. Melius made some contacts, 

4 Knute Ringin made contacts. We put a notice in the paper. 

5 We advertised in the local paper. Cori has a copy of that 

6 if you're interested. We contacted the site and went 

7 through the public affairs folks at the site and they sent 

8 out an announcement. I think it went site-wide. I'm not 

9 sure exactly how they did that, whether it was by e-mail 

10 or it was bulletin board or what, but they did make notice 

11 around the site that the meeting was going to be held.

12 We had -- we revised our standard e-mail notification and 

13 updated it with new e-mail addresses and made an attempt 

14 that way to get the word out. So I think we canvassed as 

15 well as we could. We're trying to think of other ways that 

16 we can get the word out, but I'd appreciate any thoughts 

17 or comments you have about this revised approach to notice 

18 -- notify people that we are meeting in their areas. So 

19 I think that's about all I can do with expanding time here, 

20 but I just wanted you to realize that's what had gone on 

21 behind the scenes to announce this -- this meeting.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Looking ahead to the meeting in Richland, 
220 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Washington, the Hanford area -- and that meeting is 

2 scheduled for April -- the week of April 19th. Do we know 

3 the exact dates of that yet?

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let me repeat what she said since the 

6 mike wasn't used -- that we would meet on the 20th and the 

7 21st, and the tour would be on the (Inaudible).

8 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) On the next day.

9 DR. ZIEMER: On the 22nd.

10 I'm sorry, on the 22nd would be the tour. The meeting 

11 would be the 20th and 21st. The tour would be on the 22nd, 

12 tour of Hanford. And in connection with that meeting, we 

13 might anticipate again having an evening session. That 

14 seemed to be fairly successful last evening here, and so 

15 if we can do something similar at Hanford, then -- in terms 

16 of announcing and arranging that, that would be good and 

17 try that again and see how that works.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: We will, we'll do all that we've done here 

19 and try to do a little bit more, even.

20 DR. ZIEMER: And then Wanda, is there anything else you 

21 need to tell us in terms of preparation for that meeting?

22 MS. MUNN: I don't believe there's anything official. It 
221 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 is my anticipation to have a reception the preceding 

2 evening at the Crest* Museum.

3 DR. ZIEMER: The reception would be on the evening of the 

4 19th for those who arrived in time?

5 MS. MUNN: Correct, it will be at 6:00 p.m.

6 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me. Wanda also asked that -- she 

7 wants to have us line up and hear us all complain about 

8 how long it took us to get in to see her and how terrible 

9 the trip was and...

10 MS. MUNN: You will each be allotted five minutes.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, Wanda, we are looking forward 

12 to that meeting.

13 MS. MUNN: We are looking forward to having you there.

14 ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING

15 DR. ZIEMER: Cori is back, and Cori, do you have other 

16 housekeeping items for us?

17 MS. HOMER: Just quickly, some of you have not turned in 

18 voucher information, and I have at least a half-dozen 

19 travel orders outstanding that I have no voucher receipts 

20 -- information on, so please return that to me as quickly 

21 as possible.

22 Also, we have a need to update the roster. If your address 
222 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 or personal information's changed -- phone numbers, FAX 

2 numbers, e-mail addresses -- please let me know. You can 

3 just write it on your roster that's in your book and turn 

4 that in to me before we leave.

5 And on Monday I will send out an e-mail asking for your 

6 time spent -- preparation, workgroup, et cetera. Go ahead 

7 and send that to Larry and cc me so that we can get you 

8 paid.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any questions or additional items 

10 that anyone wishes to raise -- housekeeping issues?

11 MR. PRESLEY: Are we going to set --

12 DR. MELIUS: Are we going to set another meeting?

13 MR. PRESLEY: -- set our next meeting or two?

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we can do that. You're talking about 

15 meetings beyond the April.

16 (Pause)

17 I think we will assume that by the April meeting that we 

18 will have taken care of all the details on our own 

19 contractor and we'll be underway with all tasks. Then the 

20 question becomes how soon after the April meeting do we 

21 need to meet.

22 MS. DIMUZIO: Dr. -- Dr. Ziemer --
223 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes?

2 MS. DIMUZIO: -- there is, on one of the tasks that's still 

3 outstanding, a two-month reporting requirement for 

4 completion of the task, so I don't know if you want to 

5 consider that in determining when your next Board meeting 

6 is.

7 DR. ZIEMER: That's task -- which task is that?

8 MS. DIMUZIO: Task four.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Task four, which has been --

10 MS. DIMUZIO: I'm sorry --

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- approved.

12 MS. DIMUZIO: -- task three. Three, I'm sorry. Task 

13 three.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, task three has not yet been approved. If 

15 that gets approved soon, then we'd be talking about roughly 

16 two months from now. Well --

17 DR. MELIUS: That would take us to the April --

18 DR. ZIEMER: The April meeting might cover that --

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah.

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- or we'd be close on the April meeting, 

21 so...

22 DR. MELIUS: I think --
224 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering about early June, perhaps. 

2 It's about a six-week interval. Electronic calendars 

3 work wonders, right?

4 I have -- I have a conflict basically from about the 20th 

5 of May almost to -- well, basically to the end of the month, 

6 so last part of May is out completely for me.

7 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) The week of the 10th?

8 DR. ZIEMER: Of?

9 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) May.

10 DR. ZIEMER: We'll be meeting, you know, April 21st, so 

11 10th of May is only a couple of weeks later. It may be 

12 a little early. What about early June, does -- how does 

13 -- early June?

14 DR. ROESSLER: I'm gone June 6th through 13th to the 

15 Ukraine, but I'd rather come here.

16 DR. ZIEMER: The week of June 1st?

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Staff looks okay.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Staff appears to be okay. Let's go ahead and 

19 pencil in --

20 DR. MELIUS: The latter part of that week.

21 DR. ANDRADE: Memorial Day's the 31st.

22 DR. MELIUS: And I've got some commitments on June 1st.
225 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps the 3rd and 4th -- 3rd and 4th, is 

2 that bad if you're leaving for --

3 DR. ROESSLER: I have to leave on the 6th, but I --

4 DR. ZIEMER: Can't do it? 2nd and 3rd? No? Tentatively 

5 2nd and 3rd of June? What about location? Do we have any 

6 locations that we have talked about that -- I'm trying to 

7 remember.

8 DR. MELIUS: We've talked about the San Francisco area, 

9 we've talked about Pantex, we've talked about Buffalo 

10 area.

11 MR. PRESLEY: We've got a lot of little places up around 

12 Buffalo. That part of the year would be -- the weather 

13 wouldn't be too bad up there.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Barely, right?

15 DR. ROESSLER: Pantex would already be hot.

16 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, Pantex would be hot by then.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Any preferences?

18 DR. ROESSLER: How do you get to Buffalo?

19 DR. MELIUS: Barely. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Would you like to try Buffalo? Okay, 

21 Buffalo, we'll see what you can find there.

22 UNIDENTIFIED: The 2nd and 3rd. Right?
226 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MS. MUNN: San Francisco?

3 MS. HOMER: San Francisco as an alternate?

4 DR. ZIEMER: San Francisco alternate?

5 MR. ESPINOSA: Sure, baseball.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Now, Rich, we want to make sure everybody 

7 knows this is a serious --

8 MR. ESPINOSA: How about Boise, Idaho?

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Idaho's another area that we need to 

10 consider, and --

11 DR. ANDERSON: 'Cause the next week after that, the week 

12 of the 7th, is the (Inaudible) epidemiologists' meeting 

13 (Inaudible) be there.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Actually how would the group feel about 

15 making Boise the alternate for Buffalo if --

16 UNIDENTIFIED: What about Idaho Falls?

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Boise or Idaho Falls, really.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Which is easier to get to, Idaho Falls --

19 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) It's easier to get to 

20 (Inaudible).

21 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Idaho Falls has 

22 (Inaudible) service.
227 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ROESSLER: What is -- it's easier to get to Boise?

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Idaho Falls would be fine.

3 (Whereupon, the Board discussed alternate venue for the 

4 proposed meeting.)

5 DR. ZIEMER: Does Idaho count as east coast? I guess it 

6 does to people in Richland. That's right out here by Cape 

7 Cod, isn't it?

8 Okay. I'm reluctant to -- too much beyond June till we 

9 see where we are with the contract. Are you okay just --

10 at that point or do you want to reserve another date? You

11 okay?

12 DR. MELIUS: I think if we -- if we --

13 DR. ZIEMER: We have two meetings ahead.

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and also if we figure out the contract 

15 issues and so forth and pin down the meetings, we can always 

16 (Inaudible) calendar and do it by e-mail and (Inaudible) 

17 meeting. I think we've talked about a number of potential 

18 locations, so...

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good.

20 MS. MUNN: So where are we going in May?

21 DR. ZIEMER: May will be Buffalo, first choice.

22 UNIDENTIFIED: May or June?
228 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: That's actually June. It's June 2nd and 3rd. 

2 Boise's the alternate -- or Idaho Falls.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Idaho Falls would be better. It's closer 

4 to the site, if anybody wanted to go to the site. 

5 Buffalo's 300-plus miles away.

6 DR. ZIEMER: It's all the same to the people in Hanford. 

7 Right?

8 Okay. Are we ready to go ahead with our working session? 

9 We have a number of items -- go ahead, Mark.

10 MR. GRIFFON: Just one more housekeeping thing. I 

11 brought it up with Larry yesterday, but maybe he could just 

12 update the Board on the IMBA software and the availability 

13 for the Board members.

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. We are still working on the 

15 end-user's license agreement for the IMBA-NIOSH Expert 

16 software. This is a new software program that we've had 

17 Tony James and NRP develop for us. There's one more 

18 remaining deliverable on that, another -- one aspect or 

19 piece of the software that we have yet to receive, and the 

20 license -- end-user's license agreement has to cover the 

21 Board, Sanford Cohen & Associates, as well as ORAU. Right 

22 now the current end-user's agreement that we have only 
229 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 covers ORAU, and so we're working through the legal aspects 

2 of that. So that's where we're at. We're working to try 

3 to finalize that end-user's license agreement. As soon 

4 as we have it in place, you'll have it.

5 DR. MELIUS: Can I -- two issues. One is for the next --

6 agenda for the next meeting in Hanford, and I really would 

7 like us to talk about the Blockson Chemical issue. I think 

8 we at least need a presentation on what's happening with 

9 that, and I think it's an issue related to sort of the basic 

10 methodology and guidelines for what happens in terms of 

11 dose reconstruction. And I don't know if I completely 

12 understand it, but I think we certainly -- there's enough 

13 information we have, and since NIOSH is moving ahead with 

14 completing dose reconstructions for a number of the 

15 claimants, I think -- we may be too late, but I think we 

16 really do need to get that out there and discuss it and 

17 at least get it addressed. So I ask that you put that on 

18 the agenda for the next meeting.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Is that do-able?

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't know if it's do-able or not. 

21 We'll have to see where we're at within -- at that point 

22 in time in the evaluation of how we're going to handle that 
230 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 issue.

2 DR. MELIUS: Well, Larry, I beg to differ. I don't think 

3 it matters where you are. I think as a Board we're 

4 supposed to advise you on guidance on dose reconstruction. 

5 This is not a rule-making. If it's a rule-making, tell 

6 us. It's a issue that we should provide you advice on and 

7 I see no need to delay that while you make up your mind. 

8 We're --

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, the Secretary -- you advise the 

10 Secretary and the Secretary sets your agenda. And if the 

11 Secretary decides that at this point in time it would be 

12 appropriate to present the issue for consultation, he 

13 will. But I can't -- I can't predict whether that will 

14 happen or not.

15 DR. MELIUS: I disagree. The Secretary does not set our 

16 agenda. We are charged -- and if you read the original 

17 statue, we are really charged with providing guidance on 

18 a number of specific issues in the original statute, and 

19 we do not -- providing guidance on those issues that --

20 we provide them to the Secretary and through the Secretary, 

21 but the Secretary does not set our agenda for what those 

22 issues are. There are a number of other areas that you 
231 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 may ask us for advice on through the Secretary, and that 

2 -- that is at your discretion. But I think things related 

3 to the original guidance, guidelines for dose 

4 reconstruction -- written right in the statute and those 

5 are what we're supposed to provide you with advice on.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments on that particular issue? 

7 I'm assuming that there -- aside from issues of where the 

8 Agency is, there's a general interest in the underlying 

9 issue that that plant represents so that perhaps even a 

10 briefing on how one goes about addressing those kinds of 

11 issues would be of value. Perhaps -- I don't think there's 

12 any implication that the Board is necessarily smarter than 

13 the staff. The idea here is to make sure that those 

14 issues, as they're -- in a sense, as they struggle through 

15 those issues, that if we can be of help there, that would 

16 be good, too. I think it's -- I think the suggestion is 

17 in the spirit of helping, to the extent that we can, on 

18 addressing that issue.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: And I appreciate that. I agree, the 

20 expressed interest is in the spirit of helping. But I 

21 disagree that -- the Secretary does set the agenda, and 

22 it's -- you know, we can point to the language of that.
232 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Let's go ahead with our working 

2 session, which deals with the SCA contract. We have with 

3 us two of the -- oh --

4 DR. MELIUS: I have one other issue I wanted to bring up.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, sure.

6 DR. MELIUS: Which is -- the last meeting we briefly 

7 discussed a letter that came in from three Congressmen in 

8 western New York regarding the Bethlehem Steel dose 

9 reconstruction, and --

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I would put that under the general 

11 discussion area. That's not a housekeeping issue, I don't 

12 think.

13 DR. MELIUS: Fine.

14 DR. ZIEMER: I did ask Cori to make a copy -- I brought 

15 the original with me and Cori has distributed copies of 

16 my response to the Congressmen and to Secretary Thompson. 

17 And if there's no objection, we'll discuss that in the 

18 other session at roughly 10:00 o'clock.

19 We have the principals here from SCA --

20 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, can I ask one question related to --

21 I know we'll discuss it later, but do we have a copy of 

22 the original letter that came from the Congressmen --
233 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: I thought that --

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- (Inaudible) the Board?

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- that was distributed at the last meeting.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: It was passed out at the last meeting. I 

5 don't think we have --

6 DR. ZIEMER: I have copies --

7 MR. ELLIOTT: -- reference copies --

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- of it here, if any of you --

9 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) copy of it if 

10 Cori wants to (Inaudible).

11 DR. ZIEMER: How many need copies of the original? 

12 Several do, okay. We'll get those run off. Okay.

13 BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION FOR 

14 SANFORD COHEN AND ASSOCIATES

15 Now we will be discussing the task order proposal in closed 

16 session this afternoon. This morning we're discussing 

17 issues relating specifically to the tasks that have 

18 already been awarded and general issues. John Mauro is 

19 here. Joe Fitzgerald is here. And John and Joe, I'm 

20 wondering if it would be useful for you to maybe pull around 

21 to the front here and -- do we have a mike that they can 

22 use? Maybe -- maybe this one. Do we have a portable mike 
234 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that could be used by these gentlemen? Yes, we do.

2 Yeah, Joe and John, why don't you just pull a couple of 

3 chairs in the front there and you can share that portable 

4 mike. You don't necessarily have to stand -- huh? He's 

5 going to give you a mike. He's going to give you a mike. 

6 Do you need a podium?

7 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) I could use the tabletop.

8 DR. ZIEMER: You're welcome to use the podium, if you wish. 

9 Is that easier?

10 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we'll pull the podium over.

12 (Pause)

13 DR. ZIEMER: John, I believe it would be in order if you 

14 would like to begin the discussion with points and issues 

15 that -- and concerns or questions that you might have, and 

16 I'll kind of let you take the lead here at this point.

17 DR. MAURO: Fine, thank you. I appreciate that. Joe and

18 I --

19 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not getting a feed.

20 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) -- had a chance to --

21 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) That mike's not working.

22 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Hold it closer or --
235 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Hold it closer or put it in the stand and raise 

2 the stand up a little bit. Oh, it won't fit.

3 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) It's not working?

4 (Pause)

5 DR. MAURO: We got it. Okay, thank you. I sat through 

6 yesterday's meeting and also the day before yesterday SC&A 

7 did receive official authorization to begin work on task 

8 two, which is the site profile reviews, and task four, 

9 which is the -- I guess the tracking system relational 

10 database. As a point of confusion, I have been informed 

11 by contracts that it turns out that those two tasks, which 

12 we have all been calling task two and task four, 

13 administratively -- according to -- when we put in our 

14 progress reports -- are actually going to be called tasks 

15 one and two because they came in first and second -- just 

16 to avoid confusion. But I'm going to continue, since I see 

17 everyone is comfortable with the two and four reference, 

18 we'll continue with the tasks two and four.

19 Now let's first talk a little bit about -- I'm going to 

20 talk more, as the program manager for SC&A, on some high 

21 level or global issues. And Joe certainly is here, who 

22 is our task manager for task two on site profiles, and we'll 
236 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 get down a little bit into the more of the specific issues 

2 with Joe. So -- and I have a few notes that I took 

3 yesterday -- a little scrambled, so it's almost like a 

4 little freewheeling thoughts that have gone through my 

5 head -- spinning through my head, but I -- I'm going to 

6 sort of unload them a little bit.

7 First let's talk about our first deliverable, which is a 

8 report that's going to be due to you -- or really two 

9 reports -- one month from the day before yesterday. The 

10 first deliverable is going to be our proposed plan or 

11 procedure for performing our review of the site profiles. 

12 The other one is going to be a description of the relational 

13 database for tracking information and querying to support 

14 you in evaluating the degree to which your stratified 

15 sampling is meeting your needs. I'll talk about both of 

16 those briefly.

17 With regard to the first deliverable, which is this 

18 procedure, in our proposal we laid out our approach for 

19 performing site profile reviews. And in fact, we 

20 identified -- in about seven or eight pages -- our plan 

21 for doing that work. And it's a generic plan. It 

22 identifies in effect four areas that we're going to 
237 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 explore. It's almost like sub-tasks on the things that 

2 we plan to do. I'm sure you've all had a chance to look 

3 them over.

4 What dawned on me yesterday -- or day before yesterday --

5 is I read through the -- just randomly select -- not 

6 randomly. I selected the site profile for Savannah River, 

7 which appears to be a fairly complete document and I 

8 believe one of the documents that is very mature, and went 

9 through it. And one of the things that struck me was that 

10 it was not -- it was a little different than I thought it 

11 would be. And one of the things that struck me regarding 

12 our deliverable -- now I sort of married that knowledge 

13 I gained from reading the site profile with our plan to 

14 -- for our first deliverable, and it struck me that I think 

15 we're going to have to write plans. And I'm throwing this 

16 onto the table and to Joe, also, for consideration. I 

17 think our plans for performing site profiles need, to some 

18 degree, be site-specific. Each site, it would appear, is 

19 very -- most sites -- many of the sites, very complex. The 

20 amount of technical information of potential importance 

21 and potential not importance is not immediately apparent 

22 of course until you go through the process of evaluating 
238 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 how important the information is. So we're -- we are going 

2 to have to be efficient in zeroing in and delving into 

3 aspects of each of these site profiles in a way that is 

4 very focused.

5 So my first thought is that our plans that we'll be 

6 submitting to you -- I'd like them, as the project manager, 

7 to keep control and keep focused and hold onto budget and 

8 schedule, is to write a plan that's of a generic nature, 

9 almost like an umbrella plan, but have an attachment to 

10 it that would specifically identify the strategies we 

11 currently think are the best strategies for coming at, for 

12 example, the site profile for Savannah River 'cause it 

13 contains certain information, when I look at it, that says 

14 where I think -- and this becomes a judgment call based 

15 on experience -- where the most important information 

16 lies, the places where -- it's almost like within our 

17 mandate and the time scale and the budget, we can't do an 

18 exhaustive evaluation of every aspect that might be of 

19 importance.

20 Now I'm looking for reaction to this. I think we have to 

21 be judicious in where we invest our resources so that we 

22 go after those things that we believe are -- are 
239 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 prioritized.

2 Now here's one of my concerns. My experience in doing work 

3 like this is it's a very iterative process. You dig. You 

4 step back, you look at what you have. You speak to your 

5 client, this is what I'm seeing. And I think, based on 

6 what I'm seeing, we're going to move a little more in this 

7 direction versus that direction. And you step back and 

8 it's an -- it's an iterative process. It's not a linear 

9 process because you're growing as you proceed and you're 

10 realizing where your resources need to be focused.

11 Now one of my concerns is that -- I think Joe and I need 

12 the flexibility to make those judgments as we mature and 

13 move through the process. So though we will write a plan 

14 that we will deliver to you at the end of the month that 

15 will lay out, on a general approach, how we plan to do it, 

16 but also -- and I'd like to propose this -- we plan to try 

17 to make it tailored to the site profiles that you folks 

18 identify you would like us to take on initially. Okay? 

19 As best we can. But at the same time, I beg your indulgence 

20 that as we move through it and as we learn and get smarter, 

21 we will keep you apprised of the directions that -- that 

22 the information is taking us. So it's going to be a living 
240 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 process.

2 However, I think it's important that we have the freedom 

3 and flexibility to move down the paths that we consider 

4 to be important. We will certainly keep you apprised of 

5 it. And if at any point in the process you feel that it's 

6 -- we're taking a path that perhaps the Board is 

7 uncomfortable with, you think that maybe it's not the best 

8 path to take or you're (sic) ignoring a path that you feel 

9 might be important -- here's where a collegial 

10 relationship is important to us, but I also realize that 

11 we have a very formal process here whereby approvals need 

12 to go through a process. So I'm at a little bit of a -- a 

13 little bit off-balance here because I like the idea of the 

14 interactive, but I also don't want to have hold points 

15 unnecessarily.

16 So I think I'd like -- I guess my first point to be made 

17 is that we have to learn together where the hold points 

18 are important, where we have to stop until you folks have 

19 a chance to deliberate, but where we're allowed to continue 

20 based on our judgment. We will always inform you of any 

21 direction we're taking that might be substantively 

22 different than what we originally laid out in the plan that 
241 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 you'll receive a month from now. I guess that's the first 

2 point I wanted to make.

3 DR. ZIEMER: John, do you want the Board to comment or 

4 react as you proceed here?

5 DR. MAURO: I very much would like --

6 DR. ZIEMER: Or ask questions -- okay. Let's -- on that 

7 point -- Tony.

8 DR. ANDRADE: John, and also for the members of the Board, 

9 based on your comments and my own thinking as of yesterday, 

10 I wholeheartedly agree with the general direction in which 

11 you'd like to push forward on. I don't think the criteria 

12 like the numbers of employees that have filed are 

13 necessarily -- I don't believe that that particular 

14 criterion is necessarily a good one at this particular 

15 point in time. I believe that you, contractor, would 

16 perhaps feel better getting on board that learning curve 

17 with addressing perhaps a site that had a limited number 

18 of functions -- perhaps a manufacturing function or 

19 something like that -- rather than jumping into say Los 

20 Alamos, that has everything from theoretical physics to 

21 plutonium work. So it's my belief that the Board should 

22 consider something like that for a site that we believe 
242 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 is important.

2 DR. ZIEMER: As we proceed here, you're simply hearing 

3 comments that do not constitute official direction from 

4 the Board. Your task is (off microphone) your task. You 

5 are to come with us -- to us in one month with a proposal. 

6 You are reflecting some thoughts about that right now --

7 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, he's off-mike.

8 DR. ZIEMER: (Off microphone) -- about the nature of what 

9 that will look like. I don't think that we can, in any 

10 definitive --

11 Oh, I lost the contact. I don't think, in any definitive 

12 way, that we can comment beyond some sort of general 

13 reactions and so on. Certainly the plan, if it's to be 

14 a plan that covers, conceptually, the whole gamut of site 

15 profiles, has to be a generic umbrella thing. And I think 

16 we understand that there may be specifics that would apply 

17 to one facility that might not apply to other facilities. 

18 And I presume the plan would spell out how you would get 

19 at what those would be for a Savannah River versus a 

20 Bethlehem Steel or something like that.

21 DR. MAURO: Well, that's -- that brings me -- in order for 

22 us to take the approach that I'd like to take, namely have 
243 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 an over-arching plan but have an addendum to it that 

2 explicitly addresses our plan for a particular facility, 

3 it would mean that very shortly you would need to provide 

4 us with direction on which ones you'd like us to begin with. 

5 I realize we have a list. There's a potential for as many 

6 as I believe ten to 12 DOE and two to four AWEs. The sooner 

7 -- in light of my thinking now, the sooner we have an 

8 initial list of the two, three, four, five that would --

9 you'd like us to begin with, the -- it will -- it will allow 

10 us in our next -- in our first deliverable, to address those 

11 specific ones so that -- 'cause that's where the rubber 

12 meets the road. If that's possible, that would be very 

13 helpful. Otherwise what we're going to deliver to you is 

14 going to be, quite frankly, of limited -- I hate to say 

15 this, but -- it will give you a general idea of how we're 

16 going to come at the problem, but I think more importantly 

17 is we need specific ideas on how we're going to come at 

18 the problem because we're on a track that we're trying to 

19 be highly efficient. And how we see efficiency and how 

20 we apply our resources is going to be unique to each 

21 facility. So I'd like to request a --

22 DR. ZIEMER: I think based on our discussion yesterday, 
244 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 it was our hope that we would have some of those yet 

2 identified at this meeting, as I recall.

3 Mark, comment?

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think the general approach that you 

5 described is consistent with what we were thinking and the 

6 over-arching plan I think is the deliverable. The only 

7 thing I would say is that the site-specific plan -- I tend 

8 to agree with you in that I think the site-specific plans 

9 -- you can get more specific, but I think there is going 

10 to be some iterative, you know, actions as you move through 

11 the process, so I'm not sure -- I guess -- I guess what 

12 I'm sort of saying is I'd hate to see a lot of time and 

13 man-hours spent on those site-specific plans, especially 

14 if there's going to be a lot of iterative, you know -- as 

15 you move along through the process. So -- but I think the 

16 deliverable, as we laid it out, is that first sort of 

17 umbrella, generic plan that would give you the flexibility 

18 to adapt on different sites as you need to -- you know, 

19 as you see fit.

20 DR. MAURO: That being the case -- that being the case, 

21 what I'm hearing is -- at least an initial impression --

22 is that our first deliverable will be a generic plan. But 
245 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 then as we are authorized to proceed with particular 

2 profiles, particular sites, it probably would be a good 

3 idea for us to -- when we have our internal meetings, to 

4 lay out -- to draw upon our resources, our people. How 

5 we're going to break it up -- I could -- right now I have 

6 a very clear idea in my mind, for example, on Savannah 

7 River, how would I come -- how I would do that. When we 

8 get to that point, we'd probably want to inform you of that 

9 and may-- and how -- and we will deliver something to you 

10 to say this is our plan. Now whether that would be 

11 considered a deliverable as part of our initial plan 

12 procedure or just something that's part of a monthly 

13 progress report or -- or some interim reports, just to keep 

14 you apprised -- perhaps that's the best way to go. It 

15 keeps it simpler. Anyway, those are some thoughts.

16 I move on to my second thought. When we -- and I'm not 

17 too sure of the extent that we should talk about budget 

18 here, and when I say "budget", I mean work hour allocation 

19 and the way we do our work. We have gone through a 

20 negotiation process as -- and we're at a point where that 

21 process is fairly mature. And one of the things is the 

22 relationship between the four tasks. Though we proposed 
246 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 each task as a separate item and they are being authorized 

2 independently, I see them as fully integrated activities. 

3 And I'm going to give you a very important perspective, 

4 in my opinion, in terms of having -- in having effects on 

5 efficiency, cost and schedule.

6 Let's say we receive a batch of cases that need to be 

7 processed, either basic, advanced or one of the two blind 

8 dose reconstructions. Let's say we get approval next week 

9 and a batch shows up. Okay? Now, visualize we're going 

10 to assign the appropriate people, either strong internal 

11 dosimetrists, neutron dosimetry, external dosimetry, 

12 whatever the needs are, we will have a team of people. And 

13 whether it's an advanced review or a basic review, we'll 

14 have a team of people working the problem. But I'm 

15 starting to realize from conversations during breaks and 

16 during -- with individual members of the Board, that a lot 

17 -- a lot of the dose reconstruction for the individual 

18 cases is drawing from the site profiles. That is, the site 

19 profiles are becoming very important documents.

20 Now what this means to me is that I envision -- let's say 

21 it's me doing a review of a case, and I realize that I'm 

22 going to have to draw upon information that's in the site 
247 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 profile. Now here's the -- here's the -- the catch-22. 

2 Let's say for the moment that that site profile is not one 

3 of the site profiles that Joe is reviewing. Okay, here

4 I am doing a case -- I'll use Savannah River as an example 

5 -- and I'm working it, but I say I need help from Joe on 

6 the site profile. And the way in which we budgeted our 

7 program was that's going to be available to me. That is, 

8 I'm going to be able to go say Joe, I'm looking at this 

9 person that worked at this location at this time. I have 

10 this bioassay data, or I don't; help me out a little bit 

11 here regarding the mix of radionuclides, chemical forms, 

12 any -- any information you have on CAMs and RAMs --

13 continuous air monitors and radiation area monitors --

14 data that might be available in the database because that's 

15 going to help me validate, check or fill out my ability 

16 to review the dose reconstruction. So there's a 

17 presumption here. The presumption is while I'm working 

18 out a case at Savannah River, Joe is going to be working 

19 on the site profile, Savannah River. If that's not the 

20 case, I'm at a loss. So one of the criteria when you select 

21 your cases and you select your site profiles, as an 

22 operational -- from my -- from an operational perspective, 
248 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 they should be coupled so that I could draw upon that in 

2 an efficient way. Because the alternative is then me, as 

3 the reviewer of a case, I will have to do my own review 

4 of the site profile, independent of Joe, which is an 

5 inefficient way to do it. That is, I would -- it --

6 certainly what I do will be -- add value eventually when 

7 Joe gets to that, or when he's authorized to do that, but 

8 I see that as being an efficient way to run it.

9 Similarly, though task three has not yet been approved --

10 task three, by the way, is the review of the procedures, 

11 OCAS-1 and two and all the other procedures that ORAU has 

12 developed. Now, again, there's going to be a process 

13 where we're reviewing -- from a generic point of view, not 

14 as they apply to a particular case -- those procedures. 

15 The degree to which those reviews are ongoing while I'm 

16 doing my case review -- there is a synergy that will occur. 

17 I'm envisioning a synergy where we have several minds 

18 simultaneously working different aspects of a problem, one 

19 group looking at the procedures that are being use-- have 

20 been used or have been designed for use in doing dose 

21 reconstruction; another group -- Joe's group doing site 

22 profile review while I'm doing my -- or our team is doing 
249 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a basic review or an advanced review. If they're moving 

2 together in lock-step with continuous communication, the 

3 efficiencies will be incredible. If they're not, we're 

4 going to lose a lot of efficiency and it's going to have 

5 cost and schedule implications. So that's an 

6 observation.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Let me interject that I think it certainly 

8 was the Board's view and the working groups view that these 

9 four tasks are in a sense integrated in the fashion that 

10 you talk about. At the same time, recognize that in the 

11 sampling process I don't think a priori one could guarantee 

12 that a given dose reconstruction would -- that's being 

13 reviewed would be from a site that has been selected for 

14 site profile review, so --

15 DR. MAURO: I understand that, but -- it's a complex 

16 problem --

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: -- but we'll manage it, but these are some 

19 thoughts.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but let's -- there's another comment. 

21 Jim?

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to follow up on that, I think that, 
250 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 given the way that NIOSH is doing the individual dose 

2 reconstructions, they do -- as I understand it, they do 

3 a site profile, then they do a number of individual dose 

4 reconstructions. So just on a random basis, it's likely 

5 they'll overlap.

6 I think as we charge you with doing dose reconstructions 

7 and develop a way of making that selection, it is possible 

8 in the future we may want to focus some of the individual 

9 dose reconstructions away from facilities that had site 

10 profile or things. But I think in that case we should 

11 inform you ahead of time as you're, you know, responding 

12 as to how those cases will be drawn, or at least some more 

13 specific information on that. Again, that's one of the 

14 reasons that -- some of the changes in the approaches we've 

15 made on these tasks.

16 DR. MAURO: Therein mind our budget, our work hour 

17 allocation per case, presumed that they would be working 

18 as a couple. If they're decoupled, we do run the risk of 

19 some inefficiencies. We actually costed (sic) out the 

20 work hour allocation assuming optimum efficiency, okay? 

21 So bear -- I'm already being a project manager, recognize 

22 that we -- there are some, you know, loop -- places where 
251 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 we could run at these kinds of problems.

2 Another observation -- I have two more observations, then 

3 I'm going to turn it over to Joe. Okay?

4 When I reviewed the Savannah River site profile, I presumed 

5 that the -- all of the site profiles will have the same 

6 fundamental organization. Let me just reiterate it to 

7 you. One is that you first look at the medical expo-- in 

8 this case, after the introduction there's the medical 

9 exposure records, review that carefully. That's, in my 

10 opinion, fairly straightforward. Once you understand the 

11 time and the type of equipment that was used, the protocols 

12 are pretty clear, in my mind, as a health physicist. And 

13 we have the staff -- medical health physicist -- we're 

14 okay. We're okay.

15 Environ-- now here -- the second one is the occu--

16 environmental occupational exposures. That is releases 

17 that occur from a facility that may expose some of the 

18 construction workers that we heard from yesterday. I 

19 noticed that what -- what was done -- well -- with regard 

20 to that issue is to draw upon the work that was done by 

21 RAC, Risk Assessment Corporation. That is, they did the 

22 reconstruction of the source terms, airborne emissions 
252 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 from the facility for the purpose of doing off-site dose 

2 calculations, dose reconstruction. And certainly that 

3 very same source term information is of value for 

4 evaluating on-site by using appropriate meteorological 

5 models.

6 What I guess I was expecting was that these documents would 

7 go down -- go to source -- original source documents. That 

8 is -- in -- in effect, by using -- and this is by no means 

9 a criticism, but in effect you're using a tertiary level 

10 document. That is, when you look at records -- I've been 

11 involved in a lot of off-site dose reconstruction work, 

12 and when you go into the literature you find a hierarchy 

13 of documents. There are very high level documents that 

14 represent summary level information. And then there are 

15 intermediate level doc-- then you get right down to the 

16 -- the strip charts. Okay? You get down to the nuts and 

17 bolts. My sense is, and here's where I'd like to see what 

18 your reaction is, we're going to use our judgment of when 

19 do we go down into the bowels of the problem; where -- when 

20 do we think that -- I'm not just going to trust some 

21 tertiary document as being a correct and complete 

22 representation. I'm going to go down -- because I've done 
253 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 this before, and I've found lots of surprises. So our plan 

2 is when we think it's important -- and here's where things 

3 get interesting. When we think it's important -- for 

4 example, let's say we're talking about the dose to a 

5 construction worker from an airborne emission from a 

6 particular facility at a particular time, inhalation 

7 exposure to airborne plutonium or cesium or noble gas. 

8 When we feel as if that particular scenario might be an 

9 important contributor to dose, we're going to dip in from 

10 working up here to working down there, and keep you 

11 informed. How much of that we're going to have to do, we 

12 don't know. So here we have another cost and schedule 

13 issue. It's a living process.

14 Now -- so we're -- we're going to -- we're going to keep 

15 you apprised of that, so we're not simply going to go back 

16 and take a look and say oh, okay, yeah, they -- they --

17 they used the RAC work correctly. Here's the RAC numbers, 

18 here's the source terms, the times, yep. So we're going 

19 to check that. That's -- that's standard quality control. 

20 But then there is the more probing analysis, do we believe 

21 that source term. So that's our plan. I'm hoping that 

22 you agree with that 'cause that's the only way to do this.
254 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Finally --

2 DR. ZIEMER: Let's again allow a moment for comments. I 

3 think Jim has one and I have one here. Oh, you don't.

4 Well, what you've described for us is in fact an audit 

5 procedure.

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

7 DR. ZIEMER: And it's not something we necessarily have 

8 to approve today. I think your plan will include 

9 something along the lines of what you just described to 

10 us. And in an audit procedure, a certain amount of that 

11 probing -- and then you see what your results are and report 

12 those back.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 DR. ZIEMER: You know, we probed down, we pulled the string 

15 here, here and here, and in all cases things made -- were 

16 fine or in all cases it didn't make sense, or some 

17 distribution in between there. And based on that, then 

18 the Board can say well, there's some issue here. And 

19 certainly even that kind of audit procedure doesn't have 

20 to be 100 percent audit. You selectively, based on 

21 judgments and so on, start pulling those strings where --

22 where it's appropriate.
255 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MAURO: But you --

2 DR. ZIEMER: And I assume your plan will describe to us 

3 what you --

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, but you see how this is an open-ended 

5 process.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

7 DR. MAURO: And we'll keep you apprised. And when we 

8 think we're going to run into cost and schedule issues 

9 because of this 'cause we take -- we go where the 

10 information takes us, and so we're -- we're very vulnerable 

11 in terms of well, you know -- and we'll give you our reasons 

12 why we're going where we're going and -- and I -- but I 

13 guess in a way we're not going to be seeking approval if 

14 -- at any point -- we'll keep you apprised, and if you feel 

15 that what we plan to do, you're -- for some reason there 

16 are problems with it, then I think certainly intervene, 

17 say no, don't do that, we don't -- regroup and give you 

18 further direction. But right now my plan is to keep you 

19 apprised, but to keep the train on the tracks and keep it 

20 going.

21 Another observation having to do -- well, two more and I'll 

22 be done. When I read chapters in the Savannah River report 
256 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 dealing with occupational exposure, internal and 

2 external, I was expecting to see databases of records, of 

3 either -- bioassay data, records -- the -- database upon 

4 database upon databases of air -- radiation area monitors, 

5 continuous air monitor data. In other words, just 

6 enormous -- an ocean of data that represents location and 

7 time when the material was collected.

8 What is there is something a little different. It really 

9 is almost a -- a guide to the dose reconstructor to help 

10 him fill in gaps, understand what the minimum detectable 

11 levels are, understand what mixes to assume, what chemical 

12 forms to assume. In other words, it's almost as if it's 

13 a helper, as opposed to a database. Okay? I think that's 

14 good that it -- you know, I guess my reaction was that's 

15 good that-- but as an auditor that's trying to 

16 independently evaluate, I sure would like that database. 

17 Is there anything going on to compile that kind of data? 

18 I mean we're talking about the tons of -- of -- the big 

19 spreadsheets of Excel databases which show, as a function 

20 of time and location, individual measurements -- whether 

21 it's bioassay or airborne radionuclide particulate or it's 

22 radiation area monitors that are taken by location as a 
257 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 function of time and put into a database. That, to me, 

2 is an important information. Now --

3 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know that we'll answer that 

4 specifically today, but that -- as you get underway now, 

5 you will have an opportunity in fact to see a lot of 

6 underlying data that's beyond what's in the immediate 

7 report.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay.

9 DR. ZIEMER: And that's one of the things we'll want you 

10 to become familiar with is what all the supporting 

11 databases are for these things.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, so --

13 DR. ZIEMER: And what's there and what isn't there.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 DR. ZIEMER: And you know, if -- if you, as our auditors, 

16 have some judgments on adequacy or lack thereof of some 

17 -- at some site, that could be part of a report.

18 DR. MAURO: One of the --

19 DR. MELIUS: Can I just --

20 DR. ZIEMER: One other comment here.

21 DR. MELIUS: Can I just follow up on that, because I 

22 thought Jim Neton answered this question partially or in 
258 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 his presentation yesterday and so forth, and I don't know 

2 where -- I thought he had referred to the fact that they 

3 do have this compilation of information, dose -- exposure 

4 information or whatever. It's not necessarily referenced 

5 in the document, and --

6 DR. ZIEMER: That's why I say I think once you're into 

7 beyond what's on the web site, once the contractor has 

8 access to all those records, then you can perhaps make a 

9 better judgment on what additional things you think are 

10 needed or maybe you'll feel it's adequate and so forth.

11 DR. MELIUS: But just to follow up on that, and maybe it's 

12 -- maybe you've thought of it already, but it -- for NIOSH, 

13 in producing these documents, it seems to be a common 

14 question, a common concern that people have is why isn't 

15 this information look-- referenced, and it may very well 

16 have been looked at and in some sense utilized, it's just 

17 not printed there as a reference. And maybe that's 

18 something you ought to consider adding to those documents 

19 as a way of just, you know, showing what kind of a guidance, 

20 you know, this is and what other information's available. 

21 I'm not familiar with the details to know how practical 

22 that is, but it -- you know, it might be helpful. It might 
259 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 be -- for other people as they're looking at these 

2 documents, also.

3 DR. MAURO: Last point has to do with the other 

4 deliverable, the tracking system. I was speaking to Don 

5 Loomis, who is the database manager task leader on that, 

6 and re-- he knew -- told him I was coming to this meeting 

7 today, and there -- in his -- his view is that there are 

8 no boundaries on how many fields we can handle, any kind 

9 of queries you want. But what would be helpful is the --

10 is when we build the relational database that we put in 

11 all of the fields and all of the types of reports built 

12 into the system. Now -- that was part -- it was -- that's 

13 -- the other deliverable a month from now is that program. 

14 So we already have a list. We understand from your 

15 request, your torp, and from our proposal what we do plan 

16 to put in there. But I plan to put a lot more in there, 

17 and let me explain what I mean.

18 For example, all of our project management data where tak--

19 we took each task, one, two, three, four, and we're 

20 breaking them down into subtasks and sub-subtasks. For 

21 example, on task two, the site profile work, we expect to 

22 have a number of site profiles. Each site profile's going 
260 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to have its own point number for tracking costs. Each case 

2 that comes in on task one is going to have its own point 

3 number for tracking costs so that as a project manager I 

4 understand where the money is going and why. If there are 

5 -- in a similar way -- I guess what I'm -- I'm asking you 

6 is that anything that you want to do, I don't care what 

7 it is, related to queries and sorting of data and reports 

8 that you'd like to be able to elicit from this database, 

9 we can handle. But the sooner you give it to us, the 

10 better. We could revise it later, but it's a little more 

11 difficult, I'm told, to do it after the fact than before.

12 And I guess that concludes my I guess initial reaction to 

13 things. If there are any questions --

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, further questions? Joe, do you have 

15 additional comments or items you want to add to...

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, John. Well, it's good to 

17 finally be here after some years. I think John covered 

18 the highlights, but one thing I want to just mention --

19 I'm very comfortable with the task, very comfortable with 

20 the touchpoints in the task, but I want to emphasize that, 

21 you know, to me, this is really doing a vertical sampling, 

22 boring down and asking probably questions that if you were 
261 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 doing a horizontal -- and getting the necessary as opposed 

2 to maybe totally sufficient data for dose reconstruction, 

3 you might not get to or might judge that you might not need. 

4 And when you do the vertical and you push down and you 

5 actually get beyond what's on the shelf, what the paper 

6 says, then you get into situations where you will be asking 

7 for data, you'll be probably wanting to interview people 

8 that haven't been touched by the process to date. And from 

9 some limited experience over 20 years, that's going to 

10 enjoin probably some challenges that we will bring back 

11 to you in the way of access, the way of perhaps getting 

12 information. I know that's been some of the experience 

13 to date. But I think doing this kind of review is probably 

14 going to engender more of those kinds of challenges in 

15 terms of getting to the right kind of information and 

16 digging into areas that haven't been dug into. I've done 

17 it my entire career, so I know what's involved in doing 

18 that, and persistence will pay. But I just want to sort 

19 of lay that observation -- it's not a question for the 

20 Board, but just an awareness of what -- what's involved 

21 when one truly does a vertical sampling to answer the hard 

22 question of adequacy and completeness. And that's the 
262 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 -- sort of the tail end of necessary and sufficient. We're 

2 answering a sufficiency question. And so that's -- that's 

3 something that I think as we go into this it'll become 

4 clearer what -- where we might need your role perhaps in 

5 some cases with the Department of Energy, where we might 

6 need some clarification as to, you know, how deep does the 

7 vertical go in some cases. But I'm pretty comfortable 

8 definitely with the scope and the tenets and certainly 

9 we'll be able to articulate a plan that will reflect what 

10 we proposed in the beginning, and also what it's going to 

11 take to answer that question. And I certainly do 

12 understand the challenges that NIOSH and ORAU have 

13 undergone in terms of doing this -- the necessary part, 

14 but this is going to be a -- certainly a somewhat different 

15 process. And you know, the question of access to 

16 information, access to people, workers, all that, I think 

17 will be certainly decidedly answered by our first forays 

18 into this. So that's -- that's really my only 

19 observation.

20 I think John covered some of the more tactical questions, 

21 but sort of on the 30,000 foot level, that's -- that's going 

22 to be, I think, the biggest challenge and the question of 
263 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 how we can deliver that for you and intend to deliver that 

2 for you. So thank you very much.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Joe.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Any questions?

5 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see if there's any questions for Joe. 

6 Jim?

7 DR. MELIUS: I have a -- I'm not sure who it's for, but 

8 in terms -- in -- I'm not familiar with the details of what 

9 you've been awarded, or at least -- or I don't recall them, 

10 but the -- in terms of making the assignments in the site 

11 profiles, are there -- and we have to -- going to try to, 

12 I think in our later discussions, sort of narrow down where 

13 to get started. In your planning and sort of to do that 

14 efficiently, I guess sort of how many does it make sense 

15 to be assigned initially or is it -- make sense to say 

16 here's the -- whatever it is, ten, 12, whatever; go get 

17 started and, you know, they'll be done under this task 

18 order under the -- a year, or is it, you know, let's wait 

19 three -- you know, do five now, five in three months, what 

20 -- I guess I'm trying to get some sense of what your 

21 expectations are at this point.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you know, I think -- we haven't 
264 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 chatted about the specifics of this, but certainly my 

2 expectations, we would certainly want to know what the 

3 so-called menu would look like for the year. And I think 

4 there's some merit -- and again, this is the Board's 

5 purview and decision, but some merits perhaps in ramping 

6 into it with perhaps somewhat less complex sites because, 

7 again, we're establishing on the ground the procedures 

8 that we're establishing on paper, and it certainly would 

9 perhaps facilitate things.

10 Nonetheless, the people that we intend to put into these 

11 reviews are not coming into it as neophytes. They have 

12 the operational experience and knowledge of the sites --

13 hopefully, in fact, knowledge of the specific sites. So 

14 we're -- you know, we're sort of starting at a running 

15 start, and the expectation is that we know the operations, 

16 we know the histories, we know some of the issues in the 

17 past and presumably if, again, we have access to the kind 

18 of information that we need to have and are able to talk 

19 to the workers -- I have to tell you that probably the most 

20 important thing is to get beyond the paper. Most of my 

21 perspective is as the further you go back in DOE 

22 operational history, the less the actual practice 
265 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 resembles the paper that you're looking at. And I think 

2 if there's a mantra, that's going to be the mantra in terms 

3 of looking back through what essentially is forensic 

4 health physics, in a way, and that's how we're going to 

5 treat it.

6 DR. MELIUS: Just in -- follow up that -- I agree it'd be 

7 nice to start with something less complex, but going back 

8 to the -- sort of the efficiency issue and so forth before, 

9 I think Savannah River's fairly complex to deal with and 

10 there's -- when you're -- in another task, presumably, 

11 that's awarded and for individual dose reconstructions, 

12 given what's been done already, there's going to be a 

13 number -- you know, randomly selected from Savannah River 

14 to look at. So having that site profile underway I think's 

15 going to be necessary, and I think NIOSH has --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

17 DR. MELIUS: -- ended up -- you know, there's a lot of --

18 how they prioritize and --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Savannah River wouldn't be one that I 

20 would consider a killer in the early phases. And that may 

21 sound contradictory, but in terms of what knowledge we have 

22 on the team and the source terms involved, even though it's 
266 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a large site and has a long history, it's a fairly public 

2 history now, as compared with some other sites where, you 

3 know, the history is less known and the source terms are 

4 more diverse.

5 Los Alamos would frighten me a little bit in the beginning 

6 because, unlike Savannah River, there just hasn't been --

7 Savannah River has been turned inside-out over the last 

8 ten years, so to some extent we are the beneficiaries of 

9 all that information. Other sites, the information isn't 

10 quite as organized, available and picked over, so that's 

11 going to cause for a lot more digging. Savannah River, 

12 the challenge I think is in a couple of areas -- tritium 

13 comes to mind -- where, you know, one has to go back and 

14 reconstruct some of the history of the dosimetry and how 

15 that was recorded. And I think it's important there to 

16 sample workers, because I think there and again, you know, 

17 the actual practice versus what was detailed on paper 

18 diverge as you go back in time, and that's what would worry 

19 me about perhaps relying on what the written records 

20 suggest. So that -- answer to that question, Savannah --

21 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible).

22 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda?
267 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MS. MUNN: It helps a great deal to have this overview, 

2 I think. From my point of view, anyway, it's reassuring 

3 that it sounds as though your plan is very close to what 

4 I, and I think many of my colleagues, had in mind when we 

5 were putting together the task proposals. But I think I 

6 heard a real challenge for us in the last of the data that 

7 you were giving us, John, insofar as identifying the fields 

8 that we want to see in the database is concerned. I think 

9 we may have only scratched the surface when we started 

10 talking about how to opt for the sites that we wanted to 

11 look at and pull together that information for us to 

12 review. Actually considering the data fields that we want 

13 to see in their product appears to me to be a potentially 

14 significant activity.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I might add to that that if it turns 

16 out that some of the data fields we can identify will have 

17 to be obtained and reviewed, you know, that's sort of a 

18 do-loop that if it's the first time, you know, it's going 

19 to take -- take time, as you can imagine, as NIOSH has 

20 already experienced, to get access and to make heads or 

21 tails of it. But you know, the site profile being a living 

22 process, to some extent, you know, we certainly won't stop 
268 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 and -- you know, and stop everything and go back to it. 

2 It'll be a process where we'll try to improve the analysis 

3 by virtue of being able to get the additional information. 

4 You know, those are some of the vagaries of, you know, 

5 trying to dig deep and finding perhaps sources of data or 

6 data fields that may not have been accessed in the original 

7 profile. And understandably so. I mean this is the first 

8 pass at the site profiles. They're living documents. 

9 They're going to improve over time. When we dig and do 

10 samples and verticals, I think what we can contribute is 

11 perhaps some indications of data fields or information 

12 sources that ought to be reflected in whatever upgrades 

13 or iterations. So I see it as very positive feedback when 

14 we do the vertical. I think that was perhaps the intent 

15 of the Board is to have that kind of a check. So you know, 

16 hopefully we can actually answer some of the questions in 

17 terms of what data fields have been looked at on one hand, 

18 and what sources information data fields might be 

19 identifiable if -- if we do this kind of independent 

20 digging, as well.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Joe, I want to kind of clarify one point, and 

22 I have to keep reminding us of the difference between an 
269 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 audit and the difference between what the Agency does. 

2 And for example, if -- if our contractor, you folks, 

3 identified an area and said, you know, here's an area that 

4 we've got to dig into and get this information, I think 

5 in general we would pass that information along to NIOSH 

6 and say here's an area that has been identified.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Uh-huh.

8 DR. ZIEMER: One thing we don't want our auditors to do 

9 is to do the work of the Agency, so we always need to be 

10 careful --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- and differentiate between what is the 

13 audit and what is the work. And I think you folks will 

14 also probably need to keep that in mind 'cause there will 

15 be a tendency to say here's an area where there needs to 

16 be more, we need to get out there and see what's there and 

17 so on. And it may be that if you identify an area like 

18 that and -- and bring it back to the Board and the Board 

19 says to NIOSH our contractor has identified this, is this 

20 something that should be looked at. The Agency is being, 

21 in a sense, tasked with doing that, so our job is to 

22 identify those areas. So I need to continually remind us 
270 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 and remind you as -- what our part of the job is, so...

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually --

3 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause we will -- we will otherwise get overly 

4 ambitious and NIOSH will have nothing to do then.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: That sort of resonates in my past career. 

6 Yeah.

7 DR. ZIEMER: You understand.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I understand exactly, and if one looks 

9 at it in terms of feedback, that we're feeding back issues 

10 that need to be unpacked, the level of review I think that 

11 is appropriate is determine whether in fact to sniff again. 

12 I would not want to divert or distract the Board or NIOSH 

13 with, you know, we found this, this, this and that, but 

14 we haven't really spent time deciding whether it's 

15 important or not. It's got to be relevant and pertinent 

16 and something that's significant enough that would 

17 influence the dose reconstruction process; and if it 

18 isn't, then I don't think it's something that we'd want 

19 to surface. And that -- just that level of analysis, how 

20 important is this and how significant is it, is the level 

21 that I think we would contribute. And if that's the case, 

22 then we would pass it on. We certainly would not try to 
271 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 run those numbers or try to do anything more than point 

2 to it.

3 Now what I was raising a little earlier was the fact that 

4 to judge, you know, whether there's any there or there --

5 this is the trouble I have sometimes with requesting data 

6 from DOE. It's sort of like, you know, you have to know 

7 what you want, even if you don't know what you don't --

8 what you don't want, you know. It's sort of one of these 

9 things that you -- well, how can I ask for it if I don't 

10 know what it is? That's -- that's the dilemma that, you 

11 know, I -- you almost have to at least look at the 

12 information to determine what's there and whether it's 

13 relevant or not, and that's the part where I think clearly 

14 we have some challenges. But you know, again, persistence 

15 and knowing the right kind of questions and being able to 

16 work with the Board, I think, you know, we certainly will 

17 get there.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions for John or Joe? 

19 Comments?

20 (No responses)

21 Thank you very much. We appreciate the exchange this 

22 morning. As you know, we will be deliberating this 
272 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 afternoon and you will hear back from us after that -- those 

2 deliberations.

3 In this connection, we may want to proceed with the issue 

4 of the site profile selections. Well, it's almost break 

5 time I guess. Let's take a break. People are getting a 

6 little antsy. We'll take our 10:00 o'clock break and then 

7 resume. Thank you.

8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

9

10 BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION

11 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW PROCESS

12 DR. ZIEMER: I want to take just a moment and delineate 

13 the items we need to address here. We have the issue of 

14 selection of our initial group of site profiles. We have 

15 agreed to take from the table a motion to send a letter 

16 to Secretary Thompson relating to the Special Exposure 

17 Cohort rule-making. And it's been requested that we have 

18 the group look at or review the letter that I wrote to 

19 several Congressmen. Were there other items that we need 

20 to look at? I think those are the three. Anyone identify 

21 any other items we need to address? Okay. Yes, Jim.

22 DR. MELIUS: Let me -- I mean add to that list one specific 
273 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 sort of contract issue. We were asked to -- if we had 

2 suggestions for additional elements to the database that 

3 we relay them to the contractor, and I think we just need 

4 to understand how to do that procedurally since that 

5 deliverable's due in a month and it's easier to add things 

6 ahead of time. So I think we just need to figure out how 

7 to -- how to do that efficiently and not get in trouble.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right, we can look at that database -- and 

9 my guess is that -- based on what we provided and what they 

10 plan to do, they probably have most of it covered, but we 

11 -- if we can identify things, that's fine.

12 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) us relaying 

13 individual comments to you and you relaying them in some 

14 way to (Inaudible).

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if we can identify things here as a 

16 group, that would be fine, too.

17 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) after a meeting 

18 if we sent something (Inaudible).

19 MR. ELLIOTT: You can do that either way, open session 

20 discussion and tell them what you want, or you can send 

21 them a letter or written information, written direction.

22 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) I don't think (Inaudible).
274 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Another item that I think we should discuss is at least 

2 lay out a plan for how we deal with the issue of a 

3 subcommittee and this further interaction with the 

4 contract and -- there's a whole bunch of issues there that 

5 I think --

6 DR. ZIEMER: In fact --

7 DR. MELIUS: -- have to be -- I don't think we -- I don't 

8 think we can --

9 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Delegation of authority?

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah --

11 DR. ZIEMER: Delegation --

12 DR. MELIUS: That, but I think we need to plan on how we 

13 do that and probably complete it at the next meeting.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Particularly those items -- this included 

15 everything from the invoice approvals to our working with 

16 our subgroups to work on the dose reconstructions, so 

17 that's -- that'll be an ongoing thing.

18 Let's direct our attention then to the site profile issue. 

19 We have now -- you have a handout which is Jim Neton's chart 

20 with the 15 facilities for which site profiles are either 

21 completed or in process, plus a number of AWEs. You also 

22 have the information on the site statistics that were --
275 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 was provided by Larry and is now included in the handout.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Could I make a comment on that?

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: I think on that -- this is your third page 

5 on that -- what's been provided. Jim included a column 

6 there that says estimated work force, and I guess I would 

7 like to offer this as a qualification. I think these 

8 numbers came from --

9 DR. NETON: Labor.

10 MR. ELLIOTT: -- Labor's presentation, but I don't believe 

11 that these numbers in all cases represent all the workers 

12 that worked at a site over the course of history of that 

13 site. For example, Hanford has more than 60,000 workers 

14 have ever worked at that site. They have many more than 

15 that.

16 DR. MELIUS: If I recall right, it excludes the 

17 construction work force. It's only the production work 

18 force at each of these facilities. That's what he said 

19 when he presented it now.

20 Isn't that right, Pete?

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Pete, is that -- are we correct in 

22 understanding the numbers that you presented at a given 
276 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 site didn't include construction trades, are just the 

2 production work force?

3 MR. TURCIC: That's correct.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: And in some cases is that the estimated 

5 current population or is that the estimated population who 

6 have ever worked there in production?

7 MR. TURCIC: (Off microphone) That was the estimated 

8 (Inaudible) program (Inaudible) production people who had 

9 worked at that site.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Now I think as we proceed, we also may need 

11 to have some internal ground rules. If one is propos--

12 and this could work both ways, but if one is proposing to 

13 include a site, I suppose that we should ask people to 

14 recuse themselves from proposing or voting for a site with 

15 which they are -- are or have been affiliated. Is that 

16 fair enough? In other words, Tony perhaps would not vote 

17 on whether Los Alamos would be included in this list, for 

18 example.

19 Roy, you have a comment or a question?

20 DR. DEHART: I'm not sure when I look over the --

21 When I look over the diagram that we have here, the table, 

22 just which of these facilities have a complete -- a full, 
277 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 complete profile site status that would be able to be 

2 audited over the next --

3 DR. ZIEMER: Jim --

4 DR. DEHART: -- several weeks --

5 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton can --

6 DR. DEHART: -- or months?

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- help us or Larry -- looks like -- as I look 

8 at this, it looks like Hanford and Savannah River are 

9 complete, but is that true or not?

10 DR. NETON: That's correct. The only two that have all 

11 chapters or Technical Basis Documents finished are Hanford 

12 and Savannah River, although you can see Y-12 is very close 

13 with one green dot that is undergoing comment resolution 

14 with NIOSH at this time.

15 DR. DEHART: Jim, is there an estimate over the next two 

16 to three months? That's probably as important.

17 DR. NETON: I figured that question would be coming. It's 

18 difficult to say. Some -- some of these comment 

19 resolutions go very quickly, they're just minor technical 

20 issues. Sometimes we end up with some -- some serious 

21 discussion about, you know, how to resolve an issue with 

22 missed dose or something of that nature. So it's hard to 
278 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 say, but -- but -- you know, I wish I could put a little 

2 better -- better time frame on that.

3 DR. MELIUS: But the --

4 DR. NETON: I could go with past history, maybe. You 

5 know, past history would dictate that we could resolve 

6 these --

7 DR. MELIUS: I guess is there a corollary to that, is there 

8 some that we shouldn't -- can you go the other way and say 

9 some that we shouldn't start now because you know it's --

10 DR. NETON: Where there are --

11 DR. MELIUS: Where they are that -- that there isn't just 

12 going to be enough there in the next few months.

13 DR. NETON: I'm honestly not up to speed enough on all of 

14 these individual chapters. Maybe perhaps Dick Toohey 

15 could help -- he may be more aware of where -- where our 

16 more serious discrepancies lie.

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Obviously Iowa Ordnance Plant is not close.

18 DR. NETON: No.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Mark?

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just before -- before Dick went into 

21 that, I had a question for clarification. When you say 

22 "approved", that means that they could theoretically be 
279 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 audited right -- today or --

2 DR. NETON: Yes, they've been signed by OCAS and they're 

3 either on our web site or will be within -- as quickly as 

4 we can get it out there.

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 'cause that was my point. I think 

6 some of these are not on the web site yet, like the Y-12, 

7 all those sections aren't up yet, but -- okay.

8 DR. TOOHEY: Dick Toohey, ORAU. The ones that, from what 

9 I know of what's going on, are farthest away from 

10 completion would be Los Alamos, Mound, Pantex and X-10.

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

12 another comment?

13 DR. ANDRADE: Not really a comment, but I wanted to start 

14 the -- the auctioning process, I guess. Based on the chart 

15 on the degree that -- that indicates the degree of 

16 completeness for the site profiles, as well as what I think 

17 are objective criteria, and that is to look at the 

18 different types of radionuclides that were processed or 

19 handled, I would suggest the following to start with. I'd 

20 say Rocky Flats because of the plutonium finishing 

21 activities that went on there. Number two, Y-12 for all 

22 of the uranium work that went on there and continues to 
280 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 go on today. And third, to step into a deeper, somewhat 

2 more complex set of operations, I would suggest Hanford 

3 for the variety of types of work that went on there from 

4 reactor -- different reactor type enrichment to --

5 activities to other types of activities. So that's my 

6 opening gambit there, those three sites.

7 DR. ZIEMER: Let's hear a comment from Mike first, and then 

8 we'll get some other -- I don't know if that was a motion, 

9 but I'm going to just treat it as a suggestion right now. 

10 Mike?

11 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, just to step back -- in process, which 

12 is the last in the -- in the review process? Is it the 

13 OCAS review or the ORAU review?

14 MR. ELLIOTT: It's the OCAS review.

15 DR. MELIUS: I guess to that list for consideration I would 

16 throw in Savannah River because of the fact that it's 

17 first, it's complete and that there's a lot of individual 

18 dose reconstructions that have been done for it, so I think 

19 -- I think they almost, in a practical sense, have to look 

20 at it.

21 DR. ZIEMER: I have Mark and then -- who was next? Tony, 

22 did you have another comment? No. Mark?
281 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. GRIFFON: I actually -- I don't have a problem with 

2 Tony's list or Jim's addition. I'd throw out a possible 

3 -- if -- I was thinking of five, and my other one was Idaho. 

4 One thing I do want to mention is that -- from the 

5 contractor's standpoint -- Y-12, although I have it on my 

6 list, it might be a little tricky for them. They have to 

7 reactivate clearances, and I think they have to talk to 

8 NIOSH about how to go about that, and I don't know how 

9 timely that can be achieved, but that could be a little 

10 holdup as far as getting (Inaudible) rolling too quickly.

11 MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I'd like to possibly structure a 

12 motion. I have five sites -- Nevada Test Site, Idaho 

13 Falls, Hanford, Savannah River and I would agree with Tony 

14 on Rocky Flats.

15 DR. ZIEMER: Your motion is for us to designate -- let's 

16 see if I have this correct -- Hanford, INEEL, Rocky Flats, 

17 Savannah River Site and --

18 MR. OWENS: Nevada Test Site.

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- Nevada Test Site.

20 MR. OWENS: As the initial --

21 DR. ZIEMER: Initial group of five.

22 MR. OWENS: -- group of five that's submitted for review.
282 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask -- we can certainly treat that as 

2 a motion. Does somebody want to second that?

3 DR. MELIUS: I'll second it.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there further discussion on this 

5 motion? Yes, Richard then Roy.

6 DR. DEHART: We have three gaseous diffusion plants. I 

7 would like to see one of those added to the list.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Is that a suggested amendment or just a 

9 comment right now?

10 DR. DEHART: I'll make it in the form of an amendment.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Are you asking that it be added rather than 

12 substitute, so we can have six?

13 DR. DEHART: Add.

14 DR. ZIEMER: Add.

15 MR. OWENS: In all due respect to Dr. DeHart's amendment, 

16 I think that, based on comments that were made yesterday, 

17 the gaseous diffusion plants, as we all know, are included 

18 in the Special Exposure Cohort and I think that for the 

19 ongoing credibility of the program, those individuals, 

20 those workers at those sites are being compensated, and 

21 I think that while there is a need to review the site 

22 profiles, I think that that can wait and I'd like to see 
283 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 these initial five be included.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Charles is speaking against a motion to amend 

3 that has not yet been seconded, so let me ask if there is 

4 a second to Dr. DeHart's motion to amend.

5 (No responses)

6 There appears not to be a second, so that motion to amend

7 dies for lack of a second, so you don't need to speak 

8 against it, Charles. The jury will disregard his remarks.

9 Okay, Richard, you have a comment?

10 MR. ESPINOSA: It might be more of a question. The five 

11 that we just suggested, motion, seconded, are these being 

12 listed as a priority, one, two, three, four? Or just said 

13 all five and expect all five?

14 DR. ZIEMER: My interpretation was that it was not a 

15 prioritized list, that the contractor would have 

16 flexibility in scheduling and reviewing. Is that the 

17 understanding of the movers, that this was not necessarily 

18 listed in some priority, it's just simply the group of 

19 five? Is that -- was that the understanding?

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

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

22 MR. OWENS: Those were not ranked in a priority order.
284 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

2 DR. MELIUS: Can I ask just one other question on the Y-12 

3 or any of the other sites where clearances may be at issue, 

4 I assume that would be in process anyway or -- I don't know 

5 -- quite understand the --

6 MR. ELLIOTT: We do need to get with Sanford Cohen & 

7 Associates and if they have clearances that need to be 

8 reinstated, we need to get started work on that right away. 

9 We don't have to wait now for the other two tasks to be 

10 awarded. We need this to start right now.

11 DR. ZIEMER: And that would not necessarily preclude them 

12 from beginning their process on these sites, either.

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

14 trouble?

15 DR. ZIEMER: You can't mention Oak Ridge.

16 MR. PRESLEY: I would like to see one of the production 

17 plants also put in here, and that's as far as I will go. 

18 When you look at what we have here, we don't have any of 

19 the plants that have a lot of production on a lot of 

20 different types of metals there, and I think we need to 

21 put one of the production plants in there.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Mark?
285 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. GRIFFON: Can I propose to amend the motion to add 

2 Y-12, notwithstanding the clearance issues? I think --

3 I think that's kind of what Bob might have been getting 

4 at --

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

6 MR. GRIFFON: I won't, I'm not, but --

7 DR. ZIEMER: Is this --

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- that was also on my --

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- a motion to add it to the list or --

10 MR. GRIFFON: That was the one difference in my original 

11 list of five with Leon's and I'm proposing to amend his 

12 list to include Y-12.

13 DR. ZIEMER: That's six to be --

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah.

15 DR. ANDRADE: I second that motion.

16 DR. ZIEMER: That's seconded. Okay. Now, anyone wish to 

17 speak for or against the motion to add Y-12 to the list?

18 MR. OWENS: I'll speak in favor of that motion, Dr. Ziemer. 

19 That was an oversight on my part. I did have -- I did have 

20 Y-12 was -- within the group, not of five but of six, so 

21 --

22 DR. ZIEMER: So you had -- you had six.
286 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

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

2 DR. ZIEMER: The mover is therefore telling us that this 

3 is a friendly amendment. Does the seconder agree that 

4 that's a friendly amendment? Who seconded this original 

5 motion?

6 MR. OWENS: Dr. Melius.

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

8 DR. MELIUS: Yes, very friendly.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Then the Chair declares that as part of the 

10 original motion and it -- we don't even need to vote on 

11 this amendment.

12 Now Rich.

13 MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, can you repeat the list of five with 

14 addition of the six?

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the list now, as I understand it, is 

16 Hanford, INEEL, National -- well, Nevada Test Site, Rocky 

17 Flats, Savannah River Site and Y-12. That's six sites. 

18 Does that -- everybody agree that those are the six? Are 

19 you ready to vote? Comment, Robert?

20 MR. PRESLEY: Can I vote, or do I need to recuse myself?

21 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps what we can do -- the Chair will 

22 divide the vote into six parts. The Chair's allowed --
287 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 you can divide a motion into parts, and you can vote on 

2 those parts for which you have no conflict of interest. 

3 Is that agreeable?

4 The record will then allow people to recuse themselves on 

5 particular votes, or abstain. And it would be -- an 

6 abstention would be in order. Are you ready to vote in 

7 six parts?

8 First -- the first part would be to approve Hanford as being 

9 on the list of site profiles to be reviewed initially. All 

10 in favor, aye.

11 (Affirmative responses)

12 All opposed, no.

13 (No responses)

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

15 abstained.

16 Idaho, INEEL, all in favor, aye.

17 (Affirmative responses)

18 Opposed?

19 (No responses)

20 Abstentions?

21 (No responses)

22 We have no Idaho folks here. Nevada Test Site, all in 
288 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 favor, aye?

2 (Affirmative responses)

3 Opposed?

4 (No responses)

5 Abstentions? We have two abstentions. Okay. Where am 

6 I on the list?

7 Rocky Flats.

8 UNIDENTIFIED: You may want to give for the record who the 

9 abstentions were because --

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we did indicate the abstentions. We 

11 have that on the record. Right?

12 THE COURT REPORTER: I don't have the names.

13 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry.

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

15 DR. ZIEMER: The last abstentions were Mark Griffon and 

16 Robert Presley. That was on Nevada Test Site.

17 Rocky Flats, all in favor, aye.

18 (Affirmative responses)

19 Opposed, no.

20 (No responses)

21 Abstentions?

22 (No responses)
289 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

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

2 (Affirmative responses)

3 Opposed?

4 (No responses)

5 Abstentions?

6 (No responses)

7 Y-12, all in favor, aye.

8 (Affirmative responses)

9 Opposed?

10 (No responses)

11 Abstentions?

12 Roy DeHart abstains, Robert Presley abstains, the Chair 

13 abstains.

14 Then I declare that those submotions have all carried and 

15 those six sites will be identified to our contractor as 

16 the first group to be audited.

17 Now does the Board wish to identify on AWE facilities some 

18 initial sites? In this case we have for the total contract 

19 -- I think it was a maximum of four, was it not?

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Two to four.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Two to four. Do you wish to identify any of 

22 these at this time for initial review?
290 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: I make a motion that we consider Bethlehem 

2 Steel and Mallinckrodt for initial review.

3 MR. ESPINOSA: Second.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to 

5 consider Bethlehem Steel and Mallinckrodt for initial 

6 review. Discussion?

7 MR. PRESLEY: Question. Are you going to put Weldon 

8 Springs into the Mallinckrodt -- is that going in there?

9 DR. ZIEMER: That's a separate profile, is it not?

10 MR. ELLIOTT: That is a separate profile.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Is the Board ready to vote on this 

12 motion? It appears to be so. All in favor of those two, 

13 Bethlehem Steel and Mallinckrodt Chemical, for initial 

14 audits, say aye.

15 (Affirmative responses)

16 Any opposed?

17 (No responses)

18 Any abstentions?

19 (No responses)

20 Motion carries. Thank you.

21 While we are on the issue of our audit contract, let me 

22 ask at this point, do we have any material at this point, 
291 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 information -- I don't know if it would be Martha or someone 

2 on the legal staff -- as to those issues that we would need 

3 to approve dealing with procedural matters such as invoice 

4 approvals and so on? Do we have that information today 

5 that -- are there things we could act on?

6 MS. DIMUZIO: (Off microphone) Yes, (Inaudible), I spoke 

7 with (Inaudible) --

8 THE COURT REPORTER: That mike's not on.

9 MS. DIMUZIO: I spoke with Flo Black, who's the 

10 contracting specialist on the task, this morning and the 

11 recommendation that she's made is that the invoices would 

12 come in to NIOSH -- well, actually they go to the 

13 contracting office first for them to review, and then they 

14 come to the project officer, who is Jim, for the project. 

15 And what we could do is we could have Jim sign it. Then 

16 it goes to our finance office, but the finance office has 

17 -- holds it essentially for 30 days, so during that time 

18 frame we could send it to Dr. Ziemer and ask him if he's 

19 okay with it, and if he can approve it in that 30 days, 

20 then there's no delay in the contractor being paid. If 

21 Dr. Ziemer does have a problem with the invoice, then we 

22 could pull it back and there's no payment to the 
292 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 contractor. So that was the recommendation of the 

2 contracting office.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Martha, but we would -- if there's a problem 

4 with an invoice, in Dr. Ziemer's viewpoint, it would 

5 require at that point a full session of the Board in closed 

6 session to discuss it. Correct?

7 MS. DIMUZIO: That's correct, yes.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Are the invoices the only item that we can 

9 address on that issue today? I mean are there other sort 

10 of mechanical things like invoices that require Board 

11 action?

12 MS. DIMUZIO: No, I really -- I don't think so. I think 

13 that's really -- as far as the administrative aspects of 

14 the contract, that's really the only...

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim?

16 DR. MELIUS: Are there implications -- should the dispute 

17 arise over paying a invoice as to whether something's been 

18 completed satisfactorily, are there implications from the 

19 fact that Jim Neton or whoever the project officer is 

20 signed off on it already?

21 MS. DIMUZIO: No, and that's what I clarified with -- with 

22 Flo, that -- since the finance office hasn't scheduled it 
293 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 for payment, it can be pulled back. We would develop --

2 with the contracts office we would develop language in a 

3 cover letter that would be sent with the invoice -- the 

4 copy of an invoice to Dr. Ziemer, sort of explaining the 

5 process. The finance office would be aware of the process 

6 and we could pull it back. So no, that -- that shouldn't 

7 be an issue.

8 DR. MELIUS: Just my recollection of back when I used to 

9 deal with this and these issues was that once the technical 

10 person signed off -- you're signing off on the technical 

11 merits of what was -- had been -- of the deliverable, and 

12 then what the finance office dealt with was that it met 

13 the contractual. And by Jim signing it, or whoever the 

14 project officer -- I mean I just -- I mean my concern was 

15 what I said, the implications that somehow we were 

16 approving it technically -- in our -- I think a lot of --

17 if we're going to have an issue, I suspect it's going to 

18 be as to whether something had been completed 

19 satisfactorily in a technical sense, not over, you know, 

20 how much somebody was paid or the reimbursement for travel 

21 or something like that, which is what usually the finance 

22 office deals with.
294 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MS. DIMUZIO: The -- and that's basically -- the contract 

2 is a cost reimbursement contract, so basically -- I mean 

3 the invoice will be for those costs of travel and -- and 

4 labor hours and that type of thing. Acceptance of a 

5 technical document that -- that comes in, that is handled 

6 a little bit -- that would be separate from the actual 

7 invoice because you could have an invoice for the month 

8 of February where Sanford Cohen is billing us for travel 

9 to this meeting and -- and labor hours and stuff like that, 

10 yet there's no technical aspect to be reviewed.

11 DR. MELIUS: That I understand, but what if it was, you 

12 know, a review of a site profile and a report back to the 

13 Board on that, and they billed us for 100 hours and we got 

14 a paragraph or what -- you know, whatever -- that wasn't 

15 satisfactory and -- I think that's more than an issue of 

16 -- you know, it's the issue of whether the hours -- whether, 

17 you know -- not just whether the hours meet the product, 

18 but is the product satisfactory from what they were 

19 supposed to deliver.

20 DR. ZIEMER: A related question jumps into my mind, as 

21 well, and that is do we put Jim Neton in a precarious 

22 position since, in a sense, we're auditing the work that 
295 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 he is in charge of --

2 DR. NETON: I'd like to just --

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I don't -- obviously we have to have 

4 somebody in the Agency that's the point person. At the 

5 same time, I'm a little concerned about how that looks, 

6 Jim.

7 DR. NETON: I appreciate that. I would say I don't think 

8 the way the billing works on this is that you will actually 

9 receive an invoice that says here are the work hours for 

10 this site profile development that I've done. You're just 

11 going to receive a monthly invoice for hours expended on 

12 the tasks. So you're not really approving the quality of 

13 the work at that point. You're just saying do I believe 

14 that the work -- that they expended this many hours, is 

15 it within the scope of the task. If the Board has a problem 

16 with the quality of the deliverables, that's a different 

17 issue that would be fed back to us and then we would undergo 

18 nego-- you know, discussions with -- with the contractor. 

19 I don't -- I don't think, you know, we're going to get a 

20 bill saying here is X thousand dollars for producing this 

21 site profile. That's just not the way this is going to 

22 work -- I think. So again, we're just approving do we --
296 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 do we agree that the number of hours expended was within 

2 the scope of the contract and allocated properly within 

3 the task itself.

4 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda?

5 MS. MUNN: Jim's comment helps me a little, but one of the 

6 things that I needed to have clarified is we're talking 

7 about approval of all invoices from our contractor. In 

8 other words, there is not some cut-off level below which 

9 charges would automatically be sent through. There is --

10 we're talking about all costs from them, that -- thank you.

11 DR. NETON: I just had one more thought on this. I mean 

12 as John Mauro discussed earlier, they will be providing 

13 progress reports as required, and I think that is the --

14 that is the point at which the Board can review those 

15 progress reports and if -- if there is something going awry 

16 there, then that's the opportunity to feed back and say 

17 we have a problem. But in the invoicing area I really 

18 don't think we have much control other than, you know, 

19 reviewing work hours against the contract.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me speak a little bit to this, as well. 

21 You know, the way I see this working is -- Jim right now 

22 is assigned as the technical monitor and we may in fact 
297 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 make a change in that and assign somebody else. I think 

2 it's appropriate to do so, given his work load and Dr. 

3 Ziemer's comment. I don't want any perception that, you 

4 know, Jim, who is the scientific -- science administrator 

5 of the program and, you know, the basis of his work being 

6 audited, and is sitting in a position of control of your 

7 audit. But the way I see this works, whoever's assigned 

8 as the technical monitor is just the first eyes that, after 

9 procurement looks at these things -- whether it's an 

10 invoice or it's a deliverable, the technical monitor is 

11 going to be the first set of eyes, besides Martha's, to 

12 look at these. And I'm asking that person to see if 

13 there's anything that looks untowards there, anything that 

14 should be brought to the attention of whoever this body 

15 delegates the next authority to. So if that's -- if that's 

16 your Chair, we need that -- you know, a vote to make that 

17 happen, that delegation of authority, so that the 

18 technical monitor knows who to turn to and say you need 

19 to examine this; I think there's a concern or an issue here. 

20 And then it's like raising an issue to your higher level 

21 -- whoever gives you direction, and that's this body for 

22 us, so that person, on behalf of the Board, needs to make 
298 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 a decision, do I take this to the Board or I provide direct 

2 guidance back to the technical monitor and procurement on 

3 how to handle whatever the issue may be. Does that help 

4 in any way?

5 DR. MELIUS: All this helps. I guess I'm also concerned 

6 -- would be concerned with whoever it is that that's 

7 technical person that -- I don't think they should be 

8 turning down a -- if they have a question about the voucher 

9 that comes in, rather than sign it and send it on to us, 

10 I don't think they should sign it. I think they should 

11 bring it to -- to Dr. Ziemer's attention and the Board's 

12 attention and have us be the ones that are, you know, 

13 reviewing that in a sense, and rather than putting you in 

14 the position of reviewing the auditor or --

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Absolutely, I'm sorry, I was dwelling on the 

16 obverse side of that coin and on the other side, the 

17 positive side, they still shouldn't sign off on it and send 

18 it back. It still needs to be brought, whatever it is, 

19 even if the message is hey, Dr. Ziemer, here's this next 

20 invoice; I see nothing wrong with it, but you should look 

21 at it. Hey, Dr. Ziemer, here is the deliverable, the 

22 monthly progress report; I would highlight this for your 
299 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 attention. That's what I see going on.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. It would be appropriate to have 

3 a motion to authorize then, on invoices, the Chair to act 

4 on behalf of the Board.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Could you -- a suggestion. Could you attend 

6 to both deliverables and the invoicing process? In other 

7 words, a monthly progress report is a deliverable, a --

8 the database management piece is a deliverable, the -- you 

9 know, a report about site profiles that have been reviewed 

10 is a deliverable, and we need somebody delegated -- maybe 

11 it's different people, but we need a vote on both of those.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Before we take the action, let me point out 

13 on a deliverable, I think the only thing the Chair would 

14 do would be to confirm that it has arrived in a timely 

15 fashion and therefore an invoice might be paid. The 

16 acceptability of any of the deliverable reports, in my 

17 mind, is a Board action. So I would not speak for the Board 

18 on the adequacy or quality of a deliverable beyond 

19 affirming that it has arrived on time.

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I agree with that, and I think that we 

21 may want to, at some point, specify actions for specific 

22 types of deliverables, some of which may very be 
300 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 appropriate that just the Chair sign off on, others that, 

2 you know, it may be a subcommittee, the Board, what--

3 however we, you know, designate. And I think if we did 

4 it specifically, I think it's more helpful for everybody, 

5 but -- in the process and that may take us a little bit 

6 -- while into the next meeting before we can do that. I 

7 think we can certainly do the vouchers today, and if 

8 there's other deliverables that are going to need to be 

9 signed off on before the conference call or the next 

10 meetings, then we ought to cover those, also.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So the Chair would -- oh, Wanda, a 

12 comment?

13 DR. NETON: I might want to make one comment before the 

14 motion is raised. The contract itself calls for 

15 simultaneous delivery of the deliverables to both the 

16 Board -- Dr. Ziemer -- and NIOSH. So you'll receive both 

17 items simultaneously. The question is is does NIOSH 

18 actually make copies and distribute to the entire Board 

19 at the same time. I mean I don't know if Dr. Ziemer wants 

20 to be in the business of reproducing the deliverables and 

21 disseminating them to the Board or should we do that at 

22 your discretion.
301 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm certainly glad to comment on that. 

2 I think NIOSH is, in a sense, tasked with providing Board 

3 support, and I think we would rely on them to do the 

4 distribution.

5 Wanda?

6 MS. MUNN: I move that the Chairman of this Board be 

7 authorized to act on behalf of the Board in notifying 

8 timely deliverables' receipt and in authorizing payment 

9 of vouchers by the contractor as submitted to him.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?

11 DR. DEHART: Second.

12 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Discussion?

13 DR. MELIUS: Someone repeat exactly what's included in the 

14 deliverable parts of that.

15 DR. ZIEMER: Can you read the motion back to us, Ray?

16 (Whereupon, the motion was repeated by the Court 

17 Reporter.)

18 DR. ZIEMER: Ready to vote? Okay. All in favor, aye.

19 (Affirmative responses)

20 All opposed?

21 (No responses)

22 Abstentions?
302 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 (No responses)

2 Motion carries. Thank you.

3 DR. ANDERSON: Is the Chair agreeable?

4 DR. ZIEMER: I'm always agreeable, aren't I? Next I'd ask 

5 that we take from the table the motion that was made 

6 yesterday regarding a letter to Secretary Thompson on the 

7 Special Exposure Cohort. In the meantime, we asked Jim 

8 to actually draft the letter that he was proposing so we 

9 had something to work on, and I will interpret the draft 

10 that has been distributed as the motion that is before us. 

11 That motion has been duly seconded, so we have before us 

12 a proposed letter to the Secretary dealing with this issue.

13 I now open the floor for discussions, any proposed changes 

14 or -- you can speak for or against the motion. Tony?

15 DR. ANDRADE: I had two proposed changes. One is fairly 

16 simple. It's in the very first paragraph of the letter, 

17 first sentence, which goes on to say (reading) I am writing 

18 to you to express our concern about the delay.

19 I'm a little leery of using the word "delay". It implies 

20 that there's perhaps some deliberate activity in actually 

21 withholding the release of the SEC draft legislation. If 

22 they are having half as much problems or problem with it 
303 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 as we had in getting our comments together, then I don't 

2 blame them for taking this kind of time for its review. 

3 Hence, I would simply suggest that we change the word 

4 "delay" to "timeliness".

5 DR. ZIEMER: Are you making that as a proposed amendment 

6 then?

7 DR. ANDRADE: Yes --

8 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not -- it's not obvious to me whether that 

9 is a substantive change or a friendly amendment. I might 

10 ask the movers -- mover and seconder if they regard that 

11 as friendly or neutral or -- is it different? Is the 

12 impact --

13 DR. MELIUS: I don't have any strong objection to it. I'd 

14 probably disagree with Tony about some of the 

15 interpretation, but if people are more comfortable with 

16 that word, that's fine.

17 DR. ZIEMER: It appears that the motioner would accept 

18 that. What about the seconder?

19 MR. ESPINOSA: That's fine.

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then let's consider that change. 

21 Thank you.

22 DR. ANDRADE: Second --
304 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: You still have the floor.

2 DR. ANDRADE: Right. Second of all, this may be a little 

3 bit more controversial, we go down to the bottom of the 

4 draft letter --

5 DR. ZIEMER: Are you at the bottom of the first page or 

6 --

7 DR. ANDRADE: Bottom of the first page. I'd like to 

8 propose that we strike the entire paragraph, which carries 

9 on into the next -- onto the second page. Reason for doing 

10 that is that it implies that the SEC legislation is going 

11 to give us definitive criteria for performing dose 

12 reconstructions or for -- which are currently ongoing. 

13 And I think those methods are being developed, and I don't 

14 believe that there are going to be new criteria as far as 

15 I can recall the language in the draft legislation.

16 DR. ZIEMER: I think I will interpret that as a motion to 

17 amend, is to strike the paragraph. Is there a second to 

18 the motion to strike that paragraph?

19 MS. MUNN: Yes, I'll -- I'll second that.

20 DR. ZIEMER: And it's seconded. Now we will discuss this 

21 proposed amendment to strike that paragraph. You may 

22 speak pro or con for the motion to amend. We need to get 
305 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 some sense of the Board on this.

2 DR. MELIUS: I can give you my sense.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.

4 DR. MELIUS: I think it sort of strikes to the heart of 

5 the letter and some of the rationale for why we should have 

6 concerns about this. I think it's one of the concerns 

7 about the timeliness of getting the final rule out. And 

8 I think it's an important point, and I think striking that 

9 entire paragraph is not appropriate.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim speaks for retaining it. Anyone 

11 -- Henry and then Mark.

12 DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, to me, reading that, the issue is we 

13 need to know, if we do a review, rather than to say this 

14 review is, you know, inadequate because there's 

15 insufficient dose reconstruction, we need to know the 

16 definitions that are going to be used so that when we review 

17 we don't criticize a dose reconstruction that might well 

18 have fallen into the special cohort. So we -- while I'm 

19 not sure it'll help us in our definitional review, it would 

20 help us, I believe, on knowing, you know, kind of in the 

21 right-hand side of this if we know what the criteria are, 

22 then when we do our reviews we could say that this --
306 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 whether or not this meets or would seem to meet that or 

2 we need to, in our review, critique that in that sense of 

3 the adequacy of the dose reconstruction. It may be 

4 appropriate then that that person would fall into special 

5 cohort if we know what the definition of a special cohort 

6 is. If we don't, all we're saying is there's problems with 

7 the definition and that it then goes back and you can churn 

8 and churn and churn, but it may well be -- I mean that's 

9 how I read this, it helps us set kind of the one bar that 

10 has to be reached in adequate or not. And for our 

11 contractor, they need to know that so they don't spend a 

12 lot of time on it. And I think NIOSH needs to know that, 

13 as well. I mean that's how I took it.

14 DR. ZIEMER: We've got Mark and then Tony.

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm speaking against the amendment, 

16 as well. I just -- I was also thinking as possible 

17 compromise language, the one thing that we possibly can 

18 concede is that in the last part of that sentence we could 

19 possibly rephrase it to say the Board will, in many cases, 

20 need to rely upon the criteria defined in this rule. I 

21 think some of the dose reconstructions are not as dependent 

22 on that -- that line, as defined in the Special Exposure 
307 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Cohort rule, and you know, work has gone forward without 

2 that in place. I think that's part of Tony's point, maybe 

3 not, but I think that might be a possible compromise. I 

4 don't know if that's agreeable to the original proposer.

5 DR. ZIEMER: If this motion fails, then you will have an 

6 opportunity to make those changes that -- Tony.

7 DR. ANDRADE: I actually like Mark's idea. I think that 

8 is a good compromise. I think the real criteria that are 

9 going to be set forth in the legislation are the guidelines 

10 by which special cohorts will be defined, so that's looking 

11 at it kind of from a different point of view. And so my 

12 last change was going to be that on the next paragraph that 

13 we just add the two words -- along with what Mark proposed 

14 -- that potentially eligible classes of workers da, da, 

15 da, have and continue to be blocked from filing petitions 

16 to become members. I think that that is a totally 

17 appropriate -- and that that really goes to the heart of 

18 the matter that Jim was bringing up.

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Again, you will have opportunity, 

20 after this motion, to address that issue. Other -- Gen 

21 Roessler.

22 DR. ROESSLER: (Off microphone) (Inaudible)
308 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, other comments on this motion? Jim?

2 DR. MELIUS: Just to indicate that once we have dealt with 

3 the amendment that's on the floor that I would be glad to 

4 accept both of Mark's and Tony's recent suggestions as 

5 friendly amendments.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a hint of things to come. It almost 

7 sounded like Tony was speaking against his own motion 

8 there, but are there other comments, pro or con?

9 Okay, then all in favor of the amendment -- if you vote 

10 in favor, you're voting to strike the paragraph. All in 

11 favor will say aye.

12 (Affirmative responses)

13 All opposed say no.

14 (Negative responses)

15 The noes -- any abstentions?

16 (No responses)

17 The noes have it. The paragraph remains in. We now can 

18 open the floor for certain friendly amendments, and (Off 

19 microphone) (Inaudible).

20 MR. GRIFFON: I guess just to restate my -- what we 

21 discussed prior to this, the end of that paragraph that 

22 we didn't strike, it says the Board -- and I'm proposing 
309 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that we rephrase it to say the Board will, in many cases, 

2 need to rely upon criteria defined in this final rule. And 

3 I believe that's a friendly amendment.

4 Jim, for the record, I think you --

5 DR. MELIUS: That is a friendly amendment.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda?

7 MS. MUNN: Also a friendly amendment, I understand that 

8 the word "tasked" is commonly accepted in parlance right 

9 now, but it's one of those things that grates against the 

10 grain of purists. I would really appreciate it if we could 

11 change that to either "charged" or "is responsible for" 

12 rather than "the Board is tasked with reviewing..."

13 MR. ELLIOTT: So you're speaking to the first -- or the 

14 last paragraph, first page --

15 MS. MUNN: Where -- I'm talking about the same paragraph 

16 that Mark is talking about. I'm just talking about the 

17 first line of it. (Reading) The Advisory Board, pursuant 

18 to the Act, is tasked with reviewing...

19 I'm suggesting that it be changed to "charged" or 

20 "responsible for".

21 MR. ELLIOTT: And reaction to that?

22 DR. MELIUS: I would also accept "charged".
310 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Mr. Presley?

2 MR. PRESLEY: First paragraph, it says "On behalf of the 

3 Advisory Board..." Should that not read "The Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health wishes to express our 

5 concern..."

6 DR. MELIUS: That would be fine with me, too. I think, 

7 as we've done in the past with these letters, we've let 

8 the Chair edit and -- in terms of style and grammar and 

9 -- as he feels appropriate, so...

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer, we have a friendly amendment on 

11 the first paragraph, first sentence, to change the 

12 language to read "The Advisory Board on Radiation and 

13 Worker Health wishes to express" -- correct, Mr. Presley?

14 MR. PRESLEY: Yes.

15 MR. ELLIOTT: And then down later, the bottom of the first 

16 page, last paragraph, first sentence, "The Advisory Board, 

17 pursuant to EEOICPA, is charged" instead of "tasked".

18 And then the next -- top of the next page, that last 

19 sentence in that same paragraph -- Mark, help me out again 

20 here with what -- I --

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the Board will, in many cases, need 

22 to rely upon the criteria defined in this final rule.
311 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ELLIOTT: And the proposer of the motion agreed with 

2 those friendly amendments, I believe.

3 DR. MELIUS: There was an additional --

4 MR. ELLIOTT: An additional one?

5 DR. ANDERSON: Potentially eligible was the next one.

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, in the...

7 DR. ZIEMER: Where does the --

8 DR. MELIUS: The next to last paragraph, at the beginning 

9 of that paragraph, "Potentially eligible classes".

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. While we're still being 

11 friendly, the second to last line on that first page, 

12 referring to the adequacy, I believe that the actual 

13 wording in EEOICPA is "scientific validity and quality". 

14 Is that not true? Can somebody help me? Is -- were you 

15 quoting, Jim, or -- I --

16 DR. MELIUS: I was paraphrasing but not quoting.

17 DR. ZIEMER: I think that "scientific quality and 

18 adequacy" are the actual words and I'm suggesting that we 

19 use that. That's the concept for adequacy, but insofar 

20 as we can actually quote the --

21 DR. MELIUS: That would be fine, and also while you were 

22 out, we gave -- I think it's usual these letters -- that 
312 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 you have a final say in terms of grammar and style issues, 

2 so...

3 DR. ZIEMER: I have another question, also, again -- and 

4 maybe this will also be within the prerogative of the 

5 working thing. Were you quoting from section 42 USC 738 

6 -- 3874(q)? Have you confirmed that that is the exact --

7 it is in quotes in your letter.

8 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) I believe it (Inaudible).

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in any event, where we're quoting 

10 exactly, I will make sure that we quote it exactly.

11 The other comment I had was in the second to last paragraph, 

12 "Procedures for Designing (sic) Classes of Employees" and 

13 so on, I wonder if it would be good to expand that to include 

14 the -- well, in the second sentence you have the dates of 

15 the rulemaking and in the first sentence we don't -- we 

16 just have the year. I was going to suggest that we add 

17 in there the month of the issuing of the rulemaking and 

18 the dates of the comment period in both sentences. You 

19 have it in the one but not the other.

20 DR. MELIUS: I didn't have --

21 DR. ZIEMER: I'll dig that out. If you're agreed, we'll 

22 just add those.
313 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: That's fine.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other -- yes, Gen Roessler.

3 DR. ROESSLER: Mine is grammatical and I probably 

4 shouldn't even bring it up, but I want to remind the Chair 

5 -- and I'm sure that as an academic person who deals with 

6 dangling participles so well that he'll recognize that a 

7 Board -- the Advisory Board is an "it", not an "our" or 

8 not "us".

9 DR. ZIEMER: I've already changed my copies.

10 DR. ROESSLER: You marked al-- thank you.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Tony and Robert.

12 DR. ANDRADE: Okay, one final proposed amendment, and that 

13 is to change wording such that we can combine the last two 

14 short paragraphs, as follows. We start with "Potentially 

15 eligible" and we continue on with "classes of workers" et 

16 cetera, and keep the rest of that small paragraph as is. 

17 And then at the end of that paragraph, append "Hence, we" 

18 and then follow through with the last part of the last 

19 paragraph, so it would read "Hence, we urge you to finalize 

20 the Special Exposure Cohort rule" et cetera, et cetera. 

21 In other words, we'd take out the piece that, again --

22 DR. ZIEMER: This is the delay issue again.
314 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ANDRADE: The delay issue.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I guess if that was friendly before, 

3 it's still friendly. Is that the --

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have no objection to taking that out.

5 DR. ANDRADE: That is my --

6 DR. ZIEMER: Agree to that change?

7 DR. ANDRADE: Right.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Hence -- hence, the Board --

9 DR. ANDRADE: The Board --

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- urges you... Thank you. Are there any 

11 further friendly or unfriendly amendments?

12 (No responses)

13 Are you ready to vote on this proposed letter? You appear 

14 to be ready to vote -- pardon me?

15 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) (Inaudible) second.

16 DR. ZIEMER: It was seconded originally before it went on 

17 the table, so -- right.

18 Okay, all in favor say aye.

19 (Affirmative responses)

20 Any opposed, no.

21 (No responses)

22 Any abstentions?
315 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 (No responses)

2 The ayes have it, and we will prepare the final letter and 

3 copies will be distributed, as well, to the Board. Thank 

4 you.

5 Several of you asked for copies of the letter that was sent 

6 to me by three members of Congress. Who didn't -- these 

7 were distributed at our last meeting, but some of you 

8 needed copies. Cori will --

9 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) Actually (Inaudible) Cori 

10 my original of that.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Cori will distribute those.

12 (Pause)

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

14 (Pause)

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And did you distribute a copy of my 

16 response?

17 MS. HOMER: Yes.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Your response went to all three senators on 

20 an individual letterhead --

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but we only passed out -- I think Cori 
316 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 only passed out the one to Ms. Slaughter.

2 DR. ZIEMER: They were all identical and just the names 

3 were changed. The last paragraph indicates that similar 

4 responses went to the other two Representatives, and then 

5 I also sent this, as well as copy of the original letter, 

6 to Secretary Thompson. Okay? So -- any comments or 

7 questions on that letter?

8 DR. MELIUS: I guess I would like -- first of all, I'd like 

9 to try to work out some procedure so we understand how these 

10 letters will be handled. When I -- as I recalled the last 

11 meeting and checked back to the transcript, we talked about 

12 that you were going to consult -- the Chair was going to 

13 consult with NIOSH about these issues and then share with 

14 us what was going to happen, and it was -- the "share" was 

15 vague, but I was at least expecting to get a copy of what 

16 was being sent. And if there were policy or other issues 

17 related to the Board, that the Board would be consulted 

18 in some way on addressing these, that this -- and frankly, 

19 I don't completely understand what your response was and 

20 -- do that, so I think in the -- guess what I would ask 

21 in the future is that when these letters come in that we 

22 spend some time sort of being more specific about what the 
317 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 follow-up is. 'Cause I'm not trying to fault you in that 

2 sense, 'cause --

3 DR. ZIEMER: No, I appreciate that.

4 DR. MELIUS: -- we might have misunderstood that, but also 

5 that if there are policy or other issues that are raised 

6 by this that affect -- that are on behalf of the Board, 

7 then I think the Board needs to talk about them and have 

8 some input into them.

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. I was vague at 

10 the last meeting 'cause I had only just received the letter 

11 and seen it on the way in, and I wanted to have a chance 

12 to kind of match it against our stated responsibilities. 

13 We were, in a sense, being asked to do some things that 

14 were sort of what I would classify as being mandated by 

15 a Congressional group to do certain tasks. Our charge 

16 comes else-- from -- from a -- both the President and from 

17 our charter. And so basically, after having laid the 

18 letter side-by-side with our stated responsibilities, I 

19 simply -- it appeared to me that the first effort to, if 

20 there were issues, had to go to the Agency. Congress, I 

21 think, can direct in fact probably agencies to do those 

22 sorts of things. But in any event, officially to transmit 
318 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 their concerns to the Agency, and then secondly to let them 

2 know what we were doing in the way of audit procedures. 

3 We're being asked to specifically do an audit where we 

4 didn't even have procedures in place. Our selection of 

5 what we audit has to be based on the principles that we 

6 develop and not necessarily simply audit when -- when 

7 Congress asks us to, unless they wish to change the 

8 legislation. But that was the nature -- I don't think that 

9 I set any policy in responding. I simply told them what 

10 we were doing, that as we developed the audit procedures 

11 that we will ask the Agency to share them with -- with them. 

12 So that's the response -- I wasn't -- I get a number of 

13 letters from individuals on a variety of things. If 

14 they're addressed to me personally and not the Board, then 

15 I respond to them. I do not try to act on behalf of the 

16 Board in terms of changing anything or setting any policy. 

17 I just told them what we're doing. That was my response. 

18 But I'd be glad to -- if the Board wishes, on these kinds 

19 of things, to see the response in advance, I'm glad to do 

20 that, too. I don't have any problem with that.

21 DR. MELIUS: Again, speaking personally, I think when --

22 I think we've talked about this before, there are letters 
319 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that come in from individual claimants. They may come to 

2 you, they may come to the entire Board, and I think we've 

3 discussed some of the pitfalls of those as well as being 

4 discreet in how we handle them in terms of response and 

5 so forth and those I have concern-- I think when we get 

6 a letter from someone in Congress to the Advisory Board 

7 clearly asking the Advisory Board to do something, that 

8 that ought to be something we -- we discuss, or at least 

9 be informed about the response, that if you're someone in 

10 Congress, you read the law and the law clearly says that 

11 we are going to be reviewing dose reconstructions and so 

12 forth. And so I think you at least, from reading the law, 

13 it would be appropriate for them to turn to us and ask us 

14 to do that. And certainly the request was made on behalf 

15 of their constituents from the -- you know, it wasn't the 

16 -- their whim and I don't think it was a issue of, you know, 

17 what the Executive was or was not doing. You know, these 

18 are two Republicans and a Democrat that -- that wrote this 

19 letter.

20 I also think that in the response -- at least I would have 

21 preferred you indicating -- at least giving a little bit 

22 better -- more of an update on where we were in this 
320 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 process. It wasn't just that NIOSH would -- or HHS would 

2 communicate procedures, but that we were actually -- you 

3 know, at that time were in the process of awarding contract 

4 and taking up the -- to review site profiles, as well as 

5 individual dose reconstructions and that we would be 

6 making a selection. Now whether or not we take their 

7 desire in account in making that selection I think is, you 

8 know, something we could discuss. But in several ways it 

9 -- it's moot now after the previous actions we've taken 

10 this morning, but I guess I get a little worried that if 

11 we defer too much to NIOSH that we're implying that NIOSH 

12 or HHS is entirely in control of this process and that that 

13 has implications in terms of the independence of our 

14 review. And we -- I think our charge to review is -- when 

15 Congress set this up was for an independent review related 

16 to certain parameters of the dose reconstruction and that 

17 we need to be careful that when we communicate that we 

18 convey that we are doing an independent review and that 

19 -- us and then that NIOSH is well aware of that and I think 

20 supportive of -- of the need for the credibility of that 

21 -- that process.

22 DR. ZIEMER: I thought the second paragraph basically said 
321 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that, but maybe not in the words others would have used, 

2 but -- yeah. And at that point I wasn't prepared to give 

3 them a timetable 'cause we were still in flux. I simply 

4 said we are in the process. But thank you for those 

5 comments.

6 Other comments? Tony?

7 DR. ANDRADE: Paul, perhaps -- perhaps we should set a bar. 

8 The original legislation for EEOICPA was developed by 

9 Congressmen, even with great participation from 

10 Congressmen from my state, and it seems like although we 

11 shouldn't respond to the specific tasking that -- or not 

12 necessarily respond to the specific tasking that comes 

13 about because it -- this can become a circus. Okay? This 

14 can set a bad precedent if we were to do so. I think that 

15 what -- the bar or the threshold that I'm talking about 

16 may be that if there are Congressional communications that 

17 go to you or to others on the Board, that we share those 

18 and that we discuss those before -- and perhaps the Board 

19 get together and collectively put a -- an appropriate 

20 response together.

21 DR. ZIEMER: I certainly -- be glad to do that. Others 

22 want to weigh in on this?
322 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ANDERSON: I think it's a -- it was a fine letter. I 

2 mean the other thing we could have is kind of a routine 

3 thing to say -- you want to be timely in your response, 

4 so to wait until now, you could have gotten another angry 

5 letter, why haven't you responded, so I think something 

6 like this and then say the -- your letter will be shared 

7 with the full Board and will be discussed at the upcoming 

8 meeting, something like that. But I think, you know, now 

9 -- I don't want to necessarily enter into a dialogue with 

10 multiple letters, so you want to do one letter and be done. 

11 But now with Bethlehem on our site profile review, so you 

12 know, we are being responsive, so I think something like 

13 that rather than necessarily try to get the Board together 

14 on a teleconference or something, it's -- it's not that 

15 pressing. But I think just to indicate that -- thank you, 

16 forward it on to the Board and we'll talk about it further. 

17 But it was a good letter, I thought.

18 DR. ZIEMER: Roy?

19 DR. DEHART: I don't know how you would feel about it, but 

20 we now have considerable progress since your original 

21 letter was written. A follow-up letter to the three 

22 Congressmen stating that we now have a contractor, by name; 
323 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that that contractor is being given some directions with 

2 regard to doing just what has been requested; and that this 

3 particular institute or business is to be -- is included 

4 in the monitoring of the situation with regard to the 

5 status.

6 DR. ZIEMER: I'd be glad to do that if the Board so desires. 

7 I would point out to you that in the original letter, 

8 Congress not only asked that -- or these three individuals 

9 not only asked that we do an audit, but they asked to review 

10 the procedures before the audit was done. And so it was 

11 much -- the scope of what was being asked was pretty 

12 extensive. And if you feel that you would like the Chair 

13 to let them know that we are doing the audit and that we've 

14 selected a contractor, then I'm glad to do that. But what 

15 we are doing is not precisely what they had asked for.

16 DR. MELIUS: And I just think we should clarify that in 

17 our communications.

18 Your letter also indicates that HHS will do -- have 

19 follow-up communication with them, and I -- I don't have 

20 -- haven't heard about that and I don't know if that 

21 communication has been sent. Larry, can you --

22 DR. ZIEMER: I simply indicated that I would ask HHS --
324 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 or ask -- basically it's NIOSH, but HHS to provide them 

2 with our procedures when they become available. We don't 

3 have our procedures yet.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: No, we have not communicated yet. We are 

5 preparing a communication, though.

6 DR. MELIUS: Can that be shared with the Board when it goes 

7 out?

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, certainly, it will be tied to the 

9 Board's incoming.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any further items on this? Well, 

11 Wanda, yes. Thank you.

12 MS. MUNN: I would like to strongly urge caution with 

13 respect to establishing a precedent for long and detailed 

14 correspondence between this Board and elected officials. 

15 I remind you there are over 350 members of Congress. They 

16 passed the law under which we operate, and a large number 

17 of them have constituents who are concerned with what we 

18 do here. We are a public body. We operate in the sunshine 

19 (Inaudible) access to our minutes and to our procedures. 

20 My personal view is that the Chair has responded 

21 appropriately and that the Agency has indicated they will 

22 provide the documents that the elected officials 
325 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 requested. Anything further than that, in my view, is 

2 asking for us to involve ourselves in many dialogues from 

3 many different approaches, and we should be very cautious 

4 at the outset in following that course of action.

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. It's not fully clear to 

6 the Chair yet as to whether the Board wishes there to be 

7 a follow-up letter. Can I take a straw poll and just get 

8 a sense of the Board? Do you -- how many think that the 

9 Chair should send a follow-up status report letter?

10 (Affirmative responses)

11 Four -- five -- one, two three, four, five, six -- it looks 

12 like most do, and so I will prepare that. Do you wish to 

13 see the follow-up letter first? Yes? No? If you wish 

14 to see it, it will be a month from now. Okay, we will 

15 prepare a follow-up letter and simply -- informing these 

16 three Congresspeople of the current status, that we have 

17 selected Bethlehem as one of our audits and that our 

18 contractor is -- has been selected and we're in process.

19 I don't -- I don't assume that any of us want us to commit

20 to having Congressional review of our procedures before 

21 proceeding. Yes, Tony.

22 DR. ANDRADE: Absolutely. You know, I fully support what 
326 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Wanda said. I just think that in this particular case 

2 where you did respond initially to -- to the Congressional 

3 folks -- Congresspeople, we -- we hadn't come -- well, as 

4 mentioned by Dr. Melius, we hadn't come to this point in 

5 our deliberations and now we can tersely and quickly close 

6 the loop with these folks, and hopefully that will be the 

7 case in the future.

8 DR. ZIEMER: I think we're ready to proceed with the public 

9 comment period, are we not? Do we have any other business 

10 -- Jim?

11 DR. MELIUS: A thing that I hope we can do quickly -- very 

12 quickly. For our next meeting in Hanford -- I talked about 

13 this earlier this morning -- is I think we need to come 

14 to grips with sort of the procedural issues related to dose 

15 reconstruction review and our dealing with our contractor 

16 and so forth. And I know that there have been various 

17 documents prepared. I don't think anything that's 

18 actually been presented to the Board on this, and perhaps 

19 a workgroup could be charged with coming up with something 

20 by the next meeting in Hanford so we have a -- something 

21 to, you know, react to and that would also get some input 

22 from NIOSH and staff in terms of -- of some of the 
327 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 contractual and FACA issues related to that so that we 

2 don't have to go through those at length and with the 

3 uncertainty involved. So I think a small workgroup and 

4 -- whether it's from the, you know -- whether it's the

5 original group that Mark chaired or a different group I 

6 don't think matters, but I do think we ought to get prepared 

7 for this next meeting so we can make decisions on that.

8 DR. ZIEMER: We actually have -- in fact, Mark and I have 

9 worked a little bit off-line on a sample. I don't know 

10 if charter's the right name, but a structure for a 

11 subcommittee that would -- I think, as it's evolving now 

12 -- would have the responsibility for managing the 

13 groupings of the dose reconstruction audits and how we 

14 bring them forward, that kind of thing. And basically I 

15 think we have the draft materials that we could just simply 

16 bring forward, we could distribute in advance, in fact.

17 MR. GRIFFON: I think -- I mean I'd be willing to work with 

18 you further on that. We have a draft. I think what I 

19 would propose is to cross-walk that draft of the 

20 subcommittee task with this procedure that we've all 

21 approved on reviewing the dose reconstructions and see how 

22 those two -- I mean 'cause we did one prior to the other.
328 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. MELIUS: And I would just ask that we sort of 

2 cross-walk that or check that against some of these FACA 

3 and contractual contracting rules so that --

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right, we'll try to do that and perhaps --

5 DR. MELIUS: -- we decide something -- we're not going to 

6 set up a structure that's going to get --

7 DR. ZIEMER: And I wonder --

8 DR. MELIUS: -- us or NIOSH or somebody in trouble.

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- if we could get Tony to agree to help us 

10 on that, too. We would just get a third opinion on that, 

11 and we'll bring that forward then.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Building off what Dr. Melius suggested, if 

13 you could -- when you get something -- you know, some 

14 language to evaluate here, I think it'd be good if you'd 

15 get it to us so that we can give you some advice on Privacy 

16 Act and FACA and procurement requirements, et cetera.

17 DR. MELIUS: I just don't want to get to this next meeting 

18 and have to have you -- ask you a question and have Larry 

19 have to go back and find out 'cause this is very complicated 

20 and the answers aren't always easy --

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right.

22 DR. MELIUS: -- and we ought to try to do that as much ahead 
329 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 of time as we can.

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. We'll make sure that gets done. 

3 Thank you.

4 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

5 Let's proceed now to the public comment period. I have 

6 several listed here. Are there any more --

7 MS. HOMER: No.

8 DR. ZIEMER: I have Dennis Rocque here, but was this from 

9 last night or is Dennis --

10 MS. HOMER: No, that's from this morning.

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a new sign-up, good. Dennis, if you 

12 want to lead off again today and -- where's the mike?

13 MS. HOMER: Right here.

14 DR. ZIEMER: The mike is right here, so...

15 MR. ROCQUE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

16 the committee. Once again I bring you greetings and 

17 welcome you to Augusta on behalf of T.S. Yarborough, 

18 business manager of local union 1579 of the International 

19 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and also president of 

20 Augusta building and construction trades council. Once 

21 again, I'm sorry he couldn't be here today. He's still 

22 at home recuperating from surgery.
330 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 As I said, my name is Dennis Rocque. I'm organizer from 

2 local union 1579 and also the secretary/treasurer of 

3 Augusta building and construction trades, and it is in this 

4 capacity that I am here today. My presentation is also 

5 behalf of the South Carolina building and construction 

6 trades council.

7 First I would like to thank you for giving me this 

8 opportunity to come and speak with you and present my 

9 views. There are some 15 affiliated unions of the various 

10 crafts in our councils. Together they serve a estimated 

11 37,000 workers who have been employed at the Savannah River 

12 Site since radiation sources were deployed at the site. 

13 These members also have families, and altogether this 

14 population numbers some 150,000 people. Whether as 

15 workers or as family members or survivors, all of these 

16 people have had a stake in your work.

17 Our duty to our members and their families is to make sure 

18 they are treated fairly by this program. What we hear from 

19 families about the way this program is going causes us 

20 great concern.

21 We greatly appreciate your willingness to come to Augusta 

22 because so many of the affected workers live in this 
331 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 vicinity, and we also appreciate you holding public 

2 sessions in the evening to give these people the 

3 opportunity to be with you. I hope you found that 

4 experience to be useful and I would hope that you will 

5 continue to hold meetings in the places and at the times 

6 that are accessible to people that are to be served by this 

7 program.

8 I also want to thank NIOSH for asking to meet with us about 

9 the recent issued site profile document for the Savannah 

10 River Site. We could only arrange this meeting on 

11 November 11th, which is a Federal holiday, but they came 

12 anyway. We are grateful for that, and for the discussion 

13 we had. To show you that we took this seriously, every 

14 one of our local union leaders participated in the meeting.

15 I've been told NIOSH concluded that the current draft of 

16 the site profile does not address the exposure history of 

17 construction workers and that it would need to prepare a 

18 separate profile from this perspective. Is this is the 

19 outcome of that meeting, we will be pleased also, although 

20 we withhold judgment about the products until we see it.

21 The reason for our concern on this score is that we think 

22 NIOSH has the expertise -- or we don't think that NIOSH 
332 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 has the expertise and experience in construction to ever 

2 adequately understand the complexity of construction 

3 work. It often seems they gloss over and simplify 

4 something that can't be made simple, and we sympathize with 

5 that. The construction industry and construction is 

6 messy, improvised, poorly planned and unstructured. Once 

7 completed, the construction work process is never 

8 documented in a manner that could be replicated. That's 

9 why researchers who often come in contact with our industry 

10 get frustrated. They want us to stand still long enough 

11 to be captured by their methods, but that just doesn't 

12 happen.

13 This is not unique to this program. This is true for all 

14 safety and health. Because construction is difficult to 

15 understand, it has mostly been ignored. Last night you 

16 heard from a few of our members. They expressed concern 

17 about the slow progress that is being made. They 

18 expressed concern about being treated fairly. They say 

19 you don't understand our work or the exposures. That was 

20 our conclusion, as well, following the meeting we had in 

21 November.

22 If I can summarize my understanding of where we are, it 
333 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 would be this. First, NIOSH intends to rely on individual 

2 radiation doses where possible. We know that won't work 

3 for many of our members because they weren't either 

4 monitored or monitored in deficient ways. What we don't 

5 know is how NIOSH will determine whether radiation 

6 monitoring is complete. But we don't know the extent of 

7 this problem, so here's my first request to you.

8 Please evaluate DOE -- please evaluate, by DOE site and 

9 for each construction trade, the incompleteness of 

10 radiation monitoring. Let me emphasize we need a separate 

11 evaluation for construction trades. In the end it seems 

12 it will be up to the individual claimant to prove that the 

13 radiation monitoring records are not complete. This 

14 appears to us to be highly unfair, for two reasons.

15 First, the likelihood of construction workers having 

16 incomplete radiation records is much greater than for 

17 other workers. Second, the burden of making this proof 

18 seems more than you can expect to be placed on a worker. 

19 But we don't know that for sure since no one has told us 

20 what kind of proof will be required. So here's my second 

21 request to you.

22 Give us a method by which claimants can prove this. What 
334 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 does it take? The existing rule says nothing about this. 

2 Second, NIOSH then says that it needs work history 

3 interviews to get at the kind of information that it takes 

4 to figure out missing monitor and the unusual exposures. 

5 We know that doesn't work for many of our members who are 

6 claimants because they are old and they have a long and 

7 complicated work history. Many have a dozen or more 

8 employers a year. Further, when half of the claimants are 

9 survivors, how do you expect this to work since they have 

10 no details on work histories. Construction workers will 

11 talk at great lengths and with pride about the great 

12 projects they worked on -- the buildings, the highways, 

13 the bridges and so on. But they generally don't talk much 

14 about their work day and with their families, in part 

15 because it's dangerous. And at the DOE sites they were 

16 forbidden to do so, so how do you expect these survivors 

17 to provide recall? We know this work history procedure 

18 is not working because we hear it from our members and their 

19 families.

20 November 11th we asked NIOSH how the interviews were going 

21 and they said poorly. In fact, they said that the 

22 survivors' interviews mostly resulted in "I don't know" 
335 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 answers and only lasted about ten minutes. They claim 

2 this is frustrating to them. Imagine how the claimant 

3 feels. So this is my third request to you.

4 Please review the work history process for construction 

5 workers and tell us how often they are insufficient. 

6 Provide this information specifically for construction 

7 workers and also where the claimant is a survivor.

8 Thirdly, NIOSH says that it doesn't really need the 

9 interviews. Instead, it can express a professional 

10 opinion. We know that no two construction workers are 

11 remotely alike in their work history experiences. That 

12 is why safety and health researchers often get frustrated 

13 when they come onto a job site. We've seen it time and 

14 time again. More importantly, NIOSH has not presented us 

15 with a method by which it will do this. To rule on dose 

16 reconstructions is not specific about how this will be done 

17 for construction workers, and the NIOSH team could not tell 

18 us how they are doing this, so we have little confidence 

19 in this regard. So this is my fourth request to you.

20 Review the procedures by which NIOSH will do this 

21 specifically for construction workers. From what I have 

22 said, you can see that we have concerns about every step 
336 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 in the NIOSH decision logic as it applies to construction 

2 workers, and we have a clear and factual basis for these 

3 concerns. It is not the first time they have been exposed 

4 to NIOSH or to you, but let me say again, you can't treat 

5 the problems that are unique to construction as a side 

6 issue. You can't make up answers as you go along. That's 

7 too arbitrary. It is not fair to our claimants. You need 

8 a unifying model to show how you're going to treat 

9 construction workers. Thank you for your time.

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Next we have Isaiah --

11 and I think it's Anfeld or Anfield. Isaiah?

12 MR. ANFIELD: Good morning. Good morning. I'm a member 

13 of local 1137 union, general maintenance. I was a 

14 previous employee out at duPont back in the eighties. 

15 What I would like to know, as far as me personal-wise, I 

16 suffer what they call Biller's (Ph.) Disease, and I use 

17 this combine to help them things, lung cancer, even in 

18 people who do not smoke, shortness of breath, loss of 

19 appetite and weight to ease breathing. This is a combine 

20 held. I would like to know (Inaudible) disease asbestos, 

21 shortness of breath. Now this is my treatment. I would 

22 like to know do -- I would like to -- for this question 
337 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to Dr. Ziemer -- that's correct? I would like the answer 

2 -- How would you like to confront this question. What 

3 treatment do you have for (Inaudible) treatment at this 

4 present time?

5 DR. ZIEMER: If I understood what you're asking, what 

6 treatment is there for --

7 MR. ANFIELD: For asbestos and (Inaudible) disease.

8 DR. ZIEMER: Beryllium disease.

9 MR. ANFIELD: And asbestos.

10 DR. ZIEMER: And asbestos.

11 MR. ANFIELD: Uh-huh.

12 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if -- we have a couple of physicians 

13 on the panel and maybe Roy or -- if not Roy -- can you 

14 address that for us?

15 DR. DEHART: Only in general summary. I'm Dr. Roy DeHart

16 and you were complaining of asthma?

17 MR. ANFIELD: I am -- I am -- that's what -- that's what 

18 I'm treating my disease for as of right now, but I'm up 

19 on beryllium, between that and asbestos, but I'm taking 

20 over -- this is what they call a combined (Inaudible) for 

21 the disease.

22 DR. DEHART: For asthma that is an appropriate treatment. 
338 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 I don't know what kind of inhaler you're using, but 

2 certainly --

3 MR. ANFIELD: Combined. Combined, that's the name of it.

4 DR. DEHART: I can't be specific, but there are both oral 

5 medications, as well as inhalation medications, like the 

6 inhaler that you have, that's appropriate for treatment. 

7 The second issue was berylliosis, you have a beryllium lung 

8 problem, as well?

9 MR. ANFIELD: I just have a disease and, you know, it's 

10 borderline. I don't know which one is what or -- it's 

11 between beryllium and asbestos.

12 DR. DEHART: Well, obviously you probably need a physician 

13 to help make that diagnosis --

14 MR. ANFIELD: Yes, that's -- that's -- I mean that's what 

15 I been through and that's why I'm on it. That's why my 

16 doctor got me on this and I've been to three or four 

17 doctors, so as of right now, you know, that's what's --

18 they can come up with. I'm -- I'm -- like I say, I'm taking 

19 a combined vent inhaler at the present, right now, for the 

20 treatment.

21 DR. DEHART: Yes. Well, the other item you mentioned was 

22 asbestos exposure --
339 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ANFIELD: Asbestos.

2 DR. DEHART: -- asbestosis.

3 MR. ANFIELD: Yes.

4 DR. DEHART: The treatment for that is very similar, 

5 depending how severe it is. They may need to add some 

6 other medications to control it if you're having real 

7 respiratory problems, real breathing problems, but that's 

8 a decision that your physician will need to make and 

9 talking with them. We're not prepared to provide specific 

10 treatment regimens because obviously we haven't examined 

11 you, we're unable to at this point in time take a medical 

12 history. But I would leave that to your physician who's 

13 taking care of you. And if it's necessary for him or her 

14 to refer you to somebody else, they certainly can do that.

15 MR. ANFIELD: Okay, I've got one more question. During 

16 the time that I was employed with E.I. duPont, my insurance 

17 company was Aetna. Now I want to -- I want to know why 

18 they jumped the 'surance company when I was with Aetna, 

19 now they got it with Wausau. How can that be?

20 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know that we know the answer to that. 

21 I don't know if any of the local people or the DOE folks 

22 can answer that. It has to do with local insurance 
340 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 situation perhaps.

2 MR. ANFIELD: Well, during the time -- as far as I know, 

3 E.I. duPont -- I was up under Aetna Insurance Company. Now 

4 they got another 'surance company called Wausau. I'm not 

5 affiliated with Westinghouse.

6 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest that after our session here 

7 that perhaps one of the NIOSH staff people can find a little 

8 -- out a little more about this. We don't know if we can 

9 be of help, but we can certainly look into that.

10 MR. ANFIELD: Okay, thank you very much then.

11 DR. DEHART: One last question. Do you smoke?

12 MR. ANFIELD: I have before, but that wouldn't have 

13 nothing to do with me catching the disease -- I mean with 

14 all the disease, you know --

15 DR. DEHART: So you --

16 MR. ANFIELD: -- all this. We've done all that and I would 

17 -- every doctor, you know, I asked them about cigarettes, 

18 they said not necessarily because people also that don't 

19 smoke is infected.

20 DR. DEHART: Okay. You're not smoking now?

21 MR. ANFIELD: No, I'm not.

22 DR. DEHART: That's good.
341 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: Next we have Bob -- is it Warner -- Warren, 

2 Bob Warren.

3 MR. WARREN: Hi, I'm Bob Warren. My address is Post 

4 Office Box 1367 in Black Mountain, North Carolina 28711. 

5 I'm a lawyer that had been representing claimants in the 

6 EEOICP process, both the lump sum cases and the Workers 

7 Comp cases, for over two years. And I would like to 

8 compliment NIOSH for having hired some very competent 

9 people who do the interviews. I think I've had all of the 

10 interviewers at least once. I know several I've had five 

11 or six times. The problem with the interviews, as I see 

12 it, is that the claimants or their survivors don't have 

13 the information or can't remember the information needed 

14 to document the radiation exposure.

15 One thing that might help is to send a copy of the worker's 

16 radiation exposure records and/or the worker's site 

17 medical records to the worker or the survivors at the time 

18 when NIOSH sends out the interview form. Having some of 

19 these records to jog the memory of a worker or to allow 

20 the survivors to know what actually went on where that 

21 worker was working would be of tremendous help, I think, 

22 at least in production workers. I don't think it would 
342 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 help in construction workers, but whatever records you 

2 have would be helpful.

3 I had -- I do agree that the construction workers should 

4 be put in a Special Exposure Cohort because it's so 

5 difficult to document all the dangerous situations they're 

6 in. I have interviewed clients that were in the 

7 construction -- and they just have a variety of different 

8 experiences where somebody said go repair this valve or 

9 do something else or put a pipe in in a radiation zone, 

10 and that's just not documented.

11 I also agree with Knute Ringin's comments that he made at 

12 your last meeting which I read on your web site -- which 

13 I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that -- when 

14 he said that the site profile documents were not reflecting 

15 what went on at Savannah River Site. And he specifically 

16 said that 83 significant site history documents not 

17 referenced in the SRS technical document are extremely 

18 relevant. I think they're extremely relevant. And by 

19 not using these documents, NIOSH has damaged its 

20 credibility for fair treatment of the workers, and I just 

21 think you need to look at that seriously.

22 One of the things not in the SRS technical documents --
343 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 the technical document and the amendments, is the practice 

2 at SRS of workers eating contaminated plums, blackberries, 

3 scuppernong grapes, peaches, pecans and even eating fish 

4 out of the holding ponds. You can appreciate the effects 

5 of these radioactive things on the mouth, the throat, the 

6 stomach, the colon, the bladder and even the prostate. 

7 And as far as I know, NIOSH health physicists have not 

8 developed procedures to deal with these cases.

9 One of the problems that I've had with different sites --

10 SRS, Hanford and Oak Ridge are the ones that I've dealt 

11 with mostly -- is that DOE says it does not have the records 

12 for workers who have presented Social Security records, 

13 W-2 forms, affidavits from fellow workers saying that they 

14 worked at the site. I've just really been appalled at 

15 DOE's lack of thoroughness in getting records, 

16 particularly when they -- they have duPont, Westinghouse 

17 or Bechtel that they're dealing with. They know these 

18 people have the records and all DOE has been doing is just 

19 simply asking them and then saying okay, well, if you don't 

20 have them, that's it, and workers claims then getting 

21 denied.

22 I think by continuing to be persistent in asking for the 
344 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 records, NIOSH can at least document that they are asking 

2 for the records over and over again. What I've had in 

3 several cases is they say there's no records, and then 

4 finally when it gets up to Workers Advocacy in Washington, 

5 suddenly all the records are there. And by that time NIOSH 

6 has already done the dose reconstruction on a very 

7 abbreviated work history and they've lost. And so we get 

8 up -- all the way up there.

9 I would point out that the status report sent out by NIOSH 

10 that you send out normally really doesn't help much when 

11 a dose reconstruction is started and then the status report 

12 comes out every month just showing that the dose 

13 reconstruction started on the same date, with no changes. 

14 I have about a half a dozen clients who have been waiting 

15 for more than 180 days for a dose reconstruction and all 

16 they get every month is a call saying -- I mean a report, 

17 then they call me -- well, all this says is the same thing 

18 last month. If it was some kind of expectation or estimate 

19 of when the dose reconstruction was going to be completed, 

20 then that would give you useful information, I think.

21 Now in light of the testimony of the two ladies last night, 

22 I also want to know -- want you to know about several other 
345 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 women who had worked in this administration building at 

2 SRS. They worked as secretaries and then had breast 

3 cancer. One client of mine with breast cancer was denied 

4 benefits because the NIOSH dose reconstruction procedure 

5 was based upon her 30 millirems of exposure over seven 

6 years, and it was based supposedly on the most favorable 

7 dose. But if -- as you heard last night, if they were 

8 working next to a radiation zone that wasn't separated by 

9 any -- any lead or anything else, then there's something 

10 that could have happened to these workers. I know of two 

11 other workers who were secretaries and they were diagnosed 

12 with different cancers. One died in the forties, the 

13 other one died in her thirties. And these cases are just 

14 the ones I know about or the ones you know about and I know 

15 about from last night.

16 I would join David (sic) Miller in asking that the members 

17 of this panel look into this situation and do a -- some 

18 type of cancer screening of administrative personnel who 

19 were almost 100 percent women and who worked in the 700 

20 areas at SRS.

21 The last point I would make is that I hope some of you on 

22 this committee will also use your expertise to -- with 
346 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 NIOSH's help, to actually perform a dose reconstruction 

2 on workers who had lymphomas, leukemia or thyroid cancer. 

3 I don't think it's a secret in the scientific community 

4 that if you have large numbers of people exposed to 

5 radiation that the expected result would be thyroid 

6 cancers, lymphomas and leukemias. Somehow the NIOSH dose 

7 reconstruction process is not finding that there is at 

8 least a 50 percent probability of causation in these 

9 particular cases, at least from the cases I've seen. 

10 Please look into this problem because I think something 

11 is very wrong with the NIOSH procedures for this particular 

12 type cancers, the thyroid, the leukemias and the 

13 lymphomas.

14 Thank you very much. Any questions?

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Questions for Mr. Warren?

16 (No responses)

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Last person we have on the sign-up list is 

18 Howard Lawson.

19 MR. LAWSON: Good afternoon. I guess -- yeah, it's 

20 afternoon already. I am Howard Lawson. I'm electrician 

21 by trade and a union health and safety representative for 

22 the atomic trades and labor council at the Y-12 plant in 
347 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 Oak Ridge. And I've got a couple of issues to lay on you, 

2 a couple of bricks -- more bricks for your load. But 

3 first, on behalf of the ATLC in Oak Ridge, let me thank 

4 the Board, each of you, for the work that you do.

5 And one of the issues that I have is the one that we've 

6 heard a lot about, and that's the Special Exposure Cohort. 

7 But before I get into it, let me remind you just a little 

8 bit about Oak Ridge site. And it is one site with three 

9 individual plants. We've got the K-25 plant or the 

10 gaseous diffusion plant or the -- I guess it's the ETTP 

11 now, East Tennessee Technology Plant or something. And 

12 of course we have the Y-12 weapons plant where I work, and 

13 the X-10 national lab.

14 Let me find my place here. A lot of things I've lost; I 

15 miss my mind more than anything a lot of times.

16 Though all three plants are different, and basically all 

17 the exposures were the same and the monitoring was the 

18 same, is one reason that I think that all plants should 

19 be in the special cohort. But like I say, there's three 

20 plants on one site and of course K-25 is in the special 

21 cohort by virtue of being a gaseous diffusion plant. But 

22 the ATLC, if you have a opportunity to advise the powers 
348 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 that be on inclusion of people in the special cohort, the 

2 ATLC would like to have the current and former workers at 

3 Y-12 and X-10 who are affected or have been affected by 

4 one of the specific cancers be included in the special 

5 cohort as a class of people. Justification for the SEC 

6 for X and Y worker is that, like the gentleman that spoke 

7 first, talked about the construction workers moving from 

8 site to site, the Oak Ridge workers -- maintenance workers 

9 routinely went from one site to the other, for training 

10 or one reason or another. Another justification for the 

11 SEC classification is workers at X-10 developed and tested 

12 many of the diffusion processes that are used around --

13 around the country. And in bygone years, accident and 

14 exposures happened, especially at the Y-12 plant. We've 

15 all read about those that -- in those days -- well, not 

16 the criticality one, but the others were considered normal 

17 or everyday occurrences. And today they're not, they're 

18 considered off-normal occurrences and incidents and 

19 they're -- just aren't acceptable today, where in days gone 

20 by, they were. And I mention that because I want to know 

21 if NIOSH can or has taken that into consideration when 

22 they're doing the dose reconstruction, or is it possible 
349 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 to -- to estimate those things.

2 The second issue and final issue that I need your help with 

3 is the health screening program. Here again, there's a 

4 difference among the three plants on the same site. K-25 

5 has the screening, and also they have the scat can -- CAT 

6 scan truck that is used for early lung detection. And from 

7 what I've heard of the people at K-25, it's -- it does work. 

8 It's a good thing. The ATLC would like to see that same 

9 process come to -- for the current and former workers at 

10 Y-12 and X-10.

11 Now we worked on a screening process with Mark and some 

12 more of them on the needs assessment for the screening 

13 program, and the last I found out that the medical 

14 screening program was in the works and probably will 

15 happen. But the CAT scan truck and the early detection 

16 system was not going to be part of it. And the ATLC would 

17 like to see that -- you know, whatever we can do, whether 

18 we borrow it from PACE, which is an outstanding 

19 organization, or get a CAT scan truck of our own for the 

20 workers at X-10 and Y-12.

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Are there any -- those 

22 are the four commenters that have signed up. Are there 
350 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 any others here who didn't get a chance to sign up that 

2 wish to make public comment?

3 MS. GANTZ: Hello. I'm Julie Gantz. I'm a former 

4 employee of Savannah River Site. Like I stated last 

5 night, I worked in 773-A on D wing and I have been told 

6 that the office that I worked in at one time was a 

7 contaminated lab that was supposedly cleaned up. It 

8 backed up to a fab lab, which was in RCA, and there were 

9 several times that they would melt the -- I knew that they 

10 were melting circuit boards to get the precious metals and 

11 fumes would come over into my office and I would get 

12 headaches and my eyes would burn immediately. I never 

13 knew when they were down there or what they were doing. 

14 I never -- did not know until several incidents went by 

15 when they were forced to stop and build a retaining wall. 

16 There was no retaining wall in between my office and that 

17 RCA, and I have since been -- the recommended decision from 

18 NIOSH is to deny my claim, and in my report it says that 

19 the dose reconstruction likely overestimates my actual 

20 exposure. Well, where's the documentation for that? You 

21 know, most of this stuff doesn't really tell you a whole 

22 lot, just you know, that... I'm getting nervous. I just 
351 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 wanted to know what documentation that, you know, they used 

2 to get all this.

3 DR. ZIEMER: Again, I think in this case we can ask NIOSH 

4 staff to individually provide that documentation since 

5 that is protected information that probably wouldn't be 

6 in public record, but maybe one of the staff can talk with 

7 Ms. --

8 MS. GANTZ: 'Cause there are two other women besides me 

9 and -- plus my boss, we all had cancer and my boss has died, 

10 so you can't exactly talk to him.

11 DR. ZIEMER: It appears that this could also be a case 

12 where there were some chemical implications if they were 

13 doing circuit board melting, as you described. 

14 Unfortunately, this program doesn't address the issue of 

15 chemical exposures and health effects of that, but the 

16 documentation at least on the radiation dose 

17 reconstruction I think -- whatever is needed can probably 

18 be provided. Is that -- is that -- I don't think we need 

19 to necessarily do that here, but we could have the staff 

20 work with -- with you on that.

21 MS. GANTZ: Okay. Thank you.

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much.
352 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 MR. ANFIELD: I have one more question. Reflect back to 

2 just one small question. I have one -- they was talking 

3 about how can they lose the record, I got my check stubs 

4 right here to document it, so would that be -- would that 

5 recognize my record from E.I. duPont, my check stubs? 

6 Just a copy of my check stubs, you know, like they're saying 

7 they can't find the records for some of the employees.

8 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that. Again, can 

9 we ask you to work individually with one of the staff and 

10 maybe --

11 MR. ANFIELD: Well, who is the staff?

12 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) Labor's not here right now 

13 (Inaudible) clarification.

14 DR. ZIEMER: That's a -- oh, that's a Department of Labor 

15 employment verification issue.

16 MR. ANFIELD: Yes.

17 DR. ZIEMER: Can we provide this gentleman with the person 

18 he should contact?

19 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) Maybe (Inaudible) resource 

20 center can help (Inaudible).

21 DR. ZIEMER: We'll try to help you, sir.

22 MR. ANFIELD: Okay. Thank you very much.
353 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 DR. ZIEMER: This then concludes our open session of the 

2 Board meeting. Let me ask if there are any other 

3 announcements or issues that need to come before us in open 

4 session today.

5 (No responses)

6 If not, we are going to recess for lunch, and the Board 

7 will reconvene at 1:30 p.m., at which -- which is a closed 

8 session. I want to announce to members of the public that 

9 that session will be confined to discussion and review of 

10 the task order proposal and independent government cost 

11 estimate for the Board's contractor, and no other business 

12 will be conducted. Thank you very much.

13 (Whereupon, the public portion of the meeting was 

14 adjourned, 12:30 p.m.)

15

16

17
354 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES

1 C E R T I F I C 

2 A T E

STATE OF GEORGIA )

 )

COUNTY OF FULTON )

I, STEVEN RAY GREEN, being a Certified Merit Court Reporter 

in and for the State of Georgia, do hereby certify that the 

foregoing transcript was reduced to typewriting by me 

personally or under my direct supervision, and is a true, 

complete, and correct transcript of the aforesaid proceedings 

reported by me.

I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, 

counsel to, or attorney for any parties, attorneys, or counsel 

involved herein; nor am I financially interested in this matter.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this _____ day of 

February, 2004.

___________________________

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CVR-CM

GA CCR No. A-2102