STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING 53 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 53rd 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held telephonically on Feb. 20, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Feb. 20, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

CHAPMAN VALVE SEC UPDATE 15 

DOW CHEMICAL SEC UPDATE 34 

LINDE UPDATE 43 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE 56 

WORK GROUP UPDATES 98 

STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES AND UPDATE 

ON SELECTION OF BOARD CONTRACTOR 119 

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 123 

BOARD WORKING TIME AND FUTURE PLANS 125 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 170 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

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

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

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

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

BLOCK, SHARON, SEN. KENNEDY 

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE, LINDE 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

BURN, JIM, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

CRAWFORD, CHRIS 

DREW, SHANA, SEN. CANTWELL 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

LEWIS, GREG, DOE 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MARSCHE, STEVE, SC&A 

MCKEEL, DAN, SINEW 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

OH, KATHERINE, SEN. REID 

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 

RAMSPOTT, JOHN, ST. LOUIS 

ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH OCAS 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson? 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Genevieve Roessler? 

4 DR. ROESSLER: Here. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Jim Lockey? 

6 DR. LOCKEY: Here. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 

8 (No response) 

9 Dr. Poston? 

10 (No response) 

11 Ms. Beach? 

12 MS. BEACH: Here. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

14 (No response) 

15 Mr. Gibson? 

16 MR. GIBSON: Here. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, you are there. Hi. 

18 MR. GIBSON: Hi. 

19 MS. MUNN: Hi, Mike. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 
8

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

3 MR. SCHOFIELD: Here. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

5 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn. 

7 MS. MUNN: Here. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. We do have a quorum. Jim, 

9 were -- you were -- Jim Lockey, you were going 

10 to -- did you check your calendar? 

11 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Is Ray Green on the line? 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, he is. We'll get started in 

14 just a second, Dr. -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, just wanted to make sure Ray 

16 was there. Morning, Ray. 

17 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, hi, Dr. Ziemer. 

18 DR. LOCKEY: November 6th is great for me. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. All right, we'll get to 

20 that in a minute. Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Lockey's 

21 going to have to leave us at 2:30, but right 

22 now we have quorum. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Let's wait just one more minute. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I'm just looking here at the 
9

1 official time. Well, it's 11:01 according to 

2 the cell phone, which seems to pick up the 

3 official time from some signal out in space. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yes, and Microsoft says the same 

5 thing. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, this is Mark Griffon. I'm 

7 on now. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good morning, Mark. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, we still have quorum. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, did Dr. Melius come on 

11 the line yet? 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yep, I'm on, too. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston, are you on? 

15 (No response) 

16 Dr. Ziemer, you have everyone except -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Except Poston, okay. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: And Ray is ready. I have a few 

19 bookkeeping items, as you know. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right, let's -- let's go ahead and 

21 proceed. I'll officially call the meeting to 

22 order. You -- you have just done a roll call 

23 on the Board. Everyone was present except Dr. 

24 Poston. 

25 MS. BURGOS: Excuse me, Dr. Branche, this is 
10

1 Zaida. I will call Dr. Poston. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, Zaida. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If you would proceed, Dr. Branche, 

5 and check on other members who are present and 

6 then give us some good instruction on protocol 

7 for the use of the phone. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: All right. As you said, I have 

9 just done the Board roll call, and welcome to 

10 the 53rd meeting of the Advisory Board on 

11 Radiation and Worker Health. I'm Dr. Christine 

12 Branche and I'll be your Designated Federal 

13 Official today. 

14 I've got -- Ray -- Ray Green, you're up and 

15 ready? 

16 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, ma'am. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, great. I just wanted to -- 

18 we could -- if there are NIOSH reps on the 

19 line, would you please identify yourself? 

20 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott -- 

22 DR. WADE: -- sitting in with Dr. Post-- with 

23 Dr. Branche. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: Hi, this is Larry Elliott. 

25 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton in Cincinnati. 
11

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford in 

2 Cincinnati. 

3 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes in Cincinnati. 

4 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams in D.C. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: And we know that Zaida Burgos is 

6 on the line. Is -- are there any other NIOSH 

7 reps on the line? 

8 (No response) 

9 Thank you. Any reps from SC&A? 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, Joe Fitzgerald. Good 

11 morning. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Good morning. Thank you. 

13 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling. 

14 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

15 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 

16 MR. MARSCHE: Steve Marsche. Steve Marsche. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. Thank you. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: By the way, John Mauro is a 

19 grandfather again. That's why he's not here. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Oh -- oh, wonderful. Any other 

22 SC&A reps? 

23 (No response) 

24 Thank you. Anyone from the Department of 

25 Energy? 
12

1 (No response) 

2 I presume they'll join us later. Anyone from 

3 the Department of Labor? 

4 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch in Washington. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Jeff, thank you so much for 

6 joining us. 

7 Are there -- is there anyone else who would 

8 like to identify themself? 

9 MS. OH: This is Katherine Oh in Senator Reid's 

10 office. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Hi, Katherine. How are you? 

12 MS. OH: Good, how are you? 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Very well. 

14 MS. DREW: This is Shana Drew in Senator 

15 Cantwell's office. 

16 MS. BLOCK: And Sharon Block from Senator 

17 Kennedy's office. 

18 MR. BURN: I'm Jim Burn from the Society for 

19 Human Resource Management. 

20 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel from SINEW. 

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott, St. Louis. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Is there anyone else? 

23 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell with HHS. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Hi, Emily. Okay, just one quick 

25 question. Mr. Fitzgerald, are you speaking for 
13

1 SC&A today in John Mauro's absence? 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, there may be some 

3 specific issues that some of the others will be 

4 more directly involved with, but yes, I think 

5 at this point (unintelligible). 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you so much. Just a few 

7 pieces of information about telephone 

8 etiquette. We are -- all of us are 

9 participating by phone today. If you could 

10 please mute your phone. If you do not have a 

11 mute button you can use star-6 to engage the 

12 mute function. And when you are ready to 

13 speak, please use the same star-6 to unmute the 

14 phone. If everyone will cooperate with the 

15 mute function we will all be able to hear each 

16 other speak. But most importantly, our tran-- 

17 our -- our court reporter will be able to get 

18 everyone's comments and we all will be able to 

19 enhance our quality of hearing today. 

20 For those of you who will be participating in a 

21 speaking role today, if at any time that you 

22 speak, if you could please use the handset -- I 

23 realize many of us have a speakerphone option. 

24 However, the court reporter wants to make 

25 certain that he has the highest quality for 
14

1 transcribing purposes, and I remind you to 

2 please pick up the receiver when you are ready 

3 to speak. And again, if you could please mute 

4 your phone 'cause I already hear someone 

5 typing. 

6 And so with that, I appreciate everyone's 

7 participation today. I know we have a long and 

8 full agenda. And so Dr. Ziemer, I know we said 

9 we were going to have a moment of silence, but 

10 I hand it over to you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. Branche. 

12 Dr. Branche mentioned a moment of silence. 

13 Many of you Board members know that Ed Walker, 

14 who was the representative from Bethlehem 

15 Steel, has recently passed away. We did 

16 receive a request from Bill Greeley* who's with 

17 Representative Brian Higgins' office in New 

18 York asking that we consider having a moment of 

19 silence in honor of Ed Walker, and we certainly 

20 want to do that. Let me make a couple of 

21 remarks and then we will proceed to have a 

22 moment of silence. 

23 As you know, Ed Walker's dedicated efforts over 

24 the past several years on behalf of the 

25 Bethlehem Steel claimants have really had a 
15

1 significant impact on the Bethlehem Steel 

2 Technical Basis Document. Ed was a very 

3 persistent advocate for Bethlehem Steel 

4 workers, and at the same time was a person who 

5 conducted himself in a very courteous and 

6 gentlemanly manner in his interactions with 

7 those of us on the Board. So on behalf of the 

8 Advisory Board I would like to express 

9 condolences to Ed's wife [Name redacted], as 

10 well as to his other family members and friends 

11 and his coworkers. 

12 But let us now observe a moment of silence in 

13 memory of Ed Walker. 

14 (Pause) 

15 Thank you very much. 

16 We will now proceed to our agenda as it's been 

17 distributed and as it appears on our web site. 

18 CHAPMAN VALVE SEC UPDATE

19 The first item on the agenda is an update on 

20 Chapman Valve -- and I just dropped my papers 

21 here. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: -- Dr. Poston is the chair of 

25 that workgroup, but -- 
16

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: -- the follow-up item on this one 

3 was that we were looking to see if there was 

4 going to be any change in class definition? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we did receive some 

6 materials on Chapman Valve. There has been a 

7 revision in the evaluation report. I think 

8 that was distributed a week or two ago by 

9 NIOSH, and let me ask first, LaVon Rutherford -

10 - 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- you're on the line, aren't you? 

13 And you want to make any comments -- or you or 

14 Larry Elliott -- on the revised evaluation 

15 report? 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer and Board, 

17 this is LaVon Rutherford. As Dr. Ziemer 

18 mentioned, on February 8th we sent out the 

19 revised evaluation report for Chapman Valve. 

20 What we did was we looked at the conclusions 

21 that the Department of Energy came up with and 

22 presented at the January board meeting. We 

23 went back and looked -- we went back and looked 

24 at that conclusion. We updated the evaluation 

25 report to include the Dean Street facility. We 
17

1 modified the class definition -- the proposed 

2 class definition to clearly indicate the Dean 

3 Street facility. We also took into 

4 consideration the fact that Department of 

5 Energy concluded that there were no new 

6 activities -- radiological activities involved. 

7 And I believe in the e-mail we sent out to the 

8 Board that we included those sections that -- 

9 in the report that had been revised. 

10 We also included the -- the official letters 

11 that the -- from the Department of Energy and -

12 - concerning their conclusions on the O drive 

13 for the Board members. 

14 And I believe that's pretty much it. Our 

15 feasibility determination did not change from 

16 the information provided by the Department of 

17 Energy. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Let me ask if 

19 there are any questions from the Board members 

20 on this revised evaluation report or -- and the 

21 related issue that generated that? 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, this is Jim Melius. I -- I 

23 can't recall specifically where we left this at 

24 the last meeting, but I do remember we had 

25 discussed having SC&A review the revised report 
18

1 once NIOSH had completed their activities, and 

2 I just didn't know if that had -- I actually 

3 don't believe that has occurred yet. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Melius, this is Arjun. I 

5 just wanted to follow -- I -- I believe you're 

6 right. We have -- we have not (unintelligible) 

7 asked to (unintelligible). 

8 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's -- that is correct, 

9 there's been no official assignment of that 

10 task. It was awaiting this evaluation report. 

11 THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer, this is Ray. 

12 Could I say something real quick? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

14 THE COURT REPORTER: It was very hard to hear 

15 Dr. Makhijani, so Dr. Makhijani, if you can do 

16 something -- 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

18 THE COURT REPORTER: -- else, I'd appreciate 

19 it. Thanks. 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Maybe I'll ju-- I'll just talk 

21 louder. I was -- 

22 THE COURT REPORTER: That is much better. 

23 Thank you. 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. I -- I said that we had 

25 not been assigned a task of reviewing the new 
19

1 material on these -- 

2 THE COURT REPORTER: Well... 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Let me also ask, while we're 

4 discussing Chapman, whether any of the 

5 petitioners are on the line? Any of the 

6 Chapman petitioners who might have comments at 

7 this point? I believe the revised evaluation 

8 report was sent to the petitioners, as well. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. I -- I do 

10 want to clarify -- make sure everybody 

11 understood that this revised evaluation report 

12 -- this is LaVon Rutherford, by the way -- this 

13 revised evaluation report was based on DOE's 

14 find-- the Department of Energy's finding that 

15 there were no new radiological activities. 

16 Therefore, the technical determination in the 

17 report is the same determination that SC&A has 

18 already reviewed. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: That was previously reviewed -- 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- that is what you're saying. 

22 There are no changes, based on the findings of 

23 the Department of Energy -- 

24 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- as transmitted to NIOSH. 
20

1 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Brad Clawson. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Brad. 

3 MR. CLAWSON: Well, then LaVon, help me kind of 

4 with this. Basically it hasn't changed 

5 anything, so you're telling us that yeah, 

6 you've said that now Dean Street is a part of 

7 it, but you don't know what went on in Dean 

8 Street and that you're going to dismiss the one 

9 sample of enriched uranium out of the three 

10 samples. Is that correct? 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: What we're saying is that the 

12 Department of Energy found no evidence of any 

13 new radiological activities occurring at the 

14 Dean Street facility, and we have taken that 

15 into consideration. In addition, they have 

16 found no information that would support 

17 enriched uranium activities as well, and in our 

18 additional report of FUSRAP data we found no 

19 information that would support enriched 

20 activities. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: LaVon, this is Mark Griffon. 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Uh-huh. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Can you -- can you describe -- I 

24 must admit I haven't rev-- looked through the 

25 revised evaluation report in depth, but can you 
21

1 describe what additional information you 

2 reviewed regarding the FUSRAP activities? 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually I think the -- the 

4 specific information, Mark Rolfes would be 

5 better at -- at addressing, or what was 

6 reviewed. I can tell you that we did review 

7 all the information that was provided to us by 

8 the Department of Energy, but Mark Rolfes is on 

9 the line and he can address -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: The FUSRAP data. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes, LaVon, this is Mark. I -- 

12 it'll take me just a couple of minutes to look 

13 through -- I will pull up some previous e-mails 

14 -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mark, you need to speak up, 

16 please. 

17 MR. ROLFES: Okay, I'm sorry. Can you hear me 

18 a little better now? 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, thank you. 

20 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Some of the specific 

21 information -- there was a FUSRAP report, 

22 approximately 700 pages that were reviewed. 

23 Let's see, in addition to that information, we 

24 had looked into some of the references from 

25 that FUSRAP report. We did not find any 
22

1 additional information that would indicate that 

2 enriched uranium was in fact processed or 

3 handled in any manner at the Chapman Valve 

4 facility. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: And those reports, I'm assuming, 

6 Mark, were added to the O drive? 

7 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct, they were. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

9 DR. NETON: Mark, I also think that we -- we 

10 located the regulatory docket that was filed by 

11 the DOE in relation to the FUSRAP 

12 investigation. 

13 MR. ROLFES: That is correct. 

14 DR. NETON: We looked through that entire 

15 regulatory docket and found nothing -- much of 

16 it was similar to what was in the FUSRAP report 

17 'cause it was based on that information, but 

18 there were no data in those reports that spoke 

19 to the issue of enriched uranium. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: And no more information, Mark or 

21 Jim -- no more information on the cleanup -- 

22 you know, I know I had asked about shipments, 

23 you know, waste shipments, if there was 

24 anything that might have clarified what they 

25 shipped out of the facility when they cleaned 
23

1 it up, or receipts from Y-12, whe-- or some 

2 question of whether we could check the shipping 

3 records of -- of stuff that was -- materials 

4 that were sent from Y-12, whether they were new 

5 materials or -- or, you know, previously used 

6 parts that may have been contaminated or 

7 whatever. No luck on that front, I -- I guess. 

8 Right? 

9 MR. ROLFES: There was nothing additional. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: No -- no paperwork found. Right? 

11 MR. ROLFES: Nothing additional. 

12 DR. NETON: What -- what I -- I might remind 

13 folks, though, is that the enriched uranium 

14 samples were not found in Building 23. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. NETON: And the SEC class that we are 

17 specifically recommending not be added is the 

18 activities that occurred in Building 23. 

19 Doesn't preclude anything from being added at a 

20 later date if it's discovered in other parts of 

21 the plant or the Dean Street facility, for that 

22 matter. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Where were those samples found, 

24 Jim -- just remind us. I thought they were ra25 - adjacent to Building 23. 
24

1 DR. NETON: Oh, they were near -- I think one 

2 was near -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: By the loading -- 

4 DR. NETON: -- loading dock -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 

6 DR. NETON: -- outside and -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. 

8 DR. NETON: -- one was somewhere just inside, 

9 but to my knowledge they were not in Building 

10 23 at all, and so, you know, our class 

11 evaluated whether Building 23 should be added, 

12 the activities, and we have a very detailed -- 

13 extremely detailed report of all those 

14 activities. Nothing indicated any enriched 

15 uranium was in Building 23 during that time 

16 period. That's what we're trying to address 

17 here. Doesn't preclude anything being added at 

18 a later date. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phil, I -- I'm still a 

21 little bothered by this enriched uranium 

22 samples they found. Is there any data in the 

23 records that you can see of them doing any kind 

24 of chem analysis? 

25 DR. NETON: Well, Phil, we -- we tried hard to 
25

1 go back -- Oak Ridge -- ORAU actually did the 

2 analysis and we -- we were not successful in 

3 getting the original laboratory analyses. We 

4 have some -- some information that leads us to 

5 believe they may have been germanium 

6 spectroscopy analyses, which in my mind 

7 indicates that the uncertainty would be pretty 

8 large about the degree of enrichment in the 

9 analysis, but we -- we have not been able to 

10 identify or locate those individual 

11 (unintelligible). 

12 MR. SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

13 DR. NETON: They weren't highly enriched, as I 

14 recall, though, by their analysis. 

15 MR. ROLFES: The specific enrichment that was 

16 believed to have been observed was 2.16 percent 

17 enriched. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any further questions or 

19 comments? 

20 (No responses) 

21 I -- I -- this is Ziemer again. I believe that 

22 our intent at our last meeting was that we 

23 would plan to have a vote on this at the face24 to-face meeting in April and, depending on the 

25 interim findings, we would or would not have 
26

1 additional review by SC&A. It doesn't appear 

2 to me at the moment that we would need that. 

3 We -- we could instruct the workgroup to be 

4 sure to look at this additional data closely on 

5 the O drive and -- and be prepared for a -- a 

6 recommendation at the next meeting. 

7 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Paul, your statement 

8 with respect to expectation for a vote at the 

9 next face-to-face meeting agrees with my memory 

10 of what transpired. With respect to the need 

11 for additional SCA review, since there's been 

12 no change in either the findings of fact or 

13 with the NIOSH position, I -- it's hard to see 

14 what value would be achieved by additional 

15 review. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other comments? 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, this is Jim Melius, and I 

18 would respectfully disagree and I would much 

19 prefer that we have an -- that SC&A review the 

20 new report, as well as -- in the context of the 

21 DOE findings before we complete our review of 

22 this particular evaluation report. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: What about others of you on the 

24 Board, pro or con, on that? Let -- let me see 

25 if -- 
27

1 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can get kind of a consensus 

3 here on what direction to go. There -- there 

4 are some sort of new materials on the O drive, 

5 so those certainly could be looked at. That 

6 could be done by the workgroup, and whether or 

7 not they need additional assistance from the 

8 contractor is not obvious to me at the moment, 

9 but perhaps they would. 

10 Was that Mr. Presley? 

11 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, Bob Presley. Hey, Jim, you 

12 got any recommendations on the stuff that you 

13 think that they might go back and look at or 

14 further study on? 

15 DR. MELIUS: I think -- Jim Melius, I think 

16 that's -- simply what Paul outlined. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. All righty. 

18 DR. MELIUS: And that -- I don't think -- I 

19 don't think it's an extensive review, but I 

20 would -- you've -- given our record of review 

21 at this site, what's happened this site, I 

22 would feel much more comfortable -- we're going 

23 to take a vote to, you know, close out on the 

24 evaluation, that you -- that SC&A complete a 

25 review 'cause SC&A was the one that -- their 
28

1 site visit that uncovered the -- you know, some 

2 of these -- the Dean Street facility issue and 

3 so forth, so I'd like to make sure that we 

4 looked at all this material, but I -- and I 

5 don't believe they've had an opportunity -- as 

6 I recall, DOE provided the -- the new materials 

7 to us just before the last meeting, and this 

8 report just now, so... 

9 MR. PRESLEY: I have -- I have no problem with 

10 that. I just don't want a full-blown study 

11 that'll take a year to go -- ongoing -- do 

12 this. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm assuming that what is 

14 being recommended here would be something that 

15 would come to some kind of closure in time for 

16 us to have a report by our April meeting. Did 

17 -- was that what you were suggesting, Dr. 

18 Melius? 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, correct, I don't see this 

20 needing to take a long time. I can't speak for 

21 SC&A, and I actually was -- as of yesterday, I 

22 don't think even John Mauro was aware that 

23 there was a updated report from NIOSH, at least 

24 not from e-mail correspondence I had with him. 

25 MS. BEACH: And -- this is Josie Beach -- I 
29

1 think that SC&A review would be important, and 

2 a report from the workgroup, if the vote in 

3 April is a good path forward. 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Brad. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Brad. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I agree with Dr. Ziemer. 

7 Being on the workgroup and so forth like that, 

8 especially with some of the petitioners and so 

9 forth like that, and more discussions, I think 

10 it'd be beneficial for us to have SC&A review 

11 the data that was there and give a report back 

12 to us -- possible and -- so that we could 

13 proceed on with this. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: In order to determine whether we 

15 have a sort of a consensus on this, let me ask 

16 for a simple motion. Dr. Melius, perhaps you 

17 would make the motion since you've suggested 

18 this direction. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I would move that we 

20 instruct SC&A to review the updated SEC 

21 evaluation report on the Chapman Valve facility 

22 recently issued by NIOSH, and the accompanying 

23 new material provided by the Department of 

24 Energy, and report back to the workgroup and to 

25 the full Board before our -- for our April 
30

1 meeting. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, I'll second 

3 that motion. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. So -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Would you like me to do a roll 

6 call, Dr. Ziemer? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me see if there's any 

8 discussion first. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion on the motion? 

11 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Question, when will 

12 the workgroup meet to review this? First -- 

13 first of all, what's -- what's our time line 

14 here? What do we anticipate -- what would SC&A 

15 anticipate their time requirement being to 

16 review this? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Joe, can you respond to that? 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think Arjun's probably 

19 been the most involved in this. I'd defer to 

20 his -- his recommendation. 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well -- well, I'm on the -- I'm 

22 on the (unintelligible) server right. There's 

23 quite a few new documents and -- and 

24 yesterday's the first time I became aware that 

25 there had been a new evaluation report. I 
31

1 think it'll probably take us a month to review 

2 these materials, and I don't know whether the 

3 report would be short or long, depending on 

4 what we find. But we -- we will confine the 

5 review, as I understand it, only to the new 

6 material that DOE has added and whatever NIOSH 

7 has written interpreting those -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- new materials. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I think that was the intent. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so I -- I'd like a chance 

12 to -- to -- to look at the extent of these 

13 materials if -- they do seem to be -- quite a 

14 large number of files here. I don't know how 

15 extensive they are. Most of them appear to be 

16 small. I haven't -- 

17 DR. NETON: Arjun, I think -- 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- actually opened them. 

19 DR. NETON: -- this is Jim. I think you'll 

20 find most of those are engineering drawings of 

21 -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. 

23 DR. NETON: -- manifolds and valves. 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So if the large files 

25 are engineering drawings, then it should -- 
32

1 yeah, I think -- I think, given the intent of 

2 the Board to vote at the next meeting, if we 

3 might ask for time enough to deliver it -- what 

4 is -- today's the 20th, maybe around the 20th 

5 or thereabouts of March. Then there might be 

6 enough time for the Board to look at it and the 

7 petitioners -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I think the workgroup could then 

9 decide whether to have a face-to-face or a 

10 phone meeting and -- and proceed from there. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Has -- has Dr. Poston joined the 

12 call? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I -- Paul, I think I -- I know 

14 Dr. Poston's not on yet, but I think we should 

15 probably plan on at least a phone call meeting 

16 of the workgroup, you know -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- around the end of the month of 

19 March to discuss SC&A report and our review of 

20 this before the meeting -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- in April. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Any other discussion before we 

24 vote on the motion? 

25 (No responses) 
33

1 Okay, if -- we'll take a roll call vote then, 

2 and Dr. Branche, if you'll proceed. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Josie Beach? 

4 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: This is in -- you're voting a-- 

6 about the motion. Okay, so -- 

7 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson? 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Michael Gibson? 

11 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mark Griffon? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: James Lockey? 

15 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: James Melius? 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda Munn? 

19 MS. MUNN: Aye. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Robert Presley? 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: John Poston? 

23 (No response) 

24 Gen Roessler? 

25 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 
34

1 DR. BRANCHE: Phillip Schofield? 

2 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Paul Ziemer. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Okay, motion carries. Thank 

5 you very much. 

6 I think we can then proceed to the Dow Chemical 

7 update. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Before you proceed, Dr. Ziemer -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: -- if I could, this is Dr. 

11 Christine Branche, we -- thank you for the 

12 people who recently joined the call. If you 

13 could use your mute button, please, so that we 

14 can all hear everyone else's discussion. If 

15 you don't have a mute button on your phone, 

16 please use star-6 to mute yourself, and then 

17 when you're ready to speak please use that same 

18 star-6. Thanks so much, Dr. Ziemer. 

19 DOW CHEMICAL SEC UPDATE

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Our -- our next item is Dow 

21 Chemical update. Just a minute here -- grab 

22 the right files myself. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: On this one, Dr. Ziemer, the 

24 Department of Labor is going to have some 

25 information for us. 
35

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And also we're going to 

2 have -- I've -- I've indicated to Dr. McKeel 

3 that -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'd be pleased to hear some 

6 comments from him on this -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: I'm sorry, forgive me -- forgive 

8 me, I -- I -- tha-- forgive me. The Department 

9 of Labor was going to say something about the 

10 next item. Dow Chemical was simply an update 

11 and (unintelligible) said Mr. Elliott has 

12 something here. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Larry Elliott, you want to 

14 proceed? 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, this is Larry Elliott. 

16 I'll -- I'll start this off and ask LaVon 

17 Rutherford to assist me in giving status on 

18 where we are with Dow. 

19 As you know, the Department of Energy provided 

20 letters on Dow Chemical and the residual period 

21 -- or actually on the thorium that was produced 

22 by this company during the AEC covered period, 

23 and that leads us to adding into our evaluation 

24 thorium during the residual period -- residual 

25 contamination period. So we are busy 
36

1 evaluating what information we have already. 

2 We are busy seeking additional information. 

3 We've sent letters to the State of Illinois 

4 looking for information regarding Dow Chemical 

5 and thorium production that went on there, as 

6 well as the cleanup activities. We are 

7 touching base with the owners of the facility 

8 after Dow Chemical was sold off to others, and 

9 it's our full intent that by the April Board 

10 meeting we will have a revised evaluation, or 

11 an amended evaluation report which will speak 

12 to how we will deal with thorium during the 

13 residual period at this facility. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Hey, Larry -- Larry, this is 

15 LaVon Rutherford. I want to correct -- we -- 

16 we had -- I -- I don't think we will make the 

17 April Board meeting with that. We intended to 

18 make the -- that we would make the following 

19 Board meeting with that revised evaluation 

20 report. We -- we don't expect -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, I -- I misspoke. I wasn't 

22 -- I didn't attend that part of the Board 

23 meeting in Las Vegas and I -- from my notes, I 

24 misspoke here. You're right, we -- we agreed 

25 or committed to try to provide our revised or 
37

1 amended report at the next meeting after the 

2 April meeting. I think that's scheduled to be 

3 in St. Louis area. Correct, LaVon? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right, there'll be a full Board 

5 meeting in -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: June twen-- June -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- June. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: -- yeah, late June. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, okay. Thank you Larry. 

10 LaVon, did you have additional comments? 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, the only additional 

12 comments I will say is that as we receive new 

13 information and we're evaluating that, we will 

14 make that information available on the O drive 

15 to the Board members as well. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let me ask Dr. 

17 McKeel if he'd wish to comment at this time 

18 also. 

19 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, can you all hear me 

20 okay? I -- I'm on the handset -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I can hear you very well 

22 myself. 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, thank you, Dr. McKeel. You 

25 can proceed. 
38

1 DR. MCKEEL: All right. Well, I -- one -- I 

2 thank you very much for just letting me update 

3 you on what I perceive to be the case with 

4 respect to the Dow SEC extension. One thing 

5 that I am looking forward to -- Dr. Ziemer 

6 mentioned that the letter from DOE and Glenn 

7 Podonsky was in the process of being posted on 

8 the OCAS web site. I think that's a useful 

9 document for all to have access to. 

10 The other thing I had a -- a question about is 

11 whether Larry Elliott or LaVon had an idea on 

12 when their revised report on the thorium in the 

13 residual period -- when that might be 

14 available, just a ball park figure. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. McKeel, this is Larry 

16 Elliott. I -- now -- 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Yes. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we're -- we're in the early 

19 stages of trying to assemble the information 

20 and -- and make sure that we've done our due 

21 diligence in that regard. Again, we'll try to 

22 deliver the report in a timely manner so that 

23 you and members of the Board have adequate time 

24 to prepare for the face-to-face meeting that 

25 occurs in St. Louis, so -- that... 
39

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we were shooting for June. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: For June, yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: June 24th through the 26th. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: But I -- I understand your 

5 interest, Dr. McKeel, to see our position as 

6 early as possible. 

7 DR. MCKEEL: Right. Well, the other comment 

8 and reason why is, as you know, with this 

9 particular SEC there's been a -- a serious 

10 issue about my belief that there are documents 

11 still that have not yet been uncovered. And I 

12 understand that the first approach is by 

13 letter-writing to, I assume, Illinois -- both 

14 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

15 and the Emergency Management Agency, nuclear 

16 safety division have some relevant documents, 

17 Illinois being an agreement state. I assume 

18 that the cleanup documents you're referring to 

19 are those from the Pangea Group who's carrying 

20 out the thorium license decontamination today, 

21 so actually the -- the thorium contamination 

22 period, you know, continues until right now, 

23 until that license is decommissioned, and that 

24 -- that's ongoing. 

25 And the other thing, just to comment on, is we 
40

1 certainly have tried to get many of those 

2 documents, particularly the ones from the 

3 present owner and -- the Spectrulite Consortium 

4 and -- and Mag-- Magnesium Electron, and we 

5 have been unable to get them to cooperate. So 

6 I -- I just want to put on the record that if 

7 those letters don't produce documents -- 

8 responsive documents, and we certainly are 

9 going to be interested in asking once again, as 

10 we did a -- a long time ago when the first Dow 

11 SEC was considered by the Board in May, and 

12 even earlier than that, in February of 2007 we 

13 asked that the 7384W subpoena power be invoked 

14 by Department of Labor. And of course to do 

15 that, that would require a request from -- from 

16 NIOSH. So we certainly hope you'll consider 

17 that and keep that possibility. 

18 The other thing I wanted to mention is -- 

19 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm sorry, Dr. McKeel, this 

20 is Liz Homoki-Titus with the General Counsel's 

21 office at HHS. 

22 DR. MCKEEL: Uh-huh. 

23 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Could -- I don't think there 

24 necessarily has to be a request from HHS. DOL 

25 can also issue those on their own. I just 
41

1 wanted to clarify that for everyone. 

2 DR. MCKEEL: Well, Department of Labor can do 

3 it on their own, but they've been unwilling to 

4 do it despite many requests, so I'm saying that 

5 I'm going to be asking everybody. But since 

6 NIOSH is the one who's going to write the 

7 revised report, I -- I do know that that -- 

8 that if you all saw the necessity, you could 

9 also request from DOL. I'm -- I'm just 

10 suggesting that possibility again. 

11 The other thing I want to mention is, if there 

12 is any possible way, not only do I need this 

13 new report but I am still waiting for the final 

14 response to a FOIA that I wrote on April the 

15 17th of 2007 regarding the initial evaluation 

16 report of the SEC. And I would certainly think 

17 after ten months that that information should 

18 be soon forthcoming. 

19 The other thing I wanted to mention is that I 

20 have been asking Pat Worthington of the 

21 Department of Energy to please send me the 

22 documents that were the basis for concluding 

23 that Dow Madison processed thorium alloys for 

24 nuclear weapons work in that January 8th letter 

25 that DOE wrote to Peter Turcic, and -- 
42

1 MR. LEWIS: Dr. McKeel, this is Greg Lewis from 

2 the Department of Energy. I -- 

3 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah. 

4 MR. LEWIS: I've spoken to Dr. Worthington and 

5 that information should be -- we had to make 

6 sure that both -- the FBI document was stamped 

7 "official use only" so we had to check with the 

8 FBI to make sure we could release that, and 

9 then we had to go through a declassification 

10 process to make sure that the information from 

11 the Livermore facility was -- was allowed to be 

12 released to the public. And both of those we 

13 can release and will be sent to you this week. 

14 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I -- I appreciate that and I 

15 just wanted to comment that -- I was going to 

16 comment that that has been promised -- looking 

17 forward to those documents, and I assume -- is 

18 it true that that same set of documents will go 

19 to NIOSH and the Board and SC&A? 

20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I believe that's the case. 

21 We'll be sending those to everyone just so 

22 they'll have the background information. 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. Well, I think that's -- 

24 that's the main issues that I had about -- 

25 about Dow, and I appreciate the Board's work. 
43

1 If -- if -- if there is time a little bit later 

2 on or whenever is appropriate, I do have a 

3 couple of comments to make about the Texas City 

4 Chemicals SEC and about GSI and dose 

5 reconstructions that I would like to tell the 

6 Board this morning, at whatever time it's 

7 appropriate. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Now on -- on 

9 the Dow -- or, sorry -- on the Dow Chemical, 

10 are there any -- this is mainly to be an 

11 update. Any other comments, Board members, or 

12 questions? 

13 (No responses) 

14 LINDE UPDATE

15 If not, we will proceed on to the next item. 

16 The next item is an update on -- on the Linde 

17 petition. Let's see, Dr. Roessler is on the 

18 line, or -- 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, this is the one where 

20 our colleagues from the Department of Labor 

21 were going to make a comment. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and then I think -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, we do have -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- Ms. Bonsignore also has some 

25 comments from the petitioners. 
44

1 DR. BRANCHE: And if she's not on the line now, 

2 she said she'd be available when we do the 

3 workgroup update later on. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- 

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Actually I -- I am on the 

6 line. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, very good, okay. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Great. Okay, good. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler, do you want to make 

10 some comments? 

11 DR. ROESSLER: I had planned to make the 

12 comment on the technical part later on the 

13 workgroup update. I think this part is up to 

14 DOL. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, let's go ahead with 

16 the -- the DOL -- and it was sort of the 

17 question of why the status of that site was 

18 changed and -- or a portion of that site, and 

19 Jeff, are you going to speak for DOL? 

20 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, let me -- let me do that 

21 presentation. 

22 The issue was basically DOL's determination 

23 that Buildings 30, 31, 37 and 38 at Linde 

24 Ceramics are now a Department of Energy 

25 facility rather than a portion of the Atomic 
45

1 Weapons Employer or AWE facility. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

3 MR. KOTSCH: First, to clarify the agency 

4 roles, DOE is responsible, under the Act, for 

5 making AWE facility and beryllium vendor 

6 designations, whereas DOL determines whether a 

7 facility meets the requirements of a DOE 

8 facility. The Linde Ceramics Plant was 

9 originally designated as an AWE by DOE. 

10 The term "Department of Energy facility" means 

11 any building, structure or premise, including 

12 the grounds upon which building, structure or 

13 premise is located -- that's from the Act -- 

14 which operations are or have been conducted on 

15 the behalf of the Department of Energy, 

16 excluding Naval nuclear propulsion program. 

17 And also with regard to the Department of 

18 Energy, has or had a proprietary interest or 

19 entered into a contract with an entity to 

20 provide management services and operation 

21 management and integration, environmental 

22 remediation, construction or maintenance. 

23 After Part E was enacted in October of 2004, we 

24 had former Linde Ceramics Plant employees and 

25 their advocates petition DOL to review 
46

1 documentation that they believed would 

2 demonstrate that at least a portion of the 

3 Linde Ceramics Plant met the defin-- met the 

4 definition of a DOE facility as specified in 

5 the Act. (Unintelligible) to change because 

6 DOE -- I'm -- I'm sorry, because the Part E of 

7 the Act provides additional benefits of up to 

8 $250,000 to contractors and subcontractors of 

9 DOE facilities. These are benefits that are 

10 not available to employees at AWE facilities. 

11 In response to the petition Labor reviewed more 

12 than 900 pages of documentation pertaining to 

13 the Linde Ceramics Plant, including portions of 

14 the original Manhattan Engineer District 

15 contract, that indicated four of the five 

16 buildings at the site were owned by DOE -- 

17 DOE's predecessor. DOL determined that 

18 Buildings 30, 31, 37 and 38 -- but not 14, 

19 which is the Tonawanda Lab -- met the 

20 definition of a DOE facility for the years 1942 

21 through 1953. (Unintelligible) reviewed the 

22 analysis and concurred, in our view, by 

23 changing their web site. 

24 As a result of the determination that -- on 

25 these four buildings being DOE facilities, 
47

1 employees that worked there at any time between 

2 1942 and 1953 are now eligible to apply for 

3 compensation and benefits under both Parts B 

4 and E of the Act, and they're also able to 

5 apply for compensation not only for cancer, but 

6 for other illnesses related to exposure to 

7 toxic materials in the workplace. In addition, 

8 workers involved in remediation activities have 

9 DOE facility coverage for the years 1988 

10 through '92 and 1996. (Unintelligible) in 

11 making this change, the employees who worked 

12 exclusively in these four buildings, and only 

13 during the period of residual radiation as 

14 determined by NIOSH, have been -- 1954 to 1987, 

15 1993 to '95, and '97 to July 2006 -- they are 

16 no longer covered -- have covered employment 

17 under Part B of the Act. The period of 

18 residual radiation only pertains to AWE 

19 facilities. 

20 In addition, DOL determined that the Tonawanda 

21 Laboratory, which is Building 14, met the 

22 definition of an AWE facility for the years '42 

23 -- 1942 to 1953. Under the Act, employees at 

24 these types of facilities are not eligible for 

25 benefits under Part E of the Act. However, the 
48

1 period of residual radiation does apply to the 

2 Tonawanda Lab. Therefore, employees at Linde 

3 Ceramics and any other subsequent owners or 

4 operators who were present in the laboratory, 

5 which is Building 14, are covered under Part B 

6 of the Act during the years 1942 to '53, and 

7 the residual contamination period of 1954 to 

8 1987, 1993 to '95, and 1997 to July 2006. 

9 DOL published on September 5th, 2007 a circular 

10 number 7-7 which was posted on the web site and 

11 implemented these decisions. 

12 One last thing is that while DOE's confident 

13 that the determination that part of the site is 

14 a DOE facility -- that -- that the 

15 determination that part of the site is a DOE 

16 facility is correct, our legal people are 

17 currently re-examining the -- the issue -- the 

18 legal analysis underlying our decision with 

19 respect to the residual contamination period. 

20 So that hopefully presents the background and 

21 the basis for both Circular 7-7 and -- and the 

22 change from an AWE to a DOE facility for those 

23 four buildings. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Jeff, thank you very much for that 

25 report. Let me ask if Board members have 
49

1 questions or comments on the Department of 

2 Labor report. 

3 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen Roessler. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Gen. 

5 DR. ROESSLER: This is quite complicated. I 

6 think it would help the workgroup in particular 

7 and the Board and the claimants if -- if 

8 someone could prepare a matrix that would list 

9 the buildings, the dates and the coverage 

10 that's now appropriate so we could better 

11 understand the implications of all of this. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And also perhaps a copy of -- of 

13 the report that Jeff just delivered would be 

14 helpful. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Good idea, Gen. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Could we do that readily, Jeff? 

18 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, no problem. I mean I can -- 

19 I und-- I don't have that table. I can -- but 

20 that's easy enough to put together. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: But can we get a copy of what you 

22 just -- this is Christine -- can we ask -- can 

23 we get a copy of what you just stated? 

24 Electronic copy of -- of the statement that you 

25 just made? 
50

1 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, well, I -- I actually just -

2 - just picked and choose -- chose from some 

3 other documents. I'll have to get that 

4 together to send that out. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Jeff, this is Larry Elliott. 

7 Isn't the circular on the DOL web site? 

8 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, the circular's on the web 

9 site. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: And I believe I sent that around 

11 to the Advisory Board members -- I don't know, 

12 it's been a month or so -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: We did get that. It was actually 

14 much briefer than what was just described, I 

15 think, but I -- I thought Jeff's explanation 

16 was -- it clarified a number of issues much 

17 better than what I had seen before. 

18 MR. KOTSCH: All right, let me commit to 

19 forwarding that stuff. Should I just forward 

20 it to -- who -- who do you want me to forward 

21 that -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: You can send it to Christine -- 

23 MR. KOTSCH: Okay. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- and she'll see that it's 

25 distributed. 
51

1 MR. KOTSCH: Okay, we'll do that. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: We do also want to hear from Ms. 

3 Bonsignore. 

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you very much. I -- I'd 

5 like to thank the Board for providing me an 

6 opportunity this morning to address this issue. 

7 I do have a couple of questions for Jeff Kotsch 

8 regarding a couple of items he just mentioned. 

9 First, you mentioned that there was a petition 

10 that was initiated by workers and advocates for 

11 Linde workers that began the review process. 

12 Can you clarify when that petition was 

13 initiated and what advocates and workers were 

14 involved in that because I am not aware of 

15 anyone that was involved in that and I -- as I 

16 have understood, the process actually began in 

17 January of 2006 and was initiated by an e-mail. 

18 MR. KOTSCH: It could -- it -- it could well -- 

19 like I -- I'll have to clarify this when 

20 (unintelligible) and I have talked about this 

21 before. I was not intimately involved in this 

22 process from the beginning and it's just 

23 through -- just through actually the summary 

24 process that -- you know, getting involved in 

25 this. I think -- think you are correct. I 
52

1 think it just originated, though I can't be 

2 absolutely sure, with just an e-mail. 

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Because from -- from 

4 wh-- from the information I received from John 

5 Vance's office at the Department of Labor, the 

6 process began with an e-mail from Richard 

7 Miller in January of 2006 and there were no 

8 workers involved in that -- in that -- in that 

9 initial request. I -- I would know that 

10 because I've been involved with all of the 

11 workers since 2003 so I would have been aware 

12 of any requests that were made by workers for 

13 any kind of review process for -- for this 

14 facility, just to clarify that. 

15 Secondly, just to update the -- the Board, I 

16 did send a letter last Wednesday, January -- 

17 I'm sorry, it was January 6th, but -- to the 

18 Department of Labor to Peter Turcic's office 

19 requesting an appeal of this decision and 

20 specifically requesting the -- the -- the legal 

21 documents or memorandum that has been used by 

22 the Department of Labor to authorize and 

23 justify the re-designation, and to also provide 

24 the names of any other facilities that have 

25 been similarly re-designated from an AWE to a 
53

1 DOE or are in the process of being considered 

2 for such a re-designation. And I -- I think 

3 that -- that -- that issue has not really been 

4 addressed by myself or anyone else, and I just 

5 would like to point out that despite the 

6 addition-- the additional ability for the 

7 workers to submit claims under the Part E 

8 program, all the residual radiation workers at 

9 Linde who are the overwhelming number of 

10 workers that I -- that I am currently 

11 representing, have been eliminated from Part B 

12 coverage. And if this process is being 

13 initiated at other facilities across the 

14 country, I think it would be of paramount 

15 importance for the Board to be aware of the 

16 fact if the Department of Labor is currently 

17 under some sort of review process that would 

18 lead to the elimination of thousands of 

19 residual radiation workers from Part B 

20 eligibility. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for those comments. Let 

22 me also point out that I've received a letter 

23 from Ms. Bonsignore, I think a copy of which 

24 also went to Larry Elliott and John Howard, and 

25 I don't know if that letter was copied to the 
54

1 Board members. Antoinette, was -- 

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, actually th-- that -- 

3 that actually was the letter that -- that I 

4 entered into the record at the January -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Right, at the January meeting. I 

6 was trying to recall whether everybody got a 

7 copy of that letter or not, 'cause I would 

8 distribute it if they didn't. I just didn't 

9 recall. 

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, I -- I -- I'd -- I had 

11 assumed that if I entered it into the record 

12 that all the Board members would receive a 

13 copy. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well, certainly if it's on the 

15 record, it's there. But in any event, there -- 

16 there is one comment in that letter where you 

17 have asked -- basically asked the Board to 

18 ignore the -- the Department of Labor's 

19 decision on this. And you know, I don't think 

20 we're in a position to -- to do that. We -- we 

21 need to get this resolved one way or the other, 

22 but -- 

23 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- sort of procedurally we -- we 

25 can't simply ignore these designations, so -- 
55

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: I -- I understand that -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, yeah, I -- 

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- yeah, right -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- just wanted to make sure that 

5 was -- 

6 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- right. Yeah, I -- I -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- not really an option for us at 

8 this point, so -- 

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, I'm sorry. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: At the time that I prepared 

12 that letter, I -- I was -- I was really just in 

13 the dark as to the status -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Ah, okay, right -- 

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- of the bulletin -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- right. 

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- and whether it was 

18 discretionary document, whether -- whether the 

19 Board had any discretion to -- to review it at 

20 all and then you -- all those questions were 

21 clarified when I -- when I addressed the Board 

22 on -- during the public comment period. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, thank you. Board 

24 members, any questions or comments for Ms. 

25 Bonsignore? 
56

1 (No responses) 

2 Okay. Now we -- we will also have a report 

3 from the workgroup on Linde later in the 

4 meeting, so this is simply an update for 

5 information on that site status at this point. 

6 SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE

7 Now I think we can proceed to our next item, 

8 which is the subcommittee on dose 

9 reconstruction update. Mark Griffon, you want 

10 to take the lead on this for us? 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. Yeah, I -- there's several 

12 things I think we should go through. I made a 

13 little listing to flesh out the agenda, but -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we have the fourth and 

15 fifth sets of cases -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- to finalize. We have some 

18 discussion on -- a sort of wrap-up of the first 

19 100 cases, and then also assignments for the 

20 next sets. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And -- yeah, and the 

22 fourth and fifth set -- I just sent out -- and 

23 I wanted to get it to the Board a week ahead of 

24 time, but that didn't happen, so I think 

25 everyone received yesterday an updated matrix 
57

1 of the fourth set and the fifth set? I hope 

2 that's true? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I did. Board -- Board members, 

4 did you all or -- all receive that? 

5 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, this is Brad -- yes. 

8 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I got mine. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Sounds like people received them. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And -- and my -- I mean my 

11 -- my thoughts were that these -- there's only 

12 -- I think in each one of them there might be 

13 one or two little things that are still 

14 highlighted in yellow or left with a question 

15 mark, but as of yesterday afternoon I think 

16 even those were resolved. I just didn't send 

17 out another final revision yet, but I was in 

18 communication with Kathy Behling yesterday and 

19 Jim Neton, who was out, was helping us with a -

20 - a last couple resolutions on items that we 

21 had sort of forgotten where they stood and we 

22 had to follow -- follow up and check on them. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, why don't we -- let's 

24 start with the fourth set, Mark -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
58

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- and we can go through -- see if 

2 there's any questions on any of the items. I 

3 think over the past number of months we've had 

4 sort of status reports on this, but we're -- 

5 we're basically at closure. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And if we can agree that the 

8 issues are, in essence, closed, then we're in a 

9 position to make a report to the Secretary on 

10 this one, as well as on the fifth one, and 

11 we'll talk in a few minutes about what that's 

12 going to look like, but -- so why don't you 

13 take us through this -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine, yeah, I -- I mean -- 

15 you know, just a reminder on these that -- that 

16 the -- when you look through the matrix, the 

17 case ranking is just that provided by SC&A. I 

18 even see on one of the -- on the first page I 

19 left the -- first page of the fourth set I left 

20 the UR, which is unresolved, that was my 

21 editing mistake here. But anyway, the -- the 

22 categories are as we used before, and the last 

23 column is the Board action, which basically all 

24 these are now falling into -- for me, as I'm 

25 putting this categ-- action down, either a one, 
59

1 a six or a seven. A one is that NIOSH agreed 

2 with the finding. A six is that we're 

3 deferring it to either a procedure review or a 

4 site profile review or -- or PER, there's one 

5 instance of a PER review. And a seven is that 

6 -- that the -- the Board drops the iss-- you 

7 know, the finding. So we had seven different 

8 criteria, I think they're at the bottom -- 

9 listed at the footnote -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right, they're in the footnote. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) table, but 

12 most of these fall into one, six or seven 

13 you'll notice as you scan through. And they 

14 should all, like I said, be resolved. There 

15 may be one that I didn't -- I was waiting for 

16 e-mails back and forth -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, can you ta-- that's -- issue 

18 70.2 -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- and is -- should appear in 

21 yellow on everybody's -- it's in the right-hand 

22 column, the resolution item is in yellow. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and 70.2 now should be a -

24 - we should have a -- a one on that. I'm not 

25 sure I have -- 
60

1 DR. ZIEMER: You showed a one already, but -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- what about the -- it is yellow 

4 where it says "effect, case (unintelligible)" -

5 - 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay, and then it should 

7 say no likely effect on the case, and we just 

8 wanted to verify that but -- and Jim Neton help 

9 -- help -- helped us out in that regard, so -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: So -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- we followed through with that 

12 and I shared Jim's response with Kathy Behling 

13 and she was in agreement, so -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, that should read "no 

16 likely effect on the case" now -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: No effect on case -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- right. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I also note on 76.2 that 

20 you have something in red -- showed up in red 

21 on mine. Is that -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it was just a copy and paste 

23 from another document and -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- I sh-- I'll change the font -- 
61

1 I mean the -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that shouldn't have any 

3 significance -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: It shouldn't be in red. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- for us at all. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Nope -- yeah, that was just a 

7 font thing. I'll change that. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. How do you want to do this, 

9 Mark? Do you want to ask for people -- if 

10 people have questions on the iss-- any -- any 

11 of the issues on the -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that'd be fine if you want 

13 to question it now, or if people didn't have 

14 time to review -- I mean that -- you know, my -

15 - my other offer was going to be that I would -

16 - I wanted to set up a subcommittee meeting in 

17 March in Cincinnati, and I was planning on -- 

18 on drafting a letter report to go with these 

19 matrices and to discuss any details of the 

20 entire package at that point and then bring it 

21 back, you know, and have a -- a letter and 

22 matrix ready to go for an April vote, you know. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we can certainly do that. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we see if there's any 
62

1 questions and -- and then I'm going to suggest 

2 that we, for both four and five -- sets four 

3 and five, that we combine them into one report 

4 to the Secretary, as we did on sets two and 

5 three -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- and Mark, I think we can use a 

8 similar structure on that report letter, modify 

9 it appropriately -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was -- I was going 

11 to edit from the previous report -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- if that was okay, yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, use that as a template -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- and summarize the findings for 

17 these two, and then we -- we can have that 

18 ready at the face-to-face meeting for any final 

19 editing. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: But why don't we see if there's 

22 questions on -- on any of the items here. 

23 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda, and my only question 

24 is actually for Kathy with respect of where we 

25 are with the new format with this group. 
63

1 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, I -- I don't -- that's 

2 a good question. We -- I discussed that with 

3 Kathy briefly yesterday, but I don't know if we 

4 officially tasked SC&A with -- with doing that 

5 or what. 

6 MS. MUNN: I thought it -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy? 

8 MS. MUNN: -- was kind of generally understood. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 MS. MUNN: Wasn't it, Kathy? 

11 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it was. We have started to 

12 look at that. Doug Farver and I are giving 

13 that some thought. We're still in the process 

14 of trying to close out the eighth set also, and 

15 we've been working with Mark yesterday in -- in 

16 closing out the fourth and fifth sets. But we 

17 -- we've started to look at it but I don't have 

18 anything in hand that I can send over to you 

19 yet, but we should be very close to doing that. 

20 And Mark and I have discussed briefly some 

21 changes that we would make to the Task III 

22 matrix that would work well with the Task IV 

23 matrix. 

24 MS. MUNN: I guess my real bottom line question 

25 is would we have that format available for us 
64

1 at our March subcommittee meeting. 

2 MS. BEHLING: I think that's possible, yes. 

3 MS. MUNN: Good. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I think it will be, yeah, 'cause 

5 even in preparation for this, Wanda, I couldn't 

6 help myself and I took the Word-based documents 

7 and you can import them right into access and I 

8 started putting them together, and then I 

9 realized I was getting a little off task. But 

10 I mean I don't think it would take much time to 

11 at least form-- put -- put all this together in 

12 an access database and part of the -- I think 

13 it would be very helpful 'cause I -- one of the 

14 struggles I had in doing this was consistency 

15 across matrices. 

16 MS. MUNN: Right. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: You know, we've had several 

18 repeat type of findings and I wanted to make 

19 sure that I was ranking them the same and, you 

20 know -- or, you know, in a consistent fashion -

21 - 

22 MS. MUNN: That's always a problem. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, yeah, so I -- I hope we 

24 -- that would be good to have. And my feeling 

25 right now is -- I think we had a notice go out 
65

1 for a Fernald workgroup meeting around March 

2 24th or 5th and maybe we can tag along a 

3 subcommittee meeting. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Actually, Mark -- this is 

5 Christine -- we actually could try to pin that 

6 down now because we would need to get this 

7 announced in the Federal Register -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: -- and we'd have to put it 

10 together like tomorrow. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: So if the group -- if you can get 

13 the group to come to some idea of what date 

14 right now, that would be very helpful to us. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I think everyone's on except for 

16 Dr. Poston is on the phone call so maybe 

17 whenever we're discussing (unintelligible) -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's get that -- do that 

19 when -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're doing dates. That way -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, right. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- we get any issues here -- Mark, 

24 let me start by asking a -- a question, and 

25 this has to do with a lot of the sixes. Some 
66

1 of them, in a sense, appear to be closed. I -- 

2 I'll just pick one out at random, it's -- it's 

3 73.2 is the finding number, where it says 

4 "NIOSH agrees the OTIB has been revised and 

5 SC&A is reviewing the OTIB as part of 

6 procedures review" so that -- that looks pretty 

7 good on a closure for six and it dumps it into 

8 procedures review -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- group. But on the other hand, 

11 I'm looking at 68.2 -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- which -- with a finding of 

14 failure to account for angular response and on 

15 the resolution there it says "NIOSH and SC&A to 

16 resolve in procedures review" like it's 

17 something that's going to happen in the future 

18 but it's not really in the pipeline yet, and 

19 that also falls into a six category, but -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- there's a number of these that 

22 -- another one that's sort of like that -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Some of that may be just my 

24 wording -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 
67

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- Paul, but I'm not sure yet. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: It's good to check. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- finding 69.2 it says "NIOSH is 

5 preparing an overall response," it looks like 

6 it's still open and it -- it puts it in a six 

7 category. And the finding following that is 

8 similar, so -- well, here's -- here's one, 

9 69.7, "NIOSH will provide a technical basis for 

10 this approach," so it -- and it -- the action 

11 is six, which means we -- obviously we have to 

12 follow up on it, but some of these sixes -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- NIOSH has already done it and 

15 it's in the -- it's in the review path. 

16 Others, it's going to happen in the future. I 

17 -- I'm wondering -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Well, they -- and they're -- most 

19 of these -- I mean some of it is -- may be a 

20 little sloppy on the wording, but I -- and they 

21 should be clarified -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- and something like 

24 (unintelligible) -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- all I'm getting at is we -- 
68

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- have sixes that are -- the work 

3 has already been done by NIOSH, it's in the 

4 pipeline. Others, it looks like it's going to 

5 be done -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- either by NIOSH or SC&A, but 

8 I'm wondering -- on all of those it looks like 

9 they all fall into some kind of a procedures 

10 review bin. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And so I'm wondering -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) site profile 

14 (unintelligible). 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- I -- yeah, or a site profile 

16 review bin -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- but I'm wondering if -- if we 

19 can ask the procedures group, Wanda, if -- if 

20 it would be appropriate for someone to go 

21 through all of these and -- and identify the 

22 ones that should show up in procedures review 

23 and make sure -- you know, maybe there -- and 

24 may-- and maybe we can have -- it's our -- our 

25 new helper, Nancy -- is it Nancy? 
69

1 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, that's correct, Nancy Adams. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- who's helping with some of the 

3 tracking and so on, maybe someone like Nancy 

4 could go through this document and -- and 

5 identify all those sixes and see which ones 

6 need to be sort of put into the -- formally 

7 into the hamper of the -- of the procedures 

8 review group and which of them are going to be 

9 covered in some kind of a site profile review. 

10 We just -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- need to be sure that we don't 

13 lose the -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I agree that some linking 

15 mechanism -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: A linking mechanism. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) we get this 

18 data-- yeah, that would be good, too. One 

19 thing that -- that -- that is important just 

20 for all of us to understand is that, you know, 

21 as far as these showing up in -- in the 

22 procedures review group, some of these -- like 

23 you indicated, Paul -- have yet to be named. 

24 You know, they don't -- they don't have a 

25 number assignment necessarily. For instance, 
70

1 you know, we've talked about some of these 

2 overarching global documents like for ingestion 

3 -- uranium ingestion -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- which -- which NIOSH has 

6 committed to doing an overarching sort of white 

7 paper or document on this, but we don't have a 

8 procedure or TIB number or anything like that -

9 - I don't think, anyway -- at this point. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: So that's the ones we -- we sort 

12 of have -- yeah, I agree, we need to have a way 

13 to track these and link them to the procedures 

14 workgroup or site profile groups and make sure 

15 they don't just get -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- get lost, yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other questions or 

19 comments? It -- it just -- there's an awful 

20 lot of these items that are sixes, that's 

21 (unintelligible) -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- yeah, I agree, yeah. 

23 MS. MUNN: And one of the concerns we've had in 

24 procedures of course from the outset -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 
71

1 MS. MUNN: -- and how to really establish 

2 reliable procedure. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, as long as we can 

4 agree that we're going to follow up on these, 

5 well, then it's -- I think it'll be okay to 

6 consider them closed out. And when -- when we 

7 make the report to the Secretary we'll have to 

8 indicate something along that line. 

9 MS. MUNN: Well, we have them clearly 

10 documented -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

12 MS. MUNN: -- as to what type of -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- follow-up is required -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Right, exactly. 

16 MS. MUNN: -- and that's the key element -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MS. MUNN: -- at this juncture. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, this is Christine 

20 Branche, and yes, Nancy Adams will work with 

21 Mark to look at these -- examine -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: -- these sixes and make certain 

24 that they -- a ledger's put together for 

25 getting them over to the procedures group. 
72

1 MR. GRIFFON: And we'll -- and we'll coordinate 

2 it with -- with Wanda, yeah, as well, and I'm 

3 on that group, too, so we can, you know, work 

4 together on that. 

5 The other thing, Paul, I would say is that 

6 there -- there are -- it does seem like there -

7 - and there are a lot of sixes. I should point 

8 out that many of these are -- are the same 

9 findings for different cases -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right, exactly. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- so you know -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I understand -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, it looks like we're de-- 

14 it looks like we're deferring everything, but -

15 - 

16 DR. ZIEMER: No, I'm (unintelligible) -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- actually (unintelligible) -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: I agree, I agree. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- they -- they repeat a lot, 

20 yeah. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So I don't know if there's 

23 anything else on that. I mean I think I still 

24 would stand on trying to finalize this and -- 

25 and have a letter -- a draft letter report for 
73

1 discussion in our March subcommittee meeting, 

2 and then bring the whole -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- package to the Board. And in 

5 the interim if anybody has any comments on the 

6 matrices -- I mean you only ha-- you only got 

7 them yesterday so I would certainly welcome any 

8 e-mail comments or anything, you know, and I'll 

9 bring that to the subcommittee process and go 

10 from there I guess. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Well, why don't we ask for 

12 comments on either -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- on four -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Four or five. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- four or five. I noticed on 

17 five there were a whole lot of "site profile 

18 review needed" resolutions. All of the 84 -- 

19 the 84.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 

20 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- findings. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- and that was a particular -- 

24 that's one -- that's one site, I think Harshaw. 

25 Right? 
74

1 DR. ZIEMER: All one site, so that's -- that's 

2 really the same finding -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's just the same -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- all the way down. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and it's -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And that's another six and -- and 

7 -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: This is one where the -- the 

9 matrix got modified while the review was going 

10 -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- being conducted, yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Again, the same kind of thing -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- with another tracking of -- of 

16 the outcomes on those. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Any -- Board members, any 

19 issues on four or five in terms of the 

20 resolutions that are proposed? 

21 (No responses) 

22 Again, you would have an opportunity -- since 

23 you just got these yesterday and if you haven't 

24 had a chance to go through them, why Mark is 

25 going to give you another crack at it at the 
75

1 next face-to-face meeting. Right, Mark? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And then we would have coupled 

4 with that the -- a draft of the reports to the 

5 Secretary. And Mark, I want to work with you 

6 on that -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- make sure that -- keep me in 

9 the loop on it as you're drafting that. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Certainly. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I want to be involved -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the draft of that report. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So maybe that will take 

16 care of the fourth and fifth sets. We -- we 

17 were going to talk about the letters to the 

18 Secretary. I think, unless there's any 

19 objection, we'll -- we'll report on these 40 

20 cases in a format similar to the last 40 that 

21 we reported. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then you were going to propose 

24 some kind of a wrap-up for the first 100 cases, 

25 Mark? 
76

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, well, it had been discussed 

2 and I'm not even sure who initially brought it 

3 up, but I think it's a good idea that -- to 

4 have a summary report of the first 100 cases. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think the Chair actually 

6 asked -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, did you? Well -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- for that. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- I thought so. I wasn't sure. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And I -- I would like us, if we 

11 could, to incorporate some of the materials 

12 Kathy provided on what the sort of demographics 

13 of the review have been, as well as a summary 

14 of the findings. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: And maybe the subcommittee can 

17 give some thought to that between now -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- and the next meeting and -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: I was going to ask the same 

21 thing, that I -- I'd try to draft something and 

22 I can work with you, Paul, if you want, and 

23 bring something to the subcommittee first and 

24 then flesh it out there and -- and try to have 

25 it for the April meeting as well. 
77

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. But I thought the -- I 

2 think Kathy prepared a -- a report, I think it 

3 was the first 100 -- Kathy, was it -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I think it was the first 60, 

5 wasn't it? 

6 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I did prepare a report on 

7 the first 60 and I have the statistics -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 MS. BEHLING: -- for all of the additional 100 

10 cases and can put something togeth-- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in fact I thought you went 

12 up to like 140 cases or something. 

13 MS. BEHLING: I -- yes, 148 cases. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: If we could prepare for the 

16 Secretary the demographics of the first 100 -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- you know, the -- the types of 

19 cases, the representation of the facilities 

20 that they're from, I thought that was an 

21 excellent -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Useful, yeah, yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then couple that with the 

24 findings would be very good. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. 
78

1 DR. ZIEMER: What do we need to do on assigning 

2 or selecting the next set of cases, Mark? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the -- moving on -- I 

4 wasn't sure if everybody was done on that 

5 topic. Stu Hinnefeld sent out two -- two 

6 separate e-mails to the Board members, I think 

7 everyone got those. One was labeled the ninth 

8 set of cases, and what that is is -- is he -- 

9 he went through the set that we picked in Las 

10 Vegas and he removed any that were -- removed 

11 by DOL, basically, that they were not available 

12 for our review or they're under a PER review or 

13 other -- for other reasons, they couldn't be in 

14 our -- our -- in our audit function here. And 

15 he -- he did the more descriptive parameters 

16 that we had asked for, he filled them in for 

17 the remaining cases. And I think, if I counted 

18 correctly, we have 45 -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's what I counted, 45 

20 cases. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, on -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I think your -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- the ninth set -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think you originally had 

25 maybe 46 or 7. 
79

1 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I thought we had more like 

2 60 in the -- I -- I forget, though, but I -- 

3 anyway, it's -- some got eliminated. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I know there were more 

5 than 45, but -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- did the subcommittee decide to 

8 select as many as they could, up to 60, for 

9 this next -- or how -- how -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think -- I mean -- I -- I 

11 was -- my -- my -- I guess my proposal here 

12 today is to look at this ninth set and make a 

13 final approval for SC&A to take at least some 

14 of these cases, maybe not -- there's a few on 

15 here, now that I look at the -- the exten-- the 

16 expanded parameters, that I would choose to 

17 drop off the list, but get as many cases out of 

18 this ninth set as we can, and then I was going 

19 to ask if -- if -- I know the tenth set was 

20 provided for our consideration, to move it 

21 forward in the same process as we did the last 

22 set, you know, the two-step process. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't -- I would -- I would 

25 prefer to do that at the March subcommittee 
80

1 meeting and then bring back a list to the April 

2 meeting, just because it's easier -- I think 

3 it's a little easier to do that in person 

4 around a table -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I -- I don't think -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- we want to deal with the tenth 

8 set certainly today, and I'm -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I was just going to ask about the 

11 ninth. Do you want the Board to do anything on 

12 that today? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I would like the Board to vote 

14 this so SC&A can start moving on it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: My -- the only thing I would say 

17 is there are -- I have five -- six cases that I 

18 thought we might want to remove from the list, 

19 and maybe other people -- we can discuss this 

20 (unintelligible) -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: How many cases do we need to end 

22 up with on this set? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess it would be as many 

24 as possible. I talked to Lew briefly on this 

25 and -- 
81

1 DR. BRANCHE: You need 60 for the year, Mark. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Sixty for the year, so if we can 

3 -- can -- you know, the more we get, the 

4 better, I suppose. And then we can move the 

5 tenth set along (unintelligible) -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: In other words, they can -- they 

7 can start at auditing groups and -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- move along -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- not necessarily restricting it 

12 to 20 at a time. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: But the ones you want to remove 

15 are ones that (unintelligible) -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Well, they were -- they were 

17 basically -- a couple of these are -- are -- I 

18 -- I think not very -- they're not going to be 

19 very fruitful reviews. They're -- some of 

20 these that are underestimates based on external 

21 exposure only. I can just read down the 

22 numbers and if anybody, you know, disagrees, we 

23 can certainly discuss them. But otherwise, I 

24 propose removing them. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't you tell us what those 
82

1 are then. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: All right. They're -- I'll read 

3 the last three digits, starting on the first 

4 page -- four of them are on the first page. 

5 It's the last three digits of the ID number are 

6 143 -- 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me? I didn't -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: No, Mark, before you continue, 

10 there's -- if you could please mute your phone 

11 if you're not speaking, we would very much 

12 appreciate it. If you don't have a mute 

13 button, then please use star-6. Thank you. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I thought that was a 

15 question. All right, 143, 159, 188, 194, 568 

16 and 571. Those two are on the third page, 568 

17 and 571. And that -- those are the ones that I 

18 thought, based on the additional data Stu 

19 provided, probably were not, you know, that 

20 useful for our review. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Mark -- Mark, this is Larry 

22 Elliott. I just want to make sure that folks 

23 on this conference call understand that the 

24 numbers that you're speaking of there are not 

25 claim -- 
83

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: -- tracking numbers or personal 

3 ID numbers on a claim. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Larry, yeah. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: They are numbers that have been 

6 assigned to this set of claims for the Board's 

7 consideration in their review of completed dose 

8 reconstructions. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Larry. Yeah, these 

10 are ran-- random ID numbers. These are not 

11 NIO-- not case ID numbers. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I wouldn't want somebody -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: -- thinking that their claim with 

15 those last four digits isn't worthy of review. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: No, right, right, I -- I 

17 apologize. I should have been clear on that. 

18 Yeah, these are just random ID numbers that 

19 were selected for this table that's in front of 

20 us. 

21 MS. MUNN: And Mark, this is Wanda, I'm sorry, 

22 I didn't realize we were going to do this on 

23 this call and (unintelligible) the leading role 

24 in "Camille" for the last week and do not have 

25 our working files in front of me -- 
84

1 MR. GRIFFON: Oh -- oh -- 

2 MS. MUNN: -- so I'm going to go off the call 

3 for just a few minutes to go elsewhere to get 

4 the working file before I can comment on those. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: Mark -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Paul -- 

8 DR. ROESSLER: -- this is Gen Roessler. While 

9 she's doing that, would -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: -- you quickly give the numbers 

12 again? I didn't get them. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Certainly, yeah. It's 143, 159, 

14 188, 194, 568 and 571. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: Thank you. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: And would it be helpful, 

17 particularly for other subcommittee members who 

18 are on the call, to have Mark indicate the 

19 reason -- since the subcommittee selected these 

20 originally, to indicate the reason for removal? 

21 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. That would 

22 be nice, just a short sum-- just a short thing. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I -- the -- the reason -- 

24 okay, I can go through one by one. I thought 

25 maybe if somebody objected, I could go through 
85

1 the reasons then, but -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's only six of them. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah -- 143 is an 

4 overestimate on internal and external, and we 

5 had several other cases from that facility, and 

6 the job title led me to believe that, you know, 

7 it wasn't going to be very -- a very 

8 interesting case as far as adding to our 

9 understanding of that facility or the -- you 

10 know, the -- the more difficult cases in that 

11 facility. So it was job title, related to the 

12 fact that it was just an over-- overestimate of 

13 internal and external. 

14 The -- 159, underestimate -- oh, underestimate, 

15 primarily external. My sense here is that you 

16 have -- and it's over 50 percent, so they -- 

17 these are just these underestimating ones that 

18 are over 50 percent. I think they just had -- 

19 they took any badge data they had, they 

20 realized they were over the 50th percentile and 

21 they stopped. Again, not a very fruitful 

22 review as far as reviewing the quality of dose 

23 reconstructions, I don't think, and that's the 

24 same argument for 188 and 194. They're the 

25 exact same type of cases. 
86

1 DR. ZIEMER: But 188 -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) facility -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- is indicated as being a best 

4 estimate. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: 188? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. 

6 I have underestimate, primarily external. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: I have underestimate. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 DR. NETON: But the update -- annotated column 

10 on the right reads differently. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Best estimate (unintelligible) 

13 photon. 

14 DR. NETON: Right. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Best estimate based on monitored 

16 pho-- yeah, I'm not sure I understand that. 

17 Well, they -- they didn't do internal, and I 

18 think it's best estimate based on what -- the 

19 data they -- you know, like if they had badge 

20 data, they added it up. That's -- that's my 

21 sense. 

22 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think that's 

23 (unintelligible) -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. But still, it's over 

25 50 and they only used external -- 
87

1 DR. NETON: Right. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- dose data to get there. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I see what you're saying. In 

4 other words, it's -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's a best estimate, but you 

7 stopped -- they stopped -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, they stopped 'cause the 

9 badges -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- because it went over. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- added up and it went over, 

12 yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: So there's not much very exciting 

15 or interesting to review there. At least 

16 that's my sense, you know. 

17 And then the last two, 568 and 571 -- 568, it 

18 was -- it is a full external -- full internal 

19 and external, it's over 50 percent and it's a 

20 Savannah River Site. I guess that's why I was 

21 considering dropping that. That -- that 

22 actually may be more interesting to some 

23 people, I would grant that. 

24 And the next one, Linde Ceramics Plant, again, 

25 it was over 50 percentile and we had another 
88

1 Linde site, I believe, another Linde case. And 

2 I thought if the argument was that we want to 

3 review that site, that probably wasn't the best 

4 one to do it with. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: There's two Linde ones in this 

6 batch. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I thought other one -- 

8 well, the other one's over 50 percent also, 

9 isn't it? So I think one -- you know, I think 

10 we should look at one of those, at least to 

11 cover the -- you know, looking at a case from 

12 the facility. I'm not sure we need two over 50 

13 percent, would be my 'druthers there. So 554, 

14 also -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: So Mark, you're talking about 

16 removing now 554? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, I -- it -- 554's also 

18 a Linde case. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, okay. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: So I would -- 

21 DR. BRANCHE: So you're going to keep that, 

22 554, but you're suggesting to drop 

23 (unintelligible) -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm saying if people -- if 

25 people want one Linde case over the other, I 
89

1 would go either way on that is what I'm saying. 

2 (NOTE: There was an apparent telephonic 

3 failure in transmission as Mr. Griffon 

4 concluded his remarks. It rendered his words, 

5 as well as the subsequent exchange with Dr. 

6 Branche, so broken and distorted as to be 

7 untranslatable.) 

8 DR. BRANCHE: (Unintelligible) 

9 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 

10 DR. ZIEMER: The -- on the Savannah River one, 

11 were you proposing dropping that simply because 

12 we have a number of Savannah Rivers? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: We -- we have quite a few 

14 Savannah Rivers and this one is over 50 

15 percentile. But like I said, that -- that one 

16 I don't have a strong argument for dropping. 

17 It's -- it's mainly that we had several 

18 Savannah River cases and this one was yet 

19 another one which is over 50. There's one 

20 rated above it which is all male genitalia also 

21 and it's, you know -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: It's very close to 50, which -- 

23 yeah. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 40, so they -- they looked 

25 almost similar, those two cases in a row there. 
90

1 DR. ROESSLER: Mark, on the two Linde cases, 

2 I'm looking them over, I -- I would recommend 

3 keeping 571. It seems the two cases -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

5 DR. ROESSLER: -- although they're both 

6 overestimate, other than that they're quite 

7 different and I think there could be some 

8 information derived by looking at them. This 

9 is Gen, but -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah, they are different 

11 type of cancers and they -- I may mean they -- 

12 they're site models, I assume, so they're both 

13 using the same site model was my point. 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Well, I don't feel strongly on -

15 - on either way. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I don't -- yeah. I 

17 guess the first -- the ones on the first page I 

18 felt more strongly about than the last two 

19 there, the Savannah River and the Linde. The 

20 four on the first page I felt, you know, were 

21 probably the stronger arguments to drop. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Let me make an additional 

23 comment here. I'm -- I'm looking at Kathy 

24 Behling's comparison of numbers of cases 

25 compared to our goal. Interestingly enough, 
91

1 for Linde, in terms of -- if we take the two 

2 and a half percent of available cases, we would 

3 do one Linde case overall. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: For Savannah River, we -- based on 

6 numbers of claims, we need like 41 cases and 

7 we're in the 20s right now. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: I think -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: But I think those numbers were to 

11 guide us, not to -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, I -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- I understand, but -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- but -- 

17 DR. ROESSLER: I think that helps, and because 

18 of that interpretation I would just withdraw my 

19 comment. 

20 MS. MUNN: But then overall we have to remember 

21 the fact that we have other criteria than sites 

22 alone. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, this -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, yeah. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- will -- we're -- we have 
92

1 already done one Linde case, this would be the 

2 second and third where we only need one to 

3 start with on the -- in the goal. That's the 

4 only point I was making. Also I'll point out 

5 on Los Alamos -- I was a little surprised by 

6 this, but based on numbers of claims, we only 

7 need seven total cases. We already have four, 

8 and on this list there are five more. 

9 MS. MUNN: Well, as I pointed out, if we -- if 

10 we accept the site category as only one of 

11 probably at least a half-dozen criteria that we 

12 established in the subcommittee to look at 

13 these, then we just simply can't take that site 

14 criteria as being the overwhelming -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, no -- no, no, just -- 

16 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible). 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- just -- it's just a factor to 

18 consider. 

19 MS. MUNN: Right, but we do -- I think we have 

20 tried to consider that factor. I suspect the 

21 rest of the subcommittee members will agree 

22 that we've always taken site into 

23 consideration. But when we are attempting to 

24 look also at period of employment, when we're 

25 attempting to look at type of cancer, when 
93

1 we're attempting to look at the percentages of 

2 -- of how near or far away from the 50 percent 

3 criteria we are, then -- then we -- you begin 

4 to blur the lines very clearly. It's obvious 

5 we're not going to be able to do it on site 

6 alone. If we could do that, then that would 

7 simplify the committee's task. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine and just to let 

9 you know that Mark, you said you had very 

10 strong feelings about the first four that you 

11 recommended be taken off the list. If you 

12 leave the two for Savannah River and Linde, 

13 you'd have 41 cases, not 39 -- 39 or 41 will 

14 allow SC&A to get started. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

16 MS. MUNN: I have no objections to following 

17 Mark's recommendation. We can remove the first 

18 four. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to moving the -- 

20 removing the first four by anybody? That was 

21 148 -- 

22 MS. MUNN: 143. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- 143, 159, 188 and 194. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: And how about the last two, 

25 Wanda? 
94

1 DR. ZIEMER: The last two? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 588 and -- or 568 and 571. 

3 MS. MUNN: I would prefer that we leave them. 

4 I -- I just -- you know, we've reviewed these 

5 already, and replacing a significant number of 

6 them sort of -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

8 MS. MUNN: -- you know, it nullifies our 

9 efforts. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, how about -- how about this 

11 offer? I -- I think the Savannah River, which 

12 I agree was -- I would concede that that -- you 

13 know, you can make a good argument to keep that 

14 one in there. I will drop that off my list. 

15 But I would like to drop one of those Linde 

16 ones, and it can be either 554 or 571. I think 

17 they're using the same site model and they're 

18 both over 50 percentile, and it may be that 571 

19 actually might be the more appealing case now 

20 that I look at it closer, but... 

21 MS. MUNN: Either. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: But can we take one or the other 

23 of those, Wanda? 

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Do you have a preference on that, 
95

1 or anybody else? 

2 DR. ROESSLER: I think, too, that 571 might be 

3 the more informative. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MS. MUNN: I think so. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: So can we modify my list to have 

7 the first four on the first page, Paul -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then 554 drop -- that's 

10 the other Linde case, which is the 77 

11 percentile non-melanoma skin, basal cell 

12 cancer. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to that by anyone? 

14 MS. MUNN: Not here. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: That gives us -- 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Forty. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- 40 -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Forty exactly, too, yeah. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- cases. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Wonderful. So then Mark, we'll 

21 deal with the tenth set that Stu prepared, and 

22 that'll be part of -- one of your agenda items 

23 for your subcommittee meeting. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I'm going to take it by 
96

1 consent that that's acceptable. So we have our 

2 -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Zie-- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- the ninth set will be 40 cases. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: So Dr. Ziemer -- this is 

6 Christine. So now we can instruct SC&A to go 

7 ahead and get started on these 40 cases. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and I will now assign -- I 

9 will assign the teams for those 40 cases. I 

10 have the list of -- of conflicts of interest, 

11 and I will simply distribute the list to the 

12 Board members and to NIOSH and to SC&A of those 

13 assignments. I'll do that in the next week or 

14 so. 

15 MS. MUNN: Great. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: And NIOSH will get the listing 

17 and the cases to SC&A and take that task on. 

18 Right? 

19 DR. NETON: Yes. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 DR. NETON: I'm a little confused here. We 

22 said that leaves 40 cases? 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Yes -- Jim, this is Christine -- 

24 because -- 

25 DR. NETON: I thought we were removing six 
97

1 cases -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, we -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: We removed five. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- changed that, yeah. I can 

5 read down the ones we're going to remove again. 

6 I'll just read through them. 

7 DR. NETON: Yeah, please. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: 143, 159, 188, 194, and now the 

9 change is going to be 554. 

10 DR. NETON: And you're leaving 568. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Leaving 568 and leaving -- 

12 leaving 571, yeah. 

13 DR. NETON: Okay, thanks. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So that should wrap 

15 that up, Paul -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yep, very good. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And then the tenth set we'll -- 

18 we'll take on in the subcommittee meeting -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I think that's it. The 

21 only other thing I was going to say is that the 

22 sixth set -- I think we're far along in our 

23 resolution process and I was going to try to 

24 get that on the agenda for the subcommittee 

25 meeting as well. 
98

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that sounds good. Thank 

2 you, Mark. Appreciate the work of the 

3 subcommittee. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, and sorry to get these 

5 so late to people. I've been dealing with a 

6 lot of other stuff and -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) a little 

9 reprieve. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

12 MS. MUNN: It's amazing you got them at all. 

13 Thank you, Mark. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 

15 WORK GROUP UPDATES

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I think we can move on to 

17 our working group updates. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, would you like me to 

19 go down the list? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: The first one is Blockson 

22 Chemical; Ms. Munn, you're the chair. 

23 MS. MUNN: We have no action at this time. As 

24 you know, the Board discussed Blockson Chemical 

25 at our last meeting. We had two individuals on 
99

1 the Board who wanted additional time or 

2 additional information to look at something. I 

3 have not heard back from those, although I've 

4 made an inquiry. We hope to have a report on 

5 the additional review that those folks have 

6 given the documentation at our next meeting. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Chapman Valve, Mr. -- Dr. Poston 

9 is the chair and I think he's not on this call. 

10 I think actually he's out of the country. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: But we have discussed Chapman 

12 already so -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think we can proceed. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Fernald site profile and Special 

16 Exposure Cohort; Mr. Clawson, you're the chair. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, right now NIOSH has been 

18 putting -- at our last meeting we had several 

19 things that had to be put onto the O drive, and 

20 then SC&A had to be able to have time to be 

21 able to view it and so forth. At this time 

22 we're waiting for a white paper that was 

23 explaining how they were going to do some of 

24 these processes. Right now I'm trying to set 

25 up tentatively a workgroup meeting for the 24th 
100

1 to be able to review this information -- March 

2 24th. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Hanford site profile and Special 

5 Exposure Cohort petition; Dr. Melius is the 

6 chair. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- this is Jim. We're in 

8 the -- I'm in my third try at trying to 

9 schedule a workgroup meeting and I think when 

10 we can -- when we do scheduling later I think 

11 we might even be able to work out a date for 

12 that. And I just would add that SC&A has also 

13 just submitted another short report on -- on 

14 that particular site. But I expect we'll have 

15 our -- our work meeting sometime in the next 

16 couple of weeks. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Los Alamos National Lab site 

18 profile and Special Exposure Cohort; Mr. 

19 Griffon is the chair. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: We have no update at this point. 

21 I do -- I -- I would like to ask if NIOSH has 

22 any update on -- I know we're waiting for 

23 changes in the site profile. 

24 MR. RUTHERFORD: Mark, this is LaVon 

25 Rutherford. We actually are anticipating a 
101

1 revision or report from our contractor -- from 

2 ORAU on March 7th is the anticipated date for 

3 that. Once we get that and review that and 

4 we'll get that issued and out to the working 

5 group. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and -- okay, and just to 

7 clarify, do we -- I'm asking the entire Board 

8 here. I don't know if -- if we've asked SC&A 

9 to review that revision already, or do we need 

10 to -- I guess we need to wait to see the report 

11 first. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know if they've been 

14 tasked with that or -- 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: I can answer that. We -- we 

16 were tasked originally, but we have held off, 

17 given the circumstances of the site profile 

18 being revised. So we're essentially deferring 

19 at this point. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, till it's completed. 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: Till it's completed and the 

22 Board provides the report and we can begin with 

23 that review. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was saying, once 

25 it's completed, then that process begin-- SC&A 
102

1 review process, or do we need to come back to 

2 the full Board and ask to -- you know, if it's 

3 coming out March 7th, once it comes out can 

4 SC&A initiate their review, Paul? Is that -- 

5 or are we -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to recall and I don't 

7 remember if we had that on the tasking list 

8 already. Do you -- Christine, do you know if 

9 we do? We can check on that. We may have to 

10 task them. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right, but I guess we 

12 can che-- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: But we can move ahead -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- check on that. Right? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- on that if we need to rapidly, 

16 yeah. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Once that's out. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Linde Ceramics site profile; Dr. 

21 Roessler's the chair. 

22 DR. ROESSLER: Hi, I think I have my mute off. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: You do, thank you. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. The Linde site profile 

25 workgroup held a meeting in Las Vegas. I was 
103

1 present by phone. After that meeting we had 

2 one item left on the matrix to discuss. It was 

3 decided that this item would be discussed on a 

4 technical call between SC&A and NIOSH/ORAU. 

5 This call was held on February 13th. SC&A had 

6 Kathy DeMers, John Mauro and Steve Ostrow 

7 present. NIOSH had Chris Crawford and Joe 

8 Guido. Josie Beach and I listened in as 

9 workgroup members. We also had a Linde worker 

10 who talked about his experiences at the site 

11 and Antoinette Bonsignore was -- was present on 

12 the call. The worker presented information 

13 with regard to this item, which was the -- some 

14 questions about burlap bags at the site. He 

15 had worked there from June 27th, 1951 to 

16 September 1993, so he presented information. 

17 Antoinette also had also spoken to another 

18 worker and she presented some of the 

19 information from him. 

20 After discussion about this it was decided that 

21 NIOSH should respond -- evaluating all the 

22 information that had been presented, prepare a 

23 brief white paper addressing these issues and 

24 this, as I understand it, is being prepared. 

25 I'm hoping that we'll be able to have a 
104

1 workgroup meeting to address this before the 

2 April meeting, and then at the April meeting 

3 perhaps we can come to some resolution. 

4 One thing I think would help the workgroup 

5 would be if someone could review the 

6 information that was presented this morning by 

7 DOL and advise the workgroup at least on what 

8 the implications are on these. So I think if 

9 we could -- later on this morning when we talk 

10 about schedule, perhaps if -- I think Steve 

11 Ostrow's on the phone and somebody from NIOSH 

12 is on, if we could pick a time before the April 

13 meeting and in anticipation of this white paper 

14 and have a workgroup -- perhaps a 

15 teleconference. 

16 DR. OSTROW: Hi, this is Steve. When we do -- 

17 well, when does NIOSH think it's going to 

18 finish its white paper or at least have a draft 

19 of it? Maybe that would set when we'd have a 

20 telephone meeting. 

21 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim Neton. I don't 

22 have that information available to me right 

23 now. Chris Crawford's the one developing it. 

24 I can try to get a hold of him and get back to 

25 you fairly quickly here, though. 
105

1 DR. ROESSLER: If we could do that today while 

2 the workgroup members are on the phone, I think 

3 that would help. If not, it's not a real 

4 problem -- 

5 DR. NETON: Yeah. No, I think I can get a hold 

6 of Chris Crawford and we can get that done 

7 today. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: If you're not able to do it by 

10 phone, you can do it by e-mail afterwards. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Sure. 

12 DR. NETON: Right. 

13 DR. ROESSLER: Sure. 

14 DR. NETON: Okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. Roessler. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Mound; Ms. Beach is the chair. 

17 MS. BEACH: Yes. Right now I'm currently 

18 reviewing draft documents that I -- I asked 

19 SC&A to prepare. We hope to have those out to 

20 NIOSH and the workgroup very soon, with a plan 

21 to schedule a conference call after that. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Nevada Test Site site profile; 

24 Mr. Presley is the chair. 

25 MR. PRESLEY: The site profile -- SC&A and 
106

1 NIOSH had a telephone meeting. They talked 

2 about one of the last issues. That issue has 

3 been resolved. We're in the process of trying 

4 to come up with a short telephone call before 

5 the April meeting to make a recommendation, 

6 everybody get together and make sure 

7 everybody's on board, then we will make a 

8 recommendation hopefully at the April meeting. 

9 And nothing has been done on the SEC petition 

10 yet. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Incidentally, 

12 I'm going to assume as we proceed through these 

13 brief reports, Board members, if any of you 

14 have questions for any of the workgroup chairs, 

15 just speak up. Okay? Let's proceed. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, procedures review; Ms. Munn 

17 chair. 

18 MS. MUNN: We have a face-to-face meeting 

19 scheduled in Cincinnati on the 13th, and at 

20 that time -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: That will be March 13. Right? 

22 MS. MUNN: March 13th in Cincinnati, yes. It's 

23 our expectation at that time to be able to 

24 review for the first time a good compilation of 

25 the new format matrices that Kathy Behling has 
107

1 been carefully postulating for us for the last 

2 few weeks. We haven't had a specific report 

3 from Kathy, I haven't talked to her about it, 

4 but so far as I know, that's on track. Kathy, 

5 would you like to make any comment? 

6 MS. BEHLING: You are correct, that is on 

7 track, Wanda, and we should be prepared for the 

8 March 13th meeting. 

9 MS. MUNN: Other than that, I have no report. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Rocky Flats site profile and 

12 Special Exposure Cohort petition; Mr. Griffon 

13 chair. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I do have a little 

15 update on the Rocky Flats workgroup. We -- I -

16 - I think I mentioned in Las Vegas I -- we had 

17 a follow-up call with Margaret Ruttenber and 

18 discussed some of the -- the data regar-- or 

19 her data from the University of Colorado, and I 

20 have -- I still have not sent out the draft 

21 minutes from that call. I will get those out. 

22 But I would like to have a -- a workgroup phone 

23 call meeting. I don't think we need a face-to24 face for this one, but a workgroup phone call 

25 meeting to discuss that, along with -- I mean 
108

1 the -- the real topic of the discussion would 

2 be the application of the -- of the SEC 

3 recommendation that the Board made, and 

4 particularly the concerns of how it's being put 

5 in place that have arose (sic), you know, 

6 through this newspaper article and other things 

7 that have come up. So I think we need to -- 

8 I'd like to have a workgroup phone call. I'll 

9 get minutes out to the workgroup members before 

10 the phone call and then we can report back to 

11 the full Board in -- in April, would be my -- 

12 my hope. And that's -- that's all I have at 

13 this time. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Special Exposure Cohort issues, 

16 250-day issue and preliminary review of 83.14 

17 SEC petitions; Dr. Melius, chair. 

18 DR. MELIUS: The -- on the 250-day issue, we're 

19 still waiting reports from -- one report from 

20 NIOSH and one report from SC&A, and I've been 

21 in touch with both of them and we have some 

22 idea soon when those may be available. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Savannah site profile, Mr. 

25 Griffon chair. 
109

1 MR. GRIFFON: No update at this point on the 

2 Savannah River. It's been a little bit on the 

3 back burner, but no update right now. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: I'll skip subcommittee unless you 

5 have something else, Mr. Griffon. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Nope. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Use of surrogate data, 

8 back to you, Dr. Melius. 

9 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I've drafted a report -- the 

10 work -- Mark has given me some comments and I 

11 should be circ-- circulating a revised report 

12 to the full workgroup next week and we should 

13 be meeting hopefully by conference call 

14 sometime later in March. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Worker outreach, Mr. Gibson 

17 chair. 

18 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, we had a meeting 

19 February 1st, face-to-face meeting at the 

20 Cincinnati airport. We had representatives 

21 from NIOSH and SC&A there to get an overview of 

22 the current status that -- that NIOSH is using 

23 for worker outreach and the different types of 

24 meetings they have. We also got an overview 

25 from SC&A concerning their activities to date 
110

1 in the area of worker outreach, and then we 

2 heard from -- comments from workers and their 

3 representatives and we have another meeting 

4 scheduled March 13th via conference call 

5 (unintelligible) get there. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. I believe that 

7 completes all of our workgroups, does it not? 

8 DR. BRANCHE: It does, Dr. Ziemer. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

10 DR. BEHLING: Dr. Ziemer, this is Hans Behling. 

11 Can I interrupt and just ask a couple of 

12 questions now? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly can. 

14 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. This is Hans Behling for 

15 the reporter, anyway. I have a question for 

16 Brad Clawson with regard to the upcoming 

17 meeting regarding Fernald SEC. I believe there 

18 was a few action items that were also directed 

19 towards SC&A, but I've never received a formal 

20 description of those -- those action items. 

21 And I believe perhaps Mark Griffon could also 

22 elaborate on that issue. 

23 The second issue is the Hanford meeting that is 

24 currently under review for -- for a date by Dr. 

25 Melius. And I wanted to just make a statement 
111

1 here. Back in July of this past year, in 2007, 

2 I had submitted a fairly elaborate report 

3 regarding the neutron/photon ratio, which is an 

4 ongoing issue, and I have yet to receive any 

5 kind of response from NIOSH and perhaps if -- 

6 if that can be also put on the table for -- for 

7 the upcoming meeting, I would appreciate that. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So one of those comments 

9 deals with the -- 

10 DR. BEHLING: Fernald action items. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- Hanford (unintelligible) and 

12 Fernald. Brad, did you have any comment on... 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I've -- Hans, I -- I 

14 understand what you're saying on that. We did 

15 -- we had several action items that were under 

16 the matrix. Several of them were information 

17 that was put onto the O drive for us. Also one 

18 of them was that white paper, and I believe 

19 there was also something about renal damage, 

20 too, that still had to get back to you. What I 

21 was trying to do was just tentatively set up a 

22 date if -- if you haven't -- if you haven't had 

23 enough time to review that, then we'll have to 

24 postpone it. It's -- I just -- I didn't want 

25 this to -- to keep lagging behind. I wanted to 
112

1 try to put I guess a little bit of pressure to 

2 be able to keep moving forward on this. Does 

3 that answer your questions or -- 

4 DR. BEHLING: Yes and no. I have only some 

5 very diffuse wording regarding specific action 

6 items that were cited during the actual working 

7 group meeting that were to be done by SC&A, and 

8 I think I was under the impression that perhaps 

9 Mark Griffon was going to put those action 

10 items into a statement that would more closely 

11 define what it is that we were supposed to do -

12 - that is, action items for SC&A. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: This is on the -- from the Fernald 

14 workgroup? 

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it is. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I think -- I think, if I 

17 remembered right, Hans, that we were going to -

18 - actually what we were going to have you do is 

19 review the information, I believe, because some 

20 of the questions was is how were they using 

21 certain procedures to be able to redo this, and 

22 I believe there was going to be a white paper 

23 that was to come to us, and part of the thing I 

24 think we were trying to address was to have you 

25 review this before the next meeting and so 
113

1 forth, if I remember right. 

2 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I will -- Hans, I must 

4 admit, I -- I'll have to look back at my notes, 

5 but I -- I'd be willing to review our notes 

6 from the last meeting and the actions that we 

7 had -- 

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I'll -- I'll -- I'll 

10 forward my interpretation to Brad and we can -- 

11 the three of us can talk and try to straighten 

12 this out in the next day or two. Okay? 

13 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I would very much like to 

14 have a -- I have also notes that I took, but I 

15 think they're somewhat diffuse and I would want 

16 to be sure that I'm -- I'm on target in trying 

17 to come up with the response and the action 

18 items -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I'll (unintelligible) -- 

20 DR. BEHLING: -- for the next meeting. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I apologize if I dropped the ball 

22 on that -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let me insert at this point 

24 -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
114

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- if I could insert just a 

2 question or comment, it may be Dr. Branche can 

3 help us out here, what -- or maybe Ray can, Ray 

4 Green -- what -- what is the status of the -- 

5 of the transcripts for that workgroup meeting? 

6 I don't have my list before me here so -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, the status of the one for 

8 Fernald? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: And when was that? 

11 DR. BEHLING: That was October -- no, no, it 

12 was November -- let's see here, I should have 

13 it in front of me. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, if it was November, we do 

15 not have the workgroup meeting -- any of the 

16 workgroup meeting transcripts because we've 

17 made a higher priority all of the Advisory 

18 Board meetings. 

19 DR. BEHLING: Okay, Dr. Branche, the date was 

20 November 13th of 2007. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. We don't have 

22 the transcript from that -- it is not -- we 

23 don't -- we don't have that in hand from -- 

24 from Ray Green at this -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in the meantime, perhaps we 
115

1 ask our -- or Brad to check back in their notes 

2 and (unintelligible) -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'll -- I'll work -- I'll 

4 work with Brad -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- clarification to Hans on -- on 

6 those issues. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I'll certainly work with Brad. 

8 Christine, is it possible to get a -- I know in 

9 the past we've got draft versions of the 

10 minutes. Is that possible for that Fernald 

11 meeting, just -- just to have to review what we 

12 said as far as actions? I just want to -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, it -- it's certainly 

14 possible. Actually I have a couple of comments 

15 when we talk about transcripts -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: -- but we can work on getting the 

18 one for Fernald for -- to you. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Or rather to Brad and you. 

21 DR. BEHLING: And -- and the -- the second 

22 issue that I'd hoped that perhaps Dr. Melius 

23 could -- could respond to, and that is sort of 

24 a white paper or report I'd written back, as I 

25 said, in July of 2007 that deals with the issue 
116

1 of Hanford neutron/photon ratios, and to date 

2 I've not seen a response to that report and I 

3 was wondering if that's going to be a topic of 

4 discussion for the next unscheduled workgroup 

5 meeting. 

6 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim. It will not be on 

7 the schedule for that meeting. My 

8 understanding is that NIOSH is looking at 

9 revising their dose reconstruction methods in 

10 regard to that particular issue and, because of 

11 some other delays in getting access to data 

12 from the Hanford site because of DOE's budget 

13 problems, I -- I don't believe that they've 

14 (unintelligible) that work yet. I don't know 

15 if Jim -- Neton, if you can -- have any updates 

16 on that, but it was not planned that that would 

17 be the subject of the next conference call. 

18 DR. NETON: I -- I agree, we're not ready to go 

19 with the Hanford neutron/photon issue yet. 

20 DR. BEHLING: Okay, that -- that certainly is 

21 helpful for me. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any other 

23 questions or comments on the workgroup reports? 

24 THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 
117

1 THE COURT REPORTER: Hey, this is Ray. I have 

2 submitted that Fernald workgroup, just as a 

3 coincidence. I guess it's still being 

4 redacted. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that may be available 

6 fairly soon then, Brad. 

7 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah, I -- when you 

8 mentioned that, I thought that sounds familiar, 

9 and I'm looking in my e-mails. I submitted 

10 that February 9th. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that -- that should be -- 

12 THE COURT REPORTER: So it may be out soon. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- available very soon then. 

14 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Ray. 

16 MS. MUNN: And this is Wanda. Before we go 

17 away from -- from our workgroup issues, Mike 

18 Gibson, what date did you say you were looking 

19 to have a worker outreach phone call? 

20 MR. GIBSON: That was the 13th, just after your 

21 meeting of the procedures workgroup. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, did -- after the procedures 

23 workgroup? 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Right. Wanda, you may rec-- this 

25 is Christine. Wanda, you may recall that when 
118

1 were scheduling this -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes, I do -- I do recall now -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: -- the (unintelligible) -- 

4 MS. MUNN: -- it's just that I had not noted it 

5 on the calendar I'm looking at now. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Your meet-- 

7 MS. MUNN: I wanted to double-check that date. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda, your meeting we have 

9 scheduled for 9:30 in the morning on the 13th 

10 and Michael was gracious to schedule his worker 

11 outreach meeting by phone to begin at 3:00 p.m. 

12 Eastern Standard Time. 

13 MS. MUNN: You jogged my memory. I -- I recall 

14 that now. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: This -- this is Arjun. Just to 

16 inquire, is one of those meetings face-to-face 

17 and one is by phone or -- 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes, pro-- 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- both are by phone? 

20 MS. MUNN: -- procedures is by face -- is face21 to-face, worker outreach by phone. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, I -- we're about 

24 two hours ahead of schedule and, if no one 

25 objects, we'll push ahead and not have a lunch 
119

1 break. Is that -- any objection? Wanda, 

2 you're not ready for a lunch break anyway, are 

3 you? 

4 MS. MUNN: I'm always ready for a lunch break, 

5 but... 

6 STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES AND UPDATE ON 

7 SELECTION OF BOARD CONTRACTOR

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Our next item is status of 

9 transcripts and minutes, and I'm going to ask 

10 if Dr. Branche would just take the lead on 

11 that, and then also where we are on the Board 

12 contractor selection process. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: I'd be happy to. This is 

14 Christine Branche, and I'm -- I'm actually 

15 happy to report that, save the January Board 

16 meeting from Las Vegas in January of this year, 

17 all of the Board meeting transcripts, either 

18 face-to-face or by phone, have been posted, so 

19 they're available on the web site. Now, the 

20 application of the new -- or the revised 

21 redaction policy to those meetings that took 

22 place during May and October are still being 

23 reviewed with the new redaction policy being 

24 applied to them, so those will be re-posted 

25 when they are ready. 
120

1 We're scheduled to have the transcripts from 

2 January 2008 meeting posted within the 45-day 

3 window that we promised. We already -- those -

4 - those minutes are -- sorry, those transcripts 

5 are already in our redaction -- sorry, what is 

6 it, Privacy Act office and are being reviewed 

7 now, and it is my anticipation that we're going 

8 to post that in a timely fashion. 

9 Now as it concerns transcripts, as I said in 

10 our January meeting, we have made the top 

11 priority dealing with the transcripts from the 

12 Board meetings and the Board conference calls. 

13 We do understand that there is a considerable 

14 lag in many of the workgroup meetings, and we 

15 have a couple of things that are going on. We 

16 do have Nancy Adams who's joined us and she's 

17 helping with our dealing with all these 

18 transcripts. We also have a new Privacy Act 

19 officer whose primary responsibilities are to 

20 deal with our Privacy Act needs. And so we're 

21 expecting that the time delay that we've 

22 experienced with the transcripts in the past 

23 will be dealt with over the next several 

24 months. 

25 For those of you who are workgroup chairs, I 
121

1 know that customarily you've asked for 

2 transcripts, but please understand that every 

3 single time you've asked for transcripts from 

4 your workgroup meeting, that has made for a 

5 delay in our getting the Board meeting 

6 transcripts ready in a timely fashion. And so 

7 until we get -- until we reach a steady state 

8 with all of our Board meeting and Board 

9 conference call transcripts prepared, there's 

10 going to -- you're not necessarily going to be 

11 able to get a copy of the transcripts for your 

12 workgroup meetings. And so I think we'd like 

13 to work with the Board chairs to make certain 

14 that at the end of each of your meetings you 

15 have a full -- you've prepared a full list of 

16 what are the to-do items so that you aren't 

17 necessarily needing to have a transcript very 

18 quickly. 

19 So any questions about the transcripts? 

20 (No responses) 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not. Thank you. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Hearing no questions, as it 

23 concerns the selection of the Board contractor, 

24 thank you so much for all the comments that 

25 we've received. I really appreciate your 
122

1 honoring the time sensitivity that I urged in 

2 my e-mail to you last week. We received 

3 comments from several of you, and please 

4 understand that all of your comments will be 

5 reflected in the version that Mr. David Staudt 

6 will be putting in the final version of the -- 

7 of the announcement for the Board contractor. 

8 Once that final announcement is ready, you will 

9 receive a copy for your own files and we will 

10 post them because we do want to keep things 

11 moving along as -- as rapidly as we can so that 

12 we have no -- no lag in the work of a Board 

13 contractor. 

14 Any questions about that? 

15 (Pause) 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one, Christine. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Do -- do you have any final 

20 draft? I -- you said all comments would be 

21 considered. I didn't know if you've put them 

22 all in and we can see it one more time as if we 

23 had -- you know. I -- I don't know, I mean I -

24 - 

25 DR. BRANCHE: I -- I know that I -- I know I'm 
123

1 promising I can get you a final copy of what is 

2 -- what is posted. I don't know that we're 

3 necessarily planning to give you one more -- 

4 see, the -- I think the (unintelligible) -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: -- had three or four 

7 opportunities to review the language, and we're 

8 honoring all of the edits that you all have 

9 requested. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, then I'm gue-- I guess I'm 

11 assuming that there were no sort of 

12 contradictory comments -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: No, there were not. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- where you needed clarification 

15 or something. Okay. All right, fine. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: No, there were not, and that's 

17 why I feel comfortable -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: -- (unintelligible) move ahead. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Thank you. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: No -- any other questions about 

22 the Board contractor or, as you've thought 

23 about it, about the transcripts? 

24 (No responses) 

25 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING
124

1 If that -- hearing none, Dr. Ziemer, I would 

2 like to let the Board know about the -- the 

3 vote on Combustion Engineering. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, please report that for 

5 us. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, as you -- you all may 

7 recall that Mr. Griffon was -- was not at the 

8 Board meeting on January 17th when we voted on 

9 Combustion Engineering while we were in Las 

10 Vegas. Please know that in advance of -- I 

11 organized the call with Dr. Ziemer, Mr. Griffon 

12 and myself. We had that on January 17th, and 

13 in advance of the call I e-mailed an electronic 

14 copy of the draft that the Board used in its 

15 deliberations regarding Combustion Engineering, 

16 and the draft was sent so that he had the exact 

17 wording of the motion that you all voted on. I 

18 described that there was unanimous approval of 

19 the petition with an 11 to noth-- to zero 

20 voting structure. Mr. Griffon read the draft 

21 during the January 17th conference call. He 

22 did not need any additional information that 

23 was offered. Dr. Ziemer shared that there were 

24 a few minor edits to the draft, but I clarified 

25 that the intent of the draft had not been 
125

1 altered and that Mr. Griffon voted in favor of 

2 the motion so that now our vote is 12 to 

3 nothing. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you for that update. 

5 BOARD WORKING TIME AND FUTURE PLANS

6 I think we're ready to look at -- in our work 

7 time now -- the proposed dates for upcoming 

8 meetings. There's one change has been 

9 proposed. Christine, why don't you take us 

10 through that? 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. It turns out that as 

12 we were looking at the calendar in order to 

13 verify our dates and to -- to propose dates for 

14 2009, I realized that the -- you all had 

15 approved a November 4th teleconference. That's 

16 Election Day this year. Believing that 

17 scheduling a multiple-hour conference call on 

18 that day would likely be quite difficult, I've 

19 -- I'm suggesting that Thursday, November 6th 

20 or Tuesday, November 18th are possible 

21 alternatives for us to consider. And Dr. 

22 Lockey already told us that he was going to 

23 have to leave our call today -- sorry, Dr. 

24 Lockey, you're probably still on the line, 

25 aren't you? 
126

1 DR. LOCKEY: Yes, I am. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, well, there you are. So 

3 anyway -- so Dr. Ziemer, I leave it for the 

4 Board to make a decision about (a), if November 

5 4th is indeed a challenge, and if the two 

6 alternatives that I've suggested are -- are -- 

7 either of those dates will work. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Let's look at November 6th, any 

9 problems with that? Anyone have conflicts for 

10 the 6th? I assume we would begin at 11:00 

11 o'clock -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, that -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- Eastern time -- 

14 DR. BRANCHE: -- that is correct, Dr. Ziemer. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- 8:00 o'clock Pacific time. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: That is correct, Dr. Ziemer. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: There appear to be no problems 

18 with the 6th. Let me ask the same question for 

19 November 18th, just as a backup. Any problems 

20 on the 18th? 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's Jim Melius. I have a -

22 - a conflict on the 18th. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Apparently no 

24 conflicts for the 6th so can we agree then 

25 we'll move it to the 6th at 11:00 a.m. Eastern 
127

1 time? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Thank you, will do. 

4 MS. BEACH: And -- and this is Josie Beach. 

5 Can you send out a final version of this when 

6 it's ready as well? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: That is exactly my intent and 

8 that's why I have to go through all the dates. 

9 As you've heard Dr. Zie-- sorry, Dr. Melius say 

10 in the past, when we set these dates up we -- I 

11 wanted to provide them as early as possible so 

12 that people can make provisions and clear their 

13 calendars, and if they're not clear, we can 

14 make alternative dates now, and that -- that's 

15 why I sent these dates to you in the -- within 

16 the body of the agenda so that you could 

17 examine your calendars accordingly. 

18 So what we're suggesting is for 2009 we would 

19 then be due for a conference call, and I'm 

20 suggesting the date of January 13th, and that's 

21 a Tuesday. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: And actually that was already on 

23 our previous schedule. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, previously sched-- as was 

25 the face-to-face Board meeting on February -- 
128

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: -- 17th through the 19th -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: -- for the new -- sorry, so the 

5 new date that I'm proposing is March 31st, and 

6 that would be a teleconference. That would be 

7 on a Tuesday. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: 11:00 o'clock Eastern -- Eastern 

10 time. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if -- if people know of 

12 conflicts right now, let's speak up. If -- 

13 DR. WADE: Could come in costume. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: March 31st, right. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so we're okay with that 

16 date so far? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: And then May 6th through 8th, 

19 which would be a Wednesday through a Friday, is 

20 the date we're -- are the dates we're 

21 suggesting for a face-to-face meeting. Any 

22 conflicts there? 

23 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I have a 

24 conflict on the 6th. I can be there for the 

25 7th and 8th. I have another NIOSH-related 
129

1 meeting that meets the first Wednesday of every 

2 month, but I would just miss the -- presumably 

3 we'd have the -- subcommittee's in the morning 

4 and then I'd just miss the afternoon, so -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let -- let me comment on 

6 that, Jim. As we -- I -- I've been -- 

7 Christine and I have been looking ahead at 

8 workload in terms of petitions and so on coming 

9 down the pike, and I think it's entirely 

10 possible that we may have to go to full three11 day meetings and have workgroups and 

12 subcommittees do their work at other times. So 

13 I -- again, this is a -- a year away, more than 

14 a year away, but I don't think there's any 

15 guarantee that we'll be in a two and a half day 

16 mode yet. So I -- I don't want to necessarily 

17 assume that at this point is what I'm saying, 

18 so -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Okay, no, I appreciate that. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- so I think -- I think probably 

21 -- let's see, that's -- that was the May 

22 meeting, right, 6th through 8th -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, and -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- then we may want to see whether 

25 there's any alternatives there. 
130

1 DR. BRANCHE: Well, an alternative to suggest 

2 would be the 11th through the 13th or the 13th 

3 through the 15th. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If anyone has conflicts, let them 

5 be known. 

6 (No responses) 

7 Okay, those sound like other possible -- 

8 possibilities then. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, just -- I -- I'm prepared 

10 to select the 11th through the 13th, but I just 

11 -- for those of you who do any big deal with 

12 Mother's Day, is that going to be a problem? 

13 (No responses) 

14 DR. ZIEMER: No, apparently not. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Actually to be on the safe side, 

16 I might select the 12th through the 14th. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: That would be safer. 

19 MS. MUNN: That would be wise. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so the 12th through the 

21 14th would be those dates for May. 

22 June 16th is a Tuesday, and we would be -- that 

23 -- that would be a Board conference call. We 

24 would begin at 11:00 o'clock Eastern time. Is 

25 there a problem there? 
131

1 (No responses) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, appears not. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: And for a face-to-face Board 

4 meeting, July 27th through the 29th. That's a 

5 Monday through Wednesday. Let me ask the Board 

6 a question. Dr. Ziemer is right that we might 

7 -- we're -- we're likely moving to full-day 

8 Board meetings. Would it be prudent for us to 

9 make that the 28th through the 30th and start 

10 the Board meeting on a Tuesday? Would that be 

11 better? 

12 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I guess those of us 

13 who live out here in the other time zone would 

14 always of course have the issue of having to 

15 travel the previous day so that any time you 

16 have a Monday through Wednesday meeting, I can 

17 do it and obviously Josie's been doing it when 

18 she needs to, and Phil seems to be able to get 

19 there, but -- and -- and so does Brad, but it 

20 does create a travel problem for us to have a 

21 Monday meeting. You know, I -- I have no 

22 objection to it, it's just an issue to keep in 

23 mind. Some of us can't travel on the day of 

24 the meeting; we must travel the preceding day. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: I -- I appreciate that. In 
132

1 trying to be sensitive to a number of things 

2 while -- may I offer that we would change this 

3 to the 28th through the 30th of July 2009, 

4 Tuesday through Thursday? 

5 DR. MELIUS: Jim Melius, I have a conflict on 

6 the 30th and 31st, so I would end up missing 

7 one day. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Any other conflicts? 

9 MS. MUNN: I have no problem with traveling on 

10 Sunday. 

11 MS. BEACH: I don't have a problem traveling on 

12 Sunday, either. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so maybe we'll keep this one 

14 then 27 through 29. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Okay, and -- yeah, maybe 

16 we'll try to make this one in the middle of the 

17 country so that -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Or west coast. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Or west coast. All right. And 

20 then September 8th is a Board meeting by 

21 teleconference. We would begin at 11:00 

22 o'clock Eastern time. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, okay. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: That is a Tuesday -- it is the 

25 Tuesday following Labor Day, but that -- you 
133

1 all apparently have met often -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, phone -- phone calls are a 

3 little easier because we can -- we can be on 

4 the road even and do those sometimes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Any objection to that date? 

6 (No responses) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: And then on October 26th through 

9 the 27th (sic) for a face-to-face Board 

10 meeting? Or we could -- we could easily 

11 consider the 27th through the 29th, making that 

12 -- if I -- would that -- with that alteration 

13 it would be a Tuesday through Thursday. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we do that? 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so the 27th through the 

16 29th. Any conflicts? 

17 (No responses) 

18 Then December 8th, which is a Tuesday, would be 

19 a conference call. We would begin at 11:00 

20 o'clock Eastern time. 

21 (No responses) 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: And then lastly we're suggesting 

24 -- and I really don't have the 25th in front of 

25 me -- we're suggesting the -- January 25th to 
134

1 the 28th of 2010 for a face-to-face Board 

2 meeting. 

3 DR. ROESSLER: That one might be a conflict -- 

4 this is Gen. It's a little bit hard to project 

5 two years ahead of time and realize that some 

6 of us might still be involved in this, but the 

7 Health Physics Society mid-year 2010 is January 

8 24th through 27th, and there may be people who 

9 would find that a conflict. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: It sounds like you would find it 

11 a conflict. Is that right, Gen? 

12 DR. ROESSLER: Well, I'm saying it's kind of 

13 hard to think two years ahead and think I'll 

14 still be involved, but if I am, that would be a 

15 conflict for me. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: And it could be for me. 

17 MS. MUNN: Well, regardless of who's -- 

18 DR. BRANCHE: I -- I would imagine that anyone 

19 on the Board with -- given the background that 

20 you all have, would have a similar conflict. 

21 MS. MUNN: That's true. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: It's just as easy to move that to 

23 February 1st -- sorry, February 2nd through the 

24 4th. Is that a viable alternative? 

25 MS. MUNN: Or the preceding week. 
135

1 DR. BRANCHE: I think the preceding week might 

2 be a challenge for us here at NIOSH. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Any-- anyone have problems with 

4 2nd to 4th? 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I have that first Wednesday 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: You -- you've got that first 

8 Wednesday meeting. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Gen, you said the 24th through 

10 the 27th? 

11 DR. ROESSLER: 24th through the 27th, I'm 

12 looking at the Health Physics web site and I 

13 can't -- the 24th -- I don't know what day of 

14 the week that is. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: The 27th is a Wednesday. 

16 DR. ROESSLER: So it certainly would be the -- 

17 then -- yeah, the 24th through the 27th for 

18 people who would be going to that meeting may 

19 be involved on those days. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Well, what -- what about -- well, 

21 the -- we could actually consider -- what about 

22 the -- February 9, 10 and 11? Before I go back 

23 into January, what about February 9, 10 and 11? 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: Looks good to me. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: That works. 
136

1 DR. BRANCHE: 9 to 11. Dr. Ziemer, I'm 

2 finished, and thank you. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I think with those -- again, 

4 they're tentative in a certain sense because 

5 it's possible even that we may have additional 

6 Board members by then. 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Brad. Before 

8 we get off our dates and stuff, and I know that 

9 we're clear out to 2010, but could we review 

10 kind of the ones that we've got coming up for 

11 this year? My -- my computer died and I just 

12 wanted to make sure that -- I had to dump all 

13 the information out of -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, if Dr. Branche has those 

15 available, I'd ask her to read through them. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: I would be happy to. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Starting with our next phone 

18 meeting -- or our next full -- face-to-face. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: April 7 through 9th is a full 

20 Board meeting in Tampa, Florida; May 4th -- am 

21 I going too fast? 

22 DR. LOCKEY: What -- what -- this is Jim 

23 Lockey. I -- I think tol-- I told Paul 

24 earlier, I'll be out of town those dates so I 

25 won't be at that Board meeting. 
137

1 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. If in the future you could 

2 copy me as well, I'd appreciate it, Jim. 

3 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: May 14th is a Board meeting by 

5 conference call. You would begin at 11:00 

6 Eastern time. June 24th through 26th is a 

7 face-to-face Board meeting. We're looking at 

8 St. Louis. August 5th is a teleconference. We 

9 would begin at 11:00 Eastern time. 

10 DR. LOCKEY: August 5th. Right? 

11 DR. BRANCHE: August 5th, yes, it's a Tuesday. 

12 September 2nd through 4th is a face-to-face 

13 Board meeting. We're hoping it will be in 

14 California. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, that's the one I -- I just 

16 wanted to make sure because that was the day 

17 right after Labor Day and I just wanted to make 

18 sure we hadn't changed that one for sure. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: No, we have not changed that one. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I was just trying to set up 

21 everything. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Christine. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Yes? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 
138

1 MR. PRESLEY: It's going to be hard to fly on 

2 Labor Day. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: I understand. I mean these -- 

4 these dates were sel-- you all selected and 

5 voted on these dates -- 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: -- before I came into this 

8 position, and I -- I remember that when we 

9 reviewed these dates on a previous occasion 

10 last fall and I remember Board members saying 

11 that they had made other arrangements reserving 

12 these dates, so -- we could certainly entertain 

13 a change, but some of your peers have talked 

14 about how that's already a challenge for them. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and Bob, I could be wrong, but 

16 I might guess that actually flying on the date 

17 itself might not be as difficult as an ordinary 

18 workday. 

19 DR. LOCKEY: It would be -- this is Jim Lockey. 

20 It'd be a challenge for me to change. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: I'm -- I'd -- I just brought that 

23 up. 

24 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

25 MR. CLAWSON: I have no problem with it. I was 
139

1 just trying to clear my schedule and I wanted 

2 to make sure that that one especially hadn't 

3 been changed or whatever -- 

4 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: -- because of Labor Day. I've 

6 already set my calendar for that, but I just 

7 wanted to make sure I hadn't missed any updates 

8 or anything. 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, this is -- that's -- Bob 

10 Presley, this is -- that's what I have 'cause I 

11 have it circled in red. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: I wanted to make sure that... 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Branche, this is Arjun. Is 

16 the 2nd to 4th that we're talking about of 

17 September? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, for 2008, yes. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Continuing, November 6th -- sorry 

21 -- yes, we just made the change to November 6th 

22 for the teleconference. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: And December 8th through the 10th 

25 is a face-to-face Board meeting and a -- a 
140

1 request has been made to make that east of -- 

2 to make the location east of the Mississippi 

3 River, and that's the end of the 2008, and we 

4 will -- I'll ask Zaida to prepare the full list 

5 of these dates and get them out to you as -- 

6 probably in the next couple of weeks. 

7 DR. MELIUS: On the December one I had down 

8 December 9th through 11th. Did that change? 

9 DR. LOCKEY: I have it down the 8th to the 

10 10th. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: I have 8th to 10th. 

12 DR. MELIUS: I'll not be attending that. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: December -- what is it? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, I -- I think I originally 

15 had 8th to 11th, but now I have -- I'm reading 

16 -- I -- I am reading what I have on the piece 

17 of paper that Zaida distributed, so I have 8 to 

18 10. 

19 MS. MUNN: And I -- I have -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: I -- 

21 MS. MUNN: -- 9 to 11. 

22 DR. MELIUS: I had 9 to 11 'cause I was the one 

23 that requested it be on the east coast 'cause I 

24 have commitments on the -- the 9th -- 8th and 

25 9th. 
141

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think it originally was 9, 

2 10, 11, and got changed somehow. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Well, let me ask this. We're in 

4 a position now -- and Jim, I think a lot of 

5 accommodations were to -- to -- a lot of things 

6 were done to try to accommodate you, so I'm -- 

7 certainly could be misspeaking, so what do most 

8 of you have and what -- can you all accommodate 

9 the 9th through the 11th? 

10 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I've got 

11 the 8th, 9th and the 10th -- 

12 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, this is Jim Lockey -- 

13 MR. PRESLEY: -- (unintelligible) on mine. 

14 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, I have conflict on the 11th 

15 and 12th. I'm in UAW/GM* so I can't... 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I think we originally had 9, 10, 

17 11 and then I show 11 crossing out and changed 

18 to 8, 9, 10 for some reason. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: I have that as well. 

20 MS. BEACH: That is what I have -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe -- 

22 MS. BEACH: -- as well. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe we had -- Lockey had a 

24 conflict on the 11th and Melius on what, the 

25 8th was it? 
142

1 DR. MELIUS: 8th and 9th. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: 8th and 9th? 

3 DR. WADE: Previous week? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so either way we're going to 

5 -- for that week we have a -- a problem. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Well, do I -- do I dare ask if we 

7 can -- if you want to try to schedule it for 

8 the week of the 1st or the week of the 15th of 

9 December? Again, we're talking about 2008. 

10 MS. MUNN: If -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Week of the 1st, I'm out the 3rd, 

12 4th and 5th. 

13 MS. MUNN: Yeah, the week of the 1st is tough, 

14 but -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: What about the (unintelligible)? 

16 MS. MUNN: -- I could certainly make the 

17 following week. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Following week is okay. 

19 MS. MUNN: 15, 16, 17 or 18. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Or -- or I -- I would actually 

21 try to suggest 16, 17 and 18 -- again, starting 

22 on a Tuesday if we can. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Any-- 

24 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone have conflicts on those 
143

1 days? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I don't 

3 have a conflict those days. 

4 DR. LOCKEY: No, they're good for me. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Who just said that? Was that -- 

6 DR. LOCKEY: Lockey, Jim Lockey. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Dr. Melius? 

8 DR. MELIUS: That's fine with me. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone have conflicts, 16, 17, 

10 18th? 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Josie, Phil, Brad, Michael? 

12 MS. BEACH: No conflict. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: No conflict. 

14 DR. MELIUS: We'll all miss Christmas parties, 

15 but... 

16 DR. LOCKEY: Where are you going to have it -- 

17 where do you think you're going to have that 

18 meeting? 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Well, this is your chance to tell 

20 us. What would be good? 

21 MR. PRESLEY: You've got east of the 

22 Mississippi somewhere. 

23 DR. LOCKEY: Yes, I agree with that. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, come on, you guys, come see 

25 the snow. 
144

1 MS. MUNN: Not necessarily. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I don't think we need to 

3 decide that today, but we do need to decide the 

4 date so let's -- we'll change it then to 16, 

5 17, 18. Right? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Yes -- 

7 MS. MUNN: 16th through 18th. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: -- 16th through the 18th. Please 

9 make these accommo-- please make these changes. 

10 We would like to lock these dates in because 

11 Zaida really is working more in advance than 

12 has been previously done so we can get the best 

13 rates and arrangements for our hotels. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

15 MS. BEACH: Once again, will you please send 

16 out these changes officially? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, absolutely. 

19 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

20 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. One question 

21 about the 2009 dates. They're tentative at 

22 this point. Right? 

23 DR. BRANCHE: No, they're not. 

24 DR. LOCKEY: Oh, you -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: That's why -- that's why I wanted 
145

1 to spend this time in the Board call to take 

2 care of these. 

3 DR. LOCKEY: Well, there's a -- there's a 

4 couple of meetings that I'm not -- all right, 

5 I'll have to -- if I have any problems, I'll 

6 let you know as soon as I can. Okay? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: If you would, please. Thank you. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Let us all know, Jim, and then we 

9 can -- there's some problems for -- on a number 

10 of them. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Well -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: Hard to do it that far ahead. 

13 DR. LOCKEY: Well, yeah, like the ATS meetings, 

14 I -- they're (unintelligible) -- and I don't 

15 normally have those in my calendar two years 

16 ahead of time. That's why I have to do some 

17 looking. 

18 DR. MELIUS: And -- and you don't schedule the 

19 hotels until just, you know, a couple of months 

20 before the meeting so it's not -- 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Well, but Dr. Melius, to be 

22 honest, it was -- you were the one who 

23 admonished that we be careful to -- once we 

24 locked in these dates, that we try to honor 

25 them because people were making accommodations 
146

1 based on these dates, so I've taken up the 

2 Board time to talk about these because we 

3 really are going to be locking in to these on 

4 the calendar. Just like -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and let -- let me add now, 

6 and this is further ahead than we've usually 

7 gone. If -- if some of you find by our next 

8 meeting that you have conflicts you didn't know 

9 about -- you know, professional meetings or -- 

10 or whatever it might be, the earlier we know 

11 that, the better if we do need to make a 

12 change. I think Dr. Branche rightfully wants 

13 to try to lock these in, and it's helpful for 

14 all of us to know in terms of scheduling other 

15 things. So only tentative in the sense that 

16 yeah, the further out they are, the easier it 

17 will be to make a change if we absolutely need 

18 to. 

19 DR. LOCKEY: Hi, Jim Lockey. I was having -- I 

20 was having my administrator look -- look at -- 

21 so I should know by the end of this call. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 

24 MS. BURGOS: Dr. Branche, it's Zaida. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, (unintelligible) -- 
147

1 MS. BURGOS: -- do we have a date -- I'm good. 

2 Do we have a date for December? 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, six-- you and I can confirm 

4 other dates when -- when -- when you get back. 

5 MS. BURGOS: Okay. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: But Dr. Ziemer, there was a 

7 question I had. I believe the Board members 

8 wanted to talk about workgroup meetings in 

9 March? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Christine, I -- I did want 

11 to ask if -- for the subcommittee especially -- 

12 and -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, the subcommittee, there's 

14 Hanford, there's Fernald -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the subcommittee and I 

16 think Fernald -- it looks like it's going to be 

17 the 24th. Is that correct, March 24th? 

18 MR. CLAWSON: If possible, if -- if -- if we've 

19 got enough information on it, my -- my main 

20 thing was that -- that Hans (unintelligible) -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, but I -- so 

22 I was going to suggest the 25th for a 

23 subcommittee meeting in Cincinnati. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Face-to-face, right, Mark? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
148

1 DR. BRANCHE: Beginning at what time? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 9:00 a.m. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: That sounds good. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Is that -- is that okay with 

5 other -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me, that sounds good to 

7 me. What about your subcommittee members? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, is that okay with other 

9 subcommittee members? 

10 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's fine for me. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: What is that date, Mark? 

12 MR. GRIFFON: The 25th of March. 

13 UNIDENTIFIED: That's -- 

14 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily. I had a question 

15 about the Fernald meeting on the 24th. What 

16 time were we planning on starting that? The 

17 23rd is Easter Sunday and I didn't know if that 

18 would impact people's travel plans. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, my -- yeah, I didn't even 

20 think about that. Yeah, that'd -- that'd kind 

21 of impact me. I think -- I can -- maybe I'd 

22 better -- I'd better re-- reassess that 

23 situation now. I didn't look at that. Thank 

24 you, Emily. 

25 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 
149

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we don't know if Fernald can 

2 meet yet. Right? 

3 MR. CLAWSON: That's -- that's correct. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: But Mark, you still want to lock 

5 in on the 25th at 9:00? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: If that's possible, yeah, and 

7 Brad, maybe you can put it the day -- you know, 

8 on the Wednesday after, if that works. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: It might be that if -- if you do 

10 confirm that date, we've got potentially 

11 something else going on and I think -- and Lew 

12 might end up being your DFO, but we'll -- we'll 

13 have you covered. 

14 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I'll -- I'll let you know 

15 as soon as -- it's kind of tentatively. I just 

16 wanted to try to start locking some dates in 

17 for these (unintelligible) -- I'll -- I'll look 

18 at it. I -- I didn't look at that Easter 

19 Sunday and I know [Identifying information 

20 redacted] be a little bit up-- upset with me. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Can I go back to Mark for a 

22 moment? Mark, did -- just because we -- we 

23 have to get this in the Federal Register -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: -- you want to deal with 
150

1 finalizing the fourth and fifth sets, begin to 

2 address the sixth set, and then deal with -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: The tenth set -- or preliminary -

4 - 

5 DR. BRANCHE: -- the tenth -- okay, the tenth 

6 set -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- preliminary selection, and 

8 also the letter reports for the fourth and 

9 fifth set, but that -- that's finalizing the 

10 fourth and fifth set, though. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Is that it? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: And the first 100 cases summary 

15 report. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Got it. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And I think we need, you know, 

18 9:00 to 5:00, just in case -- 

19 DR. BRANCHE: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

23 MS. BEACH: And this is Josie Beach. I have a 

24 comment, question, or just want to throw 

25 something out for discussion. We don't 
151

1 currently have anything -- a schedule for 

2 workgroup meetings that we can go to other than 

3 the NIOSH web page that shows our meetings. Is 

4 there some way we could -- or Zaida or somebody 

5 could put together the workgroup schedule for 

6 the -- if I want to plan a meeting for Mound, I 

7 could go where these meetings are already 

8 scheduled and then maybe piggyback on them? 

9 Does that make sense? 

10 DR. BRANCHE: It does. Let me just ask a 

11 question of the people who maintain the web 

12 site for NIOSH. Right now as soon as a Board 

13 member wishes to schedule a meeting, it's 

14 posted on the web site. 

15 MS. BEACH: Oh, let me -- just -- just now I 

16 looked up for -- on the web site, and the only 

17 meeting there is Feb-- is the February meeting 

18 and April meeting. Wanda's March meeting has 

19 not been posted and that's the kind of stuff 

20 that would be helpful. That 13th is not 

21 posted. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: So the question is could we post 

23 the workgroup meetings. 

24 MS. BEACH: Or something less formal that we 

25 could look at. 
152

1 DR. BRANCHE: Zaida, what do you think? 

2 MS. BURGOS: Every -- every time I make a 

3 change or an addition to the list I could just 

4 send it to the Board members. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: I guess -- I think what we're 

6 asking for is maybe a spreadsheet that has all 

7 the -- all of the proposed dates. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: A master calendar of workgroup 

9 meetings or something, yeah. 

10 MS. BEACH: I think it would be helpful for me, 

11 and then to know who's involved that way 'cause 

12 a lot of us are involved in several different 

13 ones. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I mean it seems like it could be 

15 something that you could post on the -- on our 

16 web page, a little master calendar. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me talk to Chris Ellison 

20 about this. I agree, Mark, I think a calendar 

21 of events -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the Advisory Board's pages 

24 would be helpful. I believe that -- that the 

25 procedures workgroup is -- is -- scheduled 
153

1 meeting -- workgroup meeting is -- is actually 

2 posted, but I think you've got to go to the 

3 right page to find that. I don't think it's on 

4 the Board page. 

5 MS. BEACH: Oh, I see, that could -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: But I'll check. 

7 MS. BEACH: -- be it -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

9 MS. BEACH: -- that could be true. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe -- maybe a Board calendar 

11 would be -- 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: But you're absolutely right, 

13 Josie. I think some kind of a calendar where -

14 - 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you could just screen through 

17 the -- the months, you could see where things 

18 are scheduled, that would be helpful. 

19 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that would be. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: I'll talk to Chris Ellison about 

21 that. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

23 DR. MELIUS: And if you could put the holidays 

24 on there so we don't miss Easter. 

25 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 
154

1 MR. CLAWSON: (Unintelligible) out there, Jim, 

2 I appreciate that. 

3 MS. MUNN: I guess it's never been really 

4 completely clear to me exactly whose 

5 responsibility it is to see that those 

6 postings, especially for workgroups, occur. As 

7 -- as the chair of the procedures group, I have 

8 never made an effort to see that they were 

9 posted. We establish those dates during our 

10 meeting time and magically, usually by means 

11 I'm sure of either NIOSH staff or the 

12 Designated Federal Official, things appear. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda, it is our responsibility 

14 to make certain that those get posted. And I 

15 think -- I think the idea of -- you've heard a 

16 few people talk about it, like a master 

17 calendar for the Board, and we can look at some 

18 solutions and Larry has graciously suggested 

19 that we'll -- we'll examine that 'cause his -- 

20 his are the staff who maintain the web site. 

21 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Be very helpful, yeah. 

23 MS. BEACH: Well, could you -- someone tell me 

24 where I'd go to find that because I've gone to 

25 the OCAS directory and to the Advisory Board 
155

1 directory and I -- it's not posted on either 

2 one. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, if it's posted, Josie -- 

4 we'll get you the IPA address where you -- 

5 MS. BEACH: I'd appreciate that. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: It may not be posted. I'm just 

7 saying it -- one of the con-- concerns I have 

8 is that this information is placed in different 

9 areas on the web site and it's not 

10 straightforward in all cases and -- 

11 MS. BEACH: And that should be. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, I agree. 

13 MS. BEACH: Okay. 

14 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phillip. If you could 

15 send that to me, too, I'd appreciate it. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Will do. 

17 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I'd also like 

18 to try to schedule the Hanford workgroup 

19 conference call, and I've got responses back 

20 from everyone who's in the country except for 

21 you, Paul. And -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: No, I e-mailed you a couple of 

23 days ago, but -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Oh, no, there's a new -- I just 

25 sent out a new e-mail this morning 
156

1 (unintelligible) -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, well, I haven't seen today's 

3 e-mail but -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, well, I'll make it simple. 

5 It's -- now by elimination it's down to either 

6 March 6th or March 18th. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: March 6th is fine any time, and 

8 March 18th -- that's Tuesday, I'm okay except 

9 from 11:30 to 1:30. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Why don't we go with March 6th. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: What time, Jim? 

13 DR. MELIUS: Oh, say 1:00 o'clock? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: How long do you think it'll be? 

15 DR. MELIUS: At most, two hours, but... 

16 DR. BRANCHE: And this is Hanford. Right? 

17 DR. MELIUS: Hanford workgroup. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Now all the NIOSH staff who could 

19 possibly have anything to do with posting it 

20 now have heard it's at 1:00 o'clock p.m. on 

21 March 6th. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and all the NIOSH staff who 

23 I think need to be involved have also -- are 

24 all available that day, as well as workgroup, 

25 so... 
157

1 DR. BRANCHE: This is a conference -- 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: So when Zaida sends out this 

3 listing of new dates, are you going to include 

4 workgroup meetings or just Board meetings? 

5 DR. BRANCHE: I think -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: -- it could be workgroup meetings 

8 as well 'cause that's what Josie's saying she 

9 wants to be able to avoid dates that have 

10 already been committed for other workgroups. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I think that would include 

12 conference calls. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

14 MS. BURGOS: Yes, I will -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

16 MS. BURGOS: Yes, I will send everything. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any -- are there any 

18 others we need to schedule today? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, one more I'd like to, while 

20 we've got everybody here. Rocky Flats, just a 

21 phone call workgroup meeting, and I was going 

22 to propose March 3rd at 11:00 Eastern time if -

23 - if that's possible. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: I can't do March 3rd, but I'm 

25 looking to my -- no, you won't have a DFO for 
158

1 that. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: March 3rd doesn't work? Okay. 

3 How about -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: The 18th is open. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: How about the -- is March 4th? 

6 MS. MUNN: That's fine. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: No, it won't work for me. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Won't work for you. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: I can tell you right -- right 

10 now, based on our scheduling of the Hanford 

11 call, unless you want to make your call another 

12 time on the 6th, the 3rd, 4th and 5th are -- 

13 and -- and the 7th are a problem for me. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. Then we're going 

15 into the next week. 

16 MS. MUNN: Ooh. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, the next week is kind of 

18 ugly. The 11th through the 13th is a challenge 

19 for many of us at NIOSH. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Mark, this is Bob Presley. 

22 You make it and I'll try to sit in on it. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Anything after the 4th, I can't 

25 guarantee anything for about four weeks. 
159

1 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, right, right, right. How 

2 about March 17th? 

3 DR. BRANCHE: That looks good for me. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Same time, 11:00 a.m. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: And you said this -- you want 

6 this by conference call. Right? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: And Mark, how long do you 

9 expect this -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Two to three hours, probably -- 

11 probably just two hours. 

12 MS. MUNN: You're going to miss the St. 

13 Patrick's Day parade. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, it's St. Paddy's Day, 

15 right. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: We'll just wear green. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I believe a couple hours 

18 should do it, but -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Okay, 11:00 a.m. Right? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) three in case 

21 -- yeah. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Are we agreeing to the 17th at 

23 11:00 a.m. by ca-- by conference call? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 
160

1 MS. MUNN: That's what I thought we were. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, this is Arjun. I might 

4 have to leave at about 1:00, 1:15. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, hopefully it -- it 

6 should be over by then, I hope, yeah. 

7 MS. MUNN: Will you get us a good solid agenda 

8 here ahead of -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, I will, and I'll send out -- 

10 there's a few things, including the minutes, 

11 that I'll send out. 

12 MS. MUNN: Good. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

14 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so I just want to confirm 

16 so that everyone understands. Mark, we're 

17 agreeing to Monday, March 17th, 11:00 a.m. by 

18 conference call for Rocky Flats. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily. The Hanford 

21 meeting on the 6th, is that a call or in 

22 person? 

23 DR. MELIUS: A call, Emily. 

24 MS. HOWELL: Thank you. 

25 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I wonder if Jim 
161

1 Neton found out anything about the Linde white 

2 paper. 

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, Gen, I think Chris Crawford 

4 is on the phone now. Chris, are you there? 

5 (No response) 

6 Hello, Chris? 

7 (No response) 

8 Are you on mute? 

9 (No response) 

10 Well, I had -- I had Chris available and I 

11 guess he had to drop off, so I don't now. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: Well, we can do -- we can do 

13 this by e-mail or -- 

14 DR. NETON: Okay, sorry. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And then be sure to let Dr. 

16 Branche know so we can get it posted. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other scheduling issues? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, just one other note, Paul, 

20 maybe if you can talk to Dr. Poston about maybe 

21 scheduling a Chapman workgroup call right -- 

22 shortly before the April meeting, you know, 

23 give SC&A time to get the report out, but just 

24 mention to him that -- that we might need one 

25 before the April meeting. 
162

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I think that'd be wise. We can 

3 do it by e-mail, but you know... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Hey, doc-- Dr. Ziemer, this is 

7 Brad. I was wondering if -- while we've got 

8 everybody on here, especially the Fernald 

9 workgroup, I'm wondering if the 26th would work 

10 for anybody or that's going to be a conflict. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That's March 26th. Right? 

12 MR. CLAWSON: That's correct. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: 26th is good with me. 

14 DR. BEHLING: It's okay by me, Brad. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Brad? 

16 MR. CLAWSON: Yes? 

17 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I'll make 

18 it if I can. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Well, I realize that, and maybe 

20 if you -- you know, if you can just join us by 

21 phone, that's fine. It's just -- I wanted to 

22 try to bring some of these issues to -- to bed 

23 and stuff, so -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: I can do the 26th. That's better 

25 than the 24th. 
163

1 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. How about with NIOSH, Mark 

2 Rolf (sic) or any of those? 

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim Neton. I don't 

4 know that Mark is on the phone right now, but 

5 I'll check with him and we'll have somebody 

6 there. 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I'll tell you what, 

8 I'll go ahead and send -- send an e-mail out to 

9 the whole Fernald workgroup and we'll -- we'll 

10 -- we'll try to set something up from there. 

11 But I've got you courtesy cop'd on it, 

12 Christine and Zaida, so we'll go from there. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, the 26th at -- you want to 

14 do face-to-face. Right? 

15 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, at Cincinnati. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: 9:00 a.m.? 

17 MR. CLAWSON: That's correct, 9:00 to 5:00. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: That sounds great. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: All right. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: So the Chapman Valve group -- 

22 let's see, that's Griffon, Clawson, Roessler 

23 and Gibson. Right? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think Dr. Poston is on that. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, he's the chair, but the 
164

1 others are on the line. But do we know when 

2 Poston's back in the country, Christine? Did 

3 he give you his schedule? 

4 DR. BRANCHE: No, actually he just happened to 

5 copy -- I was just copied on an e-mail message 

6 that I believe he sent you, and he indicated 

7 that he was -- it was a -- another set of -- 

8 flurry of -- of e-mails back and forth and it 

9 was sort of a by the way, I'm not going to make 

10 the call. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but I -- I don't recall his 

12 schedule. I'll -- I'll -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: I don't either. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I'll -- I'll have to track it 

15 down, but -- well, we'll have to find out when 

16 he's available and then he'll have to contact 

17 the other committee members then. I'll just -- 

18 I'll just send him a reminder that they need to 

19 meet. 

20 Okay, any other scheduling issues? 

21 (No responses) 

22 Are there any other items that need to come 

23 before us today? 

24 MR. CRAWFORD: Dr. Ziemer, I believe Dr. 

25 Roessler was looking for Chris Crawford. I'm 
165

1 on the phone now. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, very good. Gen, are you still 

3 there -- Gen Roessler? 

4 (No response) 

5 Did we lose Dr. Roessler now? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: No, she maybe ha-- she may be -- 

7 Dr. Roessler, are you on mute? 

8 DR. ROESSLER: I'm -- I'm sorry, I was off. 

9 I'm on now I think? 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, yes, you are. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. And we have Chris on? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Chris is on. 

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. The question was when can 

15 we expect the white paper that was going to be 

16 put together for the -- for the Linde 

17 workgroup? 

18 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. As you know, we just had 

19 a phone conference last week about this -- 

20 DR. ROESSLER: Right. 

21 MR. CRAWFORD: -- and I know Joe is working on 

22 it, his response to that. The burlap bag issue 

23 has morphed into something a little different 

24 than was originally described. Joe doesn't 

25 think it's going to have much impact, but he 
166

1 does have to work something up on it. 

2 We didn't set a date certain for the delivery, 

3 so I would guess we could have something this 

4 week, but I would think by the end of next 

5 week. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: That would be by the end of -- 

7 that would be like the 22nd? If possible, we 

8 could set something up during March and then 

9 have something to report on at the April 

10 meeting. Why don't we just leave it open and 

11 wait to see what happens and then we -- we can 

12 get together by e-mail? 

13 MR. CRAWFORD: That's fine with me, Doctor. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any other items? 

15 (No responses) 

16 I think then we've completed our agenda. Thank 

17 you everyone for your participation. Dr. 

18 Branche, any final comments? 

19 DR. BRANCHE: No, no final comments, and thank 

20 you so much. 

21 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

23 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I have one 

24 sentence -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, Dan. 
167

1 DR. MCKEEL: Yes. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I -- I forgot, you did 

3 tell us you -- 

4 DR. MCKEEL: No, no, no -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- wanted to have another comment 

6 -- 

7 DR. MCKEEL: -- no, I don't want to hold 

8 everybody longer. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- so go ahead. 

10 DR. MCKEEL: But since this is in the -- the 

11 last meeting before the April meeting when 

12 we're going to take up the -- hopefully the 

13 Texas City Chemicals SEC. NIOSH has prepared 

14 and released their evaluation report on that 

15 SEC 88, and my question was would it be 

16 possible for the Board to task SC&A to do a 

17 very targeted review of that evaluation report 

18 since TCC is one of those sites that has 

19 absolutely no monitoring data so the entire 

20 NIOSH recommendation is based on surrogate data 

21 from another site which at least, in my 

22 opinion, has not really been well-justified as 

23 -- as an adequate coworker model for Texas 

24 City. So this is one case where I think 

25 scientifically SC&A's input really is going to 
168

1 be needed, and I -- I'd just ask to bring that 

2 to your attention. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you for that question. 

4 And Board members, I think you may have 

5 received your copies -- should have received 

6 your copies of the Texas City evaluation report 

7 very recently. I don't know if you've had a 

8 chance to look at it yet, but the -- the 

9 question is whether we should task SC&A on this 

10 at this point or not. 

11 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I think the report was -- 

12 came out December the 8th. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. McKeel, I think it was 

14 January 8th. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I was going to say I -- I -- I 

16 think I got mine within the last couple of 

17 weeks. 

18 DR. MCKEEL: January the 18th, right -- sorry. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, I -- I know it's 

20 fairly recent. 

21 DR. MCKEEL: Sorry. 

22 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. It appears to be 

23 premature for us to discuss or to identify work 

24 for our contractor at this time. Perhaps by 

25 the April meeting we will have had an 
169

1 opportunity to all look at this material and to 

2 give some thought to what may or may not be in 

3 order at that time. 

4 DR. MCKEEL: That's fine. Thank -- thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I think at least Dan is giving us 

6 a heads up for his concerns, and take that into 

7 consideration as you read the report, and then 

8 we can go from there. 

9 I -- any other comments on that, however? 

10 (No responses) 

11 Apparently not. Okay, thank you, Dan, for that 

12 input. 

13 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you very much. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then if there's no other 

15 business to come before us, I'll declare the 

16 meeting adjourned. And again, thank you, 

17 everyone, for your participation. 

18 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

20 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 1:50 

21 p.m.) 
170

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Feb. 20, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

1st day of March, 2008. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102