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 54 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY THREE 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 54th 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Crowne Plaza Tampa East, 

Tampa, Florida on Apr. 9, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Apr. 9, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: 

BLOCKSON, MS. WANDA MUNN AND DR. JAMES MELIUS 9 

BETHLEHEM STEEL, DR. JAMES MELIUS 52 

SANTA SUSANA 67 

SANDIA LIVERMORE 79 

CHAPMAN VALVE 84 

BOARD WORKING TIME: 97 

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 103 

ROCKY FLATS UPDATE 119 

NEW WORKGROUPS 173 

REVIEW OF SEC PETITION WRITE-UPS, DR. ZIEMER 169 

TRACKING OF BOARD ACTIONS, DR. ZIEMER 225 

FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS 224 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 236 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

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

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

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

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

SIGNED-IN PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BROCK, DENISE, NIOSH 

CHIZ, HILARY L., USW 

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW, LANL 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

GLEASON, ANN & AL, PINELLAS PLANT 

HAND, DONNA 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU TEAM 

MILLER, RELADA, NIOSH 

PALMIERI, DOROTHY, PINELLAS PLANT 

PHILLIPS, CHARLES, SC&A 

TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 

ZEITOUN, ABE, SC&A 

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:30 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. BRANCHE: Good morning. I'm checking to 

2 see if the line is open. This is Christine 

3 Branche and I have the pleasure of being the 

4 Designated Federal Official for the Advisory 

5 Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

6 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Welcome -- 

8 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible), Christine. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: That's what I was -- thank you, 

10 Mr. Presley. You were the person I was going 

11 to ask to make certain the line was open. 

12 This is the third day of meeting 54, and I ask 

13 for those -- that those participants 

14 participating by phone mute your phones. If 

15 you do not have a mute button, then please use 

16 star-6 to mute the line. When you are ready to 

17 speak, then you can unmute your phones and you 

18 can use the same star-6 to unmute your phones. 

19 It's important that everyone mute their lines 

20 so that everyone participating by phone can 
8

1 hear without any interruption. Thank you. 

2 Dr. Ziemer? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'm going 

4 to take a moment here to go over the agenda for 

5 this morning since we've had some changes. We 

6 had moved some things up from yesterday -- or 

7 moved some things up yesterday that were 

8 scheduled for today. 

9 So the agenda this morning will begin with 

10 those items that were previously listed this 

11 morning at the 10:00 o'clock time slot; namely, 

12 the SEC petition status for Blockson and 

13 Bethlehem Steel. Then following that, we will 

14 go back and pick up the items that we are 

15 basically -- 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: Welcome to hard drive computing. 

17 DR. MELIUS: You need to mute your computer. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, mute your computer -- a 

19 little extraneous comment there that came in. 

20 Following Blockson and Bethlehem Steel, we will 

21 go back and pick up those items we carried 

22 forward from yesterday. That would include 

23 Chapman Valve, Sandia Livermore and Santa 

24 Susana. Well, the Santa Susana is an item we 

25 didn't really carry forward, but I'm -- have 
9

1 some comments about it and I want to suggest 

2 something on that to the Board, and then we'll 

3 see where we proceed from there. 

4 Those are the -- the main -- was there 

5 (unintelligible) -- those are the main items 

6 that we have to address this morning. 

7 Then we will pick up with our Board working 

8 time items. We have a few sort of 

9 miscellaneous things to go through, and some 

10 workgroup issues to take care of. 

11 So we will begin this morning then with -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, Paul. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

14 DR. MELIUS: I think we have one other issue, 

15 which is the assignments to SC&A and this issue 

16 with the funding -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that's in our workgroup -- or 

18 our Board working time. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. SC&A tasking 

21 assignments. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

23 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATE: BLOCKSON

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So we'll begin with 

25 the SEC petition status updates. Our first one 
10

1 will be Blockson. I -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: It's going to be Ms. Munn and -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Ms. Munn has a -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: -- Dr. Melius. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- report. I believe we -- do we 

6 have a Congressional letter to read? Oh, 

7 that's on Chapman Valve that we have that. I'm 

8 losing track of what all we have and I -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Actually that's on Linde that we 

10 have that, but... 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't believe we have any -- 

12 I don't believe we have any petitioners on line 

13 for this one, as far as I know. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: If they are, they don't -- they 

15 have not expressed a wish to be acknowledged by 

16 name. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: We do have Robert Stephan from -- 

18 from Senator Obama's staff here, and he also 

19 will have some comments to make as well. 

20 So let's begin with Wanda Munn with your 

21 report. 

22 MS. MUNN: As you may recall, the workgroup 

23 reported out at our last meeting and at that 

24 time we indicated that we wanted to provide the 

25 group with a full-scale report. We were, in 
11

1 our discussions, aware of the fact that, 

2 although we had fulfilled our charter, the 

3 items which were showing as closed were not 

4 being accepted by all of the Board. 

5 I'd like to review that a little bit for you, 

6 remind you that when this site profile was 

7 first released it was immediately found to have 

8 some deficiencies, was reworked and issued. 

9 The workgroup was established, our contractor 

10 was asked to do a review; they did so. There 

11 were seven, and only seven, items outstanding 

12 that they reported out as findings to us. 

13 The workgroup met on more than a few occasions. 

14 On each occasion we were successful in reaching 

15 resolution on one or more of the outstanding 

16 items. If you're interested in having those 

17 seven findings repeated to you, I'll be glad to 

18 do so. However, at our last meeting we had 

19 indicated that several members of the Board 

20 wanted to review all of the workshops -- all of 

21 the workgroup's activities. 

22 In the interim I have forwarded to you the 

23 major items which you might not have had easy 

24 access to on the web site. Is there anyone on 

25 this Board who did not receive the material 
12

1 that I sent, or who still feel the need for 

2 further review? I want to make sure you all 

3 have had that and had an opportunity to look at 

4 it. 

5 I want you to clearly understand that our 

6 process here in the past has been obtain the 

7 necessary materials from NIOSH, decide whether 

8 or not our contractor -- who was hired to be 

9 our technical assistant -- direct the 

10 contractor to look at those materials that we 

11 choose, resolve the issues and then move 

12 forward. That's what this workgroup has done. 

13 I remind you that in each case, each of the 

14 seven findings -- and there were only seven 

15 findings, some of them were significant 

16 findings -- but our technical contractor, with 

17 the assistance of some specialized chemical 

18 experts, have reached resolution on each of 

19 these findings and have reported to us that 

20 they agree with NIOSH's assessment that they 

21 are capable of providing adequate bounding to 

22 do dose reconstructions for all of the 

23 claimants at Blockson Chemical. 

24 It would be very nice if the workgroup could 

25 provide a recommendation to accept both the 
13

1 opinion of NIOSH and the opinion of this 

2 Board's technical contractor that that can be 

3 done. I have been unable to obtain a response 

4 from the members who had expressed concern over 

5 the findings and therefore cannot report them 

6 to you. I will have to provide time for James 

7 Melius to do that for you, since he had asked 

8 for time to do so and had expressed some 

9 concern. 

10 You should have received, as one of the items I 

11 sent to you, the final report from the 

12 contractor specifically addressing the concerns 

13 that were expressed at our earlier meeting. 

14 James. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Well, I did not ask for any time, 

16 so I don't -- didn't need to speak, so I don't 

17 know how I got on the agenda. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: You have your flag up, though, do 

19 you -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: Oh, no -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- do you have a comment? 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- no, I have no comment. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I thought maybe -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: I apologize, yeah. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
14

1 DR. BRANCHE: But I recall, Dr. Melius, that at 

2 the last meeting you said you wanted an 

3 opportunity to -- to provide a review. Did you 

4 do that in writing? 

5 DR. MELIUS: I didn't ask for an opportunity 

6 for anything. I have been still waiting for a 

7 report -- have a workgroup meeting, talk about 

8 it. 

9 MS. MUNN: You did not receive the report? 

10 DR. MELIUS: Received the report, and I have 

11 questions about the report. 

12 MS. MUNN: Oh, all right, fine. This is -- 

13 would seem to be an appropriate time to address 

14 them. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Huh? 

16 MS. MUNN: Your questions. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Well, we -- if you would like to 

18 do that, but I -- they -- they involve the 

19 provency (sic) of the data and the robustness 

20 of the data that is being the basis for the 

21 conclusions by SC&A. I've waited several 

22 months for this report, number of questions 

23 about it, and those questions have to do with 

24 individual records, and I don't believe that 

25 it's appropriate to have these discussions in 
15

1 front of an -- an open Board session. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: You -- could we -- could you 

3 clarify, either Wanda or Jim, what -- I -- what 

4 report is being referred to? Are you talking 

5 about the SC&A report? 

6 DR. MELIUS: The-- there's a recent report from 

7 SC&A, the last few weeks. It was a report they 

8 sent out one -- once. I don't know if the 

9 whole Board got it -- sent out to the 

10 workgroup. They withdrew the report and sent 

11 out a -- an updated copy. There was a problem 

12 with one of the tables, I believe. I can't re13 - recall the sequence. And I've not had the 

14 opportunity to talk to SC&A about it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So thi-- this is a report that 

16 went to all the members of the workgroup and 

17 then -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: I believe Wanda -- I didn't look 

19 at what Wanda sent out 'cause I already had all 

20 that information, but -- I don't know if Wanda 

21 -- I assume Wanda sent that out with the 

22 information she sent out. 

23 MS. MUNN: It was my intent, if that recent 

24 report was not in the group of material I sent 

25 to you, then it was an oversight. We should 
16

1 all have -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think -- 

3 MS. MUNN: -- the report that was issued -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: I'm not necessarily saying that -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think you're saying you got 

6 the report from SC&A. 

7 DR. MELIUS: I -- I received the report and 

8 they sent it to -- I believe to the workgroup. 

9 I mean I don't -- can't get on the Internet so 

10 I can't look at where it was sent, but they -- 

11 that. I mean I think the proper steps to go 

12 forward is, because of some of the -- since 

13 this involves individual records, so there's 

14 limits to what SC&A can even put in their 

15 report 'cause of Privacy Act concerns. It's to 

16 do with job titles and who was sampled and who 

17 wasn't and -- and so forth that the follow-up 

18 would be that either we can do it as a 

19 workgroup session or I can do it directly 

20 talking to SC&A and the investigators involved, 

21 and we -- after that we can schedule a 

22 workgroup meeting and report back. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Let -- let me ask a couple of 

24 questions here so we can find a path forward. 

25 There -- there appears to be some level of 
17

1 misunderstanding, perhaps within the workgroup, 

2 as to what the steps forward were or should 

3 have been. But be that as it may, number one, 

4 do we need a -- a telephone session of the 

5 workgroup with SC&A to go over that? Is -- a 

6 number of wa-- you may not agree on that, but 

7 is that what you're thinking of -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: Wha-- no -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- or a -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- workgroup meeting with SC&A. 

12 DR. MELIUS: I think we have to -- because I -- 

13 my understanding and belief would be that the 

14 questions that I have would not be -- I don't 

15 think we can schedule an open workgroup session 

16 because of Privacy Act issues, so -- but I do 

17 think we need some way of talking about it. I 

18 don't think it's necessary to have the whole 

19 workgroup have a separate meeting for this, 

20 which would be the other option -- I mean an 

21 in-person meeting -- to go over this 

22 information, but I think it would be -- I think 

23 then we could follow up with a meeting of the 

24 workgroup by phone. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, workgroups of course can 
18

1 have closed meetings. Legally they -- they are 

2 not required to be open -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- in any event. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: But it seems to me it would be 

7 useful for you for all of the members of the 

8 workgroup to be familiar with what the issues 

9 were of concern, whether or not they had the 

10 same concerns, at least that those were shared 

11 amongst the workgroup. 

12 MS. MUNN: That concern -- James expressed that 

13 concern very clearly, in my view, at our last 

14 meeting. Following that meeting, SC&A issued 

15 for us a working draft on the adequacy of 

16 urinalysis data for estimating uranium exposure 

17 at the Blockson Chemical Company. That was 

18 issued on March 20, and it should have been in 

19 the documents that I sent to the entire Board, 

20 not just to the working group. Because even 

21 though it was a draft, it covered specifically 

22 the validity of the data that was being used. 

23 That was the question that was asked at our 

24 previous meeting. If we provide that data and 

25 that data is not accepted, then I don't know 
19

1 what more we can do, other than sit down in a 

2 room and put the documents in front of us and 

3 talk about it. I -- I've sent it -- I've 

4 provided it. SC&A provided it to us. I 

5 provided it to everyone. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Jim, you can speak for 

7 yourself. I think perhaps you're asking for 

8 such a discussion as what was just described. 

9 Is that correct? 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but I think that it would -- 

11 I can't say -- I don't -- I have -- number of 

12 serious questions about the SC&A report. We 

13 can either do it -- try to schedule a workgroup 

14 meeting at some point, or I can talk to them 

15 first, the people involved from SC&A, and see 

16 if they can be re-- those questions can be 

17 resolved and -- 

18 DR. BRANCHE: The workgroup -- the workgroup 

19 can have a closed session. We just simply have 

20 to -- we have to announce it in the Federal 

21 Register with the proper day notice. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Right, I -- I'm aware of that. 

23 MS. MUNN: The concern that I have here is, 

24 it's my understanding that there has been an 

25 effort to relay that information and that we no 
20

1 longer -- we, being me personally and my 

2 communication with our contractor -- don't know 

3 how we can move forward. The material that we 

4 have is in hand. They provided their report. 

5 I've forwarded that report to all the people on 

6 this -- at this table. And if there are issues 

7 with it, the -- our -- our attempts to -- my 

8 attempt to communicate personally was rebuffed 

9 and I don't know how to proceed now that 

10 apparently this report does not fulfill the 

11 expectation that was expressed. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Well, again, let me -- sort of as 

13 a semi-neutral observer here from the outside, 

14 I don't know that we -- that it does or doesn't 

15 fulfill the expectation. I'm not sure Dr. 

16 Melius knows that yet either. You're saying 

17 that you perhaps need to discuss some of those 

18 -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- to come to closure on it, and 

21 I'm suggesting that perha-- and I don't know if 

22 there's others in the workgroup that are in 

23 that category or not, but we -- we do need to -

24 - unless the workgroup has sort of had the 

25 opportunity to say yes, we accept those 
21

1 findings -- and it appears that some have and 

2 perhaps some haven't -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- and for those that haven't, 

5 perhaps we need the opportunity for that to -- 

6 to come to closure. It may be that at the end 

7 of the day you will not agree on -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the outcome, and that's 

10 fine. I don't think a workgroup where -- 

11 nobody's going to force a workgroup to be 

12 unanimous, but we do need to make sure 

13 everybody has the opportunity to at least get 

14 the information they need to come to closure. 

15 I don't like to drag this out and I know the 

16 chair doesn't 'cause she's tried very hard to -

17 - to bring this to closure. At the same time, 

18 I do want to make sure that all the -- the 

19 Board members have opportunity to get the 

20 information they feel that they need to 

21 evaluate that report. 

22 So what I -- I'd like to suggest, and I -- I 

23 think it would be important for all the -- all 

24 the workgroup to be involved so that at least 

25 they become aware -- 'cause if you have 
22

1 concerns that perhaps they haven't thought of, 

2 then they need to know what those are as well. 

3 So I -- I would be reluctant to suggest that 

4 Board members individually try to resolve 

5 issues. I think our -- our approach has always 

6 been to try to resolve issues in a -- sort of a 

7 group way, first at the workgroup level and 

8 then at the Board level. And doing it that way 

9 allows the opportunity for those who have 

10 concerns to share those with others who may not 

11 have thought of those issues, one way or the 

12 other, pro or con, whatever it may be. 

13 So I -- I think I would suggest, even though 

14 this may be frustrating to think of what we can 

15 do to -- and I don't know if it's going to take 

16 face-to-face, and I think -- I think the 

17 workgroup chair can work that out with the 

18 members and with SC&A. It appears we do not 

19 need NIOSH involved at this point, or do we? 

20 MS. MUNN: It would seem wise to me to have 

21 NIOSH involved -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: That -- that would be fine. 

23 MS. MUNN: -- simply because the discussion 

24 revolves around whether or not the NIOSH 

25 approach to doing this is adequate. SC&A has 
23

1 said that it is, and we're -- we're talking 

2 about whether or not to accept the findings of 

3 both NIOSH and our technical contractor. 

4 That's basically what we're talking about. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Now the -- the other -- the other 

6 point I'll simply make, and emphasize again to 

7 the workgroup that this does delay decision, 

8 which is -- 

9 MS. MUNN: It does. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- always frustrating to 

11 claimants, so we -- we don't want to drag this 

12 out indefinitely. But can I ask those on the 

13 workgroup to, in good faith, get together -- 

14 find a date, let's get this resolved and -- and 

15 get together with SC&A and -- and try to come 

16 to closure. 

17 Robert Stephan has an interest in this and -- 

18 be pleased to hear your comments, Robert, as 

19 well. You understand that what's being 

20 proposed here does lead to some delay. 

21 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Number 

22 one, I just want to thank the Board and SC&A, 

23 NIOSH, everybody who's been involved thus far. 

24 You recall that when Senator Obama first began 

25 speaking on this issue was in Naperville. That 
24

1 was December of 2006, so quite some time ago, 

2 but we have actually come pretty far since 

3 then. We have had the review. We have had I 

4 believe two worker outreach meetings on -- on 

5 two different occasions, I believe, in Joliet -

6 - 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

8 MR. STEPHAN: -- that staff from -- from NIOSH 

9 was at, staff from SC&A was at, Board members 

10 were present at. We have had working group 

11 meetings. So the senator does acknowledge 

12 there has been a lot of progress between now 

13 and then. The senator is also very happy that 

14 we have been able to have the evaluation and we 

15 have potentially resolved at least a few of the 

16 issues that are in the report -- SC&A's report, 

17 versus the original approach that NIOSH had. 

18 So I would like to acknowledge the -- the -- 

19 the progress that has been made in that period 

20 of time. 

21 Secondarily, Wanda, I do have a question for 

22 you. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

24 MR. STEPHAN: You referred to a document from -

25 - that I believe had to do with uranium 
25

1 bioassay data. Is that a public document? 

2 MS. MUNN: No, it is not. 

3 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

4 MS. MUNN: It was issued as a draft report in 

5 response to James's concern. 

6 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. Okay. Is there -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And that in part is why we're 

8 talking, I guess, about the closed meeting. It 

9 -- there's some -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Cor-- correct, there -- there's -- 

11 has to do with the sampling data. There's a 

12 relatively small number of samples per year, 

13 and so we -- we get -- and when we start 

14 breaking down by types of work and so forth, 

15 and the limited data that's available, it gets 

16 into small numbers very quickly. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 DR. MELIUS: That's -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 MR. STEPHAN: Is this the type of document that 

21 would become public at some point in time? 

22 Just help me understand here. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that. 

24 Probably not? 

25 DR. MELIUS: I actually believe it could. I 
26

1 think it would -- parts of it would be 

2 significantly redacted, but the basic findings 

3 might be -- John, do you think -- Mauro, do you 

4 think that makes sense to you for -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro may be able to answer. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think it's a -- the current 

8 report is fairly specific because we do get 

9 into the individual measurements for individual 

10 workers. 

11 MR. STEPHAN: Yeah. 

12 DR. MAURO: However -- certainly I believe, 

13 working with the general counsel on redaction 

14 to their satisfaction, we can -- you know, be -

15 - we are ready to work with them to redact the 

16 information that needs to be redacted to put -- 

17 put a work product out that everyone could look 

18 at. So I do think that's certainly doable, but 

19 there may be some important information that 

20 will have to be redacted, unfortunately. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. You have 

22 further comments, Robert? 

23 MR. STEPHAN: Please. Obviously the senator is 

24 -- is always concerned about timeliness, and 

25 this will delay things just a little bit 
27

1 further. Nonetheless, given my previous 

2 comments about how far we have come, it -- it 

3 seems -- it seems fair and reasonable that, if 

4 we do have some questions, we will -- we will 

5 work to get them resolved. 

6 Having said that, we -- we have 91 dose 

7 reconstructions for Blockson that have been 

8 denied thus far and -- and do need to be 

9 reworked. And I've spoken with Mr. Elliott 

10 about this on a couple of occasions and, you 

11 know, I -- I think that the sense was that we 

12 potentially were going to vote today, there was 

13 going to be a vote, so we -- you know, we would 

14 not be reworking all those claims if we were 

15 going to have a vote and potentially the 

16 petition would pass. 

17 So the question is, if Larry could address this 

18 -- well, one, to -- to Jim and Wanda, what time 

19 line do you envision for your work? And two, 

20 given what that time line is, could we have 

21 NIOSH begin to triage those 91 claims that have 

22 been denied thus far. If there are some out 

23 there, once they are reworked, that will be 

24 approved, it seems fair and reasonable that we 

25 would move forward with those. So... 
28

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let -- let me answer that. 

2 It would be my intent that we have -- if we 

3 postpone, that this be on our agenda for a vote 

4 at our next meeting. That would be the next 

5 face-to-face meeting, but we're talking about 

6 June, I believe. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: June 24th and (sic) 26th in St. 

8 Louis. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: So it's -- it's two months from 

10 now, but surely this -- these issues can be 

11 addressed by then, I would think. 

12 Now what -- 

13 MR. STEPHAN: And -- and that document -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- what NIOSH -- 

15 MR. STEPHAN: -- would be redacted -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- does, and I -- we -- we cannot 

17 direct NIOSH to do anything like triaging. 

18 That'll be Larry's decision. But -- I'll have 

19 to leave it at that. 

20 MS. MUNN: Robert, you need to understand, it 

21 was my personal expectation that we would -- 

22 MR. STEPHAN: Right. 

23 MS. MUNN: -- have a vote at this meeting -- 

24 MR. STEPHAN: Right. 

25 MS. MUNN: -- which is the reason that this 
29

1 document was -- was produced and the reason it 

2 was sent out. It was an effort to make sure 

3 that all of the people in the Board who had 

4 expressed some concern about the work that had 

5 been done in the workgroup had an opportunity 

6 to review the pertinent documents that had been 

7 already produced and would -- the additional 

8 one that would be produced in response to the 

9 direct concern that had been expressed. But -- 

10 MR. STEPHAN: I appreciate that. 

11 MS. MUNN: -- that has -- I -- I've made every 

12 effort -- 

13 MR. STEPHAN: I appreciate that. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- that I can to move that forward, 

15 and clearly that's not going to happen. 

16 MR. STEPHAN: I understand. I appreciate that. 

17 Can you address for me -- is it possible that 

18 this document we're discussing would be 

19 redacted prior to the meeting in June? I just 

20 don't want to come back to the meeting in June 

21 and hear we have -- we have these concerns, but 

22 yet the public is not able to address the 

23 concerns, you know. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: The document -- the redaction for 

25 the documents from SC&A occur by the -- our 
30

1 attorneys, so -- do you believe that it will be 

2 -- of course it all depends upon the timing in 

3 which we receive this document. 

4 MR. STEPHAN: Well, I mean I think it's fair, 

5 what I -- what I'm trying to say here -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, I understand what you're 

7 saying. 

8 MR. STEPHAN: -- making the request, you know, 

9 that -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: It's just that the -- the 

11 redaction occurs by an office over -- over 

12 which I have little control, so -- 

13 MR. STEPHAN: This -- this is a CDC office -- 

14 HHS? 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

16 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Unintelligible) -- 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, there she is. 

18 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- how long the document is 

19 and when SC&A gets it to us. We certainly try 

20 to turn (unintelligible) documents around 

21 within a week, you know, if an (unintelligible) 

22 -- if they get us a document in time, we 

23 certainly can get it back in time. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: The document's only six pages 

25 long. 
31

1 MS. MUNN: Yes, Liz, it's a very brief 

2 document. There are no worker names, no 

3 identifying numbers. There are some year of 

4 employment data in it. 

5 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don't see any reason why 

6 if SC&A (unintelligible) that they can't be 

7 turned around quickly. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I believe that Liz is 

9 saying it can be made available. 

10 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Liz. We just, you 

11 know, would like to, you know, if we can, make 

12 sure that we get that done in -- in advance of 

13 the June meeting. And -- and Dr. Ziemer, if we 

14 could ask your indulgence, could we have Larry 

15 Elliott address this issue of -- of the dose 

16 reconstructions, potentially moving forward 

17 with some of them? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly. 

19 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: We have, as -- as Robert Stephan 

21 has indicated, we have 91 claims, I believe, 

22 maybe -- maybe -- that's in the ball park. 

23 There may be a few more since, I don't know. 

24 But we can look at those and, since lung cancer 

25 and perhaps lymphoma are the most affected 
32

1 cancers by the changes that we've made to our 

2 dose reconstruction approach, we can examine, 

3 through a triage methodology, whether or not we 

4 can advance some of those claims. I think it's 

5 important that -- that we do that right now, 

6 rather than continue to await the Board's 

7 deliberations here, so that we can get those 

8 folks an answer. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 

10 MS. MUNN: Before we leave this, I want a very 

11 clear understanding of (inaudible) mistakenly I 

12 believed that to be the case last time. I 

13 thought that we had fulfilled the request. The 

14 request now is for a meeting of this workgroup 

15 to address this specific issue. There is no 

16 other outstanding issue. Am I correct? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I still -- my issue -- I 

18 mean I -- I'm not on the workgroup, so -- but I 

19 still have concerns about the radon question. 

20 I did have correspondence from SC&A and they 

21 agree with NIOSH's position, but I still have 

22 some concerns about the -- the application of 

23 the radon model and the use of surrogate data 

24 for the radon model, and I think that should be 

25 reconsidered maybe on the workgroup level. 
33

1 MS. MUNN: Okay -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I'd be willing to join the 

3 discussion, if I'm allowed. I don't know, you 

4 know, what the process would be. 

5 MS. MUNN: Then -- then I need to understand 

6 this. James does not accept the recommendation 

7 of both NIOSH and our SC&A folks. Mark does 

8 not accept the recommendation of NIOSH and our 

9 SC&A experts. Is there any likely 

10 conversation, exchange of data or information 

11 that can be provided over and above what we 

12 already have that is likely to change either 

13 position? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I didn't -- I didn't hear you say 

15 that you didn't accept it, did -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I'm not -- I have 

17 questions about it and -- and -- I mean I'm not 

18 -- you know, it's hard to predict if there's 

19 anything out there that -- that they can change 

20 my position on, but -- I mean part of my 

21 concern on the radon is that the value being 

22 assigned is -- is, in my opinion, very 

23 consistent with -- with outdoor background 

24 levels and -- and that makes me wonder, you 

25 know, exactly how -- how good these numbers 
34

1 are. I mean they -- but they've been reviewed 

2 by SC&A and they're -- and they seem to support 

3 NIOSH's position, but I have some questions on 

4 -- on that and -- and whether we're using 

5 appro-- you know, we're using data from a 

6 different site and whether this approach is 

7 appropriate is my -- you know, the discussion I 

8 want to have. So I can probably -- I might be 

9 able to be convinced. I'm not sure, but, you 

10 know... 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest something, at least 

12 in this particular case, because that might not 

13 have been a question for the workgroup, but 

14 when the report comes to the full Board, if it 

15 is a question to be raised and has not been 

16 dealt with, then we ha-- then we're back to 

17 ground zero again. So Mark, if you would 

18 delineate clearly for the workgroup the nature 

19 of your question and what sort of information -

20 - and there's no reason why you can't sit in, 

21 as it were, on the workgroup deliberations. 

22 We're -- we don't -- as long as we don't have a 

23 quorum of the Board at a workgroup, they can 

24 proceed and you can -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
35

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- assist them in delineating your 

2 question and -- and -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Perhaps -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- help you understand what the 

5 assumptions were made by SC&A and -- and -- and 

6 by NIOSH and -- and try to address that. I 

7 think it would be appropriate. 

8 MS. MUNN: And perhaps I'm addressing my 

9 question to the wrong individuals because -- 

10 because these were the same criteria -- these 

11 were the same concerns that were raised last 

12 time. It was my understanding that 

13 communication had taken place between our 

14 contractor and both Mark and James in the 

15 interim. And I guess my real question, both to 

16 NIOSH and to SC&A, is -- with regard to these 

17 two specific issues that are -- are contentious 

18 here, do either of you have additional 

19 information that you can bring to the 

20 discussion of these Board members that we have 

21 not already seen? That may be the basic 

22 question. 

23 DR. MAURO: No, I think our report is -- we've 

24 carried the analysis and the data that were 

25 available to us to -- to the degree that I 
36

1 think we're -- our work is done. Now it 

2 becomes I think -- for example, there -- there 

3 are really two issues. One has to do with the 

4 radon issue, which is really not a Privacy Act 

5 type of question. You're simply saying we used 

6 some data from another site and is it 

7 appropriate within the guidelines that we're 

8 sort of working with to apply to this site. 

9 It's certainly a reasonable judgment call. 

10 The other has to do with the data 

11 characterizing uranium in urine of the workers 

12 that worked there. That's where we're talking 

13 about individual workers and the number of 

14 measurements made, the kinds of measurements 

15 made, who made the measurements, and are those 

16 measurements sufficient -- sufficient to do 

17 dose reconstruction. There's where we have the 

18 Privacy Act concerns where material will likely 

19 need to be redacted. So -- but we've -- we've 

20 only recently finished the work. I don't know 

21 the exact date when we delivered the report -- 

22 a few weeks ago, a coup-- two, three weeks ago? 

23 MS. MUNN: March 20. 

24 DR. MAURO: March 20th, okay, so it's fairly 

25 recent. I think we -- I have to say, I think 
37

1 we've done everything we could to squeeze 

2 everything out of the records and the data that 

3 were out there. There might -- I mean there 

4 might be more that could be done, but right now 

5 my sense is that we -- we've gone as far as we 

6 could in terms of wringing out the information 

7 that's out there. 

8 MS. MUNN: Thank you, John. 

9 DR. MAURO: The principal author of the work is 

10 here. Chick Phillips is -- sort of did the 

11 heavy lifting. He may have a perspective on 

12 this -- I'm not sure if he's in the room right 

13 now -- but we -- we worked very closely on 

14 this, so -- so right now I guess I would say I 

15 don't see right now there's anything -- unless 

16 there's something in particular that either 

17 NIOSH or the Board members could point out 

18 areas of further inquiry that might be 

19 productive, but right now we don't see what -- 

20 how -- much more we can do. 

21 MS. MUNN: John, thank you -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Do you want to add anything? 

23 MR. PHILLIPS: (Off microphone) 

24 (Unintelligible) 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Use the mike -- use the mike, 
38

1 please. 

2 MR. PHILLIPS: That's an open question. It 

3 would be helpful if we knew, you know, 

4 specifically what you were concerned about, the 

5 questions with the report. If we had that 

6 going into it, it would be very helpful 'cause 

7 maybe we can address those specific things 

8 where there are questions. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I presume that's what 

10 is being asked. Is that correct, Dr. Melius? 

11 DR. MELIUS: That -- that's -- that's actually 

12 what I originally proposed, that I first have a 

13 conversation with SC&A and then we have a 

14 workgroup meeting. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: And I did -- I -- I'll spell out 

16 my, you know, concerns in e-mail form and get 

17 it, you know, for the workgroup format. I -- I 

18 -- I did receive correspondence from Chick and 

19 -- and part of what I have is I have a couple20 page document on the radon analysis and it has 

21 some references to some EPA reports. I didn't 

22 get a chance to -- I don't know if you have 

23 those reports in PDF format might make my 

24 review of that issue a little quicker 'cause I 

25 was trying to track down those EPA reports but 
39

1 I didn't have the time to look at those and -- 

2 but again, part of my concern there is that -- 

3 how -- how much the 95th percentile looks like 

4 outdoor background radon levels, and it seems 

5 to me that that -- it -- it just doesn't seem 

6 logical to me that that would be the case in an 

7 operational setting, so -- especially at the 

8 95th percentile, so it -- 

9 MS. MUNN: So essentially what you're asking -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: If I'm reading that wrong, I'm 

11 willing to discuss that, but I'd like to 

12 discuss that. 

13 MS. MUNN: So you want to see the EPA reports 

14 that were referenced -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that was part of -- in his 

16 document that the-- in his response to me, that 

17 was part of the justification that these num-- 

18 I think that was part of the rationale that 

19 these numbers were okay, and I didn't ha-- I'm 

20 sure it's on the O drive somewhere. I just 

21 didn't have time to track it down. 

22 MS. MUNN: Well, you can understand the 

23 frustration I'm feeling here when I -- it -- 

24 it's -- that's why I'm trying to ask -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
40

1 MS. MUNN: -- the right questions of the right 

2 people. Thank you, Chick, unless you have 

3 something else to add. 

4 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be glad to provide those to 

5 you. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

7 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll -- I'll e-mail them to you. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler and then Dr. Melius. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: As a member of the workgroup, it 

10 seems to me that what we have to do is get the 

11 two issues of concern in writing. All the 

12 workgroup should have this. I think Mark has 

13 said he has it or would put it in writing. I 

14 think, Dr. Melius, rather than have an 

15 individual meeting with SC&A, I would like to 

16 see this in writing so that the whole workgroup 

17 could follow the discussion. And then I think 

18 we need to follow this up -- and this should 

19 get to SC&A so the individuals there know ahead 

20 of time what -- what's coming up. Then I'd 

21 like to see a workgroup in person rather than 

22 by teleconference. This is a very important 

23 issue and I think we need to put in the time to 

24 really resolve it. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius and then 
41

1 Brad Clawson. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I would just point out 

3 that I think one of the problems here is that 

4 Ms. Munn seems to assume that we have to accept 

5 all SC&A conclusions in their reports, and 

6 without consulting with the workgroup to 

7 discuss those conclusions and findings. And I 

8 think that even though a member of a workgroup 

9 or a member of the Board can make a 

10 determination that they don't believe that any 

11 further work needs to be done by SC&A does not 

12 mean that we feel that we agree with their 

13 conclusions. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 

15 DR. MELIUS: And I think that's -- and as I've 

16 pointed out before that one of the problems we 

17 have the workgroup -- and I think this is -- I 

18 think it's all of our problems, not picking on 

19 anybody -- is that we don't have a good method 

20 for closing out workgroup activities, partly 

21 because they stretch out for such a long period 

22 of time on so many different issues, and how do 

23 we sort of come to some sort of summation of 

24 all the issues and where -- where people stand 

25 in order to make sort of a meaningful 
42

1 presentation to the other Board members, as 

2 well as to try to capture some of the -- the 

3 issues that need to be settled at the -- the 

4 Board level. And I -- it's -- it's one of -- 

5 another one of those issues that's very 

6 difficult to do given limited time and so 

7 forth, but I think it's something we still need 

8 to wrestle with. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right, understood. And I'm trying 

10 to help you guys get to that point on this. 

11 So let's hear from Brad and -- 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Thi-- this brings up an issue 

13 that I've been getting into and Dr. Melius kind 

14 of hit at it at the end, is that I've been 

15 trying to figure out -- being a chair on a 

16 workgroup -- of when I get done with this 

17 workgroup and I feel that we've come to a 

18 conclusion that we've gone every which way we 

19 can, and I present it to the Board, for myself, 

20 it ought to be a very detailed report. And 

21 thi-- and this is just a personal thing to me 

22 because it's hard for me for all of a sudden a 

23 workgroup that I haven't been involved at all 

24 comes in and says that all this stuff is all 

25 right and away we go and let's vote on it, when 
43

1 I haven't even really been a part -- now I'm 

2 not talking about Blockson. I'm talking 

3 overall in all of our workgroups, because what 

4 I'm trying to do in Fernald is I'm trying to 

5 keep a database of what we started out with, 

6 how we corrected it and so forth. That -- and 

7 you know, what that -- that's probably going to 

8 be like a hour presentation, but it's the only 

9 way that I can feel that all the other members 

10 of the Board that haven't been a part of this 

11 workgroup know what the issues are, what we've 

12 done to try to rectify them -- and it doesn't 

13 mean that SC&A and NIOSH and even the workgroup 

14 are going to come to a conclusion, but it 

15 enables them to be able to know what we've got 

16 on the table, know what the Board is, and be 

17 able to raise questions about it because it's -

18 - it's very difficult for me to vote on 

19 something that I don't have a good handle on. 

20 And I -- and I think this is -- and I -- I 

21 think this is an issue with the workgroup of 

22 how do we bring it back and portray it to the 

23 people so that -- because it's going to be all 

24 of us on the Board that vote on this. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Good point, Brad, and -- and 
44

1 actually we -- we may never reach the point 

2 where each member has the depth of 

3 understanding that the members of the workgroup 

4 had. It's one reason we've gone to workgroups 

5 because for the full Board -- 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- to do this on every -- on every 

8 site becomes almost impossible, so to some 

9 extent we -- we have to depend on our 

10 colleagues to help us through some of these 

11 thorny ones. Fortunately some of the major 

12 issues, such as this concern here, do rise to 

13 the level where -- where they can get aired. 

14 MR. CLAWSON: And -- and I -- and I understand 

15 that and I -- I agree wholeheartedly. It's -- 

16 it's when I put my name on something, I want to 

17 make sure that I know what I'm voting on -- you 

18 know, to the best of our ability -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: -- because -- because it's like 

21 at the end of mine -- and I know Fernald is 

22 going to be a doozy. It's very, very long to 

23 ask any questions because I know that there's 

24 going to be some questions on how we addressed 

25 it and so forth. 
45

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: And that they -- they have the 

3 opportunity to see what we did. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda, you have additional 

5 question or comment? 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- I have one -- I have not 

7 yet heard from NIOSH with respect to the 

8 question that I asked. Is there any additional 

9 information that we can bring forward that will 

10 address the issue at hand? 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't believe there's any 

12 additional information, but we stand ready to 

13 always provide additional explanation as to 

14 what we've done and how we've done it. I'd 

15 also like to point out that the EPA references 

16 that are mentioned in the SC&A report are 

17 references that we used in our evaluation and 

18 they are on the O drive. All of the Board 

19 members can look at those. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Larry. 

21 DR. MELIUS: One -- it's a minor comment for 

22 Larry. You can sit down 'cause it's just a 

23 comment. Is -- I mean it actually would be 

24 helpful for NIOSH to review the most recent 

25 SC&A report and clarify if there are any 
46

1 factual errors or something in there before we 

2 deliber-- I don't think that would take long, 

3 but would be helpful, so we'd appreciate that. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay -- 

5 MS. MUNN: Please -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- Wan-- 

7 MS. MUNN: -- help me understand my marching 

8 orders now. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I think the marching orders are 

10 for the workgroup to -- to -- to gather or to 

11 meet and to address Mark's concerns and Jim's 

12 concerns. Now -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Now it's my understanding that Jim 

14 wants interaction with SC&A prior to that time, 

15 that this report -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think I heard you say 

17 that, Jim, but it seems to me it would make 

18 sense if -- if the others heard the -- the 

19 questions. Is there any reason why -- even if 

20 it's done by phone or whatever -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: I mean I -- I will try to do it by 

22 e-mail. It's just -- it's always with 

23 questions it's an iterative process -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I understand. 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- and so it may be a series of e-
47

1 mails and I -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me it's helpful 

3 to the other workgroup members -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: That's -- that's fine. I have no 

5 problems with that -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- to know what the concerns are. 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and -- okay. Larry? 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Just to jump back to Dr. Melius's 

10 request a moment ago, we've already looked at 

11 the report. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: We in fact made comments, and 

14 that's why SC&A reissued another report, and 

15 we've looked at that. We have no further 

16 comments. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Okay, thank you. I wondered why 

18 there was a second report. Thank you. 

19 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. Ziemer, this is Liz 

20 Homoki-Titus. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Liz. 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to let you 

23 know Larry Elliott forwarded me the report that 

24 was sent out, and it has already been Privacy 

25 Act reviewed, so unless there's some other 
48

1 report that we haven't seen yet, it should be 

2 done (unintelligible). 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I think that we're not referring 

4 to the report -- you were referring to some 

5 data -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, there's some additional -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- some bioassay -- it's a -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: -- information that's -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- database that's -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: -- not in the report. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- not in the report, Liz. 

12 DR. MELIUS: So it's -- it's quite -- but there 

13 -- that's nothing that I think -- I mean I -- 

14 clearance of the report is separate -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

16 DR. MELIUS: -- on that, so... 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they weren't referring to 

18 clearance of the report itself, but of the 

19 bioassay data, I think is what Mr. Stephan was 

20 asking about. 

21 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. Well, like I said, if 

22 they'll get that data to us then we can -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

24 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- (unintelligible). I just 

25 -- I thought they were referring to the report. 
49

1 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

2 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to clarify it 

3 had already been... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 MS. MUNN: So -- oh, go ahead, Chick. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Additional comment? 

7 MR. PHILLIPS: I was just going to comment it 

8 would be helpful if we -- if we had some 

9 information by e-mail or whatever the nature of 

10 your concerns. You know, particularly if 

11 they're statistical, et cetera, so we can make 

12 sure that we have the -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's fine. 

14 MR. PHILLIPS: -- (unintelligible) the 

15 appropriate persons ready for that. 

16 MS. MUNN: Because, as James points out, this 

17 is an iterative process with respect to 

18 questions and answers -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 MS. MUNN: -- probably the same will be true of 

21 Mark. I would suggest that if this is the 

22 route we're going to go, then it's -- it's 

23 going to be almost impossible, given the 

24 schedule that I'm working with currently, to 

25 establish an early face-to-face meeting. If we 
50

1 -- if there's any possibility that the 

2 workgroup can establish teleconference sometime 

3 next week so that we could -- could address 

4 this, it's been outstanding far, far too long. 

5 And I thought we had it clarified last meeting 

6 and clearly we haven't, so if we can -- if 

7 there's any possibility at all of setting an 

8 early date for this, it would be helpful. I'm 

9 going to be having some surgery in a week and a 

10 half and that's going to keep me probably from 

11 being cogent even on the telephone for a little 

12 while, so -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if you would work with the 

14 workgroup members and -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- if -- if the workgroup -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- find things out -- 

17 MS. MUNN: If the workgroup members are going 

18 to be available at the end of this session when 

19 we break, if we could get together and talk 

20 about what date might be available for us -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I'll say for the rec22 - record now, I am not available next week. I 

23 have other commitments all week. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: I'm not, either. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, in New York and Washington, 
51

1 so... 

2 MS. MUNN: That's fine, we'll -- we'll work -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'm sorry -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, y'all can work it out -- 

5 MS. MUNN: We'll work it out at -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we'll work it out, but I'm 

7 just -- 

8 MS. MUNN: -- at break time. 

9 DR. MELIUS: -- again, the expectation 

10 (unintelligible). 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, are there any further 

12 comments now on -- on this particular one, on 

13 Blockson? 

14 MS. MUNN: I would like also, if there are 

15 questions from other Board members -- as there 

16 were at our last meeting -- if you still feel 

17 you do not have the kind of documentation you 

18 want to see to be content with what this 

19 workgroup has done, it would be very helpful if 

20 you would provide us with that specific 

21 information. Tell us what you want if the 

22 documents that we've given to you are not 

23 adequate. Thank you. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much, Wanda. 

25 We do appreciate all the work you've done on 
52

1 this. We all recognize the frustrations that 

2 occur when we have difficulty coming to 

3 closure. But as was indicated, that's often 

4 part of this process. It's iterative. There's 

5 no -- you are not required to come to consensus 

6 necessarily and all the -- all the facets of it 

7 will become helpful to the other Board members 

8 as well. 

9 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATE: BETHLEHEM STEEL

10 Now, Bethlehem Steel is next -- 

11 DR. BRANCHE: We have just received a letter 

12 from Senator Schumer that needs to be -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to read into the 

14 record a letter from Senator Schumer, and Chia15 Chia will read that. It's actually just 

16 testimony, not a letter per se. 

17 MS. CHANG: Testimony of Senator Charles E. 

18 Schumer, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

19 Health, Bethlehem Steel SEC petition, April 7 

20 through 9, 2008. 

21 Thank you for the opportunity to address you 

22 today regarding the pending application to add 

23 a class to the Special Exposure Cohort, SEC, 

24 for the Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackwanna, New 

25 York. As I have done in the past, I would like 
53

1 to take this moment to urge you to grant this 

2 petition as expeditiously as possible. The men 

3 and the women who worked at the facility have 

4 already sacrificed enough for their country, 

5 and should not be made to wait any longer. 

6 Before I continue with my discussion of the 

7 petition I would like to take a moment to pause 

8 and comment on a noticeable absence today. Ed 

9 Walker was long an advocate for the veterans of 

10 the Bethlehem Steel plant. He passed away this 

11 January after years of helping his fellow 

12 workers. Through all the suffering that he and 

13 his friends experienced, Ed was always a ray of 

14 sunshine in everyone's day. His cheerful 

15 disposition and enduring belief in the 

16 rightness of humanity continues to be an 

17 inspiration to everyone who knew him. I have 

18 introduced in the Senate the legislation that 

19 he inspired, a bill that would add Bethlehem 

20 Steel to the SEC, naming it the Ed Walker 

21 Memorial Act in his memory. I know that Ed 

22 would approve of the hard work that everyone 

23 involved in this project has done, and I hope 

24 that I and my colleagues live up to the high 

25 standard that he set. 
54

1 I appreciate the Board's careful consideration 

2 of this application, especially the time and 

3 attention which you have given to the larger 

4 question of the use of surrogate data in 

5 constructing site profiles. As you know, the 

6 site profile for the Bethlehem facility relies 

7 on surrogate data far more than other sites do. 

8 While I am sympathetic to the Board's concern 

9 over creating different standards for surrogate 

10 data in the separate processes of establishing 

11 a site profile and of determining the merits of 

12 an SEC petition, I truly believe that not to 

13 grant the petition in this case creates an 

14 unfair disparity in standards between profiles 

15 which were created early in the EEOICPA process 

16 and profiles which were created later. I feel 

17 that fairness dictates that this application be 

18 granted as quickly as is practicable. 

19 The men and women who worked at the Bethlehem 

20 facility are the heroes of the Cold War. They 

21 gave their health to our country's victory in 

22 that long and dangerous conflict. Please, I 

23 urge you to grant this application before any 

24 more Cold War veterans, like Eddie, die without 

25 receiving the just thanks and compensation that 
55

1 they are owed by their government. 

2 Thank you so much for the chance to speak to 

3 you today about this important topic. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. I 

5 understand we may have some petitioners on the 

6 line, and I am allowed to -- to indicate their 

7 names, I'm told. [name redacted], are you on 

8 the line this morning? 

9 (No responses) 

10 [name redacted], are you on the line? 

11 (No responses) 

12 Okay, apparently not. Bethlehem Steel action 

13 was actually tabled pending surrogate -- the 

14 working group on -- handling -- or addressing 

15 the surrogate data issue report. I don't think 

16 we're -- where are we on that? 

17 DR. MELIUS: Let -- let me -- let me give an 

18 update -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

20 DR. MELIUS: -- and I want to make a proposal 

21 and see -- I've circulated a draft set of 

22 criteria for the use of surrogate data in dose 

23 reconstruction, and I will say for the record 

24 before Wanda corrects me, this is surrogate 

25 data in a very broad sense. So I mean it's any 
56

1 use of data from another site for dose 

2 reconstruction on the site. It may not be the 

3 usual reference in the group. And the -- I've 

4 received comments from other members of the -- 

5 the workgroup, including extensive comments 

6 from Wanda on this. I think we're in general 

7 agreement on what the sort of general criteria 

8 should be. I think the specifics of the 

9 criteria and how we word that -- there may be 

10 some issues that we-- that we still need to 

11 address. What I would like to propose as a way 

12 of going forward -- and I think probably is a 

13 way of trying to reach some consensus, both 

14 within the workgroup and within the -- the 

15 Board for -- on this issue is one -- one of the 

16 SEC petitions and evaluations we have 

17 outstanding is the Texas City facility, and 

18 that is essentially a surrogate data issue. I 

19 mean use of it. And that -- that might be a 

20 good example to let our workgroup use as an 

21 example and as a way of -- well, to -- refining 

22 our criteria as well as getting some discussion 

23 by the Board 'cause I think we can discuss 

24 these better if we have examples, and examples 

25 that are sort of fresh examples that we've not, 
57

1 you know, sort of already reached 

2 determinations on and -- and may have differing 

3 views on or whatever, and so I think that's 

4 something that could be accomplished by the 

5 next meeting. And then I would like to work 

6 with John Mauro and the other Board members, 

7 maybe come up with one or two other example 

8 areas that we could use as a way of presenting 

9 these to the Board, as well as maybe making 

10 some progress on -- on Texas City -- do that. 

11 I -- I will say I think one of the -- the 

12 issues that -- that we have and I think is more 

13 -- I won't say theoretical, but conceptual, is 

14 that -- I think we all recognize that surrogate 

15 data is widely used in controlling exposures. 

16 I mean it's a recogni-- I mean we do it -- I -- 

17 I think the issue is that when it's used to -- 

18 for example, to decide how to -- what are 

19 appropriate levels of control and so forth for 

20 a particular radiation exposure in a particular 

21 setting, there are sort of one set of criteria 

22 and ap-- approach that's used for that, that 

23 the -- that the criteria for when it's applied 

24 for dose reconstruction may be different or may 

25 weigh some of those factors differently, and I 
58

1 think that's what we have to come to grips on 

2 so that we -- we may end up with slight 

3 differences in terms of -- of how we would 

4 consider the application of surrogate data in 

5 dose reconstruction as oppo-- as opposed -- 

6 that would not really call into question how 

7 it's used in -- in radiation control. And I -- 

8 I think that -- we'll see. I mean I'm just -- 

9 I don't probably know enough about the 

10 radiation control side to -- to say that with 

11 confidence, but -- but I think that's one of 

12 the -- the -- the areas that I think we have to 

13 sort of wrestle with theoretically or 

14 conceptually in doing this. I think we can do 

15 it better with examples than trying to think 

16 like here 'cause I think one of the problems -- 

17 and I think Wanda's comments were very good, 

18 but she -- she was thinking of it I think more 

19 from, you know, how -- experience in radiation 

20 control. I'm thinking more of it as an 

21 epidemiologist, as a data issue, and sometime 

22 those two -- you know, they're just -- require 

23 sort of a di-- different approach at times, so 

24 -- may be the same science and it may be exact 

25 same set of facts and understanding of the 
59

1 facts, it's just the application would be used 

2 with different criteria. So anyway, that's my 

3 proposal. I've not talked to anybody else 

4 about this, so -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: -- feel free to comment, disagree, 

7 whatever, but I -- I thought it would be a way 

8 of moving forward. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Ac-- actually I -- I will credit -

11 - or blame, whatever -- John Mauro 'cause he 

12 did -- he and I did talk very briefly about 

13 Texas City and he mentioned it was a surrogate 

14 data issue and was ha-- be hard to do one 

15 without the other. I don't want to get us 

16 caught up like we are with Bethlehem, so -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: -- but that -- and I think that 

19 would also -- if we can come to conclusion with 

20 that and with some examples, I think dealing 

21 with issues like Bethlehem, wherever else, 

22 maybe to some extent this radon issue would -- 

23 would be -- I think we'd be able to move ahead 

24 as a Board on that. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let -- let the Chair make 
60

1 some general comments. In my mind, in order 

2 for us to act on Bethlehem, and Texas City was 

3 the next example in line, we have to come to 

4 grips with our own policy for use of surrogate 

5 data. I'll call it policy now but it would be 

6 basically that -- or what we think the proper 

7 use of surrogate data is. That will help us 

8 very much in reaching a decision because the 

9 crux of it at Bethlehem, and it will be at 

10 Texas, is is that appropriate use of data from 

11 another site to characterize the worker 

12 exposures at this particular site. And if we 

13 can develop -- and it's -- it's good to have 

14 examples as you think through that, but you, at 

15 the same time, want to have criteria that are 

16 somewhat universal in the sense that they are 

17 not biased toward a particular site. That is, 

18 you develop it so it fits Texas City and then 

19 it doesn't work anywhere else, so it -- it has 

20 to -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I think the examples help us to 

23 think of the issues that we must come to grips 

24 with and so that's -- that will be very 

25 helpful. 
61

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: So in essence, what you're 

3 suggesting, and I certainly concur on asking if 

4 the Board concurs, is that Bethlehem Steel 

5 remains on the table until we come to 

6 resolution on the issue of how surrogate data 

7 should be used. And if you don't agree with 

8 that, you can make a motion to remove Bethlehem 

9 Steel from the table, but otherwise it will 

10 remain there I think for the time being. 

11 But let's have some other comments, pro or con, 

12 both on the idea of completing the surrogate 

13 data concepts before we deal with Bethlehem, 

14 and even Texas City. And Wanda. 

15 MS. MUNN: We're probably behind the curve in 

16 terms of bringing this to the Board. It should 

17 have been an item that we addressed probably a 

18 year ago. So the sooner we have an opportunity 

19 to -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

21 MS. MUNN: -- to come to closure with surrogate 

22 data and the policy that's going to be used, 

23 the sooner we can move on with not only just 

24 the two that were mentioned, but innumerable 

25 other cases. 
62

1 DR. ZIEMER: Now I might point out -- and it 

2 feels like we've been discussing Bethlehem 

3 Steel for many years, and we have, but actually 

4 the petition is not that old. I think the 

5 Bethlehem Steel petition was much more recent 

6 than Bethlehem Steel issues in general 'cause 

7 we've dealt with that site profile and 

8 discussed the use of surrogate data, but we 

9 actually have not had a petition that -- that 

10 long. 

11 Larry, you have some additional comments? 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I just wanted to say for the 

13 record and for those Bethlehem Steel claimants 

14 that might be listening in that, unlike 

15 Blockson, we have not pended or held up any 

16 claims -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: -- through dose reconstruction 

19 for the Board's deliberation. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Bethlehem Steel I think 

21 were largely completed as far as dose 

22 reconstructions, yeah. Thank you, Larry. 

23 Other comments, Board members? Are you 

24 agreeable to this strategy for proceeding? 

25 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 
63

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not asking for a vote, but 

2 kind of a consensus. Is there -- are there 

3 objections, let me put it that way. 

4 Okay. 

5 MS. MUNN: This raises the question then, when 

6 are we going to address the surrogate data 

7 policy? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think the chair is 

9 suggesting that they are going to try to 

10 develop this recommendation -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: At the next meeting. I don't 

12 think -- am I right -- is that going to pose a 

13 problem to SC&A in terms of the Texas City... 

14 DR. MAURO: Let -- I'm trying to get things 

15 sorted out. Texas City, if the Board does 

16 request us to take a look at that SEC petition, 

17 that certainly is -- from what I've heard -- 

18 based heavily on surrogate data, so -- now -- 

19 now as far as the surrogate data policy goes, 

20 there is a draft policy Dr. Melius put out that 

21 the way I see it is if we were to be asked to 

22 look at, whether it's Texas City -- perhaps 

23 revisit surrogate data use on Bethlehem Steel, 

24 perhaps revisit the use of radon for Blockson -

25 - what we would do immediately is proceed with 
64

1 the current draft guidance and put tho-- that 

2 use to that test. I would -- there is -- 

3 there's four criteria, draft criteria, that Dr. 

4 Melius laid out. And I guess what I'm saying 

5 is we are right now in a position where we 

6 could make a run at -- and present to the 

7 working group or the Board our perspective on 

8 the degree to which the actual use of surrogate 

9 data in each of these venues -- the degree to 

10 which they appear to meet, perhaps or not meet, 

11 the general criteria laid out. 

12 Now, that doesn't mean there's not more that 

13 can be done in terms of refining and developing 

14 the surrogate data policy and guidelines. But 

15 we do have -- at least draft some guidelines, 

16 which I think helps advance the flag, so to 

17 speak, so I -- I think that -- what I'm saying 

18 is yes, we are in a position right now to start 

19 to move that process forward and perhaps it's 

20 not unreasonable to start that process as the 

21 surrogate data matures and the thinking 

22 matures. In fact, it might even help, because 

23 it may turn out that as we move through, as 

24 SC&A moves through the process, perhaps in some 

25 collaboration with NIOSH in looking at some of 
65

1 these issues, it will reveal the places where 

2 additional guidance is needed, the -- you know, 

3 it's almost like it's an iterative process 

4 that, you know, the policy can be enriched by 

5 the experience as we try to apply it. The -- I 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. And what I'm 

8 going to suggest is -- and that's food for 

9 thought. I don't want to task that right now, 

10 but when we come back in our Board work time 

11 and do tasking, maybe we'll have had a chance 

12 to think about that as -- and how it fits into 

13 the workgroup's work. 

14 A further comment. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Right, and it -- and just one 

16 other thing I'll do is I will circulate the 

17 draft comments -- the draft criteria, along 

18 with Wanda's comments 'cause I think those are 

19 -- be helpful and everyo-- then everyone knows 

20 those are the -- I had some more -- well, I had 

21 some input from Mark earlier, and then Jim 

22 Lockey had some relatively minor comments that 

23 I've incorporated, but -- but I think that 

24 would at least give everyone a sense of -- of 

25 what's going -- and if people have suggestions 
66

1 or thoughts on what we've missed or what we're 

2 doing wrong, let us know. I mean it's not... 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So we'll return to that -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- as far as tasking later. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: But did I hear Dr. Melius say 

7 that he was going to -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: But I think we -- let's -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: I -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're -- we want to be on the 

11 agenda. We'll see where we are. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we -- we -- we'll try to -- 

13 I think -- yeah, I see no reason why not -- 

14 whether we reach closure, but we can 

15 certainly... 

16 DR. BRANCHE: So the title -- so the heading 

17 will be surrogate data, under which Bethlehem 

18 Steel and potential Chapman -- Texas City 

19 Chemical would fit. 

20 DR. MELIUS: I believe so, yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. 

22 DR. POSTON: Which you're going to circulate to 

23 everyone? 

24 DR. MELIUS: I'll circulate the criteria to 

25 have time I -- sort of welcome input, I think. 
67

1 The -- the issue (unintelligible) is always 

2 what you've missed, not -- you know, not -- 

3 what you haven't thought about, not -- you tend 

4 to focus on... 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that completes this item on 

6 the agenda. Yeah, it's time for a break. 

7 Let's do our break right now. 

8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:50 a.m. 

9 to 10:10 a.m.) 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, if you will take your seats 

11 we will resume our activities. 

12 Some of what we're going to do now is carry13 over from earlier parts of the meeting. First 

14 of all, Board members, I want to call attention 

15 to one action that we made that perhaps was 

16 done in a somewhat different manner than we 

17 have in other cases. Let -- let me tell you 

18 what it is and then you can decide what -- what 

19 you would like to do. 

20 SANTA SUSANA

21 In the case of Santa Susana we had a petition 

22 that we agreed to delay action on till next 

23 time, I believe it was. But it also did have 

24 in it -- carved out, as it were -- a class for 

25 which NIOSH could not reconstruct dose. Now in 
68

1 other cases like that -- such as Hanford and 

2 some others -- we have gone ahead and approved 

3 or recommended approval of those classes, even 

4 though there were other parts of the time frame 

5 or the facilities that needed further 

6 attention. What I'm wondering is if the Board 

7 would in fact want to do that in the Santa 

8 Susana case, to act on that portion that was 

9 identified and sort of carved out and -- and 

10 still allow for things to move forward. 

11 I believe the mover of the motion to delay was 

12 Dr. Poston, and Dr. Poston, I understand that 

13 you were not necessarily -- although you may 

14 have, you weren't necessarily intending that we 

15 not act on the earlier -- on that earlier 

16 portion, but that's what we ended up doing. Is 

17 that correct or... 

18 DR. POSTON: In this par-- in this particular 

19 case, I made a motion so that we could discuss 

20 the issue. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: You made the motion to delay in 

22 order to discuss the issue at the next meeting. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, I thought it was in this time 

24 frame. 

25 DR. POSTON: No, no, you can't discuss it 
69

1 without a motion, so I made a motion -- 

2 Roberts' Rules of Order. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: You made a motion, the motion 

4 carried. But then -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Can I speak to -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah -- I mean I actually 

8 specifically addressed that issue in the 

9 discussion of -- of his mo-- motion and first 

10 of all, historically we have not always 

11 immediately accepted a NIOSH recommendation for 

12 an SEC or partial area and so I think there's 

13 an issue of sort of due diligence for the Board 

14 to review the -- the information and so forth, 

15 and particularly since we hadn't had a review 

16 of -- of this document. 

17 Secondly, and probably more importantly, 

18 relevant to what your concern was, Dr. Ziemer, 

19 was -- I had some concerns and I actually asked 

20 some questions of Stu about it was that how -- 

21 recall the SEC -- granting of the SEC class was 

22 based on the lack of data pre-1959, 

23 particularly internal monitoring data. And the 

24 way the SEC evaluation report is, they -- they 

25 group everything sort of pre-'59 and post-'59. 
70

1 And my concern was -- and my questions were 

2 about the initiation of the monitoring program 

3 '59 -- how adequate was it in '59 or in '60 in 

4 the early years and cover all areas and -- and 

5 so forth. And I thought that the -- that it'd 

6 be better if we evaluated that particular issue 

7 and then decide whether, you know, 1958 -- the 

8 end of 1958 was the appropriate cutoff. I'm 

9 reluctant to sort of incrementally keep 

10 changing them and -- and so that -- that was 

11 the rationale. It may very well be that '58 -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I understand, and actually the -- 

13 the point there is maybe it should be a longer 

14 period. I don't think it would contract the 

15 other way. I mean they already know they don't 

16 have data for the -- for the early years, but 

17 you were concerned about the adequacy of the 

18 data going the other -- other direction as to 

19 whether the boundary should be increased. And 

20 of course we could approve the smaller group 

21 and still add to it, but that was your concern 

22 about incrementally -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- adding, and I understand that. 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- it -- it -- 
71

1 DR. ZIEMER: And -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: And given that SC&A is just 

3 starting their review of the site pro-- you 

4 know, the -- I didn't think we really knew 

5 enough about the site yet and the way NIOSH 

6 presented the data. I mean it was difficult. 

7 I don't think pending -- expect -- it's unfair 

8 to expect Stu to know everything that was done 

9 in every year and it (unintelligible) so forth, 

10 so -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And was that in alignment with 

12 what you were thinking when you made the motion 

13 to postpone? 

14 DR. POSTON: Well, my recollection is pretty 

15 vague right now, but my recollection was that 

16 we asked John Mauro how far he'd gotten and he 

17 said it'd take about four months and he was 

18 only into it a month. So -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

20 DR. POSTON: -- it didn't make a whole lot more 

21 sense -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

23 DR. POSTON: -- it didn't make a whole lot of 

24 sense -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: That was on the site profile, 
72

1 which might affect additional time periods. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Right, it -- it -- it -- 

3 DR. POSTON: It just didn't make any sense to 

4 me to make a -- make a decision on something 

5 when we didn't have all the information. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Now let me ask Larry, in 

7 terms of sort of the incremental idea, what 

8 does that -- how does that impact on you? I'm 

9 not really pushing necessarily that we do that, 

10 but I just wanted to call attention to the fact 

11 that we often have approved smaller groups, 

12 awaiting information on other time periods and 

13 other frame -- other -- 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, you have. You have done 

15 that at Mound where we recommended a class at 

16 Mound but there were questions that were on the 

17 table about the remainder of the period that 

18 was not included in that class definition. 

19 You've done that at Hanford. We could -- we 

20 could provide more examples, but I would speak 

21 up on this and -- and request that this class 

22 be added as we had recommended because there 

23 are -- there are claimants standing in this 

24 class that could benefit from this decision. 

25 So if the Board would recommend to the 
73

1 Secretary that this class be added, as NIOSH 

2 has recommended, then we can attend to that 

3 number of claimants that are involved in this 

4 class, and still go forward and do the, you 

5 know, further discussion and resolution of any 

6 issues, you know, beyond the current time 

7 period of the class. 

8 DR. POSTON: Well, I don't object to 

9 reconsidering the mo... 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I just wanted to lay this 

11 out in case -- if -- if the Board wishes to act 

12 on the small -- on that shorter time period -- 

13 so you -- you've heard the -- the pros and 

14 cons, the incremental issue. I think the 

15 request from NIOSH that it appears that 

16 wouldn't be a problem from your point of view, 

17 but oth-- others want to weigh in? 

18 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: At the moment we would not take 

20 any action, at least till the next meeting, but 

21 I just want to make you aware of what appeared 

22 to me to be a -- a bit of an inconsistency 

23 here. 

24 MS. MUNN: I -- I believe I seconded that 

25 motion -- 
74

1 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, for John? 

2 MS. MUNN: -- and -- and -- yes. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 MS. MUNN: And for pretty much the same reason, 

5 but it -- it's -- if it's clear that there is 

6 not going to be any additional information 

7 forthcoming with respect to the recommended 

8 class now, then certainly with -- with the 

9 understanding that what is ongoing has to do 

10 with other years and not this particular class 

11 that's been proposed, I see no reason why we 

12 shouldn't go ahead and approve the class, if -- 

13 if we are aware that there's not going to be 

14 further information from any source. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: What is the likelihood that the 

16 SC&A review would somehow tell us that -- that 

17 that early period could be reconstructed when 

18 NIOSH says we don't have any -- any data? That 

19 may not be a fair question for you, John. 

20 DR. MAURO: That's not a fair question. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I mean yeah, I -- I guess I would 

23 just come at this from a slightly different 

24 angle, and my only hesitation to vote in that 

25 early period, and I certainly hear a lar-- I 
75

1 mean we have done this in the past, and we 

2 don't want to hold up claims -- I'm not sure 

3 how many claims this would affect, but my 

4 hesitation would be just to make sure we're -- 

5 you spoke of consistency, but I would speak 

6 inconsistency on how we're -- we're looking at 

7 various sites, too, and I know we have in -- at 

8 least in some instances, used back9 extrapolation models to extrapolate exposures 

10 back in-- into earlier years. I know that 

11 wasn't offered here, but if we see a wealth of 

12 data in -- in the next time period, you know, 

13 it begs the question of -- of could that have 

14 been done if you know enough about the 

15 operations, if they were similar operations. 

16 You know, we do have a charge to look at 

17 fairness and consistency across our -- our 

18 recommendations, too, so that -- that's sort of 

19 how I was considering it, and it's a kind of a 

20 complicated site so I didn't want to make a on21 the-spot -- you know, it's not just a -- a 

22 uranium faci-- you know, it's got a lot of 

23 things going on, so that was my hesitation on 

24 that. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And Jim. 
76

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I don't mean -- I mean 

2 we've said this before, but I think we have an 

3 obligation sort -- you know, to review, you 

4 know, recommendations for the class and, you 

5 know, sort of the same level of at least 

6 initial review that we would do for I think, 

7 you know, turning down a class. I mean I -- I 

8 think it's -- it's something that we have to 

9 look at and raise questions and there are 

10 possibilities, and especially given that we 

11 hadn't done a site profile review, really not 

12 spent any time on -- on -- on the site -- do 

13 that. And I just felt more comfortable 

14 postponing. I mean I certainly would like to 

15 try to facilitate SE-- SC&A's review of the SEC 

16 evaluation report and -- mention that and we 

17 said we would discuss that later as part of our 

18 assignments to SC&A so that, you know, ho-- 

19 hopefully maybe this issue doesn't have to wait 

20 the -- the four months that it will take them 

21 to complete this complete, you know, site 

22 profile review. We can expedite it over that. 

23 But at the same time I -- I would certainly 

24 feel more comfortable (unintelligible) adequate 

25 information and I think we should, you know, 
77

1 treat all these reports at least in a similar 

2 fashion initially to make sure we're 

3 comfortable with the recommendation. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? 

5 (No responses) 

6 No ac-- if we -- if we take no action here, it 

7 will remain as it was with the postponement. I 

8 just wanted to ma-- make everyone aware of -- 

9 of what I -- I thought was a some-- somewhat 

10 inconsistent with what we have done. But 

11 again, there's certain reasons for that as well 

12 that have been articulated. But is -- is there 

13 -- are there any Board members who wish to 

14 speak in favor of reconsidering? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Apparently not. Okay, then -- then the 

17 previous action stands and we will have this on 

18 our agenda for the next meeting. And we'll 

19 make appro-- well, either way we would still 

20 have tasking for SC&A because the other time 

21 period would still have to be addressed. 

22 Okay. 

23 DR. POSTON: Well, let me understand before we 

24 leave this. So if we leave it as it is, then 

25 we will take it up in June. Is that right? 
78

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: And -- and if possible, SC&A -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it depends on where -- 

4 MR. CLAWSON: On where they're at? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- I mean the intent will be it 

6 will be on the agenda in June. We'll have to 

7 see where we are in terms of the review and 

8 whether we're ready to take action. 

9 DR. POSTON: So -- so at that time we may split 

10 this into time frames? Is that where we're... 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's already -- we -- we 

12 have a recommendation already. We -- we -- we 

13 have a recommendation from NIOSH. 

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So in a sense, it's already split 

16 into time frames. 

17 DR. POSTON: Okay. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: The question -- 

19 DR. POSTON: I mean -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- would be whether -- whether as 

21 -- as the site profile is reviewed with an eye 

22 on the SEC issues, whether or not that time 

23 frame should change. That's -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- a possibility. 
79

1 DR. MELIUS: -- I -- I think that's the -- the 

2 real -- the real issue is what is -- is that 

3 the right time frame. I think that -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If something comes out -- if at 

5 that time we've had sufficient information to 

6 be comfortable with the time frame as it was 

7 proposed, we're free to go ahead and take 

8 action. We might decide at that point we're 

9 not ready to take action, either way. So I -- 

10 I don't think we know in advance what -- what 

11 the outcome will be, so -- but it will be on 

12 the agenda. Okay? 

13 DR. BRANCHE: If the person -- people 

14 participating by phone could please mute their 

15 phones, that will help us all. If you don't 

16 have a mute button, then please use star-6, but 

17 we do have some background noise on the line. 

18 Thank you. 

19 SANDIA LIVERMORE

20 Then we have Sandia. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: We said yesterday we would revisit 

22 Sandia -- that's Sandia Livermore. We have a 

23 recommendation from NIOSH that they can do dose 

24 reconstruction. This is a -- a potential class 

25 of three individuals. I -- I indicated that we 
80

1 would return to that issue now. It's -- let me 

2 ask if any Board members have further questions 

3 on the recommendation on Sandia -- and Sam is 

4 also ready here to ask questions -- or answer 

5 questions. The -- NIOSH has indicated an 

6 ability to -- to do dose reconstruction. They 

7 have already done that for the one claimant 

8 that they've had from that site. There's been 

9 one so far. I think it was indicated to us 

10 that in fact that claimant was -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think he did. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- was compensable. It would be 

13 in order to have a motion, one way or the 

14 other, on -- on the Sandia Livermore petition. 

15 Wanda Munn. 

16 MS. MUNN: In view of the fact that I see 

17 nothing in the literature that we have to the 

18 contrary, and given the NIOSH assertion that 

19 they do have adequate information to complete 

20 dose reconstruction for these claimants that we 

21 have in hand, I move that the SEC not be 

22 accepted. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you've heard the motion. Is 

24 there a second? 

25 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 
81

1 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Any discussion? If -- 

2 if the motion carries, we do not have a 

3 recommendation to the Secretary. I don't 

4 recall whether we report this to the Secretary 

5 or not. I don't think we even need to if 

6 there's -- I'm trying to recall what we've done 

7 in the past. But in any event -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: You have to say something to the 

9 Secretary. 

10 DR. WADE: Well, Emily needs to speak 

11 (unintelligible). 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to recall, do we report 

14 to the Secretary if -- if we -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

16 supporting NIOSH (unintelligible). 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- are supporting a denial of a 

18 motion to -- 

19 MS. HOWELL: We have in the past sent something 

20 to the Secretary. It's -- it's written 

21 differently -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

23 MS. HOWELL: -- and the desig-- there's no 

24 longer a designation packet so the supporting 

25 documentation -- 
82

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right, we just -- 

2 MS. HOWELL: -- that goes forth is differently 

3 (sic), but a letter is -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 MS. HOWELL: -- sent up. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let -- let me -- and I 

7 think I have in the -- in my files some -- a 

8 few letters of that type. We don't have the 

9 standard wording ready -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: There -- the -- the -- Paul, there 

11 actually is a stan-- standard wording. This 

12 has come up before and I've had to hunt on the 

13 Internet to find it and I -- I -- I'll try to 

14 remember wh-- where it is. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think I have it here on my 

16 -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: Oh, do you? Okay, good. Okay. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: We'll dig it out. But -- 

19 DR. BRANCHE: We can get a template to you if 

20 we need to. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'll -- we'll get a template 

22 here if this motion carries. Is there any 

23 further discussion, pro or co-- does anyone 

24 wish to speak against the motion, or for the 

25 motion? 
83

1 (No responses) 

2 Hmm, it'll be interesting to see how it comes 

3 out. No one's supporting it opposing it -- 

4 keeping our cards close to the vest. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Put your -- put you head on the 

6 table and (unintelligible) -- close your eyes 

7 and then we'll raise our hands. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we will vote by roll call. 

9 Yes means you are voting to deny the petition 

10 for Special Exposure Cohort. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Can we delay our votes? I mean... 

12 DR. BRANCHE: He meant that humorously. Okay. 

13 Ms. Beach? 

14 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

16 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

18 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn? 

24 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 
84

1 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

3 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler? 

5 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

7 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: And I'll get Dr. Lockey's vote. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I declare that the -- 

12 and there are no abstentions. I'll declare 

13 that the motion carries, and we will report to 

14 the Secretary that we are in agreement with the 

15 NIOSH analysis that dose can be reconstructed 

16 and that the Special Exposure Cohort is not 

17 recommended in this case. 

18 CHAPMAN VALVE

19 Next I think we have Chapman Valve. Do we have 

20 people on the line for Chapman? 

21 DR. BRANCHE: There some be some -- not so much 

22 the petitioners, but we just have Congressional 

23 staffers who are on the line and wanted to hear 

24 this. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask if -- if there 
85

1 are Congressional staffers on the line that 

2 were interested in the Chapman Valve petition? 

3 MS. BLOCK: Yes, this is Sharon Block from 

4 (unintelligible) -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Sharon, thank you. We wanted to 

6 make sure that you were here for this part of 

7 the discussion. 

8 MS. BLOCK: I appreciate that. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else? 

10 MR. LANDRY: My name is Roger Landry. I'm not 

11 a Congressional staffer, but I did work at 

12 Chapman Valve and I probably have the most 

13 experience and knowledge as to what's going on 

14 and what did go on at Chapman Valve. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, Dr. Makhijani would like to 

17 make a statement about yesterday's discussion. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Makhijani, the Chair 

19 recognizes you. 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you very much, Dr. 

21 Branche, Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Poston for giving 

22 me the opportunity to clear up the record 

23 regarding a statement I made yesterday about 

24 the SC&A report. I said that there was an 

25 error in that report that would require a page 
86

1 change. However, I was in error about the 

2 error and no page change is actually required. 

3 Now the specific issue around -- was around 

4 what an interviewee had said regarding the 

5 manifolds that she said were sent back to Oak 

6 Ridge -- from Oak Ridge to Chapman Valve. Her 

7 statement was that the manifolds were sent back 

8 for -- were sent for repair and welding and 

9 cleaning, and hence the statement in the SC&A 

10 report regarding the manifolds and the 

11 interviewee's interview was correct. I just 

12 wanted to read that into the record so there's 

13 no question, since there was a question about 

14 how I'd interpreted it and so on. I just want 

15 to read that piece into the record so that 

16 SC&A's analysis that was presented for you is -

17 - correctly stands in the record. Thank you. 

18 This is from a piece of the fifth conclusion in 

19 our report. (Reading) The only piece of 

20 evidence as to the possible source of enriched 

21 uranium is a site expert interview which 

22 described the return of contaminated manifolds 

23 from the electromagnetic separations plant at 

24 Oak Ridge that was operated during the 

25 Manhattan Project, and for a short period 
87

1 thereafter. While this does not prove that 

2 that was the source or that there was not 

3 another source, it is consistent with the 

4 available evidence, including the fact that the 

5 sample was very close to the entrance ramp and 

6 that it is the only sample that was enriched 

7 uranium. If manifold returns were the source 

8 of the enriched uranium, it would have been 

9 deposited prior to the period covered by the 

10 evaluation report and the SEC petition. 

11 However, the fact that it was on the inside of 

12 the building creates some uncertainty since the 

13 site expert stated that the main Chapman Valve 

14 site was the location for transfers of the 

15 manifolds from the train to truck, Attachment A 

16 -- and that interview piece is in Attachment A 

17 -- all of which would have taken place outside. 

18 So I -- I -- I just want to reiterate that the 

19 inference was ours that it could be enriched 

20 uranium, that the interviewee herself did not 

21 say it was enriched uranium, but said that it 

22 was sent for cleaning, implying that it was 

23 contaminated and therefore -- with something, 

24 but she did not say that it was enriched 

25 uranium. That inference as to the possibility 
88

1 was ours, and that we also raised the other 

2 possibility that that enriched uranium might 

3 have come from someplace else and not from the 

4 Y-12 during the Manhattan Project. I just 

5 wanted to clear up the record about that. 

6 Thank you. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Dr. Poston? 

8 DR. POSTON: Arjun, you used the word "prior," 

9 which implies earlier than 1948, and what's the 

10 evidence for that "prior"? 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, the interviewee stated 

12 that the returns of the manifolds were during 

13 the Manhattan Project and that the Dean Street 

14 facility work had been closed shortly after the 

15 end of World War II in the Pacific, and she 

16 wasn't exactly sure as to the time, but was 

17 reasonably sure that that facility was closed 

18 as -- to the work that was being done there, so 

19 far as she was aware, by January '46. 

20 DR. POSTON: Shouldn't the -- shouldn't the 

21 record indicate when it was closed? I mean 

22 rather than take her guess as to when it was 

23 closed? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we -- we don't know -- we 

25 have not done any independent investigation. 
89

1 The -- the building still stands. We 

2 understand that it was transferred later on 

3 back to private hands, but we were not asked to 

4 investigate when that facility was actually 

5 closed. We -- we -- we just reported what the 

6 interviewee has said, as we did in the other 

7 regard. 

8 DR. POSTON: But -- but if the Dean Street 

9 facility's been added, shouldn't we consider 

10 that and look at that in more detail? 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Are you asking me? 

12 DR. POSTON: Yes, I am. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I believe that, if you ask 

14 my technical opinion, that that would be -- 

15 that would be warranted since everything the 

16 interviewee has said, so far as I can see, has 

17 -- has checked out, and so if -- if -- if we 

18 take that site expert's interview as a whole, 

19 it seemed that she had extremely remarkable 

20 memory of what -- what was going on, including 

21 what materials were ordered to clean these 

22 manifolds and who she wrote letters to and so 

23 on. And -- and so it would appear that 

24 additional investigation might be warranted. 

25 DR. POSTON: That wasn't my recollection of her 
90

1 memory, and her memory's, you know, 50 years 

2 old. 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sixty. 

4 DR. POSTON: Sixty years old. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Did you have additional comments, 

6 John? 

7 DR. POSTON: No, I've made my last one. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. the action the Board took 

9 was -- yesterday was to reconsider the previous 

10 motion, the previous motion being a motion to 

11 deny the SEC. I've been informed by counsel 

12 that since the site description in the meantime 

13 has changed, we cannot actually act on the 

14 previous motion since it did not include the 

15 Dean Street facility. Am I -- and I'm asking -

16 - looking for counsel -- nod and make sure that 

17 the Chair is on the right track as far as this 

18 legal description. Therefore, in 

19 reconsidering, although we have the -- 

20 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. Ziemer? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm sorry, this is Liz 

23 Homoki-Titus. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, please. 

25 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: You can consider the motion 
91

1 -- I mean the Board can do pretty much, you 

2 know, motions as it sees fit. It just would be 

3 absent the new definition. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, technically, if we're 

5 reconsidering a motion, we're reconsidering the 

6 previous motion -- now -- then in terms of 

7 parliamentary procedure, there's two 

8 possibilities. One is that we then amend the 

9 previous motion so that it has the correct 

10 current description, or the intent of 

11 reconsidering -- following the intent would 

12 just to be to have a fresh motion. The effect 

13 would be the same, I believe. 

14 Larry, you have some additional -- 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Perhaps a -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- wisdom to add? 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: -- starting point is our revised 

18 evaluation report that we have submitted to the 

19 Board for its consideration, which includes the 

20 Dean Street facility -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: -- as part of the designation and 

23 provides an explanation or position, if you 

24 will, on where we are with regard to 

25 reconstructing dose for that facility. 
92

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. In any event, the -- the 

2 appropriate motion would have to include the 

3 new description, is what I'm saying, so that we 

4 would not in any event want to reconsider the 

5 previous motion without an amendment. Dr. 

6 Poston? 

7 DR. POSTON: In your opinion, would it be 

8 appropriate to recons-- reconvene the working 

9 group, which has not happened, to look at the 

10 inclusion of the Dean Street facility. We -- 

11 the working group has not had an opportunity to 

12 -- or taken an opportunity, let me put it that 

13 way, because we haven't met since the previous 

14 motion. And so we really haven't done what 

15 Larry is suggesting in a face-to-face or 

16 telephone situation, and maybe it's appropriate 

17 that -- that we table this motion and -- to 

18 allow the workgroup to meet. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: This -- you -- you can make a ta-- 

20 a tabling motion at any time is appropriate. 

21 If you wish to table the motion to reconsider, 

22 that is -- 

23 DR. POSTON: I move to table the motion to 

24 reconsider, to allow the workgroup time to 

25 meet. 
93

1 MR. CLAWSON: I second that. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? Motion to 

3 table is not debatable. We vote immediately. 

4 All those who favor tabling -- I will insert -- 

5 this is -- it's not debatable, but I can give 

6 you information -- that the effect of tabling 

7 will be to delay action on this particular 

8 site. We've had a lot of concern from the 

9 constituents about delaying action on this 

10 site. Let me also ask or make -- ask for 

11 reaction -- we're not debating the motion, but 

12 I want to make sure that our Congressional 

13 office heard that motion, and Sharon, you 

14 understand what has occurred here? 

15 MS. BLOCK: Yes, I do. I mean I -- I 

16 appreciate your -- you know, (unintelligible) 

17 and our other Congressional staff 

18 (unintelligible) right in our concern about -- 

19 about the delay and (unintelligible) concerned 

20 but, you know -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And Sharon, I'm not going to put 

22 you on the spot and ask you if you're 

23 comfortable with that delay or not. I just 

24 want to make sure that you understand that in -

25 - in the effort to clarify the nature of -- of 
94

1 the issue that's been discussed here, in light 

2 of the new evaluation report and the 

3 designation of the Dean Street facility, that 

4 the chair of the working group has suggested 

5 that -- that this be done in order that the 

6 workgroup can examine any issues related to 

7 that. I might -- 

8 MS. BLOCK: (Unintelligible) I -- I understand 

9 (unintelligible) not -- you know, I 

10 (unintelligible) -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and I might add, and you're 

12 aware that the previous vote on this facility 

13 was split 6 to 6 -- 

14 MS. BLOCK: Right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- so that information that might 

16 assist in coming to closure, one way or the 

17 other, would be probably helpful because 

18 another 6 to 6 vote will not be helpful -- 

19 MS. BLOCK: (Unintelligible) -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- to you. 

21 MS. BLOCK: -- (unintelligible) yeah, I mean 

22 obviously (unintelligible) would like to get an 

23 answer, but he would like the -- the Board to 

24 come to the right answer. I mean -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 
95

1 MS. BLOCK: -- (unintelligible) said in his 

2 letter, there's a concern that delay eventually 

3 just undermines the purpose of the -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

5 MS. BLOCK: -- of the program, but I appreciate 

6 your -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

8 MS. BLOCK: -- your (unintelligible). 

9 DR. ZIEMER: We will now vote on -- 

10 MR. LANDRY: Excuse me -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

12 MR. LANDRY: This is Roger Landry. May I make 

13 a comment? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 MR. LANDRY: I totally agree with perhaps 

16 investigating this even further. The problem 

17 is, as we speak and as this meeting is going 

18 on, more and more of the Chapman Valve 

19 facilities -- I'm talking about buildings, 

20 those that were recognized as highly 

21 radioactive areas and so on, are being 

22 dismantled and carted away right now in making 

23 room for housing projects. And this could also 

24 happen with the Dean Street, so I -- I can only 

25 suggest that the -- you know, hasten this whole 
96

1 project as quickly as possible because it may 

2 not be there six months from now. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. 

4 MR. LANDRY: Okay. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We're now going to vote on the 

6 motion to table. All in favor of tabling, say 

7 aye? 

8 (Affirmative responses) 

9 Any opposed? 

10 (No responses) 

11 Mr. Presley? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

14 (No responses) 

15 The motion carries and the Chapman Valve vote 

16 to reconsider has been tabled. The -- the 

17 workgroup then has basically agreed to pursue 

18 this further and will report back -- perhaps at 

19 our next meeting you will have a report to -- 

20 DR. POSTON: Yes, we'll try to meet week after 

21 next. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- to try to bring this to 

23 closure. 

24 DR. POSTON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

25 possible next (unintelligible). 
97

1 DR. BRANCHE: We'll talk about dates. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Additional comment, Dr. Melius? 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, can I -- can I ask or 

4 suggest, I guess is -- be -- fair -- that the 

5 workgroup particularly try to pay attention -- 

6 there's some unresolved issues regarding the 

7 en-- enriched uranium sample, and I -- I don't 

8 know if NIOSH has written a -- produced a 

9 written report on the most recent SC&A report, 

10 but either a written report or at least a -- a 

11 good, you know, discussion of that -- the 

12 workgroup I -- I think would be very helpful, 

13 as well as some discussion -- I think Dr. Neton 

14 presented some speculation yesterday on trying 

15 to interpret the various information about 

16 operations at the site and I -- I think if the 

17 workgroup could also focus on issues of 

18 operations at the site and potential sources of 

19 exposure and so forth as part -- deliberations, 

20 that might help us all move along at the next 

21 meeting, so... 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

23 BOARD WORKING TIME

24 DR. BRANCHE: We're on to workgroup updates, 

25 find that list. We have Rocky Flats, Special -
98

1 - Dr. Melius, did you want to do the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort or did you -- or do you think 

3 you've finished, based on your previous 

4 statements? 

5 DR. MELIUS: Which now? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: We're about to do -- you were 

7 talking about how you'd like to proceed on 

8 using examples from Bethlehem Steel -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Oh, that's the surrogate data. 

10 There's actually -- I'm also -- 

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

12 -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, there's two different 

14 workgroups -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: -- actually my -- that -- you had 

16 to do use of surrogate data, also, so forgive 

17 me for raising the wrong issue with the wrong 

18 is-- the wrong time, so -- are you finished 

19 with the use of surrogate data? 

20 DR. MELIUS: Surrogate data, there's nothing 

21 more to say. Special Exposure Cohort, I can 

22 say something at the approp-- okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Just -- before you do that, we -- 

24 we are into the Board working time now -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 
99

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we are completing the 

2 reports from the various workgroups, and then 

3 we will get into tasking of SC&A and any 

4 related matters, so your other workgroup -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- SEC workgroup. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the -- the main outstanding 

8 issue for the Special Exposure Cohort workgroup 

9 is the 250-day issue, and we've, you know, 

10 questioned short-term exposures and -- and ho-- 

11 what would be the criteria for those 

12 qualifying, and particularly looking at two 

13 sites, one being Nevada Test Site for the 

14 aboveground testing, and the second would -- 

15 was the Ames Laboratory site. And we have been 

16 -- we're I think waiting reports, both from 

17 SC&A on the NTS site and on -- from NIOSH, 

18 which was going to look into an issue related 

19 to -- to the Ames site. I talked to Jim Neton 

20 a few weeks ago about the Ames site and they 

21 have somebody working on them. I -- I don't 

22 know if you have a schedule or estimated time 

23 'cause I think once we get sort of those 

24 together, then I think we need to have a 

25 workgroup meeting, but I don't -- I do mean to 
100

1 put you on the spot, I'll be honest. 

2 DR. NETON: Thank you, I appreciate that. I 

3 was sort of having a sidebar conversation, but 

4 I think the issue was related to our review of 

5 the SC&A Ames data -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: Ames -- you -- you had -- 

7 DR. NETON: -- related to blowouts, right. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the -- the -- I mean just -- 

9 maybe to refresh your memory, but also the -- 

10 the Board's is that the issue we were looking 

11 into there is it -- for the short-term exp-- 

12 the blowouts and so forth, would it be possible 

13 to address those through an actual dose -- 

14 individual dose reconstruction as opposed to a 

15 -- trying -- you know, less than 250-day 

16 criteria and -- and... 

17 DR. NETON: And we have looked into that. 

18 We've pulled some data. We looked at several 

19 approaches. I would say that we could wrap 

20 that up fairly shortly. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

22 DR. NETON: We haven't come up with a lot, to 

23 be honest, and I (unintelligible) -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I -- I think -- 

25 DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible) the point, but 
101

1 what we do, we can -- can report on what we've 

2 found. 

3 I think another -- and I'm going from 

4 recollection, though -- I think, in looking at 

5 the claimant population -- and this probably 

6 isn't relevant to making a decision on how -- 

7 how the 250-day requirement goes, but I don't 

8 think there was anyone at Ames that was 

9 affected by this 250-day issue. 

10 DR. MELIUS: There actually is I believe at 

11 least one person -- 

12 DR. NETON: I think, though -- well -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: Okay, you've -- 

14 DR. NETON: -- I've gone through it very 

15 carefully and -- and that's another issue. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay, I don't want to get 

17 into... 

18 DR. NETON: Yeah, but in a short period of time 

19 we could summarize what we've found. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. The -- the original 

21 petitioner has raised the -- keeps raising the 

22 issue. I mean appropriately, I -- Lars, and I 

23 don't -- the -- maybe we would schedule a 

24 meeting then, does that -- try to get something 

25 -- does that make sense to you, John? 
102

1 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 

2 DR. MELIUS: Okay. So yeah, we need to 

3 schedule a meeting. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: There are two remaining, Dr. 

5 Ziemer, Rocky Flats site profile and Special 

6 Exposure Cohort petition. And at your leisure, 

7 you can take that one or the subcommittee on 

8 dose reconstruction. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Mark has both, and we want 

10 to -- there may be some Rocky Flats folks on 

11 line. If we can find out if they're here, we 

12 can proceed with that. 

13 Are there -- are any of the Rocky Flats folks 

14 on the -- on the phone line now? Mark had told 

15 them around 10:00 o'cl-- around 11:00 o'clock. 

16 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie, Dr. Ziemer. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good, Terrie's on the line. 

18 Mark, was there anyone else beside Terrie 

19 Barrie that was going to be on the line -- or 

20 Terrie, do you know if there was? 

21 MS. BARRIE: No, I'm not sure. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Congressional? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Congressional -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Were there any Congressional folks 

25 related to the Rocky Flats SEC that -- you 
103

1 think there were some -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I think so, yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Perhaps we'll wait a few 

4 minutes on Rocky Flats and maybe -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: He's going to do the do-- the 

8 subcommittee. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: You're -- so we'll proceed with 

10 the dose reconstruction subcommittee 

11 information and Terrie, we'll wait a few 

12 minutes, perhaps give Congressional people a 

13 chance to get aboard as well. 

14 MS. BARRIE: That'd be fine. Thank you. 

15 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. The -- the primary item 

17 for the subcommittee discussion today, we -- we 

18 -- I -- I was mistaken, I thought we were going 

19 to take up the tenth set of selections today, 

20 but I think that's going to be postponed for 

21 our phone call meeting. We did a preliminary 

22 review of a tenth set and Stu's going to come 

23 back, as he said yesterday, with more detail so 

24 we can make those selections. 

25 
104

1 Really the on-- the major item before us today 

2 from the subcommittee is -- and I hope -- I e3 mailed this last night, the final drafts of 

4 this. There is a letter -- did ev-- I don't 

5 know if everyone got this information last 

6 night, but -- okay, there is a letter -- the 

7 Word document is cases 61 through 100 report, 

8 et cetera -- and that's the cover letter we -- 

9 we used the same sort of format that we did in 

10 previous reports to the Secretary where we have 

11 a cover letter and we have attachments, and the 

12 attachments were all also in the e-mail that I 

13 sent to you. The attachments include a table 

14 with the cases and the -- and the descriptive 

15 information of the cases that we reviewed -- 

16 without giving identifiers, obviously -- and 

17 then a table of exec-- executive summary of 

18 SC&A's review of the cases, and then the fourth 

19 and fifth matrix, which gives all the findings 

20 with the -- with the comments and the 

21 resolution process and the Board action all 

22 included. And we had discussed those 

23 previously at our Board meeting, so really the 

24 -- the new item here is the letter itself. 

25 At our last subcommittee meeting, we had a 
105

1 subcommittee meeting in March and -- in 

2 Cincinnati and I brought the let-- a draft 

3 letter forward and we -- we edited that. I 

4 included all the changes made in that meeting 

5 into the letter. We got comments from -- from 

6 NIOSH, as well as from other subcommittee 

7 members, and they were all included in this 

8 letter. So this is a subcommittee 

9 recommendation, I guess, back to the Board is 

10 that we move forward with this letter to the 

11 Secretary regarding the fourth and fifth set of 

12 cases, including all the attachments and -- and 

13 backup material. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: So Mark, you're making a motion 

15 that this letter, together with the supporting 

16 documents, be transmitted to the Secretary as 

17 the report on the fourth and fifth set of 

18 cases. Is that correct? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I guess -- I think 

20 it's coming forward as a subcommittee 

21 recommendation, actually, if I'm understa-- I 

22 mean this was a subcommittee recommendation, so 

23 yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Now Board members, on those cases 

25 -- of course you've all been involved in 
106

1 individual ones of those in terms of your 

2 review teams. The subcommittee has taken the 

3 findings and the -- developed the matrix with 

4 SC&A and -- and working with NIOSH, they've 

5 resolved the issues as was indicated in the 

6 matri-- well, there's two matrices, one for 

7 each -- each of those sets. Mark's letter 

8 follows the format of the letters previously 

9 sent for the first, second and third cases. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Sets, you mean. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: First, second and third sets of 

12 cases. Now I guess the only remaining question 

13 is have the Board members have -- had the final 

14 matrix long enough that they're comfortable 

15 making basically -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- the decision to approve. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I mean I -- my feeling is 

19 you've had the matrices for a while, but the 

20 cover -- the letter was just sent last night 

21 and that was my oversight, sort of. I meant to 

22 send it right after the subcommittee meeting 

23 and -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but the let-- the letter is 

25 basically a summary which follows the format. 
107

1 May need to do a little bit of editing. 

2 DR. ROESSLER: Which one of these attachments 

3 is the letter? I don't want to have to go 

4 through all of them 'cause this just came 

5 through -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's called -- it's called 

7 cases -- it starts off cases -- it's a Word 

8 document, cases 61 through 100 -- 

9 DR. ROESSLER: Because the attachments come 

10 through in different order than your -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I know, yeah, yeah, yeah. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: -- e-mail. Okay. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: How I listed them, but they came 

14 through in different order, it figures, yeah. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Cases 61 through 100 report -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Rev. 3, right. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: -- link? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: And I should also say that I -- 

21 it's not -- I guess it's not a requirement, but 

22 Stu Hinnefeld was quite involved in our review 

23 of the letter, and I think maybe Stu can speak 

24 to this, but he was comfortable with the final 

25 form that the letter was presented and felt 
108

1 that it was -- it was accurately presented, 

2 what our review resulted in. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, well, comfortable might 

4 be a strong word. I mean you're never really 

5 very -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Comfortable's a stretch. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- comfortable when there are, 

8 you know -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- criticisms out there. I 

11 don't know that I have any specific objections 

12 to the information in the letter. I haven't -- 

13 haven't seen this, though -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, well -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so -- but I would assume, 

16 from the markup we did at the Board meeting, I 

17 think it -- it -- I don't think -- I don't have 

18 any objections, I think, to the information 

19 presented. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: But I haven't seen -- I mean I 

22 had some comments about tone, and I think we 

23 kind of worked on that -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: And we di-- and we -- and I did -

25 - 
109

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) 

2 subcommittee meeting. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: I'll send that to you, but we did 

4 take all those edits in that last meeting and -

5 - so I -- I don't know if people have had time 

6 to -- to absorb the letter, that's the 

7 question. I think you might want more time, 

8 yeah. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Ms. Munn? 

10 MS. MUNN: It's a nit and an editorial thing, 

11 but when we had that discussion earlier, Mark, 

12 about the bottom of page 1, about how to word 

13 that business of six cases, one of which was 

14 exactly 5-0, I couldn't tell from reading this 

15 edited text exactly how that last sentence was 

16 -- how that sentence now was going to read. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- where -- where is that 

18 sentence, Wanda? I'm sorry. 

19 MS. MUNN: The next to the last paragraph on 

20 page 1. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Page 1, next -- yeah, and I -- I 

22 put five cases and I left out the 

23 parenthetical. I think -- I could reword this 

24 to say -- I mean I think our intent here was 

25 that we -- we had focused a lot of our -- our 
110

1 attention on selection was to focus on those 

2 that are close to compensation but not 

3 compensable. So yes, there was one that was 

4 exactly 50, but it was compensable, so you 

5 know, my intent was to say that we ha-- we -- 

6 we actually reviewed, out of the 40, five fell 

7 into that -- that area that we were most 

8 interested in -- in -- in looking at. And I 

9 could say, to be precise, 49.9, I guess, or 

10 something, you know, but -- 

11 MS. MUNN: No, no, I was -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- I left out the parenth-- so 

13 it's five instead of six and -- yeah. 

14 MS. MUNN: As I said, it's an editorial nit, 

15 but it seems to me that it should say group of 

16 cases -- it should be noted that this group of 

17 cases -- that of this group of cases, five had 

18 POCs between 45 and 50 percent, and one case 

19 was exactly 5-0. It's -- it's -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, all right. 

21 MS. MUNN: -- you know, it's (unintelligible) -

22 - 

23 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I think my point was to -- 

24 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) point. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 
111

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we can -- we can -- that 

2 doesn't change the -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

4 MS. MUNN: No change of intent, just -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- significance or the intent. 

6 Board members, are -- are you comfortable with 

7 -- 'cause I'm going to look for a motion if you 

8 are. Or if you want to delay this, we can. 

9 It's -- it's not that the Secretary's pushing 

10 us to get this in, but you know, we want to 

11 move these forward. Dr. Melius. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I'd like to move to 

13 approve that. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Motion to -- 

15 MR. CLAWSON: I second it. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- approve and a second. Any 

17 discussion? 

18 With the motion, I -- I'd like to make sure 

19 that the Board understands that as I put this 

20 into letter form there may be some superficial 

21 editorial changes, not on the technical content 

22 but the -- how it's framed out and I'll 

23 certainly provide copies to everybody of what 

24 is transmitted forward. 

25 Are you ready to vote then? Okay, you're 
112

1 voting to approve transmittal of this report to 

2 the Secretary on cases 61 through 100. This 

3 will be accompanied by supporting documents. I 

4 think, as we did before, we actually included a 

5 summary of the -- or maybe the matrix itself, 

6 I'll have to check -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I think all those items were in 

8 the e-mail -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I may have missed one. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I think we have -- we also 

13 included a stan-- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: But there will be a letter report 

15 with supporting documents. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. A roll call vote? Go 

18 ahead. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach? 

20 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

22 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

24 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 
113

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn? 

5 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

7 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

9 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler? 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

13 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: And I'll get Dr. Lockey's vote. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Thank you, 

18 Mark and subcommittee, for the work on this. I 

19 know you're also working on a -- a wrap-up 

20 report on the first 100 cases. Now that you 

21 basically have the five sets, we're working on 

22 a summary report that will look at the 

23 commonalities of findings in these sets. And 

24 where are we on that? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- that -- we got some 
114

1 input -- we asked SC&A for some input on -- you 

2 know, sort of summary statistics from them, and 

3 didn't start drafting anything. I sort of 

4 thought that we'd first get through the first 

5 100 and then look -- look back, so that's -- 

6 that's where we're at. But I think we can 

7 probably have a draft report ready for the next 

8 face-to-face meeting on the first 100, yeah. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: That will be somewhat briefer, 

10 like an editorial summary of the first -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- 100 cases, giving the nature of 

13 the cases, the types of cases that have been 

14 reviewed, and overall summary of findings. 

15 Mark, are there anything else -- any other 

16 items from the subcommittee? 

17 UNIDENTIFIED: I'm just listening to the Board. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just an update. We're -- 

19 we're in the middle of comment resolution on 

20 the sixth set and we're continuing to work on 

21 that in the subcommittee level, but I -- I 

22 guess that's it, just the update on that. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And again, Board members, 

24 the assignments on the ninth set have been made 

25 and you will be hearing from -- well, you will 
115

1 be getting your cases from Stu Hinnefeld, and 

2 then you will hear from John Mauro's staff on 

3 setting up those times. That's a little bit 

4 down the road yet. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Paul, can I -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim. 

7 DR. MELIUS: A -- a comment and a 

8 recommendation. Fir-- first comment is, 

9 reading this letter early this morning, it -- I 

10 think it's -- I -- I -- like to, you know, 

11 commend the -- the -- I guess it's the 

12 subcommittee now, used to be workgroup, on 

13 their -- their work. I mean I actually think 

14 it's -- at least in the context of the program, 

15 I think a very useful way of sort of organizing 

16 and making the recommendations and focusing 

17 them on ways that I think NIOSH can -- can be 

18 responsive to, so I -- I mean I really -- as 

19 someone who's not attended all the subcommittee 

20 meetings and not a member of the subcommittee, 

21 I -- I just really think everyone's done a very 

22 good job. 

23 Secondly, I -- I think it would be helpful, in 

24 the context of the hun-- 100-case summary re-- 

25 report that maybe we have a fuller broa-- Board 
116

1 discussion of sort of what -- what have we 

2 found and where are we going with it, and maybe 

3 with some response from -- from NIOSH also. 

4 Again, I -- I don't want to get into have NIOSH 

5 have to do sort of a detailed, you know -- you 

6 know, response, well, this -- you know, we're 

7 doing this, this and this, but -- but in sort 

8 of the broader issues that -- that I think we 

9 need to sort of re-evaluate and at least think 

10 about -- examine how we've been approaching 

11 these and -- you know, different focus or 

12 different approach, you know. We're always, 

13 you know, in the midst of doing other case 

14 reviews but, you know, we -- been doing these 

15 for a while and I -- I think, you know, 

16 stepping back and having a full Board 

17 discussion of the broader aspects of this would 

18 be helpful, so... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for making 

20 that point. In fact, it would be useful if we 

21 were able to report to the Secretary impact 

22 information. We're trying to do something 

23 similar with the -- with the review of -- of 

24 the procedures. Having reviewed the 

25 procedures, what impact does that have on the 
117

1 program. And I think a similar sort of thing, 

2 and that's really what you're suggesting -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- evaluation of impact -- if this 

5 is not having any impact, one would say well, 

6 why are we doing it, but obviously it does have 

7 some impact and I think it's important to 

8 report that to the Secretary. And in that 

9 connection, it'll be helpful to get NIOSH's 

10 view of the impact that it's had as well. And 

11 as we prepare that final report, we may ask for 

12 some help to make sure that we're not 

13 attributing impact that's not there. Of course 

14 we like to think that everything we does -- we 

15 do has impact, but sometimes the impact's not 

16 what you would like. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Or they fail to recognize the -- 

18 or -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, impacts can be positive and 

20 they can be negative, too. Or they may not 

21 exist. 

22 Okay, thank you very much. 

23 I'm going to push us along here if everybody's 

24 agreeable. Do we need another break or are we 

25 okay? We -- 
118

1 DR. ROESSLER: A tiny one. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's take a brief comfort 

3 break and then we're going to return to the 

4 Rocky Flats report. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: That will give us time to re6 establish the phone connection. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I've indicated I've 

8 passed out the -- four of the five letters that 

9 we will need to sort of review -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And that -- the fifth one's also 

11 there, the Kellex is there. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: But we need NUMEC Park, which is 

13 not there. 

14 DR. MELIUS: NUMEC is not -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: He couldn't have done NUMEC 

16 because -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I drafted that. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Kel-- Kellex got double -- 

19 complicated. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Zaida can put that out now. 

21 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:05 a.m. 

22 to 11:20 a.m.) 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Is the line open? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to reconvene. Let me 

25 just do a quick line check. Mr. Presley, are 
119

1 you on the line? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: I'm here. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Terrie Barrie, are you on the 

4 line? 

5 MS. BARRIE: Yes, Doctor. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are any of the 

7 Congressional folks from Colorado on the line? 

8 (No responses) 

9 DR. BRANCHE: I wouldn't worry about it. 

10 ROCKY FLATS UPDATE

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we're going to 

12 proceed with the report from the Rocky Flats 

13 working group, and the chairman is Mark 

14 Griffon. Mark, you may proceed. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we -- we -- I have an 

16 update on the Rocky Flats workgroup, and we -- 

17 we've been fairly active, even though, as 

18 everyone remembers, we voted on the SEC quite a 

19 while back. This -- this last bit of activity 

20 I think surrounds the question of the 

21 implementation of the class as it was defined 

22 and -- and so -- so there's -- you know, we've 

23 had -- I'll just go through some of our 

24 workgroup activities, just to refresh people's 

25 memory where we're coming from. And this 
120

1 starts back in October 2007. 

2 One of the initial things that triggered this, 

3 the Rocky Mountain News ran a story that was 

4 published in November of 2007 which -- which 

5 raised the question about workers assigned to 

6 non-neutron buildings that had neutron 

7 exposures, and so basically their -- their -- 

8 their work history indicated a building that 

9 wasn't one of the listed buildings in the -- in 

10 the NDRP, or recognized as a -- as a neutron 

11 building right now, and yet their -- they 

12 showed up with some neutron exposure in their 

13 records. And so we -- we -- as a result of 

14 that -- that -- that news story and some 

15 concerns surrounding that, we -- we set up a 

16 workgroup call on November 26th, '07 and we 

17 discussed this issue that was raised. We also 

18 identified that -- that a lot of the results in 

19 the news story were results from a database 

20 query from the University of Colorado data, 

21 which was -- we've discussed this. I believe I 

22 can say the -- the author of the data -- it's 

23 been discussed on the record before, yeah -- 

24 Margaret Ruttenber and Jim Ruttenber's data 

25 from the University of Colorado, and basically 
121

1 we -- we decided at that workgroup call that we 

2 -- one question was does the University of 

3 Colorado -- does this data -- is it something 

4 that NIOSH hasn't seen before or is it 

5 different than what the workgroup and the 

6 Advisory Board has seen. And so we set up a 

7 follow-up technical call. And by that I mean 

8 just -- it was just NIOSH -- Larry Elliott and 

9 Brant Ulsh represented NIOSH, Margaret 

10 Ruttenber, and myself representing the 

11 workgroup, to discuss this database and what it 

12 was. And in that call I -- I think it was 

13 fairly well the consensus of the group that the 

14 underlying dose records that the University of 

15 Colorado had were -- were very likely the same 

16 ones that we were using in our review for our 

17 decisions. The difference, as I understood it, 

18 was that maybe for purpose of their research 

19 they -- they formatted things differently, they 

20 streamlined the databases, they linked things 

21 differently, but the underlying data I think we 

22 all agreed was probably the same. It came from 

23 the same root source. 

24 The only other thing that -- that might have 

25 been different was the other follow-up data 
122

1 that they collected during their medical 

2 surveillance program, and that may have been 

3 through interviews they conducted or -- or -- 

4 or job -- or worker questionnaires, that sort 

5 of thing. But the underlying dose records look 

6 like the same. 

7 The -- yeah, so -- so then we -- we also 

8 clarified on that phone call that it wasn't so 

9 much that we were -- that there was a question 

10 that -- that all these buildings listed in the 

11 newspaper article had neutron exposures, it was 

12 actually that people that had been assigned to 

13 those buildings could have been assigned there 

14 and their work history would have shown that 

15 building, and yet they were sent to neutron 

16 areas where they did short-term jobs. And the 

17 -- the example I always used on the workgroup 

18 calls was that one of the buildings -- I think 

19 it's 334 -- was the maintenance building, and 

20 they -- it does seem as though -- and there's 

21 people that are in the NDRP database, they've 

22 had neutron measurements -- there -- there were 

23 people assigned to 334 that were sent over for 

24 short-term projects where they were -- where 

25 they were badged. So then -- you know, if -- 
123

1 if that -- and the issue before us, I think, 

2 was well, if that's 100 percent effective, 

3 we've got no problem. But the question was, 

4 wa-- was that happening all the time. In other 

5 words, were there some people that were sent 

6 from these other buildings into the neutron 

7 buildings and -- and they didn't receive 

8 monitoring, so that would be the -- the one 

9 question as far as implementing the class. 

10 This is like determining who is -- who was 

11 monitored or should have been monitored, and 

12 it's that "should have been monitored" that 

13 we're kind of focused on. 

14 So then after the technical call, we had 

15 another work-- workgroup call on March -- March 

16 17th, '08. We had an additional news story 

17 that came out on that same day which -- which 

18 raised that very concern I just -- just 

19 expressed, and I think they gave an example 

20 which they felt met that -- that criteria that 

21 I just described. From that meeting we asked 

22 NIOSH to look into the case, and I think there 

23 might -- might be a few cases now 'cause 

24 there's been subsequent news stories, but that 

25 individual cases, and any others that they 
124

1 could find, to see if that was in fact 

2 accurate, that -- that the facts matched what 

3 was being reported and that the -- you know -- 

4 basically the report was suggesting that there 

5 was an individual who -- who had worked in the 

6 -- I think -- I'm not sure if it was the 

7 maintenance building, but in another non8 neutron building and had spent quite a bit of 

9 time in the -- the neutron areas and never been 

10 monitored. And I think -- and this may have 

11 not been in the NIOSH record 'cause it may have 

12 been directed to the Department of Labor, but I 

13 think he had affidavits from supervisors and 

14 coworkers, or something to that effect, 

15 expressing that he actually di-- the individual 

16 did work in those areas. This is a survivor 

17 claim, so... 

18 Anyway, so we asked NIOSH to follow up on those 

19 -- those claims and -- and if the could, 

20 identify any other cases from SC&A's reviews, 

21 from our internal workgroup process, that -- 

22 that would fi-- fit that criteria. Of course 

23 the problem in looking for those cases is -- 

24 is, you know, how do you tra-- find a -- a 

25 negative, basically, so... 
125

1 The other task out of that workgroup was that -

2 - that Mark Griffon -- I was supposed to review 

3 and compile excerpts from our past meetings 

4 regarding the -- the basis for our SEC class 

5 decision and how we -- how we had come to our 

6 definition sort of, and this was the question 

7 of the "should have been monitored" question, I 

8 think. And so then right before this meeting 

9 we had another workgroup call on -- on April 

10 3rd and in the meantime there were additional 

11 news stories on -- and this was all in the 

12 Rocky Mountain News -- on March 18th, March 

13 21st and April 2nd, and they -- in this -- in 

14 this period -- or in -- these news articles I 

15 guess were more focused on a question of the 

16 250-day criteria and how it was being applied 

17 to the SEC class. And -- and I guess this -- 

18 you know, there -- there was some -- and this 

19 is really on the implementation side, I guess, 

20 and what -- what has happened, and Jeff can -- 

21 Department of Labor can probably help me clear 

22 some of this up, but there -- there were some -

23 - there were -- it was an initial approach to 

24 identifying "monitored or should have been 

25 monitored for neutrons" -- identifying this -- 
126

1 this group of people that fit the class, and 

2 that was modified, I believe, in a -- at a 

3 later date. So there was some confusion in the 

4 public over a few -- I'm not sure it was many 

5 cases, but it was a few that -- that this new 

6 approach affected. That was partially of -- 

7 the question of "should have been monitored," 

8 but then -- so we got two things here, the 

9 "should have been monitored" question and now 

10 the news stories were raising this question of 

11 the 250 days and as it's being applied -- the 

12 250-day criteria is being applied that -- that 

13 people have to have worked 250 days in the 

14 neutron buildings. And so -- and I know if -- 

15 if you look back at our original language, I 

16 think the way we worded it, and it's pretty 

17 much our standard language, but we said -- I'm 

18 -- I'm jumping to the middle portion of it, but 

19 we said "who were monitored or should have been 

20 monitored for neutron exposures while working 

21 at Rocky Flats facility in Denver, Colorado for 

22 a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

23 work days during the period from" you know, so 

24 forth. 

25 So the question -- and -- and this may be -- 
127

1 you know, in my mind, I'm not sure the intent 

2 was to say you have to have an aggregate of 250 

3 days in those buildings, but I understand that 

4 that -- the legal interpretation of this was -- 

5 was -- was probably accurate, but I'm not sure 

6 it was the intent of the workgroup to limit 

7 that, and I go ba-- I guess I go back to my -- 

8 my maintenance example where -- you know, I -- 

9 I think when we initially talked about the 250-

10 day criteria -- this is going way back -- I 

11 think one of the big concerns for having some 

12 cutoff point there was that you had -- you 

13 know, we certainly didn't want to have people 

14 filing claims that were -- you know, the -- the 

15 local Coke vendor coming in and delivering Coke 

16 once a month, and yeah, they entered the site 

17 so, you know, were they eligible for 

18 compensation under the program. Well, you 

19 know, I think reasonable people would conclude 

20 that, you know, it's probably not reasonable. 

21 But you know, I'm not sure this scenario and 

22 the -- I'll use my same maintenance worker, 

23 Building 334, they worked 24 days -- they 

24 worked for ten years at Rocky Flats, just 

25 happens that 24 days they're in the neutron 
128

1 buildings each year, they got 240 days 

2 aggregate. In those 24 days -- when I always 

3 talked about this in our meetings, we always 

4 said "should have been monitored" and I kept 

5 emphasizing, you know, based on the current 

6 standard. We wanted to be inclusive, not 

7 exclusive. I think when we were saying based 

8 on the current standard, we were saying the 100 

9 millirem cutoff and so these individuals could 

10 certainly meet that "should have been 

11 monitored" criteria, but they would fall short 

12 of the 250 days, I think, and that's -- maybe I 

13 need clarification on this, but -- and -- and, 

14 you know, this is -- I guess -- I'm bringing 

15 this back before the Board for -- for advice 

16 on, you know, how we grapple with this one. 

17 But anyway, that's -- so I'll -- I'll -- I 

18 guess I can finish -- the two -- the questions 

19 I had and what I said in the last workgroup 

20 meeting was I wanted to bring this back before 

21 the full Board for direction on what we can do 

22 or what -- you know, if the workgroup needs to 

23 follow up any further or what we, as the Board, 

24 should do as far as an action. I think -- my 

25 feeling is that it may be necessary for the 
129

1 Board to clarify their intent in the 

2 recommendation with regard to the 250-day 

3 question. And you know, if we -- you know, 

4 there's -- there may be a legal question in 

5 there as well, but that's my feeling. 

6 And then the other side of this is we still 

7 have to look at this question of "should have 

8 been monitored" and, you know, should the 

9 workgroup further investigate the question of 

10 workers in non-neutron buildings who 

11 potentially worked in neutron buildings and 

12 were not monitored. And -- and the final thing 

13 I guess I wanted to throw out there for 

14 discussion, and I -- I had some informal input 

15 from DOL on this, but another question I would 

16 ask -- especially with -- with -- with 

17 relationship to that second part of that 

18 question, is how many claims would be affected 

19 by this. You know, how many -- I mean are we -

20 - one more -- when you're looking at these 

21 claims, are most of them in the NDRP database 

22 so it's no issue, or are -- are we talking 

23 about, you know, hundreds or are we talking 

24 about five or ten, and I think that might be -- 

25 well, at least it's a piece of information to 
130

1 consider, so I guess I'll leave it at that and 

2 ask for other -- maybe other workgroup members 

3 have comments first and then we can open it up. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Comments? I see Wanda, 

5 Phil, Jim. 

6 MS. MUNN: During that telephone call we had a 

7 Congressman commenting and expressing great 

8 concern over the letter that had been received 

9 from the Department of Labor with respect to 

10 the 250-day issue with one of the claimants 

11 where that letter was the source of the -- in 

12 the neutron area description. I made the 

13 statement, following the reading of that 

14 letter, that this Board had always taken the 

15 250-day issue as being an on-site issue, not 

16 necessarily in a specific facility. And so far 

17 as I know, that was the wording of the statute, 

18 and I believe we've done that routinely. The 

19 "should have been monitored" language is -- and 

20 I pointed out at that time -- language that we 

21 struggled over pretty heartily when we first 

22 identified it. Whether that can be improved 

23 upon is another question entirely, but it 

24 seemed that it was expressive of what our 

25 intent was at the time, and probably what our 
131

1 intent remains now. If other agencies take a 

2 different view of the 250-day issue, then that 

3 may be an issue that others would like us to be 

4 involved in, but I'm not at all sure that it's 

5 up to us to define how other agencies approach 

6 that. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Phil? 

8 MR. SCHOFIELD: I think the whole crux of the 

9 matter is we -- at least myself, when I voted 

10 for the SEC, I'm looking at the person being 

11 on-site working radiological area for 250 days. 

12 Given the way Rocky Flats is set up and having 

13 actually been there when they were still in 

14 production, people went from one building to 

15 another quite often, and the -- if they weren't 

16 monitored for neutrons, there's no way the 

17 record's going to show up with this magic 

18 number DOL pulled out of the air because some 

19 of the buildings had a higher level of neutrons 

20 than other places. Some of them were 

21 considered workers who don't normally work in a 

22 neutron area, but they may be over there on a 

23 short-term basis, they may be maintenance type 

24 people, they might be guards. That doesn't 

25 mean they were monitored for neutrons, and 
132

1 that's part of the reason they were being put 

2 in this SEC is the fact they weren't monitored 

3 for neutrons. But if they meet that 250-day 

4 rule, I cannot in all good conscience exclude 

5 them from that because that's part -- that was 

6 one of the big basis, fact that these people 

7 were not monitored. And their rec-- And 

8 really -- I mean I think Department of Labor 

9 has really stretched the credibility on the 

10 issue of the 250 days. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Let me -- let me just add one 

12 thing. I mean I think -- you know, my -- the -

13 - the interpretation of the 250 days, I think -

14 - and -- and I'm listening to Wanda, too. I 

15 mean I think our workgroup's intent was not the 

16 way it's being implemented. That's my -- my 

17 concern. It's not so much the strict 

18 implementation, because I think our wording in 

19 the recommendation -- we said monitored or 

20 should have been monitored, and when -- I think 

21 when I added "for neutrons," then that -- that 

22 sort of limited that -- that -- you know, that 

23 -- that's why it's limited to those areas and 

24 that's why the 250 days applies 

25 (unintelligible) there. I can see how that, 
133

1 you know, is being interpreted, but I think our 

2 in-- my intent, anyway, and I'm listening to 

3 Wanda, I think, you know, our intent was not to 

4 have that happen, not to be more exclusive but 

5 more inclusive by -- by the "should have been 

6 monitored" criteria so, you know... 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Let me insert something here 

8 because I want to point out the -- the other 

9 side of that. We do in fact carve out parts of 

10 facilities. Oak Ridge thermal diffusion plant 

11 would be a good example. You don't give -- we 

12 don't give credit for the people who worked 

13 there and also worked at Y-- parts of Y-12 that 

14 were not in that same category. So it's not -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- unusual to have a part -- and 

17 it -- it depends on what boundaries are of what 

18 you're talking about. It's a little -- I know 

19 it's a little messier at Rocky Flats. But in 

20 fact -- and I'm going to give you the 

21 philosophical argument. We know the 250 days 

22 is arbitrary, in a sense. If they're working 

23 in other areas other than the -- the defined 

24 area -- in the defined area for an SEC, health 

25 endangerment is assumed. Health endangerment 
134

1 is not assumed in the other areas. Do you 

2 understand what I'm saying? In areas where you 

3 can reconstruct dose, health endangerment is 

4 not assumed. It's determined by a POC 

5 calculation. So if you take the whole thing 

6 and -- and you have a part where health 

7 endangerment's assumed, and say well, I'm going 

8 to -- I want to throw in the rest where there's 

9 -- there's no health endangerment assumed, how 

10 do you mix those? I think that's part of the 

11 problem. I understand what you're saying, but 

12 I'm -- I want to make sure we're looking at 

13 both side of the -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- I -- yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible). 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I think -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Mark and I have had this 

18 discussion, too. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- and I -- I -- I mean 

20 I -- I agree -- you know, I -- I -- you know, I 

21 -- trying to look back at my language and think 

22 of how I would have worded it differently, I'm 

23 not sure we could have, but -- but my question 

24 would be this -- this overlap area, and then 

25 you get into the well, you know, you can 
135

1 partially reconstruct, so we -- we go down that 

2 -- we've been down that path before, too. But 

3 you know, for these people like that 

4 maintenance worker hypothetical example I gave 

5 where they're in there 24 days a year, they're 

6 in other areas the other 300 and whatev-- you 

7 know, 210 days a year, they were mon-- they 

8 probably were monitored in some of their work 

9 out there, so they can probably get a partial 

10 reconstruction of their dose in those other 

11 areas, but they -- they're not getting a full -

12 - you know, the -- the -- so it -- certainly if 

13 they're -- you know, if they never went into a 

14 -- if they never should have been monitored for 

15 neutrons, I would say they fall outside of this 

16 -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, but -- yeah, but -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- but, you know, that's the 

19 (unintelligible). 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- take someone who worked in a 

21 facility that's fully monitored and then they 

22 go somewhere completely different that's a -- 

23 an SEC facility. They have to get their 250 

24 days there. I'm -- that's -- I'm -- I -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
136

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: No, I know. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- a philosophical argument. Jim. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, several comments -- follow 

5 up. One is I don't think this is DOL's fault. 

6 I think this is our fault 'cause they-- they're 

7 trying to interpret our definition or NIOSH's 

8 class def-- definition in some way -- usually 

9 NIOSH's, but something we've worked out to -- 

10 but it's also ours. We'll take partial 

11 responsibility for this problem, and it doesn't 

12 go back to what's in the Act. This is the 

13 implementation of the SEC portion of the Act. 

14 We -- we -- we advised NIOSH to basically 

15 utilize the 250-day criteria for health 

16 endangerment that was taken from the Act, but -

17 - but we discussed that and, I think as Paul 

18 has just said, part of the problem is we -- we 

19 do struggle with what is -- how to interpret 

20 health endangerment. It's the problem we're 

21 having when we try to go below 250 days. 

22 Well, what do we mean by, you know, 

23 endangerment from a shorter time period than 

24 that. And I think we've also struggled with 

25 how -- how to best define individual classes, 
137

1 given the circumstances that we find at a -- at 

2 a particular site. I think what we've learned 

3 is that the more precisely we try to define or 

4 restrict the class, the more difficult -- I 

5 mean difficulty we have -- they -- we run into 

6 with these kinds of situations with people sort 

7 of moving from job to job or area to area. And 

8 if you look through the letters that we've, you 

9 know, approved at thi-- this meeting, we're 

10 always saying it's, you know, 250 days in 

11 either the -- the whole facility or certain 

12 buildings of the facility and so forth. And I 

13 -- I think Rocky Flats was unusual in that we 

14 specified monitored -- monitored for a specific 

15 exposure, though I think we did that also in 

16 some of the earlier S-- SECs. I'm trying to 

17 remember back. We -- we've gotten away from 

18 that, but there's just difficulty. And I think 

19 what we need to do is -- you know, if we're 

20 going to solve this Rocky Flats problem, to the 

21 extent there's a problem there, is -- is figure 

22 out is there a better way of defining that 

23 class. I don't think -- I can't particularly 

24 blame DOL for their interpretation or it may 

25 have been done differently, I may not 
138

1 understand this enough, but -- but I think it 

2 does come back to how we personally, as part of 

3 this Board, are defining classes in conjunction 

4 with -- with NIOSH, and I think that's what we 

5 need to -- to -- to focus on. But it is going 

6 to be 250 days and, as Paul has said, I think 

7 it's hard to get away from 250 days working in 

8 someplace. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: But then -- then in the -- on the 

10 practical side of things, too, the -- the 

11 things we're seeing in the news stories is that 

12 now, you know, people are trying to -- survivor 

13 claimants are trying to produce evidence that 

14 their -- their spouse worked -- not only worked 

15 in these buildings, 'cause they get -- they 

16 have, you know, coworkers testifying to that, 

17 but now they have to say worked in there for 

18 250 day-- you know, and it -- you know, it's a 

19 -- anyway... 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Unfortunately in many cases, not 

21 in this one but in many cases, the building 

22 location coincides with a type of exposure. We 

23 had that at -- for example, at the thermal 

24 diffusion plant in Oak Ridge, as I mentioned. 

25 So defining the type of exposure is the same as 
139

1 defining a building. But here you have 

2 something more complex and that's become a 

3 little -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: We -- we did talk about defining 

5 buildings here. I mean we remem-- if you 

6 remember back, we -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: We had long discussions about 

9 listing the buildings. Then we were concerned 

10 that we weren't at a point we -- we thought we 

11 might have overlooked a few so we wanted to 

12 leave it as -- and -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, and I don't know -- 

15 I mean hindsight is 20-20, I guess. But at the 

16 time I think the language -- we were trying to 

17 be inclusive and -- yeah, yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: But once -- once you say that's 

19 the area covered by the 250 days -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- then there still is this burden 

22 of showing that they've been in there, you see, 

23 250 -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Right, Department of Labor has to 

25 operationalize that, and they operationalize it 
140

1 not from the -- necessarily the records that 

2 we've even looked at. They're taking, you 

3 know, employment information, basically what 

4 they can get to -- to verify, plus, you know, 

5 affidavits and information provided by the 

6 claimants, which are often survivors and -- and 

7 so forth. But we never, you know, really 

8 consider what they have to do. We try to make 

9 sure that NIOSH has talked to them ahead of 

10 time, I think, with some of these class 

11 definitions, but I mean they -- they have a 

12 difficult -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: But I mean -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: -- job to do when it's not 

15 something we considered. Now I think -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I would -- I would refocus 

17 people on the language, though, 'cause I -- I 

18 mean I -- as -- as -- stepping back from this 

19 and looking -- I mean even -- you know, even 

20 interpreting it myself at first, but -- but 

21 certainly in the public, you know, monitored or 

22 should have been monitored for neutrons while -

23 - while working at the Rocky Flats site in 

24 Denver for a number of work days aggregating at 

25 least 250 work days, you know, so yeah, I was 
141

1 at the site for 250 days and I should have been 

2 monitored. I mean I can see that 

3 interpretation, for sure, and I'm not -- and I 

4 think that was my intent, actually. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: In -- this has been an 

6 interesting discussion. In reviewing your -- 

7 your charter, however, there are a couple -- 

8 only a few options open to you. When in 2007 

9 the Board took the recommendation from the 

10 workgroup and crafted its recommendation to the 

11 Secretary, and the Secretary always has at his 

12 disposal, using several documents, several 

13 pieces of information in making any recom-- any 

14 final recommen-- rather conclusion that he 

15 will. But in this case for Rocky Flats, the 

16 Secretary actually used the very -- verbatim 

17 language that the Board supplied. So for the 

18 Secretary's purposes, when he crafted his 

19 decision and sent it on to Congress and 

20 Congress on to the Department of Labor, it's a 

21 settled subject for the Secretary, and he took 

22 your language. 

23 This exercise that I think you all have -- that 

24 the workgroup has done I think has helped, I -- 

25 I suspect and hope will help you all become 
142

1 crisper as you deliberate and look at the 

2 language you put forward for future 

3 recommendations to the Secretary. But in my 

4 discussions with Mr. Griffon and listening to 

5 the workgroup discussions over the last couple 

6 of months, where I think you're going to be 

7 most effective is in directing your concern 

8 about the way your recommended class is being 

9 implemented, and that's with the Department of 

10 Labor. And so I would suggest that you 

11 consider inviting the Department of Labor to be 

12 able to hear specifically your concerns about 

13 how your class recommenda-- recommendation is 

14 being implemented, and any further concerns 

15 that you have. I think that's where you're 

16 going to be most effective at this juncture. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I -- and I -- I guess I 

18 agree with that. I mean we had the Department 

19 of Labor quite involved in this one and in Y20 12, and I think we came up short on both, 

21 actually. But you know, I think we're learning 

22 more now and, you know, I think we want to 

23 avoid these repercussions, that's the main -- I 

24 think everybody wants to avoid that, so... 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius? 
143

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, my question on what you just 

2 said, Christine, is that my understanding from 

3 a newspaper article I read was that the 

4 Department of Labor has at least implied that 

5 they will -- they are expecting any change to 

6 come or any responses to come in the form of a 

7 recommendation from the Secretary. That was, I 

8 believe, a quote from Shelby Hallmark saying 

9 that if the Secretary of Health and Human 

10 Services sent him some clarifying information 

11 or over to DOL, it would -- then they would -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Consider it. 

13 DR. MELIUS: -- would consider it. Now I don't 

14 have any problem with trying to include DOL 

15 representative in meetings and so forth, but I 

16 -- I think before we -- we decide that that's 

17 an adequate path forward, I think it would be 

18 good to have some clarification from the 

19 Department of Labor, and maybe it can come at 

20 this workgroup meeting or however you want to 

21 do it, about what would be the appropriate way 

22 to impact their -- the decision and 

23 implementation, you know, if that's 

24 appropriate. I think... 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Just according to your charter -- 
144

1 the Secretary of HHS has not requested that 

2 from the Board at this juncture, and according 

3 to your charter, the pro-- the provision that 

4 I've just described is the one that I think is 

5 the best one for you. When I look back over 

6 the charter language for the Advisory Board, 

7 you have executed and followed along the lines 

8 that are prescribed for you. At this juncture 

9 the HHS Secretary has not been approached by 

10 the Department of Labor to provide said 

11 clarification, and that -- and the Secretary 

12 has not of course in turn as-- your -- that -- 

13 come back to this Advisory Board asking for 

14 your advice. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Well, I don't think sort of a 

16 bureaucratic -- 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Well, and I don't -- I don't mean 

18 to be that, either, but -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- 'cause what -- what you're, you 

20 know, who -- who approaches whom, what-- 

21 whatever, I -- I think -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: I'm just trying to help you all -

23 - 

24 DR. MELIUS: -- I'm just reporting what Shelby 

25 Hallmark has said in a newspaper. Maybe he 
145

1 didn't say that, either. I don't -- I don't 

2 know, but -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: I'm just trying to help you be as 

4 effective as possible. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I might ask Larry, has -- has 

8 Labor talked to NIOSH at all about any 

9 struggles on interpreting this, or do they -- 

10 do they feel like it's not been a problem from 

11 their perspective in terms of enacting the -- 

12 the requirements as it's now defined? 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: The short answer to that question 

14 is they've asked us on several points to -- to 

15 consult with them from the very start of the -- 

16 when the -- when the Board took its action. 

17 They've asked us -- you know, they've shared 

18 with us their screening criteria, those three 

19 steps that they take. They talked to us -- we 

20 talked to them about inclusion or non-inclusion 

21 of Building 881, I think it was, and why -- you 

22 know, why they were doing that. We wanted to 

23 understand that. We provided them comment on 

24 that action. So yes, there's been an exchange 

25 between us and them on how this class should be 
146

1 administered. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And let me ask you or the 

3 workgroup, if you know the answer, is it being 

4 administered in terms of, number one, defining 

5 the buildings where neutrons are present and 

6 then looking at who worked in those buildings, 

7 and then imposing the 250-day requirement on 

8 those individuals? I think -- 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I think Jeff Kotsch is here 

10 and Jeff could speak to this particular -- 

11 there -- there's been two bulletins issued by 

12 DOL on how to -- how their claims examiner's to 

13 administer this class. I think if Jeff wants 

14 to speak about it, he's better served than I am 

15 to speak about exactly what guidance they've 

16 given to the claims examiner. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Mark, I gathered from what 

18 you were saying that what I described is how 

19 it's being implemented, as far as you know. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean he -- Jeff can 

21 speak -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: They're having to show 250 days in 

23 buildings where neutrons are present. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right, but I think there's -- 

25 there's -- there's a tri-- a sort of triage 
147

1 steps, right? And Jeff -- Jeff should go 

2 through them. I didn't want to step through 

3 the whole bulletin, but Jeff can go through 

4 them -- 

5 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, I mean there's three 

6 criteria -- criteria that are used, and they 

7 were -- they were stated in the first bulletin 

8 and just -- there was some clarifying 

9 information in the second bulletin. First 

10 criterion is inclusion on the NDRP, the Neutron 

11 Dose Reconstruction Project, which is over 

12 5,000 individuals. If you meet that -- if 

13 you're on that list, you're automatically into 

14 the class. 

15 The next criterion -- these don't have to be in 

16 order, but the next criterion is employment in 

17 -- 250 days of work in one of the buildings 

18 that, in consultation with NIOSH, we determined 

19 to be neutron buildings, and I think there's 

20 ten of those. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And Jeff, is that determined by -- 

22 by their building -- some sort of official 

23 assignment? How do you -- 

24 MR. KOTSCH: It's -- it howev-- whatever 

25 evidence can put us -- can allow the claims 
148

1 examiner to put people into those buildings for 

2 250 days. It may be employment information, it 

3 may be stuff on -- it could be affidavits, it 

4 could be things on medical reports that showed 

5 that, you know, they were -- happened to be 

6 working in the building at that time, but -- 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

8 work histories. 

9 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, work histories, things like 

10 that. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: But you -- you also said -- I 

12 need to correct this because this is a -- this 

13 is a misunderstanding that the claimants have, 

14 and it's been propagated by this news reporter. 

15 It's not 250 days in a building. It's 250 days 

16 in any one of those building, accum-- 

17 aggregate. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Collective, yeah. 

19 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, I'm sorry, it's in -- time 

20 spent in any of those -- what we consider to be 

21 the neutron buildings, and then the -- so if 

22 you've made it through those two and it -- most 

23 people that are being put into the class are -- 

24 are being caught by those two screens, 

25 basically. 
149

1 And then the final -- what I call the final 

2 screen or the criterion is the 100 -- 100 

3 millirem crit-- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

5 NIOSH does the dose (unintelligible). 

6 MR. KOTSCH: Well, I'm sorry, it's the NIOSH 

7 dose reconstruction and determination of 

8 whether there -- or the identification of 

9 whether there was neutron dose. And then what 

10 the second bulletin basically did was provide 

11 additional guidance in the form of the 100 

12 millirem dose for an annual -- annual dose. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: I think this -- this third 

14 criterion where NIOSH has produced a dose 

15 reconstruction that mentions neutron exposure 

16 being included placed us all in a trap, too, 

17 because in our efficiency process we might have 

18 given an overestimate and said we don't know if 

19 he was, but we're going to give him some 

20 neutron dose anyway. And so without -- that's 

21 not associated with any building, just trying 

22 to prove that the claim is non-compensable. 

23 And so when DOL saw some of those kinds of 

24 claims coming through and their claims examiner 

25 saw that mentioned and they thought well, that 
150

1 means that person was truly in an exposed 

2 situation so we should -- we should include 

3 them. And then when they developed it more, 

4 they excluded them. So... 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And -- and the pro-- the 

6 interim problem there was that some of those 

7 people were notified that they were included, 

8 and then they were excluded, I believe -- 

9 MR. KOTSCH: Well, as a follow-up to that, the 

10 working group call that I was on, I guess a 

11 couple of weeks ago, I spoke to Congressman 

12 Udall's staffer and Denver had identif-- or 

13 Denver office had identified six recommended 

14 decisions that were caught in this change of -- 

15 or reinterpretation by our Final Adjudication 

16 Branch with the new bulletin. They were caught 

17 by, you know, looking at the 100 millirem 

18 thing. Actually it was -- it was other things, 

19 too, but -- so there were six recommended 

20 decisions that Denver FAB basically has 

21 identified as requiring -- you know, they were 

22 then remanded back to the District Office to be 

23 looked at again under the new bulletin, so I 

24 don't -- that review is ongoing. I know one of 

25 those cases has -- is actually -- the employee 
151

1 is actually on the NDRP list so that case will 

2 continue to be an acceptance. I don't know how 

3 the other ones will shake out. But actually I 

4 do know that none of those actually involve 100 

5 millirem question, as far as neutrons go. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

7 DR. MELIUS: While you're up there, Jeff, just 

8 a question, and maybe Larry can answer also. I 

9 don't recall another case where we've ended up 

10 with this sort of threshold issue regarding, 

11 you know, monitoring for -- for something in 

12 quite this way, where we've ended up relying on 

13 NIOSH's dose reconstruction. Is this unique or 

14 is this -- 

15 MR. KOTSCH: I think this is actually the first 

16 one where it's actually been -- or where -- 

17 first of all, any kind of external dose has 

18 actually been mentioned specifically. All the 

19 -- all the other classes -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no, they're 

21 not -- 

22 MR. KOTSCH: -- (unintelligible). 

23 DR. MELIUS: Right, there's not a lot of them 

24 and -- that's right, so probably would be. 

25 Okay, I'm just -- 
152

1 MR. KOTSCH: It -- we're not -- we're not happy 

2 to have to -- have to go on through the 

3 gyrations that -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's -- 

5 MR. KOTSCH: -- you know, to try to fit the 

6 definition, or interpret the definition. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: But at the same time, Department 

9 of Labor has not in any official way asked for 

10 any change or any clarification of the original 

11 definition. Is that correct? 

12 MR. KOTSCH: I'm not aware that -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

14 MR. KOTSCH: -- you know, my management has 

15 asked for any. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and if it's -- if we're sort 

17 of waiting for, for example, the Secretary of 

18 Health and Human Services saying well, I'm not 

19 going to do anything unless the Secretary of 

20 Labor asks for something -- 

21 DR. BRANCHE: He hasn't said that. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- and he hasn't said that, 

23 then nothing happens here anyway. I think what 

24 Mark perhaps was suggesting was is there a way 

25 to feed some concerns into the system, either 
153

1 about definition or about the implementation of 

2 that, although it's not clear to me that all of 

3 us on the Board view that as the same -- in the 

4 same way. I -- I mean I -- I had always 

5 thought, at least for other facilities, that we 

6 only counted time in the defined facilities, 

7 not in other areas, either at other sites or 

8 coexisting with those, but -- anyway. 

9 DR. MELIUS: Can -- can I just suggest -- I 

10 mean go back to our recommendation where we 

11 just discussed earlier as -- is can the 

12 workgroup get together with someone from DOL or 

13 Jeff again or whoever and -- I mean first of 

14 all I think we have to establish is it -- does 

15 the workgroup have a concern with the way it's 

16 being imp-- implemented in terms of what the 

17 original intent was of -- of -- of the 

18 recommendation and -- and so forth. And then 

19 is there -- is there a better way of -- some 

20 way of resolving that and so forth. And 

21 whether it's a -- you know, a change at DOL if 

22 DOL thinks that's appropriate, a change that -- 

23 in terms of some action that the Board should 

24 take, then the Board -- then, you know, the 

25 workgroup comes back to the Board and we all 
154

1 talk about it, but I -- is that... 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I don't know that the 

3 work-- workgroup can meet with DOL, per se, you 

4 know. I don't know that we're -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Well, I mean -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's under our charter to -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- Jeff met with you. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 DR. MELIUS: I just -- I'm not -- I'm not -- I 

10 don't -- I can't speak for DOL, but I -- they 

11 participate -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I mean -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: -- in a lot of the workgroup 

14 meetings so I -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: You can -- you can do it as a -- 

16 you can do it as a workgroup, you can do it as 

17 the full Board, it -- I -- I think that -- I'm 

18 just suggesting I think that's one of the best 

19 ways to be as effective about this particular 

20 issue as possible, at least as a -- as a good -

21 - good first step in having your issues 

22 addressed by the very body with whom you're 

23 most concerned. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we've heard how it's being 

25 implemented. 
155

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: So what additional -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and -- and you, you 

4 know... 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- information is needed from DOL 

6 at -- at that point. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I think, you know, the 

8 -- the question -- I -- I think I'd want to sit 

9 down with the -- the question on the cases, the 

10 -- the six cases, but I think that's from the 

11 first bulletin to the second bulletin. I'm 

12 still not clear how many people are -- are not 

13 included in the -- in the class based on the 

14 analysis of the criteria, of all -- all three, 

15 you know, triage criteria. I don't know if you 

16 can answer that now, but... 

17 MR. KOTSCH: I -- I don't know the answer to 

18 that. I know that a large bulk of the people 

19 that have gone through have been caught by what 

20 I call the first two screens. You know, the 

21 building screen and the -- the NDRP list. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, so then my -- my 

23 question would be, on the building screen, you 

24 know, that -- that would be a question that we 

25 would have and we've raised on our workgroup 
156

1 level, but that's more of a -- that's more of a 

2 background question on -- on looking maybe at 

3 the University of Colorado data and, you know, 

4 are there other people that were unmonitored 

5 that went into these areas. I mean -- and -- 

6 and should have been -- this "should have been 

7 monitored" question, is it being -- you know, 

8 from a -- from the ground level standpoint, if 

9 you have -- and I'll go to the -- the sort of 

10 worst case, when you have a survivor, that's -- 

11 that's obviously the least information from the 

12 CATI and other things, so you rely more on the 

13 work history. And if you just have the job 

14 cards, you may say Building 334, the 

15 maintenance building, so then without those 

16 coworkers coming forward for those claimants, 

17 you would deny them on that basis, I believe. 

18 So then you're putting the -- I feel you're 

19 putting more of a burden on those individuals, 

20 if we find in a review of this that a lot of 

21 those people were not -- were not monit-- if -- 

22 if there was any kind of prevalence of this 

23 activity that we can -- we find a situation -- 

24 and I'm not saying we found this yet 'cause we 

25 haven't -- you know, but if we found a 
157

1 situation where there were a lot of maintenance 

2 folks that were going into neutron areas that 

3 were not badged at all, or -- or -- or -- I -- 

4 I guess the-- there's some nuance in here, too, 

5 'cause people -- some of those maintenance 

6 workers could have certainly been badged for 

7 gamma, but in the NDRP program they never -- 

8 they never saw them as neutron workers so they 

9 never put them in the NDRP project, they never 

10 corrected their gamma dose and -- and made it a 

11 notional neutron dose so they wouldn't be 

12 captured in there at all. So you know, is -- 

13 is the -- I guess that's the question for -- 

14 for the NIOSH side or for the workgroup side. 

15 It's not so much a DOL question, though, I 

16 don't think. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Well, I -- I -- I think it's a DOL 

18 question only in the sense of we've got to 

19 figure out how do you connect what's that 

20 definition with what information DOL's going to 

21 be able to have available to them for their 

22 claims processors to make this decision. And I 

23 -- I can't tell -- you know, I'm not familiar 

24 enough with the site and the information to 

25 know, but -- but it seems to me there'd be some 
158

1 benefit now -- and we -- we make the 

2 recommendation, DOL looks at it, say yeah, we 

3 think we can, you know, implement this based on 

4 what we know, but that's before they actually 

5 try to implement it. Now they -- once they've 

6 tried to implement it, then they run into, you 

7 know, what's exactly on these cards, what's 

8 information -- this is a particularly 

9 complicated one -- kind of definition to 

10 implement, more complicated than maybe even we 

11 thought, and -- and I think some discussion of 

12 what they have available and is, you know, is 

13 that, you know, appropriate and is the problem 

14 our definition, is the problem the 

15 implementation, is there no problem at all. I 

16 just don't think we know and some discussion 

17 might be useful. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me, though, this last 

19 question is simply one of identifying neutron 

20 workers, aside from -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Aside from the 250-day thing, 

22 yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- aside from the 250-day issue, 

24 and -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 
159

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- even aside from the building, 

2 they -- they still have the burden of 

3 identifying the neutron workers, regardless of 

4 this definition, do they not? 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and -- and -- and -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's in the class, so -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- all I'm saying is I think for 

9 that issue, that issue is outside of this 

10 definition in terms of how -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- if we're capturing them 

13 correctly -- I mean the neutron's a starting 

14 point for their capture. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. MELIUS: But -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So regardless of how we view the 

18 250-day issue and where else you can be in the 

19 site or what counts towards things, they still 

20 have to do that, so -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: But I -- but I think we know -- I 

22 mean I think I understand, if -- if -- 

23 certainly every time we meet we clarify a 

24 little more, but I think I understand how DOL 

25 is interpreting that. It's basically, you 
160

1 know, if they -- it's the NDRP buildings plus 

2 881. I think you've added on that one -- 881 

3 building, so -- but -- and that's all on the 

4 work history information, I believe. Jeff, is 

5 that correct, or... I mean or -- or other -- 

6 if they've provided other documents to you, 

7 yeah. 

8 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, certainly it wou-- could be 

9 there. I'm not going to guarantee you -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

11 MR. KOTSCH: -- it's always there. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark has sort of been 

14 asking if -- if we wish the workgroup -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- to do -- to do more in 

17 following this up. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the only thing I -- I -- I 

19 guess I can add is that Margaret Ruttenber said 

20 the data -- and we talked about this in our 

21 technical call with her, that the University of 

22 Colorado data was going to be turned over to 

23 NIOSH, and most of that dose data I don't think 

24 is any different than what we've seen, but she 

25 apparently does have some, you know, more job 
161

1 detail data which she in-- at least I got the 

2 impression that that may shed some light on 

3 some of this, is what she suggested to me, 

4 anyway. So that may be something to follow up 

5 on, but I don't know how -- if that's been made 

6 available yet, Larry, or if that's still in the 

7 works -- yeah, yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Let me get some clarity, though, 

9 from the workgroup. Is the -- is the main 

10 concern right now how the 250-day part is 

11 implemented vis-a-vis various buildings versus 

12 non-neutron areas on the site? Is that the 

13 prem-- I mean I heard -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I have both -- I have 

15 both -- or I don't know that one's worse than -

16 - one's more than the other for me, but those 

17 "should have been monitored" que-- identifying 

18 the neutron workers is the first thing that 

19 we're really targeted on, and then the 250-day 

20 thing came up kind of later -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And you have to do that, 

22 regardless. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and Jeff described two 

25 methods which apparently catch at least a large 
162

1 number of those. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I think it is 

3 interesting, though, to note that if they're in 

4 the NDRP database, my understanding is that 

5 they're automatically in the class, and they 

6 could have been in there for one cycle. They 

7 could have been this maintenance worker that 

8 happened to get monitored, got one -- you know, 

9 been in there for a month's job in their 30-

10 year career, and they're in the class. And yet 

11 these others that -- that have affidavits 

12 saying they worked in all these buildings over 

13 their ten years, they have to go back and -- 

14 and document the days that they were there -- 

15 or at least they aggregate how many days, so 

16 that -- I guess I'm having trouble with that, 

17 too, you know. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: That -- that might be looked on as 

19 kind of a fairness -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- issue, I suppose. Okay. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Or at -- or at least, you know, 

23 the -- the question of if -- if -- when we're 

24 not sure, we're going to err on the si-- we're 

25 not going to put the burden on the -- I think 
163

1 that's what we -- at least I've taken away from 

2 DOL most of the time is that if we're not sure, 

3 we're going to not put the burden on the 

4 claimant but we're going to assume they -- you 

5 know, give them the bur-- give them the benefit 

6 of the doubt. 

7 MR. KOTSCH: I mean the intent is to be 

8 claimant favorable -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

10 MR. KOTSCH: -- and to give the benefit of the 

11 doubt, but there has to be -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 MR. KOTSCH: -- some evidence (unintelligible) 

14 -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Of course, of course. 

16 MR. KOTSCH: -- and it's all looked at on a 

17 case by case basis, so even between cases, you 

18 know, it can vary, depending on the -- the 

19 depth of the actual evidence that's -- you 

20 know, for the -- present for each case. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: So I mean I -- I'm certainly 

22 willing to reconvene the workgroup and meet and 

23 -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Mark -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- have Jeff meet with us -- 
164

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me -- let me just ask you, 

2 what do you think the workgroup should do next, 

3 if -- if anything? What is your opinion? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we could -- we could at 

5 least go through all -- go through -- maybe get 

6 a detailed report from DOL on the -- that step7 wise implementation so we're all clear on it. 

8 We could report that back to the full Board. 

9 But I would also like to follow up on this -- 

10 there -- there's one outstanding action for 

11 these other workers that claim that they were 

12 working in those areas that were not monitored, 

13 and a few of them were mentioned in news 

14 stories and I think Brant had asked me to -- to 

15 relay the names, make sure we had the right 

16 people that we were tracking down, so -- so 

17 that would -- that's only a few individuals. I 

18 -- I wouldn't mind inviting Margaret Ruttenber 

19 to be on our next workgroup call, too, to see 

20 if she thinks looking at her data would -- 

21 would shed any light on -- on this -- this 

22 dilemma we have with -- with identifying 

23 neutron workers. And she may say, you know, it 

24 -- it's not going to be relevant or whatever, 

25 but I think it might be useful to bring her in 
165

1 as sort of her expert testimony to the 

2 workgroup. That -- that would be all -- all I 

3 would suggest. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: It's always interesting to get 

6 additional information, but I think it would be 

7 wise to bear in mind that, although this is a 

8 very complex site and involves a great many 

9 claimants, it also has a very robust database 

10 and we have a great deal of information with 

11 respect to the workers, who was monitored, 

12 where they worked. No one can define ever 

13 where everyone is at any -- at -- during every 

14 day of their -- of their working life. But 

15 this -- this group of data that we have are 

16 very full, and looking at it again never hurts, 

17 I guess, when you're looking from a different 

18 perspective, certainly talking with -- with 

19 Labor so that we have a better feel for exactly 

20 how their process works would perhaps be 

21 helpful for us. I would not anticipate, 

22 personally, that a great deal of additional 

23 information is going to come from the database 

24 that we don't already -- that we haven't 

25 already seen, that we don't already understand. 
166

1 But any time we can get some extra information 

2 from the Colorado folks, it's helpful. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further comments? Well, 

4 I'm certainly agreeable, Mark, if -- if you 

5 believe that'll be of some benefit and report 

6 back on the implementation by -- by Labor and 

7 perhaps give us a feel for what additional 

8 concerns there might be and whether we should 

9 take any proactive steps to make changes in 

10 some way. I mean although our recommendation 

11 went to the Secretary, I think the Secretary's 

12 always open to concerns of the Board. If we 

13 have concerns about a previous recommendation, 

14 I'm sure that we could set those forth. It may 

15 not be comfortable for our attorneys, but 

16 certainly -- well, you know, if we -- if we're 

17 concerned about a previous recommendation, 

18 wouldn't the Secretary be open to hearing those 

19 concerns? 

20 MS. HOWELL: You're welcome to send the 

21 Secretary a letter at any time stating your 

22 concerns. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

24 MS. HOWELL: But as Christine has mentioned, 

25 you're in kind of an area that is -- 
167

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 MS. HOWELL: -- bordering on outside of your 

3 charter and I will remind you all that -- and 

4 of course you're welcome to request that DOL be 

5 a part of your meetings. You have no control 

6 over them, so we'll -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's -- 

8 MS. HOWELL: -- see what happens with that. 

9 And I would remind everyone that, you know, 

10 this class -- the -- the determination has been 

11 made by the Secretary, so you are working 

12 within a -- some confines there and -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

14 MS. HOWELL: -- if the working group wants to 

15 continue to look at these specific questions -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, the -- 

17 MS. HOWELL: -- that's fine (unintelligible). 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- the other part of it, I think, 

19 it -- it does -- it may not change what we've 

20 done here, but it may also help us in the 

21 future as we define SECs at other facilities, 

22 to be cognizant of parameters that we might 

23 have otherwise overlooked. Thank you, Emily. 

24 Mark, I'll simply suggest that you proceed as 

25 you defined and report back to us. 
168

1 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's fine. You might 

2 ask on the phone if anyone has -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- comments they 

5 (unintelligible). 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- Terrie Barrie, do you have any 

7 comments for us? Is she... 

8 MS. BARRIE: Hello? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we hear her. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Terrie, go ahead. 

11 MS. BARRIE: Yes, I (unintelligible) hear 

12 (unintelligible) call my name (unintelligible). 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I just wondered if you had 

14 heard the discussion and the fact that the 

15 workgroup's going to look further into the 

16 implementation of the -- the current Special 

17 Exposure Cohort definition. Di-- did you have 

18 any additional comments for us? 

19 MS. BARRIE: Not really. (Unintelligible) 

20 program has always been (unintelligible) and 

21 that's what we (unintelligible) was added 

22 because one -- or Department of Labor 

23 identified neutron dose (unintelligible) and we 

24 (unintelligible) absolutely (unintelligible) 

25 implementation of the (unintelligible). 
169

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, thank you, Terrie. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other folks from -- 

4 representing the Rocky Flats constituents, any 

5 Congressional folks on the line? 

6 (No responses) 

7 Apparently not. Okay, thank you. 

8 MS. BARRIE: Thank you, Doctor. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, next item, workgroup 

10 assignments and, related to that, some tasking. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: And review -- review of the SEC 

12 petitions. 

13 REVIEW OF SEC PETITION WRITE-UPS

14 DR. ZIEMER: And we'll review the SEC petition 

15 wordings, also. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Sorry, Dr. Ziemer. One thing, we 

17 did have a letter from Senator Charles Schumer 

18 regarding the Linde site, and because it was a 

19 workgroup item and we just finished up the 

20 workgroups, can we have that letter read into 

21 the record? This copy's for you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Chia-Chia, would you be willing 

24 to read that letter? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, this is from Charles Schumer 
170

1 from -- from New York regarding the Linde 

2 Ceramics site profile. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: And then we can go on with the 

4 review of the petitions. 

5 MS. CHANG: Testimony of Senator Charles E. 

6 Schumer, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

7 Health, Linde Ceramics Site Profile and Dose 

8 Reconstructions, April 7 through 9, 2008. 

9 Thank you for the opportunity to address you 

10 today regarding the petition to add a class of 

11 the Special Exposure Cohort, SEC, for the Linde 

12 Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York. I am 

13 very supportive of this petition and I 

14 respectfully urge you to approve it promptly. 

15 NIOSH has already acknowledged the 

16 impossibility of accurately reconstructing a 

17 site profile at Linde for the time period from 

18 October 1st, 1942 through October 31st, 1947. 

19 Many of the same difficulties exist in the 

20 later period, which there-- which therefore 

21 also merits inclusion in the SEC. 

22 As with other sites in the New York area, the 

23 site profile for the Linde Ceramics facility 

24 during this time period is not definitively 

25 reflective of the conditions to which the 
171

1 workers were exposed. The workgroup has 

2 pointed to gaps in the data regarding the 

3 outdoor sources of radiation, especially the 

4 time line regarding burlap bags which were used 

5 for transporta-- transporting the uranium ore. 

6 Several employees have stated that the bags 

7 were stored behind a building where employees 

8 ate their lunches. I am not yet convinced that 

9 NIOSH has adequately accounted for the effect 

10 of this uranium ore on workers, especially if 

11 it is possible that workers were exposed to the 

12 toxic effects of uranium consumption in 

13 addition to external radiation. 

14 However, my largest concern with NIOSH's 

15 treatment of the question of these burlap bags 

16 is the Board's hesitancy to address the reports 

17 by the former employees themselves. When the 

18 former employees' testimonies conflict, as they 

19 do in this case, I believe that NIOSH should 

20 acknowledge the impossibility of developing an 

21 accurate site profile and instead establish a 

22 class to the SEC. 

23 I would also like to make sure that the Board 

24 is aware of a very recent development in the 

25 Linde workers' case. At the urging of myself 
172

1 and several of my colleagues in Congress, the 

2 Department of Labor has reversed its decision 

3 to redesignate four of the five buildings at 

4 the site from an Atomic Weapons Employer, AWE, 

5 facility to a Department of Energy, DOE, 

6 facility. Because EEOICPA Part B only provides 

7 residual radiation coverage for AWE facilities, 

8 not DOE. The redesignation of these buildings 

9 would have left the vast majority of former 

10 Linde workers without the compensation they 

11 deserve. I commend DOL for making the right 

12 decision in this situation. 

13 The former employees of the Linde Ceramics 

14 facility are the veterans and heroes of the 

15 Cold War. Their sacrifices and those of their 

16 families secured our nation's continued 

17 security and prosperity, and they deserve their 

18 nation's care. I urge you to grant, with all 

19 due speed, their application for inclusion in 

20 the SEC. 

21 Thank you for the opportunity to address you 

22 today. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. That's -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: That's it, now you're -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- all on that one. Okay. 
173

1 DR. BRANCHE: -- to Board working time, that's 

2 right. Everything's done up to then. 

3 NEW WORKGROUPS

4 DR. ZIEMER: Next I want to address the items 

5 relating to new workgroups. We have a backlog 

6 of site profiles that were discussed earlier. 

7 We also need to be thinking about how to 

8 address those. One of those that we have 

9 focused on here this week is Pinellas. We're 

10 here in the site of Pinellas. We've heard from 

11 some of the constituents, as well as 

12 Congressional folks. Also we have the 

13 opportunity now to appoint a workgroup to 

14 address Pinellas site profile and related 

15 issues. I -- I want to get concurrence from 

16 the Board to do so and then we'll ask for a 

17 motion, and if -- if that carries, we will 

18 appoint a chair and other members. 

19 Now Board members, do you -- do you wish to 

20 first look at the other issues before us, such 

21 as the streamlining issue and the -- the 

22 efforts -- or the discussion we had for SC&A on 

23 that, and also think about other site profiles 

24 that we may want to address or -- or SEC 

25 reviews? Do you want to sort of get the total 
174

1 picture first and then -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: I think the total picture first 

3 would be -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- helpful. We can decide whether 

6 we want to avoid -- or volunteer, which one we 

7 want to volunteer for. 

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

9 can leave now. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right now for site profile, the 

11 immediate one, at least in my mind, is 

12 Pinellas. 

13 For SEC reviews -- I have to go back and look 

14 at -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: The ones we've seen so far? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the ones where we ha-- we 

17 have identified where we need some focused 

18 assistance. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: We need -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I need -- need help here to -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Texas City Chemical. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: -- Texas City Chemical. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Texas City was -- that reminds me, 

24 we -- we did -- did we commit to Dan McKeel to 

25 notify him when -- 
175

1 DR. BRANCHE: I've notified him by e-mail. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: He asked me and I notified him. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: And Dan McKeel, are you on the 

5 line? 

6 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good, okay. Texas City, which 

8 would be an SEC focused review, probably. The 

9 other -- the other part of the overall picture 

10 would be to task SC&A to come back to us with a 

11 proposed -- well, basically a streamlining 

12 description -- I think, John, you've given us a 

13 description, but maybe the first step of what 

14 that would look like, so streamlining -- I'll 

15 call it that. And what else do we have? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Do you need Santa Susana? Do you 

17 already -- Santa Susana? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: I thought (unintelligible). 

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

20 taken care of (unintelligible) -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Santa Susana was a question 

22 whether we do the SEC. They're already doing 

23 the site profile on it. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: So it's just a matter of getting 

25 their -- okay. 
176

1 DR. MELIUS: Well, I -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: I think on Santa Susana it was a 

3 matter of identifying site profile issues that 

4 were -- or SEC issues that were in the site 

5 profile review. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: But that means they have to look 

7 at the SEC -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: They have to look at the SEC. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: They have to do the site profile, 

10 what -- and -- and as you do that, perhaps to 

11 help identify -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: Well -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- those issues. Right? 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- but there are issues 

15 that are -- we may want to take care of earlier 

16 relevant to the current class that's been 

17 recommended by NIOSH, so... 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right, but that means as they go 

19 through it, they will have to identify the SEC 

20 issues. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yeah, may I suggest -- we have our 

22 process for doing the site profile. What we 

23 will do is we'll layer in on top of that -- and 

24 I don't see this being very much of a 

25 perturbation -- reviewing the petition, the 
177

1 evaluation report, and identifying let's say 

2 those -- those issues that are inherent in the 

3 SEC-related aspect that -- that -- and maybe 

4 point out to you folks or a working group -- I 

5 don't believe we -- we have a working group yet 

6 -- those issues that are -- we're going to 

7 incorporate let's say early in the process. 

8 What -- what I'm getting at is that I -- I want 

9 to try -- I think I can integrate -- have the 

10 site profile move forward, but simultaneously 

11 make sure that we're hitting on the issues that 

12 are raised in the SEC petition and the 

13 evaluation report and report back to the wor-- 

14 a working group or the Board on how we would 

15 plan to do that. So in -- in effect, it would 

16 be a -- almost like a combined SEC -- but I 

17 don't -- I guess I'm saying that I don't see it 

18 as a formal complete SEC review. We will look 

19 into the issues and see if we -- the degrees to 

20 which we can work them into our site profile 

21 process. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: So it looks like we're looking at 

23 three workgroups, Pinellas, Texas City and 

24 Santa Susana. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: And Texas City and Santa Susana 
178

1 are SEC -- SEC review. Right? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And tasking -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- of our contractor on those 

5 reviews. The -- the Santa Susana is already 

6 underway as a site profile, so it's -- the 

7 tasking there would be to identify the SEC 

8 issues as part of that. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Uh-huh. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: The streamlining would be tasking 

11 them to take the first steps in identifying the 

12 common issues in the existing site profiles. 

13 The Texas City would be a -- would be an SEC 

14 tasking, but we need a workgroup to -- to help 

15 resolve those issues. 

16 DR. MAURO: If I -- if I may, I -- Texas City 

17 is -- I'd like to bring to the attention of the 

18 Board that, as I understand it, it's largely -- 

19 draws from surrogate data from other sites, so 

20 -- and I know there's been quite a discussion 

21 regarding that, so perhaps some integration of 

22 the surrogate data -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the surrogate data -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- workgroup is going to be 
179

1 looking at that, so maybe that can be done as -

2 - 

3 DR. MELIUS: Why -- why don't we try to do it 

4 in combination. If it turns out to be other 

5 issues or, you know, too much for us, we'll... 

6 DR. BRANCHE: One -- one thing about -- one 

7 thing that came to mind about the surrogate 

8 data issue -- Dr. Melius, just as -- do you 

9 intend to have an opportunity for your 

10 workgroup to convene to descr-- to discuss the 

11 criteria before you begin to implement the 

12 criteria on the examples that you described 

13 earlier? 

14 DR. MELIUS: No. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let -- let me clarify. I 

16 think what Christine is saying, we need to make 

17 sure that every-- that everyone on the 

18 workgroup agrees that those are the criteria 

19 before we ask them to use those criteria. It's 

20 -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the -- it -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: You've already got comments back. 

23 I think -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: I've already gotten comments back. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- what we're saying, we need to 
180

1 make sure that we have the final version and -- 

2 and this can be done very -- by e-mail 

3 probably. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Well, actually I was -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Or by phone, whatever. 

6 DR. MELIUS: No, no -- well, actually -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: -- what I proposed was different 

9 from that. Was rather than trying to get 

10 closure on the -- just the cri-- a cri-- 

11 criteria report -- a report on the criteria, 

12 'cause there are some differences among -- 

13 within the workgroup, that we do that in the 

14 context of also having reviewed -- being in the 

15 process of reviewing some particular applica-- 

16 applications. And in the course of doing -- 

17 applying this to the applications, I think 

18 it'll become clearer how to best word the 

19 criteria. The -- the issues among the Boar-- 

20 among the members of the workgroup are not 

21 about the general categories of the criteria. 

22 It's sort of more of the details of the 

23 criteria. And there's actually only one I 

24 think significant difference, and I -- and I 

25 think that's best resolved as we do the -- the 
181

1 applications. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you're suggesting that 

3 perhaps the final criteria would -- would come 

4 after we go through the exercise. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: But there has -- there has to be a 

7 starting point. Maybe I'll call it draft 

8 criteria. 

9 DR. MELIUS: That there -- there is -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And so make sure that the 

11 workgroup agrees what -- what the draft 

12 criteria that we use for them to use in that 

13 process, or whatever. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: My on-- my only concern is the -- 

15 the tracking and the vetting, and I understand 

16 the -- Dr. Melius, your wish to expedite this, 

17 but we're trying so hard for all aspects of the 

18 Board to be able to have as much information be 

19 open and -- open and -- and everything be 

20 available for everyone's understanding, and I -

21 - I'm concerned that in your wish for 

22 efficiency, perhaps some of the salient 

23 concerns that your workgroup colleagues may 

24 have are not ever com-- I don't have any e25 mails that share or line out how people on your 
182

1 workgroup -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Well, if you go back to the 

3 earlier conversation, I point out that I was 

4 going to share with the -- all of the Board 

5 members the -- the original -- the cri-- the 

6 draft criteria -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Uh-huh. 

8 DR. MELIUS: -- and -- along with Wanda's 

9 comments. And those are the only substantial 

10 comments that -- there. I mean I don't know 

11 what else you can -- want me to do. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Well -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: If you'd like us to have another 

14 meeting first, fine. But then I think -- don't 

15 expect to have a report by June. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I think the issue here 

17 was perhaps not one of efficiency per se; it 

18 was a matter of seeing whether these -- and the 

19 original draft criteria that you have actually 

20 work in a real life situation, because they may 

21 have to be modified based on -- on how they're 

22 applied, I -- I believe is -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so this -- I don't think was 

25 an idea of getting it done without a review 
183

1 first -- that is, codifying it and then using 

2 it, so much as figuring out whether or not 

3 we've codified the right thing -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: My point exactly. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: Well, if you want to do it in two 

7 steps, then I'd suggest that we schedule the 

8 June Board meeting, come back and we can review 

9 the criteria, have another workgroup meeting, 

10 that's -- I don't have any problem with that, 

11 but others were the ones that wanted to 

12 expedite so I'm trying to do both as 

13 efficiently as possible. I think -- lay out a 

14 plan and if you want to change it, fine. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: John? 

16 DR. MAURO: Am I correct to assume that we have 

17 been authorized to proceed with the review or 

18 the -- we're discussing review-- reviewing 

19 Texas City using -- as a starting point using 

20 the current set of four criteria, as best we 

21 can, and as we move through the process using 

22 those criteria for surrogate data, feed that 

23 back -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is the debate, whether 

25 -- whether these are the criteria, the accepted 
184

1 criteria, which in a sense has to be accepted 

2 by the full Board as our surrogate data 

3 criteria and applying them to Texas, or whether 

4 we consider them to be -- I don't know if I 

5 want to use the word draft or interim criteria 

6 that we are going to see how well it works with 

7 a test case -- namely Texas City -- and then, 

8 based on that, go back and develop what you 

9 might call the final set of criteria. 

10 DR. MAURO: It was my understanding it was the 

11 latter. That is, we'll sta-- we'll -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think that's -- was being 

13 proposed, but the concern was whether it should 

14 be codified first and -- which -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: I just want an open airing of -- 

16 so that everyone understands what steps are 

17 being taken. That's -- that's my initial 

18 caution. And if we're going to call them 

19 interim, call them interim and make certain 

20 that we have an opportunity -- you know, SC&A, 

21 NIOSH, the Board members, all have an 

22 opportunity to at least be able to wa-- follow 

23 the steps that have been taken. 

24 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I -- that was already 

25 proposed as part of the steps. SC&A is -- has 
185

1 been involved in the development of these, as 

2 has -- and I said I would circulate to other 

3 members of the Board. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: We have a little over one month 

6 before our next full Board call. Are we not 

7 scheduled in May? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Oh Board call, the Board call, 

9 yes. 

10 MS. MUNN: We are -- the Board call in May. 

11 That should be adequate time for -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: May 14th. 

13 MS. MUNN: -- these criteria -- proposed 

14 criteria -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Proposed, interim. 

16 MS. MUNN: -- to be submitted to the entire 

17 Board for everyone's full attention and 

18 concerns to be identified. If there are 

19 changes that need to be made, that should still 

20 provide us adequate time to suggest those -- 

21 those changes. And at our Board call we could 

22 at that time, it seems to me, get the agreement 

23 of the Board to serve -- for -- for this set of 

24 criteria to serve as an interim, if you would 

25 like to use that, and as a test case with Texas 
186

1 City. That seems -- step by step, logical 

2 approach and would make it possible for us to 

3 have it ready to make a decision on at our 

4 Board call. 

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

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I just would question, 

7 after the May -- when -- what date's the May -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: May 14th. 

9 DR. MELIUS: -- May 14th, there's about five 

10 weeks, six weeks -- I don't count -- and 

11 whether there'll be time then to apply them and 

12 get a report back and have a workgroup meeting 

13 to discuss that report. Now if that's the wish 

14 of the Board to do it in that step-wise 

15 fashion, fine. But I'd just -- would point out 

16 that we would then not be able to discuss these 

17 issues I don't think in a meaningful fashion 

18 until sometime in the following Board meeting. 

19 I don't know what it is after June. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Actually I'm not sure legally, 

21 Jim, whether we can develop the final version 

22 by e-mail outside the public arena, anyway. It 

23 may be that we need to have that -- and maybe 

24 Emily can help me here -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: But still -- but it's a workgroup 
187

1 -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: It's a workgroup -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I understand that, but we're -- 

4 we're also trying to keep all of our workgroup 

5 stuff open. 

6 MS. HOWELL: I'm not sure I understand the 

7 question. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- one -- one proposal 

9 would be for all the Board -- Jim -- Jim would 

10 circulate the materials and collect the 

11 comments -- right? 

12 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- and then we would have the 

14 interim draft and feed that on to SC&A so the -

15 - the process could get underway I guess within 

16 a week or so. 

17 A second alternative would be, which is -- 

18 slows it down a bit -- would be to have final 

19 approval of these -- of this interim set of 

20 guidelines at the -- Wanda was pointing out we 

21 have a meeting coming up in a month. Should 

22 that be the point where there's a sort of 

23 formal approval of those. I'm really asking do 

24 we in fact need to have such an -- a public 

25 approval. I understand this is a working 
188

1 document. The workgroups are not required by 

2 law to have open activities. But nonetheless, 

3 we have been doing that, but is there any legal 

4 problem with doing what Dr. Melius described -- 

5 I think what you described, Jim, was a little 

6 more accelerated. I don't want to 

7 misinterpret. You would collect the data -- or 

8 the information and distribute it, you know, 

9 what, within a week or whatever your timetable 

10 is. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 MS. HOWELL: There's no problem with a working 

13 group doing working group activities on e-mail. 

14 I think, you know, you all have done that in 

15 the past. I mean if it became -- I mean if it 

16 was to a degree where nothing was happening in 

17 meetings and people, you know, in the agency 

18 and what-not weren't privy to what's going on, 

19 then that might be an issue. But they can 

20 exchange e-mails on this. Obviously what you 

21 were suggesting doing is just the Board's 

22 suggestion about looking at these criteria, and 

23 anything further than that I don't think is on 

24 the table at this point. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: If we ask for input for the full 
189

1 Board -- from the full Board, is that still -- 

2 MS. HOWELL: If you're -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- for -- on behalf of the 

4 workgroup, can the workgroup ask for that and 

5 do that by e-mail? I think we're talking about 

6 -- 

7 MS. HOWELL: Then you're getting into a little 

8 bit more of a problematic area. I think if 

9 you're -- are you talking about the equivalent 

10 of Board discussion, but doing it -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: No. 

12 MS. HOWELL: -- over e-mail? 

13 DR. MELIUS: No, individual comments, which is 

14 what we do on letters and so forth. 

15 MS. HOWELL: Right, and you can take individual 

16 comments, and then I would presume that those 

17 would be shared in a new draft document? I'm 

18 trying to follow -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think so, that's what 

20 we're talking about. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, something like that. I mean 

22 -- I mean the conundrum we have is that you -- 

23 you know, you also have a policy that we worry 

24 about sort of public access to this information 

25 or -- or reports. We also have a policy where 
190

1 you can't put draft documents on the web site, 

2 so it's -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: NIOSH doesn't put draft documents 

4 on the web site. The Board is free to do that. 

5 MS. HOWELL: This is a Board document -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

7 MS. HOWELL: -- working group document. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: The -- the tension here is 

9 transparency and, and as Dr. Melius has 

10 described, its speed, and I'm just trying to 

11 make certain that the issue of transparency -- 

12 I don't want to belabor the point. I'm just 

13 raising the issue of trying to make certain 

14 that we maintain transparency. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's do the -- 

16 DR. MELIUS: In which case you sacrifice being 

17 able to do it in June. I mean that's not -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right -- 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Exactly. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- right, right. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: That -- there's always that 

22 tension. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Here -- here's -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Thi-- this came up because of 

25 Bethlehem, and -- and-- 
191

1 DR. ZIEMER: Let me propose something, if the 

2 attorneys are comfortable with this, that Dr. 

3 Melius collect individual comments, develop the 

4 -- the draft. We can official-- and transmit 

5 that to SC&A so they can get underway. We can 

6 officially also put that at our -- at our Board 

7 meeting, our phone meeting, also as a report 

8 from the workgroup, can report the -- the 

9 wording of the draft so that it's in the 

10 record. And -- but at the same time SC&A can -

11 - can be moving ahead with that. Is there any 

12 -- any problem with that, legally? What I'm 

13 trying to do is -- is get us underway. We'll 

14 still have the material out there in a pretty 

15 timely fashion for members of the public. 

16 MS. HOWELL: I -- I think that's fine. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Then I will 

18 expect you to do that. And Jim, you're willing 

19 to then in a sense be the keeper of the Texas 

20 City work-- call it the Texas City -- you're 

21 serving temporarily as a Texas City workgroup 

22 person. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Correct. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and I want to relay that to 

25 -- to Dr. McKeel because he had -- particularly 
192

1 was interested in us having -- addressing some 

2 issues that he had, and those hopefully will be 

3 addressed in the context of what we're doing, 

4 but the main focus of this of course is on the 

5 use of surrogate data, and I believe that was 

6 one of the petitioners' concerns, in any event. 

7 Dan, I'd certainly be glad to have you comment, 

8 if you wish to. 

9 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Dan McKeel. I 

10 really appreciate this approach. I like the 

11 approach and I think Texas City is a wonderful 

12 example where (unintelligible) totally relying 

13 on surrogate data and my question relates to I 

14 guess the question or the comment that Mark 

15 Griffon made yesterday, and that is that the 

16 doses assigned are high at Texas City in the 

17 NIOSH evaluation report, but are they 

18 appropriate, and it's the appropriateness that 

19 I think needs to be looked at, and I would be 

20 very happy if Dr. Melius's workgroup would take 

21 this on, together with SC&A. I think that 

22 would be terrific. I think (unintelligible) 

23 all learn a lot and I -- I would be very happy 

24 with that sort of approach. 

25 The only thing I'd ask is -- I know there's 
193

1 been a problem about sharing any e-mails with 

2 petitioners, so to the extent possible I would 

3 simply ask -- I certainly would like to be in 

4 on the process of applying the criteria for 

5 surrogate data to Texas City SEC, to the extent 

6 possible. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly to the extent we're able 

8 to do that, we will. 

9 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you very much. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Can I then be -- ask one question, 

12 to be clear. Do -- should SC&A start work 

13 applying the -- the draft criteria of the 

14 surrogate workgroup to Texas City and Bethlehem 

15 prior to the May 17th (sic) call? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: What I suggested is that we -- 

17 what I asked Emily is -- is exactly that, that 

18 -- 

19 MS. HOWELL: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- that they be allowed to do 

21 that, but we would make it pub-- make the 

22 document public if it -- 

23 MS. HOWELL: Well, then I misunderstood your 

24 question -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry. 
194

1 MS. HOWELL: -- I think. My understanding from 

2 the discussion is that the criteria that you 

3 have been before you now has not been fully 

4 vetted, or at least no one has seen how the 

5 comments that have been made have been 

6 integrated -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

8 MS. HOWELL: -- into the criteria. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

10 MS. HOWELL: And my understanding was that I 

11 guess those changes or whatever would be made, 

12 there would be a consensus among the working 

13 group, at which time SC&A could be tasked. But 

14 right now, from what I've heard from you all, 

15 it does not appear that SC&A has something from 

16 the working group to be tasked with, that the 

17 working group has agreed upon. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. What I think is 

19 being proposed is that Dr. Melius would seek 

20 input -- individual input from all the Board 

21 members. A -- a draft would be prepared from 

22 that. That draft would be distributed back to 

23 the Board. We could certainly seek workgroup 

24 approval of that draft by phone, Dr. Melius, if 

25 that's a needed step in there. 
195

1 MS. HOWELL: I think once the working group has 

2 approved the -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and once -- 

4 MS. HOWELL: -- new draft, then they can -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- once that's done -- 

6 MS. HOWELL: -- be tasked. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- then it -- I hadn't had -- 

8 included that, but certainly we could include 

9 that in there, and then move it to SC&A for 

10 work. And then at the -- at the Board meeting, 

11 as a report from the workgroup, they could 

12 report on what those draft criteria were and 

13 what has transpired. 

14 MS. HOWELL: I think that that would be 

15 appropriate. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: That would work. And Jim, are you 

17 okay with that, too? 

18 DR. MELIUS: I'm fine, but -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I'll make sure (unintelligible). 

20 DR. MELIUS: -- again -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: It's just one extra step and 

22 that's getting the workgroup to -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Have a consensus, and I don't 

24 think that'll be possible -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, a consensus that -- that 
196

1 that's the -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- the draft that -- that SC&A 

4 will work with, so I -- I don't think that 

5 requires the workgroup to agree that those are 

6 the final documents. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Again -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Let's try that, anyway. 

9 DR. MELIUS: Fine, but then, again -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

11 DR. MELIUS: -- just for the record -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

13 DR. MELIUS: -- it's unclear that we'll be 

14 finished by June. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the only extra step is that 

16 phone call, so -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: I'll stand by what I just said, 

18 Dr. Ziemer. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I -- I think it's a 

20 fair way to do it, and if it takes longer, 

21 it'll have to take a little longer. That's all 

22 right. 

23 Okay. Now, let's -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: You were -- Pinellas, 

25 streamlining Santa Susana. 
197

1 DR. ZIEMER: Let's -- I would ask for a -- if 

2 the group agrees, that we establish a workgroup 

3 for Pinellas. Is there a motion? 

4 MR. SCHOFIELD: I'd like to chair that. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have one yet. Are you 

6 making a motion -- 

7 MR. SCHOFIELD: I'm making a motion that we 

8 have a workgroup, since we're here for these 

9 people. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, is there a second? 

11 DR. POSTON: I second. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: I'll second the motion. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Any -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: He was just seconding. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Any discussion? 

17 (No responses) 

18 All in favor, aye? 

19 (Affirmative responses) 

20 Opposed? 

21 (No responses) 

22 Abstentions? 

23 (No responses) 

24 Motion carries. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Was there an abstention? 
198

1 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

2 MS. MUNN: No. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: We therefore will have a workgroup 

4 for Pinellas. The Chair is authorized to 

5 appoint the members. I heard a -- I heard a 

6 volunteer for chair. Mr. Schofield, we'll be 

7 pleased to have you chair that. I think I 

8 heard Mr. Presley volunteer -- 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, I very much want -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- to be on that workgroup. 

11 That's two, I'd like to get at least two others 

12 -- John Poston has volunteered and Brad Clawson 

13 -- and okay, Mike Gibson, would you be an 

14 alternative on that, so -- 

15 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we have four members and 

17 alternate. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Gibson is the alternate? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. I saw him last, so -- 

20 DR. BRANCHE: So -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- if you want to work out a trade 

22 with one of the others, you can let me know, 

23 but -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: -- I just want to -- if I can 

25 just reread that, I've got Mr. Schofield as the 
199

1 chair, then Mr. Presley, Dr. Poston, Mr. 

2 Clawson on the workgroup, with Mr. Gibson as 

3 the alternate unless I heard you all fighting 

4 over that. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's it. That's it. 

6 Then we also need a group to address the Santa 

7 Susana issues. 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: I'd be interested in that. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Would someone like to make a 

10 motion that we have a workgroup for Santa 

11 Susana. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: I so make a motion. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded? 

14 DR. POSTON: Second. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any discussion? 

16 (No responses) 

17 All in favor, aye? 

18 (Affirmative responses) 

19 Opposed? 

20 (No responses) 

21 Abstentions? 

22 (No responses) 

23 Motion carries. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: I'd be interested in that. 

25 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I'm interested 
200

1 in (unintelligible). 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's see, anyone want to 

3 chair that? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'll -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Mike? You've got too many -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Too many chairs? All right, I'll 

7 -- I'll pass the chair. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: We'll -- let's get the names 

9 again. Let's see who we've got, we've got -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Griffon, Beach, Gibson. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- Griffon, Beach, Gibson -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Munn. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- Munn, that's four. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Who's going to chair? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Was there anyone else? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: I'm sorry, Schofield, Schofield. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: And Schofield, okay. Who would -- 

18 besides Mark, who would like to chair that? 

19 (No responses) 

20 I'll need to twist some arms on the side. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Gibson? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Or let Josie, I think I heard 

23 Josie say yes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: I saw -- I saw Josie pointing her 

25 -- 
201

1 MR. GRIFFON: She was pointing -- 

2 DR. BRANCHE: -- hands toward Mr. Gibson. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I think Phil is trying 

4 to get -- we -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Two chairs in a row, Mr. -- 

6 MR. SCHOFIELD: No, not two chairs. I was 

7 thinking, you know, on the workgroup. Unlike 

8 some people, I don't have a real working life. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: How many names do you have there? 

10 DR. BRANCHE: You've got five, so one of these 

11 people can be an alternate. You've got 

12 Griffon, Beach, Gibson, Munn and Schofield, and 

13 one can be an alternate, if you wish. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: But we need a chair. 

16 MR. GIBSON: I'll volunteer. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: We just got a volun-- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike Gibson -- Mike Gibson 

19 will serve as chair. I'll tell you what, Mark, 

20 if you wouldn't mind, I'm going to make you the 

21 alternate 'cause I know you're -- you have a 

22 big workload -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- but you can still attend all 

25 the meetings, give them input. 
202

1 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so Mr. Gibson is the chair? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Mark -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: And Mr. Griffon is the alternate. 

4 Okay. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Are we clear on the tasking now? 

6 The tasking -- Pinellas already exists and the 

7 tasking there now is going to be that we will 

8 need to -- the workgroup will need to work with 

9 SC&A to need -- to develop the matrix as the 

10 first step and transmit that to NIOSH. And 

11 then (unintelligible) kind of puts this on 

12 their target for developing whatever responses 

13 are needed, so the workgroup probably won't 

14 actually meet until that -- those steps have 

15 occurred. So I think the only tasking for -- 

16 for SC&A would be the matrix, John, and you 

17 already have the site profile done. 

18 Texas City, that tasking has been identified 

19 and I -- 

20 DR. BRANCHE: That's with the surrogate data. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- you'll get it touch with David 

22 Staudt to make sure all these are covered. 

23 Streamlining, we've talked with David Staudt 

24 about this and I think that can be handled. 

25 I'm not sure how they will task it, but -- 
203

1 John, do you have a comment on that? 

2 DR. MAURO: More of a question. The 

3 streamlining, as I understand it, would be a 

4 work product that we would produce that would 

5 identi-- would list the now nine site profiles 

6 that are currently on the shelf. We -- as part 

7 of it, we will del-- we will have all of the 

8 findings and we'll create a summary of which of 

9 those findings, in our opinion and -- seem to 

10 be well in hand -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- because of other venues and 

13 which are not, and this would be -- now the 

14 question is should we share this and work in a 

15 collaborative way in terms of preparing this 

16 work product, which would -- is -- with NIOSH, 

17 or should we just put it up initially, say we 

18 believe that this issue, this issue and this 

19 issue have been closed on this other venue? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I believe the first step is that -

21 - that needs to come back to the Board so we 

22 can see what that looks like and see -- we're 

23 making a lot of assumptions about whether 

24 streamlining will do what we want it to do. I 

25 think that's got to be a -- that's got to come 
204

1 back to the Board for us to look at, are there 

2 a significant number of common issues and how 

3 have they been addressed in other venues. So 

4 it's an overall picture. I don't think we're 

5 at the point where we're going to be addressing 

6 the issues so much as identifying them, the 

7 common -- 

8 DR. MAURO: Okay, so I -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- issues -- 

10 DR. MAURO: -- want to make sure I give you 

11 what you want at this stage, and is that a work 

12 plan? Would that work plan include the tri-- 

13 the process of saying here's issue number one 

14 for this facility -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: In my mind -- 

16 DR. MAURO: -- and make a statement -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- and we can get some other Board 

18 input, this is not just the work plan. You've 

19 sort of described that and you can -- you can 

20 codify that, but I think it's the first -- the 

21 first cut on identifying -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- the extent to which what you 

24 described can actually be done. 

25 DR. MAURO: That's what I needed to know. I 
205

1 want to know how far we should go. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: But I'd like to get input from 

3 other Board members. If you understand what 

4 we're saying here, is that what -- what the 

5 Board believes should be done. This is a 

6 tasking for -- for SC&A. The tasking isn't the 

7 Chair's tasking necessarily, it's got to be the 

8 Board. So if you think we should do something 

9 else, please say so. 

10 Incidentally, as an aside, the Chair has 

11 assumed that no one is hungry for lunch, that 

12 you're more interested in finishing the agenda. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: No -- no, but we do want to check 

14 out. I didn't ask for late checkout. I've got 

15 to do that at some point. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Do -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I guess I would ask, Paul -- I 

18 mean my -- my feeling was I'd like to see what 

19 -- I -- I think, if I heard John right on the 

20 mike yesterday, they're like $1.2 million short 

21 in their projected needs for their budget, and 

22 -- and you know, I -- I guess I'd want to see 

23 the areas where that -- you know, task by task, 

24 how that breaks out and I -- I mean I don't 

25 necessarily -- I -- I mean my opinion is I don' 
206

1 necessarily thing we should be in a position to 

2 ask our contractor to use funds designated -- 

3 'cause we know these comment resolutions for 

4 some of these site profiles are going to be 

5 time consuming and if he starts to spend down 

6 some of his set-aside, I'm -- I'm really leery 

7 of that, so I'd -- I'd like -- I think I'd like 

8 to do the first step and see where those -- you 

9 know, why do we need $1.2 million, where -- how 

10 does it break down and -- and I know we have 

11 this previous -- in quarterly reports, I'm sure 

12 I've got it somewhere on my computer, but -- 

13 DR. MAURO: You -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- and -- 

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, you currently do receive every 

16 month a report. There's one -- the last one is 

17 dat-- dated March 17. You will be seeing one 

18 very soon, and there is a single table in there 

19 that, by task, identifies how much money has 

20 been spent to date, how much -- and whe-- and 

21 what the shortfall is. At -- bottom -- I mean 

22 I'm looking at the table right now, we have $3 

23 million left and -- left in the budget and, to 

24 finish all the work as best we can project, if 

25 we don't do any of this streamlining, we're 
207

1 going to need $4.2 million. I mean that's what 

2 it co-- that's what it comes down to. If we do 

3 do some of the streamlining, we could get that 

4 shortfall down a little bit, at the risk of 

5 course of perhaps pushing things a little too 

6 quickly. I understand the concern, and we -- 

7 if we do go through this triage process it will 

8 be a way in which to expedite the processing of 

9 -- of -- of findings and issues in a number of 

10 site profiles. And in theory, if done 

11 appropriately, we can get through that process 

12 without losing any of the diligence that we'd 

13 like to achieve, so there is this bit of a 

14 trade-off. And I think that may be the process 

15 we're about to enter in is -- is we'll get a 

16 little bit better insight into, you know, 

17 whether or not this is a -- a functional plan. 

18 You know, I could actually present to you, 

19 here's my list of findings, here's the ones 

20 that seem to be well in hand because of other 

21 venues, but of course that will be a judgment 

22 you folks would make. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Well, and another way of 

24 looking at this is that John sets aside a 

25 certain amount -- I think it's $61,000 -- for 
208

1 comment resolution. But if -- if these other 

2 ten have a lot of issues which we've really 

3 already resolved, what it means is he doesn't 

4 really need $60,000 to resolve future -- but we 

5 don't know that -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- a priori. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: And so that's what we're saying is 

10 can you go and take a look and identify the 

11 extent to which that may be the case? If it 

12 turns out not to be the case, then -- then the 

13 streamlining won't work, but -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: So -- so then the plan -- that -- 

15 when would he report on that? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I would hope that we could report 

17 at tha-- at the next full meeting, John, or -- 

18 or at the phone meeting, if you can pull it 

19 together by then. 

20 DR. MAURO: Absolutely, I think this can go 

21 quickly. The only thought I did have, though, 

22 is given -- is that the degree to which -- 

23 let's say after I make the list of issues, I 

24 guess to -- to hear back a little bit, perhaps 

25 from NIOSH, you know -- I mean in effect, 
209

1 they've been looking at these for quite some 

2 time also. They've been sitting -- I mean 

3 these reports have been sitting on the shelf, 

4 some of them, for close to two years. I don't 

5 know the degree to which they -- they've looked 

6 at them, and perhaps have already resolved some 

7 of them in some of their -- 'cause many of 

8 these -- you know, these site profiles -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I -- yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: You see, I -- I'm not quite sure -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my caution comes from the 

12 other side, that the workgroup hasn't looked at 

13 them yet either, and what if we start -- I mean 

14 I've been in situations where we've added 

15 things to our matrix, you know, and -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- or one finding turns into -- 

18 and it branches out, so I -- I don't know, I 

19 just -- you know, I -- I wonder why we're not 

20 asking the first question, is the -- is the 

21 budget shortfall justified -- you know, the -- 

22 the additional funds, are they justifiable; and 

23 if they are, can we find resources without 

24 spending what he's put aside? I mean tha-- I 

25 guess that's the bottom line question. 
210

1 DR. MELIUS: Well, yeah, but as the contract 

2 runs out, I think we need to sort of -- we 

3 don't want sort of money sitting there that -- 

4 not going to be used and might be more 

5 appropriately used now to -- and to get other 

6 tasks done either quicker or -- or more 

7 comprehensively and do that -- so I guess -- I 

8 -- I would think that this streamlining report, 

9 to have it our May 17th call, is it, or 

10 whenever the May -- 

11 DR. BRANCHE: May 14th. 

12 DR. MELIUS: -- May 14th call would be helpful. 

13 But also with a more complete report on what 

14 are the other options beyond that 'cause there 

15 may not be enough money, or there may be -- 

16 maybe it's the combination of that with some 

17 other things 'cause I don't -- given where we 

18 are in the year and given the amount of work 

19 and -- and all these outstanding site profiles, 

20 I think we need to have a plan to how to 

21 resolve them and so I think both for John and I 

22 think for the Board to decide how are we then 

23 going to handle these and -- you know, we -- 

24 'cause I don't think putting them -- all of 

25 them off is -- is, you know, appropriate. 
211

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and I think we -- we already 

2 agreed yesterday that, aside from the budgetary 

3 issues, this Board is not in a position to 

4 resolve ten site profiles in six months. So 

5 it's going to carry forward in one way or the 

6 other, and so thi-- this is a really just a 

7 pla-- a first look at whether this alternate 

8 way of handling it might be economical and also 

9 streamline things a little time-wise. We may 

10 decide it -- it won't. I -- but we have to -- 

11 seems to me it's worth looking at. It won't 

12 take a big amount of expenditure to take the 

13 look. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, no, I -- I -- I agree, but 

15 then -- okay, just saying, I think -- we do 

16 have to decide how we're going to resolve those 

17 in that. Is it, you know, two-person 

18 workgroups? I mean -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: -- there's lots of -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- oh, yes, but -- 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- the -- the -- make a workgroup 

23 that John proposed that I'm not sure anybody 

24 wants to be on, but -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: But I want to make sure that we -- 
212

1 we task this correctly at the start, which 

2 would be -- and the budgetary thing, he can 

3 include that, but your monthly report has five 

4 individual reports for the five tasks, plus a 

5 roll-up report, and the roll-up report gives 

6 you the big picture. So -- and you should be 

7 getting that every month from SC&A. And then 

8 what's being proposed here is a -- an overall 

9 picture of what -- what you called a work plan, 

10 and then the first step is to try to identify, 

11 I think, are there indeed common issues in 

12 these other nine reports of -- of the type that 

13 we've already looked at in great detail and 

14 that perhaps in a sense have been addressed. 

15 And -- and we won't know till you look at that, 

16 and then NIOSH may have some reaction as well. 

17 Is that agreeable for tasking? Any objection 

18 to that? 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and just one other 

20 stipulation on that, if possible. Can we get 

21 John's report at least a week before the 

22 workgroup call? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: John -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Or the -- excuse me, the Board 

25 call. 
213

1 DR. MAURO: Board call, am I correct, is -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: 14th of -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: 14th, so we could have it by the 

4 7th? 

5 DR. MAURO: By the 7th -- yes. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Thank you. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. That's a yes. I 

8 like those good, short, brisk yeses. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Then I think all you have left is 

10 the -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: The wording? 

12 DR. BRANCHE: -- going over the language, yes. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Language of the motions. You 

14 should have a copy of the -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) Can I 

16 (unintelligible) one other thing 

17 (unintelligible) do that. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: One other thing first, sorry. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: The -- the -- I mentioned this 

20 yesterday and I think we -- it wasn't part of 

21 the motion -- or -- or was it this morning or 

22 yesterday, I'm not -- NUMEC Parks facility, I 

23 think I asked that that be considered to be 

24 added to the 250-day workgroup review. The 

25 petitioners have made that request and I think 
214

1 NUMEC Apollo we're already considering in that 

2 -- in that review of the 250-day criteria, and 

3 I -- I just asked if we could add that on to be 

4 included in the 250-day workgroup discussions. 

5 It wasn't part of the motion for the SEC, but I 

6 -- I just wanted to not forget that. That -- I 

7 don't know if that needs a motion or if it can 

8 just be -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think it needs a motion -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: No? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'd just as that -- Jim, can 

12 you just -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: I can't do that, Mark has to do 

14 that. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- make a note of that? 

16 DR. MELIUS: I'm serious, I can't. Parks I -- 

17 I may or may not be conflicted on -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: You already have NUMEC Apollo on 

20 that. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: No, he's -- he may be personally -

22 - 

23 DR. MELIUS: I'm conflicted, so -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: He can't make the motion because 

25 he's conflicted. 
215

1 DR. MELIUS: -- I can't make the motion, and if 

2 you refer it to the workgroup, I've got to get 

3 off the workgroup for that part, so it's 

4 complicated, but -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: But I'm saying you're -- the 

6 workgroup's already considering NUMEC Apollo 

7 and -- I mean -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: You've voted for that but -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 

10 DR. MELIUS: -- we haven't considered it and -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: We voted to -- to have -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: We -- we'll figure -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- the workgroup consider it. 

14 DR. MELIUS: We'll figure it out. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: You might just have to step down 

16 as chair -- right? -- for -- for the -- for 

17 those -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: For that session. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- for that -- that part -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: We'll figure that out. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- of it, yeah. Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and are we certain that that 

23 conflict does exist? Has that been -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: No, it's still -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: No, but we should -- we should 
216

1 know before month's end, I suspect. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let the record show that 

3 it's been requested that, if possible, NUMEC 

4 Parks be included in -- in the 250-day issues 

5 as they consider those. 

6 Let's get the wording here on these. We might 

7 start with NUMEC Parks. Again, I'm not going 

8 to ask that these be reread; they've been read 

9 into the record already. Is everybody -- it 

10 says Parks at the top. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, I don't have a copy of 

12 Parks. Is there -- 

13 MR. CLAWSON: I've got one over here if you 

14 need one. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. Let me come get 

16 that. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: What I do want to ask is that -- 

18 has -- has Labor and has NIOSH both looked at 

19 the description of the class to make sure that 

20 the wording is correct? NIOSH (unintelligible) 

21 on Parks? 

22 MR. KOTSCH: I haven't seen that one. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Jeff hasn't seen Parks? Could we 

24 get a copy to Jeff? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I think the only -- 
217

1 MR. ELLIOTT: It's the same as the NIOSH 

2 recommendation. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right, same as the NIOSH 

4 recommendation, yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Jeff, unless you spot something -- 

6 you can let us know. Is there anything else in 

7 -- in here that anyone has a question on? 

8 We've already acted on these so I'm not going 

9 to ask us to reapprove them. I just want to 

10 identify if there's any -- any glaring errors. 

11 When these are transformed to a letter to the 

12 Secretary, and the letter to the Secretary 

13 always starts with the second paragraph here. 

14 That first paragraph is an instruction to the 

15 Chair, but you will -- you will see this again 

16 on letterhead before it is sent to the 

17 Secretary. 

18 (No responses) 

19 Okay, I'm going to consider Parks okay. Let's 

20 go to Horizons. Again I'll ask both NIOSH and 

21 Labor if they're comfortable with the 

22 description of the class. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: For Horizons we need Dr. Poston's 

24 vote. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: We -- 
218

1 DR. BRANCHE: I can do that separately? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'll do that separately 

3 because -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, I'll just do that 

5 separately. All right. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- we ha-- what we will do with 

7 Dr. Poston, and we have to do it with Dr. 

8 Lockey -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: I can just send them this draft, 

10 okay. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- is review -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Got it, no problem. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- the motion and the discussion 

14 them. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: It was my effort to be efficient, 

16 so... 

17 DR. MELIUS: And the waterboarding, but that's 

18 (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: So we're agreeing that the 

21 language for Horizons is okay? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections on Horizons? 

23 (No responses) 

24 Thank you. 

25 Kellex? 
219

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Kellex just -- Larry and 

2 staff have pointed out there's one -- it's not 

3 a major error but it's sort of interesting. 

4 It's not Pierpoint, it's Pierpont, so that has 

5 to be replaced three times in there but the e6 mail I'll send to you will have that 

7 correction, so -- save Wanda the trouble. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: And will you be kind enough to 

9 copy me on your -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I was -- and Ray. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Any other changes on Kellex? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Thank you, I'll consider that ready. 

15 Columbia? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: That's SAM Lab, the way it was on 

17 the agenda. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: SAM, yeah, S-A-M. 

19 DR. MELIUS: S-A-M, there's one correction 

20 here, too, that Larry asked that we do is that 

21 rather than calling it just SAM Lab -- 

22 Laboratories, that we refer to it as Special 

23 Alloy Materials, parentheses, SAM Laboratories. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: On the first time? 

25 DR. MELIUS: Well, yeah, I'd put it in I think 
220

1 a few times just to be clearer. 

2 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) second paragraph. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other 

4 modifications on that one? 

5 (No responses) 

6 Okay, without objection, that is ready. Why do 

7 I have a Hanford in here? 

8 DR. MELIUS: There is a Hanford. 

9 MS. MUNN: Yeah, there's a (unintelligible). 

10 DR. ZIEMER: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

11 to mind. 

12 MS. MUNN: It's in the middle of the stapled 

13 three. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: It must have gotten copied 

15 inadvertently. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: You didn't mean for it to be 

17 there? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: We didn't have Hanford on -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yes, we did. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: It's Hanford 2, actually. 

21 DR. MELIUS: I made the motion. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: How soon we forget. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Well, we know that -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: It's one of those small sites 
221

1 that's easy to overlook. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: No, I -- I was thinking of the 

3 earlier Hanford -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's why we had -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: And there's one change here that -

7 - this is a -- I won't say -- it's more than 

8 grammatical -- the request of NIOSH in the 

9 class definition, this is actually in response 

10 to Josie's comment, number two is -- now reads 

11 "January 1st, 1949 through December 31st, 1968 

12 in the 200 areas," pl-- plural -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: There are more -- there is more 

14 than one then. 

15 DR. MELIUS: -- right -- "parentheses, east and 

16 west, close parentheses."

17 MS. MUNN: What about north and south?

18 DR. MELIUS: I...

19 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And in the final -- the final 

21 bulletin point -- bulletin, bullet point, we're 

22 -- I think we're all right by just saying 200 

23 and 300 areas. 

24 DR. MELIUS: Areas, and then in the -- above 

25 that I corrected the americium in the 200 
222

1 areas. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

3 DR. MELIUS: So I think that -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Any other changes on Hanford? 

5 (No responses) 

6 Thank you, that -- 

7 DR. BRANCHE: So Dr. Melius, you'll send all of 

8 yours -- and who has the one -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Mar-- Mar-- Mark -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: -- you didn't do them all. Who 

11 had NUMEC, Mark? 

12 DR. MELIUS: Mark has NUMEC. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Did NUMEC get run off? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: It -- yeah, we just did it -- 

15 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: -- but it's Par-- it says "Parks 

17 Draft" but it's -- Mr. Griffon -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, the Parks one, yeah. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, that's NUMEC. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon has that language; 

22 Dr. Melius has the remainder. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: That's right, okay. Now I'm 

24 looking -- that's everything except for the one 

25 -- the -- the Sandia -- Sandia Livermore, which 
223

1 we didn't have the -- 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Language for? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- language for, and if it's 

4 agreeable, I will provide that. Will have to 

5 go back and get the template. I will provide 

6 the Board members with the actual wording. You 

7 will have an opportunity to see that. Since 

8 we've had so few like that that's not -- I've -

9 - I've tried to pull it up and I couldn't pull 

10 it up, so if there's no objection, we'll get 

11 you that wording before it's sent out. That 

12 will be a report to the Secretary that we are 

13 recommending -- or we agree with NIOSH's 

14 analysis that there should not be a Special 

15 Exposure Cohort for that petition. 

16 Now I think that completes the drafts. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: It does. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have anything more on our -- 

19 our -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: Can -- can I just -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- schedules? 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- help you out a little bit, 

23 Paul? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yep, you sure -- I'm always 

25 willing to be helped out. 
224

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I think under the SEC 

2 section of the OCAS web site, way at the bottom 

3 is -- there's petitions not added to the SEC. 

4 It's the Iowa Ordnance Plant, NBS, Y-12 

5 statisticians -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Those are the letters that -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- those are the letters 

8 themselves. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I was looking for that and I 

10 just -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's way at the bottom. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

13 DR. MELIUS: I had to find it once before, 

14 so... 

15 FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Future plans and 

17 meetings, do we have any changes to announce? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: No changes. May 14th is the 

19 conference call, June 24th to 26th in St. Louis 

20 is the face-to-face Board meeting, August 5th 

21 is the conference call following that. No 

22 other changes. If we want to talk about 

23 changes -- 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Christine? 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, Mr. Presley? 
225

1 MR. PRESLEY: I would like to have the working 

2 group on NTS site profile set for the 21st of 

3 May if that's all right with Phillip and -- 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Brad. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: -- Brad. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: That'd be fine. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Brad says it's okay with him. 

8 Phil is checking -- 

9 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that's okay with you? 

11 MR. SCHOFIELD: I don't have a life. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: So the Nevada -- if I may, the 

13 Nevada Te-- the next Nevada Test Site meeting, 

14 and I'll work with Zaida to get these 

15 announced, will be on May 21st in a face-to16 face meeting in Cincinnati beginning at 9:00 

17 a.m. or 9:30, Mr. Presley? 

18 MR. PRESLEY: 9:00 a.m. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: And the next Blockson workgroup 

20 meeting is June 5th at 9:30 a.m. in Cincinnati, 

21 and I'll be talking to Dr. Poston about the 

22 next meeting for Chapman Valve. And we'll -- 

23 we'll send announcements out for these like we 

24 do for all of the others, I would imagine in 

25 the next week or so. 
226

1 TRACKING OF BOARD ACTIONS

2 DR. ZIEMER: There is one other item on the 

3 agenda that I overlooked. That's called 

4 tracking of Board actions. I have the lead on 

5 that. The -- the tracking of Board actions -- 

6 you recall we had a -- a tracking database that 

7 was being developed. Now the tracking of the 

8 transcripts have been reported on. I think the 

9 -- what our intent on tracking of Board items 

10 was to provide, prior to each meeting, an 

11 update on where we were on each of the site 

12 profiles and SEC reviews, and that -- that was 

13 a -- an item I think that -- did we turn that 

14 over to Nancy? Nancy, has that fallen in your 

15 lap yet, or are you awaiting for that shoe to 

16 fall? 

17 MS. ADAMS: (Off microphone) I -- I anticipate, 

18 but (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Nancy and I are going to be 

20 having a meeting on that and related areas in 

21 terms of crystallizing some of that. The draft 

22 tracking matrix was developed and Lew was 

23 helping us with that, and we hope to have that 

24 prior to each future meeting so you kind of 

25 have an update and feel for where we are on 
227

1 each of the -- of the site profiles and so on. 

2 So I'm not going to promise anything yet, but 

3 we are working on that. 

4 Wanda Munn, you have a comment? 

5 MS. MUNN: Not with respect to that. I was 

6 just going to request that we consider location 

7 for our September meeting if -- since we have 

8 only St. Louis in mind. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Actually the draft location -- 

10 and you certainly can discuss this now -- for 

11 the September 2nd through 4th full Board 

12 meeting, we discussed the Los Angeles 

13 metropolitan area, considering that the -- that 

14 metropolitan area is many, many hundreds of 

15 miles. I shouldn't say many hundreds, but it's 

16 not a 50-mile radius. 

17 DR. POSTON: What's the date? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: September 2nd through 4th. I'll 

19 ask Ms. Burgos to resend the list of the dates. 

20 Those dates have not changed. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Christine? 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, Mr. Presley? 

23 MR. PRESLEY: I have down that we were going to 

24 be in Livermore. Is that not correct? 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Wait a minute, you had down that 
228

1 we were going to be where? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Livermore. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Lawrence Livermore, that's -- 

4 MR. PRESLEY: Livermore area. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: That's -- that's southern 

6 California. Right? 

7 DR. POSTON: San Francisco area. 

8 MS. MUNN: It's safely out of Los Angeles, just 

9 -- just outside the -- 

10 DR. POSTON: A much nicer area. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: We -- we haven't -- actually this 

12 is the time to discuss that because we have not 

13 yet -- Zaida was going to this month begin 

14 looking -- looking for locations, so if we 

15 really do mean closer to Livermore, then -- 

16 MR. PRESLEY: Livermore is the San Francisco 

17 area. It might be -- we've got a tremendous 

18 amount of claimants out that way. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. But now is the time for us 

20 to make the decision so we can get the best 

21 rates -- and frankly, hotel, so... 

22 MR. SCHOFIELD: I have to agree with Bob that 

23 the San Francisco/Livermore area makes a lot of 

24 sense. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Is there any disagreement? 
229

1 DR. ZIEMER: Livermore is not that easy to get 

2 to, either, but -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, no, but -- 

4 DR. POSTON: (Unintelligible) BART, costs $7 

5 bucks. 

6 DR. MELIUS: -- I have one other consideration 

7 and maybe Larry or someone can -- we'd also 

8 talked about going to Pantex, and I believe 

9 that we have that -- that may be timely in 

10 terms of that petition. We've never been there 

11 and -- 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Where is that located? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: That's in Texas, Amarillo. There 

14 was some -- some difficulty relating to that 

15 site that was the reason it was -- 

16 DR. MELIUS: Del-- delayed, I realize that, and 

17 -- and at least the impression I got from 

18 LaVon's report was that that difficulty was 

19 overcome, but maybe I'm wrong. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I -- and I don't know. I 

21 haven't heard otherwise yet. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: I haven't heard otherwise, 

23 either. 

24 DR. MELIUS: He said he was completing the 

25 report and had it on the schedule. 
230

1 DR. ZIEMER: Larry, do you have some comments, 

2 either on that or anything else? 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: My goodness, let me get my list -

4 - no. We're -- I don't think all that's been 

5 taken care of. Bomber -- LaVon's doing what he 

6 can to finish up the report, but I think behind 

7 the scenes there's still some issues that DOE 

8 is resolving, so we may need to have those done 

9 before a visit to Pantex. 

10 The other thing -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: Well, do we -- 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: -- I was going to say -- I'm 

13 sorry. 

14 DR. MELIUS: To the extent that you can tell 

15 us, Larry, would those interfere with having a 

16 public meeting? 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Okay, that's what I wanted to -- 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. That's all we can say. LA 

21 has been mentioned and, you know, I think that 

22 was in the context of Santa Susana, so I just 

23 draw the -- draw the Board's attention back to 

24 that for consideration. 

25 The other thing I stepped to the mike for, 
231

1 actually, was that -- this is a 

2 housekeeping/administrative issue. When you 

3 establish new working groups, we want on the 

4 web site to be very clear in what their charge 

5 is, so I'll be asking Chris Ellison to make 

6 sure that she touched base with -- with Dr. 

7 Ziemer to make sure that we capture the charge 

8 correctly for these three -- two new working 

9 groups and then assigning Texas City Chemicals 

10 to the -- to Dr. Melius's working group is 

11 going to take a little special notation, I 

12 think, for the members of the public to 

13 understand what has happened. So we will be 

14 doing that, but if you look at our web site and 

15 you see anything that -- with regard to the 

16 charge given to workgroups or the subcommittee 

17 that seems to be not correct, please let us 

18 know 'cause we do need to have that correct. 

19 We have a lot of questions about these 

20 workgroup assignments, and so we need to have a 

21 very clear charge presented on the web site. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you, Larry. 

23 Wanda, do you have another comment or... 

24 MS. MUNN: Only that I am unsure of the actual 

25 location of Santa Susana. 
232

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Simi Valley. 

2 MS. MUNN: Simi Valley? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 

4 (Unintelligible) Hills. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Simi Hills. 

6 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) Just outside of 

7 (unintelligible). 

8 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It's up the coast and to the 

10 left from Los Angeles. 

11 MS. MUNN: That-a-way, not that-a-way. 

12 DR. POSTON: Pacific Ocean. 

13 MS. MUNN: Okay, that's -- but there's -- do we 

14 have anything other than Santa Susana down 

15 there that's working right now? We have no GA, 

16 none of that's involved, is it? 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Is the Board's preference to meet 

18 in northern or southern California for the 

19 September 2nd through 4th meeting? 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: My preference would be northern 

21 California, just 'cause there's so many people 

22 worked at the Livermore area. 

23 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) has got -- got 

24 Livermore -- Lawrence Livermore, and then 

25 you've got Sandia Livermore also, right there 
233

1 together. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Not speaking against that, but we 

3 have been up -- we tried to go there once 

4 before and we -- and we've been there and, as I 

5 recall, there wasn't a large turnout at that 

6 time. Maybe that's my recollection or 

7 something, but -- but we -- we have been up 

8 there before. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we -- 

10 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: We have the other petition too. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Now -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Santa Susana. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we have the petition from 

16 Santa Susana before us. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Would be an argument for going to 

19 the southern California area. 

20 MS. MUNN: I would prefer northern California. 

21 It's easier. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Easier is -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Can't argue with that. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Easier is not one of our criteria 

25 for meetings. 
234

1 MS. MUNN: It is for me, especially that -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: In that case, I vote for southern 

3 California. 

4 MS. MUNN: That -- that first week in September 

5 it might be. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, maybe. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Well, may I -- may I make the 

8 following suggestion? If we would initially go 

9 for southern California in light of the Santa 

10 Susana petition that is before you, and if we 

11 have challenges, that we would then -- if we 

12 have challenges in finding a venue for that -- 

13 that would -- that would meet all of our needs, 

14 wireless, la, la, la, la -- that we then, if we 

15 need to go to northern California to stay in 

16 the California venue, is that acceptable to 

17 you? 

18 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Speak now or live with -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: That's fine. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: -- what we find. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: That's fine. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I just need to know as soon 

25 as possible because they're closing our 
235

1 airport, so I'm going to have to drive about 

2 300 miles to -- to catch an airport. It's 

3 closing September 2nd. 

4 MS. BEACH: Just for one month. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: Just for one month. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, okay. 

7 MR. CLAWSON: So -- so this one I just -- I 

8 just -- I'm just wanting to get -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: No, I understand. 

10 MR. CLAWSON: -- so I can tie it up. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, do we have any other items -

12 - any other items to come before the Board 

13 today? 

14 (No responses) 

15 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. 

16 You've worked hard, you deserve a little rest. 

17 We are adjourned. 

18 (Whereupon the meeting concluded at 1:30 p.m.) 
236

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 Apr. 9, 2008; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

10th day of May, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102