1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

70th MEETING

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 11:00 a.m. 

Eastern Daylight Savings Time via 

teleconference, James M. Melius, Chairman, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PRESENT: (continued)

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

FARVER, DOUGLAS, SC&A

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCGOLERICK ROBERT, HHS

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A

PINCHETTI, KATHLEEN, Blockson Chemical 

Petitioner

REALE, MARIANNA, Chapman Valve Petitioner

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

ULSH, BRANT, DCAS

WADE, LEW, DCAS
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Roll-call - Mr. Katz, DFO.................. 4

Welcome - Dr. Melius, Chairman............. 8

Recording Votes on LANL, De Soto Ave., and 

Downey SEC Petitions - Mr. Katz, DFO...... 9

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition - Dr. Melius, 

Chairman.................................. 10

- Vote................................... 18

Selection of Dose Reconstruction Set #13 for 

Review - Mr. Griffon, Chair, DR Subcommittee

.......................................... 22

Chapman Valve SEC Petition, Update - Mr.

Rutherford, DCAS.......................... 46

- DOD inquiry; Data Capture Summary . 47

Discussion of NIOSH 10-Year Program Review -

Dr. Melius, Chairman...................... 49

Review of Public Comments to Board during 

February Meeting - Dr. Melius, Chairman... 56

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Mr. Rutherford, DCAS............. 88

- Update on petitions to be presented at 

the August 2010 Board meeting............. 90

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees (as 

necessary) - WG/SC Chairs................. 93

Board Correspondence - Dr. Melius, Chairman.

......................................... 102

Future Plans/Suggestions for the August 2010 

Board Meeting Agenda - All Members....... 104

Adjournment
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

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

2 (11:02 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, welcome everybody. 

4 This is a teleconference meeting of the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

6 I'm Ted Katz. I'm the Designated 

7 Federal Official, and let's begin with roll 

8 call, Board Members first, starting with the 

9 Chair.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm Jim Melius. 

11 I'm here.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson. 

13 I'm here.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach. I'm 

15 here.

16 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob Presley. I'm 

17 here.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer. 

19 here, here.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 

21 Mark Griffon.
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn.

2 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston.

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Phil Schofield.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Bill Field.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David 

7 Richardson.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Richard Lemen.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Henry Anderson.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Dr. Lockey is -

11 - will not be able to join us today, but two 

12 people spoke at once. Was one of them Mike 

13 Gibson?

14 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Ted, I'm 

15 here.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Thank 

17 you. 

18 So that is all present except for 

19 Dr. Lockey, but that's as expected.

20 And then let me run through NIOSH, 

21 the DCAS ORAU team. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld.
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, how about the 

4 SC&A team?

5 DR. MAURO: John Mauro. Good 

6 morning, everyone. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald.

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Hans Behling.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Kathy Behling. 

11 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow.

12 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver.

13 MR. STIVER: John Stiver.

14 MR. KATZ: Welcome to all of you. 

15 Then, HHS, and other department agency staff 

16 or contractors to the agencies?

17 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

18 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

19 MR. MCGOLERICK: Robert 

20 McGolerick, HHS.

21 DR. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

22 DOE.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade and 

2 Nancy Adams. 

3 MR. KATZ: Very good. And then 

4 are there any members of the public who would 

5 like to identify their participation?

6 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie 

7 with ANWAG.

8 MR. KOTSCH: This is Jeff Kotsch 

9 with Department of Labor. 

10 MS. REALE: Marianna Reale with 

11 Chapman Valve petition. 

12 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you --

13 your -- the sound -- maybe it's just my phone, 

14 was a bit garbled. Can you repeat your name 

15 please?

16 MS. REALE: Marianne Reale, 

17 Chapman Valve petition.

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you --

19 your sound, or maybe it's just my phone, but 

20 can you repeat your name, please?

21 MS. REALE: Marianne Reale, 

22 Chapman Valve petition.
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Welcome.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Antoinette 

3 Bonsignore, Linde Ceramics.

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Antoinette.

5 MS. PINCHETTI: Kathy Pinchetti 

6 with Blockson.

7 MR. KATZ: Very good. That sounds 

8 like we're getting there. 

9 Okay, Jim, that's it for roll 

10 call.

11 Let me just ask them, everyone 

12 who's on the line, before we get going, please 

13 mute your phones except when you're speaking. 

14 So, if you don't have a mute 

15 button, use *6 and then you'll hit *6 again 

16 when you want to offer views.

17 Also, please, nobody put your 

18 phone on hold. Hang up and dial back in if 

19 you have to leave for a bit. 

20 That's nice, and Jim, it's all 

21 yours.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks. 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Mark Griffon is -- has some travel problems 

2 this morning, so I'm going to go a little bit 

3 out of order in terms of the agenda because 

4 he's going to have to get on a plane and take 

5 off sometime in the next half hour or so.

6 So, what I'm going to do is switch 

7 two items. I'm going to move the selection of 

8 the Dose Reconstruction set ahead of Chapman 

9 Valve discussion, but we will do Chapman Valve 

10 immediately after that, so everybody knows.

11 Ted, you need to first go ahead 

12 and record votes on petitions from the last 

13 meeting?

14 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you, Jim. 

15 So, on May 21, Dr. Melius -- I 

16 received votes from Dr. Melius on -- this is 

17 for the May Board meeting for three votes, for 

18 LANL, De Soto and Downey SECs, all in the 

19 affirmative.

And on May 27th 20 , I received votes 

21 from Dr. Lockey for two SECs, De Soto and 

22 Downey, both in the affirmative. 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And that makes for total votes: 

2 for LANL, it was unanimous, 14 in favor with 

3 two recusals, and for De Soto and Downey, also 

4 unanimous, both 16 votes, all voting, in other 

5 words. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. The next 

7 item on the agenda is the Blockson Chemical 

8 SEC petition. 

9 And as you recall, at the last 

10 meeting, the Board voted to essentially not 

11 accept the proposed model for radon exposure 

12 that had been put forward by NIOSH. 

13 So I think the logical follow-up 

14 to that, to the Board's finding, would be 

15 unable to reconstruct the dose, at least for 

16 the radon exposure in Building 40 at the site. 

17 And so, at the time, I indicated 

18 that I would prepare a motion in the form of a 

19 letter for discussion at this meeting of the 

20 Board. 

21 And I believe I've circulated the 

22 letter to all of -- the draft of the letter to 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 all of the Board Members and NIOSH and other 

2 staff on it.

3 I will read it into the record now 

4 so everyone can hear it. And that is:

5 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

6 Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC 

7 petitions 0045 and 0058, concerning workers at 

8 the Blockson Chemical Company facility in 

9 Joliet, Illinois, under the statutory 

10 requirements established by EEOICPA 

11 incorporated into 42 CFR section 83.13. 

12 The Board respectfully recommends 

13 Special Exposure Cohort status be accorded to 

14 all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who 

15 worked at the Blockson Chemical Company in 

Joliet, Illinois from March 1st 16 1951 to June 

30th 17 1960 for a number of workdays aggregating 

18 at least 250 workdays occurring either solely 

19 under this employment or in combination with 

20 workdays within the parameters established for 

21 one or more other classes of employees 

22 included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 This recommendation is based on 

2 the following factors:

3 1. People working at the facility 

4 during the time period in question worked in 

5 the production of uranium for use in nuclear 

6 weapons.

7 2. The Board's review of 

8 available data found that it lacked adequate 

9 source term process or monitoring data in 

10 order to be able to complete accurate 

11 individual dose reconstruction for internal 

12 radiation doses from radon for employees at 

13 this facility during the time period in 

14 question.

15 There were no radon-monitoring 

16 data available for the facility during the 

17 time period in question and attempts to model 

18 the radon exposures at this facility were 

19 found not to be adequate.

20 3. The Board determined that 

21 health may have been endangered for these 

22 Blockson Chemical Company workers.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Based on these considerations and 

the discussions held at our January 14th 2 , 2010 

Advisory Board -- excuse me, July 14th 3 , 2010 

4 Advisory Board meeting, the Board recommends 

5 that this Special Exposure Cohort petition be 

6 granted.

7 Enclosed is the documentation of 

8 the Board meeting where the Special Exposure 

9 Cohort Class was discussed. Documentation 

10 includes transcripts of the deliberations, 

11 copies of the petition, the NIOSH review 

12 thereof and related materials.

13 If any of these items are 

14 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

15 shortly. 

16 So that was the letter of motion. 

17 Do I have a second to that?

18 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. 

19 I'll second that.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks, 

21 Mike.

22 And I would add two things which I 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 included in the email that I sent out about 

2 this. 

3 One is about the time period of 

4 coverage with that because it's different than 

5 what was -- some of the original documents in 

6 support that we have. 

7 So Stu Hinnefeld and I talked 

8 about this, and he consulted with NIOSH staff 

9 about this.

10 And the AEC contract with Blockson 

began on March 1st 11 , 1951, so that's the start 

12 date. And they -- DOL, Department of Labor 

13 recently revised the covered period to the end 

14 of June, 1960, so that's why that's listed as 

15 the end date in the Class Definition.

16 And then, secondly, the other 

17 question was, you know, the finding regarding 

18 the radon model focused on Building 40. The 

19 question on the Class Definition was whether 

20 or not the -- they would be able to, through 

21 employment records, place all people into --

22 who worked in Building 40, only in Building 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 40, or could people from other buildings have 

2 worked there and so forth.

3 And though there was some -- some 

4 of the records, monitoring records indicated 

5 where people worked, at least at the time they 

6 were monitored, NIOSH believed that the 

7 records were not complete enough in order to 

8 place -- you know, completely place everybody 

9 into specific buildings at specific times.

10 So, I think, consistent with how 

11 we've handled other, at least recent Class 

12 Definitions, the Class Definition essentially 

13 becomes everybody who worked at the facility 

14 during this time period.

15 So, are there questions or 

16 discussions on this?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius, Ziemer 

18 here.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: First, point of 

21 order, for the record, who has made the 

22 initial motion?
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It was me, I 

2 believe.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think under 

4 Robert's Rules, the Chair cannot make motions. 

5 So I would suggest we ask for someone to make 

6 the motion.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, this is 

8 Brad. I'll make the motion.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you. Just 

10 for procedural clarity. 

11 Could I speak to the motion?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you may.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would like to 

14 speak against the motion mainly because of the 

15 second bullet. 

16 And I don't think there's any need 

17 to rehash because we voted on the radon issue, 

18 so I'm not suggesting we rehash that. 

19 But I did not agree to the 

20 original motion and therefore, I must vote 

21 against this motion as well, because I believe 

22 that radon can be adequately reconstructed.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So, for the record, I want to show 

2 that I am opposed to this motion.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

4 comments?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, this is Wanda. 

6 Like Dr. Ziemer, there is no point in 

7 rehashing the issues. We've heard them 

8 numerous times now but I do not believe the 

9 second bullet to be accurate. I cannot accept 

10 either the motion or the letter.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: This is Gen. I, 

12 too, will vote against the motion for the same 

13 reasons that Dr. Ziemer and Wanda have stated.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else? 

15 If not, I think we would need to do a roll 

16 call vote, if --

17 MS. HOWELL: Dr. Melius, this is -

18 -

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

20 MS. HOWELL: -- Emily Howell. I'm 

21 sorry, I know this is a --

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MS. HOWELL: -- time for Board 

2 discussion, but before you voted, since we're 

3 not a face-to-face meeting, I did just want to 

4 point out a concern with the second bullet.

5 If you read the first sentence, it 

6 makes it sound as though the Board is 

7 responsible for completing individual dose 

8 reconstructions. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I see what 

10 you're saying, yes.

11 MS. HOWELL: So, I would just 

12 suggest that you may want to re-word that.

13 MS. HOWELL: Do you have a 

14 suggestion?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

16 can help you with that although I oppose the 

17 motion. I think the Board's review of 

18 adequate data found that NIOSH lacked adequate 

19 --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- is what we 

22 should say, I think, or what those voting for 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it should say.

2 (Laughter.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, right, 

4 right. Okay. We'll say, in other words, 

5 adequate data was not available, but NIOSH 

6 lacked -- I think makes the change simpler, 

7 more straightforward. 

8 Is that satisfactory, Emily?

9 MS. HOWELL: Yes, thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

11 you, Paul.

12 Any other comments? Okay. 

13 Ted, do you want to do a roll call 

14 vote?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, absolutely. Thank 

16 you. 

17 So, I'm just going to run down 

18 alphabetically and just note that there are no 

19 recusals necessary, but Dr. Lockey is absent 

20 and I'll collect his vote.

21 Dr. Anderson?

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Field?

6 MEMBER FIELD: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Gibson?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Bill Lemen?

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Nay.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

18 MEMBER POSTON: No.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: No.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? You 

4 might be on mute, Phil. Mr. Schofield? Phil?

5 Phil, I can hear someone trying to 

6 take it off mute, I wonder if you're putting 

7 yourself on mute. It's not -- okay. Well, 

8 for the time being, he's absent.

9 Dr. Ziemer?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

11 MR. KATZ: So, presently, I have 

12 eight in favor, six opposed and two absent.

13 Phil, have you joined us? Has he 

14 joined us?

15 Okay, well, there's eight in 

16 favor, two opposed, and two absent.

17 Help me out, Dr. Ziemer, I don't 

18 know whether we can conclude a vote until we 

19 get Phil back on the line.

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, can you 

21 hear me now?

22 MR. KATZ: There you are.
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, Phil? Your vote?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'm voting for 

4 it.

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Phil. Okay, 

6 that makes nine in favor, six opposed, one 

7 absent. So, in favor has it and the motion 

8 passes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And you'll still 

10 collect Dr. Lockey's?

11 MR. KATZ: I will collect Dr. 

12 Lockey's vote after this meeting.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Very 

14 good. Okay. Thank you.

15 The next item, as I said, I wanted 

16 to skip Chapman for a second and go to the 

17 selection of Dose Reconstruction set number 13 

18 for review. 

19 Mark, do you want to introduce 

20 that, or, if you're still on, I --

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes, Jim, 

22 I'm sorry. Yes, I am still on, but they're 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 actually boarding now, so -- and I don't have 

2 the materials in front of me.

3 But I can generally describe -- I 

4 mean, if people remember, the Subcommittee 

5 went through the first sort of triage of a 

6 list of cases. 

7 And now we have, NIOSH gave us 

8 more information about our preselected number 

9 of cases and that's what was sent around.

10 I have my materials in the office, 

11 like, ready to do this call, but I'm not in 

12 the office. So if, Jim, if you can kind of 

13 take the lead on looking down that list of 

14 cases --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- since I don't 

17 have them in front of me. But I think our 

18 objective is to get another set of 30 or so 

19 cases for SC&A.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, yes, I'll 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 characterize --

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You said it as 

4 best you can to try to --

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'll participate 

6 if I can, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, all right. 

9 Thanks.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks, 

11 Mark. Good luck in your travels.

12 This is a long list and what I 

13 thought we'd do is sort of work backwards. 

14 Are there any of these on the list 

15 that people would like -- do not believe 

16 should be included in the review?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

18 Could I ask for clarification? There are some 

19 Blockson cases on the list.

20 Do those drop off or not? Can 

21 NIOSH clarify that?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Hinnefeld. What would happen is that dose 

2 reconstruction for an SEC claim, it would 

3 essentially become moot. 

4 And for instance, one of these I 

5 see is colon cancer, which I'm pretty 

6 confident is an SEC cancer. So this dose 

7 reconstruction then would become moot and we 

8 would not see the claim again.

9 Department of Labor would reopen 

10 the claim and recommend, you know, if the 

11 Class is added, then would recommend 

12 compensation, the initial recommended decision 

13 for compensation and a final decision for 

14 compensation.

15 So dose reconstruction for any 

16 Blockson case, if Blockson Chemical becomes a 

17 Class, would -- it would become moot if it's 

18 an SEC listed cancer.

19 MEMBER MUNN: But doesn't this 

20 issue go to the purpose of the exercise that 

21 we're involved in with the dose reconstruction 

22 reviews? 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 This is -- it was my understanding 

2 that we were going through these exercises not 

3 necessarily to determine whether or not 

4 compensation was adequately addressed, but to 

5 determine whether or not the process that was 

6 followed and the procedures that were used in 

7 the process of reviewing that claim had been 

8 properly used.

9 Am I mistaken in that?

10 Is the reason we're doing Dose 

11 Reconstructions to try to get more people paid 

12 or is the reason we are doing dose 

13 reconstructions a Q&A issue to determine that 

14 they are being done correctly?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is --

16 MEMBER MUNN: If this is the 

17 latter --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll just offer 

19 our perspective -- my perspective on that is 

20 that the review determines -- is essentially a 

21 determinant of all aspects of was the dose 

22 reconstruction done correctly.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 In the past, when we have had 

2 claims with findings and we had a claim that 

3 was reviewed, there would be a set of findings 

4 and then subsequently that claim was added to 

5 an SEC Class, we've not necessarily resolved 

6 the findings on those dose reconstructions. I 

7 think there's -- if, in fact, a Class is added 

8 after a dose reconstruction is done, then I 

9 would say that there's, I guess there's a sort 

10 of presumption then that the dose 

11 reconstruction was not done in accordance with 

12 the final determination of what's a correct --

13 for the specific instruction for that, for 

14 that case, because if reconstructed doses 

15 turned out to be not feasible to reconstruct, 

16 so, to me, there -- it seems to kind of -- to 

17 me, it's not intuitively obvious that there's 

18 a lot of basis for reviewing a claim that's 

19 going to end up in an SEC Class or that is in 

20 an SEC Class.

21 DR. MAURO: Dr. Melius, this is 

22 John Mauro. Would it be appropriate for me to 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 comment on this?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that would 

3 be fine, John.

4 DR. MAURO: The only place I see 

5 value is there will be certain cancers, such 

6 as prostrate cancers, that are not covered 

7 under the SEC. 

8 And there are certain issues 

9 related to Blockson in terms of the dosage, 

10 the partial dose reconstructions that are 

11 still completely unrelated to the radon issue 

12 that are still a matter of what we would call 

13 Site Profile concern.

14 A perfect example would be if 

15 there were a case at Blockson with prostrate 

16 cancer, it would be, I think, insightful, to 

17 have such a review, because it does go toward 

18 the partial dose reconstruction for the parts 

19 of the models and assumptions that are 

20 currently applicable in the Site Profile but 

21 for which there is some debate amongst the 

22 Work Group Members regarding that particular 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 matter.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

3 hadn't thought of that. And going from that, 

4 that these dose reconstructions, whether they 

5 were for SEC cancers or not, would be 

6 following the Site Profile instructions for 

7 how to do dose reconstructions.

8 So if there are findings to be had 

9 on that, on the non-SEC consideration part, 

10 with the SEC, other components of the dose, 

11 they could be evaluated in this fashion. 

12 Findings here would then be 

13 relevant to non-SEC cancers when the time 

14 comes.

15 It's a little hard to know for 

16 sure based on, you know, it's different organs 

17 and things. But probably they would be 

18 relevant.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And that one 

20 case also includes some dose from Argonne 

21 National Labs East. So, it, I mean, again, 

22 you don't know from this table what -- yes, 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 what's involved in terms of years of work or 

2 type of work and so forth.

3 So --

4 DR. ULSH: Dr. Melius?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 DR. ULSH: There are actually two 

9 Blockson cases, at least on the spreadsheet 

10 I'm looking at.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 DR. ULSH: One of them is a colon 

13 cancer that I think Stu was talking about 

14 earlier.

15 The other one has two cancers, 

16 rectum and all male genitalia. I'm assuming 

17 that that latter one is a prostate, although I 

18 don't know for sure, so.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes. No, 

20 I was referring to the -- we were mostly 

21 talking about the colon cancer. At least on 

22 my list, the spreadsheet there, they're right 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 next to each other. 

2 Wanda, you were about to say 

3 something?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I was going to 

5 say I still haven't heard words that would 

6 satisfy my basic question, which is, what's 

7 the purpose of our doing these dose 

8 reconstructions? 

9 I really have been laboring under 

10 the impression for many years now that we were 

11 doing this to verify that our procedures that 

12 were established in the approach to each of 

13 these individual cases was properly and 

14 adequately performed by the agency. If that's 

15 not our purpose, then I've been at odds with 

16 what we were trying to do in this particular 

17 Subcommittee.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think we 

19 understand that part. I guess my response to 

20 that would be that I think it depends on the 

21 situation, the site and the case, that if the 

22 predominant part of the individual dose 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 reconstruction dealt with an exposure that the 

2 Board had found, or NIOSH had found through, 

3 you know, Special Exposure Cohort evaluation 

4 or review of that evaluation, that, you know, 

5 predominant part of that dose reconstruction 

6 was either a method that wasn't, let's say, 

7 adequate or sufficient or that the available 

8 data wouldn't support that method. 

9 It seems pointless to do the full, 

10 you know, review the dose reconstruction, 

11 reviewing a method that we already have made a 

12 finding that there's either -- the method 

13 isn't adequate given the data or the data's 

14 not sufficient to support the method or 

15 whatever, but I think it's an individual 

16 decision.

17 The last case that I reviewed was 

18 one that, between the time it was selected and 

19 the time it was presented to us, we were 

20 reviewing it, it had become a Special Exposure 

21 Cohort and there was still some value to 

22 reviewing other parts of that. However, one 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 significant part of the exposure couldn't be 

2 reviewed.

3 I don't have a particular problem 

4 leaving them in or dropping them out. I mean, 

5 I think we can make a judgment either way or 

6 it may be that it's better until someone's had 

7 a chance to review, and look at it more, you 

8 know, the work history in more detail, to see 

9 whether it's, you know. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I --

11 this is David Richardson.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I appreciated 

14 Wanda's first question. I think it helps to 

15 refocus thinking on what the purpose of this 

16 review, dose reconstructions, is. Taking as a 

17 starting point that it's a quality assurance 

18 sort of exercise and the -- and there's a 

19 finite number of these reviews that are going 

20 to happen, I was thinking about this, I guess, 

21 Wanda, in response to your question, because 

22 my first impulse was, why would we not -- why 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 would we -- why do we, in a sense, why do we 

2 care if it's an SEC or not, and I think that 

3 was your question.

4 It might be that from like a 

5 survey sampling or kind of perspective, you'd 

6 want to define the kind of the target that you 

7 want a sample from in the way that's going to 

8 be most efficient. 

9 And so it's not the entire set of 

10 dose reconstructions anymore that are done; 

11 it's those that are going to be relevant to 

12 claims and we're in an awkward position where 

13 that sampling frame has changed slightly.

14 Upon creating an SEC, now you drop 

15 out, it's -- the sampling frame is a little 

16 bit smaller than it was when this spreadsheet 

17 was made.

18 But, so, in the sense of 

19 efficiency, you would want to -- you want to 

20 do this quality assessment on the group that's 

21 of most interest to this reconstruction.

22 Does that make -- I mean, it's a 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 roundabout way, but we have a small number of 

2 draws that we're going to take and we want to 

3 do it in a way that's going to be 

4 representative of the claims that are going to 

5 be the most important to evaluate.

6 MEMBER MUNN: That's true. 

7 However, we have a limited pool from which to 

8 choose to begin with. 

9 And when we're doing -- all the 

10 other types of reviews that we have done have 

11 not been full internal and external.

12 And this, this type of review, 

13 where we look at the entire universe of what's 

14 used in each of these individual claims, makes 

15 -- gives us a much larger picture of whether 

16 or not we have some kind of pretense of 

17 shortcoming, or whether, when we see 

18 shortcomings, they seem to be limited to a 

19 certain type of claim, or does not have cover 

20 the full scope of what --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Dr. Melius?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Dr. Ziemer?
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. A follow-up 

2 comment. I'm sort of sorry I raised this on

3 Blockson.

4 I think on the two cases that are 

5 shown there, we actually probably don't have 

6 enough material to know whether or not they 

7 are suitable. 

8 And my -- the reason I asked the 

9 question was, I think, reflects what Stu said. 

10 If it's an SEC case and a dose reconstruction 

11 has been done, by definition, the dose 

12 reconstruction was done wrong because we now 

13 are saying that there's not adequate 

14 information to do dose reconstruction.

15 But in the first case, there is, I 

16 think rectum is probably an SEC cancer, so 

17 that one may be -- but there's prostrate there 

18 as well. So that would be probably one you 

19 would look at, because there has to be some 

20 dose reconstruction.

21 The second one, we don't actually 

22 know that it's an SEC case, because we don't 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 know the distribution between Blockson and 

2 Argonne on time.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, I guess my 

5 follow-up comment at this point is, let's not 

6 debate the two Blockson cases to death here. 

7 I think Wanda's point is correct that we are 

8 trying to ascertain, if dose reconstruction is 

9 done correctly if, in reviewing these, we find 

10 that indeed something's a pure SEC case, 

11 automatically, that's going to drop out 

12 because that says that the dose reconstruction 

13 was not the way it should have been done, just 

14 by definition.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Which is a different 

16 thing from saying --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- the basic 

19 information available for all --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, because 

21 there may be other -- there may be other 

22 information that can be reviewed and is 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 reviewed when we do this, and that includes 

2 whether or not the -- all the information was 

3 correctly used and so on.

4 There are other parameters beyond 

5 what we see here on the spreadsheet.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, could I 

7 -- this is David Richardson again. Could I --

8 are there -- I mean, it was kind of an issue 

9 of principle that was raised, though, it's not 

10 --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- relative to 

13 this spreadsheet. How does somebody become a 

14 row on this spreadsheet, and are we -- are 

15 such spreadsheets going to be created from the 

16 pool of all claims, from the pool of claims 

17 that are excluding SEC cases? 

18 And is there over-sampling of 

19 types of cases that we're interested in, for 

20 example, where there's an external/internal 

21 dose component?

22 So, I guess, I mean, I'm just 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 interested to know, how is the sampling done?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Does anybody want 

3 me to take that? This is Stu Hinnefeld.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I don't 

5 think Mark is --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Mark I don't 

7 believe is on anymore.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes -- is on 

9 anymore. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, I'm still 

11 here, but they're making announcements, and 

12 I'm sure I'm going to turn off my cell phone

13 in a second.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I would also 

16 commit to, when we're in Idaho, maybe I can --

17 just for the sake of the new Members, do a, 

18 you know, revisit our sampling criteria and go 

19 through all the existing ones we've sampled so 

20 far and look at the distribution and share 

21 that with everyone that's sort of a 

22 presentation.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 But, Stu can certainly describe it 

2 a little bit here. But I'll offer that I can 

3 do that at the Idaho meeting. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: I think that would 

5 really be helpful if you could, Mark.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Especially since the 

9 overall criteria and how we approach this 

10 isn't intuitively obvious to a person coming 

11 in the middle of it.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. And we 

13 may also want to revisit -- I myself would 

14 like to revisit and see how our distribution 

15 has fallen out so far, you know. So it may be 

16 a good time to do that.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And I'm 

19 going to have to bow out, but Stu can pick it 

20 up from there.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, actually, 

22 I think it would be better if we did this 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 discussion in Idaho, when it's more complete, 

2 because I'm afraid if we start asking more 

3 questions of Stu, then we're going to get sort 

4 of bogged down without adequate information.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I agree, and I'd 

6 certainly like very much to have -- especially 

7 our newer Members, have an opportunity to get 

8 a little more history and background that the 

9 Subcommittee Chair could provide for us at the 

10 same time.

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: And just --

12 since I was there when it was first developed, 

13 I think we need to tell people where they can 

14 find it on the O: drive, or whatever the drive 

15 is called now, because I think we did have a 

16 pretty descriptive document, but finding it 

17 and all of that might be problematic.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But I also think 

20 it's evolved over time, and I'm not sure we've 

21 updated it --

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. But then 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we definitely need to --

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: And I think 

4 Mark's point of getting, what's the 

5 distribution, we used to do that each time 

6 before we selected the new cases.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and of course 

8 these are -- our universe is always limited, 

9 because it's only from closed cases that we 

10 can work.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Jim?

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: I don't want to prolong 

15 this, but I just would note for everyone 

16 thinking about this, a couple of people, Stu 

17 and all, have said, well, you know, if there's 

18 an SEC added, then, I mean, that indicates 

19 that the dose reconstruction is faulty by 

20 definition.

21 But I would have you keep in mind, 

22 and this may not apply in a little situation 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 like Blockson, but it would often, perhaps, 

2 apply in larger sites.

3 The dose reconstruction may not 

4 have had to deal with the exposure for which a 

5 Class was added. So you might keep that in 

6 mind.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Or even 

8 the case of Blockson, it only really applied 

9 to a small part of that exposure.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: In general, so, 

12 or at least -- there are other parts of the 

13 exposure that would still be reconstructed.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is 

15 Brad, too. One of the things that -- when 

16 I've been looking at this and so forth, there 

17 may be an SEC for that site, but this person 

18 may not be a part of that time, because many 

19 of the sites have a carved-out SEC --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: And you know, for 

22 me, a lot of this stuff, I want to see how 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 they handle the different sites, and how they 

2 do the job categories and everything else like 

3 that.

4 So sometimes, in some cases, even 

5 though there is an SEC for these, there's 

6 still a reason to be able to review them and 

7 make sure that they were done correctly.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks. Now, 

9 the question I have though, is, we can 

10 postpone the general discussion until Idaho, 

11 but how do we want to handle this particular 

12 set of cases?

13 Now, Idaho is roughly a month 

14 away, so there's not that much of a delay, 

15 though I do know that SC&A is anxious to get 

16 going on this, but --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

18 thought Mark was suggesting that we do the 

19 selection in Idaho. Did I misunderstand what 

20 he said?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think that was 

22 what was implied by what he said, yes. I 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 don't think he said it directly, Paul. And I 

2 actually think it would be -- would be better. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I agree.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's hard to do 

5 this on the phone, and we also have voting 

6 issues that come up because of the many sites 

7 involved, conflicts, and so forth. So it's a 

8 little awkward to do.

9 So let's -- unless there's an 

10 objection, let's postpone until Idaho.

11 MEMBER MUNN: That's probably a 

12 good idea, unless -- we're certainly not going 

13 to be holding SC&A up from doing other things, 

14 are we, John?

15 DR. MAURO: This is John. To 

16 respond, we do have our crew ready to start 

17 work on new cases, so, you know, we're 

18 available to begin work immediately on new 

19 cases. 

20 But if it's more appropriate to 

21 delay until the Board meeting, that's okay, 

22 too. 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, 

3 unless there's -- I hear another objection, I 

4 think we will wait until Idaho, and make the 

5 selection there. 

6 Okay. Next item on our agenda is 

7 an update on Chapman Valve, the data issues. 

8 So, LaVon?

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Thank you, 

10 Dr. Melius. 

11 During the May 2010 Board meeting, 

12 there was a discussion, and we actually had a 

13 vote of I believe eight to eight on whether we 

14 could do dose reconstruction.

15 So there was still some question 

16 by the Board on sampling a enriched sample. 

17 One of the things that we'd looked 

18 at early on was going back to the Navy to 

19 attempt to retrieve information. We are 

20 revisiting that, and that work is ongoing. 

21 And right now we do not have a 

22 clear picture when that will be complete. 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 We're going to look at the contracts from that 

2 period and see if any contracts stimulate 

3 something that we should review to look and 

4 see if there was any type of information that 

5 would give us indication that it involved 

6 enriched material. 

7 So, I don't have a time line on 

8 that completion.

9 But in addition to that Navy 

10 research, we have tasked our contractor to 

11 develop a data capture matrix for Chapman 

12 Valve. 

13 As most of you know, this is a 

14 standard process for current SEC evaluations. 

15 However, this SEC evaluation was completed 

16 some time ago, so there was never a matrix, 

17 actually a formal matrix, data capture matrix, 

18 presented to the Board with that evaluation.

19 We have tasked our contractor to 

20 do that. We will use this as a kind of a 

21 verification of our due diligence to ensure 

22 that we have dotted the Is, crossed the Ts, to 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 ensure that we've captured -- went to all our 

2 possible resources to get information.

3 In addition -- we anticipate that 

4 data capture matrix will be complete around 

5 the middle of August, all the information. 

6 The holdup on that is we have 

7 identified some documents at Hanford for 

8 Chapman Valve that we are pulling and 

9 reviewing. 

10 I don't want people to get 

11 excited, because we have seen the titles on 

12 these, and we believe all these documents are 

13 purchase orders for valves that Hanford had 

14 made through Chapman Valve. 

15 But we are going to review those. 

16 And those documents will not be uploaded 

17 until later this month, and then a review will 

18 take place, and then that data capture matrix 

19 will be complete. 

20 So, again, anticipate that done in 

21 the middle of August. We will provide that to 

22 the Board and the Work Group. 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And we will also continue our 

2 search with the Navy contracts to see if we 

3 can find information that may identify a 

4 potential source of our enriched sample.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any Board 

6 Members have questions?

7 Okay. Discussion of the NIOSH 10 

8 Year Program Review?

9 Ted, Zaida's circulated to the 

10 Board I think -- I think we'd received at our 

11 last meeting, at least some of us had, and not 

12 -- I don't think everybody had or everybody 

13 could then access it, a draft of at least, I 

14 guess I'd call it the first part of the 10 

15 Year Review. And then more recently, Zaida 

16 circulated an updated version of that. 

17 Lew, do you want to give us a 

18 brief update on that?

19 DR. WADE: Let me go through very 

20 quickly, Dr. Melius -- thank you for the 

21 opportunity. 

22 To remind you again, the 10 Year 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Review will happen in two phases. The first 

2 phase is really designed to be a data-driven 

3 consideration of various issues such as 

4 individual dose reconstructions, SEC 

5 petitions, timing, customer service, and 

6 quality of science.

7 The second phase, once that phase 

8 is complete, will look at John Howard and 

9 NIOSH leadership exploring possible ways of 

10 improving the program, based upon the 

11 foundation of the first phase.

12 What I've given you now is the 

13 latest draft of the Phase 1 report on dose 

14 reconstruction. 

15 What I would like to commit to you 

16 is at your mid-August meeting, before that, 

17 you'll see the piece on timing, the piece on 

18 SEC, and most of the piece on science.

19 And then on your October call, 

20 you'll see the customer piece. And in mid21 November, you'll see the entire Phase 1 

22 report.
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 With regard to the piece that you 

2 did receive, several issues -- and these 

3 really both flow from comments made by Dr. 

4 Richardson. I have not constrained the 

5 authors to put on blinders and only look at a 

6 limited subset. 

7 So, in the DR piece, you'll see 

8 timings. We'll deal with that in editing. I 

9 didn't want to limit the authors' ability to 

10 present that if it was important to them 

11 telling a cogent story. So it's possible at 

12 the end you'll see that stuff in more than one 

13 place.

14 Dr. Richardson was also looking 

15 for substance on DR reviews, and I'm really 

16 relying heavily on the Board's work. 

17 If you'll notice, in the report I 

18 sent you, I start by looking at the 

19 Subcommittee's work and referring and relying 

20 heavily on that.

21 So, again, comments on how I'm 

22 making use of the Board's work as well as any 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 comments on the activity are more than 

2 welcome.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

4 you, Lew. Anybody have any comments?

5 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick Lemen.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm just wondering 

8 if you could -- two housekeeping things on 

9 that --

10 DR. WADE: I'm sorry, I didn't 

11 hear either of those points. I'm sorry.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: The first point 

13 was, could you put page numbers. At least 

14 mine didn't have page numbers.

15 DR. WADE: Okay, I'll see that 

16 that's done.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: And secondly, is it 

18 possible to put who authored it, the sections?

19 DR. WADE: Okay. The section you 

20 have was authored by me, Lew Wade. The other 

21 sections, I will include the authors on.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: That's all. Thank 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you.

2 DR. WADE: Thank you.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Dick, your voice is 

4 very, very soft on this call. Lew's not the 

5 only one who can hardly hear you. I can 

6 scarcely tell that you're on the line. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

8 comments?

9 My only comment, Lew, is, 

10 actually, your introduction was very helpful, 

11 because when I read through the report, most 

12 of my comments were, is this all? Or, is this 

13 all that they're going to say about timing and 

14 some of the other issues that are going to be 

15 added in later? 

16 So I think -- I'm pleased that 

17 you're -- you know, there are more sections to 

18 go, and a little better idea of what's in 

19 those sections.

20 I do think that some of the 

21 information, data, or information was useful 

22 that you had extracted about the program, and 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it was helpful to understanding. 

2 And I think it was information, 

3 some of which we -- at least, I hadn't seen 

4 before, so.

5 DR. WADE: Yes, thank you, Jim. I 

6 didn't want to wait until I had all five 

7 chapters to share with you. 

8 I thought I would share the one 

9 that I could control or the one I was writing 

10 to give you an opportunity to react to the 

11 methodology, and particularly since it's the 

12 one that heavily draws upon the Board's work.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 DR. WADE: But, yes, there is much 

15 more coming, believe me. 

16 But this is representative of what 

17 you're likely to see. And then it will be 

18 cobbled together and edited and presented in a 

19 more coherent way. And then Dr. Howard's work 

20 will begin in terms of recommendation.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

22 comments?
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this is 

2 Josie. I just wanted to say, Lew, I read 

3 through this and I was very pleased with how 

4 well it reads, and it's very understandable, 

5 so I did enjoy that.

6 DR. WADE: Thank you. I enjoyed 

7 writing it.

8 (Laughter.)

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Other comments? 

10 If not --

11 MEMBER BEACH: I do have one more 

12 little thing on page 5, which isn't numbered, 

13 there was one little typo. Did you say this 

14 was still going through editing at some point?

15 DR. WADE: Oh, yes, it hasn't been 

16 edited yet.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, perfect. Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If, no further 

19 comments -- please feel free to send email 

20 comments, email comments to Lew, either with 

21 questions, suggestions, or requesting 

22 clarification. Because I think the -- it's 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 not only the editing of this part, and 

2 obviously the content of this part, but 

3 there's also, so, how does it fit together, 

4 and even a reminder that, you know, a certain 

5 topic that may not be covered in depth in this 

6 chapter should be addressed in later chapters 

7 or whatever would be helpful to assembling the 

8 entire document. 

9 DR. WADE: Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If 

11 there's no further discussion, then the next 

12 item is review of public comments to the Board 

13 during the February meeting.

14 And Ted, do you want to lead off 

15 on this?

16 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Sorry, I 

17 was just taking myself off mute here.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I never 

19 know, the hesitation -- did I mess up or 

20 something?

21 MR. KATZ: No, no. I'm not sure 

22 you whether you want to lead or I, but I'm 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 happy to. 

2 So, I have redistributed, I think, 

3 a couple of times now, the comments from the -

4 - the comments were actually received at the 

5 February Board meeting, and they were provided 

6 before the May Board meeting. 

7 But we didn't really take them up 

8 specifically at the May Board meeting, so 

9 we're taking them up now. And I expect you 

10 all have them, then.

11 And I thought if this is -- with 

12 you, Jim, I thought I'd just run down the 

13 spreadsheet, and sort of -- I think we can 

14 deal with these relatively quickly and get to 

15 the items that the Board may or may not want 

16 to do something with, if you feel that there's 

17 something remaining to do with the comment --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: -- if that plan sounds 

20 okay to you.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, go ahead.

22 MR. KATZ: So I'll just do this in 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 order.

2 The first four comments are 

3 comments about Santa Susana Field Laboratory. 

4 And these -- to just sort of summarize, these 

5 are all comments related to -- or individuals 

6 who, you know, either worked in one area and 

7 not the other, may not be -- you know, 

8 boundaries that have changed at the area, et 

9 cetera.

10 These are all items that I at 

11 least considered the Board, in effect, acted 

12 upon in making its recommendation, which 

13 defined, you know, the Class of all workers. 

14 And then it's up to DOL to determine 

15 eligibility. 

16 But the Board has at least covered 

17 these issues to the extent possible in 

18 defining the Class of all workers.

19 So there is sort of some 

20 importance to their comments in terms of how 

21 DOL actually does its work in qualifying 

22 people as members of the Class. 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 But I'm not sure what's left for 

2 the Board to do here, unless the Board wants 

3 to, you know, make some sort of statement 

4 about this. 

5 That's a question.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: That covers the first 

8 four comments from [Identifying information 

9 redacted}.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, what --

11 why don't you keep going, and then if -- we 

12 can come back if people have --

13 MR. KATZ: Sure.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Disagreements or 

15 questions.

16 MR. KATZ: Sure. So the next --

17 the next -- oh, is someone trying to speak?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it was Wanda. 

19 I was just -- I was just going to say as you 

20 go through them, if there was general 

21 agreement that there is no additional actions 

22 that the Board needs to take, wouldn't it be 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 simpler for us to just say so at the time?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I'm 

3 assuming that we will agree with Ted, and it 

4 may be easier just to identify where we don't 

5 agree. 

6 And then at the end, we would, you 

7 know, sum up and say that, you know, are we in 

8 general agreement with these? Do people have 

9 -- I mean, do it at either end. 

10 But just, on the phone, I think 

11 it's easier to do it sort of from the negative 

12 side, have him go through and then come back -

13 -

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine. 

15 Whichever's easier. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine. 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's fine. And 

19 I'm certainly fine with people disagreeing 

20 with me. They do all the time. 

21 So the next comment is also Santa 

22 Susana. It's about -- it's really just 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 informational, so I don't believe it needs any 

2 response about EPA doing work there. 

3 The next comment, also about Santa 

4 Susana, relates to -- relates to concerns 

5 about the period after 1965, and DCAS has 

6 responded to this comment with the petitioner, 

7 I believe. 

8 And you know, there's -- I think 

9 with most of these cases, where petitioners 

10 are commenting, I mean, there's been a stream 

11 of communications between petitioners and DCAS 

12 on these matters. 

13 But in this case, what's required 

14 is a -- there was no petition covering the 

15 period after 1965, and hence, it requires a 

16 new petition for it to be addressed.

17 So I don't believe there's 

18 anything for the Board to add on this one. 

19 And then I come to a group related 

20 to Canoga, and very similarly to the three 

21 comments on Canoga, and similarly to the 

22 situation with Santa Susana, the Board acted 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to define the Class broadly.

2 And really the only thing left is 

3 for DOL to appropriately deal with these 

4 matters in qualifying individuals for the 

5 Class, which has been added there.

6 The following, I have another 

7 Canoga comment, the fourth Canoga comment, and 

8 this really deals with an individual DR, and 

9 DCAS is working with the individual 

10 specifically. So I believe that that's being 

11 handled, DCAS, and needs no Board action.

12 This brings me to a fifth on 

13 Canoga. This is a comment -- the second 

14 comment from [Identifying information 

15 redacted], and it's a question about why a 

16 particular cancer in this case is not included 

17 among the SEC -- the specified cancers. 

18 And there's another comment later 

19 on I'll get to, related to Santa Susana, in 

20 effect the same question, asking why, you 

21 know, a certain cancer is not included. 

22 And, you know, the Board, in my 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 response column, as indicated, I mean, the 

2 Board isn't really expert on the reason for 

3 inclusion or exclusion of cancers from the 

4 specified cancer list, so for this one, it's a 

5 question for me as to whether the Board wants 

6 to address this issue of -- since there were 

7 two comments then, in the meeting, about this 

8 -- is this included or not, or excluded from 

9 the specified cancer list?

10 So, we can come back to that, or -

11 -

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, let's come 

13 back.

14 MR. KATZ: -- you might want to 

15 discuss that now?

16 Okay. Then, moving on, I have 

17 another Santa Susana, very similar, from 

18 [Identifying information redacted]. And 

19 again, I believe the Board recommended a 

20 complete Class, and it's really in DOL's hands 

21 to handle that inclusion into the Class 

22 correctly. 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 The same goes for a -- following 

2 Canoga and Santa Susana. And then we have 

3 another Santa Susana from [Identifying 

4 information redacted], and this DOL, at the 

5 meeting, the Advisory Board, I think he 

6 brokered this, Jim, DOL committed to calling 

7 the claimants, and so I don't believe there's 

8 any action on the part of the Board.

9 That following comment on Santa 

10 Susana from [Identifying information redacted]

11 is -- again, it's the same as the one I just 

12 mentioned from [Identifying information 

13 redacted] related to why is the specified 

14 cancer list what it is. 

15 Then we come to another comment 

16 from Santa Susana, and this relates to 

17 changing the legislation that was dealt with 

18 at the Board meeting, so I don't believe 

19 there's any more response needed. We replied 

20 that this is a legislative matter, not a Board 

21 matter.

22 The same goes with a comment on an 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 NTS, and related to allowing children and 

2 spouses to apply for compensation under part 

3 B, but what about part E. Again, that's a 

4 legislative matter and was responded to by the 

5 Board.

6 And the same again on NTS -- well, 

7 the following actually -- comment on NTS, the 

8 Board responded at the meeting, though, was 

9 concerned about outreach, and the Board noted 

10 for the commenter that worker outreach is 

11 important to the Board and is being examined 

12 by the Board.

13 Then we come to Santa Susana, 

14 Canoga comment has to do with a fireman who, 

15 you know, worked at putting out uranium fires 

16 at Canoga, but his employment records show him 

17 at De Soto. 

18 And this is a situation where at 

19 the meeting, well -- DCAS is working on this

20 issue to some extent, and I believe it would 

21 be communicating with DOL on it. 

22 But maybe LaVon can expand on 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that, because this is who I have down for 

2 having -- for working on this issue.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry, Ted, I 

4 missed the issue. But I did hear my name, I 

5 did hear I was responsible, so.

6 MR. KATZ: This is -- the issue 

7 here is Santa Susana -- [Identifying 

8 information redacted] commented that you have 

9 a fireman who has letters of commendation for 

10 putting out uranium fires at Canoga, but his 

11 employment records indicate that he worked at 

12 De Soto, so you've got sort of a situation in 

13 that his employment records don't indicate his 

14 involvement at Canoga.

15 And what I have from DCAS is the 

16 report that you were working on this matter, 

17 because work locations are not easily 

18 identified for such personnel. This issue is 

19 being considered.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, yes, 

21 this is a situation where -- and I think I 

22 understand, where firefighters are actually 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 responsible for multiple sites instead, so the 

2 employment could have been covered on any one 

3 of the sites at that time.

4 I do not have a response or 

5 haven't completed that action yet, but that is 

6 something we're -- we have to work with the 

7 Department of Labor for identifying those time 

8 periods for when they're working. 

9 It's going to be kind of hard to 

10 do because of the fact that you have to take 

11 specific fires and try to figure out when 

12 individuals worked at those. So I don't have 

13 a completed action on that yet. 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but you are 

15 following up, LaVon. Because this was a 

16 common issue that came up, just because of the 

17 way, you know, facilities were listed 

18 separately --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right, it wasn't 

20 an issue when it was all ETEC, but now that 

21 they're separated, it is an issue.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And now 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that we've sort of completed the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort or are in the process of doing 

3 that, I think at least there, you know, we've 

4 designated all the separate facilities as part 

5 of a Special Exposure Cohort. 

6 And you know that -- presumably 

7 that goes forward now, then it's a question of 

8 how do you deal with these sort of people who 

9 move from facility to facility like 

10 firefighters.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: And really, it 

12 should only be an issue for the years -- I 

13 think, honestly it would -- the years that go 

14 -- you know, if they worked at Canoga --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- or in years 

17 that were not covered under the SEC, but the 

18 SEC was covered at another facility -- or at 

19 the other facility.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: For example, 

22 Santa Susana.
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's the issue. 

3 Okay. I will continue to follow up on that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. It's not 

5 easy.

6 MEMBER GIBSON: Jim?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Jim, this is Mike.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Mike?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: There's also the 

11 issue that -- you know, not only facility 

12 Santa Susana, you know, that SEC limits it to 

13 Area IV, but there were workers on that site 

14 in Areas I, II, and III that were rotated in 

15 and out of that area, and there's no barriers 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MEMBER GIBSON: -- there's no --

19 seems to be no records or anything else that 

20 could help those people prove that they were 

21 working in and out of that area to make them 

22 eligible for the 250 days.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, I 

2 know, and I think it's -- that's why I say 

3 it's a more general problem than that. 

4 Now that we've sort of finished 

5 with the all the facilities, I don't think 

6 it's easy to deal with, but at least we should 

7 be able to try to move forward on it. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. The next comment 

9 is also Santa Susana but really, I think the 

10 meat of it relates to Canoga. 

11 This individual didn't work in the 

12 Vanowen Building, but the Board recommended 

13 that the Class that defined it as all workers, 

14 that becomes moot. 

15 I'm sure this individual has 

16 already benefitted from that change in the 

17 Class Definition.

18 Comments? Santa Susana --

19 someone's phone is not on mute, and there's 

20 plumbing or other sounds that are difficult to 

21 speak through.

22 Next comment on Santa Susana, Area 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 IV, and this is a little bit perplexing. 

2 Bomber, maybe you can help me understand this 

3 better because I'm missing, I think, some 

4 information.

5 But the Class -- the comment is if 

6 the Class was designated through -- in effect, 

through 1964, December 31st 7 1964 at Santa 

8 Susana Area IV, but there were two petitions. 

9 And one was through `64, one was 

10 through `65, and so the comment is concerned 

11 with what happened to `65.

12 And so I wonder if maybe Bomber 

13 you can explain or remind the Board --

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, I think 

15 actually -- I think that should be `68. One 

16 was through `68, and we only -- the issue was 

17 qualification. 

18 What we qualified was for a period 

19 up through 1964, and we qualified from that 

20 from the basis that there was -- that a lack 

21 of monitoring data. We qualified it for 

22 evaluation up through that period.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And so that's why it was not --

2 and the reason the Class has not gone beyond 

3 that is we believe we have sufficient 

4 information post-1964 to do a coworker model 

5 and cover that period.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, if that's 

7 the case, then previously, in a response that 

8 I've mentioned earlier, at the meeting we 

9 responded that after `65, we'd need a new 

10 petition. 

11 But then in reality, that response 

12 should have been, after `64, we'd need a new 

13 petition.

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct. 

15 If I said after `65, I meant after `64.

16 MR. KATZ: Got it. Any questions 

17 about this?

18 Okay. Then we get to Rocky Flats

19 comment. And it's a fairly long comment here. 

20 But it has to do with the buildings, who was 

21 exposed, and who not, for neutron monitoring. 

22 And the response is that DCAS is 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 working on this in discussions with the 

2 commenter, and at the time that I have this 

3 report, DCAS reported that they were going to 

4 have a conference to discuss this with the 

5 commenter. 

6 But maybe Bomber or someone could 

7 just update us on whether that's occurred?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Is this 

9 concerning the potential neutron exposure in

10 one of the buildings?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, Building 460. 

12 Building 440 was discussed in this comment. 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't know if I 

14 would be better to do this or Stu. And I know 

15 who -- the commenter you're discussing.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Go ahead, Bomber. 

17 I don't know that I have anything to offer 

18 right now.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, this is a -

20 - we have had some discussion with this person 

21 concerning this. We actually had a conference 

22 call and had some discussion with this person 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 concerning this issue. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we've 

4 addressed -- we have addressed that issue with 

5 the person, and we have left open all the 

6 communication lines with that individual as 

7 well.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. The same 

9 commenter, also on Rocky Flats, has another 

10 comment, and this relates to raising questions 

11 about -- I think, you know, I was not with the 

12 Board at this time, but I think these are 

13 issues that may have been discussed by the 

14 Board in the SEC review that the Board did.

15 But, essentially, the comments 

16 relate to periods in which, you know, there 

17 were a large number of zero doses assigned in 

18 the data -- the data upon which the dose 

19 reconstructions are being done. 

20 And the commenter is in, effect, 

21 questioning such a high percentage of zeros 

22 among the dose data, dosimetry data, if that 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is sort of reasonable to expect there, to be 

2 such a high percentage of zero doses. 

3 So, and a commenter asked 

4 specifically if the Board concludes that it's 

5 not really reasonable, then maybe the Board 

6 should re-look at the issue of data during 

7 these periods. 

8 So that's a question, I think, for 

9 the Board. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think it's 

11 really up to our Work Group, which we probably 

12 need to reactivate. 

13 I think it's sort of been on hold 

14 pending the issue we've tried to settle on the 

15 -- utilization of data from the epi study.

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark's not on, 

18 so I don't think we can respond beyond that at 

19 this point.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Sounds good. 

21 All right.

22 We have -- we have another 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 comment, also same commenter, also on Rocky 

2 Flats.

3 One relates to a past conflict of 

4 interest with a person, [Identifying 

5 information redacted], who did a good deal of 

6 work related perhaps to the Site Profile. 

7 It's not really specified here, but I think 

8 that's probably true. And, so, it's questions 

9 about that person's conflict.

10 And then there's a second issue, 

11 in effect, the commenter is asking about the 

12 current conflict and bias policy that the 

13 Board and contractors and all are under, and 

14 that provides for personnel to apply for, you 

15 know, a waiver, or approvals, in certain 

16 cases, when they're conflicted, and the 

17 commenter's asking two things.

18 One, whether decisions related to 

19 that, the allowance of an individual Board 

20 Member or other to participate despite a 

21 conflict with -- will those decisions be 

22 available online to stakeholders?
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And the second question is that 

2 whether Board Members -- specifically about 

3 Board Members, whether they who have work 

4 experience at a site will be able to apply for 

5 a waiver so they can speak as a private site 

6 expert.

7 So, these are -- there are answers 

8 to these matters. I don't know whether -- how 

9 we want to proceed on these, because these are 

10 really largely Agency issues. 

11 It's true that anyone with a 

12 conflict -- in certain circumstances -- there 

13 are some circumstances where -- in certain 

14 circumstances, you can apply for either a 

15 waiver or approval, when you have a conflict, 

16 as to whether they would be granted. 

17 Of course, that's a case-by-case 

18 issue. 

19 But we do have, you know, the 

20 Board Members have online, currently, some 

21 sort of statements, brief statements, I 

22 believe, of their conflicts. 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Those have not been updated 

2 recently, and it does occur to me that we 

3 probably need to update them as we've 

4 developed our conflict of interest policy.

5 And then the Agency also has 

6 information and the contractors have 

7 information. I'm not sure -- I'm not 

8 personally that familiar with how extensive 

9 that information is on there, on their staff.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But, Ted, aren't 

11 -- isn't NIOSH going through a process of 

12 applying the new policy to their contract, the 

13 contractor's staff --

14 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the Board 

16 Members. So I think that, I mean, the answer 

17 is that, you know, to some extent, is that, 

18 yes, there's a new policy, it's in the process 

19 of being applied.

20 I think the test of that for a 

21 person from the public is to -- when these get 

22 updated on the website, the appropriate 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 information should be available. And they can 

2 then judge, does this, you know, address the 

3 problem?

4 MR. KATZ: Right. I agree. And 

5 what I was just trying to say is that we have 

6 not -- I don't believe there has been much 

7 updating of the information on the web, since 

8 we've begun our implementation of this policy.

9 And that certainly needs to be 

10 done. We do want the public to be informed. 

11 It's on our to-do list.

12 Okay. Next comment is on Nevada 

13 Test Site, and it was -- it concerned coverage 

14 of individuals who worked in Area 25 prior to 

15 the formal assessment of Yucca Mountain. 

16 The Board responded, at the 

17 meeting, suggested that this be forwarded to 

18 the Department of Labor, and DCAS has sent the 

19 information relevant to this comment to DOL 

20 for review. I think that's taken care of.

21 The other comment, then, on 

22 Fernald, regarding how construction workers, 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 subcontractors were treated vis-a-vis regular 

2 company workers at Fernald, with respect to 

3 dosimetry and so on. And this is an issue 

4 that's being addressed by the Fernald Work 

5 Group. 

6 This individual who commented, I 

7 think, has participated in the Work Group's 

8 meetings. And so I think this person's, you 

9 know, informational needs, you know, will get 

10 addressed at the Work Group meetings. 

11 And then, finally, the last 

12 comment was from Richard Miller, who is a 

13 congressional staffer for Congressman Miller, 

14 or his committee. And that was responded to 

15 by general counsel at the meeting. I don't 

16 believe the Board needs to respond further on 

17 that matter. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks. 

19 Do you any of the Board Members have questions 

20 on any of the responses? 

21 If not, I think, then let's just 

22 move on. Do you have anything else to add, 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Ted?

2 MR. KATZ: No, that takes care of 

3 it for that. 

4 So the only one that's sort of 

5 left as a question mark is whether -- I don't 

6 know, I mean, I don't have a recommendation, 

7 but whether the Board wants to provide any 

8 education about the specified cancer list, 

9 which we had a couple comments on.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think -- well, 

11 maybe it's an issue that, you know, I don't 

12 what extent NIOSH has information that 

13 explains that list and makes that available. 

14 I haven't looked on the website or anything.

15 It seems to me it would be helpful 

16 to have some sort of general information 

17 available for when people ask that. 

18 It is a common question, and I 

19 expect it comes up in a lot of the interviews 

20 and, you know, discussions with claimants, 

21 particularly, you know -- or doing outreach 

22 for the SEC.
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So I think that should be the 

2 response. I don't think -- you know, the 

3 Board can't do anything beyond -- what is in 

4 legislation, so, the list, so --

5 MR. KATZ: And I agree with that. 

6 And these are really questions about why it 

7 is as it is, and I don't know. 

8 Maybe DCAS, or Stu or others, I 

9 mean, maybe this a good topic for you -- I 

10 think you frequently add a frequently asked 

11 questions element to the website. Maybe this 

12 is a good one, since it is frequently asked at 

13 the Board meetings.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu. 

15 We can look into that. I'm not exactly sure 

16 what we'd be able to say. 

17 I mean, there was a list of 

18 elements for a law quite some time ago, and 

19 then there have been additions to the list by 

20 various amending actions. 

21 So, I don't know that we have much 

22 to say about the basis for the list, other 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 than, it's from the law.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's in the law, and 

3 the law is based on technical information.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- yes, 

5 maybe, no. I don't know that I'd complete the 

6 second part of the sentence.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there is a 

8 basis --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think you can 

10 provide the original source for the list, and 

11 that information.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We can probably do 

13 something like that.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I think 

15 there's some value in simply telling the 

16 public, in fact, we don't know the full basis 

17 for the list ourselves, it was established by 

18 Congress.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ted, I think 

20 that's the biggest thing right there, because 

21 I think -- this is Brad by the way.

22 There's a misconception out there 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that the Board is the one that came up with 

2 this list, and they're wanting to know why --

3 you know, why we chose these. 

4 And these were not by us or 

5 anything else like that. So I think a little 

6 bit of a description of where they come from 

7 and so forth like that, and maybe also even if 

8 something was to be put on there, how it has 

9 to be put on there. 

10 They seem to think that sometimes 

11 that we can just say, yes, that sounds like a 

12 good one to put on there, so let's put it 

13 there. 

14 I think it's more than anything 

15 it's just educating them about how we got 

16 there and how things are done on it. 

17 MR. KATZ: I agree, Brad.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I -- this 

19 is David Richardson -- I guess, pose this in 

20 the form of a question. 

21 The -- is it the case that the 

22 Board can simply -- or should simply step back 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and say, this was written by Congress and we 

2 don't know how it came about and our hands our 

3 tied?

4 Or is the scope of work for the 

5 Board -- was the Board asked to offer advice 

6 to DHHS on its activities under The Act, and 

7 from that perspective, we can offer opinions 

8 about what are covered and not covered 

9 cancers? 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We were not 

11 asked about the list. We were asked -- the 

12 Board was charged with certain activities, 

13 review of dose reconstructions, the SEC 

14 evaluation process, but those are the main 

15 charges to the Board. 

16 The list was not -- you know, 

17 there's a separate process that involved 

18 NIOSH, but the Board was not directly involved 

19 in that. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I 

21 understand historically, but it does -- I 

22 mean, I guess, this is a question out of 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 ignorance. 

2 The Board cannot or should not 

3 offer opinions about scientific or other 

4 issues regarding the list?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess we 

6 could, but that's really a longer 

7 conversation.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Oh, that's 

9 obvious. I mean, our immediate response was, 

10 well, that was written, and we don't have 

11 anything to do with it. And I'm just 

12 wondering if that's the case.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, just as a 

14 point of reference, in previous conversations 

15 that we've had, beginning with the very first 

16 meeting that we had, some questions were 

17 raised with respect to language in the law 

18 itself. 

19 And we were told very strongly, 

20 and the sense was very strong, is that the 

21 Board itself, that it was not our business 

22 what Congress did, that the law was the law, 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and we would proceed in accordance with what 

2 Congress has indicated the law to be.

3 So, if we are now in a position 

4 after all these years to begin to reconsider 

5 that, then there are several items, I'm sure, 

6 that many members of the public, certainly 

7 many activist groups, and many individuals and 

8 both the Board as well as the Agency and the 

9 contractor would like to take issue with a 

10 number of things.

11 But that may be more a significant 

12 step than --

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right, well -

14 - and I understand. I'm just trying to think 

15 about how, if someone were to pose the 

16 question to NIOSH, I think NIOSH is correct in 

17 saying in response, the history of this. If 

18 it was going to be up on their website, these 

19 are the things that are listed under the Act.

20 But is a Board which is appointed 

21 to offer advisory information, can it say, 

22 well, we were asked not to advise on that? I 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 mean, I guess we should just be careful about 

2 what we're saying. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we are told to 

4 advise the Secretary.

5 MR. KATZ: David, this is Ted. I 

6 mean, the Board has a specific charter from 

7 the Secretary --

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: And this is not in it. 

10 So it really is not within the scope of the 

11 Board's charge from the Secretary.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, well, 

13 that's -- then that's a --

14 MR. KATZ: Situation.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You know, I 

16 think a clearer response.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. I think, Stu -

18 - and talking about what Stu might put on the 

19 website, it's not only just addressing the 

20 Board's involvement, but the fact that the 

21 Agency itself did not select the cancers and 

22 does not know their derivation from a 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 technical, scientific standpoint. Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

3 Ready to move on. Special exposure petition 

4 status update, LaVon?

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Well, 

6 after the last few Board meetings, where we 

7 presented quite a few petition evaluations, 

8 the August Board meeting is going to be pretty 

9 light in comparison.

10 We anticipate presenting three SEC 

11 petition evaluations. 

12 They are Revere Copper and Brass, 

13 that's for a period -- I think, roughly, 1943 

14 through 1954 was the operational period, and 

15 then there's a residual period.

16 We have an Ames petition 

17 evaluation for 1955 through 1960. That's the 

18 period immediately following operations when 

19 the uranium and thorium work was at its peak. 

20 That's to be presented.

21 And the third one is another Linde 

22 petition. This petition evaluation has been 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 on hold because of issues that the Work Group 

2 has been working through with SEC 107, which 

3 is the petition for the residual period at 

4 Linde, an issue that was brought up during 

5 that Linde -- the Linde Work Group is tunnel 

6 exposures and determining if the tunnel 

7 exposures can be reconstructed with sufficient 

8 accuracy. And that issue has held up 154 as 

9 well, which is the operational period from 

10 1947 through 1953.

11 We are currently on schedule to 

12 have that evaluation complete and present it.

13 However, that Work Group is 

14 meeting later this month, and there is the 

15 potential that that petition evaluation would 

16 not be presented if we don't have some 

17 reasonable resolution on that.

18 But right now, those three 

19 petitions, Revere Copper and Brass, Ames, and 

20 that's pretty much it. 

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: LaVon, this is 

22 Phil.
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Unless I 

3 misunderstood from what Pete was telling me, 

4 won't there be one on INL, Argonne National 

5 Lab West?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: There will be 

7 some discussion on -- a Site Profile update, I 

8 believe, on INL, but there is no petition 

9 evaluation scheduled to be presented in 

10 August, where we do have a petition that's 

11 currently going through qualification at this 

12 time, but we have not completed an evaluation 

13 on INL for this August meeting.

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: But I do know 

16 that there is some Site Profile update 

17 information that -- I think there's some 

18 presentation on that that was anticipated.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, thanks.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

21 questions for LaVon?

22 Okay, if not, thank you, LaVon.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Update from Work Groups? We're 

2 not going to go through the full list, but, I 

3 guess anybody volunteer with anything that 

4 they think's important, particularly something 

5 important to go before our August meeting?

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

7 would like to mention one item of the 

8 Procedures Subcommittee.

9 As everyone knows, that 

10 Subcommittee has been working on an attempt to 

11 establish the correct format and the correct 

12 level of communication language to be used in 

13 the final archiving documents of the file that 

14 we will establish to maintain a resource for 

15 the public.

16 Once we have completed procedure 

17 review and resolved all of the technical 

18 issues that are involved in it, we -- our 

19 desire is providing a brief overview, so that 

20 anyone who wishes can come to the website, 

21 look to see what that was about, and in just a 

22 couple of pages, get a feel for the issues and 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 what they were and how they were resolved.

2 This turned out to be a larger 

3 task, I think, than any of us recognized at 

4 the outset. 

5 SC&A provided us with a very good 

6 straw man to begin with, and the Subcommittee 

7 has been -- the Subcommittee of the 

8 Subcommittee has been working on the language 

9 for several weeks.

10 It's now in the hands of the 

11 Subcommittee and the contractor to review the 

12 format that we are going to propose.

13 And it is anticipated, once any 

14 comments come back, I will be distributing 

15 that to the entire Board, probably within the 

16 next week, so they will have an opportunity to 

17 see it prior to our upcoming meeting. We were 

18 hoping that the Board would be able to approve 

19 it at that time. 

20 What, was someone saying 

21 something?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think to 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 us. It was background talk, I think. 

2 Thanks, Wanda. Any other Work 

3 Group Chairs with updates?

4 I have one. The -- just an 

5 update, because this is on the agenda for the 

6 Idaho meeting, the SEC Evaluation Work Group 

7 has been -- I think as I updated you last 

8 time, has been working on the development of 

9 sort of, guidelines, I would call them, for 

10 dealing with the less than 250 day issue with 

11 Special Exposure Cohorts.

12 We are on track to be able to 

13 present some criteria -- or guidelines I guess 

14 that I'll call them -- for that at the meeting 

15 along with some -- most likely some 

16 recommendations on two of the sites where this 

17 is under consideration, possibly even three.

18 We have a meeting scheduled the 

19 end of July, a conference call meeting, where 

20 we'll discuss that. 

21 And we'll circulate a draft of the 

22 guidelines to the Board prior to the August 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 meeting. And then we'll spend some time 

2 amount of time in Idaho discussing these and 

3 discussing the specific sites. 

4 Any other Work Group or 

5 Subcommittee updates?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. 

7 I do have a quick update for Mound.

8 We have a meeting scheduled on the 

27th 9 , and we hope to bring recommendations on 

10 three key issues. We are on the schedule for 

11 Thursday to complete. I think we'll be able 

12 to complete most of Mound hopefully, on 

13 Thursday.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 Excellent. And just another update, as you 

16 recall from the last Board meeting, where we 

17 approved a Special Exposure Cohort petition 

18 for Mound, at least a partial one, I guess, 

19 you'd call that, let's do that. 

20 And if you remember, we had a 

21 fairly complicated Class Definition that had 

22 two parts, the second part which was sort of 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 a, I guess you'd call it a safety valve. 

2 It was a back-up if people didn't 

3 qualify on the basis of part 1, which was 

4 based on monitoring, being in a monitoring 

5 program. The second part was working in the 

6 building -- or two buildings, I believe.

7 The -- in follow-up discussions 

8 that NIOSH had with Department of Labor 

9 regarding that second part of that Class 

10 definition, Department of Labor had some 

11 significant concerns about being able to 

12 implement that. 

13 And then also, I think, that 

14 concern was also that -- I don't think the 

15 concern, but the fact that we really hadn't 

16 identified that would fit into that part of 

17 the Class Definition. 

18 So based on some internal 

19 discussions between NIOSH and DOL and then Stu 

20 and I had some discussions on this, the 

21 recommendation, I believe, that will be going 

22 forward or has gone forward, will probably --
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 from Dr. Howard to the Secretary, as far as 

2 our recommendation, we'll probably drop the 

3 second part for now, the second part of the 

4 Class Definition.

5 Stu, if you want to -- have 

6 anything more to add to that? I'm not sure 

7 where we are in terms of timing.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. The 

9 recommendation did go forward from Dr. Howard, 

10 and it included the first part of the Class 

11 Definition. 

12 Department of Labor's discomfort 

13 with the second part of the Definition was 

14 that to -- I guess, for lack of a better word, 

15 it was deceptive. It gave the appearance that 

16 there was a second way into the Class, when in 

17 fact, none of us can find another way to 

18 verify presence there into the Class. 

19 So they were concerned that, you 

20 know, people who would apply based on that 

21 basis are destined for disappointment, and why 

22 put everybody in that position for that 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 situation? So, that was their basis for the 

2 argument. 

3 Now, if anyone is still concerned 

4 about that, we of course will be doing dose 

5 reconstructions for cases that are excluded 

6 from the Class. 

7 And we'll be on the lookout for 

8 situations or evidence that may contravene our 

9 understanding about the completeness of the 

10 first criterion. 

11 And there's always 83.14 available 

12 later on if we find that there's something 

13 that is different than what we've been to 

14 learn so far in terms of people who were 

15 there, so. 

16 That's where it stands.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks, 

18 Stu.

19 Any other Work Group or other 

20 updates?

21 I will mention one more issue, 

22 because -- sort of to alert you and inform 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you. 

2 The -- regarding the Sandia Site, 

3 we've had Site Profile reviews completed by 

4 SC&A. And there's also a petition under 

5 evaluation by NIOSH, probably to be presented 

6 at our follow-up meeting in New Mexico later 

7 in the fall. 

8 But NIOSH was in the process of 

9 doing a data -- I'm going to call it data 

10 capture, a visit to the site, including some 

11 interviews with some retirees and other former 

12 workers and decided that it would -- even 

13 though we didn't have a Work Group active in 

14 this area, and really didn't have action, this 

15 was an opportunity we didn't sort of want to 

16 miss. 

17 So SC&A has been authorized to 

18 accompany NIOSH on this as part of these 

19 interviews and data capture activities in 

20 preparation for, you know, further evaluation, 

21 both possibly of the SEC petition as well as 

22 the Site Profile. 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And we will need to be setting up 

2 a Work Group to deal with that, which will be 

3 an activity we'll take up in the August 

4 meeting.

5 And another reminder to you on 

6 SC&A, I don't know how many -- Ted circulated 

7 something a few weeks ago, looking for any 

8 comments. 

9 We will be doing their performance 

10 evaluations, so I remind you, I think the 

11 deadline was last Friday, but people should 

12 get comments in, if you haven't already. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: I thought the 

14 deadline was today, close of business.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Was it? It 

16 could have been. I did see here -- I was 

17 going to just mention, Wanda, that I know that 

18 you've commented some, and others may have 

19 directly to Ted and had copied others.

20 MR. KATZ: It's been very quiet so 

21 far, but the deadline is today. That's 

22 correct, although, honestly, I'd still be 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 happy to have your input if you can do that 

2 soon.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: Ted, you got 

5 mine, didn't you? It's Bob. 

6 MR. KATZ: No, I did not.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: One other item I 

8 want to mention informationally -- and this 

9 will be discussed more at the August meeting, 

10 is -- I believe it came up with Idaho, I can't 

11 remember which site it came up with. 

12 But in terms of trying to schedule 

13 a Work Group meeting, there was some 

14 difficulty just trying to understand where 

15 NIOSH was in terms of completing some of their 

16 -- either responses or other documents, and 

17 given sort of our overall difficulties, just 

18 the challenges of trying to schedule Work 

19 Group meetings and trying to estimate when 

20 things will be done and ready for discussion 

21 and so forth, one thing that we thought that 

22 would be helpful would be to have at least an 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 estimated schedule of when documents would be 

2 completed, or responses to SC&A comments and 

3 whatever, so that it would help the Work Group 

4 Chairs in terms of scheduling meetings, so 

5 we'd know where things stood with NIOSH as 

6 well as SC&A.

7 So, I discussed with Stu, and Stu 

8 agreed to it, and I think we will be working 

9 to implement something so there will be 

10 documentation available so, the Work Group 

11 Chair, you'd have some idea when documents 

12 would be complete.

13 Again, there are always things 

14 that can come up, or delays, whatever, that 

15 are unforeseen, but at least it would be some 

16 helpful information in terms of scheduling, 

17 so. 

18 I appreciate Stu making the effort 

19 on this. 

20 Any other -- Ted, any other? I 

21 don't believe we have any Board 

22 correspondence.
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: No correspondence. I 

2 have a couple things I'd just like to cover --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

4 MR. KATZ: One is -- I hate to go 

5 back to a topic, because we already closed it. 

6 But just to note for you, with 

7 respect to the public comments to the Board, I 

8 had asked for, but I hadn't received any 

9 specific suggestions from Board Members about 

10 categorization because we wanted to simplify 

11 that. 

12 And I've sent to all of you the 

13 categorization that I used and proposed to 

14 DCAS, and which I think they're applying in 

15 doing that for the May Board meeting public 

16 comments.

17 So again, if any of you have any 

18 concerns about the way I've framed that, I've 

19 heard back from Henry, but please let me know. 

20 Otherwise that will be the categorization we 

21 use.

22 So, and I sent you out an email I 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 think today or yesterday just letting you know 

2 what categorization I provided to DCAS.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Basically from 

4 30 -- 1 through 30, or something like that, to 

5 1 through 7.

6 MR. KATZ: 1 through 7 and other--

7

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Of specific --

9 MR. KATZ: Right. The other 

10 matter, this has to do with -- the tour at 

11 INL, a number of Board Members are taking a 

12 tour as well as SC&A, and we're going to have 

13 some DOL people along with us as well. And 

14 DCAS. 

15 But three of the Board Members, I 

16 just received a note from DOE, we need to turn 

17 in our -- these forms to the site related to 

18 our monitoring, and there are three of you, 

19 Dr. Lemen, Ms. Munn, and Dr. Roessler, as well 

20 as Gen, your husband Chuck, that need to --

21 they need to receive those forms. They 

22 haven't received those from you. You cannot 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 go on the tour without submitting those. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Ted, this is Wanda. 

3 I faxed mine yesterday. They should have it.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, that's 

5 good. I just want to let -- remind you all. 

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Ted, this is 

7 Gen. It looks now like my husband and I will 

8 not be able to attend the tour.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. They wanted to 

10 know that, so thank you.

11 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, thanks. 

12 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Lemen, you're 

13 the other one who needs to submit a form if 

14 you still plan to go. 

15 MEMBER LEMEN: I will send it. 

16 There was one question about the tour. I 

17 don't know if Dave Richardson's on the phone 

18 or not, but he had sent you a correspondence 

19 or an email asking if we would be able to have 

20 worker or labor participation in the tour, and 

21 it's my understanding that you'd indicated 

22 that we wouldn't.
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Well, at these tours, I 

2 mean -- let me just -- they -- they've been --

3 we've done these tours now for about eight 

4 years and whatever, and they have site 

5 experts. 

6 I don't know -- what I said to 

7 David, I don't know whether any of them are 

8 labor representatives. We never had an 

9 outreach to have labor representatives 

10 participate in the tour. 

11 The tour is really just to 

12 familiarize the Board Members with the layout, 

13 and to give them a little bit of general 

14 education that's helpful for their Board work, 

15 as well as sometimes, in some of these, I 

16 guess, they call -- the meat of the tours can 

17 get into sort of meatier detail when we have a 

18 Work Group established and so on.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, this is 

20 Phil. I'd like to comment on this INL tour. 

21 That's kind of an area that I really was going 

22 to send you an email today about.
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I would really like -- it doesn't 

2 necessarily have to be one of the Teamsters 

3 members, or -- but I would like, if at all 

4 possible, at some of these facilities, that we 

5 have people who actually worked in there, not 

6 management-type. I want people who did hands7 on in these facilities. 

8 We are doing dose reconstructions. 

9 We are looking at past history. We need to 

10 understand how they did their work on a daily 

11 basis. 

12 This is very critical for our 

13 understanding, and doing a drive-by, you can't 

14 see that if you get someone who's their PR 

15 person. 

16 They don't know what went on a 

17 daily basis. They don't know how the workers 

18 did their work. They don't know what kind of 

19 problems they had on a daily basis.

20 MS. HOWELL: Mr. Schofield, this 

21 is Emily Howell. I certainly appreciate the 

22 kind of information that you're looking for 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the Board to receive.

2 My concern is that kind of 

3 information really should be received in a 

4 public Board setting such as a Work Group 

5 meeting or a Board meeting. 

6 And so it's a concern under the 

7 Federal Advisory Committee Act if you want to 

8 receive that sort of information on a tour 

9 that's by default not open to the public as a 

10 Board meeting.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

12 Richardson. I raised the issue, and I guess 

13 I'd stand by it again.

14 I think we're in a very awkward 

15 position. I mean, I've been on several site 

16 tours at DOE facilities, and I've also been on 

17 tours at other nuclear facilities which were 

18 not DOE which had labor representation on the 

19 tour. 

20 And there was a different 

21 perspective communicated between a hosted tour 

22 by DOE or with contractors, and a tour in 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 which labor union representatives were allowed 

2 to participate.

3 So there's the one issue of having 

4 a full range of perspectives. There's another 

5 one -- issue, that I think would be valuable, 

6 the contribution is exactly the issue you're 

7 pointing to, of openness, or an appearance of 

8 fairness.

9 If prior to going to INL we spend 

10 a full day in the hands of DOE or its 

11 contractors and their appointed public 

12 relations folks, with kind of the exclusion of 

13 labor or claimants or union representation, I 

14 think you might say in fairness that a 

15 claimant might feel that the DOE has been 

16 given an opportunity to talk with us for a 

17 full day prior to deliberations that might 

18 impact the site and they've been excluded. 

19 Now, we could think about how you 

20 might capture those opinions, if you have 

21 concerns about that labor should only 

22 communicate their opinions at a public open 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 forum. 

2 But other people are not going to 

3 be able to, during this period where the 

4 Board's getting together and touring the site. 

5 Maybe we should think about mechanisms, about 

6 how that could be made to work.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick Lemen. 

8 I'd like to echo what both Phil and David 

9 said. 

10 And also, I'd like to point out 

11 that NIOSH has had industry-wide regulations 

12 that they set up many years ago that asked for 

13 tripartite participation. And I think the 

14 Board really should follow some form of 

15 tripartite participation and not do it without 

16 labor representation. 

17 I think this -- again, and I won't 

18 repeat what everybody says, except to say that 

19 this gives us a one-sided view. And 

20 particularly what Phil said, when we're 

21 talking about the comparability data of one 

22 worker to another, and I think that it's 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 critical for us as a Board to see these 

2 issues.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ted, this is 

4 Brad. Now, I can't talk to Idaho, and we all 

5 know why that is, but what I wanted to remind 

6 all the Board Members is some of the wonderful 

7 tours that we have been on, like up to 

8 Hanford, or the Nevada Test Site.

9 One of the things that made these 

10 always so interesting to me were the people 

11 who were actually giving us that tour had the 

12 first-hand information of it. I still think 

13 of B-Reactor. I mean, that gentleman there 

14 could tell us everything about it and told us 

15 the process.

16 Nevada Test Site, the gentleman 

17 who had been there 37 years had such a good --

18 he was able to answer the questions that the 

19 people just had in the back of their mind very 

20 easily.

21 So I'd like to echo what everybody 

22 else has said, you know, everybody should be 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 able to have a fair opportunity to be able to 

2 have their voice listened to. 

3 Because I'll tell you right now, I 

4 watched yesterday on the site that you guys 

5 are going to tour, they had the Advisory Board 

6 for the blue ribbon nuclear something else, 

7 and the person who was giving that tour has 

8 only been out to the site for three years.

9 MR. KATZ: Brad -- I'm sorry. 

10 Jim, did you want to say something before me?

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 

12 Presley. As someone that's done this for the 

13 last ump-teen years, the only thing that I 

14 would suggest is, we've had union 

15 participation, but what you want is what we 

16 call a site expert on the tour, whether it be 

17 union or whether it be an hourly person or 

18 whether it be the plant manager.

19 I think it needs -- we need to 

20 say, please have your site experts do the 

21 tours, and let them make the decision.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This is Jim. 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Can I suggest two things? 

2 One is that, since these site 

3 tours are arranged through DOE, I think we 

4 should bring this issue up with DOE, and if 

5 possible, certainly express the concern about 

6 making sure that we do have real -- you know, 

7 somebody that's really -- people who are 

8 really knowledgeable about the site as part of 

9 the tours. 

10 And then let's -- I think we can 

11 continue the discussion in a more general 

12 sense with the DOE at the next meeting.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, 

14 knowledgeability really and truly ought to be 

15 the primary key in our focus here. 

16 It is surprising to hear that any 

17 organized labor person does not think they are 

18 adequately -- that their concerns were not 

19 adequately expressed by Members of the Board, 

20 or they are not key in their minds, that not 

21 having an opportunity to address us at any 

22 meeting or by any form of communication 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 available is not adequate access to our 

2 activities. That's a bit surprising. 

3 But knowledge of -- it's certainly 

4 agreeable. Knowledge of the actual activities 

5 and the history of the site are far more 

6 crucial from the point of view of our tour 

7 than what group that individual might belong 

8 to, or those individuals might belong to. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I've got to say 

11 something in that relation. I've spent too 

12 many years working in glove boxes and stuff, 

13 and I can get you a PR person to go through, 

14 and they can give you a song and dance. But 

15 they aren't in there doing that work.

16 They don't understand how people 

17 got messed up, how people got exposure, how 

18 the hot jobs were done, where the different 

19 things were.

20 Because a lot of times, by the 

21 time we get to this information, these 

22 buildings are gone. And this is what's going 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to happen in INL. They're tearing down all 

2 these buildings.

3 So we want the people who do the 

4 actual work, whether they're union, non-union, 

5 I don't care. We need people who can tell us 

6 how they did it on a daily basis. That makes 

7 a difference in your exposures, how you're 

8 exposed, what kind of exposures you've got --

9 MEMBER MUNN: Phil, did anyone 

10 suggest -- did anyone suggest that we not have 

11 experts? That's not what we --

12 MR. KATZ: Let me -- let me 

13 intervene here, please. I think -- I mean, 

14 really, this doesn't need to be a hot 

15 argument.

16 MEMBER MUNN: No.

17 MR. KATZ: I think the Board has 

18 had a pretty good experience overall with 

19 tours and experts, but I also think -- and 

20 even though -- I think David and Dick are 

21 coming to this with a different context. 

22 I think it's perfectly reasonable 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 concern that we have labor representation 

2 there that's not necessarily site experts, 

3 just -- PR, what have you, on the site.

4 I'm perfectly happy broaching this 

5 for the upcoming tour with the folks at DOE. 

6 I don't see any problem with that.

7 And in the future, you know, this 

8 is an issue that has not been raised in the 

9 past, and we've been going along nicely.

10 But I do think -- you know, I 

11 understand the concerns that Dick and David 

12 are bringing to this question. And I think, 

13 you know, I'm not sure it's going to be, you 

14 know, any heartache for the DOE to try to fish 

15 out also some labor representation to join the 

16 tour group.

17 And I think, you know, any person 

18 who works at a site will probably bring 

19 something to the discussion that will be 

20 valuable to others. And it will be nice to 

21 meet another worker from the site. 

22 So I'm happy going forward and 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 speaking with DOE for the upcoming, and making 

2 that a routine for future tours, too.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

4 issues? If not, we'll adjourn the call.

5 MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, wait --

6 just, this is Andy.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just wanted to -

9 - are we -- has everybody gotten the 

10 information on the Smart Card issue that we're 

11 going to be addressing there, or registering? 

12 Or is everybody registered, got their Smart 

13 Cards?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Registering and 

15 getting your Smart Card is not the same thing.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, I know, 

17 I'm just saying -- if you're going to get a 

18 Smart Card you need to have your passport with 

19 you, that's all I'm saying.

20 And then my other question, Jim, 

21 is when do you expect -- how long are we going 

22 to go on Thursday? 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Because, as we're starting to make 

2 airline flights, I could get home Thursday 

3 night if we're not going to go late. If we're 

4 going to go until 5:00, then I have to stay 

5 over.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's a half day.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: Half day, so 

8 we'll be through by 1:00?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: It ends at noon, Andy. 

12 It ends at noon, and you should have the 

13 draft agenda in your email box. 

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

16 questions?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes, this 

18 is just Brad kind of talking about some of the 

19 stuff that Andy was talking about. 

20 Earlier they were talking -- it 

21 was sent out that Zaida was going to contact 

22 us with more information on further security 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 requirements or whatever and so forth like 

2 that. And I haven't heard anything or seen 

3 anything else on that, so I hope I'm not 

4 falling delinquent. 

5 I did my security update for the 

6 computer and everything, but I haven't heard 

7 any more on any of -- any more requirements 

8 they're requiring of us, so. With three 

9 different emails and getting it three 

10 different ways, I just hope that I haven't 

11 missed something.

12 MEMBER PRESLEY: Ted, this is Bob 

13 Presley. I was told I was all right, too.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, Bob, that's 

15 because -- right, you're not accessing the CDC 

16 Intranet. If you're not doing that, you have 

17 no issue whatsoever. The Smart Card only 

18 applies to someone who is accessing the CDC 

19 Intranet.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Now, when you say 

21 Smart Card, are you saying this little -- the 

22 security key fob, or whatever?
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: No.

2 MR. KATZ: No, it's a new 

3 requirement that goes beyond that. And if 

4 they didn't send you Smart Card information 

5 like they did the other Board Members, I'm 

6 glad to know that, and I will inform them.

7 But that would be CDC's fault, not 

8 yours, Brad, and they would have to figure out 

9 how to --

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, because I 

11 haven't heard anything, and I'm still getting 

12 on to the O: drive, and that's my concern, but 

13 --

14 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, Brad, I 

15 will look into that right after this call for 

16 you.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you for letting 

19 me know.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, this is Josie. 

21 I just sent you an email on that as well.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. If not, 

2 I'll see everybody in Idaho.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Get rid of the 

5 snow, Bill. Or Brad.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: What's that?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Get rid of the 

8 snow.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, it's gone. 

10 It's hot. We've got forest fires out here.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

12 MR. KATZ: Thank you everybody.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks.

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter was concluded at 12:59 p.m.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

2

3

4

5