STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING FIFTY-EIGHT 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

VOL. III 

DAY THREE 

ABRWH BOARD MEETING

 

The verbatim transcript of the 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 

Redondo Beach, California, on Sept. 4, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Sept. 4, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

MR. TED KATZ, DFO 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES 8 

BOARD WORKING TIME: 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW 82 

WORKGROUP FOR PANTEX 116 

TASKING THE CONTRACTOR 122 

SELECTION OF TENTH SET OF CASES 151 

FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS 156 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 176 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

KATZ, Theodore M., M.P.A. 

Program Analyst 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia

BOARD MEMBERS

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 
5

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. (not present) 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

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

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

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

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 
6

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BLOCK, SHARON, SEN. KENNEDY 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

DEGARMO, DENISE, SIUE/DOW 

HANSON, JOHN, SIUE/DOW 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KLEA, BONNIE, PETITIONER 

KOTSCH, JEFF, U.S. DOL 

LERNER, STEPHEN, DOE 

LEWIS, GREG, DOE 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU 

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A 

VOLSCH, JOE, SIUE/DOW 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:30 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

MR. TED KATZ, DFO

1 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. We're 

2 ready to begin the third day of this Advisory 

3 Board meeting 58 at Redondo Beach, California. 

4 Welcome everyone back. 

5 We're going to follow the agenda pretty much as 

6 you have it. I -- I do hope that we will be 

7 able to streamline a few items because we've 

8 had preliminary discussions on a number of the 

9 items that will be on our agenda today, so they 

10 may go faster than we had originally allowed 

11 for. And if that's the case, at least the 

12 Chair is shooting for completing this agenda 

13 very close to the noon hour. 

14 I do want to announce, and it's been announced 

15 on the web site, that the -- the procedures 

16 workgroup will have a workgroup meeting this 

17 afternoon. This is not a last-minute 

18 arrangement. It's been on the -- on the 

19 schedule for some time. It's been announced on 

20 the web site as well, Ms. Munn, chairman. 
8

1 I assume that if we're able to finish close to 

2 the noon hour that you will want to start 

3 immediately after lunch. Is that correct? 

4 MS. MUNN: That would be my intent. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And at the time that we 

6 adjourn this meeting we will establish a firm 

7 time for the workgroup meeting. 

8 The only other announcement this morning is to 

9 remind everyone to register their attendance in 

10 the registration book in the corridor. 

11 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES

12 We're going to begin with updates on some of 

13 the SEC petitions. We had the -- sort of the 

14 overview update yesterday by -- by NIOSH, LaVon 

15 Rutherford, and we have specific SEC petition 

16 issues to deal with today. We're going to 

17 begin with Blockson. We -- we do have on the 

18 line, I -- I believe, from Senator Kennedy's 

19 office, Sharon Block. Let me double-check to 

20 see if Sharon is on the line. 

21 MS. BLOCK: Yes, I am. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, Sharon. 

23 MS. BLOCK: Morning. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We would be pleased to hear from 

25 you this morning if you want to begin for us. 
9

1 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

2 Chapman. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, Chapman. We've got 

4 Blockson first here, but I think since Sharon's 

5 on the line we'll simply change the order and 

6 do the Chapman Valve issues right now, so -- 

7 and Sharon, you're aware of -- of the 

8 discussion that went on yesterday, I believe, 

9 relative to Chapman. 

10 MS. BLOCK: Yes, and I -- and I appreciate the 

11 -- the opportunity to -- to be a part of this 

12 conversation about Chapman Valve and, you know, 

13 appreciate how difficult this petition has been 

14 for the Board. But I mean my understanding of 

15 where things ended up yesterday was that there 

16 was -- there was thought given to forwarding to 

17 the Secretary some kind of communication that 

18 the Board is deadlocked on this. And you know, 

19 I'm -- from Senator Kennedy's point of view, 

20 we're just concerned that that may be the 

21 functional equivalent of denying the petition 

22 and we have, you know, very serious concerns 

23 about that 'cause it seems the -- you know, the 

24 statute gives the Board the responsibility to 

25 make a recommendation one way or the other, and 
10

1 that if -- if the -- the Board is deadlocked, 

2 you know, that's six members of the Board, an 

3 equal number who would want to grant the 

4 petition, and to -- to use that as the 

5 functional equivalent of denying it seems to 

6 contradict really the spirit of the statute, 

7 which was to give the benefit of the doubt to 

8 the claimants. And there is this piece of 

9 evidence out there, you know, with regard to 

10 the Chapman Valve petition, this enriched 

11 uranium, that still hasn't been explained and 

12 it seems like just too big an obstacle to -- 

13 again, ignoring it and treating this petition 

14 as denied when in fact it has not been denied 

15 by the Board. And so, you know, Senator 

16 Kennedy certainly has expressed throughout this 

17 long process concerns about how long it's 

18 taking, and so I think, you know, we would like 

19 to see the petition granted. But you know, our 

20 -- our biggest concern is about fairness, and 

21 certainly wouldn't want concerns about moving 

22 the process along to trump treating this 

23 petition as fairly as possible because that is 

24 what the -- the -- the guiding spirit of 

25 enacting this statute was, to treat these 
11

1 people fairly. And so the Senator's office -- 

2 you know, we stand ready to help in any way we 

3 can ff there's concerns about getting more 

4 information you think we can be helpful, but we 

5 are very concerned about anything that would 

6 seem to deny the petition when, you know, we 

7 think that's really not where the process is 

8 right now. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Sharon. And just 

10 let me make a couple comments. One was that we 

11 have not yet made a -- a decision as a Board as 

12 to how to proceed. We discussed some of those 

13 options that you identified. The option of 

14 informing the Secretary of the deadlock was not 

15 intended to necessarily be a report to end all 

16 activities, but to make sure that there was on 

17 the official record some indication to the 

18 Secretary of the status, since this has 

19 extended over some period of time since the 

20 petition evaluation report was completed. 

21 Certainly if additional or new evidence comes 

22 forward, then this matter can be continued by 

23 the workgroup. And in fact we will try to 

24 establish today whether there are other paths 

25 for the workgroup and the Board to follow on 
12

1 this particular petition. I think all agree 

2 that we want to be as fair as possible. And in 

3 a sense that means fair both ways. We -- we 

4 believe that -- some believe that NIOSH's dose 

5 reconstruction ability is a fair way, and 

6 others believe that the SEC is the more fair 

7 way. But either way, we are doing our best to 

8 come to some kind of fair closure on this 

9 issue. 

10 So we appreciate the input that you've provided 

11 on this and -- certainly aware of the Senator's 

12 concern. 

13 MS. BLOCK: Thanks. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other folks on the 

15 line, petitioners from Blockson that -- or from 

16 Chapman that wish to comment? 

17 (No responses) 

18 If not, we'll -- 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, who is it? 

21 MR. PETERSON: This is Mr. Peterson that spoke 

22 yesterday. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, sir. 

24 MR. PETERSON: And there was just a -- a couple 

25 of other items and -- as it relates to the 
13

1 bill. I mean I think one of the issues Sharon 

2 was talking about, if -- if we stay with NIOSH, 

3 then Chapman Valve is dead. There are no other 

4 issues. I mean it's a death warrant, Chapman 

5 Valve. And in fact, if you read the 

6 information that Congress set out for your 

7 procedure, it -- it states (unintelligible) is 

8 still no longer -- is now several years since 

9 Congress enacted EEOICPA. The primary 

10 motivation for this legislation was the need to 

11 expeditiously compensate workers and their 

12 surviving family members. The statute 

13 specifically states that the purpose is to 

14 provide timely compensation. It goes on to say 

15 that it anticipates that records will not be 

16 available, that because of the Secrecy Act of 

17 the time it would be a difficult thing. You 

18 have to -- you have to err to the benefit of 

19 the claimant and -- and you -- you really, I 

20 think, need to go back and look at this because 

21 if we maintain the status quo, then nothing 

22 more will happen on Chapman. I mean right now 

23 you certainly have members of the Board that 

24 certainly understand that if records are not 

25 available that doesn't mean they didn't exist, 
14

1 it's just that we're 60 years later. And they 

2 were secret records in the first place. And 

3 just by your own nature you stated that you 

4 have a difficult time getting any information 

5 from the Navy Department and Department of 

6 Energy and Department of Defense. We should 

7 not be hindered because you -- you 

8 unfortunately cannot get the information you 

9 need to make a more intelligent decision. But 

10 in lieu of that, you could certainly make a 

11 decision on the factual evidence that exists, 

12 and the only factual evidence that exists is 

13 that there was uranium in that building. That 

14 is the only factual information you have, and 

15 you should make your determination on that. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

17 MR. PETERSON: Thank you very much. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for those 

19 comments. 

20 We can proceed, Board members, to discuss now 

21 the Chapman Valve situation. I think the 

22 chairman of that workgroup, John Poston, 

23 indicated a willingness for the workgroup to 

24 look into other issues if we could identify 

25 what they -- what they would be. The -- the 
15

1 issue of the enriched uranium, I think it was 

2 agreed to that there is a sample. The impact 

3 of that sample, as far as some of the Board 

4 members are concerned, has been noted. I -- I 

5 don't know if Dr. Poston has any additional 

6 comments as chair, but certainly if you wish to 

7 make some, John, at this time, you certainly 

8 could do so. 

9 DR. POSTON: I just want to reiterate what I 

10 said yesterday. If the people who have 

11 concerns and doubts and so forth will share 

12 those with us so that we can investigate those, 

13 I'll be happy -- in fact, I have two on my list 

14 already. We need to put a plan together as -- 

15 to move forward and move forward as quickly as 

16 we can, but I can't sit here and try to guess 

17 what's in people's minds and -- when they -- so 

18 if we have a list of things that need to be 

19 investigated, let's get it out on the table, 

20 let's -- so that we can work with NIOSH and 

21 whomever to -- to tr-- do our best to obtain 

22 the information and make a decision. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And Brad? 

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

25 and this -- and this is part of the problem. 
16

1 This is what's (unintelligible) come up. We 

2 know we've got (on microphone) the uranium 

3 there. We found out about the Dean Street. 

4 Yes, we took care of Dean Street but we have 

5 not been able to get any information this. And 

6 just because we don't have the information out 

7 there doesn't mean that the things didn't go on 

8 there. This is -- you know, this is one of the 

9 things where, in my belief, that we are to err 

10 in the side of the claimant. And just because 

11 the information isn't there doesn't mean that 

12 something didn't go on. And -- and here we're 

13 going to be making decisions without all the 

14 information. And now to find out where all the 

15 information is, I -- I can't. But this is what 

16 has also put the Board in this situation to 

17 where we're up against -- we're -- we're 

18 deadlocked into this because there is 

19 sufficient information out there. And my 

20 personal opinion is that we should err in the 

21 side of the claimants. We do know that we've 

22 got the uranium there. Can they explain why it 

23 was there? No. Can they explain why it 

24 shouldn't have been there? Well, maybe they 

25 could, but this is -- this is the whole issue 
17

1 with -- with the problems is we've got too many 

2 unanswered questions. Nobody can answer the 

3 questions for us. DOE I know has tried. I 

4 know that they've looked into the Dean Street 

5 facility. We've got people explaining what has 

6 come in. Can we factualize that? No, we 

7 can't, but we cannot disprove it, either. 

8 DR. POSTON: But what are those questions? 

9 That's what I'm asking. You haven't given me -

10 - except for one, you haven't given me any 

11 questions that need to be answered. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, tell me -- 

13 DR. POSTON: You said there's too many 

14 unanswered questions -- 

15 MR. CLAWSON: But -- no, that -- that -- 

16 DR. POSTON: -- but you haven't provided a 

17 list. 

18 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, here, I'll give you an 

19 answer. You tell me everything that went on at 

20 Dean Street from the beginning to the end, 

21 everything. And if you can give me that, 

22 that'll be great, but the problem is, John, is 

23 you can't. This is the problem that we're 

24 getting into is -- 

25 DR. POSTON: We're not even talking about Dean 
18

1 Street. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Chapman Valve. Was Dean Street 

3 part of Chapman Valve? 

4 DR. POSTON: That's a separate question. The 

5 committee -- 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, Chapman -- 

7 DR. POSTON: -- agreed to -- 

8 MR. CLAWSON: -- Valve. 

9 DR. POSTON: -- discount Dean Street 

10 completely. We -- it's not part of this 

11 consideration. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. Then you tell me 

13 everything that went on at Chapman Valve, and 

14 if you can tell me everything, 100 percent 

15 positive, then that's great, but none of us 

16 can. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and of course, Brad -- 

18 MR. CLAWSON: The only -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- we can't do that for any 

20 facility, so -- 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Right, you can't. 

22 DR. POSTON: That's an impossible thing. 

23 MR. CLAWSON: That's an impossible task so -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: That is not a task that Congress 

25 has asked, they've asked either to bound or to 
19

1 -- or to go in the direction of the SEC. 

2 DR. POSTON: I -- I know you're a reasonable 

3 person, Brad, and what I'm asking you to do is 

4 look at what NIOSH said they were going to do 

5 in terms of estimating the doses and tell me 

6 that that's not a reasonable approach. It sets 

7 a huge upper bound for the potential doses that 

8 these folks got. There's no argument about the 

9 external doses. We have the data. But the 

10 assumptions in terms of the internal dose are 

11 so huge that if a person is assigned that dose, 

12 plus their external dose, and they're not 

13 compensable, they will never be compensable. 

14 There's no scenario that you could put together 

15 that's going to raise the doses so that those 

16 folks will be compensable. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: So NIOSH's -- 

18 DR. POSTON: NIOSH is saying to you we don't 

19 know everything and we can never know 

20 everything, but here's a situation that -- 

21 SC&A, everybody agrees, that this is a huge 

22 overestimate of the dose due to internal 

23 exposure. And it's a reasonable approach to 

24 say okay, if you're compensable under this 

25 scenario, then -- then you're compensable. If 
20

1 you're not compensable, there's not much chance 

2 that you would ever be compensable under any 

3 scenario. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Roessler? 

5 DR. ROESSLER: I think, John, to help to 

6 clarify what I think the problem is, we have a 

7 lot of misconceptions about what this one 

8 sample -- what the impact might be if in fact 

9 the sample indicated enriched uranium. I -- I 

10 was going to suggest that sitting here at the 

11 Board meeting this morning is not the place to 

12 -- to go over this and clear it all up, 

13 although I think John helped a bit. I was 

14 going to suggest the workgroup get together 

15 again to try and clarify this situation, 

16 present it so that everyone understands why 

17 people are voting the way they are. And also 

18 at that time if we set up a workgroup meeting, 

19 then this would be the time for people to bring 

20 up the questions that the workgroup could deal 

21 with. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Dr. -- oh, 

23 okay, we have Mark and then Jim and then Brad. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, no, I'm -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark and then Jim. 
21

1 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I was going to ask what John 

2 had on his list before. I mentioned a few 

3 things yesterday, I thought -- 

4 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- and maybe one of those is on 

6 your list, I don't know. 

7 DR. POSTON: I have the two that you mentioned 

8 yesterday, availability of remediation reports 

9 -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

11 DR. POSTON: -- and the Naval activities in the 

12 facility, even though we know that -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 DR. POSTON: -- may be (unintelligible). 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I know that's a difficult one, 

16 but at least it's -- it's something we should -

17 - 

18 DR. POSTON: Yes, I wrote those down -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- pursue further. 

20 DR. POSTON: -- and they're on the list. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and just to expand on the 

22 one with the remediation, I did talk to Jim 

23 Neton of NIOSH and -- and we've had these 

24 discussions before and the question is to get 

25 back to the contractor, and I think maybe Jim -
22

1 - you've made some attempts to try to get that, 

2 but you know, ha-- having done these cleanups, 

3 I mean, they -- they have to have done -- I 

4 mean I'd be astonished if there was no isotopic 

5 data somewhere in the volume of reports when 

6 they did this remediation. If they sent waste 

7 off that site to a -- a -- a site and it was 

8 char-- there was, you know, one enriched sample 

9 there, they would have had to at least to a 

10 small percentage of assayed samples to 

11 demonstrate that they were below the S&M 

12 license requirements for the facility they're 

13 sending the waste to. So somewhere there's got 

14 to be something, and that might say well, here, 

15 we sent this many truckloads of soil or debris 

16 or whatever out, it was all, you know, less 

17 than whatever, and then you may be able to say, 

18 you know, yeah, there was a sa-- you know. I 

19 mean that -- that's a thread that we haven't 

20 pulled and that -- that's one specific -- you 

21 know, to get off this debate back and forth, 

22 just to get to some specific actions -- 

23 DR. POSTON: No, I agree. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's one I recommend. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton. 
23

1 DR. NETON: Yeah, Mar-- I don't disagree with 

2 what Mark is saying, but I -- I would point out 

3 that that, in and of itself, may not clear up 

4 the issue because we still would not know who 

5 produced that contaminated waste that may have 

6 had enriched uranium, you know, even if it was 

7 identified as still being present. Because 

8 remember, the sample was taken I think -- what, 

9 1974, some 25 years or more after activities -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I agree -- 

11 DR. NETON: -- stopped. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- but it may also say, you know 

13 -- some people I think are still not quite 

14 convinced that it was a real sample, even 

15 though Mr. Folle* seems to suggest that -- 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, I -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- it was likely real -- 

18 DR. NETON: -- I have always said it's probably 

19 real. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- but -- but if you start seeing 

21 waste shipments that -- that show a -- a higher 

22 amount of S&-- you know, if there was enriched 

23 -- it -- it might add to the picture. I'm not 

24 sure it's going to -- 

25 DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) 
24

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- production that was done, I 

2 agree. 

3 DR. NETON: Right. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: And then my -- and then my 

5 question about the Naval operations comes into 

6 play, and I -- I know that's difficult, but I 

7 don't know if -- if you've made any -- if 

8 there's any way to make a specific request to 

9 DoD or the Navy about a specific facility time 

10 frame, you know, that kind of thing. 

11 DR. NETON: Yeah. We'd certainly be willing to 

12 try. I mean -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. NETON: -- our success rate has been pretty 

15 poor with that -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I understand. 

17 DR. NETON: -- effort, but we could try. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe the Senator's office -- 

19 DR. POSTON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

20 Senator Kennedy's office. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- can help us. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right, exactly, yeah, yeah. 

23 DR. NETON: The other thing, I think a contract 

24 of some type has to show up, though, because 

25 this facility is a covered facility solely 
25

1 because there's a DOE contract in place to 

2 machine uranium slugs for the Brookhaven 

3 Reactor, and that's what we've reconstructed. 

4 So we've done exactly what the covered facility 

5 was -- was created for, for that singular 

6 contract with the Department of Energy. We saw 

7 no other evidence of any DOE contract. So we'd 

8 have to find some other contract, whether it 

9 was with Department of Defense or maybe some, 

10 you know, later date -- a DOE contract. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

12 DR. MELIUS: I was going to mention perhaps 

13 Senator Kennedy can help with the -- the 

14 nuclear Navy issue, and then Department of 

15 Defense. 

16 The second thing I think to look into is 

17 whether one can ask DOE to go back and -- and 

18 look in more detail for a possible contract, 

19 possible records and so forth. Wasn't clear to 

20 me from what I've heard about their 

21 investigation how -- how thorough it was, and 

22 particularly given that -- you know, we have 

23 this -- confirm this one sample that maybe we 

24 can ask them to -- to re-look at what they've 

25 done and see if there's more that they can do 
26

1 to locate records. But I -- I'll leave that up 

2 to the workgroup, I -- who is more -- I think 

3 more familiar with what's -- what's gone on. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Poston? 

5 DR. POSTON: I think I'm going to say what Jim 

6 is going to say. At the last working group 

7 meeting we actually drafted a letter which was 

8 transmitted to DOE to do -- ask them to do 

9 exactly that, that we needed more information. 

10 We asked them to go back and look. We 

11 suggested other search categories and so forth 

12 that might uncover some of this, and so far 

13 we've received nothing in terms of new 

14 discoveries and so forth. So we have asked 

15 that. There -- I have no qualms about asking 

16 them again. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: John, do you know how long ago 

18 that was? Was that prior to Pat Worthington's 

19 tenure or -- 

20 DR. POSTON: No, no, no, it was sometime in -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: And they've -- they've reported 

22 back to us, I believe, but maybe we can get an 

23 update on -- I'm trying to remember -- the Y-12 

24 -- the question was Y-12 shipments back to 

25 Chapman, and I'm not sure if -- from the 
27

1 transmittal if that was a sort of a database 

2 search or if you went down there physically and 

3 pulled records and looked through manifests or 

4 -- or what kind of search that was. 

5 MR. LEWIS: And this is Greg Lewis from DOE. I 

6 believe we both searched databases, there were 

7 a couple of records collections that were next 

8 to the database level and, you know, we 

9 actually sent people in to flip through the 

10 boxes and the folders, and we were unable to 

11 find any further responsive information. 

12 DR. POSTON: Paul, just to answer your 

13 question, that came out of the last working 

14 group meeting, which was -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Recent then. 

16 DR. POSTON: -- recent, 2008. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

18 DR. POSTON: I don't remember the date. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or suggestions for 

20 the -- yeah, Brad. 

21 MR. CLAWSON: And just -- just to speak on 

22 that, the reason why we were going in that 

23 direction and trying to find more information 

24 was because of the claimants explaining and 

25 talking about shipments that came back from 
28

1 there, and we have not been able to find that -

2 - they were talking about manifolds and so 

3 forth like that, for repairs and processes like 

4 that that were coming back from there. It's 

5 not unusual -- and -- and this is something 

6 that I've said from the very beginning of this 

7 program. Between sites -- there's stuff that 

8 goes back and forth all the time, and -- and in 

9 these earlier years with the secrecy and 

10 everything the way it was, I'm sure it'll be 

11 hard, but I think there's -- there's also 

12 things out there that we haven't uncovered, 

13 either. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius, additional comment? 

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

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, what I'd like to do is 

17 formalize this in two parts. One, if the Board 

18 believes that the workgroup should pursue these 

19 items, as identified, to the extent possible, 

20 I'd like to have that on the record in the form 

21 of a motion. 

22 And then separately I would like to ask the 

23 Board to address the issue of notifying the 

24 Secretary of the status. Again, I would like 

25 to point out that doing that does not preclude 
29

1 us proceeding. It's simply, in my mind, more 

2 of a courtesy. But if the Board does not wish 

3 to -- to put that on the record at this time, 

4 we can delay it. 

5 But let me first ask for a motion dealing with 

6 the duties of the workgroup. Somebody can 

7 create that out of new -- new cloth or 

8 something. Dr. Poston? 

9 DR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move that, based 

10 on the in-- requests of the Board to find 

11 additional information, that the committee -- 

12 the workgroup be charged to follow up on those 

13 requests. 

14 MR. CLAWSON: Second it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Any further 

16 discussion? 

17 THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded? 

18 MR. CLAWSON: I did. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And I think it's fair to say that 

20 the pursuit by the workgroup is not necessarily 

21 limited to those items. If -- if the workgroup 

22 or other Board members have additional paths 

23 they think should be pursued, they would be 

24 free to feed that back to Dr. Poston and the 

25 workgroup so that they can follow that. 
30

1 Any further discussion? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Okay. All in favor, aye? 

4 (Affirmative responses) 

5 Opposed, no? 

6 (No responses) 

7 Abstentions? 

8 MS. MUNN: (Indicating) 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Abstention, Ms. 

10 Munn. Thank you. 

11 What is your pleasure on a memo to the 

12 Secretary giving the current status of this? 

13 We're not obligated to do this. In the absence 

14 of the motion, nothing will occur, but if -- 

15 Dr. Melius? 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I re-- I just -- not sure I 

17 see the need for doing that if we're continuing 

18 to follow up. I think if we reach a point when 

19 our workgroup reports back to us -- I mean 

20 let's see what -- what happens at that point in 

21 time, but I -- think normally we've -- we've 

22 tried to report to the Secretary only when 

23 we've ta-- taken an action, final action -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- on something and I think that's 
31

1 -- should continue that -- that practice. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Any others, one way or the other? 

3 Josie. 

4 MS. BEACH: I just have a quick question, not -

5 - being new to the Board. Has this occurred in 

6 the past and how was it handled? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, it has not occurred. 

8 MS. BEACH: Okay, is there any -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I mean Chapman Valve, there was an 

10 earlier vote that was six-six -- 

11 MS. BEACH: Right, right. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- and then we proceeded and the 

13 workgroup pursued some additional things, but 

14 we have not had this situation -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- before. 

17 MS. BEACH: Okay. Thank you. 

18 MR. CLAWSON: You know, and I understand what 

19 Dr. Melius has said and so forth like that, but 

20 you know, I know that there's been a lot of 

21 information floating around about this. I -- 

22 out of respect, do you think that we should 

23 send a letter letting him know that we've had 

24 this tie vote but we're proceeding on trying to 

25 evaluate the issues or problems, or -- I guess 
32

1 I'm kind of looking at if I was up there I'd 

2 like to know what was going on, but I -- I know 

3 that usually we've only sent (unintelligible). 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, my only concern on this was 

5 that the -- the ER from -- the evaluation 

6 report from NIOSH was completed quite a while 

7 ago, and nothing has come forward to the 

8 Secretary. But I think counsel has told us 

9 that there's not a need to -- since there's not 

10 a time -- there's not a time limit on this 

11 Board -- there's a time limit on NIOSH to 

12 produce the ER, but we are not on a timetable, 

13 so -- Dr. Melius. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean, with all due respect 

15 to the Secretary, and there's lots of advisory 

16 bo-- I mean there's lots of activity in the 

17 Department, and I think -- best to report where 

18 we're sort of obligated to report or -- you 

19 know, by statute or where we've taken a final 

20 action that -- that would make sense and not -- 

21 that's sort of what -- we're public, we have 

22 minutes and so forth, so some-- someone in the 

23 Secretary's office is interested, they can find 

24 out. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And of course -- and that's very 
33

1 true. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And the other thing, I'd simply 

4 note that, even if we report, there's no action 

5 for the Secretary to take, so it -- it has the 

6 same effect as if we don't report. So I -- 

7 I'm not necessarily pushing hard, but I want to 

8 make sure that if the Board feels like we need 

9 to -- to keep the secretary informed 

10 officially, that we have that opportunity. 

11 In the absence of a motion then, that will 

12 complete our work today on the Chapman Valve 

13 issues and we will proceed with the others. 

14 Any -- any further comments on Chapman? 

15 (No responses) 

16 And Sharon, if you're still on the line then, I 

17 think you heard the motion and the workgroup 

18 will continue to pursue some lines of inquiry 

19 to see if we can perhaps break the deadlock. 

20 MS. BLOCK: I really appreciate that, as -- as 

21 does the Senator. You know, it's obviously 

22 important to him and -- and he appreciates all 

23 the hard work of everybody on the Board and 

24 associated with this process, so thank you. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Now I think 
34

1 we're ready to move on to Blockson, and the 

2 chair of the workgroup is Ms. Munn. Wanda, are 

3 you prepared... 

4 MS. MUNN: We had a little technical difficulty 

5 this morning when we were trying to set this 

6 up. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, your document's low risk, 

8 Wanda. Your document's a risk. 

9 (Pause) 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: We can't hear on the telephone. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- well, we -- nobody's 

12 talking. We're -- we have a technological 

13 glitch here while we're trying to get the 

14 slides ready for Ms. Munn's presentation, so 

15 your phone is okay. It's -- I guess it's too 

16 early in the morning for the group to engage in 

17 small talk while Ms. Munn is setting up so 

18 we're just sitting here in stunned silence. 

19 We'll be ready to go in just a moment. 

20 (Pause) 

21 DR. ZIEMER: There it is. 

22 MS. MUNN: Thank you. This group -- workgroup 

23 consists of myself, Mike Gibson, Dr. Melius, 

24 Dr. Roessler, Brad Clawson is our alternate. 

25 We've had two SEC petitions before us. They 
35

1 were qualified in 2006. The technical document 

2 that was issued for the site profile had a 

3 total revision from the outset. I believe you 

4 heard that earlier in this meeting. 

5 We had two near-site meetings with workers and 

6 the technical contractor, SC&A, reviewed all of 

7 the documents that were produced for Blockson 

8 Chemical Company -- the site profile, the SEC 

9 petitions, the evaluation report. They issued 

10 seven findings to us. Those seven findings had 

11 to do with the upper bound of the uranium 

12 inhalation rate, thorium-232 enrichment ratio, 

13 the thorium-230 -- whether or not it was 

14 included in the exposure matrix, possible 

15 thorium raffinate streams, additional data to 

16 support (unintelligible) values, verifying 

17 possible exposure from tailings, and trace 

18 levels of radium-226 and progeny effects. 

19 We had exhaustive work meetings from 2006 to 

20 now of the workgroups, of the technical teams 

21 and, as I mentioned earlier, with the workers 

22 themselves. Several white papers were 

23 generated for our permanent record, and each 

24 one of those findings that I mentioned earlier 

25 was resolved to the satisfaction of both the 
36

1 contractor and NIOSH. The additional details 

2 that were raised during our details had been 

3 each addressed one at a time. 

4 We brought this issue to the Board 

5 unsuccessfully in January of '08, this year. 

6 There were two additional actions that were 

7 requested from members of the Board. There 

8 were questions about the validity of the data. 

9 There were questions with respect to the radon 

10 (electronic interference) -- 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: Ted, I'm sorry to interrupt, but 

12 somebody's got (unintelligible). 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. People on the phone, please, 

14 if you would, mute your phones. If you don't 

15 have a mute button please hit star-6. 

16 (Electronic interference) 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, Wanda. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Now you know why we put you in 

19 that seat. 

20 MS. MUNN: The workgroup revisited each of the 

21 concerns that had been raised (electronic 

22 interference) both by the Board and in previous 

23 meetings. Then we met again in St. Louis -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Hold on just a minute, we're 

25 getting a lot of background noise from 
37

1 something. Is that some sort of an alarm or... 

2 (Pause) 

3 MS. MUNN: I hope somebody didn't go out the 

4 wrong door. I hope it's not a real alarm. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's stopped. Thank you. 

6 MS. MUNN: Back to the top of the page. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I think we can proceed. 

8 MS. MUNN: The responsive actions that the 

9 workgroup undertook were to revisit the 

10 concerns that had been raised by the Board. We 

11 met again in St. Louis after the -- during the 

12 full Board session for a final resolution on 

13 June the 25th of this year. We were 

14 unsuccessful in achieving agreement at that 

15 time. The workgroup was divided in its 

16 response to the three questions that I raised 

17 with respect to the review, to the SEC report, 

18 and to the site profile. The three questions 

19 that I asked were: 

20 SC&A identified seven findings of significance 

21 in their review of this site. Following 

22 detailed technical investigation and 

23 interaction with experts and workers, they 

24 reported all issues resolved. Do you accept 

25 this report? We had four -- all four members 
38

1 present voting yes. 

2 The second question I asked: 

3 NIOSH has sought information in depth for all 

4 activities on this site and has reported they 

5 have adequate data to reconstruct or bound 

6 radiation dose for Blockson workers. Do you 

7 accept this report? Two of the workgroup 

8 members present voted yes; two voted no. 

9 The third question I asked was: 

10 This site profile has been completely 

11 rewritten, reviewed and revised at length. Do 

12 you accept the current site profile? Two 

13 workgroup members voted yes; two workgroup 

14 members voted no. 

15 I then brought this recommendation to the full 

16 Board at the next day's meeting, to accept the 

17 NIOSH position. Adequate data exists to 

18 reasonably bound with sufficient accuracy any 

19 radiation exposure which could have resulted 

20 from employment at Blockson Chemical Company 

21 during its contract period as an Atomic Weapons 

22 Employer. 

23 During the Board -- following that 

24 recommendation, additional information was 

25 requested with respect to radon. The Board 
39

1 requested that the pertinent supporting 

2 documents, which had been worked internally by 

3 the workgroup, be distributed so that all Board 

4 members could review them. The issue was 

5 tabled. 

6 Since that time, the radon white paper that was 

7 produced by SC&A has been distributed to the 

8 full Board, further explaining both the 

9 contractor's view, which is accepted by the 

10 agency, as covering the radon issue. The 

11 contractor reports that had been issued 

12 previously also covering some of the issues 

13 that had been discussed in the workgroup that 

14 were not well known to the Board had been 

15 distributed to the Board -- 

16 MR. KATZ: Excuse me, Wanda, let me just 

17 interrupt a second. 

18 People on the line, can you still hear this? 

19 (No responses) 

20 Is there anyone on the line listening? 

21 (No responses) 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

23 (Unintelligible) disconnected, we need to 

24 (unintelligible). 

25 MR. KATZ: Okay, we need to -- sorry, Wanda. 
40

1 MS. MUNN: Oh, that's quite all right. 

2 MR. KATZ: Be just a moment. 

3 MS. MUNN: That's quite all right. 

4 (Pause) 

5 This is a morning for enjoying the blessing and 

6 curse of electronics. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, just checking. People on the 

8 line, can you hear us now? We know you were 

9 disconnected. 

10 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I can hear you now, Ted. 

11 Thanks. 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, we can hear you. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Wanda, you can 

14 proceed. 

15 MS. MUNN: As I was saying, the chair of the 

16 workgroup provided information that had been 

17 previously worked inside the workgroup itself, 

18 documents that had been produced by both NIOSH 

19 and SC&A, with respect to the salient issues 

20 that had been raised. Multiple transcripts 

21 were released simultaneously regarding the 

22 workgroup meetings that had taken place, 

23 literally throughout this year. My apologies 

24 for that, and my apologies for having mis25 stated to the workgroup -- I mean to the -- to 
41

1 the full Board at the June meeting that the 

2 transcripts were available to you. I frankly 

3 believed that they were and did not know until 

4 last week when I went to check one of the 

5 transcripts that they had not yet been 

6 released. They -- they had been held up in PA 

7 review and were all released simultaneously 

8 last week, so my apologies again for having 

9 inferred that you could have read about this 

10 earlier. I didn't realize that that was the 

11 case. 

12 The conclusion is that the workgroup has 

13 nothing further to offer. We are prepared, I 

14 believe, to take this item from the table and 

15 provide it for the full Board's vote at this 

16 time. We do not know of any additional 

17 information that we can seek or that we can 

18 provide for you. Both the agency and the 

19 contractor feel that doses can be adequately 

20 bounded for the 123 workers who are involved 

21 for the Blockson group, and we will await the 

22 Board's further decision on this matter. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, the -- the radon paper that 

24 was -- white paper that was prepared and I 

25 think just distributed to the Board this past 
42

1 week, did the workgroup itself evaluate that -- 

2 that radon paper or what -- what's its status, 

3 just -- 

4 MS. MUNN: No, the radon -- the radon paper was 

5 a further explanation of material that had 

6 already been covered inside the workgroup. We 

7 had discussed these matters and all that paper 

8 was doing was clarifying information that we 

9 had covered previously. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Had been previously discussed. 

11 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask if there's any 

13 questions for Wanda on her report. Wanda, I 

14 think you are making a motion to remove the 

15 item from the table for action? 

16 MS. MUNN: I am moving that we remove the item 

17 from the table for the full Board action. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

19 DR. POSTON: Second. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Did I hear a second? And a 

21 second. This is not a debatable motion; we'll 

22 vote immediately. The vote is whether to 

23 remove the Blockson motion from the table, that 

24 motion being the original motion that Wanda 

25 described previously, to accept the NIOSH 
43

1 report. 

2 All in favor of -- of moving this item from the 

3 table, say aye. 

4 (Affirmative responses) 

5 Opposed? 

6 (Negative responses) 

7 Okay, let's do a roll call vote. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right, roll call. So beginning with 

9 Ms. Beach? 

10 MS. BEACH: No. 

11 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

12 MR. CLAWSON: No. 

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

14 MR. GIBSON: No. 

15 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: No. 

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

18 DR. MELIUS: No. 

19 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

21 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

23 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

24 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

25 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 
44

1 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

3 MR. SCHOFIELD: No. 

4 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. We don't have a majority to 

6 remove it from the table. I believe it's -- 

7 MR. KATZ: It is -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I was trying to count as we went, 

9 there are -- 

10 MR. KATZ: -- five nay-- six nays. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- six nays, so it stays on the 

12 table, which means we -- we cannot vote today 

13 on the -- on that item. We can, however, 

14 discuss the report and -- 

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey's absent but that won't 

16 change the -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey doesn't have to vote on 

18 this since it's not an item -- tabling and 

19 untabling, only those present can vote, so the 

20 -- the original motion stays on the table. I -

21 - I do need to get a sense from the Board as to 

22 what steps you wish to be taken in the 

23 meantime. At some point we will need to remove 

24 this from the table and take action. Is there 

25 further work that you believe the workgroup or 
45

1 -- or that you, as individuals, need to have -- 

2 have more time to deliberate on? I must admit 

3 that -- personally that, although I read 

4 through the radon report, I did not have much 

5 time to digest it. I just got it a few days 

6 ago, but I don't know if that's what others are 

7 concerned about. Let -- let me hear from you 

8 so I know where we're -- what the sense of the 

9 group is. John, Jim? 

10 DR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'm sorry, it's 

11 not a very constructive comment, but I read the 

12 radon report in detail and I've discussed it 

13 with colleagues, and I found it tremendously 

14 inconsistent. There are lots of statements in 

15 there that contradict each other. There are 

16 assumptions that are not justified. I found it 

17 ex-- totally useless in terms of resolving 

18 these issues associated with Blockson. I was 

19 hoping that we could remove it from the table 

20 so that we could discuss this, but -- so I 

21 offer that as a comment as opposed to a 

22 discussion of the Blockson SEC. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, what we're removing -- would 

24 be removing from the table would be the motion 

25 to send the recommendation forward or not. 
46

1 This does not preclude a discussion of the 

2 radon report if the Board so wishes. 

3 Jam-- James Melius. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, ac-- actually agree with Dr. 

5 Poston on -- on some of those points, and my 

6 concern -- and I was not at the last meeting, 

7 although I read the transcripts of the 

8 workgroup meetings as well as the Board 

9 meetings, and so I may not have rec-- you know, 

10 gotten all the information. Particularly in 

11 workgroup meetings, there's occasionally side 

12 conversations and so forth, so I don't know all 

13 -- necessarily all that went on. But my 

14 understanding from reading those is that the 

15 information that was presented came to the 

16 workgroup at the last minute. They had not 

17 seen it before. And then this was then -- 

18 there was discussion there, and then this was 

19 then formulated into a report by SC&A that we 

20 all received relatively recently, and I think 

21 was -- sort of elaborated on some issues that 

22 had come in discussion, but I don't think that 

23 the workgroup nor the Board's had adequate time 

24 to review that information. Lots of it is 

25 confusing and -- and their inconsistent 
47

1 statements, as Dr. Poston has pointed out -- 

2 and I -- I think this would be better dealt 

3 with back in the workgroup and then, you know, 

4 based on workgroup review, brought to -- to the 

5 -- back to the Board as appropriate. 

6 Another concern that is -- find confusing is 

7 that -- that some of this report appears to be 

8 what would normally be a task done by NIOSH, 

9 and I can't tell -- yet it's an SC&A report, so 

10 I can't quite tell what -- where we're going. 

11 Normally we have a -- a NIOSH report and an 

12 SC&A review, and this is an SC&A -- appears to 

13 be a review, though some of it was done jointly 

14 -- some of the activities reported were done 

15 jointly with NIOSH. I'm not even sure where 

16 NIOSH stands in terms of this report and how to 

17 interpret it and -- not faulting anybody for 

18 that, but I think it's all the more reason to 

19 bring it back and have some technical 

20 discussion, try to understand what -- what the 

21 report was trying to do as well as -- as maybe 

22 try to resolve these issues, which is what I 

23 think we all would like to do. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Brad and then Mark, did you have a 

25 -- 
48

1 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- same thing, so... 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, same comment, okay -- 

3 basically. Brad? 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Mine's basically the same 

5 comment, too. When I got this and I started to 

6 read into it, it was very, very confusing to 

7 me. I know that won't surprise a few of you, 

8 but I really would have liked the opportunity 

9 to be able to have sat down and have some of 

10 these questions because it was very -- it was 

11 somewhat hard to follow, and I just had a lot 

12 of -- lot of questions that were still left 

13 unanswered. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any further comments on 

15 that? The -- I -- again, I'm trying to get the 

16 sense of the Board on instructing, for example, 

17 the workgroup. It appears that there's some 

18 concern about the content of the radon report, 

19 and perhaps -- let's see, who's on the 

20 workgroup again? John, are you on the 

21 workgroup? 

22 DR. POSTON: No, I'm not. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

24 MS. MUNN: Dr. Melius, Mr. Gibson -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 
49

1 MR. GRIFFON: I was just invited. 

2 MS. MUNN: -- Gen Roessler. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, and also has NIOSH 

4 looked at the report and -- 

5 DR. NETON: Yes, we've looked at the report and 

6 -- and read it with some interest. I -- I 

7 might remind the Board as to exactly my 

8 opinion, at least, as to how this transpired 

9 was NIOSH has produced a -- a number that we 

10 believe was bounding for the radon 

11 concentration at Blockson, our 95th percentile 

12 number, which there was some opinion expressed 

13 by working group members that that was on the 

14 low side. And SC&A decided that it would be 

15 appropriate, with I think the working group's 

16 consent, to -- to see is there some way that we 

17 could bound -- could -- see if this was truly 

18 in the realm of plausibility and bound, you 

19 know, that -- that value. And -- and that's 

20 what they've done. Based on first principles, 

21 they produced a very simple box model last 

22 meeting, and then since then they've elaborated 

23 on that and de-- it's blown into sort of a 

24 Monte Carlo modeling approach that produced an 

25 upper bounded 95th percentile of -- of the 
50

1 values, and that's where they're at with this. 

2 Our value falls, obviously, within the realm of 

3 plausibility that they produced, albeit at the 

4 low end. We would quibble with some of the 

5 baseline assumptions that were made there and 

6 believe our value is probably closer to -- to 

7 reality than what the upper 95th percentile 

8 would be. But nonetheless, I think we both 

9 agree that there are plausible upper bounds 

10 that could be established for Blockson 

11 Chemical. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Ms. Munn? 

13 MS. MUNN: As I stated before, this was not 

14 intended to be a stand-alone report. It was 

15 intended to be an explanatory statement with 

16 respect to discussions that had already taken 

17 place, at length, inside the workgroup. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Brad, additional 

19 comment or you -- 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn’t take my 

21 thing down. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Does the -- does the group 

23 wish the -- for the workgroup to have further 

24 evaluation of this report and -- and -- it 

25 appears that it needs to go hand in hand with 
51

1 the NIOSH bounding value and perhaps a 

2 determination made as to whether the NIO-- or 

3 whether the SC&A analysis is reasonable. I've 

4 -- we've heard some statements from several 

5 that are concerned about the content of the 

6 SC&A report, so -- 

7 MS. MUNN: The workgroup chair would appreciate 

8 very clear instructions with respect to what 

9 the Board's desire is. Simply going back to 

10 meet some more and talk about the same things 

11 we've talked about since 2006 would not 

12 probably be productive. So very clear 

13 instructions, please, exactly what deliverable 

14 would be expected from the workgroup. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I believe the radon issue 

16 was the only outstanding issue, was it not? 

17 Were there other issues that -- Mark, did you 

18 have a comment? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know, I was -- I was 

20 going to say I -- I mean I -- and I didn't want 

21 to repeat comments that were already made, but 

22 I agree with John that -- my first read through 

23 and, you know, I got -- looked at this fairly 

24 recently, on the plane actually, but first read 

25 through was -- some questions of some internal 
52

1 con-- inconsistencies. But I also have a lot 

2 of detail questions on -- on the model that -- 

3 that SC&A came up -- and I agree that it was 

4 sort of a model to test the distribution posed 

5 by NIOSH, but I still had some questions and I 

6 even raised that at the last Board meeting as -

7 - you know, when this was going to be 

8 redrafted, I said shouldn't this be a NIOSH 

9 product. I hope people remember that. I got 

10 kind of defeated in that position, but you 

11 know, I -- I do think that if some -- if, you 

12 know, NIOSH is posing a model and we have 

13 questions about it, it's usually up to NIOSH to 

14 -- to defend the model and SC&A to comment on -

15 - on the -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Or critique it. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. But anyway, not -- outside 

18 of that, we have this document in front of us 

19 and I have a lot of questions about it. I have 

20 questions about the very limited, I would say 

21 unusable, Blockson data from 1983, I think it 

22 is. I have questions about the modeling 

23 approach and the 95th percentile they derive is 

24 quite a bit higher than -- than the proposed 

25 value of 2. I think the -- in this paper 
53

1 they're saying 60. That's a factor of 30. I 

2 think that's -- that's worthy of a discussion, 

3 you know, to -- and -- and tha-- but then at 

4 the end of the day, SC&A concludes -- I think 

5 they say it's -- it's not inconsistent, which I 

6 -- I sort of loved that double-negative kind of 

7 conclusion, too -- not inconsistent, you know, 

8 so it does fall within the range of values that 

9 they -- they got in their Monte Carlo analysis. 

10 But 2 compared to 60, you know, I -- I think we 

11 need some discussion on those, and maybe it is 

12 that that -- some of those assumptions were 

13 very conservative and -- you know, so I think 

14 we just need to -- to look at those more 

15 closely and underst-- also understand. I -- at 

16 this point I -- I don't see any -- any -- 

17 certainly there's no commitment from NIOSH to 

18 say, you know, we -- we agree and we -- we will 

19 consider modifying our approach. You know, 

20 that's not on the table. So I think that's 

21 what needs to be discussed in the workgroup. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Mike Gibson? 

23 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer, I'd raised concerns 

24 about things on a more practical level as far 

25 as facility design, the changes to equipment 
54

1 and stuff through routine maintenance, and that 

2 was looked into. And the answer that was 

3 brought back to me was well, there's no record 

4 of any major equipment and building 

5 modifications and it was -- seemed to be just 

6 summarily dismissed from there. But there's a 

7 lot of activities that could take place on a 

8 day to day basis with maintenance that there 

9 may not be record of that could, you know, 

10 dramatically change air flow (unintelligible) 

11 like that. So you know, I have -- still have 

12 some concerns on a more facility level. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Again on the radon issue, 

14 specifically, or are you talking -- 

15 MR. GIBSON: No, just in general. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- in general? I see. Thank you. 

17 Gen Roessler? 

18 DR. ROESSLER: I think what Mark is saying, and 

19 even what Mike is saying -- I'm a member of the 

20 workgroup so I want to be absolutely clear on 

21 this -- I think they're saying that the only 

22 issue that still remains is the radon issue. I 

23 want to make sure -- I would like to have, Mark 

24 especially, go on the record and say yes, that 

25 what he is discussing is the radon issue, so 
55

1 that if the workgroup gets together again we 

2 know what our focus should be, that that would 

3 be it, that we'll clarify it, and that we don't 

4 have any other items reappear. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: I'll -- I'll say that's -- that's 

6 my issue, but I -- I'm not on the workgroup. I 

7 was invited to attend a few of the meetings, 

8 but that -- that's the issue I've been focused 

9 on. Haven't been a member of the workgroup so 

10 don't know if there's other issues out there, 

11 but that's -- that's my issue right now. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would just, for the 

14 record, declare I have one other issue that I 

15 would like clarification on. It came up at the 

16 last workgroup meeting, which I was not there. 

17 For some reason the NIOSH staff was the one 

18 that answered, rather than SC&A, which is 

19 confusing. So I would like to be able to talk 

20 to the NIOSH staff about that. I don't think 

21 it will be a big issue, but I would like to get 

22 clarification on that. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

24 DR. MELIUS: An issue about the data integrity 

25 and the nature and the distribution of the data 
56

1 of the uranium urinary sampling. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And you are a member of the 

3 workgroup. 

4 DR. MELIUS: I'm a member of the workgroup. 

5 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: All right. 

7 DR. MELIUS: And I have communicat-- I mean 

8 there's communication between -- I sent to 

9 Wanda before the last meeting with these 

10 questions. I think -- I think they were 

11 addressed, it just was hard to tell from the 

12 transcript and -- exactly what -- you know. 

13 MS. MUNN: It was the impression of the chair 

14 that they were addressed. They were brought up 

15 and we discussed them. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, they -- they were and I'm 

17 not -- I'm not -- you know, I just would like a 

18 clarification. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Ms. Munn, you had some additional 

20 comments? 

21 MS. MUNN: I just wanted to remind Mike Gibson 

22 that we did in fact discuss, at the last 

23 workgroup meeting, changes that had occurred 

24 with respect to the facility itself -- the 

25 installation of an exhaust fan at one point, 
57

1 finally, after a number of years, and the 

2 addition of some hoods -- but those, the hoods, 

3 were not in the area of greatest concern and we 

4 had a very mobile workforce. We didn't have 

5 people standing in the same place all the time. 

6 So when these issues with respect to air 

7 transfer were being undertaken, they were being 

8 undertaken with the additional information that 

9 had come from the workers about, years into 

10 their activities, having a fan installed in the 

11 facility. Those were a part of the 

12 considerations. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mike, did you have 

14 additional comment there? 

15 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I'll go on the record to say 

16 that the radon is not my only issue. And 

17 again, yes, we did discuss documented changes 

18 to the systems. My concern, again, there is 

19 everyday activities that take place with 

20 maintenance. There could be motors and blowers 

21 that are changed out on fans, and sometimes not 

22 a record of that, that could affect the air 

23 flow. And I don't think it was adequately 

24 addressed other than saying we looked at the 

25 records and here's what we found. So it's more 
58

1 of this, as Brad said, the lack of evidence. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, one of the issues will be 

3 whether or not the bounding values are 

4 sufficient to cover those kind of changes. Jim 

5 Neton. 

6 DR. NETON: Just for -- for your information, I 

7 -- my recollection in the Blockson model is 

8 that, aside from radon, the other internal 

9 exposures were modeled based on uranium 

10 bioassay and did not rely on interpretation of 

11 air sampling results. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: So actual bioassay values rather 

13 than area monitoring values. 

14 DR. NETON: Correct. 

15 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim, additional 

17 comment? 

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

19 DR. ZIEMER: I -- what -- what the Chair's 

20 looking for is a motion that will specify to 

21 the workgroup what their charge would be going 

22 forward. This could be made by someone on the 

23 workgroup or anyone else who believes that they 

24 have a feel for the issues that need to be 

25 identified or discussed or evaluated. 
59

1 (No responses) 

2 The Chair can make the motion, but usually 

3 relies on others to do so. Jim. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I move that we refer the -- 

5 the Blockson SEC issue back to the workgroup, 

6 instruct them to hold a -- another meeting 

7 focusing mainly on the radon issue and the SC&A 

8 report on the radon issue, but also to address 

9 and clarify some of the other issues that -- 

10 that have been raised in this meeting. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. You've heard the motion. 

12 Is there a second? 

13 MR. CLAWSON: I'll second it. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: The Chair is cognizant that the 

15 second part of the motion is somewhat vague, do 

16 we -- some of the other issues, perhaps from 

17 the transcript, can be pulled back out. Does 

18 any -- do you wish to delineate what they are 

19 or -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: Not -- not -- I mean I don't think 

21 it's -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Josie? 

23 DR. MELIUS: -- necessary. 

24 MS. BEACH: Well, I need to understand what 

25 surrogate data was used at this site. I don't 
60

1 really have a clear picture of that and I'm 

2 wondering if the workgroup could give me an 

3 idea there. 

4 MS. MUNN: We have bioassay data. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: From the site, though, it was -- 

6 MS. MUNN: From the site. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- not surrogate data, was it? 

8 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

9 MS. BEACH: Okay. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: I don't believe any surrogate data 

11 is -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: No, the answer is the radon data 

13 was surrogate data, yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, the radon data. Well, Jim -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Jim may -- 

16 DR. NETON: It's coming back to me now, there -

17 - there are actually two pieces of surrogate 

18 data that come to mind. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 

20 DR. NETON: There's radon data and there's 

21 another set of data that we used to bound the 

22 inhalation exposures at the calciner -- I think 

23 it was the calciner. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Bound -- bound them for uranium? 

25 DR. NETON: Generation of airborne particulate, 
61

1 which would include -- you know, at the 

2 calciner stage, that's where it's not been 

3 purified at all so that would be the raw 

4 phosphate rock, so whatever the -- the 

5 concentration of uranium in equilibrium with 

6 the progeny would be considered at that point, 

7 and that was a very upper-bounded analysis 

8 based on data from I think Idaho or some other 

9 faci-- a series of phosphate plants. But at 

10 the end of the day we didn't end up using that 

11 information because the exposures that we were 

12 assigning, based on the bioassay data, were 

13 higher than the doses at the calciner, so in 

14 reality we're only relying on our dose 

15 reconstruction -- at the end of the day, on -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: On the bioassay. 

17 DR. NETON: -- on the bioassay -- plus the 

18 radon data, which is surrogate data. 

19 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Discussion on the motion? 

21 Wanda. 

22 MS. MUNN: The workgroup chair is still fuzzy 

23 as far as how -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Warm and fuzzy or just -- 

25 MS. MUNN: -- many items are -- 
62

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- fuzzy? 

2 MS. MUNN: I think not warm. It's -- it's 

3 imperative that this workgroup, if it is going 

4 to accomplish anything at all, have absolutely 

5 clear data about what is desired so that we can 

6 understand what needs to be brought next time. 

7 I understand there needs to be focus on the 

8 radon issue, you want a report, do you want a 

9 paper, do you want clarification from whom 

10 about what, we -- you want to address radon, 

11 you want to address surrogate data, and -- and 

12 Mike, you know, I'm not clear exactly what you 

13 want us to address with respect to potential 

14 maintenance changes. You're asking for 

15 material that we don't have on any site 

16 anywhere, so far as I know, and I'm not sure 

17 that we can prove a negative in this case -- we 

18 haven't been able to in other cases. But if we 

19 have specific items that we want addressed, the 

20 -- the chair needs to know that because I 

21 cannot bring you anything other than what we've 

22 already brought unless I have crystal clear 

23 direction. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me comment on the 

25 latter. I -- think we heard from Jim Neton 
63

1 that -- that that information is not used in 

2 any event in the dose reconstructions -- the 

3 air flow data. It's bioassay data that is 

4 actually used. Is that correct? 

5 DR. NETON: Well, the -- the air flow -- the 

6 radon data relies on air flow. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, but -- 

8 DR. NETON: But you would see -- in the SC&A 

9 report they -- they've taken a very broad-brush 

10 approach and modeled the potential air 

11 concentrations from extremely low air exchanges 

12 per hour to very high air exchanges per hour 

13 and generated a distribution of plausible air 

14 sample results. So in some respect that 

15 incorporates -- well, any kind of design change 

16 that could have occurred at the buil-- in the 

17 building, in my opinion. 

18 MS. MUNN: In the absence -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Now I think there are members on 

20 the workgroup who have identified the, quote, 

21 other issues. Jim, you have identified some 

22 and Mike -- Mike, are you on the workgroup? 

23 Yes. 

24 MS. MUNN: I have radon. I have surrogate data 

25 -- 
64

1 MR. GRIFFON: Well, the radon is -- is -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Radon is the sur-- 

3 MS. MUNN: I know, I know, surrogate data is 

4 incorporated in the radon issue. Anything 

5 else? 

6 DR. MELIUS: There's the issue of the -- the 

7 coworker model for uranium. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I would say, you know, 

9 just my opinion, is that you can address Mike's 

10 con-- or consider Mike's concern in both those. 

11 In other words, is the uranium model bounding 

12 of situations for maintenance workers; is the 

13 radon model bounding of sit-- you know, I think 

14 that's how Mike's comments come into play -- 

15 MS. MUNN: We have -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- and that's how we've always 

17 done that, yeah. 

18 MS. MUNN: We have addressed that -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: So I think they -- 

20 MS. MUNN: -- so what you're saying is you want 

21 that in some format other than the way we've 

22 addressed it in the workgroup. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I think in the case of -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I'm saying consider it in the 

25 (unintelligible) -- 
65

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- ra-- in the case of -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible), yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- radon, does the -- does the 

4 SC&A model basically do that? I don't know 

5 that -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: I guess it's a -- it's a -- it's 

7 that clause, for all members of the class, and 

8 maintenance workers would be, you know, part of 

9 all members of the class, so you make -- I mean 

10 we're reconsidering the uranium model and the 

11 radon -- or we're looking again at those two 

12 models, and I'm just saying take into account 

13 Mike's comment during those discussions, you 

14 know. It's nothing new for us, really, but -- 

15 MS. MUNN: We identified very clearly that what 

16 -- what buildings were involved. We've 

17 identified that people did not stay at one 

18 station, that maintenance workers, like other 

19 people, came and went -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 MS. MUNN: -- so that there were not long-term, 

22 continual exposures in one site to anything, 

23 either airborne or otherwise. So I am 

24 uncertain -- it's unclear to me what further 

25 statements we can make, what other 
66

1 clarifications we can make, with respect to 

2 individuals who may have occupied that space, 

3 and we know that many people walked through it, 

4 including maintenance workers. But -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I was just trying to give -- 

6 I was just trying to give you an easy way to 

7 roll these into the two action items already on 

8 the table. I don't think I'm asking for 

9 anything new. I'm asking for when you assess 

10 those two options, make sure we've -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Are they bounding. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- make sure we express the -- 

13 you know, if it's the workgroup's opinion that 

14 they're bounding for all workers and, as we 

15 discussed -- maybe you've already discussed it, 

16 but if you would discuss it again in the next 

17 workgroup meeting, we considered the -- the -- 

18 a maintenance type situation and even in -- 

19 under those situations, you know, with certain 

20 assumptions that they might run into elevated 

21 concentrations for short periods of time, we 

22 still believe its boun-- I mean something like 

23 that, some kind of assessment like that, which 

24 we -- which we've done on all these situations. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we have -- 
67

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MS. MUNN: -- of course, and this plant's -- 

3 the exposures were never high enough to be of 

4 any -- of likely compensable levels for 

5 individuals who were only momentarily in and 

6 out of the buildings. They never had that 

7 level of -- of concern there. 

8 But what I have now is focus on the radon 

9 issues, include surrogate data, the coworker 

10 model from -- for uranium, and maintenance 

11 worker assumptions. 

12 MR. GIBSON: Paul? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

14 MR. GIBSON: Let's just -- let me put it this 

15 way. You know, some of this scientific stuff 

16 does go over my head. Okay? And maybe some of 

17 this engineering stuff is a little below what 

18 people understand and evaluate. So when we sit 

19 down at the workgroup meetings where I have a 

20 concern that I don't feel's been addressed when 

21 we've addressed the issues you've raised, I'll 

22 bring up where I think maintenance could affect 

23 those readings and then they can be addressed 

24 there in the bounds of what you've said. 

25 MS. MUNN: Fine. 
68

1 DR. ZIEMER: Let the Chair suggest, Wanda, 

2 you've asked what -- what should the nature of 

3 the report be from -- 

4 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- the workgroup, it seems to me 

6 that what you need to do -- and I'll give this 

7 as the broad-brush indicator -- to indicate how 

8 you've evaluated the SC&A report, taking into 

9 consideration input from both the workgroup and 

10 others on, for example, the inconsistencies and 

11 so on, and input from -- from NIOSH. And at -- 

12 and to the extent that we can answer two 

13 questions -- one is the bounding of the radon, 

14 and then if you can bound it, what's the value? 

15 I think, Mark, you had -- you were talking 

16 about that. And if -- if it can be bounded, 

17 that's one issue that could be agreed upon. 

18 The other issue is, is it the right bounding 

19 value? And I think there's some give and take. 

20 If there's inconsistencies in -- in the SC&A 

21 report, then we don't know at this point if 

22 their upper value is correct even. That would 

23 need to be verified. But -- and -- and perhaps 

24 after NIOSH looks at that, too, and has some -- 

25 some input, we can -- can make some sort of 
69

1 determination on that issue. 

2 But I -- I think the nature of your report is 

3 simply that you've evaluated the SC&A report, 

4 you've addressed whatever inconsistencies are -

5 - have been identified, and then whatever 

6 conclusion you can reach in conjunction with 

7 our Board members and NIOSH and SC&A on -- on 

8 that report, then how it impacts on bottom line 

9 for Blockson. So I think it's just a report on 

10 what you find. I don't think it's a white 

11 paper from the committee. I don't think it's 

12 an elaborate thing, but it's what you find 

13 relative to that, and then report on the other 

14 items that have been identified, that they -- 

15 they've -- you've looked into them and what the 

16 outcome is. And the outcome will be, perhaps, 

17 that everyone is agreed or that -- that you've 

18 not come to closure. That's -- if you don't 

19 come to closure on it, that's a possible 

20 outcome. There can be valid disagreements on 

21 some of these, but at least you've made a good 

22 attempt to address them. So I think that just 

23 a normal report on each item that you've 

24 identified would be fine. 

25 MS. MUNN: A verbal report. 
70

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it would be-- 

2 MS. MUNN: Would you like me to produce -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Well, from -- 

4 MS. MUNN: -- a written report? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- the Chair's point of view, it 

6 would be useful if there was a workgroup 

7 recommendation. If the workgroup's not able to 

8 reach a consensus recommendation, then you 

9 simply report what you've found. If -- if 

10 that's not -- that's the Chair's opinion and, 

11 you know -- 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, I -- I'd still -- I'd still 

13 like to be able to -- and I know that, Wanda, 

14 everything that you've covered in that is the 

15 points and issues, but I'd still like to be 

16 able to sit down and discuss this whole -- this 

17 -- this paper because everything that -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's -- 

19 MR. CLAWSON: -- your action items, yeah. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's the starting point. 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Right. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: That's the starting point for the 

23 workgroup. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and Board members, you have 
71

1 a copy of it, so if you're not on the workgroup 

2 and have issues or concerns, you need to feed 

3 that back to the workgroup. 

4 MS. MUNN: The workgroup has had that paper 

5 before us for -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you had a -- you had the 

7 information informally, but the -- the Board 

8 did not have it till -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Understand, I'm just saying -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- just recently. Right? In a 

11 formal manner. So the -- the nature of the 

12 original motion, which now has been clarified 

13 so the sense of the motion has been spelled 

14 out, I think. Do you believe it has been, 

15 Wanda? 

16 MS. MUNN: I have the items that were 

17 identified as the focus on radon issues; what 

18 is the bounding value; is that the right value; 

19 the surrogate data; the coworker model for 

20 uranium; maintenance worker assumptions that 

21 Mike will -- will verify as we approach 

22 specific points; and a report on the end result 

23 of all those. 

24 Additionally, I understand Dr. Melius will be 

25 working privately with NIOSH to clarify some 
72

1 other issue? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I would -- I would suggest 

3 that this not be done privately, that it be 

4 done in the for-- in the -- in the framework of 

5 the workgroup. Let's -- let's keep it all in 

6 the -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- and that's what I was 

8 intending was -- the NI-- NIOSH technical staff 

9 I presume will be at this meeting and we can 

10 talk about the issue then. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let -- let's make sure it's 

12 done in the open forum. 

13 MS. MUNN: They will be aware of your issue. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, they are, I... 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are -- we you have 

16 addition-- okay. Are you ready to vote on the 

17 motion? 

18 DR. ROESSLER: What is the motion? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Restate the motion. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: The motion was a charge to the 

21 workgroup which, as it was expressed, was to 

22 examine the radon question and other issues 

23 that had been raised. 

24 DR. MELIUS: In -- in this meeting. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: In this meeting. 
73

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and then the discussion we 

3 had, from my point of view, was to provide the 

4 sense of the motion. We have not modified the 

5 motion. I said I thought the motion was 

6 perhaps a little vague in the second part, so 

7 we now have provided a sense of the motion to 

8 make it less fuzzy and perhaps warmer. Are you 

9 ready to vote? 

10 Okay, all in favor of the motion, say aye? 

11 (Affirmative responses) 

12 All opposed, no? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Abstentions? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Okay, motion carries. 

17 Before we take the break -- I think we take the 

18 break at 10:00 o'clock, we'll just wait ten 

19 minutes here -- we can do CANEL very rapidly. 

20 We had a motion to defer the vote on the CANEL 

21 recommendation for an SEC class. I'm prep-- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Until today. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- until today. I'm -- I would 

24 ask for a motion -- and in fact the effect of 

25 that was to table it temporarily. I'm looking 
74

1 for a motion to now consider the CANEL motion -

2 - motion to consider the CANEL motion. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: To take it off the table or... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Which is to take it off the table. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Okay. I move that we take the 

6 CANEL motion off the table. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded? 

8 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: All in favor, aye? 

10 (Affirmative responses) 

11 Opposed, no? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Abstentions? 

14 (No responses) 

15 Motion carries. The original motion was Ms. 

16 Munn's motion to recommend an SEC class as set 

17 forth by the NIOSH recommendation. We've asked 

18 Dr. Melius to put it into our standard language 

19 and, Dr. Melius, if you would read into the 

20 record the -- the long version of Ms. Munn's 

21 motion. 

22 DR. MELIUS: This'll be a long friendly 

23 amendment -- long-winded. 

24 The Board recommends that the following letter 

25 be transmitted to the Secretary of Health and 
75

1 Human Services within 21 days. Should the 

2 Chair become aware of any issue that, in his 

3 judgment, would preclude the transmittal of 

4 this letter within that time period, the Board 

5 requests that he promptly informs the Board of 

6 the delay and the reasons for this delay, and 

7 that he immediately works with NIOSH to 

8 schedule an emergency meeting of the Board to 

9 discuss this issue. 

10 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

11 Health has evaluated SEC Petition 00124 

12 concerning workers at the Connecticut Aircraft 

13 Nuclear Engine Laboratory, parentheses, CANEL, 

14 close parentheses, in Middletown, Connecticut 

15 under the statutory requirements established by 

16 EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR 83.14. 

17 The board respectfully recommends Special 

18 Exposure Cohort SEC status be accorded to all 

19 AWE employees who worked at the CANEL facility 

20 in Middletown, Connecticut from January 1st, 

21 1958 through December 31st, 1965 for a number 

22 of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

23 occurring either solely under this employment 

24 or n combination with work days within the 

25 parameters established for one or more other 
76

1 classes of employees in -- in the SEC. The 

2 Board notes that although NIOSH found that they 

3 were unable to completely reconstruct most 

4 radiation doses for these employees, they 

5 believe that they are able to reconstruct the 

6 occupational medical dose during the time 

7 period in question. 

8 This recommendation is based on the following 

9 factors: 

10 The CANEL facility was involved in the 

11 development of a nuclear reactor for propelling 

12 aircraft and on a number of other research and 

13 development projects for the AEC. 

14 NIOSH found very little pers-- internal 

15 personnel monitoring data and no external 

16 personnel monitoring data for CANEL workers for 

17 the time period in question. 

18 NIOSH was unable to locate sufficient 

19 information on radiological operations or other 

20 workplace monitoring data in order to be able 

21 to complete accurate individual dose 

22 reconstructions for internal or external 

23 exposures at the CANEL facility during the time 

24 period in question. The Board concurs with 

25 this conclusion. 
77

1 NIOSH determined that health may have been 

2 endangered for the workers exposed to radiation 

3 at the CANEL facility during the time period in 

4 question. The Board concurs with this 

5 determination. 

6 Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 

7 recent Advisory Board meeting held in Redondo 

8 Beach, California where this special exposure 

9 cohort class was discussed. If any of these 

10 items are unavailable at this time, they will 

11 follow shortly. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any question on 

13 the motion now? Jim? 

14 DR. NETON: Just -- just a point of 

15 clarification. CANEL is a DOE facility, not an 

16 AWE facility. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: We -- yes, thank you for reminding 

18 us of that. We need to -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: DOE. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- chan-- let's see, I'm looking 

21 for the change. It's in the second paragraph. 

22 DR. ROESSLER: He's got it. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Second par-- I've got it in my -- 

24 second paragraph, and then in the first bullet. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, second paragraph, line -- 
78

1 one, two, three, four -- five. Correct? It 

2 would be status be accorded to all -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

4 MS. MUNN: Department of Energy employees. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- DOE employees. And then which 

6 bullet did you say? 

7 DR. ROESSLER: First one. 

8 DR. MELIUS: First one, but actually -- Bob, 

9 why don't you clarify it 'cause this is -- 

10 MR. PRESLEY: First bullet's correct, 'cause at 

11 the time the AEC was the contractor for this 

12 outfit. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Now is the -- 

14 DR. NETON: Normally the phraseology would say 

15 DOE and DOE contractors or subcontractors. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, now that -- was -- that was 

17 -- I was going to make -- yeah. 

18 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, yeah, just -- just to 

19 make sure that -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: The first one or both of them? 

21 DR. NETON: Both. It's very important that 

22 they be on -- in there because most people were 

23 actually DOE contractors or subcontractors. 

24 DR. MELIUS: I think -- the wording would be 

25 DOE, its predecessor agency and DOE contractors 
79

1 or subcontractors. I apologize. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That's a friendly amendment. Any 

3 other items? I think in your second bullet, 

4 and you -- you read it correctly, the time 

5 periods; it should be time period. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other comments or -- on 

8 the wording? 

9 (No responses) 

10 Ready to vote by -- we'll vote actually by roll 

11 call vote and we will have to obtain Dr. 

12 Lockey's vote on this separately. Okay, roll 

13 call vote. 

14 MR. KATZ: Right, I'll collect Dr. Lockey's 

15 vote after this meeting. 

16 So Ms. Beach? 

17 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

18 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

21 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

24 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 
80

1 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

2 MS. MUNN: Aye, yes. 

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

4 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

6 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

10 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. So this motion carries in 

13 any event. We will still obtain Dr. Lockey's 

14 vote, but we will proceed to prepare the 

15 documentation to send forward to the Secretary 

16 on this facility. 

17 Now we're ready to take a recess. I'm going to 

18 ask -- we're scheduled for 30 minutes, but 

19 we're trying to speed things up a little bit, 

20 so let's keep it to 20 minutes and we'll -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Before we -- before we adjourn, 

22 can you tell us -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: We're not going to adjourn, we're 

24 going -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean before we -- 
81

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- to recess. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- take our break, can you tell 

3 us what's coming up on the -- so we can 

4 prepare? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we've already done the work 

6 committee rep-- workgroup reports, which was 

7 the next item, so what we have -- we have Board 

8 working issues. We have the tasking of SCA. 

9 We've already done the status of the selection 

10 of the Board contractor. We need to -- 

11 establishing a Pantex workgroup -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: We have to select cases from the 

13 10th set. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- and cases for the 10th set, and 

15 so -- 

16 DR. MELIUS: The subcommittee. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Procedures subcommittee. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Procedures subcommittee. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Procedures subcommittee discussion 

20 on -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Scope, yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- moving to the -- well, moving 

23 from workgroup to subcommittee -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- status and the document for it. 
82

1 DR. MELIUS: Right, and I had asked that two 

2 documents be made available to us for this, 

3 that somebody was going to -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and I have those. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Okay, great. Okay, I just wanted 

6 to make sure they... 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

9 luck getting our (unintelligible). 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we will take a 20-minute 

11 recess. 

12 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:00 a.m. 

13 to 10:20 a.m.) 

14 BOARD WORKING TIME:

15 SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

16 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to reconvene. We're 

17 going into the Board working time now, have a 

18 number of items to address. Let's begin with 

19 the establishment of a subcommittee on 

20 procedures review. 

21 What is needed first, if the Board wishes to 

22 transfer this from a workgroup to a 

23 subcommittee, we need a motion to that effect. 

24 And then if the motion passed, we would address 

25 the documents that would spell out the 
83

1 responsibilities of such a subcommittee. So 

2 I'd like to ask for a motion, if the Board so 

3 wishes, to establish a subcommittee on 

4 procedures to replace the current working group 

5 on procedures. 

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

7 -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Use your mike. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: -- make a motion that we -- that 

10 we move the working group for procedures to 

11 make it a subcommittee. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. A second? 

13 DR. POSTON: Second. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Is there discussion 

15 on the motion? Dr. Melius? No. 

16 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry, that's leftover from 

17 Blockson. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: It's out of habit. Ms. Munn, do 

19 you wish to speak to this? 

20 MS. MUNN: I'd like to have one piece of 

21 verifying information before we go any further. 

22 I'd like to have a very clear outline of the 

23 distinction between workgroups and 

24 subcommittees with respect to our need for a 

25 public notice, the amount of time that's 
84

1 necessary, the need for report to Congress, 

2 that kind of -- of information I think is -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Right, let me address than, then 

4 I'll ask Emily to assist. 

5 Number one, a subcommittee -- we're required by 

6 law to -- to notice those meetings in the 

7 Federal Register and they are public meetings. 

8 Workgroups, there is no such requirement. 

9 However, our practice has been to do the same 

10 for workgroups. We do provide Federal Register

11 notice. Our work-- or no, we web site notice, 

12 I'm sorry, and we do make those available to 

13 the public and we do transcripts on those as 

14 well. I think Federal Register notice is 

15 required, is it not, for subcommittee, Emily? 

16 Help us on this. 

17 MS. HOWELL: Yes, that's been our practice. 

18 It's a 30-day requirement. However, if you had 

19 less than 30 days due to certain reasons -- I 

20 know Mark has had this come up a couple of 

21 times -- there are procedures you can follow to 

22 have an expedited notice for a meeting. 

23 Certainly the agency seeks to avoid that. We 

24 want to give stakeholders as much time as 

25 possible so it is a 30-day notice period. We 
85

1 usually only put working group notices on the 

2 web site and we try to also give those two 

3 weeks to a month notice as well. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Also I don't believe there's any 

5 requirement for -- for reports to Congress, is 

6 there, by such a group. You would only report 

7 to this Board. 

8 MS. HOWELL: No, the way that the action letter 

9 which Dr. Ziemer passed out yesterday is 

10 written, this subcommittee would report to the 

11 Board, and any resulting action letters to the 

12 Secretary, et cetera, would come from the full 

13 Board as opposed to the subcommittee. 

14 MS. MUNN: Is there a problem with respect to 

15 cancellation of notices once they have been 

16 posted in the Federal Register? 

17 MS. HOWELL: You mean if a meeting were to be 

18 scheduled and then canceled? 

19 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

20 MS. HOWELL: I mean we would want to notice 

21 that in the Federal Register and on the web 

22 page, but obviously if you cancel a meeting 

23 within the 30-day window, that's okay, too. I 

24 mean in this day and age, hopefully most of the 

25 stakeholders of the program know to look on the 
86

1 OCAS web site as their first form of 

2 information. 

3 MS. MUNN: Good. Thank you. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions or discussion 

5 before we vote on this motion? 

6 (No responses) 

7 If not, I'll call for a voice vote. All in 

8 favor, aye? 

9 (Affirmative responses) 

10 Opposed, no? 

11 (No responses) 

12 Abstentions? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Motion carries, so we are agreed that we will 

15 establish a subcommittee. 

16 Now there's two documents that have been 

17 distributed for your information. They are to 

18 help serve as templates. One is the -- and 

19 these -- these concern the existing 

20 subcommittee, the dose reconstruction 

21 subcommittee. You have a document that says at 

22 the top "Information Regarding the Subcommittee 

23 for Dose Reconstruction Reviews." This, I 

24 believe, is the material that appears on the 

25 web site, verbatim. 
87

1 The other document is the package or the 

2 document that went forward to the Secretary of 

3 Health and Human Services requesting -- because 

4 that has to be approved at the Secretarial 

5 level, I believe -- requesting the formal 

6 establishment of this subcommittee. And that 

7 particular document has a discussion on why 

8 such a subcommittee is -- is needed, what it 

9 will be called, who the members will be and 

10 what its functions will be. And what we would 

11 need would be a document that's -- as a 

12 starting point, a document that is parallel to 

13 this one for transmittal to the Secretary. 

14 Once the Secretary approved it, then it would 

15 exist. It does not exist based on our action 

16 just now. Our action is to recommend really to 

17 the Secretary that such a subcommittee -- or I 

18 guess it's to the Management and Analysis 

19 Office, but in any event, the hierarchy of 

20 Health and Human Services. And once that's 

21 officially established, then an appropriate 

22 document for the web site would be prepared. 

23 In the Chair's mind, we don't need to do the 

24 letter document today. I think we need to 

25 focus on the package to HHS management and get 
88

1 that approval in place. And then once it's in 

2 place we can determine what goes on the web 

3 site, even with the help of the -- of the 

4 subcommittee itself. Is that agreeable? 

5 Now we had a -- we had a straw man document 

6 distributed yesterday -- you might want to pull 

7 that out -- and you've had a chance to look at 

8 that, and we have -- I think the focus there is 

9 going to be on the functions. 

10 MS. MUNN: I have some proposed wording 

11 changes, Mr. Chair. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's -- let's all get out 

13 document out. The Chair's looking for his. 

14 (Pause) 

15 Okay. 

16 MR. KATZ: On the line -- someone on the line 

17 is -- does not have their phone muted and we're 

18 hearing a lot of static. If everyone on the 

19 line could please press the mute button, if you 

20 have it, or star-6, that'd be appreciated. 

21 Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Ms. Munn has some proposed 

23 wording. Is this particularly on the function 

24 page or earlier in the document? 

25 MS. MUNN: It's in Discussion. 
89

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's go back to Discussion, 

2 which is -- 

3 MS. MUNN: On the first page, the third 

4 paragraph. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Let me actually formalize this 

6 first. Let's put the document on the floor as 

7 a motion and amend it. So -- 

8 MS. MUNN: That's fine. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- if someone would move the 

10 adoption of -- of the document -- well, the 

11 document currently doesn't have a title, but 

12 it's the -- it's the proposed request to 

13 establish a subcommittee for the Advisory 

14 Board. 

15 MS. MUNN: I -- yes -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Just a motion to adopt -- 

17 MS. MUNN: I move that -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- that. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- the draft of a request to 

20 establish a subcommittee of the Advisory Board 

21 on Radiation and Worker Health be considered 

22 for forwarding to the Secretary. 

23 DR. POSTON: Second. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Or -- or to Management of HHS, I 

25 (unintelligible). 
90

1 MS. MUNN: Or to management of HHS. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Second? 

3 DR. POSTON: Second. 

4 MS. BEACH: I'll second it. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Okay, now it's on the 

6 floor and let's talk about amending it then. 

7 And -- 

8 MS. MUNN: In the third -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- my intent here is to proceed 

10 with this as -- pretty much as friendly 

11 amendments, which means we won't vote on -- on 

12 every item, unless it's -- something really 

13 controversial appears. 

14 MS. MUNN: In the third paragraph, first 

15 sentence, in order to -- in order to get the 

16 full sense of it, I'm suggesting that the last 

17 few words be amended to read "addressing 

18 individual findings that result from such 

19 reviews," which would make the entire sentence 

20 read "The Subcommittee will be responsible for 

21 coordinating all of the detailed work 

22 associated with the Board's task of reviewing 

23 all the NIOSH procedures developed to enable 

24 individual dose reconstructions as directed by 

25 the statute, and addressing individual findings 
91

1 that result from such reviews." 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, what? We're going to repeat 

3 that again. 

4 MS. MUNN: Following "statute and," replace the 

5 remaining portion of that sentence with the 

6 words "addressing individual findings that 

7 result from such reviews." 

8 DR. ZIEMER: And this also includes deleting 

9 the rest of this -- the sentence that talks 

10 about SECs. 

11 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Did everybody get that suggested 

13 and -- that looks pretty friendly to the Chair. 

14 I would like to suggest also, since this refers 

15 to NIOSH procedures, and I believe that you are 

16 also reviewing what we would call -- no, let me 

17 think, are they all NIOSH? Aren't there -- 

18 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- some ORAU -- 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes, there are ORAU, so it would -- 

21 perhaps NIOSH and NIOSH contractor procedures -

22 - NIOSH and NIOSH -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: We're not -- you're not reviewing 

24 all contractor procedures, are you, because 

25 some contractor procedures are internal 
92

1 procedures for how they do certain management 

2 things. How did it -- how -- well, wait a 

3 minute. If it's -- if the contractor develops 

4 it, does -- it still goes to NIOSH for final 

5 approval -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- if it's used in the program, 

8 does it not? 

9 MS. MUNN: It does. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: So are we okay in -- Emily, can -- 

11 does NIOSH procedures encompass anything the 

12 contractor develops that is finally approved by 

13 NIOSH and used in the program? 

14 MS. HOWELL: Yes, I would say it's implicit in 

15 saying NIOSH procedures. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay then, thank you. Did 

17 everybody get the proposed friendly amendment? 

18 Okay, Josie. 

19 MS. BEACH: I have a question. In that same 

20 paragraph it says the Board is currently 

21 reviewing 60 such individual dose 

22 reconstructions per year. I'm wondering if 

23 that sentence is necessary. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: That was -- that -- what 

25 paragraph are you looking at? 
93

1 MS. BEACH: The third -- third paragraph. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: I think you're looking at the dose 

3 reconstruction document -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- rather than the -- 

6 MS. BEACH: Oh, I got the wrong one. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- straw man -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: The one we had yesterday. 

9 MS. BEACH: Thank you. I have the right one. 

10 MS. MUNN: Continuing on page 2 under Function, 

11 the first paragraph, "This subcommittee will be 

12 responsible for reviewing the outcomes of the 

13 document production" -- I deleted "and site 

14 research" so that it reads "This subcommittee 

15 will be responsible for reviewing the outcomes 

16 of the document production and related 

17 assignments developed by the Board's contractor 

18 resulting" -- eliminate "which come" "from 

19 their review of all procedures used in the dose 

20 reconstruction" -- remove "and the SECs" 

21 "processes by NIOSH Office of Compensation 

22 Analysis and Support's contractor." 

23 Then the second sentence, "The subcommittee may 

24 -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, could you read that again? 
94

1 MS. MUNN: Yes. I'll -- I'll read it as it 

2 would read -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 MS. MUNN: -- with the deletions. "This 

5 subcommittee will be responsible for reviewing 

6 the outcomes of the document production and 

7 related assignments developed by the Board's 

8 contractor resulting from their review of all 

9 procedures used in the dose reconstruction 

10 process by NIOSH's Office of Compensation 

11 Analysis and Support's contractor." 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Did everybody get that 

13 friendly change? 

14 MS. MUNN: Then in the next sentence, the very 

15 last line, remove "the SEC process," so that 

16 the sentence reads "The Subcommittee may 

17 develop reports for the Board to advise the 

18 Secretary on the scientific validity and 

19 appropriateness of the procedures used by 

20 NIOSH/OCAS and its contractor for dose 

21 reconstruction and related activities." 

22 Item one, remove -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Let me interrupt here, though. 

24 Are -- are there not some procedures that you 

25 review that in fact would focus on the handling 
95

1 of SECs and not on dose reconstruction? 

2 MS. MUNN: I don't believe so -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Are they all -- 

4 MS. MUNN: -- because all of the SECs rely upon 

5 dose reconstruction for their completion. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so dose reconstruction and 

7 related activities -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- covers all procedures. 

10 MS. MUNN: It covers all the procedures that I 

11 can recall at this time that we have been 

12 dealing with, and the 50 that are proposed that 

13 I have scanned still fall under this -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- 

15 MS. MUNN: -- definition (unintelligible) -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I guess in a sense "related 

17 activities" is anything related to the program 

18 which is the dose reconstruction -- 

19 MS. MUNN: Could be encompassing. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- so broadly we're 

21 (unintelligible) -- 

22 MS. MUNN: Could be encompassing. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Gen, did you have some insight on 

24 that one? 

25 DR. ROESSLER: Oh, this is probably just a 
96

1 professor thing, but that sentence doesn't seem 

2 to make much sense to me. I think maybe it 

3 means the subcommittee may develop reports for 

4 the Board which advise the Secretary. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: That comma there, it's kind of 

7 confusing. I'm not sure if the reports are 

8 intended to advise the Secretary -- is that 

9 what the meaning is? 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Then maybe it should -- take out 

12 the comma and -- and the "to" and just put in 

13 the word "which". 

14 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Can't use a "which" there, "which" 

16 means the Board -- it's the reports -- 

17 DR. ROESSLER: In order to advise the 

18 Secretary? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: You can say that. I'm a "which" -

20 - 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Would that -- is that what it 

22 means? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm a "which" hunter. 

24 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: "Which" is usually used 
97

1 incorrectly, so you're better avoiding it. 

2 DR. ROESSLER: But that's the meaning then, 

3 yeah. So that's -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Develop reports for the Board that 

5 advise the Secretary -- reports that advise? 

6 Or reports to advise? 

7 DR. ROESSLER: Well -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I think "to" is still okay, just 

9 remove the comma, basically. 

10 MS. MUNN: I think so. If you simply remove 

11 the comma, I think you get the sense of what I 

12 interpreted it to be. 

13 DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, I think -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Reports to advise the Secretary, 

15 okay. 

16 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any questions on that 

18 or other changes? 

19 (No responses) 

20 Okay, please proceed. 

21 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Dr. Roessler. That isn't 

22 just a professor thing. 

23 Item number one, remove the word "audit" after 

24 "action" -- our contractor for these purposes 

25 is not an auditor. They are to serve at the 
98

1 direction of the Board. They audit the dose 

2 reconstructions. They do not audit here. They 

3 provide findings for us. They review and 

4 provide findings at the instruction -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: You're -- 

6 MS. MUNN: -- of the Board. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- referring to the Board's 

8 contractor -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Yes, correct. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- here, as opposed to the NIOSH 

11 contractor -- 

12 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- so perhaps we should say the 

14 Board's contractor. 

15 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I'm a little concerned about the 

17 "related to related to" -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: I am, too. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- and maybe a "concerning" would 

21 help -- "procedures related to -- to procedures 

22 review concerning dose reconstruction" or 

23 "procedures concerning procedures review 

24 related to?" 

25 MS. MUNN: I think the last "related" should be 
99

1 "concerning" -- "related to" instead of -- the 

2 last one should be "concerning dose 

3 reconstructions as appropriate." 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So it would say review and 

5 recommend -- not recommended, review and 

6 recommend for Board action -- recommend the 

7 Board's contractor procedures -- recommend 

8 what? 

9 MS. MUNN: To review and recommend for Board 

10 action the Board's contractor procedures 

11 related to procedure review, including 

12 revisions -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Wouldn't we recommend approval? 

14 Recommend for Board action the con-- action, 

15 comma, contractor's procedures? 

16 MS. HOWELL: I'm sorry, I have a question. The 

17 procedures are NIOSH contractor procedures, not 

18 -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: No, but this was for -- this -- 

20 this was lifted from the DR paper, too. It -- 

21 I think the original intent was that we wanted 

22 to look at SC&A's procedures and make sure that 

23 they were consistent with what the Board was 

24 looking for, as far as that dose reconstruction 

25 review for -- for basic, advanced, et cetera. 
100

1 So -- so that was -- 

2 MS. HOWELL: It shou-- shouldn't apply here. 

3 MS. MUNN: Shouldn't. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, they have a procedure for 

5 reviewing procedures, I believe. John -- John 

6 -- they have procedures that they follow. I 

7 think we've looked at them already, but -- so 

8 it may be kind of a -- a done issue, but it's a 

9 -- they do have a proce-- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: How -- how does SC&A look at -- 

11 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) make a change. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- how do they do the procedures 

13 review. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We actually approved that at the 

16 front end. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I think -- I think we did, at the 

18 front end, yes. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I think we did that as a full 

20 Board action -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I believe so, yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- not as a (unintelligible) -- 

23 MS. HOWELL: Okay, so -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 MS. HOWELL: -- it doesn't need to be here 
101

1 then. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think the subcommittee has 

3 to do that. It was done by the Board -- full 

4 Board as -- 

5 MS. MUNN: It was done by the Board originally 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right, so maybe it was -- 

8 MS. MUNN: -- if we assume that there will 

9 never be changes in that, then I suppose -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if there were -- 

11 MS. MUNN: -- we could ignore the item, but 

12 that's -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's a full Board 

14 responsibility at that point, is it not? 

15 MS. MUNN: I would think so. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So maybe this one can be 

17 dropped. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: I can see no reason actually why we 

20 -- it's absolutely necessary. It's a -- 

21 unlikely contingency. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 MS. MUNN: We shall drop it. And under item 

24 two, which will now become one, clarify Board 

25 intent regarding the technical scope of 
102

1 procedures, period. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I don't understand. 

3 MS. MUNN: Huh? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: What is that? I -- I'm looking -

5 - I'm cross-walking with the other document, 

6 too. 

7 MS. MUNN: Does not -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: We had clarify Board intent 

9 regarding the technical scope of dose 

10 reconstruction tasks assigned to the audit 

11 contractor. And that was, again, going back to 

12 basic versus advanced. 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: This got lifted into this. Now I 

15 don't -- I don't -- 

16 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Clarify Board intent regarding 

18 technical scope of procedures. I don't know 

19 what -- what that means. I don't... 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, see, in the dose 

21 reconstruction -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

23 MS. MUNN: We've -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- case, the Board kind of left it 

25 up to the subcommittee to define, for example, 
103

1 what a blind review was. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

3 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Or clarify to the -- to the -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: To the full Board, or to -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- or -- or to the contractor. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Contractor, right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: When you do a blind review, here's 

10 what we want done. I'm not sure we have 

11 anything analogous -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: No. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- to that. 

14 MS. MUNN: Well, not directly analogous, but I 

15 read that to interpret the responsibility of 

16 the subcommittee to see that any concern that 

17 the Board had with respect to the scope or 

18 direction of the procedures was followed. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right, so if the Board tasked the 

20 -- the contractor with reviewing -- I don't 

21 know, some particular thing, let's say -- well, 

22 let's take the 6000, 6001, and the Board said 

23 we want you to focus on Appendix BB and -- or 

24 something like that, then it would be up to the 

25 subcommittee to make sure that that direction 
104

1 was carried out. Is that the kind of thing 

2 you're talking about? 

3 MS. MUNN: That's the kind of thing. One of -- 

4 one -- what I had in mind at the time I read 

5 this direction was situations where the Board 

6 might say do we have a procedure covering this 

7 particular type of situation. And if the 

8 answer was no, then it would be the 

9 responsibility of the subcommittee to see (a) 

10 that that procedure was in fact developed and 

11 (b), that it was -- that it was properly 

12 reviewed -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- by the -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: But the development part would not 

16 be -- involve our contractor. 

17 MS. MUNN: No, the development would involve 

18 NIOSH. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: NIOSH and its contractor. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: I gue-- I guess I'm -- yeah, I'm 

21 hung up on the "clarify Board intent," I mean 

22 we -- you know, in -- I know it clearly was 

23 edited from this old document. I don't know 

24 who edited it. It might help if they could 

25 clarify the intent. 
105

1 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think they were trying to 

2 find parallel wording, but -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I mean 

4 when we first wrote that, it was clearly to -- 

5 to clarify Board intent regarding the technical 

6 scope of -- of our tasks in the contract -- 

7 MS. MUNN: The tasks, yes. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, and now I don't know 

9 what we're -- what the Board's intent is -- I 

10 don't understand what it's -- in this sentence 

11 I don't understand what our Board intent would 

12 be. I'm just trying to un... 

13 MS. MUNN: We've had several situations where, 

14 after procedures have been undertaken, it 

15 appeared that they needed fleshing out for some 

16 reason. They did not cover adequately 

17 situations that we had. I don't recall whether 

18 the Board, as a Board, had given any 

19 instructions in that regard, but certainly 

20 inside the procedures workgroup we've seen 

21 numerous cases where new procedures have 

22 developed as a result of -- of other 

23 functioning procedures not quite meeting the 

24 mark in terms of some specific site's 

25 requirements. 
106

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and that -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I think that falls under your 

3 scope items, though. That's just the review of 

4 the procedures and whether they met their -- 

5 you know, but anyway. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and the contrary side of 

7 that is that there are proce-- we -- we review 

8 all procedures. There are some procedures no 

9 longer used, or have been replaced by others, 

10 and I guess this would give the subcommittee 

11 discretion to say don't bother reviewing that 

12 since it's not used anymore. In other words, 

13 would they have to come back to the full Board 

14 or do they have that discretion to clarify 

15 intent based on their own judgment of what -- 

16 what their charge is. I -- I'm trying to see 

17 if there is a parallel to -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I see it is a bit 

19 confusing, but I don't object to what Wanda -- 

20 you know, if that's the intent, that's fine. 

21 I'm not going to harp on it anymore. 

22 MS. MUNN: It appears to me to be -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: But it's the technical -- 

24 MS. MUNN: -- a very broad brush. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- scope of the procedures review, 
107

1 not of the procedures. 

2 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So what you would still need in 

4 here would be the word "procedures" -- you 

5 would need the addition of "review" -- right? 

6 MS. MUNN: Review. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: May-- maybe we can leave that in 

8 for now. It's -- it's somewhat vague as to 

9 what it means, but "Clarify Board intent 

10 regarding the technical scope of procedures 

11 review." 

12 MS. MUNN: "Of procedure reviews." 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe as necessary or something. 

14 I don't think it's normally necessary, but -- 

15 what do you think about adding the words "as 

16 necessary"? Maybe that's redundant. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's -- that's fine. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Huh? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine the way -- as -- 

20 Wanda's interpretation, that's -- that's fine. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Under item -- currently 

22 number -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then you would delete the rest 

24 of the sentence. 

25 MS. MUNN: I would delete the rest of the 
108

1 sentence. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

3 MS. MUNN: "And SEC tasks assigned to the audit 

4 contractor" come out. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed. 

6 MS. MUNN: Item three was left intact. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Which is now item two? 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. Item four, now item three, 

9 "Prepare documents" -- insert "or provide 

10 periodic verbal reports" -- "concerning the 

11 preparation of procedures" -- mark out "for 

12 submission" -- "to the Board." 

13 DR. ZIEMER: So it would say "Prepare documents 

14 or provide oral" -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Periodic -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- "periodic oral" -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- verbal reports. Oral is fine, 

18 whichever. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- "oral reports" -- 

20 MS. MUNN: Concerning the preparation of 

21 procedures to the Board. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: How about putting the "to the 

23 Board" after "reports"? It's not procedures to 

24 the Board, it's -- 

25 MS. MUNN: Fine. Uh-huh. 
109

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- reports to the Board. Right? 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, fine. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So it would say "Prepare documents 

4 or provide periodic oral reports to the Board" 

5 -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Concerning -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- "concerning the preparation of 

8 procedures." 

9 MS. MUNN: Correct. Perhaps "concerning the 

10 status of procedures" would be a better word -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That -- 

12 MS. MUNN: -- at this juncture. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- that would probably be better 

14 because it would cover preparation, it would 

15 cover modification, it would -- 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- cover a -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Can you read that whole thing 

19 again, Wanda? 

20 MS. MUNN: "Prepare documents or provide 

21 periodic verbal reports to the Board concerning 

22 the status of procedures." 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: That's better, rather than 

25 preparation of, yeah. 
110

1 MS. HOWELL: Can I go back a second to the new 

2 number two and ask for clarification of what is 

3 meant by "taking into consideration conflict of 

4 interest matters?" Was that lifted from the 

5 dose reconstruction language? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I believe it was -- 

7 MS. HOWELL: Then I would suggest it be struck 

8 here -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 MS. HOWELL: -- 'cause there wouldn't be any. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure, I -- I was thinking 

12 the same thing at -- at first, but then I think 

13 there are some site-specific procedures, so I 

14 don't know if -- if we should just leave it in 

15 -- 

16 MS. HOWELL: Well, I guess my -- I mean I'm not 

17 sure -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MS. HOWELL: -- that it would be necessary to. 

20 In the dose reconstruction situation, the full 

21 Board -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

23 MS. HOWELL: Thank you -- the full Board is 

24 looking at those individual dose 

25 reconstructions, and so I think that was the 
111

1 reason for leaving it in there. Certainly with 

2 the help of staff, such as myself, any Board 

3 member that was looking at a procedure for a 

4 site that they were specifically conflicted at 

5 would have -- fully be aware of that and step 

6 away from the table. It's up to the Board. I 

7 just wanted to bring that up. 

8 MS. MUNN: It's probably redundant in this 

9 case. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: As long as it says "consistent 

11 with Board policies," it inherently includes 

12 the issue of conflict of interest, in any 

13 event. So we can probably -- probably delete 

14 that phrase. 

15 MS. MUNN: Policies, period. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Going back to the one that Wanda 

18 just read, at the end of that sentence can you 

19 say procedures review? 

20 MS. MUNN: Certainly. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, instead of just procedures. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Right, thank you. 

23 MS. MUNN: And item five, the only thing I did 

24 was remove the "s" from "prepare" on the end of 

25 the first line. 
112

1 DR. ZIEMER: And prepare responses, is that -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

4 MS. MUNN: Item six, "Review findings of the 

5 Board's" -- eliminate -- delete "audit" -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

7 MS. MUNN: -- "contractor regarding procedure 

8 reviews, assure that these findings are 

9 considered by NIOSH, and oversee the 

10 development and closing of a resolution 

11 database" -- rather than matrix. We have 

12 evolved from the matrix stage. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MS. HOWELL: I had another question. It was my 

15 understanding -- I'm not sure, does the 

16 database ever close now? I mean I know 

17 individual items may, but other items perhaps 

18 may not. I just wanted clarification. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the clo-- closing of items 

20 in the database is what Emily is asking. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: We're not closing the database. 

23 This says oversee the closure of the database. 

24 I think we're saying the closure of items or 

25 findings -- 
113

1 MR. GRIFFON: Of findings, yeah. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the database. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: You see what we're saying, Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Of findings -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Development and closing of -- 

7 MS. MUNN: -- of findings within a resolution 

8 database. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh, that's fine. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you, Emily. 

11 MS. MUNN: Thanks, Emily. Those were the only 

12 changes that I made to the language. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are there any objections to 

14 those changes that Wanda has suggested? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Good. Are there other changes that anyone 

17 wishes to suggest? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Emily? 

20 MS. HOWELL: The only other thing I was going 

21 to bring up, under Frequency of Meetings, it 

22 says that the subcommittee will meet 

23 approximately 12 times a year. I just -- I 

24 don't know if that -- certainly we've been 

25 meeting with a great deal of frequency. I 
114

1 didn't know if you -- I'm not sure how much it 

2 matters what is in this contract -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we just leave it on an 

4 as-needed basis and -- 

5 MS. HOWELL: Or -- or even eight or nine times 

6 a year. I mean I -- certainly there's certain 

7 months where it might not happen. 

8 MS. MUNN: Our experience -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: You think we need a number? 

10 MS. MUNN: Our experience for the last two 

11 years has been that it's almost impossible to 

12 let a month go by without meeting this group. 

13 There's so much activity that's still going on 

14 with respect to development of new procedures 

15 and to closing of the numerous individual 

16 findings that attach to -- as the letter 

17 starts, we're reviewing 295 findings, and 

18 that's -- that's a lot of material. 

19 MS. HOWELL: I mean I don't think anyone's 

20 going to hold you to what's in this document, 

21 but if you wanted to use a more -- slightly 

22 more nebulous word, such as "several," that's 

23 all I was going to suggest. 

24 MS. MUNN: I don't think it's going to reduce 

25 the number of meetings, but -- which have been 
115

1 about 12 a year, but that's -- that's up to the 

2 Board. I have no strong feeling. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: What is the intent of this 

4 particular requirement? To allow the agency to 

5 estimate what it might cost to -- 

6 MS. HOWELL: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: So if you were to say twice a year 

8 and they ended up meeting 12 times a year -- 

9 MS. HOWELL: That might be a problem. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- that might be a problem. 

11 MS. HOWELL: So I mean I -- I think it's fine, 

12 probab-- better probably to overestimate -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 MS. HOWELL: -- than underestimate. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's leave it at 12. Thank 

16 you. Any other comments or suggestions here? 

17 (No responses) 

18 If not, we'll call for a vote on the document, 

19 as amended. We'll -- I think we can do this by 

20 voice -- voice vote. 

21 All in favor, aye? 

22 (Affirmative responses) 

23 Opposed, no? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Any abstentions? 
116

1 (No responses) 

2 Motion carries. Thank you very much. This 

3 action does not require us to get Dr. Lockey's 

4 vote, I do not believe, because it doesn't 

5 really go to the Secretary. It goes to the 

6 management group, so... 

7 WORKGROUP FOR PANTEX

8 Next on my schedule here is the establishment 

9 of a workgroup for Pantex. 

10 (Pause) 

11 I'm looking for my own notes -- here they are. 

12 Okay. The Chair would like to suggest the 

13 following individuals -- or ask the following 

14 individuals to serve as the workgroup for 

15 Pantex. I'm -- I'm going to name five 

16 individuals plus an alternate -- it's a little 

17 larger than normal, but I think this would be 

18 perhaps helpful -- Poston, Presley, Griffon, 

19 Schofield, Clawson, and alternate Beach. Would 

20 all of you agree to serve on that group? 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Would you 

23 repeat (unintelligible)? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Poston, Presley, Griffon, 

25 Schofield, Clawson and Beach. 
117

1 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Beach is 

2 (unintelligible) alternate? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right. I'm -- I'm looking to see 

5 who has more -- and less -- duties to see about 

6 naming a chair. 

7 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, I'll -- I'll volunteer, if 

8 you want. I've only got one. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Clawson has volunteered to 

10 chair, and that's -- that will be fine. And 

11 this does not require Board action. The Chair 

12 is authorized to appoint the workgroup members. 

13 MS. MUNN: Mr. Schofield has a question here. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Phillip. 

15 MR. SCHOFIELD: (Off microphone) I would like 

16 to propose we also (unintelligible) workgroup 

17 for the Idaho National Engineering Lab 

18 (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let me -- let me look at 

20 this -- I'm looking at other items so you can 

21 get -- get them all within an overall 

22 framework. 

23 THE COURT REPORTER: Could I ask everybody to 

24 use your mikes real close to you as we get more 

25 conversational? 
118

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking to see if there's any 

2 other workgroups that need to be appointed 

3 right now, in addition to the INEL. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing, Paul, I -- I had 

5 mentioned yesterday the Board could consider 

6 adding the task of the SEC review to the SRS 

7 workgroup, the Savannah River. That's not a -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's -- that's a -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- not a new workgroup but -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- the tasking issue -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- especially with our contractor. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. I -- I think that will be 

15 fine. Let's go ahead with -- is there any 

16 objection to setting up the INEL workgroup? 

17 Okay. 

18 I think I will ask on this one for volunteers. 

19 Okay, we've got Phil, we've got Josie -- who 

20 else? We've got Melius, we've got Roessler, 

21 we've got Munn. Okay, that's five people. We 

22 can do that as four plus a -- four plus a -- an 

23 alternate. Anyone prefer to be the alternate? 

24 Phil, are you -- 

25 MR. SCHOFIELD: I was going to say 
119

1 (unintelligible) -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: You're volunteering to be chair? 

3 MR. SCHOFIELD: To be chair. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: That'll be fine. Anyone prefer to 

5 be the alternate, as opposed to the full -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- Wanda, as alternate. Thank 

8 you. 

9 For the record, the INEL workgroup will consist 

10 of Phil Schofield, Josie Beach, Jim Melius, Gen 

11 Roessler, and Wanda Munn as alternate, with 

12 Phil Schofield serving as chair. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, I'd just like to make 

14 a little editorial change. It is now -- since 

15 this time has changed names, now it's just INL. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

17 MS. MUNN: We can't keep track. 

18 DR. MELIUS: How do you pronounce that IN-L? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I know. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: It's pronounced INEL. Okay, Idaho 

21 National Laboratory. Does that mean they've 

22 stopped engineering there or... 

23 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) Well, 

24 (unintelligible). 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Who knows? Josie. 
120

1 MS. BEACH: Paul, we heard from John yesterday 

2 saying that he -- that SC&A would like to 

3 revisit the site profile review. Is that 

4 something we need to task as a 

5 (unintelligible)? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: We would -- we would have to task 

7 that if we want them to revisit, and we're 

8 going to do tasking here in just a moment, so -

9 - I'm looking to see where we are, item-wise. 

10 Let me take care of a couple of quick items. 

11 First of all, a meeting or two ago a number of 

12 the Board members, particularly those who were 

13 not with us in the early days, asked about a 

14 policy dealing with Congressional visits, 

15 particularly where Congressional offices asked 

16 -- have asked our contractor to brief them, and 

17 we've -- we indicated the fact that there was a 

18 Board policy that we would attempt to ask that 

19 a Board member be present, but that we 

20 recognize that we could not insist on that in 

21 the Congressional offices. And individuals 

22 asked where that -- where that Board policy 

23 existed. I have gone back and identified in 

24 the minutes where that action by the Board took 

25 place, and I want to identify that to -- 
121

1 particularly to the newer members of the Board, 

2 and also tell you that I'm -- I can give you, 

3 on flash drive or however you want it, or e4 mail it to you, those particular items. So let 

5 me identify for the record where they appear. 

6 Just a moment. 

7 (Pause) 

8 Well, they appear on my flash drive, which 

9 isn't plugged in. Hold on. 

10 Okay -- they appear in the transcripts of 

11 August 25th, 2005 and August 26th, 2005. And 

12 again, I have those pages in the transcripts 

13 where the discussion and the action took place. 

14 So those members who want that, I'll give you 

15 the flash drive when the meeting's adjourned 

16 and you can copy that and take it with you. 

17 MS. BEACH: Can you just e-mail it to us? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Or I -- if you ask me. Shall I 

19 just e-mail it to the whole Board? 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

21 MS. BEACH: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I'll just do that, and e-mail it 

23 everyone and you'll have that -- even for the 

24 older members -- to update your records. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Refresh our memories. 
122

1 DR. ZIEMER: Refresh your memories of what you 

2 did in the olden days. 

3 DR. MELIUS: I remember back when. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: In days of yore. Okay, so I just 

5 want to get that in the record and make sure 

6 that we had a follow-up because I -- I know 

7 several of you requested that earlier. 

8 TASKING THE CONTRACTOR

9 Now let's talk about tasking our contractor. 

10 We have the issue of closing out various items 

11 that John discussed with us. We also had the 

12 sort of proposal for how the contractor might 

13 handle newer tasks going forward, based on the 

14 use of carry-forward money, between now and 

15 December. 

16 John Mauro had suggested that the contractor 

17 might begin to address some new site profiles, 

18 in terms of what he called paper studies, for 

19 Brookhaven, the Kansas City Plant, and Lawrence 

20 Berkeley. 

21 He also indicated that they might be tasked to 

22 address some particular SECs and here -- 

23 Savannah River construction workers, Pantex, 

24 Santa Susana and Los Alamos post-'75. And then 

25 we also have the issue of INEL, as well, that 
123

1 we can consider. 

2 John Mauro, were there other items that I -- 

3 oh, yes. Well, we have -- we do have the dose 

4 reconstructions also. You've already been 

5 tasked, I think, to complete those dose 

6 reconstructions. 

7 DR. MAURO: We haven't received the CDs. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: But you have not received -- 

9 DR. MAURO: We haven't -- that's right. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: But that tasking has been done. 

11 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And in a moment we're going to 

13 select the last 20 cases. And incidentally, we 

14 -- I indicated to the Board yesterday that the 

15 teaming for the ninth set of cases would be 

16 done -- that actually has been done already, 

17 and John Mauro and I have compared notes and 

18 they do have the teaming for the cases -- well 

19 the ninth set, which is cases 160 to 80, I 

20 guess, or -- 

21 DR. MAURO: And that -- it's 40 cases -- 40 -- 

22 nin-- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: It's 40 cases. I don't know the 

24 numbers, but -- 

25 DR. MAURO: Yeah 40 cases. I don't recall the 
124

1 numbers there. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, right. 

3 DR. MAURO: But the -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: In any event, the ninth set has 

5 been tasked and the teams have been identified, 

6 so that's work to be done. 

7 DR. MAURO: There is one other item that I 

8 discussed in fact with Larry Elliott related to 

9 proced-- procedures. Apparently there are a 

10 couple of procedures that are -- are new and 

11 perhaps important that may want to be 

12 addressed. Specifically -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Actually the -- the new NIOSH 

14 procedure IG-004 is the surrogate data 

15 procedure, and that could be tasked as well. 

16 MS. MUNN: And -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Comments -- Wanda? 

18 MS. MUNN: -- and 003? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: What was 00-- 

20 MS. MUNN: Related, I believe. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I didn't jot -- what was 

22 003? I didn't jot -- 

23 MS. MUNN: I think it's related, isn't it? 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Larry mentioned another one 

25 that -- 
125

1 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, can you help us, what was 

2 003? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: 003 is a description of what 

4 doses are included in the dose reconstructions 

5 for the -- for the program. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Is that simply definitions, or is 

7 it procedures, or -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it -- it's essentially -- 

9 it's a guidance, IG documents are guidance 

10 documents, or Implementation Guides. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: So those are the -- those are the 

12 items that we can consider, and I think we can 

13 do this in form -- in the form of a motion 

14 where we move to task the contractor to do 

15 specific things. 

16 Michael? 

17 MR. GIBSON: The workgroup on Santa Susana 

18 still has a request for the -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

20 MR. GIBSON: -- review of the SEC petition. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so tasking on Santa Susana 

22 SEC would be another possible -- thank you -- 

23 and I have that jotted down. I forgot to 

24 mention it. Thank you for reminding me. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Did you mention Pantex 
126

1 (unintelligible) -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm sorry, I was reading the 

4 cases. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

6 MS. MUNN: What, doing your work? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Actually for SECs we would -- 

8 possible ones, Pantex, Santa Susana -- I 

9 thought it was on the list that I mentioned 

10 earlier, but -- and then Savannah River and Los 

11 Alamos, and now INEL -- INL, thank you. 

12 So the Chair's looking for a motion to ta-- for 

13 tasking of our -- of our contractor. And -- 

14 and in the framework that the money that's 

15 being used for all of this currently is 

16 closeout money which originally was earmarked 

17 for closing out issues on site profiles and 

18 dose reconstructions and some SEC issues. 

19 MS. MUNN: Mr. Chairman, could you please read 

20 that list again of tasks? If you read the list 

21 I'll be happy to make the motion. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Actually -- actually, as I think 

23 about it, I think what I will suggest is that 

24 we divide this. Let's do a motion relating to 

25 SEC work. We'll do a motion relating to site 
127

1 profile work, and a motion relating to 

2 procedures review work, so that we don't 

3 intermingle them and get them clear. 

4 Let's begin with SEC work. It's been suggested 

5 that we task the contractor to assist with SEC 

6 reviews for Savannah River construction 

7 workers, Pantex, Santa Susana, Los Alamos and 

8 INEL. Now keep in mind -- 

9 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) INL. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: INL -- keep in mind that there is 

11 some other SEC work going on that's already 

12 been tasked. That is the -- the Blockson and 

13 the -- the valve work. 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah, Chapman -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Chapman Valve. 

16 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So -- but those are already tasked 

18 so we don't need to retask any of that. That 

19 carries forward. Brad? 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Mr. -- the INL is -- has not yet 

21 got an SEC, but -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: There is no SEC work associated 

23 with INL, okay, just a site profile. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

25 MR. CLAWSON: At this time. 
128

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So our priorities would 

2 be, I would say, to address the others even 

3 though we established a workgroup for this. So 

4 the Chair's looking for a motion. You need 

5 help with this motion? 

6 MS. MUNN: Before -- before making the motion, 

7 however, there is some concern about the 

8 quantity of effort that would be involved in 

9 this many SECs. These are major items, and can 

10 be envisioned as requiring a significant amount 

11 of time and effort on the part of anyone who 

12 wished to address them. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me point out that we 

14 have before us a petition from Santa Susana so 

15 we have to deal with that, in any event. We 

16 have a petition before us from Pantex, so we 

17 have to deal with that one. Where -- let's 

18 see, where are we on Savannah River 

19 construction -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Is the ER report complete on 

21 Savannah River -- not quite complete, right? 

22 Is that -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: But -- but it'll be complete 

24 before the next meeting, and we're going to be 

25 in -- 
129

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

2 DR. MELIUS: -- down there. It'd be helpful, I 

3 think, to... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So if -- if we -- if we need any 

5 assistance from the contractor on these three 

6 which are before us, in principle we can only 

7 guarantee the availability of the contractor 

8 for the next two or three months, in any event. 

9 So I simply point that out. 

10 MS. MUNN: They -- they've indicated that their 

11 expenditures were roughly on the order of 

12 $200,000 per month in recent history, but I 

13 don't think their recent history has included 

14 this level of effort with respect to SECs. Am 

15 I incorrect? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, maybe John can speak to 

17 this, but I -- I think it's fair to say -- let 

18 -- let's say that the contractor -- let say 

19 that there's a different contractor after 

20 January 1 or whenever it occurs or -- or 

21 sooner, it's not obvious to me that we would be 

22 able to close out all of the site profiles in 

23 any event under a continuing effort. 

24 DR. MAURO: To be responsive to issues, Wanda 

25 is correct that there is a certain workload 
130

1 that we can handle. We've been operating at 

2 about $300,000 to $350,000 a month -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Ooh. 

4 DR. MAURO: -- and basically at -- that work 

5 generally consisted of efforts where at least 

6 three site profiles and perhaps three SEC 

7 petitions were moving through the system, 60 

8 dose reconstructions -- reviews, a dozen 

9 procedures, in addition to closeout process. 

10 So the scope of work that you are entertaining 

11 at this time is very compatible with what we've 

12 been doing for the last five years. So -- now 

13 the real important question, I believe, and -- 

14 I think is that we need to design the work, 

15 whatever is given to us, in a manner that has a 

16 break point that will allow the baton to be 

17 handed off to the next contractor readily. 

18 That's why in my little e-mail I mentioned the 

19 word "paper studies." I think a lot can be 

20 done with paper studies in terms of setting the 

21 table for what some of the more important 

22 issues might be, deliver those reports. So I 

23 do not believe we're going to be able -- if we 

24 -- if we are authorized to do, whether it's a 

25 site profile review or a -- an SEC re-- focused 
131

1 review, in -- in -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: They will be paper studies. 

3 DR. MAURO: They will be paper studies, and I 

4 think it would be probably important that how -

5 - whatever you folks decide to task us with, I 

6 will take it upon myself to very shortly 

7 prepare what I would call a closeout plan. 

8 That is, in anticipation that by a certain 

9 date, SC&A may no longer be available, I think 

10 we owe an -- have an obligation to let you know 

11 how we're going to close out all of the active 

12 items that are before us in a form that there's 

13 clear boundaries so that the -- the baton can 

14 be passed cleanly. Of course, hopefully that 

15 will be back to us. But if it's not, it will -

16 - we hope to put you in a position that it can 

17 be passed on pretty easily. But that's 

18 something that I think that perhaps I can work 

19 on. I left you with the idea of a paper study 

20 to give you a concept. But it -- how that 

21 actually will -- will be realized and what 

22 we'll actually do, I think it will depend on 

23 the ones that you ask -- to task us to do, and 

24 then we'll design something and lay it out for 

25 your consideration. 
132

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius, a comment, and 

2 then -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mr. Presley. 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- just to follow up on that, I 

6 think we've -- first of all, we have a lot of 

7 work that we're behind in, and I think these 

8 are imp-- important SECs and I think we -- we 

9 need to forward -- I think, as John has stated, 

10 he -- I think he can manage it in a way that 

11 could take into account the possibility that 

12 there need-- may need to be a transition to a -

13 - a different contractor. I also think we -- 

14 we've tended to not assign SC&A maybe as much 

15 work as -- as they could handle -- time, and 

16 that's -- also tends to slow down the overall 

17 process of dealing with -- with SECs and so I -

18 - I think that, given the priority, the -- the 

19 need to address these particular sites, I -- I 

20 think what's being proposed is reasonable and I 

21 think can be managed within the scope of the 

22 current contract, and I -- I think we need to 

23 do it if we're going to keep this process 

24 moving along and not have the, you know, 

25 petitioners waiting for -- significantly longer 
133

1 than they -- they will have to wait anyway 

2 through the process, so... 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mr. Presley? 

4 MR. PRESLEY: I'd like to recommend Santa 

5 Susana, Savannah River and Pantex, in that 

6 order. John, SC&A has already been working on 

7 those and those -- there's two there that are 

8 quite big. They have done a tremendous amount 

9 of work on both of those. With the possibility 

10 of Savannah River coming up in November, it 

11 would probably be a good idea to make it 

12 second, and then we can get Santa Susana 

13 working. Tho-- that's my recommendation. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Is this a motion that you're 

15 making to task -- 

16 MR. PRESLEY: I will make that in the form of a 

17 motion. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- to task SC&A -- 

19 MR. PRESLEY: SC&A. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- to assist in the SEC review 

21 process for those three sites. The order you 

22 gave them in was Santa Susana, Savannah and 

23 Pantex. 

24 Second to the motion? 

25 MR. GIBSON: Second. 
134

1 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, and -- seconded. 

2 Discussion? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I guess -- the only 

4 question I would have was -- is stating in 

5 order. I mean I think they might run in 

6 parallel, depending on their staffing, so -- 

7 but otherwise I agree with -- am in support of 

8 the motion, but I -- I don't know, I -- the 

9 priorities might be right, Bob, but I don't -- 

10 I think they might want to be able to work in 

11 parallel. I don't think we want to -- 

12 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) I'm sure they 

13 (unintelligible) -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- sort of dictate an order for 

15 the contractor. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: -- (unintelligible) those need to 

17 be -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't -- I don't think 

20 you're suggesting they necessarily do -- 

21 MR. PRESLEY: No. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- everything sequentially -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- but sort of prioritize -- 

25 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 
135

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- them sort of conceptually. 

2 Josie? 

3 MS. BEACH: I would like to add INL to that 

4 list, also. I think that's going to be a real 

5 quick review for SC&A. I'm not sure, but -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: This is just SECs. 

7 MS. BEACH: Just -- oh, just SECs? Okay. I 

8 retract that. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Just SECs. Any -- any other 

10 comment? So we would be tasking for these -- 

11 assistance on these three SECs. Okay, are you 

12 ready to vote then? 

13 All in favor, aye? 

14 (Affirmative responses) 

15 Opposed? 

16 (No responses) 

17 And abstentions? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Motion carries, so that tasking is approved and 

20 can get underway, and we -- we now have -- 

21 there are workgroups for each of these. 

22 Actually -- I'm trying to remember -- is 

23 Savannah River workgroup a site profile review 

24 -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right now it's a site profile 
136

1 review. I was asking that the Board let -- if 

2 -- if it's -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Can we take -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- the Board's wish -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- it by consent -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- that we'll ask the Savannah 

8 River workgroup to -- to focus on site profile 

9 iss-- or SEC issues? Any objection? 

10 (No responses) 

11 No objection. John? 

12 DR. MAURO: I'd just like to point out, 

13 especially in the case of Pantex, our 

14 classifications for our Q-cleared people will 

15 end mid-October. I'd just like to -- any 

16 assistance we can get in having those renewed -

17 - I'm not sure exactly the process, but it's -- 

18 it's essential that our Q-cleared people con-- 

19 continue to have their clearances active as we 

20 move into this phase of work and -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Would you -- Emily, I don't know 

22 if you can help John on this or -- who -- who 

23 can assist him, or can -- maybe Ted can. 

24 MR. KATZ: I think this is already in the 

25 works, but -- 
137

1 DR. MAURO: It is? Thank you. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Ted, could you follow up 

3 and make sure that -- 

4 MR. KATZ: I will follow up. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- they have the ability to -- to 

6 continue to assist through the -- the interim 

7 period. 

8 Let's do tasking for procedures review. Is -- 

9 are there any motions to add procedures review 

10 tasks for our contractor? There had been a 

11 suggestion that they consider -- 

12 MS. MUNN: We had -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- IG-003 and 4. Does the Board 

14 wish to have that tasked? 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. I can't remember whether we 

16 put -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: I mean they -- the other 

18 procedures -- 

19 MS. MUNN: -- 70 -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- are already tasked and we're 

21 well into the other procedures. Right? 

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, we have -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Yes, you have -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: You've delivered your reports. 

25 MS. MUNN: But we had -- we had talked -- do 
138

1 you have 70 already? 

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, the -- the total number? 

3 MS. MUNN: No, no, no -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: No, TIB-70 -- 

5 MS. MUNN: -- no, I meant OTIB -- 

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry -- 

7 MS. MUNN: -- OTIB -- 

8 DR. MAURO: -- OTIB-70, yes, we -- in fact, 

9 that was completed and delivered. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's -- 

12 DR. MAURO: It's been delivered. 

13 MS. MUNN: -- that's done. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and 66 is completed and will 

16 be delivered very shortly, so we're fair-- you 

17 know, we're just about done with all our 

18 reviews. I bring it up only that I -- I know 

19 that now that there are some important new ones 

20 that have come out that we have not been 

21 tasked, but no -- yes, we -- we were tasked and 

22 we've completed our work on OTIB-70 and -- and 

23 als-- and we're about to deliver OTIB-66. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: John, there are other important 

25 new ones other than IG-- 
139

1 DR. MAURO: The on-- no, the one that I -- I 

2 only became aware of -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

4 DR. MAURO: -- during this meeting was the 

5 surrogate one. That seems to be a fairly 

6 important procedure. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 MS. MUNN: We -- we -- the workgroup has a list 

10 of items which are proposed that are on the 

11 horizon, some of which are in the process of 

12 being signed off right now. And until we have 

13 an opportunity as a workgroup to consider this 

14 proposed list, I'd be hesitant to add anything 

15 more at this juncture. Perhaps if there's need 

16 to do that, we might be able to poll the Board 

17 -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Is 04 -- 

19 MS. MUNN: -- electronically. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the list? IG-004? 'Cause 

21 that one now, I understand, is completed. 

22 MS. MUNN: I believe it's out. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, it's out, that's -- 

24 MS. MUNN: So it's not on the proposed list. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
140

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think it's out. And -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: But has not yet been reviewed. 

3 MS. MUNN: No, it has not been reviewed. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: That's the surrogate data. 

5 MS. MUNN: We've -- we've already specified 

6 we're going to ask for that. Right? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Well, no, that's what I'm asking 

8 right now. That's what I'm asking if -- if we 

9 wish to task 03 and 04, now's the time to do 

10 it. 

11 MS. MUNN: I would move that we task our 

12 contractor with review of OTIB-003 and 004. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there a second? 

14 MS. BEACH: Second. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Discussion? Jim. 

16 DR. MELIUS: I still haven't seen the surrogate 

17 data one, but it seems that we have the 

18 potential for duplication. It -- be helpful to 

19 see what's -- what makes sense in terms of how 

20 -- how to review it and the -- and what -- it 

21 may be perfectly appropriate for the procedures 

22 workgroup, it -- it may not. I just don't want 

23 to... 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Now I'm wondering if this -- your 

25 workgroup should maybe also take a look at it 
141

1 from your point of view. I don't want to 

2 duplicate everything, but -- 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I just want to comment, these 

4 are IG-3 and 4, not -- not OTIB-3 and 4. 

5 MS. MUNN: Oh, sorry. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: IG-3 and 4. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, IG -- didn't I say IG? 

8 MS. MUNN: I'm sorry, yeah, it is. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: IG-004 and 003. 

10 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 DR. MELIUS: That's fine, too, but I think -- 

13 without having seen it and -- last I knew, the 

14 link -- Mark had tried the link and it wasn't 

15 working. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I -- yeah, it might be now, 

17 but... 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's -- let's get the 

20 tasking done. At least they can take -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- a look at it. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And then we can take it from 

25 there. 
142

1 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, let's see -- other 

3 comments? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Okay, we'll vote on this motion to task for 

6 procedures review for those two documents. 

7 All in favor, aye? 

8 (Affirmative responses) 

9 Opposed, no? 

10 (No responses) 

11 Abstentions? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Motion carries. Okay, now let's focus on site 

14 profile reviews. Do you want to task any 

15 additional site profile work at this time? 

16 John had suggested paper studies on several. 

17 Josie? 

18 MS. BEACH: I'd like to propose that they look 

19 at INL. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: This would be the revised, right? 

21 MS. BEACH: Revised, correct. 

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

23 MS. BEACH: Just a review. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Only, or -- 

25 MS. BEACH: Well, John indicated they wanted to 
143

1 go back and look at -- at that document because 

2 it was -- it's been two years since they've put 

3 it out, so... 

4 MR. GRIFFON: They have an initial review that 

5 was done on the first site profile but the re-- 

6 yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: That would not be a new one. We -- 

8 we have been authorized to review INL. I only 

9 brought that up because of the amount of time 

10 that's passed. If -- since the workgroup has 

11 formed for INL, all I would suggest is that 

12 perhaps one of the first things that that 

13 workgroup may want to do is let's go back, take 

14 a look at that, read it -- read it over to see 

15 if there are any new issues that we'd like to 

16 add, maybe some issues to remove in light of 

17 the amount of time that had passed, so I -- I 

18 see that as within the scope of our current 

19 mandate. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MS. BEACH: So we don't need to... 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think that discussion was 

23 based on the idea that if there was an INL SEC 

24 petition, that the next step would be to look 

25 at what was there in the document, before you 
144

1 even picked out SEC issues, to see how up to 

2 date the site profile was anyway, was -- that 

3 was what you were talking about originally. 

4 DR. MAURO: I have to say, I -- when I was 

5 thinking -- I don't see this as an SEC -- in 

6 other words, I'm -- I don't -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: There's not an SEC -- 

8 DR. MAURO: -- believe there is an SEC -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- no, no, no -- 

10 MS. BEACH: No, no, no. 

11 DR. MAURO: -- this is purely -- this is purely 

12 a -- a workgroup forming to let's take a look 

13 at INL, and the only new twist to this is, 

14 unlike the others where there was a relatively 

15 short period of time between when we produced 

16 our report and then when we moved forward with 

17 the workgroup, in this case we have quite a bit 

18 of lapse of time. And all I was suggesting is 

19 probably a good idea, once we start the 

20 workgroup, that one of the first things that I 

21 know I'd like to do is read it again cover to 

22 cover and perhaps put together perhaps some 

23 type of supplemental material that would 

24 accompany maybe a revised matrix that would add 

25 some items, perhaps -- and a rationale, and 
145

1 perhaps suggest deleting some items as being a 

2 good way to kick off the closeout process for 

3 the INL site profile process. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: And actually, see, INEL really was 

5 tasked earlier, much earlier, does not 

6 technically require new tasking, but if -- if 

7 it's the sense of the Board, since it's sat for 

8 so long, I think the workgroup could exercise a 

9 prerogative and ask for assistance in doing 

10 what John just described, and that would get 

11 you underway. But we need to be cognizant that 

12 that work is going on in the framework of any 

13 other tasking that we might add. Because 

14 otherwise that's sitting on the shelf, so now 

15 that sort of reactivates an old task that was 

16 assigned. So we -- we don't need to 

17 specifically, since we've approved the 

18 workgroup, I think you -- Phil, you can get 

19 underway and ask them to help in that regard. 

20 But now I ask, do you wish to task any 

21 additional site profile work -- in the -- in 

22 the framework that we have tasked these SEC 

23 activities, site -- or procedures review 

24 activities. You know what's ongoing also. Do 

25 you wish to add any new site profile work done? 
146

1 Because in the absence of a motion, I'm going 

2 to interpret that as meaning that the Board 

3 does not wish to add any site profile tasks at 

4 the present time, which means we'll focus on 

5 the things we've identified, plus any other 

6 closeout activities that are underway. And 

7 again I -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- can I just ask as a re-- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're kind of focused on the 

10 next three months because -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- and at which point we'll know 

13 where we stand with respect to continuing or a 

14 new contractor. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- can I just ask as a 

16 refresher -- I think John mentioned a few sites 

17 in his presentation. Can maybe we discuss tho18 - or John, can you te-- remind me what those 

19 were? 

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, Brookhaven was identified as a 

21 site profile that might benefit -- especially 

22 since there is an upcoming SEC, and we thought 

23 by moving forward on the site profile review, 

24 we'd be -- and put together a paper study, we'd 

25 -- would put the Board in a position to be 
147

1 well-poised to begin -- when that SEC 

2 evaluation report is ready, you'll be in a -- 

3 well-positioned to do that. That was the 

4 reason we brought Brookhaven up as a -- as a 

5 possibility. 

6 We also mentioned Kansas City as a site 

7 profile, simply because it's the only remaining 

8 weapons site that we have not performed a site 

9 profile review on. 

10 And the last one we mentioned was Lawrence 

11 Berkeley in terms of, I guess -- these are the 

12 three that we felt might benefit from a site 

13 profile paper study. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: What is the status of the 

15 Brookhaven -- I think -- is LaVon still here? 

16 MR. KATZ: No, he's not. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Stu can -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to remember what he 

19 told us on that one. 

20 MS. BEACH: Paul, he said it was -- could be up 

21 for review in December. I believe that was one 

22 that was going to be ready. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I -- I believe that's one 

24 that will be prepared, we think fairly shor-- 

25 you know, quite shortly before the next 
148

1 meeting. So whether there would be enough time 

2 for interpretation of it and have it on the 

3 agenda would be questionable, but that's the 

4 approximate time schedule. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I think we could probably delay 

6 tasking that since it's not going to be 

7 available in any event till after what will be 

8 the sort of drop-dead date on the contractor 

9 selection, would be my -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: No -- well, the SEC won't be 

11 available. Right? Is that what we're saying? 

12 I mean the site profile is out, yeah. Yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: The site profile is available. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking now to see what other 

16 items we have before us. 

17 MR. KATZ: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Huh? 

19 MR. KATZ: Future plans? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, before we do future plans -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so are we not -- we -- we 

22 are not -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Unless you're making a motion. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) No, I'm just 

25 asking (unintelligible) Jim's (unintelligible). 
149

1 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: We'll wait on those. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Just for the record, I want to 

4 call attention to the fact that we got a letter 

5 this summer -- actually late July -- from 

6 Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton and 

7 Congresswoman Slaughter concerning the Linde 

8 plant in New York state. That letter raised a 

9 lot of questions about procedures that occurred 

10 between the petitioner and how various actions 

11 were handled. It was addressed to me, but 

12 again, I cannot reply to these Congressional 

13 letters without Board approval. But most of 

14 the questions dealt with how various things 

15 were handled by NIOSH, so Larry Elliott did 

16 provide an extensive reply to those three 

17 individuals in a letter dated August 21st. 

18 Now what I would like to do right -- I was 

19 uncertain as to the distribution of the 

20 original letter. Do -- do any of you recall 

21 whether you were copied on the original letter 

22 or not? 

23 DR. MELIUS: The July letter? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we were copied on it, but 
150

1 the -- not on the res-- not on Larry's 

2 response. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I wasn't sure what the 

4 distribution was, so number one, I will make 

5 sure that Larry's response is distributed to 

6 all the Board members. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that he has answered the 

9 questions that were raised, and Larry un-- is 

10 Larry here? I don't know if -- I don't know if 

11 he's heard back or if we know that -- whether 

12 or not the individuals were okay with his 

13 response. In any event, I do want to respond 

14 to the letter, but let me first distribute 

15 Larry's response, and then I'm going to ask the 

16 Board members for input. I will -- I will 

17 prepare a draft for our next call meeting so 

18 that I can at least say thank you for the 

19 letter. NIOSH has, we think, responded to your 

20 questions, but if there's additional issues, we 

21 would be glad to address them. I want to make 

22 sure all the Board members have both the 

23 Congressional letter as well as the response, 

24 so we'll make sure that's distributed. And I 

25 just wanted to get that on the record here 
151

1 today. 

2 SELECTION OF TENTH SET OF CASES

3 Okay, I think we're -- we're at the point of 

4 selecting the -- Mark, the cases for the next -

5 - it's the tenth set of reviews. All of you 

6 should receive -- have received a copy -- I'm 

7 not sure if this is -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: This can't be distributed. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: This is -- cannot be distributed. 

10 It has confidential information so there are 

11 not copies for the public on this, but it's the 

12 identification of the last set of cases. Mark, 

13 describe what we have and what we need to do. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we have -- NIOSH -- Stu 

15 Hinnefeld -- this is our iterative -- our 

16 second step in our iteration process where we 

17 pre-selected a number of cases and we asked for 

18 more information on those so that we could 

19 determine -- if you remember, the last few 

20 columns in our criteria here better define what 

21 kind of case we're going to see when we 

22 actually do the review and -- and -- 'cause 

23 sometimes, just for people that haven't been 

24 through this, sometimes -- when we first do a 

25 selection, the criteria -- it might suggest 
152

1 that there was a best-estimate approach used in 

2 the dose reconstruction. But when you pull the 

3 file and look at the details, it actually was 

4 often a site-wide model or something like that. 

5 So we thought to better understand what we're 

6 actually going to be reviewing, we wanted more 

7 information. So in this second step -- we sort 

8 of pre-select, and in a second step NIOSH comes 

9 back and -- and gives us more information on 

10 the cases. 

11 We had a lot more cases when we started. A 

12 number of them I understand are either -- are 

13 not available really for our review now. 

14 Either they're -- I think in most cases they're 

15 under PER review, so they were pulled out 

16 because they're already being reworked by 

17 NIOSH. So our list is down to 22 already on 

18 this one paper, front and back, that you have. 

19 Out of that we -- we would like to get 20, and 

20 I -- I have a couple that I would -- I would -- 

21 at least my personal preference is to drop 

22 those two cases that I think we might consider 

23 dropping, and the rest would probably be reason 

24 -- would be reasonable for out tenth set, if 

25 you want to hear those now or if people -- 
153

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

2 you tell us the cases you are recommending be 

3 dropped and let's see if there's any objection 

4 or if others believe there are other cases that 

5 are more worthy of being dropped. How do I 

6 describe that? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: All right -- one, two, three -- 

8 the sixth case down, I believe, number 152 -- 

9 the last three digits are 1-5-2 in the ID. 

10 It's a lung case, Materials (sic) and Controls 

11 Corp., and I'm not going to say anything more, 

12 but the reason I would propose to drop that one 

13 is because it -- it really is not going to -- 

14 usually when we pick these smaller sites, the 

15 intent is not to only review a case but also 

16 we're almost doing a mini-site profile review, 

17 if you will. And in this case, they used -- it 

18 wasn't based on any information from the site. 

19 I talked to Stu a little about this earlier and 

20 the doses for internal were based on MDAs from 

21 another site, so I'm not sure that really would 

22 get at what we wanted to do with a review of a 

23 -- a DR from that site. So that's one. And 

24 it's also a compensable one, you know, so those 

25 two factors. 
154

1 The other one is number 402, Jessop Steel. And 

2 again, this is -- this was not a site profile 

3 model for the site or a matrix for the site. 

4 It was a -- a TIB-4 reconstruction. We've had 

5 many of the TIB-4 recons-- you know, cases. 

6 I'm not sure this would add a -- you know. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And it was compensable. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and compensable, right. 

9 So those two I -- I thought, out of the 22, can 

10 probably be dropped off and then we would have 

11 20 still for -- for the tenth set. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, those are Mark's 

13 recommendations for reducing this set to 20. 

14 Are there other cases that any of you have 

15 identified that you believe should not be 

16 considered? 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Could -- could you run over the 

18 numbers again, just to make sure? I thought I 

19 had one or two. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Last three -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I thought number -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- last three numbers -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- 152 -- number 152, Metals and 

24 Controls it is, and number 402, which is Jessop 

25 Steel. And I -- I would say the other 20 would 
155

1 be available for SC&A's review. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Then I'll ask if there are others 

3 that anyone believes should be deleted. 

4 (No responses) 

5 If not, I'll ask for a motion to accept the 20 

6 cases that remain. 

7 MS. MUNN: So moved. 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Any further discussion? 

10 All in favor, aye? 

11 (Affirmative responses) 

12 Opposed? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Carried, thank you. No abstentions? 

15 (No responses) 

16 No abstentions. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Paul, if I can have just one 

18 point of clarification. These -- it's been a 

19 while since these have been looked at for post20 closure activity, like the PER or being 

21 returned for some other reason. If any of 

22 these should fall off, can I just add those two 

23 back in to get back to 20? I mean if one or 

24 two drop off, and I would suspect you would 

25 want the Jessop Steel case to be added in last, 
156

1 would that be acceptable to the Board. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I sup-- I suppose. Everybody's 

3 looking at me. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think it's -- we're 

5 looking for your recommendation. I -- I think 

6 you've sort of convinced us that we don't gain 

7 any information -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- from these two, so it's sort of 

10 a question of would we just do them to get 20 

11 cases, or are there some other cases that got 

12 deleted earlier? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I would just say leave them 

14 off. If we're a little short of the 20 -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- we'll pick it up later or 

17 whatever, you know. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Question -- no. Okay. 

20 FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS

21 I think we may be ready to look at our schedule 

22 going forward. We have scheduled a meeting -- 

23 okay, these -- these are face-to-face meetings 

24 now, not the phone call meetings. December 16 

25 through 18 meeting has been confirmed for 
157

1 Augusta, Georgia, which is near the Savannah 

2 River Site. I don't know if we know the hotel 

3 yet, but somewhere in Augusta. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

5 (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: What -- will that start in the 

8 morning of the 16th? 

9 MS. MUNN: Yep. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we've not established the 

11 agenda yet. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: It's on a Tuesday. Yeah, comment, 

14 Jim? 

15 DR. MELIUS: Just can -- can I make a request 

16 that we try to establish the agenda a little 

17 farther ahead of time, at least as to whether 

18 there's going to be subcommittee meetings and 

19 so forth 'cause those of us that aren't on the 

20 subcommittees don't need to be there and -- and 

21 -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

23 DR. MELIUS: -- it's just helpful 'cause we 

24 have to make plane reservations and travel 

25 plans and that's becoming more difficult -- 
158

1 DR. ZIEMER: More problematical, right. 

2 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, and so having -- so we -- 

3 you sent out the notices and the hotel and 

4 everything, but we'd have no idea how long the 

5 meeting's going to -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- last so how many hotel nights 

8 and how many other reservations, so... 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, normally we've been starting 

10 -- well, I guess that -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: No, there is no normal. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- there isn't a normal, and this 

13 -- and this meeting was not normal 'cause we 

14 had the holiday, which caused some changes in 

15 how we did the travel. 

16 MR. KATZ: Jim, but -- so part of that is 

17 really you're tasking yourselves because the 

18 workgroup meetings and subcommittee, of course, 

19 you guys are in charge of sort of leading the 

20 scheduling for those. Right? 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: But even there, that's -- that 

23 remains -- once the main schedule's 

24 established, workgroup folks can work around 

25 that if necessary. 
159

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we have a sense of how -- 

2 how many -- you know, where we are, I think it 

3 could be -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So if we're going to start mid-day 

5 on -- on the Tuesday, then workgroups can 

6 schedule that morning, for example, but I think 

7 your point is well-taken. The earlier we know 

8 the agenda, the better it will be. 

9 Then moving forward to 2009, we're blocked off 

10 for February 17th through 19th, and that will 

11 either be Santa Fe or Albuquerque, in the Los 

12 Alamos area. February 17 through 19, near 

13 Albuquerque or Santa Fe. 

14 Then we are scheduled for May 12 through 14, 

15 meeting location to be determined, and I think 

16 Ted would like to talk about that now. And 

17 also July 27 through 29, meeting date (sic) to 

18 be determined. 

19 MR. KATZ: So I just wanted to raise, for -- 

20 trying to think about locations for these next 

21 two meetings, and maybe someone from OCAS will 

22 have to help out on these points, but -- but 

23 normally I think you try to coincide with a SEC 

24 evaluation and particularly if it can be a big 

25 site, but not necessarily. So I just -- I just 
160

1 made a list of the SEC evaluations that are 

2 sort of in the works and sort of in a phase 

3 where, you know, they -- they might be germane 

4 for those locations, although the far out one, 

5 of course, it's hard to say. But I just wanted 

6 to raise these and you -- some of you will know 

7 better, perhaps, in terms of timing. 

8 But Feeds Material Production Center, Hanford 

9 Part 2 -- that's the 1947 to '90, NTS, Mound, 

10 Texas City, Santa Susana -- of course we're 

11 here now, but -- Pantex, LANL -- of course 

12 we're already going to Albuquerque or the other 

13 location, Santa Fe -- and -- and Linde, which 

14 is-- isn't a large one, but -- so those are the 

15 -- those are the SEC sort of germane sites. 

16 DR. MELIUS: How ab-- how about Pantex? 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, we've talked about Pantex 

18 for a long time. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: Might be a good time to go to 

20 Pantex. 

21 MR. KATZ: All right, that's -- so Pantex -- I 

22 didn't realize the scale of that is why I 

23 didn't include that on this list. 

24 DR. MELIUS: And we've never been there, that's 

25 -- 
161

1 DR. ZIEMER: Amarillo, May possibly. 

2 DR. ROESSLER: Only 100 degrees then. 

3 MS. MUNN: No, is -- we just -- we've just 

4 missed the bluebonnets, that's not that bad. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection to considering the 

6 Amarillo area for May? 

7 MS. MUNN: No, good deal. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: We've talked about going there a 

9 number of occasions. We've avoided it as long 

10 as possible, it appears, but -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Despite my insistence. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: John? 

13 DR. POSTON: I would urge that we consider 

14 Albuquerque and not Santa Fe. The 

15 transportation to Santa Fe is unbelievable. 

16 It's an hour and a half away from the closest 

17 airport, means everybody's going to have to 

18 rent a car. It's just a expense that we don't 

19 need, and the hotels are cheaper in Albuquerque 

20 anyway. 

21 MS. MUNN: They are. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: I agree to that. 

23 MR. SCHOFIELD: (Off microphone) 

24 (Unintelligible) -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Phillip? 
162

1 MR. SCHOFIELD: -- there are a couple of 

2 reasons (unintelligible) Albuquerque is the 

3 fact that February in Santa Fe can 

4 (unintelligible) and a lot of retirees 

5 (unintelligible) outskirts of Albuquerque, and 

6 there's a number of people (unintelligible) 

7 Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque that's 

8 starting to become interested in the program. 

9 (Unintelligible) already been (unintelligible) 

10 Sandia (unintelligible) Albuquerque. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, Nancy, did you have a 

12 comment? We're -- we're focusing on -- 

13 MS. ADAMS: Zaida has already made 

14 arrangements, and it is Albuquerque and it is 

15 the Marriott in Albuquerque. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

17 MS. ADAMS: Oh, Doubletree? Excuse me, 

18 Doubletree in Albuquerque. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Is that in 

20 (unintelligible), the one with 

21 (unintelligible)? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you for that input, so 

23 we're all set on that. Any -- any early 

24 thoughts on July of '09? 

25 DR. POSTON: College Station. 
163

1 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Poston suggested College 

2 Station. That's nearly as hard to get to as 

3 Santa Fe -- actually it isn't difficult. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Amarillo, we ta... 

5 DR. POSTON: That's closer to Texas City. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Any thoughts on July of '09? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Probably too far out, but Fernald 

8 is moving along. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that would put us back in 

10 Cincinnati, I guess. Right? It's a 

11 possibility. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And you have Mound -- you also 

13 have Mound is there, you know, so -- may be a 

14 good reason for Cincinnati, yeah, Fernald and 

15 Mound. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Kind of keep that on reserve, but 

17 others could come up. What other -- I'm trying 

18 to think of other sites -- we've not done 

19 anything near Brookhaven, I don't think, too 

20 close to there. We've been to the Hanford area 

21 twice, maybe -- maybe three times. Idaho in 

22 July's not a bad site. 

23 MR. CLAWSON: No, it isn't. 

24 MR. SCHOFIELD: We want to go there in the 

25 winter. 
164

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there are several 

2 possibilities. Ted, how much more specific do 

3 we need to be for July? We've got some ideas 

4 here. 

5 MR. KATZ: Well, just -- just because summer is 

6 very difficult for scheduling, so it really 

7 would be good to have a -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Why not INL? 

9 MR. KATZ: -- a candidate. 

10 MS. MUNN: INL would be a good candidate, from 

11 my perspective. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: The airport will be open again, 

13 Brad, and -- far as you know? 

14 MR. CLAWSON: Far as I know. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: No, this is not a joke, they were 

16 shut down -- 

17 MR. CLAWSON: We are shut down through next 

18 month, so -- yes, it will be. 

19 DR. MELIUS: How -- how many flights a day? 

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

21 is it. 

22 MR. KATZ: So do we have that as a first choice 

23 then, INL for July? And do we have a second in 

24 case, for some reason, that's a bust? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask this question. Is 
165

1 there another location besides -- well, what 

2 other towns in Idaho might be -- are there 

3 other towns in Idaho? 

4 MS. MUNN: Idaho Falls, surely you joke. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: There's a couple of little towns, 

6 but they don't have airports. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, I'm -- is Pocatello too far or 

8 is -- 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, yeah, Pocatello's too far, 

10 plus Idaho Falls is the best. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Idaho Falls would be the best. 

12 DR. POSTON: Sun Valley. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: What? 

14 DR. POSTON: Sun Valley? 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: I kind of like Sun Valley. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: We've talked about going to 

17 Brookhaven, in that area. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I mentioned Brookhaven 

19 earlier and basically -- and Jim, help us out 

20 here, would we go out in Long Island somewhere 

21 or would we -- 

22 DR. MELIUS: It's Long -- you'd have to stay 

23 out on Long Island but by the LaGuardia or JFK 

24 are the -- the airports, but -- get a little 

25 taste of New York -- Long Island traffic, which 
166

1 is... 

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there is a little Is-- 

4 Islip airport, isn't it, but -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Islip doesn't -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: No, I think you'd fly into the 

7 main airports and then have to go out -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: But it would require rental cars 

9 for most people. Brookhaven's quite a ways 

10 out. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Couple of hours, yeah. 

12 DR. MELIUS: And if you want to get people to 

13 come out -- people living -- you know, you'd 

14 want people from -- they don't travel -- like 

15 to travel in their traffic, either, so you'd 

16 want to be -- something out near Brookhaven. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 MS. BEACH: Well, and Ted, don't forget to add 

19 to the list Cincinnati for the -- for Mound and 

20 Fernald. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, he's got that on his -- 

22 MS. BEACH: You've got that? 

23 MR. KATZ: Yeah, but I -- 

24 MS. BEACH: For July? 

25 MR. KATZ: -- I don't have -- well, I thought 
167

1 we were going for Idaho Falls for July. I 

2 thought that's what you just -- 

3 MS. BEACH: I thought you asked for some 

4 backup, so -- 

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay, right, so -- and backup is 

6 Cincinnati for Mound? 

7 MS. BEACH: I thought we heard Brookhaven and 

8 then Cincinnati for Mound and Fernald. 

9 DR. MELIUS: And I would keep Hanford on the 

10 list, I -- in the sense that -- depending where 

11 we are with data and so forth, there'll be more 

12 issues out there and I -- I know the groups out 

13 there are interested in having us come back 

14 out, in addition to visiting our two Board 

15 members. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: I -- and in Idaho I would love to 

17 have you come to Idaho Falls, but -- but also, 

18 too, I think that we ought to be hitting at the 

19 ones that have got the SECs out there right 

20 now. That's -- that's my -- that would just be 

21 my suggestion. You know, we've got Brookhaven, 

22 we've got Hanford, everything else like that. 

23 Idaho does not have one at this time, so -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We might want to wait -- 

25 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I would suggest that. I'd -
168

1 - I'd prefer probably in the December time 

2 frame for that. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: I'm just -- the only reason I'm 

4 back on Cincinnati is I think Fernald and Mound 

5 should be by then far along, you know, with the 

6 SEC process. If they're not, we -- we've got 

7 some explaining to do. I mean, you know, 

8 they've been out there for a while, so... 

9 MR. KATZ: So is that our first priority? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I feel that way, I'm -- you 

11 know. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly Idaho's not going to be 

13 ready. We don't have a petition yet even. 

14 MR. CLAWSON: Right, that's -- that's why I say 

15 I would focus more (unintelligible). 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Once the petition comes, then we 

17 have another 180 days, which is six months. 

18 MR. PRESLEY: Cincinnati seems to be easy for 

19 all of us to get to. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. So just to clarify, May, was 

21 that Amarillo? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: May, Amarillo then, and first 

23 choice for July then would be Cincinnati. 

24 Okay, thank you. That's helpful. 

25 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 
169

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to ask now if there's any 

2 other business to come before this assembly 

3 today. Any -- anything that the Chair has 

4 overlooked or anything that any member wishes 

5 to bring up? Mr. Katz, do you have any items 

6 for us? 

7 MR. KATZ: No, nothing left, thank you, Dr. 

8 Ziemer. 

9 MS. MUNN: Before we close out, as long as 

10 we're all here at the table, it would be 

11 helpful for the chair of the Blockson group if 

12 we could identify a date to meet next time, in 

13 the very near future. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Blockson workgroup, can you 

15 -- do you have some dates to suggest, Wanda, 

16 and let them respond to that? 

17 MS. MUNN: I would like very much to be looking 

18 at an October date, possibly -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And Ted, there had been some 

20 discussion on how soon in October we could meet 

21 due to issues on continuing resolution. What's 

22 the earliest date in October that -- 

23 MR. KATZ: I mean I think I would push the 1st 

24 out, but really we could -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: First week or -- 
170

1 MR. KATZ: -- we could meet the first week, 

2 still, you know -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: That's difficult after the -- 

4 MR. KATZ: It's -- the first week is a little 

5 more difficult, just because we have to get 

6 administrative people at other parts of the 

7 agency to press some buttons, but -- but it can 

8 be done the first week of October if it need 

9 be. 

10 MS. MUNN: My suggestion would be October -- 

11 the week of October 12th. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: Sounds good to me. 

13 MS. MUNN: Is it possible either -- perhaps a 

14 Tuesday meeting, Tuesday the 14th of October? 

15 DR. ROESSLER: In Cincinnati? 

16 MS. MUNN: Cincinnati, face-to-face? 

17 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Could we just ask that that 

18 meeting start late enough for us to fly in that 

19 morning, since the 13th is a federal holiday? 

20 MS. MUNN: How about Wednesday the 14th -- I 

21 mean the 15th? Is that acceptable to everyone, 

22 full day Wednesday? NIOSH, SCA, will that give 

23 us time to pull together what we need to have? 

24 DR. MAURO: That's fine for us. 

25 MS. MUNN: All right. Jim? 
171

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

2 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it looks like Wednesday the 

4 15th. 

5 MS. MUNN: Wednesday the 15th, face-to-face in 

6 Cincinnati, Blockson. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: Starting early? 

8 MS. MUNN: Starting early -- 

9 MR. KATZ: What -- tell -- tell me how long? 

10 MS. MUNN: Starting 9:30. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Josie has a meeting on Mound the 

13 27th -- 

14 MS. BEACH: Suggested meeting at this point. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: That's a suggested meeting. Brad 

16 and I have been talking about Fernald and NTS. 

17 Since there are three of us that are on Mound, 

18 Fernald and NTS, I would like to propose that 

19 we have Fernald the 28th and NTS on the 29th. 

20 I reali-- of October. I realize that's three 

21 straight days, but that -- if we do that, then 

22 that's going to cost the federal government a 

23 whole lot less, if we can schedule it that way, 

24 if John and NIOSH can accommodate those dates. 

25 MR. STAUDT: Excuse me, Ted? 
172

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

2 MR. STAUDT: Dave Staudt, I'm going to need 

3 some -- some people's time in October, probably 

4 the week of the 20th. I don't know if you've 

5 had an opportunity to discuss that, but that 

6 could -- that -- and that could play into your 

7 plans there. 

8 MR. KATZ: Right, no, I -- I have to discuss 

9 that individually with Board members, yes, that 

10 -- 

11 MR. STAUDT: Okay, I just wanted -- that -- 

12 that may have some impact. 

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks, that -- thanks for reminding 

14 us, David. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Can we put those dates as 

16 tentative dates so that the Board members can 

17 be thinking about that? Is that all right, 

18 Brad? 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, I've -- I've sent out e20 mails to the Fernald workgroup, Josie has, and 

21 I believe Bob's sending one out, too, so just 

22 to try to be able to do that, and also, Ted, I 

23 -- I've -- the only thing with the Blockson is 

24 you've asked me to keep those two weeks open -- 

25 MR. KATZ: Yes, right, that's what David was 
173

1 just -- 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Right, I just -- that's the only 

3 thing that'd be a problem with hers. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Phil? 

5 MR. SCHOFIELD: (Off microphone) 

6 (Unintelligible) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for the suggestion. 

8 MR. CLAWSON: If I could make a suggestion to 

9 Wanda, if -- according to what I've talked with 

10 Ted, if -- if we (unintelligible) up the 

11 Blockson one for -- on the tail end of NTS, I 

12 know that'd be four days, but that'd -- that'd 

13 open us -- open it up to us. 

14 MS. MUNN: I'm not going to be able to attend 

15 the NTS. I'm having surgery that week and -- 

16 MR. CLAWSON: Oh -- 

17 MS. MUNN: -- I won't be doing anything the 

18 last week in October. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: So where's your dedica-- can't 

20 you call from anesthesia? 

21 MS. MUNN: No, they're really touchy about 

22 that. 

23 MR. CLAWSON: You called from the beach, so -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Once. 

25 MR. KATZ: So Wanda, can you just reiterate for 
174

1 me, what -- what are the dates we're talking 

2 about tentatively now and which workgroups? 

3 MS. MUNN: The -- the other workgroups were -- 

4 were on the 27th, 28th and 29th. 

5 MR. KATZ: But which workgroups 27th, 28th, 

6 29th? 

7 MS. MUNN: They were Fernald -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Mound is 27th. 

9 MR. KATZ: Oh -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

11 MR. PRESLEY: Mound is the 27th. 

12 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Mound, Fernald -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Fernald the 28th, NTS the 29th. 

14 MS. MUNN: NTS. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And Wanda, your workgroup? 

16 MS. MUNN: My Blockson workgroup was the 15th. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: The 15th. 

18 MR. KATZ: Right. 

19 MS. MUNN: Two weeks prior to the -- 

20 MR. KATZ: Right, I've -- I've got that one, 

21 thanks. 

22 MS. BEACH: And I'll add for Mound I'm just 

23 waiting for confirmation from Brant if NIOSH'll 

24 be ready for that meeting. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So we can schedule it now 
175

1 and cancel if we need to. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Any 

4 other items to come before us today? 

5 MR. PRESLEY: Do we need to give these back to 

6 Stu? Stu, do you need these back? 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I can collect them or you can 

8 throw them away. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: What -- what are -- you're asking 

10 about the -- the list? 

11 MS. HOWELL: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

12 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was going to say, I 

13 think Emily wants those. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: The list of cases, which has some 

15 confidential material in it, just turn that 

16 back to Stu here before you leave. 

17 Ladies and gentlemen, I think that completes 

18 our business for this week. I thank you all 

19 for your hard work and your dedication to this 

20 effort. We stand adjourned. 

21 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 

22 p.m.) 

23 
176

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Sept. 4, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

4th day of Oct., 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 
177

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the 

Transcript of the September 4, 2008 Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Meeting held at Redondo 

Beach, CA, is accurate and complete. 

______________________ 

October 13, 2008 

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D. 

Chair, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health