NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

138th Meeting

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

The meeting convened at 10:30 a.m., Eastern 

Daylight Time, via Video Teleconference, Rashaun 

Roberts, Designated Federal Official, presiding. 
2 

Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Henry Anderson, Member

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

David B. Richardson, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Phillip Schofield, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Registered and/or Public Comment Participants: 

Adams, Nancy, NIOSH Contractor

Barrie, Terrie, ANWAG

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Behling, Kathy, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Gogliotti, Rose, SC&A

Hand, Donna

Hughes, Lara, DCAS

Kotsch, Jeff, DOL

Naylor, Jenny, HHS OGC

Nelson, Chuck, DCAS

Rutherford, Lavon, DCAS

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 138th Meeting 

Wednesday, February 21, 2021 1

Roll Call/Welcome 4

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Dr. Chuck Nelson, DCAS 6

Updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittee - WG/SC Chairs 8

Plans for the April 2021 Board Meeting 12

Adjourn 22
4

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome

Dr. Roberts: It is 10:30 Eastern Time. I want to say 

good morning to everyone. I do believe our court 

reporter is on the line. This is the teleconference for 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

I'm Rashaun Roberts. I'm DFO for this Board.

Before we start the roll call, I do want to cover a 

few brief items so that the call today runs smoothly. 

So, first, so that everybody can be heard clearly 

during the call, please make sure that your phone is 

muted, unless, of course, you need to speak. If you 

don't have a mute button, press *6 to mute. If you 

need to take yourself off mute press *6 again. 

There have been a few cases where we've suddenly 

heard considerable background noise, so please 

check your phone periodically throughout this call to 

make sure that you haven't somehow become 

unmuted. And I can hear a little bit of background 

noise right now. So, again, if everybody could check 

their phones and make sure that mute is on, that 

would be great.

Member Clawson: Hey, Rashaun. You may want to 

remind them that when they want to talk that 

they've got to off mute, too.

Dr. Roberts: Yes. Yes. Please do. If you don't have 

the mute button, press *6 to unmute yourself. But, 

again, I still hear some background noise. You 

know, hopefully, everybody can put themselves on 

mute.

You can find the agenda for this meeting on the 

NIOSH website. For those who may not have an 

agenda in front of you right now, know that the 

agenda is pretty straightforward for today, so you 

should find it easy enough to follow along even if 

you don't have it in front of you.
5

I also wanted to provide a little bit of context for 

today's agenda. So, if you attended the Board 

meeting that we had back in December, you might 

have expected the agenda to contain an item to 

continue the discussions about Savannah River Site, 

since the Board voted in that meeting to table those 

discussions. There's been a bit of a change in plan. 

And, again, if people could mute their phones. I'm 

hearing -- I don't know if it's dishes or something in 

the background, but make sure that your phone is 

muted. Okay.

So, anyway, I'll just try to move through this. 

Rather than revisiting the Savannah River Site 

discussion at today's meeting, the SRS Work Group 

thought it would be more productive to have 

another Work Group meeting to discuss some 

additional information that was provided, prior to 

resuming discussions with the full Board. 

The SRS Work Group meeting, which will be done 

jointly with the SEC Issues Work Group, is 

tentatively scheduled for March 23rd. 

I should also note that the Board did receive a letter 

addressed to it pertaining to Savannah with the 

expectation on the part of the authors that 

Savannah would be discussed in this meeting. Given 

the change in plans, however, the letter will be 

distributed to the Board prior to the March 23rd 

meeting. And since the authors requested that the 

letter be read, we will do that at the March 23rd 

meeting. 

So, with these changes in plan, the primary purpose 

of today's meeting is to prepare for our April 14th 

and 15th Board meeting which, of course, will be 

taking place virtually again. 

I'd like to formally welcome everybody to this 

teleconference. And, again, this is for the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

So, since this is an administrative meeting, there 
6

really should not be any conflicts of interest. So we 

don't need to address that. So let's move right into 

the roll call. 

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Thanks. And, again, welcome. This 

should be a relatively brief meeting. First on the 

agenda we have the SEC petition status update. 

And I believe Mr. Chuck Nelson is going to provide 

that. Chuck?

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Dr. Chuck Nelson, DCAS

Mr. Nelson: Thanks, Rashaun. I just want to let 

everybody know that I took over for LaVon 

Rutherford as the NIOSH SEC team lead a few 

months ago, so I'll be giving the report today.

Today's report should be pretty short. We'll not be 

presenting any new SEC petition evaluations at the 

April Board meeting. We do have one new petition 

currently under evaluation, and that is for Pinellas, 

which is SEC-00256. We hope to complete the 

evaluation in the May-June timeframe and would 

possibly be ready to be presented in the August 

Board meeting.

I do expect the Work Group Chairs will provide their 

updates today, as needed, on the current ongoing 

SEC petitions with the Advisory Board. At this point, 

I just want to let you know there will be no new 

Evaluation Reports presented at the April meeting. 

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Member Beach: Hi, Rashaun. This is Josie. I just 

checked in. I didn't realize we started a little earlier.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Thank you and welcome, 

Josie.

Member Beach: My apologies.

Dr. Roberts: I thought it was a little strange that 
7

you weren't there. 

Okay, any questions for Chuck?

Member Clawson: Chuck, are you still over the 

Hanford site, then?

Mr. Nelson: That's correct, Brad. I'm over Hanford 

and Sandia still.

Member Clawson: Okay, I just wanted to make sure 

you hadn't changed that. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Nelson: No problem. And LaVon is still around, 

fortunately, and he'll be helping me as needed 

during this period of transition, which could go on 

for a while. You know, there's a lot to be known as 

the SEC team lead. There's a lot going on. 

Fortunately, I have him to tap into.

Member Clawson: What's his job now?

Mr. Nelson: Would you like to pipe up there, 

Bomber, and tell them what your new job is?

Mr. Rutherford: Well, everyone takes new roles with 

Stu and Jim leaving. Grady moved up to Stu's spot. 

Tim Taulbee went to the ADS position. And I've 

taken over Grady's old spot as kind of in charge of 

all of the HPs.

Member Clawson: Well, congratulations. That'll be 

good.

Dr. Roberts: Any other questions or comments? 

Okay. Well, hearing none, at this point -- and again, 

if you're listening and I do hear background noise. If 

you're not talking, if you could put your phone on

mute, *6; if you don't have a mute button, *6 to 

take yourself off mute.

But let's go ahead and move into the updates from 

the Work Groups and Subcommittees. And who 

would like to start?
8

Member Clawson: I guess --

Member Beach: Rashaun, since I was last on -- this 

is Josie, I'll go ahead and start if that's okay.

Dr. Roberts: Sure. I heard somebody else talking. Is 

that okay?

Member Clawson: That's okay. It's always about 

Josie, so it's fine.

(Laughter.)

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittee -

WG/SC Chairs

Dr. Roberts: Okay, Josie.

Member Beach: Okay, Mine is going to be pretty 

brief. Metals & Controls does have a meeting 

scheduled. We've changed it a couple of times, but 

we are now scheduled for March 18th. So, that is 

coming up.

Procedures met on February 18th. It was a full two 

years before we had met, since we had met, I 

should say. The Subcommittee has -- I'm not we're 

going to give an update on what our meeting 

entailed, other than we have 41 technical 

procedures at this time that have been closed out 

with agreement between NIOSH, SC&A, and the 

Subcommittee. 

SC&A proposed to the Subcommittee a possible 

method of providing the Board with pertinent 

information on the review of the technical guidance 

documents ready for the full Board approval, with 

an example issues matrix format, one we're all 

familiar with from our Work Group meetings. 

The Subcommittee agreed, and during our 

upcoming April Board meeting you will see an 

example of a sampling for expediting close-out of 

completed technical documents. So, this is 

something that's going to be presented in April. It 

will give the Board a chance to ask questions, 
9

comment on how they feel this worked. We're just 

going to select a few of the simpler ones, to start 

with, giving you a chance to weigh in and comment 

and process moving forward to get through those 

41 technical documents. So, just a little bit of a 

heads up. Hopefully, at our April meeting we'll start 

that.

That's all I have, Rashaun.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Any questions for Josie? 

Okay, hearing none, Brad, do you want to go 

ahead?

Member Clawson: Yeah, I'll go ahead and talk about 

Savannah River right now. We've got a Work Group 

scheduled for next month. And we're going to -- the 

evaluation from SC&A is being pushed through right 

now, through DOE and everything, to get it cleared 

up. We'll meet next month to discuss this bootstrap 

theory and all this other fun stuff. So that's all going 

to be put on in the next month.

As far as Hanford, correct me, we're still proceeding 

on. We've taken care of almost everything up there, 

haven't we, Chuck? We don't have any lingering 

reports, do we?

Mr. Nelson: That's correct, Brad. All the SEC issues 

were closed out and we are in the middle -- not in 

the middle, we started co-exposure evaluations. 

And those are currently underway for Hanford and 

making good progress.

Member Clawson: Okay. Now, I don't know who is 

over Pantex anymore, but we had something going 

on with it and I kind of lost track where we were at 

with that one. I think it was the implementation of 

all the changes to the Site Profile. But can anybody 

talk to that one?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. Brad, this is LaVon. And I am 

not exactly sure of the status on the changes. I 

thought that the implementation was taking place, 
10

but I will have to check with Mark Rolfes and verify 

that and have Mark send you an email update.

Member Clawson: Okay, yeah. I just know that 

there was a -- we had a couple more things to finish 

up on Pantex. I think it was in you guys' court. So, 

that will be about it for me, Rashaun.

Mr. Nelson: Brad, this is Chuck Nelson. I do have 

one update for Pantex. There was 83.13 that didn't 

qualify and it's under administrative review right 

now.

Member Clawson: Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

Member Kotelchuck: Hi. I'll go next. This is Dave.

Dr. Roberts: Great. Hi, Dave.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Dose Reconstruction 

Review Subcommittee which is meeting tomorrow, 

of course, at 10:30. There is -- a number of the 

people -- a few people, I should say, on the 

Subcommittee will be recused for some of the three 

blinds that we're going over. And I suggest that 

tomorrow we go over the blinds in what we'll call 

reverse order. That is, B44, B43, and then B42. I 

think that will give the recused people time to do 

other things while they're recused. And I will send 

out the identifiers and things on the CDC internet 

today just to give you a little more detail so that I 

don't have to identify the blinds here in this public 

meeting.

So, however, I want to remind people, whether 

you're recused or not, we meet at 10:30 Eastern 

Time. We want to have every single person who is 

attending the meeting to be there for the roll call to 

assure that we have a forum [sic]. Then after we 

determine the forum, we'll go on to the three blinds 

in the order that I suggested. And I'll detail that a 

little bit more later this morning. Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you, Dave. Great. And I did 

want to add -- well, first of all, are there any 
11

questions for Dave? 

Okay. Hearing none, I just wanted to provide a 

reminder for the new set of blind reviews. If you 

have not submitted your nominations yet, if you 

could get those to me as soon as possible, that 

would be great. Thank you.

Who's next with Work Group or Subcommittee 

updates?

Member Ziemer: This is Paul Ziemer. I can give you 

a quick update on TBD-6000. That Work Group 

hasn't met for a while, but we do have some 

remaining issues on Superior Steel. We have a Work 

Group meeting scheduled for April 1st and we'll be 

trying to close out the rest of the Superior Steel 

issues. And that should clear our deck for a while on 

TBD-6000. Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Are there any questions 

for Paul? 

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. I will just add since, Paul, you 

mentioned Superior Steel, I wanted to just update 

the group on the package. Basically, Nancy Adams 

did send a revised Superior Steel SEC determination 

package to CDC and HHS just this morning. So, the 

package has not been acted upon, was not acted 

upon during the previous administration, even 

though it was submitted for review and decision on 

December 15th of last year.

Nothing in the package has changed except for a 

few corrections to titles and references from the 

Secretary to Acting Secretary. The requested 

decision date for that package is March 23rd, 2021, 

but, since it's a determination, there's no statutory 

30-day due date. 

Okay, any questions? 

(No response.) 
12

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Who would like to report next?

Member Anderson: This is Andy. I don't have 

anything to report. We've had some information to 

come to us and now it's been postponed until April.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, anybody else?

Member Schofield: Yes, this is Phil. I don't have 

anything to report, update. Maybe if they get far 

enough along with Pinellas and we could possibly 

have a Work Group meeting before the August 

Board meeting.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Anyone else? 

(No response.) 

Plans for the April 2021 Board Meeting

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, I assume, unless anyone 

has anything else, that's the end of our Work Group 

and Subcommittee reports. So let's go ahead and 

move into the plans for the April 2021 Board 

meeting. And that will be taking place April 14th 

and 15th. 

I'd like to start. There have been a couple of 

discussions with SC&A about the format of the 

Board coordination report that it provides. And I 

just want to go ahead and turn this over to Bob 

Barton to kind of discuss an alternative format for 

that report and get your feedback as to whether or 

not you think a change in format of that report 

would be useful to you.

Mr. Barton: Yes, thank you, Dr. Roberts. This is Bob 

Barton. 

We've been sort of doing some self-editing over 

here, a little introspection, to see if we can improve 

our process and our procedures so that we can 

better serve you as the Board's contractor. And one 

of the ideas that came up was the Board 

coordination document, which we produce three 

times a year ahead of the full Board meetings. And 
13

it really contains a lot of very useful information, 

but it has also gotten rather bloated over the years. 

We're sitting at a -- I'm looking at it right now. 

We're sitting at 53 pages. And a lot of the 

information is, again, useful, and we need to keep 

the record of all of the decisions and discussions 

that have been happening, but a lot of the 

information isn't useful, necessarily, for each Board 

meeting. 

So, one of the ideas we've been kicking around, and 

we would like to try as sort of a pilot study to see 

how it works out, is to create essentially an 

executive summary that really only brings to the 

fore the work and the progress that has been done 

since the previous Board meeting. So, in essence, 

every four months, what is happening with each 

site. That way you don't have to go through all, 

right now, 53 pages to get at the information and 

see, you know, that there's been no updates since 

2016, that sort of thing. 

So, that was one of our ideas. And again, we would 

like to sort of try it, breaking it apart. We'd still do 

the full Board coordination document, but also 

provide essentially an executive summary for you 

all so it's a little more efficient for you to see exactly 

what has been happening and keep abreast of all 

the developments for the sites that are essentially 

currently active, because a lot of the sites, for 

whatever reason, there's no movement on. We've 

settled the issues and they really are essentially 

retired or what have you.

So, that's our idea. And, again, we'd like to sort of 

test drive it for the upcoming meeting in April. But 

also, you know, just to sort of open up the floor a 

little bit to ask what other things are going to be 

useful for you as Board Members that we can 

provide, again, to just try to maybe tweak, improve 

our process. Or if it's fine the way it is, that's great, 

too. 

But we did want to sort of open up the opportunity 
14

to have this discussion, and perhaps maybe give 

some thought into it, and we can certainly discuss it 

offline if some ideas come up. But, again, this is our 

idea at this point and we wanted to see if that's 

something that the Board would find useful. Again, 

we'd be breaking the Board coordination document 

into what it is now, but also provide an executive 

summary that just highlights what's really active 

right now so that it's a little more efficient for you 

all to go through.

Member Beach: Bob?

Mr. Barton: Yes.

Member Beach: This is Josie. When you first said 

that, I was a bit worried, because we don't want to 

lose the history. So I'm pleased to hear that you're 

going to separate it out and the history is still going 

to be available, because sometimes you go back 

and you look at that just as a reminder. 

So, I'm all for that executive summary, breaking it 

out, as long as we don't lose the history point, 

which is what you just said we wouldn't. So, I don't 

have any suggestions at this time for more 

information, but I like the idea. I think it's a good

one.

Member Ziemer: Bob, this is Paul. I agree with that. 

I think it's more detailed than most of us need for 

the sites for which we are not Work Group Chairs. 

But, particularly, as long as the detailed one is 

available, I think particularly the Chairs, for their 

own Work Groups, would like all the detail to be 

readily available. But, broadly for the Board 

Members, I think just for the meeting the executive 

summary would be very useful.

Member Kotelchuck: Dave K. I like the idea of the 

executive summary also. I'm wondering, are you 

going -- each time you put out an executive 

summary, three times a year, are you going to also 

update the larger summary, the one that you've 

been handing out for the years? If so, that would be 
15

wonderful. It's a lot of added work for you. Are you 

going to try to update the main report each time?

Mr. Barton: Yes, Dr. Kotelchuck. That's essentially 

what we're proposing. And to be honest, I'm not 

sure that it would be that onerous. I mean, it is a 

little bit of extra work, but, again, we would 

essentially just be distilling down what -- we would 

update the Board's coordination document in its 

fullest, and then, essentially, a one-, two-, or threepager that highlights what work, again, has been 

done in the previous, essentially, four months.

Member Kotelchuck: That sounds fine. I mean, 

that's wonderful. You're doing more work to make 

things clearer for us and I appreciate it. I think I 

might be open, just as one Board Member, to saying 

that you publish your main document once a year 

and then the executive summary goes along with it. 

And then at the end of the year you update from 

the three executive summaries that you've already 

done, and at the beginning of each year we have a 

master list, if that would save you some work.

On the other hand, I guess I shouldn't worry that 

we're giving you more work. If you update the main 

report as well as give us an executive summary, if 

you don't think that's onerous, if that isn't onerous 

for you, that would certainly be better.

Member Ziemer: Well, this is Ziemer again. Keep in 

mind that there's not really action on every Work 

Group every time we meet. Sometimes it's just a 

sentence that's added that says there's been no 

activity since the last meeting or the last report, or 

something like that.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes. So maybe it's a small task 

to change the main report each time, is what you're 

saying?

Member Ziemer: Well, it seems to me at most 

you're just talking about a few sentences for many 

of them even if they've met.
16

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. I think that's correct. I 

mean, it would not be too taxing to just simply 

produce the full document every time. It really isn't.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay, fine.

Mr. Barton: It would be a step in the process in 

getting towards that executive summary. Again,

we're just trying to look for ways to make it more 

efficient and effective for you all.

Member Kotelchuck: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Dr. Roberts: Any other comments? Or is there a 

different point of view that other people might 

have? 

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay, so it sounds like, Bob, you're 

going to kind of pilot this for the April meeting, see 

how it plays. And, you know, if any adjustments 

need to be made from there, we can make them. 

But it sounds like most people feel that this would 

be a useful change, the addition of an executive 

summary.

Mr. Barton: Sounds great.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Excellent. All right, I do want to 

-- there is a draft agenda that I kind of sketched out 

for April 14th and 15th. And I'll just run past what 

I've got at this time, and if there are any changes 

that we need to make we can go ahead and discuss 

them.

So, the session on Wednesday, April 14th would 

start at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Of course, we 

would start out with the opening done by me. The 

NIOSH program update has about 15 minutes, as do 

the DOL program update and DOE program 

updates. So that's kind of the standard way that we 

open up the meeting.

Then I have an update, and this is kind of 

something we're going to need to play by ear, for 
17

the Savannah River Site, running from 2:00 p.m. to 

3:45. But that means it could be adjusted 

depending on what happens in terms of the Work 

Group meeting on March 23rd. But I do have a 

placeholder, Brad, for the Savannah River Site. 

Does that sound okay?

Member Clawson: Yeah. I just don't want to leave it 

to the end. I'd rather start with it.

Dr. Roberts: Yes. Yes, and that's kind of what I had 

in mind in putting it up so early in the agenda. 

Then we have a break for about 15 minutes. And 

then an update on completed dose reconstruction 

procedure reviews from 4:00 to 5:15, Josie. And we 

had talked about you presenting the matrix and 

kind of talking through the easier technical 

document during that timeframe.

Member Beach: Yeah, and I'm not sure if I'll do the 

presenting or if Kathy will. We haven't worked that 

out yet, but that sounds reasonable.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, currently I have both of you 

down for it, so we can work that out later. 

And then we have a public comment session 

running from 5:15 to 6:15 that day. So that would 

close out the first day. 

The second day, the 15th, would start at the same 

time, one o'clock. We would be starting with the 

SEC petition status update. We have Chuck Nelson 

down for that agenda item, and 15 minutes is 

allocated for that.

Chuck, it doesn't sound like you would be covering 

much during that update?

Mr. Nelson: No, it would just be a standard update. 

I'll follow, basically, the guidelines that Bomber has 

used in the past, or I should say LaVon has used in 

the past, and it shouldn't take that long.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So, 15 minutes would probably 
18

be sufficient for me to open, take attendance, and 

your update. So we would probably be okay timewise.

Next on the agenda I have an hour and 45 minutes 

allocated to Metals & Control, Josie and LaVon.

Member Beach: You said an hour and how long?

Dr. Roberts: It's an hour and 45 minutes right now.

Member Beach: Okay. And that's adjustable 

depending on what happens in our meeting?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Beach: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Exactly, exactly. So we can definitely 

shorten the time or try to find a way to lengthen it, 

if necessary.

Okay, great. Then I have a break for about 15 

minutes immediately following M&C. A Board work 

session that goes from 3:15 to 4:15, which is about 

the standard hour that we typically do in those 

sessions. Then an hour, Dave Kotelchuck, that is 

allocated to an update on the Subcommittee on 

Dose Reconstruction Review.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Although, I'm not sure 

that we need a lengthy report on it. I'm always 

happy to talk about where we are, but I think that 

might be just a short report. I don't think we have 

an issue to present to the Board, unless other folks 

think there are. Or we can talk about it tomorrow. 

So I think we really don't need an hour.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, so we may adjust that to 30 

minutes or something like that.

Member Kotelchuck: Right, or even less. I mean, 

our reviews -- let's put it this way, we'll have our 

meeting tomorrow and I can speak to other folks.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.
19

Member Kotelchuck: We'll talk then.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, that sounds good. Yeah, it 

sounds like a lot of this is kind of pending the Work 

Group discussion. 

The same is true -- I do have TBD-6000 down for 

an update, Paul, running for an hour for 5:15 to 

6:15. And, again, that may be too much time or not 

enough time depending on what happens.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I would say right now 30 

minutes would be more than adequate. Again, we 

might need to adjust that depending on what occurs 

at the Work Group. But, in my mind at the moment, 

I think it will be fairly straightforward and we'll not 

have a lot of issues to deal with.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

Member Ziemer: We can be flexible, but I don't see 

us needing an hour at the moment.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. All right, well, I'll make a note of 

that and we'll see what happens in these 

Subcommittees and Work Groups and then we can 

adjust the times accordingly. 

So, that's really all I have in terms of agenda items. 

Is there anything that's been missed that should be 

on the agenda?

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Well, I don't hear 

anything now. And, again, we'll remain flexible with 

the specific times for presentation on the agenda.

Member Anderson: Are you going to send out your 

draft?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, that will be sent out to the Board 

as we get closer to the meeting. Okay, great. Any 

other questions?

Okay, hearing none, I wondered if -- I probably 
20

should have done this back in the December Board 

meeting, but I wanted to see if we could go back. 

We do have some dates already determined for 

Board meetings up through I think it's August of 

this year. 

And I'm wondering if we can identify some dates for 

October and October teleconference and a 

December meeting. It's unclear at this point 

whether or not the December meeting would occur 

face-to-face, but we can at least try to just establish 

some dates right now.

So, for October, and again, this is just a 

teleconference, the dates that I have that we could 

do it would be October 19th or the 20th, the 26th or 

the 28th. I don't know if you have your calendars in 

front of you, but is one of those dates better than 

the others?

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. The 20th is 

good for me, anyway.

Member Richardson: The earlier the better for me. 

The 26th is out.

Member Beach: The 20th works good for me.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Are there any Members that 

can't make the 20th?

Member Ziemer: This is Paul Ziemer. I can do either 

of those dates.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Schofield: This is Phil. Any of those dates 

work. I don't really have a life.

(Laughter.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay, so it sounds like the 20th is a 

strong possibility. So I'll tentatively put that down 

for a teleconference.

Let's move into December. Typically, we schedule 
21

the two-day meeting for early in the month. So I 

have December 1st and 2nd, or December 7th and 

8th, or the 8th and 9th of December.

Member Beach: I vote for the 1st and 2nd or 8th 

and 9th, either of those.

Member Lockey: Josie, I can't do the 1st, but the 

8th and 9th are good.

Member Beach: Awesome.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Do any Members have a conflict 

with the 8th and 9th?

Member Anderson: Just not the 10th.

Dr. Roberts: Just not the 5th, you said?

Member Anderson: The 10th.

Dr. Roberts: Oh, the 10th. Okay. But 8th and 9th 

works?

Member Anderson: Yes.

Member Beach: Rashaun, are we going to try and 

do a face-to-face or a teleconference?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, that's a question that I can't 

shed any light on at this point, because I haven't 

heard about travel policy being -- you know, the 

kind of pause on travel being lifted or anything of 

that sort as of now.

Member Beach: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: So it could be either.

Member Beach: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Any other issues with the 8th 

and 9th? If not, I'll tentatively mark that.

Member Anderson: Is it going to be face-to-face?

Member Ziemer: I assume we probably won't know 
22

for several months on the travel policy. I think we 

just go ahead and plan it at this time, right? Either 

way, it's going to be 8th and 9th, right?

Adjourn

Dr. Roberts: Right, exactly. Because we can't say 

whether it will be in person or not. Okay, all right, 

well, I believe that is the last of the agenda. So if 

everybody is okay, we'll go ahead and adjourn the 

meeting. And as Dave K. mentioned, we do have a 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review 

meeting tomorrow starting at 10:30 Eastern. Okay. 

Thank you. Have a good day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:15 a.m.)