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 55 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 55th 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held telephonically on May 14, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

May 14, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING CHAPMAN VALVE 11 

CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING TEXAS CITY CHEMICAL 15 

CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING ROCKY FLATS 18 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE 22 

WORK GROUP UPDATES 26 

SELECTION OF BOARD CONTRACTOR 55 

TRACKING SYSTEMS 56 

REVIEW LOCKEY VOTES FROM APRIL MEETING 67 

MALLINCKRODT VISIT 69 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 74 

 
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. 

-- “^” denotes telephonic failure. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

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

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

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

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

 DR. BRANCHE: Welcome to the 55th 1 meeting of 

2 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. It is Wednesday, May 14th 3 . This is a 

4 telephone conference for the Board. I am 

5 Christine Branche. I’m the designated federal 

6 official and have the pleasure of serving you 

7 in that role today. 

8 Mr. Ray Green, are you up and 

9 functioning? 

10 COURT REPORTER: Yes, we’re going. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

12 Dr. Ziemer, if it’s okay with you, 

13 I’ll simply do a quick, informal, rather I’ll 

14 do a formal roll call and then hand it over to 

15 you. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: That will be great. Thank you. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Josie Beach. 

18 MS. BEACH: Here. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 
8

1 DR. BRANCHE: Michael Gibson. 

2 MR. GIBSON: Here. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Mark Griffon. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Mark may be a little bit late. 

5 This is Jim Melius, but I just talked to him 

6 about something else, and he said he’d be on, 

7 but he had a, he’d catch up with us in a 

8 little bit. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. 

10 James Lockey. 

11 DR. LOCKEY: Here. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: And we just heard from Dr. 

13 Melius. 

14 Ms. Munn. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Robert Presley. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: John Poston. 

19 DR. POSTON: Here. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Gen Roessler. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Here. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Phil Schofield. 

23 MR. SCHOFIELD: Here. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. We have 

25 a quorum, Dr. Ziemer. 
9

1 I would ask that everyone 

2 participating by phone please mute your phone 

3 until you’re ready to speak. You can use star 

4 six to mute your phone if you do not have a 

5 mute button. You would then use that same 

6 star six to unmute your line when it is time 

7 for you to speak. And apparently, there might 

8 even be a new system that doesn’t even allow 

9 star six. And as soon as we find out what 

10 that is, I’ll pass that on to you. So thank 

11 you very much for your participation today. 

12 Let me just ask quickly, is there 

13 anyone from NIOSH on the line, Larry Elliott 

14 or Dave Sundin, are you on the line? 

15 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I’m on the 

16 line. I think Larry intends to be. He might 

17 be a little bit late though. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. 

19 Dr. Ziemer, it’s all yours. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have any SC&A people on 

21 the line? 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, this is John 

23 Mauro. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any others? 

25 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani. 
10

1 DR. ZIEMER: Arjun, okay. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Bob. 

4 How about any O-R-A-U people? 

5 (no response) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: CDC? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, would you like me 

8 to go through the -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, for the record we 

10 may need to -- 

11 DR. BRANCHE: All right. Is there anyone 

12 from Oak Ridge on the line? 

13 (no response) 

14 DR. BRANCHE: What about other federal 

15 agency staff? 

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

17 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

18 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch from Labor. 

19 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Are there petitioners or their 

21 representatives on the phone? 

22 (no response) 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Are there workers or their 

24 representatives on the line? 

25 (no response) 
11

1 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any members of 

2 Congress or their reps on the line? 

3 (no response) 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any others who would 

5 like to mention their name? 

6 (no response) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Christine. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: And good morning everyone. I 

10 assume everyone has a copy of the agenda which 

11 was distributed to the Board members by e12 mail. And for members of the public it is 

13 also available on the NIOSH/OCAS website. So 

14 we will follow that agenda. The items have 

15 estimated times, but I have a feeling we may 

16 be able to streamline things a bit and perhaps 

17 be able to get through the agenda a little 

18 sooner than we have on the proposed or the 

19 draft agenda. In any event, we’ll move 

20 forward item by item. 

21 CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING CHAPMAN VALVE

22 The first item on the agenda is a 

23 response to the congressional letter from 

24 Senator Kennedy, Kerry and Representative 

25 Neal, and it concerns Chapman Valve. This was 
12

1 a letter that I also distributed to the Board 

2 members I think about a week or so ago. The 

letter is dated April 2nd 3 . 

4 It indicates concern about progress on 

5 the Chapman Valve petition. I have 

6 distributed to the Board members a proposed 

7 draft to respond to that letter. The draft -- 

8 and I want to make sure everyone’s got a copy 

9 of the draft. Any Board member did not 

10 receive a copy of that draft? 

11 (no response) 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not. So it would be 

13 appropriate, under our procedures a response 

14 to congressional members requires Board 

15 approval. So I would ask that there either be 

16 a petition to approve this or I would call for 

17 any additions, corrections or modifications of 

18 this draft. 

19 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I’m prepared to 

20 move that the draft letter under the date of 

May 14th 21 that was received by way of e-mail be 

22 accepted as written. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Well, thank you. Is there a 

24 second? 

25 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I 
13

1 second. 

2 DR. LOCKEY: Hey, Paul, Jim Lockey, one 

3 comment. The second paragraph where it says 

4 ER. I know what that stands for, but I would 

5 just write it out. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Evaluation Report. 

9 DR. LOCKEY: Yes, just write that out. It’s 

10 only used twice, and I’d write it out. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I’ll take that as a friendly 

14 amendment. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I have a 

16 comment in that same paragraph. Since we know 

17 the dates of the meeting in St. Louis in June, 

18 I think it would be helpful to put them in. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we can certainly do that, 

20 Gen, and that would be -- I’m just looking up 

21 the dates here myself. 

DR. BRANCHE: The 24th through the 26th 22 . 

DR. ZIEMER: June 24th 23 through the -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Twenty-sixth. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Twenty-sixth, right, I’ll add 
14

1 that if there’s no objection. 

2 (no response) 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Any others? 

4 (no response) 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, then let me ask then with 

6 those friendly amendments are you ready to 

7 vote on this? We’ll have to vote by roll call 

8 since we’re on the phone. 

9 Christine, if you’d proceed with the 

10 roll call. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Are you ready now or do you 

12 want to see if there are any other comments? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I’m assuming there are none 

14 unless I hear something. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: All right, I’ll proceed then. 

16 Ms. Beach. 

17 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson. 

21 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon. 

23 (no response) 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Lockey. 

25 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 
15

1 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley. 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston. 

8 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield. 

12 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 Thank you, and that motion carries. I 

16 will make those minor changes and send off the 

17 letter as amended. 

18 CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING TEXAS CITY CHEMICAL

19 I had one other one here. Hang on. 

20 I’m trying to pull it out here. Although it 

21 doesn’t show on the agenda there was an 

22 additional, actually two additional letters 

23 that came in. One was -- I think I 

24 distributed this one. Let me double check. I 

25 received also a letter from Congressman 
16

1 Lampson who is from Texas. And this one 

2 concerned the Texas City Chemicals facility. 

3 I believe I also distributed his letter and a 

4 draft response. Did everyone receive that 

5 one? Or is there anyone who did not receive 

6 that? 

7 (no response) 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, apparently not. I’m 

9 taking the silence to mean that you have all 

10 received it rather than that you can’t hear me 

11 or that you’re offline. 

12 I again would call for a motion to 

13 accept and transmit this letter with any 

14 modifications you may wish to make. 

15 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. I so move. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Second? 

17 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad Clawson, I move, 

18 I second it. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any modifications 

20 or recommendations for change? 

21 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey again, take out the 

22 ER. You don’t need it. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, friendly amendment, 

24 right. 

25 Any others? 
17

1 (no response) 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, would you like to 

3 do the roll call again? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If we’re ready to vote, we’ll 

5 do so. Any other changes? Friendly amendment 

6 just remove the ER since we only use the term 

7 Evaluation Report in the first paragraph, no 

8 need to abbreviate it there. It’s not used 

9 again. 

10 And basically this is simply, he asks 

11 for a response. We’re basically saying we 

12 will keep you updated on progress on this one 

13 as well. 

14 Okay, let’s take the roll call on that 

15 one. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach. 

17 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson. 

21 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: So you’ve joined us, Mr. 

25 Griffon. 
18

1 MR. GRIFFON: I did. I just got on. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Wonderful. 

3 Dr. Lockey. 

4 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn. 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley. 

10 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston. 

12 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler. 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield. 

16 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 Motion passes. Thank you very much, I 

20 will send out that letter. 

21 CONGRESSIONAL LETTER CONCERNING ROCKY FLATS

22 I also distributed, while we’re doing 

23 congressional letters, I believe the letter 

24 that was received from Senator Salazar, that 

letter was dated April 16th 25 . I have not 
19

1 drafted a response to that letter. It’s not 

2 clear to me that we need to respond at this 

3 point. I would solicit the Board’s advice on 

4 that. 

5 It appears that it is simply a 

6 statement of concern about the situation at 

7 Rocky Flats, and that it seems to be more 

8 directed to the Secretary of Labor and the 

9 Secretary of Health and Human Services in 

10 terms of how they are implementing the 

11 recommendation of the Board. But I would 

12 solicit the advice of the Board members as to 

13 whether you believe we as a Board should 

14 respond to this letter. 

15 And if you believe we should, then I 

16 may need to have a more detailed draft 

17 prepared. And we may not be able to act on 

18 that today, but I did want to get feedback on 

19 that issue. 

20 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I agreed with 

21 your assessment when I read the letter. It 

22 obviously is requesting feedback from Labor, 

23 especially Labor, as well as NIOSH. But it 

24 doesn’t appear obvious if there’s any response 

25 that we can give. 
20

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. 

2 Any others? One or the other. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Paul. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon. I think 

6 we should at least, I don’t know that we need 

7 a letter response, but I think we should 

8 communicate with their office that I am 

9 planning a work group meeting, and I was going 

10 to give that in my work group update. But we 

11 are going to invite as per the previous Board 

12 meeting, I’m going to invite the Department of 

13 Labor to discuss the implementation of the 

14 class with the work group. And I’m also going 

15 to have Margaret Ruttenber, if she’s 

16 available, from the University of Colorado on 

17 that meeting to be involved with her 

18 expertise. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Have you set a date on that one 

20 yet, Mark? 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I haven’t. I want to get it 

22 in before the St. Louis meeting, but it’s 

23 going to be phone call meeting. It’s not 

24 going to be a face-to-face, so it should be a 

25 little easier to schedule. 
21

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what I’m wondering, again 

2 even if it’s a piece of information, if the 

3 Board would like me to transmit that to the 

4 Senator’s office, I will be glad to do that, 

5 but I need instruction from the Board to do 

6 so. 

7 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey, I think it’s a good 

8 idea that you at least respond that you got 

9 the letter, and I think that’s appropriate. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: And that Mark is going to have 

11 this meeting? 

12 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, through the e-mail I’ll 

14 even give you a date, and if you want to 

15 include that in your letter -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me see if there’s 

17 any objection on the part of any Board members 

18 to responding to the letter informationally 

19 indicating that this meeting will take place. 

20 MS. MUNN: Just to allow them to know that 

21 we’re continuing. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right, any objections? 

23 MR. PRESLEY: No problem, Paul. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: If there’s no objection, if 

25 you’ll allow Mark and me to prepare the 
22

1 letter, we will copy everyone on it and, 

2 again, it will be a response that indicates 

3 what the plans are for the work group to at 

4 least in part address this issue. Is that 

5 agreeable? 

6 DR. LOCKEY: I so move. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we’ll take it as a 

8 motion. Second? 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Presley. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Presley seconds. I’ll do it 

11 easily. Are there any objections? Anyone 

12 who’d would vote no on the motion? 

13 (no response) 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

15 (no response) 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Then the motion carries. Thank 

17 you. It will take care of those three 

18 congressional letters then. 

19 SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE

20 Now let’s move on. Subcommittee on 

21 Dose Reconstruction updates. Or update on 

22 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction. Mark, 

23 are you ready to update us? 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t have much of an 

25 update. We do, I just coordinated with the 
23

1 subcommittee members and with Christine 

2 Branche on setting a subcommittee, a next 

meeting that’s going to be on June 10th 3 in 

4 Cincinnati. We wanted to have it prior to the 

5 St. Louis meeting rather than in conjunction 

6 with the St. Louis meeting. I don’t know -- 

7 Paul, maybe you can help me. I don’t 

8 know if the last letter report actually got 

9 submitted yet or -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: No, let’s see, the last letter 

11 report which is cases 61 through 100, Mark, I 

12 sent you -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me, Dr. Ziemer, you’re 

14 fading. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I am on a land line. Maybe 

17 I’m just fading anyway. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: We can hear you much better 

19 now. Thank you. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I prepared a draft, from the 

21 subcommittee’s last draft I prepared a 

22 letterhead draft, Mark, made a few editorial 

23 changes. I sent you that about a week ago. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I’m sure I have it. 

25 I’ve got a lot of e-mails from you. 
24

1 DR. ZIEMER: Now what we need, there’s some 

2 numbers that we need, and I think we’re going 

3 to need them from NIOSH. I’ll give Jim Neton 

4 a heads up. In that report we give the number 

5 of cases that were complete at the time that 

6 those two sets of 20 were selected. We don’t 

7 have those numbers. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think Stu Hinnefeld 

9 might have given those to me, but I’m maybe -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: So those are still missing from 

11 the final draft -- 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is Larry 

13 Elliott. I’m sorry. I joined the call a 

14 little late, but I’ve heard your comment 

15 there. 

16 And, Mark, if we, I’ll touch base with 

17 Stu, and we’ll get you the numbers again. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: There’s two numbers, one for 60 

20 through 80 and one number for 80 through 100. 

21 It’s the number of cases from which the 

22 selection was made. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Understood. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And then the only other thing I 

25 need, we need to make sure that we have the 
25

1 correct tables, SC&A tables, in the 

2 attachments, but I’ll work on that -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: I’m sorry I didn’t look at 

4 that before the call here. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think as soon as we 

6 have those two numbers everything is ready to 

7 go in. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And other than that the 

9 upcoming meeting we’re going to be working on 

10 the sixth and seventh set of cases, the 

11 matrices, and I will circulate those to 

12 subcommittee members hopefully a week in 

13 advance of the meeting so people have time to 

14 review them and prepare for the meeting. And 

15 I think that’s really all I have to update on 

16 the subcommittee. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. The other thing I 

18 think to note is that SC&A this past week, and 

19 I think perhaps this week, is also working 

20 with the individual teams on the eighth set. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: And some have already done 

23 those, maybe all have finished by now. I 

24 don’t know. 

25 MS. MUNN: No, we haven’t. 
26

1 MR. GRIFFON: We haven’t. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I know Mike and I did 

3 ours the other day, but those are in process. 

4 So things are moving along well there. 

5 So is there anything else on the Dose 

6 Reconstruction Subcommittee, Mark? That’s 

7 pretty well it? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think that’s it at this 

9 point. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 

11 WORK GROUP UPDATES

12 Okay, let’s move on to work group 

13 updates. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: I’m ready to go through the 

15 list whenever you’re ready, Dr. Ziemer. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I’d like to do Chapman Valve at 

17 the front end because at some point John 

18 Poston may have to leave. 

19 John, you’re still here, right? 

20 DR. POSTON: Yes, I’m still here. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And let’s get Chapman Valve. I 

22 think it’s early on our list anyway, but let’s 

23 go ahead and start with Chapman and continue 

24 from there. 

25 DR. POSTON: Are you ready? 
27

1 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

2 DR. POSTON: We had a face-to-face meeting 

on May the 1st 3 in Cincinnati to discuss the 

4 Chapman Valve to try to resolve some issues. 

5 We ended up with two or three things that are 

6 still unresolved. Jim Neton was in contact 

7 with the folks at Oak Ridge regarding the one 

8 sample that showed an elevated level of 

9 Uranium-235 ^ two percent, and we’re waiting 

10 to hear back from that. 

11 We also composed a letter or produced 

12 a list, let me say it that way, that was given 

13 to, I think Jim also took responsibility for 

14 this, the request of additional information 

15 and clarification from the DOE regarding the 

16 sites and what was going on at the sites and 

17 so forth. And so far as I know, we don’t, 

18 haven’t resolved either one of those since May 

the 1st 19 . 

20 And then the third thing was that the 

21 committee, the working group, decided that we 

22 should recommend to the Board that we separate 

23 the Chapman Valve into two pieces. It had 

24 been put -- let me get my notes here so I get 

25 it straight. We had the -- I can’t think of 
28

1 the right word. We added the -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Dean Street facility. 

3 DR. POSTON: I’m sorry? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: The Dean Street facility? 

5 DR. POSTON: Right, yes. We added the Dean 

6 Street facility, but we had been unable to 

7 find any kind of information that will allow 

8 us to consider the Dean Street facility with 

9 the Chapman Valve facility that we were 

10 evaluating. So our recommendation to the 

11 Board is that we separate those out so we can 

12 move forward with the original Chapman Valve 

13 facility under the timeframe that we were 

14 considering. Otherwise the Dean Street 

15 facility may hold us up for an extremely long 

16 time, and we don’t want to do that. I think 

17 that’s pretty much it. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: I’m wondering though from a, 

19 let’s say a legal point of view, and maybe 

20 Emily or Liz could help us on this, but don’t 

21 we have to go with the definition as it’s come 

22 from Labor and as NIOSH is now using it? 

23 DR. POSTON: I’m not sure who established 

24 that definition. 

25 MS. HOWELL: Right, the class definition 
29

1 does not necessarily have to follow the entire 

2 covered period as DOL defines it. And this 

3 class definition came from NIOSH. As you’ll 

4 recall originally Dean Street was not 

5 included, and then it was added in by NIOSH 

6 after Dean Street was added to the covered 

7 facility list by the Department of Energy. 

8 So what we directed the working group 

at the May 1st 9 meeting was that splitting it 

10 back out is fine, you know, if an additional 

11 class could be considered for the Dean Street 

12 facility if necessary. And I think that Jim 

13 Neton and Larry were at that meeting and 

14 indicated that they, too, were going to look 

15 at NIOSH changing its evaluation report to 

16 remove that as well. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So does this require any Board 

18 action to make that separation in terms of 

19 what our work group does? 

20 MS. HOWELL: The work group can look at what 

21 it likes to, but in terms of the Board, if the 

22 Board is to vote on a class up or down, they 

23 would need to make sure that the definition 

24 that they’re using includes what they want it 

25 to. 
30

1 DR. ZIEMER: So the work group could come to 

2 us with two different pieces? 

3 MS. HOWELL: Or one piece. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Or one and we could handle 

5 those as we please. 

6 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 

7 DR. POSTON: We’ve just been, and when I say 

8 we I mean the members of the working group and 

9 NIOSH of course, just been unable to find any 

10 documentation at all that says anything about 

11 what’s going on at the Dean Street facility. 

12 And if we continue to pull that string, then 

13 we’re just delaying any kind of decision on 

14 the other facility. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. So you anticipate 

16 then at our next full meeting that you will 

17 come with a recommendation on the, everything 

18 but the Dean Street then or -- 

19 DR. POSTON: Well, that’s the plan. The 

20 idea is to get the information from Oak Ridge 

21 regarding how the soil samples were analyzed. 

22 And certainly you could argue about this. My 

23 recollection is there was only two soil 

24 samples, and one didn’t show any elevated 

25 levels; the other did. So you can, you have 
31

1 the question of which one is correct. But the 

2 information we could get from Oak Ridge would 

3 be very helpful for that, and also any 

4 response to our request for additional 

5 information from DOE would be helpful. 

6 And then the ideal was to have a 

7 conference call to try to resolve this. We’re 

8 not concerned about the external dosimetry, 

9 the film badge results and so forth, we 

10 believe are acceptable and useful in bounding 

11 the external doses. The approach taken by 

12 NIOSH to bound the internal doses is perfectly 

13 fine if there’s no enriched uranium present. 

14 If there is enriched uranium present, which we 

15 don’t know for sure, then the internal dose is 

16 double. 

17 So that’s the big hang up right now. 

18 If they’re dealing with natural uranium, then 

19 the approach used by NIOSH is certainly 

20 bounding the internal dose, and in my opinion 

21 everything is satisfactory. I guess that’s 

22 the problem that we’re facing right now. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So we’ll look forward then to 

24 some sort of recommendation at the June 

25 meeting. 
32

1 DR. POSTON: That’s the goal. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And that’s what we have told 

3 Senator Kennedy and his other colleagues. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Shall we go through the list 

5 now? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Blockson Chemical special 

8 exposure cohort, Ms. Munn, Chair. 

9 MS. MUNN: We had identified a need for 

10 another face-to-face meeting based on the two 

11 outstanding concerns that have been voiced by 

12 Dr. Melius and Mark Griffon in an attempt to 

13 go through those items again to see whether an 

14 actual consensus on a recommendation of the ^ 

15 agree with each other ^ reached. We had 

16 established that 5th of June originally ^ 

17 polled the work group since that time to 

18 identify if they are, in fact, going to be 

19 able to meet that schedule. I have not had 

20 back the written request that we had made 

21 during our Board meeting that concerns the ^ 

22 put in writing and very clearly specified as 

23 to where the focus is on those concerns. ^ 

24 involved in asking again for those ^ to be 

25 specified blow by blow so that we will have ^ 
33

1 in front of us. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: So you’re shooting for a June 

5th 3 meeting of the work group? 

4 MS. MUNN: That’s the date that we had 

5 originally ^. I believe that announcement 

6 actually has already ^ several weeks ago. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

8 Incidentally, as the chairs give their 

9 reports if any members of any of the work 

10 groups have anything to add, please feel free 

11 to do that as we proceed. Let’s go ahead 

12 then. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Fernald site profile and 

14 special exposure cohort petition, Mr. Clawson, 

15 Chair. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: We’ve met three times now. At 

17 the last meeting we still had several issues 

18 that we’re going through. One of the things 

19 is is NIOSH brought forth to be able to cover 

20 some of the thorium and so forth by using 

21 urine data. And so SC&A is looking into this 

22 of how good our urine data is and so forth 

23 like that. 

24 And we’re getting prepared to be able 

25 to have another meeting. We don’t have 
34

1 anything scheduled yet, but NIOSH has a list 

2 of things to do for the matrix, and we’re just 

3 going to try to, in the next month or so I’d 

4 like to try to get everybody together again 

5 and proceed with some of these issues and so 

6 forth. That’s about it. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Hanford site profile and 

9 special exposure cohort petition, Dr. Melius, 

10 Chair. 

11 DR. MELIUS: I just had to unmute myself. 

12 Actually not much to report. We’ve done some 

13 technical coordination on access to data with, 

14 between NIOSH, SC&A and NIOSH and DOE. And I 

15 believe that it’s moving along. 

16 There was a quick technical conference 

17 call this morning just before this meeting 

18 that I was unable to participate in so I don’t 

19 know if Arjun or anybody have anything else to 

20 report. But it’s mainly just to try to 

21 prioritize data requests to facilitate the 

22 limited resources that DOE has to access data 

23 and try to satisfy everybody. 

24 I don’t know, Arjun, if you have 

25 anything to add, or Larry. 
35

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: I was on that call on behalf 

2 of SC&A and so was Kathy DeMers. Can you all 

3 hear me? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: And Sam Glover was on for 

6 NIOSH and a number of people from DOE 

7 Headquarters on the site were on. And this 

8 was the first kind of experimental effort to 

9 coordinate all the data requests. And we’ve 

10 made a coordinated data request to minimize 

11 the time that DOE and its contractors have to 

12 put in. The data requests are quite, quite 

13 large and Sam and his crew will be going out 

there on June 2nd 14 and we’ll have Kathy DeMers ^ 

15 probably. But ^ are not quite all decided 

16 yet. But basically it was a technical call to 

17 develop procedures for reviewing documents and 

18 ^ the documents to ^ both NIOSH and SC&A ^ DOE 

19 ^ one time and specifications issues are 

20 respected properly. I made some notes on that 

21 call, and I will send them to Kathy and the 

22 others ^. I will send them along to Jim 

23 Melius. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks, Arjun. 

25 And Jim, at least distribute them to 
36

1 the work group, if not to others. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I will. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks. Any other comments on 

4 Hanford? 

5 (no response) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Los Alamos National Laboratory 

8 site profile and special exposure cohort, Mr. 

9 Griffon, Chair. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, thank you. The only 

11 thing I have to update on is I think our work 

12 group is going to be delayed in meeting a 

13 little bit more. I talked to LaVon Rutherford 

14 yesterday, and they are working on the special 

15 exposure cohort evaluation for the later time 

16 period. I think it’s from ’75 on at Los 

17 Alamos. 

18 And in parallel they were updating the 

19 site profile, but he said that they’ve made a 

20 decision on some, obviously one impacts the 

21 other. That they’re going to focus on the 

22 evaluation report and come back to the work 

23 group with the evaluation report if that is 

24 okay. And I indicated that I thought that was 

25 a good path forward. And LaVon said that 
37

1 probably would be an August/September 

2 timeframe. They’ll be probably pushing the 

3 180 days to complete that. So we may not have 

4 anything for awhile, but as soon as we get a 

5 report, we’ll schedule a meeting on that. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Linde Ceramics site profile, 

8 Dr. Roessler, Chair. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. Ray, can you 

10 hear me better? 

11 COURT REPORTER: Yes, Gen, thank you. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: With regard to the Linde site 

13 profile review, we have one remaining issue 

14 that is being reviewed by SC&A of NIOSH’s 

15 approach for doing dose estimates for the 

16 Linde workers who may have been near used 

17 burlap bags containing ^. And an interview 

18 with a worker indicates that several pallets 

19 of these used bags may have been present in or 

20 behind Building 30 in 19^. We were hoping to 

hold a June 6th 21 meeting of the work group 

22 either by teleconference or in person, but we 

23 have not received SC&A’s review yet, so until 

24 we get that, this meeting is up in the air. 

25 As soon as we receive the report, then I will 
38

1 get in touch with the work group and ^. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Mound SEC petition, and Ms. 

4 Beach, Chair. 

5 MS. BEACH: Yes, Mound has not met since our 

6 last meeting. We are working with SC&A and 

7 NIOSH on action items from our first meetings, 

8 and we’ll be able to get together with the 

9 work group to set priorities I’m hoping next 

10 month or so. That’s all I have. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Good. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Nevada Test Site profile and 

13 SEC petition, Mr. Presley, Chair. 

14 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. We have 

a meeting coming up on the 21st 15 of May to 

16 discuss some issues. We have gone through the 

17 matrix and have completed everything except 

18 some TBDs that we’re waiting to look at. The 

19 only outstanding thing that we have is the 

20 correction factors for the external 

21 environmental dose due to the geometry of the 

22 origin of the badge. 

23 And SC&A is looking into some of the 

24 items for that that they’re going to present 

25 hopefully at the meeting. But the internal 
39

1 dose -- y’all excuse me. Wait a second now. 

2 I’m at work. The NIOSH, when they checked 

3 that 100 people ^ review, SC&A would like to 

4 go back and look at some of those. And we’ve 

5 got to decide at the Board, whether we want to 

6 do any more work on that. SC&A pulled 53 of 

7 those 100 cases, but they won’t be ready to 

make their report until around June the 4th 8 . 

 So we’re going to meet on the 21st 9 and 

10 hopefully we can saw some stuff off. If we 

11 can’t, we may have to have a short working 

12 group meeting before the June meeting in St. 

13 Louis. What I would like to do is everybody 

14 think about maybe having something the night 

of the 23rd 15 like we did when we were in Las 

16 Vegas. I know it’s hard on everybody, but 

depending on what comes up on the 21st 17 of 

whether we have this one on the 23rd 18 . 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley. 

20 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, ma’am. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley, I can work with 

22 you while we’re in Cincinnati next week 

23 because I haven’t finalized the agenda for the 

24 Board meeting in St. Louis. So there might be 

25 more flexibility than you realize. 
40

1 MR. PRESLEY: And we should know more after 

the meeting on the 21st 2 . 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Mr. Presley, this is Larry 

4 Elliott. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Just to add to this discussion 

7 and for your work group’s consideration, I had 

8 a conversation by phone yesterday with Mr. 

9 Funk from Nevada Test Site who’s advocating 

10 for many claimants there as you know. And he 

11 asked me to make sure that I transmitted some 

12 information he is providing. He’s going to 

13 overnight it, and I agreed to make sure I 

14 placed that information in front of your 

15 working group. He was hopeful that you would 

16 consider the information and discuss it at 

17 your meeting next week. I said I could not 

18 make any promises in that regard, but I would 

19 commit to making sure that you had his 

20 submitted information before you. So just for 

21 your information I have not yet received it, 

22 but as soon as I have it, you will, and the 

23 working group will be so notified ^ access it. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Well, thank you, Larry. We 

25 also had a briefing with Senator Harry Reid 
41

1 from Nevada last Wednesday. Arjun was there. 

2 We advised his staff of what was going on on 

3 this, and I think we made them happy and will 

4 be in the meeting in St. Louis. That’s all I 

5 have. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Robert, you were 

7 able to get to the meeting? 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: And I know a number of others 

10 were aligned to at least participate. Did 

11 some others get there by phone as well? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: No, sir. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, I did, Bob, remember? 

14 MR. PRESLEY: That’s right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I knew Brad was hoping 

16 to be there. And SC&A, Arjun was there -- 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Any others? 

19 MR. PRESLEY: John Mauro was on the phone. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, very good, okay, excellent. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Procedures Review, Ms. Munn. 

22 MS. MUNN: We have a pretty heavy duty 

23 schedule in front of the Procedures. As usual 

24 there’s a great deal going on there. We have 

25 only one meeting scheduled at this moment. 
42

1 That meeting is scheduled in Cincinnati ^ at 

2 that time. We’re going to be working from our 

3 new revised matrix. And this will require a 

4 little fancy footwork on our part, but we 

5 expect that to work well. We’re very pleased 

6 that Nancy Adams has started to come on board 

7 to give us a hand with some of the tracking 

8 mechanisms. As you know the number of items 

9 with which we deal are growing rather than 

10 reducing in number as we ^ additional sets of 

11 procedure reviews. It’s very helpful to have 

12 someone like Nancy able to follow some of the 

13 less obvious directions that these take once 

14 we have ^. I had intended to have before you 

15 prior to this telephone call a transmission 

16 letter to the Secretary to transmit the report 

17 which SC&A had put together with respect to 

18 the first set of procedures that we’ve worked 

19 with for over a year. All of you received a 

20 copy of that procedure draft during our last 

21 face-to-face full Board meeting. And I would 

22 anticipate that if you have comments with 

23 respect to that document, you get them to me 

24 prior to the work group meeting that is 

scheduled on the 20th 25 because we will look at 
43

1 that again, and it’s my expectation to have a 

2 draft letter ready for the work group to 

3 peruse at that time. So if you’ve not had an 

4 opportunity to look at the report that SC&A 

5 has put together on that first set of 

6 procedures which you have in hand, but would 

7 you please take an opportunity after our call 

8 to look at it and send any comments that you 

9 have back to me so that we can deal with it in 

10 the work group. 

11 One of the large new issues that we 

will be facing on the 20th 12 will be our first 

13 undertaking to review TBD-6000 and -6001. 

14 Those are the umbrella TBDs that ^ issues 

15 facing so many of the ^ AWEs and other 

16 contractors which were ^ in the early years. 

17 The one which has been given the most 

18 attention at this point is General Steel. 

19 We’ve had considerable information ^ with 

20 respect to Appendix BB ^ or TBD-6000. That 

21 appendix deals with what transpired at General 

22 Steel and especially with the use of the 

23 Betatron machine ^ . This is not the only 

24 site that we’re going to encounter issues with 

25 the Betatron ^ doubly important for us ^ 
44

1 exposure ^ in terms of ^ capability ^ dose 

2 reconstructions that involve that particular ^ 

3 while we’ve been doing that. We’ve had long 

4 conversations with Senator Obama’s staffer, 

5 Robert Stephan. Robert has asked for a 

6 briefing ^ the SC&A report ^ General Steel and 

7 that Betatron specifically. John, would you 

8 like to make some comment with respect to the 

9 conversation that we had with Robert? 

10 DR. MAURO: Well, basically Robert just 

11 wanted some clarification. The report that we 

12 submitted has been PA cleared and Robert has a 

13 copy and ^. And it’s a very technical report. 

14 I don’t know if Bob Anigstein is on the line. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I am. 

16 DR. MAURO: He’s the coauthor, and we spent 

17 some time just, Bob Anigstein in essence ^ 

18 down the special findings where our ^ were 

19 causing some differences between what we’re 

20 looking at the dose reconstruction for workers 

21 at General Steel associated with the Betatron 

22 and other activities, and how our analyses 

23 differ from ^ NIOSH in Appendix BB. ^ go into 

24 a little more detail about what that is, what 

25 actually was the essence of it. And we will 
45

1 be discussing this matter, in fact, the very 

2 same materials during our upcoming Procedures 

3 meeting. 

4 I believe, Wanda, you had indicated 

5 you will be setting aside some time to talk 

6 about that issue. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes, I had hoped Bob Anigstein 

8 would give us about a 15-minute presentation 

9 on where we are with respect to your findings. 

10 What that actually means in terms of our 

11 ability to follow through with Betatron issues 

12 especially. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will be there. 

14 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Bob. We were on the 

15 phone with Robert Stephan for more than an 

16 hour and a half, very close to a two-hour 

17 telephone call. I believe that he and the 

18 senator are at this moment happy with where we 

19 are. They wish things were moving faster, but 

20 they’d like very much to ^ very careful 

21 approach to ^ this information which is going 

22 to carry on for other sites as well even at 

23 the least, Los Alamos. So I think we’re okay. 

24 Unless anyone else has some comment 

25 with respect to where we are on Procedures, 
46

1 and where we expect to go, that’s essentially 

2 the ^. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Rocky Flats site profile and 

5 special exposure cohort petition, Mr. Griffon, 

6 Chair. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Christine, I think I 

8 gave my update earlier. We’re going to have -

9 - 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, that’s right -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- I’ll e-mail soon that we’re 

12 going to have another work group meeting prior 

13 to the St. Louis meeting. And I’ll circulate 

14 possible dates for a phone call meeting and 

15 try to get all the parties available. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Forgive me, you’re absolutely 

17 right. I’m sorry, Mark. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Special exposure cohort issues 

20 group including 250-day issue and preliminary 

21 review of 8314 SEC petition, Dr. Melius, 

22 Chair. 

23 (no response) 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius, if you’re muted, 

25 we can’t hear you. 
47

1 DR. MELIUS: No, I’m just unmuting myself. 

2 I just got an e-mail saying there was supposed 

3 to be a press conference now I didn’t know 

4 about. 

5 But this is the 250 day issue, and we 

6 just got an updated report from SC&A which I 

7 will be distributing to the work group and 

8 will be setting up a conference call hopefully 

9 before the St. Louis meeting. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Savannah River site profile, 

12 Mr. Griffon, Chair. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: At this point we have not 

14 reconvened that work group. It’s a little 

15 lower on the priority list unfortunately, but 

16 we will get back to it. So no update right 

17 now. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Use of Surrogate Data, if Dr. 

20 Melius is still on the line. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Yes, I am. I’m back on, sorry. 

22 The surrogate data issue we actually were 

23 supposed to meet yesterday, but that had to be 

24 postponed, and we have a meeting of the work 

group set up on June 9th 25 I believe it is. 
48

DR. BRANCHE: Yes, it is June 9th 1 . 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yep. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 MS. MUNN: That’s a telecon, right? 

5 DR. MELIUS: That will be a teleconference, 

6 yes, at a decent hour. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes, thank you very much. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: And then last but not least, 

9 Worker Outreach, Mr. Gibson, Chair. 

10 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, we’re still 

11 monitoring OCAS and they’re in the process of 

12 modifying the procedure in their database 

13 dealing with worker outreach. And the only 

other thing, there was a meeting April 22nd 14 

15 down in Portsmouth with some of the guards, 

16 OCAS and Kathy DeMers and myself were there to 

17 meet with them. 

18 They shared a lot of information that 

19 OCAS wants to go back and look at. And also 

20 expressed interest in a Portsmouth working 

21 group. And I believe that probably at one of 

22 our future meetings there will be some of them 

23 attending and perhaps requesting the Board to 

24 establish a working group for Portsmouth. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 
49

1 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, forgive me. They 

2 haven’t had a chance to meet, but I did not 

3 mention Pinellas with Mr. Schofield as the 

4 Chair. 

5 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

7 MR. SCHOFIELD: I hope tomorrow or Friday 

8 morning to issue three proposed dates to see 

9 if we can all get together in Cincinnati for 

10 the first face-to-face to go over the 

11 preliminary matrix that has been issued by 

12 SC&A. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you’re getting underway 

14 at least, right? 

15 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you very 

17 much. I think that’s all the work groups, is 

18 it not? 

19 DR. BRANCHE: That is correct. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: While we’re talking work 

21 groups, let me -- 

22 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

24 MR. GIBSON: There is the Santa Susana 

25 working group, but there’s nothing to report 
50

1 at this time. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Ah, yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Forgive me. You’re right. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Let’s see. Do we have a 

5 report? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: He just said that there is no 

7 report. Mr. Gibson is the Chair. He said 

8 there is no report. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. On the issue 

10 of work groups, John Howard of NIOSH, the 

11 Director of NIOSH, has asked me to provide him 

12 with a description of the duties of each of 

13 the work groups, and I’ve started working on 

14 this. And as I’ve gotten into it, I’ve 

15 realized that it would be helpful to have 

16 input from each of the chairs. 

17 I’m talking about a description of 

18 about three sentences that describes what you 

19 might call the charter of the work group. 

20 Now, we don’t charter work groups quite in the 

21 way that we do formally the subcommittees. 

22 But nonetheless, it’s appropriate that when a 

23 work group be established, it have what you 

24 might call a charge or a statement of its 

25 responsibilities. 
51

1 So what I would like each of the work 

2 group chairmen to do, and if you would do this 

3 in the next two weeks it would be very 

4 helpful, is to sit down, write about three or 

5 four sentences which you think describe what 

6 your work group is or should be doing. For 

7 example, it might be something if it’s a site8 specific work group that you are reviewing, 

9 responsible to review, for example, the site 

10 profile of such and such or the SEC petition 

11 from such and such and to make recommendations 

12 to the Board. 

13 It can be fairly simple. There may be 

14 some particular nuances for your particular 

15 work group. You don’t have to go into great 

16 detail, but in brief summary sentences, if you 

17 would each describe to me what you believe 

18 your work group’s responsibility is. I will 

19 then edit those and prepare a final list for 

20 John Howard. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, was there a 

22 deadline given by Dr. Howard? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: No, there was no deadline, and 

24 the request came down through channels to me. 

25 And I have indicated to him that I am in the 
52

1 process of preparing this. And I think it 

2 will be helpful if each work group chairman 

3 has some input on it so that what we state is 

4 really accurate. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. This 

6 is also something that we have been needing in 

7 order to post on the website the charges that 

8 have been given to the working groups. So I 

9 hope we can utilize -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Whatever we prepare for Dr. 

11 Howard, we would make available then so the 

12 website has some clarity on what the work 

13 groups’ sort of scope of work is. 

14 DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. What I’m 

15 hearing is that this is a ^ site-specific work 

16 group status a little bit more than just a 

17 general description of what we’re doing, but 

18 probably pointing out some -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think, I don’t 

20 necessarily think that you should describe 

21 every detailed issue unless you can do it 

22 somewhat broadly. I mean, what would it look 

23 like if you had this description sort of at 

24 the front end. 

25 Obviously, many work groups are well 
53

1 into their work and you don’t necessarily want 

2 to describe every little nuance of every 

3 little issue and string that you’ve pulled. 

4 But I would keep it somewhat brief. I’m 

5 thinking of a few sentences. Okay? 

6 DR. ROESSLER: We’ll give it a try. 

7 DR. LOCKEY: Hey, Paul, Jim Lockey. One of 

8 my work groups is completed. The other’s 

9 inactive, so I don’t have to give you 

10 anything, right? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I think we would consider the 

12 work group on SEC petitions not qualified as 

13 having completed their work, and therefore, no 

14 longer in operation. So they don’t need 

15 anything. But the other one -- 

16 DR. LOCKEY: That’s the conflict of 

17 interest, but the Legal people said to hold 

18 off on that. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I guess as long as it’s 

20 not an active work group we’re not going to 

21 be, yeah, I would say, no, we don’t need that. 

22 DR. LOCKEY: Good. 

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

24 Branche. Actually for the one that completed 

25 its work, the fact that, I think actually a 
54

1 short description of what the group actually, 

2 what their task was -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: What it was? 

4 DR. BRANCHE: -- and what they accomplished 

5 would probably be helpful because it’s still 

6 going to be on the website. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, but the website does 

8 or will indicate the work is completed, right? 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I guess, Jim, we’re 

11 asking for a brief description then. 

12 DR. LOCKEY: I heard that. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Sorry, Dr. Lockey. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: We don’t want you to get off 

15 too easy. 

16 MS. MUNN: But it really is important that 

17 completed activities be shown. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and also, this is Brad. 

20 You know, not that Dr. Lockey doesn’t have 

21 enough to do already, but the thing is, is we 

22 may have petitions that come in that do not 

23 qualify. And it’s important for them to know 

24 that we go through the steps to be able to 

25 make sure that we’re covering it. 
55

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, so that will be 

2 very helpful. So I appreciate getting those 

3 if you can in the next two weeks. 

4 SELECTION OF BOARD CONTRACTOR

5 Next we have update on the selection 

6 of the Board contractor. And I guess we need 

7 to see if David Staudt is on the line. He 

8 wasn’t on earlier I don’t believe. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: No, but he and I have 

10 discussed, this is Christine. He and I have 

11 discussed things, and actually things are on 

12 track. There was one stage that David Staudt 

13 needed to go through to make certain that all 

14 potential applicants could, would be eligible 

15 to apply for the funding, put in their 

16 applications rather for the contract. 

17 And so you may recall that I announced 

18 that a mid-May announcement was anticipated, 

19 and it is. I believe it was Mr. Griffon and 

20 Mr. Clawson asked to see the language of the 

21 contract request one more time. I expect that 

22 you’ll receive that in the next few days. And 

23 then after you’ve received it, if there are no 

24 edits, it should go out in the next couple of 

25 days. 
56

1 DR. ZIEMER: ^ 

2 DR. BRANCHE: I’m sorry. Dr. Ziemer? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: That is the update? 

4 DR. BRANCHE: That is the update. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask if there’s any 

6 questions that follow up on that. 

7 (no response) 

8 TRACKING SYSTEMS

9 DR. ZIEMER: If not, let’s go on to the next 

10 item about tracking systems being developed by 

11 Nancy Adams. Last month, more specifically on 

the 24th 12 of April, I sent everyone a message 

13 indicating that Nancy Adams has been asked to 

14 help us track various issues and to help 

15 establish databases as appropriate. 

16 In that memo I had identified with 

17 Nancy’s help a number of areas where we would 

18 anticipate databases. Some of these in a 

19 sense really do already exist, the Procedures, 

20 Dose Reconstruction Reviews, SEC Reviews, Site 

21 Profile Reviews, Overarching Science Issues, 

22 Board Housekeeping Issues. And then I 

23 indicated that some of these may be broken 

24 down further. But I asked that you be 

25 thinking about information needs of your 
57

1 groups and anticipate hearing from Nancy. 

2 Also, Nancy and I are planning to have 

3 a brainstorming session which Nancy’s waiting 

4 for me to initiate, and I haven’t had an 

5 opportunity to do that in terms of my own 

6 schedule yet. But she and I are going to talk 

7 a bit about what some of these things might 

8 look like. But as we proceed here, and then 

9 as Nancy contacts the various chairs of the 

10 work groups to make sure that we’re 

11 anticipating your needs, I just want to sort 

12 of give you a heads up that this is coming. 

13 Make sure that if you have issues 

14 either in how we aren’t doing something or how 

15 we should do something different that you 

16 provide that input to Nancy. I don’t know if 

17 Nancy’s on the line today, is she? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: She’s right here. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good. Nancy, you may have 

20 some additional comments at this time then 

21 maybe we’ll take a moment and see if there are 

22 questions from Board members. 

23 MS. ADAMS: The plan is to take the existing 

24 format that has been developed by SC&A for 

25 Wanda’s Procedures group and to modify that to 
58

1 the extent possible for use in tracking these 

2 other areas so that the look and feel of all 

3 of the tracking systems is essentially the 

4 same. And that folks don’t, therefore, need 

5 to learn and get familiar with a number of 

6 different systems. 

7 I’ve had an opportunity to go through 

8 the Procedures database and do some initial 

9 finding if you will of some of the information 

10 which I’ve put together a really rudimentary 

11 spreadsheet and shared that with Wanda 

12 yesterday. And based on her and my discussion 

13 I think, at least for the start, we seem to be 

14 in agreement that this is something useful. 

15 It’s something that, at least for right now 

16 it’s a starting point. 

17 So I have not contacted any of the 

18 other work group members as yet. I thought 

19 that it might be better to do that after this 

20 call, and also, in an environment where I can 

21 look at them face to face rather than trying 

22 to deal with this kind of amorphous issue over 

23 this amorphous telephone line. So anyway 

24 that’s where we are. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Nancy. 
59

1 Board members, do any of you have any 

2 questions or comments at this time? This will 

3 help guide you to some extent streamline and 

4 standardize some of the methods of tracking. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, this is Brad Clawson. 

6 So are we going to be trying to use this 

7 instead of the matrix or what? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well, actually, this is just a 

9 variation of the matrix. It basically takes 

10 the matrix and puts it in a form where you can 

11 track each of the issues readily. It’s not, I 

12 wouldn’t look at it as something different 

13 than the matrix but a, if it works out right, 

14 a more user friendly version of the matrix. 

15 MS. MUNN: What Nancy’s put together so far 

16 that she and I have been talking about is 

17 essentially a summation of each of the detail 

18 pieces of the complicated matrix so that the 

19 casual user can look at it quickly and get a 

20 feel for the magnitude of the work that has 

21 been done, and what has yet to be done. Where 

22 we are at any given point in time which is 

23 difficult to do with a matrix especially the 

24 matrix we’re dealing with in Procedures which 

25 is extremely complex and very bulky. 
60

1 DR. ZIEMER: But in essence what the system 

2 looks like at the top is the matrix. And then 

3 for any item in that matrix, if you click on 

4 it at the appropriate spot, you can find when 

5 you dealt with that item, what was done with 

6 it, if there’s follow-up going on, who’s 

7 responsible for what, how it was resolved. So 

8 it has a number of levels of detail. But 

9 basically it is the matrix in a form that 

10 allows tracking of the issues in a manner that 

11 hopefully doesn’t allow things to fall through 

12 the cracks. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: And I understand that, and 

14 maybe it’s just from me looking at the 

15 Procedure one. Because, you know, it’s very 

16 well put together. I’m not meaning anything 

17 by that, but, boy, it is, there’s a lot of 

18 stuff on there, and it’s a little bit hard to 

19 get around. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think probably what 

21 we’d have to do is to take a matrix from a 

22 particular site, either an SEC or a site 

23 profile matrix, and look at that and see what 

24 the product would look like. 

25 MR. CLAWSON: This is what I was learning. 
61

1 We’re starting out with Pinellas coming up 

2 here, and I’m not speaking for Mr. Schofield 

3 who’s a, maybe we ought to start running it 

4 through that system to see where -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: We probably need a prototype to 

6 try it out with, and if that works well, we 

7 can transfer it to others as well. But that’s 

8 a good suggestion. 

9 MS. MUNN: When you’re dealing with a site 

10 profile, however, when in most cases you have 

11 a maximum of a couple of dozen issues at most, 

12 in most cases seven to ten, but then in the 

13 matrix there’s much, the matrix we’re working 

14 with in Procedures is much less complicated 

15 for that number of issues than it is where 

16 you’re dealing -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it depends on the site, 

18 of course. Some site profiles the matrix is 

19 extremely complex. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes, they can be. The can be 

21 certainly. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: But we’ll need to try it out 

23 and see how it works. 

24 MS. MUNN: Right. 

25 MR. CLAWSON: That was just a suggestion. 
62

1 And by the way, Wanda, my Fernald is almost 

2 about 30 or 40 so... 

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right, right. But that’s a 

4 long way from 150. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thanks for that comment. 

6 Any other comments? 

7 MS. ADAMS: It would be beneficial if folks 

8 would bring or even electronically transmit to 

9 me the latest versions of their matrix. 

10 Although I think going into this the thought 

11 was not necessarily to produce a tracking 

12 system for each of the work groups but only 

13 for those six kind of bucket areas work 

14 groups. That’s the dose reconstruction issues 

15 and the procedures issues. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: Well, to me that’s a little 

17 bit different than what we just said then. Am 

18 I understanding this right? This is, well, my 

19 understanding of what you just told me was 

20 that we’re still going to use a matrix but 

21 just for major items or what? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I’m not sure we know the answer 

23 to that at this point. 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, well, we’ll work through 

25 it. 
63

1 MS. MUNN: And this is Wanda. Some of the 

2 thinking that went into what we were doing in 

3 Procedures, Brad, was that if it lent itself 

4 well to site profiles, then the advantage that 

5 the process has that we’re using now is that 

6 it provides such an excellent archive when 

7 it’s all over, more so probably than the 

8 matrix process that we used originally. 

9 That original process which seemed to 

10 work well for me for site profiles, is a very, 

11 it served for me to be a very good method for 

12 keeping track of where we were going at any 

13 given time. But when it was all done, that 

14 matrix format didn’t always give the kind of 

15 archive and information a year later that the 

16 process we have adopted and Procedures is 

17 doing. So from an archive point of view it’s 

18 very appropriate if it appears that the site 

19 is going to require that depth of process. So 

20 my guess is this may end up being a site-by21 site, a case-by-case issue. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. In answer to Nancy’s 

23 question about the various matrices and asking 

24 for their availability, I think most of them 

25 are already on the website, are they not? Or 
64

1 are some of them restricted to the O drive? 

2 I’m trying to remember. 

3 MS. MUNN: Well, one of the concerns that we 

4 had was that some of the matrix material not 

5 being fully cleared. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, right, but in some form. 

7 I’m just thinking in terms of Nancy taking an 

8 early look at the matrices. I can provide 

9 them to you, Nancy. I think you probably want 

10 to take a look at them and see what, sort of 

11 what they look like and how they would lend 

12 themselves to this kind of tracking. Is that 

13 correct? 

14 MS. ADAMS: Yes. I have some that I got 

15 from Kathy Behling and the SC&A staff, but I 

16 don’t know that I have them all. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well, we’ll make sure you 

18 get at least a good number of them and that 

19 you can begin to look at and evaluate. 

20 So anyway, that kind of gives us an 

21 update on what we’re doing there and 

22 hopefully, this will be a way of streamlining, 

23 and as I say maybe to some extent, 

24 standardizing how we’re doing the tracking of 

25 issues and tracking of information and issue 
65

1 resolution. 

2 MR. CLAWSON: I understand that, too, Paul. 

3 So what I’m wondering is when we’re 

4 transferring these matrices back and forth, 

5 you know, to NIOSH and SC&A and everything, do 

6 you want us to put Nancy on our list so she 

7 could be looking at them or -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I think that would be helpful 

9 for the time being if you could make sure 

10 Nancy gets a copy of these. 

11 Nancy, is that agreeable? 

12 MS. ADAMS: Absolutely. 

13 MR. SCHOFIELD: Nancy, this is Phil 

14 Schofield. I’ve got a quick question. Do you 

15 want these cross-referenced to the TBD 

16 documents and the site profiles? 

17 MS. ADAMS: Right now I would take them 

18 however you’re using them so I can compare 

19 them to how other people are using them to 

20 look at commonalities and differences. I 

21 don’t want to create any more work for anybody 

22 than what you’re already doing at least at 

23 this point. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: In fact, the ideal would be to 

25 minimize that if there’s a standard way to do 
66

1 it that we’re all doing something similar. 

2 And that helps us as we evaluate each other’s 

3 site profiles as well I think or our matrices 

4 as well. 

5 MS. MUNN: Well, the finding itself probably 

6 will reference the source. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 MS. BEACH: Then I have a question. This is 

9 Josie. Do you want the action items from the 

10 matrix that we send out in addition to the 

11 matrix along with all the matrix updates? 

12 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 

13 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, this is Lew Wade, if 

14 I could offer just a brief comment. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Hey, hi, Lew, good to have you 

16 here. I don’t know. You remember the public 

17 here commenting? Welcome and go ahead. 

18 DR. WADE: It’s about the purpose in the 

19 work that Nancy’s doing. One of the reasons 

20 that we moved in this direction was to be sure 

21 that nothing fell through the cracks when a 

22 particular work group would identify an issue 

23 and assign that issue or point that issue to 

24 another work group. 

25 I think it’s terribly important that 
67

1 there be some kind of net in place to see that 

2 we don’t lose any of those issues. And that’s 

3 one of the benefits of Nancy’s approach. And 

4 then as Wanda had mentioned earlier, this 

5 issue of being able to make summary statements 

6 to judge where we are in terms of completeness 

7 of activities within a particular work group. 

8 So those are things that we’re trying to 

9 accomplish with this analysis as well. Thank 

10 you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Right, thanks Lew, well said. 

12 Any other comments on this? 

13 (no response) 

14 REVIEW LOCKEY VOTES FROM APRIL MEETING

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let’s move on. We have 

16 really a reporting item. Dr. Lockey was not 

17 able to be present at our last meeting, but we 

18 had a number of votes which were 

19 recommendations to the Secretary which under 

20 our rules require us to obtain the votes of 

21 those not present. 

22 So Dr. Branche, if you want to report, 

23 please, on the Lockey votes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: That’s going to be my 

25 pleasure. Dr. Ziemer and I spoke with Dr. 
68

Lockey on Tuesday, April 22nd 1 , having provided 

2 to him in advance all of the petition 

3 documents or the petition statements that 

4 outlined what the Board voted on in advance. 

5 Dr. Lockey’s votes were obtained on 

6 those presentations that were made during the 

7 April Board meeting, specifically, Special 

8 Alloy Metals which is SAM Laboratories at 

9 Columbia University, Horizons, Inc. in 

10 Cleveland, Ohio, Telex Pierpont in Jersey 

11 City, New Jersey, NUMEC Park Township in 

12 Pennsylvania, and Sandia National Laboratory, 

13 Livermore, which was a vote left over from our 

14 January 2008 meeting. 

15 All of those the Board voted 

16 unanimously on all the petitions save his 

17 vote. After having read the drafts during the 

18 call with Dr. Lockey and providing some 

19 additional background, Dr. Lockey concurred 

20 with each vote on the motions rendered by the 

21 Board in his absence. 

22 Also, when I described the 

23 recommendation of the Dose Reconstruction 

24 Subcommittee in a letter to the HHS Secretary 

25 summarizing the fourth set be sent through the 
69

1 Board on behalf of the subcommittee, Dr. 

2 Lockey concurred with that approach as well. 

3 Thank you. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, and just for the 

5 record, that vote on Dose Reconstructions was, 

6 I believe, actually on the fourth and fifth 

7 set taken together. Is that not correct? 

8 Mark, are you still on the line? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I believe that’s 

10 correct. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Because it was a set of 40 

12 cases. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Sixty through 100, so that 

15 would have been the fourth and fifth set, and 

16 a single vote. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, I understand. I didn’t 

18 understand that’s how it went so thank you for 

19 clarifying that. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: So that’s the update on Dr. 

21 Lockey’s votes. 

22 I believe that completes the items on 

23 our agenda. 

24 MALLINCKRODT VISIT

25 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, this is Christine 
70

1 again. I have one quick item, a logistical 

2 item, regarding our meeting in St. Louis. I 

3 asked a number of you if you were willing to 

4 go to visit the Mallinckrodt site the day 

5 before the meeting. Many of you said yes. I 

6 just want to confer with a couple of the Board 

7 chairs. I would ask that if you think you 

8 would rather have a meeting or if you would 

9 like to have an update of some sort prior to 

10 our meeting and while we’re in St. Louis, if 

11 you could let me know in the next couple of 

12 days, and I will schedule our visit to 

13 Mallinckrodt accordingly. 

14 As I said, it would be the day before 

15 our meeting starts. And there are provisions 

16 for us to be able to start our meeting mid-day 

17 on the first full day of the meeting depending 

18 upon whether or not you all want, several of 

19 you want to have Board meetings. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: You’re talking about work group 

21 meetings? 

22 DR. BRANCHE: What did I say? I meant work 

23 group meetings, excuse me. Nancy’s looking at 

24 me strangely because I’m saying the wrong 

25 thing. I meant the work group meetings, 
71

1 forgive me. 

2 Then I’ll confer with Dr. Ziemer 

3 before I send out a draft agenda. But I know 

4 that Mr. Presley said something about wanting 

5 to have a meeting and so over the next couple 

6 of weeks I think that some of you may want to 

7 meet, and then I can set the times for the 

8 agenda accordingly. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: In that regard also for the 

10 visit that was described to the Mallinckrodt 

11 site, do we know how long that will take? I 

12 think initially they were talking about doing 

13 that in the morning. But in terms of travel 

14 and so on some indicated a desire to do that 

15 later in the day. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: I’m looking now at early 

17 afternoon, and I think it would take, I mean, 

18 by the time we get out there, I believe it 

19 takes about 45 minutes, half an hour to 45 

20 minutes to get to the site. But my 

21 understanding is that the site would take 

22 about an hour to tour. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So it would be doable in the 

24 afternoon, thus, allowing people to travel 

25 Monday morning to St. Louis. 
72

1 DR. BRANCHE: Exactly, Dr. Ziemer. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. That’s 

3 helpful. 

4 Any other items in terms of our 

5 meeting times or other housekeeping issues, 

6 Dr. Branche? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: No, not at this time, thank 

8 you. 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob 

10 Presley. I’ve got a question. On the tour I 

11 understood that all this thing was going to be 

12 was to go visit a monument. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: No, it’s a tour of a facility 

14 that isn’t very large and the monument is part 

15 of the facility that, the tour and the 

16 facility rather, the facility houses both the 

17 site that would be toured as well as the 

18 monument. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, so there is something to 

20 see. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, I wouldn’t take you on a 

22 rabbit trail. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions or 

24 comments? 

25 (no response) 
73

1 DR. ZIEMER: Anything else for the good of 

2 the order? 

3 (no response) 

4 DR. ZIEMER: If not, I will declare the 

5 meeting adjourned, and thank you all very much 

6 for your participation. 

7 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 

8 12:25 p.m.) 

9 
74

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 May 14, 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 

11th day of June, 2008. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102