Presidential Advisory Committee
 

Department of Health and Human Services
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

VOLUME II
 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held at
 

the Inn at Loretto, 211 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe,
 

New Mexico, on October 15 and 16, 2002.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 

Certified Verbatim Reporters
 

P.O. Box 451196
 

Atlanta, Georgia 31145-9196
 

(404) 315-8305
 
 

2 

102 

C O N T E N T S
 

October 16, 2002
 

Registration and Welcome, Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary . . 8
 

Rev Site Profile Development - Status, Dr. James Neton,
 

NIOSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 

Board Members Dealing with the Public, Mr. David
 

Review and Approval of Draft Minutes, Dr. Paul 

Ziemer, Chair. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 

Naimon, OGC, HHS . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
 

IREP Updates, Mr. Russ Henshaw, NIOSH . . . . . ..64
 

Board Discussion/Working Session . . . . . . . . 112
 

Public Comment Period and/or Board Discussion . .141 

Board Discussion/Working Session . . . . . . . . 144
 

Administrative Housekeeping and Board Work Schedule,
 

Ms. Cori Homer, NIOSH; Dr. Paul Ziemer, 

Chair, Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary
 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .231,277
 

Public Comment Period and/or Board Discussion. ..252
 

Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293
 

Court Reporter's Certification . . . . . . . . . 294
 
 

 

3 

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

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.
 

Professor Emeritus
 

School of Health Sciences
 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

ELLIOTT, Larry J.
 

Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

Cincinnati, Ohio
 

MEMBERSHIP
 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.
 

Chief Medical Officer
 

Occupational and Environmental Health
 

Wisconsin Division of Public Health
 

Madison, Wisconsin 

ANDRADE, Antonio, Ph.D.
 

Group Leader 

Radiation Protection Services Group
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory
 

Los Alamos, New Mexico
 

DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 

Director
 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental
 

Medicine
 

Professor of Medicine
 

Nashville, Tennessee
 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee 

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49
 

Johnson Controls
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory
 

Espanola, New Mexico
 
4 

GADOLA, Sally L., M.S., R.N., COHN-S
 

Occupational Health Nurse Specialist
 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities
 

Occupational Health
 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee
 

GIBSON, Michael H.
 

President
 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union
 

Local 5-4200
 

Miamisburg, Ohio
 

GRIFFON, Mark A.
 

President
 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire
 

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

Director
 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund
 

Albany, New York
 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)
 

Richland, Washington
 

OWENS, Charles L. 

President
 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union
 

Local 5-550
 

Paducah, Kentucky
 

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
 
5 

INVITED SPEAKERS
 

Dr. James Neton, NIOSH
 

Mr. David Naimon, OGC, HHS
 

Mr. Russ Henshaw, NIOSH
 

STAFF/VENDORS
 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH
 

NADINE RIVERA, Writer/Editor
 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Court Reporter
 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

Archuleta, Floyd
 

Arends, Joni
 

Bermudez, Joe
 

DeHart, Julia
 

Erins, Joanie
 

Garcia, Dolores
 

Gilbertson, Tracey
 

Green, Phil
 

Griffin, James
 

Hager, Rob
 

Harrison, Phil
 

Henshaw, Russ
 

Homoki-Titus, Liz
 

Howles, Ritchie
 

Jacquez, Epifania
 

Jacquez-Ortiz, Michele
 

Katz, Ted
 

Klemm, W. Jeffrey
 

Kotsch, Jeffrey L.
 

Lada, Jerry
 

Malmgren, Peter
 

Miller, Richard
 

Montoya, Paul L.
 

Naimon, David
 

Ortiz, Ben F.
 

Platner, James
 

Presley, Louise S.
 

Quintana, Frances G.
 

Rankin, Adam
 

Schaeffer, D. Michael
 

Schofield, Phillip
 

Shinas, Betty Jean
 
6 

Shonka, Joseph J.
 

Silver, Ken
 

Smith, Alex
 

Tabor, Robert G. 

Toohey, R.E.
 

Toufexis, Rose
 

Trujillo, Gloria
 

Vazquez, Robert
 

Widner, Thomas
 
7 

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.
 

In the following transcript (sic) denotes an incorrect
 

usage or pronunciation of a word which is transcribed in its
 

original form as reported.
 

In the following transcript (phonetically) indicates a
 

phonetic spelling of the word if no confirmation of the
 

correct spelling is available.
 

In the following transcript "uh-huh" represents an
 

affirmative response, and "uh-uh" represents a negative
 

response.
 

In the following transcript "*" denotes a spelling
 

based on phonetics, without reference available.
 

In the following transcript (inaudible) signifies
 

mechanical failure or speaker failure.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

(8:30 a.m.)
 

WELCOME
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'll declare the Advisory
 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health back in session
 

for the second day of this meeting. We begin our
 

discussions this morning with the review of site
 

profile development. Jim is -- Jim Neton is going
 

to lead us in that. Jim, the podium is yours.
 

SITE PROFILE DEVELOPMENT - STATUS
 

DR. NETON: Good morning. The good news is
 

-- or bad news is you have to listen to me talk
 

again. The good news is this my last formal talk of
 

the session. The good news is it's also not
 

directly after lunch, which I seem to be scheduled
 

frequently to do presentation, so hopefully we can
 

all stay awake.
 

Site profile development status, this is
 

something that was requested at the last Board
 

meeting in Cincinnati, that NIOSH provide an update
 

as to where we're at in this process, so that's what
 

I'm going to go over here for a few minutes this
 

morning.
 

Just a brief overview of what we mean by
 

site profile, and honestly that definition has
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9 

somewhat morphed over time to include additional
 

items. The original intent of the site profile
 

definition was to include descriptions of the
 

internal and external dosimetry programs, external
 

data that include -- for the external data, that
 

would include dosimetry change-out frequency, the
 

lower limits of detection for those devices, the
 

assumed quality factors that were used to
 

historically at the site for neutrons or --

neutrons. In the internal dosimetry area it would
 

include the type and frequency of the monitoring
 

performed, the limit of detection, the rate of
 

nuclide monitoring and description of techniques
 

used.
 

In the area of environmental data, we relied
 

primarily on collection of annual reports for the
 

most common source of that information. And more
 

often than not, we're looking at environmental
 

dosimeters that are placed about the site in
 

strategic locations to try to monitor what -- you
 

know, what the exposures were outside of the
 

facilities. That does not include just the
 

perimeter fence monitoring devices, but also those
 

that are in common areas outside the buildings. So
 

in many cases you do get a nice little grid of the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10 

environmental dose that was delivered at the site
 

during specified time periods.
 

The air samples also are of primary
 

interest. One interesting thing about air samples
 

we're finding is that sites tend to collect an air
 

sample and then put that on a detector and measure
 

the periodic table, and so we end up with a large
 

number of radionuclides that have been determined
 

and so it makes our internal dose assessment or
 

reconstruction somewhat cumbersome. But as you saw
 

Grady Calhoun indicate yesterday, we're making some
 

assumptions now where we'll take the worst case
 

radionuclide that could have been there and use
 

that, at least as a first cut, to determine what the
 

environmental dose would have been. So we're moving
 

in that direction to optimize that process.
 

The last bullet here is that environmental
 

data must be used in all cases that have a likely
 

probability of causation of less than 50 percent. 

We need to keep pulling the string, as we say, on
 

that dose the person would receive. So if their
 

internal dose and their external dose was less than
 

50, we need to look at the environmental dose to see
 

if that would put them over the top as far as
 

compensation would be concerned.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11 

Diagnostic X-rays includes the frequency of
 

the examinations, the type examination, the machine
 

settings, entrance skin dose, those sort of things. 

In the early days -- early days; six, eight months
 

ago -- we actually tried to obtain the X-rays
 

themselves, and it became extremely cumbersome for
 

the sites to pull these out. It turns out X-rays
 

are stored in a separate department, in the medical
 

department, versus bioassay records which tend to be
 

stored in the radiological departments. So to avoid
 

a lot of effort, we've come up with an approach that
 

would -- if a site would profile their monitoring
 

programs. In other words, tell us over time how
 

often you required X-rays for certain classes of
 

people, what types of machines you were using and
 

give us a rough idea of what the dose is, we would
 

add that in, at the beginning, and just assume that
 

the person received that as a first cut. And that's
 

been working pretty well, as we'll talk about later. 

I think we've got a good number of the sites covered
 

on this approach. That's not to say that if we did
 

need it we wouldn't go back and request additional -

- the real X-ray profile for that person.
 

I did say we've got a lot of data, but we
 

typically do not have all of it. We normally get
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12 

some portion of it, but we're -- that gap is closing
 

very rapidly. We're fairly pleased with where we're
 

at with the X-ray profile.
 

Again, in our rule the X-rays would have had
 

to have been received as a condition of employment
 

to be considered. That is, if you were an asbestos
 

worker and you had to have an annual chest X-ray to
 

be an asbestos worker, then that would be included
 

in your reconstruction. It turns out that many
 

claimants don't really know whether it was required
 

or not, and being claimant-friendly, if they don't
 

know -- if there's any evidence at all that it was
 

required -- we'll just add it in there. In fact, in
 

many cases with a very, very low dose, one can add
 

it in there and it doesn't really make a difference
 

in the probability of causation calculation, so
 

we're not going to split hairs over those types.
 

And again, just like environmental dose,
 

diagnostic X-rays must be included in all case that
 

are less than 50 percent. Again, to pull the thread
 

all the way to give the claimant the benefit of the
 

doubt for all possible sources of doses that they
 

could have received.
 

This was not originally included in our
 

definition of site profile information, but now
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13 

we've added this to the database, which is the area
 

monitoring, process descriptions and source terms. 

So in a sense now, all site profile information is
 

everything that is non-personnel monitoring related. 

If it's not a TLD badge, a film badge or a urine
 

sample -- some sample that was taken directly on the
 

person -- it is now, by definition, considered to be
 

site profile data. It makes some sense when you
 

think about it. And as I mentioned earlier, it
 

includes air monitoring, TLD's, process
 

descriptions, that type of information. It's
 

normally not required to be used unless we had no
 

personnel monitoring data, so in that sense it's
 

somewhat different than the big four -- internal,
 

external, environmental and medical. We don't
 

necessarily have to use this type of information.
 

And we don't have much of this information
 

right now. Some sites we do have air monitoring
 

data -- the Fernald site comes to mind. We've got a
 

pretty complete picture of their monitoring data
 

since 1952 at that facility. But this is the type
 

of information that we're hoping and encouraging our
 

contractor to go out and try to fill in for us.
 

Okay, what is the status. We've got data
 

from 15 of the major DOE facilities in-house right
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14 

now. Not complete sets, but we have data -- some
 

piece of data for the site profiles from 15
 

different facilities. None of the sites have
 

submitted everything we need. There are gaps in
 

every one of these things, as I indicated. But we
 

are building a shared computer directory, what we
 

call the OCAS drive, the O drive, that's out there
 

that has about -- I think I said yesterday about ten
 

gigabytes* of data. It's a little bit misleading. 

Spread sheets and that sort of thing don't take up
 

much room. But the majority of that information is
 

filled up with reports that we've collected and
 

assembled -- environmental reports tend to be
 

voluminous.
 

We are digitizing them, making electronic
 

images of all those reports so they're available to
 

all dose reconstructors -- essentially
 

instantaneously, at the same time. We are working
 

with ORAU to create a web-based interface for this
 

so these dose reconstructors that are distributed
 

throughout the country will have access to the same
 

information that we have in our database at NIOSH. 

So we're hoping this is going to become a very
 

useful tool as time moves forward.
 

This is a snapshot as of -- I think last
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15 

week, end of last week sometime, or whenever I had
 

to finalize this presentation -- sometime last week,
 

of those 15 sites that I mentioned. And you can see
 

that a lot of the blanks are filled in. Clearly in
 

the environmental area, we're lacking. We're
 

obtaining a lot of the environmental data off of the
 

web sites. After 9/11, though, a number of the
 

sites pulled a lot of their databases and
 

environmental data went with it, but we're slowly
 

adding back. We're applying for rights to those
 

data files and such, and it is getting better.
 

I mentioned medical doses. We have a large
 

number of the sites covered.
 

External is probably the area where we've
 

got the most information. Those tend to have been
 

characterized pretty well historically. Usually you
 

can find at a site some document that someone wrote
 

that describe the history of the external monitoring
 

program. They typically didn't change much over the
 

history of the site. They all started off with film
 

badges back in 1950's, and many sites used the same
 

badges -- the ORAU -- the Oak Ridge badge or the
 

INEEL badge, those kind of things, and the degree of
 

filtration may have changed. And then maybe in the
 

eighties they all switched to thermoluminescent
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16 

dosimeters, so we kind of got a clue on that. 

Neutron dosimetry is a little bit less certain than
 

the external information.
 

The bioassay, the internal dosimetry area,
 

is somewhat difficult. We are trying to fill it in. 

We don't have a complete picture really, even though
 

it will say '50 to the present here, we feel we have
 

some gaps in some of the more exotic type analyses
 

that are done. The routine stuff I think we've got
 

a handle on. But a number of sites every once in a
 

while would have an incident and would take some
 

samples that were unique, maybe ten samples of a
 

kind, something like actinium 227, which you rarely
 

encounter. And so we don't feel we've got a full
 

picture there.
 

But nonetheless, all these data are being
 

entered into a database. We have two people right
 

now working full time doing this for us. ORAU is
 

going to pick up that burden shortly and is actually
 

working with those people as we speak to populate
 

this database -- or refine it, and to pedigree it,
 

so to speak. The information we're receiving is
 

what we've been told. We've already found in at
 

least one instance that it's either wrong or
 

misleading, so we need to go through -- we feel
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17 

obligated to go through and establish the pedigree
 

of the information that's been provided to us. And
 

that's a fairly significant challenge.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Jim, can I ask a question,
 

please?
 

DR. NETON: Yes.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley. Is there any way
 

that the new contractor can go directly to the site,
 

rather than have to go through DOE?
 

DR. NETON: We're working on that. As far
 

as requesting -- DOE is still requiring us to go
 

through the DOE operations officers to request the
 

individual -- or the personnel monitoring data. But
 

we are pursuing the option of our contractor -- with
 

us, in the beginning at least -- to visit the sites
 

and work with them directly. And I think DOE is
 

receptive to that. Once we established that
 

relationship, we would have to notify them, let them
 

know that we're going there, but that shouldn't be a
 

problem. Today's a good example. We have people up
 

at Los Alamos reviewing records. We just notified
 

the DOE operations that we intended to do that. 

There was no problem, and then we just work directly
 

with the sites. I see no reason why the contractor
 

-- our contractor couldn't do that with us. The
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18 

trick is getting time.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think the completion of the
 

MOU is going to help us in this regard considerably,
 

once we get that put in place.
 

DR. NETON: A lot of that has to do with how
 

much time you're really requiring of the site. I
 

mean if one wants to go in there and do a month-long
 

data capture effort, I think we might meet some more
 

resistance. It all comes down to funding, really,
 

in my mind, is how much of their contractors'
 

resources are we going to use up and is there
 

funding available to accomplish that. It's been a
 

major issue for a while.
 

Okay, I've got some little pretty pictures
 

here that actually sort of summarize the information
 

that was on that chart. I have to explain this
 

percent complete. I think it's somewhat misleading. 

All this really means is that we have -- we took the
 

monitoring history of the site. If the site
 

operated from 1952 to 1988, that's X number of
 

years, and how many of those years did we have
 

external data covered. That doesn't mean that we
 

pedigreed it, that we really believe it all, but we
 

at least have received from DOE some information for
 

those years.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19 

So that being said, you can see that we do
 

have many of the sites covered. There are still
 

some gaps, notably those out in California, maybe
 

some of those located in Tennessee and maybe the
 

Kentucky/Ohio area. We're working on that. The DOE
 

is very aware of our gaps. We worked with these
 

site profiles directly with the Office of Worker
 

Advocacy. I find that they've been supportive. 

They've arranged site visits for us. I've gone out
 

with the Office of Worker Advocacy to encourage them
 

to provide this information, to determine why if we
 

can't get it, what's the shortfall. So I'm pleased
 

with their cooperation from OWA, at least.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Jim, just a clarification on
 

that. When you say external -- when you say
 

dosimetry information or -- I wonder are you sliding
 

in there or -- either one, external dosimetry data,
 

you mean that the entire profile of --

DR. NETON: Just the badge reads, the TLD
 

reads.
 

MR. GRIFFON: A badge -- badge reads, but
 

also, you know, the percent complete -- also the
 

profile of the frequency of monitoring --

DR. NETON: Yes. Right, yeah.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and the -- those sort of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20 

things --

DR. NETON: Yeah, we have a handle on the
 

frequency of badge exchange and the lower limit of
 

detection of the badge, and some idea of what the
 

capability of the badges were. Was it a fourelement filtration badge or did it have an open
 

window/closed window, those kind -- types of
 

characteristics. In some cases we have very good
 

knowledge of the energy dependence and the angular
 

dependence, that kind of thing.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Jim, I'd like to make a
 

comment on this slide, too, 'cause I think it is
 

somewhat misleading in the fact that for K-25 in
 

Portsmouth we have it at NIOSH in the HERB research
 

branch holdings, but may not have been fully
 

incorporated into the site profile data yet. So
 

like for K-25, we do have a lot of this external
 

dose -- dosimetry information. We have a lot of Xray information. Same way for Portsmouth, we have a
 

lot of dose information -- dosimetry information,
 

area monitoring data, but we don't have it
 

incorporated into the profile yet.
 

DR. NETON: Right. This is really a
 

snapshot of what we've requested from DOE. What
 

happened is we worked with the Office of Worker
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21 

Advocacy to establish what we needed, an e-mail went
 

out -- an all-points bulletin to all the operations
 

office saying please provide NIOSH the following,
 

and this is what the DOE has actually provided us. 

And Larry's right, the HERB -- Health-related Energy
 

Research Branch -- has a number of holdings, but I
 

also wanted to get them directly from DOE. Things
 

may have changed, been reorganized. A newer
 

document may have been created, which has happened. 

So we're holding out that DOE will have something
 

supplemental. In some cases -- oh, I'm sorry.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. How do you determine
 

completeness?
 

DR. NETON: Again, it's a rough number, and
 

these are relative terms, but I wouldn't say that
 

we're 95 percent complete with the profile. This is
 

-- the DOE has sent us 95 percent of the -- we have
 

95 percent of the operating history of the plant
 

covered for a profile with regards to the badge
 

type, the lower limit of detection, the frequency of
 

exchange, that sort of stuff. So we have a pretty
 

good idea for 95 percent of the operating history of
 

the site what those were.
 

I suspect in Oregon we're missing some of
 

the early days when they were the metallurgical
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22 

laboratory and -- who knows. We may find that yet. 

But again, it doesn't mean that we're 95 percent
 

done.
 

I was almost reluctant to show this. It
 

raises more questions than it's really worth, but --

DR. ANDERSON: Qualitatively --

DR. NETON: -- I thought the pictures would
 

be nice. I could always go back to the other one,
 

but I'll just slough through these.
 

The same kind of thing here. I guess it
 

just shows you the overwhelming lack of completeness
 

here in the internal area.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Does the internal include whole
 

body counting, as well --

DR. NETON: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- as bioassay?
 

DR. NETON: We have in vivo/in vitro
 

samples. Well, again, you know, we're definitely
 

behind the eight-ball here. There's some issues
 

here. Internal monitoring data, by nature, has not
 

been as nicely categorized as it's harder to get
 

your hands around. We have some good stuff out
 

there. I think -- again this is some -- I know for
 

Idaho we've got some historical documentation out
 

there that Larry alluded to that goes through -- I
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23 

think we have a complete set of procedures that they
 

used, but again, you know, we don't have any
 

feedback from Idaho directly on anything -- recent
 

information.
 

Medical X-ray data, as I mentioned, it's
 

getting better, especially since we were only
 

looking for a profile like what kind of X-ray
 

machine did they have, what kind of shots were they
 

taking, that sort of thing. And so for some sites,
 

like Hanford, we've actually got it -- I don't know
 

if Hanford's on here, but we've got it figured out
 

that -- we're better than that now. Recently we've
 

got some information where we're actually forming an
 

algorithm where we can just punch in the year and --

well, the year, and figure out what the average Xray dose was for that facility. There's an
 

algorithm we can use based on the settings and the
 

instruments and stuff, so it's actually coming along
 

nicely. We've got someone working on that program.
 

Environmental data is pretty consistent with
 

what I showed you. It's a lot of blanks. Hanford
 

has very good environmental reports out on the web. 

We're using those to the extent we can. I know
 

Savannah River just sent us a bunch, so that's not
 

indicated here. I think we've got like 1989 through
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24 

the present covered at Savannah River right now. 

We're missing the early years, and as you go back in
 

time the environmental reports are not nearly as
 

complete as they are today, but we're working on --

we're doing our best to try to fill in those blanks.
 

Data obtained from atomic weapons employers,
 

we talked about this a little bit yesterday. Highly
 

variable from site to site, as we discussed. It
 

ranges from no data to -- as we saw, we had two
 

years of personnel monitoring data at one of the
 

sites. We have yet to find all this information, of
 

course, but so we're holding out hope that we may
 

run into the treasure trove of data. EML is one of
 

our hopes.
 

Area monitoring data is sometimes available. 

We've found some area TLD's out there, process
 

descriptions and source terms are available. So
 

it's kind of all over the board. We're really in
 

our infancy here of trying to pull this stuff
 

together.
 

We've got some data capture efforts. We
 

kind of previewed this yesterday. We went down to
 

the Oak Ridge vault and pulled out -- I forget, it
 

was 15, 16 boxes worth of records. Those are
 

scanned out on our intranet site right now,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25 

available for any dose reconstructionist to use. I
 

think it covers about 12 to 15 different AWE's. So
 

we're intending to go out to the Environmental
 

Measurements Laboratory and search those files. 

This is not really an AWE. I'm not sure why I put
 

it on there, but it's something that's going on
 

today to look at records at Los Alamos.
 

And I think that's really all I have to
 

share with you this morning. If there's any other
 

questions that people have, I'd be glad to answer.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let me start with a couple of
 

questions, and then others may have some.
 

On the environmental data, are you able to
 

get both upwind and downwind air samples so you can
 

actually determine the site contribution to an air
 

sample?
 

DR. NETON: Well, we were not looking at --

we're getting distribution of air samples about the
 

site. We honestly haven't looked at them in terms
 

of their -- the upwind/downwind directions. We were
 

actually --

DR. ZIEMER: Presumably you have that then.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah. But we're looking more at
 

where the person was located in relation to where
 

the air sample was taken and kind of assuming that
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 

was the representative air sample environment for
 

the person. It's like --

DR. ZIEMER: I guess my question is is that
 

air sample representative of the contribution from
 

the site. You see --

DR. NETON: Oh, I see what you're saying. 

Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It may not. I just wondered
 

how you're handling that. It may be premature to
 

ask that.
 

DR. NETON: Well, actually we were just
 

including it as if it were --

DR. ZIEMER: As if it were --

DR. NETON: -- from the site, which would be
 

a claimant-favorable approach.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It certainly would. Okay. On
 

early diagnostic X-rays, even if you have the
 

machine settings, are you able also to get
 

information on beam filtration?
 

DR. NETON: Yeah, yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You are? Good.
 

DR. NETON: It turned out, though, that
 

hosp-- Hanford, for example, the local hospital did
 

all the X-rays and they were pretty good about
 

documenting all that kind of stuff. The hard part
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27 

is to figure out which one was required and which
 

one was just part of their regular medical treatment
 

because they were one and the same in many cases.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Where do you cover the
 

information on incident reports in the profile, such
 

as -- let's say the Y-12 criticality accident. 

Is --

DR. NETON: Okay, that would not really be
 

included as a profile. We would include that as
 

part of the personnel monitoring data. If a person
 

were involved in an incident, or a group of persons,
 

it would be covered that way. It's a good point,
 

though, that that could be -- cover a large group of
 

personnel that should be -- it should be evaluated,
 

but right now we're not covering it in that site
 

profile. I guess you have to determine at what
 

point is it an incident on a couple of individuals
 

and what's -- is it a site-wide incident.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, possibly if there were a
 

release -- and I think even in the Y-12 there was
 

some sort of local fallout -- I suppose the regular
 

environmental --

DR. NETON: That would probably --

DR. ZIEMER: -- monitoring would capture
 

that then, perhaps.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28 

DR. NETON: Yeah, in the environmental. But
 

we really were intending to treat the incident
 

reports as personnel data, on a one on one basis.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jim?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to -- well, a
 

separate question, but just to follow up on that, I
 

would think it would be very important to try to
 

capture those incidents in your site profiles 'cause
 

again we have -- you know -- well, widows and
 

children, people unfamiliar with what went on at the
 

site, the survivors, and that may -- you know, they
 

may not be able to tell you about the incidents or
 

recall the incidents. And having them in a profile,
 

you know, might help identify them. Now clearly if
 

it's one involving a couple of individuals, that's
 

different. But --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm not sure in my mind
 

whether that would fit better in the site profile or
 

in the occupational exposure matrix that we're
 

developing so for a certain class of workers -- a
 

chemical operator, 1952 at certain site, what their
 

exposure characteristics were. And if it were a
 

serious incident, that may be covered in there. We
 

probably need to think about where that best fits.
 

DR. MELIUS: You're getting close to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29 

answering my second question, also, which was how
 

are you dealing with that -- how does that fit into
 

this, I guess is --

DR. NETON: Yeah, that's a separate -- as a
 

separate -- totally separate database which is
 

really not part of this. I mean that is a worker
 

profile database, to coin another term, I guess. 

You know, there's this occupational exposure matrix
 

by job. You sort of drill down through a menu of
 

site, year, job, building -- you know, if we could
 

ever get that defined -- definitive, that sort of
 

thing. It's a separate effort to this. Of course
 

complementary. You know, they all kind of go
 

together, but this is really to deal with non --

non-personnel monitoring data, those things that are
 

generally unique for the site.
 

They would be -- the air sample database
 

would be in here, of course, which would have the
 

air samples over time, historic -- like say Fernald
 

from 1952 to I think '89 or something like that, we
 

got 60,000 air samples. Actually the Health-related
 

Energy Research Branch has it. We haven't brought
 

them into our database yet, but I know they're
 

there. I've looked at them. So we have by
 

building, by year, air samples to go over a 40 -- 30
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30 

to 40-year period.
 

DR. MELIUS: Back to this matrix, where do
 

you stand with developing that thing?
 

DR. NETON: That's just getting started. I
 

mean we have had discussions with ORAU -- second
 

meeting we had -- talking about the structure of
 

that database and how it would be populated and that
 

sort of thing, but we haven't done -- we've done
 

very little with that except scope out the
 

parameters of it.
 

DR. MELIUS: And just one follow-up to that,
 

and I think this fits more with that database, is a
 

issue Ken Silver brought up, I believe, yesterday in
 

public comments, but is the issue of other chemical
 

and other toxic exposures at these sites. Are you
 

attempting to obtain any of that information, both
 

for this -- site profiles and for this matrix?
 

DR. NETON: At the current time we have no
 

plans to capture chemical exposure data. It's not
 

-- it wouldn't be desirable. It's not within our
 

charter or within the scope of work with the
 

contractor. And I'm not saying we couldn't do it,
 

but right now we're not doing that at all.
 

DR. MELIUS: I question your statement it's
 

not in your charter because I think there's some
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 --

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31 

issue about interaction with chemical exposures,
 

that's something you're looking into, and I don't
 

know where it fits on the priority scale and I --

clearly I don't think it's the top priority, but at
 

the same time, if -- you know, this whole issue of
 

records being lost with time, and this may be the
 

time to capture some of that information. I'd hate
 

to see you getting some of that information and
 

throwing it out. I guess that's my --

DR. NETON: I understand what you're saying.
 

DR. MELIUS: -- my concern and, you know,
 

again, at the same time it could be an overwhelming
 

DR. NETON: Right.
 

DR. MELIUS: -- task and -- directing. But
 

at some point I think, as part of this program, it
 

has to come to grips with this issue of, you know,
 

other exposures and how they interact with the --

for people with cancer, so --

DR. ZIEMER: It would certainly be nice if
 

there's a convenient way to capture that information
 

without impinging greatly on the main task because
 

you're going to stumble across it, definitely. And
 

even if there's a separate bin, you just throw it in
 

there and preserve it. It's something to think
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32 

about.
 

I want to backtrack just briefly on the
 

incident issue again. Some of the incidents --

perhaps the SL-1 is a good example, where they had a
 

major sort of meltdown or -- well, everything. But
 

there's a lot of clean-up activities associated with
 

that, and if one were able to capture the
 

time/location of that, there might -- it might show
 

up as important if you could identify that some
 

particular worker was around that site at that
 

particular small window of time and might have been
 

involved in a clean-up activity that might not
 

otherwise show up. Again, it's not clear whether or
 

not that would already be captured in the regular
 

data.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, Mark, I guess you're
 

next or -- oh, Mike was next and then Mark.
 

MR. GIBSON: As far as the folks developing
 

the site profile and the information you're
 

requesting, do you have adequate folks with Q
 

clearance that would have access to information
 

that's still classified about isotopes and the
 

processes that they were used in?
 

DR. NETON: Good point. That has not been
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33 

an issue so far, but we do have people with Q
 

clearances on our staff. Within NIOSH we've just
 

added one -- we're going to have three within the
 

next week or so. But ORAU has come to the table
 

with a large number of Q-cleared individuals, so we
 

don't view that to be a problem.
 

MR. GIBSON: And just a kind of follow-up to
 

Jim's comment, there are some processes that were
 

developed in a -- I've got to be careful how I state
 

this -- that there were isotopes attached to
 

different types of material in the process of
 

whatever they were doing that changes the effect of
 

the dose, and it also may have a toxic effect inside
 

the body, so it could have some relevance to -- the
 

two combined could affect the dose and the
 

(inaudible).
 

DR. NETON: I understand. I think we're
 

aware of some of those issues at some of the sites
 

that are out there. So far, outside of the quantity
 

material for certain processes, we've not had a
 

problem with the isotopes. I know that quantities
 

tend to be restricted at a lot of facilities -- the
 

release of that information. In fact, that's been
 

an issue with some of the interviews. People are
 

uncomfortable talking about quantity of materials.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34 

MR. GIBSON: I guess what I'm saying, that
 

some of the isotopes' half-life is altered in the
 

dose to the body because of the material that's
 

adhered to it does not exit the body the way it --

DR. NETON: Right. It sounds like you're
 

talking about maybe like metal trichtides* and that
 

sort of thing. Yeah, that's going to be a unique
 

situation for us to evaluate and -- but we haven't
 

had to cross that bridge yet. But we do expect a
 

challenge in the dosimetry in that area. There are
 

very few models -- at least the ICRP model
 

(inaudible) cover that.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the -- I just wanted to
 

go -- this is a new term on me, too, this worker
 

profile database, but it's --

DR. NETON: I just coined a new one.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- it might be something we
 

have to add to our -- in the review. The -- I guess
 

what I was trying to understand was, for the worker
 

profile database, it seems to me that this matrix
 

would benefit from being tied into the site profile
 

data. And do you see -- I mean I look back at slide
 

number six of yours and it seems like you're first
 

relying on co-worker data, and then if co-worker
 

data isn't available, then you're deferring to site
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35 

profile data. Maybe that's too strongly stated.
 

DR. NETON: Well, that is sort of the
 

hierarchy as it's outlined in the rule. I mean that
 

is true. If we can establish that the co-worker
 

data were valid and would be representative of that
 

work environment.
 

MR. GRIFFON: So would this matrix -- do you
 

see this matrix being primarily populated with coworker dosimetric data as opposed to --

DR. NETON: Yes. Yeah, co-worker data as
 

far as their monitoring results, TLD's, bioassay
 

results, those sort of things 'cause that's our
 

second layer. I mean once there is no individual
 

monitoring data, we start looking for representative
 

co-workers, and we would look at their bioassay
 

records first. Now that's not always going to be
 

the case 'cause we may not find a representative
 

work population. But that would be our hierarchical
 

approach.
 

MR. GRIFFON: We -- we've -- I think --

yeah, I think you're well aware of some issues about
 

using co-worker data so I won't belabor that, but --

DR. NETON: Right.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- the next question I had was
 

on the matrix that you presented. I think it's your
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36 

eighth slide there, internal dosimetry data. For
 

the various sites you showed the -- what you have
 

received so far and -- sorry to get you to pull that
 

up.
 

DR. NETON: That's okay.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the question I had was
 

on slide number six, which is titled area
 

monitoring, process descriptions and source terms. 

Those -- those things I see as three of the key site
 

profile fields, and yet they're not on this matrix. 

I just wondered if you -- if there's anything to
 

update on that.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think I touched on that
 

is that we have very little of that information. 

The reason this is populated the way it is is
 

because those were the big four that we started with
 

as what we called the site profile. And then it
 

made sense as we went on to include any non-workerspecific data into the site profile, which would be
 

the area, TLD's, the air samples, those kind of
 

things. So we have not really formally requested,
 

on a global basis, those data from the Department of
 

Energy. We were working with the Office of Worker
 

Advocacy. We're doing things like going to Los
 

Alamos today, but those are somewhat isolated tasks
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37 

that we're doing right now. We have not embarked on
 

a massive effort to go out there and capture all
 

those databases. But we're certainly hoping that,
 

working with ORAU, we can move into that area within
 

the next couple of months. Bill Tankersley is the
 

person that's leading up that effort for the ORAU
 

team.
 

So yeah, these are what I originally called
 

site profile, and we felt that if we had -- if we
 

had -- this is if we have worker data, if we had
 

bioassay results and TLD results, this is the
 

minimum we need to complete a dose reconstruction
 

for someone whose PC was not greater than 50
 

percent, just adding up their -- the TLD records or
 

something. We would need to look at the external
 

dosimetry program to calculate missed dose for the
 

monitoring program to add that into their record. 

We would look at the internal dose to calculate
 

their missed dose for the internal exposure, add
 

that back in. Look at the environmental dose, add
 

that back in, and medical dose. Without those four,
 

you can't complete a dose reconstruction, even with
 

co-worker data.
 

Now if you have no co-worker data, then you
 

move in -- or not co-worker data. Without actual
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38 

individual monitoring data. If you don't have
 

individual monitoring records, then you've got to
 

move into the co-worker data, and then the third
 

tier would be those area results.
 

MR. GRIFFON: And I would -- I guess I would
 

just -- I haven't seen this matrix or -- you know,
 

I'm trying to understand how it might work, but I
 

think there's a real opportunity or potentially a
 

missed opportunity to integrate the site profiles
 

with this worker matrix. I think you have to think
 

that out 'cause you're going to have -- you're going
 

to have building process data, potentially jobs and
 

source term data, and if those don't agree with your
 

other site profile -- or worker profile database, if
 

there's large inconsistencies there, I think that
 

might -- you know --

DR. NETON: That's a very good point.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- be worthwhile to look into.
 

Yeah.
 

DR. NETON: And I guess if -- I'd like to
 

point out, they're not really separate databases. 

These are relational databases so they're not
 

sitting on one computer and another. I mean they're
 

all tied. But you make a very good point, that
 

consistency -- a group check is consistency between
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39 

the actual worker monitoring data and what appeared
 

to be there in the workplace 'cause that would give
 

you a handle if the worker monitoring program was
 

capable of detecting --

MR. GRIFFON: Exactly.
 

DR. NETON: -- what the air sampling program
 

was saying. So it's sort of the old story, you
 

don't use people as human air samplers. You go back
 

and look at the air sample results and see if
 

they're adequately protected. It may give you some
 

handles on missed dose, as well. You could put an
 

upper bracket on the missed dose based on the worst
 

available air sample result. There's a lot of tieins here that you can't get into now or...
 

DR. ZIEMER: Additional questions? 

Comments?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: There appear to be none. Thank
 

you, Jim.
 

BOARD MEMBERS DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC
 

DR. ZIEMER: Next on our schedule is David
 

Naimon, who is with the office of general counsel of
 

the Department of Health and Human Services. We've
 

asked David to speak to the Board in terms of what -

- let me characterize it as what can you and can you
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40 

not say in terms of public pronouncements relative
 

to your activities on this Board. So David, if you
 

would give us your advice. David's that other
 

attorney I was talking about yesterday. He's a real
 

attorney. He's doing legal stuff. David, we do
 

appreciate your being here today. Thank you.
 

MR. NAIMON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, and
 

thank you for the invitation to be here to talk
 

about Board members' interactions with the public. 

I understand some of you had some questions about
 

this. What I'm going to try and do this morning is
 

discuss with you some of the relevant laws and rules
 

that govern us, then talk about some examples of
 

situations that you may face and discuss possible
 

responses and guidelines to follow; and then if we
 

have time, answer general questions from Board
 

members. If you have specific questions about your
 

own individual circumstance, we probably should talk
 

during a break or after the meeting, but I'd be glad
 

to answer your general questions.
 

For starters, here's the definition of a
 

Special Government Employee, which all of you are. 

A Special Government Employee is an officer or
 

employee in the executive branch who was appointed
 

to perform temporary duties, with or without
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41 

compensation, for a period not to exceed 140 days
 

during any period of 365 consecutive days. That's
 

relevant because of the statutes that govern what
 

government employees do that do apply to Special
 

Government Employees.
 

In this case 18 USC 205 bars a government
 

employee, including a Special Government Employee,
 

from acting as an agent or attorney for a specific
 

party or parties before any government agency in any
 

particular matter in which the U.S. is a party or
 

has a direct and substantial interest.
 

The key thing here is that this applies
 

whether the employee solicits or accepts
 

compensation for such services or not.
 

So if you are representing -- if you are a
 

Special Government Employee and you are representing
 

somebody before the government, you run the risk of
 

violating this criminal statute.
 

OGE is the Office of Government Ethics of
 

the United States government. It has standards of
 

ethical conduct that apply to all employees of the
 

executive branch of government. This particular
 

standard -- actually the handout that you have may
 

have mis-cited it. The letter (b) may have been
 

missing, although if you went to the rule itself,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42 

you would see that this is really the only one where
 

there's a number eight. But 5 C.F.R.
 

2635.101(b)(8), employees shall act impartially and
 

not give preferential treatment to any private
 

organization or individual.
 

Part of my advice for you all is not only
 

that you want to avoid giving preferential treatment
 

to any private organization or individual, you want
 

to avoid the appearance of giving preferential
 

treatment to any private organization or individual.
 

And then 5 C.F.R. 2635.702, an employee
 

shall not use his public office for his own private
 

gain or for the private gain of friends, relatives
 

or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a
 

non-governmental capacity.
 

Again, the theory is pretty much the same,
 

that you're not using your office, you know, to
 

assist your family and friends.
 

I'm sure you all have heard about the
 

Privacy Act many times, but I wouldn't be doing my
 

job if I didn't remind you one more time that the
 

Privacy Act essentially prohibits disclosure to any
 

third party without the written consent of the
 

individual to whom the record pertains unless a
 

statutory exception applies.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43 

The kind of materials we're talking about
 

are -- include name, Social Security number, date of
 

birth, medical history, the point here being be
 

careful about getting into individual personal
 

details when you're discussing things with members
 

of the public. That actually includes talking to
 

them about themself.
 

Under the Privacy Act people can sue for
 

access to records or they can sue when they think
 

that something has been disclosed about them and
 

that harms them.
 

The penalties for improper disclosure,
 

there's a civil penalty that can result in money
 

damages. And if they substantially prevail they can
 

get attorney's fees, which of course is an
 

additional incentive to sue. And then there's a
 

criminal penalty for willful violation by any agency
 

employee, including a Special Government Employee,
 

which is a misdemeanor, but it's punishable by a
 

fine of not more than $5,000. So obviously
 

violating the Privacy Act is something we don't want
 

to get into.
 

And then there's a standard of conduct that
 

is somewhat similar, also dealing with privacy
 

issues, employee shall not allow the improper use of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44 

non-public information to further his own private
 

interests or that of another, whether through advice
 

or recommendation or by knowing, unauthorized
 

disclosure.
 

So here's an example of a situation you may
 

face. Someone comes to you and says what is NIOSH's
 

position or HHS's position on the Special Exposure
 

Cohort? And you can see we have some possible
 

responses here -- you believe everyone should be in
 

the Special Exposure Cohort, you believe no one will
 

be in -- should be in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

You can see that there is one response that is in
 

yellow: I can't speak for the agency or the Board,
 

but the Advisory Board sent a letter on this topic
 

that OCAS would be glad to send you. Then the
 

response in green: I'm sorry, I can't speak on
 

behalf of the agency or Board; you should contact
 

OCAS.
 

The theory behind the yellow answer and the
 

green answer, either one is considered an
 

appropriate answer. The yellow answer is yellow,
 

meaning that you should have a little bit of caution
 

if you're going to answer with more of the details
 

here. If you start talking about what the Advisory
 

Board said in a letter and you were to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45 

mischaracterize it, you obviously raise a
 

possibility of raising an issue that isn't already
 

there.
 

The green answer, which is the -- I'm sorry,
 

I can't speak; talk to OCAS -- is the safest answer. 

That's why it has the big green light. Obviously
 

the safest answer is that you don't speak on behalf
 

of the Board. The general guideline here is that
 

members of the Board don't speak on behalf of the
 

agency or the Department, and they also don't speak
 

on behalf of the Board unless the majority of the
 

Board has approved the position that you are taking. 

That is a guideline to -- certainly to follow, but
 

obviously there are going to be times when people
 

are going to expect that you're going to know things
 

because you are a member of the Board. And so that
 

is why if you -- if you do have occasion where they
 

say to you tell me more about the Special Exposure
 

Cohort process and you feel more comfortable giving
 

more detail, the yellow light is there to tell you
 

that you want to stick to what is in the public
 

record, what anybody sitting here in the room would
 

know, and that way no one can suggest that you're
 

using your position to help a specific individual.
 

Another possible question, I heard you
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46 

reviewed a dose reconstruction similar to mine at
 

the Board meeting that was paid; why didn't I get
 

paid? And then of course possible responses: Your
 

dose was too low. I'm sorry, but as a Board member
 

I must stay impartial and so I can't discuss
 

individual claims with anyone; OCAS will contact you
 

to discuss your dose reconstruction report and what
 

it means. Or OCAS couldn't do your dose
 

reconstruction.
 

The guideline here is that when you start
 

getting into the merits of individual claims, you're
 

in kind of dangerous territory and that even if --

even if you watched the discussion yesterday on dose
 

reconstructions and you think you know precisely who
 

was being discussed -- obviously here there were no
 

names mentioned or anything identifying here --

you're much better off avoiding discussing the
 

individual claims and leaving that to the agency.
 

Maybe a general -- a comment that you get
 

when someone finds out that you're on the Board and
 

they say can you tell me what I have to do to
 

qualify for compensation -- which obviously, as we
 

all know, is a pretty complicated question. One
 

possible answer, this is obviously -- this is the
 

green light answer: Each case is different; you
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47 

should contact OCAS or the Department of Labor to
 

discuss the merits of your claim.
 

This would be not only an unwise answer but
 

a wrong answer: You need to have a minimum of 300
 

millirem of dose per year. You have to gather all
 

your records and send them to OCAS; or the law says
 

that you can get compensation if it is shown that is
 

as likely as not that your cancer was caused by your
 

work-related radiation exposure. Contact OCAS for
 

more details.
 

The only reason that that particular answer
 

has a yellow light on it is that you are now citing
 

the standard that's in the law. If you cite it
 

correctly, then it's really not a problem because
 

all you're doing is telling them what's in the
 

public record and that's, you know, relatively easy. 

If you cite it incorrectly or if you don't remember
 

precisely the quotation, you do run the risk that
 

somebody later is going to say that so and so member
 

of the Board told me that the standard was X; now
 

you're telling me the standard is Y. You've created
 

a controversy for yourself that you're probably
 

better off without. That's why -- again, the green
 

light answer is to avoid it if -- you know, if
 

you're confident you're citing things accurately,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48 

but it's also an appropriate answer to -- you know,
 

to discuss what is in the public record, what is in
 

the law, as long as you're citing it correctly, the
 

guideline being Board members may discuss public
 

information. You also may refer all requests for
 

information to the OCAS web site or to the office. 

Referring someone to the web site is always a safe
 

answer because that's clearly, you know, available
 

to anybody.
 

Question you could be asked: That last dose
 

reconstruction was from location X. Do you think it
 

was John Doe's? And of course -- yes, I'm sure; I
 

remember him being in that job during that event. 

No, it was Jane Public's; I remember her describing
 

that event to me at lunch the day after it happened.
 

The green light answer: I'm sorry, as a
 

member of the Board I'm not allowed to discuss the
 

identity of any claimant. If you start identifying
 

claimants you run the risk of running afoul of the
 

Privacy Act. To protect personal privacy you're
 

better off not speculating on the identity of
 

claimants from the dose reconstruction reviews.
 

This is a question I'm sure many of you have
 

received: Why is OCAS taking so long to do my dose
 

reconstruction? Possible answer: The Department of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49 

Energy is taking too long to get OCAS records. The
 

yellow light answer: NIOSH has recently hired a
 

contractor to assist with dose reconstructions,
 

which should greatly speed up the process. And the
 

green light answer: I can't speak for the agency. 

You should contact OCAS to discuss your concern and
 

get the most up-to-date information.
 

The theory here is again the same, is that
 

your speculation about these kinds of issues,
 

because you're Board members, is going to be treated
 

differently than just anybody speculating about
 

this. If you stick to the facts and direct
 

questions to the agency, that is the safest answer. 

If you stick to things that are in the public
 

record, such as the fact that a contractor was
 

recently hired, that is certainly permissible. But
 

again you get into -- you're getting into territory
 

where you have to be very cautious because you begin
 

to run the risk of using information by virtue of
 

being on the Board. And remember that what you say,
 

because you're on the Board, your speculation is
 

going to be treated differently than just anybody's
 

speculation.
 

Possible question you would receive: When
 

will HHS issue the Special Exposure Cohort final
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50 

rule and when will the Board take action on my
 

Special Exposure Cohort petition? Some possible
 

responses: We expect the regulation to be issued in
 

December and we will take up your petition in
 

January. Your petition looks great; I'm sure there
 

will be no problem once the rule takes effect and we
 

will get your petition on the agenda. And the green
 

light answer: I'm sorry, but it would be
 

inappropriate for me as a Board member to try and
 

predict future actions by the agency or the Board.
 

The guideline here is that if you predict a
 

future action by this Board, you could give people
 

the impression that the Board's deliberation was not
 

what decided the issue; that it was decided somehow
 

previously, prior to the full presentation of the
 

petition, all the relevant data. That's a risk that
 

you take by being a Board member and commenting on
 

what the Board's going to do in the future. 

Sometimes views could change, and of course it could
 

be premature and misleading to the public if you
 

make comments before the decision is made.
 

The other problem of course with speculating
 

on future actions is that it is in fact speculation
 

and if you think you know precisely when your
 

regulations will be issue or all that, I think it's
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51 

a very difficult thing to predict so again, your
 

safest answer is to -- is to avoid predicting future
 

actions.
 

DR. MELIUS: What if we quote Larry, who
 

said -- whatever he said, I think in January, or
 

something like that? What if we say we were told at
 

the last meeting by -- he didn't tell us the year,
 

but -- part of the public record and so forth,
 

that's --

MR. NAIMON: Well, I suppose that Larry and
 

I could have a separate discussion about whether the
 

director should be speculating about future action,
 

but if you comment on something that is said at a
 

public meeting and you say this was said at the last
 

Board meeting and you quote it accurately, then you
 

have not -- you've not used your Board position --

you're in the same position as anybody who's read
 

the transcript or sat in the audience here. So that
 

obviously is not a problem, you know, to quote what
 

actually was said. The danger you run into there is
 

that if you quote what you think he said and it's
 

not what he said, that again you raise the risk that
 

somebody's going to read into your interpretation of
 

what happened that you heard something outside the
 

Board meeting that, you know, you were interpreting.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52 

DR. MELIUS: Larry guaranteed that they'd be 

issued by January. 

MR. NAIMON: Now that I would -- I would 

have no doubt knowing that that would not be true.
 

So -- okay. And another possible question: 

Can you help me file my claim form; question six is
 

confusing to me. And I know this one would be
 

particularly difficult for any of us because you're
 

in a situation when you really want to help somebody
 

and they're having problems, and our natural human
 

reaction may be sure, let me have it and I'll bring
 

it in tomorrow with the answers filled in; or let's
 

have lunch and discuss this.
 

Actually the -- again, the safest answer: 

I'm sorry, but as a Board member I must remain
 

impartial and so I can't assist you with your
 

individual claim. You should contact DOL, DOE or
 

OCAS for assistance.
 

Your role is really not assisting claimants
 

with filing their individual claims. You're
 

directing them to the proper place to get
 

assistance. You are in a very good position to be
 

able to tell them all the different places where
 

they can get assistance. If Board members are
 

assisting individual claimants, you run the risk of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53 

a perception that they have special favors. The
 

claimant may feel like they're getting something
 

more than just a knowledgeable person's assistance. 

And obviously someone else looking at that could get
 

the wrong idea, as well. So it's really not
 

appropriate for Board members to be filing -- you
 

know, helping individuals filing claims.
 

A question that you could get, especially if
 

you yourself have previously worked in one of these
 

locations: Can you tell DOL that my deceased spouse
 

worked at location B from 1955 to 1967; you were
 

there; I don't have any records. The yellow light
 

answer: Yes, I may sign an affidavit to that effect
 

as a fact witness. The green light answer: I'm
 

sorry, but as a member of the Board I shouldn't get
 

involved in individual claims. It would be better
 

if you could get someone else to do this. The third
 

answer: I'm on the Board. I'll be happy to call
 

DOL and tell them.
 

The guideline here is that you can be a fact
 

witness about things that you have personal
 

knowledge about. To avoid the appearance of
 

preferential treatment, you should not use your
 

Board affiliation in providing the factual
 

information. The safest thing is to have other
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54 

people provide factual information if there are
 

other people who are available because then you
 

don't have any hint of the idea that there's
 

something special going on because you are a Board
 

member. That's why there's the -- it's -- the
 

yellow light answer is that you can sign the
 

affidavit to that effect as a fact witness, the
 

caution being that you want to avoid using your
 

affiliation as part of that and that you want to
 

stick to the facts, but -- and if there's someone
 

else available to do that that you obviously avoid
 

any potential perception that there's anything wrong
 

going on, although obviously if you just stick to
 

the facts, there's -- you know, you are a fact
 

witness, like everyone else has fact witnesses, it
 

would obviously be a disservice in some situations
 

for you not to provide that information if you
 

actually have personal knowledge.
 

So to summarize, Board members should not
 

specifically assist anyone with their claim except
 

as a fact witness; should not be using Board
 

position -- your Board position to advance any claim
 

or share any confidential information. Board
 

members should explain that any information that you
 

are sharing is publicly available, is not official
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55 

but from your own memory and may be incomplete, and
 

more complete official information is available from
 

OCAS. So again, if you do end up providing your own
 

information, you want to make it very clear what
 

you're doing for people, that you're not providing
 

them with the inside track. You are providing them
 

with otherwise publicly-available information. It
 

just happens that you know it because of your --

because you're here and that it's from your own
 

memory and that it's not an official position. And
 

again, the safest thing is to refer people to other
 

publicly-available places.
 

Now if you get inquiries from the media or
 

from Congress, essentially the same guidelines
 

apply. The difference is is that you have
 

additional resources for help in those
 

circumstances. And if you prefer, you can refer
 

media inquiries to Fred Blosser from NIOSH and
 

Congressional inquiries to Larry. If you do choose
 

to speak, again, you want to make it clear that
 

you're speaking as an individual, not for the agency
 

or for the Board. You want to limit yourself to
 

public information and say that that's what you're
 

doing. And you want to -- you have the opportunity
 

to consult with Fred for medial inquiries and with
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56 

Larry for Congressional inquiries to coordinate your
 

response with the agency so that the proper
 

information is being provided.
 

Just in case you need it, there's Fred's
 

contact information. It also should be in your
 

notebooks. You can reach him at 202/260-8519. I
 

know he would be happy to help you with those
 

inquiries, and I'm sure you all probably have
 

committed to memory the phone number and e-mail and
 

all that for OCAS. And then I've also provided you
 

with information about the Department of Labor and
 

Department of Energy numbers where you can refer
 

people if you are so inclined.
 

And that's all I have. Thank you very much. 

I appreciated being invited to do this.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. We're
 

going to allow some questions. This will be
 

questions from Board members only. Let me begin. I
 

want to pose a scenario which -- I'll make it very
 

specific. Let's say Wanda Munn is contacted by a
 

reporter from the Tri-state Herald and the reporter
 

says I've learned that you've been appointed to this
 

Board. Tell me why you were -- how you were
 

appointed, what does this Board do -- information. 

What is it that this Board does? I don't think the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57 

Tri-state Herald will be happy if she says I can't
 

respond; call Larry Elliott. So what kind of things
 

can she say? What would you say, Wanda?
 

MS. MUNN: I'd like to comment on that. I
 

try never to dodge a question if I can avoid it, and
 

I think the suggestions that we've been given are
 

apt. Most of us here who've dealt with the public
 

and who've dealt with the media are well aware of
 

the fact that one must be cautious in how you couch
 

what you say because it's not going to be reported
 

accurately anyway. You know, they can't put all
 

your words in there and they're not going to add all
 

your caveats. So I -- what I would tell them was
 

that I was appointed to this Board by the White
 

House. The internal workings of how those
 

appointments occur are unknown to me -- because
 

that's true; I have no idea -- that I know that
 

there were both geographic and professional
 

qualifications involved and I submitted the
 

application form that I was requested to and was
 

appointed to the Board. It's my understanding that
 

the purpose of this Board is to see that the
 

existing law is being approached in an appropriate
 

manner by the governmental agencies that are
 

involved and that it is a very complex process; that
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58 

we're meeting on a fairly regular basis to do that. 

And if they asked other specific questions, I'd
 

attempt to answer in that same vein. I just think
 

you have to be reasonable, but you do -- and it's my
 

opinion that you have to answer questions. Just
 

simply referring people --

DR. ZIEMER: And your response would give
 

somewhat generic answers, maybe not necessarily
 

quoting verbatim from the law but --

MS. MUNN: No.
 

DR. ZIEMER: This get to the point I'm
 

getting at because I get these same kinds of
 

questions, and even if you quote verbatim from the
 

law, the news people fiddle with it.
 

MS. MUNN: Yeah, it's not going to be put
 

that way.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So could you give us a little
 

help on -- sort of scope out -- you know, how do you
 

approach -- I don't think it's a problem typically
 

if somebody -- you know, I used to work at Oak
 

Ridge. If somebody from Oak Ridge came to me and
 

says help me fill out my form, I know I'm not going
 

to do that. I'm more concerned about news
 

reporters. Help us with that.
 

MR. NAIMON: Okay. Well, first I would say
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59 

that I'd have to -- Ms. Munn's answer was great. 

The one thing that I would add is that both Larry
 

and Fred are available to assist in terms of -- if
 

you're going to get a question that says what are
 

the duties of the Board, and you want to answer in
 

more of the specifics rather than just in general,
 

then obviously the agency is available to provide
 

you with information that you can use to answer that
 

question, as well as they can answer the question
 

themselves. If you prefer to be the one that tells
 

your local paper what it is that this Board that
 

you've been appointed to is all about and -- but
 

you're not completely comfortable with the idea that
 

you can, off the top of your head, rattle off
 

precisely what the duties of the Board are -- and
 

you don't want to be quoted in the paper saying that
 

the Board's going to do something that in fact the
 

Board's not going to do -- then obviously you have
 

those resources available. And Fred is going to be
 

much more qualified than I to answer the question of
 

precisely how to deal with reporters to make sure
 

they get it straight. My suggestion on that would
 

be that if you had, in writing, the charge of the
 

Board that you offer to that reporter the facts in
 

that charge. It's a lot harder for them to misquote
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60 

your description of what the Board does when they
 

have it in writing in front of them than it is if
 

they're just taking notes from what you say and
 

they're not being as precise as you're being. But
 

obviously NIOSH has staff that, you know, really is
 

designed to help you in dealing with those kinds of
 

questions so that -- so that you obviously are --

are giving accurate information and don't get into a
 

situation where you're giving information that
 

somehow comes back on you in some way, and also that
 

-- to help you with kind of the fine points of
 

dealing with -- with media questions.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I'd like to expand upon this a
 

little bit. I hope it's apparent that we're not
 

prohibiting Board members from talking to the press
 

or Congressional inquiries. And I want you to
 

understand also that Fred and I can help you in this
 

regard, too. The type of assistance that Fred can
 

give you is -- we think we have an obligation and a
 

responsibility to help the media get it right. It
 

is a complex program. And when we see newsprint
 

articles that mix and confuse the technical aspects
 

of this program -- subtitle D, the state workers
 

comp program, with this program on -- the Federal
 

program under part B -- we have to call the reporter
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61 

-- Fred and I call the reporter and we have to go
 

through a long diatribe of what -- how did they get
 

the information incorrect and how can we get them
 

back on track. We want to avoid confusion in the
 

public by these inaccurate press releases. So Fred
 

can assist you by contacting the reporter before you
 

actually talk to the reporter and finding out what
 

it is he or she wants to know, what the questions
 

are that are going to be asked. We can help put
 

those questions in front of you. Fred can work with
 

you in developing your responses, if that's what
 

you'd like.
 

There's also an aspect here of follow-up. 

You know, the reporter may want to come back at a
 

later time and touch base with you again, and that's
 

certainly appropriate and it's something that we can
 

help with, as well. So you know, this matter of
 

assistance -- don't take it lightly. We take it
 

very seriously that we want to get the right
 

information out to the public. We want to help
 

folks understand this very complex, technical
 

program, and this is one of the ways we think we can
 

do it. So I just offer that to you, that -- for
 

your consideration to seek us out for assistance.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I certainly avoid the press
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62 

whenever I can, and I think I'd take this approach
 

because that's my attitude there. But the one thing
 

I could picture happening to me, and perhaps others
 

on the Board, is that we'd be asked to go to maybe a
 

local Rotary meeting, or for me, maybe a local
 

health physics chapter meeting, where people are
 

very interested in this and sincerely interested and
 

they want to know more about -- maybe in particular
 

the science. I would assume on that that if I were
 

to prepare a talk that I could do it from materials
 

on the web site, which are publicly available, and
 

also use the notebooks, the handouts like yours and
 

everyone else's, the written part, because that is
 

publicly available. I hope I'm correct on that.
 

MR. NAIMON: You are correct that everything
 

you've described is publicly available and could be
 

used for that purpose. The thing you have to be
 

concerned about, which I'm sure you know, is you go
 

into that situation and they start asking you
 

specific questions, maybe even about specific
 

claims, and then you're left with having to -- you
 

know, having to defer those -- and obviously it's
 

easier for some people than others to deal with that
 

situation.
 

DR. ROESSLER: And I think what you put on
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63 

the slides there, the wording, is very helpful in
 

that regard.
 

MR. NAIMON: Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Do we have other questions from
 

Board members?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Everybody had their questions
 

answered then, it seems. Okay, thank you very much
 

for --

MR. NAIMON: Thank you very much.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- helping us in this area. We
 

are a little ahead of schedule and that is, in a
 

sense, good because I'm somewhat hopeful that we can
 

accelerate a little bit today's schedule because
 

there are some here that have to leave before the
 

day is over. I think -- Henry, I know you have to
 

leave shortly after noon, in fact, and we're not
 

going to be done by then. But we will try to get as
 

much as we can done and maybe be able to finish at
 

least a little before 5:00. In any event, we'll
 

stick with the agenda and -- just a little sooner. 

We'll take our break and then we'll continue with
 

the IREP updates immediately after that. So we have
 

a 15-minute break.
 

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64 

IREP UPDATES
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think we're ready to
 

reconvene. The next item on our agenda is an update
 

on IREP and the cancer latency models, and Russ
 

Henshaw's with us today and Russ is going to lead us
 

through that discussion. Russ?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Right here. Can you hear me?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is that on, Russ? Get it up 

higher, too. 

(Pause) 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, good morning. I'm Russ
 

Henshaw. I'm the staff epidemiologist with NIOSH
 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support. I --

by the way, I want to welcome the two new Board
 

members. Speaking as someone who was a union
 

organizer in a former life, it's a really distinct
 

pleasure to see the two new members, and I know I
 

speak on behalf of our entire program at NIOSH that
 

greater diversity in background can do nothing but
 

enrich the program, so welcome aboard.
 

It's my pleasure this morning to talk about
 

an evolving issue regarding cancer latency, and in
 

particular the latency exceptions for leukemia and
 

for thyroid cancer. If you would consider this as
 

more or less a status report, this is an ongoing
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65 

issue. As you'll see as we get into this, there are
 

a number of options to take. NIOSH has not made a
 

decision on this. This is informational to apprise
 

the Board of what's going on.
 

I do want to mention, by the way, that I'll
 

sometimes be using the term Time Since Exposure,
 

abbreviated frequently in the slides as TSE, as --

synonymously with the term latency. And for our
 

purposes, we're defining latency as the interval
 

between exposure and diagnosis.
 

Also the material I guess is maybe
 

moderately complex, so I'd be very happy, Dr.
 

Ziemer, to take questions at any point during the
 

presentation.
 

Well, as you probably know, a traditional
 

assumption in cancer risk modeling has been there's
 

a minimum latency period required for leukemia of
 

two years. You've probably seen that in the
 

literature. And similarly, three to five years for
 

thyroid cancer. NIOSH-IREP is based on the NCIIREP, the National Cancer Institute's version of
 

IREP, which in turn was developed from the
 

radioepidemiologic tables. So NIOSH-IREP
 

incorporated that same assumption, that it is
 

biologically implausible, if not impossible --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66 

although that's controversial and I'll get into that
 

a little later -- that a two-year period is
 

necessary for induction of leukemia after exposure
 

and at least three years for thyroid.
 

That's not the case, however, for all other
 

cancer models in IREP, both NCI and the NIOSH
 

versions. In all other cancer models, some risk is
 

factored in at all times since exposure.
 

To give you a little bit of background --

and again, this is an ongoing issue. It's really
 

kind of late-breaking. Some of the information I
 

have that was too late to include in the slides, I
 

just received Friday afternoon, and I'll talk more
 

about that as we get into this. But this issue sort
 

of came up, although we thought about it off and on,
 

but this reconsideration of the latency periods was
 

really prompted by the dose reconstruction on a
 

claim. Not a hypothetical claim, but a real claim. 

A worker who actually died from leukemia after a
 

series of multiple exposures, culminating in several
 

exposures within two years of his diagnosis and
 

actually early death.
 

In doing the dose reconstruction, the health
 

physicist who was working on this, Tim Taulbee --

you may have remembered from previous Board meetings
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67 

-- was concerned that none of the exposures within
 

two -- none of the exposures within two years of
 

diagnosis affected probability of causation. And
 

Tim wasn't really aware at the time that that was
 

because IREP ran zero risk for those exposures.
 

That actually led to the series of internal
 

discussions within NIOSH. And if you think about
 

it, does it make any sense, for example, that an
 

exposure two years and one day prior to diagnosis
 

counts toward probability of causation, but an
 

exposure maybe one year -- one day less than two
 

years counts zero. The consensus at NIOSH was that
 

that's probably not appropriate. We wanted to
 

rethink the whole issue.
 

After a series of internal discussions and
 

e-mail exchanges, we then contacted SENES. SENES is
 

our -- the agency that actually created IREP. It's
 

under -- (inaudible). It's under a contract to both
 

NIOSH and NCI. We asked SENES to develop some new
 

alternative latency models for thyroid cancer and
 

for leukemia, factor in at least some plausible risk
 

of exposure under two years for leukemia and under
 

three years for thyroid cancer.
 

SENES did that -- in collaboration actually
 

with Dr. Charles Land at NCI, developed new
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68 

alternative adjustments for short latency, which NCI
 

reportedly is going to incorporate it into their --

incorporate into their IREP. I don't think that's
 

been done yet, but it's on the verge of being added
 

to their program, the -- being added to their
 

software. The programming has been completed, it
 

just has not been installed, I believe, on NCI-IREP,
 

and the decision is still pending at NIOSH.
 

Charles Land, by the way, is in Japan right
 

now. He's been there for a couple of weeks and I
 

think is expected to be there for two or three more
 

weeks, so he's not immediately available for
 

consultation on this. But reportedly NCI is going
 

to adopt these new models.
 

Just a little -- just to flesh this out a
 

little bit, that claim that actually led to our
 

reconsideration of these latency assumptions
 

involved an electrician who again had a series of
 

exposures within two years of diagnosis of leukemia. 

His last exposure he had a potentially high dose. 

He spent eight hours working on an electric motor. 

He wore no protective equipment, had no monitor, was
 

not advised in any way by the employer, reportedly,
 

that there was a radiation risk. The next day he
 

came back to work and found the area roped off as a
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69 

radiation hazard.
 

By the way, this claim is not being held up
 

by this issue. This particular case we're still
 

awaiting records from DOE.
 

But in any event, that exposure has,
 

according to Tim -- I'm not a health physicist, but
 

according to Tim, has a potential dose of anywhere
 

from eight or ten rem up to more than 100 rem. Tim
 

thinks it's more likely going to be closer to the
 

ten rem, but again under our current model, it's not
 

counted at all and we think it probably should be.
 

Well, the new latency adjustments developed
 

by SENES -- again, in collaboration with Dr. Charles
 

Land of NCI -- would do a couple of things. They
 

factor in the risk below two years for leukemia and
 

below three years for thyroid cancer. They employ
 

an S-shaped latency correction factor, add short
 

latency periods, and they also factor in uncertainty
 

around the mid-points of the S-shaped curves. Our
 

current models for leukemia and thyroid, again, cut
 

off at two years, but the latency points are fixed. 

It's not an uncertainty distribution that is
 

included in the IREP calculations. The new models
 

do factor in uncertainty around the mid-points. 

They actually -- during a Monte Carlo sampling, the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70 

mid-points vary by I think it's 33 percent for
 

leukemia and I believe 40 percent for thyroid.
 

So what is the status of the revisions? 

Again, programming is ready to go, reportedly about
 

ready to be incorporated by NCI, still under
 

consideration by NIOSH.
 

This is a graph of the so-called S-shaped
 

latency adjustment, and it's -- as you can see here,
 

this is the current model, the proposed model is in
 

blue, and hence the S shape. And I think the key
 

points which should be readily apparent by this
 

graph -- or at least a couple of things. One is
 

that the proposed model results in a lower reduction
 

at four years time since exposure, but -- actually
 

kind of surprisingly, at least to me, is it actually
 

results in a greater reduction at two years time
 

since exposure. The consensus -- and again, this is
 

-- we're still talking about this. You know, we've
 

been very busy there and concerned primarily with
 

the new dose reconstruction contract, so we haven't
 

been able to just take time out and really just pore
 

through all this yet. But I think it would be fair
 

to say that our consensus or our -- we're leaning
 

towards, at least, at this point some discomfort
 

with making a change that would result in any
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71 

lowering of probability of causation at any time
 

since exposure. Nonetheless, that is reportedly
 

what NCI is going to adopt for their IREP.
 

Just -- the graph, by the way, I don't --

this is time since exposure, and I have it out to
 

seven years because that's where the two lines
 

converge. They also converge at the mid-point,
 

three years for leukemia. The vertical axis is the
 

correction factor for short latency, labeled here
 

the reduction factor because that's what it does.
 

Just a note about the epidemiological
 

evidence here for the short latency assumption. 

It's really not very good. It's somewhat ambiguous. 

It's based on the settings of the Japanese cohort,
 

the life-span study. And there is in fact no hard
 

evidence, quite frankly, for the shape of this
 

proposed curve. That curve was decided upon by Dr.
 

Charles Land and by the people at SENES -- Owen
 

Hoffman and Iulian -- I can never pronounce his last
 

name, Apostoeai or something like that. But it's
 

basically developed based on their expert judgment. 

Really about -- maybe the only consensus regarding
 

the epi evidence is that latency does diminish as
 

time since exposure approaches zero. I don't think
 

anybody would argue -- to take a really ridiculous
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72 

case, but if somebody was cancer-free one day,
 

exposed the next day and diagnosed with leukemia the
 

third day, I doubt many people would argue seriously
 

that that leukemia was caused by that exposure. But
 

the question is, what is a valid, plausible cutoff
 

point? Is it three months, six months, one year,
 

one year and a half? No one really knows.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Just a -- a question here. You
 

asked that we ask as we go, so here's one.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, if that's okay, yeah,
 

just to clear something up in my mind, I thought the
 

current model, as you described it -- and I haven't
 

looked at a lot of leukemia models, but I thought it
 

would have been a -- gone straight up at two and
 

flat across with no reduction factor after two
 

years. Isn't that --

MR. HENSHAW: Right, that's according to --

MR. GRIFFON: Am I reading this wrong or --

MR. HENSHAW: No, you're exactly correct,
 

and let me just point out that -- pay -- pay more
 

attention to the data points at the year intervals
 

than the actual curve itself. There is no graduated
 

reduction between years.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So you shouldn't really connect
 

the dots, I think is what you're really saying.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73 

MR. HENSHAW: Yeah, you know, I thought
 

about that. I mean it could have looked a line off
 

at this point, but you know, it's actually --

DR. ZIEMER: Is it a step function at two
 

years, really? I mean --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)
 

MR. HENSHAW: I'm sorry?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it comes straight to two
 

and then up. Right? 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

MR. HENSHAW: The current model? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Right. There is no
 

probability -- there's no risk factored in below
 

this two-year point --

MR. GRIFFON: Okay.
 

MR. HENSHAW: -- for the current model.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It should be zero straight
 

across to two, and then up.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yeah, it's a -- kind of is a
 

judgment call. It's somewhat --

MR. GRIFFON: The best -- if I come up from
 

two to five, is there a slope -- I'm forgetting --

DR. NETON: I'd like to clear this up. 

There is no function associated with this graph. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74 

It's best represented by a histogram. The lines are
 

there just to show the general trends, but really
 

you should think of those dots as histogram
 

functions -- as a step function.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: There is no risk coefficients
 

in the years zero to one and one to two.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I under-- but for example, on
 

year three, the reduction factor is not one in the
 

current model. There are differences between year
 

two, three and four --

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- and so it's at five when
 

you get a reduction factor of one.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: If you look at the risk
 

coefficients between year -- starting at two,
 

two/three, you see this -- a graduation in risk
 

coefficient.
 

The other thing to point out here, though,
 

is -- you know the -- what Russ was alluding to
 

earlier on the proposed reduction versus the current
 

reduction factor between years three through five,
 

you lose probability of causation if you go with
 

this. Risk coefficients decrease and your
 

probability of causation then is decreased in the
 

newer model.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75 

MR. HENSHAW: Just to clarify this a little
 

further, bear in mind that IREP accepts data only at
 

yearly intervals. You know, it wouldn't be entered
 

as like 3.5 years or something, and so the curve is
 

just there to show the trend, as Jim said. That's a
 

good point.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And Russ, in the proposed model
 

there are actually values now between zero and one,
 

or do you just --

MR. HENSHAW: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- there's a value at one.
 

MR. HENSHAW: And at zero.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And at zero.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes, sir.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Just above the -- though very
 

low, but nonetheless, not zero.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Correct. This is a similar
 

graph for the proposed thyroid cancer latency
 

adjustment, and you can see the same kind of trend
 

here. The mid-point for thyroid is at five years
 

and the lines converge at eight years, which is why
 

I brought it out to eight years time since exposure. 

But you see the same kind of trend where the
 

reduction factor is more claimant-friendly at six
 

years time since exposure, less so at four years and
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76 

three years. Again, you know, it's a source of
 

discomfort for us at NIOSH.
 

Any questions on this graph?
 

DR. ZIEMER: There are uncertainty bars
 

associated with this new distribution, too?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes, sir. The uncertainty is
 

at the five-year point and it -- during the Monte
 

Carlo sampling, a lot -- the curve actually shifts
 

at the mid-point by plus or minus 40 percent.
 

Question?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, my question was, for
 

latency are they using the time to clinical
 

recognition? I mean how --

MR. HENSHAW: Well, yes, diagnosis, correct.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Because, again, your other
 

example, a number of these diseases are probably
 

present --

MR. HENSHAW: That's right.
 

DR. ANDERSON: -- at least a number of
 

months before, so if you wanted to pick a
 

contributing, you could look at what's known about
 

the progression of the disease and -- for instance,
 

thyroid could have been there for quite a while,
 

where leukemia is a little more aggressive.
 

MR. HENSHAW: You're exactly correct. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77 

There's no opportunity in IREP to consider things
 

like tumor, you know, doubling time and things like
 

that. It's just the actual record of the date of
 

diagnosis on the claimant's record.
 

DR. ANDERSON: But in your calculations
 

here, they're also --

MR. HENSHAW: Yes.
 

DR. ANDERSON: -- using the same
 

characteristics in the --

MR. HENSHAW: That's right.
 

DR. ANDERSON: -- data they're using.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes, sir, that's exactly --

DR. ANDERSON: So if the surveillance and
 

diagnosis was earlier in one than the other then it
 

could be (inaudible).
 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, if we're getting into
 

the biologic -- biological plausibility of the
 

period between presence of disease and diagnosis,
 

right, that would -- we don't -- it's not a factor
 

in any of the IREP --

DR. ANDERSON: Right.
 

MR. HENSHAW: -- inputs.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think Gen Roessler has a
 

question.
 

DR. ROESSLER: Russ, you're talking about
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78 

leukemia -- or had been on the previous slide -- in
 

a very general manner, but in the second slide you
 

talked about the four kinds of leukemia. What about
 

chronic lymphocytic leukemia, how does that fit in
 

here? What is the probability of causation?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, the assumption in the
 

rule is that it's zero. I think it's the only --

DR. ROESSLER: So it wouldn't change.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Right. The only -- it's the
 

only cancer excluded from compensation in the rule
 

itself.
 

This is a rather busy slide. Without
 

belaboring it too much, it's -- this is a
 

hypothetical example of the probability of causation
 

results comparing the current model to the proposed
 

model. And the inputs are fixed -- male, born in
 

1930, diagnosed in 1980, exposed to 50 rem. Look at
 

the table, the left-hand column is the year of
 

exposure, this is the corresponding time since
 

exposure. The current model results -- and that's
 

the one that determines compensation, the 99th
 

percentile, and the proposed model.
 

What I have here -- the figures in red are
 

the higher values of the two models, and you can see
 

that at two years the current model actually results
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79 

in a higher probability of causation than the
 

proposed model. Not so at three and four years. 

The current model in this table is slightly higher
 

at years five through 30, but there's a caveat
 

there. As I mentioned when I started, this is latebreaking news. The data -- these runs were done by
 

SENES at our request, and we found out Thursday of
 

last week, after looking at these results, that they
 

had used an old IREP code. We asked them to run it
 

again using the correct code, and I also asked them
 

to up the sample size to 2,000, which is the Monte
 

Carlo sampling size used by the Department of Labor
 

in determining the claim. The sample size on the
 

web, however, is 1,000.
 

I just digress for a minute. We've also
 

been talking about that. Just by way of brief
 

background, when IREP was on the web for public
 

comment and trial, we set it up with a default
 

sample size of 1,000, for reasons of processing
 

time. Since then, and now that claims are actually
 

being worked on -- but since then, SENES has been
 

able to greatly enhance the processing speed. We
 

think there's no longer a need to leave that default
 

sample size at 1,000, so we're going to direct SENES
 

to raise the default sample to 2,000. Our concern
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80 

is that just due to the uncertainty factors, there
 

are slight differences in results, depending on
 

whether you use a sample size of 1,000 or 2,000. 

The 2,000 affords greater precision. As we're doing
 

these dose reconstructions and sending claimants
 

their data, we'd like to avoid situations where the
 

claimant has a printout of results, gets on the web,
 

plugs in the data himself and comes out with
 

something else.
 

I also want to mention, by the way, that
 

using the correct IREP code and upping the sample
 

size to 2,000 removes this little anomaly here where
 

-- with the current model showing higher probability
 

at the longer latency periods. Using the correct
 

code and a 2,000 sample size, it's actually very
 

slightly higher at all points using the proposed
 

model, although less than a percent.
 

I regret that you really need to disregard
 

the exact date on the table, but again, this is very
 

late-breaking and we didn't have time to correct the
 

slide for the Board's presentation.
 

This -- also using the correct code and
 

simulation size of 2,000 -- sample size of 2,000,
 

this discrepancy is cut from four percent to two
 

percent. It's still higher using the current model,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81 

but only two percent higher than the proposed model.
 

Any questions on that? Okay.
 

This is another chart, but this one is
 

showing probability of causation on the vertical
 

axis instead of the latency correction factor, and
 

this was using the data on the table you just saw,
 

so again, it would be just slightly different using
 

the correct code and simulation size of 2,000, but
 

the point here -- the key point is to show that the
 

probability of causation using the current model,
 

which is in red -- or possibly orange, I'm not sure;
 

I'm nearly color-blind -- but is slightly higher at
 

two years since exposure using the current model,
 

but slightly -- but the proposed model is slightly
 

higher at three years and four years. And again,
 

the IREP inputs are whole years since exposure, so
 

there's no -- there's really no graduated risk
 

between zero and one or one and two. The line is
 

just to show trend.
 

Any questions? Okay.
 

So what are our options? Where does that
 

leave us? Well, as I said at the beginning, we have
 

not made a decision, quite literally. We really had
 

insufficient time to even fully discuss it. But one
 

option obviously is to simply echo what NCI is
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82 

reportedly going to do and incorporate the new Sshaped curve developed by SENES and NCI in
 

collaboration. A second option would be to make an
 

adjustment, but not necessarily use that NCI curve. 

As I mentioned earlier, we're not comfortable with
 

an adjustment that results in a lower probability of
 

causation, so we might, for example, direct SENES to
 

develop a new curve that results in no decreased
 

probability of causation at any time since exposure,
 

but still factors in some risk below two years for
 

leukemia and three years for thyroid. And a third
 

option -- it's up here because it is an option -- is
 

to do nothing. But I can tell you that, you know,
 

I'm quite sure it's the feeling of everyone at NIOSH
 

that that's not an option to be seriously
 

considered. I think we feel strongly we need to
 

make some adjustment. The question is what
 

adjustment to make and how much -- if we change the
 

model from the NCI proposed model, how to change it.
 

So again, you know, this is evolving. We
 

just wanted to apprise you of what's going on. Not
 

advise you, because that's your job, but to apprise
 

you of what's happening. And I'm sure we'll pick
 

this up again when we get back to the office,
 

hopefully next week, but in the meantime, any
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83 

questions or comments on the issue?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think Wanda has a question.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes, ma'am?
 

MS. MUNN: It's not really a question. I
 

think it's a comment. It's very interesting and I
 

think anyone who looks at risk is a little skeptical
 

of step functions. But by the same token, Russ, you
 

expressed some concern over the accuracy of the
 

proposal that NCI's making based on the scarcity of
 

data. I guess my question would be, looking at
 

option two, how could you possibly convince yourself
 

that your estimates would be any better than NCI's
 

if you made a revision to that?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, that's a good question,
 

and we do on rely on NCI as our cancer experts for
 

this program. We wouldn't pretend to think that we
 

have more expertise in issues like cancer latency
 

than NCI. If we decided to deviate from what I
 

think could fairly now be called the NCI proposal,
 

reportedly, it would be a policy judgment, not a --

not a science-based judgment. Just really to err on
 

the side of the claimant. But you're right, I don't
 

have any delusion of thinking that we could come up
 

with a model that's more scientifically accurate. 

It's really just a judgment call.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84 

MS. MUNN: And anything that I would say
 

would be just a judgment call, as well. One
 

question with respect to the claim that started all
 

this deliberation. Did I mis-hear you? Did I not
 

understand that this claimant had had some exposure
 

prior to the two year latency period --

MR. HENSHAW: That's correct.
 

MS. MUNN: -- that it was just these
 

unanticipated, uncertain chronic doses occurred
 

within the two-year period.
 

MR. HENSHAW: That's correct. And that's
 

actually what really just by coincidence kind of
 

makes this claim a good one to use to start
 

reconsidering this issue because from what I've been
 

told by the health physicist working on the claim,
 

this person's cumulative exposures up -- post-twoyear latency would result in a probability of
 

causation of about 35 percent, based on the data
 

that the health physicist has now. There is the
 

possibility that changing this model will tip that
 

claim from a status of non-compensability to one of
 

compensable. But we won't know that until we get
 

the records back from DOE and do some further work
 

on it, but -- and that's -- actually that's a good
 

point you raise because most exposure histories are
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85 

a series of exposures. So you take like that table
 

that I showed earlier in and of itself, that was one
 

acute exposure. But usually we're looking at
 

whether or not to include some additional exposures
 

in the cumulative total. That's where the latency
 

-- the minimum latency assumption really comes into
 

play, I think.
 

MS. MUNN: And that's really quite different
 

than just starting at zero and assuming a step
 

function at two years. That's really quite
 

different.
 

MR. HENSHAW: I'm sorry?
 

MS. MUNN: This particular case is really
 

quite different than one where you start at zero --

MR. HENSHAW: Yes.
 

MS. MUNN: -- and jump at two years. That's
 

an entirely different thing.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Correct.
 

MS. MUNN: Given that additional uncertainty
 

with respect to the impact that acute doses would
 

have on an already-affected organism, although it
 

makes a very interesting case history, my personal
 

feeling would be that it would be unwise to base
 

major changes in policy on that type of incident,
 

since that individual does not really represent any
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86 

significant portion of --

MR. HENSHAW: Well, I think you're --

MS. MUNN: -- workers.
 

MR. HENSHAW: -- absolutely right.
 

MS. MUNN: Yeah.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Again, the point was just the
 

issue that raised a flag and led us to start
 

reconsidering the whole issue.
 

MS. MUNN: And I guess -- again, this is
 

personal observation. Were I in the position of
 

having to choose one of those three, which I am not,
 

I would -- I think I would move toward option two,
 

simply because it infers that some change needs to
 

be made. You may not agree with the change that is
 

being proposed by NCI, but at least it recognizes
 

the need for some additional thought.
 

MR. HENSHAW: I should, by the way, mention
 

that we have nothing in writing yet from NCI on
 

their adoption of the new latency adjustment. This
 

is all, frankly, reported to us through SENES. We
 

expect that Dr. Land will notify us with the details
 

and their justification for adopting the model, but
 

we have nothing in writing at this point.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Larry has a comment here.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And for the Board's further
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87 

information, to expand upon Russ's last comment, I
 

believe the middle of last week we learned the
 

current status of the NCI-IREP and the technical
 

documentation -- this is what we were -- we
 

presented to you -- we got Charles Land on the phone
 

in Denver, if you recall, to talk about that. That
 

document which stands as the foundation of the
 

technical information that supports the NCI-IREP has
 

been reviewed by the VA and those VA comments were
 

sent back to HHS last week. And so I'm sure that
 

had there been -- you know, they're wending their
 

way down through the channels back to NCI, back to
 

Charles Land, and when he arrives back from his
 

sojourn in Japan he'll have those facing him. And
 

that's why we haven't seen a letter yet, because
 

they'll still have to take into consideration those
 

comments, as well as what they're going to do with
 

this particular issue. And in the Department, the
 

Department will have to decide what -- they'll get a
 

recommendation on how to handle this from NCI, and
 

they may even have to go back then to the VA and
 

make sure that the VA understands what's going on
 

with this and accepts it before we see a final
 

decision from HHS on this.
 

MR. HENSHAW: I might also mention, by the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88 

way, really there are two separate issues here. One
 

is the leukemia latency and the other is the thyroid
 

latency. The evidence is a little better for
 

thyroid that our -- the IREP model in both NCI and
 

NIOSH is based on pulled data from not only the
 

Japanese cohort but also a series of studies on
 

medical exposures. I don't know -- I don't think
 

we've reached the point yet where we're necessarily
 

saying that the same course of action should be
 

taken for both of these proposed adjustments. We
 

really have barely gotten into looking at the
 

thyroid issue yet, quite frankly.
 

DR. ZIEMER: This whole situation might
 

raise the issue of exactly what this Board's role is
 

in such a situation. That is, what is the threshold
 

at which we participate in the decision? You know,
 

that we agree that changes in IREP that are computer
 

changes to make the program more user-friendly and
 

so on, they don't have to check that out with us. 

We also have sort of agreed that NCI's model is what
 

we kind of agree to. But there also is a statement,
 

and I'd have to go back and look at exactly how it
 

was worded in the rule, that suggests that
 

significant changes in the IREP model have to be
 

brought to the Board, at least for input.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89 

Now we don't actually have before us a
 

formal proposal because this is more of a status
 

report. But at some point we will have the final
 

sort of recommendation from NCI that will come to
 

NIOSH. And then there will, I think, possibly be
 

the question of to what extent, Wanda, you will
 

actually have input on this. You made the statement
 

that if I were to chose, but I don't have any
 

choice. But in fact I -- this could be -- and the
 

Board could easily say no, this is something you
 

just let the staff handle it or you could say no, we
 

want input on this issue. You have that opportunity
 

right now of course, and perhaps at the point where
 

we have kind of what NCI thinks their final
 

recommendation is -- technically speaking, aside
 

from --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Or two, sure.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and yours would have
 

theirs, with maybe a policy thing imposed upon it or
 

something, so it seems to me that might be the next
 

step, that the Board would be asked to react to a
 

formal recommendation. Is that possibly the case?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it -- that's very much
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90 

the case, as I see it. We certainly welcome your
 

thoughts and your input at this point in time, and
 

whatever advice you have for us to -- for our
 

consideration in our deliberations about how we're
 

going to approach this. I anticipate maybe at the
 

next meeting we'll be coming back to you with not
 

only what the NCI final version looks like and how
 

they've handled it, but probably also what we would
 

like to see done with it and what our recommendation
 

would be. So there's certainly opportunity here for
 

input from the Board at this point in time and in
 

the future.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Might I just add, by the way,
 

on that issue of NCI-IREP versus NIOSH-IREP, we do
 

currently deviate from the NCI-IREP in a couple of
 

cancers, skin and male breast cancer. And I'm told
 

that -- you know, from talking with him -- there's
 

no reason to believe that Charles Land has any
 

problem with any of that. I mean he under-- you
 

know, these are policy decisions.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think we have Henry next and 

then Roy. 

DR. MELIUS: And I've got some --

DR. ZIEMER: And Jim. 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I would almost back up
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91 

a bit that the issue of latency is, as you say, time
 

since exposure and it's typically time since first
 

exposure. So the latency here -- and I believe the
 

data that they have is if your only exposure is
 

within two years, what's your risk of developing
 

disease, as opposed to what you're trying to do here
 

is does more recent -- how much to the cumulative
 

exposure does more recent exposure contribute. And
 

the data on that is basically non-existent. So I
 

think talking about it as latency for an individual
 

who had -- if you were to say here's this man's
 

exposure history and ask me -- occupational health
 

epidemiologist, and you said he was first exposed in
 

1942, I would say his latency is since 1942. And
 

now you have to address, you know, when did the
 

malignancy actually occur. And if it's already
 

there, then subsequent exposure to the -- when it
 

was there isn't going to have contributed. So you
 

get into the mix of are you going to use years of --

you know, rem years so that earlier you weight
 

earlier exposure versus later exposure because the
 

damage is done and now, over time, that begins to
 

express itself, even if you haven't had subsequent
 

exposure. So I would be more comfortable with
 

adopting the new one. If you had somebody whose
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 --

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

92 

only exposure was in the last two years, that would
 

obviously have to have been a pretty hefty exposure,
 

because even with your 50 rem acute, at one year you
 

only got the 20 percent. So --

DR. ZIEMER: But Henry, isn't that taken
 

care of in the -- by the calculation itself? You
 

calculate the probability contribution year by year,
 

is that --

MR. HENSHAW: Yeah, just for clarifi-- yeah
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, but you're reducing --

I mean this, the model you gave was that the one
 

acute exposure, 50 rem, occurred in 1950, or each of
 

those years on up, and then I guess what are -- you
 

assumed there were no other exposures. So if you
 

were to say what is the likelihood of when leukemia
 

occurs in 1980 and the only exposure was in 1950,
 

then you can look at all of the people who had such
 

exposure, and that's what the data from Japan tried
 

to look at, and you see that the leukemia rate in
 

those people drops off because the background rate
 

begins to express itself over and above the rest of
 

it. So if you had multiple exposures, then I would
 

suggest -- or I mean I would feel comfortable saying
 

that something on the line of two, when you're
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93 

looking at cumulative issues -- which is what your
 

probability of causation is doing, it's calculating
 

a cumulative exposure -- rather than -- and it's
 

trying to do it by assigning -- assuming that each
 

of the exposures has an independent effect --

MR. HENSHAW: Well, actually if I could just
 

clarify that. IREP does treat each exposure
 

separately.
 

DR. ANDERSON: As an independent effect.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Right.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Which latency -- you know,
 

and the reality is, is it --

MR. HENSHAW: Right, that's correct.
 

DR. ANDERSON: -- is that an appropriate way
 

and what difference does that make, is there
 

potentiation. So that's why I think you certainly
 

have the flexibility, either as a policy issue or
 

interpreting the science. I mean they're just
 

taking the data and putting different mathematical
 

functions to it, and you can get an S-curve, you can
 

get all sorts of different things, depending on how
 

-- you know, and they all seem to fit pretty well,
 

or as equally poorly.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, I think you raise some
 

very valid points, and I might also add that I got a
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94 

new -- I might -- I was running the risk of getting
 

myself into trouble by just using that latency term,
 

but we're using that really more for simplicity,
 

would probably be better if we confined that --

limited that term to time since exposure. Obviously
 

there are different clinical definitions of latency
 

than we're using here for this program.
 

DR. DEHART: In this case we're discussing
 

an N of one. Considering the two choices that you
 

have, any feel for what the impact would be against
 

the total population under consideration?
 

MR. HENSHAW: I do not at this time, no.
 

DR. DEHART: I'm just wondering if it had --

would really have any overall impact, other than on
 

the very occasional individual.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yeah, just out of curiosity,
 

though, I was running models -- I was varying the
 

dose for that one acute exposure. And as it turns
 

out -- I think at 26 rem, if I recall correctly --

using those inputs from that slide I put up earlier,
 

the hypothetical claim, one acute dose of 26 rem
 

using that type of radiation -- which I think was
 

gamma photons greater than 250, I think we used --

results in a probability of causation of 50 -- 50 or
 

51 percent. So that's an issue where this latency
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95 

thing could very well play a strong part. Using the
 

current model with 26 rem, the result was 50 or 51
 

percent. Using the NCI proposed model would likely
 

lower it to a point where it would be below
 

compensation.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jim.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I had two separate
 

comments. One of the questions that Paul really
 

already asked and sort of procedurally how are we
 

going to deal with these changes and what are -- I
 

think it was significant or major changes --

UNIDENTIFIED: Substantial.
 

DR. MELIUS: -- substantial, what qualifies
 

and how we set this up and how do we proceed. I
 

would just hope that we could do it fairly
 

efficiently and just -- not to fault what Russ did
 

this time, but that there'd be some sort of a
 

background presentation on at least reviewing some
 

of the science involved, whatever reviews NIOSH may
 

have gotten on this issue in addition to what
 

communication there was from NCI so that for this
 

change, which I don't -- while, you know, it's not,
 

you know, a tremendous change in the IREP program or
 

something, we ought to be able to handle fairly
 

efficiently and quickly, including a discussion of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96 

the -- this policy issue, whatever you want to call
 

it in terms of option number two.
 

My second comment is a more general one. 

We've discussed at our past meetings about having
 

some presentations and further discussion at the
 

advisory committee about a number of issues related
 

to the IREP model. There's some age at first
 

exposure, additional occupational exposures and so
 

forth. And it seems that with all the other things
 

to work on and discuss and so forth, those sort of
 

gotten lost from the agenda over time. And I think
 

we ought to come up with some way of at least
 

keeping those issues alive and under discussion
 

'cause I think they sort of will take some time to
 

discuss among the committee and be able to formulate
 

any recommendations on and so forth, as well as to
 

provide a background for when issues like these do
 

come up where you're wanting to make changes. And
 

one way I thought that might to help move that
 

forward would be to form some sort of a work group
 

within the committee. I threatened Henry last night
 

that we would wait until he leaves and make him
 

chairman, but in all fairness, this morning we'll
 

bring it up before he leaves. But I think it would
 

be a way of maybe at least prioritizing some of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97 

those issues, discussing of ways that we could move
 

forward, some being within a work group, some within
 

the general committee and do it more efficiently, so
 

I'd ask you to consider -- the committee to consider
 

that and we'll -- let's move forward, maybe discuss
 

it or do that later this afternoon.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments on
 

the presentation here? Yes, Sally.
 

MS. GADOLA: I have a comment on your
 

description of an absolute latency period and the
 

cutoff date of two years or three years, because
 

having worked in the medical field for many years
 

and also having worked in cancer research, as we all
 

know, people vary greatly. And when they go to the
 

doctor, some go as soon as they have any symptoms. 

Some are getting blood work every six months,
 

whereas others procrastinate and would not go to a
 

physician for maybe many years. So to have an
 

absolute two-year or three-year does not really seem
 

accurate, and I welcome other comments, and I'm also
 

glad that you are evaluating this, also. Because
 

it's bothered me before to have something that
 

absolute.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes, if I could just comment
 

briefly, I think the two and three-year cutoffs for
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98 

latency -- minimum latency cutoffs for leukemia and
 

thyroid, as I understand it, were incorporated
 

primarily to be consistent with the NCI-IREP model,
 

having no -- remember that -- well, there was a kind
 

of a rush to get things done at that time and having
 

no hard evidence to the contrary, I believe NIOSH
 

chose the option of consistency with the two models.
 

But I think you're right on that. I think times
 

I've thought about this, it's bothered me, as well. 

And trying to get to these things as time permits,
 

there are a number of issues that should be examined
 

and reconsidered. This whole time since exposure
 

issue in general, a lot of public comments and
 

expert comment on that, the need to incorporate
 

newer studies of nuclear workers and not rely solely
 

on the Japanese cohort, and all those things need to
 

be looked at. Again, when and if we have time to do
 

that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any further questions or
 

comments?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Can we go to the public?
 

MR. SILVER: May I? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, please. 

MR. SILVER: Ken Silver. I've committed a 

few risk assessments in my time and when those
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99 

curves were presented I didn't see a graphical
 

depiction of the uncertainty around each curve. 

What's your insight or intuition about had
 

confidence intervals been drawn around the two
 

curves, would they be distinguishable?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Well, yes. For one thing, on
 

the current model there is no uncertainty factored
 

into it, and the current latency adjustment has no
 

uncertainty. The proposed model introduces a new
 

uncertainty distribution to be sampled in the IREP
 

calculations. I don't have a curve showing that
 

uncertainty, but for leukemia it would be 30 -- plus
 

or minus 33 percent around the mid-point, which was
 

I think three years. And thyroid cancer, plus or
 

minus 40 percent around the mid-point.
 

I think the more important point, though, is
 

that even after factoring in that uncertainty,
 

comparing the two models, the key issue is what is
 

the probability of causation at the 99th percentile. 

And that's why I point out at that two, three and
 

four-year intervals.
 

MR. SILVER: On the public policy side, one
 

of the lead sponsors of this legislation, Senator
 

Bingaman, has a very nice way of explaining the
 

legislative intent when he meets with people around
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100 

here, and he refers to the use of a generous error
 

bar. So if you take that as the guiding principle,
 

one could go back to your two spreadsheets with
 

selected red numbers and fold them into one
 

composite spreadsheet of all red numbers using
 

plaintiff-friendly assumptions for the probability
 

of causation at each latency interval.
 

MR. HENSHAW: I'm not sure if I --

MR. SILVER: You gave us a graphical
 

depiction of the probability of causation under the
 

current and proposed latency functions. Right?
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes.
 

MR. SILVER: And you highlighted the
 

plaintiff-friendly probability of causations in red.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Oh, on the table, right.
 

MR. SILVER: Yes.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yes.
 

MR. SILVER: So given the guiding public
 

policy rationale for this is use of a, quote,
 

generous error bar, one could create a third table
 

which is --

MR. HENSHAW: Taking the higher values, the
 

red numbers?
 

MR. SILVER: Yeah, so I would label that
 

option 1(b) and want to look further into how 1(b)
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101 

compares to two in terms of how generous it is
 

towards the plaintiff -- or claimants, I'm sorry.
 

MR. HENSHAW: Yeah, just a couple of
 

comments, though. I think -- that's sort of how I'm
 

thinking of option two now, which is (inaudible). 

But also bear in mind that that hypothetical claim
 

was one set of inputs. There are an infinite number
 

of inputs that would result in different values at
 

each time since exposure for each of the two
 

different models. I did not choose this set of
 

inputs for any particular reason. There was no predetermined goal that we hoped to achieve or anything
 

like that. It's just one set of inputs. Running it
 

on others, you know, could produce something
 

slightly different.
 

MR. SILVER: Thank you.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think what Ken has brought
 

up is really the crux of the problem here, and I'd
 

like to go on record to say that we certainly agree
 

with Senator Bingaman in his take on what the
 

Congressional intent was here. And it's been our
 

intent, as well, that we use science to the fullest
 

advantage that we can in this program. And when
 

that fails us, decision has always been to be
 

claimant-favorable, and that's what we're going to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102 

continue to do.
 

MR. HENSHAW: If I could just follow up on
 

that for a second, mentioned that we're looking at
 

newer studies and we're considering adjusting these
 

models as time goes on. Now that's a dual-edged
 

sword, as well. It may -- very possible we could
 

look at some of this new data and it could be
 

significantly less claimant-friendly if we
 

incorporated that. We'll have some policy decisions
 

to make at that point in time, should that develop.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Russ. I
 

think that's all the questions we have today.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: One quick question.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to limit questions
 

from the audience. If you have comments during the
 

public comment period, we can do that. Normally we
 

don't have public input till then, anyway, so we're
 

behind schedule so we're going to move ahead on the
 

agenda.
 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES
 

The next session is the Board working
 

session. We're going to begin with the minutes of
 

the sixth meeting. We now have had a chance to read
 

those. What I'm looking for are substantive changes
 

as opposed to grammatical and minor changes, which
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

103 

you can submit individually in a marked-up copy.
 

Let me ask if any of the Board members have
 

substantive changes to the minutes of the sixth
 

meeting, which is the August 14th or 15th meeting.
 

Yes, Mike.
 

MR. GIBSON: The one comment I would have is
 

I was on the conference call and I think it's
 

mentioned that there was two potential new
 

appointees that were on the call, and I was just
 

mentioned as a member of the public, I believe.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Where is that on the -- can you
 

give us a page number for that?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: The seventh meeting, page 

two. 

UNIDENTIFIED: The August 27th meeting. 

DR. ZIEMER: We're still on the August 14th 

--

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
 

DR. ZIEMER: We'll come back to that, Mike,
 

if you would, in just a moment. On the August 14th
 

and 15th meeting, any substantive changes?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: There are none? I'd like to
 

ask for clarification on page four. The SEC work
 

group identifies only three people -- page four of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

104 

the -- regular four. Henry, weren't you involved in
 

that?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so we need to add your
 

name to that, and I was involved, as well, so we'll
 

add our two names to that work group.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Again, I just -- one -- on the
 

executive summary of the meeting -- I'm sorry, page
 

five of seven, and that's as far as I was able to
 

review, actually, but the -- on the very top of the
 

page, the first bullet talks about the blind
 

reviews, and it says in which the review will
 

proceed from the IREP data. It's actually from the
 

raw data, without the IREP input file established by
 

NIOSH. That was the intent of the --

DR. ZIEMER: So your suggested correction is
 

to replace the IREP with raw?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Raw data, and then add on
 

possibly -- well, I guess that -- that suffices, I
 

guess, just raw data, you know. They don't have the
 

input file to IREP.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to that change?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: No.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other changes?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry, can we go back to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105 

that? I didn't understand clearly what you're doing
 

there. It's on the first bullet --

MR. GRIFFON: First bullet, yeah, the --

MR. ELLIOTT: Blind category in which the
 

review will proceed from the -- I think what you're
 

talking about, though, is not the IREP data, you're
 

talking about the raw case file information.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, raw case file
 

information. Right, I wanted to delete IREP.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: You're not going to have IREP.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, delete IREP and replace
 

raw case --

DR. ZIEMER: So we call it raw case --

MR. GRIFFON: -- raw case --

DR. ZIEMER: -- file --

MR. GRIFFON: That's right, raw case file
 

data.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: That's agreeable.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other changes?
 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Leon.
 

MR. OWENS: On page 15 under public comment,
 

Mr. Bruce Lawson, seventh line down, the sentence
 

begins with Mr. Tudor.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

MR. OWENS: I'd like for the record to
 

reflect Mr. Lawson there. I think that needs to be
 

changed 'cause that's --

DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Lawson now works --

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Without objection,
 

we'll make that change. Any others?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Then I'll ask for a motion to
 

approve the minutes with those changes and with the
 

caveat that minor grammatical changes can be
 

submitted individually to the recorder.
 

DR. ANDERSON: I'll make that.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Second.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion's been made and it's
 

seconded. Further discussion, all in favor say aye?
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: All opposed, no?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Abstentions?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you. 

Then we move to the minutes of the conference call,
 

which was on August 22nd. Are there any additions
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107 

or corrections to the minutes of the conference
 

call?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think -- I appreciate Mike
 

coming up with this error that he found here. It
 

should read Mr. Mike Gibson and Mr. Leon Owens, new
 

ABRWH members approved by the White House, and then
 

we should move Mr. Frank Morales down to members of
 

the public, right below that. And his affiliation
 

is GAP. See what I'm saying?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable then?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Without objection, we'll make
 

that change.
 

Any other corrections? I'm going to suggest
 

one change on page five where it's headed Attachment
 

2. It says Dr. Andrade, who had to leave the
 

conference early, voted in favor. I think
 

procedurally Dr. Andrade could not have voted since
 

the motion was not before us at the time. I'm going
 

to suggest that we simply word that voiced his
 

support for the attachment.
 

DR. ANDERSON: That's what it -- it's
 

already been changed.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so they've already --

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108 

DR. ZIEMER: It sounds like you have the
 

copy that I already marked up. This is the one that
 

came from the restaurant in Omaha, by the way, so --

DR. ANDERSON: You can see the mustard
 

stains.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, the original copy
 

said that he voted, so you didn't know that.
 

DR. ANDERSON: No, I didn't know that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I shouldn't have told you. Are
 

there any other corrections then? I won't raise any
 

of mine; they're already in there. Henry?
 

DR. ANDERSON: In attachment one, is this
 

supposed to have been the final or just the draft?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, where are you?
 

DR. ANDERSON: On page seven we have DOE
 

number -- a bunch of question marks. I assume we
 

didn't send it that way. This is just the draft?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, this may have been
 

confusing. What you have attached are not the final
 

versions. If you looked at the final version, the
 

things that were sent to the Secretary, they are not
 

these. These are the things that we were working
 

with at the time of the conference call. Is that
 

clear to everybody? These do not constitute the
 

recommendations to the Secretary in their final
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

109 

form.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: They're so mentioned in the
 

text of the minutes that way, attachment 1 is.
 

DR. ZIEMER: But for your own benefit -- and
 

maybe we should identify that, report attachment one
 

draft letter to the Secretary. Shall we do that?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, that would be --

UNIDENTIFIED: -- a good idea.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And likewise, attachment two is
 

draft transmission letter, and attachment three is
 

draft rule comment attachment. Is that agreeable
 

with everyone?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause those were at the time
 

the drafts we worked with, but not the final copies.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: I didn't think so.
 

DR. ZIEMER: In fact, I started to mark
 

those up, thinking they were wrong and they were
 

what we had --

MR. GRIFFON: Attachment three?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: There are only two
 

attachments.
 

DR. MELIUS: We never got an attachment
 

three.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

110 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I don't know. Where
 

did I put attachment three?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: It was the menu from the
 

restaurant.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I have something called report
 

attachment three.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Attachment three is the --

DR. ZIEMER: Report attachment three, rule
 

comment attachments.
 

MS. MUNN: Well, it was on the web.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It was page nine of what I
 

originally downloaded, but it may have --

UNIDENTIFIED: It just didn't get copied
 

into our books.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Do you have the general
 

comments and specific comments on the rule?
 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I got them off the web.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It's starts with a paragraph
 

called non-SEC cancers?
 

MS. MUNN: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it just has a different
 

title on it then. What's at the very top of it?
 

MS. MUNN: Report attachment number three.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Exactly, that's what I'm
 

saying, report --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111 

MR. GRIFFON: But it's not with this
 

package. She got it off the web --

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. There is attachment
 

three and it will say draft rule comment
 

attachments. It's the document we worked with at
 

the --

DR. ANDERSON: Is it referenced in the text? 

I don't see...
 

MR. GRIFFON: I didn't see it referenced.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, you see report attachment
 

two was the cover letter, and then attached to the
 

cover letter were the comments. These --

DR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So these are the comments in
 

draft form which are attachment three.
 

DR. ANDERSON: I got it, okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Some of you have them if you
 

downloaded them from your e-mail. They apparently
 

didn't get into the final copy here. Everybody
 

understand?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You do have a copy of them from
 

earlier before, so -- I mean that's what we had, so
 

we're not asking you to change that because that's
 

what we had.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112 

Okay. Are there any other corrections?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion to approve these minutes
 

with those minor changes and with the caveat that
 

grammatical changes can be submitted?
 

DR. MELIUS: I so move.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: And second.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It's moved and seconded. 

Further discussion?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Then all in favor of approval
 

of those minutes say aye.
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Opposed say no.
 

(No negative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Ayes above the noes, as they
 

say. Oh, I didn't ask for abstentions.
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: No abstentions. 

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now I think, Mark, we
 

need to -- you're not ready for us to move to your -

- Okay. Jim, you had an idea you wanted to raise
 

during the working --

MR. GRIFFON: I think that should go first,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113 

anyway.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I just thought we should
 

discuss the -- make some recommendations on conflict
 

of interest procedures regarding the ORAU contract,
 

and particularly the issue of how will the claimants
 

be informed about the people that are working on
 

their dose -- the contractor personnel who are
 

working on their dose reconstruction. So what -- I
 

don't know if Cori had time to -- or able to obtain
 

-- there was some documentation that was available
 

on the web site that we had talked about might
 

facilitate the discussion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's take a five-minute
 

comfort break while they get that.
 

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
 

DR. ZIEMER: The document associated with
 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities and conflict of
 

interest has been distributed. Does everyone on the
 

Board have a copy of that material? It should be at
 

your seats.
 

Okay, Jim, are you ready to proceed with
 

your questions here and your comments?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. And Larry or Jim Neton,
 

whoever, can correct me if I'm -- don't understand. 

My understand--
1

2

3

4

5

6 --

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

114 

DR. ZIEMER: And also before you begin,
 

might I ask, is Richard Toohey still here? Rich,
 

could you sort of be on deck in case there was
 

specific questions concerning ORAU that we might
 

need to ask you about, too. Is that agreeable with
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

DR. ZIEMER: So if you'd kind of be on deck. 

Okay. 

DR. MELIUS: And I guess my question -- my 

understanding was that the document we passed out
 

was sort of Oak Ridge's proposal or their proposed
 

policy for dealing with conflict of interest, and as
 

Jim Neton was presenting it, it's sort of up to
 

NIOSH to adopt this -- or implement this as part of
 

this program, along with whatever additional
 

restrictions or whatever that NIOSH would place on
 

this. And what I thought it would be -- and so when
 

Jim Neton was making his presentation yesterday
 

there were some sort of open items still where
 

particular issues hadn't quite been decided how they
 

would be implemented. And I guess what I was trying
 

to get at is as a Board we should -- maybe now's the
 

appropriate and best time for us to make
 

recommendations to how we would recommend that these
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

115 

situations be handled, these particular instances be
 

handled, and then NIOSH can go ahead and do the
 

appropriate implementation from there. At the
 

meeting yesterday we had initially discussed sort of
 

reviewing it after the fact, but that's going to be
 

between meetings and I think this may just be a
 

better way of going --

DR. ZIEMER: So the suggestion then is to
 

take -- I think you could characterize this as Oak
 

Ridge Associated Universities' proposed -- this came
 

out of their proposal, would be my understanding --

proposed policy that -- and -- this is the plan and
 

this is now available for the Board to --

DR. MELIUS: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- review and react to and
 

raise questions on and --

DR. MELIUS: And actually --

DR. ZIEMER: -- voice any concerns.
 

DR. MELIUS: And actually Jim Neton
 

presented most of this.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I presented some of it. I
 

didn't present the entire plan, but I did present
 

the -- I think there's nine bullets under section B
 

of that plan that talks about to avoid potential --

on the bottom of page 3, to avoid potential or
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

116 

actual perceived conflict of interest -- I went over
 

those three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine
 

bullets and really the only two of those bullets
 

that I indicated there was some wiggle room, if I
 

could use that word, the last two items which
 

specifically address the transparency issue. And
 

those were whether we were going to actually in
 

total incorporate the forms that the contractor
 

employees filled out on the web as electronic images
 

or we would have some substantial similar basis of
 

those forms on there. We were somewhat concerned
 

about having signatures and those sort of things on
 

the web site.
 

And I believe in the last one we talked
 

about providing biographical sketches of the dose
 

reconstructor at the time the dose reconstruction
 

was issued, and we felt that there may be a better
 

time to do that, which would be at the time the dose
 

reconstructor was assigned. And also whether that
 

-- it would be more appropriate to be a biographical
 

sketch or some other CV or bulletized listing of
 

their employment history or something to that
 

effect.
 

I think those were the two issues that I was
 

talking about that I allowed some wiggle room on,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

117 

and correct me if I'm wrong.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: If I can speak, I think you're
 

right, Jim, but I would also add that this is the
 

plan and I think both ORAU and NIOSH would welcome
 

any advice that the Board has, any recommendations
 

that you have about the entire plan, not only just
 

those two remaining unattended issues at this point
 

in time. We want your input into those, but
 

anything else that you see here, I'm sure ORAU --

the ORAU team would appreciate that, and I know we
 

would.
 

DR. NETON: The entire conflict of interest
 

plan is subject to some negotiation. It is not --

even though the proposal has been incorporated into
 

the contract, the NIOSH contract, I believe the
 

state conflict of interest plan was part of the
 

business proposal, so it would not require a
 

contract modification to alter any of these elements
 

at this time.
 

DR. MELIUS: And I guess what I'd like to
 

initially focus on is the transparency issue and it
 

would be -- I guess to start the discussion off, it
 

would be -- my recommendation would be that this
 

attached form or some equivalent to it, which is the
 

last page of proposal, that type of information be
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

118 

-- one made available to each claimant once a person
 

from the contractor is assigned. And that a --

DR. ZIEMER: At the front end?
 

DR. MELIUS: At the front end, that that be
 

provided to them, that this is your person that you
 

-- has been assigned to your -- do your dose
 

reconstruction and this is the background of this --

of that person. Now whether -- wanted to add some
 

additional educational information I think might be
 

helpful. I mean it's nice to know what the
 

background of the person is, but this has been the
 

-- their previous jobs. Along with some statement
 

that if you have some concerns -- if you as the
 

claimant has some concerns about any potential
 

conflict of interest or bias on the part of this
 

person, please contact the NIOSH person who has been
 

assigned to monitor your case.
 

DR. ZIEMER: At this point this is kind of a 

suggestion? 

DR. MELIUS: Suggestion, yeah. 

DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily a formal 

motion, but I think, Jim, you're asking for some
 

reaction from the rest of the Board --

DR. MELIUS: Correct, yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- members. Do you generally
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119 

agree with this kind of an approach?
 

DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily the details of
 

the form --

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- but the concept, where the
 

thing provided to the applicant or the supplicant
 

would be the -- not only the disclosure information
 

on potential conflicts of interest, perhaps some
 

additional biographical information --

DR. MELIUS: Correct. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- and qualifications. Is 

that --

DR. MELIUS: Correct, yes. 

DR. ZIEMER: -- correct? And was there --

DR. MELIUS: That was it. 

DR. ZIEMER: That was it. 

DR. MELIUS: Along with a statement saying 

that if you have --

DR. ZIEMER: Have concerns --

DR. MELIUS: -- concerns or whatever that --

DR. ZIEMER: -- (inaudible) -- yeah. Okay. 

Now just react to that, pro or con.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I would support that. 

I think it's much better as part of a kind of an
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120 

administrative process to identify who the person
 

is, let the claimant know about the conflict of
 

interest statement, information about that person,
 

offer them the opportunity if they have concerns to
 

voice them, rather than to wait potentially till
 

after it's all done and then the person is unhappy
 

and so then they raise issues that they didn't think
 

of early on, so I think it would be better to do it
 

right up front with the claimant.
 

MR. PRESLEY: One thing I would comment on
 

is the biographical sketch on the person doing the
 

work. Make that within reason. Sometimes you see
 

these things and they're four or five pages long,
 

and they can be more misleading than they can be
 

good on some of these people.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Your suggestion is that a nice
 

concise biographical sketch, just --

MR. PRESLEY: A one-pager.
 

DR. ZIEMER: A one-pager. Thank you. Other
 

comments? Wanda's next.
 

MS. MUNN: I would prefer to see not even a
 

one-page. I would like to see an eleven-inch by
 

eight-inch -- an ordinary page cut in thirds.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I don't want this to be overly
 

descriptive, but --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121 

MS. MUNN: No, no --

DR. ZIEMER: -- I think the idea is to keep
 

it short --

MS. MUNN: But the reason --

DR. ZIEMER: -- but to cover it, yeah.
 

MS. MUNN: The reason I say that is very
 

simple. Every additional page that you send to
 

folks weighs them down. Nobody wants to get any
 

more paper than they absolutely have to have. And
 

on a third of a standard sheet, you can put an
 

individual's name, their very abbreviated CV and
 

perhaps specific projects with which they have been
 

involved, and a contact -- as Jim said, if you don't
 

like this, contact this person at NIOSH. That can
 

be done very simply and as an insert to what goes,
 

rather than a page that becomes a part of a document
 

that they have to deal with. In my personal view, I
 

would much prefer to get something of that sort I
 

could pick up and read -- ah, this is the person
 

who's doing this, set it aside somewhere else -- by
 

my phone, if I wanted to.
 

DR. NETON: Could I make a quick comment in
 

response to that? I'm a little concerned -- with
 

these biographical sketches, I just want to point
 

out I think what we're trying to do here is to point
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

122 

out employment histories that would be involved and
 

perceived conflict of interest. I'm concerned that
 

if we start fleshing out detailed biographical
 

sketches, claimants will start shopping around for
 

qualifications to do dose reconstructions. And I
 

think as Larry indicated yesterday, that is really
 

not an issue here. If they're -- we have deemed
 

them qualified by the contract and what the
 

specifications of the contract were, so I think -- I
 

think it should be limited really to the
 

biographical sketch that is relevant to conflict of
 

interest issues. That's -- at least my opinion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Jim, as I
 

understand what you're saying, then you would only
 

include that part of their employment record that
 

was pertinent to establishing the issue of conflict
 

of interest, or lack thereof --

DR. NETON: I think that's --

DR. ZIEMER: -- and not every job or every
 

degree or every --

DR. NETON: Right. I mean I could see
 

someone saying I want someone with a Ph.D. to do my
 

dose reconstruction because they're more qualified
 

or something like that, and I don't think that
 

really should be an issue --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

123 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

DR. NETON: -- in these cases.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments from Board
 

members, pro or con? What I'd like to see here,
 

unless the Board wants to do this differently, is
 

get a sort of a sense of the Board for the benefit
 

of the staff and for the benefit of ORAU. You may
 

want to make a formal motion, but otherwise the
 

sense of the Board may be all we need at the moment. 

And the sense of the Board requires that we have
 

more than one comment, otherwise it's the non-sense
 

of the Board.
 

MS. MUNN: I do, however, feel very strongly
 

with respect to something someone said earlier. No
 

one's signature, Social Security number, home
 

address or names of people -- members of family
 

should ever appear on anything --

DR. ZIEMER: And that would not be needed, I
 

don't believe. Is that correct, Jim?
 

MS. MUNN: No.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That's not needed. Right? 

Thank you. Mark?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess I'm just -- I'm
 

trying to see both sides of this on putting out the
 

work histories of the dose reconstructioners --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

124 

reconstructionists. My feeling -- the other -- the
 

other -- flip side, I guess, potentially here is
 

that if you put out a brief bio sketch only covering
 

the conflict of interest areas, I know in this day
 

and age it's very easy to do internet searches and
 

they can -- they can start to piece together things
 

and have more questions than answers. And I'm
 

wondering if it makes more sense just to be -- have
 

an open book approach at the front end. I didn't
 

consider this whole shopping around question, but --

you know, as I understand that comment, but I can
 

just see people, you know, go get the name -- if you
 

only give them a little bit, they can -- they can do
 

internet searches and say wait a second, they didn't
 

even tell me they were involved in this project and
 

this project. You know, this -- this isn't very
 

open -- isn't a very open process, so I guess that
 

-- that's another concern I would have. I'm --

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Further comments? 

Yes, Henry?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Kind of in between you could
 

have what is the basic description, a statement
 

about conflict of interest and that it's been
 

reviewed and these people have been vetted and we
 

don't believe there is, but here's some information. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

125 

If you'd like a more detailed history about the
 

individual, contact your contact person to get a --

rather than have, you know, a long, involved CV. 

And if people wanted to have more detail, they could
 

obtain it if they want it but it would not be
 

something that's sent out routinely to everybody. 

But I think clearly we need to have who that person
 

is identified up front, something about them, so --

and a statement that, you know, conflict of interest
 

has been reviewed and, you know, if it's a -- NIOSH
 

review has been done, as well, some understanding
 

that this person has been vetted, is assigned to
 

your case. No conflict was identified. However, if
 

you have concerns or if you'd like more information
 

about the individual, here's how you go about
 

getting it so that would avoid doing a internet
 

search and saying oh, this person belongs to such
 

and such association or a professional group and I'm
 

worried that that group is -- you know, so you --

DR. ZIEMER: You're suggesting a kind of
 

middle ground --

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- where you don't --

DR. ANDERSON: Most people don't care, but
 

if they really want information, they need to have a
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126 

mechanism, but not have it be for the whole world on
 

the internet or something like that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments?
 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes?
 

MR. OWENS: I agree with Dr. Melius. I
 

think it's also very important that -- that trust is
 

developed for the claimants, and we all know that
 

their issues relative to Oak Ridge Associated
 

Universities and their connections with the DOE. I
 

think that if we provide information up front, that
 

will in some small way establish somewhat trust
 

amongst the claimants in the entire process.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Richard.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: With what Mark and Henry are
 

saying on that, I absolutely agree. I think there
 

needs to be an open book. Maybe not everything put
 

up front, but in a way for the claimant to contact
 

the worker to get that open book, if need be.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mike, comment?
 

MR. GIBSON: I'm certainly not one to
 

question the integrity of any internal dosimeters or
 

anything else, but in a dose reconstruction,
 

typically it goes through a peer review by another
 

internal dosimetrist, so there could be someone who
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127 

sees -- knows that a particular internal dosimetrist
 

has done their case at the site, yet there may be
 

someone that's done a peer review assigned to do the
 

dose reconstruction for NIOSH, and how would that be
 

made --

DR. ZIEMER: I think that's a point we need
 

to hear from either Jim or Larry. You want to speak
 

to that issue?
 

DR. NETON: I think -- I'm not sure I quite
 

understood. One person did their dose
 

reconstruction at the site, is -- you were saying --

while they were employed there? If they were, they
 

would be prohibited from doing that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're asking about the primary
 

dose reconstructionist for NIOSH. Is that what
 

you're asking?
 

DR. MELIUS: There's other reviewers within
 

the contract. ORAU will have other people
 

supervising --

MR. GIBSON: I mean -- now there's been --

MJW's had a contract to do dose reconstruction, but
 

typically the ID who does the dose reconstruction,
 

their work is then done -- peer reviewed by another
 

internal dosimetrist, and so they could also have
 

potential conflict there if they're assigned to do
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

128 

the dose recon of --

DR. NETON: That's correct. I believe that
 

the supervisor was also identified in the dose
 

reconstruction report, of who actually was the
 

supervisor of the person that reviewed that dose
 

reconstruction. Now we did not propose -- or I
 

don't think we're discussing sending the
 

biographical sketch of the person who will
 

ultimately supervise or review the dose
 

reconstruction, but I guess that's an open-fordiscussion item.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: But the conflict of interest
 

plan does say that a reviewer of a dose
 

reconstructionist would not be conflicted, as well.
 

DR. NETON: That's correct.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: They would prevent that from
 

happening. But I think what I hear Mike asking for
 

is to make sure that the claimant knows who that
 

reviewer is up front -- I assume up front.
 

DR. NETON: Right.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: You wouldn't want to know at
 

the end of the process. That gets at what we heard
 

earlier.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah, that would require -- and
 

I guess that mechanism has not been worked out as to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129 

whether the super-- the reviewer would be identified
 

at the time the dose reconstruction was assigned,
 

but that certainly could be made the case. I mean
 

we really haven't --

MR. ELLIOTT: And then there would be --

DR. NETON: -- discussed that.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: -- a third reviewer that would
 

be a --

DR. NETON: The NIOSH staff.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: -- NIOSH person to -- you
 

know.
 

DR. NETON: So there are three people
 

involved in this process, at least.
 

DR. ZIEMER: There will even be cases where
 

the Board is reviewing some, but in all the cases
 

there will be, in a sense, a kind of certification
 

that there are no conflicts of interest. I mean
 

that will have to be true of anything that we review
 

as quality control, you know. And so where does
 

that stop? Certainly the primary reviewer, that
 

might be a pertinent point. You know, can you tell
 

the person up front or do you know up front who
 

that's going to be, and if you do, it would seem
 

there'd be no reason not to make that known.
 

DR. NETON: I suppose for transparency
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130 

issues one could include this type of information in
 

the letter that goes to the claimant at the time the
 

dose reconstructor was assigned, some brief summary
 

of what's in the conflict of interest plan itself
 

that discusses those issues, that the supervisor who
 

will be reviewing this is also one of the following
 

constraints and -- and indicating that the conflict
 

of interest plan does exist that one could read on
 

the web, or even -- you hate to include these things
 

because you send 8,000 of anything out, it becomes a
 

lot of paper. But something -- you know, or to
 

indicate that it is available and we'll provide a
 

copy upon request, those kind of things.
 

DR. MELIUS: I think as we found with the --

some of the comments yesterday about the
 

questionnaires, there's a lot of confusion, what is
 

expected from people, these -- in filling things out
 

in the process. And I think a good letter up front
 

-- I think Larry sort of outlined it. You know,
 

look, these people are qualified. We've chosen
 

qualified people. Yes, we have, you know, concerns
 

about conflict of interest. We think it's very --

you know, that people have gone through a process. 

There is a policy. The policy's being followed. 

However, we want to make sure you're comfortable and
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131 

for these reason we're providing you this additional
 

information about the person doing the dose
 

reconstruction, their primary supervisor/reviewer,
 

and that this -- you know, if you have any concerns
 

or questions about this information, you know, call
 

the NIOSH person that's been assigned to oversee
 

this case. And I think it could be straightforward. 

Then as an additional step, which I guess we can
 

discuss, what information ought to be available on
 

the web and then -- plus generally available 'cause
 

not everyone has web access, but people ought to
 

know that if they want to have a better
 

understanding of the -- for example, the conflict of
 

interest policy ought to be on there with some
 

explanation on how it's being implemented so people
 

can get that, or they can request it directly from
 

NIOSH. And I think that would -- I think that would
 

make sense.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? Roy?
 

DR. DEHART: I have a comment, but it's not
 

on the letter, per se, but on the document. Go
 

ahead to that?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

DR. DEHART: On page three there's a listing
 

of activities which must be revealed. I'm curious,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

132 

however, when I look at the fifth bullet, which
 

reads wherever and where an individual conducting
 

dose reconstruction for ORAU team has acted as an
 

expert witness on behalf of DOE or a DOE contractor. 

What is missing there is or plaintiff or claimant. 

I was wondering why that was omitted. There's two
 

sides to bias.
 

DR. TOOHEY: I can answer that. Basically
 

the COI plan we submitted was really based on a
 

letter that I believe Mr. Miller sent to Joe
 

Gilchrist a while ago for the government
 

accountability project outlining what they
 

considered the conflict of interest issues were. 

And that was taken right out of there. And I agree,
 

it's a one-way street from that point, acting on --

we would certainly not consider someone who had
 

acted on behalf of a plaintant (sic) to exhibit the
 

conflict of interest in the claimant-friendly sense
 

of doing a dose reconstruction. But again, we're
 

open to your suggestions.
 

DR. DEHART: I think in all fairness to both
 

sides, it would be appropriate to put that in there.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That's a view, and we don't
 

know whether that is a widely-held view or not, but
 

-- Gen Roessler.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

133 

DR. ROESSLER: I agree with that view. In
 

fact, I was going to bring it up. I think it needs
 

to be put in there because this is only one-sided.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Mark?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask, since Richard
 

Toohey made it clear that Richard Miller was the
 

author and he's right here, can I ask for an
 

explanation from Richard?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Richard, could you --

UNIDENTIFIED: Which Richard?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Richard Miller, I think, at
 

this point.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I know, he was anyway, so I
 

figured I'd bring him up.
 

MR. MILLER: The rationale associated with
 

looking at the defense posture of an expert is
 

rooted really in legislative history. The purpose
 

of the legislation was to overcome what had been
 

historically the government's posture to spare no
 

resources in defending claims. And the government
 

had -- and as well-disclosed in a number of discrete
 

cases and through Congress -- had made out I think a
 

pretty clear record about how -- the ways in which
 

the entire DOE system had been turned on its head to
 

fight these claims. And the entire intellectual
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134 

resources were deployed in defending these claims,
 

and millions would be spent on claims that would
 

settle for a fraction.
 

But the question was, in terms of who is
 

coming in and bringing a bias, if you're defending
 

the -- if the purpose of this is a remedial program,
 

as opposed to a program which was simply constructed
 

to weigh the equities on both sides, and this is not
 

a program -- that's why we have things like benefit
 

of the doubt that are sometimes given to claimants,
 

where you wouldn't do it perhaps in a dosimetry
 

program, but you will do it for purposes of dose
 

reconstruction. Here what we're -- we're not
 

dealing with an -- a court of equity. We're not
 

dealing with equitable balances. We're dealing with
 

a remedial circumstance.
 

So my concern I guess is is that at the
 

point at which you -- and I'll be up front, you
 

know. We had Rob Hager here yesterday who litigated
 

the Harding case, right, 15 years. Oak Ridge
 

Associated Universities was associated with
 

defending the litigation in that case. Donna
 

Kreigel* was brought in as an expert witness to
 

defend on the epidemiology. And so the question
 

becomes if you're going to look at a remedial
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135 

program as opposed to a balancing of equities, the
 

remedy is let's make sure that the people who have
 

spent their careers fighting this be out of the
 

room. And this notion somehow that we have to --

well, we should also add in those that might have
 

worked on the plaintiff's side and that they're
 

going to bring a bias to it. I mean I think that's
 

not -- that's not the risk in this program.
 

The risk in this program and the risk that
 

has to be guarded against is the risk that the same
 

institutional forces will continue to replicate
 

under the umbrella of this compensation program. 

That was -- that was the safeguard, at least from
 

our perspective, in offering that -- for whatever
 

it's worth.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that input. DR.
 

DEHART: Could I respond?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Roy?
 

DR. DEHART: I thought that the basis of
 

what we are doing is based on science. And when
 

science fails, we will move toward the position of
 

the employee, the worker, and not a litigative kind
 

of activity here.
 

MR. MILLER: I mean I think -- I think
 

you're -- I mean the hope was, Dr. DeHart -- the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136 

hope was that this could be a science-based program,
 

recognizing that all the science won't be there. 

That's why we're dealing with things like special
 

cohorts and so forth. That's why in fact we're
 

dealing at the 99 percent confidence interval
 

instead of dealing at the 50 percent confidence 

interval. Those were all efforts I think by
 

Congress to try to remedy what was wide uncertainty
 

in the science, wide uncertainty in what we know
 

about radiation epidemiology, wide un-- Right? I
 

mean there's tremendous uncertainties here and the
 

effort was to be remedial in these circumstances. I
 

mean -- so from that perspective, this is not simply
 

just a science-based program. It's a remedial
 

program.
 

You can read the preamble to the Executive
 

Order and the preamble to the legislation, clear --

make it very clear that this is remedial in
 

character, not a science-based program designed to
 

balance equities.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Gen? Thank
 

you.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I don't understand what the
 

objection would be to adding to the statement or
 

putting another bullet in there that would describe
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

137 

what Roy is suggesting. You know, a comparable
 

statement that would be kind of like the other side. 

It doesn't seem to me there should be any objection
 

to that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think that Richard Miller's
 

explanation was in fact addressed to that in the
 

sense that it appeared that things were heavily
 

weighted the other way and -- but nonetheless, it's
 

an issue that perhaps needs to be aired further. 

Henry?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I think there's a
 

couple of issues. One, you have to keep in mind
 

that there's a claimant out there and in that sense
 

it's a plaintiff, but it's a claimant filing and
 

what we're doing is trying to design a program to
 

convince that person that they're going to get a
 

fair shake. And to say, you know, if you were to
 

ask them would you like an expert who has been a
 

consultant to, you know, workers and other
 

attorneys, they would all say well, that's probably
 

a person that I'm going to have confidence is going
 

to give me a fair shake. So you know, I think part
 

of it -- you know, we have to keep in mind, this
 

isn't a letter going to DOE saying we want you to be
 

sure -- in that balancing, so I don't have a problem
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138 

with the way it's worded 'cause I think Richard said
 

it.
 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that there's
 

going to be -- you know, that it's sort of a moot
 

issue. I don't think there's many of those
 

individuals that are going to be out there that are
 

going to come into this program or on the list of 90
 

that they already have. So -- and I would assume
 

somebody will look at that. So you know, we can
 

argue about it, but I think in reality it probably
 

is not going to be an issue.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Just -- I'm thinking off the
 

top of my head here a bit, but it appears to me that
 

in the case of those who are mentioned here are
 

individuals who had all been tied in with the agency
 

that's involved here, and so the conflict of
 

interest is a little more obvious.
 

On the other side, the -- I assume these
 

would be individuals who were working on a
 

particular case and therefore were, in a sense,
 

representing an individual. And obviously if that
 

individual were being somehow considered for
 

recompense under this program, there would be a
 

clear conflict anyway. Whereas it's not so obvious
 

that if they somehow reconstructed a dose for
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

139 

somebody else, that the -- it's not clear to me that
 

the conflict is quite as obvious. That's my only
 

thought on it. The fact that they were opposing
 

DOE, let's -- if I can use it in those terms, it
 

seems to me -- at least theoretically -- does not
 

inherently mean that they are always biased against
 

DOE. Some might argue in practice that's not always
 

been the case, but I think at least conceptually
 

it's -- the two sides are not the same, is how it
 

appears to me. I'm open to other views on this.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Is it possible to be perceived
 

that a person who served on behalf of a plaintiff is
 

going to work harder on a dose reconstruction than
 

somebody who didn't? And does that then present a
 

perceived conflict of interest and is that an issue? 

Is that what's -- is that what's behind, you know,
 

maybe the basis of adding that language to this
 

section?
 

DR. DEHART: Well, certainly that's a
 

possibility, but that isn't the point. I was
 

looking for balance. The same question could be
 

asked of someone who had been a member -- a DOE
 

staff. Are they not going to be fair and objective?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Further comments pro or con on
 

this or any others? Wanda, thank you.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140 

MS. MUNN: It seems that rather than get
 

tangled up in additional language, the same end that
 

Roy suggests could be achieved by removing the
 

phrase "on behalf of DOE or a DOE contractor" and
 

just simply say "have worked as an expert witness
 

with respect to worker compensation claims or
 

lawsuits". Would that not serve the purpose?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: That's what Roy's proposing.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm going --

DR. TOOHEY: May I comment on that? I think
 

that might throw a lot of people out of our current
 

pool, including Dade Moeller, Sr. We specifically,
 

you know, went with the DOE in there because a
 

number of people have been involved in worker suits
 

against nuclear power plants or VA, whatever. I
 

myself, not in suits, but I did some testifying
 

before the Illinois Pollution Control Board on the
 

issue of the standard for radium in drinking water,
 

so...
 

MR. GRIFFON: And believe for MJW, as well,
 

I believe.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to suggest that we
 

continue this discussion after lunch. We do want to
 

allow time for public comment session. We are
 

approaching the noon hour. We have one individual
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141 

that has requested to speak prior to lunch and
 

that's Phillip Scofield, so without objection, I'd
 

like to go to the public comment period and ask
 

Phillip Scofield now to address the Board.
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you for this
 

opportunity to address the Board and thank you for
 

all coming here to Santa Fe. Primarily I would like
 

to address some issues with the IREP and the way it
 

is. I don't necessarily have all the answers, but I
 

do have some concerns.
 

Large-scale epidemiological studies of U.S.
 

Department of Energy workers have been underway
 

since 1960's. Despite the increasing availability
 

of information about long-term follow-up of badgemonitored nuclear workers, standard-setting bodies
 

continue to rely on life span studies of atomic bomb
 

survivors as a primary epidemiological basis for
 

making judgments about hazards of low level
 

radiation.
 

Additional, faith in the internal and
 

external validity of studies of A-bomb survivors has
 

influenced decisions about the design, analysis,
 

interpretation of many worker studies. A systematic
 

comparison of the LS* in worker studies in terms of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142 

population characteristics, types of radiation
 

exposures, selection factors and dosimetry errors
 

suggest that the priority be given to dose response
 

findings from the LS is no longer warranted. 

Evidence from worker studies suggests that excess
 

radiation-related cancer deaths occur at doses below
 

the current occupational limits.
 

Low dose effects have also been seen in
 

studies of childhood cancers in relation to fetal
 

irradiation. Dr. Charles Land, in talking about the
 

revision of the 1985 National Institute of Health
 

radiological tables, he even states that when
 

they're updating them from the BEIR III report to
 

the BEIR VII includes new data from the atomic bomb
 

survivor dosimetry study. The studies were then
 

used for studies applied to the U.S. population. 

There again is major differences in dosimetry. The
 

majority of the Japanese survivors had long-term --

I mean short-term very high exposures versus longterm chronic exposure.
 

Last, the other problems I've -- have with
 

the IREP is the way it's going to -- how they're
 

going to handle these problems and that is use of
 

site profiles for dose reconstruction. In many
 

areas, this is going to have tremendous headaches
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

143 

and it's going to be very questionable, at best. 

Just to give an example, you have some areas where a
 

person could be working in there. If you use their
 

co-workers' data, this person's on a different type
 

of project than they are, even though they save --

have the same room. One person's getting high
 

neutrons, one person's getting high gamma. Another
 

person's location means they are being exposed to
 

both, but they're only being monitored for one.
 

The Institute for Energy and Environmental
 

Research, IEER, was issued some papers in 1997 from
 

the Department of Energy. And it states from the
 

start of the nuclear age until 1989, radiation doses
 

from radioactive materials inhaled or ingested by
 

workers were not calculated or included in worker
 

dose records. This is revealed in a background
 

paper to the IEER.
 

Last, DOE has admitted the following
 

problems: External exposure data are often
 

incomplete or unreliable; raw dose data and
 

electronic versions of the data which are often used
 

by researchers or studies do not always agree. 

Third, in some cases worker dose records contain
 

entries stating the dose was zero, regardless of
 

what the actual dosimeter readings were. I myself
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144 

have this experience. Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Phillip, for those
 

comments. If you would just wait a moment, let me
 

ask if any of the Board members have questions for
 

Phillip.
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: It appears that they don't, and
 

your comments will be on the record.
 

It's now time for our lunch break. We
 

actually are a little behind schedule, but again we
 

-- well, no, we're on schedule. I have just 12:00
 

o'clock, so we will recess until 1:30.
 

(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
 

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION
 

DR. ZIEMER: Before we resume deliberations,
 

I'd like to remind all present, if you have not
 

already registered on the attendance roster -- Board
 

members and public and staff alike -- this is
 

registration for today. Yeah, I think we keep that
 

roster for both days, so remind you Board members,
 

even if you registered yesterday, you should sign
 

that roster today. Isn't that correct, Cori? Is
 

Cori here? Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. 

So all present should be sure to sign the roster for
 

today. That's everybody here present. Yeah, use
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

145 

the same name as you used yesterday.
 

The second point, again, if there are
 

members of the public who have comments to make
 

during the comment period later this afternoon, we
 

would appreciate having you sign up sometime in
 

advance so we have some idea of how many wish to
 

speak.
 

Now we are going to return to the
 

discussions that we were having concerning the
 

conflict of interest issues, and I want to make sure
 

that -- I'm sorry?
 

DR. DEHART: (Inaudible)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Not yet, Roy, just -- I want to
 

make sure Dick Toohey is on deck if we have
 

questions --

DR. TOOHEY: Right here.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Dick is here. Okay, thank you. 

And I actually don't remember exactly where we were
 

except that we were discussing matters -- concerns
 

-- we had been talking about the issue of -- that
 

Roy raised on bullet five, I think it was, and that
 

would have been where we were at the time that we
 

terminated that deliberation. So we can begin there
 

or with any other comments Board members wish to
 

make. So Roy, you're next.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146 

DR. DEHART: It appeared that there was an
 

interpretation that I was making a proposal, when in
 

fact I was asking a question, and I feel that
 

question was answered.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Gen?
 

DR. ROESSLER: And I think Dr. Toohey's
 

comment pointed out to me very vividly what the
 

disadvantages would be of going to that, and I don't
 

wish to pursue it any further. 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Tony, you have 

a comment? 

DR. ANDRADE: Not a comment. I'd actually 

like to propose a motion, and that is that we leave
 

the wording in the plan as is, and I think that
 

should -- well, actually that should comprise one
 

motion in its entirety, and I can come back to
 

another statement about a letter later.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Before I ask for a second to
 

the motion, it occurs to the Chair that without a
 

motion, nothing changes. So is a motion actually
 

needed to not do anything? Unless you would prefer,
 

Tony, to have the Board go on record in a more
 

formal way on that issue, and I'm certainly not
 

objecting to having a motion. I'm just pointing out
 

that a motion is not needed to leave things as they
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

147 

are.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Absolutely. I understand, and
 

perhaps I should have attached the other piece, and
 

that is that I would like to move to have this Board
 

recommend to NIOSH that a short form, a short letter
 

explaining potential -- or the fact -- well, a short
 

letter should be developed that would have three
 

pieces; one that addresses the individual that will
 

be dong the dose reconstruction, the supervisor --

identifying the supervisor of the person that will
 

be doing the dose reconstruction and also
 

identifying the fact that the entire dose
 

reconstruction will be again reviewed by NIOSH
 

staff. That's one piece.
 

Second piece would be to leave the form
 

statements essentially in there regarding projects. 

And the third piece, which is very important, is a
 

paragraph stating that this -- that these people who
 

will be doing the dose reconstruction have been
 

reviewed by the NIOSH representative, NIOSH point of
 

contact for that particular case, and that in this
 

manner they have been vetted and, to the best of
 

everybody's knowledge, has no conflict of interest. 

So that was the third and a longer portion of the
 

motion.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

148 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. This is a three-part
 

motion, and before I ask for a second I'm going to
 

allow that motion to dangle in the air for a moment
 

'cause the Chair is aware of another motion that one
 

member wishes to make and I would like -- and I
 

don't know the content of it except to -- I want to
 

ask Jim -- who has, during the lunch period, drafted
 

something -- to what extent what you have drafted
 

overlaps or is equivalent or is similar to what has
 

been proposed. I'm looking for consolidation of
 

things, if possible.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I think it overlaps,
 

especially with the one change I just made where it
 

didn't match up.
 

DR. ZIEMER: In fact, it's identical.
 

DR. MELIUS: In fact, it's almost -- in
 

fact, I -- and I think it captures some of this in
 

the wording and why don't I just state that and see
 

if we --

DR. ANDRADE: Great.
 

DR. ZIEMER: The other motion has not yet
 

been seconded. This is just as a point of
 

information, parliamentary-wise. Point of
 

information. We're going to learn about Jim's
 

thoughts. This is not part of the discussion.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149 

DR. MELIUS: It's a POI, point of
 

information. What I was thinking about -- my
 

thoughts are that the Board recommends NIOSH make
 

available to each claimant information about the
 

contract personnel doing their dose reconstruction
 

and the primary reviewer of that dose
 

reconstruction. This information should include a
 

brief summary of the educational and professional
 

qualifications of those individuals and their
 

previous DOE/contractor employment, as well as their
 

expert witness participation. Those come off of
 

what's on that form. This should be accompanied by
 

a letter from NIOSH outlining the procedures for
 

assigning the dose reconstruction personnel, and the
 

procedure, should the claimant be concerned about
 

the assignment of the dose reconstructionist and/or
 

primary reviewer.
 

The area where this -- my thoughts differ,
 

'cause it's an additional thought that we really
 

hadn't discussed too much, is NIOSH should also make
 

available on its web site and otherwise the -- and
 

in other ways the background information and
 

previous work history of all contract dose
 

reconstruction and reviewer personnel.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that information. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150 

And now the Chair will make a decision, which can be
 

challenged, and that is that everything up to this
 

last point is in essence contained in Tony's motion,
 

and in fact it could be taken as -- do you agree
 

that that's basically the same motion?
 

DR. ANDRADE: I do agree.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And so what I'm going to rule
 

is -- or ask you to hold the last part for -- and
 

have that be a separate motion. So now --

DR. NETON: I'd just -- excuse me --

DR. ZIEMER: We're not discussing the motion
 

yet. Is this a point of information?
 

DR. NETON: Point of clarification.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay.
 

DR. NETON: Dr. Melius indicated that the
 

letter would be issued by NIOSH. Is that the intent
 

or could the letter by issued by the contractor, as
 

well? At the point when we turn over the dose
 

reconstruction to the contractor, it was our intent
 

that ORAU would actually generate that letter. I
 

just wanted --

DR. ZIEMER: I think the intent is --

DR. MELIUS: The intent is -- yeah.
 

DR. NETON: Okay. Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It's the letter.
 
1

2

3

4

5 --

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Now let me ask for a second to
 

the Andrade motion which is --

DR. MELIUS: Why don't I second it and that
 

DR. ZIEMER: And you second it. And it's --

I'm unsure now of the exact wording, and probably
 

Tony is unsure of the exact wording, or do you have
 

something written down?
 

DR. ANDRADE: No, I didn't have anything
 

written down, but I think Dr. Melius --

DR. ZIEMER: The recorder has the wording --

DR. ANDRADE: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- and let me ask -- and there
 

really are three points, so the Chair now asks
 

whether the assembly wishes to vote on this motion
 

as a whole. Anyone can ask that it be divided into
 

pieces. That's -- and we can -- you may be
 

comfortable with two of the three pieces or
 

something like that and maybe we should -- is there
 

anyone that wishes to divide the motion? Is there
 

a --

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I have a comment. 

If I understood Tony initially, his motion was to --

for the Board to make a motion in support of the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

152 

language that is already included here. Was that
 

not part of the original motion?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: No.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Well, it was (inaudible) --

MR. OWENS: But I mean -- but -- but that
 

was a -- but was that not a motion that you made
 

initially?
 

DR. ANDRADE: It was.
 

MR. OWENS: Okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: But that was never seconded
 

and --

MR. ELLIOTT: We've agreed that it was not
 

necessary.
 

MR. OWENS: Okay. My understanding was that
 

that was included in the follow-up motion that he
 

made. That was my understanding.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is that the case?
 

DR. ANDRADE: No, because I was going to
 

make two -- Leon, no, because I had intended to make
 

two separate motions, one to leave the language as
 

is. However, I was reminded that by taking no
 

action, we need no motion. So therefore it followed
 

that the second motion that I made really only was
 

in regards to the information that was to be
 

provided to the claimant at the beginning of the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153 

dose reconstruction process.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Again, let me ask, is there
 

anyone that wishes the motion be divided? It
 

appears that no one does, so we're discussing the
 

full motion, all points. Who has discussion? 

Comments? Is there anyone that wishes to hear what
 

the motion is? I certainly hope not. I think we --

DR. MELIUS: It varies.
 

DR. ZIEMER: We basically have two versions
 

of it, but I think we've agreed that it's the same
 

motion. Now if -- did you detect any differences
 

there?
 

DR. MELIUS: No, once I -- the only reason I
 

wrote it down was I was afraid someone would ask me
 

to repeat it.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Leon has a question.
 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, prior to a vote, I
 

would like for the entire motion to be read in its
 

entirety, or as far as what we are going to vote on.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Actually there are two versions
 

of it. One is what Tony presented; one is what Jim
 

presented, which I interpret as being basically the
 

same motion. Do you defer to this wording or would
 

you like --

DR. ANDRADE: No, I would like to defer to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

154 

Dr. Melius' wording, given that --

DR. ZIEMER: As the official motion.
 

DR. ANDRADE: As the official motion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Then if you would
 

-- if you'll read that.
 

DR. MELIUS: Okay. The Board recommends
 

that NIOSH make available to each claimant
 

information about the person -- contract personnel
 

doing their dose reconstruction and the primary
 

reviewer of that dose reconstruction. This
 

information should include a brief summary of their
 

educational background -- excuse me, their
 

educational and professional qualifications and
 

their previous DOE/contractor employment, as well as
 

their expert witness participation. These should --

this information should be accompanied by a letter
 

from NIOSH or from the contractor outlining the
 

procedures for assigning the dose reconstructionist
 

and the procedures, should the claimant be concerned
 

about that assignment.
 

DR. ZIEMER: One more point of
 

clarification, then I'll get your comment, Wanda. 

Jim, this is a recommendation, as I understand it,
 

to the staff. This is not a recommendation to the
 

Secretary of Health and Human Services. Is that --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

155 

DR. MELIUS: Correct.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- correct? Wanda.
 

MS. MUNN: A friendly amendment. I would
 

like to add the word "brief" early on when you start
 

talking about qualifications.
 

DR. MELIUS: It's already there. I may have
 

missed it. It's -- for the -- information should
 

include a brief summary of.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote on this
 

recommendation? Okay, all in favor of the
 

recommendation, say aye.
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, say no.
 

(No negative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Carried. Thank you. Jim, it
 

would be appropriate now if you wanted to raise the
 

other issue.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Let me start general 

and --

DR. ZIEMER: Not issue, but the other 

comment.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

156 

DR. MELIUS: Comment. Is it would be my
 

preference that NIOSH also make similar information
 

available on all -- about all of the people involved
 

-- all the contract personnel involved in conducting
 

or reviewing dose reconstructions on its web site,
 

as well as otherwise available to the -- to the
 

claimants. Now whether that should also include
 

this ORAU's web site, I'm not exactly sure how
 

you're setting up your information, but just saying
 

that all this -- the information -- this similar
 

information just should be made generally available,
 

including on the web site.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you making this as a motion
 

or is this a trial balloon?
 

DR. MELIUS: I put out for discussion --

this is a trial balloon for discussion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Just an idea and you want some
 

reaction.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: How do members of the Board
 

feel? Richard?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: I agree with what Dr. Melius
 

is saying and I would like to make that into a
 

motion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So you so move his
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157 

words.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Uh-huh.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

DR. DEHART: I second. 

DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Now this is a 

formal motion open for discussion. Again, this
 

would be a recommendation to the staff. Wanda?
 

MS. MUNN: I guess my only real question
 

here -- when we address issues of this sort,
 

supposedly open this sunshine disinfectant -- is to
 

question in my own mind, and hopefully in your
 

minds, as well, whether this is one of those times
 

when we're making things available but it isn't
 

going to make any real difference to anyone. I
 

guess the real -- the real question remains in my
 

mind is whether anyone who has strong suspicions
 

about the validity of what's being performed is
 

going to be persuaded otherwise by this information
 

or not. And it may be a non-question. I'm not
 

challenging whether we should do this. It's just my
 

-- my instinct is that we probably ought to do this,
 

but I don't really think it'll make any difference.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That may really be a rhetorical
 

question and something for us to think about.
 

I want to ask a question, and now I'll
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

158 

direct this -- and maybe legal counsel could answer. 

Would a contractor or one of these 70 or 90 -- I
 

don't know if you call them contractors, but these
 

folks who are sort of on board to help, would they
 

have the right, if they so choose, to say I don't
 

want my name and resume out on the internet? Or
 

would that be made a requirement of their
 

participation? I'm just -- are we in a position to
 

say unilaterally people's information will be on the
 

internet?
 

MS. MUNN: To me, this is very much like
 

requiring an insurance company to give me the
 

information about the individuals who have performed
 

the actuarial data that determines my premium. As I
 

said, I'm not speaking in opposition here, I just
 

really question whether this is a valid thing for us
 

to be doing and whether it's necessary or whether
 

it's even appropriate.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I may have made the
 

mistake of asking a legal question, so while they're
 

pow-wowing here, Robert, do you have a comment?
 

MR. PRESLEY: Yes. My comment is I think
 

it's great. I'd like to see it done on the web and
 

not sent to each individual.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Correct, yeah.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

159 

MR. PRESLEY: If you have 90 people minimum
 

and so many supervisors, and we have over 15,000
 

claimants, can you imagine what the postage and
 

paper's going to be for that?
 

DR. ZIEMER: And the proposal is not to
 

distribute but to make available on the web.
 

DR. MELIUS: So now everyone has web access,
 

but if they don't and they want this information,
 

they could --

DR. ZIEMER: They can request it.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I also say, before we get a
 

long legal opinion here, that I think we're
 

providing a general sense of what to do. I think
 

there may be some constraints on it and -- I mean
 

that's something NIOSH can work --

DR. ZIEMER: We're not mandating if there's
 

a legal issue.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that NIOSH wants -- has
 

to work it out with their contractor, that's fine.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments?
 

DR. ANDRADE: Let's see, first of all I
 

guess I'd like to explore the possibility if we do
 

go forward with putting people's names on the web as
 

to whether it would be -- or perhaps legal will give 

us some advice here in a second, but perhaps it
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

160 

would be best to limit the amount of contact
 

information to perhaps a professional address, no
 

phone numbers -- nobody wants to be called.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- no, that --

DR. ZIEMER: Not suggesting phone numbers
 

and Social Security numbers and --

DR. ANDRADE: Exactly. And I wanted to
 

follow up on the statement that Larry made yesterday
 

that -- by all means, it is your prerogative, duty,
 

responsibility to assign the dose reconstructionist
 

to a case. I don't think it would be a bad thing to
 

have this information on who's out there doing these
 

sorts of things because if you have it clearly
 

stated somewhere -- okay? -- somewhere or this is
 

absolutely made clear to the public that they cannot
 

use this list to go shopping for their favorite
 

person, that you will be doing the assignments, then
 

I think it would be completely harmless to have this
 

information available.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think -- well, first of all,
 

I think we're still trying to get an answer to your
 

question. We've got a two-part answer coming
 

forward, I hope, on that.
 

Let me just make a clarification. Right now
 

the way we are set up to work with ORAU -- the ORAU
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

161 

team, we expect them to make the assignment of the
 

dose reconstructionist and the reviewer, the primary
 

reviewer, and we will provide oversight of that
 

process and make sure that we are satisfied that
 

they're tending to the conflict of interest plan as
 

it's presented and described, and all the -- any
 

subsequent processes or procedural controls that we
 

identify post -- you know, this -- today's meeting
 

need to be put into place. We reserve the right to
 

say we don't think that assignment is the right
 

assignment and we want to see you reassign. We also
 

will reserve the right to listen to the claimant and
 

say we're hearing what the claimant says and we want
 

you to make another assignment. And I have no
 

problem with us putting information on the web site,
 

ORAU's web site. We've just got to tend to what's
 

stipulated in the contract and what we need to do as
 

far as controlling for the Privacy Act aspect of
 

this. And that's what's going on behind me right 

now. They're talking that through. 

DR. MELIUS: Can I make one other --

DR. ZIEMER: Jim, please.
 

DR. MELIUS: I think when we were talking
 

about this and we were talking about NIOSH, we were
 

sort of talking about the broad NIOSH, that it's
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

162 

NIOSH and the contractor as one, and we're not
 

trying to get into a procedural issue of who exactly
 

does what or where it is, on who's web site and
 

stuff like that, and so forth. And I also think
 

that we're trying to say this as a practical matter. 

And I guess I could see a scenario where of that
 

pool of 70 great health physicists that ORAU has
 

hidden away out there that nobody else knows about,
 

that -- you know, if there's a person that's
 

unlikely to be assigned, but he's sort of a backup
 

and -- or she is that might use, you know -- that
 

that doesn't -- you know, that person wouldn't
 

necessarily be part of it. Would be some people
 

that are actively involved in the program and I
 

think you have to develop appropriate criteria for
 

that, as well as the type of information that you'd
 

make available on those people.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Then again, Jim had clarified
 

that the sense of his motion was that if there's
 

some legal barrier in a certain case that somebody
 

had some objection, we're not mandating it in that
 

sense. It's sort of the sense of the Board that if
 

this motion passes that the information generally
 

should be made available, to the extent legally
 

possible, on the web site. So we don't need to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

163 

determine what that is today. Gen has a -- did you
 

want to speak -- Toohey or...
 

DR. TOOHEY: Okay. Just a few general
 

comments. Having all this open and posted on the
 

web site was what we proposed, what we put in the
 

proposal, and it just says with -- if NIOSH concurs.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're speaking in favor of the 

motion then. 

DR. TOOHEY: We're prepared to do that. And 

their -- I think our general take on it, and with
 

our partners, is if somebody doesn't want to do dose
 

reconstructions under these conditions, then they
 

don't have to do dose reconstructions under these
 

conditions and that's the end of it.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And could you clarify, is
 

there 90 or is there 70 or --

DR. TOOHEY: Good question. I don't know. 

I'm trying to recall, what we submitted in the
 

proposal under the total listing of personnel
 

qualifications was 75 plus or minus five names, I
 

believe. Since the time we submitted the proposal
 

we've identified some other people, obviously, but
 

their names were not in there. So 90 right now has
 

-- it's a little better than a wag, but it does have
 

a confidence interval on it comparable to some of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

164 

the risk coefficients.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.
 

DR. TOOHEY: And let me comment on another
 

-- just one thing on that. We expect, and it was
 

part of the contract and the proposal, that number
 

to wax and wane as the demand comes in, so we would
 

expect a lot more people working during the first
 

year or so when we're clearing the backlog than
 

would represent a more steady state condition.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Well, while you're there,
 

could you speak to another concern that I feel might
 

be out there, that folks have this opinion or
 

understanding in their mind that ORAU is an M&O*
 

contractor or has some M&O responsibility for DOE. 

Could you react to that for the record?
 

DR. TOOHEY: Yes, we are not an M&O
 

contractor. In fact, someone mentioned yesterday we
 

were a major DOE contractor, and I suppose that
 

depends on what the name of major is, but I think
 

the total ORISE, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
 

Education, budget falls off the rounding error in
 

DOE's Oak Ridge operations office. The ORISE
 

contract, which is not an M&O contract, is a
 

collection of somewhat long-standing programs,
 

mostly for -- in the areas of science, education and
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

165 

emergency management for DOE. Total number of ORISE
 

employees is on the order of 500, about 150 of whom
 

are post-stocks*. There's only about 300 core
 

employees compared with a total of 15,000 or so
 

contractor employees in the Oak Ridge reservation. 

So it's actually a very small operation, one that
 

does come to that. And I think there's always a lot
 

of confusion, even in town, you know, what's the
 

difference between ORAU and ORISE? Well, ORAU is to
 

ORISE as University of California is to Los Alamos,
 

University of Chicago is to Argonne, et cetera, et
 

cetera, et cetera. It is a contractor operating
 

this entity. ORISE is not a laboratory. It is not
 

an FFRDC or any of these other criteria that you
 

associate with the normal M&O or M&I contract.
 

Last time Oak Ridge ops bid the ORAU
 

contract, I think they called it an O&M. Okay? 

Operations and management, but specifically to make
 

the point legally that it is not an M&O contract. 

And although we supply post-stock researchers for
 

Oak Ridge National Lab, we are in no way involved in
 

the M&O part of ORNL and -- and in fact, this is all
 

in the ORAU corporate disclosure statement, which is
 

also part of the COI plan.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I think Dr.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

166 

Roessler has a question.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I'm in favor of the motion
 

but I did want to point out one thing. With the web
 

site that I'm in charge of where we provide answers
 

to questions -- it's an ask-the-expert feature -- we
 

list only the name of the expert, sometimes their
 

affiliation. People get ahold of them, even if you
 

don't list contact points. They are able to reach
 

them, and so I think you just have to be prepared
 

for that. Some people are very good at getting the
 

contact information.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any further discussion on the
 

motion that's before us?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote? Appears
 

that we're ready to vote. All in favor of the
 

motion, say aye.
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: All opposed, no.
 

(No negative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Abstentions?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you. 

Now I think we may be ready to hear from the working
 

group on dose reconstruction. Mark?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

167 

MR. GRIFFON: Sure.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You want a break first?
 

MR. GRIFFON: You want to take a break?
 

DR. ZIEMER: No. No, we'll proceed.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. There were two handouts
 

that should have gone around to everyone, and I
 

believe they're available in the back of the room,
 

also. The one document isn't titled. At the top of
 

it it says Project Identification and Purpose. The
 

other one says Attachment A, Technical Evaluation
 

Criteria. The first -- the thicker document with
 

Project Identification and Purpose is what the
 

working group's been working on -- from yesterday we
 

talked about a scope of work for the independent
 

expert review, and this was sort of formulated into
 

-- potentially into an RFP here.
 

Just before this session I did talk to Jim
 

Neton and there may be other potential ways to -- to
 

put this into the public domain for potential bids. 

One thing that Jim Neton brought up was possible --

possibly releasing this on a task order basis, so we
 

can talk about that a little bit.
 

I think part of it -- and you'll see as we
 

go through this, part of it is that we do have some
 

concerns, especially on some items, of whether we
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

168 

can sufficiently define the scope of each task that
 

a bidder can sufficiently bid. And we do want to
 

expedite this process, so we're trying to balance
 

those two things of knowing what we want the expert
 

-- or the -- this review contractor to do versus a
 

timeliness of getting this out there and getting
 

them on board to begin to do their work.
 

So either way, I think if this were to be --

at least as a task order contract -- a task order
 

basis, I think we would still have these four
 

primary tasks which we're going to discuss, so I
 

think we should go through those and discuss those. 

They'll be relevant at some point, either way this
 

is released.
 

If you look on the first page, the -- B.1
 

through B.4 really are the four that I presented
 

yesterday, the four primary tasks. I review-- B.1
 

is review methods/procedures used by NIOSH and NIOSH
 

contractor in conducting the individual dose
 

reconstructions and the SEC petitions.
 

B.2, review of a percentage of individual
 

dose reconstructions completed by NIOSH OCAS.
 

B.3, review a selection of the site profiles
 

established by NIOSH OCAS for the sites covered
 

under the EEOICPA program.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

169 

And B.4, provide technical support to the
 

Advisory Board for review of the SEC petition
 

determinations.
 

So those are the four main tasks as
 

presented yesterday. This entire document, by the
 

way, may need a technical edit for things just sort
 

of like we just discussed, NIOSH instead of
 

contractor, things like that we certainly have not
 

cleaned up at this point, but...
 

The next page, C.1 through C.4 gives an
 

overview of the tasks, and section E gives a more
 

robust description of those four tasks. I could
 

probably move -- I think the main -- I thing we
 

could go to section E and talk about the scope
 

there. I don't know if people have even had a
 

chance to look through this, so if you want more
 

time to read through this and --

DR. ZIEMER: Well, you can lead us through
 

it, I think.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. In section E now, I'm
 

just going to move on to section E. Section C is
 

just a brief synopsis of sort of what's in section
 

E. Section E, the scope of work. E.1 is the review
 

of the dose reconstruction methods/procedures. And
 

you'll see the 1 through 6 items in that paragraph,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

170 

the first one, review the internal and external
 

radiation dose reconstruction technical basis
 

documents, and then these go on down to a fair
 

amount of detail on different types of procedures or
 

-- and/or methods that we would want reviewed. And
 

most of these, especially 2 through 6, I believe,
 

came out of the ORAU contract -- the NIOSH-ORAU
 

contract language. NIOSH tasked ORAU to do -- to
 

specifically look at many of these issues, so that's
 

where many of these came from. I don't know if I
 

need to read through those or -- I'll -- we can stop
 

for any point for questions, or how do we want to
 

work this?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's take questions as you go. 

Let me back you up just a moment 'cause I have a
 

point of clarification on the project objectives,
 

which are -- it's in section C, and I think your
 

intent is -- aligns with what I'm thinking about,
 

but this says the contractor will determine whether
 

the methodologies are consistent. The contractor
 

shall determine whether the assumptions -- the
 

burden is on the Board to make that determination. 

The contractor, in my view, assists us in making
 

that determination, so I would hope that it would be
 

very clear that this is -- the contractor is not
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 --

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171 

making the decision. You understand the difference? 

I think it's what you intend --

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think you might find
 

similar things throughout --

DR. ZIEMER: Right, so I'm suggesting that
 

wherever we've said something like that, it is in
 

the sense that the contractor will assist the Board
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- in making that determination
 

because it is our responsibility to make the --

MR. GRIFFON: Agreed, agreed. Okay, so
 

maybe we can just stop at E.1 -- it'd be easier for
 

me if we stopped at E.1 and if people wanted to
 

discuss -- I think part of -- part of the discussion
 

on maybe possibly releasing this as a -- on a task
 

order basis was just this, that the challenge in
 

E.1, for instance, was -- you know, we thought it
 

made a lot of sense for an initial review of
 

procedures/methods. However, we're kind of
 

operating in the dark because we don't know exactly
 

what the proced-- what procedures and methods are
 

out there 'cause things are just getting started. 

So we were a little afraid that we could not well
 

define this, you know, scope for some of these
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

172 

tasks. But given the -- I'll just open it up if
 

anybody has comments on that.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Your comment troubled me a
 

little bit because you said there -- we don't know
 

what methods are being used, but we do know what --

we have the implementation guides on the web site. 

Those are -- those are the rule on dose
 

reconstruction, and the two implementation guides
 

serve as the starting point for the methodology. 

And as we proceed -- and I'm sure Jim's going to --

he's already up, maybe he's going to speak to this,
 

as well, but any -- as we learn and as the
 

contractor -- as the ORAU team does dose
 

reconstructions and learns, with a specific dose
 

reconstruction, a new process or new way of doing it
 

or something that wasn't accounted for in the
 

implementation guide, we'll have a technical
 

bulletin. And those technical bulletins will become
 

also part of the process and the methodology and
 

incorporated into the administrative record for that
 

particular dose reconstruction.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay, but not -- not to -- I
 

mean there -- there's some things, not to use words
 

I've heard before, but case by case basis. I think
 

2 through 6, there are certain things there where
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

173 

your staff has already thought about certain ground
 

rules or certain assumptions or cert-- you know,
 

certain techniques they will use, so you know, I
 

understand that there may be revisions or technical
 

bulletins or, you know, amendments or modifications
 

to, you know -- but I didn't know if 2 -- I didn't
 

know if 1 through 6 here captured the -- 100 percent
 

of all procedures currently being used or being, you
 

know...
 

DR. NETON: I just have a couple of
 

comments. I think Larry captured the first portion
 

pretty well. I think these things are evolving and
 

that -- that does speak to what -- why this may end
 

up -- be better issued as a task order contract, and
 

I thought maybe for the benefit of the Board I might
 

explain how that process would work so that you
 

would better understand what we're talking about.
 

In a task order arrangement, what we would
 

issue would be a request for someone to bid on a --

essentially a statement of qualifica-- we would
 

provide a statement of qualifications of types of
 

labor categories that the Board is interested in
 

procuring. So for example, one could say the Board
 

needs in the following year the services of a senior
 

dosimetrist for X thousand man hours, a junior
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

174 

health physicist blah, blah, blah, and so those
 

labor categories would essentially be on the hook
 

during that contract period and available to provide
 

services to the Board. Once that contract -- and
 

those -- that contract -- or that would be evaluated
 

based on the qualifications of the personnel that
 

were proposed to meet that task order contract, as
 

well as the pricing for those labor categories. So
 

it's sort of a trade-off between the qualifications
 

and the pricing. Those would be the evaluation
 

criteria.
 

Once that contract is in place, then each of
 

these individual pieces that the working group has
 

assembled could be issued, either piecemeal or all
 

at once, to the contractor and you could say here is
 

the following statement of work that I want you to
 

address with those labor resources that you proposed
 

to use. So I think it's a very good way, since this
 

is not very well fleshed out and changing, to
 

accomplish this.
 

MR. GRIFFON: And it sounded very good. One
 

thing that I mentioned to Jim before we reconvened
 

here was -- one angle that we're not getting in
 

there, which -- or I don't know if we can or cannot,
 

it's an open -- I guess it's a question to consider
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

175 

is the conflict of interest angle, which -- you
 

know.
 

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think we could cover it. 

I think somehow in there with the qualifications and
 

plan that the task order contractors should have a
 

plan in place to cover those contingencies, that
 

sort of thing.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions then on
 

E.1. We're still on E.1, I think. Right?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And aside from the details on
 

the wording, you're really asking have you covered
 

the things.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: We ourselves don't yet know
 

what it means to review their procedures. That is,
 

we have to develop a procedure for reviewing. I
 

mean we've talked about this in the past. Do we
 

have some kind of a checklist that says they have
 

followed their guides, have they used the right
 

information, whatever it is. But we have to have
 

ourselves a procedure that's -- that we say yes,
 

this is how we're going to do the review.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, and we had some
 

discussion on that. We just -- you know, we -- I
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

176 

guess it was sort of part of the challenge of to
 

find the scope, too, was the depth or -- the depth
 

of review --

DR. ZIEMER: Right.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- could change the magnitude
 

of this project drastically, so --

DR. ZIEMER: And in fact that might even
 

evolve as you gain experience.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. Larry looks like he's
 

waiting to make a comment on that.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: The comment I've been thinking
 

about is one I mentioned to you earlier. I'm
 

struggling in my own mind to understand how E.1 and
 

I guess E -- what is the other one here I'm thinking
 

about -- E.3 are not covered in E.2. I mean as you
 

have your technical consultant review an individual
 

dose reconstruction, you would have them review the
 

methodology used at that particular point in time
 

for that dose reconstruction, as well as whatever
 

the site profile was -- you know, as it existed at
 

that time. So wouldn't that -- wouldn't E.1 and E.3
 

be covered in the process of doing E.2?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, just -- I mean my notion
 

in this, and other group members can certainly chime
 

in, but my notion was that E.1 is sort of -- is an
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

177 

initial task, and part of the reasoning there is
 

that if you just incorporated it into E.2, you may
 

come -- you may come across a situation where your
 

auditor, you know, has drastically different
 

opinions on 20 cases and it's because they have a
 

drastically different view of a certain -- you know,
 

a certain technique that was used. And to the
 

extent that those can be flushed out early on, I
 

thought it would behoove the whole process that we
 

have one up-front review and then, you know, the
 

auditor can say to ORAU yes, we agree that this
 

meets the requirements in 82 CFR, you know, or --

you know, and then you could have possibly even a
 

hitter* in the process where that ORAU may make
 

revisions or NIOSH may make revisions on that.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Well, that is helpful. So
 

E.1, as you see it, as the working group has
 

discussed it and sees it, is initial one-time review
 

effort to establish for the Board are the
 

methodologies that we've put in place correct. I
 

mean of course down the road five, six, ten years,
 

the Board might say hey, we need another look --

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: -- at the methodology being
 

used since it's evolved over time.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

178 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

MR. ELLIOTT: And I understand that. That 

helps. 

MR. GRIFFON: That's the way -- that's the 

way I see it. And I guess if in the other -- in
 

E.2, as you did individual cases, then you may find
 

out that certain bulletins have come out to -- or,
 

you know, procedure three may be 3.10 by then, so
 

you would -- would certainly include in your
 

individual case review the relevant procedure at
 

that time. But that one clean slate sort of up
 

front review of the procedures and methods so that
 

everyone is on the same sheet of music. That was
 

the intention.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Understood. Is E.3 under that
 

same context?
 

MR. GRIFFON: E.3 is under a similar -- the
 

only -- the only con-- the only problem I had,
 

again, with the scope here for E.3 -- I guess we're
 

skipping E.2 for the second thing. E.3 talks about
 

the site profile review and (inaudible). I guess
 

the only problem with scope there was that these
 

profiles are evolving, certainly. So in the first
 

year we weren't even sure how many would be
 

available for review.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

179 

I think that the way I envisioned this,
 

again, was that there would be certain triggers or
 

flags that the working group and the Board picked up
 

on that would trigger a site profile review, and
 

that would kick into E.3. And those -- for example,
 

as I see Jim's tagged off*. One of those triggers
 

could be that you have -- you have a facility where
 

you have done many of the interviews and you find
 

out that there is large discrepancy with what people
 

are reporting in the interviews versus what's in the
 

case file that NIOSH has available, and you say
 

well, wait a second, we need to -- to use Jim
 

Neton's word, we need to pull the thread on this a
 

little bit and make sure that this site profile data
 

is compl-- is sufficiently complete to do a
 

reasonable estimate for the doses.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: That's very helpful. I
 

appreciate that and in that context these would be
 

better served under a task order contract for
 

technical consultation. That'd just be my --

MR. GRIFFON: I don't disagree -- yeah, I
 

don't disagree with that. I -- that -- in the
 

hallway five minutes before this meeting was the
 

first time I heard of a task order contract, so
 

that's...
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

180 

DR. ZIEMER: There is a sense in which the
 

site profile does get imbedded in the individual
 

dose reconstructions because, for example, even in
 

the film badge or TLD data, you need to know
 

something about the frequency of change and the
 

calibration, the sensitivities and so on, and much
 

of that comes out of the site profile. So the very
 

process of doing E.2 may raise issues about the
 

adequacy and completeness of the site profile
 

anyway. So --

MR. GRIFFON: And that could be a trigger
 

for a more in-depth review. I guess E.3 was --

DR. ZIEMER: One way or another, you end up
 

reviewing the site profile, either as an outcome of
 

E.2 or as a separate exercise in case.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. And I guess the way we
 

were envisioning E.3 also was that it was not just a
 

percentage of the site -- you know, the site
 

profiles that were there. The selection criteria
 

may not be a random statistical approach, you know. 

We may have -- and it's controlled by the working
 

group, and I thought that we could better define
 

this in the protocol that I presented at the last
 

meeting. You know, refine our case selection
 

process a little better, but also refine our site
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181 

profile review -- refine that selection process a
 

little better as we move forward here.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jim?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Just a -- I'm going to
 

jump back to E.1, so hopefully this isn't confusing
 

-- too confusing. But my initial reaction -- you
 

know, I have the same question that you did, Larry,
 

and the -- whoever this contractor or contractors
 

are, they can't do dose -- review dose
 

reconstructions unless they've reviewed the
 

guidelines and understand them and so forth, so it
 

will be part and parcel of doing that, and they
 

could be combined, in that sense.
 

However, in another sense, in terms of as
 

these evolve or as an issue comes up in terms of
 

doing dose reconstruction for which you decide that
 

you need some sort of guidance or guidelines or some
 

refinement there, that in order for the Board to
 

review that area, particularly in some of these very
 

specific technical areas, that we would also be
 

drawing on this contractor for doing that. So in
 

the full -- initially it's really part and parcel of
 

E.2, eventually there may be separate tasks there.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Very much related to most of
 

the previous comments, however, I see them -- I see
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

182 

these related in a different way. I'd say that one
 

must do E.2, at least at the basic level, to
 

determine whether the dose reconstruction methods
 

and procedures are adequate. Okay?
 

And I also -- at least in my mind -- attach
 

site profiles and how they are used as part of the
 

methodology which exists in E.1. So I'd say except
 

for doing a blind, raw -- what did we call it this
 

morning?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Raw case file data.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Case file -- reconstruction, I
 

think these three are very intimately interwoven,
 

right, and that we could probably come up with a
 

scope of work that really is only one piece.
 

I fully support E.4, which is, I think,
 

something that we're going to -- probably will need
 

some technical assistance to grapple with, but I
 

don't think we've gotten there yet.
 

In any case, that's the way I feel about it,
 

that you do have to do basic dose reconstruction to
 

actually review the procedures and the adequacy of
 

those.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I can just respond to that one
 

part. I -- I agree with that. I'm not saying that
 

you would just review E.1 and never look at a case,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

183 

but those -- E.1 and E.2 -- I sort of saw E.1 being
 

and the top of the priorities and E.2 maybe starting
 

in parallel with that, but I -- E.1 being an early
 

task in this -- in this group's mission, you know. 

So I don't disagree with that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Comments on I guess E.1, 2 or
 

3?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, E.2, for those who
 

haven't been following along, E.2 was the --

DR. MELIUS: What are we supposed to be
 

doing?
 

MR. GRIFFON: A lot of those details are,
 

you know, what we passed out in the protocol last
 

time.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Well --

DR. ZIEMER: Tony.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Okay. The following comment. 

Mark, I -- I agree with you that I think these tasks
 

can be done in parallel and should be done in
 

parallel, and I believe that it will evolve. I
 

really and truly believe, personally, that this will
 

evolve into an exercise in which we do basic dose
 

reconstruction to come up with comments, findings,
 

et cetera regarding the items, the procedures, the
 

items in E.1.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

184 

I really believe that if we start with E.1
 

as a separate piece, what we're going to be doing is
 

educating a contractor -- I'll slice that -- to the
 

degree that we have been educated about the process,
 

and perhaps even further so to the degree that the
 

OCAS health physicists are in performing or in going
 

through this process, and I'd say this is -- to me,
 

this scope of what would be involved in carrying out
 

1 by itself is a tremendous scope. It's a huge
 

scope to try and go back and understand everything
 

that goes into all the health physics, all of the
 

assumptions, all of the claimant-friendly decisions
 

or methods in which decisions are made, all of those
 

things. I think that comprises just a huge work
 

scope. And I think rather than trying to educate a
 

contractor for us to do that sort of thing, it would
 

be perhaps more efficient if we were to, in your
 

words, choose some cases wisely and then use those
 

cases for them to independently go out and make
 

determinations on the adequacy of the methodologies
 

that are being used.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I don't -- in my mind
 

I'm trying to see how the scope would differ if they
 

were looking at those same procedures and methods
 

while they were doing cases, as opposed to on
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

185 

parallel tracks. I mean I don't disa-- it could
 

potentially be a fairly large scope -- scope. I
 

don't disagree with that. But --

DR. ZIEMER: Part of this depends on what we
 

mean by review. It's one thing to say go back and
 

review what they're doing. Okay, I've gone through
 

it and I understand it. That's one thing.
 

It's a completely different thing to take a
 

step back behind that and say now go back to all the
 

source documents and to the Japanese data and -- and
 

review all the assumptions that go into this, so we
 

need to be careful --

MR. GRIFFON: We did also reference the
 

rule, and we've, as a Board, even though it was
 

before I was on the Board, we did review that rule. 

So to the extent that that applies, you know, they
 

don't go -- the intent was not to go further back
 

than that, and that --

DR. ZIEMER: Well, those are --

MR. GRIFFON: That sets certain parameters
 

for --

DR. ZIEMER: Right, that's -- those are
 

givens.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, so that certainly came
 

up in our working group as a discussion. That is
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

186 

certainly not the intent.
 

I guess the other way to get at this -- what
 

does review mean, Jim and I were talking -- and I
 

hope I get this right -- is that on a task order
 

contract we could put a not-to-exceed type of
 

provision in there. So I think -- you know,
 

defining review a little better, but also saying not
 

to exceed -- I think the contractor's going to get a
 

pretty clear message on what level of review is
 

expected.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Does the task order then
 

specify deliverable --

DR. NETON: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- the nature of the
 

deliverable?
 

DR. NETON: Definitely. It would
 

essentially be these little scopes of work with
 

deliverables and an estimate of the amount of
 

resources required to perform that task. I think
 

the contractor actually would estimate the -- is
 

that right, Larry? I'm getting that mixed up. The
 

task order itself -- the contractor would come back
 

with an estimate of the amount of resources -- the
 

hours required to perform that task.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: That's right. Yeah, that's
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

187 

right. The task order itself will set a need for
 

technical consultation, and so you define in that
 

what -- what skill levels you're seeking to support
 

that consultation effort. Then once that's -- once
 

that's awarded, then you come forward with these
 

task orders, and the task order then has to be
 

reacted to from the contractor as to how many hours
 

and which skill levels they think are best applied
 

to do that. And then there's a negotiation that
 

goes on about that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jim?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I was just going to get
 

to that sort of similar point, that I think it's the
 

task that'll bring these two issues together. It's
 

how you define those tasks, the deliverables for the
 

tasks and so forth that -- and I think we probably
 

need to spend some time thinking how we want to do
 

that so that review doesn't become, you know, too
 

all-encompassing. At the same time, part of it does
 

maybe come to focus on specific cases and there's a
 

way of -- of accomplishing this. I just found it
 

helpful to separate out the scope this way in sort
 

of thinking about what we wanted, what kind of help
 

or assistance we wanted as part of this review of
 

the Board, do that. I think it tends to all come
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

188 

together much more when we start talking about the
 

tasks, and it should, at that point.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I think the other -- just to
 

respond to Tony's point on the -- on E.3, the other
 

reason for separating out E.3, if you will, for the
 

site profiles reviews was, you know -- again, this
 

-- the trigger to be determined, the selection to be
 

determined by the work group and the Board, not the
 

contractor, but it was to allow for a task which
 

would involve a more in-depth review of the site
 

profiles as opposed to -- I know E.2 does touch on
 

that, and E.2 -- in doing E.2, you expect that you
 

might find some sites where you were -- where we --

where it triggers the need for that more in-depth
 

task, and it was to allow for that more in-depth
 

task and specifically -- and this is something that
 

we haven't -- we've been grappling with -- it is
 

specifically -- you know, the level of that. We --

I think we agreed more in-depth, and what does more
 

in-depth mean? I have a phrase in there I think
 

which some people will -- you know, we need reaction
 

to, which is -- which could involve DOE -- may
 

involve site critical experts, and the site expert
 

language was taken out of the contracts with ORAU
 

where it's pointed out that ORAU will interview
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

189 

teams of people, including former workers, health
 

physicists, supervisors, et cetera at the various
 

sites in constructing the site profiles, so we
 

thought that this independent contractor review, if
 

they were doing E.3, they might want access to that
 

team, as well, and access to DOE. And I know that
 

access to DOE is certainly something that is of
 

concern. I mean right now it seems like access for
 

-- you know, the MOU is not even in place for NIOSH
 

to get access, so -- anyway, I just want to point
 

out the reason for separating it out was to allow
 

for more in-depth and we certainly don't envision a
 

large percentage of sites being done in that E.3,
 

but...
 

DR. ZIEMER: Now let me raise a question,
 

because I want to make sure that we're looking at
 

all of this in a sense as a kind of audit. The
 

primary contractor has the job for NIOSH to
 

determine the quality of the site profiles. I mean
 

they're developing them -- they're developing site
 

profiles -- huh?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Are you saying the ORAU team?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Right, they're developing site
 

profiles on behalf of NIOSH, and in a sense, also
 

determining whether they're adequate to do the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

190 

thing. They're doing a lot of that.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right, they're doing the work.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me that in an audit
 

you say -- you go back and you say to the
 

contractor, how did you get this information? Where
 

did it come from? What's the quality of it? Are
 

there holes in it? I want to make sure that we're
 

not just doing the same thing over to see if we get
 

the same answer. We're -- the audit -- if I can
 

think of it as an audit, is to look at how they
 

developed the site profile. Is there a whole lot of
 

information they forgot about going after? You see
 

what I'm asking? And I think that is the intent,
 

but I want to make sure the words here aren't
 

telling our contractor that we want you to go back
 

and do a site profile.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, the -- the second
 

paragraph -- site profile, second paragraph, second
 

line tried to get at that point --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- which talks about the
 

review should focus on whether --

DR. ZIEMER: Right.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- whether NIOSH/the
 

contractor -- if everybody found that line -- yeah.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191 

DR. ZIEMER: But is that the working group's
 

understanding of what they're asking for, is what --

MR. GRIFFON: That's the understanding, yes. 

But that -- that may not -- you know, that still may
 

require access to DOE sites --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- to these interview groups.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And you won't know that till
 

you get into the process, of course.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. Other comments? Okay,
 

Roy.
 

DR. DEHART: When we were discussing this in
 

the working group, what helped me to understand
 

exactly how these were breaking out was that E.1 and
 

E.3 were confidence builders for us. They let us
 

know that the contractor was following all the
 

rules, had procedures in place to do things. When
 

we came to E.2, we broke down the audit into three
 

levels, if you remember. A basic audit, which
 

doesn't get into depth on either 1 or 3, and then we
 

go to a more advanced review, which does give a
 

chance to do that and it may obviously be in -- at
 

sites that were not reviewed in 3, for example,
 

because they could be coming from different places. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

192 

And then finally we go to the third, the blind
 

audit, where we're asking our contractor to take the
 

same basic data that was made available by NIOSH, or
 

that the contractor acquired, and -- without seeing
 

how they went about calculating it, we do that. But
 

we needed to be comfortable with 1 and 3 in order to
 

proceed with 2.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda?
 

MS. MUNN: I'm very pleased to see you bring
 

up the word "audit" and to have Roy repeating that. 

It appears to me that in many places here where the
 

word "review" has been used, it would clarify what
 

my understanding of what this group will be doing,
 

to use the word -- or the term "audit" more
 

frequently with -- than "review".
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? You want to
 

continue, Mark, on -- where are we now?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess I can mention
 

E.4. It's not very well fleshed out, but it's
 

there. Again, this is SEC petitions, technical
 

support. And we -- really we just thought that this
 

is probably going to be a future need for this Board
 

and at least -- but if we did this as a task order,
 

I don't think --

DR. ZIEMER: Then it could be tasked --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

193 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- at some appropriate point.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. And then moving on to
 

section F, it talks about personnel requirements. 

These personnel requirements are actually very
 

closely aligned, I believe, with the RFP that was
 

put out for the ORAU contract. And then the next
 

part of F, part B, is a little bit short in length
 

at this point.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It would be a similar --

MR. GRIFFON: Right, we have similar issues. 

I do -- there's two points. One -- we had talked
 

about three items, and we couldn't really get
 

consensus in the five minutes we had left this
 

morning before the meeting, so we thought we'd bring
 

these items to the full Board and discuss, rather
 

than try to lock in language. One was the notion of
 

-- that the bidder should produce a conflict of
 

interest plan, which I don't -- I think we have
 

pretty good agreement on that.
 

But the second one was this notion that we
 

discussed before lunch, which was that the -- I
 

don't have the precise language here, but the notion
 

that they never worked on behalf of the DOE in any
 

litigation around Workers Comp or radiation-related
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

194 

claims. And I think -- it seems like we had some
 

agreement that that language was okay for the ORAU
 

contract. We think it would -- I mean I thought it
 

would make sense in this one. I don't know. We can
 

discuss that.
 

Let me just go -- the third item was the
 

idea of including some sort of criteria that would
 

restrict key personnel who have -- have in the last
 

five years, which was sort of arbitrary benchmark
 

selected by me, worked with the DOE, DOE contractor,
 

AWE or ORAU. And the brief discussion we had with
 

our working group -- and I also recognize this -- is
 

that, you know, this sort of criteria could really
 

limit our pool of expertise, and also the balance we
 

were trying to strike in this is that, you know, we
 

do want the scientific expertise and we realize that
 

a lot of the people that are going to be best suited
 

to do some of these difficult dose assessments have
 

had experience at these facilities. That's where
 

they learned this stuff. So we had to -- we want to
 

balance the scientific expertise with a conflict of
 

interest. Ideally, we'd have someone who had, you
 

know, great scientific expertise and no conflicts in
 

the last five years, but are we -- is that too
 

restrictive -- is that restricting our pool of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

195 

experts too much. That was sort of the discussion
 

we had, so...
 

I don't think we came to agreement on
 

anything on those, except for the possible -- the
 

notion that the bidder should provide a conflict of
 

interest plan. And you know, at a minimum, we
 

thought that was -- that should be part of the
 

provision. Beyond that, the parts -- those are the
 

three primary things.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's open this --

MR. GRIFFON: So previous -- previous
 

employment with DOE or worked as a expert witness on
 

behalf of the DOE in a Workers Comp or radiation
 

litigation case.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, is there --

MR. GRIFFON: And that was ever, not in the
 

last five years.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, you have a comment?
 

MS. MUNN: At the risk of being repetitive,
 

because I brought this up before, I see this as
 

going after the same expert pool that we bled over
 

in trying to identify what we now have with the ORAU
 

contract. And since I've not seen anything in any
 

of this material that stipulates that people we're
 

working with must be U.S. citizens, I can't help but
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

196 

again raise the issue of is it not reasonable for us
 

to consider the possibility of perhaps Canadian
 

health physicists who would be familiar with many of
 

the same types of procedures? Is it not reasonable
 

for us to include them in our potential pool?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Larry probably wants to
 

respond to that. We discussed this on our last
 

conference call and I'll ask Larry to maybe...
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Go ahead.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess they're -- from
 

the procurement standpoint, there would be many more
 

hurdles, as I understand it, to hiring non-U.S.
 

citizens, so it's certainly an option, as I
 

understand it, but -- go ahead.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Let me elaborate. It is an
 

option. It will require, as Mark says, more
 

procurement hurdles to clear because in the Federal
 

acquisitions regulation there's this clause that
 

requires us in government procurements to contract
 

within the United States as much as possible to get
 

the best value for the government and use U.S.
 

national support in that way. But it can be done,
 

it's just going to be more difficult to put in
 

place.
 

If I -- if I could comment here, it seems to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

197 

me that -- I want to make sure I'm clear on this. 

Is 2 and 3 part of what you see of 1? I mean a
 

conflict of interest plan is needed, and should it
 

cover 2 and 3, or is 2 and 3 a requirement?
 

MR. GRIFFON: No, 2 and 3 were meant to be
 

requirements, as I was -- as I was proposing them. 

But we didn't have consensus in our working group,
 

so this is --

MR. ELLIOTT: This is --

MR. GRIFFON: -- an open discussion. 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think 2 and 3 as a 

requirement would be better placed in the evaluation
 

plan, and I'm not so sure that you can even place
 

number 3 in the evaluation plan. You can't restrict
 

-- you can't restrict potential proposers in this
 

regard, but you can couch the language such that if
 

they have this kind of affiliation within the last
 

five years, that diminishes their competitive
 

advantage or competitive ability to succeed in
 

getting an award.
 

MR. GRIFFON: As I had -- originally had
 

drafted this, the language in this section B was
 

almost duplicated in the evaluation plan, which is
 

also now stricken, but -- but we still have the
 

concern and the concern is that, you know, this
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

198 

would -- potential bidders might look at this and
 

see the evaluation criteria and say, you know, this
 

-- I'm going to get knocked out, why should I even
 

bother, you know. So that was --

MR. ELLIOTT: You certainly, in the scope of
 

work for the task order contract for technical
 

consultation, require a conflict of interest plan as
 

part of the proposal. And then in your evaluation
 

plan you can address this -- this 2 and 3 criteria,
 

and you can assign points to those.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And the way you couch that
 

language reveals what you're interested in, what's
 

the best value for the government in this regard and
 

what you're seeking in that. You can handle it that
 

way, but --

MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask why, from a -- I
 

mean I assume this is a legal issue. Why can't 2
 

and 3 be in the proposal itself? I don't disagree
 

with it, including it in the evaluation plan. I'm
 

just asking.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think it can be there if you
 

say a conflict of interest plan must be provided
 

with the proposal that addresses the following
 

items. You can go at it that way, you see? But you
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

199 

can't have like you've got to have all three of
 

these or you can't have nothing. You need to have a
 

conflict -- the conflict of interest plan is the
 

umbrella, and you provide instruction and direction
 

to the proposers on what you hope to see in that
 

conflict of interest plan. And then you use your
 

evaluation tool --

MR. GRIFFON: But you're saying to do it the
 

other way would violate procurement rules --

MR. ELLIOTT: I'm not so sure. I need to
 

check on that, but I think it's better placed in the
 

evaluation plan, those two elements, and then
 

couched in the scope of work as you -- a proposer
 

needs to submit a conflict of interest plan that
 

would encompass X, XY and Z, ZZ, those type of
 

things.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I comment? I think the
 

concern would be that it -- by putting it as an
 

absolute requirement, this issue of who's really
 

going to be available with the appropriate technical
 

expertise and the wording of it becomes much more
 

difficult if you're disqualifying people because of
 

that. I think by doing the evaluation I think it
 

gives us some flexibility in terms of wording and
 

evaluating that and of -- I mean that's -- in a fair
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

200 

and appropriate manner, but there's some flexibility
 

to look at different criteria within that -- within
 

that element, as well as to weight that against
 

other elements, including technical expertise. And
 

I think it would -- certainly would do less to
 

dissuade people -- appropriate and qualified people
 

from --

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't -- I don't
 

disagree with that --

DR. MELIUS: -- applying.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- general logic, I just
 

didn't know if there were some specific rules we
 

were violating potentially --

UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause the other -- the
 

other side of this that I'm cognizant of is -- is --

we will have a review of this, and there is an
 

evaluation plan and to some extent the working group
 

and the Board have input and control over the review
 

panel. That may not be the case. We may have
 

representation on a review panel, but as I
 

understand it right now, as we've discussed it, this
 

will be a NIOSH review panel, so just in terms of --

that was part of the reasoning for including an upfront criteria instead of rather just in this
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201 

evaluation plan where then the review panel would go
 

behind closed doors and make their considerations on
 

weighting these things. That was part of the logic
 

behind that, that NIOSH is hiring their own auditor
 

-- the perception possibly that NIOSH is hiring
 

their own auditor and they've got the panel that's
 

reviewing these plans and they can --

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but just to clari-- my
 

understanding would be the weighting of the factors
 

would -- in the evaluation plan is done up front,
 

and then the panel applies that, that weight you
 

give --

MR. GRIFFON: And those are still -- and
 

those are (inaudible), I agree --

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think there's -- it's 

not --

MR. ELLIOTT: And the technical evaluation 

panel can't deviate from that plan once it's
 

established in the proposal, in the RFP, so they
 

have to abide by whatever you -- you know, that
 

final -- is set to be by you, the Board.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments before -- are
 

you going to go on to the attachment then or --

MR. GRIFFON: Well, let me just ask then --

then for -- since -- since we do want to move ahead
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

202 

with this, if we were -- I mean I think we -- in
 

principle, anyway, I'm agreeable to that solution. 

The question I would have is those two -- you know,
 

the con-- the evaluation plan, should it include
 

criteria -- I think we all, before lunch, it was
 

sort of agreed on the involved in litigation on
 

behalf of the Department of Energy clause. The
 

second clause is more restrictive. Do people agree
 

that there should be a provision in the evaluation
 

plan that says if the -- if key personnel have
 

worked -- and I'm abbreviating, but if key personnel
 

have worked with DOE, DOE contractor, AWE, ORAU in
 

the last five years, you know, that -- that would be
 

a -- one of the weighting criteria that would work
 

against them? Is that agreeable?
 

DR. ZIEMER: The wording that was in the
 

other document I think we agreed was acceptable, did
 

we not?
 

MR. GRIFFON: They didn't have any such
 

provision, I don't believe.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you talking about -- are
 

you talking about litigation or worked for?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Worked for.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Worked for.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right. That's a more
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

203 

restrictive provision and I'm asking if that's --

we'll certainly circulate the language that we come
 

up with, but is that a reasonable criteria to
 

include within the evaluation plan?
 

DR. ZIEMER: One of the ways you do this --

as I understand the evaluation plan, you can score
 

them. Suppose that everybody that comes in is --

it's been four years, not five, and you don't have
 

-- are you going to throw all the proposals out or
 

do you say if it's -- if it's been -- if it's been
 

more than five years, they'll score higher. But if
 

there aren't any of those animals, we'll go to the
 

four-year one and maybe they're better off than the
 

threes and the twos. Wanda?
 

MS. MUNN: That gives you the rationale to
 

propose Canadian personnel to do that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: There are no qualified people
 

available.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I think that -- yes,
 

I agree with you there, so okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So it doesn't become -- it
 

becomes a kind of guide or sliding scale where you
 

can score it, and those who --

MR. GRIFFON: Depending on how recently --

what kind of work --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

204 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

DR. NETON: I would --

MR. GRIFFON: This is all -- we're still
 

going to look at attachment A, actually, so --

DR. NETON: I would propose that there's a
 

balancing criteria, though, for the expertise, as
 

well, so they have to offset each other. I mean a
 

conflict of interest balanced by a set of work
 

experience criteria that are really great, I mean
 

you have to score both of those and strike a
 

balance.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Right, there would be other
 

criteria that get scored. Roy had a comment.
 

DR. DEHART: That bullet we were talking
 

about before lunch was not exclusionary. It simply
 

was information that was to go into a database. 

Let's not get confused thinking that those people
 

would not have been hired.
 

DR. MELIUS: Well, I can't remember the
 

exact bullet, but -- to determine whether -- some
 

were informational, some were -- would be criteria
 

that were considered in terms of assignment. They
 

were allowed to be part of the contract, but not be
 

assigned to certain -- certain cases within that
 

contract.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

205 

Back to sort of Mark's question, I think if
 

the, you know, working group then came up with a set
 

of balanced, you know -- and evaluation plan that
 

incorporates these and really you have to sit down
 

and sort of work out what the scoring should be and
 

so forth, I think we could probably come to pretty
 

easy agreement on that, based on our discussions
 

here so far.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I agree with that. 

Okay? And I don't think there's much to -- the big
 

discussion for the technical evaluation criteria
 

would have -- would have been these same items,
 

which is section F, which is left out right now.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So the real issue then that
 

comes before us at this point is that, given that
 

this is roughly what you -- what we need -- I say
 

roughly because there may be some polishing to do --

how does it get implemented in terms of the process? 

Is that correct? And it's not clear to me at this
 

point if the working group now was proposing this as
 

a draft version of a procurement document --

MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't -- I think this
 

is more of a discussion document at this point --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

MR. GRIFFON: -- because I think we -- we
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

206 

have to reconsider -- if it's a task order proposal
 

then it wouldn't include this scope information and
 

we just would outline technical qualifications, et
 

cetera, so...
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I agree with Mark. I think
 

this has been a discussion document. I don't think
 

it's in the shape and form ready for us to put
 

before a procurement officer to put out an RFP. I
 

would think that the working group probably needs to
 

have another meeting or two, you know, with Jim's --

Jim Neton's involvement and perhaps Martha DiMuzio,
 

as you've had her engaged before, to discuss
 

procurement options and process.
 

I want to make sure that we -- on the record
 

it's noted as an advisory caution that all of this
 

is preliminary. And for the audience's benefit and
 

for those who read the transcripts, this is in fact
 

preliminary and it's not -- it's pre-decisional and
 

no one should start preparing a proposal against
 

this.
 

Additionally, I think we need to make sure
 

that you understand that the business aspect of this
 

proposal, the budget and the independent government
 

cost estimate that has to be created that goes along
 

with this, still has yet to be discussed by the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

207 

Board and it's -- because this was a discussion
 

document, it's premature to do that and we couldn't
 

do that today or yesterday because we had not
 

announced it in the Federal Register notice for this
 

meeting. You need to understand it'll take us 60
 

days, at a minimum, to put such in place for you to
 

have a executive session meeting of that sort. So
 

you've got that much time to pull this together, as
 

well as the business part of the plan. But we would
 

need to know perhaps today, if that's your pleasure,
 

that you want -- the full Board wants to have an
 

executive session.
 

MR. GRIFFON: And that executive session,
 

can that be via conference call or what -- what...
 

MR. ELLIOTT: No, it needs to be face-toface, because we cannot verify by telephone that
 

there -- that the participation is limited to the
 

Board.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And if we use that 60-day as a
 

starting point and use today's date, that means, at
 

the earliest, December 16. That is theoretically.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Let me ask just one more thing
 

for the working group's benefit. If we're going to
 

go down this path of discussing the business aspects
 

of this, including person hours, et cetera, for the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

208 

task order, can we do that via conference call with
 

the working group?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think you have already done
 

that, and so by precedent, yes --

MR. GRIFFON: Thank you for saying yes.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: -- you can. You have done
 

that. We're concerned about that, though, and if
 

you prefer to have a face-to-face, we will
 

accommodate that. But we want to look at how the
 

phone -- such a phone conversation meeting is set up
 

with you all. We're going to look into that and see
 

if there's a way we can do that so that we verify
 

that only the parties on the line are those that
 

need to be on the line.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're talking about working
 

group then.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Working group, yeah.
 

MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause my -- my --

MR. ELLIOTT: The working group meeting has
 

not been a public meeting. It's -- working groups
 

don't have to be announced in the Federal Register. 

They don't have to be a public venue, and that's the
 

way this has been going up to this point. It's all
 

been work in progress and pre-decisional, and so you
 

could continue along that line.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

209 

MR. GRIFFON: As long as we -- you know, I
 

think my feeling is that, you know, the 60-day
 

limit, I think we need to make that decision now is
 

my --

DR. ZIEMER: The decision that needs to be
 

made is whether the Board wishes to have an
 

executive session at the appropriate time, which in
 

essence would probably be our next meeting. And
 

what I was getting at is the earliest we could do
 

that would be December 16th. Now I know from
 

talking -- and incidentally, if you had some
 

November dates blocked off on your calendar for this
 

Board, you may recall that those were back-up dates
 

in case we couldn't meet today, so those you can --

you can delete those from your calendars.
 

I've talked to some of the Board members and
 

I didn't detect a great deal of enthusiasm about
 

meeting between December 16th and New Year's, which
 

suggests that we're into January before the full
 

Board could meet. We will, in fact, after our
 

break, talk about a specific meeting date. And the
 

issue then would be do you wish, during that
 

meeting, to have an executive session to address the
 

budgetary aspects of such a proposal. If we want to
 

do that, it would be useful for the Board to go on
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

210 

record to request NIOSH to go through whatever steps
 

are necessary, including the Federal Register notice
 

and other requirements, 'cause there are some other
 

requirements within the government. If you're going
 

to have an executive session, the topic has to be
 

know, the attendees have to be known, it does have
 

to have a court reporter, so there are some very
 

specific requirements that have to be set up if we
 

are to have an executive session.
 

Roy and then Jim.
 

DR. DEHART: My question would be is it
 

necessary for the Board to participate in the
 

business plan of this proposal? In other words, do
 

we need to participate in the budget and those kinds
 

of issues?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let me -- let me partially
 

answer that is that the working group was set up to
 

bring recommendations to this Board. They are not
 

authorized to act on behalf of the Board
 

unilaterally. In the normal course of things,
 

whether or not this included the budget, whatever
 

recommendation comes, the protocol is for the
 

working group to make a recommendation to the Board. 

At that point we have to take action. And insofar
 

as there is -- there are these issues, including the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

211 

budgetary issues, an executive session would be
 

called for. Jim?
 

DR. MELIUS: What if -- Roy asked my
 

question, so I'll elaborate as another possibility. 

What if the Board approved what's been presented to
 

us today, you know, with whatever, you know, changes
 

and so forth --

MR. ELLIOTT: Conceptually.
 

DR. MELIUS: -- conceptually and so forth --

MR. ELLIOTT: (Inaudible) scope of work and
 

the evaluation plan?
 

DR. MELIUS: Correct. And then, you know,
 

authorize the working group to work with NIOSH to,
 

you know, implement this.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're saying to authorize the
 

working group to reach the final decision.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that we've done a -- you
 

know, done the major part of the work.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I think he's saying he doesn't 

want to meet. 

DR. MELIUS: Well, I'm --

DR. ZIEMER: We're going to meet anyway. 

DR. MELIUS: Well, the question is would 

this expedite the -- the process? I think -- I
 

think a lot of us would like to see this in place
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

212 

sooner rather than later and I think it would make
 

the whole process work -- work better, and if it's
 

not necessary to delay it an extra 30 days or
 

whatever it's going to take, given the gains -- I
 

mean given the amount that would be gained from
 

having executive session. I just don't see
 

necessarily a lot of gain from an executive session
 

that has to be done in person due to -- to do this.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: You certainly could do it that
 

way. You could task the working group with the
 

responsibility of coming up with the business
 

portion of the plan, of the proposal. We at NIOSH
 

don't want to do that. But yet at -- I'm required
 

to manage the budget and the resources, so I'm very
 

much interested in this piece. You certainly could
 

approve the two pieces that you've looked at today,
 

once the working group has put those back together
 

and fleshed them out better and taken into
 

consideration the thoughts and the comments that
 

you've offered today, and that would obviate the
 

need for executive session at your next meeting. 

And if you felt you needed to have a teleconference
 

to approve the working group's scope of work and
 

evaluation plan before the next face-to-face Board
 

meeting, then you could do that. You could have
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

213 

that, and we could attend to this business plan just
 

between staff and the working group.
 

DR. ZIEMER: But your comment was NIOSH does
 

not want to do that? Or what was that?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: NIOSH -- we could come up with
 

the business part of this plan and develop the
 

independent government instrument, but I don't think
 

you want us doing that. We don't want to do that. 

We have to monitor it and I'm responsible for
 

managing all of this, but I don't want the
 

perception out there that NIOSH is hiring the
 

contractor, is controlling the amount of funds that
 

are going to be placed before this effort. That's
 

the problem. So I think it's important that you all
 

work through that.
 

DR. MELIUS: But can I just -- it is a task
 

order contract.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.
 

DR. MELIUS: And so the tasks are going to
 

change over time and would be subject to review by
 

the Board over time so that it's not as if we're
 

making it -- recommendation or a decision -- the
 

Board is not making a recommendation or decision at
 

this point as to what would be the financial scope
 

of this overall --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

214 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, you do. You really do. 

You have -- there has to be a business part of this
 

plan that gives an independent government estimate
 

of the funds needed to conduct the scope of work. 

And under task order contract, you're able -- we're
 

able then to put more funds into it if we exceed the
 

funds that were awarded. Okay? So if you don't
 

expend all of the funds that were awarded in the
 

first year, they carry over into the second year of
 

the contract. If you expend all of the funds that
 

were awarded in the first year, we put more funds
 

back -- back into the contract. But we have to have
 

this -- what's called an independent government
 

estimate that is used to -- for me to sign the
 

funding document that says funds are committed for
 

this procurement. Now that's not releasable to any
 

RFP. The proposers don't know what the independent
 

government estimate is. They don't have that level
 

of knowledge, but it has to be put in place before
 

we can effect this procurement.
 

The other thing that Jim's kindly reminded
 

me of is for this Board's sense of the time line
 

here, once the scope of work has been approved and
 

the procurement process is complete to the point we
 

issue the RFP, request for proposals, and that would
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

215 

appear in Business Daily, that will take 45 days as
 

a minimum, 15 days for the announcement and 30 days
 

for proposals to be submitted, so you need to factor
 

that into your time line for your considerations. 

So whenever the scope of -- the draft RFP that
 

includes all these different elements is prepared,
 

there's that 45 days, plus there's a processing time
 

that we never can predict at NIOSH through
 

procurement. We've worked -- as Mark knows already
 

with the procurement folks, they know this is coming
 

down the pipeline, they know this is urgent. It has
 

the Office of the Secretary's sense of urgency about
 

it so I'm sure that it's going to get expedited. 

But there's probably 30 days for the procurement
 

office to do whatever magic they have to do to turn
 

this thing into an RFP, and then 45 days, at a
 

minimum, if that's what you want. If you wanted
 

more time to try to capture more proposers, you
 

would just need to add that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to have us recess
 

briefly. You can cogitate on this information and
 

then we'll be prepared immediately after that, so
 

we'll take a 15-minute break here.
 

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
 

DR. ZIEMER: We're trying to ascertain what
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

216 

legal issues there might be involved with
 

authorizing the working group to act on behalf of
 

the full Board. It's not -- it's not completely
 

clear that they can do that. We don't know the
 

answer to that legally at this point, I don't think.
 

There is also some possible perception
 

issues on taking that route that it could look to a
 

casual observer that this was a method whereby the
 

Board decided to circumvent the process of taking
 

our action through the regular meeting. Even though
 

it would be an executive session, but it still would
 

be an announced meeting with an announced topic and
 

so on. It could look like an end run to the FACA
 

process if we weren't cognizant of that. So there
 

are some concerns that at least have been expressed
 

about that approach. It's not clear whether that's
 

something we should do.
 

In any event, it is clear that we want to
 

move ahead. And it seems to me -- and I think other
 

Board members would concur -- that it's obvious the
 

working group needs to proceed -- and even meet in
 

person, if they need to, but by phone if that's
 

better -- to put the -- these documents in final
 

form. It's not quite clear how much time that would
 

take, but even -- even if it were -- if it's
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

217 

determined that they could legally have the
 

authority to act on our behalf on the business plan,
 

it's not clear that that would necessarily speed
 

things up very much, if you look at all the
 

different parts of this issue in terms of what's
 

required in procurement and so on.
 

I have the feeling that we would be wellserved to plan on an executive session at our next
 

meeting, and in the meantime have the working group
 

move ahead on preparing the documents, get them
 

ready. We could have a Board -- we could have a
 

Board conference call, without the business plan, as
 

soon as that's ready to bless the scope and so on. 

And we would have a little better feel for where we
 

were timetable-wise. But it would seem to me that
 

it might be appropriate to plan, because if we're
 

going to have an executive session, we need to start
 

that process right now. And it would almost be
 

better to start that process and then decide we
 

don't need it than to not do it and then find out
 

that we do need it.
 

So let me ask if anyone would object to us
 

proceeding in that way. The work -- it's sort of a
 

tandem process. Wanda, I am going to let you speak,
 

but --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

218 

MS. MUNN: No, no.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- it's sort of a tandem
 

process where we would proceed under the assumption
 

that at some point this Board has to bless the final
 

business plan. That would require an executive
 

session. But in the meantime the working group
 

would proceed to work on the final development of
 

the scope and so on, and at some point between now
 

and our next meeting, we would probably need to have
 

a conference call meeting -- again, publicly
 

announced and available for the public -- to review
 

and make a final blessing of the scope. We're
 

assuming that you might be able to get that all done
 

sometime before the year's end.
 

So let me ask for reaction to that. This is
 

just sort of the sense of what I got in talking to
 

various people during break. Mark, if you would.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean I guess I was going to
 

ask that we -- you know, whether the Board would
 

agree that if we don't need that executive session,
 

if we can do it prior to that, is the Board
 

comfortable with having the working group do the
 

business side of that?
 

DR. ZIEMER: If it can be done legally and
 

if there aren't any ramifications. And I might also
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

219 

add that if -- it seems to me, and I have no way of
 

knowing one way or the other, it might be possible
 

to do it legally and you would still have the
 

perception issues that it's legal but it's an end
 

run on the process.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Perception issues from --

DR. ZIEMER: The public.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Even though these executive
 

meetings are not open to the public.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I --

DR. ZIEMER: The executive meetings are not
 

open to the public, but they are announced in terms
 

of the content of the meeting. There is an official
 

record kept. This is not true of the working group. 

So they are closed to the public, but the knowledge
 

of what is going on, that -- this is a -- this is a
 

very specific topic that's being addressed, who is
 

there doing it, when it's occurring, and the record
 

is kept.
 

MR. GRIFFON: And the record, yeah,
 

that's --

DR. ZIEMER: And that meets the FACA
 

requirement, even though it's a closed session. 

Okay. Jim, Wanda -- Wanda, you had a comment first
 

or -- no. Yes?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

220 

MS. MUNN: I don't believe there's any
 

question that this Board has a job to do that has
 

both time constraints, ethical restraints and legal
 

restraints that none of us are pleased with. We all
 

would like this to be able to be done sooner,
 

quicker, easier with the smallest possible amount of
 

effort by everyone involved. But I don't see any
 

way that that's going to happen. I am prepared to
 

move, when the Chair would like such a motion, that
 

we ask the task group to move forward with
 

completion of the scope of work that's before us and
 

with developing the budgetary items that are
 

necessary to complete the recommendations for an
 

RFP, that we immediately make notice of the need for
 

an administrative session at our next meeting, and
 

that we plan to spend a significant amount of time
 

at that meeting -- my guess would be, given the
 

amount of deliberation we usually have to go
 

through, I can't imagine that we would do that in
 

less than a day -- at which time the working group
 

would bring to us their draft of the proposed
 

business plan that we would then be constrained to
 

act upon.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And Jim, do you have a comment?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I'd like to get some
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221 

clarification from Larry and whoever else he needs
 

to ask, to the extent that he can clarify it, 'cause
 

-- on some of these issues. If I'm correct in my
 

understanding that the business plan we're talking
 

about is for a task order contract is simply some
 

estimate of the number of hours of work involved in
 

that?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: It's skill levels and hours
 

associated with those skill levels. There's
 

different rates for different skills.
 

DR. MELIUS: Okay. Number two, I'm confused
 

from some of the prior statements, but is there any
 

reason that NIOSH is unable to do that under
 

procurement rules, or is your concern only the
 

perception if NIOSH makes those determinations?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it is -- we could do
 

this. My technical staff could do this, come up
 

with the business plan. But a part of the role we
 

have of managing and controlling perception of
 

conflict of interest includes OCAS staff, as well. 

And so that's the issue -- perception here that
 

we're driving this in the direction, perhaps. And
 

I've tried to be very cooperative and collaborative
 

and having staff be the same with the working group,
 

trying to do our level best to work through the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

222 

procurement issues to get the Board involved in
 

various ways, the Board members integrated in this
 

process so that you have ownership as much as
 

possible in the RFP, even to the point of -- as we
 

learned yesterday, the resolution that a Board
 

member could serve on the technical review panel
 

gives ownership in the selection of the final award.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. The other -- I guess
 

this is a comment to the Board is that the other
 

perception that we have to be concerned about is
 

that if this contract is inordinately delayed, to
 

remember that there will be a lot of claimants out
 

there who may have concerns about their dose
 

reconstructions, that the Board will not be in
 

position to review those dose reconstructions
 

because there -- we will not have a contract in
 

place for doing that and that depending on how
 

quickly ORAU gears up and so forth and so on -- I'm
 

not quite sure what the schedule will be, but we're
 

talking about that where a 30-day delay or a 60-day
 

delay would mean that there would be, you know,
 

literally hundreds of people that will have gotten
 

their final dose reconstructions and that we will
 

not have a process in place or not be able to
 

respond to concerns about the review of those. So I
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

223 

think that perception or potential problem has to be
 

weighed against the perception of NIOSH controlling
 

or -- you know, over-controlling or whatever you
 

want to call it, being biased in their -- in their
 

involvement in different parts of this process. And
 

I think it's very hard for us to make some of these
 

judgments because we also know that, despite all the
 

best efforts on the part of NIOSH, that this
 

proposal could get buried down in contracting for
 

six months and all sort of other things can delay it
 

that are beyond everyone's control. And we -- also
 

having problems really figuring out what this
 

schedule will be that -- and maybe the -- one of the
 

ways to think about this is to work backwards from
 

what's -- when will our next meeting be. 

Realistically, what can -- how close will we be to
 

getting -- having a scope of work and these other
 

parts figured out. I mean if this -- having an
 

executive session is going to mean a difference of a
 

week or two weeks or something, that's very
 

different than if we're talking about a delay of 90
 

days or something like that. And I think if we work
 

backwards, maybe we can come up with sort of a
 

practical solution to this rather than trying to
 

figure out all the legal things and balance some of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

224 

this out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Roy.
 

DR. DEHART: In listening to Wanda's
 

comments, following it through up to the last
 

comment that she made, I was in essentially full
 

agreement. What I would like to see happen is not
 

have the Board review a draft when we next meet, but
 

have the Board, having already reviewed a draft,
 

that it would be forward to them with the completion
 

of the working group, and make comments by
 

teleconference. And if necessary, a second
 

teleconference to finalize that, certainly before
 

the holidays, so that when we come to our next
 

meeting, that has been done and all that needs to be
 

done then is the -- the final business plan.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Roy, that is what I had
 

proposed. It's only the business plan that requires
 

the executive session, and certainly a full Board
 

review before the end of the year is conceivable, in
 

my mind, if the working group is able to finish
 

their work.
 

I sort of had in my mind that we would
 

probably, in any event, want to meet in January. 

But we do need to look at some dates here shortly,
 

but -- and maybe you would want to do that first,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

225 

following -- before we have a formal motion
 

following Jim's idea to sort of see when we're going
 

to meet next and then what implications does that
 

have on this particular process.
 

And let me add one thing, Jim, and you made
 

a comment -- I hope that there's not a perception
 

that our review of the system will hold up the
 

awarding of -- we do not review decisions before
 

they are finalized. In fact, the audit process is
 

like a bank audit. It's always after the fact. The
 

rules do not require completed dose reconstructions
 

to be approved by this Board before awards are made. 

I hope you weren't implying --

DR. MELIUS: I was not implying that. I
 

just -- and that's why I guess I was using some of
 

the numbers there. I think there -- people with
 

concerns about the process or about their own dose
 

-- because there will be so many in process, both
 

completed and in process, that people will -- that
 

the overall process will be better served if people
 

know that there's a --

DR. ZIEMER: Right --

DR. MELIUS: -- review --

DR. ZIEMER: -- and it's that that we're 

concerned about, that if there is a glitch, we don't
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

226 

want the process to be going on for a long time
 

before it's corrected.
 

DR. MELIUS: A glitch or just that -- I
 

think it'll -- that our review will be very
 

supportive of the overall effort on the part of
 

NIOSH and the credibility of this effort.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Just as another option, and
 

before -- before I said it, I'll say I might not
 

even vote for this option, but as another option,
 

could NIOSH -- just -- just in the -- 'cause this is
 

60 days potentially, or maybe not 60 days but some
 

amount of time that we're adding onto the front end
 

just to have an executive session. If we have some
 

agreement on the broad tasks, the four tasks ordered
 

-- the four tasks in the task order, my
 

understanding is that a task order is the -- is the
 

way these would be written, they can be expanded in
 

the future, so there could be a possibility that
 

NIOSH could come up with the initial business plan
 

for the four tasks. And like I said, I'm not sure
 

I'd want to vote on this myself, but NIOSH could
 

come up with the initial one just to get it out
 

there with the -- if the Board -- if there was an
 

agreement on this Board that the -- we could have
 

future executive sessions to discuss the expansion
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

227 

or -- if need be, the expansion of the -- of that
 

business plan. I don't know if that's an option.
 

DR. ZIEMER: But again, I think the cautions
 

-- Larry's already told us that NIOSH can come up
 

with a business plan, and the issue really boils
 

down to is that really what you want to do,
 

particularly in terms of perceptions.
 

MR. GRIFFON: But I guess one way I was
 

thinking that this could avoid the perception
 

problem is that, you know, we would make it very
 

clear as the Board that we can review these business
 

plans in the future and expand them if necessary,
 

depending on --

MR. ELLIOTT: No. There could be no
 

expansion of the business plan. Okay? Nor the
 

scope of work. If you expand the scope of work or
 

you expand -- if you say that oh, hey, you know, we
 

-- within the scope of work, we can add money, once
 

the money that had been allocated originally has
 

been expended and the work remains to be done, you
 

have tasks yet to be done. Okay? Under that scope
 

of work. But you can't expand the scope of work
 

because that's a new RFP, has to be recompeted. In
 

a new RFP, we would require a new business plan. So
 

I'm lost on expansion.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

228 

DR. MELIUS: Well, I think expansion refers
 

to expansion of tasks or the amount of funding
 

available for tasks that would fit into the scope of
 

work, and I --

MR. ELLIOTT: As long as the task is 

encompassed in the scope of work, we're okay. And 

we can add -- we can add funds as we proceed. It's 

going to be an open-ended task order, but original
 

amount of funds has to be allocated, and will have
 

to have some criteria that the proposers can develop
 

their proposals against. Okay? And that's where
 

the independent government estimate comes into play.
 

MR. GRIFFON: You mean -- criteria, you mean
 

more specificity in the task items. Is that --

MR. ELLIOTT: No.
 

MR. GRIFFON: No.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: No, the type of skills needed
 

and the hours needed to conduct those skills in a
 

given year. That's what's going to be place out
 

there in the RFP. Okay? The type of skills that
 

are necessary to complete this -- this -- the tasks
 

under this technical consultation. Okay?
 

DR. ZIEMER: In the sort of parallel path
 

that I described earlier, after the working group
 

completes its recommendations and we do as Roy
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 --

25

229 

described and bless them in a conference meeting,
 

before an RFP is released -- which is the business
 

plan part and the scope of work -- I think there are
 

some internal NIOSH things that have to occur. And
 

let me ask. Are there some steps after -- after --

here's what I'm getting at. Suppose a preliminary
 

business plan was developed by the working group. 

We have not yet blessed it, but they have developed
 

it. Are there some internal steps before an RFP is
 

issued that have to occur at NIOSH where that part
 

of it could start, awaiting the final blessing of
 

the Board on -- the full Board on the business plan
 

so that when our blessing occurred the RFP can go
 

out right away? Do you see what I'm getting at? An
 

RFP is not going to go out the day after we say --

after the working group says we have a business
 

plan, even if we -- if we could legally and agreed
 

to authorize them to do it, it's not going to go out
 

the next day after that occurs. Right? There's
 

something that happens internally, surely.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, there is a lot that
 

happens internally.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And that in a parallel fashion
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And the ans--
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

230 

DR. ZIEMER: -- in anticipation of Board
 

action.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: The answer is yes, up to a
 

certain point. And I don't -- I'd have to get with
 

procurement to find out what the point -- what's the
 

drop-dead point here where they could not process
 

the procurement any further without knowing that the
 

Board supports not only the scope of work but the
 

business plan.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Again looking for some
 

efficiencies in these processes.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And I'm sure there's this
 

point, there's this control point where they would
 

not move any further -- move the procurement any
 

further until they understood that the Board had
 

approved the whole -- the whole RFP, whole scope of
 

work, everything.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Comment, Wanda? Okay. 

Suspending all that for the moment, can we look at
 

-- can we look at -- it's my sense in terms of --

even though this is mid-October, we know that the
 

staff is going to really be busy in the next few
 

months as the contractor gets up to speed. It's
 

unlikely that any of us want to meet in December.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Is that ruled out?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231 

DR. ZIEMER: No, I'm -- I don't want to rule
 

it out. I haven't -- I haven't talked to anybody
 

who's very enthusiastic about it.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I mean --

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING AND BOARD WORK SCHEDULE
 

MR. ELLIOTT: If I could, behind your tab
 

under housekeeping, there's a calendar if you don't
 

have a calendar. And I know Cori would like to have
 

this anyway. She'd like to know what your -- we'd
 

like to know what your availability is. This is a
 

housekeeping item. So your availability beyond --

you know, if we're talking January, think about
 

that, as well. You might want to use this calendar
 

and turn it in to her. Okay?
 

And yes, we are going to be very busy. 

December is always a bad month for holidays, and if
 

you know anything about the government service at
 

all, those who are fortunate enough to have use or
 

lose leave are forced to use it in that month,
 

December, unless there's very good circumstances of
 

why they cannot, and then they're granted a reprieve
 

from that. They don't lose it. You know, there's
 

things like this that we have to take into
 

consideration.
 

MR. GRIFFON: So the week of December 16th
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

232 

to 20th would probably not be a good candidate, huh?
 

DR. MELIUS: Well, and I think another way
 

of looking at that is that nothing would probably
 

get done between the next -- the next two weeks,
 

anyway, so you know -- till after the 1st, so --

there's lots of meetings usually that week, but not
 

much work after that week.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Cori?
 

MS. HOMER: The week of the 18th is out for
 

me. I'll be in the Caribbean.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And I don't suppose
 

we're allowed to meet there, either. Right?
 

Could I ask you to look at January calendars
 

and let's find out -- who has -- who's not available
 

the week of January 1st?
 

MR. PRESLEY: (Inaudible) the week of the
 

6th?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking at the wrong year.
 

DR. MELIUS: Are we going forwards or
 

backwards?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Here we are, yeah. The week of
 

January 6th.
 

MS. MUNN: I have a minor conflict on the
 

9th. I could change it.
 

DR. ZIEMER: On what?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

233 

MS. MUNN: On the 9th, but --

DR. ZIEMER: But not serious?
 

MS. MUNN: No, I could -- you know, I can
 

move --

DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else that week that's
 

particularly bad?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry's okay that week.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Week of the 14th?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry's not available --

that's actually the 13th, isn't it?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, 13th is a Sunday, 13th
 

is --

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry's not available on
 

Tuesday the 14th. He won't be available --

MS. MUNN: No, Monday the 14th.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any others that week? How
 

about the week of the 21st?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry's not available Thursday
 

the 23rd.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That's Wednesday.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry?
 

DR. ZIEMER: You know what, I'm still
 

looking at 2002.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: 2003.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Cori, you gave us 2002.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234 

MS. HOMER: No, there should be --

MR. ELLIOTT: And I'm just reminded that
 

January 20th is a Federal holiday.
 

MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was going to
 

say --

DR. ZIEMER: That'd be a good day to travel
 

on, wouldn't it?
 

MR. PRESLEY: I'm not going to be available
 

that week.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're not available that week
 

at all, Robert? Okay.
 

MS. MUNN: Why don't we just go back up to
 

the first week? I was the only one who had any --

DR. ZIEMER: I was just trying to get an
 

overview of everything. You want to try for early
 

in January?
 

MS. MUNN: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: First week of January, the week
 

of the 5th?
 

MR. PRESLEY: Sixth.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Or 6th. The 6th is Monday. 

What days, Tuesday/Wednesday?
 

MR. PRESLEY: That's fine.
 

MS. MUNN: Depends on how long --

MR. ESPINOSA: Where are we going to be
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

235 

meeting at? That's...
 

DR. ZIEMER: We can -- we certainly can meet
 

in Washington. Oak Ridge is a site we talked about
 

meeting. There are other sites like Hanford that
 

are interested in having us visit, keeping in mind
 

that a portion of this is going to be executive
 

session so that makes it less convenient for members
 

of the public, but --

MS. MUNN: D.C. is probably the best bet.
 

MR. PRESLEY: I'd like to have you come to
 

Oak Ridge in the spring.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: What about the Pan-Tex area?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Texas?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Pan-Tex itself is a little hard
 

to get to, but we could go to Texas, San Antonio. 

Is Pan-Tex the nearest?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Amarillo. Amarillo or
 

Lubbock would be --

MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry, our recorder cannot
 

capture everybody's conversation at once. I would
 

ask -- including myself.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Do we want -- I don't know if
 

we want to go to one of the sites where we expect a
 

lot of public participation when we're going to open
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

236 

up with an executive session for --

DR. ZIEMER: Well, that was the point I was
 

making. It's less --

MR. GRIFFON: You know, I would rather go to
 

those sites at another time when we had a --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, when we had a full
 

meeting. You just want to -- shall we go to
 

Washington then?
 

DR. ROESSLER: How about Cincinnati?
 

MR. PRESLEY: Cincinnati's fine.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Cincinnati's great. I think
 

that's great.
 

MS. HOMER: Let me know then. Washington
 

can be very difficult to get on short notice.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Washington's not a real safe
 

place to be right now, folks.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You want to go back to
 

Cincinnati?
 

MS. MUNN: What do you mean Washington's not
 

a --

DR. ZIEMER: Robert was suggesting we come
 

to Oak Ridge in the spring and it's -- if we went to
 

Seattle or somewhere in the Washington area, it
 

would be for the benefit of the Hanford folks. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

237 

Again, I think, Mark, your comment is pertinent
 

again. Do we want to go there when the chance to
 

interact is abbreviated.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Especially Hanford. I mean
 

I'd be concerned about locking off into a six-hour
 

executive session when you have people --

DR. ZIEMER: Robert.
 

MR. PRESLEY: It looks like the working
 

group's going to be working with Cincinnati pretty
 

close. It might be that we need to go into
 

Cincinnati in January. That way Larry's got all his
 

experts and staff and things like that up there if
 

-- when we meet with this executive group, as an
 

executive group.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Richard?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Is the working group going to
 

meet face-to-face or are we going to meet in
 

conference call? How do you plan on doing that,
 

Mark?
 

MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that we've
 

resolved that, but for scope and for the evaluation
 

part of it, I'm assuming conference call. To draft
 

budget, I don't know if we have an option of a
 

conference call for that. Yeah. Okay. So
 

conference call would be the preferred method and
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

238 

most likely.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Shall we plan on Cincinnati for
 

January?
 

MR. PRESLEY: That's fine with me.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It appears to be okay.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Was that January 7th and 8th?
 

DR. ZIEMER: 7 and 8, January 7 and 8 in 

Cincinnati. 

DR. MELIUS: Otherwise known as the big 

blizzard of 2003. 

DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

MR. ELLIOTT: I would wonder if it would be
 

the Board's pleasure to consider a secondary date in
 

January --not as an option, not as another -- an
 

option before this one, but as an option for another
 

meeting, a second meeting in that same month to take
 

up perhaps the SEC rule incase we're not ready by
 

the early part of January, and because this 6th and
 

7th -- or 7th and 8th date is pretty much -- seems
 

to me to be wrapped up trying to get this -- get
 

through this working group and this statement of
 

work. So I'm just throwing that out. I mean we're
 

not sure where we're going to be at at that point in
 

time on the SEC rule.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I just make sure I
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

239 

understand this right, but my sense would be that
 

the executive committee portion of this is a halfday or something. I mean 'cause the scope and most
 

of the work on the contract's done and it's not --

DR. MELIUS: Resolved ahead of time, and
 

that I would -- certainly would like to limit the
 

executive committee as much as we can, simply if
 

we're having -- for public availability and those
 

sort of issues, so if that's a half a day, that
 

still would give us a day and a half or whatever for
 

that. And then I guess my question, Larry, is that
 

-- I don't know if you can answer this; you usually
 

can't, but I have to ask it anyway -- is what is
 

your expectation of the Board's involvement in
 

what's happening with the SEC rule?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I'd like Ted to answer that. 

Obviously I didn't have the answer.
 

DR. ZIEMER: We haven't heard much from Ted.
 

MR. KATZ: No, I've been happily quiet. I
 

mean this is all sort of contingent and depends on
 

how things work out, but if we have -- if we come
 

out in January with something that requires -- that
 

opens up public comment again, then as before, we
 

would want the Board's advice, as well. So that's
 

-- that's what would happen. And as to the time
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

240 

line, that's hard to predict, but the very beginning
 

of January, given what Larry told you about how the
 

Federal departments work in December and so on, it's
 

just pretty -- I think that's really a high risk to
 

make it in the beginning of January for that, if it
 

is to come out in January, so -- I think it'd be
 

good to at least hold open some dates on that
 

possibility later in the month, but...
 

DR. MELIUS: Or in early February?
 

MR. KATZ: Or in early February.
 

DR. MELIUS: What's the -- the comment
 

period would be, if there is a comment period?
 

MR. KATZ: I mean again, that's all sort of
 

unknown at this point, but I'm assuming if we're
 

going to have a comment period, we're going to try
 

to condense things, make things happen quickly, so
 

-- so that's why it really would be good to have the
 

Board meeting right around the time we'd have
 

something available for the Board.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Do you know what the
 

minimum --

MR. KATZ: Well, the minimum -- I think the
 

minimum we'd consider -- I mean I think there may be
 

special provisions to do less, but I don't think
 

we'd even consider something less than 30 days for
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241 

public comment.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Larry, are you simply asking
 

that we get some dates set aside and we would decide
 

later whether we would actually need to use them,
 

but get them cleared on people's calendars? Let's
 

see if that's doable.
 

The week of January 26th, are there any
 

major conflicts the week of January 26th?
 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, that's not -- that's
 

not good for me.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Not good. That whole week is
 

bad. Okay. How about the first week of February? 

Any --

DR. ROESSLER: When is the health physics
 

meeting, the mid-year?
 

DR. TOOHEY: It's the week of the 27th, Gen.
 

DR. ROESSLER: Of what month?
 

DR. TOOHEY: January.
 

DR. ROESSLER: Oh, really?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the health physics --

health physics mid-year is 26th through 29th. It's
 

in San Antonio -- sounds like a good time to meet in
 

San Antonio.
 

The first week of February, is that bad for
 

anyone?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

242 

DR. MELIUS: Monday's bad for me, but
 

otherwise --

DR. ZIEMER: Otherwise?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Would it be better to meet like
 

on a Wednesday and Thursday? How would
 

Wednesday/Thursday of that week as a set-aside date?
 

DR. MELIUS: From Tuesday on is fine for me,
 

so...
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, shall we do that?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: The first week of February?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

MS. HOMER: What dates?
 

DR. ZIEMER: It would be 5 and 6 for the
 

meeting dates. Any conflicts there? Is Henry okay
 

on that?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry's okay on that.
 

MS. HOMER: Location?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Hanford.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Hanford in February.
 

DR. MELIUS: I really would like to -- I
 

think we should get out to a site -- a site we
 

haven't been to for that meeting, particularly --

the SEC comments are --

UNIDENTIFIED: You could go to --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

243 

MR. ESPINOSA: You can catch direct flights
 

from almost anywhere to the Bay area. I think
 

Lawrence -- near Lawrence Livermore would be ideal,
 

too.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Or Savannah River area.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: We have more claims from
 

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge than we do from
 

Lawrence Livermore/Lawrence Berkeley combined. So I
 

just offer that for your consideration. And
 

certainly I know that around the Savannah River site
 

there have been advisory board meetings of other
 

advisory bodies, the health effects subcommittee and
 

the ACERER has met at Charleston, Savannah, Augusta,
 

Aiken, Hilton Head, so -- which are south at that
 

time of year.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, just as a practical
 

matter for the snowstorm of 2003 or whatever it is,
 

a southern location may be preferable. Wanda, how's
 

-- how's Hanford that time of year?
 

MS. MUNN: Hanford that time of year can be
 

very nice, as a matter of fact. I warn you again,
 

don't try to fly into Seattle and then think you're
 

going to drive and get to Hanford easily. If you're
 

going to go there, you must fly into Pasco and --

but my rule of thumb is I keep my studded tires on
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

244 

until the 15th of February, so -- so you're on the
 

cusp. It will be -- it will be sunny, and it will
 

probably be cold, but as long as you're flying into
 

Pasco rather than flying into Seattle, you'll be
 

fine.
 

MS. HOMER: What about Spokane?
 

MS. MUNN: You don't want to drive down from
 

Spokane that time of year.
 

There's a possibility you're not going to
 

get much public from Hanford up there, but you can
 

do it.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Shall we focus on Savannah
 

River area? Okay, and you can pick out a nearby
 

town that's -- you've got to see what facilities are
 

available.
 

Okay. So that -- and that's still going to
 

be kind of tentative 'cause it's going to depend on
 

where we are on the rule.
 

MS. HOMER: When will you know for sure?
 

DR. ZIEMER: That's what we -- that's what
 

the Board is asking the staff.
 

MS. HOMER: (Inaudible) and if I have to
 

cancel after the contract is signed, we pay
 

penalties.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Sure.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

245 

MR. ELLIOTT: We're going to know by
 

December. We'll be able to coordinate by December.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

DR. MELIUS: Let us know. 

DR. ZIEMER: Now, working backwards, given 

that we have a January meeting date, are there any
 

proposals now for handling the dose reconstruction
 

work group's issues, and that is do you want to
 

proceed in a parallel path, what do you wish to do? 

And instruct the staff to arrange the executive
 

session for the January meeting?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Can I just take it by consent
 

that that is the sense of the Board, or we don't
 

need a formal vote (inaudible) without objection
 

then, we'll proceed on a parallel process. And that
 

has included with it the idea that if we finalize
 

the scope and so on and if NIOSH is able to start
 

moving through the procurement process internally
 

awaiting the final Board blessing, that they will do
 

that, as well. Is that the understanding?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Is it also the understanding
 

that we'll have potentially the working -- I mean
 

once the working group completes scope and tech
 

evaluation, we might call for a Board --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

246 

DR. ZIEMER: Right, and --

MR. GRIFFON: -- conference call meeting?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Keep in mind that Cori needs --

how much advance notice do we need for Federal
 

Register for a conference call of the Board?
 

MS. HOMER: Well, I'm supposed to have 30
 

days, but if there's less time, there's less time.
 

DR. ZIEMER: But it's not going to be let's
 

-- you know, we're done, let's have a Board call the
 

next day. Cori's got to have a reasonable amount of
 

time to get the notice in the Federal Register and
 

get the conference call set up, so... Okay?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Should we ask for dates on
 

that, considering that you need 30-day notice? 

Should we ask for dates -- potential dates?
 

DR. ZIEMER: This is to have a conference
 

call of the full Board to review their
 

recommendations --

MR. ELLIOTT: Scope of work and language --

MR. GRIFFON: Right. And I'm assuming we're
 

looking at dates at least 30 days from now, or 30
 

days from --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think we're getting --

we're getting into late November or early December,
 

probably. November/December time frame probably. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

247 

Right?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so --

MR. ELLIOTT: So I understand this, the
 

expectation would be to have the Board review the
 

scope of work and the evaluation plan. The working
 

group's developing -- or has developed at that point
 

in time the business plan and you're anticipating
 

that then the whole package could be submitted to
 

procurement until you have the opportunity to meet
 

in executive session to review and approve the
 

business plan, the RFP would not go further than
 

necessary through procurement. And it's the --

DR. ZIEMER: Full Board would not have seen
 

the business plan.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Full Board would not have seen
 

the business plan and the full Board would, in
 

effect, review and approve that at the first
 

opportunity -- this Board meeting in January -- in
 

an executive session. What I need to find out is
 

what's that control point internally for when it
 

wouldn't move any farther. And it may be right at
 

the start -- at the front door. Okay?
 

DR. ZIEMER: And if that's the case, that's
 

how it'll have to be.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

248 

MR. ELLIOTT: That's how it'll have to be,
 

so they may not take any action on it at all. I'm
 

working on trying to figure that out.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Can --

DR. ZIEMER: Robert.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Can we go ahead and set a
 

conference call date up now, sometime the first week
 

in December?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, what I -- yeah, what 

I --

MR. PRESLEY: Let's go ahead and do that, 

and that way it'll help Cori, and we've got
 

everybody here, almost, that can tell us what their
 

schedules are, and let's go ahead --

DR. ZIEMER: Set aside two hours or more?
 

MR. GRIFFON: No, it's a lot of detail,
 

probably, so maybe three hours.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Is it your intention to submit
 

-- the working group to submit the -- your final
 

document in advance of this conference call so that
 

they can review it and have been prepared with their
 

questions? That'll cut down the time.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. We'll circulate it --

we'll try to circulate it a week in advance.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: We would want to put that on
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

249 

the web site, as well, because it's a public meeting
 

and so the discussion documents that would be used
 

in that need to be available to the public.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Do they have to be available
 

30 days prior to the...
 

MR. ELLIOTT: The discussion documents -- I
 

don't believe.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Of course, yeah, yeah.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Larry, how long does it take
 

you to put something like that on the web?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: A matter of half a day.
 

MR. PRESLEY: Okay.
 

MR. GRIFFON: That's fine, so let's look for
 

dates the first week in December.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Henry can't meet on the 3rd or
 

the 5th or the 6th. He's available the 2nd and the
 

4th, and anytime during the week of the 9th.
 

DR. ZIEMER: The only day I have open that
 

week is the 2nd.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Let's do it --

DR. ZIEMER: The 2nd?
 

DR. DEHART: I'm out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: You're out on the 2nd. How
 

about November 30? Is that too early?
 

MR. PRESLEY: 2nd of December's a Sunday. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

250 

No, wait a minute, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the
 

wrong one.
 

MR. GRIFFON: The 29th, is that Thanksgiving
 

Day weekend?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay, so let's -- how
 

about the 9th of December?
 

DR. ROESSLER: I'm out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: 10th?
 

DR. ROESSLER: Out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: 11th?
 

DR. ROESSLER: Out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: 12?
 

DR. ROESSLER: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: How's 12? You're okay with
 

that?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: What was wrong with the 4th?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Several of us were out on the
 

4th.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Roy's out.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Roy's out, I'm out. 12? Is it
 

the 12th?
 

MR. GRIFFON: December 12th at 1:00 p.m.
 

eastern time -- or are we talking eastern time?
 

DR. ZIEMER: 1:00 p.m. eastern standard
 

time.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

251 

MS. HOMER: Two hours?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Everybody has that then
 

on their calendar.
 

DR. MELIUS: Would someone repeat for me the
 

contingency date for February?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: February 5th and 6th.
 

DR. MELIUS: 5th and 6th, thank you. The
 

contingency of the follow-- second meeting, whatever
 

we're calling it. I shouldn't have called it
 

contingency.
 

MR. GRIFFON: And do we need an agenda for
 

that conference call to put in the public record?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

MR. GRIFFON: I guess it would be --

DR. ZIEMER: Agenda item -- it's going to be
 

a one-item agenda.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Well, two items, I guess, the
 

techni-- or...
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's one item with two
 

parts.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Right.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: To discuss the RFP.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's it.
 

MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. I just wanted
 

(inaudible).
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

252 

DR. ZIEMER: You can give her the agenda
 

today. Thank you.
 

Now, having done that, I think we need to --

we do have some other housekeeping items, but in
 

fairness to members of the public who asked to be --

well, actually I haven't received -- are there any
 

requests for this afternoon? The public comment
 

period was scheduled for 3:45 and we appreciate the
 

-- those who have been willing to delay briefly.
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Okay, I'll take these in order. I think
 

Phil Scofield we heard from this morning. I think
 

this was on the morning list, so Mike Schaeffer,
 

you're up, I think.
 

MR. SCHAEFFER: I just have some brief
 

comments, kind of postscript to being here for two
 

days. One is on the consideration for the task to
 

review -- independently review dose reconstructions. 

One of the key tasks of course was task four, to
 

look at the SEC petition profile. And the question
 

I have is, would that also include some means to
 

review the NIOSH decision as to whether or not dose
 

reconstructions could be performed or not?
 

DR. ZIEMER: One of the group want to answer
 

that?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

253 

MR. GRIFFON: No. I don't know that we can
 

answer that. I mean you've mentioned this earlier
 

to me. I think we should consider it. We haven't
 

seen -- seen the final SEC rule, so --

MR. SCHAEFFER: Yeah, we realize that I'm
 

asking this question in anticipation of what your
 

final 42 CFR part 83 rule is going to look like, but
 

if there is some means of deciding when dose
 

reconstructions can or cannot be performed, at least
 

if that is a item that goes into the 42 CFR part 18
 

final rule that also is part of the checkout of the
 

-- the independent checkout of the dose
 

reconstructions, that that, too, be a provision.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It's certainly been an item of
 

discussion, Mike, so we appreciate your comment on
 

that.
 

MR. SCHAEFFER: Next one is, I wanted to
 

recognize that the VA, of course, Department of
 

Veterans Affairs, initiated and funded the task to
 

update the radioepidemiological tables from 1986
 

that resulted of course in the IREP product that you
 

all are using with some modifications. Likewise,
 

the Department of Veterans Affairs has an advisory
 

committee much like yourselves that oversee the
 

application of such things as the IREP table. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

254 

Should there not be some means between say this
 

committee and the committee that the VA has to at
 

least open up some line of communications concerning
 

the implementation of IREP and the changes that are
 

going to of course come along? Obviously the VA has
 

had some concerns in how just to implement IREP, and
 

they're going to be reconvening their particular
 

advisory board in December. My recommendation would
 

be that both of the advisory boards provide at least
 

some observer to each other in terms of sharing some
 

of the concerns of implementing changes to IREP.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Mike, could you be sure to make
 

available to us the schedule of that group so that
 

we can at least --

MR. SCHAEFFER: I most certainly will.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Appreciate that.
 

MR. SCHAEFFER: The last item really owes
 

from -- goes back to the fact that we also have an
 

independent process on our dose reconstruction being
 

performed by the National Academy of Sciences. And
 

of course they've boiled down the task to two very,
 

very key issues, is one, are the dose
 

reconstructions we perform correct, are they right;
 

and second of all, are they fair.
 

It looks like in your consideration for an
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

255 

independent review process that you've done a very,
 

very good job in considering how to evaluate and
 

assess whether the dose reconstructions are right. 

We think it would also be useful to -- at least for
 

the general public who is going to be having claims
 

heard through your process, that there be some means
 

of evaluating that there's some degree of customer
 

satisfaction and fairness through the process. We
 

think that's also a very, very key item, even though
 

it's a non-technical item, that I think is very,
 

very important to assess the well-being of the
 

program.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Next
 

we'll hear from Alex Smith. Alex.
 

MR. SMITH: I'm from New Mexico, just south
 

of here about 30 miles. I worked for LANL for 35
 

years and retired in 1982, from 1947 to 1982. And
 

this morning I kept hearing the year 1952, and as a
 

claimant, I am concerned about the period prior to
 

1952. I'm talking about the years 1947 to 1952 when
 

I became contaminated with mercury and asbestos and
 

perhaps radiation. Is research and investigation
 

going to reach back that far when working -- when
 

working conditions at LANL were sub-standard and
 

compared to today's standards would be considered
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

256 

quite hazardous, or are we talking 1952 until the
 

present?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think we can get an answer to
 

that right away and Jim here --

DR. NETON: Yeah, I think I can answer the
 

question. The 1952 I believe that you saw on the
 

site profile chart that I showed was what we
 

actually had received from the site itself, and I
 

think if you noticed, that bar was not 100 percent,
 

so they're missing -- there's missing information,
 

and that would include that 1947 to '52 period. And
 

I would say even today, as we speak, there are
 

people up at Los Alamos that work for NIOSH looking
 

at records in that specific time frame and we're
 

going to capture as many of those records as we can,
 

so they're certainly going to be looked at.
 

MR. SMITH: There's not too many of us left, 

you know. 

DR. NETON: I understand. But there are log 

books, my understanding, that outline the dosimetry
 

results for people in that time frame, and other
 

records that we're pursuing.
 

MR. SMITH: Thank you very much.
 

DR. NETON: You're welcome.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Next we'll hear from Bob Tabor. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

257 

Bob?
 

MR. TABOR: (Inaudible)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, Bob, you signed up. We
 

didn't twist your arm.
 

MR. TABOR: Yeah. Well, I'm not going to go
 

through that long rendition of who I am. I've been
 

here quite often. I want to chime in on something
 

that I believe Phillip chimed in on earlier today
 

that deals with the IREP model. And I guess the way
 

I look at this is I'm not a scientist and so I like
 

to put it in terms of more from what I would just
 

call kind of a common sense perspective.
 

I look at it somewhat like apples and
 

oranges, and I guess my -- my concerns deal with
 

more so the process, maybe the philosophy, the
 

strategy, the dynamics by which, you know, the model
 

might have been developed. And as I said, I look at
 

it somewhat as apples and oranges.
 

The nuclear worker, he wasn't at Hiroshima
 

and Nagasaki when the A-bombs was dropped. The
 

nuclear worker, he was not the larger part of the
 

national public. Therefore I would say that the NCI
 

studies and that particular type of model is not
 

probably the most representative and applicable
 

model for the nuclear worker's issues.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

258 

Now you've got on one hand over here -- let
 

me just say -- let's call it Bob's best book on
 

fruit farming, and you're in the apple growing
 

business. And over here you've got Bob's best book
 

on how to grow apples. My common sense says that
 

what's most applicable is that of what deals with
 

how to grow apples.
 

Okay. My point is simply this, folks. I
 

find that the IREP model was lacking. Where is the
 

worker epidemiological studies? You know, there's
 

-- apples and oranges are fruit, but there's a
 

difference between apples and oranges. And I think
 

you probably get my point on that, so that's all I
 

got to say to that.
 

Yesterday I touched on a comment -- I
 

touched on the issue of credibility. I would just
 

like to remind us that that, in my mind, is a -- is
 

a very serious issue. And if we have issues
 

relative to conflict of interest, which we've
 

discussed a lot here in the last two days, and have
 

heard a lot of new things. And issues on disclosure
 

and maybe transparency issues and those type of
 

things, all's I would urge us to do is to be sure
 

that we really look at the root cause of things if
 

we have those issues and not to do a band-aid effect
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

259 

but to really find the -- you know, a good solution
 

to those things. And I guess that basically ends my
 

comment, and I learned a lot, so thanks.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Bob. Oh, I didn't give the
 

Board opportunity to ask questions of Bob, Mike or
 

Alex. Any questions?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll continue then. 

Let's see is it Paul -- is it Montoya? I have a
 

little trouble reading everybody's handwriting. 

Paul is a former LANL employee from Espanola, New
 

Mexico. If you'd use the mike, please, Paul.
 

MR. MONTOYA: Yes, thank you for giving me
 

the opportunity to make a comment out here. I went
 

to work at the Laboratory -- for Los Alamos National
 

Laboratory in 1962 in the powder* metallurgy group
 

and also in the fabrication group, also -- or rather
 

in the casting or foundry, and I worked all my 31
 

years -- I retired in 1993, November, 1993 and so
 

that was a total of 31 years. And throughout all
 

that time I worked with beryllium. My first 15
 

years I worked in the powder form beryllium and the
 

second 15 years I worked in the metal form and it
 

was all casting, a little bit of assembly work. And
 

also I worked with plutonium A-239*, a little bit of
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

260 

238. And also -- I also worked with U-235 my whole
 

years.
 

And the reason that I'm out here today, I do
 

have a -- I was diagnosed at the National Jewish
 

Hospital in Denver as having -- and also with John
 

(sic) Hopkins University as having beryllium
 

sensitivity. I do have also a body burden -- what
 

they call a body burden of -- and I do have like
 

five molecules of americium 240 in my lungs.
 

However, the Department of Energy rules that 

that's -- that's not sufficient, but in the eyes of
 

the attorney -- of an attorney, that's more than
 

enough. As I quoted it to -- one time in -- I had a
 

meeting with an associate director of the National
 

Laboratory and that's how much they care. He told
 

me that -- what's wrong with a body burden? And I
 

told him, how would you like to have one?
 

So -- but anyway -- and I went up there for
 

a ten-minute meeting. He said you're interrupting
 

two days. It ended up a meeting of two days. And
 

you know, a lot of these people, they're
 

disrespectful and that's why the Laboratory really
 

-- they're having problems. I could be over here --

and that's why a lot of things went bad.
 

And so that's the reason -- okay, I retired
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

261 

in 1993. In 1994, in February, 1994, myself and two
 

co-workers that worked with me -- Harold Archuleta
 

and Lepio* Garcia -- we went around out there. We
 

hand-delivered a letter to Bill Richardson, the
 

Congressman, and we asked him to come up with a
 

compensation bill, which he did, but then he moved
 

on to -- so then he turned the whole thing over to
 

Jeff Bingaman.
 

Jeff Bingaman has been very good to us. He
 

came up with a compensation bill and it went on and
 

on and now -- now -- he went ahead and -- and also
 

came up with the -- in which is last -- sometime
 

last week where it will cover me. Also if I have
 

beryllium sensitivity.
 

And right now what -- and the reason that I
 

am out here is because all this -- all this
 

compensation bill that is intended to help us
 

people, the workers, it's not working. And the
 

reason it's not working because the bureaucrats got
 

involved in it. They appropriated $226 million for
 

this compensation. Now everybody's got their hands
 

in the cookie jar, and that's -- that's very true. 

And the reason --

Okay, so when this bill came up, the way the
 

language was written up, it said okay, we will go
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262 

ahead and pay off these claims with the Department
 

of Labor. However, okay, the Department of Labor,
 

okay. (Inaudible) appeal (inaudible) the appeal
 

(inaudible) that is going to deny your claim was
 

going to hear the appeal.
 

Okay, so the whole (inaudible) idea. I
 

hired an attorney. I signed a letter of
 

representation. Today if I call the Department of
 

Labor in Denver or wherever, I can't even get the
 

time of day. And the reason is because I signed --

they told me that I signed a legal representation
 

and the reason that I signed a legal representation
 

was on -- upon advice of the attorney, my attorney. 

And my attorney said okay, in other words, the
 

reason -- well, what -- if these people over there
 

at the office in Espanola, if they fill out the
 

form, are they going to (inaudible) will have to go
 

out there under an appeal.
 

Okay, so I went through the whole process. 

I was denied. Okay? So when I (inaudible) my
 

attorney and my attorney said there's nothing to
 

appeal. It says the same person, you stand a chance
 

like a snowball in Hell, you know, so the same
 

person at the Department of Labor denied your appeal
 

-- I mean denied your claim, they're going to be
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

263 

hearing -- so we're wasting our time.
 

So what we would like to do, like I told
 

Jeff Bingaman, we want to make this thing work. 

Okay? And that's exactly what we need and so we
 

would -- what we would like to do is compensate all
 

these people that -- that have -- they deserve --

half -- or maybe -- mostly all my co-workers,
 

they're gone. They're gone. And nobody likes to
 

hear the word AIDS. Okay? But in comparison -- the
 

way -- the way a doctor described it to me at the
 

National Jewish Hospital is if you have beryllium
 

sensitivity, that's -- that's compared -- compared
 

to HIV, which would be -- so in other words, it's a
 

-- in other words, it's a foot in the grave. How
 

long -- it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of
 

when, you know. It's -- in other words --

So I would like to ask you that -- to please
 

get this bill going. And like Jeff Bingaman, I have
 

a lot of faith in God and I know that Jeff Bingaman
 

-- and he promised me and he said that it would be
 

covered and my -- he said you -- you will get your
 

compensation. And there's no matter what -- nobody
 

can tell me how sick I am or whether I have the
 

potential of dying through this illness and so
 

forth.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

264 

You know, so in other words, it's a -- it's
 

a -- it's a -- the burden of proof. In other words,
 

right now the burden of proof is on us right now,
 

and what -- we would like to have the burden of
 

proof on these people (inaudible) making claims. I
 

feel that this -- that by having the Department of
 

Labor -- and as a matter of fact, I recommended that
 

to Congressman Udall and also to Jeff Bingaman. I
 

told them that the Department of Labor shouldn't be
 

involved in this. They should give it to an
 

accounting firm and that'd be -- that would be about
 

the right way 'cause it doesn't matter how --

they're going to try to beat you out of something
 

that you have coming, so I -- I -- giving -- thing
 

-- I'm sorry that I took a little bit of time -- of
 

your time, but I sure thank you for giving me the
 

opportunity, so thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. We
 

certainly appreciate the frustration you feel. It
 

sounds like you've enlisted some pretty strong help
 

with the Congressional people to -- so maybe they
 

will be successful in addressing this issue in your
 

behalf.
 

Let's see, I have next -- oh, are there
 

questions from any of the Board members?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

265 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think Ken Silver is next on 

the list. Ken. 

MR. SILVER: I'm sure it's okay with you if 

I allow B. Jo* Baer to speak.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, I have her on the
 

list, and she's certainly welcome to go -- I just
 

was taking them in the order they were handed. 

You're welcome to go next. And it's B. Jo --

MS. BAER: B. Jo Baer, and my husband was a
 

nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab in
 

the seventies to the -- to 1991 when he died. He
 

died of lung cancer and had never smoked a cigarette
 

in his life and was a very healthy man with healthy
 

habits. I'm a claimant, and I have a question that
 

is very personal and I don't -- I hope I'm not
 

taking time asking my personal question, but it has
 

to do with record-keeping and it has to do with
 

credibility and it has to do with my unfortunate
 

lack of total confidence in this government process.
 

I filled out my application and it's very
 

large and I was lucky to get records that other
 

people weren't able to get, so I know how difficult
 

it is to get records and I know that when I read the
 

law, it said that when -- that the decision would be
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

266 

made depending -- if a person's cancer or illness
 

was at least as likely to have been caused by work
 

at the Lab. And then I don't understand what dose
 

-- how you do dose reconstructions, but then -- but
 

I do understand it's becoming harder -- it seems to
 

be becoming harder and harder to provide the
 

information that you -- that is needed in order to
 

do a credible dose reconstruction because I don't
 

have -- myself, as a claimant -- access to all the
 

information that's needed.
 

However, several, several months ago I
 

received a telephone call -- or a letter that things
 

were moving along and that I might be on the list of
 

people to be interviewed, or maybe I had a letter
 

and I didn't -- wasn't -- it wasn't (inaudible) to
 

me. I made a telephone call to Denver and I was
 

told that some records had come from DOE that was
 

going -- that would be used for the dose
 

reconstruction, and I asked for a copy of those
 

records because I would like to have in my
 

possession the same information that -- that the
 

people who were doing dose reconstruction have -- I
 

mean if it's possible. And then I -- that's a --

that's a fair question -- fair request. And I --

thank you.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

267 

So -- but I was told that what I had to do
 

was fill out a form and go through DOE and apply for
 

public -- you know, what is it, Freedom of
 

Information Act. And I said I don't want to do
 

that. I want to know what you have. I want to know
 

what they gave you. And that sounds like that's
 

okay? I don't have -- okay. So --

DR. ZIEMER: And we probably won't want to
 

discuss the details of your --

MS. BAER: No.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- case here in --

MS. BAER: No, absolutely not.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- this sort of forum, but in
 

terms of gathering information -- and maybe Jim or
 

Larry can address that -- but in fact the burden is
 

not on you to come up with the records. We do like
 

to obtain records that survivors may have. 

Sometimes they know some things that maybe are a
 

little difficult to learn otherwise. But the burden
 

is on NIOSH to -- and DOE to come up with those
 

records.
 

Could we ask either Larry Elliott or Jim to
 

-- on the NIOSH staff to address those questions. 

Jim?
 

DR. NETON: Dr. Ziemer's correct. It is
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

268 

NIOSH's responsibility to obtain the records, not
 

the claimant's, as I think I indicated yesterday. 

The claimant's certainly -- it's acceptable for a
 

claimant to obtain the records and to review them. 

That's their right, but it is really our burden to
 

request the information from the Department of
 

Energy.
 

I'm somewhat confused regarding the way
 

things occurred in this particular case. I believe
 

you indicated that the Department of Labor informed
 

you that they had the Department of Energy records
 

that they'd just received. That is not the usual
 

means by which we obtain records. The Department of
 

Labor would forward a claim to us, at which point we
 

would issue a request to the Department of Energy
 

for your exposure -- or your father -- or husband's
 

exposure records.
 

MS. BAER: Well, I meant to say that the
 

Department of Energy had given the -- had provided
 

the information that was needed. But when I asked
 

for a copy of the information, I was told I would
 

have to go through some Freedom of Information Act
 

procedure.
 

DR. NETON: Well -- right, I understand what
 

you're saying. But it's unusual for the Department
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

269 

of Energy to send exposure records directly to the
 

Department of Labor. That is not the normal
 

mechanism.
 

MS. BAER: Oh.
 

DR. NETON: The Department of Labor merely
 

establishes an employment at the covered facility
 

and the diagnosis of a cancer.
 

MS. BAER: Maybe it was from the Lab that
 

they got them.
 

DR. NETON: Well, they shouldn't have. I
 

mean not -- sometimes mistakes do happen or maybe
 

records were sent to the wrong location, but the
 

normal mechanism is that we would request -- NIOSH
 

-- the exposure records for your --

MS. BAER: Husband.
 

DR. NETON: -- your husband. And then once
 

we receive those records, call to schedule an
 

interview with the claimant.
 

MS. BAER: Well, the -- if I -- excuse me. 

My understanding was you called whoever you were
 

supposed to call and you got the record, and I then
 

asked for a copy of the records, and I was told --

and that's really -- that's really my question.
 

DR. NETON: If you did call the Department
 

-- if you did call NIOSH and we had the records, we
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

270 

-- certainly it's not our policy to instruct you to
 

go to the Department of Energy to obtain copies of
 

those records. We would provide them to you, given
 

the appropriate paperwork were filled out in our
 

organization.
 

MS. BAER: Well, I have on my answering
 

machine a recording of the woman who called and told
 

me she'd tell me how to go through the Freedom of
 

Information Act, so I have her name and her
 

telephone number.
 

DR. NETON: Well, perhaps after the meeting
 

we could talk and you could give me that information
 

and I'll exchange my phone number with you and we
 

could discuss it.
 

MS. BAER: Okay. So what I'm understanding
 

is that I -- it is okay for me to have that
 

information that you're using to make your decision.
 

DR. NETON: Absolutely.
 

MS. BAER: That's what I --

MR. ELLIOTT: Just to add to that, of course
 

you're allowed to have that information and it will
 

be provided to you. It will also be available in
 

the administrative record that goes with our
 

determination of the dose reconstruction to the
 

Department of Labor for the final decision, and so
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

271 

you'd have access to that, as well. And as we
 

talked in Cincinnati before we boarded the plane to
 

come out here, we're -- we'll check on this issue
 

about the interview and we'll get back to you. 

You'll get a call later from me or Jim.
 

MS. BAER: Thank you very much.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And then Ken, you still
 

wish to address the group. Thank you.
 

MR. SILVER: We're always very impressed
 

when members of a public body like this stay until
 

the late afternoon to hear public comment, so thank
 

you all.
 

A few quick points. I was mentioned that
 

someone yesterday referred to ORISE or ORAU as a
 

major DOE contractor. We're well aware that it
 

never has been and is not now an M&O contractor. 

But in the world of health physics and epidemiologic
 

studies, which is why we're all here, of course it's
 

a major contractor to DOE.
 

One simple example, a DOE contractor with
 

history associates some years back to compile
 

finding aids to epidemiologically relevant record
 

series. Hanford filled several volumes, Savannah
 

River, Los Alamos, a big three-ring binder, and they
 

took their time to do a separate binder for ORISE
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

272 

because it has had a central role in health studies
 

in DOE facilities for many years. There's a lot of
 

expertise there, but we need to balance that with
 

public concerns about conflict of interest.
 

There are other stakeholders in this program
 

and in fact the stakeholders who made this program a
 

reality, the folks you've heard from, PACE* Union,
 

the building trades. And they have some very good,
 

innovative ideas for how to build public confidence
 

in dose reconstruction. PACE has pioneered public
 

worker participation in exposure assessment,
 

methodologies, and it's really time for a fresh look
 

at some of these old DOE sites. And if we put all
 

our reliance on ORISE, we wouldn't get that.
 

Secondly, you've heard how important it is
 

to not take documents that you get from LANL at face
 

value. I would argue you need to take workers at
 

face value and to just dig and dig and dig in the
 

course of trying to document people's exposures.
 

I wasn't in the room when Alex Smith began
 

his talk, but at a public meeting like this in March
 

of 2000 he described a mercury poisoning incident
 

occurring in the late 1940's. The Lab, throughout
 

his subsequent career, denied it had ever occurred. 

And some of us took the time to dig into DOE records
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

273 

and lo and behold found extensive documentation from
 

Harriet Hardy* in one year that she spent at Los
 

Alamos in 1948 of that very contamination incident.
 

Another example of why it's important to dig
 

and dig at Los Alamos, we had a spike in thyroid
 

cancer in Los Alamos County in the late 1980's or
 

early 1990's, so serious public and scientific
 

concern focused on the research reactors located in
 

the middle of town. Omega west reactor was five
 

megawatts when built, increased to eight megawatts
 

in the late 1960's under a national security
 

exemption. The stack was 200 feet tall, but since
 

the reactor was down in the canyon, that meant it
 

vented essentially at ground level.
 

We're not aware of any fuel failures at
 

Omega west, but ran across a memo in 1971 where a
 

bunch of people from H-1, the radiologic health
 

group arrived at the reactor to find that the surge
 

tank valve was open. And we found that -- and the
 

entire rest of the sentence is blacked out on the
 

best available copy.
 

So this is a plea to NIOSH and your
 

contractors to not be satisfied with this kind of
 

thing, but to dig and dig and dig, and listen to
 

what the workers have to tell you. Like Alex Smith,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

274 

the documentation may not be in hand, but the story
 

was very, very real.
 

Another example, in the late 1960's DP* west
 

was the Lab's major plutonium facility. A major
 

production push was on throughout the complex in
 

1969. And if you were satisfied with the official
 

emissions inventory in the community reading room,
 

you might believe that room 401, the hot cell, was
 

not in use in 1969.
 

But if you dig a little deeper, use the
 

Freedom of Information Act, in fact there was a
 

major increase in plutonium counts in the room air
 

of room 401 and possible fission products, as well. 

In a column of two and three-digit numbers, there is
 

some seven, eight and nine-digit numbers on these
 

monitoring reports, with a little notation that says
 

these figures should not be recorded in annual
 

report.
 

And we're still at a loss to figure out what
 

happened in room 401 at DP west in July of 1969. 

We're hoping that some of the workers will now talk
 

to us and some of the monitors will open up about
 

why these figures should not be recorded in annual
 

report.
 

Los Alamos is particularly problematic when
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

275 

it comes to access to historical documents, so we're
 

going to be watching you very, very carefully on
 

that phase of the dose reconstruction.
 

I also wanted to mention the frustration the
 

families feel in interpreting some of the
 

documentation. A sheet metal worker whose family
 

spoke very passionately yesterday, 1950 he's
 

documented to have had moderate exposure to some
 

hazard in 11 of 12 months of the calendar year.
 

What is the hazard? Well, it's something
 

with a code number 49. We're pretty sure it's not
 

his technical area. Among the other hazards that he
 

was not exposed to are polonium, tube alloy*, TNT. 

We know what all those are. But what in the world
 

was hazard 49? And why in the world are there no
 

dosimetry readings in his personal report for the
 

year 1950?
 

So this is a plea for some serious
 

independent technical assistance in helping families
 

understand what this is all about. Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for that
 

input. Again I'll ask if any of the Board members
 

have questions?
 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We thank all those who
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

276 

did stay to participate and provide their comments,
 

and those again will all be on the record, as well.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Excuse me, we've just been
 

notified that Congressman Udall's office has a brief
 

statement.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Yes, I hadn't been
 

informed of that. We'd be pleased to hear from
 

representatives of the Congressman's office. And
 

you'll need to give us your name for the record.
 

MR. VASQUEZ: My name's Robert Vasquez and I
 

work for Congressman Tom Udall. And this is just a
 

brief statement from his office.
 

Congressman Tom Udall, who represents
 

northern New Mexico in Congress, and many of the
 

constituents who work -- worked and work for Los
 

Alamos National Labs has been closely monitoring the
 

legislation and how the program is being carried
 

out. Congressman Udall is one of the original cosponsors of the EEOICA (sic). The Congressman is
 

co-sponsoring the Strickland Bill to some of the
 

flaws in the Act -- to address some of the flaws in
 

the Act, I'm sorry.
 

There are many compelling arguments to
 

support why LANL or LANL groups should be designated
 

as a special cohort. We understand that the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

277 

catalyst to the process will really be the release
 

of the regulations in January, 2003. However, we'd
 

like to say that Congressman Udall will be
 

investigating ways to allow LANL to be so designated
 

as a Special Exposure Cohort. Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, and please
 

note that the Board does appreciate the ongoing
 

interest of his office in this process.
 

ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEKEEPING
 

I want us to return now to the housekeeping
 

issues. Cori, could you -- and/or Jim, help us with
 

what other things we need to do. I think -- I know
 

that you all need to provide Larry with your hours
 

-- preparation hours and other time spent beyond the
 

meeting times. Right?
 

Be sure to include your name. If you're not
 

sure of your name, just put it under mine.
 

(Pause)
 

DR. ZIEMER: There is a section called
 

housekeeping, and --

MS. HOMER: There should be an action item
 

which I believe you've already seen. And I'll try
 

to make this really quick.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think we're looking at the
 

table --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

278 

MS. HOMER: How's that?
 

DR. ZIEMER: The table. Right? Under
 

action --

MS. HOMER: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: -- items, you see the table
 

where we have the running list of action items and
 

their status.
 

MS. HOMER: And you can tell that there's
 

been a little bit of a structural change to it. 

What we are hoping to do is to be able to define
 

things a little better for everybody with the action
 

items listing. Wanted to be very specific about the
 

items and the status, and identify whether it was
 

the Board's action item or agenda item, or whether
 

it was NIOSH's item to deal with. And we have --

as soon as it -- let me see if I can get this up. 

Where is it?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: What?
 

MS. HOMER: The action items listing. It's
 

not here.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: I don't have it.
 

MS. HOMER: You don't have it? I gave it to
 

Chris. Oh, well, I guess I'm winging it, folks.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: There's a hard copy.
 

MS. HOMER: There is a hard copy in your
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

279 

book. As you can see, we've divided it by meeting,
 

by date and status. In order to keep this less --

at least somewhat simple, as each item has been
 

completed and identified as completed, it will show
 

up on the next meeting's action items listing, then
 

it will disappear. Well, not exactly disappear. 

What we're going to do is move it to a completed
 

action items listing, so we will be able to keep
 

track of everything that's been done, the day it was
 

completed, et cetera. But if we were to bring a
 

running action items list to the Board every time,
 

it would become unmanageable very quickly.
 

Each action item on this listing is
 

something that the Board has provided consensus on. 

The action items are not for individual --

individuals requests. It has to be brought to the
 

attention of the Board and discussed and voted on
 

for it to make it to the action items listing.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Or maybe not voted on, but at
 

least there's a sense of the Board that it's --

MS. HOMER: Well, yeah, sense of the Board,
 

provided that -- you know, most folks really want
 

this on there.
 

We have decided that NIOSH is going to
 

manage this action items listing and provide it to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

280 

be attached to the minutes so that it's still
 

provided prior to the meeting. What we're going to
 

do is, with the assistance of the writer/editor and
 

the court reporter, as well as NIOSH staff and the
 

Board, we're going to try and cover everything from
 

every meeting to make sure that everything that --

we have a sense of the Board -- that it makes it to
 

the action items listing. We just want to make sure
 

that that's everything that has been requested is
 

covered.
 

I think that's about all I have, Larry.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I just -- a question to
 

make sure I understood you, but if you look at the
 

first page there, it's under meeting four --

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh.
 

DR. MELIUS: -- item number two, or let's
 

take an even quicker on. Number four, e-member --

e-mail members about web site. That I don't think
 

needs to stay on the list. It's something -- you've
 

instituted a policy of -- procedure for doing that
 

now. We are now getting those.
 

MS. HOMER: Okay.
 

DR. MELIUS: To me, that would be something
 

that I'd just take off 'cause it's a procedural
 

change and I think it just clutters up, and if we
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

281 

forget to --

DR. ZIEMER: Some of those ongoing things
 

are probably in that category.
 

MS. HOMER: Well, we'd also planned on
 

providing this information to you in a house --

under the housekeeping section of the agenda at
 

every meeting so that we all have an opportunity to
 

comment on what can be taken off, what should be
 

left on. There may be some items that are ongoing
 

that you want kept in front of the Board and the
 

public and -- on a consistent basis.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. And the other thing I'd
 

suggest we -- I mentioned earlier today is I think
 

it would be helpful with some of these -- we have
 

some things like further information on IREP and,
 

you know, some was -- Dr. Land presenting and so
 

forth, but there are a number of issues that had
 

been brought up and suggested that we haven't gotten
 

to, and I think if we did -- a working group would
 

help us sort of consolidate those issues, work with
 

you in terms of scheduling if there are appropriate
 

outside speakers or something to come to Board
 

meetings and so forth, and maybe that's a better way
 

of dealing with that issue than -- rather than
 

keeping this as an ongoing thing. And since Henry
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

282 

did leave, we certainly will volun-- I will
 

volunteer him for that committee.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is it also possible to crosssort the -- and this is helpful, they're sort of
 

sequentially here, but maybe this is partially what
 

you're -- have in mind, but for example, a table
 

that had the IREP items is pulled out of this. In
 

other words, a topical table as a quick crosssorter, a crosswalk* of these. So if you said well,
 

what open items do we have in IREP, it would be
 

there, what other items do we have --

MS. HOMER: Okay, we can do that. That's
 

should be -- that should be very easy.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That's something you could do. 

That would help address what your concern is, Jim.
 

Jim, it wasn't clear to me at this point,
 

though. Were you making a formal motion on an
 

action on IREP or --

DR. MELIUS: I was -- a formal motion or
 

sense of the Board or whatever you want to do, but I
 

guess I'm suggesting that we set up a working group
 

on dealing with some of the IREP and scientific
 

issues to try to work to I guess prepare the Board
 

for dealing with some of these issues as they come
 

up to -- to review -- we deal with some of the
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

283 

scientific information that is ongoing, and actually
 

some of our public comments today about how do we
 

coordinate what our activities and what our -- what
 

NIOSH and what -- how we handle IREP with what some
 

of the other groups are, the VA and so forth in
 

dealing with it. I think that working group could
 

work on some of those issues, also, and I think it
 

would be helpful.
 

MS. HOMER: There's a difference between a
 

working group and a subcommittee, and it sounds to
 

me like what you're proposing might be something of
 

a subcommittee. Working group has one task and
 

short term. A subcommittee is something a little
 

bit longer term or very much longer term.
 

DR. MELIUS: Well, let's charge a working
 

group with coming up by the next meeting with a
 

proposal for whether this needs to be dealt with
 

through a subcommittee or what's the right best
 

procedure for doing -- for handling some of these
 

issues. 

DR. ZIEMER: On an ongoing basis. 

DR. MELIUS: On an ongoing basis. 

DR. ZIEMER: So you're looking at a work 

group to simply come up with a more solid proposal.
 

DR. MELIUS: Right. And then if it needs to
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

284 

be a subcommittee, we can decide and some issues
 

with that, yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: It would be appropriate for you
 

to make a motion to that effect, and the content of
 

the motion would become basically the charge to the
 

committee, I think. So if you want to give us a 

formal motion. 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would move that the --

we establish a working group to come up with
 

recommendations to the Board at its next -- at our
 

next meeting -- next full meeting, personal meeting
 

rather than the conference call meeting, regarding a
 

number of issues related to IREP, as well as our
 

coordination of IREP issues with some of the other
 

government groups that are dealing with the IREP
 

model.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: I'll second.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Is there discussion
 

on this motion? Tony.
 

DR. ANDRADE: I question even the necessity
 

for having any group deal with -- have to deal with
 

IREP issues from this particular Board when we have
 

NIOSH staff that deals directly with SENES and
 

provides us with very timely updates, I believe,
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

285 

with respect to models in IREP, how they are
 

implemented, and the effects that those
 

implementations may have on POC. Hence, I'm not too
 

terribly enthusiastic about spreading ourselves even
 

thinner in either a working group or subcommittee.
 

DR. MELIUS: Can I respond to that? 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I was not proposing to 

replace any of the activities of the NIOSH staff or
 

-- nor to provide any sense of an ongoing update
 

regarding IREP issues. However, there have been a
 

number of issues that we've been brought up several
 

times at these meetings that we have requested
 

clarification on and briefing on. I thought we had
 

all agreed to at meetings -- issues regarding -- and
 

have come up -- some of them have been brought up
 

today by the general public, the how do we deal with
 

occupational studies in relationship to IREP, how do
 

we deal with toxic exposures in relationship to
 

radiation exposures in IREP, how do we deal with
 

some of the scientific issues -- age at exposure,
 

for example, things like that. And I would just
 

like -- think it would be helpful -- I think helpful
 

both to NIOSH staff and to the Board to have some
 

sort of a plan for what extent we -- how do we get
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

286 

briefed on some of those issues, how do we deal with
 

those issues. Do we just let them go and let --

wait until the NIOSH staff updates us on them, or
 

are there some that we want to take a more active
 

involvement at this point and lay out a plan. So --

proposing is a short term committee, working group,
 

that would report back to the Board. And we can
 

decide, is it -- you know, the scope of that
 

appropriate and is the -- what should be the task,
 

does it need to be ongoing or not.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's have other comments? 

Tony, you want to respond and then Wanda, will
 

you --

MS. MUNN: I was going to say something.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Tony and then Wanda.
 

DR. ANDRADE: The issues that come about
 

usually come about as a result of questions that are
 

brought up by the public and/or this Board. And --

for example, the whole issue of whether we are
 

relying solely on Japanese atomic bomb survivors
 

data to do -- as data that is used in dose
 

reconstructions or to model behavior of the human
 

body with respect to radiation. That, since it was
 

brought up today, could be -- we could easily
 

solicit a briefing on that very topic for this --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

287 

for our upcoming meeting.
 

I just don't know if there's going to be a
 

competent enough, qualified enough subsection of
 

this working -- of this Advisory Board that's going
 

to go out and, on its own, fish out, quote, issues
 

with IREP. But you know, I know that Jim Neton
 

could give us a very complete briefing on all of the
 

data that is used in all of our models and could
 

give the public a really good understanding of
 

what's used.
 

And so I -- again, I think that we can
 

handle these issues one at a time.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda is next.
 

MS. MUNN: I'm comfortable with the level of
 

information that NIOSH staff has been giving us. 

Added to that, our own working group is in the
 

process of putting together another independent body
 

which will audit what's been said and done all over
 

again, so I'm quite happy with where we are.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Does anyone else wish to speak
 

pro or con? Yes, Mark?
 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I stepped out of the
 

room so I'm assuming this is the proposed working
 

group that Henry was going to -- no. I guess I feel
 

that we -- we -- we tabled these IREP is-- we -- we
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

288 

-- I know many IREP issues and we've had
 

presentations on many that -- not issues, I
 

shouldn't say, but areas for future consideration I
 

guess is the way they've sort of been spelled out. 

But -- and in looking at the probability of
 

causation and rules, I think everyone on the Board
 

-- I think the sort of agreement was that specific
 

comments for IREP could be tabled at this point, but
 

it wouldn't be off the scope of work for the Board. 

And I think -- I think to have a working group that
 

concentrated on those issues and maybe looked at
 

them one at a time and laid out -- researched them a
 

little bit to the extent that they could report back
 

to the whole Board on what is the status of
 

knowledge in this area and is it a priority for --

maybe the Board needs to talk about, or are certain
 

things priorities for inclusion within the IREP
 

model, are certain things longer term. I mean I
 

think there's some stuff that a working group could
 

have quite a bit of input on.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Mark, let me clarify. The
 

motion that's before us is actually not a group that
 

would do what you just described, but a group that
 

would recommend whether we should have a group.
 

MR. GRIFFON: Oh.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

289 

DR. MELIUS: Would lay out -- let's lay out
 

options for how we could address those, I think is a
 

better --

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, not that this would be
 

the group to do it, but that it might, as one
 

option, do what you just described.
 

Okay, who else had -- Larry.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I'm not here to speak to how
 

you wish to go about doing this, but I would like to
 

share my interest in how you go about doing this.
 

It's been a dilemma for me in trying to set
 

the agenda for your meetings with Dr. Ziemer, having
 

this long list here that we've got before you of
 

action items. And I'd just call -- maybe it's -- in
 

my opinion, it's not just IREP. It's researchrelated issues that feed into IREP or don't feed
 

into IREP. Some of these research interests feed
 

into dose reconstruction methodology. So if you
 

look at the action item list, you look at the -- on
 

the first page, starting on the first page, you look
 

at item number five, item number eight, you go to
 

the second page you look at nine, you look at 14.
 

Those are what I'm having some difficulty in
 

in trying to determine how soon do you need -- do
 

you need presentations, how -- where is your feeling
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

290 

at on prioritization of these things. We've got two
 

meetings -- two face-to-face, two-day meetings
 

scheduled now for the month of January and February,
 

and I'm going to be looking forward to knowing
 

what's the Board's interest and pleasure in filling
 

those four days out, besides what we've already
 

talked about with the SEC rule and this RFP.
 

So that's where I -- my perspective on this
 

and where I'm coming from. I appreciate your help
 

and I'm certainly -- will support whatever approach
 

or process you decide.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any others speaking pro or con? 

Yes, Wanda.
 

MS. MUNN: With respect to what Larry just
 

brought to us, it appears to me that, given the new
 

process for the action items and what Cori's going
 

to be presenting to us, that perhaps one of the
 

standard housekeeping items of this group could be
 

at the end of our session, at this time, we could
 

look at the current action items and suggest to
 

Larry which of them we wanted on the agenda next. 

That would seem to be the most simple and direct way
 

to address it.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And speaking to the
 

motion, are you ready to vote for the motion?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

291 

MR. GRIFFON: Can you just restate the
 

motion? I'm sorry.
 

DR. MELIUS: The motion -- we would
 

establish a working group that would report to the
 

Board at our next full meeting that would present a
 

series of recommendations on how we should -- the
 

Board should prioritize and handle a number of these
 

IREP and other scientific issues in relationship to
 

future meetings.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure that's exact
 

wording of the initial motion, but it's close.
 

Okay, you ready to vote? It was seconded,
 

was it not?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. All in favor of
 

serving on the working group say aye?
 

(Laughter)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Almost caught you. All who
 

favor the motion say aye?
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: All opposed say no.
 

(Negative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think I'll declare that the
 

ayes have it. Are there any abstentions?
 

DR. ANDRADE: I abstain.
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

292 

DR. ZIEMER: One abstention. Okay. I
 

believe the motion has passed by voice vote.
 

In addition to Jim and Henry -- Jim are you
 

willing to chair --

DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would. 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, if you make the motion --

DR. MELIUS: I was -- yeah. 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there others who want to 

volunteer to be on the work group? We need one or
 

two additional people, I would say.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: I will serve as the staff
 

liaison.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And Larry will serve as the
 

staff liaison. Is there one or two other people? 

Just...
 

MR. OWENS: I'll volunteer.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good, Leon. That's three plus
 

Larry. If there's someone else and you just don't
 

want to publicly admit how badly you want to serve
 

on this group, we'll take volunteers later. But the
 

working group now is Leon Owens -- it's Jim who will
 

serve as chairman and Henry Anderson, Larry Elliott
 

will serve as the staff liaison person. Thank you.
 

Are there other items that need to come
 

before the Board at this session today?
 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

293 

(No responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a motion to adjourn? 

DR. DEHART: So move. 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

MR. PRESLEY: Second.
 

DR. ZIEMER: All in favor say aye?
 

(Affirmative responses)
 

DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries, we are
 

adjourned.
 

(Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.)
 
 

 

 

 

294 

 

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 

2 

3 STATE OF GEORGIA : 

4 : 

5 COUNTY OF FULTON : 

6 

7 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

8 Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

9 above and foregoing on the 16th day of October, 

10 2002; and it is a true and accurate transcript of 

11 the proceedings captioned herein. 

12 I further certify that I am neither kin nor 

13 counsel to any of the parties herein, nor have any 

14 interest in the cause named herein. 

15 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

16 17th day of November, 2002. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

___________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102