THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 47 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


DAY TWO 


ROCKY FLATS MOTION AND VOTE EXCERPTS 


The verbatim transcript of the 47th 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at The Sheraton Denver West, 


Lakewood, Colorado on June 12, 2007. 

 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

June 12, 2007 


MOTION AND VOTE 6 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 37 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

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 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

JUNE 12, 2007


 DR. ZIEMER: Now Mark -- call on Mark for 


purposes of a recommendation from the working 


group. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think at this point 


the workgroup -- I have at least a -- a 


preliminary motion, and I think -- I have 


written out a draft anyway that has some of the 


details supporting the motion, but I think I 


can offer the sense of the motion first -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- if that's okay. 


The motion is to -- to have an SEC established 


for all workers who were monitored, or should 


have been monitored, for neutron exposures from 


January 1, 1959 through December 31st of 1966, 


and -- and it's -- it's worded as all -- all 


workers who were monitored, or should have been 


monitored, so we have that same language where 


we have to -- that's why I was inquiring some 


on the buildings that would be included and how 


we're going to determine -- I think that's a 


separate discussion, but that's -- that's the ­

- that's the one -- one motion we're prepared 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

to make. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let -- let me -- that -- 


that is a motion then from the -- from the 


workgroup? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it's a motion -- well, I 


guess it's my motion. We didn't have -- Mike 


Gibson wasn't -- hasn't -- hasn't seen this or 


heard this, so -- but Wanda -- 


 MS. MUNN: I second. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda seconds, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, the motion is made and 


seconded. Let me ask if the workgroup is 


prepared, after we take action on this motion, 


to address subsequent years, namely '67 and 


beyond, in some fashion and -- or -- your 


motion goes through '66 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 1966, you would --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the motion beyond -- '67 


through the -- is it 2005, the motion is to 


accept NIOSH's evaluation report and -- and 


that would also overlap the '52 through '66 for 


non-neutron parts of the evaluation report. So 


it's basically to accept NIOSH's conclusions in 


the report 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 

8

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that motion is not before us 


yet, but just --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in anticipation. So the motion 


is to recommend Special Exposure Cohort status 


for neutron workers for the period of January 


1st, 1959 through December 31st, 1966 -- is 


that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right -- yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, and the motion's been 


seconded. Board members, do you have questions 


or comments on this motion, pro or con? 


 MR. GIBSON: Can I make a comment? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, is that Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mike Gibson, please proceed. 

 MR. GIBSON: First I apologize that I wasn't 

able to be there in Denver, but -- so I have 


not seen the motion. I guess I just want to 


comment that in light of Ms. Munn's comments 


and I, as part of the working group, do take 


responsibility for the process being drawn out. 


I didn't quite look at it in those terms as -- 


that she's put them, but I do accept that 


responsibility. And I feel that since we 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 

9 

been less than timely, I would just like to say 


that at the end of this exhaust-- (broken 


transmission) approach, we're still down to 


NIOSH saying -- throwing the word "plausible" 


around. And when I look at the definition of 


"plausible," it says believable and appearing 


likely to be true, but usually in the absence 


of proof. And given that, I just think that we 


might ought to consider (broken transmission) 


the petition to include all Rocky Flats 


workers. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So Mike, you are speaking against 


the motion, as I understand it then. 


 MR. GIBSON: Or to -- to amend it and to 


broaden the scope. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank -- thank you. Other 


comments or questions, Board members? Dr. 


Lockey or Phil -- Phil Schofield, any comments? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah, this is Phil. I would 


like to -- I'm still concerned about some of 


the records, particularly (broken transmission) 


to about 1970, which if we're not going to be 


able to expand it for the whole time frame, 

1 

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 

then we should at least make it through the end 


of 1970 because of the spottiness of a lot of 


the records in '69 and '70. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so your concern here is the 


period from basically '67 to '70. Is that 


correct? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. Let me ask Mark to 


address that momentarily here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was certainly a -- a -- a 


lengthy discussion between workgroup members 


that -- and we -- we certainly considered that. 


A couple of points on that. One is that it's ­

- it's clear in our review that the -- the 


highest exposed individuals from '67 through 


'70 -- the time period for this NTA film 


consideration -- were actually measured during 


this time period and -- and not -- not assigned 


notional dose in the NDRP project. So that was 


one part of it. 


The other part of it was that this question of 


the zeroes and the correction factors and this 


-- this sort of non-recovered films that were 


never -- never measured. The -- the worksheets 


being available is helpful 'cause we can 

1 

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 

distinguish which ones are actually measured 


zeroes versus -- and I raised this as a concern 


yesterday, that if we can't sort that out, we ­

- we may have a -- a problem here. But in fact 


we have the worksheets to back that up and -- 


and one further item was that I've -- and NIOSH 


can confirm this, but I've been assured that in 


the event that worksheets are not available for 


certain of that group, they would assume 


unmonitored and assign just the highest -- the 


95th percentile cycle date. I -- NIOSH may 


want to veri-- they're -- they're nodding their 


head, the record should show, in agreement with 


that. 


So given those factors, I think that -- you 


know, that made -- that made a solid argument 


to break that period up and that's -- that's 


why we ended up with that split there. 


Certainly we -- we did consider at -- at length 


for quite a while as to whether to include it 


all the way through '70. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other members 


wish to speak for or against the motion? 


 (No responses) 


Are you ready to vote on 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 

12

 MS. MUNN: Yes, call the question. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) All or nothing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, the motion is to add -- or 


recommend the addition of neutron workers to 


the Special Exposure Cohort for the period of 


June 1st --


 MR. GRIFFON: January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or January 1st, I'm sorry, 1959 


through December 31st, 1966. We'll take an 


individual vote here. I think I'm going to ask 


the Designated Federal Official to do a roll 


call vote here, so --


 DR. WADE: Okay. Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I vote for the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Mr. Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. 


 DR. WADE: Mr. Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Ms. (sic) Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: I'm for the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Ms. Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: For the motion. 

 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius? 
1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: Just repeat the motion again. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The motion is to recommend a 


Special Exposure Cohort status for neutron 


workers covering the period of January 1st, '59 


through December 31st, '66. And of course the 


wording that would go to the Secretary would 


include the more complete description and our 


usual caveats which would spell out how soon 


the Chairman has to get that information in and 


-- and --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the usual legal wording on -- 


on that motion. 


 DR. MELIUS: Then -- then I'll vote for that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I vote for the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Mr. Schofield? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Vote for the motion. 


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Vote for the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Mr. Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: I abstain. 


 DR. WADE: I assume Dr. Poston is not on 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 

14 

line? 


 (No responses) 


Dr. Mel-- Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: We have eight yeses, one no, one 


abstention. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The motion then carries. The 


Chair now recognizes the workgroup chairman for 


making any additional motions. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the -- the -- the second -- 


this second time period, I don't know that 


we've -- I -- I was trying to look for language 


to this effect, but it's basically to -- we did 


agree that we would discuss this second time 


period separately, in a separate motion, so 


that's why I'm offering it as a separate 


motion, to have a separate discussion on it and 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, the --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- separate -- separate vote. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Chair insisted at the last time 


that the Board take some kind of action, pro or 


con, on the remaining time period. I -- I want 


it on the record, at least. So we're talking 


about January 1st, '67 and up through I 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 

15 

2005 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Five, right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- was the period covered in the 


petition. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So your -- your motion basically 


is that --


 MR. GRIFFON: That the -- that the Board accept 


the NIOSH evaluation conclusion that they can 


reconstruct dose for -- can reconstruct all 


radiation dose for that time period. 


DR. ZIEMER: That is the motion. Is there a 


second? 


 MS. MUNN: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Now discussion on 


this motion? Let me start with those on the 


phone. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah, could I have the motion 


restated and -- I seemed to break up right 


then. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The -- the motion is to accept the 


-- or to agree with the NIOSH recommendation 


that for the period 19-- January, 1967 through 


2005, agreeing that dose reconstruction can be 


done and therefore to not recommend Special 

1 

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 

Exposure Cohort status for that time period. 


 Now Board members, do you wish to speak for or 


against the motion? Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: I'd like to speak against the 


motion. I think there are too many open issues 


that have not been adequately addressed, at 


least to my satisfaction, regarding the '67 to 


'70 neutron dose exposure issue, the thorium 


issue and the building 881 issue, as well as I 


think a number of other issues that have been ­

- been brought up today by the petitioners and 


other people here. And for those reasons, I am 


not in support of that motion. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Somebody on the phone, is it -- 

 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer, it's Mike. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike Gibson, thank you. 

 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I'd like to -- I'd like to 

speak out in opposition of this motion. This 


Board was made up by law of those from the 


scientific, medical and the labor field, and I 


think that we have to give as much weight 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 

17 

the experiences that the people went through at 


the site as we do to the scientific issues. 


And again I state, at the end of the day all I 


hear is it's plausible on the scientific side, 


and I hear argument after argument from people 


that were actually there doing the job, and I 


think that the -- if we're to do our duties 


correctly, we need to consider the people's 


experiences and we need to grant this petition 


as they (broken transmission) it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So you are speaking 


against the motion. Thank you. 


 Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: At the core of our responsibility on 


this Board we have only one issue. We are not 


chartered with dealing with the unfortunate 


business of what's been referred to as chemical 


cocktails -- I think appropriately referred to. 


We have one responsibility and one only, and 


that's to deal with the issue of whether 


adequate information exists to complete 


accurate -- reasonably accurate dose 


reconstructions for individuals who have had 


radiation exposure. So the core of our 


responsibility is really very difficult to 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 

18 

to, but in simple terms, the only issue is 


whether adequate information exists for those 


reconstructions to be done in a reasonable 


manner. 


We have heard no indication that we do not have 


adequate information to do that. We have 


excellent information, and for that reason I 


support the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other Board members, pro or con? 


Yes, Mr. Clawson. 


 MR. CLAWSON: You're absolutely right. We've 


got a responsibility, but we also know that 


there is gaps. And I'm -- I'm not a scientific 


person. I'm still a worker. I still work in 


the industry and I still know the fallacies 


that are out there. I believe that we are 


still learning. I believe that we -- you look 


in the last 40 years what we have learned and 


what we have gotten, and I apologize, I -- it's 


no disrespect to NIOSH or anybody else, but I 


really do not feel that it can be done, and I 


speak against it. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you speak against 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 

19 

Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: As a -- a Board member that's 


been on the working group, yes, we've taken a 


tremendous amount of time. We've looked at a 


tremendous amount of data. And I think that 


NIOSH has done their job, SC&A has done their 


job. They have given us reports, they have 


given us data that says that they can do dose 


reconstruction and do it accurately and do it 


in the favor of the petitioner. I would like 


to speak in favor of the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: I wasn't on the working group, 


but I have worked in the field of health 


physics and dosimetry for a long time. And I ­

- I have confidence that NIOSH, in their very 


detailed evaluation of the situation, can 


reconstruct the doses in the manner that we're 


required by this rule, and that is to have an 


upper bound. I think enough information is 


known, in spite of all of the things that have 


been brought up, that -- that an upper bound 


and a claimant-friendly dose can be obtained. 


I -- I do want to add, though, that it's very 


difficult, as a Board member, to listen 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 

20 

these people, and I sympathize with all of the 


health problems. So this decision is very 


difficult for me to make. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any others on the 


phone that have comments? Dr. Lockey? 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: If I could just add --


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- (broken transmission) my 


comment just a little bit. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: And with all due respect to my 


former -- my working group member, Ms. Munn, I 


just want to make a note (broken transmission) 


the record that we have more than one 


responsibility. We have the responsibility to 


do this in a timely manner, and I just (broken 


transmission) I take the responsibility as a 


member of the working group that we have not 


(broken transmission) in this time, but you 


know, I don't think we have that liberty now 


that it's been put in this kind of light. But 


we have more than one responsibility to do it 


in a timely manner and I don't believe 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 

21 

criteria was met in this situation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's see, Mike -- 


okay, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I guess I have to -- I 


mean I -- I want to say that I agree with 


Wanda's point that -- and as a workgroup member 


I do take responsibility, and probably the 


chief responsibility for some of these delays 


because, quite frankly, I was the last person 


maybe on the workgroup or -- well, maybe not -- 


maybe that's not true, but I certainly was 


attempting to, as Brant I think characterized 


it, turn over every stone and had a great bit 


of doubt about some of the database data, asked 


for -- met some resistance sometimes, but asked 


for a lot in terms of we want more raw data to 


support some of these conclusions. We -- you 


know, I -- I see some inconsistencies between 


databases. We -- we have to go back to raw 


data and verify this. We're not just going to 


accept this as the truth. And I think we did 


push for a lot of those -- extensive amount of 


raw data and looked into that at great length 


and, you know, I -- I think it's also important 


to point out, after doing all this, I 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 

22 

at least for those points I went over in my 


presentation yesterday -- it doesn't include 


the '67 through '70 time -- time period with 


the neutrons, but from '70 and beyond, SC&A is 


-- is concluding -- is in agreement with this, 


you know, that their -- their findings are 


consistent with what we're saying on the 


workgroup. So it's not only NIOSH telling us 


this. We've had SC&A look at this thoroughly, 


and I think that's also important to remember. 


We -- and we all know how extensive SC&A's 


report is. I think it totals probably over -- 


close to 1,000 pages now. So we -- we 


definitely looked at this and didn't just 


accept it on face value. We -- we tore into 


this and I think at the end of the day, you 


know, we -- we do have the data for that later 


ti-- I feel we do have the data for that later 


time period, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me ask if either 


Phil or Jim Lockey have any comments, pro or 


con, on the motion? 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I -- I've 


been impressed by the -- the work that this 


working group has gone through, 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 

23 

particularly Mark leaving no stone unturned. 


And I think that all the Board owe a debt of 


gratitude and thanks for the extra effort 


that's gone into this project. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Do you have any specific 


comments for or against the motion? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I -- you know, after looking at 


all the data and -- and listening to the 


workgroup, I think it -- it -- that it appears 


that dose can be reconstructed in this cohort 


for the time period outlined. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Phil, are you on 


the line? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes, sir. I'm actually against 


the motion as it stands because I still feel 


that the data for '69 to '70 is awful spotty 


and there's a lot of assumptions being made 


instead of hard data for that, so people 


actually trying to get their dose 


reconstructed, '69/'70, when there's large 


gaps, I have a problem (broken transmission) 


those years in the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Dr. Melius, you 


have an additional comment? 


 DR. MELIUS: I would just like to elaborate 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 

24 

little bit. First of all, I -- my disagreement 


with the conclusions of the workgroup is not 


meant to in any way criticize the workgroup's 


hard efforts in trying to evaluate this 


petition and -- and come to grips with what's a 


very complicated site with lots of different 


exposures and over a long time period and with 


information that's not always easy to deal 


with. However, I would remind the -- all of 


the Board that I -- I think the -- the fault, 


to a great extent, with this process and with 


the effort required, you know, goes back to how 


this site was originally approached. We had a 


site profile that was largely written by people 


with very significant conflicts of interest. 


To this day if one goes back to the revised 


site profile in the two main chapters, those on 


external and internal exposures, all of the 


attributions I believe in those chapters are to 


those two individuals who were originally 


involved in the dose reconstruction program -- 


yet to be convinced that there's been an 


adequate, independent review of that. 


Secondly, there was no opportunity, for very 


little opportunity for worker input into 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 

25 

process. There was one meeting held in 2004 


prior to the more recent work with the 


petition. And one -- if one goes back to the 


revised site profile, one -- though one finds 


some verbiage that says that worker inputs were 


considered, there is not one reference to a -- 


any comment or information received from a 


worker into that -- that report. 


 Unfortunately we're then left at the end of the 


process with the petition to try to sort 


through what I think's been a lot of valuable 


information, including valuable information 


that we received last night that I don't think 


we've given, you know, adequate attention to or 


-- or have adequately followed up on. 


We also are dealing with a process that's very 


unfair to the petitioners. They are given -- 


you know, they lack resources. They're given 


access to information begrudgingly and often at 


the last minute and not in a timely fashion. 


And even the Board is presented with 


information from NIOSH that is incomplete and 


at the last minute. We were given a 


presentation yesterday we're still struggling 


to get some of the references for that was -- 

1 

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 

the report given to us I believe in the end of 


May had no attributions as to where the 


information came from and so forth. And so 


we're being asked to judge things very quickly 


and with incomplete and inadequate information. 


And finally, I -- I think the report that 


Jennifer and the other petitioners have -- have 


made quite well. I mean this process has taken 


847 days and that's -- it's -- something is 


sort of grossly unfair about that and, you 


know, maybe we could struggle on and -- and try 


to come to grips with all these issues, but I 


think we have to try to reach some closure on 


it. It may be up to Congress or to the legal 


system to better address this process, but -- 


or it may be to NIOSH to revise the whole 


process, but -- but thi-- this is not a fair 


process and I can't, you know, claim that I've 


been adequately convinced that individual dose 


reconstruction is po-- feasible to be done with 


sufficient accuracy over the entire time period 


and over the tire-- entire scope of the period 


that's covered in -- in Mark's motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 

1 

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 

microphone) Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And typ-- typically 


the -- typically the Chair on a board of this 


type is supposed to sort of be the moderator 


and -- and not enter into the debate. But I 


think it behooves me to make some remarks, as 


well. 


First of all, I've become convinced, based on 


the work of the working group, that it is 


certainly feasible to -- for NIOSH to do dose 


reconstruction with sufficient accuracy -- and 


sufficient accuracy in this case means accuracy 


that will allow them to make a claimant-


favorable decision. I also note that the 


workgroup, through their process, has caused, 


in a way, NIOSH to change much of what they 


were doing on this site in terms of dose 


reconstruction so that in the end, sort of 


regardless of how the final thing comes out, 


dose reconstructions done here will be done in 


a much better manner than they would have been 


done prior to the efforts of this workgroup and 


this process. 


Now we heard from the Congressman earlier today 


and I -- in a sense, and I can say this since 

1 

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 

I'm not a part of any of these agencies. It's 


unfortunate that the burden has been passed to 


a group like this to correct what Congress 


should have done correctly in the first place. 


It is hard to get any of them to admit that the 


-- the generation of the convoluted process 


that we find ourselves in is the way that the 


law was originally written, that basically -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that basically requires us to 


go through this process, that requires some 


time-consuming efforts for us to do our 


responsibilities as they are stated under the 


law, because what we see here is duplicated all 


over the country. This is not the only site 


that has the same -- we have these problems -- 


timing problems with a Board which -- of 


workers which is not as large as the law 


dictates it should be and therefore is very 


overburdened. That's why our working groups 


are -- are overburdened in time -- doing a 


little soap-boxing here -- 


 DR. WADE: No more about Congress, but you can 


talk about the process. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. But the process perhaps 


could -- could have been set up in a better 


manner at the front end, but we have what we 


have. And I think the Board is struggling to 


do its job in the way that it -- it believes it 


should be done. Every Board member is very 


conscientious. I think every Board member 


empathizes with the workers very much. We --


we end up in somewhat different places. We do 


this in a collegial fashion. None of us are 


mad at each other because of how we vote on 


these things. We do it in a collegial fashion, 


but we have to -- we have to proceed and vote. 


Now at the moment, without the vote having 


occurred, it appears to the Chair that the vote 


may pass. Now -- and I want -- I want us to 


think about that for a moment because what we 


will have will be a recommendation to the 


Secretary that is not a very strong 


recommendation. But nonetheless, he will have 


to deal with that in some manner or another. 


The other part of it is to point out to the 


assembly that we are not precluded, I suppose, 


in the future from having a different 


recommendation if other information comes 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 

30 

of the type that Jim mentioned. However, I --


I do -- I don't want to drag out the process 


and -- and delay the process. I've tried to 


press the Board to come to a type of closure. 


We'll be where we are at the end of this 


process today. Perhaps there will be 


additional information come forth that would 


re-- that would suggest that there be some -- 


some other endpoint in the future, but we have 


what we have at the moment. 


 MR. ROMERO: (From the audience and off 


microphone) Mr. Zimmer (sic), another question, 


please? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. ROMERO: If it's Congress's problem why 


this is not working, why didn't you address 


that when the man was standing right there? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Probably I --


 MR. ROMERO: Why didn't you tell him how to fix 


it so he can go to Washington and fix it? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think -- I think he's 


already indicated that -- that they're -- 


Congress is in fact taking some steps that may 


change the process, so he recognizes that, I 


think, and -- I -- I don't want to say -- I'm ­
1 

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 

- it's not my intent to insult Congress. I'm ­

- I'm simply expressing a concern -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (From the audience and off 


microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm simply expressing a 


concern. None -- none of these laws are -- you 


know, this one doesn't consider the chemical 


mixes and so on, so we have -- there's -- 


there's those kinds of things. We can't 


address them all, but we'll do the best we can. 


 Now -- 


 DR. WADE: Call the roll? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- additional comments. Robert? 


 DR. WADE: I can call the roll. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ready for a roll-call vote. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I vote for -- I vote for the 


motion. 


 DR. WADE: Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: No. 


 DR. WADE: Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Munn? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Against the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Schofield? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Against the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Gibson? 


 (No response) 


Mike? Mike Gibson, are you with us? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, are you calling me? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: I can hardly hear. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You vote --


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry. 


 MR. GIBSON: I vote against the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: For the motion. 


 DR. WADE: The vote is six to four in favor of 


the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Six to four is the vote. The 


motion carries. 


Board members, are there any follow-up -- and 


again, this motion would be put into the -- 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 

33 

normal regulatory form that would go forward to 


the Secretary, and I assume that -- and -- and 


we have, at the request of the -- the Colorado 


delegation, held the letter for the original 


motion. They asked that it not be sent in 


until we completed the -- the work here at this 


-- so there -- there would be recommendations 


on three different time periods that would go 


forward. Is -- is that your understanding -- 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Dr. Wade? Right. Okay, Board 


members, any further comments or questions 


relative to the Rocky Flats petition? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phillip, just one 


comment. I think that SC&A and the working 


group have done an outstanding job and have dug 


up a mountain of facts that they have (broken 


transmission) to sift through. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mike (sic). Any other 

comments? 

 DR. WADE: We have more work to do. That was 

Schofield. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that was Schofield. Okay. 

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 

34

 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, Jim Lockey, I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

 DR. LOCKEY: -- I just wanted to reiterate your 

-- your comment that you made a few minutes ago 


about additional steps that -- that perhaps 


should be taken in relationship to this 


legislation. 


 DR. WADE: Again, individual Board members can 


speak out their views relative to Congress, but 


the Board really is in no position to advise 


Congress. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) [name redacted] 


(unintelligible) (on microphone) and I'm going 


to ask you to sit through one more thing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


UNIDENTIFIED: This is called "The Silent 


Soldiers." (Reading) They walked many days in 


plutonium dust because there were those who 


told them they must. They stood behind glass 


that was meant to shield while the gaskets on 


boxes plutonium did yield. They battled the 


dragons of plutonium fire and fought 


criticalities down to the wire. Aprons of lead 

1 

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 

were their garments of armor, dosimetry badges 


their badges of honor. They went when their 


call -- country called them to service, as the 


nuclear threat made our citizens nervous. Day 


after day quietly serving their nation, and 


they did it proudly till the Cold War 


cessation. But now when they need their 


allegations supported, there is none to be 


found, the nation's aborted. They die one by 


one, brothers and sisters by their side, 


watching and waiting till it's their turn to 


die. There will be no flags flown half-mast in 


their honor, no flags on their coffins when 


that -- once they have passed. No statutes --


no statues designed nor monuments created, no 


walls with their names, only memories abated. 


I call the nation to consider their plight, for 


these are the silent soldiers of the Rocky 


Flats site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I honor all of 


you, including (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: One thing we need to do are the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Let's see if 


we can 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 

36

 DR. WADE: Right now? Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We do have some members that will 


be needing to catch planes and I'm wondering, 


Board members, do you want to proceed through 


the lunch hour and try to finish up? 


 MS. MUNN: Could we have a 20-minute break? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can have a break -- comfort 


break, 20 minutes, and we'll recon-- well, 


let's see what it -- it's -- 


 MR. ROMERO: (From the audience and off 


microphone) I'd like to thank the four members 


-- four Board members that voted for us, I'd 


like to thank them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So noted, thank you. We'll take a 


20-minute break. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 1:10 p.m. 


to 1:50 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

37 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of June 12, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


14th day of June, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102