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 49 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the 49th 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on Sept. 4, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES
 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

Sept. 4, 2007 


OPENING REMARKS 


VOTES REPORT 12 


TBD-6000 AND GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES APPENDIX 17 


SC&A’S CONTRACT TASKS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 31 


ROCKY FLATS FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 48 


PRIVACY ACT CLEARANCE PROCEDURES 57 


CHAPMAN VALVE 77 


WORKGROUP UPDATES 82 


FUTURE BOARD ACTIVITIES 98 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 104 

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 

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
 

BEACH, Josie 


Nuclear Chemical Operator 


Hanford Reservation 


Richland, Washington 


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 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


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 


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


Professor, Texas A&M University 


College Station, Texas 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

1 

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 

SEPT. 4, 2007
 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:10 a.m.) 

OPENING REMARKS


 DR. WADE: Well, let me begin by again 


verifying that Ray Green is on the line and 


performing. Ray? 


 MR. GREEN: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: I'll take for the record that a -- a 


call of the roll of the Board members. Josie 


Beach. 


 MS. BEACH: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Bradley Clawson. 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Michael Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: James Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Here. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: John Poston 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield. 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I make that -- and Paul 


Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: I make that ten. One, two, three, 


four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, I make it 


nine. Absent at the moment are Schofield, 


Poston and Clawson. 


 MS. BURGOS: Mr. Schofield is going to join us 


in a minute. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. We will wait that minute 

then. 

(Pause) 

 DR. ZIEMER: We probably can go ahead and 


determine the staff members who are on the 


line, as well. 


 DR. WADE: Right. I would ask -- and we don't 


need to have a full listing of all people 

1 

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 

present, but for the organizations I mentioned, 


any principals representing the organization or 


someone who feels they need to be notified 


based upon participation in this agenda, please 


do that. Let me start with NIOSH -- 


representatives of NIOSH who feel it's 


appropriate to be identified. 


 DR. BRANCHE: I'm Christine Branche in the 


Office of the Director of NIOSH. 


 DR. NETON: Jim Neton with OCAS. 


 MR. SUNDIN: Dave Sundin with OCAS. 


MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang with NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Any other NIOSH representatives feel 


they need to be identified? 


 MR. STAUDT: David Staudt with NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Very good. Phillip Schofield, are 


you on the line now? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. What about Office of General Counsel of 


the Department of Health and Human Services? 


 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell with HHSOGC. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with HHSOGC. 


 DR. WADE: What about representatives of the 


Department of Labor? 

1 

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

 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Department of Labor. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jeff. Representatives of 


the Department of Energy, is there anyone on 


the line? 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Representing Sanford Cohen & 


Associates? Who's on the line? 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. This is John Mauro 


representing SC&A, and we do have a number of 


other members here participating also. 


 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow from SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, SC&A. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: And Joe Fitzgerald. 


 DR. WADE: Are there any members of Congress or 


their representatives who are on the line and 


would like to be identified? 


 (No response). 


 Any workers or petitioners who would like to be 


identified for the record? 


 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, John. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Dan McKeel. 


 DR. WADE: Any other workers or petitioners 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 

10 

their representatives who would like to be 


identified? 


 DR. MCKEEL: Dan McKeel. 


 DR. WADE: Yes, Dan. Thank you. Anyone else 


who would like to be identified for the record? 


 (No responses) 


Again, as I said before we went on the record, 


please keep phone etiquette in mind, and that 


would be: speak into a handset if at all 


possible, mute the phone if you're not 


speaking, and be mindful of background 


discussions or background noises. They can be 


very distracting and limit the Board's ability 


to meet by phone, and I think we've learned 


that these Board meetings between full meetings 


can be very useful in terms of organizing which 


work and keeping a positive movement forward. 


I would again ask if Phillip Schofield is on 


line. Phillip Schofield? 


 (No response). 


 Brad Clawson? 


 (No response). 


 John Poston? 


 (No response). 


Dr. Ziemer, we have a quorum, so I'll turn 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 

11 

over to you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Lew. I will officially 


call the meeting to order then, and ask first 


that everybody make sure you have a copy of the 


agenda. There is a general copy of the agenda 


on the web site. Now that particular copy on 


the Advisory Board web site lists the topics to 


be discussed, but does not have a time frame. 


The Board members should have received from Lew 


a -- a slate of topics, which is the same slate 


that's on the web site but it has the suggested 


times for each item. We're going to follow 


that. There's a slight difference in the order 


between the web site list and the time-ordered 


list that we received from Lew. But I'm going 


to -- for convenience, since we have -- we have 


times on the list that came from Lew, I'm going 


to follow it. There's only a couple of places 


where a couple of items have been reversed in 


order. But generally, it's the same -- same 


listing. So with that, I thank everyone for 


their participation. 


We are -- you will need to identify yourself in 


general for the court reporter when you speak, 


and also the rest of the time make sure 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 

12 

on mute if you're not -- if you're not 


speaking. 


VOTES REPORT 

The first item that we have is simply an 

informational report concerning votes recorded 

since the last Board meeting. You may recall 

that the Board has a procedure that when we 

vote on significant items B- in particular, 

recommendations to the Secretary B- we have a 

Board procedure which calls for the Board to 

secure votes for members who were not 

physically present at the meeting. And we have 

that situation for a couple of the recent 

votes. And Lew and I have together secured 

those votes and Lew is going to give us a 

report on the particular votes and which 

members were contacted, and the outcome. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Paul. Again, for Board 

members' information, I have provided you with 

the notes to the file that I've generated on 

each of these situations, and that will be my 

procedure generally, but this will be the first 

time we'll be publicly airing these votes. And 

I'll go through them fairly quickly, although 

if there's need for discussion, please stop me 
1 

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 

and we'll have the discussion. 


In the July meeting -- during the July meeting 


the Board voted to deny a petition on Chapman 


Valve. The vote of those present was six to 


five. This was SEC Petition 43 and it covered 


the period of 1/1/48 to 12/31/49, and then an 


additional period of 1/1/91 to 12/31/93. Dr. 


Ziemer and I did meet with the Board member who 


was absent, Brad Clawson, explained the 


situation to Brad and asked Brad if he would 


require any additional information. He did 


not. Brad voted against the majority of six to 


five, making the vote six to six. So now the 


Board is in a deadlock situation with regard to 


the Chapman Valve SEC Petition. The final vote 


of record is six to six. Again, the Board will 


really need to decide how it wishes to proceed 


when we meet in October. There will be an 


update on this call of the work that the Board 


asked me to do in terms of securing potentially 


additional information from DOE or DOL. So 


that is the situation. 


Paul, any comment? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I might add to that that, Board 


members, you realize this has the effect of, in 

1 

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 

essence, the Peti-- or the motion to send the 


recommendation to the Secretary did not succeed 


and therefore no recommendation, one way or the 


other, went forward. The original 


recommendation was to deny this -- this -- this 


particular six-six deadlock. We don't have a 


recommendation to recommend the petition nor do 


we have a recommendation to deny the petition 


so there is no recommendation that has gone 


forward to the Secretary on that particular 


petition. 


Okay. Proceed, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Next would be a vote on Petition 


Number 75 that dealt with the Ames, Iowa 


facility. This was for the covered period of 


1/1/55 to 12/31/70. That vote originally was 


eleven to zero to approve the petition. 


Missing was Brad Clawson. We secured Brad's 


vote and he voted with the eleven, so now the 


final vote is twelve to zero to approve that 


petition. 


Next was a petition on Hanford, Petition Number 


57. It covered the periods of '43 to '46 and 


the vote at the meeting was eight to zero to 


approve. Two members, Munn and Beach, 

1 

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 

abstained based upon conflict of interest. 

There were two Board members who did not have 

the opportunity to vote on that partition. 

That was Clawson and Lockey. Dr. Ziemer and I 

secured their votes. They both voted in favor 

of the petition, making the final vote tenzero. 

 The last situation under the topic we're 

talking about involved the three Rocky Flats 

petitions. One voted on the Board in May; two 

voted on the Board in June. The first that 

I'll speak to involved a Board motion to 

approve a class of workers exposed to neutron 

dose from 4/1/52 to 12/31/58. The Board vote 

was to approve, a vote of seven to three. Dr. 

Poston was not present. We secured his vote. 

He voted affirmatively, making the final vote 

eight to three. 

There was a second Board motion, this one taken 

up in June, to approve a class of workers 

exposed to thorium dose from 1/1/59 to 

12/31/66. The Board vote at the time, of those 

present, was B- excuse me, the Board vote was 

eight to one to one. Dr. Poston voted against 

the motion, making the final vote eight to two 
1 

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 

to one. In none of these cases did it change 

the outcome of the Board vote, but just to make 

this complete. 

 The third Rocky vote, which took place in June 

of 2007, was a Board vote to deny adding a 

class for the entire covered period not 

mentioned by the other two petitions. That 

covered period was 1952 to 2005. The Board 

vote at the meeting was six to four. Dr. 

Poston voted with the majority, making the 

final vote to deny seven to four. 

Those are all of the votes that I think set -- 

fit the Board's policy of recommendations that 

B- recommendations to the Secretary, and that's 

the end of the report. I guess if anyone would 

like to comment on how we've done this in the 

procedures, that would be fine. Again, Dr. 

Ziemer and I will attempt to secure the vote. 

I'll document the vote for the record, and then 

I'll document it on the public record at the 

next opportunity, the next Board meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Lew. Board 

members, any comments or questions on the 

procedures and the outcomes here? 

 (No response). 

1 

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 

TBD-6000 AND GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES APPENDIX
 

Okay. If not, then let us proceed. The next 


item on the agenda is an update on the SC&A 


review of TBD-6000 and the General Steel 


Industries Appendix. I think John Mauro is 


going to lead us in that update. John, is that 


correct? 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: If it's all right with you, I'd like 


to set a little bit of the stage here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MS. MUNN: We touched on the TBD-6000 issues 


during our workgroup conference on procedures 


which was held last week in Cincinnati. At 


that time John gave us some specifics about 


where SC&A was with review to the outstanding 


issues. As I understand it, as I think the 


working group understood it, they were 


essentially complete with the TBD itself. The 


issues were outstanding appendices that had not 


had a thorough vetting, other than a 


significant amount of data provided by the 


petitioners subsequent to the release of the 


TBD and subsequent to the SC&A review of 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 

18 

There was some comparison of the amount of work 


that was going (unintelligible). Who's 


whistling? What was that? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Some kind of a high frequency 


squeal of some sort. It seems to have gone 

away. 

 MS. MUNN: Goodness. There's some concern 

about the amount of work that was going to be 


necessary to thoroughly vet those addenda. And 


there was concern among the Board members with 


respect to the SC&A budget, whether it was 


adequate to cover that. It's our understanding 


from the workgroup that SC&A will be able to 


adequately review those significant items that 


have been presented to them relative to TBD6000 within the scope of their current budget. 


And it was the feeling of the workgroup that, 


because of the significance of what was being 


presented, we should request that SC&A go 


forward with that. So we agreed at the time we 


would bring that issue before the Board at this 


call. 


So I would like at this juncture for John to 


fill in any blanks there and see if I have 


overmentioned -- overlooked anything 

1 

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 

significant. But the bottom line from the 

workgroup's point of view is that we 

recommended SC&A do continue with the review of 

the TBD, specifically in light of the fact that 

there will be no budgetary impact for us this 

time of the year. Is that correct, John? 

 DR. MAURO: That's exactly correct and thank 

you, Wanda. I think you summarized it 

perfectly. The TBD-6000 review is virtually 

complete. We hope to have it in your -- your 

hands within a week or so, to the working bo-- 

you know. There are a number of findings that 

I think that the working group and the Board 

will -- we will need to discuss, and with 

NIOSH. 

As far as the Appendix BB, we are in the 

process of reviewing a great deal of 

information and -- and look-- and basically 

getting to the point where we have a full 

appreciation of what level of analysis is 

needed to look at the various issues and that 

work is in hand. We will be able to -B as 

Wanda pointed out, we will be able to complete 

all this work within the existing budget. 

We're probably going to need a little bit 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 

20 

time regarding Appendix BB. And in fact, I'd 

like to ask -- the person that is taking the 

lead on that is Bob Anigstein, who is in the 

process of digesting all of this and getting 

all our computer runs in order. Bob, could you 

just give a quick rundown on what -- I guess 

when you think you might be able to get all 

this analysis done and have a draft report 

ready for the -- for the Board? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My best estimate right now 

would be sometime in October because what we 

needed to do -B first there is B- I have a vast 

volume of material to read through, like 500 

pages of the transcripts of the worker outreach 

meetings that took place in Illinois over the 

past year. And in addition, trying to get some 

more informa-- detailed information on the 

Betatron itself. I had tried to -B I was not 

successful this morning to check before the 

meeting. Apparently Dr. Sam Glover had some 

inside information from a former Allis-Chalmer 

employee on the detailed operating of the -- 

the detailed operations of parameters of 

Betatron, which I cannot seem to get ahold of. 

In addition, there are three existing sites 
1 

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 

which have similar Betatrons -- mostly they're 

the 25 MeV Allis-Chalmer Betatrons -- which we 

would like to try to contact. One of them 

(unintelligible) to the Army Depot in 

Pennsylvania. And they have openly advertised 

on the web site their capabilities as to 

radiography with the Betatron. So presumably 

they will be willing to share some of the 

information on B- they probably have a 

(unintelligible) there maintain their Betatron 

and they might be able to give us some insight 

on the details, because in order to do the 

required analysis we first have to generate 

(unintelligible) computer code and CMP to 

generate a spectrum of the gamma radiation 

coming out of the -- they're really more 

correctly X-rays -- coming out of the Betatron, 

and for that we need details on things like -- 

apparently, there is an aluminum 

(unintelligible) that's presumably in the 

electron beam. It's a conical-shaped piece of 

aluminum that (unintelligible) attenuates the 

beam in the center so that when the beam hits 

the object, the edges of the beam and the 

center of the beam have more or less the same 
1 

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 

intensity. And that affects the analysis and 


we just need to try to get as much detail on 


that as possible before we proceed. 


Then the problem running into it is the code -- 


computer code -- MCMPX Version 2.6, which is 


the only code that we know of that's capable of 


doing what are called delayed gammas. If you 


irradiate a piece of metal -- any other object 


-- with high energy proton radiation and then 


you generate short-lived or not so short-lived 


radioisotopes, which then decay 


(unintelligible) calculates the gamma emission 


(unintelligible) as a function of time. It's a 


very slow running program. Whereas the other 


MCMP analyses on a fast computer can be 


anything from a matter of minutes or maybe at 


most a few hours. Here we did the preliminary 


run for 25 hours and it produced marginally 


acceptable statistics, not -- not quite really 


good enough. So we -- we -- so we estimate 


that a run would take anything from four days 


to maybe a week or two. And we only have one 


computer available that would be -- only the 


most recent advanced desk top computers can 


handle this. You need at least one gig 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 

23 

memory, you need a dual code processor. The 

one we have now is -- available to our 

associate is something like 2.3, 2.6 -- I 

forget right now -- gigahertz. And so these 

things have to run in succession. So that's 

where the time element comes in. You set up 

the runs, but it takes -- could take a week or 

more, and we need to do at least one run for 

uranium and at least one run for a steel alloy. 

We may need to follow up, but to start off with 

the most common alloy that would have been 

used, which would be an alloy called HY 80. 

believe that's used for military armor plate, I 

could be wrong on that. And the plan is -B

there is about a dozen constituents at that 

alloys (unintelligible), primarily iron. But 

it also has (unintelligible) chromium and small 

-- small additives or impurities allowed in 

that alloy. So the plan is to do this MCMPX 

161 on this alloy and then pull out a history ­

- exactly which isotopes are created and which 


contribute to the external dose. And if it 


turns out that the only significant spot on the 


(unintelligible) report was iron-53, then 


essentially its job is done, because we don't 


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 

24 

need to worry about other alloys 'cause they'll 


all be primarily iron. However, if it turns 


out that one of the minor (unintelligible) has 


a disproportionate contribution, then we have 


to look further and say well, perhaps there 


another alloy that has a higher percentage of 


that particular metal and therefore will cause 


a higher dose rate, following the radiation. 


So we won't know that until we do our initial 


run. So it may be -- there may be more than 


one run necessary. And as I said, that might 


take a few days. So that's the main reason for 


the delay in time. The labor is -- as John 


said, the labor hours are within our existing 


budget. So my best guess is that the report 


will be ready -- depending on what 


complications we run into in the analysis, but 


the best estimate would be sometime in October. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Bob, this is Ziemer. Do you have 


all the information also from -- on the reports 


from John Ramspott and from Dr. McKeel, I 


assume --


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at this point, and so taking 


all that into consideration and these runs, 

1 

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 

you're hopeful that October will be B- you'll 


have at least a draft report available? 


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's our -B that's our aim. 


That's -- that's my best estimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 


 MS. MUNN: And any hope that that would be 


available B- this is Wanda -- prior to our full 


Board meeting the first week in October? 


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The first week of October? I 


would not want to commit to that. 


 MS. MUNN: All right. Very good. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. I think at a minimum 


we would need an update -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- in October. 


 DR. ZIEMER: A progress report. 


 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Certainly. Certainly. Any 


result that -B what I'll try to do is any of 


the computer runs that would go quickly, like 


for instance, the shielding analysis, which 


means what is the dose rate outside the 


Betatron room while the Betatron is running. 


Those will take a little time to set up, 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 

26 

they should execute fairly quickly. Those 

kinds of things execute in a matter of a few 

minutes or hours. So I will try to get those 

out first. This (unintelligible) something to 

report, other than waiting -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you need to make sure that 

whatever is done also reflects the working 

conditions at General Steel. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And both in terms of shielding and 

locations and beam flattening devices and 

whatever is being used. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Certainly, and that is -- that 

is -- that is going to B- there is a 

complication there. I wouldn't say 

complication B- a complexity there, because of 

-- from what I have read, these -B there was a 

survey done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

There were several surveys, there were probably 

four surveys done that I have reports on. 

Starting out B- I think the earliest one was in 

the 1989-1990 time frame. A little confusion 

because if you got assigned a report number, 

then that's '89 and then within the actual 

final report of -B written in 1990, so 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 

27 

survey was probably done somewhere in that time 

frame between. And it actually states that 

what is called the old Betatron building had 

two Betatrons physically there at the beginning 

of the survey. They even show circles on their 

floor plan where they were located. And then 

the -- the question then is in that case what 

was the new Betatron building used for? 

Apparently there is something else called the 

new Betatron building. But also the Betatrons 

apparently moved around, in that they would 

bring in a very large object on a flat car, 

sometimes it was not practical to remove the 

object from the flat car, so they left it there 

and used a crane to move the Betatron at the 

right position. So the Betatron beam was 

probably not always aimed in the same 

direction. That's -- that's speculative right 

now on my part. It's a possibility. And that 

would require a num-- you have to look at a 

number of possibilities. Once I've completely 

reviewed B- it's about 500 pages of testimony 

from these four worker outreach meetings, and 

once I've reviewed that I'm going to try to 

contact the workers directly, perhaps by 
1 

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 

telephone, and see if I can get some more 

information. Or, if it looks like that would 

be appropriate and worthwhile, just to have a 

site visit so I can both look at the buildings 

-- at the existing buildings and talk to -- and 

talk to the workers. But it's going to be a 

couple of days to B- before we get to that 

part, at that decision. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again. Our bottom 

line request from the workers is that the Board 

look at our recommendation, which is to proceed 

as has been outlined and authorize SC&A to 

continue the work that -- that we've just been 

discussing. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Then Wanda -- help me recall here 

-B were you asking for a formal recommendation 

from the Board to proceed on this basis? 

 MS. MUNN: Just approval to proceed since this 

is, in our view, a budgetary information 

report. And we wanted to make sure that the 

full Board was in agreement that we need to 

proceed as we've outlined. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the recommendation that comes 

from the subcommittee (sic) is to proceed as 
1 

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 

described and that actually has the force of a 

motion that does not require a second. So let 

me open the floor for discussion. The motion 

would be to confirm this recommendation from 

the workgroup that would, in essence, direct 

the contractor to proceed on the review. And 

this is specifically the review of Appendix BB, 

and Wanda, are we not B-

 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- talking about Appendix BB? 

 MS. MUNN: Correct, BB. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Appendix BB of TBD-6000. 

 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And let me also ask Lew and David 

Staudt if there's any statutory issues that are 

of concern at this point. I think we heard 

that we think it's covered in the budget. 

 DR. WADE: Yes, I believe that to be the case. 

David? 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, that's -- that's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Board members, any 

discussion? If not, I'm going to call for a 

roll call vote on the motion from the working 


group to proceed on the review of Appendix BB. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: All in favor indicate aye when Lew 


calls the roll. 


 DR. WADE: Josie Beach. 

 MS. BEACH: Aye. 

 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson. 

 (No response) 

 DR. WADE: Michael Gibson. 

 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye.


 DR. WADE: James Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: John Poston. 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, would you like your vote 

1 

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 

recorded? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, aye. 


 DR. WADE: So the vote is ten-zero in favor of 


the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Motion carries. Thank 


you very much. 


SC&A’S CONTRACT TASKS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
 

We also have a report on SC&A's contract tasks 


for the next fiscal year. And Lew, I guess you 


and David can lead us through that. 


 DR. WADE: Right. I would ask David just to 


fill the Board in. As you know, over the last 


several Board meetings we've been working on 


getting your contractor tasked for next fiscal 


year, and I believe that's in place. David, 


could you provide the details? 


 MR. STAUDT: Yes. All the -- all the five task 


orders are -- modifications are in place, as 


desired by and approved by the Board at the 


last meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So that's -- that's -- no 


complications, everything is in place? 


 MR. STAUDT: Everything is in place and you're 

good to go. 

 DR. ZIEMER: These are tasks in terms of both 
1 

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 

the work product that we outlined at the last 


meeting and the budgetary values. 


 MR. STAUDT: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Questions or comments, 


Board members? Did somebody have a comment? 


 DR. MAURO: Dr. Ziemer, this is John Mauro. 


did have one question for David and the Board. 


At the last working group meeting, OTIB-54 was 


mentioned as an OTIB that -- dealing with 


fission products that the -- the Board -- the 


workgroup would like reviewed. And there was 


some question whether or not we should begin 


our review at this time, or wait until next 


fiscal year to start that review. In light of 


the fact that the budget is in place, I guess 


this is a question more for David that the 


budget is now in place to -- to perform work -- 


 MR. STAUDT: You can proceed right now. 


DR. MAURO: We could proceed right now. I 


guess I could use a little direction from the 


Board whether you'd like us to proceed with 


OTIB-54 at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to recall in the 


priority list where that stood. My 


recollection was that we wanted that to be 


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 

33 

fairly high, but that it wasn't necessarily 

urgent that it start in the next few weeks. 

Was -B can you -B anybody help me on this? 

 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. The procedures group 

discussed this briefly and we were of the 

opinion that this particular document was 

indeed one that needs to be high priority. I 

think it was the general feeling of most of the 

participants that it was good and proper that 

SC&A move forward on 54. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But, for example, was not to set 

aside other priority items in its favor. 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's high priority, but there was 

not an urgency. For example, the review of BB 

is very important. 

 MS. MUNN: That's true. Now it was our 

understanding from the discussions that took 

place during that meeting that 54 could be 

incorporated into the flow of material that 

SC&A is looking at without any major disruption 

of the priorities that have already been 

established. If I'm incorrect about that, 

John, please say so. 

 DR. MAURO: The only reason -B you're 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 

34 

Wanda. The only reason I raised the question, 

I wasn't quite yet sure whether we should start 

billing work that we are calling fiscal year 

2008 work. But the fact that we just heard 

from David that the resources are now in place 

for -- and the scope of work has now been 

established for fiscal year 2008 and since 

those resources are there, should we proceed at 

this time, say it -- even though it's still 

September -B fiscal year 2008 doesn't start 

until October 1. But if it's appropriate and 

it sounds like, according to the contractual 

arrangements, it's appropriate for us to 

proceed, it will -- we can proceed without -B

on 54 without it interfering with the 

priorities that we have been assigned Bassigning to the other work to then 

(unintelligible) --

 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me if you can do that, 

and if there's not a legal issue on the billing 

-- and David seems to indicate not -- that we 

ought to proceed then. Is that correct, David? 

 MR. STAUDT: That is correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, John? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Thank you 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 

35

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Very good. Any other 


questions or comments, Board members, on the 


tasking of SC&A for this next fiscal year? 


 (No response) 

Okay. If not, we also need to be thinking 

forward. And David and Lew, tell us what has 

to happen -B basically we're drawing to the end 

of the original five-year contract that -- my 

understanding is that there's a requirement 

that we will need to go out for bids for the 

next span of time. 

 DR. WADE: Correct, this --

 DR. ZIEMER: Report and update and tell us what 

needs to be done next. 

 DR. WADE: Right. This is Lew. Let me begin 

and I can turn it over to David. The five-year 

term of the contract will end at the end of 

fiscal year '05, so that's a year B-

 DR. ZIEMER: Fiscal year '0-B

 DR. WADE: '08, I'm sorry. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: I date myself. So we have all of 

next year for SC&A to work on the Board's 

business and for the government to prepare to 

secure our contractor to carry on into FY '09 
1 

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 

and beyond. What I would like to do today is 


just to let David speak a bit to this issue to 


alert the Board to it, and then in October I 


would like to have a detailed discussion where 


the Board would make its wishes known as to how 


it would like to be involved and what would 


take -- you know, what would take place. And 


again, we have time to do this right. The 


purpose of this call is to alert you, to let 


David talk a little bit about the steps 


involved from the government's point of view, 


and then to alert you to a discussion in 


October where the Board could decide how it 


wanted to be involved, and then we would 


proceed forward from that date to procure you a 


contractor. 


David, what do you need to get on the record 


for the Board to consider in terms of 


generically the path forward? 


 MR. STAUDT: Yeah. Again, I think that's 


correct, Lew. I think in October that, you 


know, the bill will come up to visit and to 


discuss two primary things, one being the 


statement of work and the evaluation criteria, 


which I think you need to be very involved in. 

1 

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 

I think over the last few years things have 

changed, so the statement of work is going to 

have to be tweaked somewhat. I think all the 

elements are there; but before, for example, 

the SEC portion of the statement of work was 

very limited, and I think that's going to have 

to be looked at. So we need to be thinking 

about where the work is going to be headed. 

The statement of work is still -B is still 

fairly broad, but we need to take a look at 

that and then B- and then take a couple of 

months and do that. But the main thing is that 

I think we should be looking forward to January 

meeting that the Board would be approving the 

statement of work and the evaluation criteria 

so that -- so that my group in contract can go 

out and publish this on the streets and -- and 

then that process itself takes about six months 

from there from award and we need to have that 

done in order for the next contractor, if it's 

SC&A or possibly somebody else, to just keep 

the ball rolling in October. So I think we're 

ultimately looking from the Board in January to 

give the green light to proceed with -- with 

the solicitation process and it's really -- 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 

38 

meat of it is the statement of work and the 


evaluation criteria. 


 DR. WADE: All right. David, this is Lew. 


We'd also like to get some sense of the Board, 


I think, as to how they would like to be 


involved in the actual evaluation process, have 


Board members involved, and I think all of that 


needs to be talked through. What would be the 


evaluation mechanism and the opportunities for 


the Board to be involved, David? 


 MR. STAUDT: The (broken transmission) members 


actually of the technical evaluation panel, or 


maybe just a non-voting member, just to kind of 


give input into the proposals that were 


received. And I think one step that we won't 


have to do this time, Dr. Ziemer, is we won't 


have to have a pre-proposal conference like we 


had before. I think you did it in Cincinnati. 


You know, this contract's been in place for 


four -- well over four years, and I think 


everybody kind of knows what is going on. So 


that step won't be required, which will be -- 


which will help. 


 DR. WADE: So in terms of the range of 


solutions, David, Board members could be 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 

39 

evaluation panel, or they could be advising to 

that panel. 

 MR. STAUDT: Right, and I think as always with 

these Boards, you know -- they -B you need to 

be -- it has to be, you know, not more than, 

you know, six or eight, depending on the 

complexity, and then -- so I think we need to 

pick the members who are going to be available 

and who will add value for those specific 

areas. But we don't -- we don't want it to be 

too big. And we have plenty of time to work on 

that, but I think the thing is we need to think 

about it in October. 

 DR. WADE: Okay. I just wanted to let the 

Board know the range of thought. I have a 

proposal to -B not to make, but to ask the 

Board's guidance on. We could come to October 

with a blank piece of paper and begin to 

discuss statement of work or evaluation 

criteria, or I could ask and work with David to 

cobble something together that would be a first 

draft. I don't want to be accused of trying to 

-- to control the outcome by the staff work 

going in, and yet I think we all kind of have a 

sense of what that statement of work is likely 
1 

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 

to be in the evaluation criteria. So I guess 


the sense of the Board would be valuable as to 


whether you would like David and I to bring you 


a straw document to start with, or would you 


rather we hear your discussion in October, and 


then put together such a document? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any comments? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Lew, this is Phil. I'd like to 


see something, just a rough draft, put together 


at least so we can discuss it at the Board 


meeting in October. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I concur. It's a 


lot easier to comment on an existing document 


and throw slings and arrows at that, than it is 


to sit down and try to generate something 


cogent out of one's own sometimes 


malfunctioning mental processes. So... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. This is Ziemer again. 


Let me suggest, though, that as a starting 


point we take the original statements -- the 


original statement of work and then you guys do 


some tweaking of it, that -- it would be 


helpful to have that before us. 

1 

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

 MR. STAUDT: Absolutely. That will all be 

provided. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yeah, as a starting point, 

and so we have that and then we say what you 


think contractually needs to be added to make 


it more workable, and then I think that, with 


that as a starting point, Board members can 


have input on the particular features or items 


or considerations that they think should be 


clearly stated in the statement of work. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. It would be very 


helpful for me if the contractual officer made 


an effort to give us two or three bullet items 


indicating specific areas where his office sees 


a need for a change, as just mentioned in some 


of the direction of focus in the coming years. 


That would be extremely helpful for me. 


 MR. STAUDT: Will do, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 DR. WADE: We'll try and have it to the Board 


at least a week before the call. So what 


you're asking for is the original statement of 


work, and then any recommendations that the 


government might have as to modifications. 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 

42 

will have to take that original and modify it 

with the SEC tasks that will have subsequently 

been added. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

 DR. WADE: That shouldn't be difficult at all. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. STAUDT: And usually the way this works, 

Dr. Ziemer, is that when, for bidding purposes, 

that we would give contractors a few sample 

tasks and that shows that the contractors Bthey kind of know what they're thinking and 

what the costs are. So I'm not sure if the 

Board is interested in reviewing those, but 

those are certainly going to be an integral 

part of finding out from a cost realism 

standpoint, if the potential bidders know what 

they're doing, and whether -- one will be an 

SEC task and maybe, you know, some other will 

be dose reconstruction related. So that's 

something we can think about and throw in front 

of you in October also. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. What about the evaluation 

criteria? 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah. I think we -- just do the 

same think. We take the ones we have there 
1 

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 

now, and then maybe just tweak those just a 

little bit. I think from -B I haven't read 

them in a while, but they were fairly standard. 

But move on a little bit and maybe we can do 

that. Just tweak those a little and do the 

same thing we're going to do with the statement 

of work. 

 DR. WADE: Just for the record, I have 

consulted with counsel, and we're having these 

discussions in a public forum and that's fine. 

SC&A will listen and that's fine, as they wish. 

I have asked David to move as expeditiously as 

possible to put a sources sought out on the 

street so that everyone would know what the 

government's intentions are, and then we would 

notify people of Board meetings and dates and 

things if others wanted to listen to the 

discussion. Again, we want to do our business 

in the open. I'm really reluctant to close any 

part of the Board's deliberations unless I 

absolutely have to. But I think to be fair, we 

need to broadcast to the world what our 

intentions are on this. 

 DR. ZIEMER: David, in the original 

negotiations and bidding process and so on, 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 

44 

had -B I'm trying to recall -B I think there 

were perhaps three Board members B- although I 

don't recall for sure, but approximately three 

Board members who were part of the review team. 

Now remind me of the procedure. You get a 

series of bids. How -B what's the process for 

the final selection? 

 MR. STAUDT: Basically, you get the bids in and 

then the technical proposals are sent to a 

technical evaluation panel, of which some of 

your Board members can be on that, and they're 

reviewed and -- or often if you get too many 

bids in, then you develop a -- a competitive 

range until say you get down to three, and then 

you review those three for also their costs -- 

their cost proposal, also B-

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. STAUDT: -- and then you can -B you'll 

probably end up entering into discussions with 

those three individual companies. 

 DR. ZIEMER: At some point then, we will be 

thinking about having a technical evaluation 

panel. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And that's separate from whoever 
1 

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 

looks at the dollars, or is it? 

 MR. STAUDT: Well, yeah, actually that 

technical evaluation panel will also, as a 

second step, look at the dollars just -- just 

to kind of compare that they're reasonable and 

B-

 DR. ZIEMER: And we have some experience now to 

know how to make some cost comparisons. 

 MR. STAUDT: Exactly. Exactly. And you're 

trying to see that -- the type of labor mix 

that they're proposing, and the costs that are 

involved in that, the number of hours and all 

that. It all kind of makes (unintelligible). 

 DR. NETON: Dr. Ziemer? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I recall when 

the original contract was let, there were two 


members of the Board on the technical 


evaluation panel. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. It was a small number. 


 DR. NETON: And I think there was a reason for 


that, and it may have changed since then, but I 


thought that a certain percentage of the panel 


had to have the federal procurement training 


under --

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. There were some -B I don't 

recall the details -B but there were some -B

there was some special training that was 

required of individuals who participated. And 

there was -- there were a number of things that 

were obviously closed because we were looking 

at confidential, proprietary information. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes, and this is Wanda. My memory 

is that we had at least two, and possibly 

three, closed full Board meetings discussing 

the funding and the level of funding, and 

making some comparisons of the number of hours 

that were being assigned to various levels of 

personnel. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, and that's another reason why 

I think we want to get this started in October, 

so that we have adequate time to get it 

awarded. 

 DR. WADE: David, this is Lew. If, during the 

requirements for participants in the evaluation 

panel to have procurement training, the option 

exists to get training for a Board member who 

might not have it? Is that correct? 

 MR. STAUDT: I believe we can get that 

training, 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 

47

 DR. WADE: So at this point we don't see that 

as a constraint. If the Board would decide 

they want parties A, B and C B- again, it's 

always the government's prerogative as to 

whether it takes the Board's recommendation, 

but should the government decide that those 

members -- one is trained and two aren't, we 

would try and get those two trained. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, is there also a requirement 

that there be a certain number of outside 

people on these review panels, or what kind of 

-B maybe you can let us know. I don't need to 

know now, but -B

 MR. STAUDT: Lay that all out and -- and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and you know, how many 

members should we have? It's going to --B what 

we're going to end up with is a B- what's going 

to look like a working group, which will be the 

evaluation panel for the Board, of some sort. 

 MR. STAUDT: Right. There'll probably be 

others though, as well. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. 

There wouldn't be exclusively a Board panel. 

At least it wasn't before. I assume B-

 MR. STAUDT: I think the composition's 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 

48 

be fairly similar this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. There was some 


representation from NIOSH and maybe from other 


parts of the government even. 


 DR. WADE: I'm going to try and do as much of 


this publicly as I can. When we do get down to 


discussing labor rates, I think then there is 


some confidentiality, but unless the board 


instructs me otherwise I'm going to try and do 


as much of this publicly as possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Well, that sounds like a 


good plan to get us in process, so at the 


October meeting we'll have an opportunity to 


see a draft of the statement of work and 


evaluation criteria and opportunity to input, 


and then follow up in a more detailed time 


schedule at that point. Is that correct? 


 MR. STAUDT: That -- that's correct 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, any further 


questions on this topic? 


 (No responses) 


ROCKY FLATS FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
 

If not, let's proceed. The next item of 


business is an update on the Rocky Flats 


follow-up actions and we show Jim Neton as 

1 

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 

having the lead on that. 


 DR. WADE: Right. This is Lew to start. 
I 


mean, again, we'll have this as an agenda item 


for October obviously, but I though it 


appropriate, since this is such an important 


issue, that we just get an update from Jim now. 


This is by no means his final report, but an 


update as to where we stand. 


 DR. NETON: Okay. Thanks, Lew. If you recall, 


we did at the June Board meeting in Lakewood, 


Colorado we were asked how long it would take 


us to evaluate the cases -- the Rocky Flats 


claims against the new approaches that were 


proposed during the working group's 


deliberations. There were like three separate 


changes, those being the super S plutonium and 


the 95th percentile for unmonitored internal 


dose for workers, and there was a new neutron 


dose model that was proposed during those 


deliberations. We've been working on that as 


quickly as we can. We have completed the 


internal/external site profile documents, the 


revisions of those documents. They were 


reviewed and approved in the -- I think the 


middle of August. They're out there on our web 

1 

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 

site so there is no impediment now for us to 


proceed forward to complete all those dose 


reconstructions. In fact, any new cases that 


are coming forward to us are being processed 


against those as we speak. 


 If you recall, at the July meeting in Richland, 


I provided an update as to where we were and I 


indicated there were 672 cases at Rocky Flats 


that had probabilities of causation less than 


50 percent. Since that time we've been working 


through the backlog, and most of those were due 


to the super S -- we thought most of those 


would have to be evaluated against super S. 


We've been doing as they've been being sent 


back from the Department of Labor, and in fact 


the number of cases less than 50 percent at 


Rocky Flats is now down to 610. And I -- I --


I don't -- I haven't verified this completely, 


but I believe most of those are a direct result 


of the reevaluation using the super S model. 


 The evaluation of these cases, though -- 


however, has been slightly more difficult to 


triage than we thought, and there's two main 


reasons for that. One is the identification of 


which of these cases are actually in the SEC -- 

1 

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 

SEC class that's been added at Rocky Flats. 


That has not yet closed. I think the SEC 


designation is scheduled to be effective 


sometime this week. I think probably September 


6 is the date that comes to mind. But until 


that's figured out, we really have trouble 


determining which exact cases to rework. As 


importantly, however, is -- we've run into a 


stumbling block as to how to factor in all the 


other technical changes that have been made in 


the program, not just the Rocky Flats changes. 


That is, while we're redoing these things we 


don't want to do them in a vacuum and evaluate 


against those three specific changes, but we 


may as well incorporate all the other various 


changes that have been made to site procedures 


and technical documents. 


With that in mind, we've had discussions -- 


recent discussions with the Department of Labor 


and it was agreed that we're going to -- 


they're going to send back to NIOSH all Rocky 


Flats cases that have been denied to date. 


That would be, by our count -- and not just 610 


cases, and we will redo those dose 


reconstructions completely, using not only 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 

52 

Rocky Flats changes, but all changes that might 


impact them, you know, from other evaluations 


that have been done. So DO-- Department of 


Labor will send letters to those claimants as 


they send them back to us, notifying that 


that's what's happening, and we will rework 


these cases almost as a de novo dose 


reconstruction, complete with a closeout 


interview and -- and everything else that goes 


along with that. So that's where we are. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Jim, how about -- is it made 


very clear to people if you're -- if -- when 


you're reopening a case like that, you're -- 


you notify people. Correct? 


 DR. NETON: Yeah. Well, Department of Labor 


would send a letter back to them saying that 


it's been returned to NIOSH for rework. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. They're making it clear to 


-- again, you don't want them to get false 


hopes up and obviously these aren't all going 


to be successful as far as the POCs and I'm 


just hopeful that Labor's letter does not raise 


false hopes in these cases. 


 DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree with you, Dr. Ziemer. 


And that's a concern of ours and we've 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 

53 

numbers of discussions with Department of Labor 


about this, although I honestly don't know 


exactly what their letter says but they are 


certainly sensitive to this issue as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. It's their -- it's their 


call, but we -- it's good that you're having 


input on that issue so that people understand 


we are taking another look at this and there is 


an opportunity but, you know, don't assume that 


you're automatically now going to have a 


successful claim. 


Okay. Thank you. Other -- Board members, 


other comments on this? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, Mark Griffon. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Mark, go ahead. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I just had a question. 


Jim, have you wrestled with or -- this question 


of designating the neutron buildings -- has 


anyone worked with DOL on how these -- I mean I 


know this was sort of a side thing but it did 


come out of our recommendation that -- you 


know, neutron workers and we left that 


definition of monitored or should have been 


monitored for neutrons, you know, purposely 


vague because we knew there were several 

1 

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 

buildings -- Building 81 comes to mind -- 


several buildings where we just wanted to make 


sure that more research was done and the 


designation was appropriate. We didn't want to 


try to make a list of buildings at the time. 


Is there any status on that, on... 


 DR. NETON: I knew you were going to ask that, 


Mark, and unfortunately I wasn't able to track 


down the exact answer to that question. But I 


do know that we have provided the Department of 


Labor a list of all of the Rocky Flats workers 


who were included in the neutron dose 


reconstruction project, so they have those 


names as a start. Now not all those people, of 


course, would be covered. But they certainly 


would be considered neutron workers. 


The second part of the question, which is which 


buildings, we have evaluated the NDRP buildings 


and to our estimation, or to our knowledge, the 


buildings that were included in the NDRP are 


the ones that should be considered in the 


class. But I honestly don't know if we've sat 


down with the Department of Labor and 


communicated that to them yet. In other words, 


you know, all the buildings that were in 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 

55 

NDRP that we went through with the working 


group would be the ones that would be -- the 


class. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I -- I -- I thought that 


was our -- our starting point. But I thought 


there were others that we made at least a good 


case during our deliberations that there should 


be others that should be considered for 


inclusion, such as 81 or the -- or the early 


sub-critical experiments and so forth. 


 DR. NETON: Well, again, I'll have to go back 


and check with Brant on this. He was -- he was 


heading that -- that group -- that workup, but 


I --


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe you can report back on in 


October on that. 


 DR. NETON: I'll do that. I don't want -- I 


shouldn't speak without having complete, you 


know, information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Lew can -- we'd be sure to put 


this on the agenda again for October -- a 


further update on the Rocky in general. 


 DR. NETON: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

56

 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. Other 


questions or comments for Jim? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. Jim, this is Brad Clawson. 


When you're talking about the -- the group of 


people that are classified as neutron workers 


and stuff like that, are we taking into 


consideration all the ones that possibly could 


have, as roving maintenance or anything else 


like that, or how are we determining which 


people are -- are the ones? 


 DR. NETON: Well, that's a good question, Brad, 


and you're sort of getting into an area I think 


that's more appropriate for Department of Labor 


to comment on. But I can tell you, based on 


past practices, those types of workers would 


certainly be considered for addition to the 


class, and the -- the test that's been applied 


in the past sites has been was there potential 


for a worker to receive a hundred million rem 


exposure. Now how the Department of Labor will 


end up putting that into practice, I really 


can't say. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank 


you. 


 DR. NETON: No 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 

57

 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions or comments? 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. Since that's such an 


important issue, I think we would -- I'll try 


to arrange for someone from the Department of 


Labor to be present in October to be prepared 


to field those questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: No promises, but we'll try. 


PRIVACY ACT CLEARANCE PROCEDURES


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's proceed then. The 


next item on the agenda is a report on Privacy 


Act clearance procedures. We -- we received 


actually three different procedures which 


describe how Privacy Act issues are handled for 


our contractor, SC&A; for (unintelligible) and 


for -- I guess (unintelligible) NIOSH docket 


office. Did everybody get those? They were 


distributed maybe a week or so ago. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. MELIUS: I'm a little confused, 'cause I 


got them and then I got a note saying they were 


recalled. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and then they were resent, 


or I don't know what change was made. I got 


the same thing. We got the documents, then 

1 

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 

shortly thereafter a note saying that the -- 


that e-mail was being recalled and then shortly 


after that I got another one that appeared to 


have the same three. Maybe there was a change. 


 DR. WADE: I don't think there were any 


changes. I think the recall was based 


partially on a broader distribution than was 


originally intended. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. In any event, the 


documents that were distributed are the ones 


we're supposed to get. 


 DR. WADE: The documents are the same, as I 


believe. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Now, there's several items 


-- and Board members, again I suggest to you, 


you put a date on it -- on yours' these aren't 


dated. But -- and I -- I interpret them as 


descriptions of what is being done -- is that 


correct -- as opposed to official approved 


procedures? Well, they are approved, but they 


-- well, what we have here -- are these 


documents that have somehow been approved, per 


se, or are they simply descriptions of what is 


done? 


 DR. WADE: From my point of view they 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 

59 

descriptions of the procedures that we're 

following. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: Obviously, internally we've approved 

them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Now -- and then the other 

question I have is, are -- is there any 

requirement for the Board to approve the SC&A 

procedures, or are they basically covered 

because they are under a NIOSH contract or a -- 

the CDC contract? 

 DR. WADE: I don't think there is any 

requirement that the Board approves them. I --

I think we're certainly open to suggestions and 

comments as to how to improve them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: Yeah. This is a situation that=s 

evolved in the last year in terms of Privacy 

Act concerns and we have been working to try 

and put procedures in place so that we -- not 

only could we follow them, but people could 

critique them and understand them. And --

 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. WADE: -- I think that's where we are, 

particularly with the SC&A Document Privacy Act 
1 

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 

review pieces of paper. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well -- and these are all 


rather brief. I assume, Board members, you've 


had a chance to read them. Let me just 


individually ask if there are questions 


concerning -- let's start with the SC&A Privacy 


Act review process. Any questions on that? 


And John Mauro, if you have any comments also 


on how it's working and so on, that would be 


fine as well. 


 DR. WADE: What we will do -- this is Lew -- at 


the October meeting we'll start to present you 


with matrices that will provide you with the 


status of all such items and we'll be able to 


identify backlogs that the -- the working end 


of this is not only to apply the procedure, but 


to then track performance relative to the 


procedure. I don't think there's any egregious 


violations or variations to the procedure, but 


in October we'll try and give you a listing of 


everything and the status of everything. 


That's being worked on now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Again, I'll ask, Board members, 


are there any questions or comments on the SC&A 


procedures? 

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I mean, I --


I was very (broken transmission). I thought 


these were recalled, so no need to review them. 


That's -- I got one e-mail with (broken 


transmission) and then no (broken transmission) 


explanation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You didn't get the subsequent e-


mail where they were redistributed then? 


 DR. MELIUS: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay. 


 DR. WADE: We can certainly talk about these 


again in October with the updates in front of 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can -- we can certainly put it 


back on the agenda if -- you may have discarded 


them if they appeared to be recalled, so... 


 DR. MELIUS: (Broken transmission) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you wish to have it on the 


agenda for the October meeting? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I mean I have no objection 


to discussion of them here, but I'd just like 


some (broken transmission) be able to reopen it 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, sure. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- (broken transmission) October 

1 

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 

meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think at this point, again, I'll 


just ask if there are any questions. These are 


describing how it's being done. There are some 


-- I think there's been some changes federally 


in how the redactions are done. At least my 


understanding is, in terms of redaction of 


names and so on, it's a little tighter than it 


has been in past years. But if there's no 


questions, we'll -- we'll just take this as an 


informational item for now. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, I don't have a question, but 


I have a belated concern -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and that's the fact that 


there's no -- probably because of this Privacy 


Act issue when those -- and how poorly 


organized it was and -- and how it was being 


communicated or not communicated, my -- my 


concern is with how the public gets information 


about our deliberations. A lot of times we're 


having workgroup meetings where there are 


either reports presented by SC&A or by NIOSH 


that has not yet undergone Privacy Act or 


security review, and for those reasons they 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 

63 

not able to be shared with the public. And 


then they just disappear, so they never -- the 


public never has -- public, being interested 


parties -- not a particular site or a 


particular issue -- never has -- never gets 


access to them or never knows that they are -- 


are -- are accessible. The web site -- I won't 


call it a mess, but it's very (broken 


transmission) to try to track through a 


particular -- what's happening with a 


particular site because you -- some -- some 


SC&A documents are on the NIOSH part of the web 


site, sometimes they're under -- you know, 


sometimes documents are under technical (broken 


transmission), sometimes they're listed under 


the SEC review, sometimes they're listed under 


technical documents related to the Board. 


They're far from being complete. There are 


many documents that -- in the past, and several 


that were discussed, for example, for even as 


recently as Rocky Flats, that were never made ­

- and have yet to be posted or made available 


to the public, as far as -- as far as I'm aware 


of. And I think this is (broken transmission) 


and I -- I -- I think in -- and I don't know 

1 

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 

what all the reasons for it are, and whether 


NIOSH has some prohibition about listing other 


documents on the -- on their web site or 


something, but (broken transmission) need some 


sort of cen-- (broken transmission) --pository 


where both Board members can go to access 


something and where (broken transmission) 


members of the public that are interested. 


Another (broken transmission) I went to look up 


something about the Hanford workgroup meeting 


that we had in March, frankly because I forgot 


about exactly where we left a particular issue 


and wanted to refresh my memory. Minutes of 


that -- transcription, I should say, was not 


yet listed. Apparently it was available or Lew 


made it available to me when I asked, though 


it's not up there, as are the tran-- the 


transcriptions of several of the other Board 


meetings that the -- or workgroup meetings that 


-- that have taken place. And I (broken 


transmission) this is a -- you know, makes it 


more difficult for the Board. I think it more 


importantly makes it very difficult more -- 


much more difficult for interested parties to 


follow what's going on, and really damages 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 

65 

credibility of the program. 


 DR. WADE: All right. This is Lew. I'd like 


to speak to that in general terms, and I don't 


disagree with any of Dr. Melius's points. You 


know, FACA does not require that workgroup 


meetings be public or that minutes be taken of 


workgroup meetings or transcripts of workgroup 


meetings, or that the work products of those 


meetings be made public. What a workgroup 


really is is a place where the -- the work is 


done, the deliberations are done, the -- the -- 


the actual hands-on manipulation is done, and 


documents are changing all of the time. I 


think laudably this Board has attempted to make 


all of its meetings opened, transcripts of all 


their work products available. 


 The one dilemma that comes to us is that the 


Board could decide, based upon Dr. Melius's 


comments, that it would not want to hold a 


workgroup unless all of the documents discussed 


were cleared. And we could do that and make 


that our procedure. It might in some cases 


delay a workgroup meeting as we're going 


through these kinds of reviews, but it's 


certainly doable. Again, I think we 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 

66 

live consistent with our desire to be 


transparent in all that we do. And again, on 


that issue I have to seek the Board's guidance. 


Would you like there to be no discussion of 


documents at a workgroup meeting until those 


documents are publicly available? That's not 


the procedure we've been following. We've been 


trying to clear documents, but we've not been 


delaying workgroup meetings. So I think that's 


an issue for discussion, doesn't have to be 


decided here. We can do it again in October, 


but it is something that we wrestle with. 


All of the other points Dr. Melius makes really 


are about good staff work, and we need to do 


better staff work. But -- but this is one 


sticking point that I think needs some 


discussion. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I have no 


(broken transmission) I spoke or you were just 


making another observation, Lew, but I was not 


asking that all documents become public (broken 


transmission) they're discussed at a workgroup 


meeting. However, I think that the -- 


certainly before the Board makes a decision 


based on -- I think what I would refer to as 

1 

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 

major documents, which would be an SCA -- an 


SC&A report or a NIOSH response that -- 


response to that report, that those ought to be 


(broken transmission) be publicly available to 


interested parties in a -- a timely manner. 


 DR. WADE: I agree with that. 


 DR. MELIUS: And so -- that. Secondly, I think 


that there ought to be some information 


available about what documents were discussed 


at a workgroup meeting. This would not 


necessarily be delayed until the -- you know -- 


until the meeting's been transcribed and -- and 


posted, but it should be noted, and that those 


documents are under review or there's some 


limited availability of those documents. I 


mean I think there are documents that are put 


on, for example, on the O drive that are 


difficult to make public and -- and may -- in 


most cases not necessary to make public. But 


at least people ought to be aware that there is 


a report or something that's -- some sort of 


product that's been discussed at those meetings 


and that's currently undergoing Privacy Act 


review. And I think with the proce-- (broken 


transmission) talked about in terms 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 

68 

sched-- (broken transmission) that it would -- 


you know, being available, discussed at each 


meeting, I -- I (broken transmission) more 


transparent and more helpful to both the Board 


members and the outside interested parties. 


 DR. WADE: I don't have a mechanism for that. 


We'll have to develop one. 


 DR. MELIUS: Exactly. Well, and finally, I 


really do think the web site is the way to make 


this information available, and it needs to be, 


you know, maybe reorganized in some way, or 


indexed in some way. You know, right now if 


you search for something on the -- on the web 


site, you end up -- unless I'm doing it wrong ­

- back at the general CDC search. And you 


know, if you search for Blockson, it's not on 


the index. So you get relatively little 


information about it. That's not certainly 


NIOSH's fault, but it's -- it is problematic 


and I think a better organized web site would 


be a possibility, or we, you know, charge our ­

- you know, another option would be to have 


SC&A develop such a web site. It seems to me 


that's duplicative and -- of -- of what NIOSH 


is doing, and I'm not sure it doesn't -- 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 

69 

know, which wouldn't be of -- cause of more 


problems and more and more confusion. 


 DR. WADE: I agree with that. We do have on 


October schedule the discussion of the web 


site. The one issue embedded in what you said 


that I really have got to think about is how do 


we let the public know about documents in 


process under discussion, and I really have to 


think about that. And we'll have some 


proposal, though, in October. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda, and Jim, my -- and my 


engineer brain jumps to the same issue that Lew 


raises there. It sounds really good, but the 


question -- my next thought is -- and gee, 


who's going to be the suckee to get that done 


in a format that can be put on the web site, 


and how do we go about doing that? It doesn't 


seem appropriate that it would be the 


responsibility of anyone other than perhaps the 


chair of the working group, which is always 


problematical to -- as you know, anyone who 


chairs a working group has a -- a -- Mark might 


be happy to speak to that. But the fact that 


the issue of when uncleared documents can be 


made public is one that has dogged us for 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 

70 

long, long time. One I've been particularly 


concerned with was the clearance of contractor 


documents that were released long before they 


were in fact cleared. And although, had they 


been particularly good about making sure that ­

- that their notification that clearance had 


not yet occurred -- they've been very good 


about that. But it still bothers me that that 


information goes out to such a broad 


distribution of people prior to the time that's 


done. And yet without that, the information -- 


as you point out -- is not available on a 


timely manner. 


I certainly would welcome and I think all of 


the -- I can't speak for everybody, but it is 


difficult to find items you want to find on our 


web site. I've had to fall back on more than 


one occasion and ask someone from NIOSH to tell 


me where I can find this document. And it 


would be helpful if we could really do some -- 


some heavy duty thinking and perhaps have the 


advantage of having a web site organizational 


expert available for a few sessions on the 


issue of exactly how best to do that, 


especially when we have procedures that 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 

71 

necessary for the workgroups to pursue, which 


are not available because they're not 


completely cleared yet, and we still need to 


have access to them. And how to do this, where 


to go if they are not associated with a 


specific site, is a real question I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other -- other 

comments? 

 DR. WADE: This is Lew. I'd just like to go 

back to my dilemma and just share it with you 


and then possibly some ideas or some future 


discussion. At a workgroup meeting, for 


example, it might be that SC&A will put 


together a white paper, a brief analysis of a 


certain point. NIOSH might develop a -- you 


know, a back-of-the-envelope kind of analysis, 


comparing this and that. The SC&A products 


will eventually make their way into an SC&A 


report. The problem with that is it's late. 


It could be that the report doesn't see the 


light of day and the public's eye until well 


after the discussion is cold. In the case of 


the NIOSH documents, they might not make their 


way into a NIOSH procedure for quite some time, 


if at all. So the question really is to -- how 

1 

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 

to make the public aware of such products 


without sharing those work products, 'cause -- 


or you could have those work products Privacy 


Act reviewed, and that will take time as well. 


So I'm not sure -- exactly sure how to solve 


the problem that Dr. Melius raises, although I 


understand it. I agree that in a world of 


total transparency, we need to solve that 


problem but I don't have a quick solution. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, actually, I think 


today -- part of our job today is to stimulate 


some thinking about this. And obviously we're 


going to have to -- when we get into detailed 


discussion, not only on the web site but these 


related issues of tracking, because it's not 


just these documents but it's -- it's our whole 


-- the whole scheme of things. How do we keep 


from -- things from falling through the cracks 


that need attention? 


 DR. WADE: Right, and --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think many of these things, if 


we give some creative thinking to it, we can -- 


we can have a way of tracking even working 


papers. I think, as I understood what Jim 


said, he wasn't necessarily insisting that all 

1 

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 

working papers be made public, but at least 


that there could be an identified place that 


said at this workgroup meeting, you know, work 


paper such-and-such developed by SC&A dealing 


with something -- you know, neutron/gamma 


ratios -- was utilized and maybe eventually, 


although that's initially not public, maybe as 


a collection of these develop they can -- they 


can be somewhere on the site and become public 


information. There is a provision in these -- 


in the procedure that if it's strictly 


technical information, it doesn't necessarily 


have to go through the redaction process. I 


think SC&A, as I recall, is even authorized to 


make that determination themselves. 


 DR. WADE: That's correct. But oftentimes 


these are -- the documents are closer -- more 


difficult calls than that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, obviously we -- you 


know, we've stimulated some -- some issues that 


we need to think about. I -- I -- I would like 


to think it's doable. 


 DR. WADE: It's certainly doable. And again, 


always the Pollyanna, the good thing about this 


is this Board does all of its business, 

1 

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 

including its workgroups, in the open. And if 


we didn't, then this problem goes away, and we 


don't want the problem to go away. But the 


solution of it, in a systematic way, is 


something that we have to institute and I have 


to think some about. I hate to burden 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: There already is a tremendous 


amount of information on the web site, and I 


think part of that is cross-referencing, being 


able to track it, being able to search if 


necessary. Part of that's an organizational 


thing, I suppose, that we need to give some 


thought to. 


 DR. WADE: Enough of my comments. We'll --


we'll work this out as best we can and talk to 


you about it in October. 


 MS. MUNN: One comment I would like to make 


before we move away from this, however, is to 


remind all of us that our purpose in workgroups 


is quite different than our purpose in our 


public meetings. Our purpose in our workgroup 


from the outset was intended to be a setting 


where our technical folks could work in a 


collegial manner together to try to resolve 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 

75 

issues that had been brought up in the public 


forum, and that need to be resolved for the 


public forum. And it's -- if we place so many 


requirements with respect to reporting out of 


the workgroup that we obscure that opportunity 


to do technical work on a technical colleague 


basis, then we may lengthen the process unduly 


and, as best I can determine, no one wants 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. Now the other ­

- the other point, and Jim Melius, correct me 


if I heard this wrong, but I think you were 


saying that if there is a workgroup product 


that ends up being a major determinant in how 


something is handled at the full Board level, 


then we need to make sure that at that point 


such product is available to the public as 


well. If we say that, you know, we're making ­

- we're voting on something on the basis of 


this particular work product, but oh, by the 


way, it's not available to the petitioners, 


then we have a problem. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. I mean, everything that 


the Board discusses at a Board meeting should 


be available to the public and on the table in 

1 

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 

the back of the room. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So part of the -- part of this is 


the timeliness of -- you know, it may not be 


clear during a workgroup meeting, but by the 


time we make -- are at the full Board meeting 


making the decision, we need to make sure that 


those documents have been made available, and 


not just the day of the meeting. 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct. This is Jim Melius. To 


disagree with Wanda a little -- surprise, 


surprise -- but our -- the workgroups are not 


just technical. The workgroups result in a, 


you know, formal recommendation quite often to 


the full Board. And so -- so they have meaning 


beyond just, you know, technical discussion 


among experts. And for that reason I think, 


you know, a certain amount of transparency's 


appropriate. 


I also would add that this transparency's also 


important for other Board members. A lot of 


times when I'm listening to a workgroup 


reporting back or making recommendation, I'll 


refer back to their, you know, either 


information or an SCA report that they refer 


to, and it certainly -- and so my frustration 

1 

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 

is not being able to access that very readily. 


You know again, maybe the most egregious 


example is Chapman, where SC&A review of that 


site was, you know, somehow lost in process for 


many months and was not made available to 


anybody. And we were about to take (broken 


transmission). So I think again, it's just -- 


I think we need to be reasonable about it. 


think we need to sort of improve on the -- our 


handling of this and how we organize this and 


how we make it available. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Further 

comments? 

 (No response) 

Okay. So we'll have a chance to revisit these 


issues again. Shall we proceed? 


CHAPMAN VALVE
 

We have next an update from Lew on contacts 


made to the Department of Energy and Labor 


relative to the Chapman Valve situation. 


 DR. WADE: Right. This is Lew. Again, I -- I 


tried to provide you with the materials. As 


you instructed me, I did write to DOL and DOE 


on Chapman Valve. I ran the drafts by the 


Board and then, based upon Board comment, sent 


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 

78 

those drafts out. They were mailed on August 


8. We've received one response on August 22 


from the Department of Labor, and I've sent 


that to you. I am not aware of a response from 


the Department of Energy, although I told -- I 


am told that one is forthcoming quickly. 


Again, remember we invited these five people to 


the October meeting, and therefore I wouldn't 


consider anyone late at this point. But I just 


wanted to share with you the materials that I 


sent out and the response that I've received. 


And then if there's any guidance the Board 


would like to -- to provide anyone leading up 


to the October meeting, I would be pleased to 


hear that. 


I'm also aware that there is a petitioner on 


the line, a Mary Reale, I believe, who might 


want to make a brief comment regarding this 


issue. But first, Dr. Ziemer, to hear from the 


Board on -- this is the status and then I would 


wait for the letter from DOE and then provide 


it to you. And then we've asked those 


representatives to come for a dialogue in our ­

- at our October meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Board members, any questions 

1 

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 

or comments? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Lew, Jim Lockey. I read that --


from a Labor letter -- are they going to be at 


the Board meeting? Did they commit to that? 


 DR. WADE: I don't know. Jeff Kotsch is on the 


line. They usually are. I assume that they 


are, but I don't know that for a fact. Jeff, 


can you speak to that? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, Lew. We'll -- it will 


probably be me, but somebody will be there. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And somebody will be there from 


the Department of Labor to address the issue 


that Lew outlined in his letter? 


 DR. WADE: We will work very hard to see that 


that's the case. Is anyone on the line from 


the Department of Energy? 


 (No response) 


We will work hard to see that that's the case, 


Jim. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, I'd like to hear it from the 


Department of Labor representative. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Department of Energy, you mean. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, the Department of Labor 


representative -- they said somebody 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 

80 

there, but will somebody be there to directly 


address the letter that you outlined, Lew? 


That's what I'm asking. 


 DR. WADE: I see. Jeff, will you come prepared 


to address the letter and (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, we -- we can talk about it. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And the second question, Lew, is 


if we don't hear from Department of Energy, are 


we going to be recontacting them before the 


October meeting? 


 DR. WADE: I promise you that I will. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions? 

 (No response) 

Okay. The individual petitioner -- was it the 


petitioner that's on the line? 


 MS. REALE: Yes, I am. 


 DR. WADE: Mary Reale, I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mary? 


 DR. WADE: -- I was asked by -- I think it was 


the Congressional office -- if she could make a 


brief comment. Dr. Ziemer, I assume that would 


be acceptable. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. 


 MS. REALE: Dr. Ziemer? 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. REALE: It's Mary Ann Reale, petitioner for 


Chapman Valve. I just want to thank the Board 


and the members for taking Chapman Valve into 


consideration. And I believe that 


(unintelligible) has sent an e-mail regarding 


our concerns about different things. And I 


appreciate all the attention that you've been 


giving us. 


 DR. WADE: I did receive an e-mail this 


morning, and I sent it on to Board members. 


MS. REALE: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: I don't know if they've all received 


it yet. 


MS. REALE: I thank you for that. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes, I received the e-mail. 


 DR. WADE: You say yes? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. Jim Lockey did. I know I --


I read it. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Mary. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mary. 


 MS. REALE: You're welcome. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any other questions or 


comments on Chapman Valve at this point? 


 (No response) 

1 

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 

So that will be on the agenda for the meeting. 


WORKGROUP UPDATES
 

Are we ready for the workgroup update? We have 


a lot of workgroups. And they are now all 


listed on the web site, including Linde, which 


was originally omitted, I think. But shall we 


go down the list and get an update from the 


various chairmen -- chairpersons? We've --


we've put the subcommittee in this category, as 


well as workgroups, so Mark, do you have any 


comments from the dose reconstruction 


subcommittee? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, just briefly, we're having a 


meeting next week on September 12, in 


Cincinnati. Main focus will be the fourth, 


fifth and sixth sets of cases. We have 


matrices out on all three of those and they're 


in different stages of comment resolution. The 


sixth set we have not yet received NIOSH's 


responses back, but we hope to receive those 


very soon, hopefully by the end of this week, 


distribute them to the subcommittee and then 


have our meeting next week. And I think that ­

- that's really it. We'll have -- we hope to 


have closed out at least one of those matrices, 

1 

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 

if not two of those matrices, by the October 


4th meeting -- the full Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. And also I noticed 


that Kathy now has scheduled -- Kathy Behling 


has scheduled the -- the dose reconstruction 


tasks for the various Board teams for set 


seven. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I think people should 


look at that schedule and e-mail Kathy and make 


sure they can be available for those phone 


calls. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So those will be taking 


place in the next few weeks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Mark, this is Lew. Do we have a 


sense of who will attend next week? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- it's been going back 


and forth a little bit. I was not aware of the 


-- the other meeting in Chicago on the same 


day, so I think Mike is not (broken 


transmission) to attend. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But Wanda will be there at least 


part of the meeting, via phone. And Bob 

1 

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 

Presley and Brad are going to be there, and 


myself. 


 DR. WADE: So we're fine with a quorum? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. So we're fine with a 


quorum, and I have not heard from John Poston 


yet, but I'm (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: If I might just make one small 


comment on the record. Subcommittee meetings 


are different from workgroups and they have to 


be Federal Register noticed, and that's not an 


easy task. I -- I'd like to just particularly 


thank Zaida for her work on Friday to -- to go 


through an unbelievable hoop to get this 


subcommittee scheduled. I think we owe her a 


debt of gratitude. So thank you, Zaida, for 


that, and it speaks of good things to come in 


the future. 


 MS. BURGOS: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I appreciate that as well 


and I'll -- I'll try to give a little longer 


notice next time. It was a hard time getting a 


date this time, so I apologize. 


 DR. WADE: No problem at all. It all worked, 


and thanks again to Zaida. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Next, Blockson 

1 

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 

-- and Wanda, you're the chair of that. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. We met in Cincinnati last week 


on the 28th and had what I think is a 


productive discussion. We came out with a few 


action items. I had hoped that we might be 


able to get a little further along the way, but 


there are several crucial questions that 


haven't been put to bed yet. One of the things 


that was of most concern to us was the fact 


that the process itself at Blockson has not 


been as thoroughly identified as would be 


desirable, especially in light of our being 


able to define exactly what transpires during 


the chemical reactions of each phase of that 


process. 


There's going to be an attempt to meet with the 


Blockson workers again on the 12th to try to 


clarify exactly what some of their memories 


might tell us with respect to chemical process 


and their reactions from it. 


 Because there were several of those issues, 


what we did was spend some time during our 


meeting framing three specific questions to put 


on the table, which we will have in the hands 


of some of the petitioners well in advance 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 

86 

the meeting so that they'll have an opportunity 


to think about those. Of course no one intends 


to limit the discussion to those three, but 


during the course of the discussion we're 


asking that anyone who has knowledge of those 


three items focus on them a little bit so that 


we might be able to come away from that work -- 


working meeting with any additional that would 


be helpful for putting these final questions to 


bed. 


We have a list of work items for NIOSH, 


including their -- their action items to check 


the literature about other productions, the 


data that might be available, the same type of 


operation. That's been done to a great extent 


already, but then there's going to be a final 


sweep to make sure that there's no outstanding 


information that hasn't been incorporated into 


the background data. They are going to contact 


the union representatives before the 12th of 


September meeting to get those questions in 


their hands, and some of the folks are working 


with them to provide names of contact people 


there. 


We're going to try to get minutes redacted 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 

87 

the position paper out the door by the October 


meeting, and NIOSH is going to do a white paper 


on -- on the -- whether to address the -- the 


products there as type M or type S. 


SC&A is going to respond to the question of is 


the dataset of uranium robust (broken 


transmission) have already. And even though 


that is considered to be a non-SEC issue, it's 


one of the things that we need to look at to 


have ready come October. So we'll hopefully 


have some feedback from the meeting with the 


workers in Joliet in -- next week, and we'll 


have a more hopefully thorough report available 


come October. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Board 


members, as we proceed here, if you have 


questions just chime in. I'm going to 


otherwise move ahead. The next workgroup is 


Chapman Valve and we've discussed Chapman with 


respect to the actions and the -- taken with 


DOE and DOL. Anything else from the workgroup? 


Gen Roessler, are you -- I don't think the 


workgroup has met since our last meeting, have 


they? 


DR. ROESSLER: I have -- this is Gen -- I've 

1 

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 

heard nothing from Dr. Poston, who's the chair 


of the workgroup, so I think the update that 


was given earlier in our meeting is all that we 


have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Let's see, conflict 


of interest policy -- Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: In relationship to that, I haven't 


heard anything from Legal, so we are waiting 


directions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're waiting. 


 DR. WADE: That's on hold. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That's on hold? And do you know 


when it'll be taken off hold? 


 DR. WADE: Don't know. I don't know if or 


when, but we'll keep you posted. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay, thanks. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Fernald Site, Brad Clawson. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, we met approximately about 


a month ago. We were able to work ourselves 


through the matrix. This was the original 


first meeting of the Fernald workgroup for the 


SEC petition. When we arrived there, we come 


to find out that NIOSH had numerous new 


information and so forth that we haven't really 


been able to go over, so since that time NIOSH 

1 

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 

has got a lot of -- Mark Rolfes got a lot of 


this put onto the O drive. Now we're basically 


kind of waiting to be able to go through a lot 


of this information and set up another meeting, 


give SC&A a chance to be able to look at the -- 


some of the information that has now come out 


and so forth, and then we're going to be 


setting up another workgroup meeting here 


shortly after everybody's had an opportunity to 


go through some of the information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Hanford Site 


profile, Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Hanford Site profile -- we are 


waiting on NIOSH's -- I believe their 


evaluation report on sort of further (broken 


transmission) of the SEC out there. So it's 


another SEC evaluation report I believe is due 


out shortly. And then we will -- based on 


that, we will be getting together, but there've 


been a number of changes made and we have some 


additional comments from SC&A, so I think we'll 


-- should be able to engage fairly rapidly, but 


it didn't make any sense until the evaluation 


report comes out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Los Alamos 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 

90 

profile and SEC, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- I have not had a 


meeting with the Los Alamos workgroup yet. I'm 


hoping to have one right after the next Board 


meeting, sometime in October -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I hope now, so no update at 


this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Linde Ceramics, Gen 


Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes, I do have an update on 


Linde. This just came out last Friday 


afternoon, so some of the workgroup members are 


not aware of it yet. But let me review a 


little bit. We had our last workgroup meeting 


on March 26. At that time we looked at SC&A's 


review of the Linde site profile documents. 


Some data -- urinalysis data was identified 


that needed to be looked at before we could 


continue with this. NIOSH and ORAU were going 


to be looking at this on July -- we had hoped 


to have this resolved by the end of June, have 


another workgroup meeting, but we were notified 


at the -- I think it was July 9th -- there was 


a delay. There were some funding issues 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 

91 

that the site experts were changed. Since that 


time we are -- according to the update that we 


got last Friday from Chris Crawford at NIOSH, 


Joe Guido is now working on this data. The 


urinalysis data was located at Oak Ridge and is 


in the process of being declassified. The 


information we have is that they'll look at 


this data very soon, within the next week or 


so. They'll need some time to review and 


analyze it, and once we have this information 


we will then schedule another workgroup 


meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Nevada Test Site. 


That would be Mr. Presley, who may not be on 


the line at the moment. Brad or Wanda or Jim 


are in that workgroup. Anything else to report 


on Nevada Test Site? 


 MS. MUNN: If Bob's not there -- 


 DR. LOCKEY: Not that I'm aware of. 


 MS. MUNN: I -- I can report only that we do 


have a meeting scheduled for October 25th for 


the workgroup. It's my understanding that some 


of the material that was being generated for 


our use will not be available prior to that 


time, and that's the reason we've chosen 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 

92 

date. So October 25 is on the calendar in 


Cincinnati. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. Rocky 


Flats, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Rocky Flats? I have no update on 


the Rocky Flats workgroup. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Savannah River Site is also 


yours, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and the same status as the 


Los Alamos. We -- we've made some progress on 


some action items that were generated from the 


meeting down at Savannah River looking at some 


classified databases, but we have not yet 


reconvened the workgroup to consider some of 


those -- some of that information. So work has 


been going on in the background by NIOSH, but 


we need to reconvene the workgroup shortly, and 


probably post the Advisory Board meeting is 


when we'll do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Workgroup on SEC issues, 


including the 250-day issue, Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we have recently gotten some 


of the information we were seeking on Nevada 


Test Site. It's been made available -- had 


discussions with Arjun last week about this 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 

93 

are hoping to set up a workgroup meeting either 


later in September or around the -- or around 


the time of our -- our Board meeting -- got to 


figure out schedules and so forth, so we should 


be able to meet shortly on that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Use of surrogate data, 


Jim, that's also you. Our newest workgroup, 


actually, just formed recently. 


 DR. MELIUS: And the plan to go forward with 


that is I have been in discussion with John 


Mauro, and he is currently doing an inventory 


of procedures, site profiles and so forth, 


where surrogate data has been used. And this 


is a simple inventory, but it is just to try to 


get sort of the general -- be able to identify 


the general types of use of surrogate data. 


That could be ready I think within the next 


week or two, if I understand John right. And 


then our plan is to hold a conference call of 


the workgroup to plan out what further work 


SC&A needs to be done before the workgroup has 


a meeting, hoping to have that workgroup 


conference call before the October meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. 


 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John Mauro. We'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 

94 

we're in the home stretch of putting that 


report together. We -- we have all the 


information before us and we're writing -- 


preparing tables. Here's a good example of the 


process again. Normally what we would do at 


that -- once we have this draft report ready, 


it goes for PA review. Now typically the 


process involves delivering a non-PA-reviewed 


version to the working group, and 


simultaneously deliver the draft report for 


NIOSH PA review. So we usually move in 


parallel steps. I presume we will continue in 


that mode, and therefore the document you will 


have in your hands for the working group 


meeting -- depending on the timing, I guess -- 


may or may not be PA reviewed at the time of 


the meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. Understood. 


Right. Okay. Let's see. Worker outreach, 


Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. Paul, we -- we've submitted 


a -- a request for some information to OCAS, 


and Larry Elliott has appointed J. J. Johnson 


to be our point of contact, and he's putting 


together that material right now. And J. J. 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 

95 

also scheduling some training on a WISPR 


database that tracks worker comments so we can 


-- he's involved in that. And that training's 


also going to be for the -- Wanda's workgroup 


on Blockson, and he said that's scheduled to 


happen some time in mid-September. And then 


I'm also going to be attending the worker 


outreach meeting in Joliet to get a better feel 


of how the meetings go and so we can have some 


input and try to get this workgroup going. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, when is that Joliet meeting? 


 MR. GIBSON: September 12th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think we have one or two 


other Board members who are going to join you 


there as well, right? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. Gen's --


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen Roessler. I'll be 


there. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- supposed to be there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen and -- okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think Brad might be. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brad, were you also planning to be 


there? 


 MR. CLAWSON: No, I'm going to -- I'm going to 


be in Cincinnati with 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 

96

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. He has too many 


things going on here. Okay. Very good. Thank 


you, Mike. 


 Procedures review, Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Our group has a pretty heavy duty 


paper load and more than one matrix to deal 


with. We went through our current matrix only 


partially during the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then you met? 


 MS. MUNN: -- during the meeting that we had -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Recently. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we had our meeting on 


Wednesday, the 29th of August, in Cincinnati. 


We did not get through the items that we wanted 


to cover in the current matrix. We did, 


however, work through many of the outstanding ­

- all of the outstanding items from the first 


matrix. Fortunately SC&A was able to bring us 


up to date pretty clearly on those. We have 


very few items left outstanding from that, but 


they are outstanding. 


 We devised action items lists before we left 


containing a total of 14 items. A large number 


of them are NIOSH actions. One was my action 


to -- to request that OTB-54 be reviewed by 

1 

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 

SC&A during this Board call, so I've taken care 


of my major action item. Those action items 


will be in the hands of the entire workgroup 


yet this week so that NIOSH and SC&A will have 


a clear picture of what we have yet to do. 


We do not have plans at this particular time 


for another meeting until we get to Naperville, 


and it is expected that the Tuesday prior to 


the Naperville meeting this group will meet 


again at that site, 9:30 in the morning, 


Tuesday October 2nd. We'll see how many of the 


action items we can clear, and be taking up the 


remainder of the matrix items we did not have 


an opportunity to address. During the interim 


between now and then NIOSH is anticipated to 


complete responses to many of the outstanding 


items on that matrix, so we anticipate a 


productive meeting at that time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Very good. Thank you. We 


had -- we have another workgroup listed, which 


is the workgroup on SEC petitions that did not 


qualify. That was Dr. Lockey's group and they 


have completed their work and have already made 


their final report to the Board. 


I think that is all of the workgroups 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 

98 

subcommittees. Did I leave out any? 


 DR. WADE: I don't think so, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much for 


those updates. We have a lot of things going 


on and I look forward to progress from all. 


FUTURE BOARD ACTIVITIES
 

The next item on the agenda is status of and 


plans for future Board activities. Now part of 


this status issue we talked about last time is 


how to keep track of what's going on, where we 


are on various reviews -- site profile reviews, 


SEC reviews -- who's doing what. I've been 


working with Lew to develop the -- the master 


matrix that will help us track that. Last week 


Lew and I looked at kind of an early version of 


this and so, we -- it -- it -- it currently is 


an Excel spreadsheet, which has lots of 


columns, and it continues to expand and 


hopefully will be in a form that, once we have 


it in place, we can update it monthly and keep 


track of where we are on -- on all the sites 


and all the reviews and -- and related issues. 


So that's part of future activities, we'll be 


able to track what's coming down the pike and ­

- as well as where we need to take action 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 

99 

haven't. 


Also Lew, in that connection, do you want to 


talk about calendar at all? 


 DR. WADE: Only that we have already everything 


scheduled for October and it's -- hopefully 


everyone's received the notification of hotel. 


We have our calendar out I think through next 


June. I think in October I'll try and extend 


it out through next October with some proposed 


dates. We're well scheduled. The workgroups 


and subcommittees happen, you know, quickly and 


I think that's fine, and we should continue to 


-- to use those mechanisms to advance the work 


for the Board. 


The only last item I have is that Dr. Christine 


Branche has identified herself as being on the 


call. Dr. Branche is working with me to -- to 


learn the business of DFO and other activities, 


and will gradually be moving into the chair. 


She and I will share those responsibilities for 


months and months to come. But just so 


everyone knows, she's been at several workgroup 


meetings and some of you have met her. You'll 


all get to meet her in October and I look 


forward very much to Christine's assistance. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we again welcome you, 


Christine, to this meeting as well as others. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now are -- Board members, any -- 


any questions or comments on future activities? 


Keep in mind always as we come to meetings, if 


you have issues that you think need to be on 


the agenda and got overlooked, please -- and I 


know you do -- please help us with that. Lew 


will always send out an early draft to give you 


an opportunity to comment and have input. 


So... 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. My -- my question is 


one that is a continuing issue. I know we try 


to be as flexible as possible in planning where 


we're going to have our meetings. We've --


have several on our calendar already. But the 


issue of where we're going to have them is 


often not established for quite some time. Is 


there any possibility that we can consider a -- 


a brief discussion about the January meeting, 


where that might be held? 


 DR. WADE: Sure, now would be good. We can 


finalize it in October. 


 MS. MUNN: We have it on the calendar 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 

101 

8th through the 10th, but we haven't said 


where. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think we were leaning 


towards Nevada, you know, with the second 


Nevada Test Site petition looming. If you 


like, we can lock that in. I try and stay 


flexible because, again, we want to be where -- 


where the people who are affected by our 


business have an opportunity to speak to us. 


But I'm comfortable looking at Nevada in 


January. 


 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful for me to know 


that. And it appears, unless something really 


untoward happens between now and then, Nevada 


would appear to be a good -- either Nevada or 


Los Alamos would seem to be logical places for 


us to be considering for January. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. I am prepared to say Las 


Vegas in January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections? 


 (No response) 


It seems to make sense, at the moment at least, 


unless something comes to our attention in 


October that would say we've got to go 


somewhere else. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: But for planning purposes, let's say 


that that's it, and it would take a major event 


for me to suggest a change. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. That's helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have on our agenda set aside 


what we call Board working time, and that's if 


we have particular issues that we have to pass 


through or motions to word or anything of that 


sort. It does not appear that we have any such 


things to do. 


Lew, do you have any items that you think we 


need to work on? 


 DR. WADE: No, and again, I don't think we need 


to hold to a time frame on these calls. I 


think they're useful as sort of updates and 


sort of framing issues. And I think it was 


very productive in that regard, but I have 


nothing else, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other Board members? Items 


that you wish us to take up at this moment? 


 (No response) 


If not, a motion to adjourn would be in order. 


 MS. MUNN: So moved. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

103

 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded? 

 DR. LOCKEY: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we need a roll call? 

 MS. MUNN: I don't think so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we're going to sort of say 


all in favor, hang up or something. 


 DR. WADE: There was never a loud dial tone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to take it by consent 


that we have finished our business and are 


ready to adjourn. Thank all of you for your 


time today. We look forward to seeing you all 


in October in Naperville. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. Bye now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Bye-bye. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 1:09 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

104 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Sept. 4, 


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 Oct., 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102