NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1716 14TH ST. NW, STE. 200 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 http://www.nealrgross.com 

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

140th Meeting

Thursday, June 23, 2021

The meeting convened via teleconference at 10:30 

a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Henry Anderson, Chair, 

presiding. 
2 

Members Present: 

Henry Anderson, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Registered and/or Public Comment Participants: 

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, NIOSH/ORAU

John Cardarelli, NIOSH/ORAU

Joshua Fester, for Petitioners

Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Donna Hand

Lara Hughes, NIOSH/ORAU

Jeff Kotsch, DOL

Jenny Naylor, HHS OGC

Chuck Nelson, NIOSH/ORAU

Patricia Quinn, CPWR

Knut Ringen, CPWR

Lavon Rutherford, NIOSH/ORAU

Tim Taulbee, NIOSH/ORAU

Gary Vander Boegh
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 140th Meeting 

Thursday, June 23, 2021 1

Roll Call/Welcome - Dr. Rashaun Roberts, 

DFO 4

ABRWH Chair Remarks - Dr. Henry Anderson, 

ABRWH Chair 6

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Chuck Nelson, DCAS 9

Savannah River Site SEC Petition 103 (Aiken, 

South Carolina; October 1972-2007) - Dr. 

Rashaun Roberts, DFO 11

Cybersecurity Modernization Initiative Update 

- Grady Calhoun, DCAS 32

Updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittees - WG/SC Chairs 44

Plans for the August 2021 Board Meeting - All 

Members 46

Meeting Adjourned 57
4

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome - Dr. Rashaun Roberts, DFO

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Very good. Well, I do have 

10:30 a.m. Eastern and so it's time to officially open 

this meeting. 

This is the 140th meeting of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health. I'm Rashaun Roberts. 

I'm the Designated Federal Official for the Board.

So, as usual, let me start with a few preliminaries 

for this meeting. The meeting agenda is posted on 

the NIOSH website, of course, for this program. It's 

under Schedule of Meetings for June 2021. You can 

all go to the website and access it.

Although the meeting today is primarily 

administrative, we do have an agenda item 

pertaining to the Board's recommendation for the 

addition of an SEC for Savannah River Site.

Documents related to this were provided to Board 

members and to other staff prior to this meeting for 

review.

So, since this is a telephonic meeting, I want to 

address our use of technology with me being the 

main problem right now, but in order for you to 

keep the meeting -- in order for us to keep the 

meeting moving forward without interruption, I 

would just ask each of you, including myself, to 

mute my phone unless, of course, you need to 

speak.

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

If you need to take yourself off mute, press *6 

again. Also, because we're unable to see each other 

for the meeting, please identify yourself before your 

comments or questions.

So, with that, I'd like to formally start -- and I think 

I'm hearing someone speak. So, again, please make 
5

sure that you're muted.

So, with that, I'd like to formally start and welcome 

everyone to this teleconference. The primary 

purpose of the meeting is to prepare for our August 

18 to 19, 2021 Board meeting, which will again take 

place virtually although there are also other items 

on the agenda, as I mentioned.

Since one of the items of the agenda is the SRS SEC 

Petition 103, I'll note that none of the Board 

members have a conflict of interest where this site 

is concerned.

So, with that said, let me move into roll call now. I'll 

start with the Board members in alphabetical order 

and then move on to others. So, let's start with 

Anderson.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Well, thank you all very 

much and welcome again. Let's go ahead and move 

to the next item on the agenda. And, again, please 

periodically check your phone to ensure that you're 

on mute.

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

If you need to take yourself off, press *6 again. 

Okay. And with no further ado, let's go ahead and 

move into the next agenda item. 

So, as you may know, a chairperson was recently 

appointed to the Board a few weeks ago. Dr. John 

Howard, the NIOSH director, announced that 

President Biden had designated Dr. Henry Anderson 

as chair of the Advisory Board, which was effective 

on June 2nd of this year.

And as Dr. Howard described, Dr. Anderson has 

been a member of the Board since about 2009 and 

he was previously a member of the Board between 

2001 and 2006. He is an occupational physician with 

four decades of experience in preventative 

medicine, occupational and environmental health 
6

and epidemiology, and has served as chair and a 

member for a host of different scientific and 

technical committees over the years.

So, Dr. Anderson, a big congratulations again and 

welcome to you and the floor is yours for any 

remarks you would like to make at this time.

ABRWH Chair Remarks - Dr. Henry Anderson, 

ABRWH Chair

Chair Anderson: Thanks a lot, Rashaun. I'd like to 

begin by thanking you. I would say over the last 

year, year and a half, the Board has gone through 

all sorts of different changes and impacts, and I 

think we've survived it in pretty good shape.

And I really want to give you a big applause/hand, 

and we'd have a cake if we were all together, to 

thank you for taking on both becoming the new DFO 

and, at the same time, acting chair. That was a 

challenging set of circumstances.

And I'd also like to thank SC&A for the help they've 

given the group. As you know, we're now down to, I 

think, 11 members. I think the maximum is more 

than twice that that would be allowed. So, we've 

had the loss of some members, some retirees, some 

deaths as well.

So, I'm pleased to be willing to take over and I just 

hope it doesn't turn out that I'm the last chair of the 

Board. So, I've had that happen a couple of times 

where I became chair and things fell apart with the 

group or the charter was ended, but I just want to 

thank everybody for hanging in there over the last 

year as it's been somewhat challenging at time. 

And I would just like to point out anybody on the 

Board know how many Work Groups or subgroups 

we have?

Member Clawson: A lot.

Chair Anderson: A lot, right. Well, I'll tell you. So, 
7

that was one of the first things since the second 

Rashaun and I have been going over all the kind of 

administrative things that we have and to think 

about what do we need to do to streamline and 

speed up what we're doing, but we actually have 35 

groups of which -- good news is eight of them have 

been retired. 

We actually have 27 that are still active and I think 

it's important while we've had -- we try to do 

reports of what's happening on each of them, I 

think we also need to take a look now that we have 

a bit of downtime because of cyber review, to look 

at those of you who are chairs.

If you don't remember, we can circulate the list to 

everybody to look at just exactly what's outstanding 

and how long has it been outstanding and is there 

something we can do, do we need to reprioritize the 

various activities we have.

Another thing I would just like to put in people's 

minds as we plan for August, is now that we've got 

notice from the administration that they're willing to 

move forward with appointments and things, we 

may want to take a look at who would we like or 

how many members would we like to have.

As I say, we're now down to 11 and there's 

probably some holes in what we -- in finding the 

expertise we need and the balance that we have 

across the Board.

So, discussion with NIOSH talked about it takes 

quite a while to get new members appointed and 

put out a notice to accept recommendations or have 

people put their names in the FRN notice put out.

So, I'd like the group to think about what do we feel 

would be the ideal number. I don't know if we want 

to go up to the max, but -- and then to think about 

what kind of skills and who do you know that we 

might want to encourage to become a member of 

the Board. 
8

So, I don't want to quiz you on that today, but I 

would like to think if NIOSH is going to move 

forward, we ought to have some input into their 

decision as to how many new members they might 

want to add.

I'm sure you're all aware our group is aging and 

that's why we're at 11. And that might be a 

comfortable number right now, but there's a 

number of individuals who may, in the next year or 

so, want to retire and the replacement can take 

considerable time through the process.

So, just think about that. We do have some time to 

try to shore things up on what the various Work 

Groups are, what's outstanding to be done and can 

we get some of those closed out.

Many of them are just updating the information on 

the sites that has been decided to change, but has 

not yet been technically updated.

So, with that, I'm pleased to come on board and, 

Paul, I'm going to be calling on you as well for some 

thoughts and suggestions.

And, all of you, if you have issues that you want to 

raise with NIOSH, it's been a bit of a challenge. I 

know a lot of people felt they were sort of out there 

by themselves.

So, feel free to email me or give me a call. If you 

don't know my phone number, too bad. I'll give it to 

you now. It's xxx-xxx-xxxx. It's my old-style land 

line. My cell phone is xxx-xxx-xxxx.

So, if you have any thoughts or some issues you 

want to raise, please give me a call and let me know 

or let Rashaun know.

Member Beach: Henry, this is Josie.

Chair Anderson: Yeah.

Member Beach: Do you mind giving that to Rashaun 

and letting her send that email or your phone 
9

number?

Chair Anderson: I will do that.

Dr. Roberts: Sure. Sure.

Member Beach: Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Absolutely.

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Chuck Nelson, DCAS

Chair Anderson: Yeah. Yeah. So, that's where we're 

at right now and so, with that, let's move on to 

Special Exposure Cohort Petition Status Update. 

Chuck, I'll ask you to give us a quick update.

Mr. Nelson: Thank you, Dr. Anderson.

Dr. Roberts: I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Nelson: No, go ahead.

Dr. Roberts: This is Rashaun. There was just one 

note of clarification I wanted to make about 

nominations for additional Board Members. There's 

a maximum of 20 that can be on the Board. So, just 

to clarify that.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Nelson: Okay. Thanks, Dr. Anderson. Good 

morning, everyone. To start off, I wanted to provide 

an update on the status of the SEC 256. That's the 

Petition for the Pinellas Plant.

Our initial goal was to finalize and present the 

Evaluation Report at our upcoming August 2021 

Advisory Board meeting; however, during our DCAS 

review of the Draft Evaluation Report we recognized 

that there was some additional work needed.

Then that, coupled with the Cybersecurity 

Modernization Initiative underway, this additional 

work has taken longer than we initially anticipated.
10

Later today on the agenda, Grady is going to 

provide an update on the Cybersecurity 

Modernization Initiative.

Anyways, as a result of these delays, the ER will not 

be complete in time for us to present it during the 

August Advisory Board meeting.

We do plan to have the ER delivered to the Advisory 

Board after the August meeting with intentions to 

present it in the December 2021 Advisory Board 

meeting. So, I did want to provide an update on 

that.

We do anticipate that SEC 250 Y-12 ER addendum 

will be ready and presented in the August Board 

meeting, unless there's some unforeseen delay. And 

at this time we're in the final approval stages of 

that, so I think that's going to be a go.

And the addendums covers the reserve period from 

the original SEC 250 to the time period of 1987 

through 1994. So, that's that time period that we 

reserved and this addendum will cover that.

At this time, we do not have any new petitions 

currently under evaluation and expect the Work 

Group chairs will provide updates today, as needed, 

on current SEC petitions with the Advisory Board.

So, to recap, there will be one new Evaluation 

Report expected to be presented at the August 

meeting, which is the Y-12 addendum. Thank you. 

Are there any questions?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: Is anyone speaking that may be on 

mute?

(Pause.)
11

Savannah River Site SEC Petition 103 (Aiken, South 

Carolina; October 1972-2007) - Dr. Rashaun 

Roberts, DFO

Chair Anderson: Okay. Well, thanks, Chuck. That 

was pretty short and sweet. So, now let's move on 

to the Savannah River site SEC Petition 103 and I'd 

ask, Rashaun, everyone will remember the April 

meeting and we approved this, but we didn't have 

the letter finalized and there was other activities 

that needed to go on.

And I'd ask Rashaun to give us a thumbnail update 

as to what's happened since April that's brought us 

to where we are today.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. So, 

this item was added on the agenda today so that 

the Board can close out a few remaining pieces of 

business.

So, to recap, on April 15th, 2021, the Board 

discussed and voted 8 to 3 to recommend to the 

Secretary that an SRS SEC class be added.

As discussed at the April 15th Board meeting, the 

Class Definition voted on by the Board was 

subsequently provided to the Department of Labor, 

which raised no concerns about the ability to 

administer the Class; however, Ms. Naylor, with the 

Office of General Counsel, raised some issues with 

the Board's documentation, which were reviewed 

with the DFO and the SRS Chair in an administrative 

session.

These issues were largely addressed in the drafting 

of the Board's letter to the HHS Secretary, which 

contains the Class Definition that the Board voted 

upon in April, along with an overview of the 

technical basis and a supporting report, which 

expands upon the technical basis.

Well in advance of this meeting, all Board Members 

were provided for their review both with the Board's 

draft letter to the HHS Secretary and the supporting 
12

report.

A typo in the draft letter was identified by a Board 

member, which was corrected and then 

redistributed to the Board yesterday.

So, that should bring everybody up to speed. So, I 

would now like to open up the floor to the Board for 

questions and discussion of the Board letter and 

report.

And I would like to start this discussion with having 

the Board talk about the explanation for the 

exclusionary clause contained in the Class Definition 

and I will turn it over to Brad for this.

Member Clawson: Okay. So, I guess I don't know 

where to go. I guess one of the things -- and I sent 

this to you earlier because I was trying to put in 

words of why we excluded the CTWs from this SEC.

And so, I wrote up a little thing and I hope that this 

is what you were looking for, Jenny, because while 

subcontractor construction trade workers, SCWs, 

and other CTWs at the Savannah River performed 

similar radiological work during the defined SEC 

class time period 1972 to 1990, the evidence is 

strongest that the SCTWs, as a class, lacked 

periodical assurance of participation in SRS bioassay 

program and were likely internally tasked with 

nonroutine and potentially higher exposed 

radiological jobs under work permits and would 

leave the site without a termination bioassay. In 

contrast, the CTW employees by the SRS prime 

contractor were more likely to be monitored under 

the SEC routine monitoring program with bioassay 

being performed on a predetermined schedule. 

Therefore, it was the conclusion of the SRS Work 

Group and the Advisory Board, based on the weight 

of evidence, that the bioassay monitoring for the 

SCTWs was less reliable than for the CTWs for the 

time period in question, which is 1972 to 1990. 

Any questions?
13

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Clawson, this is Jenny Naylor. So, 

based on your explanation, my understanding is 

that this exclusionary clause in the Class Definition 

does not mean that dose reconstruction for the 

prime contractor construction trade worker cannot 

be done and so that NIOSH should continue to 

perform full dose reconstructions for the prime 

contractor construction trades worker; is that 

correct?

Member Clawson: Well, you know, at this time the 

dose reconstruction is considered by the Board to be 

feasible for the CTWs.

Is that what you were looking for?

Ms. Naylor: Great. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Thank you.

Member Clawson: Okay. 

Chair Anderson: Any other questions?

Member Kotelchuck: Dave Kotelchuck. Do we want 

to go over the letter now and any objection?

Chair Anderson: I'll read in the letter, yeah.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. Then I'll --

Chair Anderson: If there's any questions for Brad or 

more things on the letter, just let us know now and 

we can do a quick edit if there's anything more that 

needs to be changed. If not, the letter, as you got it 

in the email, I'll now do the best I can to read it.

Any other questions?

Member Ziemer: Do you want questions before you 

read it?

Member Kotelchuck: Or after, right.

Member Ziemer: I mean, I have some questions on 

the letter. This is Ziemer. 

Do you want possible corrections or questions first?
14

Member Clawson: Paul, this is Brad. I'd like you to 

tell us about all the dangling participles.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. I was working on that. I do 

have some -- two questions, though.

Chair Anderson: I would say if there's some things 

that are fairly easy to edit so that I can then read 

the final document in --

Member Ziemer: One of the --

Chair Anderson: -- if it's not, I can read it and we 

can go back. Either way it's --

Member Ziemer: One is a simple edit, but the other 

is in the fourth bullet. It says that the Advisory 

Board concluded there was a lack of workplace 

monitoring and source term data.

I don't recall us ever even discussing the lack of it. 

It was -- I thought the vote was basically on the, 

quote, insufficient information, including lack of jobspecific bioassay monitoring data for subcontractor 

construction trade workers.

The added clause about "lack of workplace 

monitoring and source term data," I don't recall us 

having discussed that as an issue.

Can somebody clarify that for me?

Member Clawson: Well, Paul, this is Brad. Isn't that 

basically the same thing? The workplace monitoring 

is a job-specific bioassay, rad work permit and so 

forth. Maybe I misinterpreted what it is. 

What are you thinking?

Member Ziemer: Well, I thought the first phrase 

captured what the issue was. There's a lot of -- we 

all agreed there was a host of monitoring and 

source term information.

The issue that I thought kind of -- and maybe Joe 

Fitzgerald can help on this. The issue that was sort 
15

of the back-breaker for those that voted for this was 

the inability to link the monitoring data with jobspecific bioassay.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah, this is Joe Fitzgerald and 

maybe I can clarify that a little bit. 

Can you hear me? There was some static before.

Member Ziemer: I can hear you, Joe.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Okay. Yes, Paul, you're absolutely 

correct. The primary concern was the one you 

stated, which was the ability to link the job-specific 

bioassays to permits and, you know, that whole 

issue.

The question of source term was raised as one of 

our five key findings that were put on the table in 

the ER discussion and it goes back to findings by 

DOE itself in its self-assessment, as well as selfassessments by the contractor, Westinghouse 

Savannah River, that historically going back into the 

earlier years the facility managers were responsible 

for characterizing the radiological source terms for 

their facilities and this is what would be reflected in 

the RWPs and the job-specific bioassays; however, 

that had become outdated as new operations came 

online and new source terms presented themselves.

And that was one of our issues and it was actually 

one of the issues that DOE raised in its Tiger Team 

review in 1990 that they concluded that there was 

only one facility they felt -- a Naval fields facility --

that was actually characterizing the source terms 

onsite in a way that would be accurate and 

representative.

And, of course, the concern there is if you're not 

properly characterizing radiologic source terms, 

both your permits and your job-specific bioassays 

would be not representing the actual exposures that 

the workers would be exposed to.

So, we thought that was a pretty fundamental 
16

finding and one that was eventually corrected by 

Westinghouse by instituting a -- sort of a detailed 

source term analysis program, which they put in 

place in the mid-'90s.

So, that was the reason that phrase was added. 

That was one of the contributing reasons that we 

felt that subcontractors would have been at a 

particular disadvantage since they were, as we point 

out, intermittent and more likely to be on these 

RWPs. So, that was the source of that particular 

phrase.

Member Ziemer: Right. So, the source term part, 

thank you, is probably okay. I just -- the lack of --

they have such a large amount of workplace 

monitoring. To say that there was a lack of 

monitoring is, in my mind, kind of a separate issue.

I won't press it too far. I just want to say that I 

don't recall the Board determining that there was a 

lack of monitoring. There was a linkage issue, 

connecting.

That's -- okay. The other thing was the item on 

insufficient information. The Board finds there is 

sufficient information for occupational external dose 

and medical.

I think that should be a separate bullet just for 

consistency of how we've done this in the past. 

Don't put that in with the insufficient information 

bullet. 

Do you see what I'm saying?

Chair Anderson: So, start a new bullet with --

Member Ziemer: Yeah, just that last sentence just 

make a different bullet out of that. That's how we've 

always done it in the past.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Member Ziemer: The thing that you can do, make a 

bullet out of it. Don't put it in with the thing that 
17

you can't do, is what I'm saying.

Chair Anderson: That's a new thought. So, that's 

good. Okay.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. Alright. Unless someone 

wants to make a motion on removing that one 

phrase, I just -- I'll leave the point unless other 

members are concerned about it.

And then let me ask a question before it's read. Are 

we going to take action on the letter as a vote?

Chair Anderson: Rashaun, I don't know --

Dr. Roberts: Dr. Ziemer, can you just expand on 

what you mean?

Member Ziemer: Well, we voted on an item last 

time, the Board did. The wording has been changed 

somewhat. 

I'm willing to vote that I am okay with the wording, 

but I don't want that vote -- if we're voting on the 

letter, I don't want the vote to say that the letter is 

okay to imply that the votes have changed from the 

last time. 

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Chair Anderson: Right. Right. Yeah.

Member Lockey: Henry, this is Jim Lockey.

Chair Anderson: Yeah. 

Member Lockey: Let me ask Joe -- Joe, can I ask 

you a question? I'm remembering when we went 

through the source terms, that there were problems 

with the source term data.

What do you feel about the "lack of worker 

monitoring," that phrase? Should that remain in, in 

your opinion, or not?

Member Ziemer: Is Joe on mute? I'm not hearing 

him.
18

Mr. Fitzgerald: Oh, I'm sorry. I was on mute. Can 

you point out exactly which bullet? I know there's a 

number of bullets that cover --

Member Lockey: It's the fourth one.

Member Ziemer: The fourth bullet.

Member Lockey: The fourth bullet. It's the third 

sentence down from the top on the second page.

Your description of source term, I know we 

discussed source terms, I know you had problems 

with the source terms, but I sort of agree with Paul. 

I don't remember the lack of a workplace 

monitoring. It was more linking that to the 

subcontractors was the real issue here.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Perhaps that should say "assurance 

of workplace monitoring" rather than "monitoring" 

itself, because actually I think that was a key 

finding that there was a lack of assuring workplace 

monitoring for subcontractors.

Member Lockey: I think that was the point you were 

making, I think, also. That's a good -- I think that's 

a better way to word that.

Member Kotelchuck: I agree.

Chair Anderson: So, do we want to change that to -

-

Member Kotelchuck: "Assuring."

Chair Anderson: Instead of "lack."

Member Kotelchuck: Right, and assurance of 

workplace monitoring.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer. I would certainly be 

more comfortable with that. There was -- and 

monitoring is not the same as lack of source term 

data.

Member Kotelchuck: Right.
19

Member Ziemer: You can do all sorts of monitoring. 

They have a -- I mean, their bioassay database is 

as big as any we've seen, you know.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Anyone object to changing 

"lack" to "assurance"?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. No.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Anything else, Paul?

Dr. Roberts: So, can I just have something clarified? 

So, what, again, should that piece read?

Chair Anderson: It should say, "and assurance of 

workplace monitoring and source term data."

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Lockey: Henry, Jim Lockey again.

Chair Anderson: Yeah.

Member Lockey: Do you remember, Henry, or, Paul, 

do you remember when the Board most of the time 

were -- and none of us are voting, but this time we 

were.

Do you remember how do we usually reflect that in 

the letter to the Secretary? Do we state that in this 

letter or not? I just don't recall.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer again. I've gone 

back prior to this meeting and looked at a large 

number of the letters.

I haven't looked at all of them. I have not found any 

letter where we have indicated what the vote was. 

Member Lockey: Right.

Member Ziemer: So, we have had split votes before. 

The closest one, I think, was Bethlehem Steel where 

the vote was like -- I don't know the exact number, 

but it only differed by one between the pros and 

cons. 
20

So, it was a very close vote, but I don't find any of 

the Board letters that give the vote.

And I have also looked at the reports that the 

Secretary made to Congress regarding Bethlehem 

Steel and the reflection of the Board's actual vote is 

not given in that report.

However, the Secretary does have that information 

because included in, you know, the last letter -- the 

last paragraph of our letter always includes the fact 

that the Board -- the NIOSH review is given and 

that will, I assume, will tell the Secretary that 

NIOSH can reconstruct dose.

And this is a little different because with Bethlehem 

Steel the Secretary report to Congress reflected this 

that NIOSH initially also said in Bethlehem Steel 

case that they could reconstruct dose. 

And the minutes are there for the Secretary staff to 

look at and all the supporting data are there.

So, I'd have to assume that the Secretary will 

obtain the Board's recommendation, NIOSH's 

recommendation, which is not listed fairly because 

it's the Board's in this case and it wasn't initially for 

Bethlehem Steel.

Although, after we entered the surrogate criteria, 

there was a transition there, but, in any event, I 

think we present our recommendation and the 

Secretary has that as a recommendation, she'll 

have the recommendation of NIOSH, she'll have her 

own staff review and will make a determination.

Ms. Naylor: Dr. Ziemer, this is Jenny Naylor with 

HHS OGC. Sorry, I tried to jump in, but I didn't 

want to interrupt you.

So, you are correct that based on 42 CFR 83.15 the 

Secretary will receive recommendations from the 

director in my office as well as the recommendation 

from the Board.
21

And, as you noted, the recommendation of the 

Board actually includes transcripts and also related 

materials as the director of NIOSH's

recommendation to the Secretary would indicate the 

deliberative process concerning the SEC as well as 

the vote taken by the Board.

And in that recommendation to the Secretary, it 

would delineate all this information that you have 

just discussed.

The Secretary does receive those information, but, 

that said, the Board letter is a Board product.

So, if the Board determines that it is appropriate to 

list the vote taken there and to include that in the 

letter to the Secretary, that's entirely the Board's 

discretion.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I have a comment 

and a question. First of all, There's a little difficulty 

here. There's a lot of static, so I might have missed 

something, but I feel that -- I know the Secretary 

will get transcripts and a number of other 

documents and I realize that we probably don't 

want to put the discussion that the vote was not 

unanimous and point out that NIOSH has said that 

they could do dose reconstruction, two important 

things, I think.

We probably don't want to put it in the letter 

because that usually doesn't happen, but I was 

wondering, and we haven't talked about it yet, if 

that sort of thing really doesn't go -- should go into 

the attachment and then that way it would be more 

prominent and put better in front of the Secretary.

Member Ziemer: Gen, this is Ziemer again and I'll 

ask this as a general question, I don't recall us ever 

having an attachment to the letter and the letter 

itself makes no reference to Attachment A.

So, I'm not sure, you know, we talked about this 

letter, that there's something called "Attachment A" 

that's somehow associated with the letter. We've 
22

never had something called an attachment to any of 

the previous letters, that I'm aware of.

Chair Anderson: I think in the past there was always 

up front NIOSH would summarize that. And in this 

case, they were not summarizing. The Board had to 

do it.

So, this added attachment was to kind of condense 

all the information to make the case in as 

condensed a form as possible. So, it really is -- it's a 

document we haven't -- it was always provided in 

the short order by NIOSH.

This is more expanded than, I think, any of the 

other justifications of that.

Member Ziemer: I have never seen something 

called an "Attachment" that went with the letter. 

Jenny, can you clarify that for us? 

Ms. Naylor: Yes, Dr. Ziemer. I think instead of 

calling it "Attachment A" we just see "Enclosure" 

because the Board letter does refer to a slew of 

documents that will be included as part of the Board 

letters to the Secretary and that's customary, 

actually.

In the past, we have included transcripts as relevant 

documents as part of the Board's -- as part of the 

total package to the Secretary.

In terms of this specific SEC Petition, DCAS has not 

concurred with the Advisory Board's conclusions 

that dose for the subcontractor construction trades 

worker cannot be completed. And because of --

because of that, the Advisory Board's 

recommendation included a finding of a dose that 

cannot be reconstructed as well as a health 

endangerment.

In the past where there are disagreements between 

the Board and DCAS, most of the time the two 

entities would be able to sort of come to a 
23

conclusion and concurrence. And in those cases 

NIOSH ended up issuing a revision to the ER or 

stated on the record or in the directorate of NIOSH's 

recommendation to the Secretary.

So, there are some concurrence and that NIOSH will 

provide additional technical support to the Board's 

recommendations as well as NIOSH's concurrence.

And in this case because DCAS has not concurred 

with the Advisory Board's findings and the reason 

for adding a class, there is not a technical support 

document that clearly and succinctly summarizes 

the Board's position with respect to the dose that 

cannot be reconstructed and the health 

endangerment findings.

Member Ziemer: Right.

Ms. Naylor: And that's why we encourage the Board 

to provide an enclosure that succinctly summarized 

over years of work and deliberation of the Board.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I understand the rationale 

there. The last paragraph is pretty much boilerplate. 

It always has this wording.

Since Attachment A is, quote/unquote, apparently a 

new thing that has not been part of the package 

before and it's not identified in the letter, I was a 

little puzzled by identifying it as "Attachment A" and 

it's not one of the documents listed in the letter.

Member Kotelchuck: If I may say -- Dave 

Kotelchuck -- doesn't it say "and related materials"? 

I don't think -- that's a related material. I don't 

know that it has to be specifically cited as an 

attachment.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, you're probably right. I don't 

know. Are the other things identified in some 

sequence, Attachment A, B, C, D?

I'm just trying to figure out where it goes in the --
24

Chair Anderson: There's only an A. I mean, one 

option would be to not make it an Attachment A and 

just say --

Member Ziemer: Yes. That's what I'm getting at.

Chair Anderson: Then we could do summary of 

findings of the Advisory Board. I mean, this really 

was done because Jenny said we needed something 

like this and --

Member Ziemer: I got you.

Chair Anderson: -- you can't have four years' worth 

of meetings. I mean, it's all going to be there, but 

this we tried to condense it as much as possible.

Member Ziemer: Got you. Okay. So, if you just left 

out the word "Attachment A," it would just be -- and 

just saw "summary of findings" or something.

Chair Anderson: Got you. Okay.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. Okay.

Member Roessler: This is --

Member Ziemer: Sorry to be picky, but it's kind of a 

new thing that we need this.

Member Roessler: This is Gen. I have a question on 

this attachment. Are we going to discuss it 

separately from the letter? Because I do have some 

questions and comments on the -- what we now call 

the "Attachment."

Chair Anderson: Well, that's why we --

Member Roessler: Yeah.

Chair Anderson: -- those comments in advance. 

We're not going to read the attachment into the 

record. It's been circulated and it's a public 

document. 

I think we can probably revise that, if everybody 

agrees, but this really was done just to provide a 
25

summary.

Member Roessler: Then I guess you probably -- I 

guess that I really am not totally supportive of the 

attachment. 

I think probably other Board Members aren't either 

because it doesn't seem to me like a balanced 

summary. 

It doesn't indicate anywhere that some Board 

members disagreed with the decision and other 

Board -- and the vote, it was not unanimous.

It doesn't indicate anywhere that NIOSH had 

concluded they could do the dose reconstruction. I 

just think that report should be a little more 

balanced.

Member Clawson: Well, wait a minute, Gen. This is 

Brad. We just got done with Ziemer saying that, oh, 

no, we don't -- we never put the votes into this, we 

never do any of that stuff. 

You've got to understand we're into different 

territory here, too, because when we had Stu and 

Jim when we'd come to a vote on this, they would 

then work with us to be able to go through this. 

We're not getting that now.

So, we're going to have to do this a little bit on our 

own because what -- if we'd really like to get into 

what we'd really like to say, Gen, there's a lot more 

that I would like to say into it, but this is the most 

general stuff that we have. We also don't want to 

slam one side or the other either.

Member Roessler: Well, I know we disagree on that, 

but I don't feel that the summary is balanced and 

that's really about all I can say about it.

Member Clawson: Yeah. 

Member Kotelchuck: Gen, I feel -- Dave. I feel that 

-- I've been on the losing side of votes in the past. 

And while I would feel much better if people noted 
26

that in the letter, we've never done that and I just -

- I respect that the Secretary always gets a review 

of what happened and the vote and that vote is 

there for the record and it's permanent.

Member Roessler: Yes, I agree with the letter, 

Dave. I think the letter follows the usual format. 

It's really just this so-called attachment that I would 

like to see some editing on or some additions to.

Member Kotelchuck: Um-hmm.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. We never have 

given an attachment before and I'm not sure why 

we need it this time. 

Is it really needed?

Chair Anderson: Well, Jenny, you were the one that 

said we got to have something like this because it 

isn't otherwise in the document. So, that's why --

Ms. Naylor: That's correct.

Chair Anderson: -- it's in the summary, yeah.

Ms. Naylor: That's correct.

Member Lockey: Who said that? Henry?

Chair Anderson: Yeah. I mean, we needed -- legally 

we need to have this because it isn't being done by 

NIOSH so that this is what we need to have in order 

to lay out the case that the Board voted on.

We've never had -- I mean, the other way is 

sometimes you do these things and we would have 

a minority report. We've never had a minority 

report.

Member Lockey: Right.

Chair Anderson: The vote is what it is and the letter 

really is the key part of this. And this attachment, if 

we take off saying it's "Attachment A" and just 

having "findings," it goes along with all of the other 
27

documents that will be provided.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I just want to make 

sure this is a package -- this is a package 

responding to the basis of the Board's majority 

vote. This is what we were told that we needed to 

be able to provide by legal counsel.

Yeah, we haven't had this in the past, this is a new 

thing and -- but it is what it is.

Member Lockey: Brad, I understand that and I think 

then we have to do it if legal counsel says we have 

to do it, but then I think the attachment should then 

-- there should be a paragraph saying that, you 

know, the Board voted whatever it was, I forget 

what the -- 9 to 3. There should be a statement in 

there this was not a unanimous vote. There was 

another minority view.

I don't want to state what the minority view was, 

but if somebody would read this, you wouldn't get 

that impression. Okay. And for transparency, I think 

it's important to say that.

Dr. Roberts: The vote was 8 to 3, to clarify.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer again. I think -- in 

this case, I think what we probably need to realize; 

number one, it's not our job to defend NIOSH's 

viewpoint on this. As we state in our summary that 

we -- that NIOSH didn't agree with this, they'll 

make their own case for it.

So, I'm personally quite okay with not trying to 

reflect their view. They will reflect their own view.

Number two, I do think the deliberations and the 

concerns of those who might have voted negatively 

are reflected in the record.

This attachment is designed to provide an expanded 

basis for the letter. And, again, I'm thinking -- I'm 

trying to understand from a legal point of view, 

Jenny. I think this has to be the basis of why the 
28

majority of the Board members voted for the SEC 

and, I think, therefore, does not necessarily need to 

reflect a minority report, you know.

The record itself shows what that was and, Gen, you 

know, I understand the idea of wanting to have a 

balanced view, but this document is not intended to 

do that, I don't think. It's intended to support the 

vote of the letter.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: So, I'm personally satisfied just to 

have it state what the majority of the folks feel if 

there's a basis for their report of what's in the 

letter. That's what it is. 

It's the ultimate recommendation of the Board and 

that's the rationale for that.

Member Roessler: Well, thank you, Paul, for that 

comment. It helps clarify things for me.

Member Kotelchuck: Um-hmm. Good.

Member Roessler: Thank you.

Chair Anderson: I think that's the intent of it and it 

was crafted with that in mind, not to, you know, lay 

out all of, as I say, four years' worth of committee 

meetings. And there was a lot of discussion before 

the vote as well.

So, the problem is the Secretary's office isn't going 

to -- I doubt that they will read through all of the 

transcripts of everything that's done. So, this lays 

out what the majority opinion was.

It could be made into a longer document even 

further expanding that, but this is what Jenny and 

Brad and Rashaun worked out and it -- I think it 

adequately supports the Board's letter and Jenny 

felt that way as well from a legal standpoint.

Any other comments people have?
29

Member Kotelchuck: Yes. Dave. Just a small thing. 

There's still, on the letter, the fourth bullet, there's 

a typo in our name. It's the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health, just to formally be 

correct, and I'd like us to add it.

And also, on the sixth line I should -- that should be 

"reprocessing and/or research activities" because 

the line was to estimate with sufficient accuracy all 

potential internal doses. They're not the individual 

ones, but the totality. That's why "and/or research 

activities." 

Chair Anderson: Okay. Anyone object to that?

(Pause.)

Member Beach: No.

Chair Anderson: Okay. That's a really long 

sentence, too.

(Laughter.)

Chair Anderson: I was waiting for somebody to say 

-- reading it, I'll have to take two breaths to get 

through it.

(Laughter.)

Chair Anderson: Any other comments people have 

before we lay this to rest here?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: Okay. Are we ready to have me 

read the letter?

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Chair Anderson: Then, hearing no objection --

anyone on mute? So, let me read the letter here.

So, Dear Mr. Secretary. The Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health, the Board, has 

evaluated SEC Petition 00103 concerning workers at 

the Savannah River Site, SRS, in Aiken, South 
30

Carolina, under the statutory requirements 

established by the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, 

EEOICPA, and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

83.13. The Board respectively recommends that 

SEC status be accorded to all construction trade 

employees, Department of Energy subcontractors, 

excluding employees, the following prime 

contractors who worked at the Savannah River Site 

in Aiken, South Carolina, during the specified time 

periods, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 

October 1, 1972, through March 31, 1989, and 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, April 1, 

1989, through December 31, 1990, worked at the 

Savannah River Site from October 1, 1972, through 

December 31, 1990, for a number of workdays 

aggregating at least 250 workdays occurring either 

solely under the employment or in combination of 

workdays within the parameters established for one 

or more employees included in the Special Exposure 

Cohort. This recommendation (audio interference).

THE COURT REPORTER: This is the court reporter. 

I'm sorry to interrupt. I would ask anyone not the 

Chair to mute their microphone at this time.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Hopefully I'm not being the 

scratchy one here. 

This recommendation is based on the following 

factors: Individuals working at the SRS during the 

time period in question worked on nuclear weapons 

production and related operations, subcontractor 

construction trades workers conducted a broad 

range of work activities supporting research, fuel 

handling, transuranic material processing and

separation, decontamination and decommissioning 

and reactor outages. They may have worked in high 

contamination and high airborne radioactivity areas 

and may have been utilized for short-term, highexposure work tasks. Subcontractor construction 

trades workers may have been transient and not 

have worked for long periods at SRS and also may 

have been intermittently tasks with nonroutine 
31

radiological jobs on their work permits and, thus, 

were not likely enrolled in the routine, including 

termination bioassay monitoring programs. The 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

ABRWH, finds there to be insufficient information, 

including a lack of job-specific radiobioassay 

monitoring data, for subcontractor construction 

workers and assurance of workplace monitoring and 

source term data to enable NIOSH to estimate, with 

sufficient accuracy, all potential internal doses 

and/or -- internal doses from radionuclides 

associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, 

fuel reprocessing and/or research activities to which 

the proposed class may have been exposed during 

the time period in question. The ABRWH also finds 

there to be sufficient information to reconstruct 

occupational external dose as well as medical dose 

for SRS contractor construction trades workers. The 

ABRWH determined that health may have been in 

danger for subcontractor construction trades 

workers exposed to radiation at the SRS during the 

time period in question. Based on these 

considerations and the discussions held at the April 

15th and June 23rd, 2021 Board meetings, the 

Board recommends that this class be added to the 

SEC. Enclosed are documents from the Board 

meetings where the SEC class was discussed. The 

documents include copies of the petition, the 

Board's deliberation, NIOSH's review thereof and 

related materials. If any of these items are 

unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly. 

Sincerely, Henry A. Anderson, III, M.D., Chair, 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

And that's it. Did the court reporter get that? 

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Okay. So, with that, I think 

that's all we have for closing out the SEC Petition 

103 for October '72 to 2007.

And let's now move to Grady and the Cybersecurity 

Initiative update.
32

Mr. Calhoun: Alright. Hello, everybody. Can you 

hear me okay?

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Cybersecurity Modernization Initiative Update -

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay. I 

wanted to update you all on this pause, as we're 

calling it. 

First and foremost I want everybody to know that 

there was no breach of any kind of data that we 

have.

This is not just something involving DCAS, this is 

something involving all of NIOSH. I think you've all 

heard of the solar winds event that happened, I 

guess, several months ago now and I guess our 

ODIT group is continually looking at particular 

vulnerabilities of all of the divisions within NIOSH.

And so, they took a look and they decided that we 

needed to do some modernization and they looked 

in -- really, they're looking really hard at DCAS as 

well as World Trade Center. Everybody, of course, in 

NIOSH, but these two divisions are two of the 

divisions that deal a lot more with outwardly facingtype systems and deal with members of the public 

and have a huge stash of PII in our system.

So, that's basically what caused this. So, as you all 

know, you know, we were pretty much shut down 

completely right away and there were some 

questions, well, why didn't you give any warning.

Well, the reason was is that if we were to put out, 

hey, we found some vulnerabilities and we're going 

to shut down in 60 days, that that could have 

caused somebody to, you know, a hacker or 

whatever you want to call them, to start looking at 

us right away in that case. So, that's why that was 

done in the manner that it was done.
33

So, basically where we are now, we are working 

very closely with ODIT, DOL and DOE on this issue 

and I'll go over a few of the things that we're trying 

to do.

Like anything, it's going to be a phased-in approach 

to try to get some increased capability to get back 

online.

We've got a few different main phases, but it's 

really kind of an iterative process where we're 

making improvements as we can even within these 

goals that we've established.

So, as we stand right now when the pause was 

imposed, there were a few hundred cases that our 

contractor ORAU had already had completed. They 

were in their system, they had received the 

documentation from both DOL and DOE and they 

could maintain dose reconstruction production 

within their system over there.

So, those are a subset of cases that should be a 

little bit easier for us to do, but keep in mind this is 

a very, very manual process at this time, you know.

We had a system that would generate 

documentation, it would document where it was in 

the system and now that has become a manual and, 

therefore, a very much more time-intensive 

process.

So, what we're doing right now is we've got -- and 

forgive me for not being a cyber guy, but we're 

referring to it as a "bubble" that is a secure space. 

And we're in the process of moving some of our 

dose reconstruction tools into that space and 

providing access to the people, which would be 

ORAU and DCAS primarily, to review and approve 

dose reconstructions.

So, our primary focus right now is -- I don't know if 

you're aware of it, but we've got claims that we call 

"terminal expedited claims." And what that means is 
34

that the cases come to DOL and the claimant, not 

necessarily the Energy employee, but the claimant 

is listed as "terminal," meaning that they're 

probably not going to live much longer.

And so, once DOL has made that determination, 

then we kind of put those to the top of the list and 

try to complete those as quickly as we can.

Our next priority is cases that have already been 

completed by ORAU, but not yet approved by DCAS. 

As you know, all cases produced by ORAU need to 

be approved by a DCAS health physicist. And so, 

we're focusing on the claims that have been 

completed by ORAU that are greater than 50 

percent, meaning a compensable claim -- 50 

percent or greater, I should say, and we're focusing 

on those because we want to get those out first.

And then the next ones that we'll do are those 

completed by ORAU that are less than 50 percent.

We anticipate having a little bit better system, but 

not much better, in about two weeks. That is the 

commitment date that we have received from ODIT. 

That would be July 6th is the proposed goal date.

It's still going to be a very manual, but -- and 

limited scope process, but this is when we anticipate 

having the tools that we need inside that bubble so 

that we can continue to do some of the data reviews 

that we have.

Phase II, which we think is going to be the goal that 

ODIT has given us, is November of this year. And 

they plan on improving the virtual workspace and 

also having some additional, I guess, reinstitution of 

our QC -- our automated QC, quality control, 

mechanisms that we had in place for so long.

Right now, we're doing all that manually and 

therefore work is much slower, but hopefully that 

will increase to some significant degree in 

November. 
35

And, as I said earlier, I do anticipate that even 

between Phase I and II that there's always going to 

be some additional improvements that we make 

along the way. Any way we can find to get 

something done for the claimants, we will, because, 

of course, that's our main focus.

And finally, I guess, the -- you know, to get back to 

completely where we are, NOCTS is -- those of you 

who know NOCTS, it won't exist as we know it 

anymore, but I'm told that something, you know, 

that does everything that NOCTS does will be 

instituted.

And that isn't going to happen until April of 2022, 

but, as I said, I think we're going to be increasing 

production that whole time, but it's going to be a 

slow go.

We have meetings frequently with Dr. Howard and 

our ODIT and he's very sensitive to this and he's 

very committed to getting this program back to 

where it was.

It took us 20 years to get to where we were and it 

was a very smooth machine as far as producing 

dose reconstructions and that's certainly where we 

intend to be again.

Some of the other things that are going on behind 

the scenes are that -- when Department of --

Department of Labor can still receive applications 

for the program.

And so, what they are doing is they are compiling 

those lists of claimants with the personally identified 

information, as well as employers, and they're 

forwarding that to Department of Energy.

And so, even though we can't get all of that 

information at this point, Department of Energy can 

continue to collect that information so that when the 

valve is turned back on, there won't be a delay from 

Department of Labor, Department of Energy, and 

then we'll get inundated with all this information, 
36

which is great, because we just don't want to hold 

up Department of Energy or Department of Labor in 

that regard.

So, they're moving still at pretty much the same 

pace and right now we're just the holdup as far as 

getting dose reconstructions completed and sent to 

them.

So, that's where we stand right now. I wish that it 

would be faster probably more than anybody out 

there does. So, that's where we are and one of the 

questions is going to be when will the SRDB, the 

Site Research Database, become available to 

others.

It's not available to me. So, it's not going to be 

available for some time yet. They're working on 

that, too. It will be available to SC&A and the Board 

at the same moment it is available to us.

It is not there yet. I would imagine that's going to 

be somewhere longer maybe in the Phase II time, 

November, unless we can find some other way to 

make access to that a little earlier.

So, that's all I've got and I'm sure there's questions. 

So, feel free to ask away.

Chair Anderson: Grady, are any claims being 

processed now?

Mr. Calhoun: Is this Dr. Anderson?

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. Yes, they are, as a matter of fact. 

We're getting five, six, ten out a week, you know. 

Something like that. And those are going back to 

DOL. 

It's just a slow process, but, yes, they are. They are 

getting done. We're used to processing 50 a week.

Chair Anderson: Yeah, I know. That's why I was just 

-- it hasn't --
37

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. Yes. But I think that with every 

phase that we approach it's going to go a little bit 

faster, but right now we just have to make sure that 

everything is done right and that a lot of the QC 

that was built into the program is having to be done 

manually now. So, it just takes a lot longer time.

And we're dealing not completely with paper, but a 

lot of it is almost like dealing with paper, you know. 

It's back like the old days.

Chair Anderson: I hope your handwriting is better 

than mine.

Mr. Calhoun: It is not. Luckily, I've been just, you 

know, the other people are much better at that and 

we can still type some things, which is good. 

So, we don't have to write especially in cursive or 

anything like that because -- I'm not worried about 

us. I'm worried about some of the people, you 

know, who may not be able to read that anymore.

Chair Anderson: Yeah. And another question is, as I 

said earlier on, we have a lot of these subgroups 

and looking at them, many of them, what remains 

to be done is updating and changing the Site Profile 

information.

And I assume that wouldn't be impacted by this?

Mr. Calhoun: It is not impacted as long as we don't 

have to dig too far into the Site Research Database.

So, many of the SECs that are already in process 

and the Technical Basis Documents that are -- and 

at this point most of them are basically revisions. 

We're not developing a whole lot of new ones 

anymore.

We are actually looking at even sending paper 

copies in and having them distributed out to the 

reviewer.

So, that is still progressing, you know. We can email 

some stuff as long as it does not contain any PII 
38

and isn't too large to go over an email account, but 

the TBD processing, as well as the SEC processing, 

shouldn't be -- shouldn't be as impacted as some of 

the dose reconstruction processes.

Now, the other applications that I think all of us 

kind of take for granted that are getting affected are 

things like the BRS, the Board Review System. 

That's not up and functioning right now.

We've actually done some transmission of basically 

Excel spreadsheet with all the PII redacted to try to 

answer some of those things especially for the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, but I know that that 

last meeting was cancelled as well.

Chair Anderson: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Chair Anderson: So, I'm just trying to see, I mean, 

are there some of these that have been on the back 

burner for quite some time? Are we able to do some 

catchup on some of these or is everybody just busy 

just not producing --

Mr. Calhoun: No, actually -- actually there are --

there has been some action as far as looking at 

some of the older TBDs that are out there, but for 

the most part we're just -- as you can imagine, 

there's a flurry of activity just trying to get up and 

running.

And, you know, the ORAU Team is actually, you 

know, doing some of the dose -- they're continuing 

to do the dose reconstructions on their side, but I 

know that there is also some Technical Basis 

Documents that are flowing back and forth between 

ORAU and ourselves to try to get those approved 

and just at least continuing to move, let's say.

Chair Anderson: Yeah. Other questions people 

have?

Member Kotelchuck: Dave Kotelchuck. I do hope 
39

that the RRSC, I was hoping to schedule a meeting 

in late September to replace the one that we had to 

cancel, but, suffice it to say, the most important 

thing is handling the documents for the individuals 

and will, you know, by NIOSH.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah.

Member Kotelchuck: And as long as that's being 

done -- or as soon as that can be done, that's the 

most important thing. 

We'll get to ours if we have to -- our meetings if we 

have to have back-to-back meetings for a couple of 

days. We've done that before.

We'll speed things up as soon as -- for review as 

soon as materials come out. I hope they might 

finish some things before November, but we'll see.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, I hope so, too, Dr. Kotelchuck. 

And, you know, like I said, there's nobody that 

wants to get this up and running quicker than I do.

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, boy. Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: It's a challenge.

Member Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: It kind of was a bit of a surprise, but, 

you know, it was, you know, you look at all the 

other things that are going on right now with the 

pipeline hack and the meatpacking hack and --

Member Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: -- you know, all of these other things. 

It kind of just adds fuel to our ODIT's position that, 

man, we better make sure that we're safe.

Member Kotelchuck: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I 

must say even though I was shocked when I 

realized that things were cut off for us, I recognized

pretty much immediately that that's -- if you're 

going to fix a cybersecurity, that's what you have to 
40

do.

You can't give an early announcement and tell 

people you're getting off. You're asking for trouble 

that way.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: Sorry about that and for all of 

us, yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah.

Member Clawson: Grady, this is Brad. Of these 

TBDs and stuff that we've been working on, I've got 

several of them out there, Nevada Test Site, 

Pantex, a lot of these coming up that should be 

finished.

When they are, are you going to be able to get 

them somehow so that we can do a review on 

them?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, once we 

approve -- just like our current processes once we 

approve a Technical Basis Document, we -- and 

that's what you're talking about, right, the Technical 

Basis Documents for the site?

Member Clawson: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. We'll post them to the website 

as we always have. It hasn't really affected our 

website. It's just NOCTS and our Site Research 

Database.

So, as our documents are approved, we'll be able to 

post those to the website just like we always have.

Member Clawson: Okay. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Other comments?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: Well, thank you, Grady. That's 

encouraging to hear. It's too bad it's dragging on so 
41

long, but we'll look forward to seeing a streamlined 

cybersecurity secure program before too long.

Mr. Calhoun: Oh, yeah. And I certainly intend to 

keep everybody updated, you know, whenever. 

And, Dr. Anderson, you know, just feel free to 

always call me and just let me know. And if there's 

any significant changes, either good or bad, I'll let 

you know.

Chair Anderson: Well, it's good to know about it 

going on. It's a challenge of -- when you try to go 

onsite and reach documents that aren't available, 

you don't know is it you, is it your computer, 

whatever.

Mr. Calhoun: Right.

Chair Anderson: The other thing just for the Board 

members, we need to keep track of, I know, a 

number of individuals. Their ID cards are due to 

expire. 

And so, we are going to have to work out with 

NIOSH how do we get people to a facility where 

they can get that updated.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. Those two things are actually 

not related, but, yeah, I know that there's some 

things that are running out and the mechanisms for 

getting your cards updated are pretty much the 

same, but I -- I know they are very inconvenient for 

somebody who may not be located near a federal 

facility.

Chair Anderson: Yeah.

Member Clawson: Hey, Grady.

Chair Anderson: If that's happening with some of 

you, be sure that Rashaun and I know about it so 

we can help you wend our way through the system.

Member Clawson: Hey, Grady, this is Brad. So, with 

this security upgrade at this time, are we going to 
42

have to have any changes to our computers or does 

it look like it's just in-house?

Mr. Calhoun: As far as I know, no. The only thing 

that could happen is that there may be some 

difference in your credentialing, but I have not 

heard that yet.

I think that because you guys -- and when I say 

"credentialing," is you know how with your smart 

cards and everything you can pretty much access 

everything we have? That's going to make things 

easier for everybody who is actually credentialed 

already.

There may be a different way to access it, but I 

don't think that that's going to be the long pole in 

the tent.

I think once we get this bubble firmly established, 

there will just be a system that we'll have to tell 

you, hey, you might have to access this a different 

way now than we have in the past, but I don't see 

that as being the long pole.

And of course we'll, you know, as soon as we get 

access, we're going to get you guys access that 

need it, too. So, I promise you that.

Member Clawson: Okay. I was just wondering 

because I've been dealing with that battle with 

some security stuff on my computer that I've been 

working with Spokane on.

I just was wondering if maybe this was part of it. 

So, I'll --

Mr. Calhoun: So, site-specific stuff, you got some 

issues there, too?

Member Clawson: Well, I've got it with my 

computer because it -- my computer is not updating 

the --

Mr. Calhoun: Oh, okay.
43

Member Clawson: -- for the computer from this one 

and they can't get it to -- they can't get it to accept 

them for some reason.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay.

Member Clawson: So, I was just wondering if that 

was part of the problem, but --

Mr. Calhoun: I don't think it is. But if you continue 

to have problems, you know, let me know and I'll 

try to ask our people, you know. I'll just be a gobetween because that's not -- I'm no IT specialist, 

but, yeah.

Member Clawson: Yeah, I'm working with Cisco on 

this and they're just having an issue with it. 

And so, I was -- I -- and, you know, they're not 

going to come out and say, well, it's because of this 

or that or whatever.

Mr. Calhoun: Right. Right.

Member Clawson: I think actually one of the biggest 

things is they said if I could get to a plug-in and 

actually tie into the service, it would probably take 

care of it.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah.

Member Clawson: Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Calhoun: Alrighty.

Mr. Barton: Dr. Anderson, this is Bob Barton. Would 

it be appropriate or allowable if I could ask a 

question here?

Chair Anderson: Sure. Sure. Go ahead.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Thank you. Grady, you had 

mentioned this, I guess, sort of concept of sort of a 

safety bubble and specifically mentioned that it 

might allow access back to a lot of the DR tools that 

you all use and of course we all use when we do our 
44

audits. You had mentioned that it would primarily 

be available to DCAS and ORAU.

Is that something that would be -- the safety bubble 

be available to SC&A and the Advisory Board or 

would that really be restricted to ORAU and DCAS?

Mr. Calhoun: I did not ask that question, but I'll --

let me ask that question and I'll get back to you on 

that, Bob. I did not ask that question.

Mr. Barton: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: I'll find out and then I'll respond to 

Rashaun. 

Does that work?

Mr. Barton: That's great. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Other questions?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: Well, thanks a lot, Grady, and we'll 

look forward to updates on this and we'll wish you 

well and keep your blood pressure down.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, the blood pressure is the least 

of my problems, you know. I don't want to make 

anybody too jealous, but right now I'm sitting in 

canalfront in Cape Coral, Florida, you know, just like 

Brad was doing, you know, last time when he was 

on vacation. So, blood pressure isn't a problem at 

this moment. 

Chair Anderson: So, you're not in a physical bubble, 

huh?

Mr. Calhoun: I am not. I am not. No. No, sir.

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees -

WG/SC Chairs

Chair Anderson: Okay. So, let's move on next to 

Work Group/Subcommittee updates. 
45

Are there many of those? Anybody want to -- you 

want me to run through the list so you know --

Member Clawson: Actually, Henry, a lot of this stuff 

hasn't changed and with this security change --

Chair Anderson: Right.

Member Clawson: -- we're kind of in limbo, I'd say, 

on most of mine. So, that's -- I don't know what 

we'd give as an update.

Chair Anderson: Yeah, I don't think there's many.

Member Beach: Yeah. Henry, this is Josie. I was 

trying to think through my stuff and nothing's 

changed since the last time I gave updates. So --

Chair Anderson: Right.

Member Ziemer: Henry, this is Paul. I notice that 

none of our Work Groups have met since our last 

Board meeting.

Chair Anderson: That's right.

Member Ziemer: So, I doubt if there would be any 

updates. I certainly have none.

Member Kotelchuck: Same.

Member Beach: Henry, I was going to say it would 

be handy to have that list sent around. I know we 

get updates from SC&A every work -- every 

meeting on where our Work Groups are, but it 

might be a nice refresher just to go through the 27 

that we have out in, you know, who's all on the list 

because I notice the list hasn't been updated and 

some of us have been added to Work Groups and 

it's not reflected in the database right now.

Chair Anderson: Hey, Rashaun, can we -- is it okay 

to email that out to folks?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, I think so. And there have been 

some updates over several months and so that 
46

should be reflected in the copy that I distribute. 

Plans for the August 2021 Board Meeting - All 

Members

Chair Anderson: Okay. So, let's now go to planning 

for the August meeting. Rashaun, you want to --

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Chair Anderson: I know we've had some traffic 

speaking about agenda, but go ahead.

Dr. Roberts: Yes. So, thank you, Dr. Anderson. So, 

we are scheduled, to refresh your memory, to meet 

over two days on Wednesday, August 18th, and 

Thursday, August 19th.

The agenda, in general, is fairly thin largely because 

of what people are noting, many of the Work 

Groups haven't been meeting, but currently we 

have the usual.

So, there would be a 15-minute time frame 

scheduled for a NIOSH program update, 15 minutes 

for the DOL program update and 15 minutes for the 

DOE program update and I'm assuming that that 

timing is okay for everybody -- actually, let me 

correct myself.

I scheduled a little bit of extra into your program 

update, Grady, and I made it 45 minutes to include 

an update on the cyber issues.

Will that be okay with you?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, that would be okay. I don't 

know if I'll fill up 45 minutes, but I certainly don't 

plan on exceeding it.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. We could -- it sounds like 

there's a -- the report for Y-12 will be ready to be 

presented, if I understood clearly earlier. And so, I 

did not have anything on that prior to now.

How much time would there need to be for that 
47

update or that presentation on the Y-12 addendum?

Mr. Nelson: This is Chuck. LaVon can correct me 

because he has more experience with this, but I 

would assume that it should take maybe 90 

minutes, at most.

Does that sound correct, LaVon?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, at most. I mean, a lot of 

times we can get through the presentation in 20, 25 

minutes or so and then there will be some 

discussions and then an opportunity for the 

petitioners to speak.

So, I wouldn't expect -- honestly wouldn't expect 

more than an hour, but you could schedule an hour 

and a half.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. An hour and a half. Okay. 

Excellent. I do have a tentative slot for about an 

hour for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory update. 

That may be too much. We haven't met yet. That 

meeting is on the 30th, but that's a tentative 

amount of time. So, an hour. So, I don't know if 

Gen or other people can speak to that allocation of 

time.

(Pause.)

Dr. Roberts: So, again, an hour for ORNL X-10 

update. Does that seem -- and I know it's difficult 

because we haven't yet met, but does that seem 

fairly reasonable?

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim Taulbee with NIOSH. That 

does sound reasonable to me because it, like you 

said, the Work Group hasn't met yet and so that's a 

good time slot for -- at this -- based upon the 

knowledge at this time.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Thank you, Tim. Okay. 

Then of course there's an hour for public comment 

on the first day. 
48

There is -- let's see -- 15 minutes scheduled for an 

SEC Petition status update and, Chuck, you're the 

person designated for that.

Does that sound reasonable?

Mr. Nelson: Yes, that sounds reasonable. Thank 

you.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And then I have about an hour 

and a half for the Board work session, which, you 

know, we would be talking about -- primarily about 

the agenda for December.

Chair Anderson: So, you think we don't need a 

second day?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. Actually, with Y-12 at -- if we're 

going to do 90 minutes there, then I would say let's 

keep the second day.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Okay. Are there any other items 

that should be on the agenda?

(Pause.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Mr. Barton: Well, Rashaun, this is Bob Barton. I'll 

just -- I'll throw this out there, you know, one of the 

sites that has had recent discussions and I know the 

action items were primarily in SC&A's court, but 

that was for Metals and Controls. 

And based on where we are at now and we have 

two reports that are essentially in the end stages on 

our end, there may be enough time to have the 

Work Group meet between now and the August 

Board meeting to discuss a lot of those issues about 

the methodology for the Metals and Controls SEC.

I just want to throw that out there as one possibility 

that we may be able to squeeze in, we may not. 
49

Obviously there's no Work Group scheduled as yet, 

but I can report that those reports -- the reports 

from SC&A's side on that, which were tasked earlier 

in the year, are in the end stages.

And so, we have to go through editing, but I don't 

envision they'd even need DOE review because 

there's no new references or anything of that 

nature.

So, we may be able to get those out fairly quickly in 

the next, you know, two to three weeks hopefully 

and that would leave some time, at least, for a 

Work Group meeting ahead of the August meeting.

I don't know if that's something that wants to be 

considered. Josie, I guess I'd pass it off to you if 

that's something you'd want to try to squeeze in 

before that Board meeting, if we can, but I think we 

can make some progress on that even given the 

limitations with the Cybersecurity Initiative. So, I 

just wanted to throw that out there.

Member Beach: Yeah, thanks for that, Bob. I guess 

my only concern is not being able to get on to the 

SRDB for further research.

I know you said that there's no new material, but 

we tend to go back and look at material constantly 

during our meeting.

So, I guess I'm going to ask Dave and Henry and 

Loretta what your thoughts are on that not being 

able to access the SRDB moving forward.

Chair Anderson: That's a problem.

Member Kotelchuck: Yeah, it is. It is a problem. I 

mean, I have a lot of documents, you know, in my 

CDC computer saved, but I don't know what will be 

raised and there may be issues that are raised that 

I will want to look back at the SRDB.

Chair Anderson: Well, if the SC&A documents are 

near final -- as soon as they're final, then we can 
50

maybe see if there's some discussion that we could 

begin or how much is going to be needed.

I'm not sure we will be able to get something in 

order to take to the Board, but it might be worth --

Mr. Rutherford: This is LaVon Rutherford. I'd like to 

also add that the interview that we conducted with 

Dr. Taulbee still has to be -- we have to get it 

through ADC review, which it's there now, and then 

it has to go to Dr. Taulbee to make sure that 

everything is in there appropriately. And then we 

need to get that finalized and get it to the Board --

or to the Work Group --

Chair Anderson: Um-hmm.

Mr. Rutherford: -- if they want to take that into 

consideration as well.

Member Beach: Yeah, I was going to ask about 

that. So, thank you, LaVon, for that update. 

And I would love to look at the documents when 

they're ready, but I don't want to rush this. There's 

a lot of work that went on. 

The last meeting, we only got maybe a third 

through all the slide presentation. So, I'm going to 

say that we're probably not going to be ready for 

August even if we do manage to have a Work Group 

meeting ahead of the August Board meeting, 

Rashaun. So, I don't think we should put that into 

consideration.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Beach: But once the SC&A documents are 

available, I think, and the Taulbee report, then we 

definitely should move on to schedule a Work 

Group.

Dr. Roberts: Sure. Thank you.

Anything else?
51

Ms. K. Behling: This is Kathy Behling from SC&A. 

Can I also ask a question?

Chair Anderson: Sure.

Ms. K. Behling: Okay. And this, probably Josie will 

be able to help me with this. At the last Board 

meeting we did give a presentation on this 

procedures review finalization and approval process. 

And I was under the impression that we had 

included that there have been presentations to the 

Advisory Board four about ten procedures.

And during those presentations from Wanda and 

Josie, we didn't actually have a formal closeout of 

process. We didn't all -- the Board didn't vote to 

say, yes, we will close this document out.

And during that presentation, I believe I was tasked 

with summarizing those ten procedures and I'm in 

the process of doing that and I do have access 

because I can access transcripts and such.

I should be able to put that data together to be able 

to present that information to the Board to say, can 

we now formally close out at least some of these 

ten documents.

Is that something you still want to include on the 

agenda in August?

Member Beach: I would -- this is Josie. I would say 

absolutely. Thank you for that reminder. 

Rashaun, I guess that's back to you.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And how much time are we 

wanting on the agenda for that?

Ms. K. Behling: At this point, I would suggest at 

least an hour. At least.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Yeah, because, as I remember, 

there was a backlog on those documents. 
52

So, it may make sense to go ahead and add this as 

an agenda item. So, I've got you down for an hour 

and I'll take a look at where to try to fit that in.

Ms. K. Behling: Yeah, because, as I said, there's --

I'm looking at ten documents. And the very first one 

that I looked at I realized there was quite a bit of 

discussion among the Advisory Board members. And 

so, it's going to take a little bit of explanation and 

discussion to resolve these.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Thank you.

Anything else?

Chair Anderson: And, Rashaun, are we going to be 

able to do these via video conferencing, the 

meeting?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Chair Anderson: Zoom or one of them?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, Zoom.

Chair Anderson: Got you.

Member Clawson: Hey, that being said, Rashaun --

this is Brad -- when are they saying we're going to 

be able to meet in person again?

Dr. Roberts: Well, the travel restrictions from HHS 

are still in place and where I had thought that we 

might be able to have a face-to-face in December, 

that now is uncertain because the restrictions still 

have not been removed.

So, we may be --

Member Clawson: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: -- looking at 2022.

Member Clawson: Okay. That being said, I'd just --

if you keep us apprised of that so that we can kind 

of figure our schedule, too, a little bit out.
53

Dr. Roberts: Sure. So, for now, Zoom is our friend. 

So, that's what we'll be doing for August at least, 

Zoom.

Chair Anderson: And is the start time for the video 

or conference calls 10:30 Eastern, does that work 

for everybody?

Dr. Roberts: Actually, Dr. Anderson, I'll have to kind 

of take a look at these new items that have been 

proposed today and that we can talk about that.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Clawson: I guess I want to talk to Henry 

and Rashaun on this with the Board. You know, you 

were talking earlier, Henry, about that people are 

getting ready to retire and so forth like that.

If you look at the way that the Board was set up 

with workers, medical, health physicists, so forth 

like that, it would be beneficial to us to know if any 

of the Board members are looking at, in the next 

year to year and a half, of retiring or whatever so 

that we can kind of backfill that position with that 

area of expertise be it medical, be it health 

physicists or whatever else like that, you know.

It always seemed like if we had 12 people, that it 

worked fairly good that we had four of each one of 

these groups being represented.

And, you know, if somebody is thinking of retiring or 

whatever else like that so we can kind of focus on 

getting that person replaced with the same area of 

expertise. Just a thought.

Chair Anderson: And I would say retire from the 

Board, not -- I mean, we've had people retire from 

their day job and --

Member Clawson: Yeah. I just retired.

Chair Anderson: Right.
54

Member Clawson: You know, I'm just saying to be 

able to try to keep the Board at the mix that it was 

supposed to kind of be at because you know, as well 

as I do, any of us do, that for somebody to come 

into this blind -- and, Rashaun, you can voice in on 

this -- this is astronomical. There is an awful lot of 

information to be able to glean through and to be 

able to understand how this Board works so that if 

somebody was going to retire from the Board and 

say it was a health physicist or whatever, if we 

could bring another one in to kind of get them 

installed into the process as we come along, I think 

that it would be very beneficial.

Chair Anderson: Well, the one that's not allowed to 

retire is Paul. And if Paul retires, your files you have 

to put into an archive somewhere.

Member Ziemer: I don't know if thinking about -- I 

don't think -- I'm thinking about retirement. I've 

been thinking -- from the Board, I've been thinking 

about it for about five years.

Chair Anderson: Right.

Member Clawson: Well, and, Paul, this is no 

disrespect or anything else, but, see, this is exactly 

what I'm saying.

If we were to be able to bring somebody in to be 

able to support you and to be able to start learning 

the process, I think that this would be very, very 

beneficial.

We've got people in all areas of this that very 

possibly could retire from the Board whenever.

And I just -- to be able to make it flow better for 

them, you know, this is an important process of the 

knowledge that we've gleaned over the years of 

how this works, what we need to be able to do, 

where we're at on things.

So, I just -- I'm just throwing this out there because 

losing certain key people like yourself is detrimental 
55

to the Board and to the petitioners.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, and I agree, Brad. The 

practice of sort of bringing people aboard and 

having time for them to really come in is very 

important.

Unfortunately, new Board members have not been 

appointed for years. I mean, can you even think of 

any in the last few years? Probably not. 

Yeah, in fact, our numbers have been going down 

steadily. So, we do need some more appointments.

I'm really pleased that we have a chair now. We 

went, what, two, three years without a chair.

Member Clawson: Right. And I'm just looking now 

because I remember when Richardson and Fields 

and all of them came in, I still remember the look in 

their eyes of, oh, my God, what have I gotten 

myself into, you know. There's a lot of knowledge 

and a lot of background there. 

So, if in any way possible if we could kind of be 

looking into the future and be able to get these 

people that are looking at retiring because I've 

heard you mention this before and stuff like that, I 

would like to be able to have it filled back with that 

type of a person, but also to have a gentle hand to 

be able to guide them along and help them 

understand the process.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Well, I just want everyone to -- if 

we want to add, how many would we add? 

And, you know, then we can share that with NIOSH 

as they move forward with an FRN, but we can talk 

about that. I think there will be time in August in a 

Board discussion time, but it's good to get started 

here and think about it.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, this is Grady and I think that's a 

great idea, Brad. I think that's a great way forward 
56

and, you know, looking at who we may lose and we 

should actually look at who we've lost, too, you 

know.

We have lost a handful of people. So, I think it's a 

great idea.

Member Clawson: Yeah. I just think that we ought 

to be proactive on this and looking into the future 

because this is not something that we snap our 

fingers and all of a sudden everything is all working 

good.

I remember coming into this and wondering where I 

was at for a very long time, and I appreciate 

everybody that's given me the helping hands over 

the years to be able to help us better understand 

this stuff, because this is -- this is very difficult to 

be able to just come into and be able to understand 

the processes and so forth.

And I think you're right, Grady. We've lost some 

good people in this in the last little while that we 

hadn't planned on and we need to refill their area of 

expertise.

Chair Anderson: Okay. Any other comments or 

questions that people want to make?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: Do you have anything else to add?

(Pause.)

Chair Anderson: If anyone is talking, they're on 

mute. Maybe that's what --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Maybe we need to put a criteria 

on there, too, to be able to know how to do this 

mute button and stuff.
57

Meeting Adjourned

Chair Anderson: Well, that's why I like to have the 

video because you can -- it's easier to signal 

somebody with a hand signal that they're going 

through a long discourse, and then it is not there.

So, if there's nothing else, I'll accept a motion to 

adjourn.

Member Clawson: I move to adjourn the meeting.

Member Beach: I'll second that.

Chair Anderson: Okay. And I'm --

Member Ziemer: Do we vote on that?

Chair Anderson: No, it's unanimous, right? All in 

favor of adjourning -- okay.

Member Clawson: All in favor, hang up.

Chair Anderson: Okay. We'll keep in touch. Thanks 

a lot, everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:27 p.m.)