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 the 

TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY ONE 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the DoubleTree Club Hotel, 720 Las Flores Road, 

Livermore, California, on December 13, 2004. 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

December 13, 2004 

REGISTRATION AND WELCOME: 9 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

CONTRACT PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS:

MR. DAVID STAUDT, CDC

DR. LEWIS WADE, NIOSH 

12 

BOARD DISCUSSION OF CONTRACT SUPPORT: 19 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. LEWIS WADE, NIOSH 

ADJOURN 95 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 96 
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. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

 

4 

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS 

CHAIR 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University

Lafayette, Indiana 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

ELLIOTT, Larry J.

Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (PRO-TEM)

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D.

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

MEMBERSHIP 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

ANDRADE, Antonio, Ph.D.

Group Leader

Radiation Protection Services Group

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 
5 

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

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 

GIBSON, Michael H.

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

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

Director 

New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund

Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I.

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)

Richland, Washington 

OWENS, Charles Leon

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

PRESLEY, Robert W.

Special Projects Engineer

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex

Clinton, Tennessee 
 

 

6 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida

Elysian, Minnesota 

AGENDA SPEAKERS 

(in order of appearance) 

Mr. David Staudt, CDC 

Dr. Lew Wade, NIOSH 

STAFF/VENDORS 

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
7 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A

BISHOP, STANLEY

BLAKE, PAUL K., DTRA

BLASZAK, MARK, WKBW TV

BLEWETT, BERYL, SUPPORT GROUP

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC

BRANDAL, LYNDA, NIOSH

BROOKS, JOYCE

BUMGARNER, ROBERT L., SAIC

CASE, DAVID R., SAIC

CHEW, MELTON, CHEW AND ASSOCIATES

CISNEROS, LEROY

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

FULK, M.M.

GLENN, H. DAVID, LLNL

GUERRIERO, JUDIE, UNIV. OF CAL.

HALLMARK, SHELBY, LABOR

HEISTER, MELANIE, NCRP

HERBERT, NICHOLE, NIOSH

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOEY, STEPHANIE, WKBW TV

HOFFMAN, OWEN, SENES

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

KATZ, TED, NIOSH

KOTSCH, JEFF, LABOR

MAIER, HILDA, NJPR

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCDOUGALL, VERNON, ATL

MCGOLERICK, ROB, HHS

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP

MORAN, FRANCINE A., LLNL

NEELY, KRIS, CA RESOURCE CENTER

NESVET, JEFF, LABOR

NETON, JIM, NIOSH

NUGENT, MARIAN, U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

OLSON, INGA, TRI-VALLEY

PORTER, DIANE, NIOSH 
8 

RICHARDS, JOE, IGUA LOCAL 3 OAK RIDGE

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR/BCTD

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A

SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, DTRA

SCHAUER, DAVID, NCRP

SWEENEY, THERESA, BSAG

TOOHEY, R.E., ORAU

TURCIC, PETE, DOL

TYLER, SHARON, DOL

ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH

WALKER, ED AND JOYCE, BSAG

WOOSTER, BEVERLY 
1 

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 

P R O C E E D I N G S

 (9:45 a.m.) 

 REGISTRATION AND WELCOME

 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to call the meeting to 

order. This is the 27th meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

It actually would have been the 28th, but our 

last meeting was canceled. And it's been so 

long since the Board met, I think going from 

August to December, it's about the greatest 

length of time this group has been apart in 

three years, and it's great to come together at 

Christmas time and see the family, as it were. 

So here we are back together. I think some 

folks were actually homesick for the committee 

after that great length of time. 

 But welcome to Livermore. We welcome members 

of the public, as well as support staff and 

contractors, to this meeting. 

I have several announcements to make. There 

are various items on the back table for your 

use, including the agenda, many of the handouts 

and other related documents. Please avail 

yourselves of those. 

We do ask that everyone here -- Board members, 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

visitors, Federal employees, whoever -- please 

register your attendance if you haven't already 

done so. The registration book is out in the 

lobby just outside of this room, so please do 

that if you haven't already done so. 

There also -- you will find there a brochure 

that lists eating places. I've been told that 

this particular motel or hotel is not very well 

equipped -- or perhaps doesn't even serve lunch 

-- but for whatever reason, you may need to 

look outside of this immediate hotel for lunch, 

and there is a list of places there that are 

somewhat nearby. You may need to drive. I 

guess that's true of California, you have to 

drive everywhere. But those eating places are 

reasonably close and you can avail yourself of 

that list, as well. 

I'm going to now turn the mike, as it were, 

over to Larry Elliott briefly, and Larry will 

add a few comments. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. On behalf 

of the Secretary and the Director of NIOSH, I 

welcome the Board to Livermore, California. As 

it is the 27th meeting, the Secretary and the 

Director of NIOSH welcome your contributions 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 

11 

an advisory body and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Who is the Secretary, by the way? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We are -- we are anxiously 

awaiting that. 

 MR. PRESLEY: They announced it this morning. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Did they announce that this 

morning? Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: From Utah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So we'll be awaiting his -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Is the nominee. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- his appointment, so --

 DR. MELIUS: Security didn't last long. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: At any rate, we have a very busy 

agenda and I look forward to an interesting and 

productive session here in Livermore. 

I'll be recusing myself from this next portion 

of the agenda and turning it over -- delegating 

the Designated Federal Official and Executive 

Secretary duties to Dr. Lew Wade, who is the 

senior science advisor to Dr. Howard. He is 

now your -- and I introduced him in an e-mail 

to you all, he is your technical monitor, 

project officer on the contract for Sanford 

Cohen & Associates, and he and David Staudt 

will be talking to you this morning about 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

contract procedures and process requirements. 

 So without further ado, I'd ask Dr. Lew Wade to 

come to the table and assume this position. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry; and welcome, Dr. 

Wade, who during this session will serve as our 

Designated Federal Official and, on an ongoing 

basis, is our technical contact for our 

contract and our contractor. 

(Whereupon, Mr. Elliott retired from the 

meeting room.) 

 CONTRACT PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS

 DR. ZIEMER: And it's probably appropriate that 

we have Lew with us for this particular 

session. As you know, in the intervening 

period since our last meeting, we've had some 

concerns about the contract in terms of the 

level of expenditure for the various tasks. At 

one point you recall that a couple of the tasks 

were actually halted by John Mauro because they 

were very close to the limit -- funding limit 

for those tasks. At that particular time, I 

thought -- and I think NIOSH thought -- that 

those -- that funding could only be sort of 

turned back on by formal action of this Board, 

either to do something with the scope or 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 

13 

address that issue in an open meeting of the 

Board. 

 In the meantime, CDC and the contracting office 

was able to find a way -- technical way, in a 

sense -- to actually allow the funding of those 

tasks to continue, and so they have -- the 

contractor has been able to go forward then in 

the meantime and continue on some of that work. 

But on a longer term basis we need to address 

the issue of the cost of the various tasks. We 

will do this in open session here, and I want 

to ask either Lew or David to sort of set forth 

the ground rules of what we can and cannot say 

in open session with regard to the contract. 

There are some issues that can -- cannot be 

discussed in open session in terms of 

proprietary matters, I guess. But Lew, do you 

want to kick this off for us, and then bring 

David aboard as needed, to kind of lay the 

guidelines for us as we discuss the contract 

and some direction for the future? 

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. It's really 

a pleasure to be here and get an opportunity to 

work with you on this most important activity 

that you're undertaking on behalf 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 

14 

Secretary and the Director of NIOSH. I would 

ask David so join us, so he'll be at the 

podium. 

As David comes up, just to provide a word of 

caution, again we think it's best, if at all 

possible, that this group does its business in 

open session. And we would like to talk about 

the contract and its direction, and even the 

cost, in a general way, in open session. 

It would be inappropriate in an open session to 

talk about anything that was deemed as business 

confidential to our contract. You might think 

of that as things that would speak to their 

labor rates or any information that would given 

a competitor an unfair advantage. So what I 

would like to see us do in our discussions this 

morning is stick to the overall issue of cost -

- cost per task. If we start to stray into 

those areas that I think would represent a 

breach of our agreement, then I would ask David 

to stop us. 

But I do think that we can talk in general 

terms about cost and cost per task. So if 

there are any questions about that, I could 

take them. If not, I think David is 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 

15 

start with just an overview of the contract, 

where we've been, and a little bit of thought 

as to where we need to go. David? 

 MR. STAUDT: Thank you. Good morning, Board 

members and the public. Just some background. 

I'm here with Dr. Wade to discuss the Advisory 

Board's support contract with SC&A. I wanted 

to highlight some of the purposes of the 

contract, how it functions, current efforts, 

funding levels and future considerations. 

 Purpose of the contract. The President is 

authorized by public law 106398 to carry out 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. The Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health has been 

appointed by the President to advise the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

(Unintelligible) in this Act, the Advisory 

Board is required to review a reasonable sample 

of dose reconstructions for scientific validity 

and quality, assess the methods for dose 

reconstruction, and review SEC petitions. 

To support this Advisory Board, the Department 

of Health and Human Services, through the 

Centers for Disease Control, has retained 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 

16 

services of Sanford Cohen & Associates, SC&A, 

to assist in the implementation of a number of 

tasks related to the independent review of the 

dose reconstruction process. 

Within the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, its Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support is 

responsible for providing technical assistance 

to this Advisory Board in carrying out its 

mission, and is the primary interface with the 

supporting contractor, SC&A. 

 Under Federal Acquisition regulations there are 

two primary individuals with clearly-defined 

roles and responsibilities in the contracting 

process. These are the contracting officer and 

the project officer. I am the current 

contracting officer. I am from CDC. And Dr. 

Lew Wade is from CDC-NIOSH, Office of the 

Director. These roles and responsibilities are 

laid out in the contract under Section G-5 for 

the project officer and G-11 for the 

contracting officer. 

Dr. Wade and I came here to discuss some of the 

contract process and requirements 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 

17 

support contract with SC&A. The SC&A contract 

was issued October 14th, 2003, and has a fiveyear period of performance. This is indefinite 

deliver/indefinite quantity contract with a 

current ceiling of $3 million. Under this 

contract, for each task order the Advisory 

Board, in conjunction with the project officer, 

develops a statement of work and an independent 

government cost estimate. The statement of 

work and independent government cost estimate 

are forwarded to me. Upon review, I will issue 

what's known as a TORP -- it's a Task Order 

Requirements Package -- to SC&A, which 

basically is comprised of the statement of work 

which enables SC&A to provide a proposal. 

The technical and cost proposal reviewed by 

this Board, the project officer and myself, and 

negotiations are conducted as required. After 

this, a cost plus fixed fee task order will be 

issued to SC&A. 

To date there have been four task orders 

issued. Task one was entitled Site Profile 

Review, and in round numbers, it was originally 

issued at $426,000, and modified adding 

$157,000, and is currently at $583,000. 
1 

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 

Task two is a small task order. It was issued 

as entitled Case Tracking and for $30,000. 

Task three is Dose Reconstruction Procedures 

and Methods. It was originally issued at 

$56,000, had several modification, one adding 

$104,000 and another $26,000, and is currently 

funded at $187,000. 

Task four is Individual Dose Reconstruction 

Review. It was issued for $467,000. 

 Currently the contract is funded for a total of 

$1.268 million. But one thing the Board must 

consider is that to complete the efforts -- 

primarily of task one and four -- under the 

contract as the way the statements of work are 

laid out, SC&A is going to need additional 

funding. 

SC&A was asked to and did provide an estimate 

to complete these efforts. To complete all the 

work under task one, they're estimating a cost 

of $1.952 million. Task four would go up to 

$664,000. The total funding then would be 

$2.834 million, which would get you very close 

to your contract ceiling. 

There are four deliverables under the contract, 

standard deliverables. The first one is 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 

19 

monthly progress report, which I think we may 

want to talk about the format. 

The second is, for each task order you do get a 

draft final report and then you get a final 

report, and then there are ad hoc reports as 

needed along the way. 

 And inspection/acceptance of all the articles, 

services and documentation has been delegated 

from the contracting officer to the project 

officer under Section E-1 of the SC&A contract. 

Dr. Wade and I would like to get your feel and 

your desires to talk about several issues 

related to the contract, and that has to do 

with the cost overruns, changes in scope, time 

extensions. I think we should talk briefly 

about the frequency and the format on the 

monthly reports. And finally, if you have any 

questions at all on the role of the technical 

project officer and the Board in monitoring 

technical process. 

BOARD DISCUSSION OF CONTRACT SUPPORT 

Dr. Wade, do you think -- did you want to start 

any particular area with the Board -- or Dr. 

Ziemer? 

 DR. WADE: I would suggest we go through 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

according to that list you just read, David. 

 MR. STAUDT: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have -- do you have -- 

again, just to reiterate for members of the 

Board, the new total for task one was -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Right, that would take you to 

$1.952 million. 

 DR. ZIEMER: One point... 

 MR. STAUDT: Nine five two, that would be the 

total to complete all the efforts. 

 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, Dr. -- could we go 

through all those numbers again 'cause not all 

of us got them and --

 MR. STAUDT: Sure, if --

 DR. MELIUS: -- (Off microphone) I'm using it 

as (unintelligible) each one sort of 

systematically. 

 MR. STAUDT: Okay. If you want the -- I'll do 

the current and then what would be the final. 

Okay? Currently under task one, the total for 

task one is $583,000 -- and these are -- these 

are rounded numbers -- and to complete that 

task the way it's lined on the statement of 

work, the new total for that would be $1.952 

million. 
1 

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 

Task two was awarded for $30,000; and that will 

not change. 

 Task three currently is at $187,000; and that 

would not require any additional funding. 

And task four is currently at $467,000; and 

that would go up to $664,000. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And the total for the new task one 

and four, plus old two and three -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Right, it will take you up -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- totals? 

 MR. STAUDT: $2.834 million. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And again, to reiterate, that is 

to complete the four current tasks. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, as -- as defined in the 

current statements of work. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Four current tasks. The budgeted 

amount available currently is $3 million for 

five --

 MR. STAUDT: Five years. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- five years. This would total 

$2.8 of the five -- of the three. 

 MR. STAUDT: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And that's basically the issue 

that we need to address. 

 DR. WADE: David mentioned a number of issues. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- 

22 

That's clearly the most important. We would 

like to get a sense of the Board as to how you 

would like to proceed, given this new 

information. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And also if we could just -- 

this'll help the Board, I think, to put those 

numbers together with what we thought our scope 

would be for the total project in terms of how 

many site profile reviews we'd get for this 

number versus the number that we want to have 

at the end of -- at the end of the process. 

Likewise on dose reconstructions, how many does 

this get us versus what we want to get to 

eventually. I think those two numbers may be 

helpful. 

 DR. WADE: What this task one will get us in 

terms of site profiles is an upper level of 16. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This -- the new number will cover 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, yes, the $1.9 million -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to 16 --

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, that will get you to 16, 

that's correct. 

 DR. WADE: To 16. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- site profiles, which is I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

believe the total that we wanted. And what 

about time -- time period? 

 MR. STAUDT: I believe that is going to be 

stunted. I can -- have to talk to -- yeah, Dr. 

Ziemer, I can't remember exactly -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Dr. Mauro --

 MR. STAUDT: -- could Dr. Mauro --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- could you -- for the 16, that 

wasn't for this time -- current time period. 

DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

proposed plan (unintelligible) we will need to 

extend the period of performance for task one 

to October, 2005 (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: And John, are you -- you're 

telling us that SCA would anticipate that you 

would be able to complete 16 -- 15 more 

profiles by October --

DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- with that funding available. 

DR. MAURO: Correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Correct. And then the number of 

dose reconstruction reviews? 

 DR. WADE: Sixty-two. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Was that -- 62 was the -- 

 DR. WADE: Sixty-two, 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 

24 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is that broken down -- basic, 

advanced, any of that? 

 DR. WADE: Right, the basic reviews would be 

40; the advanced reviews, 20; and the blind, 

two. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And the timetable on those? Is 

that also October? 

DR. MAURO: No, that would be through April. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's through April. 

 DR. WADE: And just to put a little bit more 

information on the table, with the cost 

increases that we recently approved, there is 

money in the contract to do the next 20 dose 

reconstruction reviews. We would have to take 

some action from a cost point of view to go 

beyond a total of 40 then; the 20 that's -- 

that have been done and the 20 that you've -- 

discussing this morning. 

 DR. MELIUS: What about on the site profile? 

What have you -- what -- where would that get 

us with what you've put in so far? 

 DR. WADE: We've put in money to complete the 

first four. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And then can -- David, I don't 

know if you have this information, 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 

25 

roughly, how many site profiles (sic) this 

Board hopes to accomplish if we sample at two 

and a half percent. We had a number ourselves 

that we estimated, based on -- was it based on 

20,000 cases? 

 DR. WADE: This is dose reconstructions? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: I think you were talking a number in 

the mid-400's -- two and a half percent. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Two and a half percent of 20,000 

would give us 40 -- 50,000. Not 50,000 -- 

 DR. WADE: Five hundred. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- 500. 

 DR. WADE: That number grows now, obviously. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right, but I just want to 

make sure the Board understands where we are. 

We'd be -- we'd be at 60 cases out of maybe 

400, or something like that, whereas the site 

profiles would be essentially completed. So 

beyond that, we're talking about dose 

reconstruction cases. 

Now Wanda, comment, then Jim. Or question. 

 MS. MUNN: There are far too many figures to 

try to keep in my data files here. It would 

help me greatly if I could hear an 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

approximation from the contractor of what 

percentage of the total task, as they see it, 

will have been completed with the $2.843 

million that we are discussing here, as opposed 

to the final close-down of all tasks. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think I can answer that. That 

would be 100 percent of the four tasks -- 

current tasks would be completed with $2.8 

million. And by that we're talking about 16 

site profiles and 40 --

 MR. GRIFFON: Sixty-two. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Site profiles. 

 MS. MUNN: No, 16 site profiles. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sixteen site profiles -- 

 MS. MUNN: Sixty-two dose reconstructions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and 62 dose reconstructions. 

 MS. MUNN: And that -- that --

 DR. ZIEMER: Plus the -- and the other -- we 

had the procedure reviews, and that's basically 

completed, and the tracking was completed -- or 

is covered, so --

 MS. MUNN: So what I'm trying to boil this down 

to is a simple number: Approximately what 

percentage of the total tasks would be complete 

with this specific funding we're discussing 
1 

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 

now? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of the current total tasks? 

 MS. MUNN: Correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe it's 100 percent. 

 MR. STAUDT: 100 percent. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that not correct? This would 

complete the current tasks. 

DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) The current tasks, 

which -- the only (unintelligible) 

clarification that might be helpful here is the 

current --

 MS. MUNN: You need a mike for our recorder, 

John. Sorry about that. 

DR. MAURO: Just to clarify, as you know, task 

four -- which is the review of the dose 

reconstruction reports -- currently we have 

been authorized and are proceeding on 

completing 62 of those. However, our original 

contract called for us to do 400, which at that 

time was two and a half percent. So right now 

I think in terms of this we are talking about 

four tasks which, if fully funded as laid out 

in the budget, would accomplish all 16 site 

profile reviews. It would also complete our 

review of all your procedures, our review 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 

28 

these case tracking systems. The only thing 

that would not be complete, given the current 

proposal, would -- we'd only have completed 60 

out of the projected 400, so that's the break 

point of that. So the four that are currently 

under consideration would accomplish 

everything, but only -- would stop at the 62 

cases as opposed to going all the way to the 

400. 

 MS. MUNN: Thank you, John. That helps. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Does that help, Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: In terms of your original 

questions, Paul, about sort of how -- how do we 

reach any -- reach any conclusions on scope or 

modifications and so forth, I think that's sort 

of very difficult 'cause in re-- first of all, 

most of the change in cost has to do with the 

site profile reviews. That's what we're 

talking about taking up most of the cost, and 

in some sense what we're doing within the $3 

million is trading off a large number of 

individual dose reconstruction reviews for a 

number of site profile reviews, and that's -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

if we're -- have to make the assumption that 

it's a fixed amount of money that we have -- 

have to work with, and I -- not sure that's a 

sound assumption, but that's essentially what 

they're proposing to us here. 

The problem I have in terms of making an 

evaluation of this is that we only have, in 

terms of looking at scope or whatever, we 

really only have one final product to -- to 

judge from on the site profile reviews. We 

have some more underway and may have -- may 

have some shortly, but it's very hard to make 

an -- an evalu-- a full evaluation of that 

until we have more information to work off of. 

And I think what I would suggest to go forward 

is we need some sort of interim approach that 

keeps the work going, gives us some more 

information to work off of, and then I think we 

can make a recommendation -- which may be do we 

change scope, do we change number of site 

profiles to look at, do we say that -- look, $3 

million is just not an adequate amount of money 

to do a decent job, that we need to do -- to -- 

to ask and -- you know, request more money. 

But frankly, right now, you know, we don't have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

enough information, I think, to make that -- to 

justify that kind of a recommendation. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's right to the point, and in 

essence I think what's being laid out for us 

here is what the contractor estimates will be 

needed to complete the full task, what will be 

needed to complete the current tasks, and then 

the Board will, one way or the other, have to 

decide -- do we want to do something in the 

interim, either fund these tasks as we have 

described them initially and as now proposed, 

or do we want to alter the tasks in some way, 

do we want to say let's not do all the site 

profiles right away and do more of the -- you 

know, there's a lot of different options. But 

at least we have some reference points at least 

to look at. But you're quite right, making a 

judgment on what the -- thing to do ultimately 

may be very difficult, at least -- yeah? 

 DR. WADE: And certainly from our point of view 

we wanted to bring this information to you as 

quickly as possible. It seems to me there are 

three natural milestones that you'll come to; 

each one will give you more information. I 

mean today and tomorrow you'll be looking at 
1 

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 

the quality and the depth of the work that the 

contractor has done in dose reconstructions and 

the review of site profiles. You'll be much 

better informed after you go through that 

process. 

Also, the contractor is preparing to complete 

three additional site profiles. As you see 

that work product I think you'll be much better 

informed. And you're preparing to give them 

the go-ahead on the next 20 individual dose 

reconstructions. It would seem to me at a 

milestone where you would have 40 of the dose 

reconstructions and four of the site profiles, 

you'd be in a much better position. Also at 

that point we'd be in a much better position to 

get a sense of the -- the accuracy of the 

contractor's estimates. Because again, they're 

learning and sharpening their pencil as they 

go. We could well learn that their ability to 

estimate has improved or not improved when we 

come to those next milestones. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Another --

 DR. MELIUS: I think --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- comment? 

 DR. MELIUS: -- Mike was first. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Just as a comparison, since we're 

trying to look at these numbers and everything 

else, you know, obviously we rely on the 

technical expertise of SCA to help us out as a 

Board. How many modifications to the contract 

and cost increase have been incurred by ORAU to 

CDC or to NIOSH? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure --

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, I'm --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- these folks aren't involved 

with that, but maybe someone's here -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, that contract is handled out 

of my office, although it's done by a different 

person. I'm sorry, I don't have that answer 

readily available. 

 MR. GIBSON: It just seems to me that this 

whole program -- and I know, you know, 

Department of Energy's a different leg of this, 

but there have been cost overruns there and 

everyone else, and I think everyone's just 

trying to get up to speed and they realize 

what's going on in this process in determining 

how much it's going to cost. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do you want then somebody to try 
1 

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 

to get you those numbers or -- 

 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, if I could. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know if anyone here has 

that or --

 DR. WADE: Well, if you -- specifically, sir, 

what would you like? 

 DR. ZIEMER: He asked if there's been -- 

 MR. GIBSON: How many contract modifications 

and contract cost increase and overruns ORAU 

has incurred with NIOSH or CDC. 

 DR. WADE: ORAU, okay. We'll get that 

information for you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. A concern I'd raise that -- 

though, that if we try to lock-step this in 

terms of let's complete four, stop, review, and 

then go forward, is that does hold up work and 

delay work, and it takes us a while to modify 

things through this process. It's a bit 

cumbersome because of the Advisory Board and 

FACA issues and so forth, and I think if we're 

going to -- if we're looking to take some sort 

of an approach like that, I think we have to 

take into account that we also want to keep 

some of the work going. We don't want to stop 
1 

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 

everything so that we have a long down time 

where there won't be -- wouldn't be any site 

profile reviews; we get to four and then we go 

forward. So something where we would -- yeah, 

stop at four, reconsider, but we may meanwhile 

have, you know, two or four or some other 

number underway that -- that would keep the 

process moving 'cause -- 

 DR. WADE: If I'm not mistaken, sir, I think 

we've given the contractor the go-ahead on 

eight site profiles overall. 

DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) No, we have 

currently (unintelligible) funding complete the 

four. We have not received the additional 

funding for the next four, which have been 

identified, but we don't have the funding to do 

the next four. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The issue is one that the Board 

can address for Lew and David, and that is do 

you want to give them, in a sense, the 

authority to go ahead and allow the funds to 

continue without the Board necessarily 

authorizing specifically -- in other words, is 

four a stop-point, or is it -- we -- you're not 

going to get to 16 right away, but you want -- 
1 

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 

you want to, in essence, allow the ability to 

continue the work. Is that sort of what we're 

talking about? 

 DR. WADE: It could well be you would like us 

to authorize the contractor to go ahead with 

the preliminary work leading to the next four 

site profiles. We could do that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Something like that. Other 

comments or questions? 

I want to ask David and Lewis if you can 

identify for us specifically what action in 

fact is needed by this Board today that is 

important to the contract to get from where we 

are to whatever might be needed. Obviously the 

Board would like some continuity of the 

process. I'm sure the contractor would, also. 

We also have to have the ability to evaluate 

and determine change in direction at some 

point, when we have a little more history under 

our belts as to what the product looks like. 

 DR. WADE: Well, to try and be specific, on 

task one we have provided the funding for the 

contractor to proceed with a total of four site 

profile reviews. We would like to get a sense 

of the Board as to what you would like to do -- 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

like us to do in addition to that with regard 

to this issue of not stopping rigidly at four, 

if you would like us to authorize the 

contractor to go ahead and begin the 

preliminary work leading to another four or 

some number --

 DR. ZIEMER: And you basically authorized up to 

four, funding-wise --

 DR. WADE: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and up to -- the next 20 on the 

dose reconstructions? 

 DR. WADE: Cor-- I mean we -- the contractor 

has now asked us for -- it is a total of 

$664,000 to do the 62 individual dose 

reconstructions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Or 62. 

 DR. WADE: Right. And how much money is in the 

contract now, David? 

 MR. STAUDT: We have for task four $467,000. 

 DR. WADE: So we would have to authorize an 

additional $200,000 for them to go ahead with 

the full scope of 62. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Basically you've authorized up to 

I guess at least the next 20. 

 DR. WADE: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

 DR. ZIEMER: So that's -- that's where we are 

currently. Robert, then Jim. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Did the Board specify any type of 

priority on the 16 site profiles? Did we 

specify which ones we wanted first? I can't 

remember. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We provided a list. 

 MR. PRESLEY: We gave them a list, but did we 

set a priority, an order that we would like to 

have them done in? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we prioritized that 

list. John, do you recall us giving you an 

order? 

DR. MAURO: No, you gave us the list of eight, 

but the order in which we proceeded is we 

selected the order based on what we thought 

would be the most productive way to proceed. 

 DR. MELIUS: But we only gave eight. 

DR. MAURO: But you only authori-- gave -- 

identified eight. 

 DR. MELIUS: So it's --

 DR. ZIEMER: First eight. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do we want -- do we want to go 

back and readdress that to make sure that we at 
1 

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 

least get some of the ones we feel would be 

more important as sites? This is a question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Question for the Board. Right now 

-- is it a rhetorical question? Do you want us 

to ponder that or --

 MR. PRESLEY: Think about it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- do you want us to debate it? 

Think about it? Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I get some further information 

along those lines 'cause it's -- which would be 

what -- what four are underway now; when are 

they scheduled to complete, be able to give a 

report -- submit a report on the -- on those 

other three, we've got one. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The other three, John, could you 

report to us -- Bethlehem Steel of course we 

have -- or Joe Fitzgerald will report on what 

other three are in the process and -- 

 DR. MELIUS: And what are the other four that 

are on that list of eight? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: We have Hanford, which I think 

we said in our letter was 50 percent completed. 

We've ramped up and started work on that again. 

Savannah River, which was standing at about 80 

percent completed, and Mallinckrodt, an AWE, 
1 

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 

which was also roughly 80 percent -- and that's 

round numbers, I mean in terms of amount of 

work left. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mallinckrodt. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: And for those three remaining 

of the first four, we're looking to the 

February time frame, but I'm going to put an 

asterisk on that because there's information 

that we're working with NIOSH on in terms of 

obtaining from Savannah River which -- you 

know, this is sort of a new M.O. that we're 

trying to look at is not to try to work around 

information that we can't get -- this is part 

of the learning process -- but to suspend 

activity -- burning hours on that particular 

profile -- until that documentation arrives. 

It's been one of the biggest challenges, so 

assuming that Savannah River documentation does 

get to us and we can reactivate sort of the 

rest of the review, we should be on schedule in 

February. But I can't predict -- since we've 

been, you know, looking for it for about three 

months -- when that Savannah River 

documentation will get to us. And we're 

working -- I think NIOSH is also working with 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

DOE to try to get that stuff to us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Joe, do you remember what the 

next four are after that? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: The next four are Idaho, Rocky 

Flats, Nevada Test Site and Y-12. And again, 

that's sort of something we'll have to rough-in 

a schedule for, but we would expect to pick 

right up on that, and the preliminary activity 

for those can begin in that February time 

frame, too, so we can ramp into those and 

continue that without loss of continuity. 

Continuity I find is very important, given the 

experience that once you put things aside, as 

we did this fall, picking them up and then, you 

know, catching those threads of information, it 

takes a lot of time to ramp back up in 

something, so continuity is pretty important. 

 DR. WADE: So Joe, just to clarify, you would 

need the go-ahead on the second four by 

February to not have a break in continuity? 

 MR. FITZGERALD: At least. Certainly we'll be 

finishing up Mallinckrodt and perhaps Savannah 

River in January time frame, and then Hanford. 

And you know, I'm -- so I'm saying, you know, 

as we start finishing up on those, even 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 

41 

January time frame, it'd be very useful to have 

those resources move on to the other sites. So 

actually it's even before that. It's not a 

abrupt, all four will be pre-- remaining three 

will be presented at the same time. We'll be 

finishing those up and the last one, hopefully, 

will be available by the end of February. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you. I guess from our 

perspective, to hear from the Board at this 

meeting on those next four would be most 

useful. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Leon. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I know that the Board 

members have had an opportunity to look at the 

individual dose reconstructions, at least four, 

and I think that based on those four they've 

been able to see whether or not the contractor 

is going into the depth that we might feel is 

necessary in reviewing these cases. And so I 

would think that also we might be able to make 

some type of recommendation to allow for the 

scope -- the full scope to be continued to 

complete the additional dose reconstructions. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And I would pose to 

the Board -- and you might react to this -- do 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

you feel that you're prepared to make a 

specific recommendation at this point, or do 

you want to wait until after the discussions of 

the dose reconstructions and the site profile 

before you make a determination and give 

direction to Dr. Wade on this issue? Or do you 

feel like you're prepared now? 

 Basically, the totals that the Board 

established for those four tasks have been 

exceeded by action of the contracting officer, 

and I think -- it appears there -- at least 

there's tacit agreement for him to have done 

that, unless somebody wishes to make a motion 

to censure. 

 DR. WADE: Maybe we should talk just very 

briefly --

 DR. ZIEMER: But in terms of the issues of to 

what extent does the contracting staff have the 

flexibility between Board meetings to act, in a 

sense, on our behalf -- particularly where if 

Dr. Wade believes that they are in the task, 

the scope -- is kind of the issue -- and that 

the proposed cost overruns are reasonable, in 

essence, they have acted in our behalf. We've 

not authorized, as it were, the increase by any 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

formal action in open meeting. 

 DR. WADE: Right. I mean I would just add a 

third criteria to that when we made the 

decision -- first, again, that it was within 

the scope that you had defined; secondly, that 

the costs are reasonable; and third, that we 

were not able to get this Board together to 

make a recommendation in a time frame that 

would not have caused us an unnecessary delay 

in the progress of the contract. We did try 

to get you together, and that was impossible, 

so we made that decision. Again, I'd like to 

have a discussion of that. I would intend to 

act that way again, unless counseled by the 

Board otherwise. 

 MR. STAUDT: Well, I just, you know, wanted to 

reiterate that, you know, there is feedback 

through monthly progress reports and -- and, 

you know, other e-mails, et cetera. So it's 

not like once you make the decision to go ahead 

that they were -- you know, it's -- so there is 

feedback on -- on how they're proceeding, so I 

think we need to look at that fact, so I 

certainly would have recommended to give Dr. 

Wade at least that authority to -- for the next 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

four, go from there. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Can I just try to pin Joe 

or John Mauro down a little bit more on -- 

terms of when things'll be completed, 'cause we 

keep talking about February time frame and we 

have a meeting scheduled the beginning of 

February, I believe, and -- in -- so I guess my 

question is, again, given there's some 

contingencies, but would by that beginning of 

February would we have more reports -- site 

profile review reports; and then secondly, 

where would we stand with an additional 20 

individual dose reconstructions? Is that --

 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, if you detect a little 

hedging, it's because there's two -- two -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Pick the mike up there, Joe. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: -- there's two factors that 

come into play which are a little hard to gauge 

exactly at this point. One is, you know, 

picking up the pieces where we had left off, 

and we've been doing that certainly over a 

couple of weeks now trying to re-establish the 

documentation and to set up interviews with 

site experts, and really trying to ramp back up 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

into this thing -- at unfortunate time, by the 

way. I can only tell you trying to set these 

things up at Christmas, particularly on a DOE 

reservation, we're quickly finding out that 

just isn't going to happen. So even though we 

have this time line that shows the second half 

of December, I think what we're really finding 

out, that's -- that's very optimistic, not 

realistic. 

The second thing is -- and this has been a 

recurring issue and we've talked to the Board 

about this before, that in terms of obtaining 

pieces of information, documentation, even the 

documentation that we know is sitting there in 

boxes waiting to be shipped, it just isn't 

being shipped. That's proven to be a 

uncertainty. And if anything we've learned 

over the past four or five months, that's the 

part we can't control very well in terms of how 

quickly specific documentation gets to us so we 

can review it include it. I mean it's such an 

important part of what we do in terms of review 

that we absolutely have to have documentation 

that we think the Board needs to be aware of. 

Like just logistically getting that in our 
1 

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 

hands has surprised me. I, you know, having 

been in DOE, I thought that was kind of a, you 

know, something that could be managed. But 

being on the receiving end now I'm realizing 

that no, actually it's a little harder than I 

thought --

 DR. ZIEMER: Joe, I'm surprised you're 

surprised. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: So anyway, to answer your 

question, those uncertainties -- those 

uncertainties make me hedge on time because I 

don't know if it's one week, two weeks, three 

weeks or two months before I get records that I 

need. And I don't want to tell the Board it'll 

be done on a precise date when I can't control 

that part. But we're aiming to get these three 

site profiles in draft if in fact we can get 

these -- this documentation and connect with 

the interviews that we need to do, hopefully by 

-- and I say hopefully by the February time 

frame. But I think early February probably 

would be unlikely, in my view. 

DR. MAURO: I'd like -- I'd like to complete 

the answer by going to the dose reconstruction 

reviews, the task one -- I'm sorry, task four 
1 

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 

activities. We've developed the machinery 

whereby we -- we turn over in two months. That 

is, if today you authorized us to proceed with 

the next set of 20, the machinery is set up 

right now that we will deliver a report similar 

to the big thick report you have there within 

two months. And that would include the process 

that we followed whereby we'd have draft, we'd 

have one of our -- in -- right between the 

process we'd hold one of our meetings, same -- 

such -- so we're in a position where the 

machinery's in place, 20 cases every two 

months, and just keep going indefinitely. 

Of course, as pointed out correctly, right now 

the funding that we have will get us through 

the next 20, but not the third set of 20, so 

there's going to be a point in time -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: But this gets us into mid-February 

DR. MAURO: Right, so -- exactly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- which may be a little touchy in 

terms of the next meeting in terms of getting 

things in advance then. 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, if we were authorized today -

- as a matter of fact -- yeah, we would 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

probably be in a position to deliver the next 

set of 20 cases about mid-February. That's 

when the next -- assuming authorization is -- 

on this next set of 20 is given shortly. 

There is one point that I think is an important 

consideration, and it has to do with the 

linkage between the work being done on the site 

profile reviews and the work being done on the 

dose reconstruction reviews. We are the 

beneficiaries -- when I say "we", I mean the 

folks doing the work on task four are the 

beneficiaries of the site profile reviews. One 

of the things you will find is that if in fact 

a site profile review has been completed and 

then the dose reconstruction review is coming 

in behind it, the folks doing the dose 

reconstruction review are the beneficiaries of 

all the -- of the investment that was made -- 

made in the site profile. So there is a -- 

there's a linkage between the two. 

We have been proceeding productively on -- as 

you may know, we have done 20 cases, and I feel 

as if we were able to do comprehensive reviews 

of those 20's, notwithstanding the fact that 

many of those 20's included cases that were 
1 

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 

from sites that did not yet have a site profile 

review, but -- so there is this linkage and 

it's important to try -- so -- try to keep that 

linkage. As I see it right now, the -- I'm so-

- the cases that -- I'm sorry, the sites that 

have been selected, the eight sites, I believe 

when those are done we would basically have 

captured well over 80 to 90 percent of the 

cases, so we'll be in very -- in other words, 

almo-- in terms of -- once those are behind us, 

we will have in place the platform, the 

technical platform within the -- regarding site 

profile reviews that will allow us to be a lot 

more effective in our dose reconstruction 

reviews. I hope that helps. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Question? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. If I understand this all 

correctly, in terms of individual dose 

reconstructions, we're -- we may or may not -- 

probably unlikely to have another set to review 

by our early February meeting, if we -- we hold 

to that date, but we would -- we wouldn't be 

authorizing the next 20 -- or selecting the 

next 20 until that -- we probably could do that 

-- could do that at our February date -- 
1 

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 

February meeting, so we could make the decision 

at that point about procee-- proceeding there, 

and we really wouldn't really have to confront 

the issue of getting up to the 400 in cases or, 

you know, making decisions beyond what's 

already in the contract until the -- after that 

February date sometime -- time in the spring, 

so we would be okay I think on individual dose 

reconstructions. 

I would propose that we also -- that we 

authorize or whatever we do, approve, whatever 

we have to do here is to get going on these 

next four site profiles, recognizing that 

either in our February meeting in -- or the 

subsequent meeting we will have reviewed -- 

have the information, will have reviewed, you 

know, three or four, you know, total site 

profile review reports and then will be able to 

make a decision or recommendation on what to do 

about the next eight, which we really haven't 

even selected, so -- go forward. I think that 

would keep the contractor working efficiently. 

I think it would keep the whole review process 

efficient and would -- we would be in a better 

position sometime then to really make an 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

overall assessment and evaluation of -- of how 

to deal with this -- this cost issue. 

 DR. WADE: One positive side benefit of that 

would be -- right now we have estimates from 

the contractor on what it would cost to 

complete four reviews, then 16 reviews. By the 

action you would authorize us to take, we would 

have a good estimate of what it would take them 

to do eight, and that could allow you the 

ability at your next meeting to decide if you 

wanted to take some of that money that was 

freed up and invest it in individual dose 

reconstructions or whatever else you might want 

to do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So Dr. Wade, are you suggesting 

that there -- we basically have -- our current 

contract we have the overall estimate. There's 

an intermediate point, which is what you talked 

about. What is required of this Board -- for 

example, if we want to go to such an 

intermediate point? Is that a change of scope 

and/or -- or David, yeah. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, we'd have to issue a 

modification to add the money and whatever 

scope you would like, so you know, if 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 

52 

wanted to go to eight and then later on scale 

back to -- if we had to, we could do that, 

also. But those are going to require a 

modification to the contract -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do you require first from the 

contractor a -- in essence a new bid for a task 

which would be, for example, eight instead of 

16, and so on? 

 MR. STAUDT: Well, he -- yeah, he has basically 

supplied the pricing for -- for that, so I 

think we could --

 DR. ZIEMER: You can go to intermediate -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes. Right, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- steps? 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, and we could do this pretty 

quickly, so no -- you know, if not by the end 

of the week, by early next week that could be 

done on task one, if that's what you want. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now -- okay, let me get a -- Gen 

Roessler's got a comment here. 

DR. ROESSLER: I understand the number for 

where we are right now. I understand the total 

number that would be required. But do we have 

an in-between number yet? 

 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have the in-between 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

number. The contractors have it and we could 

probably get it at some point, even fairly 

soon, but you can probably roughly scale it. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, I can -- I can get exact, 

but I think it's -- I think that's something 

that you can just ask Dr. Wade to -- to -- from 

a technical standpoint, and he'd say okay, that 

looks -- and give him the, you know, authority 

to go ahead and I can take care of that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Henry, and then Leon. 

Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: I was going to make a proposal, 

so if you have other comments first... 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Wade, I guess the question that 

I have is if the Board's pleasure is to not 

change and keep the initial estimates that we 

had in regard to the dose reconstructions and 

also the site profile reviews, and if in fact 

we exhaust $2.834 million and there are 

additional tasks that the Board deems necessary 

to complete, what process would the Board then 

need to undertake in order to request 

additional funding for those tasks? 

 DR. WADE: I think you would need to advise 

NIOSH of your recommendation that the contract 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

be exten-- expanded and additional funds be 

added to it. NIOSH isn't the agency that's 

providing the funds. We would then have to 

take your recommendation to the Department of 

Labor and present it to the Department of 

Labor. But first we would need to hear from 

you as to what you would like to see the 

contract expanded to and your reasons for that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we -- do we have a number at 

this time as to the additional costs from going 

to the 62 dose reconstructions to the 400? I 

believe that's the only part that's not covered 

by the $2.8 million, is it not, those 

additional 300 or so -- 340 dose 

reconstructions? 

 MR. STAUDT: No, no, we have not requested a 

cost to complete that. We can, if we -- if you 

would like us to. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But that's the cost that we're 

talking about, is it not? That's --

MR. OWENS: Yes, sir, that's correct, and could 

you please request that? 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think that's -- the nature of 

Leon's question was what do we do? Three 

million, if we -- if we burn up $2.8 million 
1 

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 

for completing these tasks, probably there's 

not enough to do those additional dose 

reconstructions, is the nature of your 

question. And did I understand you to say that 

the money's actually coming from Labor on this, 

not... 

 DR. WADE: Correct. 

 DR. MELIUS: I think the trade-off here is 

roughly one site profile for 20 individual dose 

reconstructions, looking -- taking a quick look 

at these figures is my -- that's -- you know, 

at least -- at least ball park. We -- we are 

not going to get up to 400, no matter what we 

do, I think, in terms of -- with what's already 

-- already happened here, and then this 

proposal of letting them go ahead and do eight 

-- finish up eight site profiles, you know, 

we're still going to be well below 400 

completed within the $3 million, you know, that 

was originally allocated. So I think -- yeah, 

our -- we're going to up to asking -- needing 

more, yes, at some point. We're not going to -

- and I think that's a given. The question is 

what mix of site profiles versus individual 

dose reconstructions will we need and is 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 

56 

something that we could modify in terms of the 

scope -- or should modify in terms of the scope 

of the site profile reviews that would, you 

know, make this process more efficient. And I 

just find that hard to -- you know, for us to 

even discuss 'cause we're so early in the 

process. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I was going to -- it 

sounds to me like timing and flow-wise, I was 

going to propose that we go ahead and authorize 

to have the eight site profiles completed and 

that we also assure that we'll have the 62 

individual reviews, so that'll get us through 

two more rounds. And then I think somewhere 

within there we'll have a better sense of how 

it's going. But I think it's also clear that 

the original estimates were insufficient. And 

I think if you look at the Board and the 

subcommittee that looked at the tasks and the 

budget discussions, it was very uncertain and 

we did the best we could at the time. I think 

we have a better sense of how much time and 

effort it takes, and I don't think the $3 

million is going to meet what the Board wanted. 
1 

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 

So to me, the issue is how much time would it 

take, and then what is a good next level of 

funding to begin to talk about and when do we 

need to do that, because I think our original 

estimate of 16 and 400 to 500 is probably still 

very good. What we didn't know is just how 

much resource would have to go into that. We 

have a better sense now. We'll have a better 

sense later, so I think we need to do the eight 

site profiles, authorize that. That'll get us 

past the next meeting, maybe into two meetings. 

Do the 62 which they're already proposed 

increasing. That'll still leave some 

additional funds, and I would do that as a 

timing issue. Do we want to do site profiles 

or do we want to do the others, and that's a 

decision we can make, but I think maybe we'd 

want to do it as a separate proposal. I think 

NIOSH needs to look at; we are not going to be 

able to do our tasks without additional 

resource. So I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Henry, are you --

DR. ANDERSON: -- bottom line, it's -- it's -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- are you making that as a -- 

DR. ANDERSON: -- let's do the eight 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 

-- 

58 

authorize up to 62 for now, and that'll -- 

that'll keep the process rolling, and then just 

parenthetically I would say thank you, NIOSH, 

for interim going on, and I would certainly 

support the freeing-up of funds with the 

authorization that went on without the Board's 

explicit vote on that. I think that's 

appropriate process and that was a good 

decision by NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Henry, are you making that as a -- 

DR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- formal motion? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You've heard the motion. Is there 

a second? 

 DR. MELIUS: I'll second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to discuss the motion. 

I'm going to ask -- Tony, did you have a 

comment on the motion or just a general 

comment? I'll allow general comments, too, but 

 DR. ANDRADE: Actually, both. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Both, okay. 

 DR. ANDRADE: First a general comment. Just a 

quick estimate by linearly scaling the numbers 
1 

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 

here, it appears that if we were to actually in 

the future try to go forth with the complete 

scope of work that was once outlined by the 

Board, we'd be talking in excess of $5 to $7 

million to complete everything we had once 

envisioned, so it's just a number to keep in 

the back of one's head -- easy enough to scale 

from those figures. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Essentially double what we can... 

 DR. ANDRADE: Uh-huh. But as a -- I'd like to 

also offer a friendly amendment to -- to the -- 

to the motion, and that is that although I 

agree that we should allow for the additional 

four site profiles to be completed and the 

other 40 dose reconstructions to be completed, 

as well -- or dose reconstruction reviews to be 

completed, as well -- that beyond that point, 

that NIOSH -- that the NIOSH contracting 

officer not be allowed to, at their discretion, 

act on behalf of the Board; that the Board then 

should have full authority to stop work or 

modify scope, cost or schedule. 

 MR. STAUDT: No, the -- no, the Board does not 

have that authority. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 
1 

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 

 MR. STAUDT: The Board does not have the 

authority to change scope -- like officially 

with the contractor. I mean you can -- that 

has to be submitted through Dr. Wade and then I 

would do that if you want a change in scope and 

that I can do that, but you know, certainly on 

your behalf. 

 DR. ANDRADE: Well, then how do we --

 MR. STAUDT: I mean if you -- if you want to 

change scope or -- or any modifications, that 

has to be done formally through -- through Dr. 

Wade to me, and then that's done with the 

contractor. The Board does not have the 

authority just to go to the contractor and 

change scope. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, no --

 DR. ANDRADE: I understand that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- no, Tony's talking about -- 

 DR. ANDRADE: I understand that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- formally changing scope and 

would have to be done in open meeting. 

 MR. STAUDT: Right. 

 DR. ANDRADE: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think the -- I'm going to not 

interpret that necessarily as a friendly 
1 

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 

amendment. I think it's a completely different 

issue. We need to talk about it separately 

from --

UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And so if you would raise that as 

a separate motion at some point -- 

DR. ANDERSON: I guess I would -- for my 

original comment I would say if in fact the 

Board couldn't get together and it would impede 

the action. I mean we had an unusual 

circumstance that we couldn't get the Board 

together and that would have delayed things 

further, so that's... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's address that as a separate 

issue. 

DR. ANDERSON: I would address that separately. 

(Unintelligible) move forward on the eight -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Roy, you want to address the 

motion or general comment? 

 DR. DEHART: It's the motion primarily. We sit 

around the table, not having looked at the 

product that's before us currently. I think 

it's premature -- it certainly is in my case -- 

to vote Henry's motion when we haven't had a 

discussion of any of the reconstruction -- dose 
1 

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 

reconstructions and the audit has been -- that 

has been conducted with those, nor the one on 

the site profile for the Bethlehem Steel. I 

move that that be tabled to another point in 

this meeting in the next two days, following 

our discussion of the various documents that 

are before us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's a motion to table. Is 

there a second? 

DR. ROESSLER: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is not a debatable motion. 

We have to vote immediately. 

All in favor of tabling, say aye. 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Opposed to tabling? 

 (Negative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Show of hands. All in favor of 

tabling, raise your right hand -- one, two, 

three, four, five -- is that right? 

Opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six. 

Abstaining? The Chair didn't vote. The Chair 

has to vote on it -- no, it isn't -- 

DR. ANDERSON: It's not tied. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's not tied so the Chair doesn't 

-- the Chair could tie it by voting, but 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 

63 

- actually a motion to table requires twothirds vote to table, under Robert's Rules, so 

the motion fails, so we're -- or the motion to 

table fails, so we're back to the motion -- I'm 

going to ask for a clarification. 

The 62 reviews we already know the cost of that 

'cause that, in essence, was approved by their 

action. The cost of eight site profiles is 

somewhere between the current task and the 16. 

Do we know, David, what that number actually 

is? Would that be helpful if we knew the 

number, or --

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, I believe it is broken down 

by their -- the cost estimate that was provided 

by -- by SC&A. I think -- I think we have 

that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are we allowed to have that 

number? 

 MR. STAUDT: If --

 DR. ZIEMER: In other words, it's -- it's less 

than $1.952 and it's more than -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Well, if it was -- if it was doing 

the two -- two remaining sites, the NTS and 

INEEL each, that was $301,000. And then to do 

the six other DOE sites, that was $723,000. 
1 

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 

 DR. ZIEMER: So what does that give -- 

 MR. STAUDT: I think -- I'd have to go through, 

but -- I'd have to verify that with SC&A, but 

that's just about -- a little over -- around $1 

million. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So that would take us to like $1.5 

million instead of nine? Is that --

 MR. STAUDT: Yes. Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Roughly. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yes, roughly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: John is shaking his head. 

DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

did that correctly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So that's -- that's what we're 

talking about. 

 DR. WADE: Mr. Chairman, could I make a point 

of clarification of something you said? We 

have not, by any action we've taken now, 

approved task -- task four funding to the full 

62. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You've allowed it to go to the 

next 20, yes. I'm sorry. But we know what the 

62 value is. 

 DR. WADE: We know we have -- we have an 

estimate. 
1 

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 

 DR. ZIEMER: We know that value. What we 

didn't know was the value for the eight. It's 

about -- $1.5 million would be the new total. 

DR. ANDERSON: And -- and -- and just from 

Roy's standpoint, this is simply a numbers 

issue. It's now how it's done issue, so that 

if in later discussion we want to modify the 

proc-- or the -- the report we see or how it's 

done, that's different. This is simply to say 

we want that to move forward. If we change how 

they're going to do it, then the budget 

estimate might be different, but the numbers is 

really where I'm headed. And I think we need 

to have a good idea of being able to think far 

enough into the future that we'll have the 

numbers moving forward in the process. 

 DR. DEHART: That's a clarification. I'm glad 

you made that because it certainly wouldn't 

have stood with -- without that explanation. 

We obviously need to look at how the -- the job 

is done, the detail that goes into these 

audits. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: And just in further follow-up, I -

- my sense is that it's very hard to do 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 

66 

based on as -- a small sample we've gotten so 

far and that we -- that it's also paramount 

that we do do it, and we do it when we have 

better experience in terms of seeing what the 

product will be and understanding that and -- 

on both individual dose reconstruction, as well 

as the site profile reviews. And so that has 

to be done as part of whatever we do in 

February or March/April, whatever for that time 

period. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I want to ask David or Lewis a 

question. If the Board approves this action, 

does that change the scope at all? 

 MR. STAUDT: No, it doesn't. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Doesn't change the scope. It's 

simply -- in other words, it's just an 

intermediate step --

 MR. STAUDT: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the current task and it 

gives us a kind of a checkpoint. 

 MR. STAUDT: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Does everybody understand that 

then? 

 DR. WADE: I mean and for the record, what -- 

the action that we took unilaterally a month 
1 

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 

ago also did not change the scope of the 

contract. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. It simply allowed the 

funding to --

 DR. WADE: Continue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- go forward -- right, to flow. 

Is the Board ready to vote on this motion? 

The motion then is to authorize the funding for 

eight site profiles and 62 reviews, total. In 

other words, the additional -- you -- you 

basically have authorized the second 20. This 

would add the third 22 to that list, and would 

provide the funding for an additional four site 

profiles in -- basically in accordance with 

those numbers that we've talked about. 

 DR. WADE: That's correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that -- everybody understand 

the motion, with those clarifications? I don't 

understand it. 

All in favor, say aye. 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: All opposed? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 
1 

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 

 DR. ZIEMER: The motion has carried and we -- 

and we'll proceed on that basis. 

MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, could I ask -- did you 

make the second? 

 DR. MELIUS: I seconded, yeah. 

MR. OWENS: I thought so. Thank you. 

 MR. STAUDT: And we thank you for that very 

clear instruction. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Now -- we lost Tony. 

UNIDENTIFIED: He stepped out. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we need a break? 

UNIDENTIFIED: Ask him when he gets back. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Does the Board wish to address 

this issue that Tony raised about what happens 

on an interim basis on these kinds of issues if 

we have the situation -- maybe, David, just 

explain how you proceed, and I think you -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, once --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- you identified a process that 

allows some continuity between Board meetings. 

We want to find out, make sure the Board is 

comfortable with proceeding in this manner. 

 MR. STAUDT: Right, you know, once -- once a 

task order is issued and -- and they begin 

their work, we're going to get feedback from -- 
1 

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 

from Dr. Mauro and others at SC&A through 

either monthly reports or -- or interim 

reports. And based on that, Dr. Wade's going 

to have the discretion to -- to have them move 

appropriately, so you're going to have -- you 

know, you're not going to have to wait till the 

next Board meeting if you think they're going 

astray or -- or you want them to focus 

somewhere else, so he -- he has that latitude. 

And so I -- you know, that -- that's what I'm 

thinking. 

 DR. WADE: Maybe I could explain a little bit 

of --

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, the process. 

 DR. WADE: -- the technical --

 MR. STAUDT: Right. 

 DR. WADE: I mean there -- there are provisions 

in the Federal procurement regulations that 

when a contractor reaches 75 percent 

expenditure of what they are expected to expend 

on a task, they would notify the government. 

And again, we would then give them the go-ahead 

to proceed or not. In this case, the 

contractor found themself (sic) spending more 

than 100 percent of the money that was 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

allocated for the task. They came to us and 

said we feel we need to stop work on these 

tasks until you tell us to proceed. At that 

point we would normally come back to this Board 

and say what is your wish, but we couldn't get 

the Board together and we made the unilateral 

decision to proceed because it was, one, within 

the scope; two, we felt that the costs were 

reasonable; and three, we made a good-faith 

effort to reach the Board. And we'd like to 

get a sense of the Board as to how you would 

like us to proceed in the future on those 

issues. Again --

 DR. ZIEMER: And that was the -- I think, Tony, 

is basically what you were addressing, so... 

 DR. ANDRADE: Precisely, especially if the 

Board's pleasure is to move money between 

tasks, which I envision may very well be the 

case. If indeed what John told us earlier is -

- comes to pass, and that is that the wealth of 

knowledge from the data mining that's occurring 

in the -- in the site profile review grows to 

the point to where we -- they have confidence, 

as well as we, in the -- in the technical 

ability -- in their technical ability 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 

71 

complete dose reconstruction reviews, then we 

may want to shift funds, for example, from task 

one to task four and perhaps do many more dose 

reconstructions reviews than what are required, 

and that's what I was referring to. I don't 

mean do we want to tie our hands. Okay? I'm 

just suggesting that this Board really should 

have a say in --

 MR. STAUDT: And absolutely, and it's perfectly 

logical to descope one task and reallocate this 

one's otherwhere (sic). 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think what David is referring to 

-- or is talking about, though, is -- for 

example, once we authorize, for example, the 

eight site profiles and the 62 reviews, if they 

reach a point now where they've bumped up 

against whatever those new totals are, do you 

want to allow them to make the decision that 

the total can be exceeded, within reason, if 

it's within scope and the costs look 

reasonable, or do you want to stop work? 

That's kind of where we're at, isn't it? Do I 

understand that right, it's -- it's not the 

issue so much as we suddenly decide we don't 

want any more of these kinds of reviews or 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 

72 

major change in scope, it's the ongoing issue 

of managing that contract with some continuity. 

 DR. WADE: Right. And please understand, we -- 

we would expect to -- to follow the will of the 

Board in terms of administering this contract. 

But when we find a situation where the 

contractor would stop, and then there would be 

costs expended to ramp them up again, as 

they're saying, if we can't ask the Board that 

question, then we're asking you, do you want us 

to make that unilateral decision? We would 

certainly not make that decision attempting to 

modify the Board's instruction to us, but 

simply to make a prudent business judgment 

that, rather than have them stop and let their 

information and sources go stale, we would ask 

them to continue until we could get to the 

Board. 

 DR. ANDRADE: I think given the experience that 

they have had during this particular period of 

time, they've learned quite a bit and I would 

hope that they would have more time to present 

us with a potential issue that might come up, 

financial-- financially speaking, and that 

there would be sufficient time for us to get 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

together as a Board because these are open 

proceedings, even in a conference call, and 

make those decisions. So indeed, I think that 

the Board really should have the greater 

authority here to provide direction. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? We 

don't have a particular action here on this, 

but -- unless someone wishes to make a 

particular motion. 

 DR. WADE: No, we certainly take your sense. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Roy DeHart. 

 DR. DEHART: Moving backward in time a bit, I 

think it would be appropriate for the Board to 

recognize the efforts that the procurement 

office took in moving forward with the 

financial arrangements when we were under a 

difficult task and they couldn't get back to 

us. I think we need to have some kind of 

positive response to that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Would you like to make a motion to 

endorse the actions that were taken? 

 DR. DEHART: So moved, yes. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded? Is there a discussion 

on this motion? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

 Motion to endorse with thanks the action that 

was taken, all in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Don't get carried away now with 

that -- don't let it happen again. 

Robert? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Could we as a Board ask that -- 

we have given the money to do this, and if it 

comes back and we see that -- that maybe 50 

percent of the work is not going to be 

completed, then at that point you issue a stop 

order and we go back and talk about it. You 

know, if we get down to where that maybe 85 or 

90 percent's completed and then you need to say 

okay, we're going to give ten percent more or 

15 percent more or whatever it is to complete 

this work and -- but what I would like to see 

is something in there that if we go down the 

road and only 50 percent of this work 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 

75 

completed for our money, they we stop and go 

back and let's talk about it as a Board. 

There's something wrong. 

 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, well, I think there's -- 

there's -- you know, there's an official stop 

work, you know, which we need -- we have to be 

-- that's more drastic, and then there's a -- 

from Dr. Wade or from the Advisory Board asking 

them to stop work on a certain task until you, 

you know, have an opportunity to meet again. 

So you know, just want to make sure you -- 

which one we're talking about here, so I'd -- 

certainly we've done it before, I think, in the 

(unintelligible) task is have them stop until 

we can reconsider. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the indication is pretty 

clear at this point that -- that if -- if in 

fact the tasks as originally envisioned of 16 

site profiles and 400 and some dose 

reconstructions are to be completed, it's going 

to require more than the $3 million. And it 

seems to me that this Board needs to know, 

process-wise, exactly what steps need to be 

taken when to address that issue. If after 

reviewing our eight and our 62 and so on, if -- 
1 

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 

if we decide that the scope should continue to 

be what we originally envisioned, and at some 

point we'll know pretty close what that 

entails, whether it's $3.5 million or $4 

million or $7 or whatever that number turns out 

to be, but at some point we need to know what 

to do, and where do we go, when do we go, 

what's the nature of the steps we need to take. 

Think about that a minute and -- 

 MR. STAUDT: Well, I was just going to -- you 

know, we could certainly, you know, request now 

from SC&A, you know, to develop estimates to 

complete that. So you know, if you want that 

for your next meeting or -- or when you want 

that in time, we can see how quickly they can 

get those numbers together so you can start to 

think about that well in advance. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it seems to me it's 

something the Board has to be dealing with 

fairly soon if in fact there's a process -- now 

we understand that there's kind of a fixed pot 

of money and it just doesn't automatically 

grow, so when and what -- does somebody have to 

budget for this and what's the lead time and 

all those kinds of questions. You don't 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

necessarily need to answer now, but we need to 

know --

 MR. STAUDT: Well, the one additional thing, 

and I didn't want to, you know, muddle the 

issue but I have heard from SC&A several times 

that the Board's going to need -- may want to 

consider a separate task for project management 

cost, and this is -- sometimes can skew which 

task we're looking at here and so -- 'cause 

those costs for Dr. Mauro, just to -- himself 

and his staff to kind of be ramped up and 

sitting there, that's costing a certain amount 

per month. And if you only have one task in 

place, those costs are going to hit those 

tasks, so -- hit that task, so you know, we're 

looking at numbers, comparing numbers. I'm not 

sure we have to do it now, but maybe next 

meeting the Board may want to consider in the 

future having a separate program management 

task as set up, so this is just something I 

just wanted to advise you of and -- and that's 

something we're definitely look at. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And this has to do more with how 

costs are assigned, I believe. John Mauro, 

program management -- I think we sort of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

assumed it was built into each task, but you're 

saying for accountability, it probably would be 

better from your point of view to have an 

overall management task that would cut across 

the lines of all the other tasks? Is that --

DR. MAURO: Yes, in fact one of the problems we 

encountered in our cost overrun on task four 

was we used task four when we budgeted that out 

originally as not only the task that we would 

do cases, but I also put in in that part of -- 

in task four the cost to -- for example, to 

support these meetings. See, there are certain 

cross-cutting activities that apply to all four 

tasks. Perfect example is coming to these 

meetings. Another example is putting in place 

our quality assurance programs, our conflict of 

interest programs. So all of these what I call 

-- and also our records management process 

whereby we are acquiring records, and so these 

are what I call the program management 

activities which cut across all four tasks. 

What I did originally was put those resources 

into task four. Okay? It turns out that's -- 

it obscures what does it really cost. I have 

the numbers, but it obscures -- if you were to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

just look in the aggregate at the total price 

tag to do the 62 cases and the price that has 

been estimated for doing the 62 cases, the 

unfortunate part of that is imbedded in that 

price tag is also the cost for program 

management. So I think in an ideal 

circumstance, quite frankly, and in retrospect, 

I think it would -- from a program management 

point of view it would have been much cleaner 

to have broken out program management as a 

separate task that's managed separately so then 

we can get a very clear vision on what does it 

cost per case to -- to be reviewed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, thanks. Now we're -- we're 

driving up the contractor's cost by meeting too 

often is the problem. Henry? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate 

your comment, what is our timing if -- I mean 

we now have kind of $3 million in the pot. 

With where we are now, there -- there's still 

some left there. The question is, when that's 

gone and if we want to do more, what's the time 

line and what do we need to do to get that? 

mean do we now tell you we really believe that 

it's going to cost more, we don't know how much 

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 

80 

because we haven't got all the experience yet; 

is that something you can take forward over to 

whoever you would ask and say we are 

anticipating that come August, July, whatever, 

the Board is going to be asking for additional 

funds. You need to be thinking about that, and 

then either give them a ball park number to be 

followed up. What -- what do you need to go 

forward, because my sense is we're going to 

want to do more case reviews. We aren't going 

to be able to cover the funds solely out of 

redeploying site reviews to that. So our 

original estimates were ball park and now the 

ball park is -- has increased. What do... Up 

to this point we've got our five-year budget 

planned and it isn't going to be sufficient, so 

we need to know, what do you need from us? 

What do we need from our contractor? What is 

our time line? I don't think we have enough 

information now to really know. I mean we --

we can do your linear projections, but we all 

know that also has a tendency to -- to not go 

linear, so the question is, what do you need -- 

what is that time line? Are we looking at next 

year, you know, that '06 Federal budget, '07 
1 

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 

Federal budget? Where are we in being able to 

get more funds into this account and what do we 

need to do to -- to justify that? 

 DR. WADE: I think based upon this discussion, 

once it's concluded, we'll have enough 

information to go back and to begin to explore 

that process, and then come to your next 

meeting. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: But might I ask one -- one 

additional question? Was it the sense of this 

Board that this contractor would begin to do 

work in the area of Special Emphasis (sic) 

Cohorts? Is that also something that needs to 

be considered, or -- we have on the table the 

entire scope that we had imagined -- that you 

had imagined? 

 DR. ZIEMER: When the Board first looked at 

that, there was a thought that that might be a 

possible task. But the way -- this -- he's 

talking about Special Exposure Cohorts. 

 DR. WADE: I'm sorry, Special Exposure. 

 DR. ZIEMER: This Board has a responsibility to 

specifically review those documents. It's not 

clear that we -- and this could change. It's 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

not clear that we need contractor assistance on 

that because we have to review -- regardless, 

we have to review those documents. That's --

 DR. WADE: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but I think we did in the 

original task order contract -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Originally -- that's what I say, 

originally we felt there could be -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: And it's more technical 

assistance. It's not an audit thing. It would 

be to technically assist us in reviewing those, 

so I think that's still open. 

 DR. WADE: It's still potentially on the table, 

with an associated cost. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: We don't know. Okay, Mike, 

Robert, Jim. Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: Again, I just -- I know it's our 

responsibility to oversee this audit process 

and make sure that things are being done 

correctly. I also understand that we're 

supposed to be fiscally responsible with the 

government's money. We're talking about $3 

million here as opposed to some of these other 

costs that have been spent by other agencies 
1 

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 

and organizations, and we haven't even -- we 

haven't even seen much of SCA's work. They may 

be the most efficient contractor out there, and 

maybe did a better job than ORAU or anyone 

else, and we're still worrying about 

potentially cutting scope or changing scope. 

You know, I think we're just jumping the gun a 

little bit and we need to hear from them and 

get a flavor for their work. And you know, if 

we have to increase the budget or request to 

increase the budget by $10,000 -- $10 million. 

I mean I've seen a dose reconstruction (sic) be 

bid at $3 million for a site and go to $12 or 

$13 million, and -- and it wasn't even done 

efficiently, in my opinion. But I think we 

need to give the contractor a chance to 

demonstrate their abilities and their work 

before we worry about the costs or how to cut 

them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Robert? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Could we ask that when we meet in 

February that we have a cost review of what we 

have authorized here today as to where we stand 

with the $3 million and the eight site profiles 

and the 20 or -- I mean not 20, but the 40 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 

84 

62 reviews? 

 MR. STAUDT: Absolutely we can get that, uhhuh. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Robert, let me add to that -- 

I'll mention on behalf of the Board, sitting 

here in the chair behind me, this is 

proprietary stuff so it's not available to the 

public 'cause it has cost breakdown by position 

and so on for the contractor, but each of the 

tasks -- all the details on all expenditures on 

each task by month are shown in here, and Board 

members are welcome to look through this. The 

monthly progress reports are here, percent of 

each task expended and so on are in here, as 

well, for some supplementary material, one 

notebook for each task, one, two, three and 

four. So avail yourselves of that information, 

as well. And then this would supplement that. 

 DR. WADE: But we would certainly take it as 

our responsibility at the February meeting to 

stand up and give you that -- 

 MR. PRESLEY: I would appreciate that. 

 DR. WADE: -- that information. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Who was next, Roy? 

 DR. DEHART: I'd simply like to ask at such 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 

85 

presentation if the appropriate graphics 

couldn't be made available on the screen so we 

can all work from those. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have a separate subject to bring 

up, so -- it's related to this, so -- you're 

done discussing it, and that's the issue of the 

reports and public availability of the reports. 

I'm very confused as we go through this 

process. We now have blue stamps, I notice, on 

all of our -- a lot of our documents and -- on 

some and not on others saying it's part of the 

record, but there's a lot -- some of us were 

pretty disconcerted when we received the report 

from our contractor and was told that it was -- 

could not be shared with anybody, and there's 

been some correspondence -- there was some emails back and forth with Paul and among the 

Board about that particular issue, and I'm just 

trying to understand if it comes from a 

contracting point of view, where -- where is 

that issue coming from in terms of claiming 

that these interim reports are -- or the 

reports that are submitted by the contractor on 

site profile reviews are privileged or can't 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 

86 

shared in some way? 

 DR. WADE: I can't answer that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think that's coming from 

procurement, is it? 

UNIDENTIFIED: No, I believe the legal people -

-

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that was a legal 

opinion, as I heard it. Liz may want to speak 

to that. And it's an issue -- I think the 

Board may wish to discuss this because the -- I 

suppose the Board could also decide that it in 

fact wanted to make documents publicly 

available, even if it's a work product, but I -

- I -- I think legal counsel would have -- I 

don't know if Liz is here right now, but we can 

-- we can address this later, during our work 

session, at least. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, can we put it on the agenda? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. Any other issues 

pertaining to procurement and the contract? 

And let me ask John -- John, does SC&A have any 

other related issues that you need to raise 

with the Board at this time vis-a-vis what 

you've heard here so far? 

DR. MAURO: No. 
1 

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 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Richard? 

MR. ESPINOSA: I have just a -- I have just a 

request. The only documents that I have on the 

deliverable on the task are basically the 

drafts that we've worked on prior to. Can I 

get a finalized set? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of the deliverables? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Of one, two, three and four, the 

finalized. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Final tasks? Is that what he 

said? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me -- let me see, this is... 

MR. ESPINOSA: I never received the 

finalized... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Who else needs copies -- 

you're talking about the statement of task on 

each of the tasks? 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think the answer is yes, a Board 

member can have the statement of task. 

MR. ESPINOSA: I never received that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure who's going to 

provide that, though. We need to pin down --

UNIDENTIFIED: Can we provide them to 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 

88 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

UNIDENTIFIED: To you, and then you can 

provide... 

 DR. ZIEMER: We'll make sure. If anyone else 

doesn't have that in their files, the statement 

of the four tasks, we'll certainly make them 

available. 

Okay, anything else on this particular issue? 

 DR. MELIUS: Liz just -- our legal counsel just 

walked back in, if we want to talk about the 

issue of --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Liz --

 DR. MELIUS: Or she has time to prepare, if she 

-- I don't want to put her -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: The question was raised as to the 

status of the -- the legal status of the -- 

UNIDENTIFIED: Draft. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the draft that comes from the 

contractor. It was explained that it was work 

product and is -- is it legally -- as you see 

it, legally not available, or can the Board, 

for example, decide it wants to make it 

available? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, it's a pre-decisional 

document until you take it up, so therefore 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 

89 

will be publicly available tomorrow when the 

Board considers it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But that -- that's a legal -- that 

was a legal opinion, nothing to do with the 

contractors. That's a --

 DR. MELIUS: Do FACAs have pre-decisional 

documents? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes, you all have had a copy 

of it. 

 DR. MELIUS: No, no, no, I mean legally -- 

legally it may apply to other agency 

situations, but does it apply to a Federal -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, the same as when you 

all prepare documents in a work group and it's 

the same as when you all prepare a letter for 

signature by Dr. Ziemer. They're predecisional documents, and then when you take 

them up publicly, they're no longer predecisional. 

 DR. MELIUS: Is there any reason we cannot make 

it public document by an action of the Board, 

as a policy? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That would be a policy held 

by the Department. A pre-decisional document 

protects the Department in their decision-
1 

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 

making, and you all, as special government 

employees, are making recommendations to the 

Department. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Off microphone) Are you 

going to need me again, because I've got to 

finish (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: No, we're going to recess here 

momentarily. I just wanted to see if there's 

any other issues relating to the contract, 

contract process or the contract requirements. 

 (No responses) 

We're going to recess for lunch. This 

afternoon there will be a closed session. I 

want to -- we need to make a public statement -

- Lew, can you give us the -- for that -- for 

the public, make a -- give us the -- the 

necessary statement about this afternoon's 

session? 

 DR. WADE: Okay. The closed portion of the 

meeting on December 13th will involve 

discussion of individual dose reconstruction 

case reviews, as directed by EEOICPA and the 

Executive Order, both of which direct the Board 

to evaluate the scientific validity and quality 
1 

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 

of dose reconstructions conducted by NIOSH. 

 The individual cases the ABRWH will be 

discussing include personal information of a 

confidential nature where disclosure would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy. The meeting will be closed 

in order to protect the privacy of the 

claimants. A general report of the summary 

findings, without personal and confidential 

information, will be presented by the Board in 

open public session for Board discussion and 

deliberations towards consensus recommendation. 

So that's what we'll go into closed session to 

discuss. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And I would add that there will be 

no other business conducted by the Board during 

the closed session. 

 MR. MILLER: Dr. Ziemer, could I just ask a 

clarifying question? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you certainly may. Richard 

Miller. 

 MR. MILLER: With respect to the -- this is 

Richard Miller, good -- good -- good morning. 

I just had a clarifying question, Dr. Wade. 

You said that there'll be a general report 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

prepared for distribution to the public. Will 

there be a transcript made of the closed 

proceedings, is the first question. And the 

second question that follows is will that 

transcript be made available by NIOSH with 

appropriate redactions for Privacy Act-related 

material. And the third question is, will the 

report that you all will be discussing behind 

closed doors that has been received from the 

contractor be made available to the public 

appropriate redactions. Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: And again, I -- I will defer that to 

legal counsel. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me answer part of the 

third question. The Board will determine what 

-- what report will be -- public report. What 

we have from the contractor is not a report. 

We do not have a report from the contractor. 

We have a series of reviews of individual 

cases, and various Board members have copies of 

various cases that they are working -- have 

worked on, so that's what we have before us. 

Okay. And Jim -- Jim Neton, NIOSH. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton, NIOSH. I 

believe that NIOSH has prepared appropriately 
1 

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 

redacted versions of those original reports 

that will be available to the public during 

this meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Of the original --

DR. NETON: Original SC&A reports. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- reports from the contractor? 

DR. NETON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Redacted reports. 

DR. NETON: They will be available. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And Cori? 

MS. HOMER: I can speak at least in terms of 

the transcript. There is a transcript made. 

However, it is sealed, according to Privacy Act 

direction. For example, if it -- we were 

discussing an independent government cost 

estimate, that transcript would be closed for 

two years. There is a summary of the 

proceedings that is published within 14 days in 

the Federal Register and that is all that is 

made available to the public in terms of a 

transcript until the transcript is unsealed. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The public summary contains very 

little information other than the fact that the 

Board met on a particular topic and that no 

other business was discussed. But I think 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 

94 

partial answer, Jim indicated apparently the 

SCA reviews, appropriately redacted, will be 

available. Is that what I understood? 

DR. NETON: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And whether or not -- if you're 

asking is the Board going to have a position on 

each review, that will be up to the Board. Is 

that what you're asking? 

 MR. MILLER: My question with respect to the 

transcript is whether that transcript -- Cori 

said would be sealed for two years. I'd sure 

appreciate if you could -- Dr. Wade or others -

- could get us a legal clarification about 

whether the Government in the Sunshine Act 

requires the disclosure of transcripts to the 

public pursuant to a request, and whether 

there's legal authority to seal them for two 

years. I certainly understand the redaction of 

business-sensitive information or business 

confidential, the Privacy Act, or anything else 

that's appropriately redactable. But the 

question of -- Dr. Ziemer, is just it's -- it's 

-- it is with great interest I guess that the 

public will be hearing from the Board, but 

given the -- and I don't take issue with 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 

95 

all needing to have free and open discussion 

behind closed doors where there's Privacy Act 

information. But it seems to me that that 

deliberative process ought to be as transparent 

as possible. And my understanding of the law 

is that those transcripts are public 

information -- unless there's some exception 

that I'm not aware of -- as appropriately 

redacted. So that's -- that's the issue. 

The question of whether what the Board chooses 

to do is its own choice, and you all will do 

what you're going to do. 

 DR. WADE: We will seek legal clarification and 

provide it to the Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then we are going to recess 

for lunch now and we will reconvene in closed 

session at 1:00 o'clock. 

 (Whereupon, the public session of the meeting 

was in adjournment until Tuesday, December 14, 

2004, at 8:00 a.m.)