NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

136th Meeting

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

The meeting convened telephonically at 11:00 a.m., 

Eastern Daylight Time, Rashaun Roberts, Designated 

Federal Official, presiding. 
2 

Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Henry Anderson, Member

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

David B. Richardson, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Phillip Schofield, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Also Present: 

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Barrie, Terrie

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Crawford, Chris, DOL

Fitzgerald, Joe, SC&A

Kinman, Josh, DCAS

Naylor, Jenny, HHS

Nelson, Charles, DCAS

Rutherford, Lavon, DCAS

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 136th Meeting 

Tuesday, October 27, 2020 1

Roll Call 4

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Mr. Rutherford, DCAS 5

Updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittees 7

Plans for the December 2020 Board Meeting

16

Adjourn 23
4

Proceedings

(11:01 a.m.)

Roll Call

Dr. Roberts: Good morning, everybody, and thank 

you all for joining today. This teleconference is for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. I am 

Rashaun Roberts and I'm the Designated Federal 

Official for the Board.

Before we move right into the meeting agenda, let 

me start by covering a couple of brief items.

The agenda for today's meeting can be found on the 

NIOSH website. And for those who may not have an 

agenda in front of you right now, know that the 

agenda is very brief, it's pretty straightforward, and 

you should find it easy enough to follow along even 

without it. There are no other meeting materials for 

today. 

The second item I want to cover pertains to our 

meeting technology today. So, we're back to oldschool just doing this via telephone.

But in order to keep things running smoothly, I'd like 

to ask each of you to please mute your phone unless 

you need to speak.

If you don't have a mute button on your phone, press 

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

press *6 again.

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

and welcome everyone to the teleconference for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

The primary purpose of today's meeting is to prepare 

for our December 8th and 9th Board meeting, which, 

like, many of this year's meetings, will take place 

virtually.

So, let's go ahead and do roll call. And let me just 

note that because this is just an administrative 
5

planning meeting, we don't need to address conflict 

of interest during the roll call. So, I'll start with the 

Board members in alphabetical order.

(Roll Call.)

Dr. Roberts: Thank you all again and welcome. 

This should be a relatively brief meeting. First on the 

agenda we do have an update from Mr. Lavon 

Rutherford.

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update - Mr. Rutherford, DCAS

Mr. Rutherford: Alright. Thank you, Dr. Roberts.

Okay. For the December board meeting we had 

planned to present the Y-12 addendum for SEC 250, 

but recently several former Y-12 workers were 

identified to interview. So, we are working to set up 

those interviews.

As you know, the process for scheduling the interview 

is interviewing the individuals, getting the notes 

reviewed for classification, pulling together the notes 

from all the people involved, and drafting a summary 

which we have to send out to the interviewee to 

verify the summary is correct; and then reviewing 

the summary for input into the addendum takes 

some time.

Therefore, I don't anticipate the addendum will be 

completed in time for the December Board meeting. 

We will plan to present the addendum at the April 

2021 Board meeting.

There are no new SEC petition evaluations to present 

at the December meeting, but we do have one 

petition that has recently qualified and we are 

starting the evaluation process.

The petition is for the Pinellas plant. The petitioner 

identified an issue that was not previously addressed 

by NIOSH or the Advisory Board Work Group and 

SC&A during the Site Profile Review.
6

I think, as most of you remember, we had a pretty 

significant review of the Site Profile for Pinellas, and 

this was one issue that wasn't addressed. So, we 

qualified that petition.

We have two petitions in the qualification phase; one 

for Rocky Flats and the other for Pantex.

Again, there will be no new SEC petition evaluations. 

I expect that most everything will be done. There will 

be Work Group updates on current SEC petitions.

And that's all I have. Any questions?

Dr. Roberts: Any questions from the Board?

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, I don't hear any at this time. 

So, thank you, Bomber, for the update.

Member Kotelchuck: Dave Kotelchuck.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Sure.

Member Kotelchuck: Let me ask you -- there was a 

Rocky Flats SEC petition offered [identifying 

information redacted]

As I read the letters and material that was sent to us, 

it did not qualify -- is that correct -- or is that a not 

finished?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, that's a not finished.

As I mentioned, I think, at the last board meeting, 

the petition went to administrative review.

The administrative review panel did offer findings 

back to us and asked us to provide additional detail 

to the petitioner, which we are working on at this 

time.

We will provide that information to the petitioner and 

then we'll go from there.

Member Kotelchuck: Very good. Thank you.
7

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Any other questions from the 

Board or comments?

(No response.)

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, hearing no additional, I 

think we can go ahead and move to the next agenda 

item, which is the updates from 

Work Groups and Subcommittees, if there are any 

updates at this point.

Before I open it up to the Board members, I wanted 

to start this portion of the meeting by closing the 

administrative loop on SEC Petition 247, which 

encompasses all Atomic Weapons Employees who 

worked in any area at Superior Steel Company in 

Carnegie, Pennsylvania, between 1952 and '57.

A Board vote was taken on that petition at the August 

26th through 27th, 2020, full Board meeting.

There were two missing votes from that meeting; one 

from David Richardson and the other from Brad 

Clawson. Both have since been collected.

With those two votes received, the Board has voted 

unanimously that dose reconstruction for the petition 

Superior Steel was feasible.

At this point, I'm going to turn it over to Paul Ziemer 

to go ahead and read the draft of the Board 

determination letter to HHS and see if the Board 

members would like to recommend any changes.

Paul?

Member Ziemer: Thank you, Rashaun. Let me also 

point out I think Board members actually also have 

copies of this. It was sent to them by email.

The correct version, I believe, was a version that was 

distributed yesterday. You might have gotten an 

earlier version of this.
8

So, I'm reading from what I believe is the correct 

version of this, which, on my email, was dated 

yesterday.

So, I'll proceed with reading the proposed letter to 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Dr. Roberts: And, Paul, before you start --

Member Ziemer: Oh, sorry.

Dr. Roberts: I'm sorry, Paul. 

The one -- the version you should have is one without 

a signature line.

Member Ziemer: Right. No signature line. Right.

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Ziemer: And it also doesn't have the address 

line to the Secretary, per se. This is just the body of 

the letter. Okay?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Ziemer: So, I will proceed.

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

(the Board) has evaluated Special Exposure Cohort, 

SEC, Petition 00247 concerning workers at the 

Superior Steel Company in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, 

under the statutory requirements established by the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 and incorporated 

into 42 CFR Section 83.13. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, has 

recommended that individual dose reconstructions 

are feasible for "all Atomic Weapons Employees who 

worked in any area at Superior Steel Company in 

Carnegie, Pennsylvania, during the period from 

January 1st, 1952, to December 31st, 1957." NIOSH 

found that it had access to sufficient exposure 

monitoring and other information necessary to 

estimate, with sufficient accuracy, the radiation dose 

received by members of this group and, therefore, 
9

the Class covering this group should not be added to 

the SEC. The Board concurs with this determination. 

Based on these considerations and discussions at the 

December 13, 2018; April 17, 2019; and August 26 

and 27, 2020 board meetings, the Board agrees with 

the NIOSH recommendation that this Class not be 

added to the SEC. 

Enclosed is the documentation from the Board 

meeting where this SEC Class was discussed. The 

documentation includes copies of the petition, the 

NIOSH review, thereof, and related materials. If any 

of these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you, Paul. So, that's the letter.

I'd like to open it up to the Board for any comments 

or recommended edits.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer again. I just noticed 

one thing, which I hadn't noticed before in reading it.

The last sentence -- the second-to-last sentence, 

where it says, enclosed is the documentation from 

the Board meeting where this was discussed, it 

actually should be plural, "Board meetings."

We had already listed several meetings in the 

previous paragraph where it was discussed. I believe 

that should be plural.

Do you concur?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Ziemer: Yeah.

Member Kotelchuck: Dave Kotelchuck.

The last sentence I just noticed, and I think this is 

correct, if any of these items "is" unavailable at this 

time, not "are," because "any" is -- it's "any one of 

these items is unavailable."

I think that's correct English. Could someone check 
10

or -- I think that's proper English usage is "any" 

should be one, "if any is unavailable."

I defer to people who are better informed with --

Member Ziemer: If you omit the phrase "of these 

items," it would -- which you can omit for this 

purpose -- "if any unavailable" versus "if any is 

unavailable," is what you're saying?

Member Kotelchuck: Right. Yes. I think that's correct. 

Again, I defer to my high school English teachers. I 

think --

Member Ziemer: I think we've been using that 

sentence for several years in the form that it's in.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. I'll check this. I didn't 

notice it until just now and I'm not certain about it.

Either way, this is not a major issue, but I just --

Member Anderson: It's been part of the template 

we've used in the past.

Member Kotelchuck: Well, okay. Fine.

Member Anderson: But that doesn't mean we can't -

-

Member Ziemer: I think "any" can be considered 

plural.

Member Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Ziemer: Because "any" could be one. It 

doesn't say "any one." It could be multiple items. "If 

any items are unavailable."

Member Kotelchuck: "If any items are unavailable." 

You may -- that may be the case. That may be the 

case. 

I would -- we could certainly --

Mr. Calhoun: Either is acceptable.
11

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine.

Member Clawson: Unless you guys want -- unless 

you guys want me to start Okie-ing it together, we 

could really get this letter going.

(Laughter.)

Member Kotelchuck: Alright. Then let's stick with 

what we have and I will seek advice from my English 

teacher friends for the future.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And other comments or edits? 

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So, hearing none, okay, so what 

I'm understanding is that there would be one edit to 

the final paragraph, which would now read, "Enclosed 

is the documentation from the Board meetings where 

this SEC Class was discussed." And then the 

documentation includes copies of the petition, the 

NIOSH review thereof and related materials. If any of 

these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

follow shortly.

Okay? Great. So, we're done with this item. Is it okay 

to move on?

Member Kotelchuck: Don't we have to have a vote? 

A formal vote?

Member Ziemer: Actually, the action was on the SEC. 

I think we've never voted on these letters, we've just 

looked --

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, okay.

Member Ziemer: -- to see if there were any 

grammatical things. It's usually a grammar issue.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright. Fine.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Okay. Well, thanks for 

doing that, Paul. That was excellent.

So, the next thing I want to bring up in this section 
12

on work groups and subcommittee reports, is that, 

as Mr. Rutherford mentioned, late last week board 

members were notified that NIOSH qualified a SEC 

petition for the Pinellas Plant for evaluation.

Now, there was a Pinellas Plant Working Group, and 

my understanding is that it was retired after all the 

findings on the Site Review Profile -- Site Profile 

Review were closed, I guess, at that time.

But given a recent development, what we're going to 

need to do is stand up a Pinellas Working Group 

again.

So, Phil Schofield, Brad Clawson, and Poston were 

the Chair and members of the previous group from 

the Board.

So, Brad and Phil will need to consider whether they 

would like to sit on the revised Working Group.

If it's the case that both are willing to resume work 

on Pinellas, we'll need to identify at least one more 

member from the larger board to sit on that group 

since Poston is no longer on the Board. 

And obviously there can be no conflict of interest for 

the person who volunteers to be on the group.

Member Clawson: Rashaun --

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Clawson: -- this is Brad.

Dr. Roberts: Go ahead.

Member Clawson: I'm good with going back to it. 

That's fine with me. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

Member Schofield: Rashaun, this is Phil. I'm good 

with it, too.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you.
13

Member Anderson: I'd be happy to join that group.

Dr. Roberts: Is that you Henry? Who was that?

Member Beach: That was Henry Anderson.

Dr. Roberts: It was Henry. Okay. Perfect. Okay. 

Excellent. Okay. So, great. It sounds like that's taken 

care of.

If anyone else has an interest, please contact me 

offline and let me know.

Member Anderson: Was Brad the Chair or was it Phil?

Member Beach: Phil.

Dr. Roberts: I think it's Phil.

Member Anderson: Good. Okay.

Member Clawson: So, what? You don't want me, 

Henry? Is that what you're trying to say?

(Laughter.)

Member Anderson: I just thought if it happened to be 

Poston, then there'd be three of us members and 

nobody wanting to take the lead.

Member Clawson: No, that's good. I'm fine.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. So, you'll still chair, Phil. 

That's great. 

Okay. Well, with that, those pieces done, let me open 

it up to see if there are any Work Group or 

Subcommittee reports that the Chairs would like to 

offer at this time.

Member Schofield: This is Phil, Santa Susanna and 

De Soto. We had -- we're addressing -- we had a 

meeting on the 21st of October and one of the big 

things where we were trying to address some of the 

issues the petitioners have put forward, we still have 

a real problem with the fact that we can't identify 

people who are at which facility.
14

So, we will not be ready to take a vote on the petition 

for the full Board meeting in December.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Okay. Any other reports?

Member Beach: Rashaun, this is Josie. I have a 

couple of just brief updates on my Working Groups.

So, starting with Metals and Control, I got an email 

from Lavon a couple of days ago -- in fact, the whole 

Work Group did -- just giving us an update.

Metals and Control, it looks like they are working on 

our items that we brought up in our last Work Group 

call and should be -- should have those to us midDecember.

I don't think on that one SC&A is going to need a 

whole lot of time. So, we can probably schedule out 

a Work Group meeting end of December/first of 

February.

And then for -- and, Lavon, if you think that's 

different, let me know.

And then for LANL, it looks like we will have our items 

in-hand same timeframe, mid-December.

I believe SC&A is going to need a little time with that, 

but I still think we can probably schedule something 

again sometime in February.

Mr. Rutherford: This is Lavon.

Member Beach: Go ahead, Lavon.

Mr. Rutherford: I was going to say I agree with that, 

Josie.

Member Beach: Okay. Perfect. So, I guess, Rashaun, 

that will be -- as long as those items, if they're late, 

if Lavon would let us know, I think we can go ahead 

and maybe start looking at some dates possibly for 

the February timeframe.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. And you said end of 
15

December or first of February for M&C?

Member Beach: Yes. Yeah.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Beach: So, I'm thinking maybe January for 

M&C and then --

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Beach: -- possibly the end of January/first of 

February for LANL.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: The Dose Reconstruction 

Review Subcommittee, just a reminder to folks, we're 

meeting on November 4th. A nice, quiet day this fall 

with not much hubbub.

Make sure you get enough -- go to bed early on the 

3rd, for those of you on the west coast, so that you'll 

be up bright and early on the 4th. So, see you all on 

the 4th.

Dr. Roberts: Wow. And that's just next Wednesday.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: And, Dave, since you brought it up -

- this is Josie -- I have a little bit of a conflict that 

day, but I already talked to Rashaun about it and I 

won't have a time that I'll have to step away until the 

day before, which would be the 3rd.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: So, I'll keep Rashaun posted on that.

Member Kotelchuck: Right. And thank you for that. 

And Rashaun also told me about that.

Member Beach: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: So, appreciate it.
16

Member Beach: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: There shouldn't be any problem. 

Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Anyone else with an 

update?

Member Clawson: Well, this is Brad. And now that 

I'm able to function and halfway move, I'm going to 

be starting to look forward on the Savannah River 

Work Group being able to get this together.

I've got some documents that have come out and I'm 

going to be getting with SC&A. I'll probably get with 

you, Rashaun, and we'll get a Work Group set up and 

go from there.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Now, we do have the date already 

scheduled for SRS and the SEC joint groups on the 

17th of November and the 20th of November. 

And I'll be sending a draft agenda to you soon, Brad.

Member Clawson: Great. That sounds fine. I'll be 

there officially and October 29th I will officially be 

retired from -- not the Board, from my daily job here.

Dr. Roberts: Congratulations.

Member Kotelchuck: Congratulations. Yes, indeed.

Member Schofield: So, while you're at it, Brad, would 

you quit sending the snow and cold down this way?

Member Clawson: I'll get right on it, Phil.

Member Schofield: I appreciate that. Keep it up in

Idaho where it belongs.

Member Clawson: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Any other reports?

Plans for the December 2020 Board Meeting

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Well, hearing none, we can 
17

move into the next item, which is the plans for the 

December 8th through 9th Board meeting which will 

take place virtually.

Tentatively I have it scheduled for Tuesday, the 8th, 

starting at about 1:15 p.m. Eastern and starting 

about the same time on the next day, the 9th.

So, in terms of just the standard items, I have a 

welcome. We would have the NIOSH program 

update, a DLO and DOE program updates.

In terms of other content, Dave Kotelchuck, how do 

you feel about doing an update? 

Is it possible to provide an update on the dose 

reconstruction review work?

(Pause.)

Dr. Roberts: Dave, if you're on mute, we can't hear 

you.

Member Kotelchuck: Sorry. I was on mute.

As I say, yeah, I'll be glad to give a report. As I've 

said, I don't think it will be an extensive report 

because there's no need for one, but I'll be very glad 

to update folks briefly.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

So, about how much time do you think would be 

appropriate for that?

Member Kotelchuck: Really, just 10 minutes -- 10, 

15 minutes.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: And I don't think we have 

extensive issues because we don't have a report to 

the Secretary to talk about. So -- and we're moving 

right along, so 10 or 15 minutes.

You want to make it 15 minutes?
18

Dr. Roberts: Sure. With some time for discussion or 

are you meaning 15 minutes total?

Member Kotelchuck: Honestly, 15 minutes total. I 

think if -- I don't anticipate much discussion, but you 

can -- then I'll talk for 10 minutes and have 

discussion for five.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Okay. Great. That's good 

clarification.

Member Kotelchuck: Sure.

Dr. Roberts: And Mr. Rutherford said earlier that the 

Y-12 addendum would not be ready in time for the 

December meeting.

But since the Working Group did meet, is there a 

possibility of doing an update on Y-12? And that 

question would be for Bill.

(Pause.)

Dr. Roberts: And, Bill, if you're on mute, we can't 

hear.

Dr. Taulbee: Rashaun, was Bill Field present when 

you went through roll call?

Dr. Roberts: I thought he may be. Let me doublecheck that one.

Participant: I don't think he was. 

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, you're right. Okay. Sorry about 

that. I don't know if there's somebody else that can 

speak on that possibility of doing an update, but I can 

get with him offline. Thanks for planning that out.

Okay. And then, of course, we would have the public 

comment session on the first day of this meeting and 

it would go from -- tentatively from 5:15 to 6:15 p.m. 

Okay?

Some other items that could potentially go on the 

agenda is depending on, I guess, what happens with 
19

the joint meeting between SRS and the SEC Issues 

Work Group as an update on that joint work.

Is that a possibility for the agenda?

Member Clawson: I'd say I think it is.

Member Anderson: I would hope so, yeah.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer. I assume you're just 

talking about a report, not an action item here, right, 

or do you anticipate action, Brad?

Member Clawson: No, I just -- I was saying that I 

think that we would have an update, but we'd be able 

to -- you know, I don't know what we're going to 

come up to with this Work Group right now, but I'm 

sure that it would be good to have a little bit of time 

to be able to bring everybody up to speed, let them 

know where we're at and what our path forward is.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, I agree with that.

Dr. Taulbee: Rashaun, are you still there?

Dr. Roberts: Yes. Yes, actually. I was now talking 

with the mute button on.

So, about how much time would an update like that 

take, roughly?

Member Clawson: I'd say at least an hour because 

we've got an awful lot to cover.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Alright. I will make a note of that. 

Okay. Then we would have room on the agenda for 

an SEC petition status update and qualifications 

process update from Mr. Rutherford.

Also, we would include in the agenda the Board Work 

Session that's typically included. Another possibility 

is including an update on the Santa Susana and De 

Soto Working Group.

So, Phil, what's your thought about that?

(Pause.)
20

Dr. Roberts: Unmute.

Member Schofield: I was going to say that I think 30 

minutes will be enough to update it.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Okay. And then how about 

an update on Metals and Control or, Josie, do you 

think that that's a good thing to include?

Member Beach: Yeah, I could. Just the other thing I 

was also thinking is the Procedures Work Group, I 

think there's a -- I'd have to check in with Kathy, but 

there was a few that we didn't get to at the last 

meeting, I think, that were on the schedule -- maybe 

two meetings ago.

So, I think we're behind in some of the updates for 

Procedures.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Beach: I don't know if anybody is on that 

can address that.

Member Ziemer: This is Ziemer. I'm on Procedures 

also. I think a brief report would be adequate, Josie; 

don't you think? 

I don't think there's anything that we're going to 

require Board action on other than to report what's 

sort of an update report.

Member Beach: I just thought there was some old 

procedures that -- and I know that Ted always had 

SC&A go through them. I can check offline with Kathy 

and get back with you, Rashaun.

And a Metals and Control update probably 15, 20 

minutes --

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

Member Beach: -- just to give you an idea of where 

we're at.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. And you'll let me know 
21

about Procedures.

Are there any other agenda items that we should add 

to this?

Member Ziemer: Could you remind us where we will 

be on Pinellas by then? I think Lavon mentioned it 

earlier and I didn't make a note of it.

What's the timetable on the new petition from 

Pinellas? 

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, yeah, this is 

Lavon. That petition just qualified. 

So, I think it's going to be -- I would suspect the 

August Board meeting next year or, at the earliest, 

the April Board meeting. It will not be in December.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. It's a ways off then. I wasn't 

sure where they were on that. Thanks.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So, we'll wait on Pinellas.

Any other items?

(No response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, hearing none at this time I 

think that pretty much concludes what we are -- what 

we've been talking about.

Okay. What about a general agenda item on Work 

Group and Subcommittee reports? Is that something 

to add to this?

Mr. Rutherford: Rashaun, it's already on there for the 

3:15 to 4:15 period. It's under the Board Work 

Session. It has Work Group/Subcommittee reports.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Yes. You're right. We do have that 

covered.

Okay. Well, if there's nothing else, I think that this is 

a good place to go ahead and adjourn.

Are there any final comments or any final 
22

suggestions?

Member Clawson: Rashaun, this is just Brad. I just 

had a question for Lavon.

On that Pantex petition that you were talking about, 

where are you guys at on that?

Mr. Rutherford: It's in the qualification phase. We 

haven't determined whether it's going to qualify or 

not.

It's a petition for the years after the existing SEC. I 

think it starts in 1992.

Member Clawson: Okay. That's what I was -- I was 

wondering if I could get any kind of information of 

what they were looking at. Usually we don't see it 

until after they have qualified and stuff. 

So, I was just wondering if there was something -- I 

was trying to understand what was left there on that. 

So, I may give you a call to just chat with you.

Mr. Rutherford: Sounds fine.

Member Clawson: Thank you.

Member Valerio: Dr. Roberts?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta again. Sorry, my 

other meeting was cancelled.

You just mentioned that the ethics training that we 

got an email on was in addition to the ethics training 

we took during the Board meeting; is that correct?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Member Valerio: Okay. Alrighty. Thank you so much.

Dr. Roberts: Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Any other questions?
23

(No response.)

Adjourn

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, hearing none, this has been 

quite productive.

Did anybody want to add anything before we 

adjourn?

Member Clawson: Just that everybody have a nice 

day and it's been good to hear everybody again.

Member Beach: Oh, it's been good to hear you on the 

phone, too, Brad.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes, indeed.

(Laughter.)

Member Anderson: Don't forget to vote if you haven't 

already voted.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: Alright. And on that note, we're 

adjourned. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:42 a.m.)