STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING FIFTY-SEVEN 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

ABRWH BOARD MEETING

 

The verbatim transcript of the 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held telephonically on Aug. 5, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Aug. 5, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE 14 

MR. MARK GRIFFON 

WORKGROUP UPDATES 18 

WORKGROUP RESPONSIBILITIES 58 

SELECTION OF THE BOARD CONTRACTOR 67 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE 

TRACKING DATABASE UPDATE 68 

MS. NANCY ADAMS 

MELIUS VOTES UPDATE 71 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE 

MESSAGE FROM DFO 73 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 79 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

BOARD MEMBERS

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

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 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 
5

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 
6

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

HILL, STEVEN, CONG. SHAVITZ 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCKEEL, DAN 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

PICKETT, MATT, CONG. SHIMKUS 

STEPHAN, ROBERT, SEN. OBAMA 

SUNDIN, DAVE, NIOSH 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(11:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, Dr. Ziemer, did you hear 

2 Mr. Presley, that he must leave the call at 

3 noon? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I -- I knew that. I got an 

5 e-mail from Bob. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Good morning, this is the 

7 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

8 meeting number 57. We are doing this by 

9 conference call. It is Tuesday, August 5th, 

10 2008. 

11 I am Dr. Christine Branche and I have the 

12 pleasure of being the Designated Federal 

13 Official for the Advisory Board. I'm going to 

14 do a roll call for the Advisory Board's 

15 members. 

16 Dr. Ziemer? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach? 

19 MS. BEACH: Here. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 
8

1 (No response) 

2 Mr. Gibson? 

3 MR. GIBSON: Here. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, I'm here. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Great. Dr. Lockey, I believe 

7 not. Dr. Melius, just in case? 

8 (No response) 

9 Okay. Ms. Munn? 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

14 (No response) 

15 Dr. Roessler? 

16 DR. ROESSLER: Here. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

18 MR. SCHOFIELD: Here. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: We do have quorum. Just to 

20 begin, I'd like everyone to please, unless they 

21 are speaking, to please mute their phones, and 

22 you can do that by dialing star-6 if you do not 

23 have a mute button. We do ask and we ask 

24 strenuously that you mute your line unless 

25 you're speaking. It allows all of us to hear 
9

1 the speaker. And when you are ready to speak 

2 you can either un-mute your phone with the mute 

3 button or use that same star-6 to un-mute your 

4 line. And we do really appreciate everyone's 

5 cooperation with the -- the mute function. 

6 Thank you so much for your participation. Dr. 

7 Ziemer? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let -- let us determine who 

9 is with us from the agencies and others who may 

10 wish to identify themselves for the record. We 

11 determined -- who is here from NIOSH? 

12 DR. NETON: Jim Neton is on the line. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton, okay. Anyone else? 

14 MR. SUNDIN: Dave Sundin. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: ORAU staff would be next. 

17 (No response) 

18 DR. ZIEMER: No one from ORAU? 

19 (No response) 

20 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A? 

21 DR. MAURO: John Mauro here. Good morning. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, John. Anyone else 

23 from SC&A? 

24 (No response) 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Other federal agency staff? 
10

1 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell. 

4 MR. HILL: Steven Hill from Congressman 

5 Shavitz' office. 

6 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus with HHS. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Petitioners or their 

8 representatives, please? 

9 (No response) 

10 Workers or their representatives, please? If 

11 you could please state your names. 

12 (No response) 

13 Other members of Congress or their 

14 representatives, please? We've heard from one. 

15 MR. PICKETT: Matt Pickett with Congressman 

16 John Shimkus' office. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Others who'd like to mention 

19 their names? 

20 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, could I get 

21 that previous man's name, please? 

22 MR. PICKETT: This is Matt Pickett. I work for 

23 Congressman John Shimkus. 

24 THE COURT REPORTER: All right. Thank you. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any others who'd like 
11

1 to mention their names for the record? 

2 (No response) 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I think that will take care 

4 of it. I officially call the meeting to order. 

5 This is Paul Ziemer speaking, Chairman of the 

6 Advisory Board. 

7 The agenda for our meeting has been posted on 

8 our web site, as well as in the Federal 

9 Register. Our agenda today actually is 

10 somewhat brief compared to past agendas so that 

11 hopefully we will not be all afternoon working 

12 through the items that are before us. 

13 Board members, are there any of you that did 

14 not get a copy of the agenda? 

15 MS. MUNN: Paul and Dr. Branche, this is Wanda. 

16 I have a copy of the agenda. I'm concerned 

17 about one item I -- especially given the 

18 individuals I just heard on the call through 

19 our roll call, the item on the tracking 

20 database update. I had assumed that that was 

21 going to be one of the individuals who is 

22 almost daily involved with that. Is that going 

23 to be Nancy? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Nancy's on the line, I believe. 

25 MS. MUNN: Yes, I just -- I was just trying to 
12

1 verify what you -- what we were anticipating in 

2 the way of an update on that database because 

3 it's fairly extensive and, as Nancy and some of 

4 our SC&A people, as well as our NIOSH folks, 

5 have done a significant amount of work on that 

6 since our -- our most recent meeting, so I was 

7 -- I was concerned about whether the proper 

8 individual to report on that was available or 

9 whether you were expecting me to give you a 

10 third-hand report -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, so you're -- 

12 MS. MUNN: -- which I think we -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- asking whether we're expecting 

14 you to give the report versus -- Nancy Adams, 

15 are you prepared to give that report? 

16 MS. ADAMS: Yes, and it will be short and 

17 sweet. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

19 MS. MUNN: Good, thank you, Nancy. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Let us 

21 proceed then. We'll go through the agenda as 

22 it's been distributed, and I think, Dr. 

23 Branche, do you need to read the redaction 

24 policy? Is that required? 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Actually I thought about it, Dr. 
13

1 Ziemer, and I don't think I need to -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: -- but I'll go ahead and do so 

4 just for the record so that we're all up to 

5 speed. 

6 If a person making a -- this is the redaction 

7 policy. 

8 If a person making a comment gives his or her 

9 name, no attempt will be made to redact that 

10 name. NIOSH will take reasonable steps to 

11 ensure that individuals make public comment -- 

12 making public comment are aware of the fact 

13 that their comments, including their name, if 

14 provided, will appear in a transcript of the 

15 meeting posted on a public web site. Such 

16 reasonable steps include reading the statement, 

17 as I'm doing now, and having the -- having the 

18 redaction policy posted along with the 

19 meeting's agenda in the Federal Register

20 notice. 

21 If an individual, in making a statement, 

22 reveals personal information -- for example, 

23 medical information -- about themselves, that 

24 information will not usually be redacted. The 

25 NIOSH Freedom of Information Act coordinator 
14

1 will, however, review such revelations in 

2 accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 

3 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act and, if 

4 deemed appropriate, will redact such 

5 information. 

6 All disclosures of information concerning third 

7 parties will be redacted. And if for some 

8 reason during the call you would like to bring 

9 information to -- to our attention but you wish 

10 not to do so in a public forum, then you can 

11 contact me. My contact information is on the 

12 web site and we can see about getting your 

13 information to the Advisory Board. 

14 Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Dr. Branche. And 

16 to some extent it may be a moot point because 

17 we don't have an official public comment period 

18 at this meeting, but nonetheless, should the 

19 occasion arise, it's good to have that on the -

20 - the record. 

21 SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE

22 Now let us proceed then with the agenda. The 

23 first item is the Subcommittee on Dose 

24 Reconstruction update and Mark is on the line. 

25 Mark, are you prepared now to give your report? 
15

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this -- this will also be a 

2 -- a brief report, although I just saw your -- 

3 your e-mail, too, Paul, so you might help me 

4 with the update on that. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: But the Subcommittee hasn't met 

7 yet. I just sent an e-mail out recently and I 

8 would like to have a meeting -- I'm still 

9 hoping on the 20th. I know it's not the best 

10 date, but we're running out of time. I would 

11 like to get another meeting in before the 

12 September Board meeting, so August 20th I think 

13 is -- a lot of us are going to be there for -- 

14 the next day for the procedures meeting, and I 

15 think that might -- I might try to stick with 

16 that -- that date, unless anybody strongly 

17 objects. I think we might lose John Poston on 

18 that day, and I don't know if he's -- if he 

19 could dial in or what -- you know, if -- if 

20 that would mean he couldn't participate, I 

21 don't know. But anyway, otherwise there's 

22 really no update since the last Board meeting. 

23 We are -- the last subcommittee meeting we 

24 worked on almost completing the sixth set of 

25 cases and taking a first run through almost the 
16

1 entire seventh set of cases. We didn't quite 

2 finish the seventh set matrix, but we almost 

3 got through it one time. And the sixth set, I 

4 think we're fairly close to -- to resolving 

5 most issues on the sixth set of -- of cases. 

6 So the next meeting I would -- I would plan on 

7 doing the sixth set, the seventh set, and 

8 possibly starting the eighth set. I need to 

9 talk to Stu Hinnefeld. We haven't had NIOSH's 

10 first response to the eighth set of cases yet, 

11 so depending on whether they're ready for that, 

12 we can -- we might be able to start the eighth 

13 set. 

14 So a meeting in Cincinnati on the 20th is -- is 

15 forthcoming. And that's really it. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, you sent me a letter, which 

18 it looks like we need a few final edits, but 

19 it's for the -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- fourth and fifth set, right? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think at our St. Louis 

23 meeting Mark was able to obtain from NIOSH the 

24 -- several of the pieces of information we 

25 needed to insert into the report to the 
17

1 Secretary in terms of the numbers -- total 

2 numbers of cases that had been available to 

3 review at the time that the -- the random 

4 selections were made, and we have those figures 

5 now. I've inserted those into a draft for Mark 

6 to look at -- that is, I've taken his draft and 

7 put it into the letter form to the Secretary. 

8 And I think with those changes having been 

9 made, and I think there's one table that it's 

10 not clear is the right one, we're -- we should 

11 be ready to send that out this week, Mark. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, and I think that 

13 table -- I just got this 20 minutes ago or so, 

14 but I think that table is a old version. We 

15 need to replace it with the new -- the one for 

16 the fourth and fifth set. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: We'll -- we'll -- I'll help you 

19 and we'll edit that. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: The final edit -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: And we'll send everybody a copy of 

23 that as soon as that's ready. 

24 Any questions, Board members, on any of the 

25 information has given and -- or on the upcoming 
18

1 report? 

2 (No response) 

3 WORKGROUP UPDATES

4 If not, we can move on to workgroup updates. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, Blockson Chemical Special 

6 Exposure Cohort SEC petition, Ms. Munn, chair. 

7 MS. MUNN: As the Board members know, Blockson 

8 met extensively during our meeting in St. Louis 

9 in an attempt to try to bring a final 

10 recommendation to the Board. We did discuss 

11 Blockson at the Board meeting because I believe 

12 we've gone about as far as we can go with 

13 respect to addressing the issues that have been 

14 brought before us for this particular site. 

15 That action was tabled until our upcoming 

16 meeting in California, at which time all of the 

17 members of the Board -- one of whom was not 

18 with us and who's a key member of the workgroup 

19 -- will have had an opportunity to review what 

20 transpired during the St. Louis meeting. It's 

21 our expectation that the Blockson 

22 recommendation will be taken off the table in 

23 the California meeting and will be voted on at 

24 that time. We have no plans for additional 

25 meetings prior to that California meeting. 
19

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think also didn't SC&A 

5 commit to formalizing their report on the model 

6 that they -- they looked at for -- regarding 

7 the radon exposures? Or was I mistaken on 

8 that? I thought we asked NI-- asked SC&A to 

9 write that up formally and submit it as a 

10 deliverable rather than have the initial draft 

11 that they had circulated at the last meeting. 

12 MS. MUNN: I didn't have that included in my 

13 notes, but -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- that doesn't mean -- I'd be 

16 working from memory solely if I said yes or no, 

17 and I hesitate to do that. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe John would remember, I 

19 don't -- 

20 DR. MAURO: Yes -- hi, Mark, this is John 

21 Mauro. Yes, we did complete the formalized 

22 report related to the radon issue that was 

23 discussed rather extensively during the 

24 workgroup meeting and we now -- whether it's in 

25 your hands or in PA review, but it's completed. 
20

1 I'm not sure whether it's been through PA 

2 review and is already in your hands -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: No, we haven't received it yet, 

4 so once again -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Then -- then it's -- then it's 

6 imminent. I guess that's the best way to say 

7 it. It's not a large report, and the fact that 

8 you do not physically have it means that it's 

9 right now going through the PA process, so then 

10 -- 

11 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: John, I'm sorry, this is Liz 

12 Homoki. There's no reason that the Advisory 

13 Board members should not have that report just 

14 because it's going through Privacy Act. 

15 DR. MAURO: Okay, that's fine. We could 

16 forward it -- the (unintelligible) now we have 

17 right now. I guess we were expecting that we'd 

18 have it PA reviewed so that then the working 

19 group and the Board of course could distribute 

20 it in an unrestricted manner. I believe it -- 

21 I bel-- 'cause I know I worked with Nancy and 

22 she had indicated -- you know, I guess I was 

23 under the impression it was undergoing PA 

24 review. 

25 MS. MUNN: We will assume then, John, that the 
21

1 workgroup members will have copies of that 

2 sometime in the next few days. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I -- tell you what, if for 

4 any reason -- we -- we could certainly deliver 

5 it directly to you right now because it is 

6 completed. It's -- but then of course it -- it 

7 wouldn't be PA cleared. But eventu-- but it 

8 should be PA cleared pretty quickly. Like I 

9 said, it's a pretty brief report. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the workgroup members can 

11 have that even if it's not cleared -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, and they -- they -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- but they -- they need to make 

14 sure that they don't distribute it outside the 

15 workgroup, or outside the Board, let's say, 

16 prior to the clearance. 

17 MS. MUNN: John, if you would -- if you would 

18 go ahead and forward that to me, I'll take a 

19 look at it and try to get it into the hands of 

20 all the workgroup members yet today. 

21 DR. MAURO: I will take care of that. 

22 MS. MUNN: Thank you so much. And thank you, 

23 Mark, for calling that to my attention. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's proceed. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: The next one is Chapman Valve 
22

1 Special Exposure Cohort SEC petition with Dr. 

2 Poston as the chair. I -- Dr. Ziemer, I don't 

3 know who you wish to give the update, but I can 

4 tell you that Dr. -- this was discussed at the 

5 Advisory Board and Dr. Ziemer and I will be 

6 collecting Dr. Melius's vote over the next week 

7 -- excuse me, there's someone -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I hear multiple voices on the -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: There's someone on the line, if 

10 you -- 

11 MS. MUNN: I'm having a hard time concentrating 

12 on what you're saying. There's someone else 

13 speaking, giving someone instructions about 

14 something behind the barn. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: If everyone who is not speaking 

16 could please mute their phones, we would very 

17 much appreciate it, we very much depend upon 

18 it. If you do not have a mute button, then 

19 please use star-6. 

20 As I was saying, Chapman Valve Special Exposure 

21 Cohort SEC petition on -- Dr. Poston is the 

22 chair. I don't know, Dr. Ziemer, who you would 

23 like to give the update. Messrs. Griffon, 

24 Clawson, Dr. Roessler and Mr. Gibson are all on 

25 that board -- 
23

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me simply report, we 

2 voted on Chapman Valve but the vote is not 

3 complete because it is awaiting Dr. Melius's 

4 vote at -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: And Dr. Ziemer, you and I will be 

6 in a position to collect Dr. -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: -- Melius's vote over the next 

9 couple of weeks -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: -- and certainly before we get to 

12 -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: He is -- Dr. Melius is awaiting 

14 the copy of the transcript so that he can have 

15 the benefit of the full input on the debate, 

16 and he has been informed of what the -- the 

17 vote is at the moment. And then once we have 

18 his vote, we can determine how to proceed from 

19 that point. 

20 At the moment, the -- well, let's just leave it 

21 at that. So the Chapman Valve vote awaits 

22 closure upon the voting of Dr. Melius. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Shall I proceed with the next 

24 one? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 
24

1 DR. BRANCHE: Fernald site profile with Special 

2 Exposure Cohort SEC petition, Mr. Clawson, 

3 chair. Mr. Clawson, have you joined us? 

4 (No response) 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon, Dr. Ziemer, Mr. 

7 Presley and Mr. Schofield are all on that 

8 workgroup. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I mean you can go ahead, Paul. I 

10 think -- I think Brad was trying to set up a 

11 meeting fairly soon. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: There has not been any meeting 

13 since our last report, so I would say other 

14 than preparation of various documents there's -

15 - there's no action or other items to report on 

16 Fernald at the moment. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. And -- 

18 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. Brad wants a 

19 time to set up a possible meeting in September, 

20 if he can, and he's -- I just forgot to mention 

21 that he's at a class in Phoenix right now so he 

22 probably will not be able to join us at all 

23 today. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you for that information. 

25 Hanford site profile with Special Exposure 
25

1 Cohort SEC petition, Dr. Melius is the chair. 

2 Other members include Mr. Clawson, Mr. Poston -

3 - sorry, Dr. Poston, Mr. Schofield and Dr. 

4 Ziemer. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I don't believe that that 

6 group has met since our last meeting, and I 

7 don't believe there's anything additional to 

8 report at the moment. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, Los Alamos Na-- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Other -- other committee members, 

11 any comments -- or workgroup members? 

12 MR. SCHOFIELD: Not at this time. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Los Alamos National Laboratory 

15 site profile and Special Exposure Cohort, Mr. 

16 Griffon, chair. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, no major update at this 

18 point. We're still waiting NIOSH's evaluation 

19 report and the last I talked to them they said 

20 probably in the fall. So we're hoping to 

21 convene a workgroup meeting after we get that 

22 report in our hands, sometime in the fall of 

23 this year. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, I don't know if you 

25 want to do this for the last time because this 
26

1 last workgroup closed at our meeting, but Linde 

2 Ceramics site profile. Dr. Roessler is the 

3 chair -- was the chair. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I believe Linde has 

5 completed their work. Dr. Roessler, do you 

6 have any comments? 

7 DR. ROESSLER: No, I have none. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Mound Special Exposure Cohort SEC 

10 petition, Ms. Beach, chair. 

11 MS. BEACH: Yes, the Mound workgroup met for a 

12 second time in July. We were able to close on 

13 one -- one item on our matrix. The workgroup 

14 has plans to meet again in mid-October, but we 

15 have not scheduled a meeting at this time. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Nevada Test Site profile and 

17 Special Exposure Cohort SEC petition, Mr. 

18 Presley, chair. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: We did meet the last time in St. 

20 Louis. As everybody's aware, SC&A brought up 

21 two issues that continued our work. At this 

22 time I'm waiting for NIOSH and SC&A to get 

23 together to iron out these two issues so that, 

24 hopefully, we can come to the meeting in August 

25 or September with some kind of a decision. 
27

1 Right now there is not a meeting scheduled. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Pinel-- I'm sorry, Dr. Ziemer? 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I just said thank you. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Pinellas Special Exposure Cohort 

6 SEC petition, Mr. Schofield, chair. 

7 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes, we still have some 

8 outstanding issues. One of the -- most of them 

9 related to the (unintelligible) tides and not 

10 only do we have a problem with the -- they're 

11 trying to develop protocol for possible 

12 internal exposures, but we also have some 

13 security concerns that Bob Presley and Brad and 

14 (break in transmission) went to a classified 

15 meeting on, so hopefully we can get guidance 

16 from those to exactly what we can or cannot 

17 discuss. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: So you're really awaiting 

19 resolution of that issue before you -- you can 

20 really proceed with the detailed actions of the 

21 workgroup, it appears. Right? 

22 (No response) 

23 Is that correct? 

24 MR. SCHOFIELD: That would be a correct 

25 assessment. 
28

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Procedures review, Ms. Munn, 

3 chair. 

4 MS. MUNN: The procedures review met separately 

5 earlier, in July, with an attempt to try to 

6 cover as much as possible of our first set of 

7 issues that were still outstanding from the 

8 first group of procedures that we had 

9 completed. 

10 During that same period of time the first of 

11 our reports to the Secretary relating the 

12 status of this workgroup was completed and 

13 transmittal was made, which was, we feel, a 

14 major milestone. We had not been able to 

15 finalize the -- some of the language in that 

16 until just this month, so we're very pleased 

17 that that's gone and out of the way. 

18 During our meeting in July we went through all 

19 of the outstanding issues from set one, 

20 eliminated a great many of them, consolidated a 

21 great deal more, and we think are ready to 

22 handle those in a more expedient manner. 

23 Everyone's concerned that they are still 

24 outstanding and that we've worked on them so 

25 long. 
29

1 We have a meeting scheduled in Cincinnati on 

2 the 21st of August, which will be an all-day 

3 meeting. At that time we'll review what we did 

4 with -- whether anything has progressed on the 

5 outstanding set number one, and we intend to 

6 begin our address of the set two group of 

7 procedures during that all-day meeting, come to 

8 some conclusion about the status we expect for 

9 the third set -- whether that database is going 

10 to be populated by that period of time or not, 

11 but by the September meeting. We think there 

12 may be too many time constraints to move 

13 forward very quickly with the third set, but 

14 we're going to attempt to do that, in any case. 

15 The workgroup will also meet in Redondo Beach 

16 following the full Board meeting in September. 

17 The procedures group will remain on Thursday 

18 afternoon and will try to establish a fairly 

19 firm schedule for how we're going to proceed 

20 from that juncture. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Rocky Flats site profile and 

23 Special Exposure Cohort SEC petition, Mr. 

24 Griffon, chair. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the one remaining item I 
30

1 need to -- I -- I did say I would talk to the 

2 Department of Labor about the -- a little more 

3 follow-up on the implementation of the class 

4 and -- and give a closeout report on that issue 

5 that we've had a few workgroup calls on. I -- 

6 I just tried to make contact with Jeff today, 

7 I'm -- and hopefully try to set up a call with 

8 Jeff Kotsch later this week and resolve that. 

9 I'll try to report out on that at the full 

10 Board meeting. And that's it. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Santa Susana Field Laboratory and 

12 Special Exposure Cohort SEC petition, Mr. 

13 Gibson, chair. 

14 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Branche, the workgroup is 

15 still awaiting the Santa Susana site profile 

16 review from SC&A. I think it -- I think it was 

17 cleared by DOE and now it's going through their 

18 privacy reduction or whatever. Hopefully we'll 

19 have that soon and we're still looking to have 

20 a meeting, hopefully late August, before the 

21 full Board meeting. If not, it'll probably be 

22 later in September before we meet. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. Let me ask again, 

24 did you say you're awaiting the clearance of 

25 that? Is this one of those issues again where 
31

1 the workgroup could actually have the report? 

2 MS. HOWELL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Emily Howell. 

3 We do have that for Privacy Act review, but as 

4 Liz stated earlier, the practice had always 

5 been in the past that the non-Privacy Act6 reviewed materials that SC&A produced can go to 

7 the proper workgroups at that time. So if John 

8 Mauro was on the phone, I'm not sure that 

9 there's any reason why that has not been sent 

10 to the appropriate workgroup. 

11 (NOTE: Severe transmission interference 

12 occurred throughout Dr. Mauro's comments in the 

13 following exchange.) 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John. You're correct, 

15 we -- we did not send it directly as a major 

16 deliverable. But quite frankly, this is a -- 

17 we are trying to minimize the number of 

18 products that is -- that's -- for example, we 

19 could send you the non-PA-reviewed document and 

20 then of course shortly thereafter you would all 

21 receive the PA-reviewed document. If it's your 

22 preference that we transmit the non-PA-reviewed 

23 document for any -- you know, for pressure of 

24 time -- time, we would glad -- be glad to do 

25 that, your choice. If you'd like, we could 
32

1 have that non-PA-reviewed document sent out to 

2 the full Board at this time, if so desired. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. John, are most of 

4 the Board members receiving these 

5 electronically anyway -- 

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, what we -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- as opposed to having you run 

8 off multiple copies on paper? 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, we do send it out 

10 electronically and leave it up to each 

11 individual. If they wish to have a hard copy, 

12 we will then forward a hard copy. We don't 

13 automatically send a hard copy. It's just too 

14 much paper. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. Well, it just 

16 occurred to me if it -- if it can mainly be 

17 done electronically, that's fairly easy I think 

18 for distribution, is it not? 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, it is, and we'll -- and we 

20 will then proceed with that process on all our 

21 products, if that's your preference. Once we 

22 have our document ready for PA review, we will 

23 simultaneously send it out to either the 

24 workgroup or the full Board, as appropriate, 

25 and simultaneously to CDC for PA review. We 
33

1 have not been using that as a -- our standard -

2 - our standard mode of operation. We -- we 

3 have been going through PA first, unless there 

4 is a specific request to get a document in the 

5 Board's hands as soon as possible. But what 

6 we'll do from now on is send out the non-PA7 reviewed document as -- as a matter of 

8 (unintelligible). 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that may be a judgment 

10 thing. I think I'd be concerned if workgroups 

11 are waiting, you know, a month or two for -- I 

12 don't know how extensive this particular 

13 document is, but how long has it been out in 

14 review and the workgroup sort of seems to be 

15 awaiting it? You may not have that (electronic 

16 interference) -- 

17 DR. MAURO: I -- I don't -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: That's more rhetorical, I guess. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I mean I could help out if -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: You get the point -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: I know it went out -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- if it's a couple of days for 

23 the review, that's one thing. If we're talking 

24 about a month, then the workgroups probably 

25 need to go ahead and be able to move. 
34

1 DR. MAURO: My experience is the turnaround 

2 time is very quick, within a week, we do get -- 

3 we put out our -- our document to Emily and 

4 Liz, and within a few days we get it back. 

5 That's been pretty consistent. So for that 

6 reason, we -- we have been going to the two7 step process, just to avoid any confusion in 

8 having these multiple drafts floating around. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well -- well, as long as 

10 it's not holding things up or if there's -- you 

11 know, if -- if the workgroup knew that it was 

12 going to be out within X number of days, then 

13 they can go ahead and -- and schedule their 

14 meeting accordingly. I don't know how others 

15 feel, do -- do you want to get the -- I mean -- 

16 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Hello, Dr. -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- in this case Mike probably, if 

18 you knew you were going to get the report in 

19 say three days, then your workgroup could go 

20 ahead and figure out when they should meet, I 

21 suppose. 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. Ziemer, this is Liz 

23 Homoki-Titus. As we've done in the past, Nancy 

24 with SC&A can always let us know if a document 

25 is urgent and needs to be turned around 
35

1 immediately so that the work-- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

3 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- (electronic interference) 

4 or whatever and we, you know, try to 

5 accommodate the best that we can those type of 

6 requests. Otherwise, you know, we've committed 

7 to try to turn around documents within a week 

8 of receiving them. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. That seems reasonable. 

10 Are we okay then? 

11 MS. MUNN: Well, are we -- 

12 DR. MAURO: This is John. My question, Paul, 

13 is should we go ahead and forward the non-PA 

14 version of Santa Susana or just sit tight a 

15 little bit? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

17 MR. GIBSON: Yes -- yes, please send it. 

18 DR. MAURO: You've got it. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Send it to the workgroup. 

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay? Let's proceed. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Savannah River Site profile, Mr. 

23 Griffon, chair. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there's no update on that, 

25 I -- I was actually planning a meeting in the 
36

1 fall of this year, but I think I -- I'm -- I 

2 was just looking for an e-mail I received that 

3 said that the evaluation report for the SEC 

4 might be delayed on that. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: It will be delayed, I -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- I got a letter from Larry 

8 Elliott and I distributed copies to the -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- Board members, I think a week 

11 or so ago, where Larry delineated the -- the 

12 items that were causing delay. I -- I don't -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- think they were -- it's not 

15 that the site is not -- is being uncooperative, 

16 but I think it's more a matter of the extent of 

17 the -- of the kinds of information that are 

18 being sought, and Larry spelled out, you know, 

19 when requests remained and when things were -- 

20 were received and what they're awaiting and so 

21 on. And the net result -- and I don't know if 

22 Dave Sundin or -- or Jim Neton can speak to 

23 this, but I think that the net result is there 

24 will be a delay in the evaluation report. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, I -- 
37

1 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Larry's on the line, okay. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: And you're -- you're absolutely 

3 correct, Dr. Ziemer. We've had good 

4 cooperation, but the scope of the review that 

5 we have underway is so huge that it's taking a 

6 considerable amount of time for all of this 

7 information to be identified, gathered and 

8 assembled for review. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I -- I was just going 

10 to offer to talk with -- Sam Glover's been our 

11 contact on that and -- and try to schedule the 

12 meeting when we would be most productive, so I 

13 -- I -- you know, I would coordinate with Sam 

14 on that. And it may be that we won't be doing 

15 anything this fall, but I want to touch base 

16 with Sam and see when it makes most sense to 

17 have that meeting. And that -- that's the only 

18 update. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Special Exposure Cohort SEC 

21 issues group, including 250-day issue and 

22 preliminary review of 83.14 SEC petitions, Dr. 

23 Melius, chair. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we may be able to pick up a 

25 report on that one when Dr. Melius comes on the 
38

1 line shortly after noon. I -- I can tell you -

2 - in fact, I'll just read it for you here, just 

3 a moment -- pick it up. No, maybe I -- oh, 

4 here it is. 

5 Dr. Melius said this: (Reading) The SEC 

6 evaluation workgroup is supposed to review Dow. 

7 SC&A's report should be done and ready for 

8 review within the next few weeks. Once this 

9 occurs I will schedule a workgroup meeting to 

10 discuss the report. (Electronic interference) 

11 travel issues and uncertainty, we may 

12 eventually have a conference call to identify 

13 issues, plan our review and so forth, and then 

14 determine next steps. This should take place 

15 sometime in September. 

16 So I think what he's saying is the focus of 

17 that SEC evaluation workgroup will be on the 

18 Dow Madison issues. And if he comes on the 

19 line, he may wish to add to that. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Before I go on, Dr. Ziemer, it 

21 was a little difficult to hear what you were 

22 saying. I wonder if everyone could please 

23 check to make certain that your lines are 

24 muted, because there is some background noise. 

25 If you do not have a mute button, then please 
39

1 use star-6. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, should -- should I repeat 

3 that or -- Ray, did you get that okay? 

4 THE COURT REPORTER: I wish you would please 

5 repeat it. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I'll read it -- 

7 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- here -- here it is. I'm 

9 reading from an e-mail from Dr. Melius which he 

10 sent yesterday. He said (Reading) The SEC 

11 evaluation workgroup is supposed to review Dow. 

12 SC&A's report should be done and ready for 

13 public review in the next few weeks. Once that 

14 occurs, I will schedule a workgroup meeting to 

15 discuss the report. Given the year-end travel 

16 issues and uncertainty about the report timing, 

17 I think that we will initially have a 

18 conference call to identify issues, plan our 

19 review and so on, and then see about next 

20 steps. This should take place sometime in 

21 September. 

22 And that is his report on that. 

23 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. -- Dr. Ziemer? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

25 MR. STEPHAN: This is Robert with Senator 
40

1 Obama's office. Who was -- who was that from? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That was from Dr. Melius. 

3 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: He's the chair of that group. 

5 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Use of surrogate data, Dr. 

8 Melius is the chair of that group as well. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I think again we'll have to await 

10 his coming on the line, unless one of the other 

11 members of the surrogate group is aboard or can 

12 report. 

13 MS. MUNN: The group has -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Beach, Griffon, Lockey, Munn. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes, we've not had -- we -- we've 

16 had one brief phone meeting, but there are 

17 several items that are being worked, I believe, 

18 between NIOSH and SC&A with respect to one or 

19 two of the concerns that the workgroup has. To 

20 the best of my knowledge, there is not a 

21 current schedule for the next meeting of the 

22 surrogate data, and I'm not certain exactly 

23 what is being held aside for that meeting. I 

24 believe Dr. Melius has a specific -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, one of the assignments for 
41

1 this particular group was the Texas City 

2 Chemicals issues -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- and the use of the surrogate 

5 data model there. And I believe that SC&A has 

6 completed or -- or -- John, you'll have to give 

7 me a quick update here, but I -- 

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think has completed a -- 

10 their report on -- on that use of surrogate 

11 data in the Texas City case. In fact there 

12 were some -- I -- I think Dr. McKeel had raised 

13 some concerns about, process-wise, whether -- 

14 whether or not the Board would first approve 

15 the surrogate data model before it was applied 

16 to Texas City Chemical or whether we would use 

17 the application as a sort of template to see 

18 how it worked. But aside from that, I think 

19 that's -- that's the current involvement. And 

20 John Mauro, can you also add to that? 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, you're correct. 

22 The Texas City report has been delivered as a 

23 PC-cleared document, and it includes a separate 

24 chapter, stand-alone, which addresses 

25 specifically the criteria -- the draft criteria 
42

1 that was developed by the working group on 

2 surrogate data to explore -- well, first of 

3 all, to assess Texas City strat-- approach -- 

4 site profile review and evaluation report 

5 against those four criteria, but -- and so 

6 actually we have sort of a scorecard, the 

7 degree to which the Texas City exposure matrix, 

8 so to speak, meets or satisfies the four 

9 criteria. But independent of that, we also 

10 used that exercise as a way to evaluate areas 

11 in the -- amongst the cri-- draft criteria that 

12 might require improvement. Other words, other 

13 perhaps criteria that might be added that could 

14 help better serve the process. 

15 So yes, there is quite a bit of information in 

16 the Texas City review that we submitted 

17 relatively recently that might be helpful to 

18 the surrogate workgroup. 

19 MS. MUNN: And John, this is Wanda, was I not 

20 correct that there was to be some -- some 

21 technical informat-- some technical interaction 

22 with NIOSH staff before we schedule the next 

23 surrogate data working group meeting? That was 

24 my memory. 

25 DR. MAURO: You know, I have to apologize, I 
43

1 don't recall if there -- you know, such an 

2 interaction -- 

3 MS. MUNN: I thought there was going to be a 

4 response to your comments -- 

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, oh -- 

6 MS. MUNN: -- in that report. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- oh, okay. Yeah, they're there -

8 - by the way, we also have a simpler document 

9 that addresses surrogate data in -- in 

10 Blockson. So really we -- we -- in effect -- 

11 and I put out a -- a special report. So in 

12 effect we have two reviews, both are AWE 

13 facilities -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

15 DR. MAURO: -- Blockson and Texas City, both of 

16 which have special reports associated with them 

17 related to the surrogate data issue. And we 

18 have, you know, submitted those documents, but 

19 we have not yet had any interaction or feedback 

20 from the workgroup or -- the workgroups or 

21 NIOSH regarding those matters. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, as a -- as a first step 

23 here, and since the chairman is not aboard 

24 again, I don't want to exercise his 

25 prerogative, but let me ask this question. Do 
44

1 all the members of the workgroup have the SC&A 

2 report at this point? 

3 MS. BEACH: Yes, I do. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So as a first step in -- in 

5 preparation, obviously you're going to have to 

6 have a meeting soon and the -- the chair will 

7 take care of setting that up. That is the 

8 chair of the workgroup, Dr. Melius. And in the 

9 meantime, you have your homework assignment 

10 before you, which is to make sure you review 

11 the SC&A report and the application of the 

12 surrogate data criteria to the Texas City site 

13 in particular, as well as the other -- as the 

14 other one. And I -- 

15 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Dan McKeel. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Hello, Dan. 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Hi. Could I make just a very 

18 brief comment? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly can. 

20 DR. MCKEEL: You summarized my concern very 

21 well, but I would just like to comment that I 

22 wish someone on the Board would look back at 

23 the transcript of -- I -- you know, it wa-- I 

24 guess it was the last Board meeting to talk 

25 about this issue. And as I remember it, the 
45

1 charge was that the -- the comment from the 

2 Board was that the Board needed to first 

3 approve those four draft criteria for the 

4 surrogate data use and then, having approved 

5 those, then they could be applied to -- to 

6 sites. And while I'm in 100 percent agreement 

7 that Texas City would be a great place to apply 

8 those criteria, what I was concerned about was 

9 that it was done in a different manner than the 

10 Board had suggested was the proper way to 

11 proceed, because not -- I mean SC&A's 

12 publication of those criteria was the first 

13 time I'd ever seen them. Which is okay, but 

14 you know, they have not been approved by the 

15 Board, and what I'm concerned about is this was 

16 our chance to have SC&A review Texas City's 

17 evaluation report by NIOSH and they were doing 

18 so with just draft criteria. So although I 

19 welcome their report, that concern still 

20 lingers on. I don't know how to resolve it 

21 further, but -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and I appreciate that 

23 comment, and actually I'll just mention to the 

24 Board members that Dan did e-mail me earlier -- 

25 I guess it was a week or so ago -- asking about 
46

1 that. And -- and he's quite correct in terms 

2 of what appears to be what we said at the Board 

3 meeting, the general idea that we would approve 

4 some criterion and that they would be applied. 

5 As a practical matter in the way that we 

6 operate with the SC&A materials, we're often in 

7 a position of having -- working with comments 

8 which do not necessarily represent Board 

9 positions or -- or whatever, and this has sort 

10 of always been the case. It -- it's not always 

11 clear what the most practical way to proceed 

12 is. I think ideally, approving the criteria in 

13 advance, as -- as Dr. McKeel had suggested, 

14 certainly is -- is the way one would want to 

15 go. I -- I think as a practical matter, as 

16 it's working out, what -- what may be helpful 

17 is as -- as opposed to approving criteria in a 

18 vacuum is having some actual cases to see how 

19 well criteria work. So it -- it may not be a 

20 bad thing to -- to have some actual situations 

21 such as the Texas City Chemical. But certainly 

22 at some point the Board has to approve the 

23 criteria, and if those are the wrong ones, then 

24 -- then we've gotten ahead of ourselves and -- 

25 you know, but I -- I think your point is well 
47

1 made, Dr. McKeel. And it's not always clear 

2 whether or not we're always smart enough to 

3 figure out what criteria should be when done in 

4 the absence of real world situations, so I -- 

5 I'm hopeful we'll find a suitable bottom line 

6 on this, even though it -- we may be a little 

7 ahead of the headlights in this particular 

8 case. But we'll ask the surrogate data 

9 workgroup and the -- the folks who they're 

10 aware of this situation, aware that they're 

11 working with some criteria in that report that 

12 the Board has not actually approved, so you 

13 need to have that in the back of your mind as 

14 you review it. Simply don't blindly apply the 

15 criteria to Texas City Chemical and see whether 

16 -- whether it matches. You've got to say well, 

17 are they the right criteria to start with. So 

18 that word of caution since this has already 

19 occurred, well, we're going to have to take it 

20 as it is, I think. 

21 Any other comments on that? Dr. McKeel, you 

22 can certainly reply to that if you wish. 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I -- I appreciate your 

24 sentiments and think that's the correct way to 

25 analyze it. I just want to make sure that the 
48

1 Board members and workgroup members were aware 

2 of that kind of history -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

4 DR. MCKEEL: -- of what's going on. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

6 DR. MCKEEL: That's great. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, thank you. Okay, I think we 

8 can proceed here. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: The last group on the list is 

10 worker outreach, Mr. Gibson, chair. 

11 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Dr. Branche, NIOSH is still 

12 making progress on their revised database and 

13 their updated procedure, and we're awaiting 

14 that to review. And there are a couple more 

15 outreach meetings scheduled. I believe one of 

16 them's been set for later in September with 

17 some of the workers at Brookhaven, and I think 

18 there's one being planned for some of the folks 

19 out at -- the workers out at Los Alamos. 

20 That's about it on that. 

21 MS. MUNN: And the workgroup meeting at Hanford 

22 was well-attended. Josie was very active 

23 there. So was Brad, and I was an observer. 

24 There were three meetings held, and all three 

25 had significant attendance and a great deal of 
49

1 interaction. I think they were successful 

2 meetings, don't you think, Josie? 

3 MS. BEACH: Yes, I'd have to agree with you on 

4 that, Wanda. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, Wanda, if 

6 I may -- those were DOL-sponsored meetings -- 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes, I know they were. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to explain how they were going 

9 to adjudicate the classes that have been added. 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes, they were indeed. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: Not part of the regular worker 

12 outreach schedule that -- that Mike was 

13 speaking of. 

14 MS. MUNN: That we do. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes, that's true. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, there is actually one other 

18 workgroup, and that is the 6000 and 6001 

19 workgroup that was established at our last 

20 meeting. 

21 MS. MUNN: Yes, my apologies for not having 

22 mentioned that during the procedures group. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's all right -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: My apologies for not having 

25 mentioned it as a member of the list. 
50

1 MS. MUNN: Right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That workgroup is Josie Beach and 

3 Mark Griffon, John Poston, Wanda Munn, and I'm 

4 serving as chair of that. We are actually in 

5 the process of trying to set up a meeting and 

6 in the process of getting the dates -- and 

7 incidentally, for the members of that 

8 particular group who've sent me theirs, and we 

9 were looking at August 26, 27, September 9th 

10 and 18th -- the only common date where all of 

11 us are free is August 27th. 

12 Now, there's one other complication. We do not 

13 yet have an official OCAS representative and an 

14 official SC&A representative for that 

15 workgroup. So before we go any further we need 

16 to do that. This is -- this is -- this is TBD17 6000, 6001 and the appendices, and with 

18 particular focus right now on Appendix BB. So 

19 let me ask Larry, can you identify who would be 

20 the appropriate NIOSH contact for that 

21 workgroup? 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Dave Allen will be your OCAS 

23 contact. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Dave Allen, okay. And how about 

25 for SC&A? 
51

1 DR. MAURO: It would be me, John Mauro -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- even though there were multiple 

4 people who worked on it, but I -- I guess it's 

5 best for me to be the point man on those three 

6 areas, TBD-1 -- 6000, 6001 and Appendix BB. So 

7 yes, I'll serve as the point man on that. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask very quickly, 

9 John -- and if we -- if we can't resolve this 

10 right here, we'll do it off-line, but are you 

11 available April (sic) 27th? 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, you mean August 27th. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: August, yeah, we-- we're not going 

15 to put it off till April, August 27. And is 

16 John -- or Dave Allen, do we know if he's 

17 available? 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: He's not on the line. We'd have 

19 to check. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I'll check with him 

21 separate and then -- in any event, the report 

22 is right now that the -- the workgroup is 

23 trying to set up its initial meeting and we 

24 will go from there. Okay? 

25 MS. BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 
52

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Josie? 

2 MS. BEACH: If it's possible, I am leaving town 

3 on the 8th and I'll be gone for two weeks out 

4 of the country, so if we could -- if you have 

5 that information by Thursday so I can -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'll try to -- 

7 MS. BEACH: -- send the information to Zaida -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I'll -- I'll try to -- 

9 MS. BEACH: -- that'd be great. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- do that as quickly as I can. 

11 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Okay, very good. Any 

13 other comments on the workgroup updates? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Paul -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- one more workgroup -- I think 

17 it got taken off the list, but the Y-12 

18 workgroup, there's still some outstanding site 

19 profile review issues, and actually just 

20 recently I sent to LaVon and to Jim Neton -- I 

21 might have only sent it to LaVon -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: There is no Y-12 workgroup. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: But then it has to be re-- you 

24 know, put back on the list, I guess, 'cause 

25 there used to be a Y-12 workgroup. 
53

1 DR. BRANCHE: It's been quite some time. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: I mean in my tenure there's not 

4 been -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: We closed out the SEC but we 

6 never closed out the site profile is what -- is 

7 currently where it stood. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Did we have a workgroup way back 

9 on Y-12? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, we did, yeah. 

11 DR. NETON: I think one of the first. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. It was right after -- 

13 DR. NETON: Bethlehem Steel. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, or -- or I was thinking of 

15 Mallinckrodt, but -- 

16 DR. NETON: Mallinckrodt (unintelligible). 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- anyway, it was right in there 

18 and -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, actually we should continue 

20 to carry that on our list, as we are doing with 

21 the -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we need to. I 

23 think we -- I sent a -- the most current 

24 version of the matrix that I had to LaVon 

25 'cause they -- I -- you know, they wanted to 
54

1 see where we had left it -- where we had left 

2 off on it. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: On -- on the most recent listing 

4 that Zaida sent out, there's -- on the third 

5 page there's something called "closed and 

6 completed working groups." 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, I'm having a hard time 

8 hearing you. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: The third page of what -- the 

10 listing of workgroup members that Zaida sent 

11 out in July, it lists "closed and completed 

12 workgroups", including conflict of interest, 

13 SEC petitions not qualified, and Linde. I'm 

14 saying we should have put -- we should add Y-12 

15 to that list, I guess, if it's truly closed 

16 out. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Well, Paul, this is Christine. 

18 Y-12 has not been a workgroup of which I've 

19 been aware in my tenure, or -- or Zaida's, for 

20 that matter -- so I think Dr. Neton was the one 

21 who said it was quite a while back that Y-12 

22 was a group, so -- 

23 DR. NETON: Let me -- I think -- Christine, I 

24 think I can explain this a little bit. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 
55

1 DR. NETON: Early on in the -- in the 

2 development there were not separate workgroups 

3 for site profile reviews. There was one 

4 workgroup, if you remember way back when, and 

5 they handled multiple tasks. And then Y-12 was 

6 in that multiple workgroup and then it split 

7 off into becoming an SEC workgroup and that -- 

8 that has been closed. But there remains a 

9 number of open items on the site profile review 

10 that was conducted by SC&A some time ago that 

11 need -- that need to be closed. So the SEC 

12 workgroup I think would be the appropriate 

13 group to reconvene to finish the site profile 

14 review. 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that was in the 2005/2006 -- 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, it's been some time. 

17 MS. MUNN: -- time frame. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's definitely been a 

20 while and (unintelligible) -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- we'll need to look back and see 

22 who was involved in that and maybe either 

23 react-- maybe reactivate it at this point, so -

24 - 

25 MS. BEACH: And Paul, I have a question -- this 
56

1 is Josie -- on workgroup issues, before we move 

2 on. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

4 MS. BEACH: And I'm not sure how this is 

5 handled. Maybe one of you guys can tell me. 

6 If we have an item on our matrix from a 

7 workgroup meeting that has been determined to 

8 be a site profile issue and not an SEC issue, 

9 is there a mechanism to track those issues so 

10 that we can go back and -- and determine if 

11 that site profile has been updated? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: I think in principle there is. If 

13 there's a -- there should be a site profile 

14 matrix. It may not be one that your workgroup 

15 is working with at tha-- at that point, but -- 

16 MS. BEACH: That -- that's my concern, because 

17 when it was brought up in our workgroup meeting 

18 for Mound, nobody could clearly tell me how 

19 those issues are tracked once it's been 

20 determined to be a site profile issue. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in -- in principle -- and I 

22 think what's -- what happens in some of these 

23 cases like Mound where the pressing issue is 

24 the SEC, but at some point the site profile 

25 itself has to be addressed as well as the SEC, 
57

1 and so there should be -- you -- you have the -

2 - you have the SE-- you have the SC&A findings 

3 which start the -- sort of the -- well, in fact 

4 now I think, John, you're putting them in a 

5 matrix form. Is that not correct? 

6 DR. MAURO: That's correct. Every one of our -

7 - 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right, so there is -- there is a -

9 - a, quote, matrix. Whether or not the -- we 

10 have the NIOSH responses to all those -- in 

11 many cases we've -- like in the SEC cases, 

12 we've picked out the items that are SEC13 specific and addressed them. If it's 

14 determined to be a -- a site profile issue, 

15 then it should -- you know, it should appear in 

16 that matrix. We will have to at some point go 

17 back, in a case like Mound, and make sure that 

18 the matrix itself for the site profile is 

19 brought to closure. 

20 MS. BEACH: Okay. And that was my concern -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

22 MS. BEACH: -- that we would lose track of some 

23 of these, so -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Right, so -- 

25 MS. BEACH: Okay, thanks. 
58

1 WORKGROUP RESPONSIBILITIES

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, let's proceed. Next 

3 item is workgroup responsibilities. I actually 

4 e-mailed out to you this morning -- you 

5 probably haven't all seen it yet -- a -- an 

6 updated version of the -- of the workgroup 

7 responsibilities list that we distributed at 

8 our meeting in St. Louis. The -- the idea here 

9 is this is -- these are to go on the web site, 

10 they're -- they're a brief compilation of the -

11 - of the responsibilities of each of the 

12 workgroups. Following that meeting I received 

13 comments from several individuals on rewording 

14 of some of the items, and I've incorporated 

15 those rewordings in the revised copy, which I 

16 actually distributed early this morning by e17 mail, with the revisions marked in red. So -- 

18 and I don't know if you all have that, and we 

19 don't necessarily have to take formal action on 

20 these. What we had agreed to last time was 

21 that these descriptions were appropriate for 

22 use on the web site, that you would be allowed 

23 to make editorial changes or clarify things, 

24 and then at some point we would consider them 

25 ready. I believe that they are now ready to go 
59

1 on the web site with the changes that have been 

2 incorporated. And I'll just tell you very 

3 briefly what those changes are. That is I'll -

4 - I'll identify the particular workgroups where 

5 wording changes have been made, and they are as 

6 follows: 

7 The conflict of interest Board policy 

8 workgroup, which is inactive, we reworded that 

9 one based on a recommendation from Emily 

10 Howell. So you'll see some better words in 

11 there than I had originally. 

12 The Rocky Flats description was changed 

13 slightly at the request of Mark, just a -- just 

14 some minor rewording, no change in the overall 

15 thrust of the responsibilities. 

16 The SEC issues group -- I have added a 

17 statement at the end of that one saying this 

18 workgroup was also assigned the responsibility 

19 of reviewing the Dow Madison SEC petition and 

20 related documents, and developing a 

21 recommendation for the Board, so that has been 

22 added. 

23 The surrogate data group I've added this 

24 sentence: "This workgroup was asked to 

25 consider the application of surrogate data 
60

1 criteria to the Texas Chemical site in relation 

2 to the SEC petition for that facility." These 

3 were added just to make sure that, in addition 

4 to the general responsibilities, those 

5 particular sites were called out. 

6 And then I've added a brief description of the 

7 responsibilities of TBD-6000 and 6001, and this 

8 is new so let me read it for the record. 

9 (Reading) TBD-6000 and 6001 workgroup. This 

10 workgroup is responsible for the review of the 

11 specified TBDs, as well as the appendices that 

12 apply to specific work sites. They will also 

13 review any reports developed by the Board's 

14 contractor, SC&A, pertaining to these TBDs and 

15 the appendices, and will assist NIOSH and SC&A 

16 in resolving issues that arise through the 

17 review process. The initial focus of the 

18 workgroup will be on Appendix BB of TBD-6000, 

19 dealing with General Steel Industries (Granite 

20 City Steel). The workgroup will make 

21 recommendations to the Board in cases where 

22 appendices involve sites with SEC petitions. 

23 So with those changes, I -- I'd like to see if 

24 there's any additional comments Board members 

25 might have before we instruct Chris to go ahead 
61

1 and put things on the web site. 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul, this is Wanda. In 

3 scanning through these this morning, when I got 

4 to procedures review and the first sentence 

5 says the workgroup's responsible for reviewing 

6 the outcomes of SC&A Task III, and a little red 

7 flag went up in my head saying Task III is over 

8 and done with. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Where -- where is this now? 

10 MS. MUNN: Oh -- procedures review. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, on the procedures reviews? 

12 MS. MUNN: Yes, as you will recall from -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

14 MS. MUNN: -- SC&A's most recent monthly 

15 report, they've now -- you know, for accounting 

16 purposes, SC&A's Task III has been completed 

17 and closed out. The responsibilities were 

18 transferred to Task I. So I suggested -- I was 

19 going to suggest the addition of three words, 

20 following "Task III", to say "and related 

21 assignments", rather than try to get into what 

22 gets transferred where. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So it would say "The 

24 workgroup is responsible for reviewing" -- and 

25 it's not reviewing Task III, it's the outcomes 
62

1 of Task III -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Reviewing any outcomes of -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- and related -- 

4 MS. MUNN: -- SC&A -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- and related assignments. 

6 MS. MUNN: -- Task III and related assignments. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: That's fine. 

8 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, this is John Mauro. 

9 Wanda, if I may, as we put out work products 

10 related to procedures reviews -- 

11 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- what normally would have been 

13 under Task III, I had -- even though we are 

14 keeping accounting of -- we're charging our 

15 time against Task I, as directed by the Board, 

16 when we put out our deliverable we still call 

17 it Task III. Should -- perhaps -- on our cover 

18 page. Perhaps we should have a little notation 

19 -- I'm thinking out loud right now -- so that 

20 everyone's aware that -- that though this is 

21 within the scope of Task III, it's actually, 

22 for accounting purposes, you know, being 

23 charged against Task I. 

24 MS. MUNN: I don't know whether that's 

25 necessary or not -- 
63

1 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think -- I don't think 

2 here that it's necessary, John. 

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think that -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we know that Task III is the 

5 procedures review. I think Wanda's wording 

6 gives you -- gives us enough wiggle room here 

7 that if -- you know, if there's a Task I 

8 billing of it, this -- nobody's going to argue 

9 it, but it's still related to the review 

10 process. 

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: So I think these words will cover 

13 it. I -- that's a good addition. It keeps it 

14 -- the scope where it needs to be, so -- and I 

15 don't think we need further detail in -- in 

16 this particular document. 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Dan McKeel. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Dan. 

19 DR. MCKEEL: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I 

20 noticed when you read the new wording for your 

21 new workgroup on TBD 6000 and 6001, and you 

22 mentioned after -- in the part about the 

23 initial focus will be on General Steel 

24 Industries (Granite City Steel), I just wanted 

25 to comment -- you know, it took us two years, 
64

1 with lots of input from John Ramspott and I, to 

2 convince all the agencies that Granite City 

3 Steel was a completely separate physical place 

4 -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- 

6 DR. MCKEEL: -- and I think that -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: -- I will remove that, I -- 

8 DR. MCKEEL: -- could lead to confusion. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- had put it in because a number 

10 of our early documents were identifying it that 

11 way, but -- 

12 DR. MCKEEL: It would be a lot clearer to just 

13 -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'll just leave that out. 

15 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you very much. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: I appreciate that comment. 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you very much. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Just leave it as General Steel 

19 Industries and then there won't be any question 

20 on it. 

21 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Paul? 
65

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Two thing-- I mean I think maybe 

3 a careful editorial read through this, but I 

4 just glanced at it and I saw something similar 

5 to the Rocky Flats comment I had before. For 

6 Savannah River the second line says "to review 

7 the SC&A review of the Hanford site profile", 

8 and I think the cutting and pasting, you know -

9 - it's a cut-and-paste error, I think. It 

10 should be the Savannah River site profile. 

11 MS. MUNN: Just "Hanford" just needs to come 

12 out. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 MS. MUNN: It's review of the site profile. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: But I think if -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, that was a -- that was a 

17 -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- someone (unintelligible) you 

19 could do a pretty good scrub, make sure we 

20 don't make that kind of mistake. That looks 

21 kind of bad on the web site. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I -- I see where 

23 you are. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: And then also the other -- this 

25 is kind of a -- I mean I think this'll 
66

1 constantly be sort of a living update on these 

2 things, but for the Savannah River Site, I -- 

3 I'm noticing now and I -- I gave my report 

4 before -- in the past we've often rolled -- 

5 rolled -- if we had a site profile review 

6 underway and a SEC came up, we would roll -- we 

7 would task the group with the review, but I 

8 don't want to be presumptuous. I -- I -- I 

9 know there's an SEC now out there, but 

10 initially our group was not tasked with looking 

11 at that, so I -- I think I mis-spoke before. I 

12 thought it was to do both, but now looking -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't think there's ever 

14 been a tasking on an SEC yet for -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- Savannah River. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, so I -- I think I mis18 spoke before when I did a workgroup update. We 

19 weren't -- the SEC wasn't out there when we 

20 started this workgroup. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: So maybe that's something we want 

23 to take up at the -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we may -- we may want 

25 to change your duties at the next meeting, but 
67

1 -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was saying, yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- apparently this is the way it 

4 (unintelligible) is correct. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? 

7 (No response) 

8 Okay. I -- I will -- I will send out another 

9 slightly modified version then incorporating 

10 all these changes, and then we'll ask Chris to 

11 go ahead and put that on the web site. 

12 SELECTION OF THE BOARD CONTRACTOR

13 Okay, let's move on -- selection of the Board 

14 contractor. Dr. Branche, you want to kick that 

15 off and tell us where we are and -- is David 

16 Staudt also on the line? 

17 DR. BRANCHE: I don't know if Mr. Staudt is on 

18 the line. David, are you there? 

19 (No response) 

20 Okay. Mr. Staudt is the person who's been 

21 governing all the paperwork for the -- the 

22 Advisor-- sorry, the -- the contractor for the 

23 Advisory Board. Unfortunately his 

24 responsibilities also have included quite a few 

25 activities related to the World Trade Center, 
68

1 which was a very demanding experience for all 

2 involved in a grant announcement -- a couple of 

3 grant announcements that went out and they were 

4 competing for his attention. What that has 

5 meant is that the procurement staff at CDC have 

6 determined that we -- that NIOSH and CDC will 

7 extend SC&A an extension of their services 

8 beyond the end of the fiscal year, which ends 

9 September 30th of this year, and will likely 

10 come out with the announcement in the -- in 

11 September -- late September, early October. 

12 Which will mean that the activities for the 

13 Board -- the Board's requests will still be 

14 honored by SC&A while the announcement and 

15 review and selection process is underway. They 

16 do apologize for the delay, and I have 

17 strenuously reminded the procurement staff of 

18 the wish that the Board has to review the 

19 language of the announcement before it goes 

20 out. So that -- that's a report as I know it. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, any 

22 questions or comments relative to that? 

23 (No response) 

24 TRACKING DATABASE UPDATE

25 Okay, let's go ahead with report from Nancy 
69

1 Adams on the tracking database update. 

2 MS. ADAMS: At the procedures meeting on July 

3 21st Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH was able to demo 

4 the new database system, which is a document5 driven system that will replace the Access 

6 database that had current-- that had been 

7 developed by SC&A. It will be populated with 

8 all the data and it -- and in its new format it 

9 will be able to be updated on either side, 

10 either by SC&A or by NIOSH. And it is being 

11 constructed in such a way that at some point in 

12 the future it will be able to link all of the 

13 various documents that relate to -- to a 

14 particular SEC, to a particular site, so that 

15 all the various databases that are in existence 

16 now will be merged into one so that they're -- 

17 with sub-modules that you can actually just 

18 look at the -- the modular section or -- that 

19 you're interested in or look at a particular 

20 site and look at all that relates to that site. 

21 So it's a document-driven system and SC&A did 

22 provide NIOSH an update prior to the July 21st 

23 meeting that included a number of closures for 

24 items that were previously open, as well as 

25 some changes in some of the other statuses. 
70

1 And hopefully in September this will have been 

2 rolled out to both NIOSH, which we anticipate 

3 that happening this month, in August, and then 

4 to the Board. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Nancy. Questions or 

6 comments for the -- from the Board members? 

7 I might remark that -- getting background noise 

8 here -- might remark that I was very -- I've 

9 been very impressed by the system that they've 

10 developed. It's very extensive but it's very 

11 versatile. 

12 MS. MUNN: A great deal of work has gone into 

13 it and it's much appreciate by those of us who 

14 have to use this data in more than one way. 

15 MS. ADAMS: Leroy Turner from the NIOSH staff 

16 has -- is just absolutely amazing, and -- and -

17 - and he has -- has such a grasp of -- of the 

18 system, as well as its contents, it's -- it's 

19 incredible. And -- and the hope is also so 

20 that there will be a nexus with the number of 

21 claims that can be affected by any one of these 

22 documents available for rev-- available to see 

23 as well. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Thank you, 

25 Nancy. 
71

1 Let's see, let's go ahead to -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Can you -- just one question, 

3 Paul. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Is this -- is that newer version 

6 on the same area of the O drive that the 

7 previous Access database was? I haven't looked 

8 at it yet. 

9 MS. ADAMS: It's not -- it's not rolled out 

10 (unintelligible) -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 MS. ADAMS: All we had available for the July 

13 procedures meeting was -- was a -- was a -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: A demo. 

15 MS. ADAMS: -- a demo. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: A demo. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Thank you. 

18 MELIUS VOTES UPDATE

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Branche, you want 

20 to review the -- Dr. Melius did provide his 

21 votes on several of the items that were covered 

22 at our last meeting. One of the items he still 

23 has to vote on and that was, as I indicated 

24 earlier, was on the Chapman Valve vote. He's 

25 awaiting the details from the transcript to 
72

1 review. But he did feel comfortable in voting 

2 on the other issues that we voted on at the 

3 last meeting which then I think, Dr. Branche, 

4 you can report on. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: I'm happy to. Just to check, has 

6 Dr. Melius joined us? 

7 (No response) 

8 Okay. Dr. Ziemer and I conferred with -- with 

9 Dr. Melius, and on July 7th he let us know by 

10 e-mail that, as it concerned Y-12 and the 

11 Spencer Chemical SEC petitions which were voted 

12 to be approved by the full Board, he agreed 

13 with those votes and so those votes are 

14 unanimous. 

15 He also reviewed the corrected letter to the 

16 Secretary regarding the procedures review and 

17 the vote to approve that letter, and he 

18 concurred with that one as well. 

19 Those are the votes that we have from Mr. -- 

20 from Dr. Melius. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. Those 

22 will show now on the official record, so I 

23 think the votes on all three of those items 

24 then were unanimous in favor, as I recall. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: That is correct, Dr. Melius 
73

1 (sic). 

2 Before we adjourn I do have one other 

3 announcement, Dr. Mel-- Dr. Ziemer, so whenever 

4 you say. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

6 MESSAGE FROM DFO

7 DR. BRANCHE: I've had the pleasure of working 

8 intimately with the Board -- I guess actually 

9 in the fall. I started at NIOSH in July of 

10 last year, knowing that I would be taking on 

11 the responsibilities from Dr. Lewis Wade of 

12 being the Designated Federal Official for this 

13 Advisory Board. We had a bit of a transition 

14 period, from which I benefited from Dr. Wade's 

15 enormous talent and wisdom, and we made the 

16 official transition for me to be the -- the 

17 Designated Federal Official in March of this 

18 year. 

19 On July 3rd Dr. John Howard -- his contract 

20 came to an end -- actually on the 2nd of August 

21 -- and it was on July 3rd that we knew formally 

22 that Dr. John Howard would not have his tenure 

23 as the Director of NIOSH renewed. And Dr. 

24 Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers 

25 for Disease Control and Prevention asked me to 
74

1 be the Acting Director of the National 

2 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

3 I said that I would be the Acting Director and 

4 I've asked Mr. Ted Katz to be the Acting 

5 Designated Federal Official. Lots of words for 

6 you. He will begin that role formally on 

7 August 25th of this year. I will be the DFO 

8 for some upcoming workgroup meetings that are 

9 scheduled I believe the third week in -- in 

10 August, and then Mr. Katz and I will both 

11 attend the Board meeting -- the next Board 

12 meeting that's scheduled for Redondo Beach, and 

13 I'll do a day, we'll share a day, and then Mr. 

14 Katz will take over the chair fully. Not at 

15 all the generous transition period that I 

16 enjoyed, but fortunately Mr. Katz is much, much 

17 more intimately knowledgeable about Board 

18 activities than I was coming on into this role. 

19 I apologize for any slippage that -- that may 

20 occur. I think we've tried to make certain 

21 that everyone's taken care of. I do apologize 

22 for what may be a -- a slight jumbled feeling 

23 that some of you may be experiencing over these 

24 -- over the last couple of weeks. I believe 

25 we're shoring up any of the -- any of the 
75

1 problems, and please feel free to let Mr. Katz 

2 and me know if you feel neglected or overlooked 

3 in any way. I do apologize for this 

4 transition, but we're moving as fast as we can. 

5 Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And first of all let me 

7 congratulate you, Dr. Branche, on your new 

8 assignment. We know it's some heavy shoes to 

9 fill and a lot of responsibility, and we -- we 

10 know you'll do it well. We'll have a chance at 

11 our next meeting in California to more formally 

12 thank you, but we -- we do thank you for the 

13 work that you've done for the Board and done so 

14 well. 

15 We do also appreciate the fact that Mr. Katz is 

16 coming aboard. He worked with the Board at -- 

17 extensively in our earlier years, so he is, as 

18 you say, fairly familiar with the Board's 

19 procedures and processes so I'm sure he'll make 

20 a smooth transition as well. 

21 We do appreciate the work that you have done 

22 and are continuing to do for the Board. 

23 MS. MUNN: Hear! Hear! 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Let me -- although we're getting 

25 ready to sign off and I -- when I learned from 
76

1 Dr. Melius that he wouldn't be able to join us 

2 till sometime after noon and maybe toward 

3 12:30, and I e-mailed him and said that I was 

4 hopeful that we would be done by then, not -- 

5 not that I want to be done before he came 

6 aboard but that our agenda was somewhat 

7 abbreviated and I felt we would be pretty close 

8 to finishing our work by 12:30. But 

9 nonetheless, let me see if Dr. Melius has come 

10 aboard and give him a chance to comment, if he 

11 so wishes. 

12 (No response) 

13 Apparently not. Okay. There is one other 

14 item, although it wasn't on the original 

15 agenda. We received this past week a letter 

16 from Congressman (sic) Schumer and from Senator 

17 Clinton, and from Congresswoman Slaughter 

18 relating to Linde. I believe I copied 

19 everybody on that letter. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, you did, I believe, Dr. 

21 Ziemer. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: If there's anyone who didn't have 

24 it, I can send it to you while Dr. Ziemer 

25 speaks. 
77

1 DR. ZIEMER: I want to make sure everybody has 

2 a copy of the letter and I -- I don't -- he has 

3 a number of questions in this letter, and I 

4 have not yet had a chance to -- to draft a 

5 reply, and recognize that I cannot reply to 

6 this letter without the approval of the Board. 

7 So -- and I'm not going to ask you to approve 

8 something I have not yet written. But as you 

9 read the letter, if you have any comments or 

10 suggestions on sentiments or responses that you 

11 feel should be incorporated into the letter, I 

12 would be happy to receive those. It's my plan 

13 to have a letter ready for you to approve at 

14 our upcoming meeting next month. 

15 Is there anyone that didn't get a copy of the 

16 letter from the three Congressional people? 

17 (No response) 

18 Apparently not, okay. Now let me ask if there 

19 are any other items that any of you -- Board 

20 members, that need to come before us? 

21 (No response) 

22 I hear none. Does that -- that mean you're all 

23 on mute or are there really no more items? 

24 MS. MUNN: It means most of us are on mute. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
78

1 MS. MUNN: No, there are no other -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Then I think we're ready to 

3 adjourn, and I'll declare the meeting 

4 adjourned. Thank you all very much. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

6 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 

7 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 12:28 

8 p.m.) 

9 

10 
79

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of August 5, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

25th day of August, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102