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 45 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the 45th 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on Apr. 5, 2007. 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

Apr. 5, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

7 

LIMITING TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER 

15 

REVISIT BOARD POLICY ON SC&A VISITS TO HILL 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, DR. JOHN POSTON 

28 

REVIEW OF THE COMPLETENESS OF BOARD REVIEWS 48,63 

INSTRUCTIONS; PRE’S; TRACKING ISSUES THROUGH TO CLOSURE 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


COMMENTS ON LOS ALAMOS SEC PETITION 59 


SENATOR BINGAMAN, D-NM 


ASSIGNMENT OF TWO MEMBER TEAMS 73 


TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL DR’S 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER FROM DR. FUORTES 94 


DR. ZIEMER 


SCHEDULE OF FUTURE BOARD MEETINGS 98 


DR. WADE 


BOARD WORKING TIME 100 


DR. ZIEMER 


NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE 119 


MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, OCAS 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 
 130 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

BEACH, Josie 


Nuclear Chemical Operator 


Hanford Reservation 


Richland, Washington 


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 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

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


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


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 

ANNOUNCED AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

BARKER, KAY, ANWAG 


BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 


BEATTY, RAY, FERNALD MEDICAL SCREENING PROGRAM 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC WASHINGTON 


CALLAWAY, ALLEN, FERNALD MEDICAL SCREENING PROGRAM 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


DOWNS, ALYCIA, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, U.S. CONG. TOM UDALL 


KESSLER, MIKE, 5280 MAGAZINE 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCKEEL, DAN, SINW 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


RAMSPOTT, JOHN, GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES AND DOW 


SHIELDS, LASHAWN, NIOSH 


SUNDIN, DAVE, NIOSH 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(11:00 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: Since I have five after, let's 


start. Just going down my checklist, this is 


Lew Wade and I have the distinct privilege of 


serving as the Designated Federal Official for 


the Advisory Board. And let me do some 


preliminary business before I turn it over to 


the Chair, Dr. Ziemer. 


I think we've already confirmed that the Court 


Reporter, Ray, is on the line and ready to go. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ray, are you --


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- set to go? 


THE COURT REPORTER: -- we're good. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Let me call a roll of the 


Board members and I'll start with Beach. 


MS. BEACH: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Clawson? 


 (No response) 


Clawson? We'll come back. 


Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8

 DR. WADE: Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Melius? 


 (No response) 


Dr. Melius said he might be several minutes 


late. 

Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: Here. 

 DR. WADE: Poston? 

 (No response) 

Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Schofield? 


 (No response) 


Phillip? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry -- Phillip, are you there? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes, I am. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, good. And Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Let me go back and ask again for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

Clawson? 


 (No response) 


Brad, are you on the line? Are you muted on 


the line? 


 (No response) 


Melius? 


 (No response) 


Poston? 


 (No response) 


I will ask again periodically. LaShawn, if I 


might ask you, could you give a call to Clawson 


and Poston? Melius did mention that he would 


be several minutes late. 


 MS. SHIELDS: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: But we have nine Board members; we 


have a quorum of the Board and therefore we're 


-- we're okay to proceed. 


I guess by way of introductions, when anyone is 


going to address the Board, if you're involved 


in a particular discussion, please identify 


yourself and your organization. We don't have 


to have everyone on the call identify 


themselves. I guess I would ask if there are 


NIOSH individuals who intend to participate in 


the call, I'd ask you to identify yourselves 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

now. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, NIOSH. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: SC&A members likely to participate 


in the call? 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Are there other federal 


employees on the line who need or would like to 


identify themselves? 


 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 


MS. BRAND: Anstice Brand, CDC Washington 


office. 


 MR. SUNDIN: Dave Sundin, NIOSH. 


MS. DOWNS: Alycia Downs, NIOSH. 


MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang, NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Any of our colleagues from the 


Department of Labor on the line who would like 


to identify themselves? 


 (No responses) 


Other members of Congress, their staff, 


representatives of members of Congress on the 


line who would like to identify themselves? 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Michele Jacquez-Ortiz, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

Congressman Tom Udall. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Michele. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Other workers or worker reps who 


would like to be identified on this call? 


MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott listening in for 


General Steel Industries and Dow. 


 MS. BARRIE: Terrie Barrie with ANWAG. 


 MS. BARKER: Kay Barker with ANWAG. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Dan McKeel with Southern Illinois 


Nuclear Workers. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, all. Anyone else on the 


call who would like to be identified on the 


record? 


MR. CALLAWAY: Allen Callaway and Ray Beatty 


with the Fernald Medical Screening Program. 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Can you guys hear me? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. KESSLER: Mike Kessler with 5280 magazine. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


 MR. KESSLER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12

 (No responses) 


By way of etiquette for this call, please, when 


you -- when you are going to speak, identify 


who you are. Our court reporter is very good, 


but might not remember the sound of your voice. 


Please identify. 


When you're speaking, speak into the handset. 


Sort of refrain from using a speaker phone when 


you're making comment. It picks up an awful 


lot of background noise. 


If you're not speaking, then if at all possible 


mute the phone, again to avoid background 


noise. 


And again, keep in mind just your situation 


with regard to the phone and sort of monitor 


it. These calls are very productive and a very 


useful mechanism for the Board to use, but they 


can be disrupted by all kinds of noises that 


you might not be aware of, so think about it. 


If, when you put your phone on hold, music 


plays, don't put your phone on hold because we 


don't want to listen to your music, as pleasant 


as it might be. So again, think of those -- 


those simple etiquettes and I think the process 


will serve the Board and those that the Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

serves very well. 


Let me go back and ask if Brad Clawson is with 


us? 


 (No response) 


 Brad Clawson? 


 (No response) 


 Jim Melius? 


 (No response) 


 Dr. Poston? 


 (No response) 


Okay. Paul, we have a quorum of the Board and 


now it's for you to begin. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Thanks to 


all the Board members and other participants 


for taking time today to address some of the 


issues that are before us. I want to check 


with all the Board members and make sure you 


have a copy of the agenda. It should have been 


e-mailed to you. It also appears on the web 


site, and others who are listening in, if you 


don't have a copy of that agenda, it is on the 


OCAS web site and you might want to pull that 


up and -- and at least be aware of it. 


We'll follow the agenda pretty much as it's 


given, although the time frames are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

approximate. And if we're more efficient in 


completing items, we will simply move ahead. 


I have one time-certain item that I want to 


make you aware of and I'll double-check with 


Lew Wade to make sure this is still on 


schedule, but it's been indicated to me that 


Senator Bingaman may wish to address the group 


at 12:00 o'clock. Is that still the case -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, Senator Bingaman of New 


Hampsh-- of, excuse me, New Mexico -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Bingaman, yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- yeah -- wishes to address the 


group at 12:00. He wishes to address the group 


concerning the Los Alamos SEC petition. It's 


expected that the Board will be taking up that 


petition when it meets face to face in May. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So if -- wherever we are in the 


process at noon, if the Senator comes on the 


line we will yield and -- and hear from him at 


that point. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: This is -- this is Michele 


Jacquez-Ortiz with Congressman Tom Udall's 


office. We have been communicating with the 


Senator's staff. Depending on the Senator's 


comments, I would like to have an opportunity 

15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

also to convey Congressman Udall's concerns on 


his behalf, if that would be okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine, and we can do 


that immediately following the Senator's 


comments, if that's agreeable. 


 DR. WADE: Is that agreeable to you, Michele? 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Oh, ab-- oh, absolutely. 


It may not be necessary, but we may want to 


just add one or two comments. 


LIMITING TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine. Well, let us 


proceed then. The first item on our agenda is 


called limiting the time of individual public 


comment. This is an item that arose after -- 


or during our last meeting. Some of the Board 


members were concerned that during the public 


comment period some of the individual 


commenters were taking lengthy periods of time, 


to the extent that other members of the public 


became perhaps discouraged in terms -- or could 


not stay and make their own comments and -- and 


perhaps had to leave. And the question arose 


as to whether we should impose time limits on 


commenters. 


I should also note that I received the -- a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

copy of the -- basically of a fax that was 


forwarded to me by Terrie Barrie but I don't 


know -- and Terrie Barrie, if you're on -- or 


no, was it Terrie Barrie? Or it might have 


been Kay Walker (sic) -- commenting on this 


issue. But did other Board members get a copy 


of that fax or -- or Lew, did you? 


 DR. WADE: I don't recall. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't -- I don't remember. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Was it -- it was --


 MS. MUNN: I'm not aware of --


 DR. ZIEMER: I got it yesterday, and -- but let 


me go ahead and open the floor for discussion 


and have Board members make your comments on 


this issue, and then I'll pull up my copy and 


read those comments to you, as well. 


Basically this was a worker group that 


suggested that we not limit it to -- or if 


there is a limit, that it be at least ten 


minutes, I believe, but I'll get the exact 


wording. 


Who -- who wishes to speak to this issue? 


 DR. WADE: Well, could I -- could I speak 


briefly before the Board -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17

 DR. WADE: -- members do? I mean I -- for the 


record, I think in my time with the Board Dr. 


Ziemer nor the Board members have ever limited 


the amount of time they're willing to stay and 


listen to public comments. I think the Board 


has been very, very accepting with its time. 


I think the issue as we saw it the last time 


was that there were some people who felt they 


couldn't stay so long and left before they had 


an opportunity to make their comments. But the 


Board has always been gracious and has tried to 


hear everyone who wished to comment. So I'll 


stop with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, the idea of limiting it was 


sort of on behalf of others who were there -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that may wish to speak. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I will speak in motion of 


limiting the amount of time for comments. 


We've been very, very good in staying when we 


were supposed to be finished by 8:00 o'clock 


and staying till 9:00 and 10:00 o'clock and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

listening to everybody. But my pro-- my 


problem or concern is that we have some 


individuals that continue to get up and read 


the same thing meeting after meeting and it 


takes up 30 minutes, and you can see the 


frustration in some people's face when they 


just get up and leave after that. And for this 


reason, I would love to see us limit some of 


this stuff. 


Now if somebody's got something that, you know, 


takes more than -- than ten minutes, I can see 


them coming up and explaining that to you and 


us doing it. But where you read a statement -- 


and essentially the same statement -- at every 


Board meeting, I'm sorry, I -- I think we give 


a -- we need to give other people time to talk. 


This is my comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Others? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. I'm hesitant to limit 


the amount of time people can talk at a public 


meeting, but I would propose that -- that when 


we're at different sites an opportunity be 


given to those members of the audience who have 


not previously had an opportunity to talk to 


the Board, or to give their views to the Board. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. LOCKEY: In other words, maybe we can 


prioritize it in a manner that sets it out, 


people that only have attended one meeting and 


want to talk at a meeting, they be given the 


priority to talk first or to give their 


comments first. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Let me read into the record 


also the comment that I referred to a moment 


earlier. It comes from Janet Michael 


representing ANWAG, that's -- that group is -- 


the acronym is the Alliance of Nuclear Worker 


Advocacy Groups. And her letter said (reading) 


The agenda for the Advisory Board on Radiation 


and Worker Health includes a discussion of -- a 


discussion to limit the time for public 


comment. The Alliance for Nuclear Worker 


Advocacy Groups understands the need to limit 


the time in order that the Board may hear from 


as many concerned stakeholders as possible. 


ANWAG -- that's the acronym -- would like to go 


on record with the suggestion that the time 


limit be no shorter than ten minutes. The 


issues surrounding the dose reconstruction, 


Special Exposure Cohort evaluation and site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

profile issues are complex. As such, it is not 


always possible for the stakeholders to address 


these issues completely and clearly in a 


shorter time period. Thank you for your kind 


consideration. Sincerely, Janet Michael. 


So there's the recommendation from Janet by 


representing that particular group, and we 


thank them for that comment. 


Other Board members? 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I -- I would have no 


problem with limiting the time if it's ten 


minutes or something like that. That's 


probably reasonable. But I think we also need 


to be careful to make an exception for the SEC 


petitioners because -- and -- and people 


associated with those sites because -- I mean I 


think we sort of set up a separate process for 


them that allows them to, you know, have more 


participation during the meetings in the -- in 


our deliberations and SEC issues and stretched 


out over many meetings, I think we need to be 


mindful that -- of their opportunity to 


participate in the process and -- you know, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

context of the petition and so forth. So as 


long as we take that into account and then all 


-- also we have a process in place that if for 


some reason somebody feels that they need a 


longer period of time to explain something, 


that they would have an opportunity to speak to 


Dr. Ziemer or to Lew and -- and get a -- you 


know, to explain that and then -- and a, you 


know, appropriate decision could be made. 


Other than that, I think it would make things 


go much better and certainly help the people 


who are new to these meetings and really do 


feel bewildered and put off by the fact they 


wait around and listen, you know, for an hour 


and a half before they have a chance to 


participate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other comments? 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen Roessler. I agree 


with what Jim has said completely, that a ten-


minute limit, with anybody who needs or wishes 


to go over that to either -- to talk to either 


you or Lew Wade. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phillip Schofield. 


Yeah, I mean I'm in agreement with the ten­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

minute limit, and those who have a lengthy 


discussion they need bring -- to bring before 


the Board, if they could approach the Board and 


then maybe we could put them more towards the 


end and encourage them to submit their comments 


in writing, too, if they have a lengthy set of 


comments. I think that would help the general 


public and those people who have traveled who 


are claimants, that they'd be allowed to 


address the Board, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mike Gibson. 

 MR. GIBSON: I think if we could maybe have 

some kind of sign posted at the sign-in sheet 


that if you have a -- a presentation or a 


prepared statement that's going to take over 


ten minutes, that you indicate that when you 


sign in. And that way you could kind of adjust 


-- you know, arrange the speakers in the order 


that you feel necessary. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley again. 
I 


think that'd be a good idea. Along with that, 


put a notation with that that, you know, if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

they do have something that they need to see 


Dr. Ziemer or -- or Dr. Wade. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm hearing what appears to 


be a kind of consensus. Let -- let me address 


two things -- this is Ziemer again. Certainly 


on the petitioners -- on an SEC petition, their 


presentations are outside of what we're talking 


about here anyway, as far as the SEC petition 


presentation is concerned, so we're -- we're 


simply talking here about the public comment 


period, the general public comment periods. 


 Number one, there seems to be a consensus that 


we have a -- some sort of time limit, probably 


ten minutes. What I'm going to suggest, and I 


think this might capture perhaps all of the 


ideas. Number one, that we ask the speakers to 


indicate how much time they need and we would 


prioritize them by time. Number two, that we 


indicate that there is a ten-minute time limit. 


The third thing I'm going to suggest is that -- 


if it's agreeable to the Board members, that an 


individual who has something lengthier than 


that, we would ask them to keep it to ten 


minutes and that at the end of the meeting, if 


there's still time left overall, they could add 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

additional comments. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, this is Jim Lockey, I think 


that's good. I'd also suggest that -- I really 


want to make -- when new -- when there's new 


people at the Board meeting that haven't had a 


chance to talk, I think they should be given an 


opportunity to do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can -- we can certainly 


prioritize in that manner, as well, so 


prioritize by both time and whether they are 


repeat people. 


Now in some cases, depending on the topic, if 


we're discussing at a particular meeting, a 


particular site -- we have folks like -- let's 


say Dan, who's on the line now, Dan McKeel, if 


he's addressing something that has to do with a 


site that we're concerned with at a particular 


meeting, then we might not follow that exact 


procedure because the priority might be for 


that site, even though the person has spoken to 


the Board before. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, that's (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'd have to use some judgment on 


that, I think. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Correct. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25

 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that's great. If they 


think they're going over the time limit, then 


let them -- let them submit their comments to 


the Board in writing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let -- let me ask Lew if -- if we 


have a comment submitted in writing but not 


orally presented at the meeting, they do not 


appear in the transcripts. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: That's correct, although, you know, 


we could modify as appropriate, but they would 


not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But -- but they could be 


promulgated to the Board. 


 DR. WADE: But they could be posted on the web 


site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And in some cases -- in some 


cases, we've also put those on the web site -- 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, so we can still do that 


and they then become part of the record. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Wouldn't it be easy 


for us to just simply ask the individuals to -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

whether their written comments need to be made 


a part of the record. That -- if -- if we 


allowed ten minutes to present the gist of what 


needs to be said, as was pointed out earlier, 


so much of -- so often what we hear in long 


presentations is very complex -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and the Board itself -- certainly 


some of us, I think, would appreciate the 


opportunity to review those comments afterward 


rather than waiting to review them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Waiting for the transcripts. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh, right. 


 MS. MUNN: So if -- if lengthy presentations 


could be made in writing and the person could 


present the gist of those presentations -- of 


those points that need to be made, verbally, 


then perhaps that would be more than adequate 


for most people. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Are there any other 

comments? 

 (No responses) 

I'm not going to ask for a formal motion. I'm 


going to take it as the sense of the Board that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

we will -- we will expect to impose a ten-


minute time limit on speakers as -- public 


speakers at future meetings; that we will try 


to prioritize the list of speakers in terms of 


the times -- times needed and whether or not 


they are repeats. We will also ask for written 


comments in the case of those who have 


lengthier or more complex pieces of information 


to present to the Board. 


Is that -- everyone agree? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phillip Schofield. I'd 


like to add one comment to that. I would like 


to see, when they have these comments that 


they're submitting to the Board in writing, 


that they do become part of the record. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We will make sure they're part of 


the record, either -- probably by putting them 


on the web site. Is that agreeable, Lew? Can 


we do it that way? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, sir -- yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Now what I'll do, Paul, with your 


permission, is I'll work with folks and design 


a sign-in sheet that conveys that information 

28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

and then captures what the Board needs to do in 


its prioritization, and I'll get that out to 


everyone before the next meeting. And 


possibly, after comments, we can use that sign-


in sheet then. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Okay, thank you very 


much. 


REVISIT BOARD POLICY ON SC&A VISITS TO HILL
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, DR. JOHN POSTON
 

Let's move on to the next item, which has to do 


with the Board policy on -- on the business of 


our contractor, SC&A, to the Hill. That is, 


our contractor from time to time gets requests 


to -- to brief various congressional staff 


members on the Hill, and the issue -- and we 


discussed it before -- has to do with whether 


or not there should be a requirement that a 


Board member or members be present during such 


briefings. 


 Lew has provided all of you with copies of 


transcripts from previous meetings where this 


item has -- has come up, basically two 


different subsets -- I don't have the 


references here, Lew, do you have -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, the first -- the first was 


from day one of our meeting where we discussed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

it on August 25th, 2005. That starts with page 


183, and then we picked it up on day two, 


August 26th of 2005. That starts with page 


number 15. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you have that as background 


material, the nature of the discussion before. 


There -- there are some -- related to the 


Board's desires, there are also some agency 


issues between Health and Human Services and 


their relationships with the congressional 


staff and with the various contractors. Lew, 


as a background, do you want to remind us sort 


of the agency's position on this? 


 DR. WADE: Right, I -- I can do that, clearly, 


and it's -- it's clearly reflected in the 


documents. And not to -- to overstate the 


issue, but SC&A, for example, we're talking 


about, is a -- a contractor to the federal 


government. It's a contract that exists with 


the Centers for Disease Control within 


Department of Health and Human Services. 


Certainly the Secretary of HHS and the 


contracting officer -- in this case, David 


Staudt -- have to reserve the right to instruct 


the contractor as they think appropriate, given 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

the nature of that contract. It has been, and 


I think will likely be, the policy of HHS that 


SC&A would have unfettered access -- the Hill 


would have unfettered access to SC&A, as 


appropriate. 


That said, we intend -- we would intend to 


understand and act within the spirit of the 


Board's policy. We feel that the policy in 


place now we can act consistent with that. If 


the Board was to adopt a policy that would 


refuse Hill visits, for example, I can't 


promise you that -- that the Department would 


act consistent with that. But we are 


interested in the Board's wishes and, again, 


the policy in place now we have found very 


workable. But again, it is a government 


contractor and the Secretary and the 


contracting officer have to reserve the right 


to instruct the contractor as they think 


appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And let me remind the Board 


members of how -- how the policy currently 


works. If a request comes in to SC&A, John 


Mauro notifies Lew Wade and me, as Chair, that 


the request has been made, who has requested it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

and when; and then, after the visit, provides a 


written report of the discussion, items that 


were addressed or questions that were asked and 


answered in the -- in the visit. 


 DR. WADE: I think -- I think, Paul, there's 


been a -- a further -- there's more detail to 


the policy, if I might. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: I think when the request comes in, 


and as soon as possible, all Board members are 


notified of the request, and then any Board 


member who would like to participate would 


notify John Mauro, Paul or I that they would 


like to participate. It would then be our 


intention to ask the congressional entity 


requesting the briefing if such participation 


was agreeable to them. If it was, it would 


happen. If the congressional office was to say 


no, we would prefer not to have a Board member 


or that Board member present, then we would 


honor those wishes. 


Then there's also caveats in the policy that 


SC&A needs to be very careful to identify that 


very often we're looking at draft materials, 


they need to make that clear. If Board members 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

participate, Board members need to identify 


whether they're conflicted or not on a 


particular site in question. And again, Board 


members don't speak for the Board unless 


they've been authorized to do that. 


So I think that's the policy as we have been 


following it. I don't think I've misstated 


anything there, but if I did, please correct 


me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the -- the only issue I think 


that arose was the issue of whether or not the 


Board should demand or make it mandatory that a 


Board member be present. And as Lew has 


already indicated, Health and Human Services -- 


and -- and that -- if there were such a 


statement, it would go as a recommendation to 


the Secretary, and whether or not the Secretary 


would in fact honor that is a separate 


question. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I have one other 


serious concern about this issue that has come 


up repeatedly for us, and that is not just the 


fact that most of the time the written product 


that is in question is still in draft form. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

The other thing that is of major concern, and I 


think it should concern all of us, as well as 


the members of Congress, is the fact that it's 


clear from the comments that come back to us 


from congressional members and their staff that 


the contractor is seen as an auditor, not as a 


reviewer. There is a difference, and that -- I 


-- did not seem to be clear to others outside 


the area where we work most of the time. I 


think it's -- it's important for both us and 


for congressional staff to understand what the 


status of these materials is and what the 


status of the presenter of those materials is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And I think, to the extent 


possible, SC&A has -- has tried to make that 


clear, although it may not always be 


successful. 


 MS. MUNN: I think they have tried to do that, 


much to their credit. 


My other concern is the fact that it's also 


very clear that congressional staff has had 


clearly information provided to them long 


before our contractor or any member of the 


Board ever sees them. It's -- many members of 


the Board have expressed their willingness to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

participate in these kinds of events, but 


because there seems to be an adversarial 


component in the congressional view of what 


we're doing here -- I assume that's the reason 


why -- it has not always been possible for 


Board members to be a part of those 


interactions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: That is legitimate reason for 


concern, I believe, on the part of the Board 


and on the part of the agency. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you for those 


comments. 


 Other comments, Board members? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, Jim Lockey. I wanted to ask 


you, did you say that the -- that the questions 


-- when SC&A meets with congressional members, 


are the -- the questions and answers, are they 


recorded or -- or... 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's not a recording in the 


sense that -- of having a court reporter. 


There's a summary -- meeting summary that's -- 


 DR. LOCKEY: A summary on that meeting 

generated? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35

 DR. WADE: By SC&A. And I -- from my 


perspective -- this is Lew -- the quality of 


those summaries have been excellent. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay, and the Board gets a copy of 


that, is that right? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can we make sure that the Board 


gets a copy of those? This is Jim Melius. I 


don't recall seeing any. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I haven't seen any -- any -- yeah, 


I haven't seen any, either, Jim. That's why I 


was wondering about that. 


 MS. MUNN: I've seen one or two, but I don't 


see them routinely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- this is Ziemer. I thought --


I thought the Board members were getting 


copies. John Mauro, are you on the line? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I am. Initially I had 


submitted the copies of these minutes to -- 


Paul, to you and to Lew, but not to the entire 


Board, and I -- but more recently I -- we've 


begun to submit them to the full Board, so -- 


but you -- so you're correct, those of you 


who've only seen occasional ones, that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

probably the reason. We certainly from now on 


-- and we'll make sure that when -- when I send 


out these minutes, it will go to all Board 


members. 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I think those 


minutes would be very helpful 'cause it would 


be an education to us as to the concerns of the 


congressional members and it would be -- it 


could be helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: John, how easy would it be for you 


to send back copies of the earlier -- back from 


last year's minutes? 


DR. MAURO: I will -- I will pull a package 


together of everyone and send a little package 


out so that you can -- you will all have a full 


set of all minutes for your records. 


 DR. MELIUS: Paul --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 


 DR. MELIUS: -- this is Jim Melius. I have 


(broken transmission) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- somebody else was speaking, I 


guess Jim. Two things that I'd remind the 


Board of is -- one is that there's logistical 


issues with Board members coming in for these 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

visits. The visits are in Washington. Most of 


the Board is away from Washington, so there's 


sort of a timeliness issue. For better or 


worse, I guess since SC&A is in the Washington 


area and most of the staff are, so it's 


probably a lot easier for them to -- to make 


these visits. 


Secondly, I think we have to remember the 


reason that they are invited is often a way to 


provide sort of a technical update in the sense 


that issues that constituents of that 


congressperson or representative had raised 


about NIOSH evaluation or NIOSH report or site 


profile, whatever, and to provide some 


assurance that that particular issue is 


getting, you know, appropriate technical 


review. And I think in that sense the SC&A 


staff are often more up to date than we are 


'cause they're in the process of reviewing 


something to present to us or have a draft 


document or whatever. 


 And then secondly, I think it -- you know, it 


adds considerably to the credibility of the 


process. I think it -- helps the functioning 


of the Board and helps the -- our credibility, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

you know, the overall OCAS program, by allowing 


this access and having -- having this 


interchange and I really see no need to -- to 


change the policy. I think it would be helpful 


to have these meeting summaries circulated so 


we have a record and just in case there's 


something that we may have a concern about the 


way it was raised, we can always talk to John 


or whoever was at the site visit and follow up 


on that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Bob Presley, go ahead. 


 MR. PRESLEY: My concern is that the Board -- I 


know the one that I was involved in, I got a 


call one day when we were on our way to the -- 


to a meeting out west, and they said well, 


we've got a meeting at 3:00 o'clock today. I 


would like for somebody to notify us as soon as 


possible when they know about these things. 


mean stuff on the Hill doesn't happen to when ­

- you know, where the pick the phone up, can 


you -- can you be in my office at 3:00 o'clock 


today. I would like to see that -- that we get 


as much notification as possible. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, in fact I can tell 


you that many of these are on very short 


notice. Sometimes -- and John Mauro, you can ­

- can confirm or -- or -- or not, but I know 


you've had some where it's like the next day or 


something like that. We don't get a lot of 


notice on many of these. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would say that -- that we 


have -- that we've had a number of these, but 


there have been at least two where we had on 


the order of a day notice to come by and -- and 


to give a -- and meet with the delegation, but 


-- but I would say more often than not we do 


have more than a day. And typically, unless -- 


you know, some -- delayed a bit, I try to put 


them out as soon as -- you know, send out the 


no-- the information to Lew and Paul 


immediately after receiving such a request. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, would these minutes normally 


go on the web site? 


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


think they have, but they could. 


 DR. WADE: They have not, but they could. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. I would suggest that, 


'cause it's -- it sounds like it's a public 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

document and -- and everybody should have a 


chance to look at it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? The -- the 


actual issue before us is, Board members, do 


you wish to, in -- in a formal way, change the 


existing policy? And I think John Poston was 


the one that raised this concern at the last 


meeting. I don't -- did John get -- come on 


the line yet? 


 (No response) 


But I think John felt that -- that the Board 


should mandate that we be present and -- and so 


the issue had to do with whether we should put 


forth to the Secretary a change in the policy, 


basically demanding our presence. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, this is Wanda. As those of 


you who were present at the time will probably 


recall, the original -- that was -- that was 


pretty close to the original issue. We had 


originally suggested -- had the suggestion 


placed before us -- I think I suggested it, as 


a matter of fact -- that what we provide first 


for Congress and their staff is a position 


paper that indicated it was the position of the 


Board to prefer to have a Board member present 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

when these meetings occur. At that time it was 


stated, with no conditions attached, the 


reminder that Congress does in fact have the 


authority and the desire to speak with whomever 


they choose, without our policy being taken 


into consideration at all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct, and in fact our -- 


our present policy is just that, that we 


basically indicate our desire to be present if 


-- if we can. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, and --


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so the question is, do we 


wish to change that policy. 


 MS. MUNN: It seems to be working reasonably 


well. I have one question for John, however. 


John, I don't remember whether those 


abbreviated meeting reports that we've seen 


included the specifics of who in that 


congressional office were the members present. 


DR. MAURO: I think you're correct. In my 


recollection we may have, in some cases, listed 


everyone that was there; in other cases we have 


not. So I -- when I go back and collect all 


the material, you'll have a better sense of the 


kind of information that's in there. I will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

certainly send out the full package to 


everyone. And perhaps, based on that, if you 


folks would like to provide us with some 


additional direction -- for example, that you ­

- that we do have a complete list of all 


participants at these meetings, and perhaps the 


time -- you know, period over which it 


occurred, so we will be pleased to provide any 


information in these -- as -- as directed. 


Right now they have been -- my -- our write-ups 


have really been the judgment of the -- of 


myself and the others involved, you know, how 


much detail to provide and how much 


information, and we certainly can structure it 


a little bit more formally to meet your needs. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again, and I don't 


want to wish to burden SC&A unreasonably, but 


it's clear that they are going to continue to 


be our voice and our face as far as 


congressional desires are concerned. It would 


be very helpful if -- if we could indeed have 


an indication of who was present. It helps us 


to understand who the contact people are for -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think certainly, Wanda, in 


-- in terms of at least the major players -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

mean if there's a -- if there's a -- a low-


level summer intern present, that may not be 


critical, but we certainly need to know who the 


staffers are. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I would -- I would make that an 


official request as an addition to our policy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other Board members, any comment 


on that? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I have no problem if it -- since 


-- since we'll start getting the minutes, but I 


just wondered if we could reiterate the policy 


that, if at all possible, that somebody be 


given the chance to be there. 


 DR. WADE: I, too, think -- this is Lew -- and 


again, for the record, I think the way we're 


operating now is that as soon as possible when 


a request is received -- it could come to SC&A, 


it could come to me -- then that request would 


be transmitted to NIOSH, to all Board members, 


and the offer would be made, if a Board member 


would like to attend, they would let John or I 


know that. When we hear that, we would then go 


to the -- those who are inviting John and SC&A 


and ask if that was acceptable. If it was, 


then we would move forward with that. If not, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

then we would transmit that information back. 


I think the operative part is John would notify 


us as soon as possible. And again, the offer 


would be then extended to any Board member who 


would like to attend, to make that known. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And that basically is the 


policy now. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again, which seems to 


be working well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I -- I think the -- the 


only -- if there is any modification, can I 


take it by consent that we make sure that the 


recording of the -- of the meeting is complete 


to the extent it includes who is present. 


 DR. WADE: Principals, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The principals, both for SC&A and 


the staff -- and the Hill staffers. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phillip Schofield. I 


think I can agree with that 'cause at least 


that way we have an idea of what this 


discussion is and if there's something we need 


to be --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: -- addressing. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Any objections to that 


sort of additional caveat that we make as part 


of our policy? 


 MS. MUNN: No -- Wanda again, one last question 


-- sorry about that frog in my throat -- one 


last request, that the minutes also include, if 


we have a situation where an individual Board 


member has indicated that they could and would 


like to be present, if the congressional member 


rejects that. It would be helpful if that were 


included also in the comments that SC&A 


provides for us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think, John, you would 


probably know that because it would be -- if 


the Board member requested that they be 


present, that would loop through you and Lew 


anyway. 


 DR. WADE: Right, it would certainly loop 


through me. Why don't you let me take that as 


a suggestion, and I wouldn't put that burden on 


John. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: Let me take that as a suggestion and 


talk to the contracting officer and see what we 


can do in that regard. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46

 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Lew. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any other comments on this 


particular issue? 


 DR. WADE: I would -- I know we have friends 


from the Hill on the line. If -- since we've 


been talking about your business, if there's 


any comments that they would like to make. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: This is Michele Jacquez-


Ortiz with Congressman Udall's office -- Tom 


Udall out of New Mexico --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: -- and I -- I think that I 


had raised concerns about this upon first 


hearing about it at the last meeting -- the 


Advisory Board meeting in Ohio. And Wanda and 


I had a chance to sit down after the meeting, a 


meeting that I really appreciated 'cause she 


clarified to me what the concern was, and I 


don't think I fully understood that. It seems 


to me that what you all are proposing here is 


extremely reasonable, and I don't -- I can't 


imagine -- I can only speak on behalf of our 


office, but I know that -- that the 


Congressman's staff would absolutely feel 


comfortable with -- with what you're proposing. 

47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for those comments. So 


really we're -- there -- there really is no 


change in the policy, but some clarification of 


how we record the information for the meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments on this issue? 


We -- we need no further action. 


 (No responses) 


REVIEW OF THE COMPLETENESS OF BOARD REVIEWS
 

INSTRUCTIONS; PRE’S; TRACKING ISSUES THROUGH TO CLOSURE
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
 

Now the next item -- see where we are time-


wise, we're still okay. Anyone from Senator 


Bingaman's office on the line yet? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, let's move ahead to a review of the 


completeness of Board reviews, and Lew will be 


the lead on this --


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and lead us through the 


concerns here. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I don't know that they're 


concerns. I think they're just towards doing 


ever more complete and thorough business. And 


there are a number of issues that occur to me 


and other Board members in my discussions that 


I think we should talk about when we look at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

the scope of the Board's reviews, and I listed 


three of them. 


Instructions -- these are instructions to dose 


reconstructors. You know, now I think we're 


starting to capture workbooks in our review, 


either if the workbooks are related to a 


particular site profile or through the reviews 


of individual DRs, you know, the topic of 


instructions has come up. 


PERs -- and I apologize, I have a mental block 


with PERs, I keep saying PREs, but PERs. Larry 


can tell us a little bit more about what they 


are, but this is when NIOSH has made and change 


and then goes back and looks at the impact of 


that change on previously-completed dose 


reconstructions. There is -- it is an effort 


undertaken, there's a report prepared. Again, 


that's something that, you know, the Board 


might want to consider as it imagines that it's 


reviewing everything that it needs to within 


the scientific scope of the program. 


And then the last one of my bullets is this 


ever-nagging issue of the tracking of issues to 


closure. We -- we see issues come up in 


workgroups, and then sometimes they're -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

they're thought to be more generic issues and 


they move to an overarching list, and then 


sometimes they come back, and I just think 


there's an important task to be sure that 


things are tracked to completion and not fall 


through the cracks where the workgroup on the 


site thinks it's being handled generically and 


the generic people think it's being handled by 


the site. And I think it's just something 


worth talking about. 


Larry, could you just very briefly add to my 


discussion of PERs? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, this is Larry Elliott. PERs 


are Program Evaluation Reviews that are done 


upon the instance where we've made a change, 


either in our dose reconstruction approach, our 


methodology, or in our -- perhaps our IREP 


models. It would -- it would stimulate a 


review of all claims that have been completed 


under a previous version of a -- of a tool to 


see if any of those completed claims that were 


found to be non-compensable would change in 


their compensability by the -- by the 


modification that we're making. 


Currently I think, if you go on our web site, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

we -- we publicly display the completed PERs, 


Program Evaluation Reviews. You will find, I 


believe, there nine -- nine reviews -- actually 


I think seven reviews and two plans. We -- we 


institute a Program Evaluation Plan where we're 


dealing with a large-scale review, a large 


number of claims. And in order to outline what 


we're going to do with regard to reviewing the 


change and what it effect it might have on 


claims, we put forward a plan, called a PEP. 


As we proceed through that plan it becomes the 


-- the review itself, and the reviews are then 


reported out in what is shown on our web site. 


 These reports specify what the change was that 


precipitated this review and also characterize 


the outcome for the claims that were examined 


under the review. And you'll see, as example 


on our web site, (unintelligible) for lymphoma 


and how -- which target organ we use there, and 


you'll see other Program Evaluation Reviews 


that deal with perhaps a dose reconstruction 


issue at Savannah River Site or -- or 


elsewhere. 


So there are a number of Program Evaluation 


Reviews underway that are not at a point where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

we would place them on the web site at this -- 


at this time. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Again, this is Lew. I -- I 


just throw this issue before the Board to think 


about. I -- you know, this is sort of a new 


work product and, you know, how the Board feels 


about that, when it might want to look at this 


if it thinks it's appropriate, it's just food 


for thought. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, okay. I think today may be 


just some additional -- any Board members have 


comments on any of these items that Lew has 


raised. We don't need to take action today. 


think Lew is suggesting we begin to think about 


this. For example, at some point do we want to 


go back and do a sampling of -- are they PREs 


or PERs? 


 DR. WADE: PERs. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- PERs -- I -- I think my -- my 


agenda says PRE. 


 DR. WADE: That's -- that's me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay, a little -- okay. In 


any event, for example, is this something we'll 


want to take a look at, how to handle, you 


know, those or some of the other tracking 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

issues to closures. We've had concerns about 


those items on some of our matrices that -- 


that basically are not fully clo-- closed 


because we've indicated that they are going to 


be handled in the future in some manner or 


other, but we -- we need to have a way to go 


back and -- and assure that what we expected to 


happen actually happened. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. The comments about 


tracking through to closure are that we never 


have really come to full grips with, as best I 


can tell. In my mind we still do not have a 


process for assuring that what we have 


identified as what we've been calling 


overarching issues in working groups do not 


disappear when the working group has completed 


its function. That -- if we have a specific 


way of moving that from that -- from the 


working group box into the, quote, overarching 


issues or whatever is the name -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: -- box, I'm unaware of what that is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we don't have a formal 


process at the moment for doing that. We have 


sort of left that in limbo and that's the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

reason for -- for raising -- raising it at this 


point, to say okay, at some point we need to 


formalize what we are going to do about those 


kind of items. 


 MS. MUNN: And we certainly have enough of 


those items on our list now of overarching 


issues that it's certainly time we addressed 


that. If we can't do it on this phone call, 


then we certainly need to have some process in 


mind at least to suggest for our next work-- or 


for our next full-face Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Bob, go ahead. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Doesn't SC&A have a system that 


they are using to track the -- some of the 


things that they are doing? I believe John's 


got a pretty good system going on tracking some 


of the items that they're doing where -- where 


they stand on these items, where they're closed 


or not. Is that not true? 


 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro, do you want to re-- 


comment? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I'd be glad to. I think that 


the starting point is -- are the -- many of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

these concerns are imbedded in the dose 


reconstruction reviews. That is, when we look 


at individual cases. And in the process of 


going over our findings, we very often hit one 


where it's decided well, this is -- this is a ­

- a site profile issue, or this is some type of 


generic issue, and it's -- and -- so there is a 


-- there is a -- a record. That is, each one 


of the matrices -- for example, in the case of 


the dose recon-- if -- if it's triggered as a 


result of a -- a dose reconstruction review or 


audit, it's -- it's -- it's in that record. So 


we could actually go back and identify all of 


them there. 


This is also the case for the site profile 


reviews that we do when we -- we hit an issue 


that -- it's -- as part of the closeout 


process, we identify it. So I think that we do 


have a way to go back to the matrices, whether 


it's a matrix that's been generated in support 


of the -- the Task IV, dose reconstruction 


reviews, or the Task I, site profile reviews, 


we can actually go back through those matrices 


and identify the places where we sort of put 


these in a parking lot, saying well, these are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

going to be handled elsewhere. So I -- I think 


it's tractable, but you know -- but it's -- but 


-- and I believe also that -- that Jim Neton 


has, in one of his previous presentations, has 


indicated areas -- the items that are now -- 


it's like a growing list of items that are 


being tracked. So what I -- I guess what I'm 


saying is I believe the paper -- paper trail 


exists right now to go back and -- and 


recreate, okay, what are all the items that 


have -- that are -- are in the record right now 


as part of the -- the -- the matrices that we 


use for tracking closure, so I think it's 


there, but it may not be -- it would take a 


little work to pull them all out and -- and -- 


and cleanly have a nice separate list and -- 


and then formally track them. I don't think 


we've lost any, though. I think they're all 


there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask Jim Neton to comment, 


if Jim is on the line. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I'm on the line. I'm not 


exactly sure what to comment on at this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I -- I was just -- John 


Mauro's remark that he thought you had sort of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

been --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it was Stu, actually, 


that gave that update. 


DR. NETON: No, I think I -- I did -- I do have 


a tracking list for the dose reconstruction-


related items that were identified during the 


SC&A reviews that were global issues. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


DR. NETON: And then those were taken off of 


the -- not taken off of, but extrapolated from 


the -- the individual site profile reviews and 


dose reconstruction reviews, identified as such 


and tracked separately so that we didn't end up 


addressing them in every single dose 


reconstruction or site profile review where 


they occur -- where they, you know, appear. 


 DR. WADE: All right, this is Lew. Perhaps I 


can define the problem a bit and then, you 


know, step back and let you guys work the 


problem. But -- I mean the Board is conducting 


reviews of individual dose reconstructions. 


SC&A assists them in that. During those 


reviews issues will be raised and often in the 


resolution process it's marked that that issue 


will be dealt with in a site profile. Or it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

might say that issue will be dealt with when we 


review procedure XYZ -- again, because there 


are also site profile reviews and procedure 


reviews going on. 


When we do site profiles, sometimes issues come 


up and we say we -- we're seeing it here at the 


XYZ site, but it's a -- it's really an 


overarching issue which needs to be looked at 


across the complex. 


So we have all of these sort of reviews, and 


then we have the -- the binning of issues. 


What we're really -- what we don't have is the 


ability to -- to bring this all to closure. 


The linkages between the matrices, as it were, 


need to be thought about. Now maybe nothing is 


falling through the cracks, but my experience 


is, given the complexity of what you guys are 


doing, it's quite possible that we -- while we 


might think we completed a -- a DR review by 


saying we'll deal with that when we look at the 


procedure, making sure that that's happened and 


we can really put that to closure, there needs 


to be a mechanism. 


So I think all the information is there. 
I 


don't think anyone is trying not to deal with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

the information. The question is, is there a 


way to manage all that information? It almost 


requires an information system with linkages is 


what we're talking about. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. As you were 


speaking, Lew, it became very clear where the 


concern lies, from my perspective. That is the 


fact that the individuals from the agency and 


from SC&A who are in the individual workgroups 


who are addressing these things identify them 


as being what Jim has now called global issues. 


But we do not have any document -- there -- we 


have not ever established a piece of paper that 


goes from the working group to the agency 


saying we have identified this as a global 


issue; please put it on the list. That one 


link is -- you know, we -- we're relying on 


whoever is at the meeting when that's 


identified to somehow translate that into the 


other list, and we don't have a -- a simple 


memo saying we've identified this, please add 


it to the list. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew again. That's true, and 


then beyond that, when an issue has been 


resolved in some quarter, be it a procedures 

59 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

review or a site profile review, the 


information needs to flow back to the 


originating review document to say the fact 


that you have closed on this is indeed true 


because the issue has been put to rest. 


Just looking at the Board being able to 


conclude its business and check off on things, 


that linkage back, that the item now has been 


closed through work in another venue, is really 


what I also think needs to be thought about. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: I'll -- I'll be quiet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, other comments? 


COMMENTS ON LOS ALAMOS SEC PETITION
 

SENATOR BINGAMAN, D-NM


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: This is Jim Bingaman. Did 


anyone --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh --


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: -- alert you folks 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yes, we -- we agreed that as 


soon as you came on the line we would be 


pleased to hear from you. Thank you for 


joining us and we have most of the Board 


members present on the line, as well as a 


number of members of other federal agencies and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

the public, so we welcome you, Senator. We'd 


be pleased to have your remarks -- 


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: Well, thank you --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at this time. 


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: -- thank you for letting me 


interrupt thing for just a minute. I did want 


to just put in a plug for an issue that's very 


important in my state of New Mexico, and that's 


this Ruiz SEC petition that was just approved 


by NIOSH, this -- I think most people think of 


Los Alamos as sort of a place where theoretical 


physicists sat around with chalkboards. In 


fact, Los Alamos, since the time of the 


Manhattan Project, has been the nation's 


prototype laboratory for building nuclear 


weapons and components for the nuclear arsenal, 


and much of that work involved testing of 


plutonium and some of the other highly 


radioactive sources, such as tritium, that go 


into a warhead. Many of these tests of course 


were -- were sort of cutting-edge and -- and 


they knew very little about what they were 


doing, and the scientists and technicians that 


were involved in that testing really did not 


have much focus at all on the health impacts of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

that. 


I think what's important about this [Name 


Redacted] petition is that the NIO-- NIOSH 


recognized that while the workers had dose 


badges -- external dose badges that they wore, 


there was really little if any internal 


measurement going on, and little if any ability 


to reconstruct what they inhaled in these sort 


of one-of-a-kind engineering tests. So the SEC 


that NIOSH has approved is very important and 


visible in New Mexico because we have lots of 


people who -- who worked at -- at the 


Laboratory there for over for-- over 60 -- the 


last 60 years and -- and I just hope that 


NIOSH's recommendation can be approved so that 


these -- particularly some of these elderly 


individuals can -- can find compensation. So 


that's -- that was the -- that was the message 


I wanted to deliver. I hope that you can take 


that into consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We certainly will, and we 


appreciate your taking the time to -- to be 


with us here today, Senator. 


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: Well, I'm -- I know you have 


a lot of other fish to fry as well, but I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

wanted to be sure that was on your list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It is on our list. We thank you 


so much. 


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: Okay, thank you for letting 


me talk with you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 SENATOR BINGAMAN: Bye-bye. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Senator. 

 DR. WADE: Now from Senator -- from Congressman 

Udall. 

 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Yes, thank you, Lew. Just 


to reiterate what the Senator shared, we too 


feel very grateful that there was a 


recommendation on the [Name Redacted] petition, 


and I think I stated this at the last meeting, 


but we do want to reiterate what we stated at 


the last meeting and we are working with the 


Senator's staff on this, which is, in terms of 


the class definition, there are some concerns 


that the group has out here and we look forward 


to working with NIOSH and DOL to address those 


concerns. It would be ideal to get at some of 


those concerns prior to the May meeting. That 


may not be possible, in which case we will 


express the -- the advocates with whom we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

working will be expressing those concerns 


before the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. And thank you for 


those additional comments. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Thank you. 


REVIEW OF THE COMPLETENESS OF BOARD REVIEWS


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, then let us now return to 


the issue that we were talking about. I forget 


who had the floor at the moment. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I was speaking, Lew -- this is 


Lew -- only to try and define the issue. And 


again, I think -- as Wanda started and then I 


tried to finish -- there are two sides to it. 


One is we want to make sure that when issues 


are raised they're being captured to be worked 


on. And then my add-on to that is, and when 


issues are resolved we want to be sure that 


that information flows back to the originating 


venue so that the -- the review can indeed be 


closed with certainty. And I worry about the 


right hand not knowing what the left hand is -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- doing, both in terms of defining 


the issue and then in closing on the issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I'd like to get some addition 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

input, and it could be at our next meeting, but 


I'd like to learn from our contractor, John, 


what you folks could be prepared to do in terms 


of tracking issues of this sort -- because some 


of this is sort of a database issue -- 


capturing and tracking. And then the other -- 


other end of it would be for our Board members, 


and we may need to have a working group that 


simply addresses this in some way, even one 


that -- that considers how to -- how to best 


address it, what is -- what is needed in terms 


of information tracking. 


DR. MAURO: Paul, yeah, I think it's very 


doable, simply because we do have all of these 


matrices that emerge from the various tasks 


that we're working on, whether it's under Task 


I or site profiles or Task IV -- that's mainly 


where they come from, from Task IV or the DR 


reviews, and then what really -- what happens 


is there's a cross-talk with -- between -- 


between the -- these Tasks. We -- what -- what 


-- I guess a suggestion -- my first thought is 


that when -- every time we hit one, here we go 


with another matrix, but what we do is we keep 


a list that said -- you know, as they emerge, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

just accumulate them on the list and we keep a 


record of -- of the list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, and -- and I'm not 


going to ask you to give us a solution right 


now 'cause it would be top of the head, but 


what I -- what I think we do need to know, and 


Lew, you can help me on this, but it seems to 


me we need to know if -- is this a separate 


task, is this something that is substantive or 


is it -- is it just simple rearrangement of 


existing information and pulling it out in a 


different cross-walk sort of some -- of some 


manner, or is this a substantial effort. And 


if so, is it a separate task even. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, and what I would suggest, 


Paul, with your permission, is possibly a 


conference call with NIOSH and SC&A and I, and 


certainly we would let the Board know that -- 


Board members know if it was going to take 


place, just to sort of explore this issue. You 


know, there are responsibilities all around. 


The solution might come from such a discussion, 


at least to bring to the Board. But it's not 


an unusual issue when you start to have 


matrices linked to matrices and the need to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

cross-link. But I think we need to talk about 


it, explore it, and then we can get the 


contracting officer involved to see, if indeed 


we want to pursue it with SC&A, whether it 


falls within the terms of the existing 


contract. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. It doesn't seem to 


be an intractable issue and -- and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, it's just a matter of getting 


our hands around it properly and -- and -- and 


determining how to best do it, I think. 


 MS. MUNN: It would seem that a half-hour's 


conversation would be able to outline a fairly 


clear process for doing this without undue 


burden. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other Board comments at this 


time? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Lew, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You know, Larry Elliott gives us 


a -- a (unintelligible) quarterly update on 


some of the items that we have asked NIOSH to 


report on, and it may be that we want to come 


up with a running list, check them off as we 


go. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67

 DR. WADE: You know, I do think that we've done 


well -- the Board has done well working with 


NIOSH in terms of these global issues, to -- to 


use Jim's word, but that's just another matrix 


that falls within this universe of matrices 


that need to be sort of cross-- 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, this doesn't require action 


now except to follow up. And Lew, can you make 


sure that we get a conference call and -- I 


certainly want to be involved, and any other 


Board members that are interested in -- in 


participating. We don't want a full Board 


meeting, but we certainly can let Lew know if 


you want to sit in on the -- on the exchange. 


 DR. WADE: All right, I'll put out a little 


note on Monday suggesting such a call and 


dates. It doesn't have to be a workgroup. It 


certainly wouldn't --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it might --


 DR. WADE: -- we couldn't have a quorum -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it might emerge into one later, 


but --


 DR. WADE: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68

 DR. ZIEMER: -- right -- right now -- 


 DR. WADE: It'll just be a discussion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it'll be a preliminary 


discussion. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Hey, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't have any further 


comments on the tracking question. I think we 


beat that one around well. The first two items 


on there, though, I just wanted to -- I -- I 


think where PERs become relevant, and it ties 


back to our matrices, is that if -- if the -- 


well, there -- they're totally -- they're also 


relevant if -- if NIOSH submits a PER based on 


(unintelligible) issues or changes, but I think 


we could tie them to our -- it'd be beneficial 


to us to tie them to our matrix if -- in fact, 


for example, the -- the finding that keeps 


coming up again and again on our DR reviews is 


the AP geometry question, and I'm pretty sure 


that's being examined as a PER issue -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so if it was flagged that way, 


then we could see --


 DR. ZIEMER: Who could pick it up, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) the PER -- 


right, right, right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's one comment. Then the 


other thing, this -- this first item of 


instructions, I've asked that that also be on 


our agenda for the subcommittee meeting coming 


up, and maybe we can get more into the details 


on that, but I feel like these instructions or 


notes or DR guidelines, they're called various 


things, but they -- they really are the 


templates by which the dose reconstructors do ­

- do the -- do the dose reconstruction for -- 


for certain sites, anyway, especially -- I -- I 


-- and we -- Stu Hinnefeld did send around a 


bunch of example ones for us to review and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and these -- these look a 


little more like procedures, it seems to me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, they -- yeah, they're a 


little like procedures, but they -- I guess -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I would wonder if something like a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

procedures review approach would be 


appropriate. That's the reason -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I brought this up 


previously and -- and it turns out these are 


not really proceduralized and -- and actually 


there's a question as to whether they keep 


revisions from one to another. These evolve on 


a week-- sometimes on a weekly basis, based on 


the -- Group B, I think it is, or Group -- I'm 


not sure which group within ORAU does the dose 


reconstructions, but they have their -- their 


weekly meetings and they -- they -- you know, 


these are -- these are constantly evolving for 


their -- their -- you know, they're templates 


to do these DRs. And I think -- you know, even 


if we don't review them as procedures, I think 


they'd be very beneficial to review in the 


process of reviewing the cases. And right now 


these are not included in part of the 


individual case file, so that's -- that's one 


thing I wanted to discuss with the subcommittee 


is should we ask if NIOSH can include the -- 


the version of the DR notes or whatever they're 


called for -- say for Savannah River, whatever 


version the dose reconstructor used for that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

case, case number 1234, they include a copy in 


that case file. That way when we're -- when 


we're reviewing the case we know exactly sort 


of what -- you know, what guidelines they were 


using --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to reconstruct the dose. And 


-- and -- and if available, I don't know if 


this is possible, but you know, I -- it would 


be nice to see all previous revisions so that, 


you know, if we pull a case that was 


reconstructed in '04, we can look and see a -- 


a Savannah River '04 version that would be 


applicable, you know, in terms of our review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but I think they're very 


helpful in terms of -- I -- I think they're 


helpful to SC&A in terms of understanding what 


the dose reconstructor was doing and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, Mark, as a start maybe 


the dose reconstruction subcommittee could -- 


could take an initial look at how these things 


are and -- used and how they have evolved and 


whether or not the approach you've just 


described is the way to do it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay, okay, and we can 


discuss it on the subcommittee and maybe come 


to the full Board with a -- with a re-- a 


proposal or... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Lew -- Lew, that would 


separate these out from the other two items, I 


think. 


 DR. WADE: Correct, and I think it's a -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let the subcommittee take an 


initial look at that and see how they think we 


ought to approach it. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable? 


 (No responses) 


 Any objections? 


 (No responses) 


 We'll proceed on that basis then. 


 DR. WADE: And then on the PERs, I guess we'll 


be hearing from NIOSH, you know, as to the 


activities there, and that will trigger Board 


discussion. And then on the tracking issue -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that could be -- that sort 


of can couple with the tracking, in a sense, 


perhaps, but --


 DR. WADE: Right. Right. 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

73

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- 'cause there is a tracking that 


would be needed for that, as well. 


 DR. WADE: Correct, and then I'll arrange a 


call to talk about the overall tracking issues, 


and then we'll bring the results of that call 


back to the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Are we ready to 


proceed? 


ASSIGNMENT OF TWO MEMBER TEAMS
 

TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL DR’S
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER
 

Okay, the next is assignment of team members to 


review the individual dose reconstructions. 


This is for round seven. And Board members, I 


-- I have actually made some assignments which 


I want to pass along, but I -- I need you to 


have your lists of -- for round seven. And 


Mark, you might help me on this. The -- the 


matrix that I am using was the one in the book 


at our last meeting, and I show that -- that 


your subcommittee selected 28 cases, or 


recommended 28 cases for this round. Does that 


agree with what you had? There were --


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think that's correct, 


yeah, let me -- I'm pulling it up as well, 


sorry. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now the -- the list we had 


was a list that I think Stu gen-- Stu Hinnefeld 


generated for you. The numbers were in random 


order and I'm looking at this -- this is a list 


dated December, 2006, I think is when he 


originally generated it. The first case on the 


list is 2006-12-079. All the cases start with 


2006-12, which is December, 2006, and then the 


first case is case 079, which was a Los Alamos 


case. Do you all have that list? 


 DR. WADE: What I sent out was a list of those 


28 cases that had been very kindly compiled by 


Kathy Behling. Unfortunately, that shows the 


NIOSH ID number and --


 DR. ZIEMER: And we can't use the NIOSH ID 


number in this meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I don't know, I would -- I 


would ask -- I think we can refer to the NIOSH 


ID number. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you can't --


 DR. WADE: Liz, are you on the call? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you can't use the NIOSH 


ID number, it -- it links to (unintelligible) 


and documents in our system of records. 


 DR. WADE: So I can't even say the number on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

the --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No. 


 DR. WADE: -- call? But I can identify the 


site and the cancer type and the best estimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if -- if we all use -- 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the list that we had at the 


last meeting --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Or you could just -- the 


first one on the list is number one, the second 


one on the list is number two -- 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Unintelligible) everybody 


has the same (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think the list that Stu gave 


us was not NIOSH numbers, Liz. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. Now that -- if everybody 


has that list, but I didn't send that list 


around. I sent around the list that had the 


NIOSH numbers on it. That was my mistake. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, if we just call them number 


one through 28 and not refer to the ID number ­

-


 DR. WADE: That should work just fine. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76

 MS. MUNN: -- that would certainly be better 


right here. Identifying -- finding the 


original ones --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, on Stu's list, they -- they 


actually went from one -- there was an 001 on 


up to 470, and I guess from those he picked at 


random ones that had certain characteristics, 


so I'm a little confused here now on which 


numbers to use. If we start calling these one, 


two, three, then -- then you -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


MS. BEACH: This is Josie Beach. Is it 


possible for someone just to quick send that 


out to us? 


 DR. WADE: I don't know, let me ask Kathy or 


Hans, do you have electronically a matrix of 


the seventh set that is led by the random 


number that we used at the last meeting, as 


opposed to the NIOSH ID. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. Yes, I 


do, I have Stu's initial list that has -- that 


has all of the cases on it and I can forward 


that to everyone. 


 DR. WADE: Would we be able to identify the 28 


from that list? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77

 DR. ZIEMER: I can identify them from that list 


for you. 


DR. ROESSLER: Seems to me it would be easier 


to take the list that came out and do like 


somebody suggested and just number them from 


one to 28. 


 MS. MUNN: Since we all have that in our hands 


right now --


DR. ROESSLER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and nobody has to look for 


anything else. 


DR. ROESSLER: I just printed mine out so I can 


renumber. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the prob-- here's the 


problem. I -- I made the -- I made the 


assignments from the matrix, not from Lew's 


list. 


 DR. WADE: But if you were to define the case, 


Paul, I could then state the number, one to 28. 


 MS. MUNN: You can define it just as easily by 

the POC. 

 DR. WADE: Right. I mean if you tell us -- if 

you -- if you want to say the cases assigned to 


the first team by the POC, the site and the 


cancer type, then I can identify the numbers -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

 DR. WADE: -- what people have in front of 

them. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let -- let me do the following. 


Let -- let me just give you my assignments and 


I'm going to -- I'm going to give them in -- in 


the numerical order -- this is from Stu's list, 


but in numerical order starting with 001. 


Okay? And I'll tell you the -- the case 


numbers and the facility and the team. Okay? 


Now, first of all let me give you the -- I've 


got six teams of two now, so here are the -- 


here are the six teams of two. Most of these 


teams are similar to before, but I've moved 


Josie and Phil onto other teams. They were on 


teams of three before. Now we're -- we're 


changed, but team one will be still Poston and 


Presley. Team two is Roessler and Lockey. 


Team three, Griffon and Clawson. Team four, 


Gibson/Ziemer. Team five, Munn/Beach. Team 


six, Melius and Schofield. I'm sorry, team 


five is Melius/Schofield. Team six is 


Munn/Beach -- get them out of order here. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Say that again. I'm sorry, I was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

writing what I thought you said first -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just change your number to 


team six, Wanda --


 MS. MUNN: Okay, I'm team six. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- instead of five, and then 


Melius/Schofield is team five. 


 MS. MUNN: And Jim and Phil are team six (sic). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Wanda, they're breaking up our 


(broken transmission). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay -- what (unintelligible)? 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius was lamenting the fact 


that they've broken up the Melius/Munn team. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, I had to separate you 


guys. 


 MS. MUNN: And I don't know why -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And actually I put Munn/Beach 


together because it's probably easier to avoid 


conflicts of interest there since they're both 


from that same site. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now, I've assigned five 


cases to most of the groups. Two of the groups 


will just get four cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80

 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So team one, and here -- here are 


the cases and the facilities. Team one, which 


is Poston/Presley, case number 001, Portsmouth. 


 DR. WADE: Now go -- now we just have to take a 


moment --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Portsmouth, and the probability of 


causation, 37.02 -- there's only one Portsmouth 


on the --


 DR. ZIEMER: Only one Portsmouth. 


 MS. MUNN: At -- at the very bottom of the list 


 DR. WADE: That'll go to team one. Okay, give 


us the second to team one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Second one is 013. 


 DR. WADE: Site? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brookhaven. 


 DR. WADE: One second. 


(Pause) 


 MS. MUNN: Point -- 3.17? 


 DR. WADE: Let me find it on my list. 


 MS. MUNN: I think it's near the bottom. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's a pancreas. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 23. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81

 DR. WADE: We got it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Next is 017. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is Pacific Northwest. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) from the bottom. 

 DR. WADE: Pacific Northwest -- okay, we got 

it. 

 MS. MUNN: Is that team number one? 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 29, the lung? 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so for we got three for number 


one. What's the fourth for number one? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Fourth is 056, and that's Los 


Alamos. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, in the middle, number -- 


well, which -- we have two Los Alamos. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, give them the --


 DR. ZIEMER: It's -- it's -- well, on the -- on 


the list that came out it would be the second 


Los Alamos one, which would be -- 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, 17.79. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 058, which is Rocky Flats. 


 MS. MUNN: POC of 33.84? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82

 DR. WADE: It's the only Rocky Flats, yes. 


Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, team two. 


 DR. WADE: Well, just stop for a moment, Paul. 


Let me -- let me translate. So team one, if 


you take the list that I sent out and you 


number it down from the top, one, to the 


bottom, 28, then team one has numbers 16, it 


has number 19, it has number 23, 26 and 28. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I've got them. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


 MS. HOWELL: And Lew, this is Emily. I just 


wanted to draw your attention to number 16 


having a potential problem. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number which? 


 MS. MUNN: Sixteen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Portsmouth. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That was me, Emily? 


 DR. WADE: No, 16 is the Los Alamos. Let me 


look on my list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sixteen on your list is 001, 


Portsmouth. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and your concern is the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

Poston conflict. 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes --


 DR. WADE: Correct? 


 MS. HOWELL: -- with the -- with Los Alamos. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Poston has a Los Alamos? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, so we would need to move -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: Well, you can put them on team 


two; I don't have a conflict. 


 DR. WADE: So leave them with five and then 


move that to someone else. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll just pull that out. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So that's tak-- taking away the 


Los Alamos. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Correct, so now for team one we have 


19, 23, 26 and 28. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, that's what I have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, wait a minute, 26 --


 DR. WADE: On my list, 26. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Was 26 --


 MS. MUNN: PNNL. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Portsmouth? 


 MS. MUNN: No, PNNL. 


 DR. WADE: PNNL. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You've moved them, though. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's 28. 


 MS. MUNN: No, 28 is Portsmouth. 

 DR. WADE: Right, 28 is Portsmouth, 26 is -- 

 MS. MUNN: PNNL. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, hang on. Lew, your -- your 


number 16 is what? 


 DR. WADE: My number 16 is LANL, LA -- LANL. 


All I'm doing is numbering from the top of the 


list I sent out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Okay, ready for -- 


 DR. WADE: Number two, team number two. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, this is case 060, Paducah. 


 DR. WADE: One moment, please. 


DR. ROESSLER: Number ten? 


 MS. MUNN: 42.96? 


 DR. WADE: Right, okay. Go ahead. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 063 is Oak Ridge X-10. 


 DR. WADE: Let me find it, Oak Ridge X-10, 


that's number eight. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 076 is Pinellas. 


DR. ROESSLER: Twenty-two? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85

 DR. WADE: Twenty-two -- well, there's two, 


you've got to give us more information, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, hang on, let's see, 076, 


that's -- that's the second Pinellas on the 


list, there's -- let me catch -- 


 MS. MUNN: 44.43? 


DR. ROESSLER: Twenty-four? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It -- hang on. It's -- yeah, 


44.4. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then 079, Los Alamos. 


DR. ROESSLER: What's the POC? 


 DR. ZIEMER: 079 -- oh, that's the very first 


one on the list, that's 42.38. 


 DR. WADE: Got it. 


DR. ROESSLER: Number three on our list. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so now we have four for team 


two. Do you have another one for team two? 


 DR. ZIEMER: 099, Project Gnome. 


DR. ROESSLER: Number 15. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Now if we pause for just a 


moment, according to the numbered list that I 


provided you, numbering down from one to 28, 


team two has number 3, it has number 8, has 


number 10, has number 15 and number 24. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

DR. ROESSLER: I'm okay on all. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: Is Jim on? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ready? 


 DR. WADE: We're ready for three. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Team three, num-- number 340, 


Hanford, and 344, Hanford. 


 MS. MUNN: These are 44.1 and 47.33? 

 DR. WADE: Right. Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: Numbers six and seven, respectively. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You got those? Then --


 MR. GRIFFON: Who is team three? I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Team three is Griffon/Clawson. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 354, Aliquippa. 


 DR. WADE: Let me find it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aliquippa Forge. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 21. 


DR. ROESSLER: Twenty-one. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 360, Simonds Saw. 


 DR. WADE: 360, Simonds Saw, I've got it. 


That's number 18, correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And 362, Hanford. 


 DR. WADE: Let me find the Hanford, 362. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87

 MS. MUNN: POC 34.83? 

 DR. WADE: Correct. 

 MS. MUNN: Number 25. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, so team number three has, 

according to my numbered list, 6, 7, 18, 21 and 


25. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Team four, this would be 


Gibson/Ziemer, number 100. 


 DR. WADE: Let me find it. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 11. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's the very last one on -- 


 DR. WADE: Got it. 


 MS. MUNN: 42.7? 


 DR. WADE: Got it, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see, number 306, Mound. 


 MR. GIBSON: I can't do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sorry, yeah. We're -- let's ­

- can we trade, let's trade Mound, 306, for the 


Los Alamos one --


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that team one had. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 16. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Los Alamos, 056, will go to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

team four. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GIBSON: What was the -- what was that 


number, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We would -- we would pick up 056, 


Los Alamos, instead of the Mound one. 


 DR. WADE: I'll give you the numbers, Mike, 


when we're finished. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What's the number on that Mound? 


 MS. MUNN: Number 13 on this list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's 3-- 306 on the original list. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All righty, I've got it marked. 


 DR. WADE: Number 13 on our list. Go ahead. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 322, Kansas City. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 17. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: POC 22? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And 337, Lawrence Livermore. 


 MS. MUNN: POC 51.04, number 14 on our list? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And 340, Hanford. 


 MS. MUNN: POC 34.83 -- no, we've already done 


that one. 


 DR. WADE: We need --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89

 DR. ZIEMER: 340 -- let me check it here. 


MS. BEACH: Is that Hanford/PNNL? 


 DR. WADE: No, we did that one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on here. 


 MS. MUNN: POC 46.89? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's 46.897. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, yeah. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, that's it. 

 MS. MUNN: Number 12. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's Hanford/PNNL, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so now team four, on our list 


has number 4, number 12, number 14, number 16 


and number 17. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now team five is going -- 


 MS. HOWELL: I'm sorry, Lew, could you repeat 


one more time what team four has? 


 DR. WADE: Team four has number 4, number 12, 


number 14, number 16 and number 17. 


MS. BEACH: I thought we just gave them number 


11, the Hanford/PNNL. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I thought so, too, yeah. 


 MS. HOWELL: Right, and I don't have them down 


for number 4 on our list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, not number 4. That's 


Savannah River. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90

 DR. WADE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, change my 


number 4 to number 11. Number 11, 12, 14, 16 


and 17. Sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Team five will have 335, 


Mound. 


 DR. WADE: We need a POC on that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, hang on here. 


MS. BEACH: 51.45, 27? 


 MS. MUNN: Got to be it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's the one near the front of 


the list here, let's see -- yes, it's 36.61. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Who is this team now? 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is team five, which is 


Melius/Schofield. 


 MS. MUNN: I thought we'd given that to number 


one. 


MS. BEACH: To number one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was going to say, 


y'all gave 36.61 to team one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I didn't give -- give it to team 


one. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so we will make that 


correction. Let me just capture the paperwork 


here. So 36.61 now goes to team five and the 


Mound --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Be sure that we're not using 


the NIOSH ID numbers. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, that's the probability of 


causation. And 51.45 goes to team one, Mound. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That -- that --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, give us another one, Paul. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Where are we at here? What was 


the last one I gave you? 


 DR. WADE: You gave us a Mound on team five. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, next is 370, Hanford. 


 MS. MUNN: What's the POC? 


 DR. ZIEMER: 70, Hanford --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, Hanford's (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: 70, Hanford. 


 MS. MUNN: I thought we had the Hanford ones 


covered. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we have another Hanford. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, no more Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That one is 44.1. 


 MS. MUNN: We'd originally assigned that to 


number three. 


MS. BEACH: Three. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did you have two Hanfords for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

team three, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Team three I have -- I have 340 


and 362, Hanford. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I -- this isn't going to work 


then, I guess. Maybe Paul and I could go off 


line and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we can work --


 DR. WADE: -- make up this list and send it to 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it out. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? Sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's a -- there's -- there's 


several Hanfords on here, so whatever one you 


wrote down before must not have been 362 -- or 


3-- 370 I didn't give before. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we've got five of them on here 


and I show them all assigned, so -- 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, so we're -- we're just not -- 


I mean it's -- I sent out the wrong ID number 


and that's my fault, so what we will do is I'll 


get with Paul, we'll put together these 


assignments, we'll send them out to people and 


give people an opportunity to comment if they 


would. And if we hear no comments, then we'll 


assume the assignment's made. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93

 MS. MUNN: Fine. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? We tried. I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just -- just for ease here, 


I'll just mention to you that for team six, 


Melius/Schofield, I've got four Savannah River 


ones, starting with 421, 428, 455 and 470 are 


the numbers from the -- from the matrix. 


 MS. MUNN: I think that ought to do it then, 


everything else is (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Those -- those are the last four 


Savannah River ones on this sheet -- make it 


easy for you. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that'd be great, then 


everything else belongs to -- to Josie and me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, but -- but we'll send out a 


list and clarify all these. 


 DR. WADE: Right, we'll just have to deal with 


that one Hanford case that has 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? So, you know, you should hear 


from us very soon on this, and this way SC&A 


can begin its process to -- to make contacts. 


That's really why we wanted to do this quickly 


so that they could proceed with their work on 

94 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

the seventh set. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'll -- I'll try to give you my 


list tomorrow by e-mail, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, and then I can translate 


it and send it out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER FROM DR. FUORTES
 

DR. ZIEMER


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Next, Board correspondence, 


letters from Dr. Fuortes. Lew, did -- you 


distributed those letters? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I distributed a lot of letters 


and I need to explain. You know, there -- 


there are two sort of batches of letters that 


had come in, and you know, for completeness and 


transparency, I sent everything out to you. 


There are two e-mails I sent to you that dealt 


with the Ames SEC petition that Dr. Fuortes had 


sent to me. 


 Larry, could you put those two in perspective 


as to -- not their content, but from a 


procedural point of view -- where that process 


and how it's likely to unfold? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, this is Larry Elliott. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

petition that came forward from Dr. Fuortes on 


the Ames University Laboratory dealt with a 


time frame and work activities that were not 


included in the previous class that had been 


established for the Ames University. This 


class looks at sheet metal workers, et cetera, 


folks who dismantled duct-work at the -- at the 


-- at the site. And so these e-mails that he 


has provided are just information that is -- 


that is being considered within the evaluation 


that we are doing on that petition and that 


evaluation report is due to come to the Board 


sometime in May, I believe -- May or June. So 


the evaluation of this petition is underway and 


this information that Dr. Fuortes has provided 


us will be considered in that evaluation and 


reported out. 


 DR. WADE: Fine, thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any questions on -- on 


that, or comments? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. This doesn't require any action today, 


but wanted to make everybody aware of that 


input from Dr. Fuortes. 


 DR. WADE: Now there was a second brace of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

input from Dr. Fuortes that relates to Pantex, 


and there I've sent you everything that I had 


received. Dr. Fuortes particularly asked that 


we share this with the Board and -- and I've 


done that. 


Larry, could -- would you -- could you put this 


situation in context? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I'll put it in a procedural 


context. This petition came forward from -- 


from Dr. Fuortes regarding workers at the 


Pantex facility over a number of years. The --


as part of our process in dealing and working 


with petitioners, we had a consultation call 


with -- (unintelligible) and -- and the other 


two petitioners on this petition concerning 


elements of information that needed to be 


provided in order for the petition to be 


qualified for evaluation. In that consultation 


we did not find the petition to meet the 


criteria for evaluation and moving on, and so 


we were ready to -- in fact, we had determined 


that it was not qualified for evaluation and 


Dr. Fuortes was a-- was interested in appealing 


that determination, and that would normally go 


in front of the appeal panel that the Director 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

of NIOSH establishes to review these -- these 


instances where a petition is denied and 


somebody wants -- the petitioner wants an 


appeal. 


Post that -- and so you'll see a letter from me 


to Dr. Fuortes that indicates that we had this 


consultation call and the deficiencies and that 


there was no remedy, and so we were finding a 


determination that the petition did not qualify 


for evaluation. After that you'll see a letter 


from Dr. Fuortes that was addressed to me and 


it was submitted under an e-mail to myself and 


to Lew Wade taking exception to that 


determination and -- and desirous of the 


Board's involvement in -- in looking at this 


situation. 


At that time or thereafter, Dr. Fuortes 


provided additional information regarding the 


petition, and so you'll see a third letter that 


is a letter that -- I think March 7th it's 


dated, and it goes back to Dr. Fuortes from -- 


under my signature, indicating that we have 


this new information that he has provided and 


therefore the -- the petition is -- is still 


under evaluation. This new information causes 

98 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

the petition to be -- continue through the 


evaluation phase and we'll have -- we'll have 


another conference call with him to explore if 


there are any deficiencies left or if this now 


information does satisfy the requirements under 


42 CFR Section B(3)(9), and that's where we 


find the criteria that must be met for a full 


evaluation. So this -- this thing -- this is 


under -- under evaluation and consideration 


right now. Dr. Fuortes -- if -- if we find 


that new information does not satisfy the 


requirements for evaluation, we will so notify 


him and he -- he has the option to -- to seek 


appeal. 


 DR. WADE: And you've con-- communicated this 


to Dr. Fuortes? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we have. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. Board members, 


any questions? This is for information. We --


no action required today. 


 (No responses) 


SCHEDULE OF FUTURE BOARD MEETINGS
 

DR. WADE
 

Okay. Let's proceed then, schedule for future 


meetings. Lew, do you want to lead us through 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

that? 


 DR. WADE: Yep. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we had a request for one 


change, at least, that -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. Now -- right now in your 


possession, I hope, is a schedule of Board 


meetings that takes us through June of 2008. 


-- I won't read them to you unless you want me 


to. The only change that has been requested on 


the materials that I sent you was a change in 


the meeting that I had scheduled for March 


25th, 26th and 27th of 2008. I would like to 


propose rescheduling that meeting to April 9, 


10 and 11. Everything else I've sent you 


through June of 2008 I believe is firm because 


I haven't heard from any Board members, but the 


meeting -- face-to-face meeting scheduled for 


March 25th, 26th and 27th of 2008 I propose 


rescheduling to April 9, 10 and 11 of 2008. 


With that change we'll be scheduled through 


June of next year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any objection? 


We're actually asking if anyone has major 


conflicts that would cause them a problem. 


 MS. MUNN: No, my only concern is scheduling 


I 
100 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

something that period of April. 


 DR. WADE: I know, I'm sorry --


 MS. MUNN: There's always my personal problem 


with income taxes. 


 DR. WADE: -- and I did everything I could, 

Wanda. 

 MS. MUNN: That's fine. We do what we have to 

do. 

 DR. LOCKEY: What was the date in April again? 


 DR. WADE: 9, 10 and 11, and that meets your 


schedule. 


 MS. MUNN: Against that. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. If there's no objections, 


we'll accept that change in our future 


scheduled times. 


BOARD WORKING TIME
 

DR. ZIEMER
 

Let's move on then. Under Board working time 


what I'd like to do is just get an update on 


any of the working groups that have met since 


our last meeting, or any of the working groups 


that have other things to report. I know that 


-- I think Rocky Flats has met, Hanford has, 


maybe one or two others. 


 DR. WADE: I could just run down the list -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101

 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, why don't you just go down 


the list of those who --


 DR. WADE: I'm going to run the full list and 


ju--


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, run the list and see -- 


 DR. WADE: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if any chairs have anything to 


report. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That'll be fine. 


 DR. WADE: So I'll identify the entity and the 


chair, and then if you wish to comment, fine; 


if not, then we'll move to the next. I -- I'll 


start with the subcommittee on dose 


reconstruction, ably chaired by Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we have not met, but 


we -- we have a meeting coming up on April 


11th, I think. I wasn't really planning on 


doing --


 DR. WADE: That's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- report outs here, but that's ­

- that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, just a status here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, we're -- 


we're planning a meeting on April 11th in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

Cincinnati to go over the fourth set, and the 


fifth set we just got an updated matrix from 


NIOSH, and also some other items such as these 


DR guidelines. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. The workgroup on 


Nevada Test Site site profile, chaired by 


Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We had a meeting on the 15th, I 


believe, and went through 20 of the 25 or 26 


issues. We have another conference call 


scheduled for (unintelligible) o'clock on the 


18th (unintelligible) these (unintelligible) 


issues before the face-to-face Board meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Workgroup on Savannah 


River Site site profile -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah --


 DR. WADE: -- Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Lew. The -- the Q-cleared 


members of the working group made a trip to 


Savannah River a couple of weeks ago -- or 


probably a little more than a couple of weeks 


ago now -- and went through this classified 


database. The last I talked to Sam Glover, 


they were -- they had to leave their notes 


there to go through a classification review. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

They were still waiting to get those back, and 


then there's still I think a few other 


questions that are related to the database, so 


still pending. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Workgroup on the Rocky 


Flats site profile and SEC petition, Mark 


Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, a couple of things since 


the last meeting. I'm trying to think when 


the last meeting was, but SC&A did a -- did a 


trip to Rocky Flats to the records center and 


checked these 450 boxes. They -- they have a 


draft trip report -- a -- a lot of their -- 


they have a lot of reports that are in process 


of being reviewed right now for privacy. 


They've also agreed to get a final report to 


us, I think by close of business today or 


tomorrow, which -- it'll go to the Board 


members initially and it's still in privacy 


review so we want to treat this as a draft that 


has not been ready for full disclosure to the 


public yet, but NIOSH is expediting that 


privacy review so we're hoping within a very 


short time we'll have it ready for -- for 


members, congressional staff members and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

petitioners and everybody. 


So they -- they -- SC&A went out and did this 


trip to Rocky Flats, checking some of the 450 


boxes -- I think it's 450 -- mainly to look for 


follow-up on this question of relevant logbooks 


for the time periods which were not captured in 


the original action. And I -- I -- I figure 


it's fair to say -- they -- they're capturing 


this in their reports. I don't want to -- I 


don't want to -- I'm not prepared to really 


discuss conclusions here, but I think they 


found some relevant information, but I -- to -- 


to sort of -- if I can capture what Joe 


Fitzgerald told me over the phone, it -- it 


basically -- they certainly wouldn't 


characterize any documents that they found as 


data rich documents. So there was some 


information in -- in this other time period of 


interest, but -- but not really a lot of 


information, not a lot of data rich 


information, and -- and it did not end up 


changing any conclusions in their report, I 


don't think, at this -- I -- that's my 


understanding, anyway. 


 MS. MUNN: That's (unintelligible). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105

 MR. GRIFFON: The other thing that happened in 


between the last meeting and now is -- and I 


don't remember the date, but we had a technical 


phone call between NIOSH and SC&A. I -- I 


listened in. It was on neutron issues -- 


mainly the neutron/photon ratio issues, along 


with -- well, all applications of that, I 


guess, but as it -- as it pertains to coworker 


models as well, the neutron coworker question. 


And this is also going to be followed up on 


within their final report, and -- and we're 


going to probably need to address that a little 


further at -- we have an April 19th scheduled 


workgroup meeting to follow up on that 


question. 


And I think, you know, lastly, all Board 


members will receive this full report -- I'm 


trying to remember, I think Joe told me it was 


somewhere in the range of 200 pages. I -- I 


focus people first on the executive summary. 


It's a good -- I -- I think they're going to 


outline the main conclusion-- you know, I asked 


them to be succinct in the executive summary. 


There's a lot of detail in the rest of the 


sections, obviously, but that should go out -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

my understanding is close of business today or 


maybe into first thing tomorrow, so look for 


that, everyone, please. That's it. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Workgroup on Chapman 


Valve SEC, Dr. Poston is chair. Dr. Poston, 


are you with us? 


 (No response) 


My memory, if it serves me, is that workgroup 


met on the 23rd of February and is scheduled to 


meet next Tuesday, the 10th of April. Any 


workgroup members wish to comment? 


DR. ROESSLER: That's my understanding. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. The workgroup on SEC issues, 


including the 250-day issue and preliminary 


review of 83.14 SEC petitions, chaired by Dr. 


Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: We have not had any meetings since 


our last Board meeting. However, I have been 


talking to Jim Neton and to Arjun and mainly 


there's some information-gathering that has to 


be done by NIOSH that will -- will take some 


time and so we're just sort of working on the ­

- the parameters for that. 


And then the other issue rela-- that's mainly 


related to Nevada Test Site. The -- the other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

issue related to our -- our workgroup al-- also 


is this, you know, less than 250-day issue, 


regards the Ames Lab, and SC&A has finished a 


draft report related to our workgroup findings 


and our deliberations and will be sending that 


out to the workgroup very shortly. 


I don't have a clear schedule for our next 


meeting, somewhat depends on when NIOSH can get 


together some of the information that we -- we 


need for this. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. Workgroup to 


review SEC petitions that did not qualify, Dr. 


Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: We had a meeting -- our second 


meeting in March, on March 28th, and we also 


had Laurie and Denise participate in the 


meeting by telephone call, and we came up with 


four additional recommendations based on that. 


A draft of all the recommendations were sent 


out to the working group after the meeting. 


didn't hear back from anybody so I'm -- my 


assumption is that the -- the recommendations, 


as we had drafted them, are acceptable to the 


working group and I guess will be presented to 


the Board formally at our next meeting. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108

 DR. WADE: Very good. 


 DR. MELIUS: Jim Lockey, this Jim Melius. 
I 


wasn't able to make the meeting, but I also 


did-- don't recall receiving a copy of the 


draft report, so I (broken transmission) 


appreciate if I could get a copy. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Sure, Jim, I thought --


 DR. MELIUS: I may have misplaced it or 


something, but I --


 DR. LOCKEY: I'll have [Name Redacted] send it 


out -- I'll have [Name Redacted] out the rep-- 


to every -- to every Board -- to every working 


group member again. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, Jim. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. The workgroup on Hanford 


site profile, Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: We had a face-to-face meeting in 


Cincinnati a couple of weeks ago, mainly 


focusing on the neutron exposure ratio at 


Hanford. The meeting went well. It was a very 


useful exchange of -- of information and points 


of view and where we stand now is that NIOSH is 


actually working -- they've found some other 


documents that will be helpful in looking at 


this issue, and they're getting those -- those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

together and so forth. There's been some 


follow-up discussions between SC&A and NIOSH 


about that, and I actually just got an e-mail I 


think yesterday or maybe even this morning from 


Chuck Nelson to set up a (unintelligible) on 


the O drive with this information, so I think 


we're -- we're moving along on that. 


There's some uncertainty about schedule, simply 


'cause it somewhat depends on -- there's 


further documents that -- that need to be 


looked at, but it was a productive meeting and, 


as I said, I think we're making -- have made 


significant progress on the sort of resolving 


the -- the issues and the review of the site 


profile. 


Our next step is we now I think also have to be 


aware of the SEC petitions relevant to Hanford 


and we -- there were also discussions of that 


at the Board meeting. Now the -- I think it'll 


-- or, excuse me, of the workgroup meeting, and 


I think -- I think the fo-- our focus now on 


this neutron issue probably is also relevant to 


issues related to the SEC petition and 


evaluation. So I think we're at least going in 


the right direction to be able to address the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

SEC evaluation report when that is complete -- 


completed by NIOSH, which should be sometime in 


the next month or two. 


 DR. WADE: If I might raise a procedural issue 


-- this is Lew -- again, I try and keep precise 


titles of the workgroup, and at this point it's 


workgroup on Hanford site profile. I guess I 


would like to expand it to be workgroup on 


Hanford site profile and SEC petition? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think that would -- 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, does that make sense? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would -- that would be fine 


because in fact -- probably end up focusing on 


the SEC petition, at least initially. 


 DR. WADE: Right. So I think that's a very 


simple change that I'll make. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, yeah. Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: And again, just for the record, 


everyone realizes that Phil Schofield is a 


member of the Hanford site profile and SEC 


petition workgroup. 


Workgroup on conflict of interest policy for 


the Board, Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: We -- I finally got a date. 
I 


think we're going to meet on May 11th at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

Cincinnati Airport. I think, Lew, that you and 


Emily, that -- that meets your schedule, also, 


as far as I'm aware. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. LOCKEY: All right, so I'll -- that'll be 


our first meeting. And Emily has sent out to 


the office a background notebook of the 


current, in-place policies and procedures for 


SC&A, NIOSH and other federal advisory boards 


where they -- there is an established conflict 


of interest policy, so I think that's been sent 


out to all the working group members. 


Everybody get that first -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I got that, yeah. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, okay. Jim, did you get it? 

 DR. MELIUS: Big binder, yeah. 

 DR. WADE: Big binder. 


 DR. LOCKEY: You got it, okay, good. 


 DR. WADE: Light reading. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Jim, when'd you send that 


out? 


 DR. LOCKEY: It -- I got mine what, about three 


weeks ago. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, let me go look. 


 MS. HOWELL: Okay, the -- this is Emily -- the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

book should have been FedExed to all the 


members of that working group only. It only 


went to the members of that working group. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and that working group are 


Lockey, Melius, Ziemer, Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. HOWELL: Right, the -- do you have it, Mr. 


Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think -- yeah, I'm pretty sure 


I do. If I don't, I'll holler at you. 


 MS. HOWELL: Okay, let me know. I'm -- since I 


prepared them, if you can let me know, I'll get 


you one if you don't have it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No problem, I think I do. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Workgroup on procedures 


review, Miss Munn -- Ms. Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: We have not met yet, and have not 


established a date. NIOSH is going to be 


contacting us with information regarding where 


we are with some of the upgraded procedures. 


That should be taking place late in May, with 


any luck at all. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. And we'll stay with you, 


workgroup on Blockson Chemical SEC. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we have not met as a group. As 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

you know, we've had meetings with the workgroup 


-- I mean with the workers themselves. My last 


report is that the primary issue that required 


a redo of the plant profile, which was 


essentially thorium/uranium relationship 


issues, has been undertaken by chemical experts 


and that now is in the process of being 


actually written. I have no indication yet as 


to when that document will be available for us, 


but the workgroup has nothing on which to go 


until the corrected site profile is released. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Workgroup on Fernald 


site profile and SEC, Brad Clawson. Brad, are 


you with us? 


 (No response) 


Members Griffon, Ziemer, Presley, Schofield, 


any member wish to comment? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, only the -- Lew, only -- 


the only status I know is that we're -- we're ­

- we're working on the finalized matrix, I 


think, is where things stand. 


 DR. WADE: Right, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: We haven't had a meeting yet. 


 DR. WADE: Right, so the -- the matrix comments 


for -- matrix generated by SC&A, comments by 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

NIOSH are being assembled, and that will 


trigger a meeting of the workgroup. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, and I believe that 


meeting will probably be set up after our May 


meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what they said. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. After the May 11th meeting, 


thank you. 


Workgroup on LANL site profile and SEC, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No update at this point, we're -- 


we're probably also going to meet after the May 


meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Again, these last groups are 


relatively new. But we have progress to report 


on the Linde site profile, Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes, we met March 26th at the 


Airport Marriott out -- Cincinnati. Dr. 


Lockey, Mike Gibson, Josie Beach, we were all 


there. We went over 20-some items in the 


matrix provided by SC&A and had responses on 


the matrix by NIOSH. Most of the resolution on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

this matrix on many of the items will relate to 


a new exposure model that NIOSH is going to 


derive from the 700 newly-found bioassays. 


We have -- we have not set up another meeting. 


We're waiting for -- Cindy Bloom volunteered to 


carry out a lot of the things that were on the 


matrix and so we're waiting for resolution of 


that. Chris Crawford was the NIOSH person 


present. Steve Ostrow from SC&A was there for 


SC&A, and Steve has put together a preliminary 


disposition of items on the matrix. I'm going 


to compare that with my notes and then we'll 


come through and report back to the workgroup 


and to the Board as to our status. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


DR. ROESSLER: Jim, or Mike or Josie, is there 


anything you'd like to comment on? 


 DR. LOCKEY: No, it was a good meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you very much. And last but 


by no means least, the workgroup on worker 


outreach, newly-formed -- Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. We have not met yet. I'm 


still trying to put together a draft scope to 


send out to the working group members for their 


input. And also I'll be needing to get with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

the NIOSH point of contact to get the names of 


some of the -- for a point of contact at some 


of the outreach centers and some of the OCAS 


interviewers and things like that so that once 


we get rolling we can talk to those people and 


delve down into it. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Just by way of editorial 


comment -- I mean due to the workgroups, this 


is the hardest-working board I've ever 


encountered and you're all to be complimented 


on just a -- a very, very professional and 


focused attempt to carry out your business 


through your workgroups. 


Paul, I think that's the end of the workgroup 


reports. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for leading us 


through that, Lew, and workgroups, again, 


thanks to all of you. A lot of -- lot of 


activity going on amongst all of our 


workgroups. And it's 12 people cut up several 


different ways doing many tasks, so we thank 


you very much. 


 DR. MELIUS: Paul, can I actually go back to my 


workgroup report on the SEC issues? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, of course. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117

 DR. MELIUS: I forgot to bring up one issue. 
I 

think -- they're propos-- a little bit more 


work for our workgroup. We had discussed a few 


meetings ago about our workgroup looking -- 


taking at least a preliminary look at some of 


the 83.14 SEC --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, uh-huh. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- prior to their presentation by 


NIOSH at a -- at, you know, a formal Board 


meeting for action as a way of trying to move ­

- move the process along. And we -- we have 


one of those that we've just received W.R. 


Grace plant just sent out and I think what I 


would suggest on that particular site is there 


-- there has been an area set up on the O drive 


with information for that that our workgroup -- 


you know, individually take a look at that. We 


can then decide if we -- if it warrants a 


conference call meeting or something before 


(broken transmission) full Board meeting, but 


at least we'd be a little bit more familiar 


with it going into the Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Very good, and Jim, let me 


suggest, just as a reminder, you just send out 


an e-mail to that effect to everyone on that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

workgroup. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I just (broken 


transmission) go on -- on the record -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- (broken transmission) that and 


then just remind everybody else on the Board, I 


think the Sandia evaluation, which we also just 


received -- a little different category, it's 


not an 83.14 -- but have set up an area on the 


O drive with more information on that, also, 


which I think may be helpful to look at before 


the meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. Hey, who's on that 


W.R. Grace group? 


 DR. MELIUS: That would be -- that's the -- our 


SEC evaluation workgroup (unintelligible) 


itself, Paul, Mark and Gen. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I -- I -- I didn't think we 


had one set up just solely for that. Thank 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not -- not for that specific site. 


 DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) sort of the 

119 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

general SEC one. We -- we decided to use that 


for the time being on that. 


NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE
 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, OCAS


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's move on. 


We have one more item on our agenda, and this 


is an update from Larry Elliott. It's not his 


regular update, but some issues that we need to 


know about. Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, and you're 


correct. I wanted to -- I appreciate this 


opportunity to take time from your meeting to 


give you a brief on five -- five items here, 


the first being that the MOU that we have with 


the Department of Energy will expire at the end 


of this fiscal year, or September of 2007. 


Just wanted the Board to know about that and 


that we are working with DOE currently to make 


sure that we have a new MOU signed 


(unintelligible) for this expiration. So work 


is underway on that. 


Second item is that -- and this goes to, I -- I 


hope a little bit to what we've talked about 


earlier today, your tracking of items. 


Regarding the Bethlehem Steel, if you recall, 


there were six findings that came out of the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

the working group group discussion and those 


six findings we were asked to report back to 


the Board. I've done so in a number of Board 


meetings and spoken about where we stood on 


those. I just wanted to bring this to closure 


for you to confirm for the Board and for the 


record that all action items on the six 


findings have been addressed and have been 


revi-- resolved and shown in our TBD for this 


particular site. So if there's -- there's any 


-- any concerns about that, please let us know, 


but we feel that we have responded and 


addressed all those -- those six items on 


Bethlehem Steel, that revised site profile. 


The third item that I would brief you on is 


that the -- I'll give you a short update on the 


GAO review that has been underway since mid-- 


mid-June last year. This was -- the title of 


this review is "Contractor Costs in the Energy 


Employees Program," and there's a list of 


questions that they originally started with. 


They've been very thorough in their review. 


Just recently their review has focused on the 


conflict of interest policy statement that -- 


that the Director of NIOSH put in place last 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

fall, in October, and next week -- or week 


after next I believe the GAO folks will be 


visiting our Procurement Grants Office, PGO, to 


look at the -- all of the contract files that 


are in place there. So we look forward to -- 


to the conclusion of the review and we 


anticipate they'll report on that review later 


this fall. 


The fourth item I'd have to share with you is 


that -- and this goes to your planning and 


utilization of resources across the board. 


Just to let you know, you have seven SEC 


petition evaluations under or ready for Board 


deliberation. Those include Rocky Flats, of 


course; the Los Alamos petition that we talked 


about earlier today, that Senator Bingaman 


commented on and Michele Ortiz made mention of. 


We also have Bethlehem Steel before you, the 


Sandia National Lab Livermore petition is 


before you now, W.R. Grace has been mentioned. 


Dow Madison is due -- (unintelligible) today 


for a review of that and its technical basis. 


Also had a conversation with the Dow 


headquarters today, and they're still looking 


for some data and information and -- but we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

going to prov-- go ahead and proceed with our 


evaluation report and get that in front of you. 


Also there's a Y-12 petition evaluation report 


that will be coming forward in time for your -- 


your Board meeting in May if you wish to take 


it up, and this particular Y-12 petition is a 


situation where we're trying to correct some 


language in one of the earlier classes for Y-12 


and make sure that in doing so we give DOL the 


information they need to fully adjudicate that 


class, so you'll see that forthcoming. 


There are another nine SEC petition evaluations 


on the horizon, on the immediate horizon, and 


they will be ready for you prior to the July 


Board meeting. So you've got seven sitting 


there now, or soon to be sitting there, and 


another nine that'll follow closely. Those 


nine include Blockson, Hanford; the Ames, Iowa 


Lab that I mentioned earlier today that comes 


from Dr. Fuortes on behalf of some sheet metal 


workers. And there are six 83.14s, and those 


sites are yet to be determined, that I can't 


share yet today, but we know that six of those 


will come to maturity in time for your -- if 


you wish to take them up in your July Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

meeting. I -- I just mention that because I -- 


as I've been trying to do over the last -- 


course of several Board meetings, give you a 


better insight into what's -- what's on the 


horizon, what's coming down the avenue at you. 


The last item, my fifth item that I have to -- 


feel I need to brief you on is that in -- we're 


in this fiscal year '07, we're midway through 


the year. We're now into the seventh month, if 


you -- if you will, March being the sixth month 


of the fiscal year, and we're facing resource 


limitations this year. 


Why are we facing resource limitations? Well, 


this results from a loss of $14 million for the 


program funds over the last three years. That 


equates to about $4 and a half million in FY 


'05, $5.1 million in FY '06, and an estimated 


$4.7 million here in FY '07. And where this 


loss occurred is it -- it is -- funds were set 


to cover indirect or overhead rates. That --


that's about nine percent on any monies that's 


transferred to the program. NIOSH budget 


requests have been reduced by nine percent each 


year through the appropriations process in 


order to exclude the CDC overhead. And then we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

find that the funds allocated to the program 


have been further reduced because CDC continues 


to then take the nine percent overhead rate. 


NIOSH has appealed the loss each year to CDC 


and to OMB through the Department of Labor. 


 Additionally, there have been differences in 


the interpretation of the $4 and a half million 


earmarked in fiscal year '06 for the Board. 


NIOSH viewed that $4.5 million as being in 


addition to the program funds that we were 


requesting, so the appropriation and the 


allocation of funds in that year included the 


$4.5 million for the Board. So -- just so you 


know, our fiscal year '08 budget request 


includes the -- the $4.5 million for the Board, 


as did our FY '07 request. 


 Potential ramifications of the resource 


limitations -- I -- I would just suggest could 


include a number of things, but if the -- if 


the CDC overhead is not restored to the 


program, then we're going to face some -- some 


critical decisions. The level of contractual 


support across all contractors engaged in the 


dose reconstruction and the SEC petition 


evaluations will likely be reduced if we don't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

receive restoration of that indirect overhead 


funds. The award of a new contract for 


technical support once the ORAU contract 


expires may be delayed, which would cause sev-- 


considerable delay in work that we perform. 


And the time and the pace and the level of the 


OCAS support to Board and working group review 


activities will likely be reduced, as well. We 


will maintain dose reconstruction production 


and SEC evaluation activities as our top 


priorities. However, without restoration of 


those lost funds, again, we'll be making some 


critical decisions about how best to use the 


remaining resources. 


We're going to keep the Board informed, and we 


want to work closely with the Board as we face 


these decisions. So those -- those are my 


briefing points for the day. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, thank you, Larry, and 


-- for sharing those concerns with us. Board 


members, do you have any questions for Larry at 


this point? 


 DR. WADE: Paul, I have just a follow-on -- 


this is Lew --


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126

 DR. WADE: -- before questions, just to sort of 


take it from where Larry left it into the 


Board's area of responsibility. As Larry 


mentioned, the impact that -- that we see 


directly on the Board would be that the pace 


of, you know, some of our closeout activities ­

- you know, the implementation of the six-step 


process could be affected as, you know, those 


of you involved in workgroups realize, we -- we 


use resources from ORAU and other contractors 


in terms of that activity. So you know, that 


pace might be slower than we might see. 


A secondary impact could be that the -- the 


pace at which we would be able to involve SC&A 


in the -- the review process could also be 


slowed. I don't see any change in tasks there, 


but you know, it could be that we would stretch 


out longer periods between the ability to 


iterate on a matrix, for example, and that 


could affect the scheduling of workgroup 


meetings. It could also affect the pace at 


which SC&A is asked to respond. 


So I'll leave it at that and then we can have 


questions or comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

members wish to ask questions or make comment? 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. That wasn't a very 


cheery report there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, ob-- obviously it is of 


concern insofar as it impacts the ability to be 


timely on a variety of fronts -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- both by us and by the agency. 


 MS. MUNN: Absolutely. If all --


 MR. ELLIOTT: My apologies, Wanda. I'd like to 


bring good news all the time, but where we fi-- 


where we face issues like this, I feel it's 


important that you be aware of them. 


 MS. MUNN: Better to know the realities up 


front. And one of those realities is the 


staggering amount of material we're going to 


have to deal with in Denver in May, and 


subsequently in July. Although you've been 


very good about getting our massive packets to 


us ahead of time, I can't help but think that 


every day will make a big difference in -- as 


far as our ability to absorb as much of this 


data as possible in current status before the 


meeting in May, so I'm -- I certainly hope we 


get our Board packets as early in April as it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

possible to have material out. It's not going 

to be easy. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. Other comments? 

Questions? 

 (No responses) 

Is there any further business to come before us 


today? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, I've got a -- I've got a 


comment on Wanda's comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, yes, go ahead --


 MR. PRESLEY: I realize --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mr. Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- it's very, very hard -- this 


is Bob Presley -- to get those packets ready 


before we get there, to get all the stuff in. 


But if there's any way that we could get maybe 


some of the pre-briefings and stuff like that. 


You don't have to put the briefings in, and it 


doesn't have to be in a binder because it's 


hard to pack that binder, but you know, if -- 


if there was some way we could get some stuff 


out early, it might help this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Even electronically is good. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

129

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Other 


comments or questions? 


 (No responses) 


If there's no further business, then I'm going 


to declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you 


all very much. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. We'll look forward -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Lew, I'll be --


 MS. MUNN: -- to seeing those -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- calling you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: -- dose reconstructions. 


 DR. WADE: Bye now. 


 MS. MUNN: Bye-bye. 


DR. ROESSLER: Bye. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 1:23 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

130 

1 

2 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 Apr. 5, 2007; 


and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 


testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


22nd day of May, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102