NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

134th Meeting

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

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

Daylight Time, via Teleconference, Rashaun 

Roberts, Designated Federal Official, presiding. 
2 

Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Henry Anderson, Member

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Phillip Schofield, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Registered and/or Public Comment Participants: 

Adams, Nancy, NIOSH Contractor

Barrie, Terrie, ANWAG

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A 

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Crawford, Chris, DOL

Fitzgerald, Joe, SC&A

Lewis, Greg, DOE

Naylor, Jenny, HHS OGC

Rutherford, Lavon, DCAS

Stiver, John, SC&A

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 134th Meeting 

Wednesday, June 24, 2020 1

Roll Call/Welcome 4

Special Exposure Cohort Petition Status 

Update 5

Updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittees 6

Plans for the August 2020 Board Meeting 21

Scheduling Meetings for February and April 

2021 28

Public Comment 31

Adjourn 32
4

Proceedings

(11:00 a.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome

Dr. Roberts: So first of all, good morning. Okay, 

good morning everybody. This teleconference --

(Chorus of good morning.)

Dr. Roberts: Good morning. This teleconference is 

for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. My name is Rashaun Roberts and on June 

4th I officially became the new Designated Federal 

Official or what's called the DFO for this Board. With 

pleasure, I follow Mr. Ted Katz, who as you know 

served as the Board's DFO for a number of years, 

and I had the great pleasure of working with him for 

a short time to make this transition before he 

retired from this role.

So before we officially move into this meeting, I just 

want to cover a couple of brief items in order to 

keep everything running smoothly. I would just ask 

that each of you check your phone and please mute 

your phone, unless of course you need to speak. If 

you don't have a mute button, what you can do is 

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

mute, press *6 again.

I am hearing some background noise, so that 

means that someone isn't on mute. So if you could 

please double-check your phone and make sure that 

you are on mute, so that we don't have 

interference, that would be great. Okay, perfect. 

Okay. Would someone please check your phone, 

everyone please check your phone, because I do 

hear something in the background. Okay, great.

Okay. It's there again, but I'm going to try to move 

on. There is an agenda for this meeting, which can 

be found on the NIOSH website. For those of you 

who may not have an agenda in front of you right 

now, know that the agenda is pretty straightforward 
5

and you should find it pretty easy to follow along 

without it.

So with that, let me formally welcome everyone to 

this teleconference. The primary purpose of this 

meeting is to prepare for our August Board meeting, 

which was supposed to take place in Idaho Falls, 

face to face. But with travel restrictions in place due 

to COVID-19, we're going to need to make plans for 

having that meeting virtually, which we will do later 

on in the agenda.

And again, if everyone please check your phones. I 

can still hear stuff in the background. Okay. Before 

we get to the agenda, let's go first to roll call. 

There's no issues of conflict of interest with this 

meeting because it's literally just an administrative 

type meeting, so we don't need to address conflict 

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

Board. I'll go by alphabetical order since I'm three 

weeks in and I don't know voices probably at this 

point.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Oh, hi, Loretta, thank you. Thank you. 

All right. So thanks and welcome again. Welcome to 

all of you. This should be a relatively brief meeting, 

but first up on the agenda we have the update from 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford. So, LaVon?

Special Exposure Cohort Petition Status Update

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, you've got it. All right thanks, 

Dr. Roberts. For the August Advisory Board 

meeting, NIOSH plans to present an 83.13 SEC 

evaluation for the Reduction Pilot Plant for the years 

1976 through 1978. That report has been sent to 

the Advisory Board and to the Petitioner. We had 

intended to present an addendum for Y-12 covering 

the remaining years of that Petition, 1987 through 

1994.

But in the drafting of the addendum, a data issue 

was identified that required some additional review. 
6

The data issue has been resolved, but we're not 

sure that the report will be completed in time for 

the August meeting. We have several SECs that are 

with Work Groups. I can answer questions on their 

status during the updates from the Work Groups.

But for the SEC meeting in August, the only new 

item is the Reduction Pilot Plant, and there is a 

possibility that the Y-12 report will be done. That's 

all I've got.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, thank you so much, LaVon. Are 

there any questions for LaVon at this time? 

Okay. Hearing none, let's go move into any Work 

Group or Subcommittee reports. Who wants to 

report out on what's happening and what's coming 

up? Now is a good time for that.

Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees

Member Beach: Hi Rashaun, this is Josie. I'll report 

out on Metals and Controls if that's okay.

Dr. Roberts: Absolutely.

Member Beach: Okay. So we last met on April 13th 

of this year. We have a couple of action items that 

have not been delivered yet, and I'll just quickly go 

over those. NIOSH said they would give us a 

comparison of previous AWE sites, granted SECs, 

and those were Ames, Norton and Vitro and we're 

still waiting for that. I believe once LaVon took the 

lead on that, so maybe when I'm done he can just 

give us an update.

From SC&A, we're getting for Welding and Thorium 

a White Paper response to NIOSH's last year's White 

Paper. Let's see. We need to review surrogate data, 

use against Board criteria for the same. I believe 

that's in SC&A's corner. They have -- we've talked 

about it, but I don't believe anyone's taken action 

from SC&A on that.

And then for me, I reviewed Mister -- oh, I won't 
7

say his name. I reviewed one of the Petitioner's 

comments, who commented at our last Work Group 

meeting, saying that he commented to the Board in 

August of 2018. So I wanted to just go back and 

find his comments and determine if there was 

anything that we needed to address. I completed 

that in June and found that there were no new 

items that are not currently being addressed in the 

Work Group. So that is done.

There are some SEC open items. Just briefly, let's 

see. The use of surrogate data found from Mound, 

internal exposure, exposures associated with 

subsurface maintenance and repurposing activities. 

This is in Building 10. The Welding and Thorium 

issue I had mentioned earlier, that we're waiting on 

that paper. HVAC maintenance, exposures and 

Building 10 roof and overhead areas, all intrusive 

work. So that's kind of a brief update of where we 

are.

I do think we need to schedule another Work Group 

meeting when these items are available. So that's 

all I have for Metals and Controls, excuse me.

Mr. Rutherford: Dr. Roberts, this is LaVon 

Rutherford. Yeah, I can give you an update on our 

response, Josie. We actually have that response in -

- it has just went through its initial review. I expect 

that that report will be to the Work Group no later 

than mid-July. It may be a little sooner, but Dr. 

Taulbee hasn't got a chance to review it yet. That 

report will actually address the issue of residual 

contamination periods that have been added to the 

SEC and the reasons why, and it also addresses 

residual contaminations that have been denied.

Additionally, we also respond to a couple of 

Petitioner issues and we also looked at that same 

individual's issues that were brought up at the 

Board meeting and came to the same conclusion 

that we'll tell you. So again, that report should be 

out no later than mid-July.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you, LaVon. Any other questions 
8

for Metals and Controls, or comments? 

Okay. Any other Work Group and Subcommittee 

report?

Member Clawson: Yeah, this is Brad Clawson. I'd 

like to just give a report on Hanford. We received 

materials ---

(Telephonic interference.) 

But anyway, so we received it from NIOSH, and I 

believe this is in SC&A's hands. We're still waiting, I 

believe, Joe, correct me if I'm wrong. We're waiting 

for a White Paper from NIOSH accepting these 

conclusions or not; is that correct?

Mr. Fitzgerald: Actually -- this is Joe Fitzgerald. 

Actually, we have a memo report that is about to be 

issued that covers the status of all this, and fills in a 

couple of unfinished items from the Work Group 

meeting. So that should pretty much be our 

assessment on the review.

Member Clawson: Okay. That's, I just hadn't seen 

anything yet. So I didn't know whether we were at 

there. Also, while I've got you on, we've got 

Savannah River. We've received from NIOSH most 

of the information I believe that they were to 

provide for us. Are we still waiting on any of it?

Mr. Fitzgerald: From our standpoint, I think we have 

submitted everything we had, and I think it was 

moving towards some meeting or some Work Group 

discussion. I think that's -- it's been a while, but I 

think that was where it was left in the winter. 

Mr. Rutherford: Okay, Tim.

Dr. Taulbee: Brad, this is Tim Taulbee, yes. Just to 

give you an update on where we are, we have 

responses to SC&A's comments on Report 92. Those 

were submitted back to the site for classification 

review back middle of April. We just got those 

comments or the review back, I believe it was the 
9

week before last. So are working through getting 

that document finalized, and then it will be sent to 

the Work Groups for your all's review. 

I am expecting mid-July for that to actually get out 

and into your all's hands from that standpoint. Then 

at that point, I think Joe's team is going to want to 

read that, and then we might be ready for a Work 

Group.

Member Clawson: Okay. That sounds good. I 

appreciate that input. Then while I've got you on, 

Tim, we -- quite a while back we had the final report 

for the Nevada Test Site, the implementation into 

the Site Profile, and I believe that SC&A was going 

to review the implementation of that. I haven't seen 

anything I believe on that yet. Are you waiting --

Mr. Barton: Hi, Brad, this is Bob Barton with SC&A. 

I've been kind of picking up that ball and running 

with it. NIOSH issued, I believe it was a few months 

back, put a revision to the Environmental TBD which 

dealt with a lot of these resuspension issues. There 

have also been a couple of White Papers, a couple 

from SC&A and also I believe two from NIOSH since 

the last time we met, which was back in January of 

2017.

So what we've been doing on our side is sort of 

trying to wrap up all these issues, and what we 

have is basically a very abbreviated matrix because, 

as you recall, these matrices can get very large. So 

we're pretty much paring it down to what's left on 

the table for discussion, and I think that we're really 

right on the cusp, at least from SC&A's viewpoint, 

sitting down to really hammer out the remaining 

Site Profile issues.

Member Clawson: Okay. I appreciate that matrix 

because when we get down to the end of this, we've 

taken care of so many of the other ones. And with 

so many different sites, it's hard to keep them all 

straight. So I appreciate that, Bob, and we'll be 

looking forward to that.
10

And as far as Pantex, I don't think -- I think we're 

pretty well complete with that, aren't we? Or do we 

still have anything out there from NIOSH or SC&A?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, this is LaVon Rutherford. I 

believe Pantex has closed all the -- I don't have 

anything open that I know of.

Member Clawson: Okay, Bomber. I appreciate that. 

Okay, and that's my report. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Thank you so much. 

Anyone else?

Member Kotelchuck: Yeah, Dave Kotelchuck, Dose 

Reconstruction Review Subcommittee. We have not 

met in a very long time, and we urgently need to 

schedule another meeting. As of a while ago 

(telephonic interference) NIOSH response on some 

of the Set 27 reviews, and I don't know if those 

have been completed. Maybe Rose or John or John 

Stiver will respond. But hopefully we got some --

we've gotten those responses from NIOSH, and if 

we have, we should schedule a meeting as soon as 

possible.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, this is Rose. We have gotten 

the 27th set responses, and we're in the process of 

responding to those. But we do have the meeting 

scheduled for next month, on July 29th.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah.

Member Kotelchuck: We do, my goodness. Maybe I 

-- of course we will -- let me double-check on my 

own calendar, although there is no issue if we have 

something scheduled. But I would like to just -- I 

didn't realize that we had actually gotten a 

schedule, and, yes, indeed, Rose, we certainly do 

have this, and it's on my schedule as well. So okay, 

good. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, and presumably we'll be 

discussing the 27th set at that meeting; correct, 

rather than the 28th set which we just submitted?
11

Member Kotelchuck: Correct.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Anything else? 

Member Ziemer: This is Paul Ziemer. I have -- I'll 

give you a brief report on Superior Steel, which is 

being reviewed by TBD-6000 Work Group. Basically 

-- and the Work Group met in February this year, 

and our plan was to present our final report at the 

April meeting, which meeting was cancelled or in a 

sense combined with the August meeting. 

So I just wanted to give you a heads up that we will 

be, I presume at this point, on the agenda for the 

August meeting, the findings and report will be 

given by Megan Lobaugh and myself. And we 

basically have closed all the findings on the Site 

Profile, and we'll be reporting to the Board. I think 

that will be an action item on the August meeting. 

Or at least it should be -- or at least I assume, 

Rashaun, that Ted's probably passed that 

information along to you.

Dr. Roberts: Yes, he has, and we will get into that 

momentarily.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Sure. Any other Work Group or 

Subcommittee reports?

Member Schofield: Yes, Dr. Roberts, this is Phil. 

Dr. Roberts: Hello, Phil.

Member Schofield: Hello. Is the 16th definitely 

going to be set in stone for us for the INL Work 

Group meeting?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, and actually I was going to keep, 

just to keep people abreast, we have identified July 

16th at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time as the next 

meeting date and time for the Idaho National 

Laboratory/Argonne National Laboratory-West Work 

Group. And we're just starting to work on the 

agenda for that one.
12

Member Schofield: Okay. The other thing is I guess 

I need to have SC&A and NIOSH both look at we've 

received a lot of information from the Petitioner 

over the last few months. I was wondering if we 

could get a Work Group meeting for Santa Susana 

Field Lab and De Soto, cover De Soto also?

Dr. Roberts: Okay, and you are suggesting that that 

take place sometime in July also, or did you have a 

sense of the timing for that?

Member Schofield: I don't have any particular day. I 

was kind of leaning more towards August.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, more towards August, okay.

Member Schofield: Yeah.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. Let's be in touch about that. 

Mr. Rutherford: This is LaVon Rutherford. Phil, I'd 

like to know what information you've received over 

the last few months because I've received a couple 

of emails from the Petitioner, but we haven't 

received any new information. So if you've received 

new information that we should be reviewing, I'd 

like to get a hold of that.

Member Schofield: Okay, I'll go back here -- I'm 

pretty sure I've got -- unfortunately right now, I've 

got to pick up my new card in Denver next week. 

Well, the Petitioner anyhow has some questions 

about some of the data she submitted. Maybe 

you've already seen all that. That will be a 

discussion we can have.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay.

Mr. Barton: Yeah, hi Phil. This is Bob Barton again. I 

think that maybe what we're referring to was 

possibly last fall we received some additional 

material from CORE Advocacy related to Santa 

Susana and De Soto. I believe we have looked at 

that and reported out. But, again, I agree if there is 

something new that came in, I don't think SC&A's 
13

aware of it.

And the only other thing I'd add that we could 

possibly do at an August meeting is we're about to 

produce a report about the telephone interviews 

that we were performing with former workers at De 

Soto to answer some of the questions that remain, 

specifically about the De Soto SEC period. So that 

should be ready and in your hands in the next week 

or two I think. It's right in the queue.

Member Schofield: Okay, thank you.

Member Beach: Rashaun, this is Josie. I want to just 

do a brief update on LANL, and I'll probably need 

LaVon's help on this. I got a message from LaVon. 

It was a partial update. We're -- NIOSH is working 

on a sampling plan, and I know that he was waiting 

for a last batch of RWPs. And I'm just wondering if 

you have received those, LaVon?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. Actually, we have not 

received them, and I'll give you a little more 

detailed update. We actually shifted -- as you know, 

we shifted from the sampling plan to a sampling 

analysis, mainly because -- I mean to an RWP 

analysis because we actually pulled all the RWPs for 

the 1996 through 2001 period, and we are including 

all the RWPs in this analysis.

We've not stopped. We're not waiting on this. What 

we're doing is we have all the HP checklists inhouse. We've already put them into our analysis. 

We loaded all the data in on those. We've started 

the review process on those, and we've also moved 

into all the RWPs we have in-house. We've moved 

those into the system. So as soon as those RWPs 

are released from LANL, we can complete that 

portion of our analysis. 

The other thing we were working on was mixed 

fission activation products and exotics, an analysis 

on those. There are contamination airborne surveys 

that are with that group of RWPs that we're waiting 

on. And so, again, we didn't wait on those. We've 
14

got everything loaded up, most of the analysis 

done. We'll re-run everything as soon as we get the 

rest of that data, and we can pull that data in.

I can't give you a good timeline on completing 

things until we find out from the site when they'll be 

able to release. The last discussions I heard, I think 

Greg Lewis reported out that things are starting to 

move forward with the sites, and so maybe here in 

the near future we'll get some kind of response.

Member Beach: Okay, great. Thank you.

Mr. Rutherford: Mm-hmm.

Mr. Lewis: Yeah, and this is Greg from DOE. I mean 

I can echo what LaVon said. Given the situation, 

we've had some significant and unique challenges 

down there. But we are, you know, they're trying to 

get those out as soon as possible, and it -- you 

know, when the site staff and folks are able to be 

back in and fully up and running, that's a top 

priority.

Member Beach: Right. Totally understand the 

slowdown. So thanks, Greg.

Member Anderson: This is Henry Anderson. Let me 

just give you a quick update on the UR AWE Work 

Group. We met in January to go over the Site Profile 

issues remaining for W.R. Grace, and I think that 

was closed out at that meeting. And then in March, 

let's see what's the date here, we got the issues 

matrix update, and the TBD has largely been 

updated, and I think that's closed out. Am I correct, 

LaVon, on that?

Mr. Rutherford: Had to find my mute button. I 

think, I think that is correct. You know, I don't have 

that portion of it in front of me. SC&A can report out 

probably on that as well.

Dr. Buchanan: Yeah, this is Ron Buchanan with 

SC&A. Yes, W.R. Grace was closed out. All the 

issues was closed out with a schedule to present a 
15

slideshow, and then it was -- that meeting was 

cancelled. And so I don't know if it's tentatively 

scheduled for August or not. I haven't seen the 

agenda for August, but I believe it was.

Member Anderson: I remembered we -- I was trying 

to figure out where it all fit in. So great. I think 

that's pretty much it, just to give a finalized update 

to the Board. And then the second one I have is 

Sandia, and a while back we did do a meeting with 

the guards out there, and there's been an update. 

The interviews with the guards, issues there have 

been summarized, and I think we've got that as 

well. I don't know. Is there more with Sandia now? 

Member Field: No, only surrogates.

Member Anderson: Yeah. Go ahead.

Mr. Rutherford: I was going to say, this is LaVon. I 

do believe we're still waiting on those interviews to 

move back through the system.

Member Anderson: Okay. I know they had --

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. Joe could correct me if I'm 

wrong on that. But I believe that's what we're 

waiting on.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah, this is Joe. We pretty much 

had developed the entire assessment that we're 

going to provide, but we have held back and are 

waiting, as LaVon points out, awaiting the 

confirmation by the interviewees of the summary so 

we can include that. So that's the only thing holding 

it up.

Member Anderson: Okay. I think the last I had was 

some word on the first part of April. Chuck gave an 

update. I'm trying to get through all my little email 

messages here.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah, the -- I think the problem is 

the guards have been in a -- well, in the same place 

everybody else has been relative to COVID-19. So 
16

the scheduling and everything else has been 

delayed. I don't know if Chuck has heard anything 

more, LaVon, but it's really just a question of when 

they can respond.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, Chuck hasn't. He has -- I 

checked with him just recently.

Member Anderson: Okay. So that's my set of 

updates.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great --

Member Anderson: The only other I would have is 

the SEC Work Group has met jointly with Metals and 

Controls. We've pretty well closed out the SEC Work 

Group component at the first meeting, but we've 

continued to participate with the Metals and 

Controls group as well. So we're still active.

Member Beach: Henry, sorry to interrupt. This is 

Josie. Wasn't that SEC with Savannah River, not 

Metals and Controls?

Member Anderson: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.

Dr. Roberts: I believe that's right.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Anderson: -- Metals and Control -- I didn't 

remember which was -- no, you're right, yeah. 

Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Anderson: So we're still sitting in on 

Savannah River, but our Work Group's activities 

related to that we closed out.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Any other updates that 

people want to report at this time.

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

request for an update, and I don't know if, Rose, if 

you can give an update on the Subcommittee for 
17

Procedures. We haven't met in a couple years, and 

I'm just not quite sure where we are, and NIOSH 

may know also with any work products coming up 

for Procedures.

Ms. Gogliotti: Actually, Josie, that would be Kathy.

Member Beach: Kathy, okay. I didn't know if you --

I didn't think Kathy was on the line, so I didn't know 

if you had any information.

Ms. Gogliotti: I do not, but I can have her give you 

an update.

Member Beach: Yeah, okay. That would be great, 

thanks.

Member Ziemer: Can you remind us, Josie, who's 

chairing that now since Wanda resigned?

Member Beach: I am.

Member Ziemer: Oh, okay. I thought that was the 

case, but since you were asking the question I

wasn't sure.

Member Beach: Well, it's been such a long time 

since we've met, and I'm kind of a little -- I didn't 

go back and look at any notes to prepare for this 

meeting, but I thought I should maybe just get 

something moving on that.

Member Ziemer: Yeah, thanks.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you. Any other questions or 

updates, reports?

Member Anderson: Did we get an update on 

Savannah River? I just see here I have a June 3rd, 

and sent around -- memo on a few of the 

imputation methods, and I was wondering where 

that is standing.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. With Savannah River, we 

are preparing responses to the Report 92, the 

construction trades worker evaluation. These are 
18

responses to SC&A's comments on that report. And 

then at that time, once we get that back to the 

Work Group, we'll be ready to schedule the next 

Work Group meeting, which we're probably going to 

have to do multiple Work Group meetings just due 

to the timing.

This was intended to be like a day and a half face to 

face meeting, but trying to do this virtually is 

probably going to take us longer and a few 

meetings to do, so. But once we get this report 

back, that's when Dr. Cardarelli will be contacting 

Brad and yourself to start trying to set something 

up.

Member Anderson: So we're going to keep the joint 

Work Groups together is what I'm really asking?

Dr. Taulbee: I believe there's only -- there is one 

issue that the -- your Work Group, the SEC Issues 

Work Group, could weigh in on, and that is with 

regards to the stratification discussion and our 

responses to that. But other than that, from the coexposure model, you are correct. Your Work Group 

has provided all of the guidance that we needed, 

and we finalized that implementation guide, and it's 

out there.

But the issue of stratification is something that we 

could still value the SEC Issues Work Group's 

opinion on.

Member Anderson: Just for the SEC members on 

the phone here, that that will probably be the next 

call for setting aside some time for a Work Group, 

joint Work Group meeting.

Mr. Barton: And, Dr. Anderson, this is Bob Barton. I 

might just add on to that. I think what you 

mentioned was imputation. That came out of the 

joint SRS/SEC Work Group meeting back in 

December. And at that time, SC&A was tasked with 

taking a closer look at that as a general method, not 

just how it was applied to SRS, though that was the 

first site that this method was really applied to. But 
19

it is sort of a universal method across the program 

for all these sites.

So that's something that SC&A produced quite 

recently, I think maybe right at the beginning of 

June. So I believe you have a non-PA-cleared 

version of that? And I think we're still working on 

getting a PA --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Anderson: Yes, that's true. I just was able 

to get to my NIOSH computer here and to the 

website, and that's when I saw that that came on 

June 3rd. So that's pretty recent.

Member Clawson: But this is Brad. I don't, you 

know, trying to get these two groups together, 

there's going to be stuff coming up with Savannah 

River. We've been at this an awful long time, and I 

don't want to hold it up just because the other Work 

Group can't be joining us. I will give all the best 

efforts we can, but we've got to move forward on 

this. This has been out there a long time.

Member Anderson: I would agree with that, Brad, 

and that's why I was kind of trying to sort out are 

there specific issues which our group needs to weigh 

in on, rather than I would view -- we're happy to, 

since we've spent a lot of time kind of getting up to 

speed, happy to contribute to discussions. But I 

would then say don't do anything in order to get all 

of our members to be able to attend if it isn't an 

item that we specifically need to address.

Member Clawson: Right, because Savannah River 

has really, you know, everybody knows that this 

one has been going on for an awfully long time now. 

And I just -- and I do respect having the other Work 

Group members there, but my feeling is that we 

push forward. If we come into an issue, we may 

have to bring you in and look at it from that 

standpoint. But my biggest thing is we need to deal 

with the Petition and the implementation and going 

from there most of all. Okay?
20

Member Anderson: That's fine with me. It's just 

with all the communication via email, it would be 

good rather than just send out invitations to both 

Work Groups looking for dates, I would ask, Brad, 

that you kind of take the lead on this, and if you 

and Rashaun believe that our group needs to be 

pressed to participate, let's -- we'll do that. 

Otherwise we --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Henry, I really -- I really 

appreciate the input from your group. I'm just 

saying that we need to get on this. We're still 

waiting for things to be able to come out from 

NIOSH and SC&A. So when we set this up for this 

Work Group, we are going to try everything we can 

to involve you guys in it because I appreciate your 

input.

But the thing is too is this -- we need to get 

Savannah River taken care of most of all. So that's 

all I was trying to say.

Member Anderson: Sure. I just want to avoid 

confusion as to where we go and what our roles, 

since it's -- you're site lead, I would say.

Member Clawson: Yeah, I'm the site person for that 

one, but we have a lot of things that we need to 

sort through before we can really have a Work 

Group. But when we do set it up, we'll try to involve 

you. But we just want you to be aware that if it's 

because of your group that we can't meet, I'm going 

to tell you right now I want to push forward and get 

ours taken care of. And if there's an issue that rises,

we'll work with you guys, okay?

Member Anderson: Sounds good.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Anderson: Moving right along.

Dr. Roberts: Great. Great. Thanks so much, and 
21

thanks for that conversation about moving forward. 

Are there any other Subcommittee or Work Group 

meeting updates before we move on to talking 

about the August Board meeting? 

Plans for the August 2020 Board Meeting

Okay. Well hearing none, let's move into that part 

of the agenda. So as I mentioned briefly earlier, due 

to the current HHS and CDC travel policy related to 

COVID-19, we're actually restricted from conducting 

the August Board meeting face-to-face in Idaho 

Falls, which had been planned for August 26th and 

27th.

So rather than postpone the meeting to have it 

face-to-face, you know, when travel restrictions are 

lifted, which it's difficult to know when that would 

be, it seems best to move forward at this time with 

having the meeting virtually, and also since the 

Board has done meetings before using the Skype 

platform, also using Skype for that particular 

meeting.

What I have thought about, and this has been done 

in collaboration with Ted before he retired from this 

role, is that the meeting, we propose that the 

meeting be done across two days, but in four to five 

hour sessions each day. So with that said, are there 

any comments or any other perspectives on, you 

know, divvying things up in that way, and any other 

comments on having the meeting virtually on 

Skype?

Member Beach: Rashaun, have you thought about 

Zoom meetings, or are we going to stay with the 

Skype?

Dr. Roberts: I think because the Board has used 

Skype in the past, I don't want to -- since this is our 

first attempt to do, try to emulate a face-to-face 

meeting virtually, we probably don't want to 

introduce too many new things. So I think for this 

first one, to do it on Skype versus Zoom. 
22

So, you know, there have been some glitches with 

Zoom also that I have some concerns about, so the 

proposal is to do it on Skype.

Member Beach: Okay, and then are the August 

dates going to hold, the 26th and 27th?

Dr. Roberts: That's what I'm thinking since those 

days were designated before, you know, to kind of 

keep that timing if that's okay. 

Okay. Was someone else going to ask a question or 

make a comment?

Member Ziemer: Yeah, this is Paul. I was going to 

ask, we've used Skype before, but only to show 

slides. We've not used it virtually for seeing each 

other at a meeting like we do with the Zoom 

meetings. When you say we're using Skype, is that 

just to show the document and the slides, or were 

you thinking a virtual face-to-face? Because we've 

not used Skype for that before.

Dr. Roberts: Well, right. I was thinking just doing it 

with the slides, and, you know, assuming that that 

meeting's going to be a success, if we do have to do 

future virtual meetings, we can add a video 

component. But I think for the time being trying to 

keep it basic.

Member Ziemer: Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So if that seems like a 

reasonable plan in general, let me just run through 

what I have in terms of the potential items for the 

two agendas. And again, before Ted vacated the 

DFO role, we did have a chance to come together to 

talk about his recommendations for the agenda if 

the meeting needed to be done in this fashion.

So the items that I'm going to describe really rely 

heavily on his recommendation, since he had a 

greater familiarity obviously with what he -- could 

best be handled on a virtual platform. So let me just 

go with what I have. So obviously on the first day 
23

we would be opening up with a welcome. Then

having the NIOSH Program Update by Grady, as per 

usual.

And then the DOL Program Update, the dose 

reconstruction-related claims appeals process and 

experience in claims rate forecasting is the item that 

I have here, presented by Chris Crawford. So let me 

stop there and just make sure that those items are 

okay.

Okay, any comments?

Okay. Well moving forward, I also have the DOE 

Program Update to be done by Mr. Greg Lewis. We 

have the Site Profile Review for W.R. Grace on the 

agenda. Let's see. I did hear that the 

recommendation as the Work Group reports were 

provided was that Superior Steel, SEC petition 

number 247, be put on the agenda. However, that 

wasn't something that came with Ted's 

recommendation. But let me open it up and just 

kind of get some insight from you all about adding 

that.

Member Ziemer: Well, we did have it scheduled for 

the April meeting initially, where -- and I think --I 

believe that there was going to be a presentation by 

Megan Lobaugh, and I was going to actually present 

a brief introduction to that. And the whole thrust of 

that is we have -- the Work Group has closed or 

recommending closure of all the remaining issues in 

the Site Profile, which in essence is that the Work 

Group recommends that -- or agrees with NIOSH's 

recommendation that dose can be reconstructed. 

And I believe that would require a formal act of the 

Board. 

Dr. Roberts: Mm-hmm, okay.

Member Ziemer: I don't know -- I didn't catch 

whether Megan is on the line today, but someone 

can confirm that, either from SC&A or from NIOSH.
24

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

Rutherford. Megan is not on the line, but, yes, you 

are correct. The last Work Group meeting 

everything was closed out, and the plan was to 

present at the April meeting originally that Megan 

was going to do that presentation. Now I'm not sure 

that Megan will be available for the presentation, 

but someone will be available for the presentation 

from NIOSH.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So it sounds to me, Paul, that 

you're okay with this going on the agenda for one of 

the sessions in August? Are you on mute?

Member Ziemer: No.

Dr. Roberts: I'm sorry, I didn't catch --

Member Ziemer: Oh, this is Ziemer. I lost the call 

for a moment, and I just came back on. 

Dr. Roberts: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I was just kind of 

confirming with you that the Superior Steel petition, 

that we should go ahead and consider that, or add it 

to the agenda for August.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. I think a formal action is 

required, is what was my understanding.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, okay, all right. There's also the 

Y-12 SEC petition number 250 that was flagged for 

going on the agenda as well. Are there any 

comments about that? And I think on that agenda --

Mr. Rutherford: I was going to say, this is LaVon 

Rutherford. I can comment on that. That was an 

addendum that was to address the 1987 through 

1994 period. I reported out on that that we did --

yeah, we did find a data glitch, and I'm not sure 

we're going to have that in time. It's kind of up in 

the air at this point.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, okay. So that may or may not 

go, okay. Okay, that's fine. Let's see. The next thing 

that's on here is the SEC petition status update, 
25

which I think is a routine item. Fifteen minutes 

allocated for that. There is a slot for the Board work 

session that runs about an hour. And then there is 

an item agenda on the INL, an update on INL Site 

Profile review.

And I understand that that was originally on the 

agenda because we were going to be meeting in 

Idaho for this meeting. But, you know, we could 

keep that on the agenda or move it to a future 

agenda item. Any comments or insights?

Member Beach: Well, I'm wondering if that can be 

kind of in limbo until after our call on the 16th of 

July. That might let us know where we're at. That's 

just my thought, but I'm not the Chair.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Phil, would you have any 

thoughts on that?

Member Schofield: Actually, I agree with Josie on 

that. Let's wait and see what happens on the 16th. 

Then we may be ready to move forward something, 

bring something before the whole Board. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. All right, thank you. Then we 

have the RPP, Reduction Pilot Plant SEC petition 

number 253 on the agenda for about 90 minutes. Is 

that a go?

Mr. Rutherford: Well this is LaVon Rutherford. From 

NIOSH's standpoint it's a go. I think it's a good idea 

to get it out in front of the Board. That way the 

Board can either move it to SC&A or take action, 

and we can get that one moving.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Ziemer: Do we need that -- this is Paul. Do 

we need that much time on this one, LaVon?

Mr. Rutherford: No, I really don't think we need that 

much time. I mean based on our history, I don't 

anticipate us needing that much time for this one.

Member Ziemer: Will the Petitioner be involved in 
26

this discussion of that item?

Mr. Rutherford: You know, there's a chance. The 

Petitioner has been -- has been active in discussions 

with Josh Kinman. But I don't know for sure, you 

know. I don't think we've reached out at this point 

to see if they want to speak or not.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well what would be the 

recommended time allotment for that item?

Mr. Rutherford: Well, you know, the presentation 

would take no longer than 30 minutes, and I do 

anticipate some questions from the Board. But, you 

know, no more than an hour.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, okay, great. All right. And then 

there's about an hour allotted for a public comment 

session as well for that agenda. Let's see. So I think 

that is actually all I had. Are there any 

recommendations for items that I did not mention?

Member Ziemer: Well this is Paul again. I have one 

question on the public comment period. Normally at 

our regular meetings where we're at a site, you 

have a good possibility of a number of local people 

speaking. Since we're virtual on a phone call, do we 

anticipate a lot of public comment?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. I think that's hard to tell, but I 

do think that we're --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: I guess the idea would be to set 

aside an hour, and you open it up at the beginning 

of that time, and then if there's no one beyond 

some point that wishes to speak, that ends it I 

suppose. So --

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. But I do think that we are 

obligated --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: Keep the hour available.
27

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, to allocate the time. Exactly, 

exactly.

Member Ziemer: Right.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you. Okay.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. Yeah, this is Brad. I 

got dumped off the phone, so I had to call back in. I 

don't know if you've covered this or not, but are we 

going -- and this is a question for Tim. Are we going 

to have something for Savannah River? This has 

been a push for quite a while?

Dr. Roberts: In terms of this particular agenda for 

August, there isn't anything on Savannah River, not 

for this virtual meeting. It sounds like there needs 

to be some kind of Work Group meeting set up, you 

know, in the relatively near future for that site. But 

in terms of this virtual agenda, no items on 

Savannah River.

Member Clawson: Okay. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Any other questions or 

comments?

Member Beach: Was that just day one? 

Dr. Roberts: No. This would be content for both 

days, and, again, we would be looking at four to five 

hours per day roughly. What I'll have to do is go 

back and look at the items and actually try to mock 

something up to put the timing to them, and just 

see how everything falls out. Any other questions or 

comments?

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

HHS OGC. Can you remind me if the Advisory Board 

has received the annual ethics training?

Dr. Roberts: I do not believe so. I think that the --

from what I understood, that was planned for 

December, from what I understood from Ted.

Ms. Naylor: Okay. That's perfectly fine. We usually 
28

have it at the first in-person meeting of the year. 

But there's really no reason for that to occur in the 

first meeting of the year, or even if we do decide it 

to add it to a third meeting. We can definitely use 

the remote technology to have a separate ethics 

training session with the Board members since that 

training session would have been closed, 

administratively closed and not open to the public 

members anyway.

Dr. Roberts: Right, right. Okay, yeah. So I think it's 

just a matter of maybe figuring out the timing for 

scheduling that.

Ms. Naylor: Sure, yeah.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Anything else in terms of the 

August agenda? 

Scheduling Meetings for February and April 2021

Okay. So I just kind of wanted to make a couple of 

notes for meetings that are scheduled for beyond 

August, meetings of the full Board. They're for 

October 27th. There's a plan to have a 

teleconference for the full Board, and then 

December 8th through 9th has been identified as 

having a face-to-face meeting, assuming that that's 

going to be possible at that time. So I just kind of 

wanted to mention those.

Moving on to scheduling meetings for next February 

and April, February would be a teleconference of the 

full Board, and April 2021 presumably would be in 

person. Now to make the timing consistent with 

previous years, we would be looking at around

February 24th for the teleconference, and April 21st 

and 22nd for the in-person meeting. So I just throw 

that out there, and if anyone has any comments or 

questions about the timing, please make those now.

Member Anderson: Was that April 21, 22?

Dr. Roberts: Yes. For next year, yes. Any other 

comments or suggestions? Okay, well hearing --
29

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Kotelchuck: -- Dave. I didn't quite get the 

December date that you announced for our 

meeting. I missed that.

Dr. Roberts: That was December 8th and 9th.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay, good, thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Mm-hmm, sure. Did anyone else want 

to comment? I thought I heard somebody in the 

background.

Member Anderson: For the face-to-face, are you 

sort of thinking about that for the April meeting?

Dr. Roberts: The April meeting, yes. I think those 

are typically face-to-face, the one -- the April 

meeting.

Member Anderson: Well, I'm just -- because we 

need to decide on a potential location at some point.

Dr. Roberts: Yes, exactly and --

Member Anderson: Because you've got travel then 

too.

Member Beach: Well and December --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Member Beach: -- we would need a site also.

Dr. Roberts: Right. Let's open that up for 

suggestion. We don't actually know whether or not 

we're going to be restricted in terms of travel for 

December. But let's just, in case we are able to do a 

face-to-face meeting, let's just talk a little bit about 

where that might be.

So the August face-to-face was supposed to be in 

Idaho Falls. I assume that that might be a 

possibility, but let's open that up for discussion.
30

Member Schofield: Avoid Idaho in December.

Member Anderson: That's what I was going to say.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: If you would come out, you'd 

understand how nice it is.

Member Schofield: Good luck.

Member Anderson: We could call it crisp.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. So avoiding Idaho, would there 

be an alternative location that might feel better to 

people?

Member Anderson: Well are there any SECs that we 

may be discussing at that point, that we'd look for a 

city near where those are?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I'm hoping to be 

able to be discussing Savannah River.

Member Anderson: That's a good place there.

Member Clawson: I would put in a suggestion for 

Savannah River if, Tim, if you think that we're going 

to be able to have the materials available before 

that to be able to discuss.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim --

Member Anderson: That could be either December 

or April. 

Dr. Taulbee: I would actually like to recommend at 

this time you propose for the December location 

when you meet in August. We'll know better where 

we're at over the next couple of months between all 

of the sites from that standpoint, rather than trying 

to do it now. If I recall correctly, we normally try to 

do the scheduling for the next meeting location at 

the previous face-to-face.

Isn't that correct?
31

Member Beach: Yeah, that is correct.

Dr. Roberts: That is correct, okay, okay. Well then 

why don't we do that then for August, and talk 

about location. I had in my notes, just to kind of 

give you the dates, the potential dates for these 

meetings. But we can certainly hold off on talking 

about the locations at the next meeting, the August 

meeting I should say. Okay. So think about that 

between now and August, what are some potential 

locations, and we can come back to that discussion 

point.

Public Comment

Okay. So to kind of round out, I know that we're 

just after twelve o'clock. So we didn't receive any 

public comments or anything for this particular 

meeting. But the Board would like to read a letter 

that they have written to Ted for his retirement as 

DFO. And so I'd like to ask Dr. Paul Ziemer to go 

ahead and read that letter into the record for today.

Member Ziemer: Of course, thank you very much. 

And I'll just mention before I read it that this tribute 

that I'm about to read was prepared jointly by the 

members of the Board. It was privately given to Ted 

last month, just prior to his retirement. But the 

Board agreed that we should include it in the public 

record through the use of today's transcript. So I 

will proceed to read that. It's entitled A Salute to 

Theodore (Ted) Katz.

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

extends its congratulations and best wishes to 

Theodore (Ted) Katz upon his retirement as the 

Designated Federal Official of the Board, concurrent 

with his retirement from the Centers for Disease 

Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health.

For the past 12 years, Ted provided organizational 

leadership, operational advice, and procedural 

wisdom for the Advisory Board members, for the 

Board's contractor, SC&A, and for the members of 
32

the DCAS group at NIOSH.

In all of these activities, the Advisory Board 

members have observed Ted's clear understanding 

of the requirements of the EEOICPA Program and its 

regulations, his fairness in dealing with all 

stakeholders in the dose reconstruction activities, 

and his personal interest in all the individuals 

involved.

He has demonstrated a clear understanding of the 

ramifications of the science and public policy issues 

that have arisen over the years. His advice on such 

issues has been valued and well-received by the 

Board.

He has carried out his duties in what was often a 

politically charged environment and has done with 

diplomacy and consideration for others. Ted shows 

himself to be a person of integrity, honesty, and 

trustworthiness in all that he does.

As Ted Katz requires from his years as the 

Designated Federal Official for the Board, the Board 

members offering him our gratitude for the work 

that he has done on our behalf.

We send him our best wishes in all that he does in 

the next phase of his life and hope that we will all 

be able to get together again in the future.

Dr. Roberts: Great, okay. Great. I'm not sure if you 

can hear me. I'm hearing a lot of background noise, 

but thank you so much, Dr. Ziemer, for that.

Adjourn

And with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the 

meeting, just in recognition of Ted's wonderful work 

as the DFO. Thank you and have a good day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:07 p.m.