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 51 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the 51st 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on Nov. 27, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 7 

C O N T E N T S
 

Nov. 27, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


FY08 TASKS FOR SC&A: SITE PROFILES, PROCEDURES, DR 


SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON THE 4TH AND 5TH SETS AND THE FIRST 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


CHAPMAN VALVE SEC UPDATE 17 


DOW CHEMICAL SEC UPDATE 39 


REVIEWS 52 

PROCEDURES TO SELECT BOARD SUPPORT CONTRACTOR 118 


SANDIA SEC UPDATE 133 


BOARD PROCEDURES ON INTERVIEWS 143 


UPDATE ON TRACKING MATRICES 147 


ONE HUNDRED CASES 161 


WORK GROUP UPDATES 163 


BOARD WORKING TIME 185 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 191 

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 


CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


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 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

LOCKEY, James, M.D. (not present) 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


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 


POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. (not present) 


Professor, Texas A&M University 


College Station, Texas 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

6 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BARRIE, TERRI, ANWAG 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BLACK, FLO, CDC PGO 


BLOCK, SHARON, SEN. KENNEDY 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE NIOSH 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


CANO, REGINA, DOE 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


GIOVACCINI, GERALD, SANDIA PETITIONER 


GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


LEWIS, MARK, ATL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCKEEL, DAN, SINuW 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 


REALE, MARY ANN, CHAPMAN VALVE 


ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH 


RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 


STEPHAN, ROBERT, SEN. OBAMA 


SUNDIN, DAVE, NIOSH 


TACK, JEFF, DOE 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

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: We’ll do a roll call. Again, Paul 


Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Josie Beach. 


 MS. BEACH: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon.
 

 MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey. 


(No response) 


Jim sent me a note that for family illness he 


would not be with us. Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: I'm here. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 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: John Poston. John sent me a note 


saying he would not be with us for reasons of 


conflict with his academic schedule. Gen 


Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: And Phillip Schofield. Phillip sent 


me a note saying he would join us within an 


hour. So I make it that we have nine in 


attendance, which is certainly a quorum. 


Before we go forward, I won't ask everyone on 


the line to identify themselves, but I -- I 


will ask for particular people, particularly 


those that will be heavily involved in the 


discussion, to identify themselves for the 


record. I'll also give everyone a chance who 


would want to identify themself to do that. 


First of all, let me ask for the NIOSH people 


who will be involved in the call to identify 


themselves for the record. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, the 


Director of the Office of Compensation Analysis 


and Support for NIOSH. 


 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton from NIOSH. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford from NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Any other folks from NIOSH who want 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

to identify themself for the call? 


 MS. BLACK: Hi, this is Flo. I just -- hello? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, Flo. How are you? 


MS. BLACK: Oh, hi. 


 DR. WADE: This is Flo Black with the 


Procurement and Grants Office of CDC. Welcome, 


Flo. 


 MS. BLACK: Thank you. 


 MR. SUNDIN: It's Dave Sundin. 


 DR. WADE: David, how are you? How about SC&A 


folks who will be participating in the call? 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. Hey, Lew. It's John Mauro 


from SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, John. 


 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow from SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Steve. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling from SC&A. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome to the Behlings. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Always a pleasure, Arjun. Any other 


SC&A folks? 


Might I ask who's on the line and will be 


participating from the Department of Energy? 


 MR. LEWIS: This is Greg Lewis from 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 

10 

Department of Energy. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Lew, I know that Gina Cano was 


going to participate. We just got off a call 


together so she may not be -- she may not have 


called in yet. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, we should have two more 


people calling in from DOE. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. I'll ask again for the 


Department of Energy. Department of Labor? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch. 


 DR. WADE: Jeff, always a pleasure to have you 


with us. Thank you. Are there any other 


federal employees who would like to identify 


themselves for the record? 


 DR. BRANCHE: Christine Branche, Principal 


Associate Director, NIOSH, Office of the 


Director. 


 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 


 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC. 


 DR. WADE: All right.


 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) NIOSH.


 DR. WADE: Welcome.


 MR. STAUDT: David Staudt, CDC. 


 DR. WADE: A pleasure to have you with us, 

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 

David. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with HHS.


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Liz.


 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes, NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Are there any petitioners or worker 


-- worker reps who would like to identify 


themselves for the record? You don't need to 


do that, but if you would like to have your 


name on the record, please do that.


 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I'm the Dow 


SEC.


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Dan. Glad to have you with 


us. We'll be hearing from you a bit later when 


we talk about Dow.


 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie with ANWAG.


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Terrie. 


 DR. WADE: Is there anybody else on the line 


who would like to be identified on the record? 


Again, it's not required. 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Just a few things of phone etiquette. 


Please, you know, if you are speaking, speak 


into a handset if at all possible. Try and 


avoid the use of speaker phones. They do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

collect background noise. If you're not 


speaking actively, then mute the instrument 


that -- that -- that you're using. Again, 


background noises can be very distracting, and 


each of us should just give a moment of thought 


to our environment and -- and noises in our 


environment and how that might affect the call. 


I -- I think it is important for this Board and 


-- and its multiple tasks to meet by telephone, 


but in order to do that effectively we all have 


to obey some fundamental rules of courtesy. So 


I'd ask you to give some thought to your -- to 


your environment and manage it effectively. 


Might I go back and ask if there are others 


who've joined us from the Department of Energy? 


 MS. CANO: Yes. This is Regina Cano with the 


Department of Energy. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


 MS. CANO: And I believe Jeff Tack is on the 


call and Greg Lewis from the Department of 


Energy. 


 MR. LEWIS: Hi, Gina. Jeff -- Jeff hasn't 


joined us yet, but I did talk to him this 


morning so he should be calling. 


 MR. TACK: You know what, I just got 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 

13

 MR. LEWIS: Oh, there we go. Okay. Good. 

 MS. CANO: Thank you. 

 MR. TACK: You're welcome. 

 DR. ZIEMER: How -- Jeff -- how do you spell 


your last name? 


 MR. TACK: Tack. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. Lew, are we all set 


then? 


 DR. WADE: I think, Paul, it's yours to go. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you very much, 


everyone, for joining us this morning. We'll 


officially call the -- the Board meeting to 


order. The agenda has been distributed by e-


mail to the Board members. It is also present 


on the web site. So hopefully any members of 


the public who've joined us can access the 


agenda from the web site. As is our practice, 


the -- the times on the agenda are approximate. 


They are based on an estimate of sort of the 


outside amount of time or the -- the -- the 


total length of time that a given topic might 


take. However, we can expand and contract as 


the need arises, and if we do complete an item 


early, we will simply move on to the next item. 


Our first item following the introductions 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 

14 

the agenda is an update on the Chapman Valve 

SEC. I was going to call on the workgroup 

chairman to do that but Dr. Poston isn't here, 

and I -- I think probably we can have a staff 

update on that. Who was going to handle that? 

 DR. WADE: I think we were going to hear from 

the Department of Energy and Department of 

Labor. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The questions that were sent to 

them regarding the --

 DR. WADE: Correct. They'd given us reports -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- possible presence of enriched 

uranium. 

 DR. WADE: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's start with Energy. 

Let's see, who can report to us from Energy? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Hey Paul? Is this a new agenda? 

'Cause it=s not the one on the web. I mean we 

-- I had -- I have starting with the -- it 

doesn't matter that much for me. But I'm just 

trying to --

 DR. BRANCHE: We changed the agenda on 

Wednesday of last week to accommodate our 

colleagues from the Department of Labor. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15

 DR. BRANCHE: And that was distributed in an e-


mail on November 20th. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Was that updated on the web? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, apparently not. 


 DR. WADE: Apparently not. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, it was not updated on the 


web. Our -- our person who assists us with the 


web had a death in her immediate family and was 


not available to -- to get that up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I -- so those -- those who 


are relying on the web, I apologize. There was 


a modification to accommodate the -- the folks 


from Energy and Labor. So we have the -- a 


couple of items earlier than they might have 


been. 


 DR. WADE: Why don't I, Paul, just do a very 


quick reading of the agenda so everyone will 


know what's coming? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: At 11:00 we were to do our welcome 


and introductions. At 11:15 a Chapman Valve 


SEC update. At 11:30 a Dow Chemical SEC 

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 

update. At noon we were to talk about FY '08 


tasks for SC&A, including site profiles, 


procedures and DR reviews. At 12:45 a 


discussion of the procedures to be used to 


select the Board's support contractor for next 


year. As you know, the SC&A contract runs out 


this year. At 11:15 there was an update on the 


Sandia SEC. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wait, wait, wait, wait. You've 


gone backwards in time, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry. At 1:15 -- I'm sorry. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, one o'clock is 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Let me go back. At 12:45 a 


discussion of procedures --


 DR. BRANCHE: Huh-uh. 


 DR. WADE: -- to select the Board's support 


contractor. At 1:15 Sandia SEC update. At 


1:30 a discussion of Board procedures on 


interviews. At 2:00 an update on the tracking 


matrices. At 2:30 a subcommittee update on the 


fourth and fifth sets of DRs and an overview of 


the first hundred cases that were reviewed. At 


3:00 workgroup updates. At 3:45 Board working 


time, and at 4:00 adjourn. Again, all 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 

17 

times are -- are approximate. The last -- the 


change that didn't get on the web site was 


really done to accommodate our busy friends at 


the Department of Energy. 


CHAPMAN VALVE SEC UPDATE


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for that review, 


Lew. That's helpful to everyone, I think. So 


let's return then to the Chapman Valve issues 


and let us hear first from the Department of 


Energy. 


 MS. CANO: Thank you. This is Regina Cano. Pat 


-- Dr. Pat Worthington was unable to be on the 


call today, so I will be providing our update 


on Chapman as well as Dow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. CANO: At any rate, again, thank you for 


accommodating our schedule. We have to be on a 


plane for Seattle this afternoon, so we really 


do appreciate you making the -- the change. 


In regards to Chapman, I also have Jeff Tack on 


the phone, who has done a lot of research on 


our behalf, not only for Chapman but for Dow. 


So he will be able to provide some additional 


information regarding his research activities 


for both facilities. But since the 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 

18 

meeting in October -- let me go ahead and -- 


what was -- what was actually sent to DOE and 


that -- what we are trying to respond to is 


back in September 5th -- I believe it was 


September 5th, maybe I've got the wrong date, 


but NIOSH had actually sent us a -- a letter 


asking us to clarify whether or not any kind of 


radioactive material was actually -- let me see 


-- radioactive material -- was whether or not 


any additional sources of radioactive material, 


examples: transfer points of manifolds from Oak 


Ridge for testing at Chapman Valve Dean Street, 


which may have contained enriched uranium, and 


whether or not any of that type of work took 


place at Dean Street. We have actually been -- 


we have actually done a lot of research since 


the October meeting, which basically included 


going out to Y-12. Jeff Tack actually went out 


to Y-12 and performed some research. We were 


able to obtain 37 drawings that show that 


Chapman Valve produced valves and manifolds 


during that specific time frame, but basically 


what it does substantiate is that yes, that 


there were manifolds and valves being produced 


on behalf of Y-12 at Chapman. 

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 

We also in that time frame contacted Savannah 


River Site and queried them to see if they had 


any information on Chapman Valve. We had no 


responsive information from them or responsive 


records. Jeff also contacted the Springfield 


Economic Development Center to see if basically 


they had any information or records pertaining 


to the Dean Street facility. Although Dean 


Street -- what -- I guess what they were only 


able to show was that in -- in '44, '46 and '47 


Chapman Valve owned a building on Dean Street. 


We have -- however, even though Dean Street 


still exists, the building was torn down in the 


late 1940s, and the state archives have no 


record about the mission at this location. So 


we are still unclear what kind of work the Dean 


Street facility would have performed on behalf 


of Chapman. 


We also contacted -- let's see -- we contacted 


-- Jeff, do you want to talk about Stone and 


Webster? 

 MR. TACK: Sure. 

 MS. CANO: Since you talked to them. 

 MR. TACK: We did -- we -- you know, one of the 

-- the documents that we received indicated 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 

20 

a reference to a purchase that was done by 


Stone and Webster for the Y-12 facility, acting 


as an agent for the Department of Energy. So I 


went back to Stone and Webster to confirm or 


determine if they had any additional 


information on the site, what role they played 


at that time and, you know, they were kind of 


surprised that we were calling them because of 


the fact that they didn't have anything and 


indicated to me that, Jeff, you know, those 


were government records and would have went 


back to the government so we have nothing more 


in our control or possession. 


The other one that we contacted -- I recall 


that we had a request to take a look possibly 


at some responsive information for the facility 


that was in the basement of Western 


Massachusetts Committee on Occupational Safety 


and Health. We since spoke to them last week. 


However, the material or information in their 


possession was primarily specific to employees 


and did not -- what we believe did not contain, 


from my review, any responsive information that 


would change our position on the site right 


now. 

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

 MS. CANO: And also, in regards to those 37 


drawings, I believe (unintelligible) may have 


already provided those to NIOSH. 


 MR. TACK: You know what, actually we were 


scanning those for you, and I believe that they 


would be sent to you this week. 


 MS. CANO: Good. 


 MR. TACK: We were still putting those in -- I 


obtained copies of the drawings and it was 


clear that Chapman, in support of, you know, 


producing valves and manifolds, clearly 


produced those products for the Y-12 facility 


during its construction and -- you know, but 


there was no indication on the drawings or the 


material specs that are included on those that 


any of that material would have been produced 


from anything other than common product: iron, 


bronze, cast iron, low carbon steel, stainless. 


But we did not see anything that would have 


indicated that the drawings would have 


requested, you know, products to be 


manufactured out of any radioactive materials, 


or could I determine that there was any other 


source of material that was going back and 


forth at that time. 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. Let me insert a 


question here, and maybe the Chapman Valve 


workgroup can help us on this, but wasn't one 


of the early indications that there might have 


been some contamination of a shipment versus 


the idea of its actually being -- incorporating 


radioactive materials? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, this is Brad Clawson. Part 


of our issue was was that there -- that a lot 


of these valves had gone to Y-12 and so forth, 


and been a part of the process and then be -- 


had been brought back to be repaired or 


refurbished. 


 MR. TACK: Right. And you know, that was 


difficult for us to determine as I looked at 


the information that was provided to us or what 


we were able to obtain. Actually the only 


reason that these 37 drawings still existed is 


that those valves are still in place at the 


site, even though it's going under remediation. 


That was probably the only reason why those 


drawings were still in the -- in the record 


system or, you know, preserved or still 


retained by Oak Ridge. No other documentation 


was available. We queried a couple 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 

23 

retired individuals that may have been involved 


with it, didn't have any recollection that 


intentionally there was any transfer of 


material back and forth and, you know, it's 


difficult to determine that only because of the 


time frame. It would appear that the contracts 


and the production of the valves were probably 


prior to Oak Ridge operation. So it looked to 


me like, from what we could determine, that 


they were primarily providing common valves, no 


different than any other construction or design 


program, and so, you know, it's difficult or we 


were not able to ascertain whether or not 


anything was returned to them for rework after 


the plant would have went into operation. But 


it was very clear that most of the products 


that Chapman was sending were in support of 


plant construction and design. 


 MR. CLAWSON: And I understand that. This is 


Brad again. One of our questions that came up 


was from some of the petitioners and so forth. 


This is where Dean Street came into the process 


was some of these valves and manifolds 


especially have been into the process and, for 


them to be able to rebuild them or whatever 

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 

like that, they were sent back, they were off-


loaded and then went to the Dean Street to be 


refurbished and worked on and -- and turned 


back. So you understand what our issue is, is 


we've got a group of (loss of transmission) and 


quite a bit of evidence going to something like 


this. I realize it would be hard, but we've 


got to -- we've got to be able to try to look 


at this and make sure that we're getting all 


the information that we can. 


 MR. TACK: Well, and I think, you know, as I 


looked at the information and the period of 


production and operations of the Y-12 facility, 


you know, Chapman also played a significant 


role in the Navy. You know, there were some 


discussions or indications that, with a couple 


of the retirees -- again, they're not real 


clear on what transpired, but they're very 


clear that -- that they had a significant 


mission on providing valves to and manifolds to 


the Navy, to the Army and, you know, I -- you 


know, it could be very well that it's at the 


same period that the Navy nuke program started, 


which was in the late '40s. So I -- there was 


no way for us to determine -- Y-12 did, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

know, extensive searches on their holdings to 


determine -- we were never able to substantiate 


anything that went back and forth to Dean 


Street by record. We were never able to show 


that if anything went to Chapman Valve it would 


definitely have went to the Indian Orchard 


facility, you know, and again then that -- of 


course Dean Street was, by the city record -- 


was no longer shown as a facility owned by 


Chapman after 1947. In the '48, '49 and '50 


registers it appeared that the building was 


dismantled, so there was no way for us to 


substantiate what transpired at that facility. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I don't -- this is Mark 


Griffon. Yeah, I heard you mention that 


earlier, and I don't think that's accurate. 


think we have people from the positioning group 


that actually said the Dean Street facility 


still exists, the -- the -- the building itself 


is still up and, as a matter of fact, they said 


it was an auto shop or something -- an auto 


body shop. The Chapman Valve -- the main 


Chapman facility has been torn down. 


 MR. TACK: All right. Well, they gave the 


indication that the --


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 

26

 MR. GRIFFON: It wasn't owned by Chapman 


anymore. I agree with that part. 


 MR. TACK: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I don't think it was 


dismantled and torn down. It was -- it still 


exists, it's there. 


 MR. TACK: We show that if it was, it was no 


longer owned by Chapman as of 1948. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's probably accurate. 


Yeah. 


 MR. TACK: Right. And it -- and we went back ­

- there -- actually the gentleman that was with 


the State went down there – Brian Connors of 


the Springfield Economic Development Center 


went down for me and tried to determine, in 


support of our effort -- they're going through 


a big redevelopment of Dean Street right now 


and all of that surrounding area -- went down 


to the facility and tried to determine, only 


because it -- they really didn't have anything 


more than an address. A lot of those areas 


have changed. We believed it was on a corner 


between two streets. He went down to determine 


if there was any way that they could ascertain 


whether that was truly, you know, the same 

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 

facility that was shown in the register and 


they weren't able to do that. The buildings 


had been remodeled. The directory, even though 


it shows a building there, if anything, it -- 


you know, it was only on the same parcel or 


combined parcels and so it wasn't easy for him 


to determine, you know, what happened to the 


facility, was it still there. They had no 


other records about a mission there or anything 


about Chapman Valve owning the facility, other 


than a directory. 


 MS. CANO: Jeff, this is -- this is Gina. 


We're also going to be traveling out to 


Massachusetts within the next couple of weeks 


to interview one of the former employees for 


Chapman just to see if she can give us any -- 


any additional leads, any other -- any other 


information -- identifying information that we 


can actually go out and research. But that is 


going to take place in the next couple of 


weeks, and it may be one or two former 


employees. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So there could be some additional 


information surface by the time of our full 


Board meeting. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28

 MS. CANO: In January, correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. CANO: We hope to have this final decision 


to you by the next Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. But what you're telling us 


so far is you don't have any information that 


would change your classification at the moment. 


Is that correct? 


 MS. CANO: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Does Labor have anything at this 


point to report or are you awaiting the DOE's 


outcomes? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Paul, yeah. We -- we were going ­

- we were awaiting, you know, information from 


DOE on, you know, on the Dean Street facility. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Before we would --


 DR. ZIEMER: You can't do anything until you 


get their designation, I guess is what you're 


saying. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Right, yeah. I mean it is our 


responsibility that -- to extend the -- you 


know, the covered period if -- if -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: If there's ever --


 MR. KOTSCH: -- if it is indeed necessary. 

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 

Yeah. If there was evidence. But like I said, 


we are -- we're still awaiting DOE's input. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Let me ask if any 


other Board members or -- particularly 


workgroup members, is there any other questions 


at the moment? 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: One follow-up for DOE. Did --


did you -- were you able to find any shipping 


records from Y-12? I know we had specifically 


mentioned that. Someone did at one of the 


Board meetings. 


 MR. TACK: We were not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No? 


 MR. TACK: We had no other records other than ­

- actually the drawings had never shown up on 


previous searches. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. TACK: When we got there, we looked in 


their holdings, had them do some additional 


searches for me while I was there and in one of 


the drawing files -- in an archived drawing 


files. An active plant file that -- is the 


only way that they were able to find 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 

30 

drawings that showed that same covered period. 


There was no reference to the purchase orders 


on there or any information of contracts, other 


than they were procured by Stone and Webster 


during the period for the facility, and 


buildings that are still in and actually were 


in -- still currently standing at the facility 


with the valves probably still installed. 


Otherwise they had nothing else, no other 


records from that period. 


 MS. CANO: Other than what we already have. 

 MR. TACK: Right. 

 MS. CANO: I mean we do have some -- you know, 

those -- of the invoices that I believe that 


you have, as well. But we haven't found 


anything new. 


 MR. TACK: Nothing new. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And were you able to follow up -- 


I don't know if we specifically -- if the 


letters asked for this, but were you able to 


find any or follow up on the remediation 


contractors and what reports they might have 


had? Specifically -- I know I mentioned the 


question of, you know, when they cleaned up 


they had to ship the waste somewhere 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 

31 

probably had to manifest it as radioactive, and 


that might help us to determine whether there 


was any significant quantity of enriched 


uranium or whether there was a sample. 


 MR. TACK: There's not. We provided Genie last 


-- to Gina last week copies of the remediation, 


both the characterization plans, the pre-, the 


post- and an independent survey; and all those 


documents were forwarded to her last Thursday. 


Actually Thanksgiving morning. We didn't show 


that that one enriched sample of dust or soil 


that was found actually changed our remediation 


approach. They -- they didn't show any concern 


or implement any additional changes to the 


approach for remediation as a result of that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well I wouldn't expect that. I 


was more interested whether -- how they 


manifested the material. 


 MR. TACK: You know what, it didn't have -- we 


no longer had the custody of that. We've gone 


back --


 DR. NETON: Mark, this is Jim Neton. We've 


obtained a copy of the certification document 


docket for the remediation effort and it's out 


there on the O drive now. 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I think I just got an e-


mail from Mark Rolfes -- 


 DR. NETON: It just went out. It's a 785-page 


document --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 DR. NETON: -- that goes through a lot of what 


was just described and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's on the O drive? I'm looking 


on the O drive and I don't see it. Maybe it's 


a delay in --


 DR. NETON: Yeah. Sometimes there's a half-day 


delay in those things popping up there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. NETON: But I looked through it, admittedly 


fairly quickly, but I -- I did a search on 


enriched and saw nothing except the reference 


to the, you know, the document -- the 1991 


survey where there was that enriched sample 


discovered. But pretty much the tone of the 


whole document was they were re-mediating the 


effort in building 23, which was as -- you 


know, as we wrote our dose reconstructions on, 


which was for the cleanup of the uranium slug 


operation. I -- I found no indication that 


there was anything else there at all, but 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 

33 

course I didn't look at every page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay. 


 DR. NETON: But it's out there for -- for 


people to look at now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank -- thank you. 


 DR. NETON: It should be shortly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Appreciate it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other questions or 


comments on -- on Chapman? And Lew will be 


sure to add -- or have this on the agenda then 


for our next meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. This is Lew Wade. I would 


like to just thank DOE for their persistence in 


this matter and their responsiveness to -- to 


our requests. 


 MS. BLOCK: This is Sharon Block from Senator 


Kennedy's office, and I apologize. I got on 


the call a little late. I didn't realize that 


you had changed the timing of when you were 


going to discuss Chapman Valve. I just want --


so I didn't hear the beginning of your 


discussion, but I assume that -- that you all 


received the letter from Senator Kennedy and 


Senator Kerry and that -- that those were the 


issues that you were discussing. Is 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 

34 

right? 


 MS. MUNN: We did receive the letter. 


 DR. WADE: I think that's an accurate 


characterization, yes. 


 MS. BLOCK: And so in -- in -- just if you 


wouldn't mind, just for -- just for our -- our 


benefit, the first item in the letter -- the -- 


following up on those contracts that we had 


talked about at the last meeting. Am I 


understanding that -- that -- from Regina that 


you haven't found anything else relating to 


those contract numbers? 


 MS. CANO: That's correct. But we are -- we 


are in the process of responding to your -- 


your letter. And you'll -- we'll provide any 


additional information we have in our 


possession to NIOSH and the Advisory Board. 


But I believe we have actually provided 


everything that we have, other than with the 


exception of these 37 drawings that we -- that 


we just recently found. But that is -- that 


will be provided to NIOSH. 


 MS. BLOCK: Okay, great. Thank you. And 


again, I apologize. I didn't know that the 


time had changed. 

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. ZIEMER: And Sharon, this is Paul Ziemer. 


The -- the DOE folks have some additional 


follow-ups that they're -- that they are doing 


so we're going to follow up at our regular 


meeting next time on this further. So --


 MS. BLOCK: Do you -- do you anticipate a vote 


at the next meeting or will it be just another 


update? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's going to be very 


dependent upon what is found. 


 MS. BLOCK: Okay. If you could just obviously 


keep us in the loop on that, we'd appreciate 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. REALE: Excuse me, Dr. Zimmer (sic). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 


 MS. REALE: This is Mary Ann Reale, petitioner 


for Chapman Valve. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. REALE: You're discussing the Dean Street 


property and I understand that someone 


indicated that had been demolished. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the DOE folks had 


suggested that. Jeff, is that correct? 


 MR. TACK: It is. The only thing, though -- 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 

36 

mean we weren't able -- we did not travel up 


there. We talked about that, but the – Brian 


Connors of their Economic Development Center 


took the information that they had for me and 


he went down to the facility and tried to 


determine from the addresses that were shown, 


what is there, did anybody, you know, have any 


information in their State archives or within 


in their possession that would show anything on 


that facility, the Dean Street, what it did, 


how it was -- what was the relationship with 


Chapman. They had no records on that. They 


only had the directories from the period 


identified. He felt that it could be -- again, 


he stressed to me, Jeff, you know this area has 


been -- you know, over time of course, has 


evolved and that part of -- you know, the 


building could still be on part of land that 


was in that area, but they never had any 


indication as they evolved over time that -- 


you know, as of 1948 that facility was no 


longer shown in their records. So he wasn't 


able to determine for me whether or not -- you 


know, of course the building would be owned by 


somebody else, anything more than what we were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

able to provide to you. 


 MS. REALE: Well up until a month ago I was in 


the building, and the building does exist and 


it is 12 Dean Street. It's almost at the 


corner of Parker Street and Dean Street. 


 MR. TACK: Right. 


 MS. REALE: And it is a working auto repair 


shop at the present date. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this Brad. I -- I 


just -- as one of the working group, when we 


get this letter from DOE, could we please have 


a copy of that letter sent to us to make sure 


that (broken transmission) covered? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can certainly do that. Who 


will that letter go to? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, when DOE -- when DOE 


(broken transmission) report on it, I would 


like to have it in a letter either to the 


Advisory Board or -- or you to be able to be 


put out to the working group, but there -- 


there -- to me there's a lot of questions still 


out there, and you've heard me say this before. 


This whole process is like a big computer. If 


we don't have sufficient information into 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 

38 

what we get out is going to be flawed at the 


end, and I want to make sure that we have 


covered every rock, everything else, to be able 


to make sure that this is the best that we can 


be able to do. But I'd just like to be able to 


have DOE's report of what they've found, so 


forth, in a formal manner to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the DOE letter -- let's 


see, perhaps Gina can confirm this. Your --


your -- your letter would be a response to 


NIOSH directly? 


 MS. CANO: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And NIOSH in turn I assume would 


make that available to the Board. 


 DR. WADE: Right. I wrote to them on the 


Board's behalf, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


 DR. WADE: -- if you respond to me, then I'll 


certainly see that all Board members receive 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll make sure it gets 


distributed. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I appreciate that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then it'll be back on the 


agenda at the next meeting for follow-up. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39

 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any other comments on 


Chapman at this point? 


 (No responses) 


DOW CHEMICAL SEC UPDATE
 

Thank you very much. Let's move on to Dow 


Chemical. 


 DR. WADE: As we go through Dow -- we don't 


have to do it first, Paul -- we can hear from 


the agencies. But Dr. McKeel has asked if he 


could make a statement representing the Dow 


petitioners. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. I think Dr. McKeel wanted 


to hear from the agencies first also. Was that 


correct, Dr. McKeel? 


(No response) 


Dan, are you still on the line? 


 DR. WADE: You might be muted, Dan. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, uh-huh. 


 DR. MCKEEL: I am still on, yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So let's hear from the 


agencies. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. DOE, want to begin on this 


one then? 


 MS. CANO: Yes. We would provide the update 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 

40 

-- on Dow. In regards to Dow Chemical from -- 


in Madison, I believe at the last Board meeting 


we had briefed to you on the fact that we had 


actually gone out to the NNSA* sites, the 


weapons facilities, to -- and requested some 


information from them. We have received some 


information back from them, and we are in the 


process of reviewing that information. 


In addition, we have also received the results 


from the FBI. We sent the five purchase orders 


in question to the FBI to see if they could 


actually help us decipher the text. We did 


receive the information back from the FBI. 


However, we had some problems with the way they 


actually -- they characterized their -- their 


report and asked them to go back and -- and go 


ahead and -- and rewrite that report for us to 


clarify some of the issues that we had. They 


just weren't thorough enough in their 


evaluations. So they are doing that now. They 


have accommodated our request. They have been 


very cooperative and we -- we really do 


appreciate the work they've been doing on our 


behalf. 


In addition, like I said, we have received the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

information from the labs. We are reviewing 


that information now and hope to have something 


to you as well in January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Specifically from which labs? 


From --


 MS. CANO: From Livermore. 


 DR. ZIEMER: From Livermore. 


 MS. CANO: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, let's -- let's go 


ahead and hear from Dr. McKeel. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, good morning to you -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning. 

 DR. MCKEEL: -- to you and the Board. I wanted 

to also thank the Department of Energy for 


doing its investigations and we have had a 


conversation about FBI reports in particular. 


And I just wanted to make a couple of comments 


about that. 


The FBI did get the five purchase orders from 


Mallinckrodt. Apparently they -- in the first 


instance they were not tasked to interpret what 


they found. But they did some image analysis 


manipulations of the text to see if they could 


define in particular that passage that we think 


is so critical which would identify which type 

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 

of magnesium plate* alloy was sent to 


Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Uranium Division. 


And their image that they sent back to us -- I 


think what we reported to the Board in May was 


even supported more strongly because you could 


clearly read the letters 21XA-TA*. So as I 


pointed out in May, the real question is the 


preceding letters to 21A and I -- I personally 


couldn't read them, even with the enhanced 


version, so part of what we asked the FBI to do 


-- or what Regina and the Department of Energy 


is asking (unintelligible) rewrite is to 


clarify their interpretation of what those 


letters may be. It appears to me, at least, 


that there may be three letters there. But in 


any case, we've asked them to provide further 


interpretation of that. 


I will mention that between the last meeting 


and today, I heard from a former employee at 


Dow, who is an interesting woman because she 


was the [redaction] employee between 1973 and 


1986 who was actually paid by Dow. [Statement 


redacted.] But that was during the period that 


Consolidated Aluminum Company owned the plant, 


and so all the purchase orders to Dow went 

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 

through her. And so we were discussing what 


she had done and what -- who the clients were 


and so forth, and she said that one thing she 


remembered vividly was that HM21A 


(unintelligible) thorium/magnesium alloy, that 


that was a major product of Dow Madison, and 


that the men -- the workers there had said the 


same thing. She also said that she did not 


remember -- during that period, at least -- any 


shipments from Dow Madison to Rocky Flats and 


so, you know, that's just one person but she 


was in a rather unique position to monitor 


everything in and out of that plant. So, you 


know, that -- there still is a possibility, 


which I felt strongly about, that -- that some 


of those records and shipping manifests may be 


in the classified files at the Department of 


Energy. 


The second thing I'd like to mention about the 


Dow SEC is that on April the 17th, following 


issuance of the NIOSH SEC evaluation report, I 


submitted a FOIA request which was given the 


number 07-000569 to the CDC/HTSDR* Atlanta 


office, and actually the -- originally what I 


sent was a set of quest-- 14 questions to Mr. 

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 

Elliott at OCAS, and eight of those were 


converted into FOIAs, which were then forwarded 


to Atlanta. And I just wanted to mention that 


those eight that are responsive to my request 


in April still have not been received. So 


we're past months and it is absolutely crucial 


to get those answers soon before the Board 


(unintelligible) -- I mean we should have those 


in hand and the Board should have them and I 


should have them before the Board votes, which 


of course we hope would be in January. So I 


understand that the Board -- that's not the 


Board's responsibility to get those answers 


back, but I -- I -- I have a -- this is a 


dreadful situation where you have to wait six 


months for a FOIA request when the law says 


that they have 20 days to respond. 


 Another thing to comment on is -- 


 DR. WADE: Before you go forward, Dr. McKeel -- 


this is Lew Wade -- I would ask everyone to 


please mute your phone if possible. We're 


hearing papers rattling and sort of coughing in 


the background. If -- if you could, please. 


Go ahead, Dr. McKeel. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. The other items say -- is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

that I have sent a series of questions to 


Regina Cano and Pat Worthington and I hope that 


they will be able to answer those. We -- we 


also need those answers and -- and one of them 


is a response to my letter to Pat in July, 


which -- which was a response to the letter she 


had sent to Mr. Elliott responding to his May ­

- his May questions to the Department of 


Energy. 


So the other thing I wanted to comment about -- 


I don't know how we can do this; I think we 


could send a comment to the Board -- but the 


workers at Dow have shared with me a number of 


concerns they have about the SC&A report on the 


NIOSH SEC evaluation of Dow Madison. And in 


particular there are some odd occurrences in 


that report, such as the mention of buildings 


that, to their knowledge, never existed at Dow 


Madison being attributed to that site. So I --


I think I need to say that we -- I guess what 


we can do is to send in our comments to that 


document. 


And a final thing I'd like to say is indirectly 


related to the SEC, and that is that of course 


the whole purpose of the SEC was to get as many 

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 

Dow people as possible compensated. And thus 


far I'm very pleased to say I think 36 people 


have been approved under the SEC and we hope 


there will be at least ten -- or a few more, 


maybe, than that -- eventually approved. But 


what concerns me is that there are 90 


additional claims from Dow at NIOSH awaiting 


dose reconstruction. And as of a couple of 


days ago -- depending on which web site you 


look at, NIOSH or DOL -- nine of those claims 


have been assigned to a health physicist, 81 


have not, and there have only been two to four 


completed dose reconstructions ever at the Dow 


Madison site. So we're extremely concerned 


that those other dose reconstructions proceed 


even as the SEC awards are being made and as 


we're debating and trying to provide the 


evidence that the Department of Labor and 


Department of Energy need to change the 


coverage period. But in any case, there's -- 


there's still those people who fall outside of 


the present definition. And we're hoping very 


soon to see dose reconstructions begin on that 


group. It will be very tough because there is 


no site profile for Dow. There is no appendix 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

-- site-specific appendix to TBD 6000. 


Anyway, I appreciate very much the opportunity 


(broken transmission) and once again, 


appreciate the efforts of the Department of 


Energy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for those 


comments, Dan, and let me ask now, Board 


members, do any of you have any follow-up 


questions or comments on Dow? 


(No response) 


If not, again, Lew, we need to make sure that 


Dow is back on the agenda for the next meeting 


so we can follow up on these issues. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. STEPHAN: This is Robert Stephan with 


Senator Obama's office. I just --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good morning, Robert. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Good morning. Could I make a 


quick comment? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly can. 


 MR. STEPHAN: I -- I want to just echo what Dan 


said about DOE. You know, they are working 


hard on this FBI revised report, I guess you 


would call it, and we -- we certainly 

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 

appreciate that. If Gina's still on the line, 


Gina, could I ask, do -- do you have a time 


frame as to when you think that they may come 


back to you with a revision of this FBI report? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Regina, are you still with us? 


(No response) 


Robert, they may have left because they were 


going to have to catch a plane. It's one 


reason we moved them up on the agenda. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any of the other DOE people on 


line? Jeff or Greg? 


 MR. TACK: You know, I'm still here but I'm -- 


I'm not exactly sure what our expectations were 


in having that re-- their information back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Maybe you could respond 


off-line to Robert at Senator Obama's office 


and let -- give him an estimated timetable if 


you would. 


 MR. TACK: Sure. I'm not in the office but 


I'll -- I'll leave a message for Gina. How's 


that? 


 MR. LEWIS: This is Greg. I'll be seeing Gina 


later today and I'll make sure that she follows 


up with you, Robert. 

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

 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you. And then also on 


Dan's comment about these FOIA requests that 


are --


 MS. CANO: Robert? 


 MR. STEPHAN: -- eight months now. Yes? 


 MS. CANO: Hi, it's Gina. Sorry, I meant to 


hit the mute button and I hung up on you guys. 


Could you repeat your question? 


 MR. STEPHAN: We were just talking about that 


FBI report and I was wondering if we could get 


Dr. McKeel an estimate of when, you know, 


roughly that you might be expecting, you know, 


this revised report, so to speak. 


 MS. CANO: I can't give you a time frame. I 


did leave a message with the gentleman last 


week. I haven't heard back from him. So he 


might just be out for the holidays, but I will 


follow up with him and I will send you an e-


mail. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. 


 MS. CANO: Okay? 


 MR. STEPHAN: And then -- thank you -- and then 


also, on Dan's comment about these FOIA 


requests with the CDC, if Jason Broehm is on 


the line, or Larry Elliott, we had had some 

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 

dialogue about this a few weeks ago and -- and 


they seem to indicate they were making some 


headway and I'm just wondering if they could 


give us an update as to, you know, the time 


frame for those -- those FOIAs, because they 


are eight months past -- you know, since -- 


since when he turned them in. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jason, are you there? Or Larry? 


 MR. BROEHM: Yeah, I'm here. I don't have a 


status report that I can give. The last I 


checked in, it sounded like what I related to 


Robert, that they were making headway. I don't 


know if Dave Sundin is on the line and can 


speak to that. 


 MR. SUNDIN: Jason, I am. Yeah, I think that's 


accurate. There was a partial response given 


early on and some of these requests are fairly 


far ranging, so they do require extensive 


searches. But I have another partial request I 


believe working its way through right now. 


 MR. STEPHAN: Dave, do you think that -- that 


we're looking at 30 days, 60 days? Do you have 


a guess, at least? 


 MR. SUNDIN: Our next partial response will be 


there within 30 days. 

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

 MR. STEPHAN: Okay. Okay. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Can I make one final comment about 


that? You know, I think that's fine to make 


promises. But the law is real clear. There's 


supposed to be a final response, and I 


understand that that's often not done. But 


this is really approaching a ridiculous 


proportion. And I have to put in for the 


record that the office -- Tim Armstrong's 


office at CDC FOIA simply will not respond to 


(unintelligible). So I am appealing -- I thank 


Robert for his efforts. Anything that Mr. 


Elliott can do or anybody at NIOSH, but this is 


not fair to withhold answers like that and 


expect there to be anything like a fair playing 


field, and you know, the remedy of course is to 


file a motion to compel in Federal District 


Court. And you know, it's just expensive, 


time-consuming and hard to do that for a 


petitioner. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well we appreciate that and 


certainly don't want to have to do that. So --


 DR. MCKEEL: No, okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we appreciate the efforts that 


Jason and Robert have made to -- to spring 

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 

things loose as well. 


 DR. MCKEEL: All right. Thank you very much. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments, Board members, 

on Dow? 

(No response) 

Okay. We will return to it at our next meeting 


and see what progress has occurred in the 


meantime. Thank you. 


FY08 TASKS FOR SC&A: SITE PROFILES, PROCEDURES, DR 


REVIEWS
 

Let's move on then. The next item is the 


Fiscal Year '08 tasks for SC&A and, Board 


members, you should have received from Lew some 


recommendations. They are -- the 


recommendations from Lew are based partially -- 


or maybe completely -- on the -- the fact that 


there's -- the funds that have been set aside 


for this -- this coming year for SC&A may not 


be adequate to do all the tasks that we had 


hoped for. And I refer you to Lew's memo of 


November -- I think 21st. 


 DR. WADE: Paul, maybe I could just -- this is 


Lew, maybe I could just walk people through 


this. Yeah.


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe, Lew, you could lead us 

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 

through this. Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Let me start by painting just a very 


general picture, and then I'll go into some 


specific details, and then I'll get us to the 


point where we can start to consider decisions 


and actions. 


 But this Board tasked SC&A with some general 


work for the fiscal year that we're currently 


in now. That's fiscal year '08. If you'll 


recall, what we instructed the contracting 


officer to -- to build into the contract for 


this year was, relative to Task I, the start 


and complete of four new site profile reviews. 


For Task III, to undertake the beginning and 


completion of 30 new procedures reviews, 


including one review of a PER. For Task IV, 


the review of 60 new dose reconstructions and 


two blind reviews. I'll point out to you that 


there is still carried over from last fiscal 


year two blind reviews that SC&A is supposed to 


do. For Task V we set up the mechanism for 


SC&A to undertake six SEC reviews, as 


instructed by the Board. Again, those -- those 


were the general parameters we established for 


the work this year. We have not tasked SC&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 

54 

with the specific reviews in all categories 


that we want them to do. That remains in front 


of us. 


John Mauro has very respectfully asked the 


contracting officer if we could begin to assign 


work to them in that they have people who are 


anxiously awaiting that work. And I think it's 


time for us to put our shoulder to that and to 


do some of that assignment. 


John sent us a monthly report on November 15th 


that outlined his telling of where they stood 


in terms of all of the -- the contract tasks 


that they had, were expecting to have, and what 


that meant in terms of their ability to 


complete all work relative to the available 


monies. That report is in your possession as 


well. John pointed out that to start and 


finish everything that was on their plate 


previously and would be put on their plate this 


year -- and I again stress start and finish -- 


John saw a potential shortfall of about 


$1,200,000. 


 Again, my interpretation is that that's not as 


alarming as it might seem. We have constantly 


elongated the review process and the steps 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 

55 

have gone through and it's very unlikely in a 


given fiscal year we would start and finish the 


work. The work almost always carries over. 


But John is giving us a heads-up that this is a 


potential concern and I think we need to heed 


that concern. 


What I did was to take all of that information 


and to share back with you some recommendations 


as to how we could proceed in this. Again, 


giving John and his people some work to begin 


and yet preserving the need to watch the money 


to see that we don't get in a position to -- 


where we would run out of money. And that was 


contained in the e-mail that Paul referred to 


you, my e-mail dated November 21st. 


I asked John also to send you his thoughts as 


to the assignment of new work, and he did that 


in an e-mail sent to you dated also November 


21st. 


The other piece of paper I asked be shared with 


you was just a list of all of the site profiles 


that NIOSH has completed and that have not been 


taken on for review by the Board, and that was 


sent to you by Stu Hinnefeld and I also sent 


you a second copy of it in an e-mail from Jim 

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 

Neton. 


So you have all the material in front of you. 


Again, I'm proposing that we consider the 


possibility of assigning SC&A a site profile or 


two to begin to review now. If you're not 


comfortable now, then January is an opportunity 


for us, but I'd like us to talk about that to 


do now. 


With regard to the procedures reviews, I think 


there, as the workgroup is functioning on 


procedures, new procedures to be reviewed are 


coming up. I would suggest that we -- we don't 


attempt to assign 30 new procedures, but we 


hold open the fact that procedures would be 


assigned to SC&A to review as the workgroup or 


the Board felt it appropriate. I think, for 


example, we have TBD 6000 and its -- its 


appendices that need to be considered for 


review. That's something I think we could talk 


about today. 


I think it would be also appropriate to think 


about the assignment of one PER for SC&A to 


begin to review. Remember, these program 


evaluation reports really are sort of a new 


wrinkle in the mix. This is where NIOSH takes 

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 

the changes that have been made through the 


review process and other mechanisms, and sets 


out a path for the redoing of individual dose 


reconstructions affected by those changes. 
I 


think it would be reasonable for us to -- to 


think about assigning a PER for SC&A to begin 


to review now. 


With regard to the individual DRs, John is 


suggesting that we go to the January meeting, 


prepare to select as best we can the next 60 to 


be reviewed. I think we also need to give 


serious thought to tasking them with two or 


four blind reviews. I say two or four because 


we have two blind reviews carried over from 


last year and we have two new blind reviews to 


be done. 


On the -- the fifth task, the SEC task, I think 


there it's always been our process to assign 


SECs to SC&A as they become topical with us, 


and there are a couple that are looming in 


front of us as John has pointed out. It could 


be the Board would want to ask SC&A to begin to 


review those now. So again, a long-winded 


introduction. If we could have a discussion of 


those points, that would be good. If we could 

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 

-- if the Board could find its way clear to 


begin to task SC&A, I think that would be good 


from a contract administration point of view. 


But again, I'm not trying to rush the Board to 


judgment there. But I do think that a 


discussion of this now is appropriate, actions 


as appropriate, and certainly coming to closure 


on all of these issues in January would be a 


good idea. 


Let me just ask John Mauro if I miscategorized 


anything, John, or if there's anything you 


would like to add to the background for the 


discussion we're about to have. 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. Lew, this is John. No, I 


think your characterization of the status of 


the budget and the -- the need to move forward 


was -- was right on. The only thing I would 


add is with respect to task order one in the 


site profile reviews and the possibility of 


falling short in resources, the way I project 


it right now is that's something that is 


associated primarily with the close-out process 


where we're projecting that eventually we will 


be moving forward on the close-out of a total ­

- right now there are approximately 18 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 

59 

profiles, some of which have begun the closeout process, some of which we haven't. And my 


projection is that at some time in the future 


we will be taking on more and more of those and 


I envision that we probably will run into 


resource problems toward the end of the fiscal 


year, which is also, as you know, the end of 


our contract. So I think the -- with regard to 


task order one in particular -- it's very 


difficult to project, but based on previous 


experience, it is -- there's a real possibility 


that we will run into resource problems when we 


get to the point where we're starting to close 


out many of the site profile reviews that are 


currently on our plate. 


 DR. WADE: And that's part of my motivation for 


holding off on the assignment of four new site 


profile reviews. But I think it would be, in 


my opinion, appropriate to assign one or two 


now or soon. 


(Pause) 


So Paul, I'm sorry to have monopolized, but 


that's sort of the background. You know, I -- 


again, I think discussion would be in order. 


would be pleased to answer any questions -- or 


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 

60 

John, I'm sure -- as we -- as we move forward 


in this. 


(Pause) 


Hello? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. This is Jim Melius. 


 DR. WADE: Hi, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: I have a question. I don't seem 


to be able to locate the -- I believe you'd 


said that this initial e-mail from John Mauro 


regarding his -- the potential shortfall issue 


was forwarded to us by Paul Ziemer? 


 DR. WADE: It was forwarded by me. I sent it 


to you as an attachment to my e-mail on 


November 21st. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Let me look for it again. 

Thanks. 

(Pause) 

 MR. GRIFFON: Lew, this is Mark Griffon. 

 DR. WADE: Yes, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I -- I -- I was just going 


to -- I think it might be beneficial as far as 


site profiles go, to -- to get at least a few 


queued up now and I was looking at your 


listing. And in comparing it to our dose 


reconstruction review, we've actually had 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 

61 

couple of these sites come up in dose 


reconstruction review, and some of the 


questions, you know, could fall back to the 


site profile review questions. So I think --


the sites include Huntington, Bridgeport Brass, 


Harshaw, and Superior Steel, so you know, of 


those I think, you know, if we had to pick two 


I'd probably say Harshaw and -- and Bridgeport 


Brass. But that's only because of the driver 


of the fourth and fifth set contain some of 


those reviews and some remaining questions on ­

- you know, that were derived from the dose 


reconstruction review process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. That's a fine 


recommendation, Mark. Thank you. Mark, what 


are your thoughts about the assignment of blind 


reviews to be part of the blind review process? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, well, we did -- we did pick 


two blind reviews. I have to actually get 


together with -- we -- we have that two-person 


workgroup, Wanda and I, and I think Stu 


Hinnefeld indicated to me that one of the blind 


reviews was actually no longer available. It 


was being contested I believe, or -- or -- so 


it was taken out of the available cases for us 

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 

to review. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So -- but we -- we, you 


know, we have a couple of others. I just have 


to talk to Wanda privately and get that number 


to Stu, and then we have -- and then we would 


have two. We can certainly make it a goal for 


our, you know, next meeting to select two more 


and at least get them in the queue. That -- I 


thought we were sort of trying to do the 


initial two and see how -- how that worked out 


as far as our protocol. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that was our general 


discussion --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- in procedures group is that -- 

 DR. WADE: So you -- your expecta-- 

 MS. MUNN: -- that we needed to get a feel for 

how that was going to go, since this is the 


first one we've (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: So it would be your expectation, 


Mark, to -- was to get those -- the information 


necessary to SC&A to begin the two blind 


reviews as quickly as possible? 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: At least to start the first two. 


I think the general consensus from -- from all 


members of the Board was that let's do two, and 


make sure that we're getting out of this 


process what we expect, you know, or -- or is 


the process appropriate, are we asking the -- 


that SC&A do the right kind of, you know, thing 


with their blind review. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So to SC&A, two cases to be 


blind reviewed as quickly as possible. Then in 


January we would set to the task of trying to 


cull out another 60 cases to be reviewed. I 


think that handles, from my perspective, the -- 


the DR task completely. 


On procedures, Wanda, as chair of the 


procedures workgroup, does it make sense to you 


to assign procedures to be reviewed as they 


come up, as opposed to trying to develop a 


laundry list of 30 now, or what's your take on 


that? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it really does. And I -- I 


can't think of a better example of that than 


PROC-92. That's -- and as you mentioned 


earlier, the 6000 series, those -- those things 


which arise as a result of our maturing process 

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 

are sometimes very critical to ongoing 


activities and certainly of extreme interest to 


the petitioners and our claimants. So it -- it 


only makes very good sense to me that we choose 


these things not only in terms of their 


immediacy, but also in terms of the progression 


we've made on others that we have in the 


pipeline. It -- it's taking -- it takes a 


great deal of time and a great deal of 


contractor time and effort to address each of 


these findings that we are moving through in 


our procedures activity. And that is -- I 


think you know, we'll speak a little later to 


some of the processes that we're attempting to 


change and internally to help us have a better 


long-term grip on how to address those things. 


But yes, it makes perfect sense. The short 


answer -- yes, it makes sense to me. 


 DR. WADE: John, what -- what is the status of 


the assignment of 6000 and the appendices to 


you right now? 


 DR. MAURO: Okay, yes. We have delivered to 


NIOSH and the Board our document review of TBD 


6000. Keep in mind TBD 6000 is the uranium 


metal working TBD that has been delivered, 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 

65 

you folks have it. Of course, there is 


appendix BB to that, which is General Steel 


Industries and the issues related to Betatron. 


I had indicated that we had actually hoped to 


have that report in your hands, everyone's 


hands, today. We have run into a couple of 


corrections that have to be made, so that 


appendix BB deliverable is -- as I indicated in 


my e-mail, will be the week of December 3rd. 


But for all intents and purposes, that work is 


completed. 


Bear in mind that it only addresses TBD 6000, 


not TBD 6001, which deals with uranium 


processing facilities, which is a substantially 


different type of issue. And of course, the 


only -- of the various appendices, site-


specific appendices, the only one that we have 


been tasked to look at is General Steel 


Industries, which is -- emphasizes the concerns 


regarding the Betatron exposures, and that is 


very close to completion. We're in the home 


stretch right now. We were hoping to get it 


out quite a bit earlier than this, but it's 


emerged into a little bit more complicated 


problem than we anticipated. 

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

 DR. WADE: I understand. Wanda, it was my 


understanding that the procedures workgroup was 


leaning towards, if had not decided, that 


having SC&A look at 6001 might be appropriate. 


Is that your recollection as well? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, that was our discussion at our 


last meeting. And yes, we are leaning in that 


direction.


 DR. WADE: Is it premature to make that 


decision now? Will you address that when the 


workgroup next meets?


 MS. MUNN: The workgroup is scheduled to meet 


face-to-face next month in Cincinnati, and we 


anticipate making a decision at that time.


 DR. WADE: Okay. I think that would be 


prudent. I guess, Paul, if the workgroup was 


to decide to ask SC&A to look at 6001, could 


that tasking take place, or would you rather 


that come back to the Board in January? 


(No response) 


Paul, are you with us? Are you muted? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sorry, I -- I had the mute button 


still on. Can you hear me? 

 DR. WADE: Yes, I'm just trying to manage the ­

- 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 

67

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I was --


 DR. WADE: -- assignment of work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I was on mute button and didn't 


realize it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The -- I think if the workgroup is 


agreeable and the Board, in essence, authorizes 


it, we should go ahead and get it tasked as 


soon as the workgroup makes that decision. 


What I'm going to propose here, and we'll -- 


we'll try to get a -- a consensus on each of 


these as we go down through the list, but for ­

- since we're on this Task III, do -- do any of 


the Board members object to allowing the 


tasking to go forward, subject to the review of 


the workgroup? That would be for TBD 6001. 


Any objections? 


(No response) 


 I hear none. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I have no 


objections.


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Let me just ask if anyone 


does object. Let me also ask, is that enough 


tasking, at least for the moment? I think we 


don't -- we don't want to overburden the -- 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 

68 

contractor in the sense of -- of there are some 


resource limitations, but we don't want them 


twiddling their thumbs. 


John, would that take care of that task for the 


-- for the time being? 


 DR. MAURO: We, as a matter of fact, have the ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause you have some others you're 


working on. 


 DR. MAURO: No, just the opposite. We've 


basically cleared our backlog, to the point 


where we have a number of individuals that are 


waiting for work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MAURO: So yeah, the -- as much as you're 


comfortable... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, then let me also suggest, if 


the Board is agreeable, that we ask the 


workgroup to -- to review any other procedures 


that they could begin the reviews on. 


 MS. MUNN: We can do that, yes.

 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. While we're on 

that --

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable with everyone? 


No objections? 

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 

(No response) 


Okay. I did want to just backtrack a minute on 


Task I 'cause I guess I made some remarks that 


nobody heard because I was on mute. Well, that 


may be the best way to do this. On Task I, 


Mark had mentioned several facilities. John 


Mauro had also suggested Sandia National Lab, 


Lawrence Berkeley and Brookhaven. Mark, you 


had suggested Huntington and -- 


 DR. WADE: Harshaw and Bridgeport Brass, I 


think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and Bridgeport's not on the 


list that we got. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which means what? There's 


probably not a site profile. I don't have my 


web site open. 


 MS. MUNN: We don't have Harshaw -- 


 MS. BEACH: It's actually on Stu Hinnefeld's 


list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It is on the list, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: There were two lists, remember now. 


There were two tabs in what I sent you. One 


was DOE facilities and one was AWE. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 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 

70

 MS. MUNN: Yeah and I only got -- I only got 


one tab, for some reason. 


 MS. BEACH: Well if you look, you can go down 


at the bottom and flip over to the AWE or the 


DOE --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, I'm --


MS. BEACH: -- so there's --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think I missed the other tab on 


that. 


 DR. WADE: Sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I didn't get it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Even though I was warned to look for 


it, I couldn't find it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But I -- I do want to ask John 


Mauro on these -- on these site profiles, I 


guess we can't always anticipate issues, but 


some like Huntington I think are in a sense 


simpler than a facility like Brookhaven. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I was going to offer up a -- 


a suggestion. When we do dose reconstruction 


reviews, audits, under task order four, for AWE 


facilities, that usually involves reviewing the 


exposure matrix/site profile, to a certain 


degree. What I have been doing recently -- 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 

71 

fact this is one I just completed related to 


Bridgeport Brass, wherein the -- I guess in the 


spirit of an advanced review, when I did that 


review of that case I went into considerable 


detail looking at not only the exposure matrix, 


but also the dataset that stood behind the 


exposure matrix, the actual measurements. So 


to an extent, where -- where -- where I'm going 


with this is when it comes to AWE facilities, 


they're -- and the need and the level of effort 


required to review the -- the exposure matrix 


and its supporting data, which I consider to be 


the most important aspect of these reviews, 


ultimately getting to the database -- it is a 


much simpler problem than let's say, looking at 


one of the large complex DOE facilities. So 


one of the ideas that certainly, you know, 


we'll take our lead from you folks is that 


perhaps the AWE facilities like Huntington, 


Superior Steel, Bridgeport Brass, in theory, we 


-- I believe we can do a very thorough review 


of the exposure matrix as a part of our task 


order four work when we do -- 'cause we do have 


a number of case -- real cases that are now -- 


we're starting to see realistic cases which do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

use the exposure matrices. In the past many of 


those cases relied on maximizing approaches, 


such as OTIB-4, where we really were never 


tasked -- we -- we -- at that time, I would say 


that was like a year ago, so when we have those 


cases we really -- there was not an exposure 


matrix available for review. But now, the last 


round where I reviewed Superior Steel, I 


reviewed Bridgeport Brass -- what I'm getting 


to is it may be most cost effective and 


efficient to relegate the review of those 


exposure matrix as part and parcel to an 


advanced review under task order four. This is 


something that I believe is doable within the 


budget of task order four, and it will not 


infringe upon doing what I consider to be the 


more -- the more complex. If we only have four 


site profile reviews that have been earmarked 


and approved for fiscal year 2008, and in my 


mind I think I had in mind that those four 


would be major reviews, such as Sandia. And so 


I think we can accomplish a lot by whereby we 


relegate -- and this is certainly your -- your 


decision. There are a number of site profile 


reviews, exposure matrices, for AWE facilities 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

that certainly would benefit from a review. 


But I think those reviews could be done to the 


satisfaction of the working group and the Board 


as part of an advanced review under task order 


four for cases that are active. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let me -- let me -- can I just -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Mark, go ahead. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I discussed this at length 


actually with John and -- I mean I -- I -- I 


had in -- in the process of going through the 


DR review, you know, my question was -- 'cause 


I -- I've sort of been -- the reason we 


selected a lot of these cases was that we may 


never do the entire site profile review, so I ­

- we were at least getting one case from that 


site in question. That's some -- some of the 


reasons when we select a case we say we've 


never done this site, let's select it. And I 


was terming them sort of mini site profile 


reviews rather than advanced reviews, but -- 


but, you know, the same sort of concept as what 


John's describing. The only reason I -- I said 


this for -- for this particular time -- John, 


if you recall when we went through this 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 

74 

we had Harshaw, the case we were reviewing 


actually was done before a site profile or 


before the revised site profile was complete so 


we've got a situation where we reviewed a 


Harshaw case but it didn't rely on the latest 


version of the site profile and there's a new 


site profile out. 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I thought either we should do 


a -- pick it up in a site profile review or we 


can find another case from Harshaw that relies 


on the new site profile and then do as John 


described. And -- and the same thing -- I 


think there's a similar question for -- for -- 


the Huntington I think also had a revised site 


profile which was -- you know, again, the case 


that we had was done either with a overarching 


OTIB or -- or -- or before the site profile was 


-- was available so, you know, that was the 


reason I raised it here specifically, because 


of our last set of reviews -- it's actually the 


fourth and fifth set of cases that we've been 


looking at. So I -- I -- I -- I agree with 


John. It doesn't really -- you know, as long 


as we cover it, I don't care what -- what tasks 

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 

it falls under. But in this particular case we 


-- we covered the site but we really didn't get 


to some of the site profile reviews. That's my 


concern, 'cause just because you have a case 


from a particular site doesn't necessarily mean 


that we covered that site profile review 


because there was a site profile that came out 


after the -- the case that we reviewed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask David -- David Staudt a 


question, if he's still on the line. 


 MR. STAUDT: Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: David, from a contracting point of 


view, is -- is there any problem or advantage 


or disadvantage, for example, if -- if the SC&A 


folks do need to do what's an advance review 


plus, in a sense, or -- or what -- what Mark 


described as a mini site profile review, in 


part it depends on which pocket the money's 


coming out of I guess. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But it seems to me this could be 


tasked in terms of large sites versus the 


smaller AWEs or something like this under Task 


I, or if it's not an issue, go ahead and keep 


it under the dose reconstruction task, 

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 

understanding that it in a sense takes care of 


that site's review. What -- from a contracting 


point of view, is there any guidance you want 


to give us on that? 


 MR. STAUDT: Well I mean, you know, some of 


these are kind of a cross in between the task 


and what we were trying to do is -- is to, 


where it most fits is the task that we were 


trying to put, where most of the effort is, so 


there could be some of the -- some of the work 


may fall on other tasks but where predominantly 


the work to be done, that's the task that John 


should be charging. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So you're comfortable 


either way that we go on this. 


 MR. STAUDT: Yes. Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Also, Lew was suggesting 


that we hold off on the final decisions till 


the January meeting. Is there any need for us 


to -- to pin any of this down today or not? 


 DR. WADE: Well, this is Lew. I would like, if 


it's possible, to assign a site profile or two 


to SC&A on this call. If the Board's not 


comfortable doing that, of course we'll wait 


till January. But I mean 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 

77

 DR. ZIEMER: And if we're going to do that, 


would it -- would it not be useful for that to 


be one of the larger sites so they could get 


underway on a task that's going to take longer? 


 DR. WADE: Right. And John suggests in his e-


mail -- he -- he gives us four potential 


candidates, Sandia, Brookhaven, ANL East or 


Berkeley -- Lawrence Berkeley lab. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. One of my 


thoughts on this is, is what are we going to 


get the most bang for our buck there by using 


some of these bigger sites. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's a tough one to answer. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You know, maybe somebody from SC 


-- not SC&A, but CDC could tell us which ones 


that would benefit our people doing the dose 


reconstruction more. 


 DR. WADE: NIOSH, do you have any perspective 


on this? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think in terms of numbers 


of cases, for example, Robert, that -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct, Paul, yes. 


 DR. WADE: Larry, are you on the line? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I am on the line, yes. I would 


offer that -- that if we -- I don't believe 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 

78 

have any perspective, unless Jim Neton thinks 


we do. He can counter me here, but we -- we -- 


once we put a site profile and our Technical 


Basis Documents into play and start using it, 


if -- we've got a number of dose 


reconstructions completed under these that 


you've spoken about, so any -- pick any one you 


want and, you know, I'm sure that we would -- 


we would benefit from the review. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If I've got a vote on it, I'd 


like to see Sandia done, is one of them. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I'd just like to 


see, whichever sites we pick, that -- ones that 


have a varied work history, just because that ­

- I think that covers more people. Information 


from that site might be applicable to another 


site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 DR. WADE: You have a recommendation, Phil, 


amongst the list in front of us? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Sandia I think is actually a 


good one. I'm not familiar with all the sites, 


so -- I mean, you know, most of the big ones 


I've familiarized myself with, but some of 


these others 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 

79

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Brookhaven is more of a 


multi-purpose site, a lot of different -- more 


of a research site. Argonne East is a reactor 


facility mainly, is it not? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. Brookhaven --


 MS. MUNN: Brookhaven really is a broad-based 


one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. Brookhaven being one of 


the national labs would be -- definitely be a 


broad-based one and then Sandia, with their 


diverse manufacturing facilities. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: So for my vote then, I would go 


with Brookhaven, because Hanford is -- with all 


the reactors we have up there, and the deal 


with that site, that's pretty well going to 


cover a lot of the other facilities. 


 MR. CLAWSON: ANL East did a lot more than just 


reactors, if you guys remember that. That's 


where a lot of the stuff started up back there. 


If it was me, I'd -- my personal opinion -- 


this is Brad -- I'd be looking at -- you know, 


any of them are good, Sandia and stuff, but I ­

- I think ANL East we ought to be looking into, 


too. 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. I've got no problem 


with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm okay with that, too. If 


actually -- well... 


 MS. MUNN: We're talking about four here, 


aren't we? 


 DR. WADE: No. We're -- eventually four. I 


think now we're talking about one or two. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we're just -- well, maybe 


getting one under way now. 


 DR. WADE: It's possible, and then another in 


January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In January. It -- it doesn't look 


like there's a strong consensus one way or the 


other. 


 MS. MUNN: Any one of those three would be -- 


certainly serve the purpose that we are aiming 


for, and January's not that far away in terms 


of picking up the third one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I make a suggestion that we go 


with Sandia, then. This is Bob. 


 MS. MUNN: Sandia and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and Brad thought Argonne 


East. Any others, pro or con, let's see if we 


can get some kind of consensus 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 

81

 DR. WADE: You want me to read the list of -- 


Board members, and you just tell me your 


preference and we'll see what the list shows? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can do that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Before you start that, Lew, let 


me offer, in response to Mr. Presley's 


question, I've looked this up now. Sandia 


National Lab, we have had 236 claims for dose 


reconstruction and we've seen 126 of those 


completed. Brookhaven, we've had 52 and we've 


completed 31. I don't know if that really 


helps or not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: How about Argonne East? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Argonne East, let me go to 


Illinois real quick. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no. Argonne --


 DR. WADE: East. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, this is -- I thought it was 


Argonne West, it's --


 MR. CLAWSON: Argonne West is --


 DR. ZIEMER: It is Argonne East on the list, 


Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, (break in transmission) 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So that is the -- 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 

82 

the Chicago --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Argonne East with 168 claims. 


 DR. ZIEMER: How many? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We've finished 116. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 168? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: 168, and 116 completed. 


 DR. WADE: Just for the record, Larry, would 


you read the three again, just in order? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, Argonne East, 168 claims 


sent to us for dose reconstruction. We've 


completed 116. Brookhaven Lab, 52 claims for 


dose reconstruction, 31 completed. Sandia 


National Lab, 236 claims, 118 completed. 


 MS. BEACH: Do you have Lawrence Berkeley, 


also? 


 MS. MUNN: We didn't get to (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I do, just a moment. 


 MS. MUNN: We had talked about it at our last 


meeting. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Lawrence Berkeley Lab, 151 claims 


and 106 completed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do you have enough 


information to tell Lew your preference 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 

83 

Let's try it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. I'm going to be asking for 


your preference amongst Berkeley, Sandia, 


Argonne East and Lawrence Berkeley. I'll just 


do this alphabetically, holding Ziemer's vote 


to the last. Josie Beach, your preference? 


 MS. BEACH: Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: With the numbers that were told 


to me, I'd prefer Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sandia's fine. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Argonne. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: Sandia. 

 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: I would go with Argonne East 


first, but I'm really comfortable with Sandia. 


So I -- I think I'll go -- I'll say Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. For the record, you're saying 

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 

Sandia? 


 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Sandia. 


 DR. WADE: And Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sandia's fine for me. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So a strong -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's the consensus. 


 DR. WADE: -- a strong leaning toward Sandia. 


Dr. Melius, is that acceptable to you? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So with the way -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Do I get to choose next time? 


 DR. WADE: It's clear that that's the case. 


 MS. BEACH: Can I propose -- can we pick two 


today, or do we just want to stick with one? 


 DR. WADE: I think we could pick two, if that 


would be the preference. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. Can I add 


a different perspective from -- for the AWEs? 


I've been working with the -- the dose 


reconstruction reviews, and I know that this 


topic we're going to discuss later is the 


closing of the fourth and the fifth sets. And 


as Mark has indicated, we have still a few 

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 

outstanding issues. In fact, we could close 


out the fifth set if we were willing to look at 


the AWEs from the site profile review 


perspective because we have about ten 


outstanding findings from the fifth set that 


are all associated with the Huntington Pilot 


Plant. And it was at least my perspective that 


what we would do from dose reconstruction 


review is an advanced review that would do, as 


Mark indicated, a mini site profile. But then 


if we found that we had a lot of findings -- 


and most of our findings are methodologies 


associated with the internal and external dose 


reconstruction, so these are some significant 


findings. I would -- contrary to some of the 


things I've heard, I would actually propose 


that we do Huntington under the Task I, and as 


you indicated, it is a smaller -- it's a 


(unintelligible) exposure matrix and I believe 


it's a 17-page. So I just was, as I said, 


under the impression that we would only go so 


far in the dose reconstruction Task IV project, 


do a mini site profile. If we determined that 


this was a facility that maybe needs to be 


looked at a little bit closer, then it would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

get moved into Task I. Just a thought, 


something I thought I would suggest. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, I think what you're 


suggesting here -- and this kind of relates to 


the conversation I had with David Staudt 


earlier -- at what point does it move from one 


task to the other. You're saying on this 


particular one, although you've reviewed that 


matrix for -- for some dose reconstruction 


reviews, it's perhaps at the point where we 


should consider it as a site profile review. 


Is that --


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. As a matter of 


fact, during the issues resolution process for 


the fifth set, I believe we put into the matrix 


that -- there's approximately ten findings 


remaining on our tab -- I believe it was 84, 


which is Huntington Pilot Plant, that would be 


resolved through a site profile review. So in 


order to close out the fifth set, it seems to 


me that we should be looking at Huntington 


under Task I. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and Paul, if I could -- I 


mean I -- I backed off a little bit 'cause John 

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 

was -- seemed to be in opposition of the 


recommendation, but if I can say, the -- the 


Huntington -- I don't think, Kathy, that you 


really looked at the exposure matrix because it 


wasn't available when this case came out. It 


wasn't done under that exposure matrix, really. 


In the resolution process we might have looked 


at the matrix a little bit, but I -- I think 


that's the question. The matrix came way after 


the case was done, so it was kind of a new -- a 


new thing in the mix. And when I asked the 


question as to whether we have reviewed, you 


know, the Huntington -- you know, could we 


consider the same mini site profile, I think it 


came up that it -- it had -- it wasn't. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we did discuss this at -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I -- I would -- I would 


also agree Huntington would be worth doing, and 


I don't think it's as Kathy described. I think 


it's a fairly small -- it's a sort of a major 


rather than a full-blown (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) impact as much on 


the overall picture. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right. 


 DR. WADE: So maybe a proposal would be Sandia 

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 

and Huntington coming out of this meeting, and 


hold judgment on an additional two till January 


or later? 


 MS. MUNN: That would seem to be a reasonable 


thing to do, especially in view 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to adding 


Huntington at this point? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I think 


that's fine. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Could I offer 


a minority opinion on this? See, the way -- 


the way I see the closeout process, even though 


Huntington may not -- you know, the case that 


was done and is a closeout process in place, I 


could see very readily one of the directions we 


get from the working group is to proceed with 


an advanced review of the site profile, see how 


that case now would play out during the 


closeout process if we were to trigger what I 


would call an advanced review of the site 


profile or the exposure matrix for Huntington. 


The only reason why you're hearing resistance 


is that I see the magnitude of the level of 


effort, and the -- and the benefit that we get 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

from reviewing a major site like Sandia or 


Argonne East or Brookhaven. These are large, 


complex sites and we -- and I see -- we only 


really have four under Task I. And in my mind, 


to invest -- you know, basically -- even though 


we probably will hope to do Huntington in a 


relatively modest level of effort, that would 


eliminate one -- one large one that we won't be 


able to do. In other words, the scope is very 


clear right now, we can only do four. So what 


would happen there is that if we -- if one of 


those or two of those four for Task I were 


converted into a -- a -- an AWE review, you 


know -- the good news is that's certainly going 


to help us with our budget problem because 


we're going to be able to knock that off in a 


matter of a few hundred work hours, as opposed 


to perhaps as much as 1,500 work hours, which a 


full-blown large, complex site requires. But 


of course at the same time, that means that 


there are going to be some large sites, perhaps 


Lawrence Berkeley or Brookhaven, that will not 


get a review this fiscal year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: John, you're suggesting that in 


fact Huntington could be done as part 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 

90 

dose reconstruction resolution process under 

the other task. 

 DR. MAURO: With all respect to Mark and Kathy, 

yes, I do disagree with the position they've 

taken. I think that within the scope and 

mandate of Task IV we could do a very effective 

review of the matrix as part of the closeout 

process for these other sites. And -- and this 

is what I would recommend, only because of it 

leaves us with four full-blown site profile 

reviews for Task IV where we can take on the 

biggest sites. And I don't think I -- you 

know, I believe it's pos-- I think it=s within 

our scope and mandate that we could trigger an 

advanced review of Huntington, for example, as 

part of the closeout process for the existing 

cases that we currently have. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, John -- John, I -- I 

actually withdraw that. I think you're right. 

I was thinking of -- I was thinking of overall 

budget, but you're right that we -- we limit 

you by the number (unintelligible) -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: The number as well as budget. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I was thinking in terms of 

budget and not number, and I -- I 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 

91

 DR. ZIEMER: Basically this puts the Huntington 


under the other task, is what it does. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And saves the-- the dollars for -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we probably are better off 


leaving Huntington there in that case, because 


you're right, we don't want to burn one of your 


-- one of your four sites with that -- 


Huntington. It would be a small effort. Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so --


 MS. BEACH: This is Josie. I have one quick 


question. If Huntington does get the review 


under Task IV, and then it looks like we're 


going to have to do a full-blown, what does 


that do to our four for Task I? Will it --


will we be able to do Huntington as a full-


blown? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we would just -- as 


John's describing, even if we did ask for a 


more thorough review of that Huntington matrix, 


we would do it under the DR task. Yeah. 


 MS. BEACH: Okay. I understand. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So if -- if we accept that, 


that it certainly can be done, Kathy, and that 


in fact that the dose -- the dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

reconstruction resolution process may be a 


convenient place to do it, what do you want to 


do on the second site, folks? Do you want to 


hold off till January? 


 DR. WADE: Or we can try to pick one now. We 


have Sandia. Josie asked the question if we 


might not want to try for a second. Would you 


like to try for a second, or would you rather 


wait till January? 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. My concern was 


simply that we get Huntington done. It doesn't 


really matter, I think, where we get it done as 


long as it gets done. And if it can be done 


under Task IV, then I see no reason why we 


shouldn't look at -- my choice would be then 


probably Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: Do you want me to poll the group on 


a second possi--


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's poll the group on Argonne 


East -- folks, if you don't -- if you want to 


hold off till January on this second one, just 


say pass. Otherwise, name a lab. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, and I'll go back down the list 


again. Josie Beach? 


 MS. BEACH: Yeah, my second choice was Argonne 

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 

East also. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Mike Gibson? 


(No response) 


Mike, you might be on mute. 


 MR. GIBSON: I'll pass. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: James Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Lawrence Berkeley. No, actually 


Argonne. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


 DR. ROESSLER: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Argonne East. 


 DR. WADE: And Paul Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm certainly going to 


support Argonne East. The peer pressure's 


tremendous here. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So you have all but one -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94

 DR. ZIEMER: We have those two then. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So the sense of the Board is 


we would ask under -- ask SC&A to undertake, 


under Task I, site profile reviews for Sandia 


and Argonne East. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. Can I just 


bring up an issue -- I think it's actually 


related somewhat to the next agenda item, but 


it -- it's also an ongoing issue, and that is 


the -- some of the problems we have linking 


individual dose reconstruction reviews with 


site profiles, site profile updates, you know, 


procedure reviews, procedure update reviews and 


so forth, and I am -- I get concerned when 


we're in -- that some of our review function on 


individual cases sort of falls between the 


cracks because we sort of defer to other 


reviews that are ongoing or, you know, the 


resources aren't there to deal with -- you 


know, in an individual dose reconstruction 


review, to deal with some of the bigger issues 


raised by the -- a site profile update or 


whatever. And I think it would be helpful, 


both consider going forward in terms of this 

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 

sort of budget issue that -- or task issue that 


came up with what -- John Mauro's suggestion in 


-- with Huntington, but -- but in a broader 


sense to think about are there ways that we 


could better link the dose -- individual dose 


reconstruction reviews with making sure that 


we're keeping up with what are the important 


and key, you know, site profile updates, 


procedure updates and so forth, so we're not -- 


you know, we don't, you know, get a few years 


down the road -- you know, missed and never 


have reviewed an important issue. And I -- I 


think John and his staff gets caught trying to 


decide how much effort to put in. Do you, you 


know, defer till it gets assigned as a site 


profile review or procedure review or do you 


take it on partially now and -- I think -- I 


think we could do a better job given -- 


especially given all the updates that are, you 


know, continually being produced by Larry and 


his staff and contractors. So I think it's 


just something to think about, both in terms of 


what we do this year, but also maybe how we at 


least assign the money for tasks for the next 


contract. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Good comment, 


Jim. 


 DR. WADE: There's one open issue, Paul, if I 


might, from -- on this task before we move into 


the next one, and that is this question of 


assigning a PER for review. Again, we asked 


SC&A to give us an estimate for one PER review 


and they've done that. I think it's my take on 


the Board's intention that they intend to 


assign a PER this year for SC&A to review. Do 


we want to do that now or do we want to wait 


for that till January? John suggests in his 


letter the target organs for lymphoma as a 


possibility. That's PER 009. I'm not, again, 


pushing. It's something we can talk about now 


or something we could do in January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. What -- what we have so far 


in this particular item is I think authorizing 


the working group to review the need for TBD 


6001 and to authorize them, if they feel it's 


appropriate, to go ahead and task SC&A for 


6001, and other procedures that they deem 


necessary. So this -- I don't know that that 


included the PER, but if we have a PER today 


that we want to identify, we can do that. Such 

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 

as 009. 


 DR. WADE: Pragmatically, let me ask John -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) the PERs before 


you to -- to help you make that decision. 


 DR. WADE: Maybe I could just ask John Mauro on 


the record. John, with what the Board has done 


today, are you in a better position to -- to 


keep -- to proceed keeping your people busy and 


moving forward and making progress or is there 


more you would require? 


 DR. MAURO: In regard to Task III, what I'm 


hearing is that TBD 6001 is of interest, and I 


would -- I would like to move forward with the 


-- with the one -- the PER regarding thoracic 


lymphomas as being one of the really important 


ones that we can take on right now. So we're 


prepared to take that on. Out of the -- in 


other words, I realize Task -- Task III, you 


know, involves these 30 procedures and one PER. 


It sounds like that if we were to be authorized 


to do this one review for TBD 6000, and we 


consider that one of the procedure reviews, and 


then the PER, that would be a relatively modest 


portion of the Task III, but it would be -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would get you underway, though. 

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 

98

 DR. MAURO: Let's get them underway, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: From my -- my memory, and I'm not 


sure that it's accurate, is that in the working 


group when we looked at the PERs, we had 


decided -- at the working group level -- that 


we'd withhold any in-depth reviews until 


reworks were done. And I guess I'm hearing 


from you, John, that you now feel that we're in 


a position to move forward with at least this 


PER. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, that particular PER, based on 


the work that we've done looking into the PER, 


seems to be a very mature one, where there have 


been a number of cases that have undergone the 


review process under the PER, so not only could 


we review the PER, but also the cases that were 


re-reviewed and in our -- in our proposal, you 


may recall -- and the PER review would -- would 


actually have these two aspects to it. One is 


the front end, what I call the PER process, and 


then the back end where they actually did a re-


review. So we actually -- what would actually 


happen is we would look at real cases as part 


of this, and I -- I offered up that we would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

look at about three. That is, after we do the 


-- what I call the front end work, we would 


also include the review of three cases that 


were affected by that PER -- three thoracic 


lymphoma cases that were re-reviewed and that 


would con-- so it -- it -- it is a -- it is a 


substantial piece of work. But I think that 


that particular PER and the cases associated 


with it are very mature at this point, and I 


would certainly look to -- to NIOSH to see if 


that interpretation is valid. 


 DR. WADE: Larry? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Larry, or Jim? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, this is Larry Elliott. I ­

- I agree with John Mauro's assessment there. 


I'm not -- I'm not prepared today to say that 


we're completely done with all of the lymphoma 


PER review, but it's certainly at a stage where 


I think, you know, it's close to being 


complete, if not -- if not already complete. 


So... 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. NETON: Yeah, this is Jim Neton. The PER 


you referred to is PER 009. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 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 

100

 DR. NETON: And that's -- we evaluated 528 


claims individually for the effect of the 


lymphoma. I think it would be a good one to 


look at. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The only -- the only reservation 


I have there is that if there are a few claims 


that have not completely gone through the 


process, they would be off the table for 


review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be understood, right. 


Board members, you want to go ahead and 


authorize that? Any objections? 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think so, as long as we 


don't have any kickback over the fact that the 


cases are not complete because that was, in my 


mind, a key function of our discussion at the 


workgroup level. But if we're done, if we're 


close enough done that both NIOSH and SC&A are 


comfortable with it, then certainly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments, pro or con? 


(Pause) 


Looking for consensus here as to whether we go 


ahead or do you want to wait till -- ask 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 

101 

workgroup to review this further? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I have no 


problems with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else? 


DR. ROESSLER: No problems from Gen. 


 MS. BEACH: No problems with me. This is 


Josie. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I think we should proceed. This 


is Brad. 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: I agree with (unintelligible) 


consensus. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, then the consensus is that 


we'll add PER 009 to Task III and authorize 


that to proceed. And that's together with TBD 


6001 following workgroup review, and also any ­

- workgroup can -- I believe we agreed could 


add any other items to that list if they felt 


it was mandatory after their next meeting. Is 


that -- is that the consensus? I haven't taken 


a formal vote, but I think that's what we 


heard. 


Okay, I hear no objections --


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) with PER 0009. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's go to Task IV. We've 


already discussed the two blind reviews, which 

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 

are basically close to underway. Where --


where -- where did we end up on that? 


 DR. WADE: My understanding was that as soon as 


the subcommittee was prepared to pass on the 


materials to start the two blind reviews with 


SC&A, they would feel free to do that. Then we 


would work in January -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Try to get a new set of 30? 


 DR. WADE: -- to do a -- well, we'll try for 60 


and see if we can get them all launched. If we 


can't, then we'll do 30, but we'll -- we'll 


come to January's meeting attempting to select 


a brace or two of DRs to start the review 


process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark, is that agreeable? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, that's fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We'll proceed on that 


basis. 


Task V, assign SEC work as appropriate, so 


that's just kind of open-ended at the moment. 


Anything need to be assigned today? 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think John Mauro is trying 


to look down the -- the pike and see what's 


coming, and has offered, for example, the 


possibility of Mound or Rocketdyne or NTS, 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 

103 

underground test phase, and LLNL. That's your 


list, isn't it John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, correct, you have that before 


you. 


 DR. WADE: Hanford has currently been assigned 


under 2008. Fernald you're reviewing, but 


you're reviewing that as a 2007 assignment. 


DR. MAURO: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: So the question for the Board is do 


you want to pick one of those that's looming on 


the horizon and get your contractor started, or 


do you want to wait until you've -- it's come 


to you, you've commissioned a workgroup and 


you're starting your deliberations? 


DR. MAURO: As an aid in your deliberations, 


bear in mind we have six -- six SECs for fiscal 


year 2008. We still have three that are open 


and undefined for 2007. So in theory there are 


nine that are within scope and can be 


authorized, so we really have an abundance in 


terms of what's authorized within the scope of 


the contract. But bear in mind that in terms 


of budget, I think realistically, given the 


budget we currently have, we're probably only 


really able to do three -- I'm sorry, six. 

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 

Three we are just -- not going to be possible 


within the existing budget. That's primarily, 


by the way, the major reason for the projection 


-- that is, when we did our projection of the 


resources, where we might run into trouble, it 


-- it's here that we run into trouble. That 


is, we -- we believe that it's going to be just 


about impossible to do all nine. We -- we --


we believe we can do six, but we're not going 


to be able to do nine. 


 DR. WADE: And of those six, John, one you've 


already been assigned and that's Hanford. 


Correct? 


DR. MAURO: Well, not really, because we 


shifted the Hanford from 2007 scope into 2008, 


so that -- that's what lea-- that's why we -- 


so we -- we really opened one up in 2007. So 


where we stand is yes, the -- the 200-- we've 


shifted the Hanford -- originally was under 


2007. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


DR. MAURO: It's been moved to 2008, but what 


that does is it opens one up in 2007. So what 


I'm saying is that -- okay, got -- another way 


to look at it is in the gra-- in the big 

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 

picture, that is, if you just look at the 


integrated authorization, right now the Board 


can authorize up to a total of nine when you -- 


when you look at what is availab-- what can be 


authorized in combination between -- was not -- 


was not yet authorized under 2008 and what -- 


yet to be authorized under -- under 2007. But 


the pro-- the problem is -- reality, especially 


in this particular task order is, you know, 


we're not going to be able -- we do not have 


the resources to complete all that work, which 


includes nine new ones and completing the 


Hanford and the Fernald, which is currently 


active. 


 DR. WADE: So in your professional judgment, 


John, slots open for assignment -- Hanford is 


underway, Fernald is underway. Slots open for 


an assignment from this point forward, the 


number is five or six? What --


DR. MAURO: Six -- I would say that, you know, 


five or six is something we could handle. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, that's fine. Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: And have we not defined a group for 


you already? 


DR. MAURO: No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106

 MS. MUNN: I -- oh, that's odd. I -- all 


right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'm just wondering if we don't 


want to put this off until we've got the full 


Board. We're not going to be holding John up 


with his -- if he's got three that they need to 


work on right now and we put just a little bit 


more thought into the ones that we want to do, 


if we could put that off until our January 


meeting, 'cause we're not -- we're not going to 


be holding John up, sounds like. 


 MS. MUNN: John, was that list in your proposal 


that you just sent out? 


 DR. ZIEMER: About the third paragraph down. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm -- well, I'm having a hard time 


pulling up the proposal. For some reason it 


didn't --


 DR. WADE: I can read you what John said. 


Under SEC petition reviews, LLNL, NTS, Mound, 


and Rocketdyne, paren, Hanford is currently 


being done under FY 2008 resources, but Fernald 


is being done under 2007 resources. The scope 

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 

of work for 2008 is limited to six new -- he 


says site profile reviews; I think he meant -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I --


 DR. WADE: -- SEC petition reviews. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think SEC is what you meant 


there. 


DR. MAURO: A typo, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: We -- we -- one of the reasons I 


mentioned NTS is I know that we are -- we -- we 


are certainly active, very active, on issues 


related to the site profile. And of course 250 


work day series of investigations is moving 


along, all of which is applicable to NTS. But 


we have not yet taken on the ac-- confronted 


directly the NTS SEC issues. And the reason I 


brought it up was, given that we will be 


meeting in January in -- in Las Vegas, I -- you 


know, I thought that might be an area where 


making some progress on that might be helpful. 


 MR. PRESLEY: John, this is Bob Presley. I'd 


have no problem with that. Hopefully we'll 


have some progress on our working group out 


there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What about the rest of you? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

Comments, pro or con? 


 DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) we need to get 


going on that. I mean I -- again, I'm not 


familiar with what the workgroup's doing. 
I 


know -- I know they've been very active, but I 


think (break in transmission) ready to start 


dealing with the SEC 'cause certainly it'll be 


the issue of discussion in our next meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Might be good to -- to have on 


record that we do have the contractor looking 


at that. 


 DR. WADE: And since --


DR. MAURO: This is John again. One of the 


things that we did that I think was very 


effective -- cost-effective on Hanford was when 


we were authorized to begin the SEC aspect of 


the Hanford review, we were in a position 


where, in a relatively short period of time -- 


given that we had done so much work on Hanford 


previously -- we were able to zero in on what 


we considered to be the major issues and put 


together a relatively brief report that you all 


have now for the purpose of our next conference 


meeting on -- on the SEC. What I'm getting to 


is that we are in a very similar position 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 

109 

Nevada Test Site. That is, we're very mature 


in looking at the issues -- many of the issues. 


And with a relatively modest effort, we will be 


able to make some inroads into crystallizing 


what might be the SEC issues, and so that's why 


I suggested it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can I make -- this is Bob 


Presley. Can I make a motion that we go ahead 


then and put the Nevada Test Site -- NTS on the 


table so John can go ahead and start working on 


it? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's certainly appropriate. Is 


there a second? 


DR. ROESSLER: Second. This is Gen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So this would be to task 


SC&A to proceed with the SEC petition review 


process for NTS? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And any discussion? 


 (No responses) 


 Apparently not. Lew, you want to take a roll 


call? 


 DR. WADE: Josie Beach? 


MS. BEACH: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 

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

 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: James Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield? 


 (No response) 


Phillip, you might be on mute. 


 (No response) 


 Phillip, are you with us? 


 (No response) 


 Paul Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So I make it nine-zero -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- in favor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If Phil comes back we can get his 

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 

vote, but the motion carries. That will go on 


for -- for this task. 


MS. BEACH: And this is Josie. I'd like to 


recommend LANL also. We have a workgroup but 


we haven't met yet, but it's -- it will be 


coming up. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I think 


that's a good suggestion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask -- before we go any 


further on that, let me ask John Mauro, is 


there any advantage for you in having LANL on 


the slate now versus our next meeting in terms 


of --


DR. MAURO: Well, bear in mind --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) work assigned? 


DR. MAURO: LANL is currently active as -- 


under Task V, so we are already on that. We 


haven't moved forward because I think it's a 


lot of work and I know that Joe and Mark have 


been talking about it. But LANL is within the 


scope of our fiscal year 2007. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's already on the list. 


DR. MAURO: It's already on the list, so -- so 


LA-- LANL is an active -- well, when I say 


active, it has been approved by 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 

112 

already for us to move forward. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You included it in your list so it 


probably shouldn't have been there then. 


DR. MAURO: Did I have that in there? That --

that might have been a mistake, yeah. It 

wasn't -- LA--

 DR. WADE: You have LLNL on your list. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh --

DR. MAURO: It's Lawrence Livermore, and that ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's Lawrence Livermore, not 


-- is that -- Josie, were you talking LANL or 


Lawrence Livermore? 


MS. BEACH: Yeah, I mistakenly thought that was 


LANL. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. No, Lawrence Livermore is 


not on our list for -- for SEC, so yes -- 


 DR. WADE: So Josie's recommendation was LANL, 


and that's already on your list. 


DR. MAURO: No, but I think -- Josie, did you 


mean Lawrence Livermore or Lawrence -- Los 


Alamos? 


MS. BEACH: Los Alamos. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, Los -- Los Alamos is already on 


the list and is active as an SEC review. 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 

113 

haven't made much progress because I believe 


there's a lot of work still going on related to 


that, so it's sort of been on the back burner. 


But yes, we've already -- we're already 


authorized to -- to work on that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'm wondering if this isn't 


adequate for today, to have this one new 


assignment, and then we can add as we need to. 


 DR. WADE: It seems reasonable to me, 


certainly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections from others? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, I think that completes the 


immediate --


 DR. WADE: Right --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- work. 


 DR. WADE: -- and I thank the Board for your 


willingness to do that on the telephone. I 


think it is important that -- that we keep your 


contractor tasked, and I think this was a 


productive time and I appreciate it. It's not 


easy to do on the telephone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: I think you were very effective. 


I'd like to segue to the next item -- 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 

114 

again, I almost hesitate to have this 


discussion, but let me start it with you. 


Again, we are -- the SC&A contract is running 


out this year. We will recompete and we'll see 


what comes of that. You know, there's one 


possibility, SC&A will be back serving the 


Board. There's another possibility, it might 


not be back serving the Board. I would like to 


talk just briefly -- if SC&A is not selected 


and there is work left to be done, some of this 


closeout, then the government would have to 


extend the performance period of SC&A's 


contract and we'd have to do what was 


appropriate contractually to see that that work 


was brought to completion. 


Again, it's also possible that the government 


could decide not to task SC&A to bring that 


work to completion, but to bring that work to a 


new contractor. All of those possibilities are 


in front of us. I don't want to muddy the 


water with that, but I think it's worth having 


at least one discussion of that. If SC&A was 


not to be selected as the contractor, the 


provisions exist for the government to pursue 


closure on all the things John talked about 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 

115 

extending the contract, in time or in dollar 


value, as appropriate, or not to do that. 


David, did I speak correctly on that? 


 MR. STAUDT: That's correct. 


MS. BLACK: This is Flo. You can extend the 


period of performance for each of the 


appropriate tasks. You don't have to extend 


the period of performance for the whole 


contract if it's not necessary. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you, Flo. Again, I 


don't want to prejudge anything, but thought 


we'd -- it'd be worth having that at least 


discussion that we have thought about the end 


game of this, depending upon how it plays out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me, especially on the 


matrices -- the closeout matrices, that it 


would be difficult and awkward to have issues ­

- trying to close out issues that were findings 


of SC&A for which a new contractor had no input 


and, you know, how do you go about closing 


those? 


 DR. WADE: Correct, we -- I think the -- the 


most expedient way is to make use of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We almost have to have SC&A at the 


table to -- to, as it were, defend their 

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 

positions or elaborate or clarify on all of 


those issues. 


 DR. WADE: Correct, that's what -- yes, Paul, 


very well said. 


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


 DR. ZIEMER: And so the law would allow for -- 


or the procurement procedure would allow for 


that in the worst -- in the case where another 


contractor was selected for the -- 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause to me, that's part of the 


closeout process. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Somebody else had a 


comment. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. I agree with you 


100 percent there. I think we would -- we 


would probably be run off if -- if -- if we 


started a new contractor and started all this 


stuff over again. I would love to see us close 


this stuff out, and then if we have to start 


with another contractor, start from scratch on 


-- on items. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I agree. One of my issues 


is is the timeliness on this. We're always 

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 

fighting against that issue. If we bring a new 


contractor in, by the time they get up to speed 


and going, we will have lost an awful lot of 


valuable time. And where SC&A has brought 


these issues up and have been dealing with 


them, I feel that it's very important we keep 


them going to the end. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, another piece of this, and 


it seems to me it's a -- poses a kind of 


difficulty in the procurement process, but we 


ha-- we have site profile reviews that we 


haven't even begun the resolution process on. 


And certainly if a new contractor comes in, we 


don't want them to re-review something, yet 


they'd have to be in a position of, you know, 


sort of helping us close out a review that 


somebody else did. 


 DR. WADE: So we -- we can cross those bridges 


when we come to them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's --


 DR. WADE: I just wanted to put them on the 


table for general intellectual consideration. 


We'll make the appropriate and prudent 


decisions on a case-by-case basis as we go, but 


all prerogatives will be open to us. 

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 

DR. ROESSLER: Lew or Paul, this is Gen, do we 


know when we'll find out what the decision is? 


 DR. WADE: On the new contractor? 


DR. ROESSLER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: That's what we're going to talk 


about next. 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, okay. Thanks. 


 DR. WADE: I was segueing from the old to the 


new. 


PROCEDURES TO SELECT BOARD SUPPORT CONTRACTOR
 

If I might start on the next agenda item then ­

-


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Lew --


 DR. WADE: Yes, sir? 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- this is Bob. Do we want to 


break for about five or ten minutes? 


 DR. WADE: Here the heads are all nodding, but 


I leave that to the wisdom of Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we can certainly take a 


break. I need some advice here. Do we just 


keep the lines open? 


 DR. WADE: I would keep the lines open. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I'm just going to lay my 


phone down. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest a five-minute 

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 

119 

comfort break. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you, Bob. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we'll -- put your phone on 


mute and we'll try to start up again at 1:15, 


is -- Eastern Time. Is that agreeable? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so ordered. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 1:09 p.m. 


to 1:15 p.m.) 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I'm back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, are you there? 


 DR. WADE: I am here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Take a quick roll of the Board and 


see if we're -- everybody's back. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Josie Beach? 


MS. BEACH: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 (No response) 


 Mark Griffon? 


 (No response) 

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 

We'll come back to Mark. Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Phillip Schofield? 


 MR. SCHOFIELD: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Paul Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 (No response) 


 Mark Griffon? 


 (No response) 


 DR. ZIEMER: He'll probably be back shortly. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, is that Mark? 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon, are you with us? 


 (No response) 


I promise you he'll be back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well, let's -- let's 


proceed. We're still on the Board contractor 


selection. 

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

 DR. WADE: Right, that's the new item, which is 


the new contract. 


Let me again paint you a picture. Before our 


last face-to-face meeting I shared with you a 


draft statement of work, evaluation criteria, 


we had a discussion of the possible formation 


of a technical evaluation committee. We gave 


you some time to look at those documents and 


react if you would on this call. 


Let me tell you that we don't have to finalize 


anything on this call, but we do need to 


finalize things during the January meeting. We 


need to come out of the January meeting with 


the government moving forward with the 


statement of work, evaluation criteria and a 


plan. So the Board's input now, between now 


and the January meeting, at the January 


meeting, is -- is needed if you want to have an 


impact upon this. We can have a discussion 


now. I resent the documents to you. There's 


no change from the documents that you had 


before the last face-to-face meeting. 


Flo Black and -- and David Staudt are on the 


line and can answer questions. I don't know 


if, Flo or David, you want to create a time 

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 

line in -- in the Board's mind as to how this 


would proceed, leading to award of new contract 


by the end of this fiscal year. If you would, 


please, why don't you just paint us a picture 


of that time line. 


 MR. STAUDT: Yeah, this is Dave. The goal is, 


as Lew stated, in January to come out of that 


meeting with a -- pretty much a final statement 


of work and evaluation criteria which we will 


incorporate into the solicitation that would go 


out, sometime hopefully in late January or in 


February. And from that time line, it -- it's 


going to take several months before proposals 


are in, and the goal would obviously be to 


award in -- in mid-summer, if we could. And 


that would allow a couple months, just in case 


another contractor was selected, that we could 


-- could have -- you know, would get ready if ­

- for SC&A's assistance for any turnover. So 


we don't want -- we -- we don't want to wait 


until end of September for that type of award. 


So the goal was to have it done earlier, and 


then -- so we do have some time before we have 


to actually select members for the board, but I 


think the main thing is, as always, is to get 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

the process started earlier because a lot of 


things do come up in that -- in that time. But 


I would -- it generally takes six months from 


January to award. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now Board members, we have 


the draft statement of work, and that was 


distributed to everybody. And I think at -- I 


guess at our January meeting we need sort of 


final approval. Is that correct, Lew or David? 


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) changes, now or 


between now and the meeting from individuals, 


just as much input as we can get, the better so 


we can move towards closure at the January 


meeting. 


MS. BLACK: And I just -- this is Flo, and I'd 


just like to add that I have received no 


comments from the general public in response to 


tho-- to those being posted on the FedBizOpps, 


not one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And you posted those in September. 


Is that correct? 


MS. BLACK: Yes. Well, it was before our -- 


the October 6th meeting, and so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that a good thing, Flo, or not? 


Does that mean nobody'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 

124 

MS. BLACK: I'm not --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) or 


(unintelligible) so well -- 


MS. BLACK: -- sure, I thought that there was 


interest in this and that someone might have 


sent an e-mail saying, you know, this is what 


we think or we're glad you're doing this or 


keep us posted or something, but I haven't 


received -- not one from the general public. 


So that -- that was just for a point of 


information, so whatever changes that -- you 


know, whatever feedback you provide, you know, 


certainly can and will be incorporated -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So certainly this description -- 


MS. BLACK: -- but we're not facing a lot of 


concern, I guess, at this -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Flo -- Flo, do -- this is Mark 


Griffon. Do you have any way of knowing how -- 


I mean I would think you would have a way of 


tracking how many people visited the site? 


MS. BLACK: Oh, no. No, there's no way for me 


to know that. I don't even know if GSA knows 


that, but I have no way of knowing that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I thought you might know 


how many hits or whatever on 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 

125

 DR. BRANCHE: They do (unintelligible). 


MS. BLACK: No, I -- I don't -- I could 


probably ask -- as I said, I don't even know if 


GSA knows that, but I could ask them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now this -- this provides, I 


thought, a pretty good overview of -- of what 


our contractor's doing now. It's -- it's broad 


and general, but it's -- seems to cover all of 


the tasks. Board members, I think it behooves 


us all to individually look at that. And 


process-wise, David or Flo, individual comments 


are fine from Board members, or do you need -- 


do you need anything official from the Board 


itself? 


 MR. STAUDT: No, just -- e-mails are fine, from 


individuals are fine. And if they want to -- 


if they want to route them through you, they 


can do that, or they can be sent directly to 


me. 


 DR. WADE: If the Board would want to make a 


recommendation as a body, then they would do 


that in January, I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we -- we could -- we could, 


for example, indicate that we believe that it's 


a proper description of the statement 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 

126 

it's really a statement of work -- 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and, you know, it would 


probably be helpful if we agreed that is the 


work of our contractor. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and you have Dr. Melius's -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I would hope the Board would be 


willing to at least take some sort of action 


formally at the January meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Right. You do have Dr. Melius's 


comment earlier about integrating tasks and 


those kinds of things. Now's -- January's the 


time to think about that if you'd like to -- to 


work towards that. 


I also have sent you evaluation criteria with 


point values -- again, that we're proposing. 


We'd like to hear from you if you'd like to see 


some adjustment there or not. 


 MS. MUNN: It seems reasonable at first blush. 


I personally hesitate to comment on these 


matters very much, simply because the 


activities are so integrated and are so complex 


in their inherent nature that it's -- it's 


almost impossible to make a simple comment 


about any of them. For a person who's trying 

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 

to follow all of the things that the contractor 


is required to do, it becomes very difficult to 


imagine transferring this work to someone who 


does not have a historic understanding of the 


point from which we've come. So it's -- it's 


really hard to comment on this in any way other 


than to say this looks fair. 


As far as the point designations were 


concerned, I only read through those very 


quickly and did not give a great deal of 


thought to them. But they seemed fair and 


reasonable on the face of them. 


 DR. WADE: And to your comment, Wanda, there is 


this number six on that list, which is a plus 


or minus 20 points for past performance. If 


it's --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- the sense of the Board that 


having done this work in the past is critical, 


then that's a mechanism for bringing that 


thought to quantitative impact. 


 MS. MUNN: And I believe that appropriately 


placed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments at this point? 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I was not able 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 

128 

pen that document, the evaluation criteria. 
I 

must have an old program or something. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I had the 


same trouble. It's a newer version of Word, 


and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, many of us had that problem 


and --


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Dav-- David Staudt was going to 


resend that, was he not? 


 DR. WADE: Right, David -- David or Flo, if you 


could resend that -- I mean we -- 


MS. BLACK: I -- I just sent it to you -- just 


before the Board meeting started, I sent it -- 


a Word version -- an earlier Word version. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but that one -- whatever I 


got just before the Board meeting required me 


to download something and I'm still -- 


MS. BLACK: Oh --


 DR. MELIUS: -- still trying to fix my 


computer. 


MS. BLACK: Okay. 


MS. BEACH: Same -- same with me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Mine's --


did the same thing. 

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 

129

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I don't -- I... 


 DR. WADE: So if you, Flo, could -- could work 


that and we could get it to these fine people 


in a way that they could open -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I'm -- I'm able to 


open it now. I'm not sure my computer will 


recover, but --


DR. ROESSLER: Well, my computer --


 DR. MELIUS: Or for that matter, I may not 


recover, but --


DR. ROESSLER: My computer is churning away 


doing something here. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, it downloads something 


and then it -- downloaded -- that all went 


fine, and then when I went to try to get 


anything to work after that, it churned and 


messed around and nothing would work. 


 DR. WADE: Well, these are also the same 


criteria that we'd given to you in -- in hard 


copy at the last meeting, but we will send them 


to you again. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I... 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: Jim Melius, I have one other 


comment that I would like -- it's for the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

agenda for the meeting next time, that as part 


of our discussion, the contract re--


recompetition, that we also include a 


discussion of the budget issues related to this 


contract. I want to make sure that we maintain 


the flexibility in the new contract if 


additional fundings are, you know, changing in 


tasking made -- you know, take place and may be 


necessary as the -- as we seem to get busier 


and busier, and I -- and I'm concerned that -- 


much as I'm concerned about NIOSH having 


adequate resources, I'm also concerned that 


SC&A have adequate resources because they are 


the main, you know, peer review for much of 


what goes on here. So I think we need to -- 


the -- my -- so I -- I need -- like to have -- 


better understand the -- you know, what John 


Mauro feels are, you know, limitations in terms 


of what they'll be able to do next year or 


(unintelligible) this year as well as how we 


make sure this doesn't happen in the future, 


so... 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, we can have that discussion 


generally. I -- I don't know if I'd ask John 


to answer that question because we don't know 

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 

131 

who the contractor would be, but we would 


certainly have David Staudt prepared to -- or 


and Flo prepared to talk about building 


adequate flexibility into the vehicle that we 


do pursue to allow it to be expanded or to have 


flexibility between the tasks. That we could 


certainly do. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, maybe a separate discussion 


from John Mauro or whoever is appropriate about 


what the implications are for this year. 


 DR. WADE: That'd be fine. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think that's what I meant. 


 DR. WADE: The other thing we need to do is you 


need to start to think about Board members' 


involvement in the technical evaluation panel, 


how many, who. You know, we've talked about 


that last time. We don't have to do anything 


now, but in January it'd be good to start to 


get that worked out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other comments in 


general on this particular issue? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, and this'll be on the agenda for next 


time. 


Are we ready to move 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 

132

 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob. Let me 


ask you something. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The document in question -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The -- the point -- or which 


document? 


 MR. PRESLEY: The one the Lew tried to get out 


that none of us can review. Did they -- did 


they by chance put that on the Board's web 


site? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Don't know, but I -- I just got 


the new Word document from Flo and it -- it 


came through without any problems. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, let me ask Flo to go ahead 


and send that to my Y-12 address and see if I 


can pull it off here at the plant. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I mean as soon as I clicked on the 


attachment, it opened up in Word. I -- I don't 


know if I have a different version or -- 


sometimes the operating systems are -- are 


different and -- who knows. 


MS. BLACK: Can I have that e-mail address and 


I'll be happy to send it? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, it's presleyrw1@y12.doe --


Paul, go ahead and I'll --

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 

133

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think, Bob, just -- just 


send it to her as a response to -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, we'll get it there. 


SANDIA SEC UPDATE


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are -- are you ready to go 


to the Sandia SEC update? 


Okay, let's do that next then. Who's going to 


lead that? 


 (No responses) 


Do we have a staff report on that? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Ziemer, this is LaVon 


Rutherford. I will provide just a brief 


introduction and the fact that materials that 


the petitioner provided us -- it was requested 


at the Board meeting after the presentation 


that -- by the petitioner that all those -- the 


information that the petitioner was providing 


be provided to the Board, and then the Board 


could review that to be -- either in 


preparation for this (break in transmission) 


January Board meeting. (Break in transmission) 


have provided all that information. It is on 


the Board's O drive folder under document 


review -- AB document review, Sandia. 
I 


actually sent out an e-mail -- actually Laurie 

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 

134 

Breyer and I -- and I both sent e-mails to you 


and copied the Board members, indicating that 


all the information was there under that 


folder, including the e-mails that we had 


received from the petitioner. 


Also the petitioner may be on the phone and as 


-- and may want to add anything, I do not know. 


I know that that petitioner had indicated that 


they would try to call in. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, and that -- that's Mr. 


Giovaccini, I think. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is he on the line? Gerry? 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: Yes, I'm listening. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. Did you have some comments, 


Gerry, at this time? 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: Not at this time. I'll wait 


for the presentation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, did you all receive 


the documents that LaVon distributed? 


MS. BEACH: Yes, I did. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: What was the date, LaVon? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was October 31st I believe 

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 

135 

was the date we sent the e-mail. It was 


actually -- we just sent the e-mail indicating 


that all of the documents were available on the 


Board's -- in the Board's folder. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: In addition, I -- Sam -- Dr. 


Glover is on line if there are any additional 


technical questions that -- that would like to 


be asked, I'm pretty sure that he is available 


at this time as well. 


 DR. GLOVER: I am here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, any comments 


or questions at this point? We don't have any 


action before us. This -- we'd -- we had taken 


action already on Sandia. This is a -- the 


petitioner's materials were provided. We had 


the -- we had the evaluation review and the 


action. The -- the materials that you were -- 


received at I believe NIOSH. NIOSH's position 


is that they considered all of these issues in 


their evaluation report. Is that correct, 


LaVon? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is correct, Dr. 


Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the only issue at this point 

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 

136 

would be if the Board members believe that 


there is information that would cause them to 


want to -- to propose anything different than 


has already occurred. Or if you have not had a 


chance to review this all -- some of this came 


in fairly recently -- then action -- or we 


could -- we could ask for this to appear again 


on the full Board meeting agenda. Are there --


are there Board members that feel that they 


don't have enough informa-- or have not had the 


opportunity to review all this information yet? 


 MS. MUNN: I haven't reviewed it in depth, but 


I very quickly went through that material when 


we received it. Nothing was clearly obvious as 


being an oversight or less than thorough, less 


than adequate -- I saw no problem with what was 


reported. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That was Wanda. Others -- other 


comments? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I've just been 


able to get just a general over it. I don't 


see too much right now, but I have been doing 


other items lately. 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I have not had 


time to take a look at 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 

137

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm concerned that -- in 


fairness to the petitioner, that the Board 


members have a chance to at least have reviewed 


the material that was provided. And unless you 


do that, there's -- you could not -- if there 


were a motion for any action, you could not act 


intelligently on it. 


I'm going to suggest that we put this on the 


agenda for the next meeting so that all the 


Board members have had a chance to review that 


material thoroughly and then they can decide 


whether any action is needed. 


MS. BEACH: Lew, this is Josie. I have 


actually read it and I have a question for the 


petitioner, if he's still on the line. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: I am. 


MS. BEACH: Are you going to -- are you going 


to come back on these answers with more 


questions, or are you satisfied with NIOSH's 


answers? 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: Of course I'm not satisfied if 


they declare that they can do it, bind the 


dose. You have -- apparently you have your 


resources and I have mine, and your resources 


all say they can do a dose reconstruction. My 

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 

138 

resources, and I can even contact more if you'd 


like, say a dose reconstruction would not be 


feasible under the circumstances. When you 


have 33.3 percent of the information -- dose 


re-- reconstruction information missing, how is 


it possible to do an accurate dose 


reconstruction? You know, individual exposures 


were different in this particular laboratory. 


At the time I worked there, there was no one 


else in the laboratory. At the time my 


successor worked, he worked with -- on his -- 


on his own, alone, et cetera. Unfortunately, 


my -- all my dose exposures were somehow 


missing. Sandia was unable to come up with 


those. 


So yes, we're at a -- at a debate here about 


how the -- how accurate can the dose be 


reconstructed. 


MS. BEACH: Okay, I just -- I was just curious 


on what your thoughts were on NIOSH's answers 


to all your questions, so thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other Board members, comments? Do 


-- do others of you wish us to defer action or 


defer anything until the next meeting? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, this is Brad. To be able 

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 

139 

to give justice to this, I -- I apologize, but 


I'm in a pretty big workload myself. I would 


like to see it brought up at the January 


meeting where we can really take a look at 


what's been said and put down. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections to deferring this 


to the January meeting till all the Board 


members have had a chance to -- to digest the 


materials that have been provided by the 


petitioner? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley --


 DR. ZIEMER: And LaVon, on the O drive -- 


everything that you have received is on the O 


drive as well. Is that correct? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Bob, did you have another 


comment? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, deferring it's fine. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: I have one other comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, uh-huh. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: Regarding exposure time, isn't 


that a very crucial criteria when you're trying 


to do a dose reconstruction calculation? 


Without the exposure time known, how could you 


possibly do an accurate dose reconstruction? 

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 

140

 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MR. GIOVACCINI: You know, there was leakage in 


these machines. I was subject to ionizing 


radiation on a daily basis, and none of this 


can be quantified. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we'd have to have the dose 


reconstructors fill us in on that, but in 


general they would have assumed that was the 


case, but I don't know on your specific case 


what -- we have to look at this in terms of an 


SEC petition, and so that's -- that's the 


manner in which we will do it. The total dose 


is -- of course is the critical issue, whether 


that came in a week, a day, a month, a year. 


But I -- I'll take it by consent that we're 


going to defer this to the January meeting till 


all Board members have had an opportunity to 


digest and review the materials that have been 


provided, then we can proceed from there. 


And Gerry, thank you for being present on the 


call and you certainly would be welcome to be 


present or participate by phone at the next 


meeting as well. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: I have one -- one more 


comment. 

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 

141

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: I've been tuning in for the 


last hour and during the course of the meeting 


they were bringing up a PER, I believe it's 


number 009. Well, I am a lymphoma claimant. 


Matter of fact, I have non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 


which is one of the 22 listed cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: And I have yet to be notified 


that this PER even exists. Am I falling 


through the crack? 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I think I can 


answer that question. That PER was applied to 


cases that -- that were processed before a 


certain date, before we adopted the new 


lymphoma model, and I'm -- I don't recall the 


specifics, but I'm very certain that your case 


was after that fact. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: It may have -- well have been, 


but when I talked to Brad -- no last name -- 


Brad during the telephone closeout interview 


for the dose reconstruction, Brad asked me not 


to sign the CAS-1 (sic) form because I'd 


presented additional information. I think my 


lymphoma case needs to be re-evaluated. 

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 

142 

DR. NETON: All -- all lymphoma cases were reevaluated that were processed under the old 


model. That's -- I -- I don't have the 


specifics for your case in front of me, but 


that's how we approached it. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: Can someone double-check and 


make sure my case doesn't requi-- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Your case does not require -- it 


was reconstructed against the new model. This 


is Larry Elliott. I'm -- I'm familiar with 


your claim. The construction that you have in 


your hands was reconstructed using the lymphoma 


-- new lymphoma model. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: I presented new information 


since then, inside of this SEC envelope. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, that's for the SEC, and any 


new information that you proposed in your 


closeout interview would be considered before 


the -- the dose reconstruction report is closed 


out. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: I would like -- this is LaVon 


Rutherford. I would like to add that, Mr. 


Giovaccini, your -- your claim had -- is being 


reworked at this time, but not due to lymphoma 


but due to changes in the Technical Basis 

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 

143 

Document. 


 MR. GIOVACCINI: And that's all. Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We'll have further 


discussion on this item in terms of the SEC 


petition at the next meeting then. Thank you 


very much. 


BOARD PROCEDURES ON INTERVIEWS
 

Our next item is Board procedures on 


interviews, and Larry, I think maybe -- do you 


have --


 DR. WADE: I think that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the lead on that? 


 DR. WADE: -- me, Paul. Lew, I -- I can do 


this one. 


Let me refresh your memory as to the issue and 


give my brief report. SC&A in their review of 


-- I think it was Procedure 92 -- interviewed 


some people. This had to do with the 


effectiveness of the interview process and the 


-- the closeout interview and those manner of 


things. SC&A recommended that the Board re-


interview some of the people that they had 


interviewed because they thought that that 


information would be valuable and useful to the 


Board in terms of the Board's review of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

procedures. 


That triggered a question as to whether it was 


appropriate for the Board to interview 


individual claimants or not, and -- and I was 


asked to investigate that and report back to 


you, and that's what I'll do now. 


We always need to start with the Board's 


charter, and the Board's charter says, under 


Function (b), Advise the Secretary of HHS on 


the scientific validity and quality of dose 


reconstruction efforts performed by this 


program. That's your grounding in the charter. 


The Board has taken the appropriate step that 


in order to fulfill that function of its 


charter, it needs to review procedures, and I 


think all would agree that that makes sense, 


and the Board has done well at reviewing 


procedures. Therefore, if the Board would want 


to interview people or gather data that went to 


the efficacy of procedures, that would be 


legitimate. 


I would caution that the Board is not an 


appeals board, and the Board should not be 


reviewing individual cases as an appeals board. 


But if the Board wanted to speak to someone 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 

145 

learn about procedures and how an individual 


was affected by procedures so the Board could 


critique procedures, consistent with its 


function that I just read you, that would be 


more than reasonable. 


 The only additional caution that I would put to 


you is that it has been the advice of HHS to 


the Board that the Board, when it does engage, 


engages on adjudicated cases. 


So with those two -- with those two caveats in 


mind, if you're talking to individuals, it 


really needs to be adjudicated cases. If 


you're talking to individuals for the purpose 


of commenting upon the efficacy of procedures, 


that's more than legitimate. You need to be 


very clear, though, in your interview and the 


setup for and the conduct of it, that you're 


not functioning as an appeals board. 


So that's my long answer to your simple 


question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, that -- that's the 


answer. Board members, any questions or 


comments for Lew on that? 


 (No responses) 


That was basically -- did -- did that generate 

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 

146 

out of your workgroup initially, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: I believe that it did. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I believe it did. 


 MS. MUNN: And this clarification is welcome. 


It's of some concern that we even considered 


individual Board members ought to get 


(unintelligible) interacting with claimants. 


That -- I think it's clear to all of us that 


that really is not what any of us had 


anticipated in our original charter. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda, we're having difficulty 


hearing you, I'm sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm sorry, it must be this phone. 


Let me switch to the other one. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay --


 MS. MUNN: Is this better? 


 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's good. 


 MS. MUNN: I won't use the other phone then. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's better. Other comments or 


questions? I don't believe any action is 


required at this point. That was simply for 


clarification, as I recall. Right? 


 DR. WADE: Right. Now the Board can decide 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 

147 

it wants to interview these people. The first 


question you have to ask yourself, are these 


adjudicated cases. I don't know the answer to 


that, but if the Board wants to proceed, then 


now there's a path forward. It doesn't mean 


the Board has to proceed down that path. 


UPDATE ON TRACKING MATRICES


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. Okay. Are we ready 


to have an update on the tracking matrices? 


 DR. WADE: This is me again. This will be my 


last long-winded harangue that you folks will 


have to listen to. This is a relatively 


complex one. It starts simply with the 


matrices that I did have Zaida send out to you 


this morning. I apologize for the -- the 


lateness of the transmission. Material was 


just received yesterday, but what's in the 


matrices is not as important as the story that 


I'm going to tell you. 


When last we met you asked me to put my mind 


towards committing to the Board to when we 


could have transcripts of Board meetings posted 


on the web site. There was talk about 30 days, 


there was talk about 45 days. I put my mind to 


the task and right now I think it is possible 

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 

148 

for NI-- for there to be posted transcripts of 


Board meetings, deliberations at Board 


meetings, 45 days after the Board meeting is 


up. But there's work yet to be done to 


accomplish that. 


The -- the two parts of that are getting Ray to 


provide his materials within a 30-day time 


frame, and Ray has been doing that. In fact, 


we now have all of the previous Board meeting 


transcripts from Ray. That's what we were 


waiting for until we updated the matrix. We 


received those the beginning of the week. 


The second part of the dilemma is this Privacy 


Act issue, and I'm sure you've heard the e-


mails and the -- the consternation over Privacy 


Act reviews, particularly as it goes to 


redacting the names of individuals who provide 


comments, during public comment period or 


during the Board meeting. This has really 


necessitated a laborious and a time-consuming 


process that puts in jeopardy our ability to 


post transcripts in a timely way. 


What I did -- again, following up on your 


instruction -- was that I -- I got together the 


appropriate attorneys and people, and we looked 

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 

149 

at the policy of redacting individuals' names, 


even when they said they didn't want their 


names redacted, and we've come up with a new 


policy that I shared with you some days ago. 


I'll read that policy just for everyone's 


reason, and this is titled "A Draft Policy on 


Redaction of Board Meeting Transcripts." 


One, if a person making a comment gives his or 


her name, no attempt will be made to redact 


that name. 


 Two, NIOSH will take reasonable steps to ensure 


that individuals making public comment are 


aware of the fact that their comments, 


including their name, if provided, will appear 


in the transcript of the meeting, posted on a 


public web site. Such reasonable steps will 


include (a) a statement read at the start of 


each public comment period stating that the 


transcripts will be posted and names of 


speakers will not be redacted; (b) a printed 


copy of the statement mentioned in (a) above 


will be displayed on the table where 


individuals sign up to make public comment; (c) 


a statement such as outlined in (a) above will 


also appear with the agenda for 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 

150 

meeting when it is posted on the NIOSH web 


site; (d) a statement such as mentioned in (a) 


above will appear in the Federal Register
 

notice that announces Board and subcommittee 


meetings. 


Three, if an individual, in making a statement, 


reveals personal information such as medical 


information about themselves, that information 


will not usually be redacted. The NIOSH FOIA 


coordinator will, however, review such 


revelations in accordance with the Freedom of 


Information Act and the Federal Advisory 


Committee Act and, if deemed appropriate, will 


redact such information. 


Four, all disclosure of information regarding 


third parties will be redacted. 


Five, if it comes to the attention of the DFO 


that an individual wishes to share information 


with the Board, but objects to doing so in a 


public forum, the DFO will work with that 


individual in accordance with the Federal 


Advisory Committee Act to find a way that the 


Board can hear such comments. 


 Again, I apologize for reading all of that to 


you, but that is the policy we're proposing. 
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 

151 

I 

would like to hear from the Board on that 


policy if you wish to comment. Absent your 


comment, this is the policy we would follow. 


think this will cut down on the rigor and the 


time involved in Privacy Act reviews and allow 


us to meet this 45-day requirement that I'm 


prepared to commit to. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew, I just want to be sure 


that it's clear to everyone that this is a 


policy only for the transcripts from the 


Advisory Board meetings. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: As opposed to the working groups, 


are you saying? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, I'm sorry, as opposed to 


say a document that someone provides by sending 


it in via mail to OCAS or something like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that has not -- is not part of 


the public comment period. 


 DR. WADE: Part of the -- the Board transcript 


or --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, it --


 DR. WADE: -- working group. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- this is as it relates 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 

152 

a FACA committee. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So this is -- this would 


relate to any document that you all receive, it 


would relate to any of your meetings. What I'm 


saying is if someone mails a document to NIOSH, 


this is not the same issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's considered a public 


document at that point anyway. 


 DR. WADE: We're assuming that the -- the 


policy that I read, Paul, would apply to 


working group meetings as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I wasn't sure what Liz was 


referring to there. 


Well, thi-- this certainly is a big step I 


think toward relieving some of the concerns 


that some of our public commenters have had 


about the fact that they would like in fact 


their comments to be associated with their 


name, and in fact it helps those I believe who 


read the comments in knowing the source of the 


comments in terms of how they perceive and 


evaluate those. And it does provide third-


party protection if -- if somebody's name is 


brought up and it's not clear that they even 

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 

153 

know that that's occurring, why, that is -- is 


covered here. 


Board members, I -- well, Lew, I don't think we 


have to officially adopt this. This is -- this 


is going to be a NIOSH or a CDC policy, I 


guess. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Correct, although, as always, we're 


interested in the Board's reaction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right, right. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Brad. I 


think this is a good step forward. We've heard 


a lot of comments on this. We've had a lot of 


people raise issues about it and so forth, and 


I think -- I think it's (break in 


transmission). 


 DR. WADE: Brad, we lost you. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Hello? I -- I just -- I think 


this is a good -- I -- I feel good with it. 


think it'll help a lot of issues that we've had 


in the past and I think it's a good step 


forward. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments, Board 

members? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, Paul -- Melius. I generally 

concur with that. The -- the one question I 


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 

154 

would raise procedurally to be looked into and 


maybe it would -- would be the policy already 


or the procedure already, but it -- in cases 


where there are issues regarding, you know, 


some medical information that a -- a person 


tells us at a -- in one of the public sessions 


or something and where they -- the privacy 


office is going back and talking to that person 


and -- and so forth trying -- trying to work 


out that -- that information, I think it would 


be helpful if we could get a -- you know, a -- 


I don't know what you'd call it, an interim 


transcript of the Board meeting or whatever 


that would have that in -- that part of it 


redacted while it's being worked out, rather 


than wait till the whole process to finish up 


because a lot of the use of this material is to 


have a -- you know, a -- a record of the -- at 


least an interim record of what went on 


procedurally or to be able to look up a 


particular issue that, you know, I don't think 


will be affected -- the vast majority of what 


goes on at a meeting will not be affected, so 


it'd be useful to have that information while 


the Privacy Act issues with some 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 

155 

particular comments are -- are being worked 


out. 


 DR. WADE: Makes sense. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley --


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- Bob, just one second. I 


just want to clarify. Jim, the medical 


information, if the person discloses it about 


themself it does not get redacted, as I 


understand it on this policy. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Although -- although I am -- I am 


hedging a bit there. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: I couldn't anticipate all the -- the 


types of information that would be presented, 


and I don't want to rule out the possibility 


that some of it might go to Privacy Act 


concerns. But in general, the procedure would 


not be to redact information that an individual 


provides about themselves. But I -- the 


privacy office asked that I not close that door 


completely because God know what could be said. 

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 

156

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And I also want to make 


sure that everybody understands that this 


Privacy Act issue does not address classified 


information. There has been -- there have been 


concerns expressed in the past that members of 


the public have on occasion perhaps disclosed 


classified information. Our reviewers are not 


reviewing for classified information, as I 


understand it. I mean they -- the off-- the 


Privacy Act people do not get involved in that. 


Isn't that correct? 


 DR. WADE: That's correct. There are people, 


though, at -- if they have such clearances at 


the meetings, who are duty-bound to raise this 


as (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, if -- if they -- if 


they know that it has occurred, but -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I just want to make sure 


everybody understands that this document per se 


is not being reviewed for classified 


information. It's Privacy Act information. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Bob Presley, you had a comment? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think this is great. I think 

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 

157 

this is probably going to satisfy the public. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Dr. Ziemer, may I please -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Others? 


UNIDENTIFIED: May I make two quick 


(unintelligible), please? 


 DR. BRANCHE: He needs to speak up. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, you need to speak up. We 


can't identify who that is. 


 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 


 DR. WADE: Dan, could you please speak up a 


bit? 


 DR. MCKEEL: I'm talking as loud as I can into 


my telephone. Now -- now is it better? 


 DR. WADE: Much better. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: That was a quantum leap. 


 DR. MCKEEL: I'm sorry. My -- my quick comment 


is that this is a great step in the right 


direction. However, there are two things that 


would save a lot of time if we could clarify 


right now. One is that the May Board 


transcripts have already been redacted and, 


speaking just for myself, I certainly would 


want those redactions removed. 


The second point is that in that transcript 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 

158 

only were the public comments redacted, but 


also the SEC for Dow presentation was redacted, 


and I certainly would like that restored as 


well. 


And the third thing is, although this policy 


has been announced today, far as I know it 


hasn't been circulated. So could it please be 


posted on the OCAS web site? 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. All -- we'll take all of 


your questions under advisement. I did want to 


share it with the Board first, Dr. McKeel, and 


it will be our intention to make it more public 


now. 


 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. First, in response 


to a comment that was just made, it was my very 


clear understanding that the policy we are 


looking at refers only to public comment, not 


to any other portion of our transactions. Is 


that not correct? 


 DR. WADE: No, it would apply to all of our 


transactions -- all of the public part of our 


meetings, be it public comment or open Board 


deliberation. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Or working group deliberations. 

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 

159

 DR. WADE: Or working group deliberations. So 


if -- for example, during a working group if an 


individual get up and say I'm Joe Smith and, 


you know, I worked at Whatchamacallit facility, 


we would not redact that. 


 MS. MUNN: I think you've done a fine job with 


putting these basic thoughts together, Lew. 


would ask that item four be presented in bold 


letters wherever we display these because 


anyone who offers any information, including 


any information that we discuss in session, 


appears to me to be clearly of concern if there 


are third-party issues involved here. 


 DR. WADE: No question. 


 MS. MUNN: So it's easy to miss that particular 


statement -- even though it's very clear, it's 


easy to miss it when it's just simply in 


ordinary type with the rest of the statements. 


 DR. WADE: I understand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other questions or 


comments? 


 DR. WADE: Now with this policy in place, I 


will come to the January meeting and you'll 


have an ability to see how we're doing relative 


to the posting of materials. Hopefully we'll 


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 

160 

have a good report to give you. If not, then 


you can comment and we can, you know, have our 


discussions about the appropriateness of 45 


days or shorter. I'd like to achieve that and 


then pursue shorter, but in order to realize 


that, I needed to go through this step it 


seemed to me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, the materials nonetheless 


still have to go through the trans-- or the 


redaction office process in order to catch 


these third-party issues. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Well, I -- we're trying to work on 


procedures to short-circuit that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- where possibly Christine or I, or 


another individual, could have the 


responsibility --


 DR. ZIEMER: You might be able to --


 DR. WADE: -- in real time --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- spot those right at the front 


end and -- where there are no third party 


issues and so --


 DR. WADE: I mean that -- that's a necessary 


step --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, that would be good if 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 

161 

could do that. 


 DR. WADE: Right. That's -- that's our plan, 


and we're going to try -- try out our plan over 


the next workgroup meetings and see how it 


goes. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Including this one. 


 DR. WADE: Including this one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Incidentally, I -- I think this 


transcript status matrix, if you want to call 


it a matrix, is very helpful. Since we have so 


many workgroups now meeting and it's -- it's 


great to be able to keep track of what's -- 


what's out there, what's down the line and so 


on, so I found it very helpful. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, and don't forget, we also have 


matrices we're tracking on -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right, but this-- 


 DR. WADE: -- site profile reviews and SEC 


petition reviews. I didn't send them out 


'cause that's too --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, there's more and more 


things to track, so we appreciate it. 


 Any final comments on that issue? 


 (No responses) 


SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON THE 4TH AND 5TH SETS AND 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 

162 

FIRST ONE HUNDRED CASES
 

Okay, we're ready to go to the update on the 


fourth and fifth sets. Mark Griffon, I can 


throw that in your lap? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I can give a -- I 


think a fairly succinct report on this. We had 


a technical phone call meeting with SC&A and 


NIOSH just to resolve some of the standing 


issues on the fourth and fifth matrix, and we 


are even closer I think to completing all 


those, with the exception possibly of the one 


that Kathy Behling alluded to, the Huntington ­

- we might just have to defer that somehow to, 


you know, a -- a review of the Huntington 


matrix under that -- under the DR task or what­

- we still have to work that out. But we are 


closer to final resolution. I think there was 


-- when we left the technical phone call we had 


a few remaining actions for SC&A and for NIOSH, 


but they're sharing those documents and -- and 


we're hoping to be able to close both those 


matrices out in the -- in the next meeting -- 


in January meeting. 


And as far as the first 100 case report, we are 


pla-- I -- I have actually started drafting 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 

163 

- a draft of a summary type of report, and I'm 


hoping to -- and I expect to be able to bring a 


draft to the subcommittee in the January 


meeting for discussion, and actually to provide 


it to the subcommittee before the -- we got -- 


get out to Vegas, at least a week prior. That 


way people will have a chance to redline it and 


not come with edit in hand, and hopefully the 


subcommittee can -- can work on that report. 


So I -- I guess that's -- that's the entirety 


of the update. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Questions for 


Mark, or comments? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate the 


work of the subcommittee. It's an ongoing 


important activity. 


WORK GROUP UPDATES


 Workgroup updates, I guess we can go right down 


the list here. 


 DR. BRANCHE: That means -- this is Christine ­

- we would start with Rocky Flats. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Rocky Flats -- I just put myself 


back on mute, sorry. The Rocky Flats 


workgroup, we had a meeting yesterday 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 

164 

Rocky Flats workgroup. We haven't met in a 


while, but for those that have not seen these, 


the Rocky Mountain News has ran several 


articles -- I think there's even one that came 


out today -- today on the question of -- really 


of implementing the SEC class and the question 


of whether all the buildings -- or -- or all 


the workers who may have been exposed -- or 


should have been monitored for neutron 


exposures are actually being captured in this ­

- in the process of implementing this SEC 


class. The artic-- the newspaper articles 


raised some questions and we just wanted a 


follow-up workgroup meeting yesterday. 


Since then -- a few actions came out of that 


phone call meeting yesterday. One was to 


follow up with the reporter. I've done that -- 


we did that right away yesterday and Wanda 


joined me on the phone call. And then I -- I 


also offered that we should do a technical 


phone call meeting with NIOSH and with the 


source of this data which showed up in the 


Rocky Mountain News, which actually came from 


the University of Colorado study. And we are ­

- I'm planning -- I haven't set a time 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 

165 

technical phone call yet. I've got to contact 


Margaret Ruttenber, who is one of the lead 


researchers on that study. She has agreed that 


-- to work with NIOSH on the phone call. 


Basically we want to understand why there's 


apparent differences that were presented in the 


newspaper article, and actually, you know, to ­

- to ma-- to see whether it affects the current 


implementation of the class. So we're -- we're 


trying to sort some of this out and make sure 


that everything is -- is on the right course. 


And you know, I -- and we've -- part of the 


reason for the technical phone call is that the 


University of Colorado had some -- apparently 


used the same data, but they -- they may have, 


in the process of their research, taken the raw 


data and -- and done some different sorts of 


queries with the data and -- and you know, so 


we want to understand the numbers that showed 


up in this newspaper article where -- how 


they're being derived and basically match those 


with the data we've been looking at all 


throughout the Rocky Flats workgroup process 


and -- and then understand the impact on 


implementing the class, if there is any impact 

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 

166 

on the current way the class is being 


implemented. So that's sort of where we left 


it with the workgroup phone call yesterday. 


And you know, I guess we'll just -- we'll -- 


after the technical phone call we'll -- if -- 


if need be, we can reconvene our workgroup or 


else, you know, I'll report back from -- to the 


full Board the -- the outcome of the technical 


phone call. And that's -- that's the status of 


the Rocky Flats workgroup. That's all I had, 


Paul. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. Melius, this is Liz 


Homoki-Titus. I'm sorry to interrupt. Mark, 


have you all decided not to include DOL, even 


though DOL implements the class? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'm sorry, I didn't -- I -- 


I -- yes, DOL and NIOSH and -- and -- along 


with the University of Colorado. I'm sorry, 


Liz, you're correct. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That's all right, I just 


wanted to make sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was part of the action, 


yeah, was to include DOL -- 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That is -- yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- they're in -- 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 

167 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Totally. That's their role, 

not ours. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, thanks. 

 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, Nevada Test Site 


would be next. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. The Nevada 


Test Site is presently going through the two 


summaries on -- on the responses to SC&A's 


latest comments. Mark sent those out. Each of 


the working group members have them. We I 


believe have a conference call set up, if I'm 


correct here on my dates, on the 19th at 11:00 


o'clock to discuss our findings before we go to 


Las Vegas in January. We are still holding the 


time open on the 7th for a possible face-toface working group meeting before the Board 


meeting in January. 


DR. ROESSLER: Bob, this -- this is Gen. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: So there is not a definite 


workgroup meeting set up for -- in conjunction 


with our Board meeting there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What we're trying to do, Gen, is 


if we can -- if we could get a consensus 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 

168 

what we need to do on the 19th, then I don't 


see a -- a need for a Board (sic) meeting on 


the 7th. But if we go through the 19th and we 


still don't have a consensus of what we need to 


do, then we're going to have to try to -- to 


get together before the Board meeting and 


decide whether we go one way or the other on 


this thing. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. I already have 


reservations made, as you know, but I think 


I'll just stick with them and wait -- we'll 


wait until after the phone call. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. Is that phone call date 


all right with everybody? I -- I've -- I've 


got it down for the 19th at 11:00. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's what my calendar tells 


me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


DR. ROESSLER: Right. Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Robert, this is Brad. I've got 


it down, but I didn't have the start time on 


it, and it'd be Eastern Time, I'm sure. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, 11:00 o'clock --


 MS. MUNN: 11:00 Eastern time. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- Eastern Standard Time. 

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 

169

 MS. MUNN: And we -- we had said with respect 


to the face-to-face on the 7th that we'd start 


at noon. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, and I -- I just sent John 


Mauro a message on that the other day that if 


at all possible I'd like to start before that. 


Now Wanda, you -- we have a meeting on the 


procedures. Do you think that that will last 


till noon? 


 MS. MUNN: It may. And that -- you know, our 


subcommittee usually meets -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that morning. Mark, we are or 


are not planning a subcommittee meeting Monday 


the 7th of January? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, we are. We can probably 


work out the time, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm hoping to be in a position 


to close out matrices and present a draft for 


the 100 -- first 100 cases, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we may -- I may want to leave 


a fair amount of time there, if possible. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I had anticipated a half a day 

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 

170 

there on --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- on Monday the 7th. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Are we still planning on starting 


the meeting at 1:00 or 1:30 on the... 


 DR. BRANCHE: That's correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. I -- I would love to -- if 


we have to do it, I'd love to have more than an 


hour there, if we possibly can. So Mark, maybe 


you and Wanda and I can talk and see if we 


can't come up with a little bit better schedule 


for the 7th. 


 DR. WADE: With the wisdom of Solomon. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Lew. 


 DR. BRANCHE: So -- this is Christine. So the 


subcommittee, procedures and Nevada Test Site 


site profile, all three of you would like to 


have meetings on -- on January 7th? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I -- that's what I 


hear. 


 MS. MUNN: I am not certain about procedures, 


but that -- that depends on what happens with 


our face-to-face. 


 DR. BRANCHE: So --


 MR. PRESLEY: On the 11th? 

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 

171

 DR. BRANCHE: So definitely the subcommittee 


and Nevada Test Site site profile? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Definitely so far. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Procedures meeting on the 11th. 


Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Procedures are meeting on -- 


 DR. BRANCHE: December 11th. 


 MS. MUNN: -- December 11th, correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: At 9-- 9:30 in Cincinnati is what 


I have. 


 MS. MUNN: That's correct. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Christine, does that handle 

everything? 

 DR. BRANCHE: If you're finished, we're 

finished. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Has anybody got any questions 

about the Test Site? 


 (No responses) 


 Thank y'all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, Hanford site profile 


and SEC petition would be next. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

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 

172

 DR. BRANCHE: Is that the right way to do it? 


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, hi. The -- John Mauro sort 


of jumped the gun a little bit before. The --


SC&A has just provided to me as of yesterday a 


-- a -- sort of a draft memo that sort of tries 


to outline a schedule for how we would go about 


reviewing the SEC petition and related issues 


in -- in -- in the site profile, and it 


outlines sort of what the issues are they see 


in the -- with the SEC evaluation. And we're 


actually getting together, doing a very brief 


meeting myself, with Arjun and then with some 


of the -- Sam Glover and I believe Jim Neton 


from NIOSH on Thursday before our other 


workgroup meeting to go over it with NIOSH and 


-- and see -- what we're trying to do is come 


up with a schedule of how we would deal with 


the -- the Hanford SEC. It's a big petition, 


covers a lots of different issues. There are 


some we may be able to move on very quickly. 


There are other issues related to the fact that 


NIOSH is still revising some of the procedures 


and so forth. So it would -- we're trying to 


get together and see if we can -- can work 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 

173 

a schedule with that. 


I would add that this is further complicated by 


the -- as I understand it, by the federal 


budget issue, which is making it difficult to 


access some of the records that we need to be 


able to review whether SCA and -- and NIOSH 


needs to be able to access at -- at Hanford. 


And so the DOE says they do not have adequate 


funding for that. I know Larry's working with 


them trying to work something out, but there 


are issues that NIOSH needs access in order to 


be able to move on and complete what they're 


doing at the same time SC&A needs access to be 


able to do their job in terms of the 


evaluation. So we'll also be talking about 


that on -- on Thursday and trying to -- to work 


out something with this. 


We were hoping, and I'm not sure we'll be able 


to do it, but if possible by the January 


meeting to be able to at least move on with the 


part of the SEC that NIOSH (break in 


transmission) forward on, but we still need to 


be able to see if we'll have enough access to 


information in a timely fashion to be able to 


do that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. BRANCHE: That would make the Savannah 


River Test (sic) Site profile the next one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That -- Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we have not met. We had 


one meeting a while ago, but we need to 


reconvene soon. It's just been a matter of 


priorities at this point, focusing on some SECs 


and Savannah River's been on the back burner a 


little bit, so nothing to report. 


 DR. BRANCHE: The SE-- Dr. Ziemer, the SEC 


issues group, including the 250-day issue, and 


preliminary review of 83.14 SEC petitions would 


be next. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Melius. Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I had to get my mute off 


again. Yeah, we had a conference call about a 


week ago or so of -- of the workgroup to 


discuss some information that'd been prepared 


by SC&A and thought it was a helpful workgroup 


meeting. The next steps will be that -- I'm 


actually waiting to hea-- get some reaction 


from some of the other workgroup members to 


some of the ideas and so forth we discussed at 


the meeting. I will then -- took on drafting 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 

175 

report that will look at sort of -- be 


guidelines for the use of -- for the review of 


the use of surrogate data and a very fast exit 


dose re-- reconstruction and SEC evaluation. 


This would be a report that would be similar to 


the set of guidelines that we developed for SEC 


evaluation review. Plan is to have that -- a 


draft of that circulating within the workgroup 


within the next few weeks, and then probably 


another conference call just before our -- the 


week before our meeting in Nevada, and we hope 


to have something to be able to discuss with 


the entire Board in -- at the Neva-- the Nevada 


meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, the subcommittee on 


dose reconstruction is next. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, we've already heard from Mark. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so the SEC --


 DR. ZIEMER: So we're ready for -- and -- and 


Lockey's work is completed so -- and he's not 


on the line -- on SEC petitions. The conflict 


of interest group is inactive at the time, so I 


guess we're up to procedures review. Right? 


 DR. BRANCHE: That's -- that's what my 

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 

176 

bookkeeping says. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: As you know, this is a very complex 


and convoluted process that we're involved in 


in procedures. At the current time we are 


doing very well with respect to resolution of 


the significant number of outstanding issues 


that we started with. On procedures of course 


more get added as the procedures change, and as 


suggestions that come out of -- of earlier 


processes are incorporated into the living 


documents that we call our procedures. 


The major effort at this moment is in 


completely redoing our method of recording and 


tracking this multitude of individual findings 


that we have. Our matrices have become so 


complex and our terminology has become unclear 


in some cases so that we have made an extreme 


effort -- our contractor is currently working 


very hard to provide an entirely new format for 


how we are going to keep track of what we're 


doing. Kathy Behling has been particularly 


helpful in helping to lay out suggestions for 


what these tracking sheets are going to look 


like. 

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 

177

 Rather than operate from a matrix like we have 


in the past, what we will be doing is operating 


from individual sheets indicating where -- 


first -- first we will -- we'll categorize 


these materials alphanumerically so that it is 


very easy for us to get to the specific 


procedure that we're dealing with. And then we 


will have segregate pages of findings behind 


those particular tabs. As we clear these items 


they will be removed from our working notebook 


and go into essentially a library file of 


material that will make it possible for us to 


always go back to the record and see what has 


transpired with respect to any given finding. 


This is going to take us a little while to 


accomplish, but SC&A has been moving forward on 


it very quickly and we anticipate being able to 


get that into place within the next few weeks. 


As we've already mentioned, we have a face-toface meeting coming up very shortly, and at 


that face-to-face meeting in Cincinnati we will 


be looking at some of these new formats for the 


first time. 


We also intend to begin to address the issues 


surrounding Procedure 92 -- which, as you all 

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 

178 

know, is of great interest to most of the sites 


and which is going to be significant for us in 


addressing it. We have a matrix devised 


already for that specific Procedure and will be 


working to it when we next meet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Blockson Chemical SEC petition is 


next. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's also Ms. Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: That's -- we are very pleased to 


report that every issue that was brought 


forward has now been addressed. All of the 


issues have been resolved. There are white 


papers substantiating the findings in each of 


those cases. We will have the white papers 


available for all who want to review them, well 


in advance of the meeting in Las Vegas. It is 


our hope that at Las Vegas -- it is our intent 


at the Las Vegas meeting to declare that the 


issues have been adequately resolved. We are 


willing at that time to dissolve this 


particular working group and stand ready to 


hear the recommendations with respect to this 


site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179

 DR. BRANCHE: Fernald site profile and SEC 


petition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, can you hear me okay? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes, we met earlier this month. 


We -- SC&A, been working with them, and we 


finally got through the complete matrix on 


this. We are awaiting from -- NIOSH is 


performing a white paper for us and we're also 


waiting on a tiger team interview that went on 


at the site which Chew and Associates were 


going to get back with us on, and we're 


proceeding on forward. We don't have a time 


for the next meeting due to waiting for the 


white paper from NIOSH at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Chapman Valve, we've 


already discussed that today. I don't know 


that we have anything further on that. Any of 


the subcommittee -- or the workgroup members 


have any comment? 


 Apparently not. 


Surrogate data, Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: I must have misheard you before. 


I actually gave that report. I think --

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 

180

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I was doing a double-take, 


Jim, when you said that the SEC group met last 


week, and I thought oh, my, I must have missed 


a meeting. 


 MS. MUNN: Where were you? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, I figured out it must 


have been the surrogate data group. 


 DR. MELIUS: But we used your credit card so 


(unintelligible). 


DR. ROESSLER: I was in the same situation. 


thought oh, no, I'm so busy I missed something, 


but --


 DR. MELIUS: I must have misheard. 


DR. ROESSLER: So we're looking now for the 


250-day (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. MELIUS: 250 days, we are meeting on 


Thursday of this week in Cincinnati and we'll 


be reviewing two reports from SC&A on that 


issue and hopefully we'll have something to 


report back at the January meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Very good. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Worker outreach is next. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Paul, this is Mike. On this 


working group over the last couple of months 


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 

181 

some of the members and I have been attending 


various types of worker outreach meetings that 


NIOSH puts on and just getting a feel for the 


difference in the meetings, how they're 


conducted, and we're going to hopefully some -- 


during some down time and the January meeting 


the workgroup members can get together and try 


to look at their schedules and see if we can't 


set up a meeting, actually sit down and get 


together and see where we need to go with this 


sometime in January. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Mike, do you 


anticipate that you would prepare some kind of 


evaluation of what you've seen so far to... 


 MR. GIBSON: I'd probably like to wait till the 


group gets together because -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- some of the different members 


went to some of the different meetings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. Very good. Thank 


you. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Linde Ceramics site profile. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be Gen Roessler. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay, we had our first workgroup 


meeting -- first and only workgroup meeting 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 

182 

I 

March 26th, 2007. That transcript is on the 


OCAS web site. At that meeting we assigned 


some tasks to NIOSH to look at. The primary 


one was to look further into bioassay data. 


have learned recently that we're going to get 


the report from NIOSH on November 30th. And 


because that appears -- if we get it then, 


that'll give time for the workgroup and SC&A to 


go over it and be prepared for another 


workgroup meeting in Las Vegas. So I have set 


this up for January 8th from 8:00 to 10:00 


o'clock. And unless I hear differently now 


from John Mauro or from somebody on the 


workgroup, that's -- or from somebody from 


NIOSH, that -- that is the plan. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And you may be competing with some 


other workgroups, it sounds like. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Not on the 8th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's the 8th, okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: In fact, what we did at our last 


Board meeting is I negotiated with Mark to have 


the time from 8:00 to 10:00 and his 


subcommittee would then meet -- I think you 


agreed, Mark -- from 10:00 to noon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sure I probably agreed. 

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 

183

 MS. MUNN: I thought we were going to -- I 


thought the subcommittee was meeting on the 


7th. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you -- you various chairmen 


will have to work that out. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and Gen, you're meeting on the 


8th. Right? 


DR. ROESSLER: We're planning to meet, the 


Linde workgroup, on January 8th from 8:00 to 


10:00 in Las Vegas. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so that doesn't conflict 


with me now, right. 


DR. ROESSLER: Having heard no objections to 


that, we'll go ahead and set that up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 


 DR. BRANCHE: And then the last one is LANL 


site profile and SEC petition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be Mark. 


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


as was mentioned earlier, and one of the -- I 


have to follow up with NIOSH probably on this, 


but one of the reasons we haven't met is I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

think there is still an outstanding question on 


the later time period described in the SEC 


petition and the evaluation report, and I think 


NIOSH was doing further work on that later time 


period. So we've kind of held off on having 


our meeting until that was completed and... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we know at this point, Larry or 


Jim or LaVon, has that issue been settled yet? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon Rutherford. No, 


the issue has not been settled yet. The -- the 


settling that issue is -- will be with the 


issuance of the revised site profile -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I thought, yeah. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- had issues with -- you 


know, with -- resource issues that Larry may 


want to comment --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- or somebody else may want 


to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- comment on it, that slowed 


that process down. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And so we -- we -- yeah, we felt 


it was no reason to meet until we had a revised 

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 

185 

site profile and -- yeah, something in front of 


us to --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- discuss. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Christine, I think that 


completes our list. 


 DR. WADE: That's it. 


BOARD WORKING TIME


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. We have now 


Board working time. 


 DR. WADE: The only issue, Paul, that I had 


binned there, and Dr. Melius has broached it 


briefly, was this issue about DOE's funding 


shortfall and its impact upon the ability to 


procure Hanford data. I don't know if there's 


anything else that needs to be said to that. 


Dr. Melius asked that we discuss that on this 


call. Jim, do you want to discuss it more or 


have you done what you needed to do? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, are you on mute? 


 DR. MELIUS: No -- well, the mute button wasn't 


working -- mute off button. Yeah, I -- I don't 


think there's any further need to disc-- 


discuss it right now. I mean I think we're not 


(break in transmission) think there's not much 

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 

186 

we can do to get (break in transmission) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can't do much about it at the 


moment. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- get the (break in transmission) 


passed at this point in time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I think hopefully we -- when 


we meet briefly Thursday morning we'll be able 


to discuss it and figure out -- I mean it's 


just a very real conflict and it may just serve 


to delay things. I think we'll try to get it 


worked out but (break in transmission) to see 


what happens. 


 DR. WADE: That was the only --


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I would 


offer that a week ago we talked with DOE folks 


and the Hanford point of contact. We had John 


Mauro and some of his folks on the line. In 


that conversation we agreed to provide SC&A a 


list of our search indices and key words so 


that they could avail themselves of that. We 


also I believe have set up a -- a visit -- some 


of the staff here at OCAS are going to go out 


to Hanford and visit the archives folks there 


and look at some of the boxes that have been 

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 

187 

retrieved and we -- we -- I believe we've 


included in that invitation SC&A to -- to 


participate in the -- any review that goes on 


in that day. So we're -- we're in constant 


communication with DOE about this and trying to 


prioritize the work for them so that -- that 


both the NIOSH effort and the SC&A review 


effort move forward as -- as quickly as 


possible. But the -- the constraints are due 


to continuing resolution and resource 


constraints associated with that, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. Okay, I -- is 


there any other issue or issues that we need to 


address at this time? 


 (No responses) 


Apparently not. If not, then we are ready to 


adjourn. 


 MS. MUNN: We're not going to do any extension 


of our existing calendar. Right? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we were planning to 


today. 


 DR. WADE: No, we're extended out pretty far. 


I mean I -- I'll have -- 


 DR. BRANCHE: February, 2009. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, we're through February 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 

188 

2009. I'll have Zaida send out the list if -- 


if everyone needs to see it again, but I think 


we're -- we're well scheduled out. 


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


MS. BEACH: Lew, this -- this is Josie. Could 


you have Zaida send that out, 'cause I know we 


made some chan-- final changes at the last 


meeting. I want to make sure I have them 


correctly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Have the right dates. 


DR. ROESSLER: I'd like it, too, so maybe she 


should send it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Just resend it to everybody, make 


sure we have the right dates. 


 DR. WADE: Zaida, are you on the line? 


 MS. BURGOS: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, would you take that as an 


action and to -- to resend out the future Board 


meeting dates out through 2009 to everyone? 


 MS. BURGOS: I will. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MS. BURGOS: You're welcome. 


 MS. MUNN: And as long as we're sending things 


out, I still have not received those -- all of 


those press releases from the Denver paper, 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 

189 

there's -- if there's someone who can send 


those to me, especially if there-- I understand 


there's a new one now, even newer than the 


24th, and I -- I haven't seen the 24th and 


certainly haven't seen the brand new one. 


DR. ROESSLER: Are you speaking of the Rocky 


Mountain News? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: I -- I just went on the web site 


and I found both the one from yesterday and the 


24th. 


 MS. MUNN: All right, if you want us to do that 


individually, I can do that. 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: I -- I had just assumed that since 


most of us don't check papers -- newspapers 


near the sites that perhaps someone had them 


already electronically and could forward them, 


but I'll -- I'll do that. Not to worry. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other issues? 


DR. ROESSLER: That was the Rocky Mountain News
 

web site. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it was. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

190

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. If not, then we'll declare 


the meeting adjourned. Thank you, everybody. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all very much. 


 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Goodbye. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

191 

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 Nov. 27, 


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 


21st day of December, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102