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 the
 

ADVISORY BOARD ON
 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH
 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held
 

via Teleconference on Tuesday, February 5, 2002.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES 

Certified Verbatim Reporters
 

P. O. Box 451196
 

Atlanta, Georgia 31145-9196
 

(404) 315-8305
 
2 

 

 

C O N T E N T S
 

PARTICIPANTS (by group, in alphabetical order) ..... 3
 

ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTIONS
 

Dr. Ziemer/Ms. Homer ................. 5
 

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 42 CFR 81
 

Dr. Ziemer/Mr. Elliott ................ 12
 

PUBLIC COMMENT
 

Letter from Government Accountability Project .... 18
 

Mr. Barnes ...................... 20
 

Mr. Miller ...................... 20
 

Mr. Crase ...................... 25
 

ADVISORY BOARD DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
 

Motion/Vote ................... 27/42


Motion/Withdrawal ................ 29/31


Motion/Vote ................. 36, 40/41


Motion/Vote ................... 44/49


Motion/Vote ................... 45/45
 

CLOSING REMARKS ..................... 50
 

ADJOURN ........................ 52
 

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER ................. 53
 

Legend of the Transcript:
 

(phonetic) = Exact spelling unknown


— = Break in speech continuity


(sic) = Exactly as spoken
 
3 

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order)
 

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Ph.D.


Professor Emeritus
 

School of Health Sciences
 

Purdue University


Lafayette, Indiana
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

LARRY J. ELLIOTT
 

Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health


Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
 

Cincinnati, Ohio
 

MEMBERSHIP
 

HENRY A. ANDERSON, M.D.


Chief Medical Officer
 

Occupational and Environmental Health


Wisconsin Division of Public Health
 

Madison, Wisconsin
 

ANTONIO ANDRADE, Ph.D.


Group Leader, Radiation Protection Services Group


Los Alamos National Laboratory


Los Alamos, New Mexico
 

ROY LYNCH DeHART, M.D., M.P.H.


Director
 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental


Medicine
 

Professor of Medicine
 

Nashville, Tennessee
 

RICHARD LEE ESPINOSA
 

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49
 

Johnson Controls
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory


Espanola, New Mexico
 
4 

SALLY L. GADOLA, M.S., R.N., COHN-S


Occupational Health Nurse Specialist


Oak Ridge Associated Universities


Occupational Health


Oak Ridge, Tennessee
 

JAMES MALCOM MELIUS, M.D., Ph.D.


Director
 

New York State Laborors’ Health and Safety Trust Fund


Albany, New York
 

WANDA I. MUNN
 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired)


Richland, Washington
 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY
 

Special Projects Engineer


BWXT Y-12 National Security Complex


Clinton, Tennessee
 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Ph.D.


Professor Emeritus
 

University of Florida


Elysian, Minnesota
 

NIOSH STAFF/VENDORS
 

MARY ARMSTRONG
 

CORRINE HOMER
 

LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS
 

TED KATZ
 

ALICE KELLEY
 

KIM NEWSOM, Certified Court Reporter
 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

JAMES BARNES
 

KAREN BROWN
 

KAREN BUTLER
 

KEN CRASE
 

MARK GRIFFON
 

JEFFREY L. KOTSCH
 

RICHARD MILLER
 

JERRY TUDOR
 
1 

2

3 

4

5

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20

21 

22

23

24 

25 

5 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

1:00 p.m.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Maybe we should go ahead and
 

take an initial roll call here, Cori, do you
 

think?
 

MS. HOMER: Is Kim, the court recorder, on?
 

MS. NEWSOM: Yes, Cori. I’m here.
 

MS. HOMER: Thank you, Kim.
 

We can go ahead and start. Let me go ahead.
 

I’ll find a roster and take roll.
 

You’re here.
 

DR. Anderson?
 

[No response]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Henry’s not on yet, then, okay.
 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Andrade is here.
 

DR. ANDRADE: Right, I’m here.
 

MS. HOMER: Dr. DeHart?
 

DR. DeHART: Yes.
 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Mr. Espinosa?
 

[No response]
 

DR. ZIEMER: I thought I heard Rich come on.
 

No?
 

[No response]
 

MS. HOMER: Sally, we know you’re here.
 

MS. GADOLA: Yes.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

2 

3 

4

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11

12 

13

14 

15 

16

17 

18 

19 

20 

21

22 

23

24 

25

6 

MS. HOMER: Dr. Melius?
 

DR. MELIUS: I’m here.
 

MS. HOMER: Okay.
 

MS. Munn?
 

MS. MUNN: Yes, here.
 

MS. HOMER: Presley, I know you’re here.
 

MR. PRESLEY: I’m here.
 

MS. HOMER: And Dr. Roessler?
 

DR. ROESSLER: I’m here.
 

MS. HOMER: Okay. Well, we don’t yet have
 

Dr. Anderson or Mr. Espinosa.
 

DR. ZIEMER: We can wait just a moment.
 

Let’s see, we have the court reporter on?
 

MS. NEWSOM: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Larry Elliott’s here. Cori is
 

on.
 

MS. KELLEY: Alice Kelley.
 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I’m sorry?
 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus. I’m
 

one of the attorneys with NIOSH.
 

MS. ARMSTRONG: And Mary Armstrong. I’m an
 

attorney with NIOSH, too.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Mary, right.
 

Before we officially start, let’s – this is
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

2

3 

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 

11 

12

13 

14

15 

16

17

18

19 

20 

21

22 

23

24 

25

7 

Paul Ziemer, and I’m going to ask each one if you
 

do have comments and so on as we proceed, please
 

identify yourself each time you talk. We don’t
 

all recognize each other’s voices yet, I’m sure.
 

So that will be helpful.
 

I think it would be helpful while we’re
 

doing the roll call and we still are waiting for
 

Dr. Anderson and – let’s see, who else was
 

missing?
 

MS. HOMER: Mr. Espinosa.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Espinosa. While we’re waiting
 

for those two to join us, let us find out if we
 

have additional visitors to the call.
 

Are there any members of the public on the
 

line? And if there are would you please identify
 

yourself by name for the record, and if you
 

represent a particular organization please
 

identify that.
 

MR. BARNES: My name is James Barnes, B-A-RN-E-S. I’m the Radiation Safety Officer for the
 

Rocketdyne Division of Boeing.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, James.
 

Anyone else?
 

MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon. I’m a
 

health physicist consultant for PACE
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

International Union.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mark.
 

Others?
 

MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch is here,
 

K-O-T-S-C-H, health physicist with the Department
 

of Labor.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Jeff.
 

Any others?
 

MR. TUDOR: Jerry Tudor, sick worker at Oak
 

Ridge.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Could you give us that again?
 

I could barely hear that one.
 

MR. TUDOR: Jerry Tudor, T-U-D-O-R.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jerry Tudor, okay.
 

MR. TUDOR: Sick worker at Oak Ridge.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Oak Ridge, okay. Thank you,
 

Jerry.
 

Any others?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so it appears we have
 

four members of the public on the line. If
 

others come aboard –
 

Who just joined us?
 

MS. BROWN: This is Karen Brown from
 

Savannah River Site. I’ve got Ken Crase here
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

with me.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Ken.
 

MS. BROWN: And Karen Butler.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Ken Crase and Karen Butler from
 

the Savannah River Site.
 

MS. BROWN: Westinghouse Savannah River
 

Company.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Ken, welcome,
 

and Karen.
 

Now we’re still – I think we’re still
 

waiting for Henry Anderson and Richard Espinosa
 

to join the call. Either of those come aboard
 

yet?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: And let me ask Cori or one of
 

the staff, is anyone there, can you independently
 

check their numbers and see if there’s any
 

problems?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is Larry
 

Elliott. I’ll have Nichole call both and see if
 

there’s a problem.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. While that’s underway,
 

we do have a quorum so we can proceed. But we
 

also, as part of our operating procedures, have
 

expressed the intent to try to have all members
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

of the Board present during votes, so we’re not
 

at a position where we’re voting on anything at
 

the moment. I would like to – but we will later
 

in the call.
 

I would like to review for everyone the
 

purpose of this meeting. This meeting is
 

intended to allow discussion and a vote on some
 

draft comments that a working group developed
 

during our January meeting in Washington. These
 

are specific comments relating to the proposed
 

rulemaking of NIOSH as set forth in 42 CFR 81.
 

The comments – that is, the proposed
 

recommendations that we will be voting on – we
 

will read those in full so that the members of
 

the public will also have the text of those
 

available, and an opportunity to hear and ask any
 

questions that they may wish to have. But that’s
 

the main focus of this meeting, is simply for the
 

committee to vote, to discuss and vote on the
 

committee’s recommendations.
 

I think somebody just came aboard.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Yes, Henry Anderson.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Henry, this
 

is Ziemer speaking. We just had taken the roll
 

call. We learned you were missing. Welcome
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

aboard.
 

And someone else just joined us?
 

MS. HOMER: I believe so.
 

MR. KATZ: Sorry, yes. This is Ted Katz.
 

MS. HOMER: Oh, hi, Ted.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Ted Katz has joined.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And Nichole – Larry Elliott
 

here – Nichole says that Rich Espinosa is now
 

trying to get on.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: And while he’s trying to get
 

on, Dr. Ziemer, I would mention for everyone on
 

the call, and the public included, that the draft
 

letter and recommendations are located on our web
 

site if they choose to use that as a venue to
 

read through as they are read into the record
 

during the call.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: The web site is
 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas, and go to the Board
 

aspect page of that web site.
 

I think somebody joined us while I was
 

speaking.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: I just did. This is Richard
 

Espinosa.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Rich, thanks. Rich and
 

Henry, we took the roll call. All members of the
 

Board are present. We have a number of – and
 

there are several of the NIOSH staff members as
 

well.
 

Someone else just joined?
 

MR. MILLER: Yeah, Richard Miller here.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Richard Miller, thank you.
 

Richard, we’ve asked everyone to indicate who
 

they’re representing, Rich, and if you would do
 

that officially for the record.
 

MR. MILLER: Sure. Government
 

Accountability Project.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.
 

So for the benefit of Rich and Henry, Henry
 

Anderson and Rich Espinosa, who just joined us, I
 

just reviewed for those present that the purpose
 

of this call was to discuss and vote on the
 

proposed recommendations of the Board relating to
 

42 CFR 81.
 

Now I think it would be appropriate at this
 

time, it was just mentioned that the draft that
 

we’ll be looking at is also on the web site if
 

members of the public wish to pull that up, and
 

the web site address was just given.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

We are going to read into the record this
 

document, and let me first tell you that there’s
 

two parts, really three parts to the document.
 

The first is a letter which comes over my
 

signature to Secretary Thompson, and this letter
 

describes the initial meeting of the Board and
 

the items discussed. It includes the general
 

what we were calling the recommendations dealing
 

with the composition of the committee.
 

Then there is an attachment which contains
 

specific recommendations on 42 CFR 81 – that is
 

the specific comments, of which there are three.
 

And then as a matter of information we were
 

including as attachment two for the Secretary the
 

agenda from the January meeting, which requires
 

no action. It’s just a piece of information.
 

So with that as background, I’m going to ask
 

Mr. Elliott if he would read the draft letter and
 

then the attachment one. I assume that no one
 

wishes us to read attachment two, which is simply
 

the agenda of the last meeting.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I will
 

read the letter and the attachment one.
 

Dear Secretary Thompson:
 

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

Health held its first meeting on January 22 and
 

23, 2002, in Washington, D.C. All of the
 

currently appointed members were present as well
 

as the designated Federal Official who serves as
 

the Executive Secretary. The sessions were open
 

to the public in accordance with FACA
 

requirements and were attended by a variety of
 

individuals representing themselves or interest
 

groups. A copy of the meeting Agenda is enclosed
 

for your information.
 

In preparation for the meeting, the Board
 

members individually reviewed proposed NIOSH
 

rulemaking for 42 CFR 81 (Guidelines for
 

Determining the Probability of Causation Under
 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
 

Compensation Program Act of 2000) and 42 CFR 82
 

(Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under
 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
 

Compensation Program Act of 2000). The members
 

also reviewed written comments by subject matter
 

experts and by members of the public for these
 

two rules. At the Board sessions, formal
 

presentations were made by NIOSH staff members on
 

these and related issues. Also, comments were
 

provided by some members of the public who were
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

in attendance.
 

Under the provisions of the President’s
 

Executive Order of December 7, 2000, the Advisory
 

Board has very specific responsibilities on
 

advising the Secretary of Health and Human
 

Services. In accordance with those
 

responsibilities, I am pleased to provide the
 

Advisory Board’s recommendations concerning the
 

proposed Guidelines for Determining Probability
 

of Causation as set forth in 42 CFR Part 81.
 

These recommendations are summarized in
 

Attachment 1.
 

In addition to dealing with the specific
 

items mandated by the Executive Order, the
 

Advisory Board wishes to comment on its current
 

composition and makeup. We note that since the
 

Public Law under which the Advisory Board was
 

established provides for up to 20 members, and
 

since the current number of members appointed is
 

10, there may be additional future appointments
 

made to the Board. As a means of providing
 

improved balance among the various sectors
 

represented by the Board membership, the Board
 

suggests that additional representation from the
 

nuclear production workers sector would be a
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

clear advantage and benefit to the Board in
 

carrying out its mandate.
 

Please let me know if additional information
 

or clarification is needed concerning the
 

recommendations contained herein.
 

Sincerely, Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., CHP,
 

Chairman.
 

Attachment 1: Recommendations and Comments
 

from the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health.
 

The following comprise recommendations and
 

comments from the Board in the context of
 

responses to the three major questions found in
 

Section I of the Preamble to the proposed rule,
 

42 CFR Part 81:
 

1. The Board agrees that the NIOSH
 

guidelines and procedures for probability of
 

causation determinations have been developed
 

using the best and most current scientific
 

information relating radiation exposures to
 

cancer risks. The use of current recommendations
 

from independent expert bodies lends strength to
 

the approach proposed by NIOSH. The NIOSH
 

approach also implements the spirit of concern
 

for nuclear workers that was inherent in the
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

legislation underlying this compensation program.
 

In this context, the NIOSH guidelines and
 

procedures provide an appropriate application of
 

sound science to the compensation process.
 

2. The Board also agrees that the proposed
 

NIOSH procedures appropriately allow for the
 

incorporation of new scientific information into
 

the compensation procedures as this new
 

information becomes available. However, given
 

the limited time that the Board has had to review
 

the details of the probability of causation
 

procedures and the potential impact of changes in
 

the NIOSH IREP on compensation decisions, the
 

Board recommends that the regulations be amended
 

to formalize the role of the Board in reviewing
 

any substantial changes in these procedures –
 

that is, the NIOSH IREP. This change should
 

include publication of planned changes in the
 

Federal Register, an appropriate opportunity for
 

public comment, and then reviewed by this Board
 

before finalization. Although these actions are
 

included in the Preamble Background, Section III,
 

Subsection I, Paragraph 3 of 42 CFR Part 81,
 

making them part of the rule itself would
 

formalize the updating process, significantly
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

strengthening assurance that review of revisions
 

will occur.
 

3. The Board has also noted the differences
 

between the approach being used in this
 

compensation program and that of the Atomic
 

Veterans Act. There are significant differences
 

in the categories of compensation covered by the
 

two acts. In some cases, the Atomic Veterans Act
 

required primarily that the claimants were
 

present in a specific area, had one of the
 

specified cancers, and were therefore
 

compensated. This proposed rule is an effort to
 

address much more complicated situations and to
 

face the reality that simple exposure to
 

radiation does not automatically presume the
 

development of disease. The Board recognizes the
 

excellent efforts of NIOSH staff and their
 

subject matter experts in bringing the best known
 

current science to an appropriate method for
 

translating experience gained in the veterans
 

exposure calculations to this civilian nuclear
 

worker proposal.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Larry.
 

That completes the reading of the main
 

letter and the attachment containing the three
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

recommendations.
 

And I’m going to allow a period of public
 

comment here. Before I do that, I want to note
 

for the record that I have received, and I
 

believe perhaps other members of the committee
 

have received, the fax transmission from the
 

Government Accountability Project. And I will
 

ask that copies of these documents be made part
 

of our official record. I’m not proposing that
 

we read them here, but I want to identify them.
 

The first is a letter directed to me by
 

Richard Miller dated January 29th, 2002, and that
 

letter will become part of the record. And then
 

as attachments to that letter there was a news
 

release dated January 25th, 2002. The news
 

release was from the Department of Veterans
 

Affairs. It’s entitled “VA Compensates More
 

Veterans Exposed to Radiation.” And that news
 

release then will become part of our record.
 

And then finally, as a another attachment,
 

there was a copy of a statement of Senator Paul
 

Wellstone dated May 15th, 2000. This is a
 

statement from a hearing on “The Compensation
 

Plan for Department of Energy workers,” and
 

Senator Wellstone’s statements of that date then
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

will also be included.
 

So just for the record, I want to make sure
 

– I want to ask the other members of the Board,
 

did everyone receive copies of that as well, of
 

those documents? Or let me just ask you, is
 

there anyone on the Board that did not?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not. Okay.
 

Now let me call for those members of the
 

public who are on the phone at this time, are
 

there any of you who wish to make comments or
 

statements at this time?
 

MR. BARNES: This is James Barnes with
 

Rocketdyne.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, James.
 

MR. BARNES: Would you please repeat that
 

web site address again?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I will. This is Larry
 

Elliott. I will.
 

It’s www.cdc.gov/niosh, and once you’re on
 

that page you can go to the left-hand side,
 

you’ll see OCAS. In OCAS, then go to the left-


hand toolbar and click on the Advisory Board, and
 

you’ll see the subject of today’s discussion.
 

MR. BARNES: Thank you.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.
 

Anyone else?
 

MR. MILLER: This is Richard Miller
 

speaking.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Richard.
 

MR. MILLER: I just wanted to be clear here
 

that the cover letter which you read a moment
 

ago, I think may have done a good job of, shall
 

we say, finessing the notion of additional
 

representation from the nuclear worker production
 

sector. So I’m heartened, I guess, because I
 

never expected the Board to take action on
 

anything I would say, or others might say,
 

brought up that was sort of off the agenda in the
 

way in which it was at your last meeting. So I
 

wanted to commend you all for taking that up.
 

Secondly, I also just wanted to get one
 

small point of clarification without hopefully
 

starting a firestorm here, and that is there’s
 

one sentence in your recommendation which – and I
 

don’t have it in front of me – but in sum says
 

that simple exposure to radiation doesn’t
 

necessarily lead to disease. It’s sort of
 

innocuous enough in and of itself. I just wanted
 

to just get some sense of clarity that the
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

intention of the Board wasn’t to weigh into the
 

whole question of the linear no-threshold debate
 

with that particular observation. Is that
 

correct?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I don’t think we were – this is
 

Ziemer. Let me just reply, Richard, to your
 

question, and then others on the Board who were
 

involved in the drafting can also comment.
 

We certainly did not have discussions on the
 

linear no-threshold issue, because in part that
 

is already, if I can put it this way, becomes a
 

non-issue the way that the regulation was
 

written. And also, it was not part of our
 

comment on the veterans – I don’t think anyone
 

was trying to evaluate any merits of how the
 

veterans thing was written. We’re simply
 

pointing out that the issue that we’re dealing
 

with now, which includes the dose reconstruction
 

probability of causation, is a step that is more
 

complex. It simply does not assume compensation
 

based on the fact that a person was at a
 

location. There has to be a dose reconstruction.
 

That was, I think, was the point being made, in
 

that sense was different.
 

Let me ask if other members of the Board
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

wish to comment, any of the drafters of that
 

statement.
 

DR. ANDRADE: This is Tony Andrade from Los
 

Alamos.
 

I’d also like to add that the methodologies
 

that have been adopted by NIOSH include ICRP 60
 

through 67, okay. Now those documents include
 

several discussions about where basic data
 

involving risk come from, okay. And in those
 

documents there is inherent, or there has already
 

been, an analysis done on where the linear no-


threshold theory is indeed used for conservatism.
 

So I don’t think it was, number one,
 

mandated that this body debate the LNT theory.
 

That’s, again, number one. We would get nowhere.
 

But number two, the conservatism of LNT is used
 

in determining some of the risks associated
 

especially with solid tumors. And so inherent in
 

the methods used by NIOSH, you already have that
 

conservatism.
 

Maybe Genevieve can weigh in here.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I guess the only comment, I
 

agree with Tony on that. And Paul, in particular
 

I don’t think that we’re referring at all to the
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

linear no-threshold model. I don’t think that’s
 

pertinent for us to discuss because that’s a part
 

of the assumption.
 

MR. MILLER: Right. I think Genevieve -­

DR. ZIEMER: Does that answer the question
 

that you had asked?
 

MR. MILLER: I think it does.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I think it was a matter of
 

clarification.
 

MR. MILLER: Yeah, I just didn’t understand
 

why the sentence was in there, because I wasn’t
 

around for your second day of deliberations. And
 

I apologize, but it was unclear what value added
 

that sentence made if it wasn’t opening that
 

discussion. What is the purpose of that
 

sentence, I guess that’s all I was inquiring
 

about. I didn’t quite understand what it – it
 

didn’t seem to quite fit in with the flow of
 

everything else that was going on in that
 

recommendation.
 

DR. ANDRADE: This is Tony Andrade. And I
 

think I would underscore what Paul answered in
 

the beginning, and that is that simply means
 

exposed to radiation, like we all are as we sit
 

here and talk, does not necessarily – it’s just
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

recognizing the fact that that does not
 

necessarily cause disease. In fact, what we’re
 

doing is we’re taking, we starting at a point in
 

which a disease has been recognized and trying to
 

find causation that could very well have been
 

from radiation, and as a matter of fact giving
 

the greatest benefit of the doubt to that
 

particular probability. So I think it’s
 

necessary for that phrase to be there.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I suspect maybe part of
 

Richard’s question is that perhaps you have
 

extended the previous thought and interpret that
 

as a comment on the veterans’ model, and it’s not
 

necessarily that at all. It’s just – it’s
 

another statement.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Exactly.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So it’s not an assessment of
 

the veterans’ model.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: No.
 

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

hand in writing some of this.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim.
 

DR. MELIUS: I concur with, and I think
 

again we’re commenting on this legislation and
 

the application to the regulations that NIOSH has
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

developed. And secondly, really recognize that
 

this deals with a much more complicated
 

situation. So I think the wording on that is
 

relatively clear in terms of what we’re talking
 

about, and it’s couched in a way that we’re not
 

getting into this other scientific soundness
 

issue.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are there other comments from
 

members of the general public?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Jerry, Mark, Jeff, Ken, Karen,
 

Ted? Any of you have other comments?
 

MR. CRASE: Paul, this is Ken Crase.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Ken? Speak up please, Ken.
 

MR. CRASE: Ken Crase, Savannah River Site.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Ken.
 

MR. CRASE: Has the Board dealt with the
 

issue of the probability of causation tables and
 

the scientific merit associated with using
 

(inaudible) data to (inaudible)?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Ken, let me answer that in
 

part.
 

If you look at the public law itself and the
 

mandate of the Board, what you find basically is
 

that there is a legal requirement that that be
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

the approach used. And so the Board’s – the main
 

question for the Board comes down to are we using
 

the best and latest methods for that approach.
 

The law itself, in a sense, requires that that’s
 

the approach that we use.
 

MR. CRASE: So your answer, I think, Paul,
 

is that it’s outside the scope of the –
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, that’s correct.
 

Anyone else on the Board want to comment on
 

that issue?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Again, let me ask if
 

there are any further public comments?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: If not, I would like to ask –
 

to formalize this, ask one of the Board members,
 

would be in order to move the adoption of the
 

letter and the attachment.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Paul, this is Andy. I have
 

just one issue to raise, if I may.
 

DR. ZIEMER: This is who?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Dr. Anderson.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, Andy. Is this before
 

we have the motion on the table?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Before, I have a suggested
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

minor change.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, let’s get the
 

document on the table, and then we’ll make
 

changes.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable?
 

DR. ANDERSON: Sure.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So would someone wish to
 

move the adoption of the letter and the
 

attachment?
 

DR. DeHART: This is Roy DeHart. I move
 

their adoption.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second?
 

MS. MUNN: Second, Wanda Munn.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda.
 

Now we’ll ask for any modifications or
 

changes. Let’s take the letter itself first.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: This is Richard Espinosa.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Richard.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: On our letter, the law
 

requires equal representation. I would like to
 

see an amendment made to put not just a second
 

from the production workers, but to add another
 

one as well.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, before I recognize that
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

as a formal motion, let me make a preliminary
 

comment, and then I’ll entertain that as a
 

motion.
 

When we met in Washington, there was
 

basically a formal recommendation that we do what
 

we said here in this letter. In the meantime, I
 

have reviewed the Executive Memorandum and the
 

mandate to the Board, and it would be pretty easy
 

to say that the Board even commenting on its own
 

makeup is outside its own scope. And perhaps,
 

Richard Miller, may be why you were a little
 

surprised.
 

But we did determine at the meeting that it
 

would be useful to at least raise the issue. And
 

so I took what the Board had recommended at the
 

meeting, which was that there be an additional
 

member added, and couch that in terms of a
 

suggestion since, if you look at the Executive
 

Memorandum, we have no authority to make
 

recommendations outside the scope of the three
 

items in the Executive Memorandum. But I thought
 

it was appropriate, and that’s why it’s in the
 

letter.
 

And that’s why we’re using the language in
 

addition to dealing with those specific items we
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

wish to comment, and then as a means of – see how
 

the wording is there, let me get this latest
 

version – but it’s a suggested addition to
 

improve the balance. Now whether that’s one or
 

two or more may not so much be the issue, but I
 

certainly will entertain if you want to make a
 

formal motion to amend, that’s quite in order.
 

So at this point is this being made as a
 

specific motion, then?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yes, I would like to make it
 

as a specific motion.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then would you repeat
 

the words on that, then, Rich?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Well, I would like to amend
 

the motion to add – amend the letter, I guess, to
 

add two more workers to the Board.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, if I
 

might comment.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let’s get a second first, and
 

then we can debate it.
 

Does anyone wish to second that?
 

DR. MELIUS: I’ll second, and I think I’d
 

like to offer what would be called a friendly
 

amendment.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but – okay, let’s take
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

Richard’s comment. Who seconded?
 

DR. MELIUS: Jim Melius; I’m sorry.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. And let’s get
 

Larry Elliott’s comment, and then Jim.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott here. The
 

substance of your comment, the Board’s
 

discussion, has been communicated to the
 

Department, and as you are aware the White House
 

has received correspondence on this as well. So
 

just for your consideration I’d offer that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So there is a sensitivity
 

already to it.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: All right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.
 

And Jim, you had a friendly amendment?
 

DR. MELIUS: I think it would be a friendly
 

amendment, and it may deal with the nature of
 

this suggestion.
 

Other than specifying a particular number,
 

whether it be two, three, four or whatever, or
 

one, that we simply add a – leave it as it is
 

currently written, but at the end of
 

“representative” add a parentheses S, so it would
 

leave it open in terms of how – what number would
 

be involved (inaudible) making a general
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

recommendation that that might be (inaudible) of
 

the appointing authority here would then
 

essentially be given some leeway in terms of
 

numbers or choices of how they want to continue
 

to add people to the Board.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: That’s a good point. This is
 

Richard Espinosa again.
 

Due to Jim Melius’ comments I’d like to
 

withdraw my motion and concur with Jim.
 

DR. ZIEMER: How would you be wording that?
 

I don’t know, Jim, if you’re making that as a
 

motion or almost a friendly amendment to what we
 

have already on the table.
 

DR. MELIUS: Either way, I didn’t
 

(inaudible). But it would be that the Board
 

recommends that a representative, and then after
 

“representative” parentheses S, meaning it could
 

be more than one.
 

DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. Can I comment,
 

Paul?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Um-hum (affirmative).
 

DR. ROESSLER: In reading as they’re talking
 

here, I have to admit that my perception when I
 

read that was that we were recommending one. But
 

as I re-read that paragraph I think it’s
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

completely open. We talk about there may be
 

additional future appointments; that’s plural.
 

And then in the next sentence it says the Board
 

suggests that additional representation, and that
 

is – to me that reads –
 

DR. ZIEMER: That’s open-ended.
 

DR. ROESSLER: Open-ended.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And actually – I’ll mention
 

this for everyone’s benefit – actually I had
 

massaged the original words of the original draft
 

that the Board had a little bit to make that a
 

little more open-ended. So we’re not saying one.
 

DR. MELIUS: Yeah. And actually before it
 

came up, before Richard made the proposed
 

amendment, I was thinking of it as just sort of
 

an additional grammatical clarification based on
 

the way that paragraph was written.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. The latest draft says
 

additional representation from nuclear production
 

workers sector. Is that sufficiently open-ended
 

to meet the intent of – well, let me ask Richard
 

Espinosa first.
 

Does that meet the intent that you had?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Let’s see, I’m trying to find
 

it in my paperwork.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: Because there have been a
 

couple of versions. The draft has – there’s been
 

a few iterations, and some updating on that
 

wording.
 

Is that, the draft that you read to us,
 

Larry, what does the sentence say? I think it’s
 

like the last sentence in that paragraph.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: It reads – this is Larry
 

Elliott – it reads:
 

As a means of providing improved balance
 

among the various sectors represented by the
 

Board membership, the Board suggests that
 

additional representation from the nuclear
 

production workers sector would be a clear
 

advantage and benefit to the Board in carrying
 

out its mandate.
 

DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I
 

(inaudible), but that latest round, that latest
 

draft literally just appeared on my e-mail during
 

this meeting.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I think that meets the
 

intent of what you were suggesting, Jim, does it
 

not?
 

DR. MELIUS: I agree with that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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. MELIUS: And I think it actually
 

addresses some of Richard’s comments earlier,
 

too.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, actually it does.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay.
 

Are there any other comments on the letter
 

itself?
 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, please.
 

MS. MUNN: I have a comment on that same
 

sentence, and I had not seen this most recent
 

wording of that particular paragraph.
 

MS. NEWSOM: Wanda, can you speak up,
 

please?
 

MS. MUNN: Yes, I certainly can. Maybe I
 

can get my mike a little closer to my mouth. Is
 

this better?
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good.
 

MS. MUNN: I guess, as you all know, from
 

the outset I considered this a very sensitive
 

issue and one that bordered on what our charter
 

recommendation is. And further, I have real
 

concern with the intent, but you all know that
 

already.
 

I had intended to propose that we reword
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

that sentence slightly to convey what I thought
 

was the intent when it was passed, so that it
 

would read – the first part of it would read as a
 

means of diminishing any perceived imbalance
 

amongst the various sectors represented by the
 

Board membership, et cetera. I am not convinced
 

that there is an imbalance because I don’t know
 

the Presidential intent in having chosen this
 

group. I know what the law says, and I know you
 

can only be so balanced with so many groups and
 

geographies. The geography is almost impossible.
 

It seems to me that if there is an imbalance
 

– and I feel, my personal opinion is that it’s
 

not – but if there is perceived imbalance and
 

that’s the desire of the Board to point that out,
 

then in my view that’s what we should say, rather
 

than saying that it’s not balanced.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Are you then proposing an
 

amended version, or would you like to propose an
 

amended sentence?
 

MS. MUNN: I would propose an amended
 

sentence which reads – and you will have to help
 

me with (inaudible), because I don’t have the
 

newest version.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

MS. MUNN: But only the first part of that
 

would be my recommendation, and I would move that
 

we would restructure the sentence to read as a
 

means of diminishing any perceived imbalance
 

amongst the various sectors represented by the
 

Board membership, the Board recommends that
 

additional representation, and then whatever your
 

latest version says.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you’ve heard the motion.
 

Is there a second?
 

MR. PRESLEY: I’ll second it. This is Bob
 

Presley.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Bob has seconded.
 

Now we’ll have discussion on the proposed
 

amendment to that sentence. The proposed
 

amendment, as I understand it, would read as a
 

means of diminishing any perceived imbalance
 

amongst the various sectors, and then the rest of
 

the sentence would read the same.
 

Is there discussion, pro or con?
 

DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I like our
 

letter because – I like your letter because
 

you’re very objective sounding. And I guess in
 

this particular case I’d prefer the wording that
 

we already have. This adds a little tone of
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

being not – maybe it would come across as not as
 

objective. It’s just my perception.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So you speak against the
 

amendment.
 

DR. ROESSLER: I speak for keeping the
 

letter as is.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Others, pro or con?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: This is Richard Espinosa.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Richard, yes.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: I agree with Gen.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So you speak against the
 

amendment.
 

Others, pro, con?
 

DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I was sort
 

of struggling trying to find some other wording,
 

and this is just sort of wordsmithing. And I
 

understand the wording that’s been offered, but I
 

really think it – I really just don’t think it
 

fits in with the way the letter’s been written so
 

far. I’m also struggling to come up with any
 

other way of rewording it to capture that other
 

thought that Wanda –
 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again. I guess in
 

response to a couple of the comments that have
 

been made, it seems to me that saying “provided
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

improved balance” is no more objective than
 

saying “diminishing any perceived imbalance.” If
 

we leave the wording as it is in the original
 

letter, then we are essentially saying that we do
 

not believe that the Board is balanced. And if
 

that’s the intent, then of course that wording
 

should stand.
 

DR. ZIEMER: This is Ziemer again.
 

One way in which it might be possible to
 

cover both concepts by saying – and I’m not
 

proposing this, but it’s food for thought here
 

for the moment – as a means of diminishing any
 

perceived or actual imbalance, which implies we
 

don’t necessarily know if there is one or the
 

other or both.
 

MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I would certainly
 

accept that as a compromise.
 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob. I have no
 

problem with that.
 

DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. Now that Wanda
 

mentions it, I think she’s right. The comment
 

that we have, as a means of providing improved
 

balance, does imply that we think there is
 

imbalance. So maybe something more objective,
 

yes, would be better.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

MS. GADOLA: This is Sally. I agree with
 

what you’ve just added. I think that it’s also
 

impossible to say exactly how everyone feels and
 

to really understand everyone’s entire
 

background. So the wording that you just
 

proposed really covers the whole picture.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, if you would want to
 

consider that as a friendly amendment, the Chair
 

doesn’t usually make amendments, but you might
 

want to modify your wording if your seconder
 

would accept it.
 

MS. MUNN: I would certainly propose that
 

that wording be accepted and incorporated into my
 

amendment.
 

MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I’ll
 

agree.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The seconder has
 

accepted. So the proposed amendment now would be
 

as a means of diminishing any perceived or actual
 

imbalance amongst the various sectors, and so on,
 

and the rest of the sentence would be the same.
 

Is that correct?
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Yeah, this is Richard
 

Espinosa. Can you add that – let me see. Can
 

you read that inside of that paragraph so I can
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

hear it completely?
 

DR. ZIEMER: I will read – this is Ziemer
 

again – as I have it here, and then we may have
 

to double check with our court reporter:
 

As a means of diminishing any perceived or
 

actual imbalance amongst the various sectors
 

represented by the Board membership, the Board
 

suggests that additional representation from the
 

nuclear production workers sector would be a
 

clear advantage and benefit to the Board in
 

carrying out its mandate.
 

MR. ESPINOSA: Okay.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, would that now be your
 

motion?
 

MS. MUNN: That would be my motion. Thank
 

you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask the Board if you’re
 

ready to vote on the amendment.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Can you read it again?
 

DR. ZIEMER: As a means of diminishing any
 

perceived or real – did I say real or actual?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: You said real originally.
 

DR. ZIEMER: – any perceived or real
 

imbalance amongst the various sectors represented
 

by the Board membership, the Board suggests that
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

additional representation from the nuclear
 

production workers sector would be a clear
 

advantage and benefit to the Board in carrying
 

out its mandate.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We will then vote on
 

this amended sentence. Are you ready to vote?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. All in favor of the
 

proposed amended sentence will say aye.
 

[Ayes respond]
 

DR. ZIEMER: All opposed will say no.
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any abstention?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: The ayes have it.
 

Now we’re back to the main motion, which is
 

the letter as amended.
 

DR. ANDRADE: I’d like to propose that we
 

adopt the letter – this is Tony Andrade – as
 

amended.
 

DR. ANDERSON: I’ll second that.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, that’s already – that
 

motion’s already before us, is it not?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: It is.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

DR. ANDERSON: I call the question.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The question’s been
 

called for.
 

And incidentally, just as a matter of
 

information or point of information, tell you
 

that although your document has a heading at the
 

top that says Advisory Board on Radiation and
 

Worker Health, there has actually been a
 

letterhead developed by Cori which is the
 

Advisory Board letterhead. So that letterhead
 

will say Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health across the top. It will have a Health and
 

Human Services logo, I believe, and will list all
 

the Board members.
 

So with that, let me call for the vote on
 

the letter.
 

All who approve say aye.
 

[Ayes respond]
 

DR. ZIEMER: All who oppose, no.
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: The letter is adopted.
 

Now let’s see, let me ask the court
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

reporter, was the original motion to adopt the
 

letter plus the amendment?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: It was.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, the Chair has
 

inadvertently split the motion, and a Chair’s
 

prerogative is to do that. I will not tell the
 

group I have split the original motion into two
 

parts, part one being the letter, part two being
 

the attachment. So I’m going to have interpreted
 

the original motion as being a two-part motion,
 

and we have voted on the first part, which is the
 

approval of the letter.
 

DR. DeHART: Paul, this is Roy.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah.
 

DR. DeHART: Just for a point of order, when
 

there is a call for the question, that is to stop
 

debate and be voted on itself.
 

DR. ZIEMER: That is if there’s a formal
 

call to stop debate. If the Chair recognizes
 

that as a motion to stop debate, then it requires
 

a second and an immediate two-thirds vote to stop
 

debate. I took that as an informal call that
 

everyone was ready to vote. I did not recognize
 

that as a motion to stop debate.
 

DR. DeHART: Thank you.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

2 

3

4

5

6

7 

8

9

10

11

12

13 

14

15

16 

17 

18

19 

20 

21 

22

23 

24 

25

45 

DR. ANDERSON: That’s right.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. No, I recognize that a
 

call for the question if taken as a formal motion
 

has to be voted on in itself.
 

Now we come to attachment one, and this is
 

on the floor as part of the original motion which
 

the Chair has split into two. And the correct
 

version of this – I think an earlier version that
 

we sent out inadvertently had the title Worker
 

Safety; it should say Worker Health,
 

recommendations and comments from the Advisory
 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health.
 

And let’s now ask for any comments. And
 

incidently, if necessary we can subsplit this
 

into three parts, but if we can agree to try to
 

take it as a whole we will.
 

DR. ANDERSON: This is Andy. I have just
 

one small comment.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Andy.
 

DR. ANDERSON: In number one, on the last
 

line it says application of sound science. I
 

have always had a bugaboo about sound science.
 

DR. ZIEMER: As opposed to unsound science.
 

DR. ANDERSON: Right. And so I would
 

suggest taking out “sound” and saying application
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

of the existing science. Not to make a value
 

judgment, but it is – we’re saying it’s an
 

appropriate application of existing science in
 

the compensation process.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Let me just interpret
 

that as a motion to amend.
 

Is there a second?
 

UNIDENTIFIED: Second.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: We can do this one, I think,
 

pretty quickly.
 

Then all in favor of that amendment say aye.
 

[Ayes respond]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: No. Any abstentions?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The document now says
 

application of the existing science. Thank you.
 

DR. DeHART: This is Roy with a suggestion.
 

Instead of having the order one, two, three as we
 

currently have it, which is different from the
 

order of the comment page in the Federal Registry
 

(sic), I would suggest that two and three be
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

reversed.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I think that can –
 

that doesn’t even require action. That’s just a
 

format thing. These numbers should correspond –
 

in fact, the implication is that they correspond
 

to the three major questions. And I think they –
 

the order got out of order because there was some
 

uncertainty as to question two before, as you
 

recall.
 

Without objection, we’ll change the order.
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Number two becomes number
 

three, number three becomes number two, I
 

believe. Is that correct?
 

DR. DeHART: Yes, yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Without objection we’ll do
 

that. Thank you.
 

Other comments or recommendation or
 

modifications?
 

MS. MUNN: Just a couple questions. This is
 

Wanda.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

MS. MUNN: When the attachment was being
 

read – again, I’m working from the older version;
 

I don’t have the latest one that’s just come out.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

But I thought I heard in what is numbered two,
 

the fifth line from the bottom, I thought I heard
 

“review” in that line being read as “reviewed,”
 

and if so I think we’ve used it probably
 

incorrectly. I think “review,” grammatically
 

speaking, is the correct word. It’s two lines up
 

from the (inaudible).
 

DR. ZIEMER: This is the old number two or
 

the new number two?
 

MS. MUNN: The old number two.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Old number two.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Would you like me to read that
 

again as it’s currently presented?
 

This is Larry Elliott, Dr. Ziemer.
 

MS. MUNN: Well – hi, Larry. I’ll read you
 

the sentence.
 

This change should include publication of
 

the planned changes in the Federal Register, an
 

appropriate opportunity for public comment, and
 

then review – and I thought I heard you say
 

reviewed – by this Board before finalization.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: It does read “review,” and
 

perhaps I did misspeak.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Yes, review is the correct
 

word, I think, right.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

MS. MUNN: Very good. And the only other
 

thing I wanted to make sure that I heard in the
 

very last line of that same section, assurance
 

that revision – that review of revisions will
 

occur.
 

DR. ZIEMER: The words “review of” were
 

added to the original draft, because what we’re
 

interested in is that the proposed revisions be
 

reviewed.
 

MS. MUNN: I understand. I just wanted to
 

make sure I heard correctly.
 

DR. ZIEMER: So I think from the earlier
 

version the words “review of” was added. And let
 

me suggest, and I might do this if everyone
 

agrees, I think that same line, review of
 

revisions, the real intent is not that there
 

simply be review of the revisions, but review of
 

the revisions by the Board.
 

MS. MUNN: Yes.
 

DR. ZIEMER: And I would suggest that we add
 

the phrase “by the Board” as a further
 

clarification of that.
 

Would there be any objection to that?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Can we take it by consent that
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

without objection the sentence would now read
 

review of revisions by the Board will occur?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that’s under old item
 

two, which is now item three.
 

Okay. Further comment, changes, additions?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: I’m hearing none. Does that
 

mean that we’re ready to vote on the attachment?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: It appears that we are ready to
 

vote on the attachment. With those two rather
 

minor changes, the change in order, two.
 

Okay, all who support these recommendations
 

say aye.
 

[Ayes respond]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any opposed, say no.
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: It appears we have consensus.
 

Thank you.
 

Then these will be prepared on our new
 

letterhead and sent forward together with the
 

second attachment, which is simply the copy of
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1

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 

the agenda for informational purposes.
 

A reminder that we have the meeting coming
 

up. Let me ask Cori or Larry, do you have any
 

specific information that you want to relate
 

today on the upcoming meeting, which is just a
 

week off?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott here. The
 

meeting next – it will be Wednesday and Thursday
 

next week – 

DR. ZIEMER: Wednesday and Thursday, 13th and 

14th. 

MR. ELLIOTT: – 13th and the 14th in 

Washington, D.C., again at the –
 

MS. HOMER: Washington Court.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Washington Court. We –
 

DR. ZIEMER: Which, folks, incidentally is
 

virtually next door to the hotel we were in last
 

time.
 

MS. HOMER: Right down the block.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Right. Later this week you
 

can all expect to receive your travel from
 

Nichole. And in that Fed Ex package will also be
 

two technical implementation guidelines for your
 

reading in advance of the meeting, one on
 

external dose reconstruction and the other on
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

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 

internal dose reconstruction. And those will fit
 

into the agenda items as you’ll see them on the
 

agenda.
 

The second Fed Ex shipment that you will
 

receive this week will come from Cori, and it
 

will contain your briefing booklets for that
 

meeting. We’re going to have a busy meeting.
 

This is to take up dose reconstruction rule, 42
 

CFR 82, and particularly we’ll spend time on the
 

implementation guidelines for the internal and
 

external dose.
 

Are there any questions about this upcoming
 

meeting?
 

DR. MELIUS: Yes, this is Jim Melius. If I
 

recall correctly, I thought this next meeting was
 

going to be on the special exposure cohort issue.
 

MR. ELLIOTT: No. That will be at a later
 

meeting. We’re not prepared at this time to
 

really –
 

DR. MELIUS: How much later, Larry?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we set the tentative
 

meeting in March, the 25th and the 26th, and we
 

hope that the SEC guidelines will be available
 

for the Board’s review at that time, after
 

they’ve gone through review in the Department.
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
1 

2

3

4

5 

6 

7 

8 

9

10 

11 

12

13 

14 

15

16 

17 

18 

19

20 

21 

22

23

24

53 

DR. MELIUS: Are they going to be presented
 

to us as regulations that have been published in
 

the Federal Register, or what’s the nature of our
 

review?
 

MR. ELLIOTT: Right now you will be
 

reviewing what looks like policy guidelines.
 

DR. MELIUS: Thank you.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any other questions?
 

[No responses]
 

DR. ZIEMER: If not, let me thank everyone
 

for their participation. Members of the public
 

who joined us today, thank you for your input.
 

I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment.
 

MR. PRESLEY: So moved. This is Bob
 

Presley.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Seconded?
 

DR. DeHART: Second, Roy DeHart.
 

DR. ZIEMER: I guess all in favor will just
 

probably hang up.
 

UNIDENTIFIED: See you next week.
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much.
 

[Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at
 

approximately 2:02 p.m.]
 

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES
 
 

 

 

54 

C E R T I F I C A T E
 

STATE OF GEORGIA )


)


COUNTY OF DEKALB )
 

I, KIM S. NEWSOM, being a Certified Court
 

Reporter in and for the State of Georgia, do hereby
 

certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of
 

52 pages, was reduced to typewriting by me personally
 

or under my direct supervision, and is a true,
 

complete, and correct transcript of the aforesaid
 

proceedings reported by me.
 

I further certify that I am not related to,
 

employed by, counsel to, or attorney for any parties,
 

attorneys, or counsel involved herein; nor am I
 

financially interested in this matter.
 

This transcript is not deemed to be certified
 

unless this certificate page is dated and signed by
 

me.
 

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 21st day of
 

February, 2002.
 

KIM S. NEWSOM, CCR-CVR


CCR No. B-1642
 

[SEAL]