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 


THIRTY-EIGHTH MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


VOL. IV 


DAY THREE 


ABRWH BOARD MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Marriott Metro Center, 


Washington, D.C., on June 16, 2006. 

2 

 9 

C O N T E N T S
 

June 16, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


Y-12 SEC 10 


STATUS AND PLANNING FOR UPCOMING SEC PETITIONS: 25 


CHAPMAN VALVE; S-50; LANL; ORINS 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 


SITE PROFILE UPDATES: 53 


SAVANNAH RIVER SITE; HANFORD; NEVADA TEST SITE; 


SECOND YEAR SITE PROFILES 


DR. JAMES NETON, NIOSH 


CONGRESSMAN JOHN HOSTETTLER 89 


SITE PROFILE UPDATES (CONT’D) 96 


FINALIZE SELECTION OF 6TH ROUND OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


CASES, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 106 


SC&A REPORT OF SEC REVIEW PROCEDURES 110 


DR. JOHN MAURO, SC&A 


FINALIZE REPORT ON 2ND AND 3RD SET OF REVIEW OF 


DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CASES, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 133 


FINALIZE REPORT ON PROCEDURES REVIEW 136 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


SC&A CONTRACT TASKS, DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 161 


STATEMENTS FROM CONGRESS, MR. JASON BROEHM, CDC 179 

 

3 

NIOSH UPDATE OF PROGRAM ISSUES: 189 


BETHLEHEM STEEL SITE PROFILE; CONSTRUCTION WORKERS; 


SITE PROFILE REVISION ACTIVITIES; QA/QC; COMMUNICATIONS 


INITIATIVE 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

BOARD WORKING TIME, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 242 

DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD’S USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND 

WORKING GROUPS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

261 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 270 
4 

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. 

 

 

5

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
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 


Director 


The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 


Medicine 


Professor of Medicine 


Nashville, Tennessee 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


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. 


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 


STAFF
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

7 

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, NCRP 


BEARD, ADRIAN G., DOC 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BISTLINE, ROBERT W., SC&A 


BOWE, DAVID, SPFPA LOCAL 66 PORTS 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 


CASEHEFFE, MIKE, CONG. HASTINGS 


CHANG, C C, HHS 


CHANLOW, MICHAEL, WASHINGTON POST 


COHEN, SANFORD, SC&A 


DEHART, JULIA, OHA INC. 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH/OCAS 


FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 


FUORTES, LAURENCE, UNIV OF IOWA 


GRANDE, JAMES, DOL 


HAUGHLY, MINDI, NIOSH 


HEARL, FRANK, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOWARD, JOHN, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


HUGHES, CONSTANCE, LIVERMORE 


ISHAK, LAURIE, NIOSH 


JOSEPH, TIMOTHY, ORAUT 


KENOYER, JUDSON, DADE MOELLER & ASSOCS. 


KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


LAM, LIVIA, SENATOR CANTWELL 


LEWIS, JOHN, OMBUDSMAN 


LEWIS, MARK, ATL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCCOY, EILEEN, OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE 


MCDOUGALL, VERNON, ATL 


MCKEEL, DANIEL, MD, SO. IL NUCLEAR WORKERS 


MICHEL, JANET, CHE 


MILLER, RELADA L., NIOSH 


MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 


MOSIER, ROBERTA, DOL 


NESVET, JEFF, DOL 

8 

PARKER, TREY, OMBUDSMAN 


PLATNER, JAMES, CPWR 


POTTER, HERMAN, USW 


PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY 


RAFKY, MICHAEL, CDC 


RAMSPOTT, JOHN, SO. IL NUCLEAR WORKERS 


SAMPSON, BOB, GAO 


SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC 


SCHAUER, DAVID A., NCRP 


STEPHENS, VICKIE, IAM CREST 


TENFORDE, THOMAS S., NCRP 


TURCIC, PETE, DOL 


WALBURN, JEFF, SPFPA LOCAL 66 PORTS 


WALKER, ED & JOYCE, BSAG 

9 

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
 

(8:30 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Good morning, everyone. We're 


ready to start day three of this meeting of the 


Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 


We have a number of items on the agenda that 


we'll pick up from yesterday, and we'll come to 


those later, but just to call attention to the 


fact that the item called "Status and Planning 


for Upcoming SEC Petitions," that's one that 


we'll pick up. And LaVon Rutherford had to 


leave, so Stu Hinnefeld will give that report. 


We have discussion on the Board's use of 


subcommittees and working groups that we 


started a little bit on Tuesday, and we'll pick 


that up again. I'm sorry, on Wednesday it was. 


We didn't meet Tuesday. 


And then we have the rest of the items that are 


on today's agenda. One carryover item was the 


motion on the Y-12 plant, and we'll be taking 


that up shortly. I understand we have written 


copies of the proposed motion, so -- and 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 

10 

will be distributed shortly and then that will 


be the first thing on the agenda. 


Dr. Wade, do you have any opening remarks as -- 


 DR. WADE: No, only to point out to the Board 


and those interested that if you look at this 


morning's agenda, I built in copious time to -- 


to look at the sixth round selection and the 


reports on the second and third round. We're 


really going to be deferring that, so our 


agenda this morning -- we'll be able to catch 


up, at least, and then maybe even more so in 


terms of the day's activities. So I think we 


should be in good shape today. 


Y-12 SEC
 

We will start, though, with the Y-12 SEC 


petition that we left off, and that requires, 


sadly, us to have three of our members adjourn 


to the front row. If they will be so kind, we 


will conclude our Y-12 business and we'll be 


back whole as a Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we were thinking of going up 


to Starbuck's but I guess we'll go to the front 


row. So Mr. Presley and -- 


 DR. WADE: Dr. DeHart. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- DeHart and Ziemer will -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11

 DR. WADE: The law firm of Presley, DeHart & 


Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- exit and I'll turn the gavel 


over to our distinguished Federal Official. 


 DR. WADE: Right. When last we met, Dr. -- Dr. 


Melius and Mark were going to take the 


intellectual discussion that had ensued and 


turn it into writing and a draft motion, and I 


optimistically assume that's where we are. So 


Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'd like to offer a motion, 


and I believe it's been passed out here and I 


believe there are other copies available. It 


starts (Reading) The Board recommends that the 


following letter be transmitted to the 


Secretary of Health and Human Services within 


21 days. Should the Chair become aware of any 


issue that, in his judgment, would preclude the 


transmittal of this letter within that time 


period, the Board requests that he promptly 


informs the Board of the delay and the reasons 


for this delay, and that he immediately works 


with NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of 


the Board to discuss this issue. 


The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

1 

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 

Health (The Board) has evaluated SEC petition 


00028 concerning workers at the Y-12 plant 


under the statutory requirements established by 


EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 


83.13(c)(1) and 42 CFR 83.13(c)(3). The Board 


respectfully recommends a Special Exposure 


Cohort (SEC) be accorded to all employees of 


the DOE or the DOE contractors or 


subcontractors who were monitored, or should 


have been monitored for: 


(1) thorium exposures while working in 


Building 9201-3, 9202, 9204-1, 9204-3, 9206 or 


9212 at Y-12 for a number of work days 


aggregating at least 250 work days during the 


period from January 1948 through December 1957, 


or in combination with work days within the 


parameters established for one or more other 


classes of employees in the SEC; or 


(2) radionuclide exposures associated with 


Cyclotron operations in Building 9201-2 at Y-12 


for a number of work days aggregating at least 


250 work days during the period from January 


1948 through December 1957, or in combination 


with work days within the parameters 


established for one or more classes 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 

13 

employees in the SEC. 


This recommendation is based on the following 


factors: 


NIOSH found that there are insufficient 


bioassay or air sampling data in the available 


Y-12 databases to allow for the reconstruction 


of internal thorium exposures for employees who 


worked within several buildings where thorium 


operations took place during the time period 


from January 1948 through December 1957. These 


buildings have been identified by NIOSH as 


follows: 9201-3, 9202, 9204-1, 9204-3, 9206 and 


9212. The Board concurs with this finding. 


Finding number two. NIOSH found that there are 


insufficient bioassay or air sampling data in 


the available Y-12 databases to allow for the 


reconstruction of internal exposures to 


Cyclotron workers (employees who worked in 


Building 9201-2). NIOSH presented information 


indicating that the Cyclotron workers may have 


accumulated substantial chronic exposures 


through episodic intakes of a variety of 


radionuclides that were produced during the 


operation period. The Board concurs with this 


finding. 

1 

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

 NIOSH determined that health was endangered for 


the workers at Y-12 exposed to thorium in these 


operations and for workers exposed in the 


Cyclotron operation. The Board concurs with 


this determination. 


The NIOSH and Board review of the available 


data on operations and exposures at the Y-12 


facility during the period January 1948 to 


December 1957 found that the data were 


sufficient to support accurate dose 


reconstructions for a number of important 


exposures. These include, but are not 


necessarily limited to: 


(1) NIOSH demonstrated that sufficient 


bioassay data are available for reconstruction 


of internal doses for workers for potential for 


exposure to uranium or recycled uranium 


contaminants (plutonium-238 (plutonium-239 in 


lesser quantities), neptunium-237 and 


technetium-99) during the time from January 


1948 to December 1957. 


(2) NIOSH demonstrated sufficient data are 


available for reconstruction of internal doses 


for workers involved in plutonium operations 


during the time period from January 1948 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 

15 

December 1957 when plutonium was enriched with 


the Calutrons. 


(3) NIOSH demonstrated that sufficient 


monitoring records are available for individual 


dose reconstructions for external doses for 


workers at the Y-12 facility during the time 


period from January 1948 to December 1957. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 


recent Advisory Board meetings held in December 


-- held in Washington, D.C. and Denver, 


Colorado, as well as several Advisory Board 


workgroup meetings where this Special Exposure 


Cohort was discussed. This documentation 


includes a review report of the NIOSH 


evaluation report prepared by the Board's 


contractor, SC&A; transcripts of public 


comments on the petition, copies of the 


petition and the NIOSH review thereof, and 


related documents distributed by NIOSH and the 


petitioners. If any of these items are 


unavailable at this time, they will follow 


shortly. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have 


a second. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Second. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Okay, second by Dr. Lockey. 


Discussion? 


 DR. MELIUS: May I just start off with one 


point? The section that is sort of new, not -- 


not sort of standardized in this, is the 


section at the top of the second page where we 


had discussed yesterday where we are presenting 


what we sort of can do, not what can't be done. 


And I think it's -- we discussed yesterday, 


this is not a comprehensive list of all the 


possible dose reconstructions, so I think tried 


to make that -- I tried to make that clear in 


sort of the introduction to that. And I think, 


since we're saying it's something that the -- 


these are just areas the Board has focused on. 


There are other items that I think we're sort 


of taking at face value, so to speak, and 


haven't focused on. It's not to say 


something's not on this list that can't be 


done, but these were areas where we have -- 


have actively reviewed and -- and been involved 


in. So that's why that -- just a list of 


three, you know, areas, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: That's appropriate. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and I tried to, you 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 

17 

convey -- convey that, and so I think we need 


to at least think -- think about or pay some 


attention to that -- that sentence. I think 


it's -- I think that approach is okay, but 


again, it is new and untried, so to speak. 


 DR. WADE: It would also be appropriate for the 


NIOSH Director to -- to look at those 


recommendations, and even the aspects that you 


didn't speak to, and possibly add more grain if 


he feels it's appropriate -- to what can be 


done. 


 DR. MELIUS: Explain that. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I mean I think what you're 


saying is that this is what the Board has 


discussed in terms of what can be done. There 


are possibly other things that can be done. 


 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I think our letter says 


that. These are just things that the Board has 


-- I mean the introduction -- I was trying to 


say was the Board and re-- NIOSH and the Board 


review. This is what we focused on as the 


Board -- and what the Board can say based on 


our --


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- that's the focus of our -- it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

not limiting to what can be done or has been 


done in terms of other exposures. There's lots 


of areas -- this facility we may -- may not 


have been discussed or reviewed at all, and it 


-- it's sort of the -- the down side of saying 


what we can do is it's probably impossible to 


put a comprehensive list. You know, a complete 


list. 


 MS. MUNN: We shouldn't try. 


 DR. MELIUS: Nor should we try, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: And my comment was to be that the 


NIOSH Director --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- as he passes the package forward, 


could add more specificity to it if he felt it 


was appropriate, not in any way limiting what 


the Board said --


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 


 DR. WADE: -- but opening up more avenues, 


that's all. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, that's what -- the part I 


wanted to make clear. Yeah -- is that -- yeah, 


Larry's... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I was -- yes, I was just going to 


add to -- for clarity that while we appreciate 

1 

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 

this language, we've looked it over, it does 


capture what we feel we worked through with the 


working group and the -- and the Board. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: What -- what we could add, on 


behalf of the Director, is that occupational 


medical dose, X-ray dose, is something we feel 


we can do. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We have the ability to do that. 


We can bound the environmental dose. So -- and 


there may be other types of radiation exposure 


that -- that we would encounter -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- as we go through a dose 


reconstruction effort that we would feel we 


could do or we would identify we can't do, 


so... 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Discussion. Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: Two things. I agree in concept 


with that second page, certainly -- now I 


assume somebody goes over the grammatical stuff 


on this, so --


 DR. WADE: That was usually Dr. Ziemer and he'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 

20 

not with us, so --


DR. ROESSLER: Well, now maybe we could assign 


it to --


 DR. ZIEMER: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


grammar (unintelligible) as to content. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. Yes, you can. 


DR. ROESSLER: The other thing I guess I'd look 


for somewhere, and maybe it's not necessary in 


this letter, is a nice concise statement that 


says exactly which workers qualify. It's --


it's broken up into so many different parts 


here that it's kind of hard for anybody to sort 


it out -- something like NIOSH does when they 


present the proposed class definition, and 


maybe that just comes somewhere else. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, one and two, right? 


 DR. MELIUS: One and two, those -- that is the 


proposed class definition, word for word. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. I guess it is -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I may -- I may have --


DR. ROESSLER: Maybe I got dis--


 DR. MELIUS: -- lost a semi-colon or something 


in there but it's --


DR. ROESSLER: Maybe I got --


 DR. MELIUS: -- pretty close. 

1 

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. ROESSLER: -- distracted. 


 DR. WADE: That is the way NIOSH presented it. 


 DR. MELIUS: That is the revised one. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: The one that was done 


(unintelligible) so that -- I think as a result 


of our discussions yesterday, I think we sort 


of clarified what was meant by that and -- and 


so those two points were I think taken directly 


from -- well... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it's here, Dr. Roessler, 


and --


DR. ROESSLER: It is, I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the Board respectfully 


recommends the cohort be accorded to all 


employees of the DOE or DOE contractors or 


subcontractors who were monitored, or should 


have been monitored -- that's the phraseology 


we used in --


DR. ROESSLER: I see it now. I got distracted 


with the rest of the stuff. 


 DR. WADE: It's a new format for us. Other 


comments? Questions? 


 The Federal Official recognizes Dr. Ziemer only 


for the purpose of grammatical input. 

1 

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. MELIUS: The Board grammatician. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other than "the data were" that 


was corrected by the reader, although it's 


wrong in the document --


 DR. MELIUS: And it has been corrected in the 

document. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the -- the introduction to the 

three bullets on the last page is very awkward. 


"These include... NIOSH demonstrated" -- it 


needs --


DR. ROESSLER: That's exactly it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so --


DR. ROESSLER: You'll -- you'll fix it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but we can fix that, and -- and 


then I'm going to call this a grammatical 


question in -- well, I guess it's part of the 


definition so I can't call it into question -- 


"radionuclide exposures from Cyclotron" -- it 


seems to omit direct radiation, but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so you can't call that into 


question. 


 DR. WADE: Other comments? 


 MR. GRIFFON: We maybe -- Jim, can you speak to 


that, just to clarify it for us? 


 DR. WADE: Could you raise the issue, Mark? 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, can --


DR. NETON: I think it was intended that we -- 


we talk about internal exposures from the 


Cyclotrons in this definition. We believe we 


have badge results that we could use for 


Cyclotron activities -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: And so that would be covered under 


the -- what we've said we can do -- yeah, yeah, 


yeah, external exposures. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Other comments, questions? 


Anyone wants to speak in favor or against? 


 (No responses) 


If not, then I guess we're ready to vote, and 


we'll do a voice vote. 


All those in favor of the motion, as read, 


signify by saying "Aye"? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Any abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Then the motion passes. Again, remember 


that once the deliberations have taken place, 


Dr. Ziemer is fully empowered to do all 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 

24 

administrative work necessary to get this 


letter transmitted to the Secretary, so he's 


back in our good graces. 


Welcome back to the table, gentlemen. As you 


come back, again, yesterday I mentioned many 


people deserve a great deal of thanks for this 


-- SC&A, NIOSH, the working group. But I would 


be remiss if I didn't point out again Mark 


Griffon and the tremendous effort that he put 


into this. It's, in my opinion, the -- the 


most dedicated effort I've seen by a Special 


Government Employee, and Mark is worthy of, I 


think, all of our thanks, and certainly mine, 


Mark. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Mark, certainly 


all the Board members agree with that. And I 


will confer with Dr. Melius, but if I may be 


allowed those -- some flexibility on the 


grammar, and perhaps the flexibility of 


inserting the dates on the two meetings that 


are --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- referenced. I'll take it 


without objection that those will be considered 


editorial changes. 

25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: Well within your province. 


(Whereupon, Dr. Wade and Dr. Ziemer discussed 


agenda item order.) 


STATUS AND PLANNING FOR UPCOMING SEC PETITIONS:
 

CHAPMAN VALVE; S-50; LANL; ORINS
 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH


 DR. ZIEMER: I think maybe we'll just go ahead 


and pick up the -- the items that are dangling 


over from yesterday. The Status and Planning 


for Upcoming SEC Petitions, and Stu, I 


understand that you'll be presenting that. Is 


that correct? 


We do have -- there are -- there are copies of 


the overheads in your packet, Board members. 


 DR. WADE: As Stu comes to the microphone, 


there are Board members who are conflicted at 


certain of these sites, but since this is only 


an informational briefing and not a substantive 


discussion of the technical issues, everyone 


can remain at the table. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Again, for clarity, Status and 


Planning for Upcoming SEC Petitions, this 


includes Chapman Valve, et cetera, on that 


list. It was scheduled for yesterday at 11:00 


a.m. 


 Okay, Stu, proceed. 

1 

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. HINNEFELD: All right. I am here to 


present the information prepared by LaVon 


Rutherford, so I'll try to -- I'll -- I'll go 


through the information provided and try to 


provide any answers to any questions anyone 


might have at the end. 


I think I passed one up, didn't I? Well, I'll 


just briefly state that what we wanted to 


accomplish with this presentation, the purpose 


of the presentation, was to provide information 


to the Board about -- essentially about 


upcoming items that will be coming before the 


Board in the -- in the coming months, because 


this is work that's in front of us now and that 


all of the Special Exposure Cohort work of 


course comes to -- before the Board, and so 


this is sort of to allow you to prepare for 


information or the -- this upcoming work. 


And we're going to cover here the number of 


qualified petitions that are currently under 


evaluations, as well as some of the additional 


information on sites that we're evaluating 


through the 83.14 process, which will likely 


get here as well. In other words -- you know, 


in that case we won't have a petition in house 

1 

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 

yet, but we feel like we're -- we probably will 


end up with an 83.14 finding on some of these 


and that they will then develop into a 


petition. 


Okay. This -- this slide presents a summary of 


the petition submissions that have been 


received so far -- SEC submissions -- the total 


number being 61. Twenty-two of those have 


already been qualified for evaluation, and 11 


of them are still in the qualification process. 


That leaves 28 of the submissions that did not 


qualify, for one reason or another. 


Of the 22 that have been qualified for 


evaluation, nine of those have resulted in at 


least recommendations of classes being added to 


the -- to the Special Exposure Cohort. They 


may not be all the way through the designation 


process, but at least resulted in that -- in 


recommendations to the Secretary to that 


extent. 


Of course you all remember the NBS, which was 


qualified and recommended, but then determined 


not to be covered employment. 


Of the 28 that didn't qualify, the most common 


causes for those are that petition requirements 

1 

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 

were not met. There are a number of 


requirements for a petition that are published 


in 43 -- or Part 43 -- 42 CFR 83, the Special 


Exposure Cohort rule. You know, you have to 


have a valid petitioner, it has to be -- has to 


petition for a specific site. You know, that's 


one of the rules, that it -- you know, a single 


site petition. And -- and then there are 


technical bases that have to be established in 


order for the evaluation to proceed. Those are 


things like the -- the exposures for this event 


or at this site were not monitored, either they 


were just -- either no -- there is neither any 


personal monitoring data or workplace 


monitoring data. Another potential reason is 


that there is evidence that the monitoring data 


that is available is -- has been -- some of it 


has been discarded, it's been falsified or 


destroyed, you know, evidence like that. A 


third would be that someone with knowledge of 


dose reconstruction techniques to attest -- you 


know, explains why that the information 


available isn't sufficient. And then a fourth, 


there may be a technical paper presented, 


published in a number of forums, that might 

1 

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 

call into question the data available -- that 


is available that would -- could be used for 


dose reconstruction. 


Okay. There are ten petitions that have been 


qualified that are in various phases of the 


evaluation process. We issued evaluation 


reports for SECs number 28, 30 and 38, and 


those are on the -- on the chart here. The Y12, action was just taken on, again -- or 


rather was earlier action adding a portion, and 


there's additional action just now; 30 was 


discussed but some -- briefly yesterday, the 


progress on 30, and additional work is going on 


there; and then 38 was a recommendation and 


action was taken on that earlier in the week. 


33 and 43 are in the late stages of the 


evaluation process. We're in the final 


technical evaluation of the evaluation reports, 


and so those will be forthcoming relatively 


soon. Those represent Oak Ridge Institute for 


Nuclear Studies and Chapman Valve, which is an 


AWE in western Massachusetts. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, before you leave that chart, 


could you give us some expectation as to when 


the Board might see evaluation reports on 33 

1 

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 

and 43? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's see if Bomber has it in 


his notes here. I'm sorry, I've called him 


Bomber for too many years. I've got to 


remember to call him LaVon. 


 DR. WADE: Just for planning purposes. 


(Pause) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have a presumed date, 


but my expectation from my understanding of 


where we are in the process is that those will 


be available before the next Board meeting, I 


would think. 


 DR. WADE: So it's reasonable for us to expect 


that the Board would have them in sufficient 


time before the next Board meeting in September 


that the Board would hear a presentation of an 


evaluation report at that meeting. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I see some nods over there, so 


yes, I believe so. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- and then the remaining 


five that have been qualified are -- are listed 


on this -- on this slide. These are the 


remaining five of the ten qualified petitions. 


For the -- SEC 45, which relates to Blockson 

1 

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 

Chemical, which is an AWE in Illinois, our 


current projected schedule is the evaluation 


report should be completed in early August and 


available for the Board and the petitioners. 


For SEC number 46, Feed Materials Production 


Center, a DOE site near Cincinnati, the project 


schedule is for the Board and the petitioners 


to have the evaluation report around mid-


September. 


For SEC 49, Monsanto Chemical Works, which is 


the predecessor to the Mound site in Dayton, we 


don't have a finalized estimated completion 


date because we just recently had an additional 


data capture to help in that evaluation, so we 


don't have a scheduled date at this time for 


those. 


Petitions number 60 and 61 that relate to the 


Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant, which was a 


predecessor for the gaseous diffusion plant, 


and -- and 61, which is a Los Alamos National 


Laboratory for employees exposed to radioactive 


lanthanum, these are 83.14 findings and 83 -- 


these are (unintelligible) the 83.14 process, 


in which case we've identified it's not 


feasible to do the reconstruction of 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 

32 

component of the dose for these -- for these 


classes. And so these would -- should proceed 


fairly rapidly because we've already done a lot 


of the evaluation work before we arrived at 


this decision, so these should pursue -- 


proceed pretty -- pretty rapidly. I don't see 


right now whether we've actually identified the 


claimant to carry the cohorts forward. What we 


norm-- what we do on 83.14 is we identify a -- 


sort of a lead claimant, identify them that we 


cannot perform their dose reconstruction with 


sufficient accuracy with the information 


available, send them a blank petition -- I 


believe it's Form A of the petition -- and say 


just sign the form and send it back, and that's 


all the petitioning that that person has to do 


because the evaluation has already been done. 


So those should proceed fairly rapidly upon 


identification and contact with those lead 


petitioners. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We have identified them, 


according to Larry. 


 Now additional facilities that are being 


evaluated through the 83.14 process -- 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 

33 

are things where we're -- we're pretty far down 


the path. We're pretty sure we have not -- we 


will not be able to find the information to 


allow us to com-- reconstruct all components of 


the doses at these facilities, and so we're 


proceeding to attempt to identify claim-- you 


know, lead claimants or le-- to form -- to 


become the petitioner for these sites. One 


site is Harshaw Chemical Company, which was an 


AWE in the Cleveland area. As you can see, the 


time period is from '42 to '49. It was one of 


the early, during the War, uranium producers. 


And also the General Atomics plant, with -- the 


covered period is the decade of the '60s. 


General Atomics is an -- an AWE, I believe -- I 


won't swear to that, but it's located in -- 


this is the one in LaJolla. Right? So... 


That's the completion of the prepared slides. 


I'll be glad to answer any questions I can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Stu. Let's open 


the floor for questions then at this point. 


Yes, John Poston. 


 DR. POSTON: Stuart, as you know, I'm new at 


this so I'm trying to add all these numbers up 


and make some sense out of it. 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 

34 

qualified petitions you said there were 11 on 


the early slide and then you presented ten, and 


then there's two that are being evaluated under 


the 83.14 process. So can you help me a little 


bit there? What's missing or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll try. The 11 qualified I 


believe included the NBS. Is that right? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It included the National Bureau 


of Standards, which was qualified and approved, 


but then determined to be non-covered -- a non-


covered facility. So that's the difference 


between ten and -- ten and the 11. 


 DR. POSTON: Thank you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And then the two additional are 


not part of the ten or the 11. They are yet to 


be added to that list. 


 DR. POSTON: All right. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Yes, Dr. Melius. 


Oh, you have a comment on that, Larry Elliott? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Just a little further 


elaboration. Those -- those two, the Harshaw 


and the General Atomics, at the time this 


presentation was made and prepared for this -- 


this meeting, we had not yet identified 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 

35 

what we call the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We call it the litmus test. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We call it the litmus case, but 


it's essentially the -- an individual within 


that class for which we can't reconstruct dose 


who is a living Energy employee who has a 


presumptive cancer. That's very important that 


we -- we identify somebody with those 


characteristics to establish themselves as a 


petitioner. We talk to them about their role 


in that regard. And Harshaw Chemical, we -- 


Monday I signed the letter to this individual 


who's going to serve as the -- as the 


petitioner. 


 In our conversations with those people we 


express to them the duty that they have as a 


petitioner, that they have full responsibility 


and obligation -- if they wish to exercise it ­

- to notify others that they know of who might 


exist who worked with them in that class, that 


they can inform them of the process. 


We advise them that the Department of Labor 


will be sending them a letter that says their ­

- their claim has been denied, but not to be 


concerned or worried about that letter, that 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 

36 

are ready and willing to work with them and 


process the 83.14 petition with them and seek 


resolution of their case through this whole 


process. And so it's a -- it's a complex 


process and we're trying to explain it very 


clearly to these people. And I just wanted the 


Board to realize that. 


We also have to advise them on -- it's their 


prerogative if they wish to have their identity 


revealed to people other than ourselves. We 


don't disclose that, and so we protect their 


identity and if they so choose, they can reveal 


that they are a petitioner and announce that 


they're willing to talk to others and -- and 


bring others into the fold. So it's -- it's a 


difficult and complex process and we're trying 


very hard to work very diligently with these 


folks. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Larry, don't -- don't get 


too comfortable, because my first question was 


related to that. I think I mentioned it last 


time, also, and I think we've struggled with 


the -- some situations where we don't have good 


representation, so to speak, and it's more 

1 

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 

getting to the -- the -- many of the other 


affected or potentially affected parties 


involved in this process. And I would hope 


that we could work out the -- I understand 


there may be privacy concerns that the -- sort 


of the -- the index case is -- has certain 


rights and so forth, but -- but I think we need 


to sort of rework something so that we at least 


have a group of other people that are -- are 


infor-- should the index case not wish to 


reveal their identity, which I can understand, 


that we have a -- a public involvement process 


where we could certainly notify other people 


and have them involved in working group 


meetings and other sort of public events that 


we're having so -- 'cause I think it actually 


moves the process along -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and gives it more credibility 


and -- and I would hope we'd work to -- to -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We would welcome suggestions. We 


-- our deliberations on that point have been 


how can we get the word out, how can we 


announce that there is a petition and that 


people who -- and pro-- provide a proposed 

1 

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 

definition for that class and let people know 


what that definition is. Whether they feel 


they fit into it, they can self-identify. They 


can step forward then and become part of the 


process. So we're looking at ways to do that ­

- media announcements, outreach, working with 


the Department of Labor in the resource 


centers. So we're going to start working 


harder at making these notifications more 


public and trying to bring more people into the 


fold. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean -- and certainly 


there are unions or former unions in the area 


with some -- some representation, and certainly 


the ability to contact and notify some 


individuals in the area. There may be retiree 


groups also and --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, those are good suggestions. 


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


just be helpful to move along 'cause it's just 


an awkward situation -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it is. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- to do. I have a coup-- couple 


more. I have a question -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

1 

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. MELIUS: -- for you, Larry, so -- last 


night we heard from a person who had -- 


petition was in the process of being qualified 


at Los -- Los Alamos, and I'm just confused 


between the 83.14 listing here and that other 


petition in terms of -- of coverage. There's a 


little -- I'm not sure if this description here 


is -- you know, being -- is this complete? I 


mean your listing on the slide, or what, 'cause 


I thought I heard something else last night and 


I'm -- I'm just trying to understand the -- 


what's being -- what petition's being evaluated 


and so forth, and then secondly is there a 


possibility of sort of merging the two 


processes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Absolutely, yes. We're going to 


be talking to Mrs. Ruiz about that. I think --


I talked with her last night and my 


understanding when she made her presen-- when 


she provided her public comment, she included 


years beyond what we're talking about in this ­

- this 83.14 situation. This 83.14 for LANL is 


Bio Canyon* and the lanthium (sic) exposures 


that occurred in the proce-- in the particular 


operations they did in that -- that area, so 

1 

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 

there is a little bit of overlap, but I think 


hers is more broad in -- in duration time and ­

- and more areas on the site. 


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We'll be talking to her about 


that. Unfortunately, what happened in her 


case, she submitted the wrong form. And before 


we could actually start having conversations 


and working with the -- the petitioner about 


what has been submitted with a form, we have to 


get the right form in. And so we sent back to 


her the right form and we asked her to fill out 


the right form. Yes, that meant she'd checked 


the wrong box, but once we have that right 


form, we -- we are currently evaluating what 


she submitted, and we'll have a conversation. 


There is a teleconference that is conducted 


with the petitioner to go over the materials 


and the documentation that are submitted with 


the petition. They are advised of our 


evaluation at that point of the submittal -- 


submitted information. They are notified at 


that point as to what areas they -- the 


petition submission might be deficient in. 


There is full documentation of 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 

41 

conversation. 


They are provided a letter that -- that 


provides all of that documentation. They're 


asked to review that and make sure that if they 


heard something that's different than what was 


recorded, they -- they let us know. There --


there's a -- a time frame that's established 


for them to contribute and remedy any -- any 


deficiencies. It's not a hard and fast thing. 


We continue to advance that time frame -- 


frame, if they ask for it. 


 And unfortunately, Mrs. Ruiz just hasn't got 


into that -- that dialogue with us yet, so I'm 


anxious that -- we'll have Laurie Ishak talk 


with her. We'll probably end up aiding her in 


-- in the development of that petition and 


coordinating this one with the 83.14 that we 


have. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. I mean, without getting 


into the details of what happened or whatever ­

- I mean I would hope that, you know, somehow a 


telephone call early on could take care of this 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I agree. I agree. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- 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 

42

 MR. ELLIOTT: That would have been the best way 


to handle it, personal communication rather 


than a letter saying you checked the wrong box. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And that's -- that's why I feel 


it's very important that we have somebody like 


Laurie Ishak to serve as a -- as essentially an 


ombudsman here to --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to identify these kind of 


situations and say this is not the right way to 


do this. We can do it a lot better way, so... 


 DR. MELIUS: Even the IRS you can call 


somebody. They put you on hold forever, but... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Absolutely. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have one other comment --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- though not necessarily for 

Larry, so you can sit down. But it's -- it's a 


follow-up to our -- I guess the Y-12 we dealt 


with, but I notice on some of these other 


pending SEC petitions, some of these are very 


large sites, and I think the -- Y-12 was the 


first one where we've done -- sort of picked 


out part of a site in a not-straightforward way 

1 

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 

in terms of being able to identify workers and, 


you know, who was -- who's actually in the 


cohort and how -- how it will be implemented, 


just much more complicated. And I suspect as 


we look at some of these other sites, you know, 


with potential SECs, like Rocky Flats, LANL, 


Fernald and so forth, that -- that we may -- 


we're going to encounter those situations again 


and -- and it would be helpful for the Board I 


believe to have some feedback on how that 


definition is being implemented. How -- how 


well did it go, is there -- you know, some 


feedback through -- you know, as you work with 


DOL on -- on implementing the Y-12, just so we 


have some lessons learned so that we -- we do, 


you know, as good a job as we can in defining 


that Special Exposure Cohort. So I think as 


you do that over the next few months with -- 


with DOL, it would be helpful for us to here 


about that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I just had a question for Larry. 


You know, you're telling about when you finally 


identified an individual that meets the 


qualifications that you wanted, I -- you did 

1 

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 

call out a lot of forms and stuff like that, 


but is there a personal phone call to explain 


to these people, because a lot of these people 


are getting up in age and, you know, you 


mentioned the comment that you're going to be 


getting a letter from DOL saying you're not 


qualified but don't worry about that. I just 


want to make sure there's a personal phone call 


or --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 


 MR. CLAWSON: -- someone to help --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: -- guide it through. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: On 83.14s there is a personal 


phone call. On the -- on the petitions that 


come to us unannounced, and we don't know -- 


you know, we just receive one in the mail, 


we've been very passive about that. We're 


going to now be more active and make personal 


phone calls, make sure that we talk to the 


folks over the line before they get a letter 


back from -- under my signature saying we got 


your -- we got your submission and it doesn't 


meet the mark, so we will be taking action on 


that. But for 83.14s, yes, we make a personal 

1 

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 

phone call -- 'cause we think it's important to 


tell them you're going to be getting a letter 


that says we cannot reconstruct your dose, and 


you'll get a subsequent letter from the 


Department of Labor that says your claim has 


been denied because of that. And that's a very 


chilling letter when they get that. And we 


want to prepare them for that and we want them 


to understand that when they receive that, 


that's not the end of the day, that we are -- 


you know, we are -- at that point, we start 


working with them. We tell them we're going to 


send you the right form. We even fill out the 


form. We put on it a sticker that says "sign 


here," so there's no mistake about checking the 


wrong box or using the wrong form. We really 


have -- saw the need to work hand in hand with 


these people. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I appreciate that. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: Larry --


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- sorry, but you said -- you've 


mentioned this twice and I -- why do they have 


to get a letter saying they're denied? 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, you have --


 DR. MELIUS: If you -- if you can't do the -- 


I'm just curious. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's --


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know, it sounds like 


Labor's way of closing something out. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's part of the -- Labor's 


procedures. They have -- they have a formal 


process that they've got to go through, and 


they have to notify the person that their claim 


has been denied, as filed under Subtitle B for 


dose reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It would seem to be helpful if 


there was a different kind of letter that said 


however, in your case -- and then -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we're working with them -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- on the language of this letter 


'cause we don't -- we -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: This -- this is sort of what I was 


referring to yesterday, when get into the 


bureau-ese --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it is somewhat intimidating for 


a person and they don't really know how 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 

47 

understand it, yeah. So if you can work with 


Labor, that would help. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We are aware of this language and 


we're working --


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I just saw one the other day that 


came from Labor, and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Can I sit down? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, you can sit down. This --


I'm going to be honest with you. I've had some 


very, very good comments from NIOSH on their 


participation and everything. But I saw one 


last week from Labor that said -- the guy 


brought it to me and said this -- what do I do? 


And it said you have been accepted, but here's 


five pages of stuff that you've got to fill out 


on your association with the claimant. I mean 


they've already turned in birth certificates, 


and they've already turned in this, and it said 


you have to check the box -- but there's no box 


to check -- and then it says you've got to 


write a letter. Well, all this stuff's been 


done. And I -- I -- I hate to say it, but -- 


and the person that brought this to me is a 


very, very knowledgeable person -- 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, and it's just --

 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) Please say that. 

 MR. PRESLEY: It's Subtitle E. And it -- it 

is, it's -- it's very, very hard for people to 


understand. I am going to get a copy of this 


and send it to -- to Turcic and see if he can't 


do something about it, so it's -- we do have a 


very, very big problem. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think Pete committed to us 


yesterday that they were trying to address this 


issue, so hopefully they will become better at 


it, as it were. 


Other comments? Yes, Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: I suspect the denial letter is 


required before one can go and request an 


appeal and (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: But perhaps it can be somewhat 


modified to correlate better with what NIOSH is 


going to do as a follow-up. 


Other comments? I note that -- Stu, that when 


you gave us the statistics on the -- the 


submissions that didn't qualify for evaluation 


-- yesterday we heard from Representative Udall 


-- actually asked the question about whether 

1 

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 

the Board sort of monitors those, and maybe I 


will re-raise that question. Does -- does the 


Board wish to look at some of those cases, just 


to satisfy itself in a kind of audit fashion, 


or is that -- is that a concern to the Board? 


I'll just ask it that way. And if it is, at 


least at some level, it would seem to me fairly 


straightforward -- something a working group 


could take a sample of those -- I'm not even 


sure we'd need contractor help on those. It'd 


seem to me it would -- whether or not something 


qualified would be fairly straightforward, but 


let me get some feedback on that question. Dr. 


Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I actually think it would be 


helpful to review some of those. Not that 


there are necessarily a lot of problems or, you 


know, that we've necessarily heard about a -- a 


lot of problems with them and -- and so forth, 


and I -- I know from some of the reports 


Larry's given that there are, you know, some 


very valid reasons why some of these have been 


turned down. But -- and sort of -- it -- it is 


an area that -- where people are being denied a 


review and I think they -- they're looking for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

some way of -- of having that evaluated. I --


I think we could do that, not in the sense of ­

- 'cause there is an appeals process and so 


forth, not to interfere that, but to get a 


better understanding of how to communicate 


this, and as well as to be able to say that, 


you know, we've reviewed this part of the 


program and it appears to be operating well -- 


appears to be operating well, needs better 


communication or what-- you know, whatever that 


-- in sort of a preventive sense. And then --


then when these issues come up we can say that 


well, look -- no, we have looked at this 


overall part of the program and it appears to 


be operating as such. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we'll let others weigh in. 


I think -- Larry, you have a comment on that? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't want to steal 


thunder from somebody, but I would welcome 


that. We -- we have what we think is a very 


clear documentation of the interaction that 


leads to denying a qualification of a petition. 


We can lay that out if you want to send a 


working group to Cincinnati. I think you can 


spend a half a day and look at all 28, 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 

51 

you'll have a clear sense of what has ensued to 


result in a denial for qualification, and we 


would appreciate any comments or 


recommendations for improvement. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And thank you. Mike. 


 MR. GIBSON: I agree that that -- that is I 


think something we should look into. You know, 


we audit the dose reconstruction cases and 


everything else and it's -- it's in our purview 


and I think -- I think it would be very 


helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other -- Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: It seems that a small working group 


would be the ideal and effective way to deal 


with that issue. That group could bring a 


complete report back to the Board in a matter 


of a few minutes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? 


 (No responses) 


There seems to be some level of consensus that 


that may be something we should do, and when we 


get to the item on working groups perhaps the 


Chair will simply appoint a working group to 


pursue that, if that's -- without objection, we 


can do that. And it appears that it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

something that we can handle directly without 


additional assistance. And if the working 


group gets into that and finds that there's 


some weighty issues that need to be address, we 


can get additional help. 


Okay. Thank you. Anything further for Stu or 


for Larry on this? 


 DR. WADE: Maybe one summary comment. So if I 


-- if I sort of integrate all that you've told 


us, Stu, it's possible that this Board would 


see in September petitions from ORINS, Chapman 


Valve, Blockson Chemical and possibly Oak Ridge 


Thermal Diffusion. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe those are the ones -- 


 DR. WADE: And I say that just so the Board and 


its working groups can also begin to think 


about how it might want to engage SC&A, if 


appropriate, as that meeting date comes up. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I was thinking Fernald 


might be in there, but I don't believe it will. 


I mean it's -- the scheduled completion date is 


so close to the next Board meeting, I think 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, Fernald may be tough, but I 


would -- I would think, and I hope, that we 

53 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

would prov-- be able to provide Harshaw, the 


83.14 situation there, and the LANL Bio 


Canyon*. 


DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


merges with the other one. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It may -- that may be the 


complicating (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right, I forgot about 


that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Just to get a sense of the 


work in front of us. Thank you very much. 


SITE PROFILE UPDATES:
 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE; HANFORD; NEVADA TEST SITE; 


SECOND YEAR SITE PROFILES
 

DR. JAMES NETON, NIOSH


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's move on then to 


the item that starts today's agenda and that is 


the site profile updates. Dr. Neton is going 


to cover that, and I believe there is a handout 


on this, as well. 


 DR. WADE: And I will again note that we have 


Board members conflicted on certain of these 


sites -- Wanda on Hanford, Mark on NTS -- but 


since this is a discussion of site profiles, 


they can certainly remain at the table. They 


should not make motions or vote on motions, but 


I don't think those will be forthcoming on 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 

54 

topic. 


DR. NETON: Good morning, everyone. I have a 


fairly brief presentation -- I think it's 


brief, anyways -- on the status of where with 


the site -- site profile reviews. There's so 


much effort has been focused by the Board and 


working groups on site profiles that were 


related to SEC petitions -- namely the Y-12 and 


now Rocky Flats ongoing -- that sometimes the 


other site profile reviews that have been 


conducted by SC&A have -- have frankly taken a 


back burner because of, you know, resource 


constraints to help move them forward. So I 


thought, you know, we would take some time here 


just to put on the table what's out there, what 


needs to be reviewed and -- and a brief 


snapshot of the status of where we currently 


are with these -- these site profiles. 


I'm going to talk first about the three that we 


actually have in our hands -- for some time now 


-- reviews by SC&A for Savannah River, Hanford 


and NTS. And then I'll finish up with a brief 


review of where we are with the six additional 


site profiles that have been -- SC&A has been 


tasked with doing and -- and where we are 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 

55 

that regard. 


The first one I'll talk about is Savannah River 


Site site profile review, and I think it's 


probably the one we're furthest along, although 


we still have a long way to go. For each of 


these the Board has -- has selected a working 


group, and I've listed the working group for 


each of these on the slides. Dr. DeHart is the 


chair of the Savannah River Site working group, 


along with Mark Griffon, Mike Gibson and Dr. 


Lockey. 


For each of these we've also appointed an OCAS 


point of contact. That is, a health physicist 


on our staff who will help facilitate these 


reviews. I -- I am involved with all of them, 


but I obviously can't -- can't get engaged at 


the level I have been on some of these, such as 


Y-12. So for the Savannah River site profile 


we have Sam Glover as our OCAS point of 


contacts -- point of contact. 


If you recall, the site profile reviews are 


fairly large documents. I mean they -- then 


tend to run around a couple of hundred pages, 


and many findings and observations are 


sprinkled throughout these reviews. And 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 

56 

while back the Board asked SC&A to sort of 


consolidate these findings into a sort of a 


hierarchy as to which ones are really important 


issues and which ones are -- are, you know, 


significant but not necessarily need to be 


addressed right away. And SC&A has produced 


these finding resolution matrices for the 


Savannah River, the Hanford and the NTS site 


profiles. So we've had that in hand for -- for 


Savannah River for some time. 


And the OCAS response to that matrix had just 


been provided on June 5th, so we've finally 


gotten a consolidated response together. SC&A 


has that in their possession. And in fact 


there was a working group conference call just 


before the Board meeting, on June 7th -- again 


chaired by Dr. DeHart -- where there was a 


meeting of the minds, so to speak, to go over 


issues. It was sort of a high level meeting, 


not in the sense that there was any substantive 


scientific discussions or resolutions being -- 


being taken care of, but more in the spirit of, 


you know, where are we, what's on the table, 


what are the next steps forward. And I 


encourage Dr. DeHart to correct me if I'm wrong 

1 

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 

on this, I didn't have the opportunity to 


participate in the call, but that's my sense of 


what occurred. 


So the next step -- and these are all going to 


parallel very similarly to what's been going on 


with Y-12 and Rocky, and that is the working 


group is going to have to convene. I suspect 


that there will be a face-to-face meeting next 


for the Savannah River Site to sit around a 


table, very much like we've done with the other 


site profiles, and hash out the issues. You 


know, where -- where are we, where are the 


areas of agreement that these things can fall 


off the table, and where are there issues that 


we still need to have some -- some scientific 


debate -- discussion, I should say. 


Okay. The next one is the Hanford site 


profile. I've listed the working group members 


here. Dr. Melius is the chair. Chuck Nelson 


is our OCAS point of contact. And again, SC&A 


has created the finding resolution matrix. At 


the current time OCAS, with the assistance of 


ORAU, is preparing responses to that matrix. 


think we're close, but we're not quite there 


yet. As soon as that's completed, we will 


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 

58 

forward that over to SC&A and then we'll have 


to see about availability of time and staff 


resources to schedule a meeting to move that 


one forward. 


Nevada Test Site working group is chaired by 


Bob Presley, with the other three members 


listed here. Mark Rolfes is our point of 


contact. Again, just like Hanford, the finding 


resolution matrix is in our possession and we 


are preparing responses to that matrix. There 


are some issues, though, necessarily related to 


the addition of the Special Exposure Cohort to 


the -- NTS to the Special Exposure Cohort in 


the sense that once that becomes -- once that 


class is added, we believe a number of the 


issues that were raised in the site profile 


evaluation will drop off the table, we'll no 


longer be constructing doses. So you know, we 


expect that letter to be put out by the 


Secretary fairly soon. Once that happens, we 


need to look at the finding resolution matrix 


to see, you know, which issues remain. I'm 


certain there are issues left, but we don't 


want to be going over issues that are no longer 


relevant. And there is no meeting currently 

1 

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 

scheduled for NTS. 


And the last slide I have is a listing of six 


additional site profile reviews that the Board 


asked SC&A to conduct, those being Fernald, 


Linde, X-10, Mound, LANL and Pinellas. I've 


listed the OCAS point of contact for each of 


these, and for most of them -- for Fernald, 


responses to SC&A ques-- SC&A -- 


The way this normally works is SC&A goes about 


and does an investigation, interviews people at 


the sites, looks over some preliminary 


documents, then puts together a list of 


questions that they have that they feel that, 


you know, we could discuss prior to them 


issuing a report where we may be able to 


clarify some issues, add some substance, that 


sort of thing. I think for all of these that 


are listed here, we have received a list of 


questions from SC&A, with the exception of X-10 


and Pinellas. So right now we have not been 


engaged with SC&A in any way on those sites. 


We expect as they -- as they move further along 


in those reviews, we'll be receiving questions. 


And for two of these sites, I think that's 


Mound and Los Alamos, we've actually had 

1 

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 

conference calls with SC&A. These -- these are 


conference calls -- the questions come through 


and we prepare responses, and then there's a 


conference call held where we sort of just go 


through these issues point by point and offer 


any insight that we might have into the -- 


either the correctness or the validity or the ­

- you know, the -- how -- how close they are to 


the mark on some of these areas that they're -- 


they're going down. 


And that's all I really have to say. I'll be 


happy to answer any questions if there are any. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Jim. That's a 


very good update for us, to see where we stand 


in terms of the timetables. 


I've got Roy DeHart and then Jim Melius. Roy? 


 DR. DEHART: If I may, I'd like to take just a 


moment to go through a little bit of what the 


working group has done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed. 


 DR. DEHART: And to do that, I need to go back 


in history a bit. And I'm going to jump in the 


middle of the NIOSH work that has been done 


with regard to the report. 


In March of this year -- of '05, I'm sorry, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

March of '05, SC&A published the review of the 


NIOSH Revision 2. This was followed then by a 


briefing to this Board in October of last year. 


Then in January of this year SC&A published its 


matrix of issues, and that, too, had been 


briefed to the Board. The -- about that time, 


the working group was formed, so we're -- we're 


a new working group. SC&A's resolution matrix 


then was published in -- the 17th of January, 


'06 and, as I've said, presented to the Board. 


This was followed then by the decision to have 


a meeting of the working group, and that was 


scheduled this spring, to occur in June. On 


June the 7th, the working group set up a 


conference call to -- as a basic history of 


what has transpired with this particular 


document, and it was not a resolution meeting. 


It was a two-hour meeting that was recorded but 


not transcribed because it was simply -- simply 


a review. All members of the working group 


were present and representation by NIOSH and 


SC&A were -- were there. 


Before the meeting occurred on the 7th, NIOSH 


provided a copy of their response to the 


January matrix, and that was on the 5th 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 

62 

June. Obviously there was no time for SC&A to 


do any -- any review of that at all. In fact, 


there had not been time for SC&A to do a review 


of Revision 3, which was published back in the 


spring of this past year. It's a year old now, 


so that Revision 3 has not been reviewed by 


SC&A. 


The members of the working group, with 


permission from NIOSH, have tasked SC&A to do 


two things: Review Revision 3, and at the same 


time look at NIOSH's response to the matrix of 


16 issues that they have defined. That will 


occur in July. There will be a one-day faceto-face meeting of all active participants in 


Cincinnati, the date to be determined, during 


August, with the intent of a report out on that 


particular resolution meeting at the September 


meeting. So that's where we stand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you, Roy, for 


that additional update. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: I have a quick question on 


Hanford. You have a better idea of when your 


draft response is going to be done? You said 


soon. I mean --


DR. NETON: I think it's soon. We -- 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 

63 

actually have received responses from ORAU and 


we're reviewing them internally at NIOSH, so 


I'm reluctant to always give an exact time. 


 DR. MELIUS: I know, I'm just trying to -- 


DR. NETON: I don't mean to be --


 DR. MELIUS: -- pin you down a little bit more 


than --


DR. NETON: Yeah, weeks. Weeks. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Then -- then what I will do 


is con-- contact either you or Chuck, whoever's 


DR. NETON: Chuck. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- appropriate, and start to talk 


about setting up a meeting. 


DR. NETON: My recollection was that those -- 


the responses were just about ready. There 


were just a couple issues that we wanted to 


make sure we refined them a little bit. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I would also suggest that we ­

- I think the model that Roy -- Roy's group 


used I think is a good one to -- maybe first a 


conference call, short conference call to try 


to pinpoint, you know, key issues and -- and 


then not get bogged down in other issues I 


think would be helpful, and then decide at 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 

64 

call what -- what's an appropriate time to have 


a full meeting -- do that, so... 


 DR. WADE: Could I just ask --


 DR. MELIUS: We'll follow your lead, Roy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: A question here. Lew? 


 DR. WADE: A clarifying question because it has 


budget implications. In the case of Hanford 


and NTS, what -- what version was reviewed by 


SC&A and what version is current? 


DR. NETON: I'm not prepared to answer that 


right now. We need to look at that, yes. 


 DR. WADE: We all need to look at that because 


there are -- there are contract implications 


when --


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- we go back and ask SC&A to look 


at another document. 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro --


DR. NETON: Although -- before John speaks, I 


might -- I think, though, a valid response on 


NIOSH's part is "That issue has been addressed, 


and here are the relevant pages of the new 


revision --

1 

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

 DR. WADE: That's fine. 

DR. NETON: -- that -- that take care of that 

issue." 

DR. MAURO: I have two I guess questions and I 

guess suggestions. Regarding when there is a 


new revision, such as Savannah River where I 


believe it's a complete new revision, I'm not 


quite sure, we see that as not within our scope 


of work under Task I. However, and this is 


where a judgment call's in -- there are -- may 


be some circumstances, though, where a document 


has been revised, but only to -- marginally. 


And I think that -- one of the first steps 


during the conference call, such as the one we 


had with Dr. DeHart. In that case the judgment 


was made this was a substantial revision and it 


was -- and as a result we don't take action 


until authorized to proceed on -- on such a new 


endeavor. So I guess -- there's a little gray 


area, when it's appropriate for us just to move 


forward on -- on -- in the process and when we 


really need to get authorization because it 


represents an ex-- extension of scope of work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and the working group at 


that point has expressed what they would 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 

66 

and I think it's got to come up through our 


Federal Official, and there's also some 


implications with the contracting officer if 


there's a substantial change. Again, a bit of 


a judgment call, but a minor revision on, you 


know, a few paragraphs is one thing. A 


complete overhaul is a -- 


DR. MAURO: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a substantial different task. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Substantially different task. 


DR. MAURO: The other question has to do with 


the normal process from -- for preparing our 


reports, the draft reports that come out. As 


you know, we are working on I guess seven or 


eight of them right now, all of which are 


substantially written, except we haven't had an 


opportunity yet to have our dialogue with the 


questions and answers, which is always very 


helpful, with NIOSH before we put the reports 


together. 


What I've done, because I am concerned -- 


September 30th is the end of our period of 


performance and we have a commitment to deliver 


those draft reports to you prior to that date. 

1 

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 

I guess I'm looking for a little guidance. We 


can do one of two things. We could proceed to 


prepare our draft site profile reviews and 


deliver them if -- during that -- and move 


along those lines. Along that way, if we do 


have our question and answer dialogue, great, 


we will accommodate that, work it into our 


reports. But if it turns out the timing is 


such that it becomes difficult to -- to do 


that, we could do one of two things. We could 


hold off on delivering our draft report until 


we do have the questions and answers, or we 


could go ahead and submit the report without 


the benefit of the question and answer session 


that we normally would have, and deal with the 


question and answer session during the closeout 


process. It really becomes a matter of what -- 


what's your preference. 


Right now, my preference is let's move the 


reports out. I like the idea of getting the 


material out into the hands -- but the downside 


of that is what you would have is a report that 


would not benefit from the dialogue that we 


normally would have before the report goes out. 


So a little guidance -- right now we're -- 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 

68 

are moving forward writing these reports, even 


though we usually by this time would have had 


the dialogue with -- with NIOSH. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me react in part to that, and 


others can join in. Certainly there's a 


contractual deliverable that you're concerned 


about. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which is some sort of written 


document that is provided to the contracting 


officer, I believe, as well as to the Board. 


But as you've indicated, that has not had the 


benefit of what we early on called some sort of 


reality check --


DR. MAURO: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- you know, is it 


(unintelligible) --


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- factual -- are the 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: -- exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So if -- if -- is -- my question 


is, is there some way to distinguish, in terms 


of how we identify that -- I mean we've been 


talking about first draft or something draft, 

1 

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 

but is there -- is there some way to identify 


that --


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for what -- maybe you can think 


of a clever name that's -- I don't want to call 


it a pre-reality draft, but -- 


DR. MAURO: We call it preliminary. In other 


words, we could call it preliminary and make it 


very clear in the introduction that this report 


is being delivered without, you know, having 


gone through the question and answer session. 


As soon as that question and answer session is 


held, we could submit a revision. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But let me ask Lew, in terms of 


contractual requirements on deliverables, if -- 


if they have a -- for example, a fiscal year 


deadline on a deliverable and they're ready to 


-- and they have the written report but haven't 


been able to do that cross-check with -- with 


OCAS, what -- or NIOSH, what -- what is the -- 


what do we need to do on that? 


 DR. WADE: And again, I speak in this case not 


as the Designated Federal Official but as the 


technical project officer on the contract, so ­

- I mean I think -- I think we could go one 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 

70 

two ways, and -- and they've been pretty well 


articulated by John. I think contractually we 


could work it out with SC&A that they did not 


have to meet that deliverable. We could issue 


them instruction and we could absolve them by 


our communication. But in this -- this era of 


audits and reviews and -- I can appreciate 


their reluctance to be in that situation where 


they, while they haven't met a deliverable, 


they've got a letter that explains it, but -- 


so I think that the approach that you've just 


outlined is probably preferable. And that 


would be a submission, albeit a submission that 


clearly identifies what the submission is and 


what it's not. But we could work it out either 


way. Either way, it could be worked out 


contractually. 


DR. MAURO: At present we are moving forward on 


that path. If we're -- I guess until we're 


given other direction. You know, if we -- the 


-- I guess the step that would be taken is we 


could submit a letter -- submit the report and 


-- with the appropriate qualifications of what 


this report is, and -- or alternatively, we 


could make a request of the contracting officer 

1 

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 

for a no-cost extension for a deliverable. 


Normally we're -- it wouldn't cost any more 


money, but rather than have everything 


delivered by September 30th, we would -- may 


want to push it off to a later date. So that's 


-- really becomes the option. 


 DR. WADE: In fact we could even initiate that 


by sending you a letter making that suggestion. 


So I think there are ways to deal with it. But 


again, this is a -- this is a climate where 


everyone watches and counts everything. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: I think, too, we have to keep in 


mind what Savannah River has taught us, that 


these are living documents. I hate to use that 


term, but -- but they're dynamic. And before 


one review is completed, the second revision is 


out. And that sort of thing I'm sure will 


happen with most of these reviews that are 


coming out on site profiles. We just need to 


be aware of that, that it's an ongoing process. 


DR. MAURO: In fact, in dealing with that issue 


-- for example, right now we are reviewing a 


number of documents. What we tried -- we try 


our best to be current. That is, though we may 

1 

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 

have begun the process with a given document, 


if -- there are always OTIBs that are being 


issued, that -- that's one -- the situation. 


When they are issued, we bring them in. So we 


-- in our first issuance of our draft report we 


try to have that deliverable current. All 


right. So -- so -- for example -- but if we're 


real close to completion and we're ready to 


deliver and a new version comes out or a new 


OTIB comes out -- and this is where I make a 


judgment call and say listen, you know, we -- I 


don't want to stop the presses and now regroup, 


so -- it's almost like it's -- it's a gray 


area. You know, when do we try to incorporate 


late-breaking information. If we can, we do. 


If we feel as if it's overwhelming, in terms of 


cost and in terms of schedule, then we don't. 


We deliver our deliverable and then -- we 


acknowledge, however, that by the way, this 


deliverable does not reflect the latest OTIB 


that came out last week, you know, or something 


like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. I don't know who 


was next. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: I have great sympathy with John'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 

73 

position, and I understand the need for the 


contractor to try to appear to be Caesar's 


wife. But the first visual image that I have 


is of an enormous churn. Certainly we must 


have learned, as Dr. DeHart has pointed out, 


that issuance of documents prior to a crosstalk occurring between NIOSH and the contractor 


is absolutely disastrous. 


What we get, first of all, is delivery to the 


Congressional representation the day after the 


document is issued, and a long list of concerns 


from the Hill about what our perceived-to-beauditor is finding in the documents that have 


not yet been discussed. There must be some way 


for common sense to override our contractual 


requirements here so that documents are not 


placed on the street before they've had an 


opportunity to be at least initially vetted 


between the technical authorities that are 


looking at these things. 


I know you don't want to get in a position 


where you have only a piece of paper that says 


this document exists but it's not out yet. 


That's not a good thing, either. And I 


understand also what Dr. Wade is saying. But 

1 

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 

surely we must find some way to be able to not 


put SC&A's documents on the street before 


they've been vetted by the NIOSH technical 


staff. This just has been disastrous for us in 


the past, and will continue to be disastrous. 


There's no point in our churning everybody if 


we don't absolutely have to do that. And if 


contractual obligations are what is causing us 


to do that, then we need to take a closer look 


at what the contracts -- at the wording of the 


contracts and how we handle them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And certainly Dr. Wade has laid 


out a method that would allow the venting (sic) 


to occur first and -- so there certainly is a 


mechanism to do that. Dr. Melius, an 


additional comment? 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, yeah, I would strongly 


disagree with Wanda's comments. First of all, 


the, you know, setting out of drafts has not 


been a disaster. There is a benefit to having 


some dialogue, but I think we all sort of 


remember that there's a constituency out there, 


a public, that wants this information and if 


the rate-limiting step is within NIOSH and -- 


or within their contractor or whatever 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 

75 

getting -- you know, responding to SC&A's 


draft, so be it. I mean we can't hold these 


programs up for-- forever, and I think the 


credibility of the entire program is not served 


by stretching out -- out the delivery of site 


profile reviews that -- delivery of other 


documents, and if -- I think there's been a 


reasonable time period involved. We're already 


falling behind in getting work done in this 


program. Site profile reviews, SEC reviews and 


so forth, and it's difficult and while I 


sympathize with NIOSH and NIOSH staff and all 


the other people involved in this program, I 


think that the resources need to be available 


to respond in a timely fashion to these 


documents. It's not like all of them are being 


delivered September 1 waiting for, you know, 


questions to -- to come back and so they can be 


delivered by September 30th. I think -- we're 


in June. It still -- we have until September, 


so if it's such a priority to get this -- and 


if there are things in those documents that are 


so disturbing to NIOSH, then let them make it a 


higher priority to get the information back to 


SC&A. But I think overall the program's 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 

76 

better served by us com-- you know, doing our 


function, which is to get reports out. 
I 


think, as has been suggested, having a 


introduction or cover page that indicates the 


status of this, the fact that NIOSH has not 


responded to -- is sufficient. I'll remind the 


Board that we have a -- discussed this 


situation before and we have a policy of making 


these draft documents available, preferably 


after there's been some dialogue with NIOSH, 


but I think SC&A has done its job in getting 


the information to NIOSH, at least as I 


understand what's been done in terms of the 


schedule. It's up to NIOSH to get back in a 


timely fashion to this. And if not, I think we 


just need to get these site profile documents 


out and available and continue on with the 


process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I -- as I understand 


what you're saying, that if -- if it appears at 


least that there has been a reasonable amount 


of time elapsed, then perhaps should not delay 


-- and I would guess you might also say, for 


example, a -- a document from the contractor 


that appear-- or got to NIOSH on September 25th 

1 

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 

or something --


 DR. MELIUS: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- you wouldn't put it in that 


category. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. NETON: I think that --


 DR. ZIEMER: So you might have both -- both 


options available --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- depending on the situation, so 


-- Jim. 


DR. NETON: I would like to offer just some 


clarification on what the current process is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


DR. NETON: I think there's a little bit of 


confusion here maybe. We are not currently 


reviewing draft documents that SC&A produces. 


I mean they go out the door the day they're 


issued by them, and we get them the same time 


the Board does. Where the review cycle -- and 


it's not really a review cycle, it's -- it's a 


question cycle. In their prepar-- in the 


preparation of documents, SC&A comes up with 


certain questions, certain questions that they 


might want clarification for, and this assists 

1 

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 

them -- at least in my mind -- in writing a 


better document, and NIOSH has the opportunity 


to respond to those questions, and that's where 


the bottleneck is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. NETON: It's not in the release of the 


final product or the draft -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think --


DR. NETON: -- document. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- John is saying that they're -- 


they're ready to go --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but they're just awaiting that 


feedback on some of the --


 DR. WADE: Right, and talked about the -- let's 


-- I think this issue can be answered in the 


grain. I think we're talking about the six 


site profiles that are under review this year. 


Correct? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, these are ones that there -- 


there's been no SC&A report out yet. Right? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah -- right. There -- there are 


nine that -- there are six that were from last 


year and nine that are in the pipeline, 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 

79 

-- the nine that are in the pipeline -- what we 


have is a -- an interesting situation. We've 


got nine in the pipeline -- I believe it's nine 


-- that we're going to be putting out right 


now, and we -- are being written. A lot of 


them are already written, sitting -- holding -- 


in a holding pattern waiting to -- for an 


opportunity to make sure we got our facts 


correct. 


DR. NETON: Are you sure there are nine, John? 


I thought that these were the six that you were 


producing at this point. I can't think of any 


other sites. 


DR. MAURO: I -- I -- no, I'm thinking nine, 


because I remember the nine was this -- that we 


had a set of nine. Like -- like Paducah is not 


up there. 


DR. NETON: Paducah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And there was -- I might be wrong, 


let's see --


DR. NETON: Okay, well --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but --


DR. MAURO: Maybe it's the -- the -- the exact 


number -- please forgive me, it might be seven 


then. But the -- the -- now we also have 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 

80 

delivered our questions on every one of them, 


as --


DR. NETON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- you just correctly pointed out, 


so we are also part of the bottleneck. I mean 


but --


 DR. WADE: Let's just start with this six list 


and then -- I think three things emerge when I 


look at this list. In the case of two of them, 


LANL and -- for LANL, responses to questions 


have been provided, so you -- you've gone 


through this step for LANL. You've gone 


through this step for Mound. Right? 


DR. NETON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, that's -- that's correct -- 


that's a correct statement. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So in that case, we've -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: You're ready to go on those. 


DR. MAURO: We're clean -- we're clean. 


 DR. WADE: On Fernald and Linde, NIOSH is 


drafting responses. 


DR. NETON: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: So according to Dr. Melius's 


provision, this is June, that's September, one 


could hope that those two will 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 

81 

through this process by the time you release. 


And that leaves us the two where, on X-10 and 


Pinellas, there -- you have not issued the 


questions. 


DR. MAURO: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: So we -- we need to talk about that, 


and maybe that falls into the questions coming 


out next week, NIOSH can respond. Or maybe the 


category of September 20th. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: So to me, the answer is in the 


grain. Now if there's another one, we need to 


know what that is and what category it's in. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Paducah, maybe. 


DR. MAURO: And that would be Paducah, and 


those questions are being drafted as we speak, 


and they will get them out as quickly as 


possible. But what -- what I'm saying is, this 


is -- you know, we're real close to July, 


September's around the corner, and production ­

- and we really normally are in production at 


this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think certainly our official is 


aware of both sides of the concern and the time 


lines here, and there are ways to address 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 

82 

either way to try to minimize --


DR. MAURO: It seems to be a manageable 


situation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we want to minimize the 


concerns that Wanda has. We want to maintain 


the openness that Jim has referred to. It's a 


-- it's a fine balance, like much of what we 


do, and I think it's doable. 


 DR. WADE: And I would suggest that at the 


August call of the Board that we make a 


complete report of this and the Board can 


decide how it would like to proceed. 


Hopefully, if we do good staff work, we can get 


these issues resolved. But if not, then the 


Board can weigh in in August as to how it would 


like to see. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Thank you. Other 


comments on this -- Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Just -- it's not a question but a 


comment. I notice on this list of six 


coincides with at least two of the SECs that 


are being -- under -- we will see reports on 


relatively shortly. I believe Fernald and LANL 


are on here. I don't think I missed any, but 


could have. And we need to think in terms 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 

83 

our functions and so forth, what's going to be 


needed in terms of -- you know, potentially 


needed in terms of reviewing those SEC 


evaluations and in terms of -- of certainly 


having a site profile review available would -- 


would -- is going to be helpful and... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, 


I guess Mike, also -- Bob Presley, then Mike 


Gibson. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Jim --


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The NTS TBD is a little over two 


years old now. Do we -- do you know if we have 


been sent the copy of the matrix created by 


SC&A on that, or do you all have the -- 


DR. NETON: Do you mean has the Board been sent 


a copy? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: I believe the Board received a copy 


of the matr-- the comment resolution matrix, 


yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


DR. NETON: But I can certainly re-send that if 


-- if you like. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do you remember getting -- any 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 

84 

y'all remember getting it? We've --


DR. NETON: Normally --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- had so much that --


DR. NETON: Yeah, normally when those come out 


SC&A distributes them to the Board and NIOSH 


simultaneously. But you know, I can't swear 


that it happened, but that's the normal process 


and --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. I just don't remember it, 


it's been so long. 


 MS. MUNN: I don't, either. We can ask that it 


be sent --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


re-send -- re-send it. 


DR. MAURO: To help out a little bit, we ran 


exactly into this situation on Savannah River 


with such a -- a delay, so any of the working 


group members who don't have either the report 


itself for some reason -- you know, so much 


paper -- or the -- the matrix, just let me know 


and we will deliver it, just as we did in your 


-- in the case of Savannah River. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Could you -- could you go ahead 


and re-send that to --


DR. MAURO: Both the report and the matrix or 

1 

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 

just --


 MR. PRESLEY: Please. 


DR. MAURO: We'll take care of that, so you -- 


it'll come out electronically -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: To the --


DR. MAURO: -- or hard copy, whatever you -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hard copy, please. 


DR. MAURO: Hard copy. 


 MR. GIBSON: Electronic. 


 MS. MUNN: Electronic. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike Gibson, a comment. 


 MR. GIBSON: It's switching gears a little bit, 


but just a question and a comment. How are the 


point of contacts chosen for the -- the sites 


to respond to SC&A? 


DR. NETON: Well, Stu -- Stu might be able to 


help me out a little bit with this, but you 


know, we have limited resources. I know a lot 


of the -- a lot of it was based on 


availability, but I'll let Stu comment. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, our -- our point of 


contact, recall, is sort of a -- a coordinator 


because he essentially collects the questions, 


provides them to ORAU, who works up the 


responses and things like that. So we've kind 

1 

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 

of selected people that -- you know, some 


knowledge of the site, if we can. You know, if 


we've got somebody who has some knowledge of 


the site, we kind of select them to do this 


coordination task. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. I guess that was kind of my 


concern. I'm getting back to this conflict of 


interest or perceived conflict of interest. 


Take Mound, for example. Point of contact 


there certainly has knowledge of Mound, but 


also has worked intimately, closely and in the 


same areas and may possibly have worked for 


some of the people that were chosen as site 


expert to do the Mound site profile. So that ­

- that seems a little too cozy that, you know ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GIBSON: Someone should -- have -- if they 


take site profile information from the site 


experts, it shouldn't matter -- it shouldn't 


have to be someone with Mound history to relay 


that information to SC&-- to respond to SC&A's 


questions. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean it wouldn't have 


to be. We felt like they might be able to more 

1 

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 

readily come up to speed on the nature of the 


question and -- and assess it and so that's why 


we made the assignment. I mean he and -- and 


Sam Glover, for that matter, is conflicted at 


Los Alamos, so if -- if that is, you know, 


something we should avoid at this step, we can 


do that. We didn't feel like this person has a 


particular decision-making role at this point. 


All they are -- collecting questions, 


consolidating questions, you know, scheduling 


conference -- telephone conference calls and 


things of that sort. And so we essentially 


selected people with some knowledge of the case 


because we don't feel like these people are 


particularly decision-makers at this point. 


 MR. GIBSON: Well, again -- but -- I mean if 


you guys got the information down in black and 


white from the site experts, your point of 


contact, to me, is just -- just a conduit -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- to relay that information. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Exactly right. 


 MR. GIBSON: And so it just -- to me, it seems 


like a very cozy relationship that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well --

1 

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

 MR. GIBSON: That's just my opinion. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Those -- those two individuals 


essentially have completed the task of, you 


know, consolidating the comment -- or the 


responses to the questions and providing them 


back. Those are the two where we are at that 


point. 


 MR. GIBSON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- you know, for future 


point of contact work on resolving -- you know, 


once the report is written and resolution, if 


it's the Board's -- if the Board's desire, we 


can make -- we can avoid that, because you 


know, we consciously chose, in many cases, 


okay, so-and-so will be able to get up to speed 


quicker, understand the questions quicker, so 


we put them in this role. And -- and because 


we don't feel like they're decision-making at 


this point. You know, they're sort of 


consolidating. So we -- we intentionally chose 


them in some cases for that reason. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But like I said, they've 


completed that role. 


 MR. GIBSON: Well, again, I -- I don't un-- 

1 

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 

really understand the getting up to speed. If 


you've got black and white documentation from 


site experts and SC&A asks a question, it looks 


like the point of contact would simply turn to 


the documentation and answer the question 


rather than maybe speak off the top of their 


head for --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's --


 MR. GIBSON: -- (unintelligible) personal 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- return to this in a moment. 


CONGRESSMAN JOHN HOSTETTLER
 

We'll interrupt the proceedings for a moment 


and welcome a fellow Hoosier to the room. You 

all know what a Hoosier is, don't you? 

 MS. MUNN: Of course. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What is a Hoosier, you ask. It's 

a person who's dribbling a basketball around 


the Indianapolis Speedway while hunting for 


mushrooms. Representative John Hostettler, 


serving sort of the southwest portion of our 


state, welcome, sir. We'd be glad to have you 


address the Advisory Board. You can use the 


podium or the mike in the middle, whichever is 


comfortable. 

1 

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

 CONGRESSMAN HOSTETTLER: Thank you, Mr. 


Chairman, and that is as good an explanation of 


a Hoosier as I have heard, having lived there 


my whole life. It's a matter of some 


significant controversy, so I appreciate that 


contribution. 


I want to thank you all for giving me the 


opportunity to appear before the Board today. 


I serve as Chairman of the Subcommittee on 


Immigration, Border Security and Claims, the 


subcommittee with jurisdiction over claims 


against the government, and thus with oversight 


responsibility with regard to the Energy 


Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 


Program. This Board serves as the essential 


check and balance to ensure science used as the 


basis for compensation decisions is reliable 


and thorough in its substance. 


As you know, the fair review of claims under 


this program faces many obstacles due to 


missing or inadequate records. Additionally, 


as we have verified through historical 


documents uncovered with regard to some 


facilities, there is a real possibility of data 


tampering that shadows the reliability 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 

91 

records throughout the complex. 


I appreciate the substantial work that each one 


of you have taken on. I also comment NIOSH for 


keeping the Board's work open to the public, 


transcribed and publicly noticed, because 


transparency is vital to the credibility of 


actions under the program. 


There has been a question raised about the 


motivation for the Subcommittee hearings that 


began in March, and so let me make my 


motivations clear. As Chairman of the 


Subcommittee tasked with oversight on EEOICPA, 


I have been looking with -- I have been looking 


whether the program is fulfilling the purposes 


of the law, to ensure workers made ill due to 


their work on the nation's defense nuclear 


program receive the assistance they need, the 


compensation they deserve, and a fair 


evaluation of their claims. I have not jumped 


into this issue because I have a major facility 


in my district. There are a small number of 


claims from the Dana Heavy Water facility. 


However, my motivation is the belief that the 


Cold War era workers, many of whom were 


deceived as a matter of government policy 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 

92 

subjected to dangers unwittingly, deserve our 


thanks as a nation for their service, and fair 


and honest treatment in the processing of the 


claims for the physical harm they suffered 


because of that service by all of us, and 


especially the agencies responsible for running 


the program. 


To that end, the Subcommittee asked GAO to 


conduct a series of evaluations, looking first 


at the implementation of Subtitle B, and later 


at the roles of NIOSH program staff, the 


Advisory Board, and the audit contractor, and 


whether cost increases related to the audits 


were reasonable. More recently we have asked 


GAO to assess the ORAU contract and 


implementation of the NIOSH conflict of 


interest policy. 


Because I so strongly support the mission of 


this program, a particular concern was sparked 


when the OMB pass-back document was brought to 


my attention. This document's call for 


administrative steps to be taken which would 


work to reduce the number of SEC approvals in 


order to, quote, contain the growth and 


benefits under the program, end quote, 

1 

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 

compromises a core principle of the program. 


When data is missing or inadequate, classes of 


workers are to be put in the SEC, not refused 


inclusion when someone deems the cost too 


expensive. 


While we are investigating the pass-back 


options to provide administration review of SEC 


petitions, to alter the balance of the Advisory 


Board, and to impose constraints on the Board's 


audit contractor, there is no intention of 


intruding on the Board's work. 


 That being said, there is concern that two 


members of the Advisory Board have been 


selectively removed from the White House 


without cause, and now only two of the 11 


workers repres-- members represent workers. No 


effort has been made to rebalance this Board to 


meet the requirement for a balance of, quote, 


scientific, medical and worker perspectives, 


end quote. It is imperative that this be 


resolved to the satisfaction of the claimant 


community and thus to the representatives here 


in Congress because they look to this Board to 


assure them that their claims are being 


considered fairly. 

1 

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 

The Director of NIOSH testified before our 


Subcommittee on March 1st that NIOSH was 


developing a new conflict of interest policy, 


and I commend him for soliciting your input and 


that of the public. In that regard, I urge you 


to maintain the current conflict of interest 


requirements for your audit contractor so that 


the independence of individuals working on this 


project are beyond reproach. 


Also with regard to the audit contractor, 


testimony from DOL at that same hearing 


expressed concern that individuals working for 


NIOSH were barred from some work because they 


were experts on behalf of DOE or its 


contractors in litigation, but there were no 


constraints on the work of the audit contractor 


or their associates if they had supported 


claimants in litigation against DOE. While 


this equal bias standard appears to make sense 


in theory, in practice the primary concern is 


that the work of NIOSH and ORAU be audited in a 


way that leaves no stone unturned by parties 


whose work has the confidence of the claimant 


community, regardless of their past actions. 


Given the history of the nuclear weapons 

1 

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 

complex, if experts are excluded due to their 


work on behalf of claimants, all EEOICPA 


claimants may be short-changed. The whole 


point of this review process is to overcome the 


doubt created through the government's 


deception early on, and the questionability of 


honest and reliable information being the basis 


for claims processing. To fulfill this intent, 


claimants need reviewers asking the questions 


that speak to their interests. 


Finally, I'm concerned that DOL bracketed out 


the funding for the Advisory Board and its 


audit contractor in their FY '07 budget 


request. In FY '06 the Congress specifically 


allocated four and a half million dollars, to 


be drawn from the program fund, for the Board 


and its audit contractor to alleviate any 


attempt to stifle your review by limiting 


funding. Given the importance of your role in 


this program, many of us are considering the 


possibility that Congress may need to continue 


stipulating independent funding for your work, 


either through the appropriations process or 


through amendment of the law. 


Again, I want to thank you for your willingness 

1 

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 

to take on this important task, and all of your 


hard work -- and for all of your hard work to 


assure a measure of compensation and justice to 


these Cold Warriors whose government must not 


forsake them or their families a second time. 


Be assured that I will do as much as I can to 


support the integrity and transparency that you 


individually and the Board collectively bring 


to this program. 


Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Mr. 


Hostettler. 


 DR. WADE: I think we'll take a break. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:15 a.m. 


to 10:40 a.m.) 


SITE PROFILE UPDATES (CONT’D)


 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to reconvene. Just 


before the visit by Representative Hostettler 


we were discussing the concern that Mike Gibson 


had raised about the -- what do we call those 


folks who are coordinating the efforts? Anyway 


 MR. GIBSON: Point of contact --


 DR. ZIEMER: Point of contact, the point men -- 


or point people. So we can continue that. 
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 

97 

think Stu -- Stu had made some comments. 


Perhaps Larry has some additional comment to 


make -- Larry Elliott. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We'll change -- I -- I -- if 


there's a perception that a person serving as a 


point of contact can exercise influence in that 


effort, you know, I don't want to -- I don't 


want to -- I recognize that concern and we'll 


just change the points of contact. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: I'd like to just say I appreciate 


that, Larry, and I think it's a -- I think it's 


also a wise management move, that it could help 


NIOSH or OCAS broaden your management base as 


far as your people getting knowledge of all the 


sites. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I would agree with you that -- 


first I'd say there's a learning curve, but 


that -- that's okay. We'll let the learning 


curve happen and -- and I'm a believer that 


we've got good staff who would maybe come out 


through -- from that learning curve and have 


perhaps a different perspective than somebody 


who lived through the -- the work at a given 


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 

98

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Any other 


discussion on that? Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to follow up a little 


bit, I -- my concern would be if that point of 


contact is going to develop into someone that 


takes a more active role in some of the 


resolution issues and -- and so forth, were 


going to have a little bit more public 


involvement at that point in time and so forth, 


then it -- it could be -- become awkward -- 


that. And so it -- I think it's -- it's sort 


of how you're planning to sort of use your 


staff over the long term and get them up -- you 


know, involved in a particular site and in 


handling a site, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: In this solution that Larry has 


now indicated, there probably would not be a 


concern then if the person did get somewhat 


involved in resolution, although I think Stu 


indicated the anticipation was they wouldn't 


certainly be in a decision-making mode at all, 


so -- but perhaps could be involved more than 


otherwise. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think as -- as things got 


-- yeah, again, depends. If it's simply 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 

99 

pass along information, it's one thing. If 


it's going to be involved in the -- the 


workgroup meetings and so forth as they come 


about, I think that's where it gets a little 


bit -- could become -- again, it's a perception 


of a conflict and -- and not to -- I don't know 


any of these individuals and not to, you know, 


say that they would be conflicted or are 


conflicted, but just the fact that it just -- I 


think it's important that we have -- try to be 


careful on those type of -- that type of 


arrangement. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Neton. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think it is a little more 


than just passing through the information. It 


was the intent for that person to take over a 


role similar to what I'm -- I've done for Y-12 


and Brant Ulsh has done for Rocky Flats, to 


sort of serve as the coordinator, maybe, of the 


effort. And I understand the issue and, you 


know, we'll proceed as Larry has -- has 


suggested. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, I don't want to speak 


against the thought, but we are and the people 

1 

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 

that work for NIOSH, they are the experts in 


this field at what they're doing. To just come 


up and say everybody has a conflict of interest 


I think is ridiculous. I'm going to go on 


record with that. I think that there ought to 


be a median ground here. If you've got 


somebody that -- that -- yeah, that was there 


or -- or where they can -- they can influence a 


thought or something like that, but I sure like 


the fact of using expert people to get the job 


done. I think we can get it done faster and 


better if we pick our experts, and that's all I 


would like to ask. And I think that's -- I 


think that's what you're doing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: To change the points of contact 


is, in my opinion, not going to preclude our 


ability to draw on -- I believe J.J. Johnson 


was the person that was identified to be on -- 


the point of contact for the Mound site, and I 


don't believe Mike ha-- you know, is raising 


personal issues about J.J. But I think 


certainly it does not preclude us to approach 


J.J. as we work through the Mound -- any issues 


on Mound and say J.J., what are your thoughts. 

1 

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 

He is a site expert and we utilize site experts 


that way. And we will fully attribute whatever 


contribution they make and we'll make that well 


known. It will be transparent. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? 


 MR. GIBSON: I just --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I would add that he doesn't have 


decision authority. That's not going to 


happen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mike. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That's one thing we do exclude in 


the process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Mike. Additional comment? 


 MR. GIBSON: Just a -- a brief comment to in a 


way respond to Mr. Presley, just -- you know, 


it goes both ways. I mean this year on my 


conflict of interest statement I took a six-


hour bus trip around Fernald for a non-profit 


organization and now I'm conflicted for 


Fernald. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, hopefully some of those can 


-- in the final conflict of interest thing it 


won't count if you drove past that site on your 


way to Florida, but --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) We're working 

1 

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 

on it. We're working on it. 


 DR. WADE: Could I take a moment? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: Since all Board members are here, 


let me talk to you about upcoming schedule of 


meetings, based upon your availability. First 


of all, you know that we have a call scheduled 


for August 8th. We have a face-to-face meeting 


scheduled for September 19, 20 and 21. We're 


looking at Nevada as the location. We now have 


a call scheduled for October 18th; a face-toface meeting scheduled for December 11, 12 and 


13; a call scheduled for January 11th -- that's 


the year of our Lord 2007, believe it or not -- 


 MS. MUNN: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, we don't have -- 


 DR. DEHART: Could you start over so -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, where we can work on this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's telling you to put them on 


your calendars based on -- 


 DR. WADE: Here we go. Call on August 8th. 

 MS. MUNN: Got it. 

 DR. WADE: Face-to-face meeting September 19, 

20 and 21. 

 MS. MUNN: 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 

103

 DR. WADE: Okay. Next, a call on October 11th 


-- October 18th. And then a face-to-face 


meeting December 11, 12, and 13. 


DR. ROESSLER: Do you have a place? 


 DR. WADE: No. If you want to pick a place for 


December --


DR. ROESSLER: Let's pick a warm place. 


 DR. MELIUS: North Pole. 


 DR. WADE: I mean I -- the reason I keep it 


open is just because we don't know where the 


action will be and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We talked before about Pinellas, 


and I don't know where we'll be on that, but 


that's one area to look at. 


 DR. WADE: Right, we could tentatively pencil 


in Pinellas, but again, I think it's -- wisdom 


would dictate leaving it open. Then January 


11th, 2007 is a call -- January 11th, 2007 is a 


call. And then February 6, 7 and 8 of 2007 is 


a face-to-face meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What's the dates in February 


again, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: 6, 7 and 8. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 6th, 7th and 8th. 


 DR. WADE: So now we have three calls and three 

1 

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 

meetings scheduled. 


Thank you. Thank you for your -- the 


contributions with dates. Everyone was 


accommodating. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Wade, a question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I talked earlier about this and I 


was wondering if there's any way -- you know, 


especially some of us that sit on these small 


committees, you read the site profile and it 


brings a lot of things into question. Is there 


any way that we would be able to tour like say 


Nevada Test Site, be able to come in a day 


early or whatever because when you're digesting 


a lot of this information, a lot of it doesn't 


make sense sometimes just from the paperwork 


side. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the answer is yes. In fact, I 


believe a tour is on schedule for Nevada Test 


Site. 


 DR. WADE: September 18 is what we're aiming 


for. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do you want me to start -- 


 DR. WADE: Yes, please. Mr. Presley has 

1 

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 

offered, based upon your suggestion, to set up 


a tour --


 MR. CLAWSON: Appreciate that. 


 DR. WADE: -- and as soon as we get that 


confirmed, we'll ask those of you who'd want to 


attend -- many of you have been there, but 


that's the plan and thank you for the 


suggestion. And the effort, Robert. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Any idea right now who might -- 


who might want to go? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want a straw vote of 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, that way -- that way I can 


tell them how big of a bus and things like 


that. 


(Pause) 


 Looks like seven and the staffers -- Larry, do 


you want any of your staff -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Been there, done that. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The staff can go, though. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There may be --

 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think you might want to 


plan for a couple of our staff. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. We're talking about 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 

106 

half -- I mean a dozen people. 


 DR. WADE: Question about spouses. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Spouses. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, and I'll ask about that. 


They -- they probably can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So there may be a couple 


more spouses --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, we're talking no more than 


probably 24 -- a dozen -- a dozen plus spouses. 


FINALIZE SELECTION OF 6TH ROUND OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


CASES, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We have on our agenda 


now the finalized selection of the 6th round of 


dose recommen-- dose reconstruction cases. The 


subcommittee, during its deliberations earlier 


this week, selected some -- or is proposing -- 


I think it's 25 cases, from which -- and 


assuming that some might have to be dropped for 


one reason or another, and some might carry 


forward, so I now call on -- I guess I call on 


the Chair of the subcommittee, and that's me, 


to give the report of what is being 


recommended. 


This comes as a motion from the subcommittee. 


It doesn't require a second. Let me refer 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 

107 

to the list of proposed cases. And we have --


we have selected some proposed cases from the 


document entitled "Full Internal and External," 


and we'll use the ending digits -- these all 


begin with 2006-06, and we were careful to 


exclude the 666 one --


 MR. CLAWSON: By the way, that's the number of 


my facility, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if that doesn't make sense to 


you, just ignore it. 


 MS. MUNN: I think that's my standard room 


number. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Your hotel room number. Okay. So 


Dr. Wade will read to us the proposed numbers. 


Those who weren't present for the subcommittee 


meeting may wish to mark these on your list and 


we'll have opportunity to make any final 


changes that may be proposed after the list is 


read. So here we go. 


 DR. WADE: The list includes 08, 18, 19, 22, 


26, 31, 33, 48, 49, 65, 74 -- 


 MS. MUNN: Two -- two. 


 DR. WADE: -- I'm sorry, 72, thank you -- 93, 


96, 98, 106, 113, 125, 136, 144, 155, 163, 166, 


171 and 181. In addition there were two 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

carried over from the fifth round that will be 


added to this for consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the list you just read is a 


list of 23. Is that correct? Or is that 25? 


I thought -- Did we -- did we include the 


carry-overs in the list? 


 DR. WADE: I count 24 on the list I just read, 


plus two carry-overs. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. One -- one of the issues we 


will have is -- is if -- if none of these are 


disqualified -- for example, if they're pulled 


from the finalized list by Labor and have 


reworks or something like that. Let's suppose 


all of these are truly finalized cases, we need 


to have some guidance as to how to proceed 


forward. I would suggest that we utilize the 


two that were carry-overs as the first two, and 


then take the next 18 on the list, unless 


someone objects or has an alternate suggestion 


that everyone likes better -- and that won't 


hurt my feelings, so -- any objection to that, 


that we --


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- start with the two carry-overs 


and then proceed down the list in order? 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 

109 

anything left over will carry onto the next 


group of 20 then. Is that the understanding? 


 MS. MUNN: Sure, fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objections? Any -- anyone 


wish to offer any changes or modifications to 


the list? We can -- we can drop some, we can 


add some. 


 (No responses) 


 It appears that there is no movement to change. 


Am I correct? Are you ready to vote then? 


 MS. MUNN: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So the vote would be to approve 


this list, which is thought to be 24 or 25. 


 MS. MUNN: 24 plus two. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is it 24? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Whatever it is. All in 


favor say aye. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Are there any abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


Thank you. The motion carries and this will 


constitute then the basis for the sixth round. 

110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: One slight clarification for the 


record. Depending upon what winds up on the 


list, the Chairman might have to look at the 


team assignments and do some slight adjusting 


to keep the numbers about the same, and I -- I 


would assume he would have that prerogative. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Now we haven't done the 


team assignments on this list yet. We did team 


assignments on the -- on the fifth round list, 


I believe. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- and I don't think we need 


the team assignments before our next phone call 


next -- yeah. 


 DR. WADE: You're right, I don't think we do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So let's -- let's move on. 


SC&A REPORT OF SEC REVIEW PROCEDURES
 

DR. JOHN MAURO, SC&A
 

Let's see, we have next SC&A review of -- or 


SC&A report of the SEC review procedures. I 


think we have a brief report by John Mauro, and 


there should -- there's also a handout at your 


place for this. John? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, is this from 


yesterday, or is this 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 

111

 DR. ZIEMER: This was the switch we made -- the 


-- the initial -- the initial agenda said SC&A 


presentation on 4th round. We did the 4th 


round yesterday. We did the switch, so we're 


now picking up what was originally scheduled 


yesterday in the SC&A time slot, which is 


called SC&A Report on SEC Review Procedures. 


(Pause) 


This -- the one you're showing there comes up 


after this. 


(Pause) 


What's the question? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Did you want the SEC review 


procedures or the Task III procedures review? 


 DR. WADE: SEC review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: SEC review procedures is the 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) That's the 


other one. That's the one that I 


(unintelligible). 


(Pause) 


DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) I thought you were 


interested in the review of the 


(unintelligible). One is dealing with the Task 


V SEC review procedures, the other is -- 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 

112 

just completed a review on the Task III 


(unintelligible) procedure. I just want to 


make sure which presentation you'd like to hear 


at this time. 


 DR. WADE: The SEC review procedures. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. My apologies, 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: For the record, we're interested in 


everything you do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. This was the item we 


swapped with yesterday, so... 


(Pause) 


And John -- John, my apology, the handout that 


I saw at the place I thought -- I thought was 


the handout for what I've described, but I see 


it --


DR. MAURO: We have two --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that was a little misleading, 


yes. 


DR. MAURO: -- and we're prepared to address 


both. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: And we'll give you the opportunity 


to address both. 


(Pause) 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Again, this is officially called 


"SC&A Report of SEC Review Procedures". 


 DR. WADE: To set the stage, remember that 


there was a working group that looked at SEC 


review procedures, SC&A was looking at them, 


and then you were asked to sort of offer a 


blend. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) We submitted 


two reports to the Board. One was a review of 


NIOSH procedures for SEC and then the other was 


draft Board procedures and (unintelligible) 


procedures for reviewing the SEC last November, 


I believe, and then the Board adopted its own 


criteria and -- for reviewing SEC and the 


direction that was given to us was to revise 


the draft procedures (unintelligible) for the 


Board. And the contractor, in conformity with 


those and also to reflect the extensive 


experience that we've had in actually reviewing 


SEC petitions, a petition for Ames that did not 


have a site profile, Y-12 (unintelligible) the 


work reviewing the site profile and Rocky Flats 


(unintelligible) some kind of combination of 


the two. And so we submitted a revised report 


to you the week -- was it on the 5th of June, 

1 

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 

something like that, or early this month. 


 The initial procedures had been in three phases 


and they had envisioned that most of the work 


would have been after NIOSH submitted the 


evaluation report because a proposal had been 


written with the idea that there would be full 


reviews. But in the interest of timeliness, a 


lot of work has been brought forward and part 


of the direction of the Board as we viewed it 


was to do it in two phases. The first phase 


would be after NIOSH qualifies a petition for 


evaluation, but before NIOSH submits the 


evaluation report, to make a preliminary 


investigation of the petition, what are the 


issues, and then -- and related documents and 


their site profile of that. I'm going through 


the phases. But -- but basically to do one 


phase before NIOSH publish-- publishes 


evaluation report and the second phase after it 


publishes the report and the second phase could 


be a full review or a partial review -- or no 


review at all, depending on what the Board 


decision would be. And throughout the -- the 


touchstone, of course, is the feasibility of 


dose reconstruction under 42 CFR 83 and is 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 

115 

dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy 


possible. And in fact it's the way it has 


worked out in our experience is usually we're 


looking at is the dose reconstruction a maximum 


dose or a plausible assumption possible and 


then NIOSH might do it with more accuracy if 


they feel -- but the -- the main criterion is 


can you bound the dose with some reasonable 


circumstances, and if you can do that, it's not 


an SEC issue and if you can't, then -- then it 


becomes an SEC question. 


So this is the detail of phase one. NIOSH 


qualifies the petition and informs the Board. 


The Board designates a working group, so this 


is the procedure as we see it that the Board 


had been following, and the contractor works 


according to whether the Board wants us to be 


involved in any particular phase of this. We 


had initially suggested that NIOSH provide a 


detailed SEC-specific evaluation plan, which is 


mentioned in the regulation. NIOSH has said 


(unintelligible) provided a general evaluation 


plan (unintelligible) creating a -- a formal 


document would be very cumbersome and delay the 


process. I think the Board agreed with 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 

116 

At least that was our understanding that there 


would not be a formal petition-specific 


evaluation plan but that in its place documents 


that NIOSH is using (unintelligible) made 


available to the working group. NIOSH would 


communicate in some way what it saw as the 


issues and the working group makes its own list 


of issues that could be drawn from the 


petition, the site profile review if there is 


one, and document review. And of course the 


working group may assign tasks to the 


contractor, as it has been doing. 


So this is sort of further -- further 


development. Part -- a part of what has 


happened is a lot of the issue-specific 


development then revolved around two questions 


broadly, are the data available, are the data 


valid, and that the are the types of data that 


we look for, which are personnel monitoring 


data, air concentration data, (unintelligible), 


job types -- and this has to be done for every 


period and the different type of processes. 


And as you saw on the Y-12 petition, looking at 


specific radionuclides and specific processes 


and the Cyclotron and the Calutron and so 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 

117 

this -- this ultimately had a considerable 


importance and the data validation and 


integrity questions have also been quite 


important, both -- both at Y-12 and in one case 


it clarified that a lot of other data were 


actually valid and could be used, and then 


there was some portion of data that could not 


be properly validated, like urine and 


(unintelligible) data, and then how it was to 


be used was also resolved in the 


(unintelligible). So very important and sort 


of precedence and methodological processes are 


being put in place, and those have been 


incorporated into the details of the report. 


won't go into that here. 


But at -- at this -- in the preliminary stage, 


the bottom line, in a way, would be the last 


bullet here, to define to sample full or 


partial dose reconstructions that NIOSH would 


actually do to demonstrate that it can -- you 


know, can -- that -- actually do dose 


reconstructions, dose reconstructions are 


feasible, if that's the direction in which 


NIOSH is going. 


So these are the (unintelligible) procedures. 


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 

118 

Part of what is in these procedures is there 


would be at least a preliminary interview with 


at least one petitioner. In the case of Ames, 


for instance, I sought Board permission to talk 


to Dr. Fuortes. I sought his view of his 


petition. I asked him where there might be 


additional documentation that he might have 


looked at. This is a preliminary contact and 


not a -- not a full-blown, formal interview. 


This not -- not to drag out the process in the 


initial stages. I asked him his opinion of who 


the best site experts were for me to get a grip 


on who might know what all data was available. 


I interviewed Dr. Warf*, whose -- he was just 


an amazing interview. I won't go into it, but 


it was just -- it was a real pleasure for me to 


-- and a privilege for me to talk to him, how ­

- how clear his memory was, how much fun it was 


(unintelligible). 


So we -- we prepare by reviewing the documents 


and the petition and (unintelligible) site 


profile review an initial list of issues. And 


I think preparing an initial list of issues 


from the petition is extremely important 


because that gives the proper place to 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 

119 

petitioner in the process, that something they 


have said in the petition, whether it's about 


records not being available or missing or data 


integrity or like the high-fired issue. But if 


it's given appropriate consideration by the 


working group, and by the contractor if the 


working group desires -- I think the Rocky 


Flats high-fired report has been 


(unintelligible) very good example of that. 


The -- and then again, the bottom line to this 


preliminary assessment would be a list of 


examples. Now in the case of Ames it was not 


necessary because our preliminary evaluation 


indicated to us that we just (unintelligible) ­

- the data just weren't there to do dose 


reconstruction, so we just stopped and informed 


the Board at that point that we'd arrived at 


the end and stated the resources and NIOSH 


filed their report and -- and we went on from 


there. 


I think, just for your information, about 1,000 


hours were allocated to Ames, and in the end I 


think it all got done in just a shade over 300 


hours, because we stopped the process where we 


(unintelligible). And then the other -- the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

other review, which took more resources 


(unintelligible) something available within the 


budget to do that. 


So if a site profile review is available, then 


there are some additional things that we do 


from that as we have been doing. We go through 


the matrix and extract the issues from the 


matrix and the site profile review, added to 


the issues raised by the petitioner, and 


examine the questions of job types and 


radionuclide -- just -- just for an example, 


for instance, the -- the other radionuclide 


issues in Rocky Flats are the thorium issue and 


exotic radionuclide issues were raised in our 


site profile review and that's how they wound 


up in the SEC issues list that we prepared. 


And I -- I personally wasn't involved in that, 


but I was involved in the SEC phase of it, but 


I relied on the site profile review plus the 


other documentation (unintelligible) my 


starting point. 


If there's -- if there's site profiles, we do a 


site -- targeted review of the site profile. 


We don't necessarily aim to produce a document 


from that. I haven't -- I haven't -- 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 

121 

there's no site profile, then we do what we did 


on Ames. We do a preliminary check of the 


documentation to see what's available. We 


don't necessarily evaluate the whole 


(unintelligible) documentation. I was 


convinced (unintelligible) interviewed Dr. 


Warf* and -- and talked to Dr. Fuortes and 


looked at the documentation that there was no 


documentation on the plutonium experimentation 


and so on, there was nothing -- NIOSH confirmed 


that, so we just -- we stopped looking 


(unintelligible) something and wait for NIOSH 


to deliver something. 


So (unintelligible) we will not be creating a 


dummy site profile or a mock site profile or a 


substitute site profile. That's not the 


objective of this task. 


After the evaluation report is submitted, of 


course, the Board has -- has three options and 


historically has exercised all three in one way 


or another -- accept the ER and vote on it; 


accept it partially, which is what was done on 


Nevada Test Site, and investigate 


(unintelligible) more and -- or review the ER 


further, a partial or full 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 

122 

So here -- if there is a review, a full review 


would include these. Of course a partial 


review, then the Board and the working group 


could select (unintelligible) sample dose 


reconstruction done, documentation cited in the 


evaluation report, the question of validity and 


representativeness of the data -- and a lot of 


this you will recognize comes from your 


criteria in terms of feasibility of dose 


reconstruction, representativeness of data and 


so on. And the two phases of course are of 


course addressed in (unintelligible) question 


which has been a central part of your 


discussion. Sufficiency of data to sustain 


individual dose reconstruction and coworkers 


models, procedures to fill in missed doses -- 


we've gone through all of these in one way or 


another in the -- in the SEC petition and 


evaluation report that are so far -- so far 


been evaluated. The last bullet of course is 


an item of active discussion -- has been an 


active -- active discussion at -- at this Board 


meeting and there are some views before you for 


resolution, but this would be a standard item, 


depending on what guidance you provide on 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 

123 

question at review, as to how we would do that. 


There's not -- there's -- other than suggesting 


some things that are there in the report along 


the lines of what we did at Ames, there's not a 


(unintelligible) procedure because this is 


really a (unintelligible) resolution problem 


more as to how (unintelligible) radiological 


controls needs to be looked at. This -- the 


way we did look at it in the question of Ames, 


it was a combination of a lack of monitoring 


data altogether for most of the period, plus an 


obvious lack of radiological controls -- no 


ventilation, no hoods, no monitoring and so on 


that -- and very high dose -- committed doses 


in -- in one day's intake that led to the kind 


of idea (unintelligible) presented. 


So this -- this -- I think that the Board 


wanted some criteria for a data validation that 


was part of the working -- working group's 


recommendation. This is what we have been 


doing, comparison with the raw data, the 


(unintelligible) records (unintelligible) 


examination of patterns of data entry, patterns 


of incident data and worker files 


(unintelligible) questions and so on 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 

124 

(unintelligible). So I think we -- we have 


about as reasonable a general approach -- in 


each case of course the data (unintelligible) 


different because the site records are so 


varied. 


These are the deliverables we suggest. We are 


-- we have suggested that the phase one not be 


very rigid in terms of the deliverables. It 


might be, in the case of Ames, that we did a 


lot of the work, but we held off on putting 


effort into actually writing a report so as to 


not be second-guessing NIOSH and what they were 


coming out -- we felt probably if they saw the 


data the same as us, they would recommend an 


SEC. And if they didn't, then there would be a 


fairly lengthy evaluation and resolution 


process, so we deferred the deliverable to 


phase two. 


In the case of Y-12 and Rocky Flats, we've been 


producing issue-specific short reports, 


memoranda, issue lists, and so it's very 


petition-specific. And we would suggest that 


in phase one our deliverables remain flexible 


and at the direction of the Board 


(unintelligible) the process. But then 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 

125 

phase two some kind of final report so that 


(unintelligible) on our part we deliver to you, 


as we did in the case of Ames, as -- maybe the 


record in phase one would stand as a final 


report, perhaps as -- as has been the case -- 


well, no, we did -- we have done final report 


for -- for Y-12 (unintelligible) and we 


anticipate doing that for Rocky Flats. 


I think that's the end. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Board 


members, the actual report is dated June 12th, 


so --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) the Y-12 report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- yeah, I'm looking at 


the report. It's June 12th, which means if you 


got it -- you may have gotten it before you 


left home if you -- or you may not have 


received it, that -- I think both hard copy was 


sent out perhaps by FedEx and -- and we also 


got it by -- electronically. 


This -- this document was a result of a 


recommendation that actually came through your 


subcommittee, Jim, to -- to try to in a sense 


coordinate this -- the Board's policy with your 

1 

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 

earlier document. Jim, I know the subcommittee 


hasn't had a chance to really look at this 


report at all, but do you have any comments at 


this point? It seems to me at some point we -- 


we may want to officially in a sense adopt this 


or at least indicate that this is the direction 


that we expect the contractor to take when they 


review the SECs, or modify it appropriately. 


So let me get your response there and then 


we'll hear from John. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, my -- my personal view is I 


think this is -- I think we've got this 


approach down -- down pretty well, as -- as 


well as it can. There -- it has to be a 


flexible approach. I think having the -- the 


two phases worked very well in Ames. I think 


it'll work well in -- in other situations, 


albeit every situation's going to be -- be 


different for -- and I had a chance to read 


through their report and -- frankly, on the 


plane on the way down here, and it -- I think 


it's satisfactory. I think, to be fair to 


other people, we probably should fall -- give 


everyone an opportunity to review it, and then 


maybe have a formal closure, perhaps at our -- 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Next meeting or --


 DR. MELIUS: -- conference call or -- yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I'm on the subcommittee and 


have reviewed it and I -- it appears to me that 


it aligns quite well with our policy. John? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I just wanted to make a 


couple of points. The report, the version that 


some of you have seen, your -- and some of you 


will see when you get home electronically, you 


will be receiving a hard copy, does have 


attachments to it. One is -- is -- is the 


working group's January 16th, 2006 document, so 


it's made part of ours. In addition, we have 


another attachment which actually tries to map 


all of the criteria that are in your working 


group document with our report, so that you can 


see the one -- the correspondence between the 


two. And there's a lot of additional material 


in the -- the main body of the procedures which 


tries to directly address the criteria that are 


outlined. So in addition to reflecting the -- 


the experience that we have gone through and 


what -- the reality of how Y-12 and Rocky is 


proceeding, we also try to marry in this other 


document. 

1 

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 

One more point I'd like to make, which I think 


is -- is important, is this two-phase process 


worked very well. If you recall, the 


evaluation reports came out I believe -- for 


Rocky and Y-12 -- on January 7th -- I'm sorry, 


January -- April 7th, and I think closure, at 


least on Y-12 -- so we're talking about April, 


May, June -- a two-month period to go from when 


the evaluation report came out to -- on Y-12, 


in any event -- and -- and a vote by the Board. 


And the reason that was possible is so much was 


done in the early phases to -- to allow the 


process to mature. So I think our original 


intent to expedite that post-evaluation report 


process seems to be working. 


Now how well it will work with Rocky is yet to 


be seen --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- because on the same date, April 


7th -- I believe that's when the Rocky 


evaluation report came out, but as you all 


know, we're -- we're really in the middle of 


that process. I'm not quite sure, you know, 


how -- how protracted that will be. 


 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 

129

 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) Just to 


(unintelligible) that, Dr. Ziemer, also Ames 


report came out about the same time 


(unintelligible) with that, but we were, as Joe 


has often pointed out, a lot further behind on 


Rocky in terms of our evaluation 


(unintelligible) site profile review, so that's 


part of why -- so we kind of grafting the site 


profile review onto (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Understood, right. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think another way of 


looking at this is that phase one is sort of 


can we improve the efficiency and timeliness of 


the process, what extent can we get started in 


terms of the evaluation while we're, you know, 


letting NIOSH do -- independently do its 


evaluation report, which I think is -- the 


independence of that is important, but at the 


same time be ready when that evaluation report 


came -- comes out and I think that part has -- 


has worked so far. 


Phase two is really the -- in some ways the 


more formal part where we real-- we have an 


evaluation report and we review it and -- and I 


think, again, that -- while it's more 

1 

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 

straightforward, we just don't want it to have 


to go on -- you know, be delayed 


inappropriately if there are things we can get 


started on, and it worked well -- the other 


thing I think happened with Ames I'd point out 


is that in the fir-- initial call that we had, 


I believe in April -- early April with the 


petitioner, we were able to identify, you know, 


the two issues -- the residual contamination 


issue and then the episodic exposure issue that 


they were concerned about, that were sort of 


the -- and it allowed -- to make sure that we 


were able to start exploring that and getting 


information on it and so forth and -- and so 


that part was helpful and then involving the 


petitioner at that time, in that initial call, 


was -- was the -- did move the process along. 


DR. MAURO: And sort of stepping back and 


looking back as the program manager, this 


particular type of approach -- whereas there's 


a lot of flexibility, the way we're handling 


this I think is important. And David Staudt 


and I have been in a lot of communication on 


this. The process is one where we initially, 


together, identify issues as early as we can. 

1 

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 

And what we do at that point -- and remember, 


we're operating within Task V; Task V has a 


certain allocated budget. What we do then, as 


soon as we are authorized to proceed with let's 


say phase one on a given SEC review, as quickly 


as possible we identify issues, we do the best 


we can to estimate what we think the budget 


will be, and then I provide that information to 


the Board and to David. And then as that 


process matures and things change, and they 


have changed. For example, I will put out 


periodically what I call a heads-up, where are 


we, and -- for example, we tur-- this -- one -- 


this -- this is turning out to be fortunate, in 


this case. The cost associated with Ames is 


much less than what we anticipated. But 


unfortunately, the cost associated with Rocky 


is greater. So I would say on the order of 


every month or two I keep the Board, the 


project officer and the contracting officer 


appraised (sic), so this is an unusual 


circumstance because it's fluid, but I try to 


keep everyone apprised where we are. And this 


-- the reason this is important is because it 


has to do with at what point do you stop. 
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 

132 

know this is always a tough question, have we 


chased it down far enough, when are we 


satisfied with data validity. So I do the best 


I can to -- as new issues emerge with the 


working group, it's important to keep -- keep 


in mind where we are with the budget, how -- 


you know, so it's a -- it's a -- I'll use that 


word "tension" that Lew uses a lot, and I like 


that term. There's always this tension, and 


we're very much aware of this tension and we 


try to keep you folks apprised of it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you, John. Now we 


don't need to take action today. I think 


what's been suggested here is that we perhaps 


formalize an action by the time of our next 


meeting, after the Board has full chance to 


digest the materials. In a sense it's a 


description of what we're actually doing, both 


Board-wise and contractor-wise. So it seems to 


me that there's no objection to proceeding on 


this basis in the interim, but we do want to 


take a formal action on it, and that will be a 


subcommittee task, Jim, for that SEC 


subcommittee to perhaps develop a 


recommendation. 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

133

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: I intend that we have it on the 


agenda for the August 8th call. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Now if I can figure 


out what SEC (sic) is supposed to report on 


next, I will call on them to do it. 


FINALIZE REPORT ON 2ND AND 3RD SET OF REVIEW OF 


DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CASES, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

I think we -- we actually have -- what we have 


on the -- on the agenda is finalizing the 


report on the 2nd and 3rd set of reviews. Now 


Kathy gave us an extensive report on these dose 


reconstruction reviews. We talked about the 


matrix. Mark, the -- the subcommittee -- or 


the working group, actually, ended up providing 


us a status report, but we're not ready for an 


action on this at this time, is that -- that's 


correct, is it not? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So remind us, if you would, what 


we have bef-- and what will be coming. And I ­

- and I don't think we need an SE-- or an SC&A 


report at this time. We -- the subcommittee 


had the full report already. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just as a reminder, and I 


think it's mostly the same audience, so a 


reminder that during the subcommittee 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 

134 

we discussed the second set matrix, which was 


the second set of dose reconstructions 


reviewed, along with the third set and the 


procedures review matrix. So we have three 


matrices out there. 


Since the last workgroup meeting I've added a 


Board action in the matrix, which indicates 


whether the -- NIOSH agree-- the number code 


that we have before NIOSH agrees to the finding 


or -- number six is a common one, that it's 


been deferred to a site profile review or -- or 


a procedure review or something like that. I 


added that column and -- but -- but hadn't had 


a chance to bring it back to the workgroup or 


discuss it. 


Additionally, NIOSH -- and SCA -- provided some 


comments on the last draft, and then NIOSH also 


included a final column in a version of ma-- of 


the matrix that -- that Stu Hinnefeld was 


working from. He provided a -- an action, a 


NIOSH action as a means to start tracking these 


actions that are coming out of the matrices. 


So we -- we've got to get together at the 


workgroup level. We -- we decided on the 


subcommittee that it would be wise for us 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 

135 

get together again as a workgroup and finalize 


the matrix that I've developed, possibly 


merging the two matrices or possibly keeping 


them separate. We're going to discuss how that 


should happen, whether the NIOSH action should 


be in a separate matrix. We all agree I think 


that the -- Stu has a -- has generated a 


separate report out of the matrices that -- 


that just lists the actions from all the 


matrices, and I think that's much more 


manageable going forward to just have a listing 


of the actions -- actions. So once we resol-- 


once we come to final resolution we'll bring 


that back to the Board and then we'll -- from 


there on we'll just have a -- a listing of 


NIOSH actions to -- to track and continue and 


make sure they -- they come to closure on. 


But I -- I think that's -- that's where we're 


at and we -- I -- the hope of everyone I think 


is that we're going to meet in short order to 


close out -- we're very close to closing out 


all three of these matrices, and I think we're 


going to meet and the intent is to possibly 


come to the August 8th phone call meeting -- 


send the final versions of these things out and 

136 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

possibly bring them up to -- you know, to the 


Board at the August 8th phone call meeting. We 


-- we've -- we've had these out there for a 


while so we want to close out on these as soon 


as we can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So basically that's second 


and third sets of dose reconstruction reviews, 


and also the procedures review matrix, which is 


the first item listed after lunch, so we're not 


ready to vote on that yet either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now in addition, talking about 


procedures review, we do have a summary of the 


SC&A review of the second set of procedures. 


And I'm not sure if we explicitly put this on 


the agenda, Lew, or was that to be included 


with the procedures review item? 


 DR. WADE: That was to be included. 


FINALIZE REPORT ON PROCEDURES REVIEW
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 DR. ZIEMER: So I think we can proceed to hear 


that, which is -- so now the other document 


from SE-- SC&A, summary of SC&A review of the 


second set of NIOSH/ORAU procedures. 


These are all -- these are all procedures that 


were not in that original matrix that we talked 

1 

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 

about, so... 


(Pause) 


DR. MAURO: Yes. Under Task III we were 


authorized to review a set of -- second set of 


32 procedures. That was -- the review of those 


procedures has not quite been completed, but we 


have delivered a draft report to you folks on 


dat-- the date of June 8th. You received it 


electronically. You will be receiving hard 


copy and we're calling it Supplement 1, same 


title as the first one, but it's a supplement. 


And basically what this does is that document 


addresses 30 of the 32 procedures. The 30 


procedures include six external, 13 internal 


and 11 QA. Two procedures that are within the 


scope of that work that haven't been delivered 


to you today -- to date is like item three on 


this slide, have to do with the CATI reports. 


And I believe that was OCAS-TIB 90 and 92. 


We're working on it and we will deliver a 


supplement that you will simply insert into the 


back of the document -- soon. So that's the 


product that you folks received, which lar-- 


and by the way, which largely completes our 


deliverables for Task III. 

1 

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 

We do have some workbook responsibilities. 


Workbooks are turning out to be interesting in 


that imbedded in the review of these procedures 


are the review of workbooks. Imbedded in the 


review of many of the cases that we are looking 


at under Task IV are a review of workbooks. So 


our plan is to collect -- since we do have a 


separate deliverable that we owe you dealing 


with the workbooks, we bel-- and a lot of that 


work's been done as part and parcel to this 


kind of material, I would -- my plan is, unless 


I receive direction otherwise, is to extract 


that material and get it into a form that would 


actually be a deliverable dealing specifically 


with workbooks so that we can meet that 


commitment in a clear and unambiguous way. But 


the reality is, a lot of workbook review of the 


material has already been accomplished. 


Okay, this is a summary of the findings. If 


you recall, every procedure, when it's 


reviewed, is -- a checklist is used. And the 


technical procedures -- those are the ones 


dealing with internal and external dosimetry -- 


they have a total of 27 criteria that we score 


the procedure against. And the quality 

1 

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 

assurance procedure reviews that we perform, 


they -- that's a different form and they have a 


total of 21 criteria. 


So what I did was say okay, to the 19 technical 


procedures, I tr-- on the left-hand side of 


this slide, I tried to show how the scoring 


ended up. Turns out the scoring ended up very 


well (unintelligible). A score of 5 means the 


procedure is perfect. Okay? A score of 1 


means we found some significant deficiencies. 


And then of course there's everything in 


between. 


As you can notice that everything out of the 


collection of 19 technical procedures, two hun­

- there are a -- the total number of -- the 


scoring by far were 5s against all the 


criteria. So we're -- I guess where I'm going 


with this is that these procedures are -- are 


very good, excellent in many cases. We'll talk 


a little bit more about the few places where 


there are some deficiencies, and I'll get to 


that in the next slide. 


The QA procedures, yes means yes, it meets the 


criteria; no means it doesn't. There are 25 


yeses that emerged, 14 no’s. The 14 no’s are 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 

140 

little bit misleading, and -- and very quickly, 


it's really things like the title page wasn't 


properly filled out, there was a -- in other 


words, we have a checklist which is -- these 


are minor issues. 


 The only single -- and I'll -- again, I'll -- 


the only single thing that we found out that I 


think might be important regarding the QA 


procedures is each QA procedure deals with like 


a slice of the over-arching QA program, which 


is a ver-- which is a vast program. The role 


of each slice that one particular procedure 


place within the context of the overall QA 


program is not always apparent when you read 


the individual procedure. So very often it's 


difficult to see in the context within which 


the given procedure is within the -- within the 


overall array of procedures that govern quality 


assurance, so that was a recurring theme. I 


would say out of all those no’s, that is the 


one finding that we saw -- we repeatedly found 


was a better job could have been done in 


setting -- what I call setting the table. This 


procedure -- its role within the bigger 


context. 

1 

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 

But now let's move on to the 19 technical 


procedures and ma-- our principal findings are 


-- the procedures are satisfactory to 


excellent. Quite frankly, the -- we were very 


critical in the first set of 32, and in fact 


we're still in the process of closeout 


(unintelligible). We're not going to have that 


situation in this second set. The -- the 


principal improvements (unintelligible) really 


seen in terms of this set of procedures are the 


-- the -- there's no doubt a great effort been 


made by NIOSH to integrate the-- by the way, 


these -- these, remember, are generic 


procedures. These are not like a Y-12 


procedure or a -- these -- these are the 


generic procedures that cross all -- go across 


all sites. So what was done -- you can see a 


significant effort was made to cross-reference 


between these procedures and site profiles so 


you have context. So when a person's reading 


this procedure, it is a bridge to site-


specific, and that was -- that's very helpful, 


which is a -- a major change from the previous 


set. And I -- I'll go as far as to say the 


last -- in general, the procedures are -- 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 

142 

well-written. They are consistent, concise, 


well-organized, technically defensible and 


appear claimant-favorable. We were -- I would 


say the overall -- overall (unintelligible), 


and there's a large number of different people 


work on this. I -- I -- I did -- I review 


number -- reviewed a number myself, but I 


handed out a lot of procedures out of the 32 to 


different specialists, and -- and there was -- 


and every -- consistently there was a -- a 


generally favorable response to the procedures. 


They were short, got to the point, and -- but ­

- but in a way, these were a little easier 


because most of them dealt with a specific 


issue -- a specific technical issue, got right 


to the point and they turned out -- and they're 


very functional -- very functional procedures. 


But there are some deficiencies, and -- but 


there are not many. I mean when it's all said 


and done, this is our matrix in a -- in a 


simplified form what's important. One of the 


things we run across -- but I don't know if 


there's a fix to this. The first 


(unintelligible) is that there's -- a lot of 


judgment has to be used by 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 

143 

reconstructor. They're the -- there's a series 


of procedures, for example, that deal with what 


-- when can you -- when do you use some default 


assumption that's very, very conservative. You 


do that when you don't have any data. Well, 


then you can fall back on a less conservative 


set of assumptions when you've got a little bit 


more information, and then you could go to 


realistic cases. But all of this is a judgment 


call by the dose reconstructor. Then there --


and I don't know if you could -- there -- 


there's a solution to this. The dose -- it's 


really left in the -- there's a lots of 


procedures out there that the dose 


reconstructor himself, using his judgment, will 


pick and choose the ones that he believes best 


serves the purpose of a particular dose 


reconstruction, and -- and a lot of judgment 


has to be made on the part of them. Perhaps 


just -- that's the nature of the beast and -- 


but we can -- what we're experiencing, in fact 


Kathy and Hans could point out, is that -- that 


one of the consequences of this is there are 


going to be inconsistencies in how these 


judgments are made. And we -- we sort of have 

1 

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 

a -- fortunately we have a bird's eye view. 


We're looking at a cross-section and we can see 


that the -- the way in which one dose 


reconstructor would approach a problem might be 


somewhat different and decide to use this 


procedure instead of that procedure. So that's 


one important finding. 


The other one, the second bullet has to do with 


occupational medical exposures. We believe the 


procedures that are currently being used do not 


fully disclose the uncertainties that are 


(unintelligible) to the use of X-rays or -- 


mainly X-rays. The fluoroscopies are fine. 


But the -- revealing the uncertainty in the 


range of doses that might be associated with X-


rays, we think that is a -- (unintelligible) 


spread's bigger and the -- the discussion of 


the procedure gives our rationale. I'm certain 


we will have an opportunity to talk about all 


that. 


The next bullet is ingestion dose. There's a 


procedure specifically for doing reconstruction 


of ingestion doses. As every -- as we know, we 


spent a lot of time on that subject on 


Bethlehem Steel. There will, I understand, be 

1 

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 

a -- a revised Bethlehem Steel site profile, 


which I presume will incorporate the new 


ingestion dose calculation procedure so that 


basically the current procedure that we 


reviewed reflects the previous way that these 


ingestion doses were performed. Bottom line is 


the ingestion protocol -- dose protocol 


presumed that there's a direct relationship 


between the radioactivity concentration in the 


air and what the amount of ingestion is. One 


of our criticisms is well, very often you might 


have spills and maybe material on the ground, 


on the surfaces, that have no relationship to 


what's in the air. And as a result, you might 


-- that relationship -- there certainly will be 


circumstances where the amount ingested is 


directly proportional to the amount in the air, 


but there will also be circumstances where the 


amount ingested is -- is much more closely 


related to the amount that's on surfaces and 


not at all related to what's in the air, and I 


believe that is being worked on by NIOSH. 


The next one is -- next bullet deals with the 


procedure for non-penetrating radiation, great 


procedure. It's -- it's a -- it's -- almost 

1 

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 

reads like a textbook in terms of understanding 


how do you go about doing good external 


dosimetry for non-penetrating radiation. The 


only criticism we have there that might be 


important is that if you get a negative reading 


as you have a film badge and you're concerned 


about skin dose from beta (unintelligible), for 


example, or from weak photon (unintelligible), 


if you don't get a reading, that does not mean 


that you did not get a significant external 


dose someplace on your body. If you do get a 


reading, you're fine. You've got a reading 


that's of use. But that point needs to be 


made. That is, the fact that you don't have a 


reading doesn't necessarily mean that you did 


not get a significant beta dose at some other 


location on your body where the badge wasn't, 


and that's a point that needs to be made, and 


how do you deal with that. A very difficult 


problem, how to deal with that issue. That's 


the point that was made there. 


We looked at the procedure on alpha/n reactions 


and we -- our res-- the (unintelligible) -- we 


had a nuclear physicist look at the protocol 


and the procedure that was laid out, and -- 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 

147 

I didn't do that. His -- his reaction was he 


felt that the methodology was very dated. 


There's a lot more recent information on how to 


do that, and he made recommendations on the 


newer way -- new data and other approaches that 


can be used to calculate the alpha/n reaction 


and the exposures associated with 


(unintelligible). Certainly something we can ­

- Bob Anigstein did the work, and certainly 


we'll get together and we'll talk about that 


and that would be fine. 


 Finally -- and again, this is -- the last one 


is -- is almost related to the first one. The 


number of TIBs gro-- are growing continuously, 


which provide additional guidance -- additional 


guidance and -- to the point where its 


complexity is enormous. I'm not sure how best 


to do this, but there might be a -- what I 


would call a meta-document, like a road map, 


that would help someone understand this vast 


array of procedures and help the dose 


reconstructor navigate his way through the 


process. Because he's handed a -- a site 


profile, which might be a year or two old, 


might be in the process of being updated. Then 

1 

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 

there is an array of at least 16 or more 


generic procedures, and then an array of, for 


each site, five or six OTIBs and they 


(unintelligible) each one and so what we're 


seeing is it is a mountain to climb. And if 


there's some way in which something could be 


done to help us and the dose reconstructors 


that have to implement these protocols -- I'm 


not quite sure what it is, but that was one of 


our over-arching observations. 


And I believe that's it, let me see... That is 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. And you've 


already suggested this, your last slide 


probably will be the basis of the resolution 


matrix for this review. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And let me add some comments. On 


your first bullet where you were -- your 


concern is on the sort of inconsistency that 


arises out of judgments -- potential, or I 


think you've actually seen some maybe real -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- inconsistencies. It just 


occurs to me that one place that one might 

1 

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 

learn how to do this sort of thing or to reach 


more consistency is from those whose livelihood 


is based on judgments, and that is the judicial 


system. And they rely basically on what are 


called precedents. You -- you sort of go back 


and say well, how were these judgments made 


before. It does achieve some consistency. 


It's not obvious that just because the 


judgments were made a certain way earlier that 


they're better judgments, but at least it does 


lead to consistency. 


And it occurs to me that it -- and maybe this 


is done -- that it might be of value if somehow 


one could develop a kind of collection -- a 


case book collection like a decision of -- 


decisions on a certain kind of issue, and how 


have they been made by dose reconstructions in 


the past so that a current dose reconstructor 


could go back and say well, this is how it was 


done before. I -- it just occurs to me -- 


that's sort of a model that is based on the 


idea of precedent. Just a thought. It 


certainly would have to be explored. I'm not 


suggesting that's necessarily the solution, but 


it just popped into my mind and you -- when 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 

150 

offered that issue of inconsistency -- 


DR. MAURO: What -- and (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- because in the judicial system 


that's sort of how it's avoided. 


DR. MAURO: What might help is that -- I don't 


know if you recall, you did give us a mission 


for the deliverable which would be what we call 


a -- our roll-up report from the first three 


sets of cases, and we -- we did -- the first 


year was -- had 60 cases that were completed. 


And there -- there's a story that emerges 


through that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which is sort of like this that -- 


DR. MAURO: Which is exactly what we're talking 


about, and Hans and Kathy are working on that, 


and I think that'll help. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we have several comments -- 


Mark, I think, and then John Poston -- oh, 


Hans, yes. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I just want to add 


something to your concern, and I think John -- 


I may have been the person who -- who sort of 


made him aware of the issue of subjective 


judgments that may have to be exercised. And 


I'll just give you an example so as 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 

151 

demonstrate what types of concerns we have and 


the -- the areas where subjective judgment may 


come into play. 


For instance, in a couple of the procedures 


where people have not been monitored and 


coworker data has to be applied to them, 


oftentimes -- and I can identify several 


procedures, including TBDs, that identify this 


particular protocol -- the person's really 


asked to make a judgment call with regard to 


how to assign doses to an unmonitored workers 


and using coworker data, and there'll be three 


categories. 


 The first category may be the worker is really 


rarely, if ever, exposed or can be expected to 


have been exposed to radiation, therefore 


assign ambient doses to that particular worker 


in any given year. 


The second case will be the person was probably 


or should have been intermittently monitored, 


and therefore use 50 percentile value of a 


coworker data model. 


And the third one is of course a person who 


should have been consistently monitored, and 


let's assign a 95 percentile value of 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 

152 

coworker dose model. 


Now again, here we have a situation where you ­

- the -- the dose reconstructor has to look at 


a -- an unmonitored worker who may have been 


working at Paducah or someplace 30, 40, 50 


years ago and, on the basis of questionable 


data, has to make a subjective decision should 


he have ever been monitored at all, because -- 


unless it's stated right there he -- the person 


was a clerical worker and clearly it's indi-- 


it's -- would be an indication that that person 


should not have been expected to be in an RCA 


area, but not always, as we saw in Ames where 


we saw secretaries who were next door to places 


where we were doing reductant work. But 


anyway, these are -- this is a perfect example 


of a judgment call. And I have to say, if a 


dose reconstructor is faced with that, I would 


really feel sorry for a person who says, on the 


basis of extremely limited data, there is no 


monitoring data and there may not even be any 


records because a person's deceased and he 


can't even tell you what type of work he was 


doing where that judgment call has to come into 


play. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- just along the lines 


of -- of John's last point, I mean it -- in the 


-- in the proc-- and I brought this up in a 


workgroup call in the process of -- of digging 


through Y-12 and Rocky Flats work, and -- and I 


think these exist -- at least on the larger 


sites. NIOSH, ORAU, I'm not sure who develops 


these. They're sort of working guidelines for 


dose reconstructors, and that is basically a 


road map. And I -- I know it evolves and it's 


-- I think Liz Brackett* mentioned in the last 


workgroup call that it's very much a -- that 


you have frequent meetings with your teams and 


they're constantly revising the -- you know, 


these based on revised TBDs, et cetera. But it 


does provide a nice road map and I think those 


-- a lot -- it -- it really allowed me to 


understand, you know, just how are they using 


all these TBDs when they're doing a Rocky dose 


recon-- you know, a Rocky Flats dose 


reconstruction. It -- it -- it basically 


guide-- guides you along, whe-- when to use 


which procedure and what -- and -- and to some 


extent what assumptions are used in what kind 

1 

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 

of cases and -- so there was some kind of 


clarifying -- what I -- what I noted on the 


phone call, on the workgroup call, was that 


these are not procedures, so we haven't really 


looked at these. And I -- I wonder why they're 


not procedures, too. I -- I think that they --


that would be useful to -- and it would -- I 


think it would expedite our understanding, not 


-- not only of the procedures review, but also 


the dose reconstruction reviews when we do the 


cases. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes -- excuse me, as a matter of 


fact, I believe that I did ask if they had 


those guidelines -- the only one that I believe 


that is published on the O drive is the Rocky 


'cause -- and that's only been re-- recently 


published, but I -- I've asked for that a long 


time ago and I know --


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know how --


 MS. BEHLING: -- they were a little bit 


reluctant --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- how many they exist, but -- 


 MS. BEHLING: -- because they -- they weren't 


official documents that were available, but 


that's the only one that's published. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: John -- John Poston. 


 DR. POSTON: John, I'm -- when I get back to my 


office I'll take great interest in reading your 


report 'cause I have some heartache with some 


of the things you said, but we'll wait on that. 


I did want to ask, though, it was my 


understanding that when a person does a -- a 


dose reconstruction, that it's peer-reviewed by 


another person. Is that correct? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 DR. POSTON: So doesn't -- isn't that partially 


where the consistency comes in? I understand 


that if the -- if the -- there are things that 


are done incorrectly, or perhaps there's a 


better way, that the peer review often sends 


them back to the person to redo them, so 


doesn't that result in some sort of consistency 


in the -- in the way people approach the 


problems? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Kate? 


 MS. KIMPAN: Yes. Yes, it does. Absolutely. 


There's a peer review done in our shop for 


every dose reconstruction, and we're 


endeavoring as we've gone through this to make 


certain we're capturing the expertise among our 

1 

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 

team. So we not only conduct peer reviews, we 


do them thoughtfully with people that have been 


doing facilities, know a great deal about them. 


That's just in our shop. 


Then we provide our advisory results to NIOSH 


and it's taken through an additional process 


and formal review on their part to assure not 


only consistency with what they've seen from us 


before, but also accuracy and correctness. And 


that of course is all before the Department of 


Labor process, which has another health 


physicist review, et cetera, for adjudication 


purposes. 


 DR. POSTON: Thank you. Secondly, maybe we can 


talk about this off line because those of us 


that have been doing dosimetry for a hundred 


years already know it's impossible to measure 


skin dose. No badge measures skin dose. It's 


an extrapolation using an algorithm. So I -- I 


would like to talk to you more about your 


comments because you're talking about something 


that's an impossibility. It's an estimate 


based on an extrapolation, and so I think your 


comment is a little bit off-base here. 


DR. MAURO: I didn't explain myself well. 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 

157 

main concern was that the reconstruction of the 


skin dose, the methodologies that are being 


employed, are valid when you get a positive 


reading on the open window film badge. The --


there are times when a person's exposure -- you 


don't have that part of the body monitored and 


therefore you would miss that, and that point 


needed to be made in the procedure. That was ­

- that was the (unintelligible). 


 DR. POSTON: Well, that's a valid criticism 


that could be made any time anybody wears a 


badge. Do you have a suggestion to improve or 


is it just a criticism? 


DR. MAURO: It has to be -- the -- it was only 


a criticism to be -- that pointed out as a -- 


it wasn't -- that was the point that was made 


in the review. In regard to other radia-- you 


know, penetrating radiation it's less of a 


problem. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see -- did somebody else -- 


okay, Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: In relationship to the consistency 


-- inconsistency issue, how critical is that in 


relationship to your outcome? Is there any way 


to measure 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 

158 

DR. MAURO: Well, to date -- in fact, Hans and 


Kathy probably -- answer's better, but to date 


the -- we have seen in our audits 


inconsistencies where different approaches were 


taken to address how to characterize 


uncertainty, and I'm sure Hans could -- we have 


a long list of places where we've seen these -- 


the -- that -- these types of inconsistencies 


occur. However, as Hans would point out, to 


date I don't think any of them have had a -- 


had a significant impact. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That was my question. I mean --


DR. MAURO: That was the point, yes. 


 DR. LOCKEY: -- my point is, if you have 


inconsistencies but the outcomes are not going 


to be significantly changed by it, then it's 


not as critical issue as it might have been 


otherwise. 


DR. MAURO: However, we are now entering into 


the realistic models and that's very 


(unintelligible) -- see --


 MR. GRIFFON: Realistic cases. Realistic 


cases. 


DR. MAURO: -- realistic -- see, what happens, 


we've been looking primarily at these min/max 

1 

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 

cases, and -- and some approaches use -- that 


is a little bit incon-- is an inconsistency or 


not a correct interpretation, let's say, of one 


of the procedures, the error that's introduced 


really has no significance because -- 


essentially overestimate or underestimate. But 


now we've actually -- in fact you'll see in the 


next set -- fourth set of cases that just came 


through, there are two realistic cases there 


and -- and I'm sure Kathy and Hans can show -- 


here's a place where consistency and strict 


adherence to procedures becomes very important. 


 DR. LOCKEY: What do you mean? 


DR. MAURO: You have a 47 percent, let's say, 


probability of causation that's been done 


realistically. There's when the rubber meets 


the road and becomes very important that the 


procedures are followed, procedures are valid 


and they're implemented in a consistent way. 


 DR. BEHLING: And just to -- to acknowledge to 


Dr. Lockey, you're exactly right. 


Consistency's a relative term, and -- and as 


was just discussed, I probably would not have 


gotten up to the mike had I listened to the -- 


the dialogue here, but consistency's relative 

1 

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 

in the sense where I would, for instance, say a 


more temperate approach would be considered for 


a maximized dose where a more lenient 


assessment or interpretation is appropriate. 


Because by definition we're saying you may 


maximize, in the case that I just talked about 


where an unmonitored worker -- if this is a 


maximized dose, because it's a prostate cancer 


and the dose is not likely to even approach the 


50 percentile value, it would be very 


appropriate to give a generous assessment on 


the part of the dose reconstructor to say well, 


we don't know for sure where you fit, but we'll 


give you the 95th percentile value of a 


coworker model because it's -- it's certainly 


going to be a -- a claimant-favorable 


assumption here that will allow you to say 


well, if you don't make it 50 percent, you're 


certainly not going to make it at the 50th 


percentile value and certainly not on the 


ambient. So consistency is a relative term, 


and it's depending on the type of dose 


reconstruction that's taken place, and I think 


you covered it very well by saying that you do 


treat the issue of uncertainty very differently 

1 

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 

depending on which type of dose reconstruction 


we're talking about. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Lockey, that answered 


your question? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any others on this? Again, there 


will be a matrix developed from this. We --


this requires no action today, but it gives you 


a -- kind of a preview of -- of the document 


that you either have received or are about to 


receive, so thank you for that update. 


SC&A CONTRACT TASKS, DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: Let me yet do one quick piece of 


business. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, another quick piece of 


business before lunch, at least. We'll pass a 


document around from Dr. Wade. 


 DR. WADE: While you're all here, and I know 


after lunch we might lose some of you, I would 


just -- what I -- what I come to you is seeking 


the Board's okay for me to have SC&A prepare a 


cost proposal for next year. We have two more 


opportunities. We have an August call and we 


have a September meeting. In order to come to 


either or both of those with a cost proposal, 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 

162 

need to go and ask SC&A to prepare a cost 


proposal. And again, the procedure we follow 


here is I wouldn't do that without consulting 


with you. 


Normally the workload for SC&A has been six 


site profiles per year. On their original Task 


II there was no action. That was the tracking 


system that was developed. Procedures review, 


you just heard the report on some new 


procedures. Again there -- there are always 


new procedures. I would expect we would ask 


them to review such procedures. You know, our 


goal has been 60 individual DRs a year, and the 


target we've set is six site pro-- excuse me, 


six SEC petition evaluation reviews. I don't 


know that those will be the numbers that we'll 


want to fund SC&A at next year, but I need to 


ask them for a cost proposal that we can have 


that will have elemental costs in it, and then 


at our September meeting we can decide exactly 


what the -- the workload should be. But I do 


need your permission to ask them for a cost 


proposal. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So basically this serves as a 


starting point for next year's budget 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 

163 

contractor, and what would occur -- if the 


Board is agreeable to this -- is that Lew would 


seek from the contractor the cost proposals 


based on this level of effort. If later on it 


appeared that the level of effort had to 


change, one way or the other, those adjustments 


would be made. 


A comment, Dr. Mauro? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, to -- to help out a bit what 


we went ahead and prepared was a list of the 


procedures that we haven't reviewed to date, so 


I'd like to (off microphone) (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, you're -- this is for 


basically Task III --


DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


Task III --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- items. 


DR. MAURO: -- and also a list of the site 


profiles (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which is Task I. And Board 


members, I'd like to open this for discussion. 


Do you -- do you agree that we should -- and 


basically, this is a level of effort which 


looks pretty identical to this year's -- 


 DR. WADE: I'm just starting at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so if you --


 DR. WADE: -- it could be ratcheted up -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- want to change this one 


direction or the other, just make that 


suggestion. Or if you're comfortable with this 


as a starting point, we will proceed. 


Comments? Roy DeHart and then Jim Melius. 


 DR. DEHART: Common sense says we have to 


prepare a budget, and to do that we need some 


kind of expectation of -- the expectation of 


doing the level of effort similar to this past 


year, with our current knowledge of where we 


are and where we're going, makes -- makes every 


sense, particularly when we can still be 


flexible with it. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Melius, did 


you --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I think for -- I'm not 


sure whether -- to what extent it makes a 


difference in terms of the planning as Lew laid 


it out, though. Though I would think in two 


areas that I think we're going to ratchet up 


next year, consider that anyway. One is 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 

165 

terms of individual dose reconstructions. 


NIOSH has gotten more productive. I suspect 


that SC&A's gotten more efficient in -- in 


doing them, and I -- it may be better for 


planning purposes and estimation purposes on 


the part of SC&A to -- to -- at least for the 


individual dose reconstructions, to -- to be a 


little bit more realistic in terms of where we 


expect them to be. And I would like to ratchet 


them up at least to 80 per year and maybe even 


consider up to 100. 


For the SEC petition evaluations, which is much 


harder to estimate, I'm not sure it makes a 


difference in terms of estimations, given how 


much variety there is. But -- but I think 


certainly, given what we went over this morning 


in terms of what's in the pipeline, we're going 


to have to -- a number of them that are 


potentially going to need to be evaluated -- 


certainly going to be more than six next year, 


I -- at least that are potential. Again, we 


not necessarily assign them all to SC-- SC&A 


for review, but -- but I suspect that it'll end 


up being more than six that will require some 


level of review. And again, whether that makes 

1 

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 

a difference at this point in time, but 


certainly we ought to be -- try to be realistic 


at the point where we actually do the tasks and 


-- and so forth. But I think for the 


individual dose reconstructions it may, in 


terms of their personnel, in terms of how they 


do it and -- hopefully it's more efficient, but 


I -- I think we should be talking about gearing 


up. It's just that NIOSH has been productive. 


There are a lot more need to be done and that 


our original goal was what, two percent, two 


and a half percent --


 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- and I think we need to start 


climbing towards that goal if we can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We'll hear some other 


reaction if we can from other Board members. 


I'd -- would point out that this is not simply 


a cost issue. If we increase, for example, the 


number of DRs and -- reviews and SEC petition 


reviews, that has personnel impact or sort of 


capability impact on the contractor. They 


certainly would want to know that early on if 


that's the expectation, it's -- if they have to 


do any ratcheting up, so we -- we do want 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 

167 

try to be realistic. If -- if we fully expect 


it to go to 80 or 100 next year in DRs, we need 


to know that early on. Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: Jim, you weren't here, I don't 


think, on the morning when the subcommittee 


met, but we did discuss a level of six in -- 60 


over the year, 30 per -- per quarter, basically 


-- or 20 per quarter, similar to what we did 


last year. The dose reconstruction to -- if we 


increase, that also increases our workload, 


because we have to get together and -- maybe 


you all have more time than I do. 


 DR. MELIUS: Maybe we're more efficient, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, other comments? Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: I continue to have great concern 


over our -- our limitations in terms of 


personnel, here on the Board and in NIOSH and 


our contractor, as well. If we were starting 


with a clean slate, I would consider the 


possibility of adding something to this to 


being reasonable, but we still have all these 


issues we've been discussing yet in this 


meeting hanging over our heads, and I -- it 


doesn't seem wise to add too much to this. 


This appears to be a good starting 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 

168

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark Griffon -- 


 MS. MUNN: We -- are we not flexible -- 


flexible enough to be -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: -- able to add something to it as we 


go along --


 DR. WADE: We could be. 


 MS. MUNN: -- if that appears to be necessary? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- just to speak to 


the efficiency of the Board, I think we've 


gained some efficiency, but you know, it -- 


having been involved in the first set of 20, 


second and third set of 20 reviews, I think if 


-- I -- I'm speaking in support of ratcheting 


up, I think we have to ratchet up the number of 


cases, and I think also as we do more and more 


randomly-selected, we're going to find a 


pattern of -- of some similar findings and I 


think we'll end up pre-- much more efficient in 


the resolution process, I believe. 


Now, you know, the best estimate cases are 


going to be maybe more time-consuming, but I 


think we'll -- we'll at least have some -- we 


have a history here of -- of -- of certain 

1 

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 

patterns of findings that we're seeing, and -- 


and I don't think that the resolution process ­

- and I don't think it took as long in -- in 


the second set and third set, even though we 


haven't produced final reports, we were able to 


work through issues much more efficiently. So 


I think we really need to ratchet up the number 


of cases. I don't think -- I -- I do think we 


should try to meet that target of two and a 


half percent, and to do so I don't think we 


want to be at this for ten years or so, you 


know. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? Dr. 

Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: The other -- I got that standing 

up. You've already called on me, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I saw you move. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. The -- yeah, if we 


moved up to 80, I think that should -- some of 


that should be taken care of by efficiency 


(unintelligible) saying all of it. The other 


thing I think we should think about as we get 


into next year is, given what we've learned so 


far from it -- you know, doing these reviews -- 


do we want to think about a more efficient 

1 

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 

method for doing it. Are there things that are 


time-consuming but not necessarily very useful, 


given -- given the way, you know, the -- the 


process has evolved and -- and so forth. And 


it may be certainly possible to become -- 


develop a more efficient procedure. There may 


be certain types of things that can -- can be 


dropped or we can be more selective in terms of 


how -- how we do that. And in order to get the 


two and a half percent, that may be what we'll 


-- may be another way of looking at it. I 


think we should gain enough experience so that 


we feel comfortable making those changes. 


The other hand, you know, may be that we -- we 


aren't more efficient, and -- or there aren't ­

- aren't changes we want to make, but we really 


should make -- plan for some sort of review of 


that and discussion. We set those procedures 


up a number of years ago and it may be time to 


revisit them, also, and see how we can make 


that whole process work better for SCA, for the 


Board, for -- you know, the people in the 


program in terms of fulfilling our task. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Just a couple of thoughts from 

1 

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 

the program status report that I gave at the 


start of the meeting. We talked about where we 


would -- where I anticipated the production to 


be at -- in September of '07. I told you that 


the ORAU contract comes to close at that point 


in time. We hope to be at steady state. We 


talked about how many -- given the case 


population at that time, two and a half percent 


would represent I think 625 to 650 cases to be 


reviewed. 


So the two thoughts I want to impart here is 


that we've done a lot of dose reconstructions, 


and over the course of that production time 


frame, you know, we have made changes in how we 


go about doing them, and you have had a 


snapshot of 60 reviews -- now close to -- soon 


be 80. But you're seeing increments of time 


from those reviews, and you're seeing some of 


the changes that -- that we have made. I think 


that's important for you to understand. 


We certainly welcome constructive criticism and 


review, and we take action on that. You'll 


hear that when I -- my presentation here at the 


end of the day. But that -- that leads to, I 


think, eras or strata here you need to examine. 

1 

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 

So that's one thought. 


The other thought is, when you sat and first 


developed your review process, you talked about 


blind dose reconstructions, and I would just 


encourage you to re-examine that as an 


opportunity to maybe get at some of the 


subjective judgments, the professional 


judgments that go into these things, especially 


looking at blind dose reconstructions on best 


estimates. If there's a better way to do it, 


I'd -- you know, I'm all welcome to hearing 


about that, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. Hans, did you 


have a comment? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, as a follow-up to Dr. 


Melius's comment, I think there's -- this may 


be an approach if there's an attempt to 


increase the number of cases that we will 


audit. We may have to modify our audit 


approach, and I think initially our attempt was 


to reproduce each and every single number that 


is entered into the IREP sheet, and that's a 


very tedious process. And of course that was 


done for at least two purposes. One, to -- to 


show that the numbers that were developed 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 

173 

either correct, or perhaps maybe not correct. 


But it was really one -- had a secondary 


purpose, and I think we explained that in our 


write-up, and that is to demonstrate to the 


Board that we understand the process itself. 


And that was to gain your trust, in essence. 


Perhaps by this time you may have already 


gotten to the point that you've come to some 


conclusion about SC&A and say these guys are 


not all that dumb. I think we can trust them. 


And so we could potentially simplify the 


process by not having to demonstrate each and 


every number by reproducing it. And of course 


that has become much more complex anyway 


because of the introduction of Crystal Ball 


calculations where the -- which are statistical 


models, where even if we were to rerun it each 


and every time, we wouldn't end up with the 


identical number anyway. But really, simply 


put, if we have your trust at this point in -- 


in you having in us a certain level of 


understanding that we do know what's going on, 


that we are familiar with the procedures that 


are being used and -- and we can potentially 


simplify the whole process by which we bless 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 

174 

dose reconstruction report and saying we have 


looked at everything. You may have to take a 


leap of faith and say we trust you in saying 


so, and -- and we don't see anything really 


wrong here, and simplify the process. If 


that's okay it would certainly reduce the 


number of hours that we have to invest in 


demonstrating each and every number as being 


correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, in fact, I -- I don't think 


the Board every mandated actually that every 


number be looked at. In fact, in the -- in the 


-- sort of the spirit of an audit, one could 


argue that you pick numbers, just as we pick 


cases, and you know, you do check some of them 


and see if there's discrepancies. But I -- I 


personally see no reason why we would insist 


that every number be checked in a particular 


case. Others may --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) No, 


(unintelligible) --


DR. MAURO: I -- I had an idea regarding the 


number of cases. In theory, we -- we know 


doing it the way we do it now approximately how 


many work hours it costs and so we -- but as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

Hans pointed out, if we come at it from a 


different perspective and a different work 


product, what we can do in our proposal is -- 


my guess is would say well, here's an 


alternative. We could do twice as many for the 


same price if we simply constrain -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- our review and lay out -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: In certain ways. 


DR. MAURO: In certain ways, and double the 


output --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- at the same price. It wouldn't 


-- and I think that -- we could actually 


present that in our proposal as options. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


DR. MAURO: And then you could discuss the 


options as you see fit and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a good suggestion. The 


other part of it of course is the issue that 


was raised in terms of the Board load. I would 


offer that, at least in my -- my case, I didn't 


find the number of cases prohibitively 


burdensome this past year. It seems to me we 


could -- it seems to me we could go to 80 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 

176 

if needed, without that much -- I mean one 


additional set, but -- okay. Mark, comment? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I still think we can 


bump up the cases, but I -- just to speak to 


John's point, I -- I don't want to, on the fly 


here at a Board meeting, compromise the product 


that we're getting from these dose 


reconstruction reviews. I -- you know, I'm 


concerned about cutting the effort in half. 


-- myself, I wonder if we still have -- 


especially the best estimate cases where we 


have to do more of this drill-down effort that 


we described in our initial RFP. I don't think 


there's been a lot of drill-downs. In fact, in 


the early ones that we did, it took us a while 


to even have the workbooks looked at, so we 


weren't even looking at workbook deals, so I -- 


I -- I wonder if we're -- you know, I don't 


want to compromise those important task items 


that we laid out without giving it further -- 


further consideration 'cause I -- I think that 


-- that we would miss some of what we intended 


on the -- on the review. And -- and -- I guess 


that's the main point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and I don't think we're 


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 

177 

being asked today to make such a decision. 


Basically John is saying they might offer some 


optional approaches, and we'd have to see what 


those looked like at our next meeting. 


I wonder if the group would be willing to go up 


to 80 on the dose reconstructions. I'd like to 


kind of get some level of consensus here. 


Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Sure, I wouldn't have any concern 


with 80. And as you've pointed out, Dr. 


Ziemer, this is not for -- for the Board, this 


is the smallest of the -- of the time-consuming 


tasks that we have to address. That's a 


relatively minor thing, and I certainly 


appreciate the point that Mark is making with 


respect to not wishing to water down what we're 


getting to the point where it is not the level 


of sophistication that we want to see. But the 


issue that John Mauro raises with respect to 


perhaps not doing that kind of drill-down 


effort with every one of the cases is -- is, I 


think, well taken and probably there's -- there 


is enough leeway in between the two points of 


view that we can do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and certainly you can still 

1 

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 

do the drill-down without checking every entry. 


Let's see, who else --


 DR. MELIUS: I actually had mine up, but you 


stole my point, Dr. --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm happy to do that. 


 DR. MELIUS: You Hoosiers do it all the time. 


 DR. WADE: So I think I know how to proceed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. At least we have kind of 


consensus, I think, to -- I don't hear any 


strong objections to going up to 80. I'm not 


sure where we are on the -- was it site profile 


reviews or SEC --


 DR. WADE: SEC --


 DR. MELIUS: SEC --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- SEC petition reviews. Do you 


want to give a little flexibility -- couple 


more on that? 


 DR. MELIUS: Again, for purposes -- as I 


understood it, for purposes of cost, that 


probably doesn't matter what number we put 


there. 


 DR. WADE: We'll get it fully -- we'll get -- 


 DR. MELIUS: In terms of planning, I think it's 


clear that that's probably going to be a 


greater number than six next year. 

1 

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. ZIEMER: Well, and this is the one that we 


have less control on what comes in the door in 


terms -- it's not quite like the dose 


reconstructions where we have a pool to choose 


from. 


 DR. WADE: And don't forget that Congress, in 


its wisdom, will decide how much money we have, 


which will decide much of this. But --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: -- I just need to get started with 


the proposal and I guess I'll take this piece 


of paper with the number of 80, and I'll go 


forward with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you very much. We 


are at the lunch break time, actually a little 


over, so let's recess for an hour and get some 


lunch and we'll reconvene. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:20 p.m. 


to 1:35 p.m.) 


STATEMENTS FROM CONGRESS, MR. JASON BROEHM, CDC


 DR. ZIEMER: We are ready to reconvene the 


meeting. We actually have two transmittals 


from members of Congress that we want to enter 


into the record, and I believe Jason is going 


to come and read those, first on behalf 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 

180 

Brian Higgins, a member of Congress, and then 


on behalf of Senator Cantwell of Washington 


state. 


 MR. BROEHM: Okay. Well, first I have the 


statement, as you noted, from Representative 


Brian Higgins of New York, and it reads 


(Reading) I want to thank the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health for allowing me to 


make this statement today. 


I wanted to take the opportunity of your 


meeting in Washington, D.C. to appeal to the 


Advisory Board to recommend that the former 


workers at the Bethlehem Steel site in 


Lackawanna, New York be designated a Special 


Exposure Cohort. 


As this Board is well aware, significant 


controversy exists with respect to the dose 


reconstruction efforts at the Bethlehem Steel 


site. NIOSH undertook an extensive effort on 


dose reconstruction, but I and my colleagues in 


the western New York Congressional delegation 


have gone on record as to the shortcomings of 


that study, a litany I will not take your time 


with today. Subsequently the Board hired an 


independent private consultant to perform its 

1 

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 

own analysis, and the results were vastly 


different from the NIOSH study. Perhaps this 


is not surprising given the difficulty 


incumbent in reconstructing radiation exposure 


that occurred over 50 years ago. 


Meanwhile, during all of this debate, study and 


re-study, the former ill-stricken Bethlehem 


Steel employees and their families have waited 


patiently. They've waited for justice but all 


they have received are statistics and studies. 


These workers are not statistics. They are the 


men and women who, by their efforts, helped 


America win the Cold War. Now as a result of 


their work they are sick. They deserve to have 


their sacrifice honored and recognized, not 


minimized and trivialized. 


We must concede that given the dearth of 


reliable information we have on working 


conditions at Bethlehem Steel over 50 years go, 


despite NIOSH's great efforts, any dose 


reconstruction is doomed to inadequately 


provide justice to these workers. The only 


just alternative available to us under the 


Energy Employees Occupational Illness 


Compensation Program Act is to make 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 

182 

workers a Special Exposure Cohort. My 


colleagues and I have introduced legislation to 


make this designation, but it is stuck in 


committee. We have appealed to the President 


to declare a special cohort administratively, 


but he has demurred. 


It is now up to this Board and the Department 


of Labor to do the right -- to do right by 


these workers and to recommend a Special 


Exposure Cohort. You are the last best hope 


that these workers will see justice. I implore 


you to act quickly. 


 Again, thank you for allowing me to address the 


Board today. I look forward to working with 


you to ensure that these workers and their 


families receive the compensation they are 


entitled to under the law, and the medical care 


they deserve. 


And next I have a statement from U.S. Senator 


Maria Cantwell from Washington State. 


(Reading) Thank you for the opportunity to 


submit testimony to the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health with regard to the 


Hanford nuclear facility in Richland, 


Washington. Since Upton Sinclair exposed 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 

183 

atrocious labor conditions in the meatpacking 


industry in his book, "The Jungle," over 100 


years ago, the United States has made genuine 


progress in protecting workers from unsafe 


occupational conditions. We have strengthened 


labor laws to control hours and pace of work, 


and ensure adequate compensation benefits for 


workers. Especially with regard to employee 


radiation hazards, regulations exist to protect 


workers by limiting permissible exposures to 


hazardous chemicals and ionizing radiation. 


I recognize the hard work and tremendous 


sacrifice nuclear weapons and atomic energy 


workers have made for our nation's defense and 


security. I am proud to have worked to change 


to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 


Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), enacting 


Part E of the program now administered under 


the Department of Labor. Under EEOICPA the 


Board must review the scientific validity and 


quality of the National Institute for 


Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) dose 


reconstructions. Among other responsibilities, 


the Boar reviews NIOSH's evaluation for 


petitions for Special Exposure Cohort status 

1 

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 

and recommends whether such status should be 


granted. I want to thank Chairman Ziemer and 


members of the Board for your leadership. You 


determine the relationship between exposure and 


its health effects, using only the best 


available scientific evidence and in doing so, 


ensures the integrity of the program. 


The Board was very responsive to my requests 


that the Hanford review process move forward, 


and I look forward to working with the Board to 


resolve worker compensation issues at Hanford. 


As you are aware, the Sanford Cohen & 


Associates independent review of the NIOSH site 


profile of the Hanford nuclear facility was 


released a year ago. Based on the June 10, 


2005 report I have raised concerns that the 


dosimetry data available for certain Hanford 


workers is insufficient to make an appropriate 


determination for workers compensation under 


the EEOICPA program. Sufficient information to 


perform dose reconstruction is essential to 


determining workers' Special Exposure Cohort 


eligibility. SC&A's findings suggest several 


instances where thousands of workers should be 


included into the SEC category. I will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

continue to request that the Board recognize 


that certain Hanford workers qualify for a 


Special Exposure Cohort designation. 


The Hanford plant located in southeastern 


Washington State was established in the early 


1940s. At that time the plant was built for 


the manufacture, chemical separation and 


purification of plutonium. Annual records of 


radiation exposure have been obtained from 


dosimeters worn by employees. These data 


reflect estimates of exposure to several types 


of ionizing radiation. Moreover, there have 


been numerous studies on populations' 


occupational exposure to radiation at the 


Hanford site, including Gilbert and Marks 


(1979); Trolley (sic) et al (1983); Mancuso, 


Stewart and Kneale (1977); Kneale, Mancuso and 


Stewart (1981 and 1984); Hutchinson et al 


(1979); and Darby and Reissland (1981). There 


is no doubt that the Hanford plant has employed 


many people, especially before 1972, in work 


involving some exposure to radiation. 


The concerns raised by former and current 


nuclear workers about the data used to 


determine eligibility for compensation are 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 

186 

unique to my constituents at the Hanford site 


in Richland, Washington. Without a doubt, dose 


reconstruction is a complex process that 


involves rebuilding a worker's history of 


radiation based on individual dose records as 


well as other site documentation. To receive 


workers compensation for an occupational 


illness, a worker must prove that the specific 


condition was cause by a particular job 


exposure. 


When an illness has a long latency period, 


workers may be unable to remember what 


substances, hazardous or not, they were exposed 


to twenty-odd years earlier. Frequent changes 


in work or work practices complicate the matter 


further. Without a complete work history and 


knowledge of specific occupational hazards, it 


will be difficult to correlate symptoms and 


causes. In other words, the burden of proof is 


on the claimant, and the outcome depends on how 


much certainty is required. That said, 


questions about the Hanford radiation dosimetry 


data, based on the SC&A review, lend support to 


a Special Exposure Cohort status for these 


workers. 

1 

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 

According to SC&A review of the Hanford site 


profile, neutron exposure among many Hanford 


workers contributed a large portion of the 


total dose from external radiation. For 


example, neutron exposure dominated for 100, 


200 and 300 area workers at Hanford. However, 


findings from the SC&A report claim that 


neutron exposure to reactor workers are not 


adequately characterized as a result of 


unmonitored exposure to neutron sources in 


operations such as separations, HLW tanks and 


burial sites, and R&D facilities, among other 


issues. As such, there is a high potential for 


worker exposure to neutrons due to the historic 


design and operation of reactors. 


Additionally, not all reactor operations 


personnel were monitored for neutrons, and a 


number of non-reactor facilities with potential 


for neutron exposure that were not addressed in 


the Technical Basis Document. 


While there were other findings from the SC&A 


review of the Hanford site profile, I 


understand the Advisory Board has formed a 


working group to facilitate further discussion 


of these findings between SC&A and Oak Ridge 

1 

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 

Associated Universities, the contracting agency 


which authored the Hanford site profile. 
I 


respectfully request members of the Hanford 


working group to brief my staff on the status 


of these discussions. 


In conclusion, I want to take this time to 


revisit a major goal of EEOICPA, to provide 


timely -- quote, timely, uniform and adequate, 


unquote, compensation to these workers. The 


role of the Advisory Board is to provide 


quality control and raise public confidence in 


the fairness of the claims process. While I 


recognize that determining the eligibility of 


worker compensation is a difficult task, time 


is of the essence. I have met with far too 


many sick Hanford workers who need medical help 


and, more importantly, deserve compensation. 


The SEC designation was created expressly for 


situations in which data needed for the dose 


reconstruction process fails to exist. The 


independent review of the NIOSH site profile of 


the Hanford nuclear facility suggest several 


instances where thousands of workers should be 


included into the SEC category due to -- due to 


the lack of such data. Because of this, I 

189 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

reiterate my request that the Board give 


particular consideration that certain Hanford 


workers qualify for a Special Exposure Cohort 


designation. 


Again, I thank the Board for allowing me to 


submit testimony to the Board and I look 


forward to continuing -- to continue working 


with the Board to resolve worker compensation 


issues at Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much for reading 


those letters into the record for us, Jason. 


NIOSH UPDATE OF PROGRAM ISSUES:
 

BETHLEHEM STEEL SITE PROFILE; CONSTRUCTION WORKERS; 


SITE PROFILE REVISION ACTIVITIES; QA/QC; COMMUNICATIONS 


INITIATIVE
 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH
 

We'll now return to our regular agenda. The 


next item before us this afternoon is the NIOSH 


update of program issues, and Larry Elliott is 


going to make that presentation. Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Good 


afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen of the 


Board and interested members of the public. 


appreciate this opportunity to provide you at 


this point in your meeting an update on several 


program-related issues that we have been 


tracking. 


We'll start off first with the Bethlehem Steel 


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 

190 

site profile revision. I believe it was in the 


-- your Oak Ridge -- maybe the Knoxville 


meeting where we had -- you had considerable 


discussion and deliberation upon this site 


profile and come to some closure on it, 


identifying six issues that you asked us to 


follow up on and report to the Board on a 


quarterly basis, I believe were the words that 


were captured from your deliberations. And so 


we'll talk about that for a moment here. 


We have completed five of the -- and resolved 


five of the six issues, and let me just remind 


you quickly what those are. The model that we 


had for the Bethlehem Steel site proposed -- or 


used 1951 and 1952 exposures and they were felt 


to not be totally appropriate. We modified --


we have modified the site profile, 1951 and 


1952 are treated separately in the site profile 


now, and we've incorporated an adjustment 


factor for the 1951 air samples, and we are 


using the highest data point for the 1952 time 


frame. 


 Ingestion was the second issue, and the concern 


was raised that it is not adequately 


characterized in that site profile that 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 

191 

using at the time. It has been modified to 


incorporate ingestion intakes based upon air 


concentration, surface contamination and 


surface-to-ingestion transfer factors. 


 Resuspension of dust that was accounted for in 


that site profile was (unintelligible) 


questioned, and we have incorporated guidelines 


using the median value for 1949 to 1950, and 


separately for 1951 and 1952. 


There was an issue raised by workers with 


regard to the extended contact with uranium and 


it -- it was not addressed in the first site 


profile, and we have modified that now. It 


assumes a 1.5 millirem per hour from clothing 


contamination and two weeks in between the 


washing of clothing, resulting in a 1.8 rem per 


year for clothing contamination. 


And the fifth issue that was raised that we've 


addressed now in our revised site profile was 


an effect of oronasal breathing. The Board 


agreed with us, I believe, that the effect 


would have been small at Bethlehem Steel, and 


we are continuing to work on a generic guidance 


that will not only address that issue for the 


Bethlehem Steel claimants, but also across 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

other facilities, and we'll be providing that 


soon, I anticipate. 


The remaining issue is -- centers on the 95th 


percentile of dose and a concern that it does 


not take into account the short-term, episodic 


exposures, those particularly that would occur 


during the cutting of cobbles when the uranium 


bars would have gotten balled up into the 


rolling machine. And so there was questions 


raised about that. We continue to work with 


Mr. Walker. We have I believe a meeting 


schedule with him and the workers that he's 


identified that have knowledge of this 


particular exposure scenario and will be 


visiting with him next week, I believe -- on 


the 21st, is that right, Mr. Walker? 


 MR. WALKER: That's correct. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And we hope that, from that 


exchange with those workers and Mr. Walker, 


we'll have enough information that we can 


address this issue properly in the site 


profile. 


 Construction workers is another issue that was 


raised at your Board meeting in Denver during 


the public comment period. Unfortunately there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

was a lot of inaccurate information 


disseminated in that public comment, and so we 


wanted to make sure that we provided you a 


update on where things stand with construction 


trades workers. I -- I commented on this at 


the end of the meeting in Denver, and this is 


an update from that set of comments. 


So the number of cases that we have with job 


construction titles in their work history for 


all of the claims that we hold, those ran a 


little over 4,000. We have completed and 


submitted to the Department of Labor 2,646 


cases of that 4,000 total, and of those there 


have been about 22.4 percent or 594 cases that 


were found to have a probability of causation 


of greater than 50 percent or have -- DOL will 


find them to be compensable based upon the dose 


reconstruction we have provided. Additionally 


there have been over 2,000 of 76.6 percent of 


those cases completed that were found to have a 


POC of less than 50 percent, or will be 


determined by DOL to be non-compensable. 


We have yet to complete, 1,435 cases, and of 


those we have 705 that have been pended in our 


process until we come forward with 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 

194 

Technical Informa-- or Technical Basis Document 


entitled "Parameters to Consider When 


Processing Cases for Construction Trade 


Workers," and what this Technical Basis 


Document applies to specifically are those 


subcontract workers who were not monitored 


under the primary contractor's monitoring 


program. In other words, they didn't have any 


monitoring done for them by the prime or the 


MEO contractor. And so this Technical Basis 


Document is in the very last stages, I assure 


you -- I know Dr. Neton was reviewing it this 


morning, and we're hopeful that it -- all the ­

- all the technical aspects and issues that we 


have identified with it are -- have -- have 


been put to bed and we will implement this 


very, very soon to attend to these 705 claims 


that deserve attention so -- so dramatically. 


We have 730 cases that are active and they -- 


they may be openly active, we're working on 


them, or they are pended for other reasons 


besides this particular Technical Basis 


Document. And those reasons -- there's a 


variety of reasons. They're very case-


specific. We may -- in some cases they 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 

195 

pended because they're waiting on a Special 


Exposure Cohort class eligibility 


determination. They may be new cases to us and 


we have -- we are awaiting requests for DOE 


monitoring information. There may be some 


technical issue other than that that we're -- 


we're awaiting resolution on. So we're -- 


we're busily looking at those 730 cases and 


trying to finish those up as well. 


So I would -- I would offer that I don't 


believe, as I said in Denver, this is a 


disenfranchised group. No, we paid particular 


attention to the trades -- the construction 


trades and we're focusing due diligence and 


attention to their -- to the current claims 


situation. 


Too quick on the trigger. I think after --


after this morning's discussion and the 


presentation from John Mauro of SC&A on -- and 


yest-- was it yesterday Kathy Behling got up 


and gave us a review of procedures -- this is a 


timely update from our perspective. I want to 


say to the Board and to the public that as we 


hear the constructive comments brought forward 


from the auditor's review, where we recognize 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

the importance and we can make a change, we do 


so. We don't feel it necessary to wait until 


we had Board consensus or Board action 


directing us to do so, so there are a number of 


changes that have been affected by those -- 


those review comments that we have received. 


There are 132 Technical Basis Documents that 


have been approved and are now in use. I don't 


believe that number's really come out. I hope 


it's the same number as those that John 


submitted to you in a -- in a listing this aft­

- this morning that -- the two numbers, what 


they've reviewed and what they haven't reviewed 


yet, I hope they line up with that. There's 


also 43 Technical Information Bulletins that 


have been completed and are in use. And I wish 


I had a number here for you on how many more we 


need. That -- that is an unknown. That's 


something that -- that we're -- we're 


constantly asking our contractor and ourselves, 


how many more Technical Basis Documents, how 


many more Technical Information Bulletins are 


we going to have to craft. And this goes to 


the question that was raised this morning about 


the complexity of doing 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 

197 

with all of these tools in our tool box. 


So I want you to understand that Technical 


Basis Documents are -- that we know of are 


listed here for development, and they're at 


various stages of development. And in some 


cases, like in Pantex, you can go -- go onto 


our web site and you'll see that Pantex -- I 


think there are two portions of this -- two 


chapters of this six-chapter site profile that 


are approved. The other chapters are under 


development and we hope to be seeing those put 


to use very soon. 


Of the 43 approved Technical Information 


Bulletins there are 21 that are site-specific. 


In other words, they deal with a specific 


technical issue associated with a process or 


operation at a given site. And another -- the 


remaining 22 -- there are 21 that are site-


specific. The remaining 22 are complex-wide. 


In other words, they address an issue that 


deals with more than one site or one operation 


at -- across sites. So I think that's -- 


that's important to know out of that 43 -- it's 


important for a variety of reasons. It goes to 


the dose reconstruction review. It also goes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

to conflict of interest and the policy that 


we're developing and attending to on -- on full 


attribution and making sure we have document 


owners that are not conflicted. 


I think it needs to be made publicly -- the 


public needs to be made aware that site 


profiles and Technical Basis Documents are 


reviewed periodically. Besides what the 


auditor is doing for the Board, in-house we 


review them periodically. ORAU has their own 


periodic review schedule -- I think it's a 


biennial review schedule. And it's important 


also to understand at this point in time, as 


we're working on our -- developing the conflict 


of interest policy, that all of these documents 


are under a subject review for conflict of 


interest as we proceed with the implementation 


of the policy as we see it developing. 


Currently there is a technical review on INEL 


site profile document, ORNL site profile 


document and the Fernald document. That's an 


internal set of reviews that are ongoing on 


those three documents. 


We move on to an update now on where we stand 


with regard to communications and our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

initiatives in that area. This image is from 


the -- on the right-hand side here is from the 


nav-- it's a navigation bar on our web site. 


If you haven't been on our web site, I 


encourage you to go there, take a look at it. 


I hope that this navigational tool will aid you 


in finding the information that you're seeking. 


There is a huge, huge amount of information on 


this web site and we've had good comments. 


We've had good -- good constructive criticism 


about the navigability of the web site, and so 


we've taken some steps to try to improve that, 


and we're constantly looking at this web site 


to try to develop better methods and better 


ways to present information and to aid people 


in finding that information. 


 The Advisory Board page on the web site now 


contains a -- listings of meetings for your -- 


for the current year, as well as a -- when you 


go to that page you'll see on the right-hand 


side another bar that you can click on that 


takes you to previous meetings, and so you can 


find the correspondence, you should be able to 


find all of your meeting minutes and 


transcripts. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200

 There's an individual site page on the 


navigation bar, and if you go to an individual 


site page you will see the information that has 


been produced to date for a given site, whether 


it's the site profile, a Technical Basis 


Document that is used to address issues 


associated with dose reconstruction for that 


site profile, whether it is information about 


SC&A's review. There -- those documents should 


be presented there as well, so there's a lot of 


information organized by site that you might 


want to avail yourself of. 


There's a list of work sites. The master list 


of specific work sites for which NIOSH has 


developed info is another way of presenting the 


site-related information, and so you might see 


some duplication of information if you go to 


these different web pages within the -- within 


this web site. 


 The Special Exposure Cohort web page is now 


separated into four distinct pages. There's an 


SEC main page which contains classes in the 


Special Exposure Cohort, the qualified -- it 


lists the presumptive cancers. It also shows 


the petitions that have qualified for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

evaluation, petitions and classes that have not 


yet been added to the SEC but are under 


consideration. The additional pages on the -- 


on the SEC web page provide instruction on how 


to submit petitions. It provides a copy of the 


-- of the rule on SEC petition processing, and 


it provides some procedures on how we -- we do 


handle those petitions. 


The technical documents used in dose 


reconstruction is another duplicate page within 


the web site which has some shortened 


information and provides links to the 


individual site pages. So there's a lot of 


cross-coordination here within the web site, 


and we hope that that will aid in finding 


specific information you're searching for. 


If all of that fails you, I'd go to the search 


-- little search engine at the top and type in 


what you're looking for, and it'll take you to 


what you want to see. 


We've revised -- we've been working on our 


acknowledgement letter which we send out to all 


claimants once we receive a referral from the 


Department of Labor informing the claimant that 


we now have their particular claim and we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

about to begin dose reconstruction. We have 


shared this information packet -- it's now a 


packet. It's more than just the letter. We 


shared this at one of your previous Board 


meetings. We didn't ask for -- we asked for 


individual comment. It was out on a table and 


we asked folks to stop by and comment on it. 


There's a number of information bulletins on 


the -- this site of the packet -- a glossary of 


terms, provides detailed steps in claims 


processing, a little yellow bulletin here that 


talks about dose reconstruction and what that 


means for the claimant. And there's a -- we 


always give a refrigerator magnet so that the 


person can have the contact information. So 


this will be put into use very soon, I hope, 


and we'll see some changes in how our -- our 


notification to our claimants is received by 


that. So we welcome what -- the inputs that 


some of the Board members gave us on that. 


At your last meeting in Denver many of you 


might have been aware that we were 


demonstrating a dose reconstruction video in 


focus group panel sessions where there was a 


room set aside and one of my health 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

communications specialists was pulling in 


claimants and -- and people who had an interest 


in viewing this video and providing us comment 


on it. It is an introduction to the topic of 


dose reconstruction. It is intended to provide 


a very general description and understanding of 


this complex scientific program. We're hoping 


it reaches a target audience here that will 


understand what we're saying in the video. 


It's -- it's really designed in that audience 


to reach the Energy employees and/or their 


survivors. 


 The video's currently within the Office of the 


Director at NIOSH and our communications -- 


associate director for communications is giving 


it a final review. And once we have that 


approval, it will be sent out for external 


review, which means every member of the Board 


will get a copy. Interested members of the 


public can get a copy. And we would welcome 


your individual comments on whether it meets 


the target that we're -- we're trying to 


achieve and it provides the communication 


messages that we hope it does. So I -- I would 


hope you'll see that within a -- in a month or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

so. It'll be coming to you by mail. 


I mentioned earlier -- and in Denver meeting 


and other meetings -- we are working on 


reformatting our dose reconstruction report. 


This is the report that we provide to claimants 


and we provide to the Department of Labor, we 


provide to the Department of Energy, that 


explains how we went about doing our work in 


reconstructing the dose for that claimant and 


what those findings are, what the estimates of 


dose are for that particular set of 


circumstances that the Energy employee worked 


under and what their -- we ant-- we estimate 


their exposure to have been. The draft 


language for that reformatted report has been 


developed. It is under internal review. We 


will be talking with -- with our ORAU 


counterparts next week about what it takes to 


retool the -- the development and distribution 


of such a report now. And it's our goal to see 


this report attend to some of the comments 


we've received about the technical -- technical 


aspects of what we do and the difficulty in 


understanding, from a lay person's perspective, 


what it is we do and what it means for them. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

And so there are -- there are really two 


sections that this rep-- this new format will 


contain. One will be a very claimant-friendly 


section that uses non-technical language to 


summarize the report, to tell them how much 


dose we have accounted for in their dose 


reconstruction and how we went about doing that 


-- and that is a difficult, challenging task, 


as you might imagine. 


And then there will be a technical section that 


will be very elaborate and very scientifically 


developed so that a -- if the person wants to 


get an expert opinion, wants to have another 


health physicist look at it, they'll 


understand. The auditor will understand what 


we've done in calculating and estimating the 


dose, what technical information we used to do 


that. 


I'd like to talk a little bit now about our 


quality assurance and our quality control 


program. And there are going to be really 


three sections in this part of the 


presentation. The first section I'm going to 


talk about is where we receive the claim from 


the Department of Labor, and what we do 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 

206 

that claim to make sure that all of the 


information that we have been given is the 


correct information, the information that we 


need in order to start processing the dose 


reconstruction. And then I'm going to walk you 


through the dose reconstruction quality 


assurance/quality control program that ORAU 


performs in developing the dose reconstruction. 


And then I'll finish up with our quality 


assurance aspect of reviewing all of that again 


to make sure that we've achieved the product 


that we want. 


I think it's important for us in this part of 


the presentation to be very clear about what we 


mean by quality control/quality assurance. 


Quality control is a set of steps or part of a 


procedure that is performed during the 


development of a product to make sure that as 


we go along in that development we achieve a 


level of satisfaction according to our product 


specs. 


 Quality assurance is an examination or a test 


or a set of steps that are applied after the 


product has been developed and we're assuring 


that it does meet our product spec. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

So what is our product spec? We've operated 


from day one under this premise: That our 


product specification in dose reconstruction 


was that each dose reconstruction is of 


sufficient quality to yield a correct decision 


by DOL on the compensability of the claim. 


There's a lot in that that's not said. We've 


talked about our efficiency processes. We've 


talked about best estimates. There's really -- 


if you get down to it, there's only three ways 


we really do dose reconstructions. 


We do an underestimating approach where we 


don't account for all of the dose because it 


shows that the claim is compensable. We do an 


overestimating approach where we throw 


everything in it we can to make sure we've 


accounted for every dose that we can, we've 


been as claimant-favorable as we can to show 


that the exposure did not result in the cancer. 


And then we do a best estimate approach, which 


is the most difficult, the most time-consuming 


and the most resource-intensive approach to 


assure that for those cases where the 


probability of causation is calculated out to 


be between 45 and 52 percent that it 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 

208 

correct, that we cannot find any more dose to 


make it above 50 percent and we've done our job 


the best we can. 


So I think, given that, you're going to -- 


you've seen from the auditor's review that 


there are a number of deficiencies noted. 


Those number of deficiencies, as you heard this 


morning, have not really been of the order of 


magnitude that would have changed the 


compensability decision, perhaps. They've been 


noted, and we take note of those and we're 


making changes as we think appropriate at this 


time. But we recognize that our dose 


reconstruction efforts -- I'll just be frank 


here -- have some warts on them at times. They 


are imperfect. But they meet this product 


spec, we believe. 


The quality control program for our claims 


processing -- we have a -- I'm going to hope I 


don't bore you with these procedures, but I'm 


going to list the procedures just in case -- in 


case the Board or SC&A wants to make note of 


have they reviewed these. 


We have a claims processing procedure which my 


staff adheres to upon receipt of the claim. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

There's certain things that they have to do on 


receipt of the data from the Department of 


Labor to make sure that that information is of 


sufficient quality and quantity for us to do 


our job in dose reconstruction. There are 


detailed quality control steps that are 


specified in this procedure to make sure that 


the data that's entered, by hand, into our 


electronic database is entered accurately and 


completely. 


Such as: The cases are date-stamped and they 


are assigned a tracking number, as you know, 


and all documents are logged the day they are 


received. This is important to us because 


that's when we say we start our work on those 


cases. We're held accountable from that day 


on. 


All data is entered into our electronic data 


system and there are electronic verifications 


of that data performed, such as -- there's an 


electronic mechanism that can test as to 


whether or not the Social Security number is 


right. You know, has it got -- is it missing a 


number, are there too many numbers, those are 


things we can do electronically. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

All of the ethnicity data that we need to 


process a dose reconstruction for skin cancer 


is checked. Smoking histories for lung cancers 


are checked to make sure that we have that 


information and it is accurately recorded. 


The dates are verified for reasonableness, and 


we do this also by electronic mechanism to 


determine whether the date of birth, the date 


of death, the employee start and end date are 


accurately entered into the system. 


The data is then compared, after it's entered, 


with the hard copy data that we receive. Now 


many of the Board members -- some of the newer 


ones may not have been into our processing 


area, but we do keep all of the hard copy on 


file. We work at our desks in electronic 


format from the database, but all hard copy 


that we have on a claim exists in our hands in 


our -- in our -- in Cincinnati. So we check 


the Energy employee and the survivor data and 


make sure that that is complete. All of the 


cancer information and the description, the 


ICD-9 codes are compatible and they're 


accurate, we go through that. 


 We determine if the right forms 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 

211 

submitted to us. That is the form that the 


Energy employee or the survivor has to fill out 


at DOL, and we check those for accuracy and 


clarity. Many of -- many forms that we get, 


many infor-- much of the information we get 


from the claimants are scanned by the claimant 


or they're a photocopy, and we want those to be 


legible so we check that, we check the 


legibility of those documents. 


 Any discrepancies that are noted are reported 


back to the Department of Labor, because it's 


their responsibility to provide a full 


development of the claim information. And any 


supplemental information that the Department of 


Labor provides to us is also QC'd in the same 


fashion and checked. 


Once the dose reconstruction report has been 


produced by the -- by ORAU and given to us, and 


I'll talk about that -- that part of the 


process in a minute, but I'm going to jump 


ahead now and take you to where it's going to 


be filed. The dose reconstruction report has 


been finished and we've got -- we're awaiting 


OCAS-1 or we're going to get the OCAS-1, so 


we're looking at the report to make sure 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 

212 

it is -- it is complete and accurate, the 


tracking number is on each page, we don't have 


-- interspersed somebody else's -- pages from 


someone else's report. We want to make sure 


that we're not -- that we want to give a 


complete accurate report and we're not 


divulging Privacy Act-related information to 


people who don't -- should not be getting that. 


All pages have to be accounted for within a 


report. There has to be OCAS health physicist 


approval signature on these reports as a final 


peer review of the product that we receive from 


any contractor or from -- if it's a report that 


has been developed in-house by one of the OCAS 


health physicists, there still has to be a OCAS 


health physicist approval. We also check the 


EE name and the Social Security number and make 


sure those are correct because those are 


Privacy Act-related information that we need to 


monitor very closely. 


Once we receive the signed OCAS-1, we verify 


that the signatures on that OCAS-1 are in the 


case file and they are matched up. And if 


there are any modifications on that OCAS-1, 


then that triggers our legal folks 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 

213 

involved with us and go back to the claimant 


and explain that we cannot accept a modified 


OCAS-1; we have to accept only a signed OCAS-1. 


So there's a -- there's a quality control 


aspect there as well. 


The return of the OCAS-1 form and the 


completion of the closeout interview is also 


monitored, and there's quality control steps in 


that process. As you know, we have a 60-day 


review for cases with unreturned forms. In 


other words, we've sent out the dose 


reconstruction report. We allow the claimant 


to take 60 days to make a decision on signing 


the OCAS-1 or providing us additional 


information. If they don't do that, we notify 


them that their 60 days has come to limit and 


we offer them another 14 days to remedy, either 


send us an OCAS-1 form or send us additional 


information. So at the end of 74 days, if we 


don't have that, then we administratively close 


the case. But all of that is trapped -- 


tracked by a phone log which is recorded into 


the case file -- many of you have seen those 


phone logs, on the Board -- and we -- the 


interview of closing out 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 

214 

reconstruction is also captured. Those 


interviews and that -- that phone log capturing 


is also monitored and quality control-checked. 


If there's no notation in the phone log, then 


there's a -- that -- that a closeout interview 


was done or that the person was contacted about 


their missing OCAS-1, then that triggers 


another step in the process to back to that 


claimant and follow up with them. 


 The analysis record, which is the full set of 


documentation, all of the claim file that was 


submitted to us plus everything that we have 


added to it -- all of the information that we 


have collected and assembled, whether it's the 


DOE response, the AWE information that we've 


assembled, Technical Basis Document tools that 


might be referred to -- we make sure that 


they're accounted for in this analysis record. 


That is all assembled. It's put together on a 


compact disk and it's provided to the 


Department of Labor for a closeout of the case. 


And those -- those analysis records and that 


compact disk, as it's created, are examined and 


verified against the hard copy information that 


we have. We make sure that we're not -- we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

enclosing everything, we're not missing a piece 


of information that's vital for DOL to make 


their adjudication of the claim. 


Now let's go into the ORAU quality 


assurance/quality control procedures that they 


employ in the development of dose 


reconstructions. And their description of 


their procedures are outlined in this quality 


assurance program plan, and it was approved 


back in January of 2003. And I think if you go 


in and look at that, it's been updated at least 


two or three times that I'm aware of. I'm just 


providing on these the origination dates. I'm 


not providing the update -- revision dates for 


you. 


So internal quality assurance audits and 


assessments and surveillances are performed 


under this procedure. They are so done on 


project processes and -- and those are also 


performed in accordance with the conduct of 


quality assurance surveillances or quality 


assurance audits as prescribed by those 


procedures, and there's reporting mechanisms 


that are required under those particular 


procedures. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

The principal components of the ORAU quality 


assurance/quality control processes for dose 


reconstructions are found in this ORAU 


Procedure 003 (sic), which was approved in 


November of '04. This talks about how the dose 


reconstructors are trained, what requirements 


they have to meet. Then the dose 


reconstructions themselves are performed in 


accordance with the guidance that's provided by 


the various Technical Basis Documents and the 


procedures and the Technical Information 


Bulletins that y'all are becoming familiar with 


through the review by the -- by SC&A. 


There are resources such as the telephone 


interview with the claimants that are approved 


and validated, and I think that's some of the 


things that ORAU -- SC&A has already reviewed, 


and I think they have some others that they 


want to review in that regard on CATI 


interviews. 


ORAU does an initial quality control review 


that is performed by non-health physicists to 


assure that a draft DR is ready to go to 


technical peer review. And in that review 


they're talking about somebody that looks at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

the -- the language that's used, is the 


spelling correct, is the accuracy of the case 


information -- this is duplication of some of 


the stuff that my staff does, but as they 


develop the report, that's what they're looking 


for. They're also charged with looking at the 


consistency of the IREP input and the summary 


file information. So before it goes to 


technical peer review, they have staff who do 


these reviews on really an administrative 


preparation review, is what I would call it. 


So before we get it at NIOSH, every draft dose 


reconstruction then undergoes a technical peer 


review in conformance with the ORAU procedure 


that was listed here that was approved for use 


in December of '04. 


 An initial quality control review -- let's see 


-- oh, I'm behind a page. 


The peer review is performed using a peer 


review checklist that was also approved in 


December of '04, and this checklist is designed 


to identify issues regarding the technical 


development of the dose reconstruction. That 


-- that checklist is then provided to the dose 


reconstructor and those issues must be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218 

satisfied in agreement with the technical 


review -- the technical peer reviewer. 


Technical editing for grammar, reference 


checks, format and spelling is also completed 


at this stage. 


And then there's a final quality control review 


-- similar to the initial quality control 


review that I talked about that's a non-health 


physicist -- who are again looking at is the 


language right, is the spelling right, is the 


grammar right, do we have all the detailed 


information pertinent to that particular 


claimant, is it all captured in the report. So 


it's another administrative review. 


Now we go into -- they've produced the report. 


They've gone through their quality control 


steps, their quality assurance at the end, and 


now it comes to NIOSH for our -- for the last 


few steps in the process and our quality 


assurance that our product that we're going to 


deliver to the Department of Labor meets our 


spec, our product specification. This is all 


described in Dose Reconstruction Review 


Procedure 007, which is our procedure and that 


was approved also in December of '04. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

This -- the principal components of this 


procedure involve an OCAS HP review of 100 


percent of the dose reconstruction submitted. 


We do not have one dose reconstruction that is 


not reviewed by an OCAS technical peer 


reviewer. Every one of these is reviewed by 


an OCAS technical peer reviewer who is not 


conflicted for that given site. 


When a draft dose reconstruction is returned 


for rework from DOL back to us, a form is 


generated and we have a form that we look at 


with regard to those reworks, and you can see 


this is some of the information I presented 


earlier in the week about how many we got, so 


that's where we -- we're evaluating those in 


that given time frame, and then seem to be 


consistent with previous years' experience for 


-- for this current year. 


Did I skip one? 


UNIDENTIFIED: You did. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Happy trigger finger. Early in 


2005 we decided to sample five percent of all 


dose reconstructions that were submitted, on a 


random basis, and do a dose reconstruction 


review again, using a similar checklist. 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 

220 

checklist consists of 19 individual questions 


that we use to examine such things as are the 


work dates, the employment history, consistent; 


are the diagnosis and the dates with -- with 


any medical aspect consistent; are the doses 


that we -- that we reviewed and estimated, are 


they accurate and is there a summary matched to 


what we've been given from the dose of record 


by DOE, et cetera. So there's a variety of 


different things we look at in those 19 


questions. 


Those checklists are compiled on a quarterly 


basis, and they are shared with whichever 


contractor we're dealing with to determine if 


there's any trends that are -- are something 


that we want to look into deeper and -- and 


make any modifications or find any corrective 


action for. 


A hundred percent of the dose reconstructions 


also undergo a final NIOSH technical review, 


and that is a brief review intended to identify 


errors in the general approach of the dose 


reconstruction, as well as any format errors 


that -- that might have crept into the 


particular dose reconstruction itself, report 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

errors. 


 NIOSH also performs and documents self-


assessments. We have a team that performs this 


and they are done under a procedure entitled 


"Conduct of Assessments," 005, was also 


approved back in December of '04. And to date 


we have done 15 assessments. These assessments 


have a summary of findings. You've seen one, I 


believe, on the Paducah conflict of interest. 


They provide a corrective action plan. 


Examples of other assessments, we've had an 


assessment of the analysis record, those -- 


those final, complete compact disks that have 


the summary of all the information we've 


assembled. We've looked at that. 


We had an assessment on the ORAU dose 


reconstruction process itself. We've had an 


assessment on the dose reconstruction review 


record, the quality control steps in reviewing 


dose reconstructions. We've also had an 


assessment on the efficiency of the dose 


reconstruction process. And so those are just 


examples of some of these 15 that we have 


completed. 


I think I covered that 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 

222 

Our Technical Basis Documents are developed in 


accordance with this Document Control Procedure 


001 that was approved in February of '03, as 


well as the -- this als-- this ORAU Procedure 


0031 which we approved back in October of '04. 


What these -- these get at are how a Technical 


Basis Document is developed, how it's 


formatted, what its content needs to look like, 


what it addresses. It has to have a purpose. 


It has to state what it's trying to accomplish. 


And so these procedures outline the process for 


the development of that particular set of 


documents. 


There's also a review -- an examination of the 


process that -- that these documents undergo as 


they are drafted and as they are routed through 


full review. Each time a document is reviewed 


there's a set of review comments that are 


captured, and those review comments are then 


shared back with the document owner and they 


have to be addressed. And they have to be 


addressed to the satisfaction of the commenter 


and the decision authority, whether it's ORAU 


or NIOSH and OCAS, before they can be 


considered a final revised document. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

So you know, after we go through that, after 


all of those internal comments have been 


assembled and shared, they -- these are the 


check-off points. These are the people who do 


provide those comments. There's OCAS health 


physicists. Our Office of General Counsel 


reviews each and every one of these. They 


provide comments. This is all captured in this 


document control resolution system. The 


Department of Labor's health physicist, Jeff 


Kotsch, is in the room. He knows what happens. 


His comments come back to us as well, and they 


are so documented. And the DOE -- DOL legal 


team also has an opportunity to opine and 


review on our Technical Basis Documents as 


well. 


So once those comments are all captured, then 


we have to go through comment resolution. 


They're compiled in a -- in a clear document 


form and ORAU then considers those comments, 


makes appropriate changes as they deem 


necessary, returns those revised documents to 


us and we examine how they resolved and 


addressed those comments. They're shared back 


with the commenters for concurrence. And 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 

224 

there's any issues at that point, then we go 


back through the same process again of comment 


resolution. So it's a -- it's a continuous 


loop. 


Once we have achieved concurrence that the 


comments have been adequately and appropriately 


addressed, then it gets an ORAU approval for 


use that's shared with us, and then we put the 


final stamp of approval for implementation and 


use. 


I think that's all I have to say at this point. 


I hope that gives you a little better insight 


into what our quality assurance/quality control 


efforts are. It's something we've not talked 


about in great detail in the past. I also hope 


that some of the other issues that I brought 


you up to speed on satisfy your interest. And 


if there are other things that you want to hear 


about, I'd certainly be happy to add them to 


the list. 


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


Larry, for a very thorough discussion of those 


issues. 


A couple of questions. I'll start with a 


couple and maybe others will have some. Just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

for clarification, on your dose reconstruction 


video that you talked about under communication 


initiatives, is this actually a video? Are we 


talking about CDs or what? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It is a DVD, a video, and you can 


play it in your DVD player. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any people still have 


those? 


UNIDENTIFIED: It's a CD. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a CD. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm actually serious. 


UNIDENTIFIED: It's a CD. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It is a CD or a DVD? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's not a VCR. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) It's not a 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're thinking of VCR, perhaps. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's a DVD. Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a DVD. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And our intent is --


 DR. ZIEMER: That's what I wanted to know. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it's 12 minutes long right 


now. Our intent is to share it -- share 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 

226 

with the -- we plan to put it in the Resource 


Centers. We plan to bring it to public 


meetings like this --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's good, I -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- which is --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- was just wondering how the -­

what the word "video" meant in this case. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, it is a video that's 12 


minutes long. It is -- it's on a DVD format, 


some of -- some computers can play it, or you 


can play it in your DVD player in -- with your 


home TV. 


 DR. ZIEMER: On the communication initiatives, 


and I sort of referred to this before, what 


instruction do you give to the Department of 


Labor as to what the final outcome of the POC 


should look like? And I'm really getting at 


the significant figures in the number. Do you 


instruct Depart-- who determines that we're 


doing five and six -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I share your concern on that. 


I've preached from day one that we can't find 


ourselves being a significant figures five 


points out from the decimal point. I think --


I think Dr. Neton has a ready response on why 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

we go to that significant (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, actually the number's not 


really officially generated by you, is it? 


DR. NETON: That's correct, we don't generate 


any probability of causation numbers in our 


reports at all. Those are generated by the 


Department of Labor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's why I asked what 


instructions you give them on -- on this. 


DR. NETON: We give them no instruction, to my 


knowledge, on the number of significant figures 


they carry out their -- their letter to the 


claimants informing them of their decision. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You think they would be -- 


DR. NETON: Amenable to some -- some advice? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


DR. NETON: I think --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- maybe I'll ask Jeff. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, he has --


 DR. ZIEMER: Has anyone determined that -- that 


there should be that many significant figures? 


I guess I would argue that I -- it's almost -- 


you know, I might tolerate one decimal place, 


and I'm -- even would question that, but who's 


determined that we're going two and three 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

decimal places on this? Has anyone made that 


determination? 


 MR. KOTSCH: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


we just -- do I need to get up here? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. KOTSCH: We just report what basically 


comes out of IREP. IREP comes out to -- you 


know, to the hundredth digit, basically, but 


we've had discussions recently about whether 


it's prudent probably just to go with the full 


percentage. You know, like a 27 rather than a 


27.12 percent because we don't know what the 


validity of --


 DR. ZIEMER: Exactly, and --


 MR. KOTSCH: -- the real difference in the 


number is, anyway. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- most of the ones that we're 


seeing are going out to two decimal places, and 


sometimes three. 


DR. NETON: Right. I think Jeff raises a good 


point. IREP does generate it out to two 


decimal points, and I think the -- the 


claimants run it and it doesn't show those 


decimal points, it may raise some concern 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 

229 

their mind. And probably the place to start is 


to adjust IREP to --


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe we could have -- 


DR. NETON: -- to put the --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- IREP itself do the truncation. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we could do that. That's a 


good suggestion. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Labor didn't want to report 


anything that they couldn't duplicate -- the 


claimant could not duplicate if -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I understand, yeah. 


 MR. KOTSCH: -- they ran it themselves, so 


that's the way the machine right now is set up. 


When you -- when you plug the number in, it 


generates like that, so we just carry that. 


But we have had discussions about truncating 


it, basically. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's the -- it's the argument that 


John Poston has with his students. They'll say 


well, my -- my hand-held calculator gave me 27 


decimal points. You know, that's the answer. 


No, it's not. 


Okay, I just simply raise that point. I -- I 


think it's very misleading to people. 


 DR. WADE: Who has to fix IREP -- so --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230

 MR. ELLIOTT: We have to charge our contractor 


to fix the IREP software. And the IREP 


software is a publicly -- you know, we have it 


publicly available so people can go in and 


insert their own data and come out -- and we 


want them -- that's what DOL's been after for ­

- from the start of the program. They want to 


be able to see the claimant reproduce the data 


that they get. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's my personal view. I don't 


know how the other Board members feel, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it should be truncated to no 


more than one decimal point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark, you have a question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just a -- curious -- curious, 


Larry. I'm glad you noted all those procedure 


numbers. I'm -- I'm not sure if -- at this 


point, but I'm sure John was taking notes and 


has this -- whether SC&A has reviewed any of 


these procedures. 


DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) A lot of them 


we're very (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Some of them you have? 


DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Yes, some 


(unintelligible) in fact, that's why I handed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

out the list of procedures (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So -- so we'll -- we'll ­

- we'll look over these and -- and consider 


them if they're not on our list for review. 


I'm especially interested in some of the ones 


where -- where you noted that there are a 


series of 19 questions that -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, you may not have the 


checklist. I think that was something I wanted 


to reveal in case you didn't -- you weren't 


aware that we used checklists -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I wasn't aware of that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- in some of these quality 


control steps. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The procedures announce those, 


but if -- you know, if you haven't gone -- 


drilled down to that level -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you may not have picked them 

up yet. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And that's the detail I think 

would -- which would be useful to look at for 


us. 


Secondly, is there -- is there a similar 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

process to this for your other -- your TBD 


documents, your site profile documents, as far 


as your peer review and -- and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Yeah, that was -- that 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's maybe (unintelligible) -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- covered on the last few 

slides. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm sorry. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. There are procedures that 

prescribe how Technical Basis -- technical 


information documents are not only to be 


developed, but how they're to be quality 


controlled and quality assured through that 


process. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I hate to -- I guess one of the 


questions I raise that question is -- and I'm 


going by memory here, but I -- I seem to recall 


that several of the site profile documents have 


three or four or five signatures, I forget how 


many, and often they're on the same day, which 


is the day that -- that I guess each agency 


approved or each entity approved. Obviously 


there was no time for peer review if everyone 


was signing -- signing on the same 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 

233

 MR. ELLIOTT: Peer review almost happens 


concurrently. It's been -- you know, it's been 


our practice and our policy to get these 


documents into use as quickly as possible, so 


it -- it's not so much an iterative review as 


it is a concurrent review --


 MR. GRIFFON: I knew it --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- 'cause comment resolution has 


to happen, and once that comment resolution has 


taken place, we're all ready to sign it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's -- that's what it 


looks like. I -- I noted on the DR reports it 


-- it looks like step-wise more that there's a 


lag between the -- the reconstructor finishes 


and hands off, and the peer reviewer then does 


their -- you know, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: And if I can offer a comment on 


a site profile TBD document, the comment and 


resolution process occurs before the first 


signature -- signature is affixed, so after all 


the resolution is done, then the signatures are 


affixed at that point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or questions? Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: Just a question. On the 


communications side where we're dealing 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 

234 

your web site, I've noticed at times when I've 


gone into the update section that the blue line 


address will carry me into the major heading 


area, but not necessarily down two or three 


more levels I have to go in order to get to 


that topic. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 DR. DEHART: If that could be taken care of and 


add the rest to the address, it would be 


helpful. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: All right. Very good. Let me --


I may ask Chris Ellison to give you a call so 


that you can articulate what you're -- this 


specific interest is so she can hear it 


directly from you and -- 


 DR. DEHART: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I can carry it back, but I want 


to make sure that she understands clearly what 


-- what you're seeking. I think I know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For example, when we get the 


update information from Chris, she'll say the 


page has been updated with this information. 


But when you click on the link, you just get 


the main page. You don't -- you don't go to 


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 

235

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, I see what you're saying. 


I'll talk to her about that. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Good comment. 


DR. ROESSLER: On that item, too, we often get 


announcements from Chris that say they -- this 


will appear on the web site later today. I 


guess I'd prefer getting it after it's there 


because by later today I've totally forgot-- I 


mean, you know, I've done another half a dozen 


things and I've totally forgotten about it. 


There may be a reason for that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it -- our web page update 


happens late in the afternoon, after Chris 


leaves. It's a -- it's a logistical timing 


issue with -- with our web folks, so she does 


her business, she provides it to them, and they 


are scheduled to upload that. Now we can 


change the notice and say yesterday it was 


uploaded. If that's what you want, we can 


certainly do that. 


DR. ROESSLER: I'd -- I'd find that easier. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That way it's there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For those of us over a certain 


age, afterwards is better. 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 

236 

DR. ROESSLER: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not speaking for you, Gen. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I like that suggestion actually, 


because it will aid us to make sure -- you 


know, one of the -- one of the criticisms we've 


had of late is notification of working group 


meetings. And Chris has been charged with 


making sure that notice happens, and there's 


various ways that happens. It happens on the 


web site, but it also happens by an e-mail 


distribution list that she generates, and one 


that LaShawn, your committee management 


specialist, generates. So we touch people in 


different ways, and it would be better if the 


web site was done the day before so that Chris 


can assure that it's up there when she says 


it's up there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just to follow up on my -- my 


last line of questioning, but -- I was 


wondering if this -- this peer review -- the 


comments that are received in this peer review 


process, either for site profiles and/or for 


the case reviews, are something that are 


available to SC&A and the Board when we 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 

237 

specific --

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- cases or are they all part of 

the DR file. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a controlled document system 

that we have capturing all comments. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So those comments are -- are -- I 


think --


 MR. ELLIOTT: You can go -- you --


 MR. GRIFFON: There's a form -- I've seen it on 


the O drive. There's forms that capture 


comments in the resolution and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly available to you, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 'Cause I think that's 


important --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Essentially what it says -- who's 


the reviewer. Somebody like Jeff Kotsch will 


send us reviewer and it'll have his initials or 


his name and it'll say what his comments are, 


what his issues are. Then there'll be another 


column that says who addressed them, how they 


were addressed. That's -- that's captured. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the -- the other reason 


I'm raising this is -- is for SC&A and my 


fellow Board members, that -- that if there 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 

238 

an internal peer review process, I think it 


might benefit us in our resolution process. If 


SC&A is looking at a site profile document and 


they have this finding, but they see that that 


-- someone in a peer review process already 


brought this up and this is how it was 


answered, maybe -- maybe it's not even a 


finding. You know what I mean? So it would be 


helpful if they could look at those internal 


comments --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it can -- it can also 


explain the logic of how the comment was 


addressed and whether or not we saw it as a 


major issue or was it such a deficiency that we 


had to make a change or did we dismiss it. I 


sus-- so you would see that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You would also see -- I think 


it's important for conflict of interest, you 


would see who's opining about a given technical 


question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, and who wins in that -- 


in that give and take, that exchange on -- on 


the scientific debate or the technical debate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

that goes on about that question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so I -- I don't know, I may 


be wrong, but in -- in each case that's on the 


O drive, is that part of that case package? 


I'm -- I'm using the wrong terminology, but -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Each -- each dose reconstruction 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- case or each -- are you 


talking Technical Basis Documents? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Each DR case I'm talking now. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Stu, you're going to have to help 


me out on the DR side. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I haven't seen --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm more familiar with -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I haven't seen review comments in 


there. I'm assuming there were some or -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We capture the review, I believe 


-- Stu'll talk about this, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- go ahead, Stu, please. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Until several months ago they 


would not be in there at all. They -- they -- 


we have them all. They would be on a directory 


that we would have to provide them to 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 

240 

separately. For the past -- I forget how -- 


the length of time, if we comment on and return 


a dose reconstruction -- okay? -- if it's -- if 


we get a dose reconstruction and approve it, 


there would be no comment form generated. If 


we comment and return for -- for revision, that 


comment form will be stored -- it should be in 


the case file. I have to go check and verify 


this, but it should be in the case file under 


ADR files, but it will be an older version. If 


you go -- if -- for a -- for a -- for a dose 


reconstruction report under ADR files folder, 


the -- the one that's approved is in the last 


version. So if -- you know, it comes over 


there -- originally it comes in a single 


folder. If we comment and return, we put our 


comments in that folder and it go-- it's 


translated back over to ORAU in that fashion. 


So then they resubmit the dose reconstruction 


with the comments resolved in a new folder, and 


the one that -- the folder that was already 


there gets a date assigned to it. So -- so it 


will be in -- you know, the comment form with 


resolution would be in that. I think that's 


where it would be. I have to -- I'll send 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 

241 

a note to make sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we -- we can deal with this 


on the workgroup level, too, maybe, but I just 


want to let people know that this -- those 


comments are on -- on -- on the O drive 


available for us and I think they would 


expedite our review in many cases or, you know, 


enlighten our review -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- of the cases and now site -- 


the site profiles is a separate question I 


think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We would have to -- we would 


have to get those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean we have them and we 


would just have to make them -- make them 


available. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 'cause I've not -- I've not 


seen --


 MR. ELLIOTT: But they're more readily 


available in a document control system, 


database system that we maintain -- for -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They're not on an individual DR 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

basis, you see. They're not on an individual 


document basis. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay, we'll... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions or comments? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Thank you very much, Larry. 


BOARD WORKING TIME, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

I want to move quickly into our -- this is our 


Board working time right now starting. We have 


a carryover item from Wednesday and that is 


some approval of some minutes. 


 DR. WADE: Well... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Huh? 


 DR. WADE: Ed Walker. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: He wants to say something. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ed, you have a comment for us? 

 MR. WALKER: A few. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. WALKER: I'd -- I'd like to -- I'll make it 

quick. I won't drag it out. I'm going to be 


meeting with NIOSH, as Mr. Elliott said, on the 


21st and I have quite a few issues that I want 


to discuss and they're coming up of course to 


get the last issue resolved that they had 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 

243 

is the cutting of the cobbles, and I've gotten 


my few men together that are still alive and 


we're going to have a -- I hope a pretty good 


discussion, but I -- I have quite a few issues 


with our group that I also have that aren't 


finished. And it's my understanding, and if 


I'm wrong, please correct me, but this issue 


will be the last issue from Bethlehem Steel. 


I feel my issue should be reviewed, also, that 


I have, because I think they're important 


issues. I've gone over them with the 


Congressional people. They've all sat down and 


listened for an hour or two hours. I gave them 


documentation and proof of what I talk about. 


I never once since I started with this Board 


have come up and told some -- something to you 


that I didn't firmly believe or could back up 


in my heart. Okay? So I -- I want to go over 


these issues and I -- and I really hope that 


the Board will consider them before any 


documentation is closed up for Bethlehem Steel. 


I would appreciate that. 


Just a couple of the items is the group -- we ­

- we have monthly meetings, as you probably all 


know, and we're really concerned about the way 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

the Bethlehem Steel site profile dose 


reconstruction has been handled from day one. 


 One, Bethlehem Steel had a contract with the 


government, and it's certainly documented, from 


'49 to '52. Two years -- the first two years 


there are no records, period. I've looked, 


I've asked, I've hunted and searched. There 


are no records. So -- the also -- the document 


that we do have is the Wayne Range* letter. So 


I referred to that -- it said Bethlehem Steel 


used the rolling facility. That's all they 


used and they done rolling. It's -- it's -- in 


the Wayne Range* letter it says there was also 


another facility at Bethlehem Steel, the 


blooming mill. I brought this up. The 


response that I got was this Range 


(unintelligible) -- it's a tongue-twister and I 


-- I'm -- I had a birthday so bear with me -- 


isn't a strong enough document to take that 


into account, but it is a strong enough 


document for NIOSH to quote it, I believe six 


plus times, in their special -- or the 


technical base document. And why can't the 


claimants use this -- we have no proof. Most 


of the people are dead. The elderly -- 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 

245 

wives and the children of the people that have 


died years ago, there's very few people left. 


I -- I was 18 when I started there and I'm 73, 


so you can't find a bunch of people that have 


much information to dig back and look into. 


And you don't have many people that -- trust 


me, I really dug to get the -- the proper -- I 


can't just call somebody and say we're having a 


meeting, NIOSH wants to talk and they want to 


talk what went on at Bethlehem Steel 50 years 


ago. That does not happen. 


I've talked to a lot of people. There's a lot 


of people I talked to that I don't believe 


myself are credible, and I would not come down 


here to -- in front of the Board and -- and 


make up a story. That's not for me to do. I ­

- I talk to them. I listen to them. And if 


they tell me what they've seen -- many of them 


will tell me Ed, I don't know. I worked in 


this part of this -- this facility was four -- 


three football fields long and it was 100 feet 


wide, and it was operations from -- went on 


from grinding to shipping. And there's a 


section in the middle that was the cooling bed. 


And they say well, I worked over here -- I was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

by the rollers and this was my job. I went to 


work at night. That-- that area I worked in 


was as big as a football field. I don't know 


what went on over at the shearer's bed. So I 


says okay, what do you know? Just one of the 


claimants -- and briefly told me well, I 


remember the men with the white hats. I says 


that's great, what -- what -- what does that do 


for you? He says they handed me the Geiger 


counter. And I says I don't think they did 


that. I says that wasn't you job; that was the 


government people. And he firmly said no, it 


was a Geiger counter. And I says well, you 


know, when they run these rods through the 


rollers, a lot of times the temperature gauges 


got steamed up and I know it's documented in 


the documentation that they put men in between 


these rollers to hold the temperature gauge. 


He says Ed, I told you it was a Geiger counter. 


I says well, what was your job? He says the 


white coats handed it to us guys, told us to go 


over and hold it within a foot or two foot from 


the rolling, right above the uranium -- red hot 


uranium that's going through. And I says what 


did you do then? He says we stayed there until 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

they called us back. And I says what did they 


do? He says I don't know where it went. He 


says I didn't know if it was hooked up to 


something or if there was a reading on there or 


what. Well, I don't know, either, but I kind 


of think he was a credible man to talk to. He 


wasn't -- he wasn't telling me a story, and 


that was from his heart. He's 81 years old. 


So we have this -- no documentation from 1949 


to 1952 there are no records. How do we know 


what they done at Bethlehem Steel? Because 


there's no records doesn't mean there was 


nothing done. Because there was no records 


doesn't mean there was a rolling. We'll give 


you a rolling for that. No, we don't know what 


we had. It was experimental. What types of 


material were they working with? Nobody knows, 


50 percent of the information is completely 


gone. The government documentation admits that 


this information they threw away or destroyed. 


What is a claimant supposed to do? Where do we 


get our information? 


Believe me, I -- and I know you people have 


worked darned hard for the last three, four, 


five years, and it's tough and I know what -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

what you're going through. I'm working by 


myself and -- and getting together what I can 


get together and I find these inconsistencies 


in this program. And there's many more. 


There's the issue of -- I talked in my letter 


probably to Mr. Elliott about 28,000 square 


feet. We brought this up at St. Louis. It 


wasn't 28,000 square feet. This issue was --


there was no cooling bed knowledge from anybody 


that I heard out in California that there was a 


cooling bed. There was a schematic showing -- 


that didn't show a cooling bed. A third of 


that side of that building was used as a 


cooling bed. And I was asked to draw a sketch. 


I went and I talked to the workers. I remember 


the cooling bed, but very -- I couldn't put it 


in -- down. But I have a little bit of 


artistic ability and I says if I know it's 


there I can put it together in my head. I just 


didn't draw that picture and send it down to 


NIOSH. I drew what -- the information I got 


from the workers. I went to one worker that 


was a inspector in the cooling bed, who walked 


across the top of this bed. I knocked on his 


door and I says Ed, I've -- I got a little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

picture that I drew up and I want to know if it 


looks like -- if that's the cooling bed in your 


(unintelligible). He had it -- he didn't have 


it a minute and he says Ed, he says you've got 


it perfect. And he says there's more stuff in 


there, there's more motors and more -- and I 


says I understand, but to put more in I would ­

- I couldn't put the basics of it in, so -- 


that area was down below. The uranium run 


across this cooling bed a third of the size of 


that factory, and it laid out there in red hot 


rods from one side to the other of this cooling 


bed, which was about 70 feet wide. So above 


the 28,000 square feet in the sub-basement, 


there's 28,000 square feet on top that NIOSH 


never took into consideration in our dose 


reconstruction. So that's 56,000 square feet 


that was missed on the technical base document 


that was supposed to be researched and thought 


out and used for our dose reconstruction. That 


I don't understand. That I would like somebody 


to plainly -- just tell me reasonably. I'm a 


big boy now, my mother says. I can accept it. 


I -- I can -- you say look at -- this is it and 


this is it and this is why it didn't 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 

250 

explain it to me, I can deal with it. But I 


can't deal with it when the answer is -- that I 


get -- it didn't make any difference in the 


dose reconstruction. I cannot see how 56,000 


square feet of unmonitored uranium and the 


uranium that went down -- uranium is -- and I 


think you probably all know because you're all 


scientists on that. For sure I'm not, but I'm 


beginning to wonder -- I may be catching up a 


little bit. I think I'm in my freshman year 


with you people. 


Uranium is twice as heavy as steel. This 


cooling bed that went over it was -- it was -- 


it was crawled over, it was pulled over, and I 


do have witnesses that are credible witnesses 


that says sparks was unbelievable when that 


uranium was going over that cooling bed. Being 


twice as heavy as steel, obviously it fell down 


into the area below. I could line up about 


eight people that said that area wasn't cleaned 


out but maybe once a month -- if it was cleaned 


out once a month. So obviously more of that 


uranium was going to be downstairs that went up 


into the dust into the air. 


 There's -- there's like over 200 motors in 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 

251 

that this dust settled on. They had to change 


them. Guys had to go down and change them. 


There was -- oh, buildings that you had to put 


up to protect the electrical system that ran 


them, gears and everything, so you had to work 


down there at different times. Now there was 


more radiation down there, very obviously, than 


there was up above. It -- with no cleaning. 


-- I just -- again, I just can't understand how 


this could -- how you could say that the dust 


went down and it mixed evenly. We don't even 


know, and I was never told or where it came 


from, how much dust did come from steel. How 


do we know it was the same as uranium? I have 


a -- and I sent it to CBS at Channel 4, and I 


think I mentioned it to you down in Knoxville. 


I have an old documentary of Bethlehem Steel. 


It shows the billets as they're rolling 


through, the red hot billets, and you can see 


the scaling on there. And -- you won't believe 


it if you saw it. I mean you actually see what 


was on that, the scaling. It's black and it 


was going through the rollers, the scaling. 


There -- there's a lot of issues that -- that I 


want to bring up at that meeting that I would 


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 

252 

just like some reasonable answers for for our 


group. And -- and I don't think I'm being 


unreasonable because there's many more. 


There's more than I want to -- you know, we'd 


be here tomorrow morning. I've got them all 


documented and I wanted to -- I'm going to 


bring them to that meeting. But with this type 


of issue and me going to these meetings, and I 


really appreciate you -- the Board and 


everybody involved to make me a part of this so 


I can explain to you and try and show you what 


happened. 


Bethlehem Steel is supposed to be a pilot 


program for the rest of the country. That's 


okay. You made up a dose reconstruction and I 


think I told Dr. Neton I think that you 


probably worked real hard and spent millions of 


dollars on it and that's okay. And I think 


that dose reconstruction will certainly apply 


to a lot of buildings, a lot of facilities in 


the country. And I think yes, you should go 


there. What kind of monitoring did you have. 


You know, were there accidents there. There 


was accidents every day at the steel plant. 


Because they happened at the steel plant, when 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

the salt bath broke down and everything was 


held up, that was an accident as far as I'm 


concerned. And if you have the proper 


information, then I think the dose 


reconstruction -- fine, use it. Use it for the 


people that, you know, don't deserve it 


shouldn't get it. 


But with the information that's at the 


Bethlehem Steel site that is -- isn't the same 


as what I've been hearing through NIOSH for -- 


I think it was something like three years I've 


heard that there was no rough rolling at 


Bethlehem Steel. And there's a lot more to 


contamination when there's rough rolling. It 


was all done at Simonds Saw and -- oh, but 


Bethlehem Steel only had finished rolling. 


It's not the case. I got a document, a 


government document and I pick it up and I look 


at it and it said they were getting ready to go 


to Fernald in '52. And the document clearly 


states to Bethlehem Steel -- the government 


wrote and says we would like you to continue 


some more rollings until we get our facility 


ready at Fernald. And Bethlehem Steel's answer 


was yes, we'll do it, but you buy us the rough 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

rollers and the finish rollers. 


Now to me -- and I know for a fact that 


Bethlehem Steel done the rough rolling and the 


finish rolling. But I've heard that oh, it 


wasn't as bad at Bethlehem Steel 'cause you 


only done finish rolling. That's not the case. 


That is not the case. Where is the reasonable 


explanation? How -- how does this fit in? How 


do you do a dose reconstruction when you don't 


know the procedure? 


Simonds Saw facility is one-tenth of the size 


of Bethlehem Steel facility that they used. 


There is not one procedure at Simonds Saw that 


is equal to Bethlehem Steel, and there is no 


other -- well, we found out from here or we 


found out from there this is what exposure was 


-- because there was no other facility in the 


world like Bethlehem Steel. The whole purpose 


for the government to go to Bethlehem Steel to 


do it was to develop a new pass schedule and 


rolling schedule. To developing the new pass 


schedule it had to be applied. You do not walk 


in a factory that size, roll uranium on a 


Saturday -- they ship it in Friday or whenever 


they shipped it in, pull it in the mill and 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 

255 

of a sudden start to roll uranium. They had to 


experiment with it, and that experimental time 


had to be in the earlier years. As I said, 


they -- that wasn't done the day before. And 


that -- and I think you would all agree that 


rolling uranium had to be a process. There was 


a lot of testing, there was a lot of heating, 


there was a lot of running through the rollers. 


There was making the rollers, expensive 


rollers. There was building the salt bath. 


There was testing it with stuff. We don't know 


what was involved. Was there thorium involved? 


Could have been. They had it at Simonds Saw. 


Are we sure? Well, there's no records. No, 


there's no records. There are none. They 


destroyed them. So why should Bethlehem Steel, 


the claimants, be penalized when the government 


threw the information away? That's not our 


fault. 


As I told you -- and I'll mention it again, I 


worked with a crew, a hot crew that just went 


on hot jobs -- not hot as far as uranium goes. 


Could have been, but it was just hot work and 


we specialized and we went to these different 


buildings. Out of the 15 people that I worked 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256 

with, 13 are dead. And as far as we can find 


out, all of them died of cancer. We've 


researched that with some of the fellas that I 


still know that work there. The two of us that 


remain, you know already, both of us have 


cancer. 


I had a man come into one of our meetings a 


couple of weeks ago. He lived within -- he 


lived within about 100 feet -- there used to be 


a road there. We've -- I didn't get that 


documented. I've got pictures of the plant and 


that -- he lived about 100 feet, maybe a little 


bit more, away from the 10-inch bar mill. 


Since then the road is gone and all that's 


gone. In his family -- in his family alone, 


and he'll take this under oath, there was five 


people that died, between uncles and fathers 


and brothers, died of cancer. I don't know 


what kind, didn't get into it. His wife also 


lived on the same street. They had five 


children. Two of them were born with -- 


stillborn with birth defects. 


Now I don't believe that's a coincidence, and I 


don't believe that's the national average. But 


something was there. I don't know what. 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 

257 

I firmly in my heart believe there was gamma 


rays there, also. And of course that doesn't 


only affect the lungs, that attacks all the 


organs and I'm sure you know all that -- and I 


learned it from you so you must know it. 


But there are issues like this that I want to 


present NIOSH. Some of them aren't severe, 


some of them are minor. Some of the minor ones 


I'm not even going to worry about. It's 


contradictory, I don't -- I don't care. It's 


the big issues. It's -- it's the where you 


took your breathing zone samples. How did you 


get breathing zone samples from a building 


that's one-tenth of the size of Bethlehem 


Steel? Answer me these questions. Where do 


you get the comparison? And that's -- that's 


what I'm here for. That's what I've been 


fighting for, and that's what I hope that you 


look at this and take it into consideration and 


just -- if it was one of your family and we 


said son, go work at that plant, you only got 


three percent chance of getting cancer, would 


you expose him to that three percent? Thirty-


four percent of the people in the United States 


are going to die from cancer. You could have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

been one of them with that three percent. 


There is no -- there was no history of cancer 


in my family. They all came from Switzerland, 


and I -- I went back there -- I got relatives 


living there now. Not one cousin, not one 


uncle, not -- no one has ever had cancer. That 


doesn't mean that I'm not going to get it, but 


it kind of makes you wonder. I worked down 


there. And I also worked as a subcontractor in 


the plant back in '99 and I put -- I build a 


building. I had my own construction crew. I 


build a building within 100 -- about 100 yards 


from the old 10-inch mill. And when we dug the 


foundation it was just filthy dirty water in 


there. And I know for a fact that that's where 


they used to run the water out -- Arjun knows 


because he came up to Buffalo. He knows the 


layout of the facility, and that's where they 


used to run the -- when they washed down the 


facility, went out into a pit. I was within 50 


feet of that pit when we dug this one here. 


I don't know if it was active or not. I had no 


id-- I didn't know -- I had no idea till we 


heard of the program in 2000. But I'll leave 


it at that. I would certainly like to be 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 

259 

you at the next one, and I really would like 


you to consider what the Senators and -- and as 


I said, I sat down with all five of them in our 


area. They know the area and they believe that 


what I've showed them is correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Ed. 


 MR. WALKER: I want to thank you again, and 


please give us consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks, Ed, and you'll -- you'll 


be kept informed. I -- do we have that meeting 


date set for that? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I think it's set. 


 MR. WALKER: June 21st. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- okay, thank you very 


much. 


Now on our working activities we have a set of 


minutes from March 14th, which is our telephone 


meeting, that needs to have action. I'd like 


to call for a motion to approve those minutes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 


 MS. MUNN: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Corrections or additions to the 


minutes for March 14th? 


 (No responses) 


If not, all in favor of approval, aye? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260

 (Affirmative responses) 


 Opposed, no? 


 (No responses) 


So ordered. We also have two sets of 


subcommittee meetings. The full Board can act 


in behalf of the subcommittee. The 


subcommittee meeting of October 17th has not 


been acted on. We've had opportunity to review 


those. A motion to approve? 


 DR. DEHART: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Second? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Omissions or corrections? 


 (No responses) 


I assume particularly all of you have read 


those sections that pertain to the issues that 


you addressed, so... 


All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed, no? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. And then finally the subcommittee 


minutes of January 24th. Motion to approve? 


 DR. LOCKEY: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded? 

261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 MS. MUNN: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Any omissions or 


corrections? 


 (No responses) 


If not, we'll vote. All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed? 


 (No responses) 


I didn't ask for abstentions. I assume there 


are none, so we'll consider those approved. 


DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD’S USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND 


WORKING GROUPS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

The final item that we have actually before us 


has to do with the workgroups and the 


subcommittee, and I'd like to summarize -- we 


know what the workgroups are 'cause we've 


summarized them earlier, the workgroups on the 


various sites. We know what the workgroups are 


on the dose reconstruction. We went through 


those earlier this week. The other item I'd 


like to get some feedback on, we talked about 


it earlier, has to do with the subcommittee. 


What I'm going to suggest is the following, and 


I'll put this out as a straw man and you can 


suggest changes if you wish. I'm suggesting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262 

that we -- rather than have the full Board act 


as a subcommittee -- is to actually designate 


four Board members to be the subcommittee, plus 


two alternates, so to have six people be what 


we'll call the dose reconstruction 


subcommittee. We have been calling them dose 


reconstruction and site -- site review -- 


 DR. WADE: Site profile review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- site profile review committee, 


but we're -- we've been moving toward having 


individual workgroups now on the various sites, 


so that part is going away in a natural way. 


But for dose reconstructions, as an over-- 


overall coordinating group for the mat-- dose 


reconstruction matrices, particularly, we do 


need to keep the subcommittee in place. So let 


me ask you first -- and how we would then 


operate, for example, if we have half-day 


meetings like we did at this meeting, it would 


just be that smaller group. This would allow 


also the other workgroups, if they wish to meet 


during that period, to meet separately. 


Now there may be some overlap so we'd have to 


coordinate that, but at least that would be a 


possibility. But how do the rest of you feel 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

about going to a smaller, specified group? 


This would also allow us flexibility, if we 


need to develop other subcommittees, to have 


personnel available for that. Any reactions? 


 MS. MUNN: I think that's a fine idea if we 


have the people to do it. The availability of 


the members of this Board is fairly limited, 


and I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, interestingly enough, our 


experience has been that almost everybody comes 


anyway. 


 MS. MUNN: Everybody comes, yeah, because of 


the timing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: The timing is --


 MS. MUNN: It's an appropriate time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Is there any objection to 


moving in that direction? We will have -- we 


will have to modify the charter for the 


subcommittee. That is, we would basically have 


to name -- rename the membership, and we would 


have to modify the part -- portion that deals 


with site profiles --


 DR. WADE: And I can do that once -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but we can do that once we take 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

the action. 


 DR. DEHART: Are you needing a motion? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'll need a motion to -- to modify 


the structure of the subcommittee to, number 


one, restrict it to dose reconstruction review 


activities, and two, to limit the membership to 


four members plus two alternates. And we would 


-- if this passes, then we would -- we will 


determine who those will be. 


 DR. DEHART: I would so move that as specified. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Moved and a second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any discussion pro or con? 


If there's another scheme you'd rather have -- 


okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: It sounds reasonable. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's take action, and if it 


-- if it passes, we will look at the 


membership. 


All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed, no? 


 (No responses) 


 Any abstentions? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265

 (No responses) 


Motion passes. I'd like to propose that the 


current chairman, Mark, remain in that 


position. The -- the dose -- or the site 


profile part has been handled largely by what 


we call the working group but was officially 


still part of that, and that was Mark and Wanda 


 MR. PRESLEY: And me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and Bob, and I think Mike. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I guess I would ask as a 


starter if those four individuals would still 


be willing to constitute now this subcommittee. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do you want -- do you want 


somebody on there that -- is it going to be 


site profiles? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, it's going to be dose 


reconstructions. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I mean dose reconstructions. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Going to be the cases, right. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Then I -- then I would suggest 

that you take me off and put somebody on there 


that's got more experience and more -- knows 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266 

more about dose reconstruction than I do. 
I 


would suggest Gen Roessler or Bob -- John, 


either one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, we -- and we could do that, 


and perhaps you'd be willing to be one of the 


alternative -- alternates, 'cause we're going 


to need two alternates. 


Okay, John, would you be willing to be on this 


subcommittee? 


 DR. POSTON: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So the subcommittee would 


be Mike, John, Mark and Wanda. 


 DR. WADE: Mark as chair. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Mark would serve as chair. 


The alternates would be Bob and I -- I think -- 


I'd like to get maybe someone sort of on the 


worker side, and Brad, if you'd be willing -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: I'd be willing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to be an alternate -- I don't 


want to overwork you 'cause we're a little 


short-handed in that end of the spectrum, but ­

-


 MR. CLAWSON: No problem. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's name Brad as an 


alternate. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267

 DR. WADE: Okay, so the title would be 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review 


Activities, chaired by Mark, sitting members 


Mike, Wanda, John, alternates Bob and Brad. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Correct. And I don't think that 


require-- I think I'm authorized to appoint 


those, but we do need to get the charter 


revised and it may be that we'll have to take 


formal action -- I'm not sure what is required. 


I think -- I think we understand that the -- 


the current charter has to be -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, I'll bring the charter to the 


October 8th call. We can --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's -- yeah, why don't we 


do it in August instead of October. 


 DR. WADE: August, I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I --


 DR. WADE: Working group on denied SEC 


petitions Lockey has offered to chair. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, the other work-- the 


other workgroup that we talked about earlier in 


this meeting was the workgroup to review the -- 


those 28 or 30 SEC petitions that were not -- 


 DR. WADE: Denied. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they were -- Dr. Lockey has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

-- has volunteered to chair that, and we would 


need two or three additional volunteers to work 


with him on that. 


DR. ROESSLER: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler, any -- one or two -- 


 DR. WADE: Dr. DeHart. 


 DR. ZIEMER: DeHart. Three is enough. If 


there's one other that wishes to volunteer, 


we'll add a fourth, but -- okay. 


 MS. MUNN: I can -- I can do that if the -- if 


the overlap is not -- if the timing overlap is 


not bad. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Jim Melius expressed an interest 


in that. I don't know if you had enough 


already. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we have -- we have three. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll vol-- I'll volunteer him. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe -- maybe Dr. Melius would be 


-- put him on there, okay. He's not here to 

defend himself. 

Okay, thank you very much. I think that covers 

all of the issues that -- we've already talked 


about the schedule for future meetings -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, I would encourage the working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

group chairs to put their mind quickly to the 


next meeting and get with me and let me know. 


Sometimes it's good if we sort of collect these 


meetings together so we can engage in some e-


mail discussion about doing it, but there's a 


great deal of interest in people pursuing our 


activities on site profiles -- Hanford, Nevada 


Test Site, Savannah River -- so I think it's 


important we move with some dispatch there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any other items that 


need to come before us? Anything for the good 


of the order? 


 (No responses) 


If not, I thank all the Board members, as well 


as the staffers, those who are still -- still 


on their feet, as it were. Thank you for all 


your hard work and good efforts on behalf of 


this program. We'll look forward to seeing you 


-- or hearing you by phone and seeing you next 


time. 


 We are adjourned. 


(Whereupon, the day's business was concluded 


and the meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

270 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of June 16, 


2006; 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 


8th day of July, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102