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-SECOND MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

VOL. III 

DAY THREE 

The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health held 

at the Westin Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri, on August 

26, 2005. 
 

2 

 8 

C O N T E N T S 

August 26, 2005 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICIES 

POLICY ON CAPITOL HILL VISITS 15 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

BOARD DISCUSSION: 

31 

SC&A SITE PROFILES 33 

DOL’S POSITION ON NON-COVERED CANCERS 44 

TASK IV FOR CONTRACTOR 46 

HEADS-UP ON SEC PETITION 48 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 70 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND 

The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

In the following transcript “off microphone” 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
 

 

4

 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 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D.

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Espanola, New Mexico 

GIBSON, Michael H.

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5 

GRIFFON, Mark A.

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc.

Salem, New Hampshire 

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 

OWENS, Charles Leon

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

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/VENDORS 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
6 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS 

BAUER, STANLEY

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A

BERRY, CHARLENE, MALLINCKRODT

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW/MALLINCKRODT

CASE, DIANE L., DEPT. OF LABOR

CRABB, EDA, GENERAL STEEL IND

DOWNS, DEB, TITAN

DUNGAN, JUDITH, SENATOR BOND’S OFFICE

ESPY, RICHARD, MALLINCKRODT CLAIMANT

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A

GENERI, MARY, MCW

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

KOENIG, PHYLLIS, MCW

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCKEEL, DAN & LOUISE, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP

MITAS, JIM, OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN AKIN

NUGENT, MARY, GAO

PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY

SCHWENNESEN, CLARENCE, UNWW

SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC

SCHNEIDER, MARILYN, UNWW

STRAPES, FLORENCE, MALLINCKRODT

TENFORDE, THOMAS, NCRP

TOOHEY, RICHARD, ORAU

WILDHABER, SANDRA, MALLINCKRODT

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

THE MALLINCKRODT SEC PETITION WAS THE BEGINNING OF 

THIS DAY AND ENDED WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF A RECESS. 

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

to 10:40 a.m.) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're ready to reconvene. 

Some of the Board members now feel like they -- 

they may be able to leave earlier and have a 

longer weekend or something. We actually had 

left most of the afternoon open for discussion 

on Mallinckrodt, so that becomes a moot point. 

Let me tell you what we have left on our 

agenda. We have policy on Capitol Hill visits 

and a motion that we carried over from 

yesterday to deal with. We have, from our --

from General Counsel and Liz more specifically, 

the conflict of interest disclosure statements 

which are to be posted on the internet, and 

she's going to talk about that in -- not quite 

yet, but in a minute. And then we have also -- 

we indicated before we'd like to at least do 

some preliminary prioritization of the site 

profile review process. So I think we have 

those three items to deal with, and it seems to 

me entirely possible and feasible 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 

8 

complete these actions yet this morning, so at 

least we will try to do that. 

Let us begin with the Capitol Hill visits 

issue. 

 DR. WADE: Well, they -- they're doing some 

copying. Maybe we can -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Maybe we can go ahead 

with the --

 DR. WADE: -- Liz. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- with Liz with the conflict of 

interest disclosures. Let's do that. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE POLICIES 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thank you. At the last 

Board meeting there was some discussion by 

individual members, and we think a sense of the 

Board, that you all wanted your conflict of 

information (sic) information posted on the 

OCAS web site. And as the Office of General 

Counsel -- since that is not an HHS policy to 

normally allow employees' information such as 

this to be posted, we would feel more 

comfortable if you would look at the 

information that we've provided to you. If you 

agree with it, if we could get a formal motion 

from the Board and approval by the Board by 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

consensus to post this information. And also 

we were hoping that this would be a good 

opportunity for you all to look over the 

information that we have for you as it's listed 

here, and if there's some concern about what's 

listed, if you could let Lew know and he can 

let us know and we can be in touch with you to 

talk about it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So these could be revised or 

updated if necessary. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Absolutely. We're actually 

hoping that they will be updated 'cause I think 

some of the --

 DR. ZIEMER: But this is based then -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- biographical information 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the information you 

currently have --

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and it's formatted so that 

they're all pretty similar. They begin with 

the name, position, the biographical 

information, the waiver statement, the year 

issued and --

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: The recusal sites. 
1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the re-- re--

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Recusal, yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- recusal sites. So what we need 

then is a motion from the Board to -- counsel 

has -- or the legal offices have decided that 

they need a specific action from the Board that 

we agree to have our individual conflict of 

interest statements posted on the web site. Is 

that the nature of the motion that we need? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That's the nature of the 

motion, and if you all want changes to this, 

this is just all (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: And we can -- we can edit our 

individual ones, but the motion is an allencompassing one that we all agree to allow our 

personal disclosure statements, in this format 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to be posted on the web site. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Or another format, if you 

prefer. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So I will entertain a 

motion to that effect -- 

 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Moved by Presley, seconded -- 
1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- by Munn, that we proceed to 

have our conflict of interest disclosure 

statements posted on the web site in the format 

suggested. 

Is there any discussion? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Can we go back and change just a 

little bit of this? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think Liz said we can edit our 

individual ones --

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, if you'll edit it and 

just give --

 MR. PRESLEY: And give it to you. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- it back to us, then we'll 

clean them up. And they will be updated 

regularly as your waivers are updated, as well. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Gen Roessler? 

DR. ROESSLER: I just have a question. Mine 

says a waiver has not been issued for Dr. 

Roessler. I'm not sure I want that posted. 

don't know what it means. It sounds like I 

have a problem. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you may have a problem, but 

we're not going to --

DR. ROESSLER: I'm not sure. 

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 

12 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: It means you actually don't 

have a problem because the Ethics Office has 

determined that you don't have any conflicts. 

DR. ROESSLER: Well, that's what I thought it 

meant, but it doesn't sound that way by the 

wording. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, if you want to change 

the wording, just let me know. 

DR. ROESSLER: All right. I'll talk to you 

later --

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. I mean we could just 

put the no --

DR. ROESSLER: -- (unintelligible) waiver. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, no waiver is 

necessary. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's legalese for you don't have 

a problem; it's the problem. 

 MS. MUNN: Please don't leave before the 

meeting's over. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I apologize for -- the 

reporter caught me outside, but yeah, I -- I 

think we discussed this at the last meeting, 

and I think it's just fair that we have our 

disclosure, as well as we've asked for it 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 

13 

our contractor and from ORAU and from everybody 

else involved in this -- this program, and I 

think it provides some transparency. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So you're speaking for the 

motion. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, I am. Actually, Dr. Ziemer, 

I made the suggestion last time and you told me 

we didn't need a motion -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we thought we didn't, but -- 

 DR. MELIUS: -- and couns-- counsel overruled 

us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- counsel overruled us, yeah. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Sorry. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: And I would appreciate -- and I'm 

not saying that it happened in this case, but 

in the future, should counsel feel that a 

motion would be more appropriate to have than a 

suggestion, please let us know as soon -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think they --

 DR. MELIUS: -- as you can. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- determined that later. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Counsel will. I'm sorry, 

that determination was made later. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, that's fine. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Ready to vote on this 

motion? 

All in favor, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed? 

 (No responses) 

 Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

Mark, are you in favor of the motion? You 

don't know what it is, but -- 

 DR. MELIUS: You're in charge of another 

working group. 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. We're going to consider 

that you voted for it, unless you tell us 

otherwise. 

 Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 DR. WADE: As a matter of procedure, I would 

like -- we would like to do this, you know, 

quickly, so let's say if any member has 

comments, to get them to me by Wednesday of 

next week and then I'll turn them over to 

Counsel with an aim to post things maybe 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 

15 

end of next week. 

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

you, Liz. 

POLICY ON CAPITOL HILL VISITS

 Next let's move to the policy on Capitol Hill 

visits. This -- this is a motion that's 

already on the floor and we -- we didn't really 

table it, we just allowed it to, as it were, 

linger in the background. This is a single 

sheet of paper that says Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Statement of 

Policy. And then it has three paragraphs. 

This is Wanda Munn's suggestion. We had some 

preliminary discussion on it, and so we'll now 

open the floor again for additional discussion. 

 Dr. Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: I actually have a procedural 

question. I thought I was asked, but maybe I 

did this spontaneously -- came up with an 

alternative motion or statement of this motion 

that I think tries to capture some of the same 

issues, but address some of the concerns that 

were raised by the Board. And I don't know how 

you want to handle it procedurally -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me suggest the following 
1 

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 

then. 

Sometimes it's easier to handle a motion and 

then -- and then handle an alternate than try 

to amend the original one. What -- what could 

be allowed would be an indication of, for 

example, if this motion were defeated I would 

offer the following substitute motion -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- so that the assembly has some 

idea of what it is that would be offered as an 

alternative. In essence, you are saying I am 

speaking against this motion, but I like parts 

of it and I would frame it in a somewhat 

different way, I guess is what you're -- you 

seem to be saying. 

 DR. MELIUS: I -- I --

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't want to make it sound like 

you're too friendly to Wanda's motion, but -- 

but there's a degree of friendliness that has 

emerged here. 

 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I also would -- in that 

context would I think -- believe that how I 

might word such an alternative motion has been 

handed out to everybody, has it not? 

 DR. WADE: I'm waiting for 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 

17

 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, just characterize it for us 

so that we have that -- 

 DR. MELIUS: I would characterize it --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in our minds as we proceed. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, yes. I would prefer 

something worded to the effect of recognizing 

that the credibility of the EEOICPA program and 

the work of this Advisory Board can be enhanced 

by communicating these efforts to Congressional 

staff, it is the policy of the Board to 

encourage such meetings when they are 

requested. The scheduling of such meetings 

should be communicated to all Board members. 

Board members that wish to participate in the 

meeting should inform the Board Chair and 

contractor, who will then communicate with the 

Congressional staff to determine whether the 

staff would like to also invite the Board 

member or members to attend the meeting. 

 The Board also understands that our contractor 

must notify NIOSH about these official visits, 

and should ensure that their staff takes 

appropriate precautions to properly 

characterize the status of the information 
1 

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 

being communicated. Further, Board members 

participating in such meetings will 

appropriately communicate any potential 

conflict of interest issues to the 

Congressional staff. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the thrust of that would be to 

make it more of an option on the part of the 

Congressional staff to make the invitation, as 

opposed to suggesting that it's more mandatory. 

Is that --

 DR. MELIUS: Correct, I don't believe we can 

sort of force the Congressional staff, nor do 

we wish to force the Congressional staff to 

invite Board members, but I think we can make 

the offer. 

--

I think that's appropriate. And I 

 DR. ZIEMER: 

 DR. MELIUS: 

Right. 

-- was trying to set up a 

procedure that would address that, and I was 

also trying to address some of the other 

concerns --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- raised in Wanda's... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Others -- we're still 

dealing with the main motion now which 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 

19 

before us to -- pro or con or other comments. 

Yes, Wanda. 

 MS. MUNN: The only problem I have with Jim's 

approach is what I see as an abrogation of 

responsibility of the Board. Perhaps I'm just 

being too rigid in my view of how things 

operate, but it seems to me that Congressional 

inquiry should be made to the Board which has 

been established by Congress, rather than by 

the Board's employee. And if I am erroneous in 

my view, then clearly Jim's suggestion is the 

appropriate way to go. But it seems to me that 

this Board should decide for themselves whether 

inquiries about our activities should come 

through us or whether they should come through 

our employees. That really is the basic issue. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right --

 DR. WADE: Could I --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and I think Lew has als-- 

previously commented, but you may want to 

clarify that, because part of this issue is can 

we in fact dictate to Congress who they ask to 

speak to. 

 DR. WADE: Right, and I made my position clear 

and I won't -- and I won't repeat it, but 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 

20 

still holds, regardless of the motion. But I 

think also requests can come to the agency for 

-- from the Hill, and the agency intends to 

respond to those requests as it sees fit. Now 

we will be guided by the spirit of anything you 

do, but the agency will not surrender its 

ability to decide how to deal with such 

requests. 

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

not. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: And I -- can I just add -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- I think this is a difficult 

area 'cause the agency and the Congressional 

offices may have different interpretations of 

what they're allowed or not allowed to do, and 

who can handle what situations. I think the 

intent has been, on everyone's part, to be 

responsive and that this is helpful. And I 

think in -- it's very difficult for us to 

capture in any memo all -- all the 

contingencies, all the possible situations. 

think it was -- I think what I was trying to 

capture in my alternative to Wanda's memo was 

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 

21 

sort of a procedural way to inform people and -

- while recognizing, to an extent, the 

independence of NIOSH, as well as the 

independence of the Congressional staff and -- 

in making these requests. 

 DR. WADE: And NIOSH has no problem with 

receiving such advice as proposed in the 

motion. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further discussion, pro or 

con, or questions? 

 (No responses) 

Okay. Then we are -- we are voting on -- or -- 

or any amendments to the Munn motion? 

 (No responses) 

Now one -- one possibility -- let me offer -- 

there is one possibility, because there is a 

level of similarity in the motions. They --

they differ mainly in the issue of -- sort of 

the degree of which it appears to be mandatory 

that the requests come through the Board. One 

possibility is -- is a motion that -- that one 

-- that the second version be substituted for 

the first, as opposed to simply going through a 

straight vote on one and then on another. 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 

22 

say this -- I don't want to anticipate 

necessarily how the Board will vote, but it 

appears to the Chair that there may not be 

widespread support for the original motion as 

it stands. But if someone wishes to move that 

we substitute a motion which is somewhat 

similar but has that main difference, we can 

handle it that way, as well. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would so move. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's moved and seconded that we 

substitute what I will call the Melius motion 

for the Munn motion. Now if -- if we vote to 

do that, then the Melius motion will replace 

the Munn motion as the motion under discussion. 

Okay? Is that -- everybody understand? 

Now you can challenge the Board's ruling on 

that and prove to me from Robert's Rules that 

I've done that wrong, but I think I can do that 

properly. 

Okay, then the -- we're voting now on 

substituting one motion for another. Okay? 

All in favor of substituting the Melius motion 

for the Munn motion, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 
1 

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

 Now all opposed, say no. 

 (Negative responses) 

There's no -- two no’s. 

Then the Chair declares that the motion passes 

and we now have before us the Melius motion to 

discuss. Pro or con or amendments? 

 (No responses) 

I would point out the second paragraph should 

read "The Board also understands". 

 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Consider that a friendly typo 

correction or something. 

DR. ROESSLER: Could I add a grammatical 

change? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you can -- if somebody can 

figure out how to take care of the dangling 

participle in the first sentence. 

DR. ROESSLER: Well, I hadn't even worried 

about that one, but I'd like in the third 

sentence -- and I enjoy picking on Jim -- to 

say "Board members who" rather than "that". 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: You consider that a friendly 

amendment? 

 DR. MELIUS: If I could also pick on Jim, 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 

24 

the second paragraph, the -- second line, the 

first word, I think "visits," should be plural 

so --

DR. ANDERSON: Just take out the --

 DR. ZIEMER: No, what -- what you need to do on 

the dangling participle is that whoever is 

doing the recognizing has to be the subject of 

the sentence, so it can't be "it is". You have 

to say "the Board" -- "the Board's policy is". 

Then the participle is no longer dangling. We 

don't like them to dangle. So that's simply a 

grammatical -- it doesn't change the meaning. 

 Now any substantive amendments or other items 

that anyone wishes to add? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have an issue. I think that --

I just want to make -- ask a question. Is --

it's for both Paul and -- as well as our 

contractor. Is that policy about informing 

appropriate, where we have I've asked that the 

meeting should -- Board members who wish should 

inform the Board Chair and the contractor. Now 

often cases it's John Mauro or somebody in his 

office who is sort of handling the contact with 

the Congressional staffs, but I -- so I was 

figuring that then they may be very 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 

25 

person following up, but at least Paul would -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Where are you -- what sentence are 

you --

 DR. MELIUS: I'm on the -- oh, fourth line of 

the first paragraph, "Board members who wish to 

participate in the meeting should inform the 

Board Chair and contractor, who will then 

communicate with," et cetera. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I have no problem with that, 

right. And -- and actually what happens now 

under our present policy -- for example, if 

John notifies me that he's been invited -- and 

under the guidance of this Board, from -- any 

such contacts from the contractor come to me, I 

immediately will make you aware of them. So 

the Board will -- or John, I think, has 

actually --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- copied everybody now, is that -

- eliminates a step so that we become aware 

that a visit has been -- or there's been an 

invitation to a visit. Under this policy, if 

any Board members wish to participate, they 

would immediately notify the Chair and the 

contractor, who would then be in a position to 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

say oh, by the way, this member of our Board is 

available to participate in this visit if so 

desired. That's how I would understand this 

policy. Is -- is that everybody's 

understanding? And then under this policy it's 

-- the final call is with the office on the 

Hill, whoever --

 DR. WADE: No. 

 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

 DR. WADE: The final call is with the agency. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, with the agency, okay. So how 

-- how do we make sure you're in the loop? 

 DR. WADE: I don't -- you don't need to make 

sure. I'll make sure, as long as you 

understand that's what I'm going to do. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, I mean you -- you 

automatically get notified, also, when John -- 

 DR. WADE: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- gets these invitations, right. 

 MS. MUNN: That's what the policy says. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. MUNN: The contractor must notify NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. ANDERSON: Just as a point of 

clarification, I guess, if a Board member 
1 

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 

offers to go as -- are they going to be 

attending on behalf of the Board, is NIOSH 

going to pay for their travel, or is this -- 

you're interested and if you want to go, you go 

on your own, or is this part of a Board 

activity? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, can you speak to that? The 

Chair would hope that it would be an official 

part of the activity, otherwise I'm not sure we 

can expect Board members to do this on their 

own. 

 DR. WADE: Right. I mean -- the general answer 

is yes, we would consider it part of your 

official activity. One of the concerns I have 

that we'll talk about at a subsequent meeting 

is we -- we have to watch how much we work you 

in a given year. There are limits. So we have 

to watch what this might add to the workload, 

and all that needs to be managed. But if under 

this policy it was to be deemed that a Board 

member would go on such a visit, we would be 

prepared to cover the expense. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And again I point out that under 

such a visit, Board members are essentially in 

the capacity of observers. You cannot speak 
1 

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 

for the Board, other than where the Board has 

already made decisions or has a policy that can 

be --

DR. ANDERSON: I would --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- expressed. 

DR. ANDERSON: I would also point out that one 

can't go and expounce (sic) your personal 

opinion on -- basically lobby legislators -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. ANDERSON: -- if you're there as a Special 

Government Employee, so --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's right. 

DR. ANDERSON: -- that's why I was asking the -

- the issue that people need to know. If you 

go there and get into a discussion that the 

legislative group thinks -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

DR. ANDERSON: -- you’re espousing a --

 DR. ZIEMER: Now it --

DR. ANDERSON: -- particular position, it's 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's also conceivable that a Board 

member could be at such a meeting in a 

different capacity, and that would be as a site 

expert, in which case they would have to make 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

29 

it clear that they are not there as a Board 

member. For example, if the -- let's say that 

one of the Congressional staffers wanted to 

learn something about Y-12 and -- and they said 

oh, we'd love to have Bob Presley there 'cause 

he's been there a lot. He would be there as a 

site expert citizen, coincidentally maybe -- 

and they may regard it different if he's a 

Board member, but it would have to be made 

clear that he cannot be there in that capacity 

representing, as it were, the Board. 

 DR. WADE: And in that case --

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that's the case. 

 DR. WADE: Right. 

 DR. ZIEMER: In that case, we can't pay for it 

 DR. WADE: In that case the government would be 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the government --

 DR. WADE: -- paying for the trip. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- couldn't pay for it, either. 

DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) My only point 

was the ethics issue is one of (unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

DR. ANDERSON: -- any time you deal with the 

legislature (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

 MR. PRESLEY: The same thing happened when Mark 

and I had to go to Germantown because we've got 

the clearance. Then that was where we did 

clearly represent the Board. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. WADE: And the Board needs to be mindful of 

its conflict of interest situations as it 

engages in these things and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: This is -- this won't be a difficult 

issue, but we need -- we just need to be sure 

and clear as we move through it. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask if you are ready 

to vote on this motion, as corrected 

grammatically? 

 (No responses) 

All right, we will vote. All in favor of the 

motion -- this is the substitute motion now -- 

will say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 And those opposed, no? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31

 (No responses) 

 Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

Thank you. The motion carries. 

 DR. WADE: Just to belabor a point that I've 

already made, we -- we accept the motion and 

its intent and would -- would attempt to follow 

it. SC&A is a government contractor. The 

contracting officer and the Secretary must 

reserve the right to manage that contractor as 

it sees fit with regard to Hill visits. But I 

-- I assume we will live consistent with this 

spirit. If we don't, we'll bring that 

information to you. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 DR. ZIEMER: Finally, we have -- well, actually 

there's -- there's two items. One is action on 

minutes from the Cedar Rapids meeting, April 

25th. We did not approve these at our last 

meeting because we ran out of time and ran out 

of quorum. There's two sets of minutes, one 

the subcommittee minutes from April 25th and 

the other the full Board minutes from April 

25th to 27. First the Chair would entertain a 

motion to accept the subcommittee minutes 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 

32 

that meeting. 

 MR. GIBSON: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Moved, seconded? 

DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any corrections or additions? 

 (No responses) 

If there are none, all in favor of approval of 

those minutes, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

Thank you. As I call for action on the April 

25th full Board meeting, I'd like to do this in 

the context that if in fact you find any 

grammatical or typo corrections after the fact 

that you weren't aware of, we will pass those 

along as well to -- to the staff for 

correction, but is there a motion to accept the 

minutes for the April 25th through 27th Board 

meeting? 

 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 

 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded? 

 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Gibson seconds. Any 
1 

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 

corrections or additions on those minutes, and 

I ask you to particularly look over those items 

where you yourself made statements or 

assertions or other comments, make sure that 

they accurately reflect what you think you 

said. 

Are you ready to vote? The Chair did forget to 

remind you to read these, but you've had them 

for several days. If there are serious 

corrections, I suppose we can accept them after 

the fact, but we'd like to get these in -- in 

the record as our official minutes. Are you 

comfortable with voting? Yes. 

Okay. All in favor, say aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

 And abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

Motion carries, the minutes are approved for 

the April meetings. 

SC&A SITE PROFILES 

Then finally SEC (sic) profiles. It would be 

helpful if we could at least establish the 

front end of the priorities. We may 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 

34 

necessarily have to do them all, but put a 

priority ranking on the upcoming site profile 

work for the contractor. The list --

 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) You mean 

(unintelligible) SC&A (unintelligible) site -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: For our contractor. 

 DR. WADE: You said SEC. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry. 

 DR. WADE: I do it all the time. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There are too many S -- SEC 

petition -- no, SC&A -- 

 DR. WADE: Site profile. 

DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) 

(Unintelligible) list but we didn't put it in 

an order. 

 DR. WADE: At least the first couple so we can 

get them (unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'll remind you again of -- the 

front end of the list, we have Fernald, Los 

Alamos, Mound, X-10, Pinellas, and then we have 

Argonne West and... 

 MS. MUNN: Livermore. Livermore. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Livermore. 

DR. WADE: Well, let's -- let's 

(unintelligible) that question. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

DR. ANDERSON: Are there any SECs from any of 

these? 

 MS. MUNN: Linde. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we have Linde. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Linde was added. 

 DR. WADE: If I might, I think the six were 

Fernald, LANL, Mound, X-10, Pinellas and Linde 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: -- and the alternatives were Argonne 

West and Livermore. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. If we can at 

least get the first three or four, it would be 

helpful. Henry, do you have a suggestion? 

DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, are -- are any of these 

have SEC petitions that are going to be coming 

up shortly? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Stu Hinnefeld will address that 

for us. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: None of these six have 

petitions that have currently qualified for 

evaluation. 

DR. ANDERSON: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes. 

MR. OWENS: Stu, what about Livermore? 
1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: We have -- no, there is not -- 

there is a not a petition that has qualified 

for evaluation. Remember, a petition's 

received, the first step is to qualify it for 

evaluation, and there haven't been any from 

these sites that are qualified for evaluation. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but -- how about -- can you 

just tell us about petitions? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Petitions in-house? I don't 

know that off the top of my head. 

 DR. MELIUS: Okay, that's fair enough then. 

Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Robert? 

 MR. PRESLEY: We went ahead and listed Fernald 

and Mound, Pinellas and Linde Ceramics. Those 

four places are all either in a shut-down mode 

or about to be shut down. I would love to see 

those done first while the people that can help 

us get the information are still here to do 

that. And --

 DR. ZIEMER: So you're suggesting those four -- 

 MR. PRESLEY: What -- what order those four go 

in, I don't care as long as they're -- they're 

at the top of the list because the -- the 

people that know about those sites 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 

37 

dwindling away. 

 DR. MELIUS: What were the four again, Bob? 

I'm sorry. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Fernald --

 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

 MR. PRESLEY: -- Mound --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 MR. PRESLEY: -- Pinellas --

 DR. MELIUS: And Linde. 

 MR. PRESLEY: -- and Linde Ceramics. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mike. 

 MR. GIBSON: I know that Pinellas has already 

been deeded over to the county, and you know, I 

agree with Bob that -- I would suggest we go in 

the order of their date of closing. You know, 

begin --

 DR. ZIEMER: So you're suggesting Pinellas be 

right there at the top of the list. 

 MR. GIBSON: 'Cause -- it may be too late. 

 MR. PRESLEY: It may be too late. 

 MR. GIBSON: But then certainly go by the order 

of closing dates scheduled by DOE. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Are you making that as a motion? 

 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 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 

38

 MR. PRESLEY: Second. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the suggestion -- or the motion 

is to rank those top four as the priority ones 

in the order at which the -- which we don't 

know at the moment, but we can find out, 

whatever that is. Is that correct? That is 

the motion. 

Okay. Jim? 

 DR. MELIUS: I have one concern about that 

approach, and I'm not quite sure how to balance 

it. But Los Alamos is a large site and there's 

a lot of pending cases there. And I think we 

need to some extent balance the number of 

claimants -- potential claimants that could be 

helped by the site profile review versus this 

closing issue, and it's tough. Obviously 

there's -- there has to be some prioritization 

and so forth, but I -- I -- my sense is that we 

may be holding up a lot of -- there's been talk 

of SEC petitions from Los Alamos. I would not 

be surprised to see some at some point soon, 

and I certainly would like to have something 

underway there. I think it --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- and it could -- helpful, 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 

39

 MR. PRESLEY: I think -- I think ORNL or X-10 

falls in the same category. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I know, I know, it's -- 

DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) We're back 

(unintelligible). 

 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Yeah, 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask this question. Are 

there any of those four where the -- the shutdown is not quite so imminent that we might be 

able to delay them -- I mean if the shut-down's 

over a year off, maybe we can -- do we know 

shut-down dates on any of these? Stu, do you 

have... 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Mike might know better than me. 

I believe that -- I can only speak for Fernald, 

and I believe its shut-down date is sort of the 

end of next calendar year, so -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Do we know, for examp-- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Or about this time next year. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mike, do you know on any -- 

 MR. GIBSON: I think Mound is scheduled for 

closure even before that, I think by -- by the 

end of the calen-- this calendar year I believe 

will just be people doing records and decision. 
1 

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 

The work will be done. 

 DR. ZIEMER: One possibility would be, for 

example, to -- to pick up Mound and -- or 

Pinellas and -- did you -- was that Mound or 

Fer-- no, Mound -- Pinellas and Mound early on, 

and then work in one of these big -- either -- 

either Los Alamos or X-10 --

 DR. MELIUS: Can --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- or both. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I make a suggestion that we 

might want to consider, which would be to have 

our contractor work with NIOSH and get a little 

more detailed information about this closing 

issue and timing, and then appropriately 

prioritize their work? I think they -- they 

know which ones we've recommended be done. I 

think they know the issues. But I think it may 

very well be with a little additional 

information we can make a -- they can make a 

better --

DR. ANDERSON: Pinellas isn't done yet. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

DR. ANDERSON: Site profile isn't done. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right, and -- and -- yeah, that's 

another issue that -- I think when we asked 
1 

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 

yesterday, there was a -- pretty close to being 

done, but --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- but I think if we leave it up 

to them, recognizing the -- the need to balance 

the issue about availability of information 

versus the number of cases and -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and I --

 DR. MELIUS: -- potential for --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- think we heard that Pinellas in 

fact would be done by the time they started -- 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the next fiscal year, in any 

event. Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I would -- I would go along 

with what Jim's saying. We can make it clear 

on -- on the record here what our preference 

is, and then let the contractor decide what 

makes more sense in terms of sorting that out. 

Factors including closure, the number of 

claimants, and another factor that I wanted to 

throw out here was the classified issues that 

potentially arise. And Los Alamos, Mound are 

big on that certainly -- maybe Livermore, 

Pinellas --
1 

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. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Pinellas 

(unintelligible). 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- right, and we've seen right 

now with the Y-12 profile -- you know, we can 

have some delays there, so it might be good to, 

you know -- so they've got to weigh -- but I 

think we should say consider these factors and 

-- and let them kind of weigh -- weigh them 

against each other. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. It appears to me that we 

are calling for a modification of the original 

motion. The original motion was to do Fernald, 

Mound, Pinellas and Linde, and it appears now 

that we're suggesting either an alternate 

motion or a revision to that. Mike? 

 MR. GIBSON: I'd -- I'd be agreeable to modify 

it to say based on date of closure and, you 

know, the potential isotopes and the other 

issues we've mentioned. You know, just kind 

of... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And I would point out that 

now we've identified your four plus Los Alamos 

and X-10 -- we actually have six now that we're 

sort of asking about how those might -- which -

- which is -- six is what we really have on 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 

43 

schedule for next year, and where to start 

those will -- would depend then on the 

findings, and that could be reported back to us 

at our next meeting. 

Can I interpret your motion now as being those 

four plus the other two identified? 

Is that agreeable as reasonably friendly and 

that we ask contractor, working with NIOSH, to 

establish that information and propose a 

priority list to us? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Back to us in October. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable --

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- as the motion? Does that give 

us enough, Lew, to get underway and get going? 

 DR. WADE: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Then let's vote on the 

motion. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 And no’s, opposed? 

 (No responses) 

 Any abstentions? 

 (No responses) 

 And the motion carries. 
1 

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 

DOL’S POSITION ON NON-COVERED CANCERS

 DR. WADE: We have the DOL issue and then we 

have --

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, there was an issue -- a 

question that was raised -- actually raised by 

the petitioners with respect to if the Special 

Exposure Cohort was approved, the status of 

those who would not otherwise be successful in 

that process, and you have an answer to that. 

 DR. WADE: Well, I also see and DOE -- DOL 

colleague in the front row. Would you like to 

speak to it or you want me to speak to it? 

Okay. The question was raised, what would 

DOL's position be on the non-covered cancers 

should this SEC petition be approved. And the 

DOL position is that they would have to with-- 

await that judgment pending the Secretary's 

determination and the exact language in the 

Secretary's determination. That would provide 

them the information they would need to decide 

how to proceed with non-covered cancers. 

That's not inconsistent with what you tried to 

do in your mot-- in your recommendations to the 

Secretary to try and deal with that issue, but 

DOL can't decide on that question then until 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 

45 

sees the Secretary's determination. 

I would tell you, as you well know, that your 

recommendation to the Secretary could well 

affect the Secretary's determination. 

 DR. ZIEMER: So the short answer is we don't 

know yet, but it will await the additional -- 

or the actual formal decision by the Secretary. 

Yes. 

 MS. CASE: This is Diane Case. I just wanted 

to state for the record that Dr. Wade spoke 

very eloquently there and very accurately, so -

-

 DR. ZIEMER: You agree with --

 MS. CASE: -- I appreciate that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- what he said --

 MS. CASE: Yes --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- on your behalf. 

 MS. CASE: -- absolutely. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. WADE: DOL -- DOL and I are very close. 

 DR. ZIEMER: What else? 

 DR. WADE: We have this last item which Stu -- 

Stu, are you in a position to cover your agenda 

item? 

TASK IV FOR CONTRACTOR 
1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: We have one other issue, also, 

which is a motion, Paul, you asked me to do 

about the task four for our contractor -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes --

 DR. MELIUS: -- the scope. It should be very 

quick. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- okay. Go ahead, let's -- let's 

take care of that. 

 DR. MELIUS: And has that been handed out? 

 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

copies --

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: -- (unintelligible). 

 DR. MELIUS: I understand. Okay. Well, we'll 

give Lew a second 'cause -- let me -- I'll 

start reading through it so it'll get entered 

on the record. 

 The Board recommends that SCA respond to the 

following scope for task four, its individual 

dose reconstructions. 

Number one, 40 basic and 20 advanced dose 

reconstruction reviews -- you'll have to 

forgive -- my spell checker changed dose to 

does, or my spelling did -- typing. 

Number two, blind dose reconstruction reviews 
1 

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 

for two cases. 

Number three, prepare and deliver a report for 

each set of Board-assigned cases that will 

contain (1) findings associated with individual 

case audits, and (2) a summary of all case 

findings prepared in accordance with a format 

acceptable to the Board. 

 Number four, participate in extended review 

cycle, which includes working with NIOSH and 

the Board in resolving audit findings, and 

assist the Board in preparing an issues 

tracking matrix which will be forward by the 

Board to the Secretary of HHS; prepares a final 

audit report that reflects the results of the 

findings resolution process. 

 And actually two through four are lifted from -

- they already proposed. The only real change 

was number one, and then additional 

clarification: In preparing the advanced 

reviews, it is understood that SCA is not 

required to evaluate the availability of 

additional data sources for cases where a site 

profile review is being or has been conducted. 

And --

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. That comes as a motion 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

48 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

before us now based on the Board's previous 

discussion and the fact that we are asking our 

contractor to go back and revise the cost 

estimates for that particular task, which they 

committed to do. Let me ask for a second for 

the motion. 

 MR. PRESLEY: (Indicating) 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's been seconded by Mr. Presley. 

Is there any discussion on the motion? 

 (No responses) 

There appears to be no discussion, ready to 

vote. 

All in favor, aye? 

 (Affirmative responses) 

 Any opposed, no? 

 (No responses) 

Motion carries. Thank you very much. 

BOARD DISCUSSION: 

HEADS-UP ON SEC PETITION 

 Then we'll hear from Stu on the heads-up on SEC 

petitions. 

 DR. WADE: Right, he should be in the room in 

just a moment. 

 DR. ZIEMER: In just a moment. 

 DR. WADE: Here he comes -- Stu, you're on. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I can once again 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 

49 

brief -- maybe not quite as brief as last time. 

I'm here to talk a little bit about a subject 

that we think will be brought to the Board at 

the October meeting, and it has to do with dose 

reconstruction cases where NIOSH has determined 

we cannot do a dose reconstruction because 

there's insufficient information. So we've not 

received a petition from a petitioner, it's 

just we've -- based on the information 

available, we cannot do a dose reconstruction. 

When this program started, NIOSH built the 

infrastructure and the tools to be able to do 

dose reconstruction. By the time we were ready 

to do dose reconstructions, there was a large 

backlog of cases, and so our first priority was 

let's get some cases done that we can get done. 

And as a result, some -- we -- we paid 

attention to chronological order. We paid 

attention to the first cases, but we didn't 

necessarily strictly abide by first in/first 

out. And so as a result, there were cases that 

were maybe more difficult that were older and 

that stayed undone. So this year we have 

focused our efforts on older cases and trying 

to clear out those older cases because clearly 
1 

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 

people deserve an answer on their claim. 

As part of that process, since we are no longer 

just picking cases we can do but we wanted to 

clear out those older cases, we now have to -- 

we are reaching determinations that there are 

some where we just will not have enough 

information to do dose reconstruction, and 

there doesn't seem to be any likelihood that 

we're going to find enough to do dose 

reconstructions. 

And so the regulations provide a process for 

dealing with that. The dose reconstruction 

regulation, Part 82, describes what steps are 

taken when NIOSH reaches that conclusion that 

we don't have enough information to do a dose 

reconstruction for this case. And at that 

point we send -- we notify the claimant, tell 

them in writing -- we also have a conversation 

with them, we have a closeout phone call, and 

tell them that we don't have enough information 

to do your case, is there anything you can add 

-- we doubt that they can. We don't really 

expect to learn anything at that point. And 

kind of inform them about the process. 

The process is that we tell Labor 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 

Department of Energy that we can't reconstruct 

this dose. Labor closes this case with a 

denial regulatorily, and we provide -- when we 

send to the person -- we send written notice to 

the claimant we can't do their reconstruction, 

we also send along the short-form SEC petition. 

And as part of our conversation with them ahead 

of time to explain to them what's going to 

happen is that since we can't do this dose 

reconstruction, we would -- we would like you 

to sign the petition form that we're mailing to 

you and send it back as a petition for SEC 

status, to add a class of SEC. 

So the -- so the point where we are now is that 

we are identifying sites where -- for some 

period of time at least at that site -- we 

don't -- it doesn't seem to be any likelihood 

that we're going to find enough information to 

do dose reconstructions for that period of 

time. And we have -- and to go through this 

process, we are identifying a test case for -- 

when we identify a site like that -- a test 

case to send the letter to to say that -- you 

know, to engage in conversation with, send the 

letter to, and request the petition back 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 

52 

this -- for that -- that person. He petitions 

on his -- on his own behalf. 

 Our petition evaluation, though, defines the 

class in terms of all the cases that have those 

similar characteristics. Now the easiest way 

to think of this would be temporally. For 

instance, there may be a period of time at a 

particular site where we just don't have enough 

information -- say very early on, just don't 

have enough information to do a dose 

reconstruction. And so we will define -- when 

we get that petition, the petition evaluation 

will define the class of similar employees and 

bring that petition evaluation and report to 

the Board. This -- we expect this to be 

somewhat streamlined, and so -- but it is 

presented to the Board and we recommend to the 

Board and to the Secretary that this class be 

added because we have not been able to find 

sufficient information to do the dose 

reconstructions. 

So I think we'll -- I think the Board -- you 

know, it's hard for me to say for sure that the 

Board will see them in October because a 

portion of this process is outside NIOSH'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 

53 

control. A portion of this process is in the 

claimant's hands in terms of signing the 

petition and sending it in, or choosing to 

participate in this process. So -- but we 

think we will have -- this process will appear 

at the October Board meeting. 

We wanted to essentially make this notification 

that you can expect to see something like that 

shortly anyway, and also I'd be glad to try to 

answer any questions anybody might have about 

what to expect. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, are you suggesting that there 

might be a large number of petitions that -- 

each of which involves a relatively small 

number of individuals? Or are you suggesting 

that there be a methodology for combining such 

groups, even though they may be from multiple 

facilities in some way? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe today the process 

would be to do a site at a time. I think there 

may be a way to combine them. I don't -- I 

don't know if there's a way to bundle many 

sites into one or not. Initial thought process 

is that we will identify the site and it's a -- 

and it's a one-site thing. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54

 DR. ZIEMER: But you're simply giving us a 

heads-up as to what may be coming down the road 

in this case. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Liz, did you want to add to that? 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just thought I may be able 

to add something. We believe that even though 

these will be individual petitions and petition 

reports, that we'll be able to do a lot of the 

administrative type work as a group. So 

officially they'll be individual site reports, 

but there won't be one Federal Register notice 

per site. There'll be a group of -- one 

Federal Register notice with a group of -- 

indicating --

 DR. ZIEMER: For multiple sites. 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- a group that's coming -- 

right -- to the Board. So --

 DR. ZIEMER: And that's within the -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- administratively -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- framework of the regs so -- 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, administratively 

we'll handle them as a group, but officially 

they will be individual site reports. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Understood, yes. Yes, Leon. 
1 

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 

MR. OWENS: Stu, are the claimants -- do we 

know the demographics? I mean are they elderly 

widows or --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

MR. OWENS: -- 'cause you know, there -- there 

a lot of folks that don't fully understand the 

process, and if they see a letter that 

basically is a denial, with the length of time 

that it's taken us to move forward, a lot of 

them just give up. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I understand that, and the 

test case -- you know, we -- we want to select 

a test case for a particular site situation and 

then have that petition bring along all the 

petitioners -- or all the claimants who fit 

that class, so they don't all have to fill out 

a form and send in a petition. 

We try to select a test case on a number of 

criteria, one of which would be if we know that 

the claimant is able to deal with this well -- 

and we call them -- we do what we call the 

closeout interview actually before we send them 

the letter. We do the closeout interview and -

- and try to explain to them, you know, what's 

going on. And it should -- you know, I think 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

if we got bad signals that this one -- that 

this person is really not understanding the 

process that we're explaining to them, that we 

would probably try a different test case -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: But --

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in order to -- to -- for 

that group. 

 DR. ZIEMER: But you are suggesting that you 

will do everything you can to shepherd them 

through the process then? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. Yes, we're trying 

to bring them through the process to get this 

petition in. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Just one comment going back to our 

earlier discussions this morning and I believe 

Gen's comments about sort of the overall 

process. I would think that -- I would hope 

that on the agenda for the next meeting, at the 

same time that we may be considering these, 

that we also have a full discussion of our 

handling of SEC petitions because in some ways 

this further complicates it. I don't think 

it's necessarily bad, but we need to come to 

grips with certain issues and so forth. 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 

57 

think one thing in the back of our minds as 

we've looked at some of these recent petitions 

is well, do you -- is there some way that you 

look at sub-classes or, you know, groups of 

workers and -- and so forth. That's not the 

way the information's been presented to us and 

-- and in evaluating the information it's been 

that -- we've seen on the recent petitions, I 

don't think it was possible or feasible to 

break it up further beyond sort of the broad 

categories NIOSH tried, which was years of 

work, basically. But I think this is -- I 

think we're going to start getting into that 

issue with these sort of individual, smaller 

groups and so forth and -- and it really is -- 

can present a complicated picture 'cause at the 

same time we may be considering petitions that 

would also include these -- these groupings. 

And I think as we get into this it's -- really 

behooves us that we have a full discussion of -

- of where we need to go, how we process this -

- and hoping that NIOSH -- I think I heard Jim 

Neton say that earlier, was really -- was 

addressing the same thing. I think Jim had 

told us that as part of this process they 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 

58 

-- I mean we were going through -- maybe this 

was in a workgroup meeting -- were sort of 

developing a methodology for evaluating these. 

But I think, together with NIOSH, we sort of 

need to step back and really have some 

discussions on how to handle this. And again, 

particularly in the context of this -- these -- 

type of petition. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and actually one of the 

issues -- or one of the tasks, really, that 

comes under our new task five has to do with 

how petitions are handled, not only by our 

contractor, but by us. And John Mauro has 

already given some thought to how they can help 

us develop our procedures so that they mesh 

with theirs, as well, in dealing with these 

kinds of questions. So obviously we -- we need 

to begin to structure that process in a 

comprehensive way as we gain experience and see 

what's coming down the road here. It's a point 

well taken. 

 Now any other questions? This requires no 

action today. It's more of a -- again, a 

heads-up of some possible directions that this 

may take in the future. Stu, I don't believe 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

you have any action that you need us to take. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no this is just a point of 

information. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any further questions for Stu or 

for the others -- yes, Leon. 

MR. OWENS: Stu, you're at liberty -- are you 

at liberty to give us some possible sites where 

this might be the case? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I thought about that and 

we've discussed it. And I -- I think -- I'm --

it's -- it's -- we're better served not to 

discuss the sites because if it doesn't go the 

way we think it's going to go, we'll have 

raised expectations by discussing it here and 

then it not work out. So just for that reason, 

I thought it would -- we thought it would be 

better not to discuss the sites. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any further questions for 

Stu? Yes, Robert. 

 MR. PRESLEY: How many cases do you think this 

is -- this is going to involve? I can -- I can 

see us possibly going through tremendous 

amounts of small SEC petitions under this. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there -- there could be -

- you know, that could happen. I mean 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 

60 

could be a lot. As I said, we have -- we're at 

the front end of identifying the situation. 

You know, we are starting to make the serious 

decision that this one we just cannot do, we 

cannot get the information. Up until now, if 

we were trying -- as we were trying to keep the 

production numbers up, a difficult case was 

sort of put aside, and now we're dealing with 

the difficult cases. 

I think, though, that -- recall that the 

research or the evaluation essentially is done 

before we send -- before we ever contact the 

test case claimant. You know, the evaluation 

is pretty much done at that point. We've 

determined it's not feasible to do 

(unintelligible). 

 DR. ZIEMER: So basically you're looking for a 

streamlined way to handle -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: This is --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- all of these. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is intended -- the 

regulation intends this to be a streamlined 

approach for adding classes to the SEC. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further --

 DR. WADE: We'll do everything we can to try 
1 

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 

and streamline the paperwork. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. It would be -- be helpful 

to know some of this ahead of time, obviously, 

and as much information as NIOSH can get to us 

before the meeting so we can have time to -- to 

think about this. 

But a related question I had was -- was what 

about -- have we decided a location for our 

next meeting and do we have other SEC petitions 

to deal with at that meeting? 

 DR. ZIEMER: The next meeting -- at least at 

the moment -- is scheduled for Oak Ridge. 

 DR. WADE: Correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The dates are October 17th, I 

believe, 17th through 19th. Is that correct? 

 MR. PRESLEY: 17th, 18th and 19th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 17th through 19th. 

 DR. MELIUS: And --

 DR. ZIEMER: So --

 DR. MELIUS: And why Oak Ridge? Not that I'm 

objecting, but just trying... 

 DR. WADE: Because there will be an SEC review 

for a Y-12 petition. As I look at the agenda 

as we've been building it, we are likely 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 

62 

have a Pacific Proving Grounds SEC and a Y-12 

later years SEC on the agenda for the October 

meeting. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other questions? Yes, make 

sure you have that one on your calendar. Also, 

on down the road we have a January meeting 

preliminarily scheduled. 

Do we have the dates on that? 

 DR. WADE: I have 24 through 26 of January. 

 MR. PRESLEY: We got any suggestions where 

we're going to hold that meeting? 

 DR. WADE: Well, did -- we've tentatively 

penciled it in for Colorado, but you know, 

things can happen, and that's because we're 

looking at a Rocky Flats -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Rocky Flats SEC petition. 

 DR. WADE: Colorado is lovely in January. 

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

that's a real good time to go out there and 

some spend some real good nights in the 

airport. 

 DR. WADE: That hasn't been locked in but that 

is our plan. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I -- regarding sort 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 

63 

upcoming agenda, both the program that Stu's 

been talking about, those type of petitions, as 

well as the ones we would consider -- Oak Ridge 

is pretty far from Pacific Proving Grounds, and 

I would hope we would make arrangements for 

people who are involved in that petition to 

have access to the -- the meeting in some way. 

I don't know what's practical, but I -- I 

really think there's a great benefit to -- to 

the credibility of the program about us 

considering these -- these issues in front of 

people that are -- are being impacted and make 

it easier for them to get there. And I would 

hope we would consider that in some way also 

with these new type of petitions, also. I 

think we could get some valuable information as 

we're sort of developing the process for 

dealing with these from having some, you know, 

representatives of that petition group present 

and -- and informing us about issues related to 

that facility and -- and the workgroup 

involved. So you know, whether it's going to 

be practical to cover every site, I don't think 

so. But I think to the extent that it is, that 

be taken into consideration. 
1 

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

 DR. WADE: We certainly understand and we have 

slightly -- mathematically, we have slightly an 

over-constrained situation that we'll work 

through. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any additional 

comments, Mr. Presley? 

 DR. MELIUS: Maybe you could fly us from Oak 

Ridge out to --

 MR. PRESLEY: I told you Henry and I are 

holding out for the Bikini Atoll in January. 

 DR. MELIUS: Amchitka. 

 MR. PRESLEY: One of the -- one of the things I 

need to ask the Board, if we do come to Oak 

Ridge on Monday the 17th, do y'all want to eat 

barbecue Sunday night the 16th? 

 DR. ZIEMER: This is the social part of the 

Board's calendar, very important, but -- 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, this is the social part of 

the Board's calendar and one thing I do need to 

say. By law we're required to make this a 

Dutch treat, so I just need to know if the 

Board's -- what the wishes is if you want to 

have a barbecue on Sunday night the 16th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Careful, Robert, I'm half Dutch. 

 DR. MELIUS: Then you're paying. 
1 

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. ZIEMER: I'm treating, right. 

 MR. PRESLEY: That means you pay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

 MR. PRESLEY: The consensus is then that we do 

want a barbecue the 16th? 

 DR. ZIEMER: I've asked Robert if it's possible 

and we have such a barbecue, and I think many 

of you know that Mr. Presley is the barbecue 

champion of Tennessee and maybe most of the 

south, actually. He's right up there with Ray, 

I think -- silver or gold medal. But in any 

event, we would -- we would -- there's a 

possibility we will be able to hold that in the 

Atomic Museum in Oak Ridge, which would be of 

great interest to see a lot of the historical 

information that is there in that facility. 

Mark, you have a comment? 

 MR. GRIFFON: I just -- it sounds like we're on 

the calendar items, I don't -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I just wanted to see, 

while we were all here, if we could set a 

workgroup meeting date. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: We talked about -- 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 

66 

procedures review, and we -- we met on the 

side, but we were looking at the first week of 

October. I don't know if we nailed it down. 

 MS. MUNN: I think we did, Mark. I talked with 

Mike and he's tied up much of that week, but is 

available on the 6th. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to suggest, since it 

just involves the four of you, that you -- the 

four of you work that out and -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, the only reason I wanted to 

do it in public --

 DR. ZIEMER: So -- know when it is, okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- or -- yeah --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- notice of it. 

 MR. PRESLEY: October the 6th? 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: October the 6th then -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: October the 6th is being 

suggested, and if that's a serious problem for 

the contractor, then we need to know that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or NIOSH. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently not -- or NIOSH. 

 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

67

 DR. WADE: I take that as affirmative, Mark, 

October the 6th in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, additional comment? 

 MR. GIBSON: It's getting back to -- not the 

calendar issues, but business a little bit, and 

a lot of the petitioners last night, there were 

several of them talked about not understanding 

the process and a seeming insensitivity to 

concerns when they talk to different agencies. 

And I just wanted to share with you -- I was -- 

I was given some information about a friend of 

mine who was diagnosed with cancer from Mound, 

and this was back when there was Part D, it was 

not Part E at the time, but it was July 13th. 

It was just to confirm the illness, but there 

was a handwritten note from a -- a lady from 

DOE that says -- and the gentleman, because of 

his cancer, had dementia, so he couldn't 

understand, so they were dealing with the 

spouse. It says (reading) Mrs. X, I'm not 

being morbid, comma, just practical, period. 

Please submit this form after Mr. X's death -- 

and included a survivor's form. 

 I think that -- that is just outrageous that 

someone -- I mean thank God DOE is pretty 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 

68 

out of the picture right now, but -- and I 

would just caution everyone who deals with 

these claimants to be sensitive. That's --

 DR. ZIEMER: Exactly. Good point, Mike, and we 

probably can't stress that enough to -- and I 

suppose we're preaching to the choir, but we -- 

we often hear these stories that people are 

simply not treated very well, and treated in 

such a bureaucratic way that it -- it's a 

little disturbing. I appreciate your bringing 

that up. 

 MR. GIBSON: I mean to -- to go out of your way 

and hand-wrote -- hand-write a note like that 

is... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, thank you. Jim, did you 

have an additional comment? 

 DR. MELIUS: No, I'm sorry. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Do we have any other items 

that need to come before the Board today? 

 (No responses) 

Again, for those who might not have been here 

earlier, just announce the main action of this 

meeting this week at St. Louis was that the 

Board has approved recommending to the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services that the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

69 

petition for Special Exposure Cohort status for 

the other group, this later group of 

Mallinckrodt workers, be approved. 

And with that, we will recess -- or adjourn our 

meeting. Thank you all very much for coming. 

We'll see you all in Oak Ridge. 

 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 

a.m.) 
______________________________ 

70 

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 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 August 26, 

2005; 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 

7th day of October, 2005. 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102