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 


MEETING 40 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


VOL. IV 


DAY THREE 


The verbatim transcript of the 40th 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Westin Casuarina, Las 


Vegas, Nevada, on Sept. 21, 2006. 

2 

 9 

C O N T E N T S
 

Sept. 21, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (LANL) 


SEC PETITION 10 


NIOSH PRESENTATION 10 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH, OCAS 


PRESENTATION BY PETITIONERS 23 


BOARD DISCUSSION 31 


BOARD DECISION 46 


S-50 SEC PETITION 64 


NIOSH PRESENTATION 64 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH, OCAS 


BOARD DISCUSSION 73 


BOARD DECISION 80 


SC&A TASKING 89 


PROCEDURES REVIEW 108 


CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY 127 


DR. LEWIS WADE, ABRWH, DFO 


DISCUSSION OF BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY 137 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


BOARD WORKING TIME 157 


WORKING GROUPS MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE 159 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


BOARD/WORKING GROUPS FUTURE PLANS 


 DISCUSSION OF “OVERARCHING” ISSUES THAT SPAN 

 MORE THAN ONE WORKING GROUP 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


162 
 

3 

MESSAGE OF SENATOR REID 191 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE/BOARD WORKING TIME 198 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 236 

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 

4 

5 

6 

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 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

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
 

ANSPAUGH, LARISA 


ANSPAUGH, LYNN, SC&A 


BEATTY, EVERETT “RAY”, SR., FERNALD ATOMIC CO. 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 


BUCHANAN, RON, SC&A 


CALLAWAY, ALLEN 


CARMOUCHE, ROBERT, NTS 


CHANG, C, NIOSH 


CHEW, MELTON, ORAU 


CLAYTON, DOROTHY 


COMBS-CROFTON, SYLVIA, OCHA NTS 


COOK, PATRICIA 


ELLENBERGER, JIM, ORAU 


ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 


EVASKOVICH, ANDREW K., INTERNATIONAL GUARDS 


FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 


FUNK, JOHN R., AVV NEVADA 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


HYATT, SALLY 


JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE, CONG. TOM UDALL 


JENSEN, HARRY L. 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


LEWIS, MARK, ATL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MARSHALL, KENNETH 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAUT 


MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 


MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 


MINGUS, RICHARD, FSI-LLNL WSI 


PAZ, DR. JACOB 


PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY 


RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR 


ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A 


ROGERS, KEITH, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL 


ROHRIG, NORMAN 


ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH OCAS 


ROZNER, KATHLEEN, SEN. REID 


RUIZ, HARRIET 

8 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC 


SHELL, LULA, AVV NEVADA 


SMITH, BILLY P., MH CHEW AND ASSOCS. 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 


ZACCHERS, MARY JO, ORAU 


ZIEMER, MARILYN 

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
 

(8:35 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. We're going to 


get underway this morning. This is the third 


day of meeting 40 of the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health. Welcome again to 


everyone. 


As is usual I'll remind you to register your 


attendance in the registration book in the 


foyer. 


Lew, do you have any preliminary comments for 


the Board or the assembly? 


 DR. WADE: Well, only to thank the Board for 


its work to this point, and we look forward to 


another very productive day. Your 


professionalism and dedication is -- is noted. 


I guess I would like to determine if Mike 

Gibson is on the line? 

 MR. GIBSON: Yes, on here. 

 DR. WADE: Is Mike with us this morning? Yes, 

Mike is with us. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Mike is with us. Thank you. And 
-- 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: I know Mark will be joining us. 


Mark is here. He'll leave a bit early to go to 


attend to his father, but he'll be with us this 


morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (LANL)
 

SEC PETITION
 

 DR. WADE: The first agenda item deals with 


LANL, and we have a Board member whose waiver 


has him conflicted at LANL. That's Dr. Poston. 


So since we're dealing with an SEC petition, 


our roles are that Dr. Poston would remove 


himself from the table and not be involved in 


the discussion. So John, thank you. 


 (Whereupon, Dr. Poston retired from the table 


and joined the audience.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we will proceed then with 


the LANL SEC petition. The presentation will 


be made by -- for NIOSH will be made by Stu 


Hinnefeld, and after that we'll have 


opportunity to hear some comments from Michele 


Jacquez-Ortiz, and then open the floor for 


discussion, so... 


NIOSH PRESENTATION
 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Good morning, everybody. Thank 

1 

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 

you, members of the Board and members of the 


public, colleagues. Most of you who know me 


know that I don't typically have a lot to say. 


A trait in my job recently became a far better 


trait since I now have many conversations with 


Kate Kimpan, and since -- since one of us 


doesn't have much to say, that keeps the 


conversations at a reasonable length, so... 


But I'll try to provide sufficient information 


to -- to provide an understanding of the 


evaluation we went through on this particular 


site. 


The petition I'm talking about today pertains 


to a particular type of exposure at the Los 


Alamos National Laboratory, exposure to a 


particular isotope, radioactive lanthanum, and 


there was a specific purpose for those 


exposures. This is petition number 61. We 


number petitions in sequence as we receive 


them, and this was the 61st. And this petition 


is an 83.14 petition. It occurs under Part 14 


of the rule regarding SEC classes and the 


addition of classes to the SEC. Part 14 of the 


rule is the resolution of cases where NIOSH 


determines we don't have sufficient 

1 

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 

information, and so it's not feasible to 


reconstruct doses for some type of exposure. 


And in that situation we reach that 


determination and write an evaluation report 


and then actually identify a claimant whose 


claim falls into the class and recruit -- 


essentially recruit that claimant to be a 


petitioner for the petition. 


Now when we do that, we not only evaluate the 


situation for the particular claimant that 


we've made the petitioner, so we don't only 


evaluate the petition, but we evaluate other 


people whose exposures were similar. In other 


words, who could not -- who were exposed to 


this type of exposure that we find 


reconstruction infeasible and so we define a 


class in that fashion. 


Of course you're all familiar with the two-


pronged test that's established by the -- by 


the law and incorporated into our regulations, 


Part 42 and Part 43. And the first question, 


is it feasible to estimate the level of 


radiation dose to individual members of the 


class, all the members of the class, with 


sufficient accuracy. And if it is not, 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 

13 

the second question is is there reasonable 


likelihood that -- that such radiation dose may 


have caused harm to the people who were 


exposed. 


Okay, the -- at Los Alamos the activities with 


radioactive lanthanum -- the abbreviation RaLa 


that often is pronounced "ralla" is radioactive 


lanthanum -- those activities occurred at 


certain selective locations at Los Alamos. 


Mainly -- that should be TA-10, not T-10 -- TA 


at Los Alamos is Technical Area, so the plant's 


divided into technical areas -- at TA-10, which 


is also known as the Bayo Canyon Site; TA-35, 


which is also known as the Ten Site; and then 


Buildings U (sic), Sigma and U in Technical 


Area 1. 


The time period for the work with radioactive 


lanthanum was from September 1st (sic) through 


March 6th, 1962, with cleanup activities of 


this area continuing through July 18th, 1963. 


We know that the first radioactive lanthanum 


arrived in -- at Bayo Canyon in September of 


1944, and we know that the first shot was about 


mid-September, using the radioactive lanthanum. 


So not knowing exactly what day in September, 

1 

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 

we chose September 1st as the start date for 


the covered period. And then the July 18th, 


1963 date is the date of essentially the 


certification of the cleanup. There's a letter 


saying okay, we've cleaned it up, there's no 


more -- longer a problem, the buildings have 


all torn down, there's just this one concrete 


pad there. And so that was essentially the 


termination date we chose for the oper-- for 


the work there involving this exposure. 


 The purpose of the RaLa work or the RaLa test 


was to test the uniformity of compression of 


implosion assemblies. I don't know how many of 


you know, but the plutonium weapons that were 


developed during World War II had to be 


imploded at a uniform compression in order for 


the weapon to work. And so they used this 


technique to test their explosives and their 


explosive shaping to make sure they had a 


uniform compression, and it was done by -- 


well, it must have been a particularly 


sophisticated measurements of the radiation 


from this source in the middle of the device as 


a surrogate for plutonium, some metal that was 


-- plutonium was crushed around it, 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 

15 

by an implosion. So it was actually exploded 


-- imploded down around this device, and the 


changes in density of that metal -- whether it 


would be iron or cadmium or whatever -- were 


monitored by these very sensitive radiation 


detectors. And so they could measure not only 


the extent of the compression, but also the 


uniformity because they had detectors 


apparently arrayed around it. 


 The radioactive lanthanum was separated from 


its parent, barium-140 -- and there were 


certain other impurities that came along -- in 


the Bayo Canyon. There's a facility where the 


chemists did the separation. Compared with 


half-lives of those two isotopes, barium-140 is 


about -- I think is around 13 days and 


lanthanum-140, the isotope they would use, was 


about 40 hours. And so the concept was the 


same probably as a molybdenum technetium 


generator in nuclear medicine facility where 


you have a somewhat longer-lived radioactive 


isotope. Molybdenum, the medical -- or barium 


in this case -- that is continually generating 


the one you want, so the barium is continually 


generating the lanthanum-140, and you 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 

16 

extract 140 chemically -- because its chemistry 


is different now -- and purify it. Same thing 


occurs in nuclear medicine laboratories today 


when they extract technetium from molybdenum. 


So anyway, since the longer half-lived parent, 


you could -- it would last longer, you didn't 


have to worry about extracting and using 


lanthanum-140 purely within a -- or shipping it 


all the way over to Bayo Canyon and -- and 


trying to get it used before it decayed away. 


The RaLa allowed a little extra life time. 


The amount of radioactive lanthanum in a shot 


varied by -- it was nominally about 1,000 


curies per shot, and this was encapsulated in a 


sphere about a quarter of an inch diameter, so 


this was a lot of radioactivity in a very small 


source. 


And of course since they were testing implosion 


and they imploded -- this was imploded by high 


explosive, clearly the radioactive lanthanum 


was dispersed by the implosion. It would have 


been vaporized and spread into the atmosphere. 


And so it caused exposure hazard beyond those 


just associated with chemical separation. You 


know, this would have been chemical separation 

1 

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 

of a very highly radioactive substance. It was 


not done in a hot booth with manipulators. It 


was done actually behind shadow shields, 


probably in more of a bench-top hood or 


something like that. 


There are a number of comments in the -- that 


are recorded in our evaluation report a little 


more completely than I've put up here that 


describe measurements that were taken and the 


concerns that arose -- pretty much from the 


start with the Los Alamos management -- about 


the level of exposure that the chemists were 


receiving who were doing the separation, and 


about airborne activity generated. It wasn't 


just the direct radiation exposure from 


(unintelligible), but there was a fair amount 


of airborne radioactivity associated with that 


as well. There was -- they were -- had to take 


protective measures for people who loaded the 


plug -- you know, the plug being what the 


assembly -- what hold this into the implosion 


device to prevent them from being contaminated 


just from loading the plug that was already in 


a sealed source into the device. So there was 


quite a number of quotes from reports 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 

18 

those eras about concerns having to do with 


this operation, the amount of exposure and 


airborne. And there were also then concerns 


about the -- the undesirably high radioactive 


airborne areas outdoors after the tests and as 


the tests proceeded. And of course ultimately 


there was remediation at the end of the 


radioactive lanthanum work that would indicate 


that there was a fair amount of contamination 


as well. 


We don't have any personnel monitoring results 


for radioactive lanthanum or what even seems to 


be an analog for radioactive lanthanum in the ­

- in the data we received from Los Alamos, so 


there are no personnel bioassay monitoring 


results for internal exposure. We don't have 


any actual internal -- or air monitoring data 


either -- inside the buildings. There is some 


-- there is some description of air monitoring 


data outside, and results given in things like 


counts per minute compared to a tolerance level 


of counts per minute so that -- so we know that 


there was a considerably elevated airborne 


concentration outside the building, as well as 


during -- inside the building during the actual 

1 

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 

chemical separation work. 


Now it appears from the records we've been able 


to examine that the workers were adequately 


monitored for external exposure. We would 


expect for people who worked there to have a 


radiation exposure report from their rad-- 


external exposure during this period. And so 


we believe that we will have records sufficient 


to do external dose reconstruction for -- for 


the workers who worked there. 


Similarly, we believe we understand enough 


about the medical monitoring program at Los 


Alamos that we could reconstruct the 


occupational medical exposures that workers 


were exposed to (unintelligible) member of the 


class. 


And so in terms of the actual handling of the 


petition, we were unable to obtain sufficient 


information to complete the dose reconstruction 


for an existing claim, the claim that we 


selected and the recruited as a petitioner. 


And on May 30th we notified that claimant that 


we could not -- that the dose reconstruction 


cannot be completed. This is the process we 


follow when we do this. We send the 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 

20 

this letter saying we're sorry, we can't 


reconstruction your dose. And we send them a 


form -- Form A for the Special Exposure Cohort 


petition, which is -- essentially this says we 


can't do your radiation exposure; would you 


please sign this petition report and send it 


back to us so that we have a petition, because 


the rule always deals with a petition and 


petitioner in terms of adding a class to the 


SEC, so in order to obtain a petitioner. And 


then we obtain that -- that petition about a 


week later. 


The conclusions of our evaluation, which of 


course were -- was essentially complete before 


we sent the -- the Energy employee the "can't 


reconstruct" letter -- is that we lack the 


monitoring, process and source information 


sufficient to estimate the internal radiation 


doses to Los Alamos employees who worked with 


radioactive lanthanum for this period, 


September of 1944 through July of 1963, and 


that we have sufficient information to estimate 


other types -- the external and the medical 


occupational dose. And we intentionally try to 


make those determinations to establish what 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 

21 

be done for people who would be members of the 


class but do not have an SEC listed cancer, or 


people who have some time in the class but not 


sufficient time in the class, in order to 


establish that while we can do some dose 


reconstruction, it may not be sufficient to -- 


to -- in -- in many cases to make the case 


compensable, but it could be and so we want to 


make that attempt. 


We've concluded it's not feasible to estimate 


with sufficient accuracy the internal radiation 


doses, and the health of the covered employees 


may have been endangered based on the potential 


size of the exposures. And the evidence does 


indicate, based on reports from the time -- 


contemporary reports from the time -- about 


concerns about exposures on this operation, 


that in-- the class may have accumulated 


intakes over -- of radionuclides over a course 


of time. 


 The definition of the class as presented here ­

- I don't suppose I'll read it verbatim, but it 


includes all of DOE and predecessor agencies, 


the employees of those agencies and their 


contractors and subcontractors who 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 

22 

monitored or should have been monitored for 


radioactive lanthanum at these sites where that 


was used during the effective period as we -- 


as it's defined. And of course these days 


could aggregate with other classes that have 


been added or will be added. 


And in summary we have our little pictorial 


representation of what we've determined. We've 


defined the period; that we cannot estimate 


internal doses, we find it is not feasible; we 


found that health was endangered because over 


time the intakes could be considerable and 


could result in a dose that just can't be 


estimated. And so we're -- our evaluation 


reports indicates that we don't feel like we 


have -- we have sufficient information to 


complete internal dose reconstruction and 


complete an entire dose reconstruction for 


members of the class. 


I'll try to answer any questions. I know I 


have some staff members here who probably are 


more familiar with the issue that I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll hold the questions till 


we've had some input, Stu. Thank you very 


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 

23 

PRESENTATION BY PETITIONERS
 

The petitioner will not be speaking to us 


directly, but we will be hearing from Michele 


Jacquez-Ortiz, who is district director for 


Representative Tom Udall. And Michele, I think 


you also have with you Harriet Ruiz, who's a 


New Mexico state representative, and we'd be 


glad to hear from her. And also is Andrew -- 


 MR. EVASKOVICH: Evaskovich. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Evaskovich, Andrew, right. 


 MR. EVASKOVICH: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. RUIZ: Good morning, Board members, and 


thank you for the opportunity to let me speak 


to you once again. And I'd also like to thank 


you for the work you do. I'm going to be very 


brief this morning. As you know, my SEC 83.13 


has been qualified. And in light of the 180­

day rule, I would ask the Board respectfully if 


perhaps you could hold your March meeting in 


New Mexico so the claimants also for the RaLa 


83.14 and mine -- which I'm sure might be at 


the same meeting because of the 180-day rule -- 


if you couldn't have that in New Mexico. 
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 

24 

think it would be beneficial because many of 


the claimants do not have any money to travel 


anywhere, and I basically am their voice at 


this time but I think it would be wonderful if 


you could. And that's all I have to say today, 


and again, thank you very much. I appreciate 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Andrew, did 


you also have some remarks? 


 MR. EVASKOVICH: Good morning. My name is 


Andrew Evaskovich. I'm with the International 


Guards Union of America, Local Number 69 in Los 


Alamos. I'd like you to -- thank you for 


taking time to listen to me speak this morning. 


I've done quite a bit of research on safety 


issues and I'm involved with safety issues with 


the union at Los Alamos. And basically my 


argument is the Technical Basis Document is not 


sufficient. We did meet with a NIOSH 


representative last year, but I have a problem 


with the meeting because it occurred after the 


document was written. I understand there's 


been some work done since our meeting, but the 


process I think is flawed. 


I'm a former New Mexico State Police 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 

25 

and I've conducted numerous investigations, 


from graphic accidents to homicides. And it 


would seem to me process is process, and you 


have to deal with people first to start knowing 


where to look for your information. And I 


think that the process is flawed because they 


don't do that when they're developing the 


Technical Base (sic) Document. 


 Now Mr. Elliott said he likes site experts. It 


would seem to me they would consult with site 


experts when they're developing the document as 


opposed to afterwards. So I appreciate the 


fact that there is an SEC for the RaLa, but I 


think there are other issues. Harriet Ruiz has 


issues as far as dose reconstruction, and we 


have issues as well. And either we need to 


correct the Technical Base (sic) Document and 


we need to look at other possible classes being 


developed. 


Thank you for your time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Andrew. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Well, thank you, Dr. Ziemer 


and Dr. Wade and members of the Advisory Board 


for allowing me to speak to an issue related to 


the presentation that we just heard. My name 

1 

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 

is Michele Jacquez-Ortiz and I serve as the 


district director for U.S. Congressman Tom 


Udall. I've served on the Congressman's staff 


since his -- since his first election to 


Congress, and was at his side during the very 


first community meetings that we hosted to 


generate support for the passage of legislation 


that created this program in 2000. 


The Congressman's staff, both in Washington, 


D.C. and especially in New Mexico, have spent 


years since the program's inception trying to 


realize justice for these claimants. On a 


daily basis we offer support, advice and 


guidance for the Congressman's claimants from 


Los Alamos. Most, if not all, are very sick. 


Some have passed away, and so we are working 


with their families to get the compensation to 


which they are entitled. 


The Congressman has followed the proposed SEC 


petitions closely. He felt it was important 


that I be here today in person to stress upon 


you a concern related to the RaLa SEC for LANL. 


In reviewing the evaluation report that NIOSH 


drafted for this petition, Section 4.5 talks 


about job descriptions associated with LANL 

1 

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 

RaLa operations at the Lab. That section reads 


(reading) Due to uncertainties regarding worker 


job descriptions and lack of knowledge 


concerning worker movements among Bayo Canyon 


facilities, NIOSH -- NIOSH is unable to rely 


solely on worker job descriptions to determine 


potential for RaLa operations exposure. 


NIOSH is unable to rely solely on worker job 


descriptions to determine potential for RaLa 


operations exposure. How is the Department of 


Labor going to determine this? It's a question 


that I pose, but I think it's an important 


question and I know there's a representative 


here from the Department of Labor. I'm just 


wondering if anyone from that agency can answer 


that question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We may have to defer getting the 


answer to you, though they can certainly follow 


up on that. The question deals with a 


statement made in Section 4.5, and let me also 


clarify -- I believe that under this petition, 


if the petition is successful, the job 


description will not matter -- will it -- at 


that point as long as they can establish that 


they worked on the 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 

28

 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Well, Dr. Ziemer, just as 


was indicated on the record at the D.C. meeting 


regarding Y-12, that -- there was a statement 


by DOL that in the absence of work history to 


the contrary, that workers at the LANL facility 


who were employed during the class period will 


be presumed to be RaLa workers. Congressman 


Udall would urge the Advisory Board to 


recommend that you include in your letter to 


Secretary Leavitt wording to the effect that -- 


that the policy be incorporated -- that in the 


absence of work history to the contrary, 


workers at the LANL facility who were employed 


during the class period shall be presumed to be 


RaLa workers. 


 The Congressman also respectfully requests that 


the Advisory Board include in its letter to 


Secretary Leavitt some wording that makes it 


clear that external and medical dose be -- be ­

- can be reconstructed by NIOSH. And we think 


that it's important for the Board to be 


explicit in this point because it would allow 


DOL to adjudicate the external dose for the 


non-SEC cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. And in fact, 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 

29 

think that has been our normal practice. It 


certainly was in the petition that we approved 


earlier this week to indicate what can be done 


as well as what can't be done. 


 DR. WADE: Michele, could you read that first 


sentence again, in the absence of work history 


to the contrary? 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Yes. (Reading) In the 


absence of work history to the contrary, 


workers at the LANL facility who were employed 


during the class period will be presumed to be 


RaLa workers. 


So on behalf of the Congressman and all the 


constituents that -- that he represents, we 


thank you for allowing time on the agenda for 


this issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. And let me 


ask for a clarification either from Larry or 


from Stu, the wording that we just heard in 


fact does meet the intent, does it not, of what 


your petition suggests; is that not correct? 


don't -- I don't want to put words into your 


mouth. I'm -- I'm -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't opine upon this because 


this is DOL's determination of eligibility -- 


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 

30

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, I see. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and what we heard from Pete 


Turcic in D.C. about how they go about doing 


that business is that if they don't have any 


records that indicate the person worked in 


those buildings or those areas, they simply go 


after an affidavit. And then -- then beyond 


that, if there's no information that refutes 


that affidavit, they presumed the individual 


worked in that position. 


But I'm speaking, you know, as I heard Pete 


Turcic's talk --


 DR. ZIEMER: You're talking about the Labor 


determination, which in a -- you're saying in a 


sense we don't control that, but we can still 


make the recommendation to the Secretary. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Dr. Ziemer, Congressman 


Udall's concern is rooted -- he has testified 


before the Judiciary Committee. He testified 


at the last meeting in D.C. with regard to 


providing the DOL with more discretion than we 


feel -- we -- we have some concerns with regard 


to the passback memo and some other concerns 


over at DOL, so the Congressman would urge the 


Advisory Board to be explicit in its wording 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 

31 

the letter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Understood. Okay. 


Now -– 


BOARD DISCUSSION


 DR. WADE: I'd like to speak just briefly to 


that. And again, the Advisory Board is free to 


do what it wishes in terms of, you know, the 


wording of its recommendations. As Larry 


pointed out, this is the responsibility 


primarily of the Department of Labor, but there 


is no limitation on this Advisory Board 


speaking as clearly as it wishes to the 


Secretary of HHS. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I want to reiterate something we 


said at the D.C. meeting about this -- this 


issue. It's our practice that once we have 


developed the evaluation report and had a, you 


know, technical review of that and come to 


closure on it in our minds, we then share the 


definition with Department of Labor to make 


sure that we have crafted that definition in a 


way such that they can use it to determine 


eligibility most effectively -- our intent is 


most effectively -- for the claimants. And 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 

32 

they have come back to us on this particular 


one and said yes, they can work with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Now I'd like to open 


the questions for Stu. Let me begin, Stu. I'm 


asking some questions a bit as a Devil's 


advocate to assure myself that indeed you 


cannot reconstruct dose. First, is the 


lanthanum a volatile material in the way it's 


used? Is there any concern about airborne from 


volatility or is it merely from the explosions? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There was apparently some 


volatility associated because there are reports 


from the period about the extensive airborne 


activity --


 DR. ZIEMER: Prior to (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- during the separation 


process --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- before it was exploded. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now -- oh. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: Dr. Ziemer -- Larry, did 


you say that NIOSH requires claimants to file 


an affidavit? No, I -- did I misunderstand? 


Yeah, because I thought that the worker 


interview was really... 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: What I said was that DOL, in 


absence of records to determine eligibility for 


a member to be in the class, would look for 


that -- that person to provide an affidavit 


saying that the per-- their Energy employee 


worked in those areas. It's not our affidavit. 


 MS. JACQUEZ-ORTIZ: I'm not sure that that's 


being readily done, but that -- that would be 


for the DOL to answer, of which a 


representative is not available. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. And then the 


explosion tests are done inside of the 


facility; did I understand that correctly? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, the explosions are outside. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All -- always in the air. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Beg your pardon? 


 DR. ZIEMER: They're all open-air, the 


explosions? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they're --


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) open-air -- 


I -- I sus--


 DR. ZIEMER: They weren't inside some kind of a 


bunker or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, 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 

34

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And for the indoor work, I 


-- I notice you have a source term which 


indicates amounts -- it appears amounts of 


(unintelligible) experiment, and if one assumed 


100 percent of the material became volatile and 


you knew the size of the facility, presumably 


you could calculate a maximum air 


concentration. I -- I'm trying to get a feel 


for why you cannot bound the air intakes in 


this case --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it may have -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I'm not disputing, it may 


be very difficult, I'm just asking to assure us 


that you indeed cannot do dose reconstruction. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean there's a -- 


there's an element of -- of credible exposure 


scenario that has to enter into saying we can 


bound exposures, as well. And so given -- you 


know, we know roughly how much was done per 


shot, we know roughly how many shots, so we 


could do an integrated (unintelligible) source 


term. But if -- I -- I think it would be a 


fairly unrealistic scenario to say well, we can 


cap the dose because we -- what if all this was 


dispersed throughout the building and 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 

35 

people -- you know, someone breathed 100 


percent of this inventory or -- or something 


like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you'd have to use breathing 


rate, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. And so once -- I don't 


know that that would be a, you know, a scenario 


that provides a really feasible or realistic 


exposure scenario, so -- you know, it's -- it's 


(unintelligible) say well, we know external 


dose was capped by 500 rads that year because 


they would have died from acute radiation 


syndrome if they had gotten that much, so it's 


the same kind of reason why we wouldn't go to 


those kinds of extremes just so we can cap the 


dose. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other questions from 


members of the Board? Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Stu, when I looked -- looked this 


over, I -- the testing was done -- implosions 


were done from 1944 to -- to '62? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And there were 254 implosions, 

1 

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 

which are 14 per year, on average -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. LOCKEY: -- I don't -- I mean they might 


have been -- but how -- how does -- I guess how 


does the 250-day rule come into effect here? 


If you -- if you had to look at this in 


relationship to that exclusion criteria, what 


are your feelings about that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- right now we -- as I 


understand it, we essentially have two options. 


The options are either presence or 250 days. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And --


 DR. LOCKEY: But I'm asking your opinion about 


the implosion process and if there's one per 


month and somebody worked there three months, I 


mean is that -- is that something to be 


concerned about or not? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess I personally 


haven't tried to analyze that and determine 


what -- the problem with having to say well, is 


three months an issue or is six months an 


issue, is in order to make a determination 


whether I feel like that would be sort of a 


level of harm or something, then I would 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 

37 

to have some way to say well, what would they 


get per shot or what would they get per month, 


and we don't feel like we can do that. So when 


you try to decide -- you try to limit it to a 


particular duration of time, then you would say 


that well, in order to do that, I have to make 


some assumptions about an exposure or a dose 


rate, and we generally -- you know, we 


concluded that we don't feel like we can do 


that in a realistic fashion. So it's very hard 


to make a decision point -- reach a decision 


point shorter than 12 months. I think it's -- 


it's fairly -- we're confident from the control 


and the fact that clearly the Lab management 


was trying to control -- they were concerned 


about the exposures to people and they were 


making some attempts to control the exposures, 


that we're not in the acute range where 


extremely high dose rate of say hundreds of 


roentgens or hundreds of rem per day, like 


would be associated with a criticality 


accident, would be relevant. So we're sort of 


past the presence, you know, the -- what we 


feel like would be the issue for presence, but 


beyond that, if you try to make a determination 

1 

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 

of a time period that's shorter, then you have 


to have some process that says well, how -- at 


what rate would he be accumulating dose in that 


period of time, and we just don't feel like we 


can. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Maybe I'll ask my colleagues, can 


you give me a handle on -- on biological 


plausibility and being exposed to this on a 


monthly basis for a year? I mean is this -- is 


this a --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think I quite 


understood the question. 


 DR. WADE: He's asking the Board, but go ahead, 


you need to speak closer to the microphone. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Is -- I mean I -- maybe you -- the 


Board can educate me about biological 


plausibility and cancer risk if somebody is 


exposed to implosions once a month for less 


than a year period of time. Is this a concern, 


from a biological plausibility perspective? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's hard for me to say 


now. I mean standing at the podium and -- 


right now, I mean it'd be hard for me to make 


an educated statement about that. I -- without 


making some assumption about what exposure 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 

39 

an implosion might be, and I don't know that I 


can do that, I don't know that I can come up 


with a duration or a meaningful thing to say. 


I'm confident I can't do it standing here. 
I 


mean I -- maybe we could -- you know, it would 


have to be something we would have to work on 


or think about for a while. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If the material is fairly 


volatile, like radioiodine, and I don't know 


that lanthanum is or isn't, but it seems to me 


that you could get significant internal doses 


during the preparation process even though the 


-- and presumably that would occur just before 


you did the shot because of the half-life that 


you indicated. But the -- once you did that 


preparation, then if you released this material 


with a 14-hour half-life and you use the rule 


of thumb that it's going to be around for about 


ten half-life periods, which is close to a week 


-- a week is 168 hours, this would be 140, so 


it's there most of the week once the work is 


done. I -- I think indoor exposures where you 


would have confined concentrations might -- you 


know, if you're outdoors and you get dispersal, 


that -- those concentrations go down very 

1 

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 

rapidly. But in any event, it would seem to me 


that even though the shots look like they're 


intermittent, you could have contamination in 


that facility throughout the week, it would 


appear to me. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It would seem to me that at 14 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- at 14 shots per month, you 


have a relatively --


 DR. LOCKEY: No, per year. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- constant operation going on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Fourteen shots a year. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It sound like one -- one or so --

 MR. HINNEFELD: But even at that point, I mean 


-- don't forget, we're not just talking about a 


separation of a pure lanthanum-140 and handling 


of that. It's -- it's transported, it's 


protected, it's maintained at -- the solution ­

- or I assume it's a solution that the 140 is 


extracted from that contains other radioactive 


materials, (unintelligible), you know, is 


there. Certainly some of those impurities 


probably went with the lanthanum-140 even 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

though they tried to purify it. Those uncert--


those impurities would be in the explosion, as 


well, so it -- it's not -- it sounds like a 


chemistry -- a clean chemistry operation, but I 


suspect it wasn't so clean. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You have additional questions, 


Jim, or other members? Comments? 


Stu, I noticed in other presentations the 


bottom line slide typically showed that NIOSH 


could reconstruct external and then in a 


separate line, internal. Is there any 


particular reason that this summary slide kind 


of lumped it all together? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I probably overlooked putting 


it in there, that's why the slide wasn't -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, the context -- or the 


text of the presentation presents that we -- 


our belief that we -- it's feasible to 


reconstruct the medical exposures and the 


external exposures. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And when I constructed the 


presentation, I just neglected to include it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay. Wanda Munn. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Stu, I was a little puzzled when I 


was reading through this information about what 


appeared to be a real shortage of good concrete 


bioassay data for these folks. And it 


surprised me because one would anticipate 


fairly decent information from LANL. Do you 


have any feel for why the bioassay records are 


so skimpy for this particular operation during 


the time? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't have any hard 


information about that. It could be that there 


was not a good technique. Now I -- I know 


nothing about the (unintelligible) or lanthanum 


in the body as I stand here today. I suppose I 


could look it up. It could be that there's not 


a good technique. It could be that if there's 


some excretion of any other ingested lanthanum 


and so you could have a bioassay program. It 


could be that there's insufficient chemistry or 


insufficient chemistry in order to have a 


decent analysis. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay. So there's a 


probability that it has more to do with the 


radionuclide than the assay program, that's -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Could very 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 

43

 MS. MUNN: That's what I really wanted to know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It could. I'm -- I'm 


speculating. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Lockey, did you have an 


additional question? 


 DR. LOCKEY: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike Gibson on the phone, do you 


have any questions? 


 MR. GIBSON: Not at this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No questions, okay. Any others? 


Board members -- oh, comment from Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I want to go back to Dr. Lockey's 


question about biological plausibility and this 


concern about health endangerment. I mean we 


wrestle with this in each and every one of 


these, and I think it's important to -- for 


this particular one to make sure there's an 


understanding that, as I understand it, this is 


not a criticality event. This is radioactive 


lanthanum in a high explosive, and the 


lanthanum is used to determine the conformity 


of the implosion. So it's unlike a criticality 


event. 


And when we look at criticality events 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 

44 

regard to presence versus 250 days, we 


certainly would like to speak about biological 


plausibility, but we find ourselves held to 


this two-pronged test. If we can't do dose 


reconstruction, then we have to ascribe whether 


or not health was likely endangered, and that's 


-- that's a difficult process 'cause, as I 


think you all know, dose is the factor there, 


not perhaps time. 


And so when we -- when we -- when we think 


about these things and we look at these 


particular issues, when we're dealing with a 


criticality event we -- we want to know and we 


look very hard to determine if that was a 


planned and controlled event and the exposures 


were monitored and controlled or -- or 


protected against, as we think we've seen in 


Nevada Test Site/Pacific Proving Ground. So 


where we -- we can't find that, then it -- 


presence, like the Y-12 criticality event was 


uncontrolled, unplanned, unprotected-for in 


many ways. That's -- that's a presence 


criticality event. 


I would just say that, you know, we're 


wrestling with the 250 days, too. 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 

45 

wrestling with biological plausibility. But 


we've not found a good way to -- to address 


that at this point. We have to live within the 


law that -- as it's stated in the rules that we 


have. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Larry. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I add to... 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: I would just add to that that we 

do have a workgroup, our SEC evaluation 


workgroup is looking at that and I think it's 


always possible to revisit these should we sort 


of come up with a different approach or 


different understanding. I think I tend to 


agree with Larry on -- on this -- sort of where 


this one will go. I don't think it's 


necessarily appropriate that we need to reserve 


that issue. We can always come back. It 


really was a NIOSH-generated petition, so I 


think it's appropriate to let's deal with it as 


a Board after the workgroup report comes out 


and decide then. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And yes, Larry, this 


definitely would not be a criticality type 


issue at 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 

46 

Okay, other comments or questions? 


 (No responses) 


BOARD DECISION
 

Okay, Board members, then it would be in order 


to have a motion either to adopt this 


recommendation -- or support it or to -- to not 


support the petition, or to ask for additional 


information, as we did in the previous case. 


The Chair will entertain a motion. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so moved. I'll interpret 


that as being -- you're moving to -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Accept it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- accept the recommendation and 


support it. This would be a motion to -- to 


recommend to the Secretary that the SEC 


petition be approved. Is there a second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: I second it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, and it's been seconded. Now 


we will need the wording for this one in our 


usual form, and with the possible inclusion of 


some clarification words of the sort that were 


suggested to us earlier. Dr. Melius --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I could --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- do you by chance --

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- have some --

 DR. MELIUS: Purely by -- by chance. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Do you hear the clicking going 

over here? 

 DR. MELIUS: And if Bob will accept my -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: The detailed --

 DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) amendment here 

after he hears it --


 DR. ZIEMER: The detailed wording to the 


Presley motion. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I think I -- I at least made 


an attempt at the additional wording you just 


mentioned. Okay, here we go. 


(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, the reasons for 


this delay and that he immediately works with 


NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of the 


Board to discuss this issue. 

1 

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 

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (the Board) has evaluated SEC Petition 


00061 concerning workers at the Los Alamos 


National Laboratory under the statutory 


requirements established by EEOICPA and 


incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13 and 42 


CFR Section 83.14. The Board respectfully 


recommends a Special Exposure Cohort be 


accorded to all employees of the DOE, 


predecessor agencies and their contractors or 


subcontractors who were monitored or should 


have been monitored for exposure to ionizing 


radiation associated with radioactive lanthanum 


(RaLa) operations at Technical Area 10 (Bayo 


Canyon Site), Technical Area 35 (Ten Site) and 


Buildings H, Sigma and U (located within 


Technical Area 1) at the Los Alamos National 


Laboratory for a number of work days 


aggregating at least 250 work days during the 


period from September 1st, 1944 through July 


18th, 1963, or in combination with work days 


within the parameters established for one or 


more other classes of employees in the SEC. 


This recommendation is based on the following 


factors: 

1 

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

 Number one, people working in these areas of 


Los Alamos National Laboratory were involved in 


the development and testing of nuclear weapons. 


Reviewing available monitoring data for these 


operations, NIOSH found it did not have access 


to sufficient information, including internal 


personal dosimetry, workplace monitoring data 


or sufficient process and radiological source 


information that would allow it to estimate 


with sufficient accuracy the potential internal 


exposures to which members of the proposed 


class may have been exposed. This -- the Board 


concurs with this determination. 


 Number two, NIOSH determined that health was 


endangered for the workers exposed to radiation 


in these areas of LANL within the time period 


of -- in question. The Board concurs with this 


determination. 


Number three, the NIOSH review of data found 


that it was sufficient to support accurate 


individual dose reconstruction for external 


doses and occupational medical doses for 


workers at the areas in question at the Los 


Alamos National Laboratory. The Board concurs 


with this determination. 

1 

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

 In their evaluation NIOSH determined that it 


was difficult to identify people who worked in 


these areas of LANL based on job 


classifications. Therefore, the Board 


recommends that determination of eligibility 


for this class take into account this 


difficulty. In the absence of work history or 


other information to the contrary, workers at 


the LANL facility during the time period in 


question should be presumed to have worked in 


the areas in question. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation of recent 


Advisory Board meeting held in Las Vegas, 


Nevada where the Special Exposure Cohort was 


discussed. If any of these items aren't 


available at this time, they will follow 


shortly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I have one question on 


the wording, Jim. Under the description of the 


class, I think basically your last sentence 


described these as individuals who were working 


with nuclear weapons, and I note that in 


NIOSH's description of the class it describes 


them as individuals who were potentially 


exposed to radioactive material which primarily 

1 

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 

consisted of barium-140, lanthanum-140, 


strontium-89 and strontium-90. I'm wondering 


if the terminology "exposed to nuclear weapons" 


or whatever that wording was might be a little 


misleading or -- I don't know that they were 


necessarily working with the weapons. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It could have -- at that time it 


could have been anything. 


 DR. MELIUS: I was -- I actually took this from 


the document, but I was attempting just to come 


up with a general description of the processes 


at the time without trying to go into a lot of 


detail. I mean I've no -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, actually what I was trying 


to make sure is that our description -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- of the class matched the NIOSH 


description of the class, and maybe -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Our definition may 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me cross-check it with 


Stu's slide, too. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. The definition actually 


does match, but I certainly would be open to 


another wording. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: It's not an accurate 


characterization. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, the proposed class 


definition -- that's sort of a -- an add-on. 


Is that what it is? I guess the class 


definition ends with the description of the 


working days and so on. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: However, in the petition it does 


specifically call out the work with those 


nuclides as opposed to weapons work. I simply 


-- I leave it to the Board if you -- on the 


wording. 


 DR. MELIUS: Larry, you have a suggestion or... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Not on that, on something else. 


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't -- in our -- in my 


opinion, I'm not sure that it -- it's going to 


make much difference. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It may not. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I can't see any way it would -- 


it would cause a claimant harm in -- in 


eligibility. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I was concerned that it 


didn't match what was in the petition, but 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 

53 

it doesn't affect it, that's fine. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The concern I come to the mike 


with is that you -- your -- your -- as you read 


that, you mentioned that we could not do 


internal dose. I'd suggest for your 


consideration if you would specify that to RaLa 


dose, internal lanthanum, because there may be 


other internal exposures that we may be able to 


reconstruct. There may be other bioassay on 


other types that could be reconstructed, and we 


don't want to miss that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, would that alter a 


particular sentence or you're looking -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'm trying to find the right 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, while you look at that, Dr. 


Lockey, did you have a comment or question? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I just need some help -- maybe you 


can help me with this, Mr. Elliott. How many ­

- how many people do you know actually worked 


in this area versus how many people worked at 


Los Alamos National Labs? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't know today how many 


would -- were at these areas. Is there like 


anecdotal about a particular time period? 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 

54 

don't -- the short answer is we don't know how 


many, compared to the total Los Alamos work 


force during that period worked at these areas. 


There's not information that was collected by 


us as part of our work in order to try to do 


this. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We -- you know, we've asked DOE 


similar questions and not got any real concrete 


answers. How many people ever worked at LANL? 


Well, they'll give you a ball park figure and 


it -- you know, depending on who you ask, you 


get different numbers. How many people might 


have worked in these areas, we don't know. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, then do we have any idea how 


complete the work histories are at Los Alamos 


National Lab? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Standing here today, I don't. 


I don't know how complete they are standing 


here today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: With respect to the original issue 


of nuclear weapons, that is an inaccurate 


categorization of the work that was being done. 


Better described I think in the original 


document itself as being chemical separation 

1 

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 

and implosion tests involving RaLa. If one 


says "nuclear weapons," the automatic inference 


is that you have special nuclear material 


involved and consequently potential -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Criticality. 


 MS. MUNN: -- daughter products of -- of actual 


criticalities and explosions, and that's not 


the case here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you're suggesting that that 


wording be changed? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Robert? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree with Wanda. At the time 


of testing, that was not a nuclear weapon but a 


component or an operation. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Why don't I re-read that 


particular paragraph. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. MELIUS: It's two changes in it and I want 


to make sure everybody's comfortable with 


those. 


It now reads (reading) People working in these 


areas of the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

1 

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 

were involved in chemical separation and 


implosion testing of RaLa. In reviewing the 


available monitoring data for these operations, 


NIOSH found it did not have access to 


sufficient information, including internal 


personal dosimetry, workplace monitoring or 


sufficient process and radiological source 


information that it would allow it to estimate 


with sufficient accuracy the potential internal 


RaLa doses to which exposure -- to which 


members of the proposed class may have been 


exposed. The Board concurs with this 


determination. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It would appear to me that that 


would address both issues that have been raised 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Dr. Ziemer, could I address 


this? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry to do this. I would 


suggest rather than saying "chemical separation 


and testing of RaLa," we use the terminology 


from the petition class definition 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 

57 

"associated with RaLa operations" at those 


facilities, for -- for fear that chemical 


separation and testing may be interpreted 


restrictively rather than operation 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Associated with. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, "associated with," which 


is not --


 DR. ZIEMER: It makes it more general and 


flexible. Can you make that change then, Dr. 


Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: As we speak. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I wasn't -- I just have to 


go back to an earlier question that you had, 


Paul. Because of what Larry raised, the -- and 


Larry -- did he step out? 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's over --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the -- I didn't 


understand from the earlier presentation that 


you had any bioassay data to do any internal 


dose estimate. Now Larry's saying might want 


to limit it to lanthanum, which -- you know, 


that then in my mind raises the question of 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 

58 

you bound lanthanum, you know, even 1,000 


curies of lanthanum in -- in an intake if you 


do the dose calculations as -- I mean there -- 


it may -- it may not meet that plausible 


definition. I think, Stu, you might be right 


on that. But I'm just questioning, is there 


other bioassay data? Did I miss that in the 


presentation? I came in a few minutes late. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Do what? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That you can do other 


radionuclide -- you --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The bioassay data does not 


include use of the lanthanum or those 


contaminants that went along with it, and so we 


have -- from that era we have bioassay for 


other radionuclides like plutonium and tritium 


and probably uranium and things like that, 


which would not be relevant to the type of 


exposure we're discussing with radioactive 


lanthanum. But we don't have a bioassay set -- 


surely not a robust bioassay set, there may be 


a sample here and there, but we don't have a 


robust bioassay set for either the radioactive 


lanthanum or the impurities that may be used as 


markers for bounding purposes. Is that -- 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 

59 

that answer your question? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I just want -- and you 


explored the -- the -- I think you answered 


this when you answered Paul. You explored the 


possibility of can we model this. We have this 


many runs -- I think you said you knew the 


number of runs, you knew the approximate 


nominal activity in each run and -- and you've 


explored the possibil-- you -- you've -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We didn't have any 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the estimates on if ten 


percent was released and actually ten percent 


of the total activity was an uptake to an 


employee, what -- what the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We didn't have any confidence 


that we could arrive at a number like that that 


was credible. It didn't give us a credible 


number. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it was really based on the -- 


on -- on -- you couldn't establish a plausible 


scenario. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry. 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me suggest for your 


consideration that you put both phrases in, the 


"separation in development of" a nuclear 


weapon. Okay? I'm just a little worried about 


losing that phrase, nuclear weapon. But --


 MS. MUNN: Why, Larry? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's not in the petition was the 


point I was making. I don't object to it being 


there, per se. I -- it wasn't in the 


description of the class in any way, but 


understood it's part of the weapons program 


certainly. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So... 


 DR. MELIUS: Should we say -- can I make an 


attempt here, 'cause we've changed it once 


again while you were talking, Larry. (Reading) 


People working in these areas of Los Alamos 


National Laboratory were associated with 


radioactive lanthanum operations. 


Okay? That's what we have now. And then what 


I would suggest, how about (reading) People 


working in these areas were associated 


radioactive lanthanum operations as part of the 


early development and testing of nuclear 

1 

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 

weapons. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'll buy that. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean that's the context 


for it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'll buy that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The context. Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Ah, that's all right. Forget it. 


Let them make whatever they want to make out of 


it. It will be made. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Any other --


Mark, did you have any follow-up on your 


question? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And --


 DR. WADE: For the record, Larry is just trying 


to -- to make sure that the workers are 


protected by any --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- that's all he's (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu -- Stu or Larry, the -- the 


issue that you raise about other nuclides or 


other bioassays, anticipating -- we don't know 


whose -- whose claim might come into this, and 


you're saying it's possible that they might 


have exposures even elsewhere on the site 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 

62 

include other things that have been bioassayed. 


Is that -- is that the point? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's the point, is 


that the internal dose -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we can't reconstruct 


where there's no bioassay (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if they had --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) type of 


exposure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- bioassay, are we assuming that 


the lanthanum would be missed? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean if they would have 


the uranium or plutonium bioassay -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or tritium bioassay, we 


would --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so it's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- certainly expect it to be 


missed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- specific they --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if it was chemically specific. 


Right. Or the time --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Or the time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63

 DR. ZIEMER: -- would -- right. 


 DR. WADE: So with a non-covered cancer, you 


would attempt a partial dose reconstruction 


using external, and possibly internal, but not 


dealing with lanthanum. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you. Okay, I think 


we have the wording of Mr. Presley's motion. 


Are you ready to vote? It appears that we're 


ready to vote. 


Those who support the motion, please raise your 


hand. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Okay, all present have raised their hand. 


Michael Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: I vote aye. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Michael votes aye. There then 


would be no no’s and no abstentions, and the 


record will show that Dr. Poston has reclused 


(sic) himself from this deliberation and vote. 


The motion carries. Thank you very much. 


Thank you, Stu. 


How are we on time? 


 DR. WADE: One minute. I would make one brief 


announcement. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to have a break in 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 

64 

moment. We have a brief announcement first. 


 DR. WADE: Just for everyone's planning 


purposes, it is our -- it is the intent that 


Senator Reid will speak to the group via 


technology -- magic technology from Washington, 


and that's scheduled for 2:30 p.m. -- Nevada 


time, correct? -- so those of you who want to 


plan your day around that, that's the current ­

- Senator Reid is our host, after all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We'll take a 15-minute 


recess. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:45 a.m. 


to 10:15 a.m.) 


S-50 SEC PETITION


 DR. ZIEMER: We are now ready to resume our 


deliberations. The next item on our agenda is 


an SEC petition. It's referred to as the S-50 


petition which comes out of Oak Ridge and what 


was called the Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion 


Plant, and Stu Hinnefeld will give us the NIOSH 


evaluation report on this petition. 


NIOSH PRESENTATION


 MR. HINNEFELD: Hello again. Anybody else 


experiencing deja vu? 


Okay, this next presentation is -- relates to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

the S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant, one of the 


early uranium enrichment attempts, and this 


work went on in Oak Ridge. This is Petition 


Number 60. As I said, we number them in 


sequence as we receive them. 


The -- this was again an 83.14 petition. In 


other words, we encountered a particular 


situation, exposure scenario. We felt like we 


could not find enough exposure to perform a 


feasible dose reconstruction and so the -- we 


proceeded along the 83.14 path. And not only 


did we consider the situation of the petitioner 


that we identified, but also people with 


exposures similar to him. In other words, 


other people exposed in this -- in this way, 


and that would be the definition of the class. 


I just showed this slide a while ago -- of 


course the two-pronged test for adding classes 


to the Special Cohort as defined in our 


regulations. Is it feasible to estimate the 


level of radiation exposure that the class was 


exposed to -- all members of the class were 


exposed to, and is there a reasonable 


likelihood that their health could have been 


harmed by the exposures. 

1 

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 

Okay, the S-50 Plant was, as I said, one of the 


early attempts to enrich uranium. It was built 


during the War in Oak Ridge. It -- there was 


some Navy pilot work done in Philadelphia, I 


believe, beforehand and then Manhattan 


Engineering District took that technology and 


tried to -- tried to do some enrichment at S50. They had some degree of success, got the 


uranium enriched a little bit, and then we used 


that as feed into the Calutrons at Y-12 where 


the really successful enrichment occurred. 


 The Thermal Diffusion operation shut down in 


1945 and the process equipment was disassembled 


in the late '40s so the facilities out there 


essentially has shut down for a number of 


years. And then the facility was further used 


through December of 1951 to conduct feasibility 


studies for the Nuclear Energy for Propulsion 


of Aircraft project, the infamous nuclear 


airplane which was apparently referred to as 


NEPA, which of course means something 


completely different today. 


We -- briefly describing the processes that 


were evolved -- involved in -- relevant to our 


issue with reconstructability here, the first 

1 

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 

is the thermal diffusion process -- there are ­

- it consisted of a series of concentric heated 


and chilled pipes. UF-6 under pressure was 


injected between those pipes and then the 


convection currents tended to separate the U235 from the U-238, U-235 tending to go up to 


the hot side and 238 tended to go down to the 


cold side, so the draw-off then occurred on the 


hot top of the column. And there was some 


enrichment success. You know, there was a 


slightly preferential movement in those -- in 


that direction, so there would be some 


enrichment effect. 


For the NEPA project the -- we have very -- 


very sketchy information about the work that 


was done. We know that they were assembling 


essentially fuel and graphite blocks with the 


idea that they were going to build a reactor to 


go into an airplane. They fabricated those 


blocks. We don't really know what source term, 


how much uranium they had that would have been 


enriched uranium, we don't know how much they 


would have had or how enriched. We don't know 


exactly what they did in terms of forming the 


blocks, what processes were involved. We don't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

know the chemical form of the uranium. And 


there's also indication that they may have used 


-- or they may have done some activation 


analysis for materials that had been previously 


irradiated at X-10. 


We've been able to obtain no personnel 


monitoring results for either the external 


exposures or the internal exposures at these 


facilities. We have no air monitoring data for 


the facility -- for the facility during either 


of the periods of operation, and we do have 


some contemporary -- contemporaneous 


information reports that indicated that the 


process was kind of leaky, that there was some 


significant uranium release during the attempts 


at diffusion. UF-6 under -- you know, if it's 


hot and it's not under pressure, it's a vapor. 


And so these would be pretty volatile releases. 


Now there is a limited amount of information 


from direct radiation and contamination 


surveys, but we don't feel like there is 


sufficient body of data, either in magnitude or 


time, to give us a good handle on what the 


magnitude of the doses might be. And we don't 


have any information about the state 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 

69 

equipment as it was shut down and retired and 


as it sat there in the facility. We don't 


really know what the plant -- the condition of 


the plant was between the time that they 


stopped trying to do the diffusion and the time 


that they converted it, disa-- disassembled the 


equipment. We -- you know, as far as we know, 


it was as it stood, with whatever hold-up 


material would have been there, whatever 


contamination would have been there until it 


was disassembled. 


We do believe we know enough about the medical 


monitoring program in this period in the Oak 


Ridge complex that we could develop protocols 


for reconstructing the medical -- occupational 


medical dose for the -- for the class or people 


in the class. That's a pretty limited amount 


that we could reconstruct, but it is possible 


to be successful on occasion to achieve a -- to 


complete a dose reconstruction sufficiently 


with that. Otherwise, we'll do what -- you 


know, we'll provide what we can reconstruct in 


this -- in that arena. 


So strictly and quickly as an overview in our 


evaluation of the S-50 Plant as, you know, 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 

70 

kind of -- as we were researching the Oak Ridge 


facilities and trying to determine what we 


could learn about the Oak Ridge facilities, of 


course we came across the S-50 Plant. We had 


claims from the S-50 Plant. We said -- and as 


we investigated what -- you know, trying to 


establish ways to do dose reconstruction, we 


concluded well, we really can't. We really 


don't have enough information. 


So we contacted a claimant, who ultimately 


became the petitioner, in the middle of May; 


sent them a letter saying sorry, we attempted 


to reconstruct your dose but we're not able to. 


Here's the SEC petition Form A. Please sign 


that and send it back. And so we received that 


then at the end of May and it became petition 


number 60. And the evaluation of course had in 


large part been done by that time because we 


pretty much did the evaluation before we sent 


the letter that we couldn't reconstruct the 


doses. 


In terms of the feasibility, we find that we 


lack the monitoring, process and source term 


information to estimate the internal or 


external doses to the S-50 facility 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 

71 

facilities from July 1944 through December 


1951, and that's the entire covered period for 


this facility. When I say covered period, I 


mean the specified covered period that's been 


identified by Department of Energy and 


Department of Labor. 


We believe we have sufficient information to 


estimate the medical exposures -- only the 


medical exposures for that period, and we'll 


attempt to do that on the chance that we may 


have success by doing that. 


So as I say, we've determined it's not feasible 


to estimate with sufficient accuracy the 


internal/external doses for all members of the 


class, and we believe that health may have been 


endangered because of the nature of the 


operation, the using UF-6 vapor, there's a lot 


of potential for releases and internal exposure 


sufficient over a number of years to provide -- 


you know, be -- potentially harm the -- the 


health of the employee in terms of the test in 


the EEOICPA program, and that in either 


operation, since we lack information to bound 


their -- decide how bad could it have been, we 


feel like it's pretty much not possible to say 

1 

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 

well, we can't say how bad it was, but it could 


be bad enough to hurt them. It seems like that 


kind of goes hand in hand that -- so exposures 


could have been high enough to cause harm. And 


certainly it appears that some per-- workers in 


the class may have accumulated substantial 


intakes, particularly from the operation of the 


diffusion plant. 


 Proposed class definition is here, as well as 


in the evaluation report. So again the 


(reading) All employees of the DOE and its 


predecessor agencies and their contractors and 


subcontractors who were monitored or should 


have been monitored -- should have been 


monitored based on today's thought process -- 


to ionizing radiation at S-50 Thermal Diffusion 


Plant for the 250 days. Again, since it was a 


uranium exposure, even though we can't bound 


the upper -- of the total amount of exposure, 


the particular exposure rate would be such that 


it would have to be more than presence. You 


wouldn't get a very high acute exposure that 


would allow presence, so for a period of 250 


days. And of cour-- and the days can be 


aggregated with other classes. 

1 

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

 And our summary slide which is same as last 


one, so if I'd neglected to put in what we can 


and can't reconstruct in the table last time, I 


again neglected to put it in this time. It 


defines the class, our determination of 


feasibility and our -- our view of health 


endangerment. 


That's all I have to present on this at the 


moment. And I may need help from staff if 


there are questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I don't believe we have any 


petitioners present, do we, on this one -- Lew, 


if you -- or Larry? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: (Unintelligible) 


BOARD DISCUSSION


 DR. ZIEMER: LaVon, okay. No petitioners to 


speak on this one, so let's open it for 


discussion. Stu, do you know -- or maybe even 


Mr. Presley would know -- organizationally, was 


the -- the S-50 facility operated by the same 


contractor as the rest of the facility and -- 


and that remark is -- or that question is one 


where I'm asking if the monitoring program 


differed from those at K-25 or X-10 or Y-12. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I know we know that 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 

74 

was constructed by H.K.Ferguson and operated by 


Fercleve Corporation. I don't think Fercleve 


was a contractor that operated Y-12 or any of 


the other --


 DR. ZIEMER: No. So it was a different 


contractor, and presumably then would have -- 


or conceivably could have had a completely 


different health and safety program? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert, can you shed any 


additional light on that? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes and no. To everything that I 


can find out about S-50, a large part of it was 


run by the Navy. They did use people from K-25 


as their probably maintenance and -- and 


everything else. I would say that if there was 


any health physics or monitoring or anything 


like that, it would have probably come from K25. But there's very, very little information 


on this. And as far as who the prime 


contractor was for that, I've not even been 


able to find that yet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, LaVon has -- had a name 


there and --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, but 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 

75

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, it -- Fercleve 


Corporation was the operator. I will add that 


-- that the sur-- the little amount of data we 


do have, it's not clear that there was a 


separate organization, like K-25 or anybody, 


that actually did the health physics work, so ­

- which -- very limited health physics work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can you tell for sure that it was 


not an -- an actual Navy operation or a 


military --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: From everything that we've 


read, the S-50 portion of it -- you know, it 


clearly seems to be that it was, you know, a -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Civilian --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- AEC operation or an 


operation that would have been under the 


weapons because you -- you were actually 


enriching uranium. And they were -- the S-50 


was just one of the different processes -- you 


know, besides the Calutrons and that -- that 


they were --


 DR. ZIEMER: They were trying a -- 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- lot of different things, yes. 


No, I was just curious as why there would be 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 

76 

monitoring when other -- I think other parts -- 


when did the monitoring start, for example, at 


K-25 and Y-12? It was almost from the 


beginning, was it not? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually if you look at Y-12, 


the -- we had virtually no internal monitoring. 


The reason why we added the Calutrons for the 


early years is both in-- you know, we couldn't 


do internal or external for the Calutrons. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was similar -- you know, 


very little monitoring data. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Now one of the reasons you don't 


find the data down there is Y-12 was -- went on 


line first, and they were having problems 


getting material so they said let's build the 


N-50 real fast and that's what they did, and K25 probably -- I'd have to go back and look at 


dates, but K-25 probably didn't even come into 


production until about what, '46 -- end of '45, 


'46, and N-50 was doing their thing at the end 


of '44 trying to feed Y-12. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, actually if you -- if 


you remember back when we did the Y-12 early 


work, the reason why the Calutrons were shut 

1 

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 

down when they did in '49 was -- was -- I mean 


from enrichment was because K-25 had come on 


line and they'd actually seen the high 


efficiency out of K-25. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other questions? Okay, 


Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I -- and this is -- I think 


you've already answered this, but I'm just 


looking at the work force. We -- they could 


have used work forces from K-25 -- I mean 


electricians, the whole nine yards. I'm 


wondering about technicians, everything else 


that could have been involved in this -- reason 


I bring this up because when we were in Oak 


Ridge one of the petitioners brought this up 


and was -- made the comment of working at these 


areas. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would probably state that any 


technicians or anything like that that might 


have worked at -- at N-50, I couldn't -- I 


couldn't say with 100 percent accuracy, but I 


would say that they probably came from Y-12 


rather than K-25. Because at the time this 


thing was started up, K-25 was in prod-- was in 


the building stage. It was not in 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 

78 

production stage and Y-12 was the one that was 


in the production stage. This was -- this 


facility was built solely to supply material to 


-- to the Calutrons at Y-12. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: The only thing that would 


possibly say that that wasn't true was the fact 


that you did have different operators, company 


operators. Fercleve Corporation did not 


operate -- was not in -- you know, was not the 


same operating company as -- who was operating 


Y-12 and so you -- you may have been that -- 


you know, employer issues where you may not 


have been able to pull employees. And the 


documents that we've retrieved, the in-- some 


infor-- the information that we've retrieved 


indicates that these were new employees, you 


know, so it -- it -- it -- we did get the 


indication that -- you know, it's not to say 


they weren't, but we didn't get the indication 


that they came from another facility. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and -- and I understand 


that, and a -- and a lot of the defense 


contractors and stuff, the management-type 


operation was run by a different company, but a 


lot of times because of special use 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 

79 

employees and stuff they used -- used the work 


force that was established there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, that's correct, because 


they -- they -- the work force crossed lines, 


especially in the early days out there. I mean 


if you needed a -- if you needed a pipe fitter 


real fast, they might pull that pipe fitter 


from -- from ORNL if they couldn't get one on-


site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But in cases where they did that ­

- for example, if you had a construction 


worker, a pipe fitter from let's say Y-12, if 


they left the Y-12 site, any monitoring that 


they might have had there would stay there, I 


assume. They wouldn't be taking either pocket 


dosimeters or badges from one site to the 


other. Is that correct? Or do we even know? 


Maybe we don't know, but -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'd say you don't even know. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: I know that we actually looked 


at some of that -- and Mark's not here, but we 


looked at some of that with the Y-12, you know, 


SEC petition. The early years, there's no 


indication of that, you know. It -- there's so 


-- there's sparse data at both Y-12 and, 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 

80 

know, the S-50 for those early years to really 


even make a determination on that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, and to further add on to 


that, up until probably ten or 12 years ago, 


when I'd go to any other facility I would have 


a whole totally different TLD. I had a total 


of six at one time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments 


or questions? 


 (No responses) 


BOARD DECISION
 

If there are no questions, perhaps the Board is 


ready to take action on this. The Chair would 


entertain a motion, if anyone wishes to make a 


motion. Dr. Melius, you want to get first 


crack at it here. 


 DR. MELIUS: It's a rather long motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Just to encapsulate it, are you 


going to make a motion that we support this? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, okay. And the wording then 

would be? 

 DR. MELIUS: The wording would then -- 

(reading) The Board recommends that 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 

81 

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 


transmitting of this letter within that time 


period, the Board requests that he promptly 


informs the Board of the delay, the reasons for 


this delay, that he immediately works with 


NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of the 


Board to discuss the -- this issue. The letter 


reads as follows: 


The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (the Board) has evaluated SEC Petition 


00060 concerning workers at the Oak Ridge 


National Laboratories under the statutory 


requirements established by EEOICPA and 


incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13 and 42 


CFR Section 83.14. The Board respectfully 


recommends a Special Exposure Cohort be 


accorded to all employees of the DOE, 


predecessor agencies and their contractors or 


subcontractors who were monitored or should 


have been monitored while working at the S-50 


Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant for a number 


of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

during the period from July 9, 1944 through 


December 31st, 1951, or in combination with 


work days within the parameters established for 


one or more other classes of employees in the 


SEC. 


This recommendation is based on the following 


factors: 


Number one, people working in S-50 Oak Ridge 


Thermal Diffusion Plant were employed in a 


wartime uranium enrichment facility from July 


8th, 1944 to September 9th, 1945, and in 


feasibility studies for the Nuclear Energy for 


the Propulsion of Aircraft project from May 


1st, 1946 through December 31st, 1951. NIOSH 


found that it lacked access to internal and 


external personnel -- personnel dosimetry data 


and other workplace monitoring data necessary 


to reconstruct internal and external exposures 


to uranium compounds and other radioactive 


materials that may have been present at the 


facility during the time periods in question, 


and thus was unable to estimate with sufficient 


accuracy radiation doses from internal and 


external exposures for these workers. The 


Board concurs with this determination. 

1 

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

 NIOSH determined that health was endangered for 


workers exposed to radiation in -- as -- at the 


S-50 Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant in the 


time period in question. The Board concurs 


with this determination. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation from 


recent Advisory Board meetings held in Las 


Vegas, Nevada where the Special Exposure Cohort 


was discussed. If any of these items aren't 


available at this time, they will follow 


shortly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you've heard the motion. Is 


there a second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: I'll second it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. I'd like to ask a 


question. I believe in the presentation it was 


indicated that medical exposures could be 


reconstructed, but not external and internal 


occupational --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's correct. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, then I missed that. I'm 


sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So my question is, do we need to 


refer to that in the narrative -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the way that we have when 


you can do, for example -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- external but not internal, so 


we may need a sentence indicating that the 


adequate reconstruction of occupational medical 


dose at the S-50 site is considered feasible. 


Or -- or that NIOSH found that it is considered 


feasible and that the Board concurs. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just a second and I will... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think I heard you site 83.13. 


This is an 83.14. I don't know --


 DR. MELIUS: I cited both of them, which as I 


recollect -- it's been a while -- that was the 


way we did it when we originally had an 83.14. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know if it makes any 


difference, but --


 DR. MELIUS: I'm -- would -- willing to stand 


corrected on that, but I -- my recollection is 


we ended up -- rather than doing specific 


sections, we just did generally 83.13 and 14 


for that -- adding to that, and that was -- 


whoever was counsel at the time in the audience 


concurred, but -- you know, I'm not sure 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 

85 

makes a difference as long as we cite them both 


and cite 14. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Both are cited in the -- in the 


NIOSH review, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think what's cited in the NIOSH 


review -- maybe I'm wrong here -- but is 82.12 


where we can't -- am I right, Stu? This is not 


an 83.13, I know that. But it comes from an 


82.12 where we identify we can't do dose 


reconstruction. Then we move it into an 83.14 


petitioning situation. And I don't think 


there's a problem with citing 83.13, except 


this is -- you know, this particular petition 


is not an 83.13, so --


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm just looking at your -- at 


Section 8.0 of your evaluation, which deals 


with the health endangerment -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it says it's governed by 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) health 


endangerment portion (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and 13 and 14. 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, that's the tie-in. That's 


what I was missing. That's where we tie into 


health endangerment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, health endangerment is from 


both. So are we okay then to -- yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I friendly amendment my -- 


I've added a section, (reading) Number three, 


the NIOSH review of the data was -- found that 


it was sufficient to support accurate 


individual dose reconstruction for occupational 


medical doses for workers that -- in the area 


at the S-50 Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant. 


The Board concurs with this determination. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And let me just ask Stu, on that 


issue of the medical -- you don't really deal 


with it, but is there an assumption or do we 


know that they -- they indeed had annual 


medical exposures there, or would you simply 


assume that they had medical exposures sort of 


equivalent to what the other parts of the Oak 


Ridge site had? What -- what -- what do you in 


fact do in the medical case? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: In -- for medical we would 


expect them to have the same type exposures as 


the rest of the Oak Ridge complex, and so 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 

87 

would be in line with those. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You would assume that they had one 


per year --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or whatever --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- right now, probably -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- whatever the assumption -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably one per year, and at 


that time I believe it was probably 


photofluorographic examinations in Oak Ridge, 


at -- for the -- certainly for the start. I 


don't know if that would have continued through 


1950, but certainly at the start. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Even though we -- we actually 


don't have any evidence that they had that, but 


that would be --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't have the expo-- 


like medical records for these folks -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Anyway --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we don't have a detailed 


description of what they did at S-50 for 


medical monitoring. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. Any further 


comments, Board members? Lew, do you have 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 

88 

comment? 


 DR. WADE: I'd like to make a comment before 


you vote. I've asked Robert Presley to abstain 


from voting on this petition. He does not show 


in his waiver to be conflicted at ORINS, but 


there seems to be in my mind some question as 


to the boundary between S-50 and other 


facilities at Oak Ridge, and therefore I think 


it's in the best interest of the process that 


he abstain, and I think he's graciously agreed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And change the word "ORINS," 


though. It's not ORINS, it's K-25 -- or Y-12. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, any other comments, 


Board members, or are you ready to vote? 


Okay, by show of hands, all who support the 


motion, say -- or raise your right hand. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


And all here present, with the exception of Mr. 


Presley who's abstaining, are voting yea. Mr. 


Gibson, are you still on the line? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I vote aye. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Michael voting... 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye, thank you. There are 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 

89 

no’s. The ayes have it. The motion carries. 


Thank you very much. Thank you, Stu. 


SC&A TASKING


 DR. WADE: If we have time I'd suggest we get 


into this issue of tasking SC&A for next year 


on procedures and site profiles, just in case 


there's work that needs to be done right away. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now we're a little bit ahead of 


schedule, and before we move to the conflict of 


interest policy, we -- we have some sort of 


carry-over work items. Let's see, let's -- 


let's -- yeah, we can begin with our SC&A 


tasking and --


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I would suggest we look at 


SC&A tasking --


 DR. ZIEMER: And I want to make sure -- is John 


Mauro in the assembly when -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I just saw John with the 


(unintelligible) take off down -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's here and Joe is here so we -- 


I -- in case we needed to call on them, we -- 


make sure they're present. 


 DR. WADE: And my reasoning for wanting to do 


this is just in case the Board, in its 


preliminary discussions, requires 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 

90 

additional information, we have the lunch time 


to -- to do that. We have two tasks remaining 


in front of us relative to SC&A's work for next 


year. That relates to procedures that they 


will review and site profiles that they will 


review. And I would suggest we start with site 


profiles. 


I take you back to the -- the document that was 


shared with you that listed the site profiles 


that were completed and listed on the NIOSH web 


site. We've added value to that by showing not 


only the total number of cases, but the number 


of cases that have been compensated -- no, 


number of cases where dose reconstructions have 


been done. We've added information of sites 


where there are qualified petitions. You know, 


we've added additional information about site 


profiles under development. So there's a great 


deal of information in front of you. 


 Yesterday you were beginning to come to grips 


with this issue, but you wanted to wait, for 


example, to see how the Chapman Valve situation 


played out. So I would ask you to -- to pick 


up your discussion on generating up to five 


site profiles for SC&A to review 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 

91

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Lew, and as a 


reminder, the tasking document that we are 


working from for this upcoming year does 


indicate five. That is in a sense a kind of 


rough guideline because the capability may very 


well, as John Mauro indicated, depend on the 


nature of -- of the particular site and so on. 


One might only be able to do four or six, but 


for the present time it would be useful if the 


Board identified up to five sites. We're not ­

- we don't necessarily have to identify all 


five today, or we could identify five in the -- 


and prioritize and get SC&A under way with the 


possibility of, for example, changing our mind 


later on on one that's down the list. But with 


that in mind, and what I -- what I would 


suggest we do is do this in kind of an open 


discussion manner, try to get a feel for what 


Board members think are the priority sites and 


identify those, and then we'll see if we need 


to narrow it down. In other words, indicate -- 


and you can do this individually -- what you 


think is an important site or sites that we 


should look at, and then we'll get input from 


others. And we'll just -- let's see, I don't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

know if Dr. Melius has his flag up out of habit 


or if you're ready to start. 


 DR. MELIUS: No, that was left over from -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Left over, okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- probably early this morning. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I know that some made some 

preliminary comments. Wanda, you had some 


suggestions. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I did those yesterday. 


 DR. WADE: I can remind you of Wanda's 


suggestions if you'd like. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's -- let's jot those 


down as starting point and -- 


 DR. WADE: Wanda suggested K-25, Pantex, 


Argonne National Lab West, Lawrence Livermore 


National Laboratories, and Atomic 


International, paren, Energy Technology 


Engineering Center, close paren, as a starting 


list of five. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What was -- what was the fifth 


one? 


 DR. WADE: Atomics International -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- paren, Energy Technology 


Engineering Center, close paren. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now that's a starting five. 


Let's get some comments, either concurrence or 


indicate others that you think might be -- also 


should be considered. Mr. Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: We know right off the bat that 


Savannah River's number one. Is that not 


correct? 


 DR. WADE: Right, Savannah River is the sixth, 


to be re-evaluated. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, so it's going to be one of 


the five. 


 DR. WADE: No, it's -- it's the sixth. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We're going to call it six, okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Could you go back over those 


again? I kind of (unintelligible) writing 


those, trying to mark them down. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Go ahead, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda's rec-- Wanda's recommendation 


-- K-25, Pantex, Argonne National Lab West, 


Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and 


Atomics International, paren, Energy Technology 


Engineering Center, close paren. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Bob Presley's simply reminding 


us that Savannah River is already in the queue, 


is that --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94

 MR. PRESLEY: Queue, that's correct. I would 


like to add to those to be considered Iowa Army 


Ordnance Plant. It looks like we've got a very 


high number of claims there -- 


 MS. MUNN: We've done that (unintelligible)? 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and also I think we ought to ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Hold on just a second. Is this --


you know, we did a petition for Iowa. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Have we already done that one? 


I'm sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: We've done that one. 


 DR. WADE: We did an emergency task -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I had that one circled. 


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry. For the record, we did 


an emergency task of SC&A to look at the Iowa 


Ordnance Plant site profile as part of the 


detail work looking at the SEC. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. I would like to 


add one of the -- the old assembly sites, which 


is whatever you want to call it, 


Clarksville/Medina or Medina/Clarksville. 
I 


think that ought to be added. That's one of 


the early assembly/disassembly sites. 


 DR. WADE: Now my notes show 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 

95 

Clarksville/Medina is a site that's in -- the 


site profile is underway, not completed. 
I 


don't know, do we have a sense of when it would 


be completed? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't have that date 


with me, but I might be able to get it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I don't know right off the 


top of my head. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. If you would get that, 


Stu, as quickly as you could. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: After -- after seeing yesterday, 


and I'm just throwing it out, I'd like to see 


Chapman Valve re-- checked out. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Paul, I actually have -- I 


really am up now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we have a -- Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: I would argue a little bit against 


Chapman Valve given that they're already doing 


the -- the SEC evaluation there. I think we do 


one or the other, and I thought we had 


determined yesterday to go with the SEC and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, actually what -- 


 DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96

 DR. ZIEMER: -- will happen is they will end up 


doing at least part of the site profile, as it 


may pertain to. 


DR. MAURO: Just to point out the -- Chapman 


Valve is -- it's more what you would call an 


exposure matrix. It's a relatively small 


document and it is going to be thoroughly 


reviewed as -- and it's not the equivalent of 


what we all know to be a site profile, which is 


usually several hundred pages of very complex 


material. So bottom line is Chapman Valve 


exposure matrix will be thoroughly reviewed as 


part of the SEC review process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. So -- so we -- 


that'll take care of it, Brad. Okay? 


 DR. MELIUS: And then I'd like to suggest two 


more. One's Portsmouth, there's a large number 


of cases there and I think for that reason 


alone we should evaluate it. And then the 


other one was Sandia, which is on the list of 


site profiles that's about to be complete and I 


believe that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Now you're talking Sandia 


Albuquerque --


 DR. MELIUS: That would 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 

97

 DR. ZIEMER: -- or both? 

 DR. MELIUS: -- correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sandia Albuquerque. 

 DR. MELIUS: Sandia Albu-- we'll keep them 

separate, Sandia Albuquerque. And I believe 


that site profile is almost complete is what we 


were told. Stu or somebody reported yesterday 


and -- so I think it's appropriate to schedule 


it this year. Again, there was I believe 


around 200 to 300 cases there pending this one 


when I asked yesterday. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 217 cases. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, Robert. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Where do we stand on Pinellas? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Pinellas has already been 


reviewed, I believe, we -- you should have that 


one in your --


 DR. MELIUS: Just got it recently. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- collection of binders, white 


binders at home. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Others? 


 (No responses) 


So right now I see seven suggestions. What 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 

98 

might do is prioritize these and -- 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson is trying to say 


something. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Mike, yes. Sorry to ignore 


you. Hang on just a second and we'll get you 


hooked in here. Okay. 


 MR. GIBSON: Paul, this is Mike. Could you 


read the seven sites to me, please? 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Lew will read them here for 


you. 


 DR. WADE: I'll read them with attribution. 


Wanda has suggested K-25, Pantex, Argonne 


National Lab West, Lawrence Livermore National 


Laboratory, and Atomics International, paren, 


Energy Technology Engineering Center, close 


paren. Robert Presley has suggested 


Clarksville/Medina, that's a site profile in 


progress. Stu's doing to get us a date. Dr. 


Melius has added two, Portsmouth and Sandia 


Albuquerque, Sandia Albuquerque a document in 


preparation and we would await a date from Stu 


on its completion as well. So that's the 


eight. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Also just for the record, does 

1 

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 

someone have the number of cases at the 


Clarksville/Medina facility? Somehow I didn't 


have that recorded. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: No, it was not given to us. 


 MS. MUNN: We had Sandia, we didn't have 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike, hang on. Okay, go, 


Mike. 


 MR. GIBSON: I would like to add Lawrence 


Livermore to that list, also, please. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That was on there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think Lawrence Livermore was on 


-- is on the suggestions from Wanda that were 


just read maybe -- maybe you missed that. 


 DR. WADE: It's on Wanda's list, Mike. We'll 


add your check mark next to it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Could I just get a little bit of 


information? I guess being new and everything 


else, this Atomic International, where was that 


and what -- what was it? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's in California, is it not, 


and maybe Stu can tell us a little more about 

1 

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. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry, I was sending a message 


to the office. Which -- which site? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Atomics International, the ETEC. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I want to focus the 


title -- name on ETEC, Engineering Technology ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Engineering Center. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Center -- Energy Technology 


Engineering Center. It's in southern 


California. It's -- now it's several specific 


sites and they're more -- more precisely known 


as Area 4 of the Sasquehanna Field Laboratory, 


the Downey Facility, the Canoga Avenue Facility 


and the DeSoto Facility. And they did -- it 


was essentially research lab type of work on 


fuel, irradiated fuel, things of that sort. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's what they did. 


There's a couple over there that I tend to get 


confused. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that one is listed as 


having had 261 cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Reactor Development is 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 

101

 DR. ZIEMER: Reactor (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Reactor Development Research. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And also -- well, go ahead. Did 


you have another one, Robert? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: I was just following Robert. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So right now we have eight 


candidates, and we could prioritize these 


perhaps and identify say the top five as our 


initial list, if that would be agreeable, 


unless anyone has additional ones to add. 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Now let me suggest that you do the 


following. This -- we'll see if this works. 


Flag your top five, and then I'm going to ask 


how many have flagged each one and we'll see if 


we get any kind of consensus. Is that 


agreeable? 


 DR. WADE: It's guaranteed to work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Guaranteed to work. If we come 


out with a tie... 


Okay, so we now are all going to take 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 

102 

about a minute and flag your top five. 


(Pause) 


 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. CLAWSON: -- clarify Savannah River for me. 


Is it --


 DR. ZIEMER: Savannah River --


 MR. CLAWSON: It's already being done? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is already underway. 


 DR. WADE: Savannah River was reviewed in the 


first batch of site profiles that SC&A was 


asked to review, but that review has gone stale 


in that there's an update to the site profile. 


So Dr. DeHart, who was chairing the workgroup 


on Savannah, asked that the contractor be 


instructed to re-review Savannah River and 


they're doing that as one of the six sites that 


we're talking about this year, leaving five. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Leaving five, okay, I understand. 


DR. MAURO: This might help a little -- might 


or might not, I don't know -- the Savannah 


River Rev 3 is -- has been reviewed as part of 


the closeout process of the matrix. We set 


aside a relatively modest budget for doing 


that, and what I'm getting at is, for 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 

103 

intents and purposes, that work is -- is comp-- 


you know, is completed within the original 


budget we had for the others. So I -- I mean 


it's -- reality is, the -- the Savannah River 


one, number six, is in effect, for all intents 


and purposes, being taken care of under the 


closeout budget, not under this budget. So in 


theory, we could probabl-- if you want to 


entertain a sixth one. 


 DR. WADE: If the -- if the group prioritizes 


eight, then I think we should hold open the 


option for doing as many as we can under the 


budget. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'm going to see if -- if 


you're all done flagging your favorite five. 


Is there anybody that has not completed that 


yet? And as I did mine I realized there's one 


I wished were on the list, but I'm going to 


hold off on it, but we almost overlooked 


Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. But 


we'll catch that one a later time. 


Let's -- I'm going to go -- in my mind we did, 


but that's -- put that down for number nine, 


but I'm not going to vote for it right now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

Okay, let's start with Brad Clawson -- and Lew, 


will you keep a tally here? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, maybe we could just mention 


the site and then show me if it's on your list 


by hands, and then Michael, if you could 


mention out loud if it's on your list of five. 


So I'm going to say now K-25. I'd like 


everyone here present who has that as one of 


your five to raise your hand and Mike, for you 


to verbally let us know. 


 MR. GIBSON: No, that's not on my list right 


now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We've got eight here. 


 DR. WADE: And Mike -- okay, eight for K-25. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is Mike yes? 


 DR. WADE: Mike, did you say yes or no, please? 


 MR. GIBSON: It's not --


 DR. WADE: Mike says no. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- on my top five. I actually 


just --


 DR. ZIEMER: No? 


 MR. GIBSON: -- have three right now. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: Say that again, sir? 


 (No 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 

105 

Mike, could you repeat, please? 


 MR. GIBSON: Actually I just have three that 


I'm concerned about. The other two are further 


down on the list that, you know, I'm not as 


concerned about. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Could you mention your three? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mention -- yeah, give us all three 


of your votes right now, Mike. That'll help. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. I think Lawrence Livermore, 


Portsmouth and Sandia would be my top three. 


Of the other two, I would be kind of open to 


suggestion. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Mike. Okay, so K-25 we 


have eight votes. Pantex, show of hands? 


(Pause) 


I make it at seven. Portsmouth? 


(Pause) 


Five, and Michael makes it six. Argonne 


National Lab West. 


(Pause) 


One, two, three, four, five. Lawrence 


Livermore National Laboratory? One, two, 


three, four, five, six, seven, eight and with 


Michael's it's nine. Atomics International, 

1 

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 

one, two. And then we have Clarksville/Medina, 


two. 


UNIDENTIFIED: That's a nice number. 


 DR. WADE: Then we have Sandia Albuquerque, 


one, two, three and Michael -- one, two, three, 


Michael makes four. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now if we can just order 


those --


 DR. WADE: Okay, at the top of the list with 


nine is Lawrence Livermore. Second on the list 


with eight is K-25. Third on the list with 


seven is Pantex. Fourth on the list with six 


is Portsmouth. Fifth on the list with five is 


Argonne West. Sixth on the list with four is 


Sandia Albuquerque. And tied for seventh on 


the list is Atomics International and 


Clarksville/Medina. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. Can we agree, as 


far as our contractor, then that the first five 


appear to be this year's task, recognizing that 


-- unless we only want to go with, for example, 


four right now. Let me ask John. If we gave 


you all five, are you starting all five right 


away? You would go sequentially anyway? So 


for example, if we -- if we decided later 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 

107 

we wanted to move Sandia up ahead of Argonne 


West, that could be done later in the year. 


DR. MAURO: That's fine. My inclination right 


now is to start two immediately, so the first ­

- the first two --


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think what would be helpful, 


as we progress through the year, when you get 


ready to start, for example, the third one, 


that you inform the Board and sort of say is 


the priority still the same if something comes 


up. Also recognize, for example, Clarksville 


is seven, but we don't have a site profile for 


them yet anyway, so that probably makes sense. 


But we would have the ability to change the 


priority if for some reason we wished to. 


 DR. WADE: But absent action by the Board, we 


would ref-- I would then defer back to this 


priority list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Exactly. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any objection? 


 (No responses) 


 Without objection, that would be the Board 


action. 


 DR. WADE: And that means that Lawrence 

1 

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 

Livermore and K-25 will immediately come under 


SC&A's scrutiny, with the rest to follow as 


appropriate. 


That was fun. 


PROCEDURES REVIEW


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Then the next issue -- 


we're still okay on time I think -- procedures 


review. 


 DR. WADE: So I take you to the tab of 


procedures review and there you have a document 


that looks like this and it was updated by John 


Mauro, telling us the procedures that -- first 


of all he told us of some procedures that had 


already been reviewed under other task work by 


SC&A, and then we added to the candidate list 


TIB-- TIB-0-- OTIB-52 and OTIB-38. And then 


John gave us a first blush priority setting by 


SC&A of some, if my memory serves me, 22 


procedures. Remember the capacity we built 


into the contract for next year is 30. We 


don't have to go with all 30. John has 


indicated to me that if we would define ten or 


so now, he could start the process, but we have 


a preliminary list from John of 22. But then 


the question was do those 22 look to NIOSH 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 

109 

be substantial or are they administrative in 


nature or -- Stu was going to give a bit of a 


look-see to that proposal and recommend to us 


ones that he would say refrain from including 


at this point for reasons that he'll give us 


now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is things I thought 


of tod-- yesterday and today, so that's how 


much I've been able to consult on this. The --


one of the recommended items is at the top, 


about the fourth item on the first page, the 


Program Evaluation Report on the effect of 


adding ingestion to the Bethlehem Steel cases 


is made -- is a pretty good one. The only 


thing that gives me pause about that is there 


will be an additional -- well, the entire site 


profile for Bethlehem Steel has just recently 


been revised, and all of those changes will be 


incorporated -- along with the ingestion, 


changes that were evaluated earlier in -- in 


that Program Evaluation Report, so -- and some 


portion of this work may be overcome by later 


events. It may be that the later one rather 


than the earlier one would be the Performance 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

Evaluation Report to review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, would it still be the 003? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) would be a 


different number. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Different number. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I mean this is fine to 


review and this is a technical question that 


certainly was in front of the Board, so for 


that reason it may be pretty good to see what 


we did with that technical solution, so I'm not 


saying that -- I don't have a very strong 


opinion on that. That's just one piece of 


information related (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) that it will be 


revised. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: About mid-way down the page 


when we get into the Technical Information 


Bulletins you get to OTIB Number 6. Again, 


that's a good one to review. It seems to be 


frequently reviewed in dose reconstruction 


individual reviews, so if -- if the SC&A team 


feels like this would be a good procedure to 


review, I think then go ahead with it, 


recognizing that it also -- often is looked at 


with the individual dose reconstructions. 

1 

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

 Directly below that, OTIB Number 9, which has a 


really nifty title, Reanalysis of the Hankins 


MTR Bonner ball Surveys, is hardly used, if 


ever at all, in our program. So there's 


probably a limited utility of having a review 


of this document which we hardly ever -- if 


ever, use. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Was it simply developed for a 


particular case and now it sits there or what ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it was -- it was very 


early on -- it was identified very early on as 


one that was written, you know, prepared, and 


it had to do with -- I think it was a given 


site where we had some survey data from these 


Bonner balls that we thought may ultimately be 


important to dose reconstructions and site 


profiles, and I don't think it really turned 


out to be -- that the information from those 


surveys. And so it was -- you know, and so 


that was kind of why it's there and why we 


don't really use it very much. 


The rest of the recommended ones on this page I 


have no comments on. I think the internal 


coworker datasets are probably pretty valuable 

1 

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 

ones to review, whether it's an external -- any 


of the coworker approaches are probably 


valuable to the Board to take a look at. 


Whether you wanted to do more than one internal 


and more than one external, I have no real 


opinion on that. But certainly I think the 


approaches for coworker data are worthwhile to 


review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But 0021 which you just mentioned 


-- is that the one you just mentioned? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I just -- speaking 


generically about -- there are a number of 


these --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that are recommended that 


are internal or external -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- coworker datasets, and I 


think that's a good population. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. The 0021 I think John told 


us has already been reviewed, so -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Again, I have no comments on 


the recommended items on page 2. A couple 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 

113 

those are coworker studies. There's a -- the 


OTIB-55 which describes conversion of neutron 


quality factors from previous guidance to 


current guidance. It's interesting. I think 


the doses from the Y-12 criticality one is 


relatively interesting. 


On the final page where we're talking about 


procedures, I'm -- I'm not terribly familiar 


with the content of the first one there, 


Procedure 59, which is peer review of dose 


reconstructions. That might be somewhat 


administrative, or it -- it may in fact be 


technically -- technical content, so I guess 


the best thing to do would be review it and 


find out. And then on Procedure 86, I -- I 


have a -- again, I'm not terribly familiar with 


the detailed content, but I have quite a 


suspicion that that is probably a little more 


administrative than people think. I think 


maybe the tactic would be to start the review 


with the understanding that there may be other, 


more worthwhile ones to look at. Because case 


preparation -- I think that's the term that's 


used, dose -- yeah, case preparation occurs 


before the dose reconstructor sees it, so 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 

114 

suspect it's somewhat less technical than the ­

- than the title would indicate. May still be 


worth -- I mean it doesn't mean it's not worth 


looking at. And I think, again, the best 


tactic would be start it with the idea that 


gee, maybe this isn't the one we want to look 


at, maybe there are other, better priorities. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if it is all administrative, 


what do we mean, in this case, by "case 


preparation"? What -- what kind of 


instructions would be in this? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Case preparation is the 


assembly of the data available for dose 


reconstruction, and assembly (sic) it in a 


particular fashion that the dose reconstructor 


expects it. So if you're -- if you're 


preparing a case for internal dose 


reconstruction, there would likely -- the key 


element likely is how should the bioassay data 


be constructed, because it comes in many sizes 


and forms and so it's probably a specification 


so that that dose reconstructor doesn't have to 


-- every time he picks up a case doesn't have 


to discover how the information is being 


presented to him. See, much data is keypunched 

1 

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 

before it goes to the dose reconstructor and 


the representation of that information to the 


dose reconstructor is case preparation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Stu. That's 


helpful. 


Board members, here you have 22 recommended 


reviews from John Mauro, seven he indicated 


that he's already covered. We have a 


contractual case load guide number of 30. We 


could -- we could go with up to 30. We -- we 


don't necessarily have to identify 30 today. 


We can -- we can proceed with the 22 that John 


recommended based on his experience, or we 


could add to this or delete, whichever -- 


whatever the Board pleases. So I open the 


floor for comments, any suggestions or any 


formal motions. 


 DR. MELIUS: Stu looks like -- I have a -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comment first, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I actually learned this a 


little quicker than I thought I would. Medina 


and Clarksville draft has been delivered to us, 


so if things follow their normal course it 


should be available in a couple of months, 


maybe a little longer than 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

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause there's a review 


comment resolution process that could easily 


take a couple of months. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but we're not ready yet to 


review it anyway, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's right, we're back 


on -- sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's good. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We've got Sandia, too. It'll 


be slightly later. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But thanks, that's good to have 


that information. 


 Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. You may recall I had 


inquired yesterday in trying to get a complete 


list of the procedures and what had been 


reviewed and what hadn't, and that's not 


readily available and so I would suggest that 


we assign no more than 15 at this point in time 


until we've seen the complete list and have a 


little better handle -- and to -- I'm just 


concerned we focus -- what would be the most 


worthwhile reviews to do. I think we get John 


and his team started, but reserve doing 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 

117 

other assignments until we have that complete 


list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The suggestion is that we limit 


the number at this point to 15. I don't know 


if that's a formal motion, but let's at least 


get some consensus and if we want to do that 


then it would be -- that would be the first 


step would be to cut the number down. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I think that's a wise idea till 


we've got all the information to be able to 


deal with. I'd -- I'd agree with him. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments, yea or nay? Any 


feel strongly that we need to keep the number 


higher than 15? 


 (No responses) 


 Apparently not. Might I suggest as a starting 


point that we remove from the list, at least 


for now, the OTIB-009 -- or 0009, which is the 


Bonner ball survey, which apparently is hardly 


ever used, if at all. That's the first step -- 


and perhaps the case prep one, simply eliminate 


it right now. That'll get us down to 20. Any 


objection to that? 


 (No 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 

118 

Now we can either continue to eliminate from 


that list or if there's something else that you 


wish to add to it, let's do that as well. 


Suggestions? 


 DR. MELIUS: Just refresh my memory. The 


number 22 includes the 58 and the -- excuse me, 


TIB-52 and -- which is the construction, and 


38? 

 DR. ZIEMER: TIB-52 and TIB-38 are on the list 

--

 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- right. And also either John or 

Stu, on these coworker data ones, let's -- 


starting with OTIB-26 and 34, 35, 36, 37, of 


course a couple of tho-- three of those have 


been done. I guess my question is, is there 


some what you might call overlap if we do one 


or two more of those? Would that be 


sufficient, as opposed to doing them all? How 


much -- maybe Stu, do you know -- I mean you -- 


you kind of hinted at the fact that there was a 


lot of similarity amongst those procedures. 


Maybe I --


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- there's similarity 


among approach. I guess I'm not terribly 

1 

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 

familiar in terms of the datasets that went 


into the approach, and there may not be 


sufficient overlap that you would feel that 


because of (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, these tend to be site-


specific, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- maybe that also should guide us 


in terms of things we have coming up -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in terms of reviews and so on. 

Dr. Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: I'll take a shot at eliminating a 

few more based on Stu's presentation to us. On 


the first page the Bethlehem Steel one, 003, 


why don't we hold off on that until we figure 


out where we stand with the site profile 


revision and so forth? It seems --


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection? 


 DR. MELIUS: -- seems that makes sense to me. 


And again, the peer review of dose con-- on the 


last -- third page, peer review of dose 


constructions (sic), 0059, and case preparation 


for complex internal dosimetry claims, 0086. 


think Stu thought -- mentioned those were both 


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 

120 

probably administrative and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, the 0086 was the one I had 


already suggested we exclude -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- to get us --

 DR. MELIUS: But I would suggest the other one 

be eliminated, too, for the time being. If we 


want to make a determination whether that's 


technical and then add that in later on, I 


think that would be fine to consider. But in 


terms of getting started, I think if these -- 


these other ones may be higher priority. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This would get us down to 18 now. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You want to change your 


recommendation to 18 instead of 15? 


 DR. ZIEMER: A lot of these are site-specific. 


Some are more generic. 


 DR. WADE: John, just a question. On OTIB0040, external coworker dosimetry data for 


Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, might that 


be looked at as part of the site profile we 


just asked you to look at? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I -- to complicate things it 


would -- it's good. It's not bad, it's good. 


We were planning on reviewing the OTIBs as part 

1 

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 

and parcel of the site profile reviews, so once 


you've -- for example, to make things even more 


confusing, once you've authorized us to do K-25 


 DR. ZIEMER: That brings these in. 


DR. MAURO: -- that -- that -- we're going to 


do -- we're going to do the -- all the OTIBs 


dealing with K-25, so -- so in a funny sort of 


way, we could take those off the list because 


they're in effect covered under the site 


profile review. 


 DR. WADE: Let's do that. Where are they? 


 MR. PRESLEY: K-25's 0026, OTIB-0026. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Does that mean that in -- in terms 


of your tasking and billing, because really 


what we're trying to do is what you might call 


cost control in the system. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it would actually -- if you're 


reviewing it under the site profile aegis, 


that's where the billing shows up then? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. We are going to -- now that 


you have given us the green light to do K-25, 


we have in place the budget to do K-25 and when 


-- included within the scope and that budget 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 

122 

to not only to the TBD but to do workbooks and 


to do OTIBs that are associated specifically 


with K-25. So it makes things a little more 


complicated in working our way through this 


maze, but it means that a lot more could be 


done for the same price. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that means that OTIB-26 -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: And 35. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and OTIB-35 immediately come 


off this list because they get covered actually 


-- I think there's a Portsmouth on here 


somewhere --


 DR. WADE: Two Portsmouths. 


 MR. PRESLEY: There's two Portsmouths, 36 -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: OTIB-40 --


 MR. PRESLEY: And 36. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and 36 also come off the list. 


 DR. MELIUS: And -- and while we're on -- in 


the same mode, OTIB-57, which is external 


radiation dose to -- estimates criticality 


accident at Oak Ridge really should fall under 


the -- I would think the review for the 


workgroup that we're looking at the less than 


250 days issue. 


DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, ask that again. 
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 

123 

didn't quite follow it. 


 DR. MELIUS: The -- 57, which is external 


radiation dose estimate for individuals near 


the 1958 criticality accident at the Oak Ridge 


Y-12 plant, wouldn't that be part of your 


review on the evaluation we're doing, the less 


than 250 days? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, well, the -- yeah, in fact, 


we've looked at all the criticality -- 


 DR. MELIUS: So --


DR. MAURO: -- I mean it's not really a review 


of the procedure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the --


DR. MAURO: See --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Jim, I think here -- we 


already allow for the criticality issue in our 


250 days, and so workers exposed under this 


automatically are taken care of as far as that 


issue is concerned. This has to do with how -- 


how you're actually constructing the dose in 


that particular criticality using the donkey* 


data or whatever they have. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. The fact that that data is 


part of our criticality evaluation doesn't help 


us review this procedure. That is, 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 

124 

criticality evaluation draft -- which, by the 


way, is -- is in draft form, includes all 


criticality events and is -- it's really a 


compendium --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- which characterizes the nature 


and extent of exposures, (unintelligible) have 


actual experience and this is among them. But 


this would actually be the review of the 


procedure for reconstructing the doses, which 


is certainly not part of the criticality 


studies that we're doing as part of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: You see the distinction? 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We're down to 14. 


 DR. WADE: We're at 14 now, so... 


UNIDENTIFIED: Do you want to add one back? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can add one back if you wish, 


or we can --


 DR. WADE: Go with 14. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I mean 50's not -- shall we 


just go with 14? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, let's go with 14. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask now if anyone want-- 


are there any others that anyone wishes to add 


that weren't on the original Mauro list? 


 MR. CLAWSON: We did get OTIB-52, right? Those 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: That's on the list. Let's hear 


from Michael Gibson. I don't know if -- 


Michael, if you have the starting list here. 


don't know what you were -- 


 MR. GIBSON: No, I don't, but everything sounds 


okay right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. You're -- you're 


going to trust the rest of the group here for 


the moment, at least. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Michael. Then --


 DR. WADE: You want me to read them? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we'll read them here in just 


a moment and if this is agreeable this will be 


the list that we use to task our contractor as 


far as proceeding with procedures review. So 


this will be now the list of procedures to be 


reviewed under the task for the upcoming year. 


Not limited to, but the initial list. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, here we go -- and please 


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 

126 

correct me if I miss -- OCAS-PER-004, OCAS-TIB013, ORAU-OTIB-0006, ORAU-OTIB-0013, ORAU-OTIB0015, ORAU-OTIB-0039, ORAU-OTIB-0055, ORAUOTIB-0057, ORAUT-PROC-0060, ORAUT-PROC-0099, 


ORAUT-PROC-0095, ORAUT-PROC-0097, OTIB-52, 


OTIB-38. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I have one question there. Did 


you read an ORAU-PROC-0099? 


 MS. MUNN: He did. 


 DR. WADE: I meant to say that 97, I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: But you said 97, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't --


UNIDENTIFIED: It should be 94. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have 94? 


 DR. WADE: 94, 95 and 97. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Lew's just getting ready for later 


tonight. 


 DR. WADE: That's right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: I was doing so well, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127

 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask if there are any 


objections to this list as the instruction to 


the contractor? 


 (No responses) 


 Without objection, this then will constitute a 


consensus of the Board for the contractor to 


proceed on their procedures review task. Thank 


you very much. 


Now we'll return to the agenda. If I can find 


my copy of the agenda we'll return to it. 


 DR. WADE: Here's one. 


CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY


 DR. ZIEMER: Conflict of interest policy. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, it's me back again with the 


conflict of interest policy. You do have in 


your book under the conflict of interest tab a 


NIOSH statement of policy, conflict of 


interest, revised draft, 14 September 2006. 


Let me sort of give you a bit of context and 


then talk about some issues. 


First of all, what is this document? This is 


the document that you have seen previous drafts 


of. It has been modified to reflect comments 


received from the last airing of it. What I 


will go through and point out to you are 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 

128 

what I'm told are the most significant changes 


in the document so you can relate to those 


changes. 


What this is not any longer, remember, is a 


document that's intended to be applied to the 


Board directly or to the Board's contractor. 


Based upon comments received from the Board, 


we've removed those entities from the list of 


entities that this would be directly applied 


to. We offer it to the Board for consideration 


as it debates its own conflict of interest 


issues, but this is not a policy that will be 


applied, in its current form, to the Board or 


the Board's contractor. 


We did leave in the appendix to the document 


the aspect that dealt with the Board and what 


the remedies would be if a Board member was to 


be conflicted. We can easily take that out. 


We left it here so that there's a record of it. 


It really is the only place it appears, so it's 


in here, but again, this policy is not binding 


on the Board in determining what is indeed a 


conflict and if a Board member is conflicted at 


a particular site. 


What will happen with this is that I would say 

1 

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 

Wednesday of next week -- I want to be 


respectful of Board members' opportunity to 


react to what I say today, but Wednesday of 


next week I would recommend that the NIOSH 


Director remove the "draft" from this policy 


and make this the policy. The reason I -- I 


don't want to give you more time than that is 


we're starting to hear from ORAU 


representatives, for example, that they're 


awaiting this, and -- and it's too important to 


keep them in a state of limbo. I think we need 


to make this the policy and apply it to NIOSH 


and NIOSH's prime dose reconstruction 


contractors. It's always a document that can 


be changed as we learn and as we go, but we do 


need to get something in place so that the 


important work of ORAU going through its past 


work and attributing and evaluating and 


reporting can be accomplished in earnest. So 


again, Wednesday of next week I would suggest 


to the NIOSH Director that he make this a 


permanent document and instruct the contracting 


officers involved to see that it's implemented 


within those contracts. 


There are four principal changes in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

document from one you last saw. I'll walk you 


through those change fairly quickly. 


The first is on the bottom of page 3, the 


definition of operator was changed based on 


comments we had heard, to be more -- to be more 


realistic and precise, and I point you to that. 


It's not a -- an overwhelming change, but it is 


a change. 


On page 11 there was a discussion -- this is in 


"Disclosure," the last sentence where there -- 


there wanted to be some boundary put on 


"business confidential". It was left undefined 


before, so now it's (reading) "business 


confidential" of the type permitted to be 


withheld from disclosure within the Freedom of 


Information Act. 


So we'll link to the Freedom of Information Act 


to try to put a boundary around what that 


"business confidential" information could be. 


Again, before it was open-ended. 


Change number three you would find on page 5. 


NIOSH has added a new gate, and that's 3.13, 


(reading) If you have a subordinate 


relationship to someone who has or had an 


impact on the site, has a different person 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 

131 

assigned (sic) to review your job performance 


as it relates to the site? 


This is called the Hinnefeld addition. If you 


have someone like Stu who is conflicted at a 


particular site, as he is at Fernald, the 


policy before this addition would make everyone 


who reported to Stu conflicted at Fernald and 


therefore we would have no one left to do the 


work or to sign off on the work, so this is, 


again, a modification that was put in there not 


to hide anything but to not allow this document 


to paralyze our ability to move forward. 


And the last is on pages 7 and 9, deals with 


this issue -- it's a knotty issue, as well -- 


of whether you're looking at site profile, 


Technical Informa-- excuse me, a site profile 


Technical Information Bulletin that deals with 


a single site or one that deals with multiple 


sites. And let me make sure I'm pointing you 


in the right direction. 


(Pause) 


So a key program function would be a site 


profile that deals with a particular site. 


What would not be a key program function is 


shown on page 9, a multiple site Technical 

1 

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 

Information Bulletin only. There will be gray 


here, and that gray will have to be 


administered as we go. What we're trying to do 


here, again, is to not -- these generic 


documents that we have that cover complex-wide 


issues, we don't see them as being key program 


functions. And again, we want to leave the -- 


leave open the capability of people working on 


them. It would be the gray area where you have 


two or three very particular sites covered by a 


document. In my judgment, that would fall 


under the category of a key program function 


for those particular sites where the sites are 


named. 


So that's the document that we bring to you. 


Again, the Board can comment -- collective or 


individual Board members, I would anxiously 


await your comments by --


 (Sound blast and power failure) 


 MR. CLAWSON: Ray, did you hear that? 


 DR. MELIUS: Ray, come down from the ceiling, 


please. 


 DR. WADE: We are trying to work on the sound 


system issue generically, and I can speak to 


that during our working time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

But this is the document. If individual Board 


members want to comment to me by Monday or 


Tuesday, I can try to be responsive. 


Otherwise, we'll try to go final, 


quote/unquote, with this on Wednesday. 


Again, to point you towards the Board's own 


work -- and that's the next agenda item -- when 


-- when you consider conflict of interest for 


the Board, there really are two steps. One is 


a determination as to whether or not a conflict 


exists, and I'd like to talk a little bit about 


that. And then there is the issue of the 


remedy, should a conflict be determined to 


exist, and that's spelled out quite clearly in 


the appendix to this document. What is left 


open for your consideration is the discussion 


of how would one determine if a conflict 


existed. 


Now what I've put in front of you as well is 


this document. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I -- I can barely hear them. 


 DR. WADE: I see. 


 MR. GIBSON: Right. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I -- I can hear you very clearly 


(unintelligible). 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Okay, we'll hold on, Mike -- 


 DR. BEHLING: And I'm going to make that call. 


(Unintelligible) cut off, but obviously we're 


losing the volume (unintelligible). 


 MR. PRESLEY: That don't sound like Mike. 


 DR. WADE: No, that's -- that's Hans. 


 DR. BEHLING: I can hear Lew (unintelligible). 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hi, Hans, how you doing? 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Let me -- let me try to 


make that phone call. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, Mike. 


 DR. BEHLING: And I hope -- I hope that those 


guys have their cell phones on, but we have 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Can we -- can we --


 DR. WADE: Can Michael Gibson hear us? 


UNIDENTIFIED: I don't have it. I don't have 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hans, we're hearing you on the 


phone. I don't know if you're hearing us, but 


 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) each independent 


(unintelligible) I'll try to catch somebody. 


I'll try to call John and Arjun -- 


 DR. WADE: Can you -- can you shut that off 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 

135 

we can't hear that? I'd rather not hear the 


background going on on the telephone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're hearing the phone noise. 


Hans Behling, if you're hearing us now, we're 


hearing you with some side conversation, so you 


need to mute your phone. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Just to set the stage for 


discussions that will follow, and I'm sure a 


rigorous interrogation of me on many issues by 


Board members, I've given you this document 


that's entitled "Ethics Rules for Advisory 


Committee Members and Other Individuals 


Appointed as Special Government Employees." 


This has been given to you before. Emily sent 


it to you with a bit of an explanation. There 


are two parts of that document that I use to 


determine whether or not a Board member is 


conflicted, and they appear on page 4, a 


reference to 18 USC 208, and it says (reading) 


Section 208(a), the main conflict of interest 


statute prohibits an SGE from participating 


personally or substantially in any particular 


matter that could affect the financial interest 


of the SGE, the SGE's staff -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Mike and (unintelligible), 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

they're trying to straighten this out. 


 DR. WADE: -- minor child, general partner, an 


organization in which the SGE serves as an 


officer, director, trustee, general partner or 


employee, or an organization with which the SGC 


-- SGE is negotiating or with which the SGE has 


an arrangement for prospective employment. 


That's one of the key provisions that is used 


to determine if an SGE -- that's you, a Special 


Government Employee -- is conflicted. 


The second, I take you to page 8, (v) 


Impartiality --


 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) just for your -- 


your --


 DR. WADE: -- and it says (reading) Although 


committee members are prohibited under 18 USC 


208 -- I just read that -- from participating 


in matters in which they have a financial 


interest, there may be other circumstances in 


which a committee member's participation in a 


particular matter involving specific parties 


would raise a question regarding the member's 


impartiality in that matter. 


I won't read any further. Those are the two 


key provisions that I use, guided by counsel 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 

137 

the ethics office, in making the determination 


as to whether a conflict exists for a 


particular Board member with a particular site 


or situation. It's open for the Board to go 


beyond that in your deliberations if you would 


like to develop guidelines for yourself that 


clarify that, expand upon that. That's up to 


you, and I leave that to you for discussion. 


So that's the policy I've shared with you and I 


wanted to give you the basis that I and the 


people that support me make judgments as to 


whether a conflict exists, and then say to you 


if you would like it to be other than that, in 


addition to that, more clearly than that, then 


you need to develop those procedures for 


your... 


DISCUSSION OF BOARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Lew. I'll open the 


floor for questions or comments on what Lew has 


just presented and also, in conjunction with 


that, point out that in Appendix I, which deals 


with the Advisory Board, it simply enumerates 


what our practice has been in terms of what we 


do if we are conflicted. It does not in fact 


specify beyond the document Lew just referred 

1 

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 

to as to what constitutes a conflict -- for 


example, with respect to a particular site or 


sites -- for Board members. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Just to finish the thought, 


and I cannot find a transcript that deals with 


the materials in Appendix I as an action taken 


by the Board. If it exists, I need to have it 


pointed out to me. 


 DR. MELIUS: When we discussed the policy I 


believe on that conference call, we -- I recall 


that we specifically voted on that Appendix. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we agreed that the Appendix 


I operation would in fact be how we would 


operate with respect to -- 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- procedurally. It didn't deal, 


again, with specifics on what constitutes -- 


how do we decide, for example, if -- if Ziemer 


is conflicted at Y-12. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so those kind of issues are 


still not spelled out per se for Board members. 


Let me ask if there -- and Jim, do you have a 


comment or question for -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I have a number of questions. 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 

139 

I recall, the Board in our letter to Dr. Howard 


about this last draft we saw of the document 


raised issues regarding corporate conflict of 


interest, and I do not see those incorporated 


here. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Regarding what, Jim? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually there's --

 DR. MELIUS: Corporate conflict -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, actually there's a statement 

that was inserted, and I don't think Lew 


referred to it, but I noted that they made a 


change that said that it -- these referred to ­

- both to individuals and to corporate 


entities. It includes that preface in both the 


sample questions and in one other place. 


 DR. MELIUS: I would also add that I -- I would 


-- if I were a corporation I'd have a lot of 


trouble filling out Appendix 2. It's still --


the way the questions are worded and the way 


that the Appendix conflict of interest 


disclosure form is worded, I think it is still 


difficult -- does not adequately capture 


corporate conflict of interest. And I think 


that's a deficiency. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. One of the places that 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 

140 

showed up -- at least I think it was an attempt 


to address that -- was the footnote on page 17 


that says for -- and maybe this was the only 


change. It says (reading) For purpose -- 


purposes of completing this form, you -- in 


quotes -- refers to an individual or an 


employer, depending on what party is completing 


the form. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right, and --


 DR. ZIEMER: And that -- that may not go far 


enough, but --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that -- that was one change 


that I saw, and I'm not sure you mentioned it, 


Lew, but --


 DR. WADE: No, I'm sorry, I didn't. 


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


be useful for the Board to have as soon as 


possible would be a redline version of this so 


we can actually see what changes were made 


compared to the last draft. Given the short 


time you're giving us to respond to this, that 


would be mo-- most helpful. 


The second area which -- again, I'll ask you 


'cause maybe I missed it -- was the -- 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 

141 

whole issue of the document owner and 


clarifying the responsibilities of that person 


'cause this -- we pointed out in our letter 


with comments that'll be -- that -- this whole 


policy really revolves around that person and 


that person's functions and so forth or ability 


to -- you know, how they do their job duties 


will be key to making this a successful or 


unsuccessful program. 


 And then finally, going quickly, the section on 


these Technical Information Bulletins, whether 


they're single-site or multiple-site, the 


clarification you provided was, I thought, 


helpful, but I didn't see it reflected in the 


document. I mean I think there is a gray area 


and I think it would be helpful if the document 


admitted that 'cause the document will be used 


as instructions to people involved. And so 


where there's a sort of multiple -- multiple 


site document that really only affects one or 


two sites chiefly, then I -- then I think there 


has to be an individual determination made as 


to how to handle that in terms of conflict of 


interest issues, whether it's appropriate to 


have someone who's -- who'll be conflicted on 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 

142 

single-site document be involved in that. So I 


think a footnote or something -- again, I don't 


think it can all be spelled out 'cause I think 


that can be a difficult area, but -- but it 


should be referenced in some way. 


 DR. WADE: I think a footnote would be in 


order. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if I could take a moment and 


turn briefly to the previous topic, I did want 


to point out one other area where a change was 


made relative to the corporate issue. It's the 


footnote on page 3. It's called "Footnote 7" 


and it says (reading) The term "you" is used 


here to include both individuals and business 


entities. 


Those are the two places where I spotted at 


least an attempt to make it clear that both 


were covered. Whether the questions are always 


appropriate, it's not necessarily obvious, but 


at least they did indi-- have indicated here 


that both corporate and individuals have to go 


through this process. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, on your last point I just 


want to clarify, are you talking for example 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 

143 

-- a generic document on -- say it's on 


something like neutron dosimetry and if the -- 


if the owner of that document happened to be 


from Site X and that's the only site that's 


really doing that neutron dosimetry, even 


though it looks generic it might not really be. 


Is that --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's the whole point. I 


mean I think it's where it really would apply. 


The way they've written this, if it's site-


specific, if it only applies to that site, then 


 DR. ZIEMER: Even though it looks like a 


generic document --


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if it really is more site-


specific --


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- then that's sort of a 


cautionary thing. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sure that that -- that the 


conflict doesn't really exist when it appears 


that it shouldn't. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, 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 

144

 DR. WADE: I have that. We'll fix it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments for NIOSH? Then 


the other thing we -- looking ahead, Board 


members, we had some preliminary things done 


toward developing -- or considering whether we 


should develop a separate Board policy, 


conflict of interest -- and keep in mind that, 


number one, we are bound to these other 


documents including the Federal Ethics Rules, 


and we have also adopted these procedures in 


Appendix I. But it would seem, at least it 


would seem to me, that it would make sense for 


us to have something that we would call our 


Board policy, if it only included referring to 


other documents. But I'd like to get some 


feedback on that and then determine how we 


might proceed. 


What -- what is your feeling on having a 


specific Board policy on conflict of interest? 


Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think it may be helpful to 


have one. However, I think it needs to be done 


-- and the reason we -- we asked that it be 


taken out of this document, it needs to be done 


in the context of our positions as advisory 

1 

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 

committee members and Special Government 


Employees. So we really need to work off of 


that context in terms of how we establish that. 


And I for one am not sure I have ever 


completely understood how our conflicts are 


determined and -- and so forth. And what I was 


hoping for, and I think I had specifically 


asked for at one of the meetings where we 


discussed this, is that we again have -- if 


we're going to develop that policy, let's have 


somebody come in who's expert in this area and 


brief us again on -- on what -- how -- what 


those requirements are and how they're 


implemented. And then we'd develop a policy 


that's -- that has to be consistent with that. 


I think it would be a mistake to have a policy 


that just references that, but is some way 


inconsistent, because it would -- I guess only 


going to cause us problems. We're going to be 


following our policy when we're getting in 


trouble with some other set of rules that we're 


supposed to be following as FACA members and 


Special Government Employees. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: I would simply note --


 DR. WADE: Mike -- Mike has a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Michael Gibson. Okay, thank 


you, Mike. Hang on. 


 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me. Just about ten or 15 


minutes ago there was a loud noise on the line 


and I lost all ability to hear the last of the 


conversation on the last conflict of interest 


policy concerning the NIOSH and ORAU policy, so 


I -- I missed out on that and may have wanted 


to make some comments. I don't know what went 


wrong with the line, but Hans and Kathy and 


some others -- Mel Chew -- had the same 


problem. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Mike. So --


 DR. WADE: Mike, I will -- this is Lew Wade. 


will call you tomorrow or Monday and relate to 


you that discussion. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. And if I have comments, 


will they be placed on the record then? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Go ahead, Mike. 


 MR. GIBSON: If I have any comments after you 


talk to me, Dr. Wade, could they be placed on 


the record or the transcript (unintelligible). 


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 

147

 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I lost my train of thought 


there. Oh, I -- I know what it was. This is ­

- I'll use an anecdote to sort of illustrate my 


concern. 


Under the previous NIOSH policy which sort of 


was extended to the Board, I was conflicted on 


Y-12, although in reali-- and under the new 


policy I would not be, the reason being that I 


spent one week at Y-12 as a student. I wasn't 


a worker there, I wasn't on their payroll, I 


had no input on Y-12 policy, et cetera. I was 


a student intern. And under the NIOSH new 


policy that would be an exemption automatically 


and I would not be conflicted. That was the 


only conflict I had under the old policy. 


Under the new NIOSH policy, if we were to apply 


it to the Board, I would probably be conflicted 


on every DOE site because of the position that 


I held which, under their criteria, impacted 


every site. So you know, I have a personal 


feeling we need to define the parameters for 


Board members, and I don't think they're 


necessarily the same -- I hope they're not 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 

148 

we may all have to resign. But somehow we have 


to -- and maybe we need help, as Jim has 


suggested, in figuring out what is the status 


of an appointee such as this Board in -- vis a 


vis the work that we're about. 


 DR. WADE: Right. And towards that end, Emily 


Howell prepared and shared with the Board what 


I think is a listing of all of the documents 


that relate to this issue, so I think you have 


all of the materials. How we better explain 


them or expound upon them, you know, I await 


your instruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and it may be that -- and we 


did at one point have a working group I think 


that was looking at conflict of interest. Did 


we have an official workgroup? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we had a workgroup that 


prepared at least the comments on the last 


policy. That was the one I headed and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah --

 DR. MELIUS: -- Mike and --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- it was an ad hoc --

 DR. MELIUS: Ad hoc, yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- group. But we may want to 

think in terms of a workgroup that could maybe 

1 

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 

work together with legal counsel and others as 


appropriate to develop a -- a framework that 


would outline whatever parameters we need that 


spell this out. But what is your pleasure, 


Board members? Jim, you have a comment? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Just I think for the Board there ­

- there is a difference between a conflict of 


interest and a perceived conflict of interest. 


I think there are two tiers that we need to 


consider when we come up with our own policy. 


I think there -- there can be a true conflict 


of interest where you have a direct financial 


involvement, but there's also a perception out 


there of any perceived conflict of interest and 


I -- I think in order for transparency, that 


has to be laid out so everybody can see it and 


then a decision made. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I suspect in most of our cases the 


issue is not going to be one of financial 


conflict, it's going to be one of bias and 


impartiality --


 DR. LOCKEY: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that -- that will be the 


issue whether it's a real or perceived 


conflict. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: We do have certain situations where 


a member might work with a representative group 


of some type that might be involved in a 


particular site, then -- then the first 


provision I read to you kicks in. Most of the 


judgments that I've made are based upon the 


second, which is the bias consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I -- one other comment. When I 


looked at the -- at the ethic rules, when I 


reviewed them in relationship to impartiality 


in -- on page 4, 18 USC 208, they're fairly -- 


they're fairly clear in relationship to what -- 


what they think is a conflict. There's not a 


lot of ambiguity there. 


 DR. WADE: Ambiguity comes in in terms of five. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I'm sorry? 


 DR. WADE: The ambiguity comes in in five, 


impartiality. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: But those are the documents that are 


used when the judgments are made as to the 


Board's con-- Board members' conflicts. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, how would 


you like to proceed on this? Would you like 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 

have a Board policy developed, or would you 


prefer just to ride as we are, which is kind of 


-- we have the federal ethics documents to 


which we are subject. We have the -- we have 


the statement in the NIOSH policy which 


describes how we operate. And then we simply 


make a determination in each case or for each 


SEC, we basically say okay, who has a conflict. 


Some of these are not so difficult. You know, 


Y-12 and a person who worked there, so some of 


those are pretty straightforward. Jim? 


 DR. LOCKEY: You know, I think we should have a 


Board policy, and I think we should have a 


planned subcommittee to come up with a draft 


that spells out what represents conflict of 


interest for Board members. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What do others of you feel? I'd 


like to get kind of a consensus if you -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I agree with him. You know, 


looking at this whole policy and stuff, there 


could get to a point to where we could all be 


sitting down there. It's -- there's got to be 


a clarification, especially with the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree, but I do have a 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 

152 

for legal. If we do come up with a policy, 


will the federal government policy supersede 


anything we do? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. HOWELL: I want to be very clear about the 


current policies that you guys -- that apply to 


you all. Nothing that you do can absolve you 


from having to apply with the rules of FACA and 


the Special Government Employees that you've 


been -- the information that you've already 


received. We're talking about as an additional 


conflict of interest policy that's specific to 


this program. Because as you've seen, we have 


some situations with previous work that aren't 


necessarily a financial problem but an 


impartiality issue, like Lew was saying, that 


we need to cover. And there is -- there -- 


there is precedent for this within CDC and HHS, 


and I think -- I'm not sure if Lew handed this 


out to you or not, but another federal advisory 


board, the Advisory Committee on Immunization 


Procedures or Practices, ACIP, which is another 


CDC advisory board, has written their own 


conflict of interest policy specific to the 


issues that that group deals with. And that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

what I think we're kind of asking you to 


consider doing. 


And this has also come up because you all have 


been asking us lots of questions about these 


waivers and how they're applied, because we 


have the rules that we're having to follow 


based on FACA and for Special Government 


Employees and those ethics rules versus the 


concerns that we have specific to this. And 


everyone within the program is so concerned 


about transparency and we just want to make 


sure that you guys have a voice in how this is 


applied to you. 


So nothing that you do can prevent those FACA 


rules and all those other rules from applying 


to you. What we're asking for you to do is to 


have a voice in how we go beyond that, just 


like what we're doing with NIOSH and ORAU and 


everyone else involved in the program. 


 DR. WADE: And I see it two ways, going beyond 


or attempting to -- to bring clarity, too. I 


think that's --


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, yes, to clarify the 


situation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: How do those FACA rules apply 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 

154 

this particular case. And in any case, 


whatever we came up with would have to, again, 


pass the scrutiny of counsel and -- 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I don't know what the 


approval process is in this case. What -- it 


would go up through CDC... 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, it would go through CDC. It 


would go through several layers within the 


General Counsel's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments? 


I'd like to hear, pro or con, what Board 


members are thinking here. 


 DR. MELIUS: I'd just add that it would be 


helpful to get the immunization document that ­

- can we --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, as a --


 DR. WADE: We can forward it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as a template as a start. 


 DR. MELIUS: As a template, then I think we 


need to form a workgroup to -- we'll work off 


of that and prepare a draft and I don't think 


that workgroup necessarily has to meet a lot, 


but I think some exchange of e-mails and 


develop something, 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 

155

 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to get a consensus 


here. I've heard from Brad and Jim and Jim. 


Any -- ladies, over here? It's getting too 


late in the morning to --


 MR. CLAWSON: I agree with Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: I don't feel I have anything of 


value to add to the discussion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. There appears to be a 


consensus to move toward developing our own 


policy, in which case we would need a 


workgroup, which we can call the conflict of 


interest workgroup, that would take the 


existing documents that govern us, a template 


or templates that we can get from equivalent 


bodies, and assistance from perhaps legal 


counsel to develop at least an initial draft. 


Again, the Chair is always interested in 


volunteers for workgroups. Are there any that 


are interested in participating in this 


particular effort? Otherwise I can just 


appoint --


 DR. MELIUS: I'll volunteer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim Lockey, Jim Melius, I 


will volunteer myself, we can do -- just get 


one 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 

156

I 

 DR. WADE: You need to have a worker rep, I 


think. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How about putting me on there? 


probably have more conflict of interest than 


anybody. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Presley. 


 DR. MELIUS: We'll put you on, then we'll 


conflict you out of the meetings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that gives us four as a 


starter. 


 DR. WADE: You wish to comment on chair? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Lockey, would you be willing 


to chair this? 


 DR. LOCKEY: What's that? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would you be willing to chair 


this? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We have to spread these 


loads around a little bit. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, if I could summarize. We have 


a workgroup now to look at the Board's conflict 


of interest policy chaired by Lockey, with 


Melius, Ziemer, Presley. I've asked Emily to 


share with you the model developed for the 


immunization program. I'm sure she'll do that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

very quickly. I'm also going to provide you as 


quickly as possible -- hopefully today or 


tomorrow -- with a redline version of the NIOSH 


policy, and I'll commit to having words or a 


footnote inserted to attempt to deal with this 


issue of multiple site/one site, as discussed 


by Dr. Melius. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. That 


gets us up to 2:30 this afternoon. 


 DR. WADE: Well, we have things to do at 1:30. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, 1:30, conflict of interest 


policy, but we have other things -- 


 DR. WADE: We have other things to talk about ­

- 1:30 we're back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We are ready to take our lunch 


break. We'll reconvene at 1:30. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:10 p.m. 


to 1:45 p.m.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're ready to reconvene. As you 


-- you saw the hookup being prepared for our 


time-certain meeting with Senator Reid which 


will occur at 2:30. We have some semi-routine 


Board business to address before that occurs. 


BOARD WORKING TIME
 

Let me begin with the minutes of several 

1 

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 

different meetings, starting with the minutes 


to the April 25 through 27 meeting, which was 


the Denver meeting of the Board. I'd like to 


ask if there are any corrections or additions 


to the minutes of the Denver meeting. 


Hopefully you've all looked at least at your 


own remarks to see if they were both 


intelligent and understandable and correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Understandable and correct, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any corrections or additions to 


the minutes of April 25 through 27? 


 (No responses) 


If there are none, I take it by consent that 


the minutes are approved as distributed. 


Next, the minutes of the Subcommittee for Dose 


Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews, 


minutes of the meeting June 14th, 2006, that 


meeting being the Washington, D.C. meeting of 


that group. Are there any corrections or 


additions to those minutes? 


 (No responses) 


If not, without objection we'll declare that 


those minutes are approved as distributed. 


And then finally the minutes of June 14th 


through 16th, the full committee -- full Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

meeting, also in D.C. Are there corrections or 


additions to those minutes? 


 (No responses) 


 It appears that there are not. Then without 


objection we will declare that those minutes 


are approved as distributed. 


I will thereby sign these minutes and make them 


available. They will appear on the web site. 


 MR. GIBSON: Paul? 


WORKING GROUPS MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE


 DR. ZIEMER: Next item I'd like to call 


attention to, 'cause there was some confusion. 


At out last meeting there was a subcommittee -- 


in fact, it's the very last page of the minutes 


that we just approved -- not a subcommittee, a 


workgroup, which is a workgroup to look into 


SEC petitions that were not qualified -- and 


I'm calling this the not qualified workgroup. 


Only joking, Dr. Lockey. Anyway, we'll call it 


the workgroup on -- on SEC petitions that are 


not qualified. You may recall that there was a 


question dealing with the content and decisions 


made on those that were designated as not 


qualified and we designated a workgroup to look 


into 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 

160 

Just wanted to clarify two things. One is that 


Dr. Lockey had volunteered to chair that. At 


that time we named Dr. Roessler, Dr. DeHart and 


Dr. Melius to that workgroup. We do need to 


replace Dr. DeHart, and I do want to ask if 


there's a volunteer to replace Dr. DeHart on 


that particular workgroup. 


And also in that connection, to clarify this 


was a separate activity, we have an SEC 


petition activities workgroup that was separate 


from this. This is more of a one-time thing 


that will just look at that issue on the past 


not-qualified petitions and report back to us. 


Are any of you interested in replacing Dr. 


DeHart? 


 MS. MUNN: Certainly, I'll take that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: -- responsibility. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll put Wanda Munn in as the 


replacement for Dr. Hart -- DeHart, and name 


Brad Clawson as alternate. 


 DR. WADE: I would suggest also we just add 


Brad to the group. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, that'd be fine. 


 DR. WADE: I think we need to have a worker rep 

1 

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 

on that group. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And that -- that way you have a -- 


basically a five -- five-person group and if 


necessary four of you can meet if you can't all 


get together. 


 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd like to let the working group 


know that we are ready at any point in time 


they want to schedule their -- their meeting. 


We would ask that you do this in Cincinnati in 


our offices. We'll have all of the individual 


-- I think there are 26 now, I believe, maybe I 


have that number wrong, in their twenties -- 


and it's our opinion it would serve y'all best 


to have all of the documentation in those 


individual stacks in our conference room. 


Nothing will be redacted. Everything will be 


in its entirety. We'll give you a briefing on 


the process that has ensued here. And there's 


also been a -- assessment done by my assessment 


team. I'll provide that to you in abeyance of 


your visit to Cincinnati so you can see this 


assessment and what it has to say about this 


procedure. 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

162

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. And we'll leave 


it then to Dr. Lockey to go ahead and arrange a 


meeting time. 


Michael Gibson, a comment or question? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. Dr. Ziemer, the volume is -- 


is again coming in fairly faint. I can hear 


you a little better than yesterday, but 


certainly not as good as earlier today. I 


don't know if there's something that can be 


done. I can hear the other conferees on the 


phone fine, but I can't hear the process of the 


Board meeting very well at all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Mike. The sound 


man here will try to correct that for us. 


 DR. WADE: And we will be better disciplined 


with speaking clearly into -- clearly and 


loudly into the microphone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'm -- I'm looking here at 


other issues --


 DR. WADE: You want to do workgroup assignments 


or... 


BOARD/WORKING GROUPS FUTURE PLANS


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, maybe a quick review of the 


working groups so that we have an up-to-date -- 


make sure everybody has an up-to-date list. 


And Lew, can you give us a run down 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 

163 

various workgroups and their membership? 


 DR. WADE: Starting with the Subcommittee on 


Dose Reconstruction, Chair, Mark Griffon; 


members Poston, Presley, Gibson; alternates 


Clawson -- I'm sorry, I did that wrong. Let me 


start again. 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction, Chair, 


Griffon; members Poston, Munn, Gibson; 


alternates Clawson, Presley. 


The workgroup on the Hanford site profile, 


Chair, Melius; members Clawson, Ziemer, Poston. 


The workgroup on the Chapman Valve SEC 


petition, Chair, Poston; members Griffon, 


Clawson, Roessler, Gibson. 


The workgroup on SEC petitions, focusing on 


250-day issue, Chair, Melius; members Ziemer, 


Roessler, Griffon. 


The workgroup looking at SEC petitions not 


qualified, Chair, Lockey; members Roessler, 


Melius, Munn and Clawson. 


The workgroup on the Nevada Test Site site 


profile, Chair, Presley; members Roessler, 


Clawson, Munn. 


The workgroup on the Savannah River Site site 


profile, Chair, Gibson; members Clawson, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

Griffon and Lockey. 


The workgroup on the Nevada Test Site (sic) SEC 


and site profile, Chair, Griffon; members 


Gibson, Presley, Munn. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Any questions? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Two for Lew. What was that last 


one? 


 DR. MELIUS: Last one is --


 MR. PRESLEY: It's the last one, yes. 


 DR. WADE: The workgroup on Rocky Flats SEC and 


site profile, Chair, Griffon; members Gibson, 


Presley, Munn. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think he said Nevada Test Site. 


 DR. WADE: Did I misspeak? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think you may have said -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Nah, you're all right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We got it. Okay, thank you. 


 DR. WADE: I would remind the Board that we now 


have the issue of the procedures review. 


Before, that was dealt with by the 


subcommittee. Right now it's not assigned to a 


working group, so you -- you'll have to think 


about it at some point how you want to track 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, there will be a new set 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 

165 

procedures and that will -- as that report 


becomes available to us, a new review by SC&A, 


then we will need a workgroup to work on that. 


You'll notice also on the agenda, it's on the 


3:00 o'clock slot -- of course we've completed 


the conflict of interest issue which was at our 


1:30 slot -- is the discussion of overarching 


issues that span more than one working group. 


This would be the issue of -- as an example -- 


oro-nasal breathing, which could show up in the 


purview of a number of working groups. And one 


of the issues would be how do we track that 


when we may have several working groups looking 


at -- that are site-focused, and how do we 


track those kind of overriding issues or what 


are called here overarching issues that may 


span multiple working groups. And we don't 


necessarily need to have a solution to that 


today, but at least want to give some thought 


to how best to track that and keep ourselves 


informed of what's going on so that it doesn't 


fall through the cracks and one group assumes 


that another is looking at it simply 'cause 


they're at another site where it is also an 


issue. 

1 

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 

And Lew, I don't know if you have any 


additional thoughts on that structurally, but 


that's the nature of -- of the issue. 


 DR. WADE: As I observe the working groups, 


I'll hear often a working group pass off an 


issue to another working group, to the Board, 


to the subcommittee, to another entity. And I 


think there are concerns that -- that's there's 


an overall tracking going on of everything, and 


that if such a handoff happens we're sure that 


the issue isn't lost. And I think there is 


concern. You know, a solution starts to be 


some sort of mega-matrix of some type, a 


compilation somewhere of all of the issues. 


And even if they change flavor from one working 


group to another, they are -- continue to be 


tracked. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And one of the -- one of the 


possibilities in this kind of an issue is in 


fact to have one or more working groups -- 


there could be a working group that was 


responsible for sort of the oversight of -- 


oversight of overarching issues, or something 


like that. Or we could have individual 


workgroups that are dealing with specific 

1 

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 

issues, whether it be oro-nasal breathing or 


neutron dosimetry or whatever the issue may be, 


these sort of overarching kinds of things. I'd 


kind of like to get some thoughts on it. 


Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, as you all remember, this is 


not the first time we've talked about this. As 


a matter of fact, we've been talking about it 


ever since we first recognized that we were 


going to have recurring issues. I think Bob 


Presley, in his discussion of what we've been 


doing with NTS, indicated a half-dozen of those 


complex-wide issues we've already identified, 


including dose reconstruction covering all the 


significant radionuclides, hot particles, oronasal breathing, dosimetry limitations, badging 


geometry, and assumptions that were made for 


non-monitored workers. 


I can't add anything new. At the outset I 


believe that my suggestion was that essentially 


a list be established of items that were being 


tracked and that would reflect how many sites 


were involved in this, with the assurance that 


NIOSH could follow that -- essentially a master 


deficiencies list -- so that as those things 

1 

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 

closed, they could mark them off the list and 


it would be a list that we would see on a 


fairly routine basis as we move through the 


remainder of the sites that have to be 


addressed. 


The reason I suggest that in that form is this 


is clearly going to be a significant clerical 


issue. There's going to be a lot of data-


following and entry and update that's required. 


So far as I know, this Board does not have 


access to the kind of clerical tracking 


mechanism that would be necessary to do this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Beyond the clerical tracking 


mechanism, if an issue arises -- they often 


arise first in a matrix, maybe as a result of 


an SCA comment or maybe by initiative of NIOSH. 


And at some point there are some technical 


discussions. Now if -- if one workgroup says 


well, this is already being covered by another 


workgroup so we'll overlook it or sort of 


concede to them -- the concern is that -- who's 


really going to look at it. And aside from the 


tracking issue, I would be concerned that we 


make sure that we have the proper interactions 


and it's almost like a separate matrix where 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 

169 

have Board members, Board contractors, NIOSH 


and its contractors looking at a specific issue 


that's -- that is, you know, more than 


individual site-wise but which is overarching. 


And maybe we need a workgroup or workgroups 


that would do that. And that is -- the 


tracking has to be over and beyond that, but to 


deal with the technical issues themselves is -- 


was the concern I had there. But -- and both 


issues are of conc-- both the physical tracking 


as well as the technical resolutions. 


 MS. MUNN: Although the concept of a workgroup 


is an appealing one from the viewpoint of 


administration, it would appear to be pretty 


cumbersome in terms of time allotment for the 


Board members themselves. I can't speak for 


other members of the Board, but the time 


allotment already required for our Board 


activities is significant. I would find the 


addition of yet another -- especially heavily-


chartered -- subcommittee or working group of 


this kind to be extremely time-consuming. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly a good point, and it may 


be that we would need to simply make sure that 


one of the workgroups had the lead on 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 

170 

particular issue. Let's hear from others. Dr. 


Melius, then (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, a couple points, and I 


actually agree with Wanda on -- on this issue. 


I'm not sure a workgroup is the -- at least the 


proper first step to take in trying to address 


this issue. Also remind us that the GAO report 


made this is -- at least a subsection of this 


is one of their recommendations in terms of -- 


of the Board didn't have a mechanism for 


tracking issues and -- and so forth. And it 


extends not only to what we do within 


workgroups, but also some of the business 


that's conducted at Board meetings where an 


issue's identified in some way. We say well, 


we'll put that on the agenda for a future Board 


meeting and then, you know, a couple of SECs 


come up and so next thing you know it's -- you 


know, six months have gone by and we've all 


sort of lost track of the issue or whatever. 


And I think first we need to sort of solve the 


way we're going to keep track of this and who's 


going to be responsible for tracking that and 


it -- to me, it's either, you know, Lew -- you 


know, sort of the -- it's an Executive 

1 

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 

Secretary function, which through, you know, 


Lew with NIOSH staff, or it's something we have 


to charge our -- our contractor with doing -- 


doing that. And I think both are in position 


to possibly do that. Both attend in some ways 


all of those workgroup meetings, so they -- 


they are present, they track what's going on 


there. And I think if we had the clerical 


function, sort of what are the key issues that 


are being looked at in the different 


workgroups, what's unresolved or needs to be 


resolved, I think then we can decide is it a 


proper place for a workgroup or is it something 


we just need to spend the time at a Board 


meeting and set aside -- aside the time to 


discuss and figure out who has the lead and -- 


or do we form a new workgroup to deal with that 


particular technical issue or what's the -- the 


proper approach to take. But I really think we 


need to solve the clerical, the tracking issue, 


first or we'll -- will -- will not take place. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's get Brad and then we'll hear 


from Larry. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I just -- being a new Board 


member and everything else like that, the time 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

that is spent with a lot of these workgroups 


and stuff, there's a tremendous amount of 


information that we're going through. To me 


and everything, we need to have one point of 


contact that we need to address this to -- and 


I agree with the -- the clerical issue on this, 


but we need to have one point that we can also 


address to with issues. Is this being handled, 


like that oro-nasal or anything else like that, 


one -- one individual that can go to speed at 


that. But as -- as Board members, just looking 


at it, our plates are pretty full. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I guess we had a different 


perspective on this set of overarching issues. 


My thinking -- and I just touched base with Stu 


about this, too -- has been that we need to 


come forward with a position paper, if you will 


-- I'll just use that, I don't know what the 


right term is, but it'll end up being a 


Technical Information Bulletin or Basis 


Document that will speak to what we are doing 


with regard to one of these general overarching 


issues. To me, that would be the starting 


point. The Board needs to look at that, decide 

1 

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 

what you want to do with it. 


I think the obligation would then be on us to 


make sure that we track the comment resolution 


and make sure that not only in that matrix for 


that given position paper on an overarching 


issue we track it, but also we track it in 


these other working group efforts where it's 


pertinent and relevant to that particular site 


or that issue, whether it's an SEC evaluation 


or a site profile review. 


So our thinking has been that we're obligated 


to help the Board -- staff the Board, staff the 


Designated Federal Official -- in doing this 


tracking, and that's how we were thinking about 


going about doing it. I don't know if that 


helps or not, but --


 DR. ZIEMER: So in the model you're just 


suggesting there would be a number of such 


position papers developed? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. I don't think right now 


you have a sense of where we're at on any of 


this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right? So where do you start? 


You need something to start 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 

174

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and I have to give that to 


you, I believe. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then from there, it appears 


that you are suggesting that NIOSH would carry 


the burden of the tracking of these issues 


then. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's see, Wanda and 


then -- then -- oh, Robert, we've got you, too. 


Robert's next. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree with Larry on this 100 


percent, because if you'll look at the first 


thing we've got on here, dose reconstruction 


covers significant nuclides, that was -- if I 


remember correctly, we have marked that done in 


our group because of the addition to the 


nuclides for the NTS SE-- or site profile. I 


mean I know that there's probably more to that, 


but that's something that NIOSH could track and 


keep up with. I feel that that's the place it 


ought to be done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda? 


 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, I don't think 


(unintelligible) --

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: One of the reasons it would appear 


advantageous to have NIOSH tracking this is the 


fact that they are the continuing agency that 


will be following this program long after we 


have ceased having the need for either a 


subcontractor or continuing working groups as 


we've had to this point. 


 The other consideration is we began this 


discussion speaking only of overarching issues. 


We have the same issue with site-specific 


unresolved processes that we close out on our 


matrix because the action is someone will do 


something, and therefore the working group 


closes it out. But where it goes then is, at 


this juncture, undefined, so far as I know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Again I agree with Wanda. 


I think we have to capture both sort of what 


are unresolved issues, but also issues we've 


tagged that we're expecting there to be follow-


up on. 


I don't object to NIOSH staff being the one 


sort of developing this system and -- is 


whatever posi-- you know, paper or whatever, 


however it'll be -- sort of report or whatever. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

I just think it's important that it reflect 


issues that the Board has identified. There 


actually may be other issues that NIOSH has 


identified as becoming important, or through 


your contractor -- I think it's important we 


know about what those are and -- and address 


those, but I think we'll need to keep this 


focused on what the Board's issues are as -- as 


we're reviewing with our -- with our contractor 


on these issues, but having NIOSH do it, I -- 


somewhat the way Larry described it, I don't 


think would -- I don't have any objection to 


it. I think it would be fine. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have -- oh, Michael I 


believe has a comment from -- on the phone. 


Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. Dr. Ziemer, this is Mike. 


I agree with a lot of what has been said here 


recently. My only comment would be that each 


of the individual working groups are deeper in 


the weeds as far as the issues for those 


particular issues and sites and -- and things 


they're covering. And I think that the working 


groups and the chairman of the working group 

1 

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 

should hear out NIOSH and SC&A and then the 


working group should make a recommendation to 


the Board as to the overarching issues and then 


let the Board make a decision, you know, who 


this point of contact is and whether or not, 


you know, it is a -- an agreeable issue that's 


site-wide, rather than having one side or the 


other -- again, each -- each working group is 


much more detailed into the -- the issues of 


the specificular (sic) issues they're covering. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Looking 


for other discussion. 


We have a -- we have a list or some lists that 


begin to identify some of those issues -- the 


complex-wide issues that were identified in Mr. 


Presley's working group, and there may be 


others. I don't know that this is an 


exhaustive list, but perhaps is a starting list 


-- dose reconstruction covers significant 


nuclides, hot particles, oro-nasal breathing, 


dosimetry limitations, badging geometry -- 


which may or may not be part of dosimetry 


limitations -- assumptions for non-monitored 


workers. There's -- there's a half a dozen 


major complex-wide issues right there. 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 

178 

probably are others. I'm wondering if -- if we 


shouldn't, as a starting point, at least agree 


to what issues come into this category and -- 


and then we can proceed, perhaps along the 


paths that have been described with NIOSH 


following up on the items that the Board 


identifies as being of interest to it, and then 


the tracking would -- would follow from that. 


 Board members, do you -- do you -- do you want 


to prepare a preliminary list of such issues? 


And this is certainly a starting list right 


here. I suspect there will be others. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think it'd be a good idea. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we all have to start somewhere, 


and that seems to be as good a place to begin 


as any other. To the best of memory, those six 


items have come up in the Rocky Flats context, 


in the Nevada Test Site context, in the Y-12 


context, and I believe one other -- I can't 


remember which -- but that seems -- and I know 


on at least two of those matrices those issues 


are not really active for the workgroup simply 


because there has been some NIOSH action 


identified. It would be nice to have 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 

179 

beginning to fold into whatever paper and 


proposal NIOSH is going to bring to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I believe we already have 


some TIBs on a number of these. 


 MS. MUNN: Probably so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I don't know if -- if Stu or 


Larry, off the top of your heads, can identify 


-- how many of these six items are there -- do 


we already have TIBs on? Hot particles, Stu -- 


and while you're thinking about that, Larry, 


were the documents you were referring to, those 


had the form of a TIB or a white -- what you 


called a white paper or what -- what 


conceptually are we (unintelligible). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I think there'd be different 


forms. Some of -- I think oro-nasal breathing, 


for instance, we've -- we've addressed that to 


a certain extent in a TIB, but some of the 


others that are relatively newer, we may need 


to provide a position paper that may become a 


TIB once it, you know, gets vetted through this 


process, so I -- I can't speak on -- Stu's 


better served to speak on -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- where we're at with 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 

180 

development of certain documents. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, shall I just take 


these --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- one at a time? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, let's do that, I can't -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oro-nasal breathing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's specific activity 


to address that. That'll be a work product 


from a contractor that'll be delivered to us, 


sort of a white paper type of thing where -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily a TIB. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Might be, might not be -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but the delivery from them 


probably will not be a TIB. We may write it 


into that, but then that would have broad 


applicability once we (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Same on the hot particles? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably not as far along, but 


I think it would have to be the same type of 


solution. I know it came up with respect to 


Nevada Test Site specifically, but it would 


have application otherwise -- other places, as 


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 

181

 DR. ZIEMER: Dosimetry, mixed dosimetry, 


extremities, badging geometry -- probably a 


number of dosimetry-related issues. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- there's some general 


issues have come up a number of times about the 


dosimetry in response to geometry issues, in 


particular. In other words, uncertainty in 


dosimetry readings beyond what laboratory 


uncertainty would represent, and some things 


like that would have to be addressed in one way 


or another. There has been work done with 


respect to some specific sites, like 


Mallinckrodt, where some geometric -- or 


geometry adjustments have already been adopted. 


And it may be that what we would develop is a 


sort of a general approach for a geometry 


adjustment and ranges of adjustments that 


would, you know, add uncertainty to the doses. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would the construction worker 


document be in this category? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think certainly that's in 


this category and that TIB is published now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Assumptions for non-monitored 


workers? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure of anything that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

on -- in place right now to do that, but 


certainly we can put that together, the 


assumptions. We're pretty consistent in our 


assumptions, but there's -- you know, somewhat 


depends upon what you learn about a particular 


site and -- and their activities and their 


practices, so there would be -- there may be 


some site-specific modifications to that based 


upon what we learn from our research of the 


site activities. So I'm -- I'm not -- I don't 


know of anything that's going on in that area 


right now. We are try-- we -- I think we tend 


to address those as we learn, you know, about 


the site based on what we've learned about the 


site, I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The final one on this list is dose 


reconstruction covers significant nuclides. 


I'm not even sure I know what that means. I 


mean I know what it means, but it's -- it 


sounds so general, it's too general. 


 MS. MUNN: I can address that, if you don't 


mind. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: The reason -- the reason for that 


is, very frankly, if it comes up every 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 

183 

that is -- is reviewed by our contractor, then 


it seems to be an issue that we need to have 


some document that makes it clear that NIOSH is 


or is not addressing a full range, and why not 


if not. I guess the major advantage to putting 


these things to bed is preventing their 


reoccurrence over and over again as we see the 


site reviews. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think briefly, to describe 


that, it would be an internal dosimetry issue 


of course, since it's speaking about nuclides 


and since that's relevant, and it has to do 


with places where there's a -- you know, in the 


first sense, there's sort of a witch's brew of 


fission products, for instance, if you're 


dealing at a place like Savannah River and 


Hanford and does it -- the dose reconstruction 


includes many radionuclides, but it wouldn't 


necessarily, you know, include a specific dose 


for hundreds of different fission products that 


may exist in the workplace. So there would be 


some bounding -- you know, some -- what are the 


-- what are the worst -- what's the worst 


dosimetric one, what do we know about it, is 


this measurement relevant to the dose. So an 

1 

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 

approach that describes an internal dosimetry 


approach -- you know, what our internal 


dosimetry approach in those cases is probably 


what's being addressed here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now -- and Larry, go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: Paul, can I -- I would just 


caution us let's not try to solve all these 


issues, but I think the first thing to do is to 


develop a way of -- a system of documenting 


them and, you know, preparing a list. And what 


I would suggest is that we circulate the list 


that Bob prepared to the Board members. That's 


-- we can add -- maybe others, Mark and -- is 


not here today, might want to add to those. 


Larry work with his staff to prepare, you know, 


a similar list and John work with his staff 


'cause they're involved in all these workgroups 


that there are others there, then Larry working 


with Lew can, you know, pull together sort of a 


master listing and see if we can at least come 


to general agreement on that. Then Larry can 


proceed to, you know, sort of pull together -- 


here's the status of all these issues and might 


be something we can talk about, either a 


conference call or our December 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 

185

 DR. ZIEMER: I primarily want to make sure that 


we know what the words on the list actually 


mean --


 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- I --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- not to solve the problems 


today. And we certainly could do that and I 


just want to ask if there are any of these 


where the kind of work product that you talked 


about, Larry, has already been done so that by 


the time of our next face-to-face meeting we 


could embark on the process with one of these 


topics. 


 DR. WADE: I have a process suggestion before 


that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: -- but I would think that -- that as 


part of Larry's presentation, his update, at 


every Board meeting, I think this should -- 


this should be a regular item. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The cross-cutting issues. 


 DR. WADE: The cro-- and -- and at a minimum 


present the list and status. This way we'll be 


sure that there'll be some continuity. Jim 


Melius is correct, sometimes an agenda 


overtakes us and things get knocked off. 
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 

186 

think we want this on the agenda for each 


meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Larry, go ahead. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly we -- certainly I'll be 


happy to do that and add it to the 


presentation. And yeah, we are talking a lot 


about process and I don't want to promote 


continued discussion of process, but I do want 


to explain what I mean by a position paper, and 


it goes somewhat to process, and answer at the 


same time your question, Dr. Ziemer. I think 


TIB-52 of course is ready. Oro-nasal breathing 


is probably close behind that. And beyond 


that, you know, I'm going to have to go shake 


the trees and bring out my whip and start 


beating people. 


But I say a position paper because if it's -- 


let's just take the geometry issue. That may 


result in a change to an existing Technical 


Basis Document, like our external dose 


implementation guide. So I don't want to keep 


-- what I'm trying to avoid here is a -- a 


process outcome where we add more and more and 


more and more documents. I want to address the 


documents that we have and modify them. So 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 

187 

position paper would come out and perhaps then 


be reflected one -- once we've got it all 


resolved and we all agree on the right 


approach, then we would go back and in the 


appropriate document that's already in 


existence we would make the appropriate 


modifications and changes. Does that help your 


understanding --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- of why I put out a position 


paper, (unintelligible) an idea? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, it's great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. There seems to be agreement 


that we can start with this as a starting list. 


We can add to it and come up with a final list, 


and also perhaps begin the process with what is 


available. 


Any other comments? Another comment, Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: I was just trying to see if I 


could see Wanda on TV, but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: We want to make sure we're ready 


here within the next minute or two, prepare -- 


 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

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 

quick item. 


 DR. ZIEMER: A quick item? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. Just to remind you all that, 


you know, we have a call scheduled for October 


18th. We have a face-to-face Board meeting 


scheduled for December 11 through 13. We have 


a call scheduled for January 11, have a faceto-face meeting scheduled for February 7 to 9. 


In terms of meeting locations, the December 


meeting I would think would either be in 


Pinellas or Denver, depending upon where we are 


relative to Rocky Flats. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) the February 


meeting? 


 DR. WADE: I would see the February meeting 


either Denver or New Mexico, depending upon 


where we are with Rocky Flats and then with the 


Neva-- excuse me, LANL. 


I will ask LaShawn to get out a query to you. 


I would see us scheduling a call in the middle 


of March, a face-to-face meeting in late April, 


a call in the middle of June and a face-to-face 


meeting in August. What LaShawn will do is ask 


for dates and -- and find dates, and that will 


get us out four meetings or more a year out 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 

189 

I think that's appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Questions? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Can you give us those dates for 


-- this next meeting date again? 


 DR. WADE: A call on October 18th, face-to-face 


meeting December 11 through 13, a call on 


January 11, a face-to-face meeting on February 


7 to 9. And then looking for a call mid-March, 


face-to-face meeting late April, a call mid-


June, face-to-face meeting in August. 


 DR. LOCKEY: When was the call in October? 


 MR. PRESLEY: October 18th. 


 DR. WADE: 18th. 

 MS. MUNN: That's a long stretch in between 

there. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: To what -- okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It is almost 2:30. Let me make 


sure our -- that the sound people are ready to 


go. 


Do I need to do anything on this box here? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's on red. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

1 

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 

(Unintelligible) 


(Pause) 


 DR. WADE: I mean I'm open for guidance in 


terms of meeting locations. It seems to me if 


we're -- when we're ready to do Rocky Flats, 


it'd be nice to do it in Denver. When we're 


ready to do LANL it'd be nice to do it in New 


Mexico. 


(Pause) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: A suggestion -- a friendly 


suggestion from the audience here. Fernald has 


an SEC petition that should come due early next 


year as well, and Ray Beatty has suggested that 


the Board might consider Cincinnati or that 


area for -- because of the Fernald issue. 


 DR. MELIUS: It's a long flight for you, Larry, 


I don't know. 


(Pause) 


 DR. WADE: Just to keep us working, you know, 


later -- once the Senator speaks to us -- we do 


have Board correspondence and we do have the 


letter that was received from Pete Stafford to 


talk through, and that letter has been -- a 


fresh copy redistributed to you. I know you 


probably already have copies in your computer, 

1 

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 

so that's something that looms in front of us 


and there are issues there of tracking the 


construction TBD and issues related to a 


possible workgroup that Pete is suggesting, so 


something to think about. 


(Pause) 


MESSAGE OF SENATOR REID


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll come to order again. We're 


pleased that Senator Harry Reid is able to be 


with us today to address the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health. Senator Reid, 


this is Paul Ziemer, Chairman of the Advisory 


Board, and we're very pleased that you've taken 


time from your busy schedule to address this 


Board today. Would you please proceed with 


your statement to us? 


 SENATOR REID: Board members, thank you very 


much for allowing me to address this issue I 


think that is so important of compensation for 


Nevada Test Site workers who contracted cancer 


from the work during the above-- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) We lost him. 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Senator Reid, apparently we lost 


you, but you might start again, if 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 

192

 SENATOR REID: I'm happy to do that. Mr. 


Chairman, Board members, thank you very much 


for allowing me to address you. This is such 


an important issue. It's very, very important 


that -- to direct attention to the workers who 


contracted cancer from work during the above-


ground nuclear tests. The veterans I thank 


very much, atomic energy veterans, that are 


here today I say to you directly, thank you for 


your sacrifices you made on behalf of our 


country, on behalf of our way of life. I 


really believe it's because of your efforts 


that we won the Cold War and democracy 


triumphed. I and the nation are indebted to 


you for your service and your true sacrifices, 


so I'm honored to be here today to speak on 


your behalf. Reminds me of the days when I 


used to be a lawyer. 


Ladies and gentlemen, we must include within 


the Special Exposure Cohort Test Site workers 


who contracted cancer from the work during the 


above-ground nuclear tests, even though they 


worked on the site less than 250 days. I am 


sure that many of you, like me, watched those 


nuclear explosions at the Test Site. I 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 

193 

remember them so clearly. I was 50 miles way 


or 60 miles away, more or -- further away than 


you -- farther away than you because I was at 


Searchlight, but I could still see them. I was 


struck with awe as a little boy, maybe wonder, 


at the power, strength of those tremendous 


explosions and how did they come about. Man's 


ingenuity. Even as a little boy, I figured 


that out. 


Little did any of us know the other side of 


these tests. Exposure of men and women working 


at the site and cancer-causing radiation and 


chemicals. Now these men and women face deadly 


cancers. Many have already died. Others are 


just waiting for their country to acknowledge ­

- acknowledge them. That's what they're 


waiting for. 


I worked six years to pass legislation to 


ensure that the Department of Energy workers 


and contractors who were exposed to radiation, 


beryllium or even silica received compensation. 


It was the right thing to do for those who 


sacrificed their health in the service of our 


country and now face these deadly diseases. 


Yet Test Site workers who waited decades 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 

194 

acknowledgement are being told they must wait a 


little longer. Many tragically, as I've 


already said, have died awaiting for the 


compensation, stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare 


of obstruction and delay. 


Nevada Test Site workers, despite performing 


this service for their country (unintelligible) 


radioactive materials and having known 


exposures leading to cancers have been denied 


compensation -- a result of flawed 


calculations, I believe -- based on records 


that are incomplete or in error, as well as use 


of faulty assumptions and incorrect models. 


NIOSH itself acknowledges that it cannot 


estimate the internal radiation dose received 


by employees at the Test Site from '51 through 


'62. Yet it's hard to comprehend, but they're 


arguing that Test Site workers present for the 


atmospheric tests, yet not employed for 250 


days, don't deserve compensation. 


Think about this. Under this rationale someone 


who was present for all 100 above-ground tests, 


and there were some there, would be denied 


compensation even if for those 100 tests they 


were right on the front lines. This isn't 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 

195 

we intended. This isn't what Congress 


intended. It's just unfair. Congress has 


already designated classes of atomic energy 


veterans at several sites as members of the 


Special Exposure Cohort. For example, Amchitka 


Island, Alaska is designated -- and I'm glad 


they were designated -- because, though, of 


three underground tests conducted on that 


island. Alaska conducted three tests. Nevada 


Test Site workers conducted 100 above-ground, 


828 underground nuclear tests at the Site from 


'51 to '92. That's almost 90 percent of the 


nuclear tests conducted in the United States 


were in Nevada. Yet these men and women have 


been denied compensation. I believe they 


deserve and deserve for decades, but it's just 


unacceptable what we have now. 


I helped write the law that created this 


program, and I can tell you with certainty that 


it was the intent of Congress, of me, of us, 


that exactly this type -- this group of workers 


be compensated under this program that we set 


up. The men and women who worked at the Nevada 


Test Site, I repeat, helped this country win 


the Cold War. There were other factors. 
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 

196 

know that. But they sacrificed their personal 


health in the process of giving so much. After 


decades of waiting and suffering, it's time 


that we honored these sacrifices. 


Not only must we expedite compensation for the 


atmospheric testing workers, but we must also 


include within the Special Exposure Cohort the 


Test Site workers during the more than 800 


below-ground tests. Currently under review by 


workers and experts is a petition drafted by 


Test Site employees and my office that would 


add these workers to the Special Exposure 


Cohort. I really feel we need to do everything 


we can. I -- I do not rest well and can't rest 


well until these men and women get the respect 


and I believe the acknowledgement they deserve 


and that they've earned. 


So Board members, join me -- I -- I really do 


hope you can -- in supporting this cohort, the 


men and women who fought with all of us in 


moving forward this country. I urge this 


Advisory Board. I appreciate your time here. 


You're good Americans for doing this. I urge 


you to do the right thing. I know you'll do 


what -- what you believe is right. I hope, 

1 

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 

though, this has helped, being in Nevada has 


helped. I -- I hope that you can grant this 


SEC for all atmospheric test area workers 


employed at the Test Site for less than 250 


days. 


You know, any one of those 250 days could be 


the reason that they're sick -- any one of the 


250 days. Any week could be enough, any two 


weeks, certainly 250 days is arbitrary and 


capricious. 


Thank you all so very, very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we thank you, Senator Reid, 


for taking time from your schedule to address 


this Board. Thank you for your eloquent 


remarks in behalf of your constituents here in 


Las Vegas and in the state of Nevada. 


Board members, I wonder -- I was led to 


understand that there might be opportunity just 


to ask questions if anyone desired. I don't --


he may have to be leaving. I don't know his 


schedule. I think he's left. Thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask if there are any 


questions before 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 

198

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) He had to 


leave, I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, fine. Thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) My apologies. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No problem. Thank you. 


(Pause) 


Let's see, do we need a break? 


 DR. WADE: It's up to you. We can take one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's take a brief break, ten 


minutes, and then we'll -- the last item I 


think before us is the construction worker 


issue. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:43 p.m. 


to 3:00 p.m.) 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE/BOARD WORKING TIME


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


The final item on our agenda deals with -- it's 


called Board correspondence, and more 


specifically we want to focus on the letter 


that we received and which was distributed 


earlier from Pete Stafford. And that letter 


also has some links to comments made to this 


Board earlier by Knut Ringen with respect to 


construction trade and -- and related issues. 


I do note that in connection with the Pete 

1 

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 

Stafford letter, which was dated June 23rd, I ­

- since -- since the letter came to us and I 


have been in correspondence with Pete and told 


him that his letter had been distributed to the 


Board, that we discussed it briefly in our 


August 8th meeting and that it would be on our 


agenda today. And in the meantime the -- the 


TIB on construction workers also has been 


issued. There's a number of items in the 


letter which relate to exchanges with NIOSH. 


And to some extent, some of those have been 


answered by the -- by the publication of the 


TIB, and I know that Larry has provided figures 


for us on numbers of dose reconstructions done 


for construction workers and that's been in 


some of the reported information. I'm not 


certain whether that material got back to Pete. 


Larry, do you know if it had? Or to Knut 


Ringen in terms of the numbers of cases. I 


know they've been -- there's been interactions 


between you and -- and Knut Ringen's group. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, I've been in consistent 


conversation and dialogue with Pete Stafford 


about this since the Denver meeting. I have 


provided them at three points in the time frame 

1 

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 

since that meeting the status of the 


construction workers TIB and the numbers of 


claims that we have completed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then we heard from Knut Ringen 


this -- this week that they now have I think a 


working group of their own that's going to be 


looking at the -- at the TIB and perhaps 


offering comments on that to you directly. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They have had that -- they have 


convened that -- that panel of their experts. 


These are folks that were also involved in the 


early development stages of TIB-52, although 


they weren't -- they helped us in the early 


days, but they were not involved in the later 


aspects of the TIB, so I chose my words 


carefully on Tuesday when I made the 


presentation, although Knut took exception to 


what I had to say. I did not say that they had 


written the TIB; they contributed to the TIB. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: So -- and they had sent me a 


letter, which I will share with the Board as 


soon as I get back in my office and provide you 


all a copy of that letter with those -- those 


concerns. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: What remains I think in this 


letter for specific response from this Board 


are four items near the end of the letter where 


Pete asks the Board to consider these four 


items. And I'd like to bring these before the 


Board with the question of how you would like 


to proceed on these and do that in terms of not 


only our own actions, but framing a response 


for Pete as well. 


Do all of you have copies of the letter? Okay, 


if you'll refer to the four items, then I -- I 


believe that this is where our focus needs to 


be because I believe that the issuance of the 


TIB and exchange with Larry deals with much of 


the information in the preliminary part of the 


letter. But Pete says in item one, since OCAS 


expects to complete the TIB and soon, please 


consider establishing a subcommittee to address 


it. So that is the first item, where he has 


asked if we would consider establishing a 


subcommittee, I think in essence to review the 


TIB. 


 Secondly, there's a request that SC&A 


strengthen its expertise in construction worker 


exposure estimation and that they do 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 

202 

things to evaluate. If -- if this is something 


we want SC&A to do, we would have to task them 


in some way or another, Lew, and Board members. 


So we have to determine -- and in fact, the 


issue of adding a -- I guess a sort of 


consultant to their staff would also require us 


to charge them or --


 DR. WADE: They charge us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- request them -- they charge us. 


We request of them; they charge us, yes. 


And then the third item appears to me to ask 


OCAS to do certain things. Although it's 


addressed to us, it says OCAS should do certain 


things. And I'm not sure how we would handle 


that other than to indicate whether we agree 


that that's a good idea or something of that 


sort. It asks OC-- and to some extent I think 


OCAS is doing some of this now, and we can come 


back to that. 


 And then finally there's a request that in our 


QA procedures -- and this would be QA 


procedures I think on the dose reconstructions 


-- that we evaluate and in a sense track the -- 


I think track -- basically what you would say, 


what are the construction worker cases 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 

203 

-- and also have some way of evaluating or 


determining distribution of cancers among them 


and -- and other variables. We -- we knew up 


front, as we tried to select cases, that the 


job description was not one that we could sort 


against, but after the fact -- after dose 


reconstructions are completed, we are able in 


many cases to identify, at least within broad 


terms, whether or not people are construction 


workers. 


So those are the four items. 


 DR. WADE: Paul, could I --


 DR. ZIEMER: I guess I would ask for general 


comments and then we can treat them 


individually. 


 DR. WADE: I think you need to look at number 


two because there's some substance after the -- 


the initial SC&A -- it's asking for the 


selection of a random sample of construction 


worker DRs -- DRs for audit. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and as I say, if we were to 


do that, that still requires a tasking I think 


of our contractor to do that. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. It would be a specific 

1 

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 

audit that would have -- have construction 


workers as the selection criteria, but we know 


from past experience that that's very difficult 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- because it's not a variable we 


can sort against in the database. 


But let me ask for general comments and then 


we'll proceed. Dr. Melius, you have a comment? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- my first -- I would 


suggest that we first answer these requests 


positively and that we have charged SC&A with 


reviewing TIB-52, I believe it is, and so that 


review will be underway -- underway shortly. 


And I think that's in essence the major request 


and really addresses most of these issues. How 


much we want to get into in terms of the 


individual dose reconstructions, I think 


there's sort of two answers. One is that we 


already do rev-- are reviewing a substantial 


number of construction worker dose 


reconstructions. They just, by the nature of 


our selection criteria, we only end up with 


those. However, we are not able to select on 


that basis. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205

 And under number four -- I mean it's really 


saying some of the same answers. We really 


can't select on a number of those variables 


'cause it's not in the -- the database that -- 


in the way that we do it and there's also I 


think some technical reasons why we don't want 


to do that in order to be able to do our 


overall job properly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But it could be pointed out that 


after the fact we can identify those 20 cases 


that were construction workers and the data 


that could be provided after the fact -- I 


think. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, exactly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And when you say answer 


positively, are you suggesting that we would 


agree to establish a sub-- well, he says a 


subcommittee; it might be a working group, but 


a subcommittee --


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


we already decided today was that we were -- 


once these procedure reviews got underway, we 


were going to set up a workgroup that would 


review SC&A's evaluation and then the whole 


issue of how do we reconcile these with 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 

206 

comments and so forth. We haven't -- we didn't 


establish that yet. We -- as I recall, we 


decided we'd put that off until John and his 


team had actually done this. I don't know if 


we need a -- necessarily need a special -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the first step would be the 


review of the TIB, which comes under -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's already being tasked. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right, underway, yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So you're suggesting that 

in the sense is the positive first step for the 


first item --


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in any event. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: And then once that TIB is in hand, 


the Board has signaled its intent to form a 


working group to review that review, as well as 


others. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's a sort of suggestion 


there, and Wanda, you have additional comments 


there? 


 MS. MUNN: Two thoughts. One, with respect to 


item three, and having anyone investigate 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 

207 

summarize malfeasance, bias, unmonitored -- I 


mean unbalanced policies, these are the kinds 


of charges which it's difficult to imagine is 


inside the charter of this Board. That's 


certainly not the technical issues that we were 


chartered to undertake, in my view. 


The second thought has to do with the pitfalls 


of establishing a separate category of employee 


type that we are looking at. We tried to 


identify the fact that we have monitored 


workers and we have unmonitored workers and are 


trying to grapple with how we address those 


things. I hesitate to begin to break out 


operators, maintenance workers, security folks 


-- you know, when we establish a special 


category of individual that we're looking at, 


it seems to me to be a real potential pitfall. 


That should be considered very carefully. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other comments, 


either of a general nature or -- or how to 


proceed, and some of you may wish to hit -- 


react to Dr. Melius's suggestion, as well. 


 DR. MELIUS: I actually have a reaction to 


Wanda's suggestions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208

 DR. MELIUS: I think what's being referred to 


there is -- I think what was unbalanced was the 


fact that many of the construction workers, and 


there are other workshop categories that fall 


into that, worked for subcontractors rather 


than the primary contractors, and there are 


often different monitoring policies and even 


radiation protection policies -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Off microphone) Or no 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. MELIUS: -- or no -- I mean -- yeah, 


putting it -- for -- for those, and so that's 


what I think is referred to as unbalanced. I 


think that we actually already address those on 


-- at individual sites. For example, on Rocky 


Flats it's to sort of data integrity issues, 


but it's all -- it's very site-specific and we 


view it as an overall issue, not necessarily an 


issue just for a particular group, but it's 


sort of where -- who does it apply to in a -- 


at a particular facility and -- and so forth. 


I -- I agree we -- I don't think we want to try 


to do any sort of overarching investigation of 


that. I don't think that's necessarily our 


charge. But I think we can say that we do -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

as part of our normal procedures we do address 


that where it's appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or suggestions on 


moving forward on this? 


 (No responses) 


 Dr. Melius's suggestion is a positive one in 


terms of trying to be sensitive to the needs of 


the construction worker group while recognizing 


our own limitations and what we and our 


contractor and NIOSH are able to do. And that, 


coupled with the status of the new TIB that's 


out and the provision that NIOSH has made in 


keeping them apprised of the statistical data 


actually as -- as it comes out, I think goes a 


long way to addressing the concerns at the 


front end anyway. And in talking to Knut 


Ringen this week I got a sense that they -- 


although they -- they still want to take a hard 


look at the TIB, they I think recognize that -- 


that this issue -- these issues are being 


attended to as best we're able. I hope I'm not 


mis-- I'm not trying to quote Knut, but I got a 


sense that they recognize that we are trying to 


address these issues as best we're able. 


 Another comment? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210

 DR. MELIUS: I was just going to say I think 


that's a fair statement. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then if it's agreeable, I will 


prepare a response to Pete -- and we'll 


distribute it to everyone -- which will 


indicate that we will -- we will begin, with 


our contractor, reviewing the TIB on 


construction workers. We'll -- with respect to 


the COI, I can simply point out we are 


developing a Board COI policy. I'm certainly 


not going to make any commitments that it's 


going to specifically call out things here, but 


certainly we will consider on our end of it 


what -- what conflicts we need to take into 


consideration. We already have in place QA 


procedures and we will be able to look -- after 


the fact, at least -- as -- as to what is -- 


what some of these variables are on the 


construction workers as a matter of record for 


their interests. I will prepare a general 


letter along those lines. Would the Board wish 


to see a draft before we finalize it? Perhaps 


I should send a draft out -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and give you a chance 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 

211

 MS. MUNN: It would be helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't want to conduct business 


by e-mail, but the general nature has been 


agreed to so I'll be looking for editorial 


changes only rather than conceptual changes. 


 Without objection, we'll proceed on that basis 


then. 


 MS. MUNN: That's fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Wade, do you know of any other 


correspondence that we need to address? I 


think that was the only backlogged one. Most 


of the other correspondence, such as the letter 


from Senator Kennedy and others, were 


informational and were not asking for specific 


responses at this time. 


 DR. WADE: Let me just ask Jason Broehm. 


Jason, are there any -- Congressional 


correspondence outstanding as far as you know? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That -- that -- particularly that 


require responses. 


 MR. BROEHM: I'm not aware of any, no. 


 DR. WADE: Good. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Are there any other 


matters that need to come before the Board at 


this time? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212

 MR. PRESLEY: I'd like to bring something up, 


please. 


The last two or three days we have heard from 


quite a few people from the general public 


discuss that they've had problems with their 


correspondence back and forth. And when we 


have talked to them and when we have asked 


them, it always points back toward -- I hate to 


say it -- the Department of Labor. And we -- I 


think that we talked to them about a year ago 


about this same matter, and I would like to go 


on record as asking that we notify the 


Department of Labor and ask them to do whatever 


is possible for them to clean up some of their 


excess correspondence and some of the 


correspondence that some of these people are 


getting that's -- I don't know where you say 


not needed or -- or what it is, but it seems 


that a lot of the people, the petitioners, are 


having quite a bit of problems with the 


Department of Labor on some of their -- their 


documents that the Department of Labor's 


sending out asking for. And I think we need to 


go on record as saying something to them about 


this. We've had -- we've heard from too many 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

people this week -- this last three days. 


Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Robert. I'd like to 


get some other reactions to that. I think I've 


been hearing similar things, and of course I'm 


not sure if there are particular pieces of 


correspondence that can be identified as form 


letters or whatever it might be that are the 


ones that are causing the greatest concern. We 


heard a couple of letters quoted to us that 


appeared simply not only to be confusing, but 


perhaps not even correct. But any other -- 


Larry, maybe you can help us on this. What do 


we need to do to -- beyond -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That's all that I'm 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. WADE: Go sit down. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm leaving. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can we get your contractor to work 


on the Labor Department here? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Jeff's not here, but I applaud -- 


applaud your taking this up, and I -- you 


know, when I hear these things in public 


comment, you may see me pull that individual 


aside. I think you've seen me do this at many 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

meetings. I want to verify that it's not our 


correspondence. And each and every time that 


I've heard this -- and it's unfortunate that I 


don't see Cindy and I don't see Richard and I 


don't see Jeff Kotsch in the audience, but I 


hope they'll read this part of the transcript. 


It's unfortunate that every time I verify 


what's going on here, it's not a NIOSH 


correspondence. You've heard this in -- I 


believe we heard it in Knoxville. I think we 


heard it in D.C., and I take it back. I go 


back to Pete Turcic and I say here's another 


instance where we've heard that there's been a 


mixup in personal, privacy-related information. 


And if it's on my watch, I'm on top of it and I 


want to stop it right then and there 'cause I'm 


the responsible party here for the Privacy Act 


control of what we do in a dose-reconstruction 


effort. And I think DOL and Pete Turcic has a 


similar responsibility in dealing with these 


issues in their correspondence. 


So I just want to get that on the record, that 


when I see and hear these things, I follow up 


with the individuals. And if it's a NIOSH 


issue, I assure you I'll let you know 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 

215 

we've messed up and how we've corrected it. If 


it's a DOL-related correspondence issue, I 


assure you I go back to DOL and I talk to them 


about it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask Lew or Lar-- probably 


Lew a question, and this is sort of a protocol 


type of question. But for example, if this -- 


and this Board basically advises the Secretary 


of Health and Human Services. Would it be out 


of order or cause a problem if we were to ask 


him to request that his counterpart, the 


Secretary of Labor, address this issue? Now I 


-- I -- at the same time I want to be careful 


that we're not sort of blind-siding Pete and 


his folks so that -- I mean they -- they need 


to have the opportunity to correct this before 


we go way over their heads, so maybe that would 


be a last resort. But -- or maybe we should 


indicate to Pete that this Board is considering 


that if -- if the issue doesn't get corrected. 


What -- can you --


 DR. WADE: Well, I can --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- advise us on that without 


getting yourself into trouble? 


 DR. WADE: I can't get in trouble. I've 

1 

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 

reached a certain age where I can't get in 


trouble. But I would start at the top. I mean 


I think it's within the prerogative of this 


Board, should it choose, to advise the 


Secretary of HHS of a concern that it's come 


upon in its deliberations and to outline that 


concern, and I think that's perfectly 


reasonable. It's perfectly appropriate. 


I would stop that and say on a personal level, 


before I would suggest you take that step, I 


would take some other steps that -- that would 


try to get the issue before the right people in 


the Department of Labor. I believe as strongly 


as I'm sitting here that those people care 


about the job that they do and want to provide 


quality service. So I think our first job is 


to bring concerns with as much specificity to 


them as we can so that they can work on it. 


If you are concerned about it enough, you can 


ask them to report back to you at the next 


meeting as to what's happened, and then make 


your judgment as to whether you want to 


escalate this. But before I would write to the 


Secretary of HHS, I would propose that we 


attempt to engage DOL at some meaningful level, 

1 

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 

and quite possibly build a feedback loop into 


it, before I would take that step, Paul. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would this be a request of Pete to 


-- expressing the concern and asking him to 


report --


 MR. PRESLEY: Mike has a --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mike, hang on just a second. 


I'm asking if this would be a -- a letter to 


Pete asking -- or expressing our concern and 


asking him what they might be able to do to 


correct this situation. 


 DR. WADE: Inviting -- and inviting him to the 


next Board meeting to speak to the issue and to 


report. I think -- I mean I would follow the 


Golden Rule in this. I mean if we were in that 


situation, that's what we would like to see. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Mike Gibson. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. Dr. Ziemer, I have to agree 


with Mr. Presley. This has been brought up on 


a number of occasions by a number of people. 


As a matter of fact, I think the record and the 


transcripts will show that over a year ago I 


read a redacted letter into the record -- a 


letter from DOL to a potential survivor, 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 

218 

even had a little Post-it attached to it saying 


"I don't want to be morbid, but when your 


spouse passes away, here's what you need to 


do." And I was assured by DOL after that 


meeting that person would not deal with another 


claimant. And over a year later I believe it 


was, at a different meeting, the same letter 


was read by one of the people during the public 


comment period. So DOL has had ample 


opportunity. They've heard this complaint. 


Pete Turcic or one of the DOL representatives 


made the statement these people won't -- this 


letter will be stopped, these people will not ­

- you know, this -- they will not be addressed 


like this in any manner again. And evidently, 


according to Mr. Presley's information, it's 


still going on. So I'm not so sure it's not 


time that we take some action other than -- 


than just a general little chat with DOL, or 


asking them to explain it at the next meeting. 


I think they've had ample opportunity, in my 


opinion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Mike, and I do 


recall your entering that letter into the 


record a year ago, or whenever that 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 

219

 Okay, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Kate reminded me that -- I think 


it was after the Oak Ridge meeting, or maybe 


the Knoxville meeting, that direction was given 


to ORAU to -- ORAU staff to glean every bit of 


specific instance from the transcript of public 


comment about -- that goes to this, and then we 


would follow up on our side and make sure it 


wasn't us. So we have, through that gleaning 


effort, these situation-specific things that we 


could help you provide the DOL if that's -- 


that's something you want. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I would -- to give Pete Turcic a 


little bit of credit here, when I talk to him 


about these issues, though, his first -- what 


he'll say, has said to me and will probably say 


to you is that the growth that they've 


experienced with the Subtitle E coming to them 


and all the new faces and the new people, and 


their cross-training that's gone on, these are 


some of the problems that have resulted from 


the growing pains that they've experienced. 


That's not, in my mind, an acceptable excuse, 


but that's what you might 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 

220

 DR. ZIEMER: And to some extent in the past 


year this has been treated somewhat informally. 


We've brought it up, but maybe an official 


letter from the Board, which we haven't done, 


to Pete and sort of requesting him to be 


accountable to us on this, to the extent we can 


make that request. And having the specific is­

- cases that ORAU has gleaned, which could be 


an attachment or whatever to such a letter, 


would be a first step. And -- and I think it 


could be made clear that if this situation 


isn't corrected it will be necessary for us to 


-- to raise --


 MR. ELLIOTT: We'll be happy to provide that, 


because it shows it's not just episodic. It's 


ongoing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And if I can be candid, the 


problem here, from my perspective, is is that 


we're all viewed as the government. Even you 


folks sitting there are viewed as the 


government. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And if one part of the government 


messes up, then we're 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 

221

 MS. MUNN: Everybody. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we're all guilty. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I appreciate that, but it -- I 


mean let he who is without sin -- I mean we at 


NIOSH have an awful lot that's brought up 


that's critical of us. I mean so I think we 


need to proceed very cautiously in this. I 


mean it is all one government, and that's not 


unfortunate. That's the way it is, and we 


share this burden together. 


 Again, I would instruct you now as your DFO, if 


you're going to go to the Secretary of HHS with 


this kind of information, get your facts right 


and have your facts correct. I think other 


than that, you do a great disservice to 


yourself, as well as to those you write about. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I think, as you suggested, 


the first step is to go to Pete and see if he 


can get that corrected. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 MS. MUNN: I certainly agree with Lew's 


observation regarding caution in this regard, 

1 

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 

recalling that we all live in glass houses. By 


the same token, it seems appropriate that we 


formalize our communication with Pete by 


creating a letter giving him some specifics 


that he can work from and, if at all possible, 


let that agency deal with its problems 


internally before we pursue it further. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think Mike Gibson may have 


another comment. Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. Dr. Ziemer, I agree with 


Larry and Lew's comments. You know, we are all 


looked at as the government. I mean obviously 


DOL and NIOSH are the government. We are just 


private citizens appointed by the President, 


but -- and I wasn't -- I wasn't pointing my 


finger specifically at Pete Turic (sic), but at 


the Department of Labor and commitments they 


made. And after one year, we heard the same -- 


we got the same copy of the same letter from 


another claimant in another city. So obviously 


someone there did not do their job, and I just 


-- it's -- in my opinion, it's -- it's 


discouraging claimants. It's hurting them. 


And you know, I just think that it's time for 


at least our side of the house that 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 

223 

are charged to monitor to relate to the other 


side of the house, the Department of Labor, 


that this is an ongoing issue. I'm sure it is 


in the transcripts and it can be pulled out and 


related that, you know, it's time for this to 


stop. I don't think we need to pussyfoot 


around here. I think we need to let them know 


it's time for this to be changed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Jim 


Lockey has a comment. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I would like to offer some caution 


that perhaps the way to approach this is to ask 


them to share with us their quality assurance 


program that they have in place to monitor how 


they're handling Department of Labor issues. 


When I make a phone call I hear in the 


background, you know, "This may be monitored 


for quality assurance." What -- what kind of 


program do they -- do they potentially have in 


place to monitor the quality of the service 


they're providing. Perhaps they have 


something. If not, maybe then it will spur 


them on to get something. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to get a sense 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 

224 

Board --


 MR. GIBSON: -- (unintelligible) I respond to 


Dr. (unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in terms of favoring the 


approach of first giving Mike (sic) a sort of 


final chance to correct this through -- but 


formalizing it through a letter versus going at 


this time to the Secretary, as I think about 


that question. And I think Mike has an 


additional comment here. Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. Dr. Lockey, this -- this was 


not in the form of a phone call or anything 


else. This was a form letter from the 


Department of Labor and it -- and it appears to 


me, from what I've seen first-hand and 


submitted into the record, and what I've heard 


second-hand from a claimant at a meeting a year 


later, this is a form letter that they're still 


using that they claimed they would not let 


happen again. So it's -- it's not neces-- it's 


not any part of the phone interview or anything 


else. It's a -- a request, I believe after a 


denial of the claim, to do some other things. 


So it just appears to me that they're not 


following through with their written 

1 

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 

correspondence with claimants or survivors. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you --


 DR. WADE: I would offer again another caution. 


I mean this Board has been chartered to do 


certain things. I think you need to consider 


your charter as you contemplate your actions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The issue of quality assurance may 


not come into the picture here. If in fact 


this is part of their routine, then quality 


assurance would say did you send out letter X. 


And if that's the offensive letter, it would 


pass all quality assurance but still not solve 


our problem. 


But in any event, I think the compilation that 


Kate talks about -- 'cause it may go -- well go 


beyond this single letter. This may be just 


part of the issue. And I think in terms of 


this Board's responsibility, I think we could 


argue that this is part of the overall -- for 


the -- for our claimants, this is part of the 


dose reconstruction process. Yes, it's true 


that it's the final step. Labor has that 


responsibility. And for many of these, 


particularly those who are denied, it's -- it's 


a harsh ending on a process. And if the -- 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 

226 

the harsh ending is made even worse by the 


words that are used, it seems to me it concerns 


us in terms of the total process. 


 DR. WADE: And I -- I applaud the emotion that 


you bring to this, and I applaud what you are 


trying to do. But again, your responsibilities 


are to oversee the scientific quality of the 


dose reconstruction program. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Again, I think the emotion that 


brings you to this point is wonderful. I think 


you should follow up and do what you can. But 


I ask you to do that in consideration of what 


your responsibilities are. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Additional comment? John 

Poston. 

 DR. POSTON: I've been sitting here listening 

to all this, and I understand Mike's 


frustration and so forth. But being one of the 


older folks on the panel, I would caution that 


we should accept Lew's approach to the problem. 


That doesn't keep us from doing other things, 


but it seems to me we need to take a first 


step, and the first step can be as -- excuse 


me, to use an old word -- as gentlemanly 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 

227 

possible. And then we certainly have a big 


stick if we need it. So I would caution that 


we need to pay attention to our -- our 


Designated Federal Official and if possible 


follow his advice. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I agree. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That advice -- at this point, Lew, 


I'm trying to interpret now -- you're not 


suggesting that we do nothing. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I'm suggesting that you write 


to the Department of Labor with as much 


specificity as you can saying this is what 


we've found. I'm sure, Department of Labor, 


that you want to do the best job by these 


people that you can and we've found these 


materials. They trouble us to the point that 


we would like you to come to the next meeting 


and to address us as to these issues. I would 


stop short of threatening. I mean it's just 


not my way. If you choose to do that, I -- I 


say go and do it, but it's not my way. But 


then take your next measured step. 


But also get your facts right. I mean if 


you're going to start to talk about 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 

228 

sequence of events that troubles you, then you 


need to have your facts right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen Roessler. 


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


DR. ROESSLER: Just to follow up on what Lew 


just said, let's make sure we get the facts 


right before we embarrass ourselves. A letter 


has been mentioned, and we don't know the date 


of this letter and the various times it's been 


brought up in the public session. We want to 


make sure that that letter hasn't been changed 


before we start commenting on it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the fact that it was seen a 


year later -- and Mike may be -- may be able to 


clarify if he knows that the date on the letter 


was a year later. But -- and I think Mike is 


on -- has another comment anyway. Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: With all due respect to Dr. Poston 


and Dr. Wade, I'm not suggesting any 


threatening letter or anything that we don't 


have the authority to -- to take grounds on. 


I'm just suggesting a letter stating that this 


was addressed at one meeting. It is on the 


transcripts. It said it would be taken care 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 

229 

on the transcripts. And a year later it was 


read into the public record by a claimant or a 


survivor, I -- I don't remember which at this 


point, I believe it was a survivor. And you 


know, again, I -- I'd have to just stroll back 


through the transcripts and try to find it, but 


the fact is, DOL made the commitment that 


letter, after the first reading of that letter, 


it would never be -- it would never happen 


again, that letter would be changed, that 


person would not deal with any other claimants. 


And obviously, whether or not that person is 


still dealing with claimants is unknown, but 


the letter was unchanged. And I just think a 


letter from the Secretary of Health and Human 


Services giving these facts to the Director of 


Department of Labor, not blaming any of his 


staff but just simply saying, you know, this 


obviously is still going on and it needs to be 


changed. I'm not -- I don't think I'm jumping 


to any conclusions here, but you know, it's 


just something that I specifically remember 


because, you know, it was an issue that was -- 


it was brought to me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mike. And 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 

230 

might point out that, for example, even last 


night we -- we had people quoting from letters 


that they received, for example, 20 years ago. 


And I'm not sure if -- whether or not we know, 


even though the second letter surfaced a year 


later, whether it was actually written a year 


later, or could it have been, you know, the 


same version and maybe that person got it 


concurrently or even earlier than the previous. 


I don't know if we -- we would need to verify 


that it actually was sent out a year later. 


The fact that it came to our attention a year 


later does not necessarily indicate that it was 


still in use at that time. We see all kinds of 


documents from claimants that -- because they 


keep these in files and they date back, some of 


them, many, many years. And so I think Dr. 


Roessler's certainly true that anything that -- 


that we use as a basis for a kind of complaint, 


we need to make sure and now perhaps we'll rely 


on the work that ORAU has done to -- to compile 


these things --


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or form a basis for us to 


determine --

1 

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

 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- precisely what to say, but my 


inclination is that we would write a letter to 


Pete and indicate our concerns, based on what 


has been found by the ORAU search, and simply 


ask them --


 MR. GIBSON: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what their -- how -- how 


they're addressing this in terms of those for 


whom dose reconstructions have been done. 


 DR. WADE: Mike has a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Mike, another comment. 


 MR. GIBSON: I'm not discussing letters from 


history. I'm discussing letters from like two 


years ago, a form letter from the Department of 


Labor on a denial of a claim, and I'm 


discussing a letter that said that would be 


stopped, at a public -- at one of our Board 


meetings from a Department of Labor 


representative. And a year -- a year later we 


see the same form letter. So I'm not 


discussing prehistoric documents. I'm talking 


about letter -- a letter that was read into the 


record, said it would be changed, and a year 


later -- after hearing from Department of Labor 

1 

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 

saying it would be changed, it was still there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, Dr. Melius? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, can I suggest another way 


forward on this? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. MELIUS: First of all, I don't think we can 


base a letter from Secretary of Health and 


Human Services to the Secretary of Labor based 


on a single set of letters or something like 


that. I think let's -- I think we're trying to 


get at a -- what we've perceived to be a more 


general problem, and I think the first step we 


need to do is -- if ORAU has done this 


compilation from a number of our public 


meetings, let's take a look at that and see if 


there's some way we can generalize about the 


types of issues we have and so forth. If it's 


-- I don't know what the status of the report 


is, but it might be something that we could get 


out -- if it's already been compiled, get out 


to us before our conference call meeting in 


October and be able to discuss a letter on the 


conference call meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly do that. That would 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 

233 

a good first step if we had the actual 


information on the instances, the letters and 


the associated dates -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it would be -- beyond the two 


that Mike referred to, and they may be included 


-- probably are -- in that database. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, we should include the -- the 


two instances Mike referred -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: I recall the -- certainly the 


first one, but I -- I don't recall the second 


one, but it doesn't mean it didn't occur, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I just -- I want to concur with 


what Jim just said. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: A key point seems to be one that 


Larry touched upon but has not been key in our 


discussions here. That is that there appears 


to be a continuing problem, not just that Bob 


has had interaction with people here this week, 


but that there seems to continue to be an 


issue. That continuing process is the primary 


reason for concern, I believe, and in my view 

1 

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 

that should be the emphasis of our -- of our 


communication with Mr. Turcic. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 DR. WADE: And I would be remiss if I didn't 


add to that that one listening to the record 


could also find evidence of a continuing 


problem within NIOSH. So I mean I think we 


need to deal with these issues, all of us, as 


we can. And I think raising this to the 


Department of Energy's -- Department of Labor 


is a wonderful thing to do. But again, this is 


about serving the public across the board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, we -- we've 


discussed this pretty well. It appears that we 


can proceed. I'm going to take it by consent 


that the Board has agreed that we will first 


get the information that Larry has compiled 


through the help of the contractor, have a 


chance to look at that, and then we'll have an 


opportunity in our phone meeting to decide 


specifically on a course of action, the nature 


of the letter that may be needed to bring this 


to resolution. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I commit to have that to you a 


week from Monday. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd like to see it first to make 


sure --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that it is fully complete, 


'cause I haven't seen it. I'd also like to 


make sure that my public health advisors have 


an opportunity to add to it from our 


perspective. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we would simply need it, 


for example, a week before our phone 


conversation, so if it takes a little more time 


for you, that will not be a problem. 


 Any objections to that? 


 DR. WADE: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then we'll proceed from there. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No problem. 


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


other issues that anyone wishes to bring before 


the Board? 


 (No responses) 


Anything for the good of the order? If not, we 


stand adjourned. I thank you all very much. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 3:50 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

236 

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 Sept. 21, 


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 


18th day of November, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102