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 


FORTY-FIRST MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


ABRWH BOARD MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on October 18, 


2006. 

 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

October 18, 2006 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 

7 

ASSIGNMENT OF BOARD MEMBER REVIEW TEAMS 

FOR THE 6TH ROUND OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

REVIEWS (AND REASSIGNMENT OF SOME 5TH ROUND CASES 

RESULTING FROM THE RETIREMENT OF DR. DEHART) 

DR. ZIEMER, CHAIR 

10 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST UPDATE CONCERNING THE 

SC&A CONTRACT 

MR. DAVID STAUDT 

24 

WORKING GROUP (WG) REPORTS AND SCHEDULING FOR 

FUTURE WORK GROUP MEETINGS 

WG CHAIRS 

41 

BOARD WORKING TIME: 

DR. ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DISCUSSION OF SITE PROFILE REVIEW TASK 

FOR SC&A IN FY07 92 

NEED FOR NEW WORKING GROUPS 

(I.E. PROCEDURES REVIEW) 95 

DISCUSSION OF WORKING GROUP & SUBCOMMITTEE 

MEETING DURING THE DECEMBER FACE-TO-FACE MEETING 102 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 112 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

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 

 

5 

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 


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 

6 

ANNOUNCED PARTICIPANTS
 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


ESCOBAR, FELICIA, SEN. SALAZAR 


FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(10:00 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Ray is now with us -- 


 DR. WADE: I see. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and ready to go, so maybe -- 


maybe we should call the meeting to order. 


 DR. WADE: Mark, are you with us? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, I'm here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ah, good, Mark. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. And Ray, are you ready to 


begin? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So I will call the meeting to 


order. This is the conference call meeting of 


the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health. This is -- those present are Ziemer, 


Lockey, Munn, Roessler, Presley, Gibson, 


Clawson, Melius, Griffon and Lew Wade, the 


Designated Federal Official. Dr. Poston is 


unable to be with us today. 


We also have a number of staff people here. We 


don't need to identify them all at the moment ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

- or do we? Do we need that for the record, 


Dr. Wade? 


 DR. WADE: No, I don't know that we do. 
I 


think if anyone is going to participate in the 


discussion, they need to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they can --


 DR. WADE: -- clearly identify themself. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- identify as they participate. 


Also there may be members of the public on the 


phone lines as well. 


 DR. WADE: I would ask if there are any 


representatives of members of Congress who 


would like to be identified on the call. 


 MS. ESCOBAR: This is Felicia Escobar. I work 


for Senator Ken Salazar and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, thank you. 


 MS. ESCOBAR: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Ray, did you get that? 


THE COURT REPORTER: I believe so, Felicia 


Escobar? 


 MS. ESCOBAR: Yes. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MS. ESCOBAR: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9

 (No responses) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Let me then welcome 


everybody to the conference call. I'll make a 


few preliminary remarks and then Dr. Wade will 


also have an opportunity to make some 


additional remarks. 


I hope all of you have a copy of the agenda, 


and we are blocked off time-wise to go till 


1:30. It's not mandatory that we go to 1:30. 


Our items of -- of deliberation are all items 


that are more in the form of reports and 


updates, and therefore we may be able to have a 


more streamlined meeting, although it's not 


mandatory that we -- that we make it shorter, 


either. The designated time frames have been 


set aside based on estimates and, as you know, 


we will proceed with the agenda as we complete 


items, so that the time frame that was 


disseminated may not necessarily be the final 


time frame that we end up with. So with the 


understanding that we have that flexibility to 


move ahead as we complete items, why we will 


proceed. I thank every for participating. 


Lew, you have some additional remarks? 


 DR. WADE: Only to thank everyone for their 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

participation and also, you know, the modus 


operandi we've sort of evolved into is that 


between Board meetings we schedule -- between 


face-to-face Board meetings we schedule a 


telephone call. And again, it's really to sort 


of wrap up loose ends and deal with issues that 


need to be dealt with before we sit down 


together again. And you know, at some points 


that -- the demands will be greater than 


others. As Paul said, I don't know that we'll 


use the entire day today, but I do think it's a 


good idea to have these calls scheduled and to 


deal with issues because, as you'll see today, 


there are several issues that really wouldn't ­

- would best not wait until we're next together 


in December. And that's the purpose of the 


call, so I appreciate your discipline, those of 


you who were with us in making these calls, and 


I appreciate your efforts. 


ASSIGNMENT OF BOARD MEMBER REVIEW TEAMS
 

FOR THE 6TH ROUND OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION
 

REVIEWS (AND REASSIGNMENT OF SOME 5TH ROUND CASES
 

RESULTING FROM THE RETIREMENT OF DR. DEHART)


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's go to the first item 


on the agenda, which deals with the dose 


reconstruction review process. And I'd like to 


look first at round five. And you may recall 

1 

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 

that round five, we had -- had assigned all the 


teams for that. And to the best of my 


knowledge, all of those teams have completed 


their interactions with the SC&A staff. And 


Kathy and Hans, can you confirm that that is 


the case? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, we have one more team to go 


through the -- the cases, but everyone else is 


complete at this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And I should point out -- 


and I don't know if you all have a copy of the 


-- the cases and the teams that -- I think a 


copy was disseminated within the last couple of 


weeks, but the first team on that list was 


DeHart and Roessler, and DeHart of course -- 


his term ended on the Board prior to his 


actually doing the reviews. My understanding 


is that Dr. Roessler ended up working without 


DeHart with the SC&A folks. Gen, is that 


correct? 


DR. ROESSLER: That's true, I had to do it on 


my own. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we thank you for doing that 


sort of double duty and appreciate the fact 


'cause that put the whole burden on you 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 

12 

handle those particular cases. But anyway, we 


thank you for that. 


So with the exception of whatever single team ­

- and you've got that scheduled then, Kathy, 


for --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do. It's scheduled for 


tomorrow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. So --


 MS. BEHLING: So we should be finished by 


tomorrow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So those'll be finished and then I 


assume that we will have -- before our next 


meeting then we will have the official draft of 


the findings and --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and that will be able to start 


the matrix process at our meeting in -- in 


December. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Let me ask if anyone 


has any questions on round five at this point. 


 (No responses) 


If not, move to round six and let me ask if -- 


and Stu Hinnefeld distributed also the list 


that we selected for round six. Did everybody 

1 

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 

get a copy of that? It went out within the 


last couple of weeks. Is anyone lacking a copy 


of that, the 20 cases for round six? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Lew, you have had an opportunity to 


check conflicts of interest relative to the 


facilities involved with the round six audit 


selection, so do you want to share those with 


us? 


 DR. WADE: Surely. Again what I did was I gave 


the list to our attorneys and asked them to 


identify potential conflicts of Board members, 


and I'll be referring to the selection ID 


number when I make this report. And I'll only 


be reporting those situations where a conflict 


has been raised to my attention. 


For item 18, selection ID that ends in 18, 


Griffon and Presley are conflicted. 


For item 19, Gibson, Griffon and Poston are 


conflicted. 


For item 22, Griffon. 


For item 31, Munn. 


For item 48, Munn. 


For item 49, Griffon and Presley. 


For item 96, Griffon and Presley. 

1 

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 

For item 106, Clawson and Griffon. 


For item 144, Munn. 


For item 163, Munn. 


For item 166, Griffon, Poston, Presley, Ziemer. 


And for item 171, Gibson, Griffon. 


So that's the report I have from the attorneys. 


Again, I think -- you know, as is always the 


case, we see members with conflicts, but that 


speaks to the fact that you are valuable 


additions to the Board. I think that there is 


a way to work through that now. Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Now I'm -- as a 


first effort to get the assignments here, I 


would like to, if we're able to, use the same 


teams with the following exception. We had 


two-person teams except for when we made the 


last group of assignments we put Dr. Lockey on 


the team with -- with Mike Gibson and me, so we 


had a three-person team there. But the other 


teams were two-person teams and then now we 


have Roessler as a one-person team. So I'm --


I would propose that we move Lockey to the team 


to replace DeHart, so Lockey and Roessler would 


work together if we're able to find suitable -- 


suitable cases without conflicts of interest. 

1 

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 

Would that be agreeable, Gen, and -- 


DR. ROESSLER: It's agreeable to me. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, it's fine with me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now that means we have five teams 


of two, and we have 20 cases, which means each 


team would have four cases. And I -- I think, 


and we've found in the past, the easiest way to 


do this is to start out with team one and find 


four cases for them and then on to team two and 


so on. Then we would take them in order, 


unless there's a conflict. 


 So for example, the Roessler/Lockey team -- and 


we may have to trade some if this doesn't work 


out, but Roessler/Lockey could take cases -- 


let me just propose this and if -- and we'll 


just go down through the list and then see if ­

- if it's agreeable -- would take cases 8, 18 


and 19 and 20, and --


DR. ROESSLER: On here it's 22. 


 DR. WADE: It's 22, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, 22. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Correct. I just read it wrong. 


And there would be no conflict there. 


 Then Presley/Poston would take cases 26, 20 -- 

1 

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 

31, 33 and 48. Now I'm going to skip the 


Griffon team for the moment because there's a 


bunch of Griffon ones here, and we go to the 


Gibson/Ziemer team, and they would take 93, 96, 


106 and 1-- get this right, I'm sorry -- 49, 


93, 96 and 106. Did I get those right? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Then Griffon/Clawson could 


take 113, 125, 136 and 144. Now we're going to 


run into a problem here I see, so we're going 


to have to do a trade in a minute 'cause -- but 


let me do Munn/Melius. Let's -- let's skip 163 


for a moment and put Munn/Melius on 166, 171 


and 181, and then do a trade and bring -- do a 


trade -- 163, let's put Roessler and Lockey in 


there and -- and put Melius/Munn on 008 at the 


top. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay, so we get the Hanford, 


163. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I -- I think -- I think with 


that arrangement -- I think we have -- we've 


used all the teams. Right? Five teams of two, 


and I think we have no conflicts. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17

 DR. LOCKEY: So we have five cases then? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, four. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Which one did you take away from ­

- I missed that. 


DR. ROESSLER: Number 8. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Number 8, okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I took number 8 away from you. 


We'll give that to -- to Melius/Munn. We're 


just trading that one since they have a 


conflict on that --


 DR. LOCKEY: Gotcha, that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that one. That would -- that 


would give everybody their four cases without 


conflict. 


DR. ROESSLER: Ray, can you -- do you recognize 


the voices, or should we identify ourselves? 


This is Gen. 


 (No response) 


Ray's not there. 


 DR. WADE: Ray, are you with us? 


 (No response) 


Ray? 


DR. ROESSLER: Uh-oh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: He's taping it and he's taking a 


nap. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: I will make a call. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll stand by for a minute. 


Maybe we lost Ray along the line here. 


 DR. LOCKEY: See, this is -- he didn't get the 

gold medal. 

 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder where -- what -- we lost 

Ray. 

THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer, I'm here. 


This phone -- can you hear me? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Ray, we -- did we lose you 


for a while or were you recording? 


THE COURT REPORTER: No, we're on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen had asked whether you can 


recognize us by our voices or whether or not 


you wanted each Board member to identify 


themself when we talk. 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Ray, can you hear us? We're not 


hearing you. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, I'm -- hello? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


THE COURT REPORTER: I'm hearing y'all fine. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, there are -- there are long 


periods when we're not hearing you respond 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 

19 

THE COURT REPORTER: I know it --


 DR. WADE: -- so that causes us concern. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want me to go to 


another phone? 


 DR. WADE: Have you missed any of our 


deliberations? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me? 


 DR. WADE: You have not missed any of our 


deliberations? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, no. No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ray, do you want the Board members 


to identify themselves when they -- 


THE COURT REPORTER: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- speak or can you recognize 


voices? 


THE COURT REPORTER: It's not necessary. I'm 


fine without that, but I'm wondering if I 


should move to another phone so y'all can 


communicate with me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, no, that's all right. This is 


always -- I think that -- probably -- probably 


good to identify, just to double -- make 


double-sure. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Usually I'm fine with it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, Ray, and this is Lew Wade. 

1 

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 

I've sent people to find you, so when they 


come, that's why they're looking for you. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Board members, you now have 


the proposed teams for round six. Is there any 


objection or comments on those teams? 


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


problems. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone have any concerns about -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Paul, this is Mark Griffon. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have any concerns with 


the teams and I let the process go, but I do 


want to say for the record, I think my 


conflicts are wrong again so I've got to talk 


to --


 DR. ZIEMER: You need to work that out -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- them, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- with the attorneys and then we 


can hopefully --


 MR. GRIFFON: I only see one site on here that 


I should have been conflicted on, one case, and 


I don't understand. I think they're recusing 


me -- Oak Ridges again -- and that's not the 


case, 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 

21

 DR. WADE: Okay, we'll work that out, Mark. 


Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks. Then without objection, 


these'll be the assignments for then the next 


set of cases. And perhaps -- perhaps Kathy and 


Hans can give us some idea of timetable on this 


set. Or John. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, this is Kathy Behling. I 


am hoping to have this sixth set done by the 


next meeting in December, so hopefully -- I'm 


not sure if we're going to get out conference 


calls in before the next meeting or somewhere 


right after that meeting, but it's going to be 


very close to the December meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. But we -- we then, for the 


December meeting -- as far as looking ahead -- 


we will have round four matrix to deal with 


'cause that's already underway. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct --


 DR. ZIEMER: And then we'll have the first 


round -- the first sort of version of the 


matrix and the findings for this set. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. Actually the matrix for 


the fourth set I have -- I have initiated and 


developed that matrix. I believe that's 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 

22 

NIOSH's hands at this point in time. We 


haven't gotten any response yet. I understand 


they're backlogged and I am -- when we get 


through with tomorrow's conference call I will 


develop the matrix for the fifth set and I will 


-- we will circulate that. And then hopefully 


very close, as I said, to the December meeting 


we will be near done with the sixth set and 


will probably just be having conference calls 


about that time. And then after the conference 


calls, again, we will publish our report and 


generate the matrix for the sixth set. So 


there's going to be three sets of matrices that 


are going to require issues resolution by the 


end of this year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And Mark, just in terms of 


the -- the subcommittee now, we'll be hopefully 


operating in the new subcommittee mode by the 


time of our December meeting. I think the new 


-- new document is still going through the 


system, but at least -- there will be at least 


two matrices to address at that point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that -- that's right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we might even want to 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 

23 

I have to coordinate with Stu, as well, 'cause 


-- to see where he is with the NIOSH responses 


on the fourth, but I was actually hoping 


possibly to have a subcommittee meeting prior 


to the full Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: That may not happen, though, 


depending on the -- the progress of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: You mean separate or --


 MR. GRIFFON: Separate, separate from, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, are you on the line? Is there 


any comment that NIOSH can make at this point? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm on the line and I 


think we can probably make a working group 


meeting -- or be prepared for a working group 


meeting before the next -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It would actually be a 


subcommittee now --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah, but before the ne-- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Before it was a work-- a work-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- meeting --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- session. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. But we'll have to check 


our calendars, Mark. There's --

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

24

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we can --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like we can be ready 


about Thanksgiving time, I think, but maybe we 


can beat it by a week. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so it may not be 


advantageous to even -- we can -- I can talk to 


you more, Stu, on that and we can -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then, just thinking ahead, we 


need to be thinking about the next set of cases 


after that, selection process for that, too. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any -- that is actually what 


the business is on the -- on the dose 


reconstructions. Any -- any other comments or 


questions on that item? 


 (No responses) 


CONFLICT OF INTEREST UPDATE CONCERNING THE
 

SC&A CONTRACT
 

If not, we can move on to the conflict of 


interest item on the agenda. This is -- this 


is an item concerning the SC&A contract and the 


conflict of interest. And there are a couple 


of parts to this. One -- one of them had to do 


with the fire-- so-called firewalls, and I 


think you've gotten the correspondence 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 

25 

David Staudt. I don't know if David's on the 


line today or --


 MR. STAUDT: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, good. So -- and Lew, did 


you have -- want to kick this off and then 


maybe David can follow up there? 


 DR. WADE: Only to turn it over to David and to 


-- to make his report, and then look forward to 


a discussion about sort of paths forward to -- 


to satisfy the Board's issues and concerns. 


 MR. STAUDT: Dr. Ziemer, the first issue 


related -- was related to the firewall 


mitigation strategy which you -- you wanted me 


to come back and take a look and see if I could 


get that incorporated into the contract. And I 


took a look at the contract and the conflict of 


interest plan is incorporated by reference into 


the contract, so I won't be modifying the base 


contract. But the conflict of interest plan is 


a living document and SC&A is required every 


December to review the plan to make sure that 


it's up to date and if there are any changes to 


be made. Now they've only had to do that once, 


and now it's coming up this December again and 


I've asked them to include the firewall plan 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 

26 

their -- in any of their comments to me. So 


I'm fully anticipating that the plan will be 


updated and that we will have a revised plan in 


December or January and that will be sent to 


the Board and also be put on the web sites. So 


I think that issue's pretty much -- I think 


that's been resolved. 


 The other issue that comes up has to do with 


what I just call conflict -- special conflict 


of interest, circumstances or situations that ­

- and -- and I know that during the performance 


of this contract several of these are going to 


come up and some are very minor. But some are 


-- are more serious and -- and how are we going 


to address those and I think that's what Lew 


was alluding to that. I think we need to have 


some discussion on how the Board would like to 


see this done 'cause there was a concern that 


the Board mee-- only meets, you know, every so 


often and if these -- if these issues come up, 


how was the Board going to be informed. 


 So from my perspective these conflict of 


interests can -- can be derived or -- or the 


concerns be raised from -- from anyone. And 


the main thing is that either Lew -- Dr. Wade 

1 

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 

or myself be informed. And then it comes down 


to how are we going to deal with them. 


And I just put an example out there. One of 


the more difficult ones dealing with Dr. 


(unintelligible) and Anspaugh and their work at 


Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving 


Ground. And in that situation John Mauro came 


to us and said that he would like to use these 


experts and the reasons why. And -- and I of 


course had certain -- I knew that this was 


going to cause some difficulties, but we looked 


at the situation and Dr. Wade and I decided 


that -- that we were going to bound the work 


that they were going to do and -- and 


everything that they were going to do was going 


to be transparent to the working group. And 


under those very limited circumstances, when 


their work was done, these gentlemen are going 


to have to stop performance on the contract. 


So I think that some members are -- are -- want 


to maybe have a -- they may have an input or 


have some -- some notification provided to them 


that -- in these circumstances. And I kind of 


want to get a feel from the Board exactly what 


they're looking for. You know, my goal always 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

is to make sure that this mov-- this work keeps 


moving forward and that when these situations 


come up there are no delays. So I don't know 


if Dr. Wade or you want to kind of make some 


comments on that, but I just want to get a feel 


from the Board on how they would like to see 


this proceed. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, let me --


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. I mean I can provide a 


little bit of background and just to sort of 


bin the problems and then to -- to have the 


Board provide guidance. 


When it goes to an issue of approving a 


variation in the plan -- the conflict of 


interest plan, for example -- there are 


responsibilities that fall to the government. 


There are also responsibilities that I think 


the Board wants to hold for themself in terms 


of letting their opinions be known. In order 


for the -- for the Board to do that, there 


needs to be a complete and accurate disclosure 


of information on the part of SC&A. We have to 


talk about how that takes place. Then we have 


this last issue which is the decision-making 


authorities of the Board. The Board can only 

1 

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 

take a formal action when they're together with 


a quorum. But we do have working groups and 


we've given certain prerogatives to chairs of 


working groups. So the government can exercise 


its own prerogatives in terms of its opinion, 


but I'm very interested in knowing what the 


Board would like the government to -- to await 


to hear from the Board on with regard to these 


issues. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and it may vary in every 


case, but we -- we have a specific case here 


that maybe can help give us some guidance. For 


example, here is the case where I think, from 


the government's point of view and putting some 


boundaries on it, you have -- and keeping the 


transparency, you -- you have indicated that 


you believe that it meets the government 


criteria for handling COI. At the same time, 


there are concerns that the Board, or at least 


maybe individuals on the Board have about 


individuals involved and their roles, and some 


means of providing that input at the front end, 


before things are sort of an accomplished fact 


and -- and whether or not working groups -- I ­

- I don't think we've explicitly authorized 

1 

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 

working groups to act on behalf of the Board 


except in limited ways in terms of discussions 


on, you know, what kinds of information they 


would like when they're work-- working, say 


with NIOSH, and trying to develop matrices and 


so on. But certainly final actions are always 


things the Board has to do. So perhaps some 


general comments from Board members and we can 


determine whether we need a more specific 


policy or not. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. This is Jim Melius and I was 


the one that raised this issue. And what I was 


disturbed about was that there was no 


consultation from NIOSH back -- and the 


contracting office back to -- to the Advisory 


Board about how these two particular 


individuals would be used. So -- and we 


weren't, you know, sort of fully informed about 


their potential conflicts of interest and then 


we're -- suddenly been confront with a -- you 


know, that they were on board, I -- you know, 


as -- as participants. We weren't informed 


about what their limitations were and I 


personally think that those limitations were 


not appropriate and certainly would have liked 

1 

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 

to had some input into the process of how that 


was -- how that was determined and was not 


allowed that. And -- and frankly it caused a 


fair amount of conflict between John Mauro and 


I about -- 'cause, you know, he's telling me he 


had the go-ahead to use them in a way that I -- 


I thought wasn't appropriate and this -- 


they're -- at least one of them is involved in 


the 250-day issue, which is relevant to the 


workgroup that I chair. 


What I would like to have going forward -- and 


I believe we've done this before -- appropriate 


-- is that, you know, you doctors -- you know, 


one is that the Board members be informed when 


this kind of a situation is tak-- taking place 


with, you know, our contractor, SC&A and -- and 


they be fully informed so that we understand 


what -- what's going on. Secondly, that -- you 


know, I -- I don't have any problem -- and that 


then we be given an opportunity to maybe 


express our views to Dr. Ziemer as the Chair of 


our Board. Alternative may be that, you know ­

- in this particular case, since it -- it takes 


in -- involves the Nevada Test Site, Bob 


Presley and I were chairs of the -- the working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

groups that were most -- you know, most 


involved in this issue and, you know, Paul -- 


you know, would -- would consult with us and -- 


and we'd try to resolve -- I don't think that 


would necessarily hold it up and I think this 


could have been resolved, you know, fairly 


easily and allowed the work to go forward. But 


I didn't think it was appropriate that this 


went ahea-- you know, essentially that NIOSH 


was in a position of making a -- in the 


contracting of it, a decision about our 


contractor without consulting us. And in 


essence, it's our credibility that's on the 


line, not NIOSH, and -- and you know, so it's a 


tricky situation to -- to deal with. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. One of the issues that 


we need to deal with -- and again, I'm 


completely sensitive to everything Dr. Melius 


says, is -- is where the responsibility would 


fall for notifying Board members. When NIOSH 


was notified of this by John Mauro, we were 


notified in an e-mail that also indicated that 


he had copied the chairs of the working groups, 


Dr. Presley and -- Mr. Presley and Dr. Melius. 


And so we operated on the assumption that 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 

33 

notification was made. We need to crisp this 


up because obviously it didn't work -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, well --


 DR. WADE: -- and --


 DR. MELIUS: -- two -- two problems with that. 


We did receive an -- an e-mail, copy of the e-


mail, but then there was, you know, essentially 


no consultation back from you or Da-- or Dave 


Staudt about -- about -- about the issue, and 


next thing you know, it was -- was done. 


Secondly, I did not think that -- that John's 


information was complete and, at least based on 


some of the information I -- I obtained later 


from -- actually from SC&A web site and so 


forth. Now, I -- I -- I -- again, I think John 


was making a good-faith effort to -- to provide 


information to us, and I think if we had been 


consulted, if there had been some way -- you 


know, some system in place to get back to us, I 


would have asked for additional information 


based on John's e-mail and -- and then we could 


have, you know, worked to -- to get it resolved 


and I think it could have been done in -- in a 


timely manner. But -- but I was basically 


expecting, you know, to hear back from you 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 

34 

-- and you know, I believe that was the time 


you were out of town, Lew, so I mean there was 


some, you know, reasons -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, this is always about making 


good process in the future. Now --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- we study the past to understand 


how to do the future better, so -- so again, in 


terms of this process, would the Board expect 


to be notified of these issues by SC&A or by 


the contracting officer once the contracting 


officer is notified by SC&A? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I think it 


ought to be by the contracting officer. 


 MR. STAUDT: I -- I would be -- this is Dave 


Staudt. I would be more than happy to do that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So once -- then once that 


notification is made, is the action then on the 


part of Board members to contact Dr. Ziemer 


with concerns, or would you like there to be -- 


I can't schedule a call of Board members, so 


there needs to be a step forward. Once a Board 


member receives notification, what would Board 


members like to see as their range and actions? 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius again. I would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

say that we -- we contact Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: You know, maybe copy you, Lew and 


Dave, on, you know, any concerns that we raise, 


but that, you know, it's our responsibility to 


contact Paul and -- if there -- if there is a 


concern about something. That's --


 DR. WADE: And I think that's very workable, so 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I --


 DR. WADE: -- just to repeat, if a situation 


comes up relative to an exception to the 


conflict of interest policy on the part of 


SC&A, SC&A's contractually responsible to 


notify the contracting officer. The 


contracting officer then takes the 


responsibility to notify individual Board 


members. At that point individual Board 


members will contact Dr. Ziemer if they wish to 


pursue this further in terms of asking for 


information, raising a question, any 


interaction they would like they would do so by 


contacting Dr. Ziemer, who would then con-- 


contact the contracting officer. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I agree 

1 

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 

with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask a question here 


first. This is Ziemer again. Now are we 


assuming that David will know which workgroups 


are the ones that need to be contacted? 


 DR. MELIUS: That's why I was -- this is Jim, 


sorry to interrupt, but I would say it goes out 


to all the Board. That way we're not having to 


worry about what -- what workgroup and so 


forth. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That -- this is Brad Clawson. 


agree with that because there may be other 


people on other workgroups that may know things 


that the actual workgroup don't about this 


individual. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. So the full Board would 


get contacted under this proposal, and then I 


think work-- I think particularly in a case 


like the one we just talked about, I think 


between the workgroup chairs then and the Board 


Chair we could make a determination if we felt 


the issue rose to the level where we needed the 


full Board sort of conference call or whether 


we could resolve it informally without -- 


without going through a -- a Board action 


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 

37 

process. 


 DR. WADE: Right, I would expect that after the 


notification of all the Board members, Dr. 


Ziemer, you can consult one on one with working 


group members and at that point you would have 


the option of calling the contracting officer 


and say the Board would like you to delay 


decision on this --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: -- till the Board formally meets. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: David doesn't have to follow your 


recommendations, but you can make that 


recommendation --


 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 


 DR. WADE: -- to him and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 


 DR. WADE: -- in all likelihood he would 


attempt to follow your recommendation. If he 


doesn't hear from you, then he could proceed 


with making his judgment. That seems 


reasonable to me, it seems workable. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And the -- the other part 


of this is to -- we need to make sure that the 


-- for -- for example, I don't know if all 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 

38 

Board got this -- yeah, David, you -- you 


distributed your -- your memo of the 18th to 


all the Board members, I believe. 


 MR. STAUDT: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and that had -- that had 


John's e-mail of August 30th attached to it -- 


or as part of it. 


 MR. STAUDT: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But --


 DR. WADE: But John's e-mail -- for the record, 


John Mauro's e-mail was only sent to the two 


working group chairs that he thought had -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and what I'm saying is that 


-- that -- that's too much delay. So for 


example, an e-mail like John's e-mail of August 


30th, if received by the contracting officer, 


should immediately go out to the Board -- 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at that point, before any 


action is taken on the part of the contracting 


officer. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: And then the contracting officer 


would wait an appropriate time to make 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 

39 

decision, likely make a call to you, Dr. 


Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. In other words, he would 


say here's a proposal or request from the 


contractor on this particular issue. Does the 


Board wish to take a position or delay action 


or whatever. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are other Board members 


comfortable with this approach? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I am. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. It seems workable. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any -- any that want to voice a 


contrary opinion or propose an alternative? 


DR. ROESSLER: Sounds good to me. 


DR. MAURO: Dr. Ziemer, this is John Mauro. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: By way of confirmation then, when I 


notify David of such a situation, we take -- we 


sit tight until we hear back from the 


contracting officer with a green light or not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and so --


DR. MAURO: We don't do any work along those 


lines until we hear back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in a case like this, yeah, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

you -- in other words, you -- you've proposed a 


way to proceed and you're waiting for a green 


light to do so. David in turn will be 


evaluating it from the government's point of 


view and also notifying the Board and asking 


the Board if we have particular concerns and 


want any particular delay to address them, I 


think is -- is the essence of it. Is that your 


understanding, too, David? 


 (No response) 


Is David still on the line? 


 MR. STAUDT: Yes, it is. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and -- Jim Melius. Just to 


add, in this particular case I think, you know, 


both John and David were -- were trying to get 


this in place because of the issue with SC&A 


and the DTRA contract. You know, we'd already 


delayed some time in terms of their involvement 


at Nevada Test Site, so you know, they were 


trying to expedite this and -- in these 


circumstances, so I -- I think it -- and we 


just didn't have a -- a -- a -- you know, a 


procedure in place to -- to deal with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: It really hadn't come up before -- 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

41

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- so -- but my -- my concern is 


basically going forward. What's happened has 


happened. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, my considered opinion -- this 


is Lew -- is that everyone was acting in the 


best interest of the process. But again, it 


was -- we were in a place we had not been 


before and it's always good to have plans. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we'll proceed in that 


fashion then and the -- this is kind of an 


informal process. We'll see how it works. 


 DR. WADE: All right. With everyone's 


permission, I'll write this up and send it just 


as a note to the Board so Board members 


individually can correct my recollection of 


this. And if not, we'll have something to 


refer to. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other comments on 


this issue? 


 (No responses) 


WORKING GROUP (WG) REPORTS AND SCHEDULING FOR
 

FUTURE WORK GROUP MEETINGS
 

 Okay, very good. Then let's move ahead to 


working group reports. Now we have a sizeable 

1 

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 

list of working groups now. In fact, if you -- 


if you go back to a -- some correspondence that 


Lew distributed after our last meeting, and 


it's an e-mail dated September 26th, is a kind 


of a roster of all the workgroups, as well as 


the subcommittee. And I think it would be 


appropriate if we went through each of those 


and at least got a status report on where they 


are in terms of either scheduling meetings, 


already scheduled between now and the next 


Board meeting or planned meetings or any other 


things pertaining to where they are on their 


particular issues. 


Let's see --


 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, I could just run down 


the list if you would like. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, why don't we -- we can just 


do it in order, beginning with the Subcommittee 


on Dose Reconstruction. 


 DR. WADE: And again as background -- you know, 


putting the agenda together for this call, I -- 


I didn't indicate that we would have in-depth 


technical discussions of -- of any of these 


issues. I think sort of a summary status 


report by the working group chair, and I'm 

1 

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 

particularly interested in scheduling working 


group meetings. There's been a flurry of e-


mails that could cause one to think some 


meetings are scheduled or not, and I think it 


would be good, at one time at one place, to get 


all of that on the record so we could be sure 


that the working group and subcommittee's needs 


with regard to future meetings are met. And 


I'd start with the Subcommittee on Dose 


Reconstruction, ably chaired by Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- as -- as you just 


heard, I think I might need to talk to Stu a 


little further and SC&A and -- and the 


subcommittee members, but I was hoping to have 


a -- a subcommittee meeting prior to the next 


Board meeting, only because we can -- it -- we 


can have a more focused working session if 


they're -- if they're separated from the Board 


meetings. I think we -- it allows us to focus 


totally on the matrix and go through the matrix 


one item at a time. If it's going to be too 


close to the Board meeting by the time 


everyone's ready, I think we'll probably just 


have a meeting the day before the regular Board 


meeting and move on matrix -- the fourth matrix 

1 

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 

and, to the extent we can, the fifth matrix, 


but at least the fourth matrix. I think we're 


ready to -- to go into -- to finding 


resolution, comment resolution process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. When you were 


discussing that earlier I was trying to express 


my -- my concurrence that we need to get that 


one really moving and moving very quickly and ­

- and I was -- there was something wrong with 


my microphone apparently. I had to get rid of 


it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 MS. MUNN: But -- can't -- can't stand to have 


you not hear me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think Stu -- Stu has been 


putting together responses for NIOSH, so we 


want to at least have -- give NIOSH adequate 


time to fill that part of the matrix in before 


we schedule a meeting. 


 MS. MUNN: I would certainly hope so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- but when you suggested let's go 


with the other meeting the day before our other 


meeting, we're currently scheduled -- if my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

calendar tells me correctly -- to start on a 


Monday. Am -- am -- is my calendar correct or 


am I incorrect? 


 DR. WADE: Calendar's correct. 


 MS. MUNN: I -- I was scheduling 11th of 


December as our first meeting date. And if 


that's the case, then -- then it would 


certainly be helpful, from my point of view, if 


we did that the week after Thanksgiving rather 


than -- than --


 DR. WADE: Wanda, the last thing we heard was 


"if we did that" and now we're not hearing you. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, you're not? There was a strange 


sound, but again, it wasn't me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I can hear you. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. My suggestion was that the 


week after Thanksgiving would -- if -- if it's 


possible at all for Stu to get the materials 


together that we need to do, would probably be 


much better than waiting until the week before 


the meeting since our meeting starts on Monday. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I was assuming that the 


Monday was left for subcommittee meeting time 


anyway, but maybe it wasn't. 


 DR. WADE: No, it might be. We'll 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 

46 

discussion later --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- but --


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I agree, if we can get it 


in, Wanda. The only thing I wouldn't want to 


do is like the week before wouldn't make a lot 


of sense. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it would --


 MR. GRIFFON: If it can be a couple of weeks 


before, then let's -- let's try to do that, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: If we could just do the last -- the 


last week in -- in November, that would -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that would be ideal I think if 


Stu could do it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. How do 


you feel about the week before Thanksgiving 


rather than the week after? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, the week before is fine for me 


if it's fine for you. I just --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the week --


 MS. MUNN: -- thought that might be -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- after is not fine --


 MS. MUNN: -- pushing you too 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 

47

 MR. HINNEFELD: The week after is not fine for 


me for -- I'd say personal reasons. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. But we're -- we're going to 


have working group meetings in Cincinnati the 


preceding week, at least one, on the 9th, and ­

- and possibly more, either before or after 


that. But if -- from my perspective, if you 


can get what you need together by the week of 


the 13th, that would be -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: -- the best of all possible worlds, 


if you --


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll have to work on that. I 


think, Wanda, a lot of us have the similar 


idea, which is -- I was thinking if I can tie 


my Rocky Flats workgroup along with the 


subcommittee, you know, and travel once instead 


of twice --


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that would be ideal. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we need to coordinate these, 


as well. But yeah, if we -- let me -- let -- 


let's do this. Stu, do you -- I mean do you 


want to lock into a day or you want to check 

1 

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 

with your folks first? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- we require some 


more interaction with ORAU before we -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we know we're going to be 


ready so I'd -- I'd rather not -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Or you can -- you can pick a 


day today and I can -- you know, in association 


with other meetings when you're going to be in 


town, and then we'll just do whatever we can to 


get ready. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think, Lew, for your purposes 


you can indicate they're shooting for the week 


of the 13th. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, can we take --


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe as the other workgroups 


report and we see --


 MR. GRIFFON: We can see where --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- schedule, we can try to 


coordinate those. 


 DR. WADE: I think at the close of this I'd 


like to have a day -- a specific day for the 


subcommittee. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Let's wait until that decision is 


informed by others. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a good idea. I would -- I 


would propose that -- the 16th, if that looks 


as though it's going to be -- 


 DR. WADE: Check. 

 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) for others. 

 DR. WADE: We won't end this without the 

possibility of trying to lock in a day, but 


let's hear some more. 


Now again, the -- for -- for everyone's 


recollection and the record, the subcommittee 


is chaired by Mark, with Mike Gibson, Dr. 


Poston, Wanda; alternates are Clawson and 


Presley. 


Then we have -- the next on the list that I 


sent out was the workgroup on the Nevada Test 


Site site profile, chaired by Presley with 


Munn, Clawson and Roessler as members. So 


Robert, you know, in a nutshell, where are you, 


what are you scheduling? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, this is Bob Presley. We 


have not -- we do not have anything scheduled. 


I'm waiting on -- Is Mark Rolluf (sic) 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 

50 

today? Is Mark listening in? 


DR. NETON: Mark is here but not -- I don't 


believe he's on the phone right now. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. What we're waiting on is 


CDC, NIOSH, to go through a proposal and then 


come back to us with a date that we can get 


together. I have talked -- myself talked to 


Mark last week and we've not talked since then 


about a date, but I would -- I would hope that 


we could probably set our meeting sometime 


around this -- either before or after this 


November the 13th date so that -- because the ­

- some of the people that are on the NTS 


working group are also on the Rocky Flats. 


DR. NETON: Bob, this is Jim Neton. I know 


that there was some concern about our response 


to the Anspaugh write-up -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


DR. NETON: -- and yesterday I believe we asked 


ORAU, Gene Rollins specifically, to start 


working on that. And I think it was -- their ­

- their thought was that it might take about 


three weeks to -- three to four to accomplish 


that analysis. So you know, if that's 


something you want to be discussed at the next 

1 

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 

meeting, it would have to be probably after the 


13th. That -- that's up for you guys to 


decide. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. I will get back with Mark 


on that --


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and see, because there's -- 


what we had planned on doing is have Anspaugh 


there with -- I don't have my notes -- 


DR. NETON: Gene Rollins. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Lew (sic) Rollins, right, and 


SC&A and the working group to go over this. 


DR. NETON: Right. And again, the resuspension 


calculations that -- that Anspaugh believes are 


in error, to put some bracketing values around 


those is going to take three to four weeks for 


Rollins to accomplish that. Now it may be that 


he can get to a point where he can get a 


general sense of how -- the big -- the big 


issue is how much difference does it make. I 


think everybody agrees there's an error there, 


but is it -- is it a significant error; and if 


it is, how big. So I think you're right, we 


need to get back with Mark and -- and flesh 


that out a little better. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: I will -- I will get back with 


Mark tomorrow sometime. 


DR. NETON: Okay, I'll let him know that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. I appreciate that. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. Next on the list is 


the Savannah River Site site profile workgroup 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, did we announce who was on 


the Nevada Test Site --


 DR. WADE: -- chaired by Mark (sic) Gibson. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Excuse me, Lew. Did you indicate 


who was on the Nevada Test Site profile team? 


 DR. WADE: I will again. I think Presley, 


Munn, Clawson and Roessler. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: On Savannah River Site it's Gibson, 


Clawson, Griffon and Lockey. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. This is Mike. We have not 


had any meetings or phone calls, the working 


group, since the last one. I've been in 


contact with Joe Fitzgerald with SC&A and Sam 


Glover of NIOSH, and they're still exchanging 


information, try to come to closure on some of 


the open issues. It looks like they're -- 


they're tightening them up. There's a few 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

things about the fault tree databank 


compilation about the other nuclides for the 


tank farm, and there's some so-called three by 


five-inch data cards that have some dose re-- 


results on them that they need a little bit 


more exchange between the two parties where 


it'd probably be beneficial to have another 


meeting to try to close out multi open issues. 


But hopefully if -- if things go right, maybe 


we could plan a meeting that same week of 


November 13th for this working group also. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Mike, this is Brad Clawson. What 


was -- what was the name of that incident 


database that we were trying to get from the 


previous contractor for Savannah River? Have 


we had any response to that? I believe DuPont 


owned it and we were trying to get access to 


it. 


 MR. GIBSON: That I've not heard yet. I don't 


know if they've been made -- that's been made 


available to them or not. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we -- we can't answer that 


from this end, either. Sam Glover is our lead 


on that and he's not on the call. 

1 

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

 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, that -- that's one thing 


that I'd personally like to be made aware of 


because I feel this is pretty important in this 


one that we've got going on. 


 MR. GIBSON: Right, and you're absolutely 


right. And what's been brought up, this was 


paid for by government money supposedly so, you 


know, it should be available to us and the 


government and our contractor. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That's correct. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, let's move on to possibly the 


-- one of the most sensitive of issues and 


that's the workgroup on the Rocky Flats site 


profile and SEC petition chaired by Mark, with 


members Gibson, Presley and Munn. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, since the last meeting 


we've had a fair amount of activity by both 


NIOSH and SC&A responding to various action 


items. And I think at this point one of the 


critical items that -- that remains is the data 


reliability question. I think a lot of other 


ones are -- are close to closure, so -- but -- 


but I think again we're -- we're -- I'm -- I 


was thinking of early November or sounds like 


this week of November 13th could be a busy 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 

55

 MS. MUNN: Aren't we already scheduled for the 


9th? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did we schedule for the 9th? 


 MS. MUNN: We originally did. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't reca--


 MS. MUNN: At least on my calendar. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I didn't recall that. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we had said the 9th. We 


picked that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Did we say that in Vegas? 


 MS. MUNN: -- at our last meeting, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I was a little distracted 


in Vegas when I left, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: No wonder why. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mike, did you have that on your 


calendar? 


 MR. GIBSON: No, I did not. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Now I 


didn't have that on my calendar, either. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, boy, I --


 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell. I had on my 


calendar a meeting on the 9th for Dr. Lockey's 


 DR. LOCKEY: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56

 MS. HOWELL: -- workgroup for SEC petitions not 


qualifying. And Wanda, I think you're in that 


group, as well. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Ah, that's a different meeting. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That's the meeting for the 9th. 


This is Lockey. 


 MS. MUNN: That may be -- that may be what I 


had written down and -- and was thinking -- 


thinking Rocky Flats and -- 


 DR. WADE: And that's why we're here having 


this discussion 'cause there's been a lot of 


this sort of miscommunication, but that's fine. 


So Mark --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I have -- I mean I 


would like to, again, link it around these 


other times, maybe even like the 8th -- 'cause 


it looks like we're going to have busy two 


weeks and a lot of people are on several 


workgroups, so --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we are. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, it may be --


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, this is Bob Presley. The 


8th is not good -- the 8th or the 9th is not 


good for me. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Is the 10th? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Friday the 10th? No, because I 


can't get up there -- well, unless I can get an 


early flight out of here. 


 MS. MUNN: You can get an early flight, Bob. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Friday the 10th is a holiday 


for federal employees. It's -- Veterans Day is 


observed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's right, yeah, and I need to 


be -- I need to be somewhere around here for 


that, too. 


 MS. MUNN: So that means if we're going to do 


that week and hold to the 9th that we already 


have scheduled, we'd have to be looking at 


something like election day on the 7th or 


something of that sort. 


 MR. GIBSON: And we can't miss that. 


 MS. MUNN: No -- well --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- you can -- you can vote before 


you leave. I do that all the time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean my -- my sense from -- I 


did talk to Joe Fitzgerald a little bit 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 

58 

they are drafting sort of a review of the 


evaluation report as all this stuff -- all 


these action items come in and NIOSH's 


responses come in. SC&A has been drafting sort 


of their review of the evaluation report and 


also they've drafted some analysis of the 


completeness of the individual dose files or 


the dose record and I think that's going to be 


a critical one in sort of winding up this 


question of data reliability. So he -- Joe 


indicated that probably they would need at 


least till the end of October, early November. 


So I think -- we might be able to do it 


earlier. I was just trying to figure out -- 


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


have to travel to Cincinnati three times in 


three weeks, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: No, I think --


 MR. GRIFFON: So --


 MS. ESCOBAR: Mark -- Mark, this is -- this is 


Felicia with Senator Salazar and we just -- 


just wanted to, you know, say that we're still 


following this issue and, you know, I think 


that the data reliability issue is something 


that, you know, from our constituents' 

1 

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 

perspective it's been a -- you know, it's -- 


continues to be a really big problem and, you 


know, we would hope that you guys would -- 


understanding that it's difficult with travel 


for everybody and that this is a very time-


intensive process, that you would -- you'd take 


the -- the appropriate, you know, time to 


really, you know, give -- give the parties the 


ability to really review and get into the -- 


you know, the nuts and bolts of the data 


reliability issue, and also give, you know, you 


all as Advisory Board members the opportunity 


to really review what comes back from -- you 


know, from NIOSH and others, so that's just one 


thing I wanted to -- to make clear, that we're 


really hoping that you guys are able to really 


get -- get the information you need and have 


the time to -- to review it. So just factor 


that into your, you know, your -- 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Thank you very much for 


that. 


 MS. ESCOBAR: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: So I guess the instruction that I 


would take is that we want to meet as soon as 


we can, that meaning when we are fully ready, 

1 

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 

so -- because again, if we meet, then we might 


have to meet again. Is it possible that early 


in that week, even November 6th, might be an 


opportunity? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I could 


make that day. 


 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh. I have some 


questions -- this is the first I've really 


heard about SC&A's analysis of the completeness 


of individual rad files. If that is going to 


come to us at the end of October, we'll need 


some time to review that, depending on how big 


it is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think Joe -- Joe 


Fitzgerald, are you on the line? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I am. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's ready to go soon. 


Right, Joe? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: At least as a preliminary report, 


it is. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, we think we can have 


this thing teed up for the -- for NIOSH and the 


Board, if not today, by early tomorrow. 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 

61 

we're -- it's been in development now for a 


week or so -- a couple of weeks. 


 MS. MUNN: Great. That's good to hear, Joe. 


Thank you. 


And I hope that someone other than I is willing 


to reassure the Congressional members who are ­

- are focused on the data reliability issue 


that we are spending an -- a significant amount 


of time and effort looking at this thing. I 


hope we can reassure them that they need not be 


concerned that it's going to be glossed over or 


shortchanged in any way. We --


 MS. ESCOBAR: Well, I -- and I appreciate that. 


This is Felicia again, you know, but we just 


can't stress that enough and I -- and I know 


that if it's as taxing on your time, so you 


know, thank you for -- for really digging into 


the issues. We really appreciate it. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and -- and I think -- this is 


Lew Wade -- that the working group and the 


Board's record will speak for itself on this, 


so -- what about the 6th? I hate to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we could tentatively do the 


6th, but I think Brant, if you get this report 


tomorrow, I think it's like -- like Joe -- Joe 

1 

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 

mentioned it to me on the phone as being sort 


of a preliminary review of -- of about 12 


cases, Joe, is that what -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, we've done 12 cases and 


this comes from, you know, the review that -- I 


think stems from the review that you've done on 


HIS-20 versus CEDR and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- trying to go back to some 


of the original claimant data, just to sort of 


bring it around full circle as far as data 


reliability. So I think you will have what you 


would need to look at and consider, and I think 


it -- certainly in -- in time, with a few weeks 


perhaps, that we could have a discussion in 


November. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did mention this is an 


ongoing activity. In the Vegas meeting my 


notes say that SC&A was reviewing these at that 


point, and I guess their -- their draft 


report's final now. Or -- or it's a -- they --


they've completed a draft, anyway. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so the 6th is a Monday before 


election day. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, let's go for it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63

 DR. WADE: I'm sorry, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: I suggest we go for it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we should shoot for it, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: I hate to put this off if there is ­

- if there is any -- since Joe's going to have 


the material ready for us to really look at and 


if Brant and if (unintelligible) available on 


the 6th, then that's -- we -- we've really 


spent a lot of time and --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's a good week, too, 


because then it gives us several weeks before 


the Board meeting --


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- where -- where some additional 


work, if it needs to be done, can be done. 


 MS. MUNN: Any loose ends --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- can be addressed. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, very good. And I'm going to 


be so bold as to suggest maybe 10:00 a.m. to 


give some people a chance to fly in that 


morning. Does that work for you, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's great. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I can make 


that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so 10:00 a.m. on Monday the 


6th we are tentatively scheduled to meet in 


Cincinnati, at a hotel to be named, to deal 


with the Rocky Flats site profile and SEC 


workgroup. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, can we try to get -- if 


nothing breaks or bends, try to get that hotel 


out there at the airport? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, we will get one at the 


airport, certainly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Again now, workgroup on 


Chapman Valve SEC, that's chaired by Dr. Poston 


-- he's not with us -- Griffon, Clawson, 


Roessler and Gibson. John Mauro, I know you 


spoke to Dr. Poston yesterday. Can you help us 


in this regard? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. In fact, Dr. Poston asked if 


I wouldn't mind just briefing you folks on the 


conversation we had. Bottom line is, Dr. 


Poston would like to hold a conference call 


working group meeting on Chapman Valve toward 


the end of this month or early next month, 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 

65 

date he will set soon as he's -- gets -- 


opportunity to set an appropriate date with the 


rest of the members of the working group. And 


I had indicated to Dr. Poston that by that time 


we should have some -- we won't have our 


report, but we should have enough material that 


I think we can get to the heart of a lot of the 


important issues that we're concerned about 


related to Chapman Valve. 


We did recently receive a revised version of 


the Chapman Valve site profile, I think 


yesterday it came in. I did read it. We are ­

- so I think we will be in a good position to 


have a very productive working group meeting 


toward the end of this month or early November, 


to be set by -- by the working group. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so my summary is a telephone 


call is being proposed by the working group 


chair, end of November, early December. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. And other members, you're 


going to wait to hear from the working group 


chair to schedule a specific time, but I see 


that as the plan. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Did I hear end of November 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 

66 

early December? I thought it was end of 


October or early November. 


DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, end of October. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: This would be our first conference 


call. We really just began work, but we've 


done enough that I think we could have some 


productive discussion -- certainly more to 


come. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so I misspoke, end of October, 


early November. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim. Could we expect to 


see some sort of a draft report or -- 


DR. MAURO: What I'd like to deliver to you is 


a series of tables and graphs, perhaps some 


text. I don't think it'll be something that 


I'd like to call a draft report, but I think it 


will be talking points. 


DR. NETON: That's fine, just some-- something 


to look at and to digest before -- before the 


call. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Jim, this is Mark Griffon. 


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Good to hear your voice again, by 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

the way. 


DR. NETON: Thanks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know -- LaVon indicated 


in his e-mail that there was another TBD 


forthcoming or --


DR. NETON: It's been issued. I think that the 


working group members and John Mauro have been 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I have -- no, I have 


the -- the new site profile -- 


DR. NETON: That's it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but you said something else 


that was forth-- that was coming. 


DR. NETON: Not to my knowledge. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm looking for the e-mail right 


now. 


DR. NETON: (Unintelligible) worded not quite 


right, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


DR. NETON: -- we've revised -- Revision 1 of 


the Chapman Valve site profile where some 


things, you know, have been bolstered up based 


on comments that were made in the evaluation 


report. We've redone the internal dosimetry 


analysis a little bit, as John Mauro has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

already observed. But there's nothing else 


coming up. We -- we're working on draft dose 


reconstructions. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, I see -- I guess the 


second paragraph threw me off. He says the 


Tech. Basis Document and sample dose 


reconstructions --


DR. NETON: Ah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- once complete, will be posted 


on the O drive. So it is -- the TBD is the -- 


DR. NETON: Right --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- revised site profile. 


DR. NETON: -- the TBD -- I don't know if it's 


on the O drive yet, but it should be shortly. 


It's -- I signed it yesterday, I believe, so -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's on our web site. 


DR. NETON: It's on our web site already, so 


you can get it there. We just decided to open 


up another -- you know, on the X drive, open up 


another folder there, so anything -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- like that John puts out or 


whatever, we can get it available to everybody. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Moving on to the workgroup on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

SEC issues, paren, including the 250-day issue, 


that's chaired by Dr. Melius with members 


Ziemer, Roessler and Griffon. 


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


-- we need to schedule a working group meeting. 


I think that's somewhat dependent on the timing 


of a report from SC&A, and last I talked to 


Arjun, that was expected sometime, you know, 


second or third week in November and -- just 


trying to pin that down 'cause I -- again, I'm 


not sure this -- we -- it's worth meeting until 


we have that -- that report in -- in hand and 


give us a chance to discuss it and so forth. 


That's -- that report does not require, I don't 


believe, sort of NIOSH review at this point in 


time since it's more of a conceptual, you know, 


background on a number of issues. So once we 


have that, we should be able to move forward. 


I don't know, John, if you have any -- John 


Mauro, if you have any sense of where Arjun is 


with that. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I -- I'm -- I'm on the 


call, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Oh, good, Arjun. Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, we've -- we're working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

intensively on this. We -- we have a number of 


the documents and we're developing a conceptual 


approach, and an outline of the report will be 


ready this Friday for internal review, or early 


next week. And we should have a rough draft 


report by mid-November, as originally 


scheduled. You've -- you've already got the 


criticality piece. Now if you would -- I don't 


know how you want it. If you want us to kind 


of give you like memoranda on the pieces, or do 


you want to see a draft report, because there 


are a number of issues that we're covering -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Arjun, is rough draft -- 


that's just an internal document at that point. 


That's not a draft report that you're going to 


issue at that point. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Rough is just kind of the early 


version? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, the -- the -- Dr. Ziemer, 


the plan is that that draft would be reviewed 


internally before -- before going to you, and 


that in the first week of December you would 


get the draft report, as we call it, for Board 


consideration. Now I'd be working with Dr. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

Melius before that, as I have been, and keeping 


him posted -- and decide if we're going to have 


a meeting, and so I'll -- I'll -- I'll keep him 


posted as to its progress. 


That's why I was suggesting maybe that I could 


send memoranda for consideration at that mid-


November meeting and I'll know what's in the 


draft report internally so -- so we'll be able 


to talk about it then. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Dr. Melius, 


one of the steps that was taken a little 


earlier on was we prepared a list of documents 


that are in the controlled document list as 


part of the NTPR DTRA program. I sent that 


list on to Larry Elliott, who then forwarded it 


on to Dr. Paul Blake, who runs the -- the DTRA 


program. What -- I guess this is the question 


posed to the working group, do you know whether 


or not any progress has been made in obtaining 


those documents or if there's any problems with 


obtaining those documents? 


 DR. MELIUS: I think that's a question for 


NIOSH. We would have no knowledge -- this is 


the first time I've heard of this, 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 

72

 MR. ELLIOTT: John, this is Larry Elliott. Let 


me respond to that. I have been in 


communication with Paul Blake at Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency. You know, I sent the letter, 


as you mentioned, requesting the four items 


that you are interested in. He sent me an e-


mail yesterday indicating that we would talk 


today about the status of those. He had no 


problem in providing the first three items, but 


the number four item was presenting some 


difficulty. He needed to -- as I understand 


it, he needed to cover some bases with their 


legal folks. And so I'll report -- I'll give 


you another update as soon as I have a 


conversation with Dr. Blake. 


We have put aside I believe a folder or are 


preparing a folder on the O drive with any of 


the related information from your request to 


them that we already have in our holdings here, 


so just to facilitate the access and make sure 


we don't duplicate reproduction of information. 


 DR. WADE: If -- this is Lew. If I might just 


interject very quickly, I -- I was concerned by 


Dr. Melius's comment that he was not aware of 


this. I assume, John, that this is something 

1 

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 

we would discuss with the working group. NIOSH 


is not notifying the working group. 


 DR. MELIUS: Excuse me, and just to clarify, I 


knew that there was the re-- a request for 


documents. I didn't -- had no knowledge of 


sort of the -- the status of how it was being 


forwarded and so forth, that's -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay, being sensitive to 


communication --


 DR. MELIUS: No, no, I appreciate that, so 


(unintelligible) necessarily expected me to 


know that, but --


 MR. ELLIOTT: My apologies --


 DR. MELIUS: -- (unintelligible) asked me to 


like answer the question. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: My apologies, but you know, I 


knew we were going to have a conversation about 


this today --


 DR. MELIUS: No, I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- rather than trying to belabor 


everybody with an e-mail yesterday, not knowing 


anything more than I already know -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: It's perfectly okay, Larry, 


believe me. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Good. So what's the take-away 


message from this, Dr. Melius, in terms of the 


working group and likely getting together? 


 DR. MELIUS: Then I -- I think we just need to 


be able to work out a date, middle of November, 


and somewhat -- I think we need to sort of 


figure out where everybody else is in terms of 


scheduling 'cause there's a fair amount of 


overlap between some of the other -- with some 


of the other groups. 


 DR. WADE: So I'll bin this as a possibility 


during the week of the 13th, and we'll just see 


how it works out? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Now to one that I think will 


be simple, the workgroup to review SEC 


petitions that did not qualify, chaired by Dr. 


Lockey with members Roessler, Melius, Clawson 


and Munn. Dr. Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: That's -- I think -- as far as I 


know, that's scheduled for November 9th in -- 


at NIOSH in Cincinnati. 


DR. ROESSLER: At NIOSH or at the airport? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, we'll be doing it here in the 


offices at NIOSH. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: We have to have access to all those 


files. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Right. What time would that 


start? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: What time do you want it to 


start? 


 DR. LOCKEY: People have to fly in. Is it best 


to start around 10:00 o'clock? 


 DR. WADE: 10:00 o'clock on the morning of the 


9th of November at NIOSH's offices in 


Cincinnati the workgroup will convene. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, what I'm asking is -- is -- 


if people cannot fly in that morning, we could 


start earlier, but --


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I'd be flying 


in the night before. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Clawson, I'd be flying in 


the night -- night before. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: I will definitely be flying in the 


night before. 


 DR. WADE: Let's pick a gentlemanly and lady 


time to start in the morning. 

1 

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

 DR. LOCKEY: Why don't we start at 9:00 then. 


 MS. MUNN: 9:00 will be fine with me. 


 DR. WADE: 9:00 a.m. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, well, that's good. We've got 


a meeting scheduled for 9:00 o'clock on the 


9th. Who can't remember that? 


 MS. MUNN: Me. 


 DR. WADE: The workgroup on Hanford site 


profile Dr. Melius chairs, Clawson, Ziemer, 


Poston. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, where we stand with that, 


I've been pursuing -- this is one of these site 


profiles that's a little complicated by the 


fact that there are several updates underway of 


-- of different parts of it and so forth. So 


what I'm thinking -- we have a review from -- 


we have a review and essentially a response 


from -- from NIOSH, and I'm thinking the best 


way to move forward is going to be a conference 


call initially, just given some of the 


scheduling issues, to try to get everybody 


updated and then figure out a work schedule, 


what -- what would make sense to focus on now, 


what -- what issues have been -- are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

essentially being dealt with with the site 


profile updates and what the schedules are for 


that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Do you want to try and set 


that now, Dr. Melius? 


 DR. MELIUS: I think it's easier to do that -- 


a conference call's easier to set up, I think. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so you'll initiate an action 


with your Board members and NIOSH and SC&A to 


set up a conference call to sort of set the 


path forward for the Hanford site profile 


workgroup. 


 DR. MELIUS: And John Poston isn't on the call, 


so we can't -- I don't think we should try to 


do something today, given his schedule. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, that's good. We'll -- we'll 


await --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- hearing from you. And then last 


but certainly not least, the workgroup on 


conflict of interest policy for the Board, 


chaired by Lockey with Melius, Ziemer and 


Presley. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I haven't -- I was thinking that 


perhaps that could be done later on 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 

year. I don't -- I'd ask the other members of 


the subcommittee whether this is something that 


has to be done right away or, with everything 


else going on, we can delay this a little bit. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I don't see a 


need to -- to rush on this one and -- 


 DR. WADE: Possibly when the Board is together 


in December this workgroup could have coffee or 


something and -- and chart a path forward. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I agree 

with that. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Excellent. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Sounds good. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, that brings us back to, you 


know, the big week, which is 11/13, that week. 


Right now I have four candidates for that week: 


The subcommittee, Savannah River Site, the 250­

day SEC issue and Nevada Test Site. At least 


that's my notes of all the meetings that are 


possibly in play that week. We do have two 


meetings scheduled the week before. But do we 


want to try and figure out a way to get all of 


that done during the week of 11/13? 


 MS. HOWELL: I'm sorry, Lew, what meetings 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 

79 

you have scheduled the week before? 


 DR. WADE: I have Dr. Poston's meeting on the 


petitions that didn't qualify. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Then I have the Sava-- excuse me, 


the Rocky Flats meeting scheduled for the 6th. 


 MS. HOWELL: Oh, I'm sorry, are we talking 


about November 11 to 13th? I thought you were 


talking about the Chicago meeting. 


 DR. WADE: No, I'm sorry. I'm talking about 


the week of November 13th. 


 MS. HOWELL: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. WADE: As a candidate for four meetings. 


 MS. HOWELL: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: And you know, I don't know if -- if 


someone wants to speak first, I guess you would 


give deference to the subcommittee. Mark, do 


you want to try and pick a day, and then we'll 


try and organize around that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah, Wanda offered 


November 16th earlier. I think that's fine 


with me. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so at least in terms of a 


proposal, the subcommittee on the 16th. Then I 


would ask subcommittee members who have other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

responsibilities potentially during that week 


to speak and maybe we can sort of make the -- 


those other meetings butt up against the 


subcommittee meeting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. The NTS 


working group, Wanda would be there on the 17th 


-- or on the 16th. If we could get SC&A and 


NIOSH to agree to either the 15th or the 17th, 


that would be all right with me -- preferably 


the 15th. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd prefer the 15th. 


 DR. WADE: Do I hear from NIOSH or SC&A? 


There's a proposal for the Nevada Test Site 


site profile group to meet the 15th of 


November. 


DR. NETON: We can -- we can certainly try to 


meet that. Again, it's going to depend on the 


analyses that Gene Rollins is working on, but 


we'll -- if we can't -- we could tentatively 


schedule that. If it's not going to happen, 


we'll get back to you. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that would be good to go 


ahead and schedule it, give them something to 


work 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 

81 

DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If we make it, we make it. If 


not, then I understand. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Now I have left for potential 


scheduling the Savannah River Site and the 250­

day SEC issue. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. What about 


the 15th for -- thinking certainly of Wanda -- 


not Wanda, excuse me, Gen Roessler, who's on 


the Nevada Test Site profile one and it 


overlaps -- and since this also deals with 


Nevada Test Site and there may -- there's some 


sort of cross-interest -- whether the 15th 


would work for the SEC issue. 


DR. ROESSLER: But we have the Nevada Test Site 


on the 15th. 


 DR. MELIUS: The 15th? 


DR. ROESSLER: How about the 17th? 


 DR. WADE: Say it again, Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: How about the 17th -- or the 


16th, if there's no --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean do you --


DR. ROESSLER: -- conflict in --


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you expect all these to be 


all-day meetings? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: You never can tell. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know, it's difficult. 


DR. ROESSLER: Well, with Wanda -- let's see, 


Wanda, you have a conflict on the 16th. 


 MS. MUNN: On when? 


DR. ROESSLER: Let's see, we're talking about 


the 250-day? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's Mark --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I'm not on that one -- 


DR. ROESSLER: You're not on that one. 


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


 DR. MELIUS: We can do the 16th. 


DR. ROESSLER: The 16th sounds good. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The 16th is the day of the 


subcommittee. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and you have Mark -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) day on that one. 


You'd probably do better with the 17th. 


 DR. WADE: Or the 14th. 


 MS. MUNN: Or the 14th. 


DR. ROESSLER: 14th, how's that? 


 DR. MELIUS: I can't do the 14th. 


 DR. WADE: 17th? 

1 

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

 DR. MELIUS: I can do the morning of the 17th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I can do morning of the 17th. 


DR. ROESSLER: I can do the 17th. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I can. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so the morning of the 17th for 


250-day, and that leaves -- with a hopeful 


voice -- the Savannah River Site site profile 


group. Do we want to try and -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, this is Mike. If -- is Joe 


-- are you still on --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, I'm on the phone. 


 MR. GIBSON: Do you think that you guys may be 


able -- you and NIOSH may be in a position one 


day that week to -- to have a meeting? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: You know, certainly talking to 


Sam about this, too, and I think you 


characterized it very well that we have 


identified the issues and the information that 


we need to -- you know, more or less to close 


specific issues out. At this point, issues 


like the databank access and some of the other 


items are ones where I guess we'll know better 


once we find out whether that information can 


be had and reviewed. If we don't get the 


information and we don't have a chance to 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 

84 

that review, then I'm not sure, you know, that 


time'll be profitable. So I -- to some extent 


I guess we're going to need to see how that 


goes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want to schedule that and then 


-- block it off and then -- it's easier to 


cancel later if you need to. 


 DR. WADE: We could put a hold on the 14th. 


 MS. MUNN: That'd be helpful for Brad 'cause 


he's on the Nevada Test Site workgroup on the 


15th. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad, and that's one of 


the things I'm questioning of -- where I'm 


sitting at right now, I've -- I've got like a 


day in between some of those. If it would be 


all right with Lew or whatever, that would also 


give me the opportunity to be able to go in and 


look into this O drive and stuff like that that 


I haven't had ability to be able to do, and 


then do the following meeting the next day 


instead of just trying to hold me over and kind 


of be there. 


 DR. WADE: That'd be fine, Brad, we would -- we 


would consider that as time well spent. 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I'm all right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

the 14th in the afternoon, but in the morning 


up to 11:00 o'clock, I'm not. 


 DR. WADE: What if we were to tentatively, 


Mike, talk about the afternoon of the 14th? 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: And then you could make the call a 


week or two from now as to whether that's a 


reality. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay, I can do that. 


 DR. WADE: Good. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 MR. GIBSON: And who should I -- who can I 


contact about the status of this databank that 


we're trying to get access to? 


 DR. WADE: Jim Neton or someone, can you help? 


DR. NETON: Sam Glover would be your best point 


of contact. He's our official person as -- 


 DR. WADE: Can you say the name again, Jim? 


DR. NETON: Sam Glover. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Could you have Sam contact 


Mike? 


DR. NETON: Sure, I'll do that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So for the week of -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, ma'am -- sir. 

1 

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. GIBSON: Once I get this information from 


Sam, is it appropriate for me as a Board member 


to whoever has this data to make a request or 


should I go through Dr. Ziemer or what's the 


protocol for that? 


 DR. WADE: You know, Dr. Ziemer, do you have a 


preference? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think the working group can 


request the information that they need as part 


of their deliberations on behalf of the Board. 


But actually is it -- is this something that -- 


that -- who identified the database to start 


with? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, Dr. Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: Is this something NIOSH is trying 


to get anyway? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: No, this is -- this is 


something that in the site profile review SC&A 


identified as a source of information that 


would, you know, add to that which the site 


profile references, and we indicated that was 


information that would also shed light on these 


episodic releases at Savannah River. I think 


in our discussions it was agreed that there'd 


be an attempt to gain access to it 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 

87 

you know, certainly the -- one issue being the 


fact that apparently DOE does not maintain that 


database anymore and now I guess it's being 


held by a contractor -- former contractor and I 


think Sam was going to determine whether or not 


this access could be arranged. And you know, 


certainly it was a issue of the government 


having paid for it in the first place, so there 


should be no, you know, encumbered access to 


it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I guess --


 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that --


THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) we actually 


may need to know or maybe -- maybe counsel can 


help us on this, who -- who should the request 


come from. It sounds like it either has to 


come officially from NIOSH or from the Board, 


and I can certainly make the request. Mike, 


I'd want you to draft the letter and I would 


sign it, but -- or can we do it by phone call? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The request needs to come from 


NIOSH, Dr. Ziemer, and we're pursuing it, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- (unintelligible) know exactly 

1 

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 

where --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what I thought because it'd be 


like the DOE records. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, we have to press this under 


the Memorandum of Understanding -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right, that's -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that we have with DOE -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that makes sense to me. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer, this is Ray. 


I'm not sure who the speaker was right before 


you. Was that Joe Fitzgerald? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: That was me. I'm sorry, Ray. 


Joe Fitzgerald. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. Thanks. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry. We'll push on this 


and see where it's at. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GIBSON: And Larry, this is Mike. In a --


you know, if you find any resistance -- I don't 


know, personally I think a letter from the 


Board to maybe some of the members of Congress 


would just -- you know --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't know that we're 


meeting any resistance. We certainly have the 


Memorandum of Understanding that's served us 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

well up to this point, and so you know, I just 


don't know exactly the status. This is the 


first I've heard of this, so I'll -- I'll find 


out where things stand. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Okay, so -- this is Lew. 


If I could just do a quick summary of what I 


think we've decided upon, the subcommittee is 


intending to meet face-to-face in Cincinnati on 


the 16th of November; the workgroup on the 


Nevada Test Site site profile scheduling to 


meet face-to-face in Cincinnati on the 15th of 


November; the workgroup on the Savannah River 


Site site profile tentatively scheduled to meet 


face-to-face in Cincinnati on the 14th at 1:00 


p.m. -- 14th of November; the workgroup on the 


Rocky Flats site profile and SEC petition 


scheduled to meet face-to-face in Cincinnati on 


the 6th of November at 10:00 a.m.; the 


workgroup on Chapman Valve SEC is tentatively 


scheduling a call for the end of October, 


beginning of November, e-mail to be sent out by 


Dr. Poston, the workgroup chair; the workgroup 


on SEC issues, including the 250-day issue, 


scheduled to meet face-to-face in Cincinnati on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

the 17th of November. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have a time on that one yet? 


 DR. WADE: We do not. 


DR. ROESSLER: I was wondering on that one, 


since that's a Friday and since I'm hoping that 


that would be at the airport and we could start 


early. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Is it -- Jim, yeah, I think -- Jim 


Melius. Starting early's fine with me 'cause I 


need to get out of there in the afternoon. 


 DR. WADE: You want to say 8:00 a.m., or 7:30? 


DR. ROESSLER: Sure. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Jim, your call. 


 DR. MELIUS: 8:00 -- 8:00 a.m. 


 DR. WADE: 8:00 a.m.? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you, Jim. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. The workgroup on the review 


of SEC petitions that did not qualify, a faceto-face meeting at NIOSH facilities in 


Cincinnati on the 9th of November starting at 


9:00 a.m. The workgroup on Hanford site 


profile, a conference call to be scheduled 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 

91 

put together a path forward. Dr. Melius will 


send out details. And the workgroup on 


conflict of interest policy for the Board, at a 


time to be scheduled. 


So I think that's important that we've gone 


through that. Again, I can't thank you all 


enough for your work. 


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


 DR. WADE: Sir? 


 MR. PRESLEY: We did not set a time for the NTS 


in Cincinnati on the 15th. 


 DR. WADE: And you're about to do that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would like to do that at 10:00 


o'clock in the morning, if that's all right 


with everybody. 


DR. ROESSLER: And would that also be at the 


airport? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would hope so. 


 DR. WADE: Yes, it will be. 


DR. ROESSLER: All right. 


 DR. WADE: And then Mark, the subcommittee, do 


you want to put a time on the 16th? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 10:00 a.m. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What subcommittee is that, Mark? 


 DR. WADE: That is the only subcommittee, the 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

92 

I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dose Reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Wade, this is Ray. 


got everything on those dates except the 


Hanford -- what was the date on that, or is 


that to be announced? 


 DR. WADE: The Hanford -- the workgroup on the 


Hanford site profile, a conference call to be 


announced and shared by Dr. Melius. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we didn't -- we're still 


holding off on the Chapman Valve -- right? -- 


end of October, early November is what -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, a call end of October, early 


November, Dr. Poston will notify. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I think that completes this 


topic. 


DISCUSSION OF SITE PROFILE REVIEW TASK
 

FOR SC&A IN FY07
 

Let's go on to the next one, which is -- 


there's several parts to it. The first part is 


discussion of site profile review tasks for 


SC&A in February -- in Fiscal Year '07. You 


may recall at our last Board meeting 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 

93 

set up a priority list of candidate site 


profiles for the contractor to review. Those ­

- actually Lew -- or LaShawn sent us out a copy 


of that -- I guess, Lew, you did -- a week or 


so ago with the list on it as a reminder. The 


-- the two profiles that we gave SC&A a go-


ahead on were LLNL and K-25, that's Lawrence 


Livermore and Oak Ridge K-25. The others, in 


order of priority, the next three were Pantex, 


Portsmouth and Argonne West. My understanding 


is that the contractor has the resources now to 


proceed on a third -- third one. We authorized 


the first two and we want to determine whether 


the Board wishes them to proceed with Pantex or 


whether or not the priorities have changed. 


And Lew, do you have any additional -- 


 DR. WADE: No, I would --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- comments or (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. WADE: -- like to just clarify -- 


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


 DR. WADE: -- one thing because this is not my 


field. The first one on the list is what, John 


Mauro? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I have Lawrence Livermore -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 -- 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94

 DR. ZIEMER: -- is on my list. 


 DR. WADE: John, what's on your list? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm -- the -- the hierarchy, 


based on the -- the scoring or the voting 


weight that was given -- 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- at the -- number one was -- on 


the scoring was Lawrence Livermore. Number two 


 DR. WADE: Okay, that's fine, I just wanted to 


make sure I didn't confuse Lawrence Livermore 


and Los Alamos, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lawrence Livermore and then K-25. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so we gave John the go-ahead 


on two. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 DR. WADE: When I talked to John recently, 


along with David Staudt, John tells us that 


he's in a position to begin work on the third. 


We don't want to delay the contractor and their 


work, so I thought we might take this 


opportunity to give John the go-ahead on a 


third. The third on our voting was Pantex. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And so, Board members, the 


question is do you wish to have -- authorize 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

95 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

the contractor to proceed with Pantex, or has 


our priorities changed? 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I still feel that 


Pantex is different enough from the other sites 


that we've looked at so far that it's logical 


to keep it in its current position. I'd like 


to see them move forward on that. 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I see no problem 


with proceeding with Pantex. I think it --


it's valuable that we get into that one fairly 


soon. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any Board members who 


feel we should change? 


 (No responses) 


If not, can I take it without objection that 


we'll authorize the contractor to proceed with 


the review of the Pantex site profile? 


 (No responses) 


There appears to be no objection. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So authorized. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


NEED FOR NEW WORKING GROUPS
 

(I.E. PROCEDURES REVIEW)
 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Need for new working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

groups. You know that we -- we did authorize 


the contractor to proceed with reviewing some 


new procedures. As they progress in that and 


the findings are developed, we will need a 


working group to review that -- those, so -- 


and John Mauro, can you tell us where we are on 


that task? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, on the new set of procedures 


-- if you recall, where we stand is you folks 


have identified 15 --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- for us to begin with. We have ­

- our contract calls for 30, so you -- we -- we 


have started work on allocation of the first 


15. In fact the most important one, dealing 


with construction -- OTIB-52 -- work has begun. 


Arjun is -- is leading that up. However the 


others, work has not proceeded very far and -- 


and we are again -- we are expecting at some 


point in the process it wouldn't be a bad idea 


if we have some direction by -- by December for 


the other 15 so we could have the full cadre of 


30 identified. 


By the way, as an aside, if you recall, you 


also identified that there were seven 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 

97 

procedures that have already been effectively 


reviewed as part of the site profile process, 


so in effect our plan is to deliver a report 


that covers a total of 37 procedures in the 


deliverable that will come out of this proc-- 


product -- project. We -- we have certainly 


adequate work right now to move forward with 


the 15. There's no urgency right now for the ­

- the Board to identify the next set of 15. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Is there -- is there a -- would it ­

- would it suit you, John, to have a workgroup 


identified today, or might that wait until 


December? 


DR. MAURO: I think it would be good today. 


I'll tell you why. We are moving forward right 


now with one of the most important OTIBs, 52, 


dealing with construction. And that's going to 


turn out to be a little bit more of an involved 


review than let's say the others where 


collaboration and keeping the working group 


apprised of developments -- for example, we're 


hoping to bring aboard some specialists in 


construction working through Knut, who had 


expressed a great deal of interest in that 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 

98 

-- and it wouldn't be a bad idea to move 


forward with those activities in collaboration 


with a working group. So I guess -- if I had 


my 'druthers, it would be very desirable to 


have a working group there as we start to move 


into the -- specifically this one particular 


procedure. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, fine. And just for the 


record, the reason we sort of face this -- this 


mini-vacuum is that in the past the 


subcommittee, as it was previously constituted, 


dealt with procedures, and as it is being 


reconstituted deals only with dose 


reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: So Paul, it's your pleasure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, it sounds like it'd 


be useful to go ahead and have the committee 


work -- or the workgroup in place so that when 


needed they'd be -- be ready to go into 


operation. I think I'd like to first give 


folks the opportunity, if they're interested in 


this particular workgroup, to -- to volunteer. 


So who would like to be part of this workgroup 


on procedures review, recognizing that there'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 

99 

no immediate work on it. Work would probably 


begin after our next meeting and into next year 


sometime. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, I'm -- I'm interested. I'd 


rather not chair. I've got a lot of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark Griffon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- prongs in the fire. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda --


 MR. GIBSON: This is Mike, I volunteer for that 


-- that, but I'd rather not chair it, either -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gibson, who else? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. This is Wanda, I'm not wild 


about chairing it, either. 


 DR. WADE: But you didn't say you wouldn't. 


 MS. MUNN: No, I didn't say I wouldn't. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Who else indicated an interest? 


All right, Griffon, Gibson and Munn. 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Well, I guess the Chair is going to put 


himself on that then, that'll give us four. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean there's one other thing is 


-- that what John just said -- I mean there may 


be a good reason for breaking off that one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

procedure on construction workers to just have 


a separate construction worker workgroup, you 


know, looking at --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and in fact --


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, if there's 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- this -- this workgroup -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) almost like a 


site profile. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- this workgroup may end up 


concentrating that -- on that as their initial 


task 'cause that's probably going to be one of 


the things. If we need a separate workgroup, 


we will, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at least this one is there to ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- start that. Anyone else 


interested in this? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I would be 


interested in working on that, but not chairing 


it, also. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me -- I'm going to put 


you down as an alternate, Robert, so we 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 

101 

four --


 MR. PRESLEY: That'd be fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- plus an alternate, and I will 


serve as chairman pro tem. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. WADE: Do you feel you have the experience, 


Paul, to do that? 


 MS. MUNN: He probably (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'll work on it. Okay, that 


gives us at least a group to go forward. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you very much. I do 


appreciate that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And it may be -- Poston isn't on 


the line, and it may be that Poston will agree 


to -- to participate in that. I'll move out if 


he's -- would be interested. 


 DR. WADE: And remember that in -- in the 


letter we received from -- our friends, this 


issue of the Board addressing the construction 


workers was raised, so I think this action 


would be found consistent with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. Okay, that takes 


care of that workgroup. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I need to 


sign off and go to another meeting, so -- 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

102

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- thank everybody. 


DISCUSSION OF WORKING GROUP & SUBCOMMITTEE
 

MEETING DURING THE DECEMBER FACE-TO-FACE MEETING
 

 DR. ZIEMER: I think we're basically done. 


We're -- we're really -- need to determine 


which of these groups are going to meet before 


our meeting in December, also. That is on the 


morning of our December meeting. 


 DR. WADE: I mean historically we always 


reserve the morning of the first day for the 


subcommittee. We could continue to do that. 


It could be a time for other workgroups, but 


there's such an overlap between workgroups and 


subcommittee it's hard to imagine that more 


than a couple could meet. I just didn't know ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, what -- what I think I'm 


going to suggest, Lew, in that regard is that 


the various workgroups that are going to be 


meeting in the next month or so, if any of them 


need follow-up meetings in -- at the front end 


of our meeting in -- in December, perhaps they 


could let you know and we can try to schedule 


them. It may be that they'd have -- some of 


them would have to be sequential rather than 

1 

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 

simultaneous because of overlap of membership. 


 DR. WADE: Fine. Mark, do you want me to hold 


the morning of the first day for subcommittee 


meeting possibly? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Possibly, yeah. Yeah, but I can 


also see it, if desired, to meet with the Rocky 


Flats --


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it might be... 


 DR. WADE: So the subcommittee will have no -- 


no preference to that morning at this point. 


Right now I'll say we'll start the Board 


meeting 1:00 o'clock on the first day -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we may --


 DR. WADE: -- and we'll use the morning as 


appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at least one workgroup planned 


to meet, though. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Whichever is most urgent, 


probably. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are there any other items 


of business that need to come before us today? 


 MR. GIBSON: Paul, this is Mike. I've got 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 

104 

question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: If memory serves me right, 


Battelle's contract has -- period has ended. 


Do they have a deliverable for NIOSH and is 


that available to the Board? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Battelle's -- the dose 


reconstructions that they were doing? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Mike, this is Larry Elliott. Let 


me answer your question if I can. Battelle has 


been awarded a contract mod for a no-cost 


extension. I believe it goes through May of 


2007, and that will consume the remainder of 


funds that they have not expended to this date, 


as well as we have specified exactly what we 


want them to accomplish with the remaining 


funds and the time frame that has been extended 


to them. So we're making those contract 


modifications happen at -- now, at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay? 


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


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Back about four or five years ago 


the Board asked NIOSH if there was any way 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 

105 

periodically, quarterly, whatever, we could get 


a summary of what we had been paid out in the 


way of wages and also what we have been paid 


out in the way of reimbursement. I would like 


to know if that can be talked about at the next 


Board. I think that that's something that 


needs to come up and we need to readdress, 


because --


 DR. ZIEMER: You're asking for individual mem-- 


information that individual members could have 


on what they've been paid? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. I want a paper 


trail. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I get, every two weeks, from 


this federal pay thing -- 


 MS. MUNN: Mil pay thing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What is it called? 


 MS. MUNN: I think it's mil pay, if I remember 


correctly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which gives the earnings for that 


period and the earnings to date for the year. 


Are you not getting something like that? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I've not been able to get on that 


web site. The other thing is, we don't know -- 


all you do is you just get a -- an amount 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 

106 

shows up in your checking account ever so often 


after a -- after a -- a meeting or something. 


I would like to see some type of a -- of a -- 


of an expense report or something like this for 


what we've been paid for and what we've turned 


in. 


 DR. WADE: I will see that it's on the agenda 


to discuss, Robert. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Lew, I appreciate that very much. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Lew, I agree with that because for 


tax purposes, it's going to be a problem at the 


end of the year figuring out expenses versus 


everything else. 


 DR. WADE: I will just have somebody come -- I 


know there are lots of issues that each of you 


have and I -- I'll have somebody come and face 


you and -- and hear the concerns and tell you 


the way it should be and you can tell them the 


way it is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay, Lew, I would appreciate 


that very much. 


 MS. MUNN: As long as --

 DR. WADE: It would be my pleasure. 

 MS. MUNN: As long as we're discussing pay 

issues, there has -- has there been any success 

1 

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 

at all in getting the State of Georgia to agree 


to stop withholding state withholding tax for 


those of us who don't live or even travel 


through Georgia? 


 DR. WADE: It is being worked on. I cannot 


report success at this point, but I can report 


diligent effort. And hopefully by December 


I'll have something to -- more positively to 


tell you. 


 MS. MUNN: If there's something that we should 


be doing as individuals, I'd certainly like to 


know what that is. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Hey, Wanda, this is Brad. If you 


get onto that -- that site, you can actually 


change your --


 MS. MUNN: I have done that three times. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Have you? Me, too, so --


 MS. MUNN: With no success. 


 DR. LOCKEY: What is -- what is that site? 


 MS. MUNN: It is mypay.dsas.mil/mypay -- that's 


m-y-p-a-y.asex. 


 DR. LOCKEY: asex? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 (Multiple members spoke simultaneously.) 


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) to everyone 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 

108 

well, would you mind? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I could --


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Wanda --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- you might want to check in. 


They have even been turning in my per diem and 


my travel and everything as income. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, well, I know -- I know the 


State of Georgia has a couple of thousand 


dollars of my monies that they've been 


withholding and I'd -- I'd like it to go to the 


feds, if it's going to be withheld. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we need someone there 


at the meeting that can try to address these 


issues probably. 


 DR. WADE: Right, I'll try and get someone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And maybe someone who can explain 


why our Board's per diem -- or our Board's 


consulting rate is different than the DTRA 


Board, or at least I'm told it is. Do you know 


DR. ROESSLER: I've heard that, too. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It is. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, it's not just the DTRA board. 


We're the cheapest date in town, guys. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MS. MUNN: That's through the waste board and 


several other boards. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think it's high time that we 


have somebody come talk to us about these 


things. 


 DR. WADE: We'll try and get someone. 


 DR. LOCKEY: I agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any -- anything else for the 


good of the order? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I just wanted to 


make sure -- so we're planning for December to 


meet as a full Board in Chicago? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Correct. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I just -- I just got the ­

- the one from Lew there and I wanted to make 


sure that we're -- the dates were correct and 


that's where we were going to go. 


 DR. WADE: That's correct. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Do we know yet what hotel we're 


going to be in, or what part of town? 


 DR. WADE: I do not. I will let you know as 


soon as I find out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If you're able to get something 


near O'Hare, it might be good. I don't know 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 

110 

members will really want to be downtown, but -- 


 DR. WADE: No, we won't go downtown, I'll try 


to --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I certainly don't. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Wonderful. 


 DR. WADE: I'll try near O'Hare. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's good. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Lew, this is Larry Elliott. It ­

- this is in res-- this meeting is being held 


in Illinois for the Blockson Chemical SEC 


petition --


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- deliberation, and that's in 


Joliet, and I -- I assume you're all aware that 


Joliet's about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: So I just offer that for your 


consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If you got to O'Hare, the drive to 


Joliet is faster than the drive downtown. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It probably is. But just so you 


know, as typically and traditionally, we will 


notify claimants in the -- in the area. But to 


hold it in Chicago, we may see a -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But there are some good conference 

1 

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 

centers, for example, near Naperville, which is 


quite accessible to Joliet and which is much 


easier to get to than -- than Chicago itself 


from the airport. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so I will aim for Joliet or 


Naperville or --


 DR. ZIEMER: Probably -- probably not Joliet 


itself. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, this is Bob Presley. 


Really think about going to Denver in February. 


The weather -- the weather could be absolutely 


terrible. Part of us might get in, part of us 


might not get out. Really have a hard look at 


February's Board meeting. I mean it's --


there's too many places that we need to go. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I understand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Anything else? 


 (No responses) 


If not, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. 


Thank you very much. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. 


 (Whereupon, an adjournment was taken at 12:05 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

112 

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 October 18, 


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 


4th day of November, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102