STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 

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 

MEETING 8 

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

REVIEWS 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 8th 

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews held at The Suncoast Hotel and Casino, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, on January 8, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

January 8, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

DR. LEW WADE, DFO 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 

UPDATE FROM THE CHAIR 8 

DISCUSSION OF CASES UNDER REVIEW: 

FOURTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 11 

FIFTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 26 

SIXTH SET OF CASES 44 

DATABASE 46 

BLIND REVIEWS 56 

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 57 

MATRICES 70 

SELECTION OF CASES FOR FUTURE REVIEW 73 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 111 

 
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

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

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

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 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 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

FARVER, DOUG, SC&A 

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

ZIEMER, PAUL, ABRWH 
6

JAN. 8, 2008

1 10:10 a.m.

2 P R O C E E D I N G S 

3 WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

4 DR. WADE: This is a meeting of the 

5 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction, the 

6 subcommittee of the Advisory Board. My name is 

7 Lew Wade and I have the privilege of serving 

8 the Board as a Designated Federal Official. 

9 This subcommittee is very ably chaired by Mark 

10 Griffon. Its members are Gibson, Poston, Munn; 

11 alternates Clawson and Presley. All of the 

12 members and alternates are present at the 

13 table. 

14 Also at the table joining us is Stu Hinnefeld, 

15 who I assume, Stu, you'll have the principal 

16 speaking part representing NIOSH. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Unless somebody else jumps up 

18 and wants it. 

19 DR. WADE: Okay. And from SC&A's point of 

20 view, John, will it be the Behlings? 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, Kathy Behling should be on the 

22 line, and I'll (unintelligible). 

23 DR. WADE: Okay. Kathy, are you on the line? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Kathy, are you on the line and muted? 
7

1 (No responses) 

2 Kathy? 

3 MS. BEHLING: I'm on the line. Do you hear me? 

4 MS. MUNN: She's on the line but I can hardly 

5 hear her. 

6 DR. WADE: Yeah, I think -- can we get that 

7 volume turned up? They're working on it. We 

8 think you're there. We sense your presence. 

9 We just don't hear you yet. 

10 (Pause) 

11 Kathy, could you say something now? 

12 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm here on the line. Can 

13 you hear me? 

14 DR. WADE: Okay, we need a little bit more 

15 volume. Can we get any more -- tease any more 

16 volume out of Kathy? 

17 (Pause) 

18 Kathy, try again, please. 

19 MS. BEHLING: Can you hear me now? 

20 DR. WADE: We can. I guess I'd ask you to 

21 speak up, and at the same time we'll try and 

22 turn the gain up here without initiating a 

23 terrible piercing noise. 

24 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I (unintelligible) -- 

25 DR. WADE: And if you can't hear us, please let 
8

1 us know. 

2 Is there anybody else on the telephone who 

3 would like to be identified? We don't need to 

4 do introductions, but if there's anyone on the 

5 phone who would like their presence known for 

6 the record, feel free at this moment. 

7 (No responses) 

8 Okay. Mark? 

9 UPDATE FROM THE CHAIR

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this is a meeting of the 

11 subcommittee, Mark Griffon chairing it, and I 

12 think I can -- I can just run through the items 

13 we'll discuss today and then -- mainly this is 

14 going to be updates of some ongoing work. I -- 

15 I sort of view this as an executive summary 

16 subcommittee meeting. In between these meeting 

17 we -- we do have meetings where we get into 

18 more technical findings and -- and deliberate 

19 and resolve the findings, but here today we're 

20 going to give more of -- of a -- a status 

21 report on most things. And then a large chunk 

22 of the time we're going to spend on -- on going 

23 through the -- Stu Hinnefeld just provided the 

24 subcommittee members with a couple of matrices 

25 where we can select for the next round of cases 
9

1 so that we keep some cases in the hopper for 

2 SC&A to work on. 

3 First, things I'd like to go over in this 

4 portion of the meeting, the fourth, fifth and 

5 sixth set matrices. We've -- we're in various 

6 stages of the comment resolution process for 

7 those matrices and they ea-- they each have 20 

8 cases, I believe -- yeah, 20 cases each -- each 

9 set. And for -- for those -- I see some people 

10 in the audience that may have -- may not follow 

11 this process, or may be new to this meeting. 

12 These have -- these -- the-- these -- what we 

13 do with these is SC&A reviews cases and then we 

14 bring it to a -- a meeting once -- once -- if 

15 there's any findings for -- for the cases, they 

16 put them together in matrix form and then once 

17 the finding's identified, we -- we bring that 

18 back -- or they -- they circulate that back to 

19 NIOSH. NIOSH has a chance to respond to the 

20 finding and then we sit down in the 

21 subcommittee process and sort of hammer out the 

22 differences, you know, and we resolve -- either 

23 they -- there is disagreement or -- or SC&A 

24 misinterpreted something or, you know, whatever 

25 the conclusion might be, we go through a 
10

1 resolution process. 

2 And the fourth, fifth and sixth set of cases, 

3 which basically covers 60 cases, we're in 

4 various stages of completion for that 

5 resolution process on those cases. 

6 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, it's difficult to 

7 hear. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: We also have a seventh and eighth 

9 set out that have not come back to the 

10 subcommittee yet but are -- are in process, 

11 sort of -- and then today, like I said, at the 

12 end of this meeting we'll focus on the 

13 selection for a ninth set of cases for SC&A to 

14 -- to begin working on. 

15 DR. WADE: We also have the issue of the 

16 blinds. Right? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right. So the 

18 fourth, fifth and sixth set -- I'm going to do 

19 updates on those. We -- we -- my next item was 

20 the blind review, just an update on the case 

21 selection very briefly. 

22 Another item I wanted to discuss wa-- was how 

23 to -- and I think -- I've talked to SC&A 

24 preliminarily about this, but the notion of 

25 rolling our matrices into a da-- a database 
11

1 similar to the procedures database that Wanda's 

2 incorporated in the procedures review workgroup 

3 so that we have all these findings sort of in 

4 one database, and it'll be a lot easier moving 

5 forward on where we stand with -- with which 

6 finding. Also tracking the resolution I think 

7 is going to be critical. 

8 And finally, the ninth set of cases, to start 

9 the selection. So -- any other items for the 

10 agenda? I don't... 

11 MS. BEHLING: Mark, this is Kathy. Can -- 

12 we're having difficulty on the phone hearing 

13 you. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Is that a little better? 

15 I'll try to... 

16 MS. BEHLING: Yes, that's much better. Thank 

17 you. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. Remind me, 

19 Kathy. Speak up if you don't hear me. 

20 FOURTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS

21 Okay, so just to update on the fourth set -- 

22 and I'm -- I'm going to try to -- at this point 

23 on the fourth set, we are -- we are pretty 

24 close to resolving all the findings. But I do 

25 want to take a few minutes and go through a 
12

1 couple of specific ones to make sure we're on 

2 the same page here. 

3 The -- the most recent -- I have some notes 

4 just -- that were just provided to me by SC&A, 

5 so they're not -- everybody doesn't have these, 

6 but -- they also tie in with our last matrix 

7 that we had, which was -- I believe we had an 

8 updated document on September 28th was the last 

9 and this was sort of findings that weren't 

10 closed out, more or less. It was excerpts from 

11 the major -- the primary matrix. I don't know 

12 if people have this. It may not be too -- too 

13 essential to go through the details of this, 

14 but I -- I basically wanted to see if SC&A and 

15 NIOSH agree that this is sort of where we stand 

16 on each one of these remaining findings. 

17 Okay, the first -- first one I had was 68.2, 

18 and basically -- and this is consistent with my 

19 notes -- Kathy's -- Kathy Behling's notes say 

20 that 68.2 is related to the angular response of 

21 a dosimeter, and I think we've kicked that back 

22 to the procedures review group, so that's 

23 closed out. 

24 68.8 and 68.9 -- these both relate to failure 

25 to properly account for radiological incidents. 
13

1 And I believe we -- in -- in -- in between our 

2 last meetings we've gotten responses back from 

3 NIOSH that indicate they did assess these 

4 incidents noted in the CATI report, and they 

5 would have added a little bit of dose to the 

6 case but would not have affected the -- the 

7 decision, basically, so they ad-- added a 

8 slight bit of dose but would not have any -- 

9 have had any effect on the outcome. So that I 

10 believe closes that item out as well. 

11 Stu, stop me if -- these are from Kathy's notes 

12 and my memory, but stop me at any point if you 

13 disagree -- or if you're not sure, we'll just 

14 put them on hold kind of. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I don't have a note 

16 on that finding, so I would -- would -- based 

17 on what you've said -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I may not have made a note. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Yeah. I mean it's -- 

21 it's essentially closed out. Kathy, you -- you 

22 agree with that. Right? 

23 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

25 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 
14

1 67.-- (unintelligible) -- 

2 MS. BEHLING: Also, Mark, just excuse me one 

3 second, I -- I cannot hear Stu when he talks, 

4 either. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we're going to have to be 

6 careful to get close to the mikes, yeah. 

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you. 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

9 (Unintelligible) people on the line 

10 (unintelligible). 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, did you say -- did I miss 

12 one, 67.-- okay. 

13 MS. MUNN: No, I was just inquiring -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- which -- what the number was you 

16 were discussing. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that was 68.8 and 68.9, 

18 sorry. 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I don't know, 

20 (unintelligible) think about it. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: 69.6 -- SC&A feels that this has 

22 been resolved, basically. There was a -- a 

23 question about the IREP entries and the fact 

24 that they took -- the Pu-241 entries weren't 

25 put in, but there are americium values in and -
15

1 - too long to discuss here, basically, but SC&A 

2 agrees with -- with NIOSH's conclusion on that. 

3 MS. MUNN: Mark? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- boy, this background 

5 noise is -- 

6 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) Just 

7 (unintelligible). 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 MS. MUNN: The printout that I'm looking at 

10 jumps from 69.5 to 69.7. Did -- did we -- 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Use your 

12 microphone. 

13 MS. MUNN: Did -- did we have 69.6 on a 

14 separate printout? Were we tracking it 

15 separately? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Are you -- are you -- you don't 

17 have this -- the document I'm -- I'm working 

18 from is -- this September 28th document would 

19 have been the last one you have, you should 

20 have, it was -- 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Do you have that? 

23 MS. MUNN: 69.-- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: This is part of the reason we'll 

25 be going to that database. This'll make it a 
16

1 lot easier to follow -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah, so -- no, I have 69.5, but 

3 that's -- that's all right. It's of no 

4 consequence, especially given the outcome. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. I mean I -- I think 

6 there's only a few that remain where there's a 

7 question, so I'll try to get to those. 

8 69.8 -- again, we have -- this was a question 

9 on the -- the triangular distribution used with 

10 the -- related to the whole body counting, and 

11 SC&A -- after quite a bit of conversation about 

12 which values -- what the values meant on the -- 

13 the printed report, I think we -- SC&A came to 

14 agree with NIOSH's conclusion, so that one is 

15 closed. 

16 69.9 -- this -- this talks about the use of 

17 environmental internal exposure values to 

18 account for likely tritium, iodine and uranium 

19 exposure's inappropriate. Yeah, it -- and 

20 there -- I guess the final question that we 

21 were working on was whether the person was in a 

22 uranium area and would have been required to 

23 have an occupational -- sort of a coworker 

24 model rather than an environmental dose. And 

25 Kathy, it appears, based on your review -- you 
17

1 concluded that you couldn't find any work 

2 history that indicated that the person would 

3 have been in a uranium area. Is that correct? 

4 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that's correct, Mark. 

5 Initially I -- I believe we had stated in our 

6 initial finding that we thought that the 

7 individual was in a 321-M area, and when I went 

8 back to look at this I could not confirm that. 

9 I could not confirm that he -- this individual 

10 was in that particular area. And I looked at 

11 some other things in that case -- case to see 

12 if he may have been in any other area that -- 

13 whe-- he would have been exposed to uranium, 

14 and I concluded I guess that he -- he was not. 

15 Now I can -- I don't know, I can go back and 

16 look at these findings again -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think that's okay. I think 

18 -- I think we've beat that one around the block 

19 enough, you know -- 

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- so that closes that out, 

22 essentially. 

23 73.4 is the next one I have, and Kathy, help me 

24 interpret this. I think you're suggesting that 

25 the only -- the resolution here -- we got sort 
18

1 of a disagreement, and the resolution may be to 

2 -- to push this into the Y-12 site profile 

3 review. It is a question of whether a person 

4 should have had neutron monitoring based on 

5 areas worked, and that really gets into the -- 

6 the site profile arena. Is that -- 

7 MS. BEHLING: Yes, that's correct. In fact, I 

8 have talked to Joe Fitzgerald, who is doing the 

9 site profile reviews, and there still are some 

10 remaining open items for the Y-12 facility. 

11 And he indicated that he would add this to 

12 that. There's just some discrepancy as to what 

13 is in the -- the site profile as compared to 

14 what is in an ORAU report listing the locations 

15 for potential nuclear -- I'm sorry, neutron 

16 exposure. And we wanted -- we wanted some 

17 clarification and then, -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

19 MS. BEHLING: -- if necessary, to make a 

20 correction in the site profile and/or this 

21 report 33. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. TIB -- is it TIB-33? 

23 MS. BEHLING: No, it's an ORAU -- it's ORAUT24 RPRT-0033, so it's an ORAU report 33. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, just so we have that on the 
19

1 record, good. But it -- but it -- the 

2 resolution is going to the site profile -- all 

3 -- all the more reason for our tracking system 

4 to be in place for all these things 'cause a 

5 lot of them are getting pushed off to other 

6 workgroups and other -- and we don't want to 

7 lose them completely, so -- 

8 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- we will do that. And then I 

10 have only a few more in this set -- 76.2 -- and 

11 this one we have that NIOSH owes a response on 

12 this one, Stu, so that's -- I think -- is that 

13 where we stand, Kathy? 

14 MS. BEHLING: Yes, that's correct. We're -- 

15 we're waiting for NIOSH's response. I -- I 

16 believe, Mark, there was also a 76.1 that has 

17 been resolved, but -- but I -- you may have 

18 missed one. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, sub-- yeah, I... 

20 MS. BEHLING: Whether that's important or not, 

21 but 76.1 was also one that we had discussed I 

22 believe on our technical conference call and we 

23 have gone back and -- and -- it was associated 

24 with some missed photon doses and what was an -

25 - an MDL level, and we have gone back and 
20

1 verified that NIOSH's MDL value was correct. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. I'm sorry, I skipped over 

3 that one. Yes, you're right, 76.1. So that -- 

4 that is resolved, 76.1 -- 

5 MS. BEHLING: Correct. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- 76.2, though, this is fail-- 

7 failure to assign unmonitored neutron doses for 

8 all years of employment. Stu, I don't know -- 

9 you can maybe just make a note on this that we 

10 might need a response and... 

11 And then 76.3 is the last one I have. 

12 MS. MUNN: Over and above -- I may be missing a 

13 step in here, we're -- 76.2? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 MS. MUNN: But I had a note that it -- the case 

16 had been reworked to include unmonitored dose. 

17 Result was an increase overall, but not an 

18 increase of POC that would still be compen-- 

19 compensable. I thought that was the response 

20 that I (unintelligible) -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and on 76.2 -- I'm actually 

22 looking at -- at the September 28th document -- 

23 I have that SC&A agrees, and then the response, 

24 so... 

25 MS. MUNN: So that was what the response was, 
21

1 that it was reworked but there was no change in 

2 -- the POC -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't know what you're 

4 reading from, but -- 

5 MS. MUNN: From a September 26th document, two 

6 days before. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Two days before, right. 

8 MS. MUNN: The -- the word-- the wording 

9 specifically from the response is -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe we just -- just need to 

11 check that rework again -- Kathy and Stu, if I 

12 can ask you just to follow up on that off-line, 

13 we can -- you know. 

14 MS. BEHLING: And -- I'm sorry, we're now on -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: 76.2. 

16 MS. BEHLING: 76.2. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: In -- in the -- in the last 

20 matrix, Wanda's correct, it -- it looks like we 

21 -- we said that NIOSH reworked and SC&A is okay 

22 with it, and that disagrees with your last 

23 notes to me, so we -- 

24 MS. BEHLING: Okay, yes. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- need to just check it out, 
22

1 yeah. 

2 MS. BEHLING: I'll look at that again. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. Then finally, 76.3. 

4 (Pause) 

5 Now here -- here -- Kathy, can I ask you to 

6 characterize what you sent to me? I think what 

7 you're saying is that you agree that the 

8 uranium approach was bounding, but there's a 

9 remaining question about thorium internal dose. 

10 Is that true? 

11 MS. BEHLING: I'm looking at this one -- 

12 actually Doug Farver, are you on the line? 

13 (No responses) 

14 Okay, he indicated -- Doug, are you on the 

15 line? 

16 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'm here. 

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay, Doug. Doug, can you help 

18 me out on this one? I think you had looked at 

19 this. We're on 76.3. 

20 MR. FARVER: Right, and if you look -- I think 

21 we resolved this during the -- the technical 

22 conference call. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we -- your note says, 

24 Kathy, that the approach provided in the IMBA -

25 - IMBA -- I mean I know that NIOSH provided us 
23

1 IMBA analysis, and basically that they used a 

2 chronic exposure using the last datapoint, and 

3 overall it seemed bounding -- even though SC&A 

4 might have done it differently, it did bound 

5 the -- the dose for uranium. But then your 

6 last paragraph here says however, and then it 

7 goes on to question whether thorium was 

8 accounted for. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that con-- matches my 

10 notes -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Mark, is that there was an 

13 open question about was this person potentially 

14 exposed to thorium -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Thorium, right. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in which case the uranium 

17 bounding would -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- only be a portion of the -- 

20 portion of the response. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: So that's still outstanding -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So that matches my notes and I 

23 believe it's still outstanding (unintelligible) 

24 -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so it's in your court -- 
24

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's in -- NIOSH to follow up 

3 on? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, it is. 

5 MS. BEHLING: That -- ex-- excuse me, I 

6 remember this now, too, because this is a 

7 Fernald case and the thorium issue may be 

8 something we need to look at for the Fernald 

9 case so that's why I -- I didn't want to close 

10 this out. Yeah, now I recall. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: This may be something that ends 

12 up in the site profile review as well, I don't 

13 know, but -- but we'll -- I guess we'll keep it 

14 here for now, but I'd ask -- so there's really 

15 just two findings left to look at for both SC&A 

16 and NIOSH. I'd just ask you to -- sounds like 

17 this one's definitely a -- a NIOSH response 

18 issue. The other one, I think we'd better 

19 check out notes and make sure on that previous 

20 one, which was 69.2. Right? No, I'm sorry, 70 

21 -- 76.2 -- 76.2 we have a little discrepancy 

22 and I'd ask NIOSH and SC&A to both check that 

23 out. And then 76.3, we're in agreement that -- 

24 that NIOSH, you owe a response on that. Right? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well... 
25

1 MR. GRIFFON: Is that correct, Kathy? 

2 MS. BEHLING: Oh, excuse me, Mark, I'm sorry, I 

3 -- I hit the wrong button and I disconnected -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 

5 MS. BEHLING: -- so I didn't hear it, I'm 

6 sorry. If I'd been hitting mute, I hit my 

7 on/off button. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. We don't like -- I get 

9 nervous when I have dead air here, you know. 

10 MS. BEHLING: I know. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I know we're -- 

12 MS. BEHLING: I -- I'm sorry about that. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- getting into a large market 

14 here, you know. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Mark -- Mark, what I have is 

16 that 76.3, the one we just talked about, we owe 

17 a response. And the other was -- I have a note 

18 is here, 73.4, which had -- but that may have 

19 been -- that may be going into a site profile 

20 issue. That was, you know, what -- the 

21 difference between this particular report and -

22 - 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's a site -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the site profile. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- profile question, yeah. 
26

1 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) to site 

2 profile? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: But the -- the -- the 76.2, the 

4 question was the one that Wanda quite 

5 accurately noted, that in a previous matrix we 

6 said that SC&A's in agreement, but in -- in 

7 Kathy's notes to me this morning it indicated 

8 that there was still a -- a discrepancy, so I'm 

9 asking both -- you know, let's check into that 

10 and see where we really stand on that. All 

11 right. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: So really the -- the -- yeah, the 

14 two remaining, and the main one for NIOSH to 

15 respond to is 76.3, the thorium question. 

16 Anything else on the fourth set -- I dare to 

17 ask. I think that's it, though. 

18 MS. BEHLING: I believe that's it. 

19 FIFTH SET OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, moving on to the fifth set 

21 and -- and actually even fewer here, I believe. 

22 First I have case 84, basically the entire 

23 case, and I think maybe John can respond to 

24 that, or Kathy. This is the Huntington Pilot 

25 Plant, and this was the notion of doing a sort 
27

1 of mini site profile review under the DR task, 

2 and I think -- so -- so it's back in SC&A's 

3 court. You're working on that, though. 

4 Correct, John? Sorry. 

5 MS. BEHLING: Yes, John is working on that. 

6 John, are you there? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: He's making it to a mike, yeah, 

8 he's -- 

9 MS. BEHLING: Oh, okay. Okay. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I -- Ka-- 

11 MS. BEHLING: Just until John gets there, yeah. 

12 All of the findings associated with this 

13 particular case, and I believe -- and I'm 

14 pretty sure I'm correct on this -- we -- we did 

15 look at the Huntington exposure matrix site 

16 profile, but it was an earlier version of one -

17 - than -- than the one that's -- that is out 

18 right now, than the most current version. So 

19 in order to see if some of our concerns 

20 regarding the derivation of the internal and 

21 external exposures, which is a lot of the 

22 findings associated with this particular case, 

23 I believe were -- John is going to be looking 

24 at the newest version of the Huntington Pilot 

25 Plant exposure matrix to see if any of our 
28

1 concerns were resolved. And if not, I guess 

2 we're -- we've decided, and correct me here if 

3 I'm wrong, Mar-- Mark, that we would try to 

4 address those under this task as opposed to 

5 cha-- switching it over to -- to the site 

6 profile task, Task I. 

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah, Kathy, let me -- thi-- thi-- 

8 because this is important because it's a -- a 

9 new strategy that we discussed during our last 

10 -- I guess it was a conference call meeting, I 

11 believe, I'm not sure exactly what -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- it turned out that one of the 

14 concerns that were raised is that there are a 

15 lot of AWEs that have a site profile. Okay? 

16 And they're -- some of them are relatively 

17 recent. And there are a lot of cases -- dose 

18 reconstruction cases that we have reviewed in 

19 the past where we drew upon whatever 

20 information was available at the time that that 

21 site profile -- I'm sorry, that that dose 

22 reconstruction drew upon. Okay? Now Mark 

23 correctly pointed out well, you know, we're 

24 concerned that, for example, Huntington Pilot 

25 Plant, Harshaw and Bridgeport Brass seem to be 
29

1 three fairly important sites, AWE sites, where 

2 the only review that those exposure matrices 

3 are really getting emerge as part of our DR -- 

4 dose reconstruction review process under Task 

5 IV. And in the interest of making sure that it 

6 gets a little bit more treatment, what we're 

7 doing right now -- in fact, I've already 

8 completed Bridgeport Brass. I actually 

9 performed what I would conso-- consider -- 

10 certainly not a site profile review, but it is 

11 an advanced review of Bridgeport Brass where I 

12 have a stand-alone document, that right now is 

13 undergoing review, that is -- in effect, using 

14 my judgment -- in effect, I go through 

15 carefully the document and its supporting 

16 documentation and evaluate it, so that it -- 

17 it's sort of a way to say we -- we lo-- we took 

18 a close -- you know, even though we reviewed 

19 Bridgeport Brass to the extent necessary to 

20 review a particular dose reconstruction, it 

21 really wasn't as much of a review that -- you 

22 know, there -- there may be aspects of that 

23 Bridgeport Brass that really didn't get enough 

24 review. Okay? And -- and -- and right now 

25 we're in this place where I'm performing a 
30

1 relatively modest review -- quite frankly, on 

2 the order of about 40 work hours -- of 

3 reviewing the -- review the document, do some 

4 hand checks, go back to the original source 

5 documents that are standing behind it, 

6 especially the data, and writing up what I call 

7 like an appendix to a given dose 

8 reconstruction, which gives what I would 

9 consider to be an expanded review of the site, 

10 of the exposure matrix, so that at least it 

11 gets some degree of coverage. Now the idea 

12 being this: You will be receiving three of 

13 those; one for Bridgeport Brass, one for 

14 Huntington, and one for Harshaw 'cause these 

15 are, you know, three of the ones where there 

16 are -- where there are a number of cases there. 

17 You will then at that point have a chance to 

18 look at those what I call mini site profile 

19 reviews that are really being done, though, as 

20 part of Task Order IV. All right? And then 

21 the Board or the working group can judge 

22 whether or not you may want to take it up to a 

23 Task I site profile review, which of course is 

24 a much more in-depth analysis. It involves 

25 site visits, expert visits. Right now we're 
31

1 not doing that. Right now we're limiting it to 

2 a paper study. I review the site profile. I 

3 review the material related to that exposure 

4 matrix that's on the O drive, and I write my 

5 report. So you will be getting separate, 

6 stand-alone -- I call them mini review -- mini 

7 site profile reviews -- for those three 'cause 

8 that was the direction we got previously. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 DR. MAURO: And I -- and we'll see if this 

11 process serves your, you know, purposes well 

12 and -- and I guess that's -- that's the story. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I -- yeah, so it is those three -

14 - that was one of my questions, the three sites 

15 -- three AWEs. The only thing I think we need 

16 to think about as a subcommittee is the 

17 disposition of -- I mean I -- I'm almost 

18 tempted -- 'cause I am -- I'd like our 

19 subcommittee to write this -- this first 100 

20 case report, and we're very close to closing 

21 out the fourth and fifth matrices. If I 

22 indicated in the matrix that these were going 

23 to mini site profile review, that would at 

24 least get them off -- you know, as far as -- as 

25 in the case review process, we'd be finished 
32

1 with them. But we could still take them up 

2 under the subcommittee -- I guess, we could -- 

3 we could talk about that, but -- 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: I would -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's still under your Task -- 

6 what task is this, this is -- 

7 DR. MAURO: This is Task IV. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- task -- it's still under Task 

9 IV work, so we could take it up under the 

10 subcommittee -- 

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- but -- but close out the fifth 

13 set matrix, basically. That's what I'd like to 

14 do. I don't know if others -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah, if we -- if we could segregate 

16 circumstances of that type from the case review 

17 -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- matrix, it would be helpful. It 

20 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: -- might mean putting up another 

23 small matrix -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 MS. MUNN: -- you know, other documents under 
33

1 review -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and my sense -- 

3 MS. MUNN: -- but it would (unintelligible) -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- my -- my -- my hope would be 

5 that this wouldn't have to be kicked up to -- 

6 but -- but we'll -- we'll wait and see, but you 

7 know, they are smaller sites and as they -- I 

8 think they're all exposure matrices -- right? -

9 - rather than full site profile reviews, which 

10 indicates there's not as volumous (sic) amount 

11 of material to -- to review, so I think we can 

12 manage it in this subcommittee. But if we need 

13 to create another workgroup, you know, I think 

14 we can kick that back to the Board, too, and 

15 say, you know, that's an option, I suppose. Or 

16 to -- to your Task I if we need to. 

17 MS. MUNN: Maybe not even a -- maybe not even 

18 another workgroup, just segregating what needs 

19 to be done from the individual case reviews is 

20 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: -- probably key, in my mind. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. MAURO: You know in those large three-ring 

25 binders where all the cases are -- you know, 
34

1 the case numbers? 

2 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. MAURO: Well, this'll have its own tab, and 

5 it's going to call -- be called Harshaw -- not 

6 site profile, I guess it would be called 

7 expanded review -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. MAURO: -- so it would be a stand-alone 

10 tab, and it would be tracked. Other words, if 

11 there are -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- issues -- now clearly, the idea 

14 being there are many cases that deal with 

15 Harshaw and -- and -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

17 DR. MAURO: -- and Br-- you know, and in theory 

18 all of the issues that are at play in a 

19 particular case will be closed or raised as a 

20 result of some of these findings. But it still 

21 will be a -- a stand-alone because there will 

22 be more issues -- see, in other words, the idea 

23 being that the Harshaw expanded review would 

24 not only address the issues that are embraced 

25 in particular Harshaw case, but there may be 
35

1 new issues that we've raised related to Harshaw 

2 in general -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

4 DR. MAURO: -- in that expan-- and it could be 

5 -- right now, the idea being it would be 

6 tracked as part of Task Order IV under the 

7 matrix that you're -- are dealing with as a -- 

8 you know, just one more tab in the -- in the 

9 big book. Okay? 

10 MS. MUNN: That's reasonable to me. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Sounds good, yeah. All right. 

12 So then moving on, I have finding 91.5, which 

13 is -- but -- but we have -- I think we have 

14 agreement here. SC&A believes that the EE had 

15 assigned missed neutron dose from other -- some 

16 years of employment, and there was a question 

17 of whether all the missed neutron dose was 

18 assigned. And upon further review I think S-- 

19 actually I think NIOSH ended up reassessing the 

20 case, adding in a little more neutron dose, and 

21 SC&A reviewed this and thinks it was 

22 appropriate. Net outcome was that it would not 

23 have influenced the final decision on the case, 

24 but it did increase the dose slightly to the -- 

25 to the claimant. 
36

1 MS. BEHLING: Mark, also there were two 

2 findings associated with case number 85.-- 85, 

3 and (unintelligible) -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I know, I skipped -- those are on 

5 the other sheet, so -- 

6 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- okay, go -- I'll get to those 

8 in a second, Kathy. 

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: All right? 

11 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, sorry, going a little out 

13 of order here. 

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: 91.8 -- this is failure to 

16 properly assign missed tritium based on the 

17 cited guidance, and I think -- I think we're -- 

18 we closed this issue. I think SC&A's 

19 conclusion is basically that while there might 

20 have not been strict adherence to the guidance 

21 of the time, the values used were claimant 

22 favorable, so -- might be a -- a slight, you 

23 know, finding wi-- with regard to following 

24 procedure, but their -- the approach used was 

25 claimant favorable. It was more so than I 
37

1 think the procedures on the re-- on the -- on 

2 the books at the time, so -- is that accurate, 

3 Kathy? 

4 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so that's closed, too, 

6 91.8. 

7 Then going back, there's two on -- on case 85, 

8 85.1 -- this is photon exposures from uranium 

9 slabs and plates is scientifically correct. 

10 And Kathy, can you tell me where we stand on 

11 this one? 

12 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. In fact, I think that this 

13 issue is resolved. What we had talked about 

14 during the technical conference call is Bob 

15 Anigstein -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's what I... 

17 MS. BEHLING: -- had done some research into 

18 looking at the R-- ruthenium-106 issue and 

19 whether that should be included -- be 

20 considered for -- in exposure to the re-- to 

21 recycled uranium. And Stu indicated that they 

22 were writing a new OTIB to deal with recycled 

23 uranium and asked Bob to forward the references 

24 that he had collected to Stu so that they could 

25 consider that when they wrote the OTIB. And I 
38

1 did see some exchange between Stu and I believe 

2 John and Bob, and hopefully Bob has sent 

3 everything over to Stu at this point. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so -- I -- I understand 

5 it's resolved. Is the resolution that this 

6 issue will be further considered in the other 

7 TIB as well, or -- or what... 

8 MS. BEHLING: Yes. And -- and Stu, you can 

9 elaborate, but you know, Bob Anigstein felt 

10 that it was important that we consider 

11 ruthenium-106 in the recycled uranium, and he 

12 had supporting documents to -- to that effect 

13 and he was going to forward that on to Stu, who 

14 was going to consider that in writing their 

15 OTIB. Now I don't know if the OTIB has been 

16 published or if that data was considered at 

17 this point. That -- Stu will have to answer 

18 that. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we -- my understanding is 

20 we still owe our position on the ruthenium in 

21 recycled uranium, so we owe the -- the 

22 subcommittee that. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But -- but can that be -- 

24 I mean it -- can that be... 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Expedited? 
39

1 MR. GRIFFON: Well, resolved to the -- to the 

2 extent that it's done in this -- in this OTIB 

3 modification -- I mean you're modifying the TIB 

4 and... 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that -- that -- that OTIB 

6 was -- was pretty far along -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- when this issue arose. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I can't really say well, 

11 this TIB's going to come out and take care of 

12 it -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because I don't know for 

15 sure -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because it was so far along 

18 in development before the issue arose. So -- 

19 but we do know that either there or, you know, 

20 in a subsequent revision to that -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: It will be, yeah. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it'll have to be addressed. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But as far -- 

24 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- as far as tracking it, we just 
40

1 say it will be addressed in TIB -- what TIB was 

2 it, again? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

4 (Unintelligible) 

5 MS. BEHLING: I don't recall at the moment. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Someone -- Mel Chew suggests 

7 53. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: 53? 

9 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

10 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) Mel Chew 

11 (unintelligible). 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Not 33, 53? I don't see Mel. 

13 MS. BEHLING: Has that been published yet? 

14 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) I don't think so 

15 (unintelligible). 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe that's 

17 published yet. 

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Anyway, I -- I -- I propose that 

20 we'll put that in the resolution column, that 

21 it's -- it will be considered in the 

22 modification of -- current or future 

23 modification of TIB 53, and that way we have a 

24 -- a means to track it. We won't -- I -- I 

25 don't want to lose it, but I don't think we 
41

1 need to hold it up for this case necessarily. 

2 MS. BEHLING: In abeyance. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: In abeyance, right. All right, 

4 85.2, this is the question of inhalation from 

5 resuspension, I think. 

6 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this is an issue that was 

7 (unintelligible) -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: And this is under the global -- 

9 MS. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) global issue. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, so this is going to 

11 be deferred to the -- the -- one of our global 

12 issues on these -- yeah. 

13 And are there any other on the fifth set, 

14 Kathy, that you had or -- or Stu, or anyone on 

15 the subcommittee? 

16 MS. BEHLING: I don't have anything else. 

17 MS. MUNN: I'm at a disadvantage because -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 MS. MUNN: -- the most recent printout from -- 

20 the most recent data -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Is October the -- 

22 MS. MUNN: -- that I received on the fifth set 

23 was corrupted, and I don't have access to it so 

24 I'm working from a printed (unintelligible) -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Are you looking on October 3rd 
42

1 document, Wanda -- 

2 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 

4 MS. MUNN: I'm looking at the October 3rd 

5 printed list and the notes that we made -- 

6 MS. BEHLING: We cannot hear Wanda at all. 

7 MS. MUNN: Well, I guess I'm going to have to 

8 eat this microphone, it's close to it. I -- 

9 the only other thing that I had noted from our 

10 earlier session was 91.5, my note said SC&A 

11 needs more data. That's -- I haven't read 

12 through the response yet to see what more data 

13 might (unintelligible) -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: 91.5 that was? 

15 MS. MUNN: 91.5. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- that's the one -- I 

17 just mentioned that one, and -- 91.5, they -- 

18 they got more data. NIOSH reassessed the case, 

19 they added more neutron exposure into the case 

20 -- I think it was a question of missed neutron 

21 dose, and they added it for certain -- they 

22 assigned missed neutron dose for certain years 

23 -- 

24 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- and SC&A was in agreement with 
43

1 that response. 

2 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: That was a result of that 

4 technical phone call, so you're right, I didn't 

5 -- we didn't get a -- 

6 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I did -- and this doesn't close 

8 this out if -- if any subcommittee members find 

9 any things we missed, certainly we'll -- we'll 

10 bring them back in before we finalize the -- 

11 the matrix, but -- 

12 MS. MUNN: But the (unintelligible) -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- I did cross-reference the list 

14 you're reading, Wanda -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- with the notes that Kathy sent 

17 me, so that's what I was working from as well. 

18 MS. MUNN: So the technical review phone call 

19 closed it for us. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: For 91.5, yeah, yeah. 

21 MS. MUNN: Okay, great. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, anything else on your end 

23 that -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I had no other notes. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So I think that -- that's 
44

1 where we stand with the fifth set. And again, 

2 if people -- I -- I know we -- we'll try to 

3 update these -- these notes, and this is 

4 another reason to get it all on one database so 

5 we can eas-- more easily track these responses 

6 as -- you know, the first matrix is always easy 

7 to -- to follow along. But then as we have 

8 these meetings in between and we add additional 

9 comments going on -- just like the procedures 

10 review, we're going to have this -- yeah, this 

11 gets more difficult to track, so -- so that's 

12 the -- that's all I have on the fifth set. 

13 SIXTH SET OF CASES

14 The sixth set I'm -- I'm not -- not even going 

15 to -- we -- we had one meeting -- I think we 

16 had one meeting where we went through the 

17 initial NIO-- or initial -- the initial NIOSH 

18 responses, and we had discussions on those. 

19 And actually I think they were -- they -- you 

20 know, this was one of the points where we said 

21 we were seeing a lot of findings that we had 

22 seen before so that it went kind of quickly. 

23 I'm not going to go through line by line on 

24 this one because we're not at a point where 

25 we're almost ready to close that one out, but -
45

1 - but I don't think there's a lot of -- I don't 

2 want to mischaracterize it, but I -- I think we 

3 -- we had a lot that were resolved fairly 

4 quickly because they were findings that we've 

5 seen in -- in the fourth and fifth set as well, 

6 so they were -- 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have a question related to 

8 the integration of the findings and closeout 

9 process. Are we at a point where you would 

10 like SC&A to load up -- see -- see, we have 

11 this -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- database that we built for Task 

14 Order III. Sounds like -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 DR. MAURO: -- something similar to that 

17 probab-- may be needed. Are we at a point 

18 where you'd like us to go ahead and put one 

19 together, or do you want to wait until a more 

20 convenient time for us to bring forth to the 

21 subcommittee this format -- thi-- this new 

22 format? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think that -- you're -- 

24 you're getting -- I -- I think that -- that's 

25 my update on the sixth set, and then we'll move 
46

1 on -- 

2 DR. MAURO: Oh – 

3 DATABASE

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- to the next agenda item, which 

5 is this database -- no, that's -- that's fine. 

6 I mean I -- I don't have much more to say about 

7 the sixth set other than that we're going to 

8 bring it back to our next technical 

9 subcommittee meeting. But then I -- I think 

10 you're -- I'd open this up to the other members 

11 of the subcommittee, but you know, it seems 

12 logical to me that we -- you know, we should 

13 have these six sets of -- and -- and even 

14 beyond that -- it would be good to populate a 

15 database sort of like you did with the 

16 procedures review. I think the -- the format 

17 works pretty well. I was sort of waiting for 

18 Wanda to iron out the bugs with her procedures 

19 review workgroup and then make it a little more 

20 quick for the subcommittee here. 

21 MS. MUNN: And thank you. I -- I think Kathy's 

22 doing a very good job -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

24 MS. MUNN: -- of doing just exactly that. My 

25 only hope would be that you would use the 
47

1 format and not the database. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right. 

3 MS. MUNN: In other words, I would like to... 

4 MR. GRIFFON: A -- a separate database. 

5 MS. MUNN: Separate database. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, yeah, not -- not 

7 overlapping, no. 

8 MS. MUNN: I just -- just wanted to be sure. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: A similar format, but in a 

10 separate access database, right. I think -- 

11 DR. MAURO: I may want to make a suggestion 

12 that served us well when we went through the 

13 initial process on III. We tried it out on a 

14 small scale -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

16 DR. MAURO: -- because the formatting -- until 

17 you actually try -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

19 DR. MAURO: -- to do it, so maybe we -- 'cause 

20 it takes a lot -- building the -- building the 

21 database is something that we -- we found our 

22 database person could build pretty effec-- 

23 quickly. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 DR. MAURO: What does take time is populating 
48

1 it. 

2 MS. MUNN: Populating it. 

3 DR. MAURO: So I think once we're comfortable 

4 with the format and everybody said yep, this is 

5 what we want -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

7 DR. MAURO: -- then -- then it takes some work 

8 hours to populate it, so -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 DR. MAURO: -- maybe it's like a two-step 

11 process. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. But what -- yeah, and I 

13 would -- I would offer that -- I think some of 

14 the legwork's been done on this. I would offer 

15 to work with Kathy and SC&A to maybe come back 

16 with at least a sampling of what the database 

17 should look like by our next subcommittee 

18 meeting. Maybe not put all the data in, but I 

19 -- but I also think a lot of this stuff's 

20 already in Excel tables, and to pull them in to 

21 an access database is not that difficult. So 

22 once -- once we rename some of those fields 

23 that you have, instead of -- I mean a lot of 

24 the fields even are going to be very similar 

25 'cause you have an SC&A finding, a NIOSH 
49

1 response and the detail sequence. A lot of 

2 those things make sense. We might just have to 

3 re-label the main table a little bit and, you 

4 know, we may be very -- very close to what we 

5 want. So I would -- I think by the next 

6 subcommittee meeting we might have -- have a -- 

7 a skeleton -- a skeleton of what the database 

8 would look like, and then we'd be ready to 

9 populate it. 

10 I would also say that for the first three sets 

11 of -- of findings, I -- I would think that we'd 

12 be okay with just putting the final matrix into 

13 the database. I think we should only put 

14 detail in where we're continuing to -- where 

15 we're still in resolution process. In other 

16 words, I don't want to have to go back two 

17 years and find out what details we had for the 

18 first three sets of matrices. I think that'd 

19 be counter-productive. They've been closed 

20 out. We've sent a report to the Secretary, you 

21 know. But then for the fourth and fifth and 

22 where we're in ongoing resolution process, I 

23 think we should probably populate with the 

24 detailed responses, if that makes sense to 

25 people. 
50

1 MS. MUNN: It does make sense, as long as we 

2 have confidence that our early matrices have 

3 adequate information incorporated in them that 

4 they will serve as the kind of archive that we 

5 know this program's going to be suggested to -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- 

7 MS. MUNN: -- a need for. If you just -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we can check on that, 

9 but I -- I think, you know -- we should check 

10 into that, you're right, Wanda. As long as 

11 they're -- I think as long as they're linked to 

12 the main SC&A report in a fashion that you 

13 describe with linking the procedures findings 

14 to the documents, I think we'll be okay, but... 

15 DR. WADE: Maybe, just to do a little bit of 

16 looking forward, Wanda made the appropriate 

17 suggestion that use the format, build the 

18 separate database for this task. I think 

19 eventually we'll have a number of databases and 

20 they'd then need to be linked so that when this 

21 subcommittee says we think that issue should be 

22 addressed as a site profile -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Site profile review, right, 

24 right. 

25 DR. WADE: -- issue or a procedures issue, then 
51

1 it's tracked across to that database. That's 

2 eventually where we want to go. And I know, 

3 John, your folks are thinking about that, but 

4 that's a powerful by-product of what we're 

5 trying to do here. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that may actually be 

7 important for the people designing this to know 

8 up -- up front rather than later when it -- it 

9 usually gets messier to try to link things 

10 later as opposed to designing it that way up 

11 front, so that's -- important point, yeah. 

12 DR. WADE: Yeah, these are to be databases -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. WADE: -- within a broad information system 

15 that we'll then use. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

17 MS. MUNN: And fortunately on the work that's 

18 already been done there is incorporated into 

19 the code already a potential link, so -- so 

20 there is -- 

21 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, it's difficult to 

22 hear. 

23 MS. MUNN: -- a linked document code. 

24 DR. WADE: Wanda was saying, Kathy, that in the 

25 pilot work that you've done relative to the 
52

1 procedures, the potential for this link already 

2 exists, and I think that's wise. I would just 

3 ask you to keep in mind that eventually that's 

4 where I see this going. 

5 DR. MAURO: I -- I had a -- a thought about 

6 this. Right now the link that's in the Task 

7 III really goes toward white papers. Other 

8 words, in the Task III process the place where 

9 the link exists is that whenever a particular 

10 issue is addressed because a -- a white paper 

11 was -- that'll become part -- right now that's 

12 where the link goes. 

13 Now in this case we have something I think that 

14 we can do, and I'd like to put -- put it before 

15 the -- the subcommittee is when we do our 

16 sample for this -- this application, what we 

17 have here is, and we just talked about it, 

18 there are a number of issues that are now being 

19 so-called transferred over to an OTIB that's 

20 being -- for example, we were talking about the 

21 -- the recycled uranium OTIB, and it's be-- 

22 that particular issue in that case is being 

23 resolved, and the ruthenium -- rhodium issue is 

24 being -- eventually will be addressed. What I 

25 -- what I would -- so in effect, that -- that's 
53

1 a procedure -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) link, yeah. 

3 DR. MAURO: -- that would -- see, we can do 

4 that now, so when we do our sample case, I 

5 think maybe we should pick some cases for the 

6 benefit of the subcommittee where we do the 

7 link. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: To show how that link's going to 

9 -- 

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, here is -- here it -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- work, yeah, yeah. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- and we'll click on it -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: That's fine. 

14 DR. MAURO: -- and in theory we should be able 

15 to -- in this example, click on that link and 

16 bring us -- bring us right to the Task III 

17 matrix that we -- part and parcel to it, so I 

18 think we can actually demonstrate the linkage, 

19 at least between those two tasks, at this point 

20 in time. 

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

22 fine. 

23 DR. WADE: But as you -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Just to consider, Lew's right, 

25 yeah. 
54

1 DR. WADE: But as you move forward, also 

2 there'll need to be a link to these overarching 

3 issues. There'll be a separate database so -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 DR. WADE: Enough said. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

7 MS. BEHLING: And -- this is Kathy. And I'll -

8 - I've already talked to Don Loomis* about this 

9 issue and I anticipated that you would want to 

10 do this because we've talked so much in the 

11 past about ensuring that we don't lose anything 

12 that we're transferring, and I -- based on 

13 comments that were made during the procedures 

14 rev-- or -- yeah, the procedures task when we 

15 indicated that we would be making a 

16 presentation to the full Board and the other 

17 working groups may want to incorporate this 

18 database, I talked to Don at length about this 

19 and in fact he's -- he's quite excited about 

20 doing that, and he also is aware that we're 

21 going to want to link between the various tasks 

22 and -- and he indicated that should not be a 

23 problem. 

24 One other thing -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 
55

1 MS. BEHLING: -- if I can mention, I apologize, 

2 but everyone needs to get close to the 

3 microphone. We on the phone are having 

4 difficulty hearing. 

5 THE COURT REPORTER: Can I say something real 

6 quick, Mark? Apparently on these microphones 

7 you've got to -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- 

9 THE COURT REPORTER: -- speak directly -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- got to be pretty -- 

11 THE COURT REPORTER: -- into them, so don't -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: -- pretty close, yeah. 

13 THE COURT REPORTER: -- speak sideways to it. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and watch -- we all have a 

15 tendency to turn and read and -- yeah, so -- 

16 okay. 

17 DR. WADE: No reading -- no reading allowed. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: No reading allowed, right. 

19 DR. WADE: Okay. With that update, then -- so 

20 -- so I will work with SC&A and -- and Kathy in 

21 particular and try to get a draft or a 

22 skeleton, maybe populate it with a few 

23 examples, for the next subcommittee meeting on 

24 a database. 

25 MS. MUNN: One of the things we need to keep in 
56

1 mind, Mark, with respect to the work we're 

2 doing in the subcommittee is that it is so much 

3 more sensitive with respect to privacy 

4 information than what the procedures group 

5 deals with that we need to be very cautious 

6 about links that we make that might have 

7 identifiable information in it. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: That's a good point, yeah. Okay. 

9 BLIND REVIEWS

10 Next -- next item I had on our little agenda 

11 here was blind reviews, and I think we -- we 

12 had agreed to select two blind reviews. I 

13 think it might come under last year's work for 

14 SC&A. And just an update on this, we -- we had 

15 selected two -- if you remember, we formed a 

16 workgroup which consisted of myself and Wanda 

17 to select two blind review cases. We selected 

18 two. NIOSH got back to me probably over a 

19 month ago, I can't remember when -- when this 

20 happened, but indicated that one of those that 

21 we had selected was being appealed so we 

22 couldn't pick that one as a review case. So 

23 just -- just the other day Wanda and I talked 

24 and went back to our original list and we 

25 selected one other case. I provided that to 
57

1 NIOSH. So SC&A should shortly have the two 

2 blind review cases to begin work on. Okay? 

3 DR. WADE: To close out the issue of blind 

4 review, so there -- then there would be two 

5 blind reviews this year. You don't have to 

6 address that now, but -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

8 DR. WADE: -- just keep that on your -- your 

9 plate. 

10 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay, another -- another 

12 sort of thing that's been hanging out there, 

13 maybe not for many other people other than me, 

14 but a long time ago I had mentioned these -- 

15 these dose reconstruction guidelines that are -

16 - that are used by the NIOSH staff that are -- 

17 are not procedures, they're not TIBs, they're -

18 - they're these dose reconstruction guidelines 

19 or -- and a while ago we had asked that at 

20 least for new cases that are being put -- that 

21 the case file should include the dose 

22 reconstruction guideline of -- in place at the 

23 time. And I think I had asked, to the extent 

24 possible -- and Stu, I think you were going to 

25 look into this -- how -- how -- how would it be 
58

1 to go ba-- retrospectively and to put the 

2 guidelines that were used at the time the cases 

3 were done, and I think the concern there was 

4 that these aren't necessarily archived like 

5 procedures. They're -- they're modified 

6 sometimes every other week or every third week 

7 or -- so they might not have had the -- the 

8 version saved or... 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, that -- that is correct. 

10 We -- it would be very -- very much of a 

11 problem to go back -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- retrospectively and do that. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, then -- then I -- I'll even 

15 drop that -- that question, if others are 

16 willing to. But going forward, do you know 

17 when we would expect to see DR guidelines in 

18 the case files? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry, I don't -- I'm not 

20 ready to report -- to report on that today, but 

21 -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I can provide information -- 

24 you know, I don't have to do it at a meeting. 

25 I can -- 
59

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- investigate and provide 

3 something -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to the subcommittee -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: But do you -- do you -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- when I can learn it. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- do you -- I mean you remember 

9 this and you think -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I remember the -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's being done. Right? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I remember the discussion 

13 and -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I remember some at least 

16 initial discussions with our contractor on this 

17 task. It's -- it's certainly -- you know, 

18 since these are sometimes instructions that are 

19 given out in staff meetings or -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- team meetings, they -- they 

22 may be a little -- and frequently they're just, 

23 you know, sort of a clarification of what's 

24 already in a technical document. I mean 

25 they're things like that, so it may be more 
60

1 problematic than it sounds, but that doesn't 

2 mean we shouldn't attempt to do what we -- what 

3 we can do, so -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it'll take some more 

6 discussion with our contractor to sort of sort 

7 out the extent of what we can do. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: So the -- so the -- I mean I -- 

9 I'm thinking of this in terms of the case -- 

10 the cases that we're going to look at today to 

11 select. We wouldn't necessarily know if any of 

12 these would have any of those kind of guidance 

13 documents in the cases. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I wouldn't -- I don't 

15 know. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: No. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay. Well, if you can 

19 follow up on that I think and just give us a -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- report back to the 

22 subcommittee, you know, at some point where's -

23 - where does that stand or what's the -- what 

24 can we expect to be done or -- okay. 

25 The only other thing I was going to mention 
61

1 before we get into the -- everybody I believe 

2 got these two matrices that Stu sent around. 

3 The only other thing I was going to mention is 

4 -- and I think I already mentioned it -- was 

5 the -- the first 100 cases report. We've got 

6 some reports that we've worked on from the 

7 previous -- the first 60 that we actually 

8 reported to the Secretary. Once the fourth and 

9 fifth matrix are kind of wrapped up, I think we 

10 -- and I -- I've started -- I -- I think I can 

11 send a straw man around of a draft report to-- 

12 to have a first 100 case report. I think it 

13 was the -- the entire Board was interested in 

14 doing that and thought it was useful to have 

15 that product, so I think that'll be our next 

16 action is to close the fourth and fifth set 

17 matrices and then to have a wrap-up report. 

18 And I -- there's no real update today, just 

19 other than to keep it on our -- our agenda. 

20 Larry? 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, my 

22 apology for interrupting -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but I want to go back to what 

25 was discussed a moment ago about -- am I 
62

1 hearing a commitment that we've made to provide 

2 guidelines within each dose reconstruction 

3 file? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I thought we had -- 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Or just -- or just the ones the 

6 Board is reviewing? I need to be clear on this 

7 'cause I'm not -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I thought it was -- I thought the 

9 idea was that if the guidelines were -- were -- 

10 if -- if there were dose reconstruction 

11 guidelines that were used by the dose 

12 reconstructor at the time they were doing a 

13 case, that they would -- they would save it in 

14 the case file from now on going forward. Not 

15 just the cases we're reviewing, but all cases 

16 going forward. I thought there was a 

17 commitment to that, but I could be wrong on the 

18 level of commitment. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly we've -- we've 

20 begun the discussions about it and -- but I 

21 don't know that we've -- I think I was a little 

22 hesitant to promise a lot because of -- I'm not 

23 100 percent sure how -- you know, how doable 

24 this is from a -- you know, the dose 

25 reconstructor's standpoint. I -- I think we 
63

1 did, though -- Larry, I think we did agree that 

2 it would be easier to do it as the dose 

3 reconstruction is completed, because there are 

4 two folders, you know, in the AR -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- AR file that -- one's 

7 references and one's I think supporting 

8 documents or something like that -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think we know it doesn't 

10 -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which wasn't built for these 

12 sorts of things. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: We know it doesn't work in 

14 reverse. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause it's hard -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to go back -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- to go back and find out -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- once a case is selected -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and go back is -- that, I 

22 don't think, will work, so it -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: So I was saying the best way to 

24 do it is when they're doing the case -- 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, okay, I underst-- this is 
64

1 helpful -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: -- why not include -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: -- this is -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: -- helpful to me now. I'd hope 

6 we'd be able to provide those for these cases 

7 you're about to review. I hope we can make -- 

8 we should talk about that, but I'd like to see 

9 us be able to try to do that. I think that's -

10 - that's important. And then I want to -- I 

11 want to revisit with you this other piece of 

12 this about these guidelines or whatever going 

13 into a dose reconstruction folder. I want to -

14 - I want to talk more about that. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Well, what -- what -- 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't know if we -- I 

17 need to find out -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Oh -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: -- where we're at in our 

20 discussions and what -- what commitment we can 

21 make or cannot make. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's going -- it's going 

23 to take a conversation with -- with our 

24 contractor and -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 
65

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and they probably need some 

2 internal conversations of their own, so I don't 

3 know that it's something we can resolve today. 

4 And you know, we'll -- we'll select cases 

5 today, or start the selection process of cases 

6 today that may not have been completed 

7 recently. You know, some of these selections 

8 sometimes go back pretty far, so I don't know 

9 that we'll be able -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to reconstruct -- you know, 

12 grab those. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, the other thing that I'm 

14 worried about is we're not talking about a 

15 formal document in all instances here. Okay? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: So I don't want an expectation 

18 that there is some formal documentation of 

19 guidelines used in each dose reconstruction, 

20 other than those site profiles, Technical Basis 

21 Documents, Technical -- Technical Information 

22 Bulletins, you know, those stand-- the 

23 workbooks, those standard materials. If -- if 

24 you're -- there may be, in some cases, some 

25 formal guidance. But maybe not in others. 
66

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: So we need to kind of sort 

3 through this I think a little bit, talk about 

4 it. 

5 DR. WADE: Consider the -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, but -- 

7 DR. WADE: The subcommittee chair has expressed 

8 an opinion that it would be a good thing in the 

9 future if individual dose reconstruction files 

10 could have notation to guidelines used. Now 

11 you're going to take that back and think that 

12 through, the efficacy of that, and then bring 

13 to the microphone your thoughts on that when 

14 appropriate. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. There -- there's also a 

16 legal consideration here that we have to talk 

17 to the lawyers about because right now the dose 

18 reconstruction report and the supporting 

19 references provided therein are considered 

20 sufficient to advance the cl-- the claim back 

21 to DOL for decision. Okay? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: And that's kind of where I'm 

24 worried about a little bit here. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I figured, yeah, 
67

1 okay. All right. 

2 DR. WADE: But -- but the chair has expressed 

3 and I -- something that he would consider to be 

4 a good thing. I think everyone would agree -- 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

6 DR. WADE: -- with that. You're going to come 

7 back and say here's what we think we can do and 

8 why. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, or -- or -- yeah, and -- 

10 and, you know, maybe there are other options we 

11 can explore with this, too, that -- you know, 

12 they might not have to go into each case file, 

13 I'm not sure. But we -- let's at least get it 

14 back on -- to the discussion phase and -- 

15 because I -- you know, the -- the way these 

16 came up before is several of these -- I 

17 identified them with several sites -- I mean 

18 I'll bring Rocky Flats as an example, but when 

19 we -- when we brought them forward in the 

20 workgroup for discussion with Rocky Flats, you 

21 know, people said well, you know, you're 

22 quoting from that but that's outdated. We 

23 haven't used that to do cases and -- but it was 

24 sort of a road map for how the DR -- the dose 

25 reconstructor would -- in -- in some cases it 
68

1 had sort of, you know, if this, then this, if 

2 tha-- you know, it had some decision logic that 

3 they would use. And I thought boy, this would 

4 be very helpful for the auditors to know what 

5 exactly was going into the -- you know, instead 

6 of -- yeah. So you -- you get the idea. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Exactly, and I think that is 

8 important -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: -- if we have that, if that's 

11 been something that we can retrieve, it's -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: -- documentable. We told you I 

14 think that our -- our contractor has meetings 

15 where -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: -- guidance is given, so it 

18 becomes, you know -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: -- notes from an individual who 

21 attended the meeting, or maybe there's a -- 

22 maybe they used a slide show. Maybe they run 

23 them through a training session. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: They do have those training 
69

1 sessions that they walk these people through, 

2 here's a change in how we do the dose 

3 reconstruction for this kind of a claim, you 

4 know. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I thought -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: And if that's the kind of 

7 guidance you're seeking, we have to put a lot 

8 of documentation together -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you know -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- okay. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we're on the same page. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Well, we'll leave 

14 that -- we'll leave that there for now, anyway. 

15 DR. WADE: Can I make one more comment before 

16 we -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 DR. WADE: -- move into the -- the selection? 

19 And that's just to take a broad perspective. 

20 The -- the Board set a goal of reviewing two 

21 and a half percent of completed dose 

22 reconstructions. If the number now is bouncing 

23 around 20,000, that's 500. I think this next 

24 year you're going to cross the 200 mark. So 

25 again, that's something you need to keep in 
70

1 mind as you look at this Board's work. 

2 Congratulations on what you've done; there's 

3 more to do. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

5 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) We 

6 (unintelligible). 

7 MATRICES

8 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And I don't know, I'm 

9 hoping other Board members have had a chance to 

10 look at the matrix while I've been babbling on 

11 here so we can go through this -- we have about 

12 45 minutes I think left on our agenda here, but 

13 I think we can -- Stu did make one good 

14 suggestion to me. The full internal and 

15 external, which is I think probably where we 

16 want to start, he said it might be useful to 

17 start from the back forward because they're s-- 

18 they're -- they're sorted by date of approval, 

19 with the oldest date being first. So we 

20 probably want the newer cases 'cause they're 

21 probably going to use the newer TIBs and we 

22 won't get into this -- this question -- you 

23 know, sim-- similar findings that we've 

24 reviewed already. So I -- I think with that, 

25 we can probably just go down the -- the list 
71

1 and do our usual process. If people find cases 

2 they like, just sort of grab the mike and let 

3 us know and -- I th-- I -- I would say we want 

4 a goal of -- 

5 DR. WADE: Sixty. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Of 60? 

7 DR. WADE: Well, we have 60 -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I don't even know if -- 

9 DR. WADE: -- to do this year. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's 60 on the list. 

11 DR. WADE: As -- as big a number as we can get 

12 of quality selections approaching 60, the 

13 better. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

15 DR. WADE: We don't have to go all the way 

16 there, but -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And -- and -- and -- 

18 yeah, 'cause we may have some that are -- are 

19 actually rejected from this list because 

20 they're in PER review or whatever so we -- we -

21 - we haven't run this by DOL or NIOSH -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: -- right. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I would -- I was just going to 

25 suggest that if we -- if you can select 
72

1 generously, meaning -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a lot, at this stage because 

4 -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because we didn't generate 

7 this list till very recently, we've not had DOL 

8 scrub it to remove -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the cases that they know are 

11 reopened. We've also not looked against the 

12 PER list of cases that we feel have to be re13 evaluated -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Well -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because of Program 

16 Evaluation reports, so chances are there will 

17 be a fairly high attrition rate from this 

18 initial selection. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: All right, let's try to be as 

20 generous as we can, but let's not forget our 

21 original criteria that we've, you know, been -- 

22 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me one second. Stu, could 

23 you e-mail that list to me? Is it okay if I 

24 have that list? 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: I can when I get back to my 
73

1 room and can get back on line. 

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Sorry, Kathy. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry. 

5 MS. BEHLING: That's all right. Thank you. 

6 DR. WADE: Do you have an access to a FAX 

7 machine, Kathy? 

8 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do. 

9 DR. WADE: Okay. Well, Liz can forward it to 

10 you right now, so by the power of electronics -

11 - 

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thanks so much. 

13 DR. WADE: -- just hold on. It's on its way. 

14 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) this casino. 

15 DR. WADE: Somewhere over Boise right now. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I apologize. I tried to -- 

17 MS. BEHLING: That's okay, thank you. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- copy everybody and I 

19 neglected to copy you guys. 

20 SELECTION OF CASES FOR FUTURE REVIEW

21 MS. MUNN: So Mark, are we -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I -- yeah, we're working. 

23 I'm on page 18. 

24 MS. MUNN: From the random list? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, going backwards -- no, from 
74

1 the full external/internal. 

2 MS. MUNN: Full ext-- okay. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: If that's all right, and I'm 

4 going backwards on the list. Page eight-- I 

5 don't see anything on page 19. 

6 MS. MUNN: And our primary criteria are? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think the same ones we've 

8 been using all along -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- but you know, these are 

11 focused on full internal/external, but we don't 

12 necessarily know that that means full 

13 internal/external, you know -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, that's a -- that is a 

15 drop-down list clicked on by the HP reviewer, 

16 the OCAS HP reviewer. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: So full -- full internal may be 

18 one -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- site-wide profile, for 

21 instance, on some of the AWEs and things like 

22 that -- yeah, we know that -- 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- so -- 

25 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, I'm looking at 681 I'd be 
75

1 interested in on page 18. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 681? 

3 MR. CLAWSON: Yep. 

4 MR. PRESLEY: I'd like to suggest -- we don't 

5 have -- 69(unintelligible) -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Well, hold on, let's -- let's -- 

7 681, let's just circle potential ones now. I 

8 think we can weed them down as we get them. 

9 697, Bob? 

10 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Yeah, I don't 

11 think we've done anything (unintelligible) -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: No, Hooker is new, you're right. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: Hooker's a new one. This guy's 

14 got 39.1 years. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, what about 690? I know 

16 that's just a lung, but probably -- POC's 

17 pretty tight. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: General Steel, I think we just 

19 did a -- did we do -- oh, no, we did Superior 

20 Steel. Right? 

21 Have we done General Steel, do you remember? 

22 DR. WADE: That's on TIB -- appendix BB? 

23 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

24 DR. WADE: So that's a good one, I think. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we can do that. Okay. 
76

1 DR. WADE: I've got three circled on page 18. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Which one -- which other one, 690 

3 -- 

4 DR. WADE: 97, 90, 81. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

6 MS. MUNN: Right. There would be less use of 

7 than the alternative. 

8 MR. CLAWSON: Six-- on page 17, 664. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Actual 679 I would say, too, the 

10 Hanford. We still don't -- we have Hanford 

11 cases, but we certainly need more Hanford 

12 cases, if I'm remembering right. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Which one was that, Mark? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: 679. 

15 DR. WADE: You have four now on page 18. You 

16 have 79, 81, 90 and 97. Now we're on page 17, 

17 there was a proposal. 

18 MR. CLAWSON: I proposed 664, Nevada Test Site. 

19 DR. WADE: 664. 

20 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Also 672. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 672. 

23 DR. WADE: More on page 17? 

24 MS. MUNN: So are we go-- we're going to be 

25 reviewing those that are compensable? 
77

1 MR. GRIFFON: I think we -- yeah, we -- we have 

2 done some that are compensable, too. Right? 

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah, just -- just checking. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yep, yep. 

5 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, I don't know if we've done 

6 much on this one, but on the pa-- bottom page 

7 of 17, the 677, it's compensable but it's an 

8 interesting one. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. 

10 DR. WADE: 677? 

11 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

12 DR. WADE: Was there anything -- proposal 

13 coming from your discussion with Robert 

14 Presley? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: No. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: No. 

17 DR. WADE: Page 17 I have three, 64, 72, 77. 

18 Page 16? 

19 MS. MUNN: 648 might be interesting. 

20 DR. WADE: 648? 

21 MS. MUNN: Six four eight. 

22 DR. WADE: Six four eight, right. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Six four eight? It's only a -- a 

24 half a year, 1940. I mean I'm not ruling it 

25 out, but... 
78

1 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: You want to keep it on? 

3 MS. MUNN: Well, but the POC is interesting, 

4 and so is the type of cancer. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 DR. WADE: 648 is so circled. Any more on page 

7 16? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'd say 652. I know we have 

9 quite a few Savannah Rivers. We see a lot of -

10 - if you flip through this matrix, you'll see a 

11 lot of the same sites we've run across, so 

12 don't be surprised to see Savannah River, Rocky 

13 Flats, Hanford, but I'd say 652. 

14 DR. WADE: 652 is circled. Any more on page 

15 16? 

16 MS. MUNN: 639 might be worth looking at. 

17 DR. WADE: 639? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's early years agai-- if 

19 -- if these -- 

20 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Well, no, those -- they wouldn't 

22 fall into SEC 'cause those aren't listed 

23 cancers. Right, Stu? Is that -- yeah. 

24 MS. MUNN: Maybe. I'm trying to 

25 (unintelligible) -- 
79

1 DR. WADE: And so I have three on page 16, 39 -

2 - 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Is that right? 

4 DR. WADE: -- 48 -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

6 DR. WADE: -- 52. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- 

8 DR. WADE: Any more on page 16? 

9 MS. MUNN: That's -- yeah, that's 

10 (unintelligible). 

11 MR. GRIFFON: 53? He had a lot of years of 

12 experience, yeah. That looks like a good one, 

13 yeah. 

14 DR. WADE: 53's circled. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: 53? 653? Y-12? 

16 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

17 DR. WADE: You have four on page 16. Any more? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Numbers 39, 48, 52, 53? Go to page 15? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: This page is all -- all Bethlehem 

21 Steel, which we know we have one model for 

22 Bethlehem Steel, we've -- we've looked at it 

23 pretty extensively. 

24 DR. WADE: One Rocky Flats in the middle. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, one Rocky Flats in the 
80

1 middle. The Rocky Flats one looks kind of 

2 interesting, actually. 

3 DR. WADE: You want to circle 625? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Are all these Rocky Flats ones, 

5 though, going to be under PER review? Likely, 

6 right? Or -- 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's some likelihood 

8 of that. I won't say that they all are, but I 

9 mean I guess we should select -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I guess we can -- I guess we can 

11 select -- 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- and if they're ruled out, 

14 they're ruled out, yeah. 

15 DR. WADE: 625 is circled. So we move quickly 

16 -- we just have one on page 15, that's 625. 

17 We're going to move on to page 14. 

18 MS. MUNN: Well, 614. 

19 DR. WADE: 614 is proposed. Mr. Chairman? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: 614? 

21 DR. WADE: At the bottom of the page. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, that looks good to me. 

23 DR. WADE: Okay. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Looks good. 

25 MS. MUNN: And 595? 
81

1 MR. GRIFFON: 595? Blockson? 

2 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, that looks good. I'm going 

4 on to page 13 unless I hear others. 

5 DR. WADE: Any more on 14? We have two on page 

6 14, 90-- 595, 614. We're now on to page 13. 

7 MS. MUNN: 585 jumps out at you. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 

9 DR. WADE: 585. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Actually 584 as well. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

12 DR. WADE: 584. 

13 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

14 about 583? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: We're on a roll. 

16 DR. WADE: 583? 

17 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 

19 MS. MUNN: 575? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Bingo. 

21 DR. WADE: 575? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Simonds Saw is probably a 

23 one model. Did we do any Simonds Saw, do you 

24 remember? We've done Simonds Saw? 

25 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 
82

1 (Unintelligible) 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Is that a one-matrix approach? I 

3 mean I think it is, I'm not -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm pretty sure it is. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So if we've reviewed the 

6 one matrix, we've basically reviewed the -- 

7 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I don't think it's -- is 

9 that true, Jim? Is Simonds Saw one matrix 

10 for... 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

12 (Unintelligible) 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean there's no 

14 individual dosimetry data. Right? So it'd be 

15 -- it'd be the same thing we reviewed already, 

16 yeah, so I'd skip that one. 

17 DR. WADE: Okay, so I've got three on page 13 -

18 - 83, 84, 85. Any more? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Go on to page 12, if that's all 

20 right. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: 565? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: 565? Looks good. There's a lot 

23 of Linde Ceramics ones. 

24 MS. MUNN: Before we get away completely from 

25 page 13, 588... 
83

1 MR. GRIFFON: 588? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I like 

2 that one. 

3 DR. WADE: Okay. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I missed that -- 588, okay. 

5 There's a lot of Linde Ceramics cases on page 

6 12 -- I'm back on page 12. It's pretty clear -

7 - I -- I haven't been reviewing Linde, but it 

8 looks like one model for internal dose. Is 

9 that accurate? So there's a lot of the lungs 

10 that are in the 90s and 80s for POCs, but are 

11 we reviewing the -- that model under the site 

12 profile review or -- it wouldn't hurt to have 

13 one case, I suppose. 

14 MS. MUNN: Wouldn't hurt. 

15 DR. WADE: Pick one. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: 568 or 569, either one, the lungs 

17 or male genitalia, either one. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: 568? That's a Savannah River. 

19 Right? Okay. 

20 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

21 Blockson -- 69. 

22 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, 571, all right. 

24 DR. WADE: So 571? What about 68 -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay -- yeah. 
84

1 DR. WADE: -- 68 or 69? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 69 I think is similar to the 

3 other Blockson, we're -- we're going to capture 

4 that with our Blockson review. I'm open for 

5 68, that's fine. 

6 DR. WADE: 568 is circled. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Any others on page 12? 

8 MS. MUNN: If you want to repeat that -- the 

9 site again, 554 possibly? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: 554? 

11 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah, it is a different 

13 type of cancer, certainly, so -- 

14 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, okay. 

16 DR. WADE: 554, so four on page 12 -- 554, 565, 

17 568, 571. 

18 MR. PRESLEY: What about -- what about 561? 

19 That's -- that's Clarksville. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Pantex in Clarksville. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Clarksville with basal skin cell 

22 melanoma -- different. 

23 DR. WADE: 561? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: All right? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 
85

1 DR. WADE: Okay, good page, got five. Page 11? 

2 MS. MUNN: 537. 

3 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I like that. Yeah. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 537's good. 536 looks 

5 interesting to me, Hanford and Nevada Test 

6 Site. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah, let's do it. 

8 DR. WADE: 536? 

9 MS. MUNN: Also 533. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

11 DR. WADE: Any more on page 11? 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Moving to page 10 -- oh -- 

13 DR. WADE: We have three on page 11 -- 533, 

14 536, 537. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Moving to page 10 -- yeah. 

16 MS. MUNN: 520. 

17 DR. WADE: Say -- say what, five... 

18 MS. MUNN: Five two zero. 

19 DR. WADE: -- 520. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. Yep. Yeah, you can 

21 go ahead. 

22 MS. MUNN: And 521, looks like the same type, 

23 different site. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Hold on, what'd you -- Wanda, 

25 520? 
86

1 DR. WADE: 20 and 21. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: 20 and 21? Okay. 

3 DR. WADE: Okay, we've got two. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and Bob suggests 523. 

5 It's a high POC for lung cancer with a very 

6 short period of time. That's kind of 

7 interesting. 

8 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. WADE: Okay, 523. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I think I'm moving on to page 9. 

11 DR. WADE: We have 320 -- 520, 521, 

12 (unintelligible). Page 9? 

13 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Are these -- these Iowa ones on 

15 here, are they partial dose reconstructions, 

16 would they be? These are non-SEC cancers that 

17 they -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: If it's a -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- used -- did the external 

20 component or something like that? I think a -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly some of them 

22 are -- are non-SEC cancers. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: There's this lung in here. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Leukemia's in there. These may 

25 be dose reconstructions for medical benefits. 
87

1 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, huh. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: If the Energy employee is 

3 alive, I believe these might be dose 

4 reconstructions for medical benefits. I mean 

5 it has to be causal -- you know, it has to be 

6 causally related in order to -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: So even though we've -- 

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

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- included them in an SEC, NIOSH 

10 is reconstructing them for medical -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, that -- that can't be 

12 right because that would have to be a non-SEC -

13 - 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- cancer that would be that 

16 because they would get the benefits for the SEC 

17 cancer. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not real sure why that 

20 one's on there. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know why -- 

22 DR. WADE: Which number are you looking at -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: 504 -- 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm looking at 495 and -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- or -- 504 has a lung cancer in 
88

1 there. Right? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Unless that's a secondary -- I -- 

4 I don't know. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Now see, for 504, that could 

6 conceivably what I described, that it's a dose 

7 reconstruction for medical benefits for the 

8 non-SEC cancer. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, for the non-lung cancer, the 

10 -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that might be what that 

12 one is. I don't -- I don't know what 495 -- I 

13 don't know the story. I can't venture a -- or 

14 surmise something on 495. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: It's awfully low. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't know. 

17 DR. WADE: If you look at the year, weren't we 

18 talking about materials arriving after 1950? I 

19 don't recall. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean that's the decade 

21 of the em-- start, so that means the work 

22 decade started in the 1950s and the materials 

23 did arrive in the 1950s. But I believe the -- 

24 I -- I don't know. I'd have to -- there might 

25 be som-- it might be that. It -- 
89

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- might be that the person 

3 worked there -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Before, yeah. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- before the mat-- the 

6 materials arrived. It might be that. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause there was only a couple of 

8 years for that person, yeah, it could have 

9 been. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. Well... 

12 MS. MUNN: How about three in a row, 490, 491 

13 and 492? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: 90, 91 and 92. Yeah, those look 

15 okay to me. 

16 DR. WADE: 490, 491, 492. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

18 decide on that? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't think I'm -- I 

20 don't think it's that interesting for our 

21 review, either way, but... 

22 I'm moving to page 8 unless others have... 

23 DR. WADE: You're now at 32 -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Pretty good. 

25 DR. WADE: -- for your information. 
90

1 MS. MUNN: Well, we could do three more in a 

2 row -- 463, 464, 465. 

3 DR. WADE: 63, 64 and 65? 

4 MS. MUNN: And maybe even -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: No, I guess it doesn't have to 

6 have them on there. I was looking at 475. 

7 MS. MUNN: Yeah, good. 

8 DR. WADE: You've got 475. What about 63, 64, 

9 65, Mark, from your point of view? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: They're -- they're okay. 

11 MR. PRESLEY: What about 471? It's a high POC 

12 with a lot of years. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 MR. PRESLEY: And the right time. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I like 471. 

16 DR. WADE: 471. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I'm interested in 472. How did 

18 we get this POC of zero again? Is that... 

19 MR. CLAWSON: I'd -- I'd be interested in that. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I -- it's more of a 

21 question to NIOSH, I think. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the Kansas City Plant had 

23 a very modest use of radioactive material 

24 anyway. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
91

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And there were quite -- there 

2 could very well be some -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: So it could have been no -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- job categories, you know, 

5 non-exposed -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- exposure. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- job categories. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I don't -- I don't 

10 know. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: But to be under a full intern-- 

12 well, I guess it would still be considered a 

13 full internal/external, there's just no data, 

14 no exposure. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

17 MS. MUNN: 477? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that I want that 

19 case. I mean to say -- just -- yeah. 

20 DR. WADE: 477 is proposed by Wanda. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Downey -- yeah, it's new 

22 facilities. Right? 

23 UNIDENTIFIED: It's new facilities. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 

25 DR. WADE: Okay. Any more on page 8? 
92

1 MS. MUNN: What about 478? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I was looking at that, too, but I 

3 think we just -- we got the Huntington Pilot 

4 Plant review that John just mentioned -- 

5 MR. PRESLEY: What about -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's going to cover, you 

7 know -- so I'm not sure we -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Ah, don't bother. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

10 MR. PRESLEY: -- 474 -- 474, Hanford, high POC 

11 with a lot of years. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Started early decade, too. 

13 Right? 

14 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 

15 DR. WADE: 574? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's -- 474. 

17 THE COURT REPORTER: Would y'all remember to 

18 use your mikes, please? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: 474, yeah, I'm sorry. 

20 DR. WADE: 474. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: 474. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: 474. 

23 DR. WADE: Okay, on page 8 we have seven -- 

24 463, 464, 465, 471, 474, 475, 477. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: This is good. I think our focus 
93

1 should be on these later approval dates, too. 

2 We're getting back now to -- 

3 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: One, two, three, four, five, six, 

5 seven -- I have seven as well. 

6 DR. WADE: 71, 74, 75, 77. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

8 DR. WADE: Okay, we're now at 39. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: At 39, yeah. And now we're 

10 getting back into approval dates that are in 

11 2005, so just keep that in mind. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Page 7, 442? 

13 DR. WADE: 442? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: And it's a Fernald case. 

15 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

16 case. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, that's okay. 

18 MS. MUNN: Superior, uh-huh, yeah. 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

20 (Unintelligible) 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Well, suggest it to him. 

22 MR. GIBSON: How about 461, Mark? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: It's a Paducah skin cancer, sure, 

24 yeah. I don't think we have many Paducah ones. 

25 I was looking at these Bridgeport Brass, did -- 
94

1 John, which one -- which one are you reviewing, 

2 is it the Havens Lab or the -- or are you doing 

3 both together, are they -- 

4 DR. MAURO: No, no -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: No. 

6 DR. MAURO: -- we're just doing -- we're not 

7 doing both, although it turns out that we are 

8 capturing some of it, but it was the Adrian 

9 plant that was the case -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Adrian, so maybe we -- 

11 DR. MAURO: -- that's the -- that's the one 

12 that is getting the focused attention. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe we should pick the Havens 

14 Lab one, yeah. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: If you -- yeah. 

16 MS. MUNN: 47-- 454? 

17 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

18 one we did or not. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: 454 is the one I was looking at. 

20 DR. WADE: 454? 

21 DR. MAURO: But they weren't -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: 454, yeah. 

23 DR. MAURO: It was before they had the site 

24 profile. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 454 then. 
95

1 DR. WADE: Okay. 

2 MS. MUNN: Because of the site, is 451 of 

3 interest? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Did we do an Aliquippa Forge 

5 case? Yeah, we did that -- and that -- or no? 

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we did do a -- a case. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

8 DR. MAURO: I -- I may want to ask that -- 

9 eventually you'll have your list -- if there 

10 are any AWE cases that -- that are there in 

11 your list other than Bridgeport Brass -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

13 DR. MAURO: -- Huntington and Harshaw, please 

14 let us know if you'd like for those AWEs -- 

15 let's say -- if you'd like that special 

16 treatment, let -- let us know as part of the -- 

17 when you sen-- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 

19 DR. MAURO: -- send the package over. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: So this one -- we did a case, but 

21 it likely didn't get any special review. 

22 Right? 

23 DR. MAURO: Right, yeah -- in other words, if 

24 there's any case -- 

25 MR. GRIFFON: And it may not need it, you know, 
96

1 but -- you know -- 

2 DR. MAURO: And tha-- that's -- yeah, that's -- 

3 yeah. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

5 DR. WADE: So 451, no? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: I would say no on that one, if we 

7 -- 

8 DR. WADE: Okay. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: You know, it's pretty basic 

10 uranium process stuff, I think. 

11 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

12 DR. WADE: Ready to move on? We have three on 

13 page 7 -- 442, 454, 461. Page 6? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: What's our total up to, Lew? 

15 DR. WADE: You are at 42 and climbing. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: 42 and climbing, 'cause we're 

17 getting back into these old-- older approval 

18 dates, so I would -- you know, I want to -- I 

19 do want to keep that in mind. 

20 MR. PRESLEY: How about 435? Lot of years, the 

21 right -- the right years and a -- not a -- not 

22 a real good POC for an esophagus. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay for me. Others? How 

24 about this Los Alamos, 434? 

25 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 
97

1 DR. WADE: Okay. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Do we need any more Hanford 

3 sites? There's one under that, 436, again is 

4 for the right years, lot of years -- 

5 MS. MUNN: No, we haven't. 

6 MR. PRESLEY: -- with a breast cancer. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I'm okay with that one. I think 

8 -- you know, after maybe this set of cases we 

9 can put another one of those summaries together 

10 to see where we're at, but I think we need a 

11 lo-- you know, Hanford's got a lot of 

12 claimants, so -- 

13 DR. WADE: So 436? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: That's two good cancers. 

16 MS. MUNN: 418? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: 418, Herring-Hall, and I don't 

18 think we did this, did we? 

19 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) think so. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so it's okay for the site, 

21 basically -- right? -- is why you're picking 

22 it, yeah. 

23 DR. WADE: 418? 

24 MR. GRIFFON: I think it's okay, yeah. 

25 MR. GIBSON: 432 possibly? 
98

1 MR. GRIFFON: 32? 

2 DR. WADE: Uh-huh -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Jessop Steel? 

4 DR. WADE: -- Jessop Steel. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Did we do Jessop Steel? We did? 

6 DR. MAURO: We had a case. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Which I think would be ver-- 

8 yeah, not worth... 

9 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: I'm going on to page 5. 

11 DR. WADE: You had four on page 6 -- 418, 434, 

12 435, 436. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: We got 46 total now? 

14 DR. WADE: Right. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: We're getting back into the '04 

16 dates of approval, so again, this gets into 

17 this -- keep in mi-- you know, when we do this 

18 resolution process and we get into these '04 

19 dates, we're looking at procedures that have 

20 often been revised three or four times since 

21 this -- you know, so it gets -- sometimes not 

22 that beneficial for us. 

23 MS. MUNN: Would it be wiser for us to go back 

24 and rework the pages we've just been through 

25 and pick -- 
99

1 MR. GRIFFON: Or -- or we could go to the 

2 random list and start at the back of the random 

3 list and see... 

4 MS. MUNN: That might be more productive. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Why don't we do that then, let's 

6 -- let's truncate it there, unless anyone sees 

7 anything on page 5. There's still some '05 

8 ones. I don't see anything that jumps out at 

9 me. Oh -- 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: If I can just offer one 

11 reminder, if -- for the dose estimation type on 

12 the random list, if any of that says full 

13 internal and external, it's on the other -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: It's on this list. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- list as well. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so we don't want to look 

17 at the full external/internal, but start from 

18 the back of the random list then, and looking 

19 at the not full external/internal 'cause we've 

20 already looked at those -- thank you, Stu. 

21 MS. MUNN: I have 194. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: 194? Okay. 

23 DR. WADE: Okay. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: 198? 198, any -- 

25 DR. WADE: Okay. 
100

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- takers? 

2 MS. MUNN: How about 188? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: 188 -- underestimate, primarily 

4 external, well, that's -- 

5 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- must have got a good external 

7 -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Must have been. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. All right. 

10 DR. WADE: So 188? 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 

12 MS. MUNN: And on the -- on page 8, what about 

13 184? 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, we're going to page 8 now? 

15 Everybody -- 

16 MS. MUNN: Well, I just -- 

17 DR. WADE: So you've got three on page 9 -- 

18 MS. MUNN: -- I'm just looking for four here. 

19 DR. WADE: -- 188, 194 and 198. Now we're on 

20 to page 8 of the random list. What number did 

21 you say, Wanda? 

22 MS. MUNN: I suggested 184. 

23 DR. WADE: All right. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Have we done any for Ashland Oil? 

25 MS. MUNN: We doing what? 
101

1 MR. PRESLEY: Ashland Oil is 183, got a lot of 

2 years in the right time frame, low POC. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: 183? 

4 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

5 DR. WADE: And 184 -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that works -- 

7 DR. WADE: -- Wanda's -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: -- for me. 

9 DR. WADE: -- suggestion? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: And 184 was Wanda's? 

11 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: Those two. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Those are fine. 

15 DR. WADE: Okay, those two. 

16 MS. MUNN: Does that get us 50? That gets us 

17 50. Right? 

18 DR. WADE: That gives us 51. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

20 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

21 DR. WADE: And we need 60. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I suggest we go through to page 

23 5. That would be the similar approval dates 

24 that we just looked at -- 

25 MR. CLAWSON: What about 168? 
102

1 MR. GRIFFON: Certainly a number of facilities, 

2 huh? 

3 DR. WADE: Santa Susana. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, very interesting. Okay, 

5 168. 

6 Why don't -- well, this Paducah case, it could 

7 have been, again, before they -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- underestimate for lung cancer, 

10 .7 years and they had -- had 63 (sic) percent 

11 POC. 

12 MS. MUNN: That could be interesting. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- well -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: It must have been -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there's -- there's not 

16 enough employment, probably, to reach the SEC -

17 - 

18 MR. GRIFFON: That's it. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- threshold. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- that's why, yeah. 

21 Yeah. I'm not -- I'm not proposing the case, I 

22 was just curious why it was on the list. 

23 MS. MUNN: Oh, yeah, and -- and -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the employment must be the 

25 question, .7 not 250 days. Right? 
103

1 MR. PRESLEY: It's probably the same thing. 

2 MS. MUNN: One -- 154 would certainly -- 154 

3 would certainly be interesting. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: So we're moving on to page 7? 

5 MS. MUNN: Oh, I thought -- I thought we were 

6 on page 7. 

7 DR. WADE: We have three on page 8 -- 168, 183, 

8 184. Now we're on to page 7. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: What's that Wanda, 154? 

10 MS. MUNN: 154 -- 

11 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) Yeah, it's got 

12 (unintelligible) -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Amchitka -- oh, it's the same 

14 question, yeah. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: -- question about -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: It's an SEC site, but it's the -- 

17 less than a year. 

18 MR. PRESLEY: Less than a year's worth of work. 

19 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

20 MR. PRESLEY: Now, would this fall under that 

21 80 days? If this guy was -- or whoever -- guy, 

22 gal, whatever it is -- 

23 MS. MUNN: Might be. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: -- was there for that 80-day 

25 period, then -- 
104

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: -- it was fall under that .4 work 

3 time. 

4 MS. MUNN: Would be interesting to look at it 

5 and see. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I think -- I think 

7 Amchitka just requires presence. Isn't that 

8 right? 

9 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, Am-- Amchitka only -- 

11 only requires presence, it doesn't require the 

12 250 days. That's statutory. I believe this is 

13 probably the case I described earlier, a dose 

14 reconstruction -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Oh -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for medical benefits -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- for medical benefits. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for the non-SEC cancers. 

19 That's probably what this one is. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: For non-SEC cancers. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 

22 DR. WADE: For medical. Do you want it or not? 

23 MS. MUNN: I thought it was interesting. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: It's interesting. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's do it. I -- yeah. 
105

1 MR. CLAWSON: What about 159? It's a lot of 

2 years. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: It's okay for me, yeah. It's a 

4 different site. 

5 DR. WADE: 159. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Can I -- another question on this 

7 -- Stu, I'm not sure -- Linde Ceramics is on 

8 here, but it says overestimate, internal and 

9 external. I thought it was just one model for 

10 -- I mean why would some be best estimate and 

11 this one be an overestimate? You know what I 

12 mean? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I know what you mean. I 

14 don't -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't have an answer. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. It might have just 

18 been the wrong check -- you know, drop-down box 

19 -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- checked. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we need to do 

24 Linde, I was just curious why. 

25 MR. PRESLEY: What about 146? Lawrence 
106

1 Livermore, it's the right -- a lot of years -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

3 MR. PRESLEY: -- (unintelligible). 

4 MR. GRIFFON: That seems reasonable to me. 

5 DR. WADE: 146? 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

7 MS. MUNN: 146? 

8 DR. WADE: Yeah, you're getting chastised 

9 again, Robert. 

10 MS. MUNN: And from a site standpoint, 163. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: 163? 

12 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we haven't done a linear 

14 accelerator. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Stanford -- yep, 163. 

17 DR. WADE: Got four on page 7. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Looking at page 6 -- 

19 DR. WADE: -- 146, 154, 159, 163. Page 6? 

20 MS. MUNN: We're back into 2005 again. 

21 DR. WADE: Well, Mark said -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: I was -- I was saying go through 

23 page 5. That would be consistent with where we 

24 stopped on the other list, anyway, you know. 

25 It's kind of arbitrary, but -- we can look at 
107

1 them. It doesn't mean we have to pick any. 

2 MS. MUNN: Look at 143. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was looking at that, too. 

4 MS. MUNN: Oh, there's ano-- 144 is another -- 

5 hmm. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Idaho, Nevada Test Site and 

7 Amchitka -- yeah, 144. 

8 DR. WADE: 143, 144. 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Another Fernald at 125. It's 

10 older if you just want to look at it. It's the 

11 right time frame, low number of years. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Underestimate for skin cancers. 

13 I'm wondering if this is just a multiple skin 

14 cancer type case, but -- I don't know. 

15 MS. MUNN: How about 135? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: It's probably -- 

17 DR. WADE: You want 125 or not? 

18 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I would -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, we can do it. 

20 DR. WADE: 125. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: We still have to bring this to 

22 the Board -- 

23 DR. WADE: Right. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- so we can -- yeah, yeah. 

25 DR. WADE: And then 135, Wanda's. 
108

1 MR. GRIFFON: 135. 

2 DR. WADE: Okay? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 135 is okay. 

4 DR. WADE: You have four so far -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Look at page 5. 

6 DR. WADE: -- now you're at 60. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we can just sto-- 

8 MS. MUNN: We're at 60? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I'd say we can stop here. 

10 MR. PRESLEY: Just a minute. Hey, look at 136, 

11 Savannah River. Are we going to take any new 

12 cases -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, that's -- 

14 DR. WADE: It's full so that's -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- that was on the other list, so 

16 we probably got one similar to that, yeah. 

17 DR. WADE: Okay, so you've selected 60 -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's -- 

19 DR. WADE: -- between the two lists. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- stop there. 

21 DR. WADE: You want to bring that proposal to 

22 the Board for consideration -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. WADE: -- again, this'll have to be 

25 scrubbed, Stu, obviously. 
109

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, wherever the list ends 

3 at the end of the Board's deliberation, we'll 

4 have both Department of Labor look at it for 

5 cases that may be -- they know of, you know, 

6 activity on for reopening. We'll look at the 

7 PER list and then we'll add the -- for the -- 

8 for the survivors then we'll add the additional 

9 pieces of information about, you know, internal 

10 dose reconstruction type, external dose 

11 reconstruction type, were -- were neutrons 

12 included, you know, those -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- those other -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so we got -- we got our in16 between step here -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- that we're going to do and 

19 then we may decide to drop some off -- 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, when we find out 

22 that, too, right. 

23 DR. WADE: And if you do, then at the next 

24 Board meeting we can try and look at the -- the 

25 updated list and fill out that -- 
110

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 DR. WADE: -- brace of 60. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, that's fine. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

5 DR. WADE: We'll give SC&A the material to 

6 start to work on. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So the ninth set is 

8 official under way -- well, not officially. 

9 The Board has to look at the list. 

10 All right. And I think that's it unless 

11 there's anything else for the subcommittee? 

12 (No responses) 

13 I think we're ready to adjourn. Lew, is any -- 

14 DR. WADE: Five minutes -- nope, you've got 

15 five minutes of extra lunch time. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Look at that, perfect timing. 

17 All right, subcommittee's adjourned. Thanks. 

18 (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 

19 a.m.) 

20 

21 

22 
111

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 January 8, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

8th day of February, 2008. 

______________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 

2 

3