16

17

18

22

23

24

25

125

DR. ZIEMER: I have a technical instruction
for the Board and for myself. We've been
instructed that when you're holding down the push
button on your mike, be sure to hold it in the

center or push it in the center and hold that

ted

steadily. Don’t rock to the right or to the lef
‘cause it cuts the mike in and out.

Now Cori is distributing the document that
came from the working group on procedure for
processing individual dose reconstruction reviews.
Task two, which we had been talking about, on site
profiles -- task two has as a first item, prepare
a site profile review procedure, and that’s a
deliverable one month after the authorization to
proceed, So we’re -- we're actually two weeks
into that; aren’t we, John?

DR. MAURO: One day.

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, you didn’t get your
authorization as fast as I thought you --

DR. MAURO: Just got the authorization
yesterday.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I was thinking you’d be

ready to report on the -- just kidding.
Okay, he’s -- but the clock is ticking on
that one.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



ae

13,

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

resolution that we provide to those comments
brought to the Board, as well.

DR. MELIUS: And that's my report.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Jim. lLet’s
see if there are additional questions relating to
the report of the research group.

(No responses)

It appears that there are not, and there's no
specific recommendation beyond these general
things that we’re looking forward to.

DR. MELIUS: Correct. Yeah, it’s -- I think
it's more of an information update at this point
in time.

BOARD DISCUSSION/WORKING SESSION

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. If you
would look at your agenda and make sure that you
have the correct version of the agenda -- which I
didn’t have. But the correct version of the
agenda now for our next item -- except for (off
microphone) the break, which (Inaudible) since
we're a little ahead of schedule -- there's a
Board working session for dose reconstruction
review process

THE COURT REPORTER: His mike’s gone.

DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you should have.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



12

13

14

is

16

17

+

20

21

22

23

24

25

121

interact with the contractor. Is that going to be
done -- you know, the contractor has questions,
who do they call, how do we get clarification on
that. There’s some issues that I think we have to
be -- be careful both from the contracting point
of view, but also in terms of the credibility of
the process and making sure that’s taken care of.
And I think we just need to work through those and
decide what's the best way to do that and are we
going to need a subcommittee to do that, how much
guidance do we give the subcommittee, do we do it
as a committee -- the whole committee for -- for
each of those. And then try to categorize them
and come up with a timetable for dealing with
them.

DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Wanda?

MS. MUNN: I hate to admit this, but I no
longer remember what tasks two and four were. I
remember what one and three were because -- for
obvious reasons, but not having brought previous
notes with me, I’m at a loss. Will someone please
refresh my memory?

MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I’ll try to do that, and
I’m certain that Mark will correct me in any way

that I might err here. Task two is to review site

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
1

12

20
21
22
23
24

25

118

MR. ELLIOTT: I, too, am at a little bit of a

loss here. I think -- maybe we could recap to --
to the point of -- as to where we’re at right now.
We -- you -- we haven’t announced yet, but we have

-- you have awarded two of your tasks, and that's
what you will be able to talk to Sanford Cohen &
Associates tomorrow about. Tasks two and four
have been awarded and they can start work under --
under those tasks. So you might want to think
about those two tasks and whatever questions of
clarification you have for your contractor or
anticipating what questions they might have of
you.

The other two tasks, one and three, are --
are not awarded. Those are still in the
negotiation process. Those are what you're going
toe discuss in closed session tomorrow, so you’re -
- you’re limited in what you can discuss in open
session about those. You could discuss -- you
know, we've still I think been wrestling with how
you're going to come up with your selection of
cases in a stratified -- representative or
stratified random sample. What are the variables
-- we would ask you what are the variables you

want to target for your selection of those cases.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12
23

14

24

25

117

Does everyone have that version of the agenda?
And the reason I call that to your attention is
because the earlier version showed the item as
being Sanford Cohen & Associates as the next item,
where in fact that has been --

THE COURT REPORTER: It’s in and out.

DR. ZIEMER: -- that has been scheduled for
tomorrow at 9:00, Board discussion/working session
on Stanford Cohen & Associates with respect to the
Board support for dose reconstructions. So our
focus at this moment will be on the dose
reconstruction review process. And we had set
aside time on this I think from our last meeting
to do any follow-up on that item, and I’m trying
to recall, Mark -- and I'll ask if you can help me
out on this -- where did we stand as far as the
working group's recommendations were concerned
after the end of the last session? I/’11 put you
on the spot here a little bit.

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know. I thought this
was on the schedule for tomorrow, actually. You
know, I'm not sure where we left off. We had a
draft procedure for our review process, but beyond
that, I don't know where the working group left

off or if you...

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



20

2i

22

23

24

25

——_— — ——— aS

——___

120

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. And tomorrow
during the official session with SC&A -- that is,
during the morning session -- we will have a
chance for them to ask questions and for us to ask
questions pertaining specifically to task two and
four, which have been awarded. That is -- and
John Monroe (sic) and Joe Fitzgerald I understand
will both be here from SC&A and there will be an
opportunity for them to seek clarification on
those tasks and for us to ask them questions and
discuss those in more detail.

Okay. Now Jim and then Wanda.

DR. MELIUS: Well, one question they might
ask us tomorrow is what site profiles do they want
us to review, so I think, you know, sort of meaty
issue is going to be how do we select those to get
them underway -- get those reviews underway, but
- and I was thinking that in a more general sense
the way of approaching this is to think -- much as
some of the examples Larry just used is to think
about what are the different activities that are
involved here. How do we as a Board want to
handle them. How do we want to select the site
profiles, then the individual cases. We've stili

got work to do on that. How are we going to

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12
2

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

in, so it’s good from that. And I think, in all
fairness to NIOSH, they need to review the report
and then I think there are some steps that can be
taken, you know, relatively soon to at least think
of ways that the smoking issue can be addressed.

And Russ, if you want to elaborate, you're...

MR. HENSHAW: I just want to say -- is this
on? I can’t tell from -- yeah. We have something
from NCI. We haven’t really had a -- we just got
it -- well, Tuesday, I believe -- Monday or

Tuesday. We haven’t had a chance to really look
at it very carefully, so there’s a possibiliry,
maybe a probability, we’ll need to go back and get
some additional data to understand the few pages
of information we have so far.

DR. MELIUS: Epidemiclogists always have an
odd view of time and so forth -- trouble
predicting when something will get done or
complete. And it’s never complete, always got to
have more analysis.

The final issue really is related to the
first issue, which is the issue of how to address
other occupational exposures that might take
place, particularly within the DOE sites. And I

think that’s really part and parcel of the first

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
iz

12

14
15
16

pT f

pee
20
21
22
23
24

25

123

involved beth.

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, you’re right. You're
right. The first step was the procedures, and
then ten to 12 DOE sites and two to four AWEs, So
it may -- it may be that the actual determination
of selecting the sites, we can start to be talking
about that, but we have to have a -- we also need
to know what the procedure is that the contractor
will use, and we've asked them to do that as a
first step in the process.

MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to say, I
wondered if we have a copy of the procedure for
processing individual dose reconstruction reviews,
the one that we voted on and approved. I have it
on the computer here, but I don’t have a hard
copy. The reason I say that is a lot of the
bullets right at the front end of this procedure -
- maybe we didn't flesh out everything, but we at
least identified several of these issues that
Larry and Jim have brought up that maybe we just
need to run through again and clarify how it‘s
really going to work now that we know a little
more of what the contractor's proposed, et cetera.

MR. ELLIOTT: I don’t know if Cori brought

that particular document along for reference, but

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12

13

+5.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

122

profiles, and task four is to develop a database,
a data management system for you all. Remember,
task four was to design that, develop that, put
that into place. And I think that involves, you
know, tracking the cases that are assigned, when
they were assigned, who's working on them, what
the findings were, perhaps even -- you know,
database management aspect of -- of how many site
profiles have been examined within, you know, task
two, as well as under task three where we --
you're looking at individual completed dose
reconstructions. So you know, I think there’s a
lot to be talked about under task four. It may
seem apparently obvious what has to be done, but I
think you need to probably talk through that.

DR. ZIEMER: Task -- task two more
specifically was --

UNIDENTIFIED: {Of£E microphone) Paul,
(Inaudible) the mike.

DR. ZIEMER: Sorry. Task two was to prepare
a site profile review procedure, not to do site
profile reviews.

MR. GRIFFON: The task was to develop the
methodology and also to do the reviews of I think

ten to 12 DOE sites and two to four AWEs, so it

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

22

23

24

25

119

We have bantered around this idea of a
subcommittee or not subcommittee. I think you've
come to grips with that. You want the whole Board
to be involved, but you might still think about --
you know, as you proceed here, do you really -- is
that the way you want to go. You know, there's
some work here to be done as far as identifying
cases for review when that task three is awarded,
and assigning who's to review those cases and what
that process really looks like.

So I mean I'm just trying to throw out ideas
for topics for discussion here for this afternoon
and perhaps tomorrow. And I'm certainly not --
want to lead you in one way or the other here, but
these are things that kind of we have questions in
our mind about how -- how do -- how do we go about
doing these reviews. We're still -- we're still
wrestling with what your approach and your process
is going to be and how we will attend to making
sure that we protect the privacy of individual
claimants, how -- what your report is going to
look like at the end of your review, you know.
We're still awaiting to hear your thoughts on
that, so those are just my thoughts off the top of

my head.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



11

12

13

14

15

16

LF

18

19

115

DR. ZIEMER: That may be of greater
importance, actually, than the coefficients, which
may not change very much.

Could I also ask, on the smoking issue, once
you've digested that information, is there a plan
to report -- maybe at the next meeting -- what
those findings were? Or what -- what do we expect
to get from NCI on the smoking issue?

MR. ELLIOTT: What we -- what we're talking
about in receipt from NCI is basically the Pierce
analysis data that was done to support their
modifications on smoking and lung cancer. And
what Russ alluded to was that we've got four or
five pages of really what looks to us like a SAS*
printout with no data dictionary and no
explanation and no interpretation, and so that's
what we’re after right now. It would be our
intent that we analyze that bit of information and
come back to the Board with a proposal on the
impact on the NIOSH-IREP cancer risk models for
lung cancer and what we should do in that regard,
what changes or non-changes should be made. And
so we would present that to the Board. Of course
we would have that peer-reviewed and vetted and

then brought to the -- those comments and the

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

28

126

The issue of selection -- well, there will be
an issue we want to talk about with regard to
that. That procedure will be ready in one month.
Then we have the issue of who then looks and
reviews and approves that procedure and how the
Board wishes to do that. Then the selection of

the sites to be reviewed, and it may be that the

Board would like to identify some criteria. I
mean we have a number of sites -- we saw the
matrix earlier today -- that are close to being

ready for review. Some are already completed.

But given that list, even after it’s all
completed, how do we decide which ones to review.
And you might want to identify some criteria. For
example, one criteria might be a site that has
generated a large number of dose reconstruction
cases. Or we might say let's look at the top five
sites as a kickoff, or something like that, in
terms of cases. So think about criteria of that
sort that we could use so that selection of the
site is not just based on gut feeling -- I like
one site better than another -- but some sort of
objective criteria on which to make those
decisions.

Now let’s open the floor -- Jim, your flag is

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



11
12
13

14

20
21
22
23
24

25

114

new risk coefficients. Is that correct?

DR. MELIUS: I believe so, yeah. That’s my
understanding.

DR. ZIEMER: I have heard, unofficially, that
those risk coefficients are not likely to change
very much. I don't know if any others have heard
rumors, and certainly the record shouldn’t show
that to be definitive in any way, but my
understanding is that the changes in the dosimetry
-- which goes back to the Japanese dosimetry --
have been, for the most part, rather small changes
and hence the risk coefficients, though they will
change, will not change by great amounts. But it
still remains to be seen what the impact will be
on -- eventually on IREP and we want to certainly
be tracking that.

MR. ELLIOTT: I certainly agree. That's
similar to what I’ve heard. We were also anxious
to see what the report would say, though, about
occupational studies and their effect or non-
effect on risk --

DR. ZIEMER: Right.

MR. ELLIOTT: -- estimates, so I think that’s
our focus on this report. That's where we want to

see it come in.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



16
17
18
LS
20
21
22
23
24

25

113

issue, the occupational cohorts that are being
looked at. And so when we get an update from
HERB, I think we’ll be able to ask more questions
about that.

The final thing I wanted to just mention is
that the update to BEIR is underway and I don’t
think we're expecting anything very soon on that.
But that will clearly have a -- could have a large
impact on -- terms of possible changes that might
need to be made to IREP or something from the
analysis and reporting that’s underway there,
that’s at least a year away, as I recall, maybe
even longer before we see that. You remember the

MR. ELLIOTT: My understanding from one of
the members of the BEIR committee was that the
report was due to surface in public last November,
and we haven't seen that yet. So I had a call in
to Eula Bingham to find out where it's at and what
the holdup is, and I haven’t got a comment back.
But I don’t believe it’s a year away. I think
it’s closer than -- than maybe that, that we think
-= should be here soon, I hope.

DR. ZIEMER: Now i believe that report is

dependent upon official issuance by RERF of the

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



i9

20

21

22

23

24

25

124

we can certainly I think get it printed if we can
get it off your laptop.

We could put it up on the screen. Let me
find Cori and we’ll see if...

(Pause)

DR. MELIUS: While we’re asking for what
information's available, that -- I don’t know if
Martha or somebody has with them the award for
tasks two and four that would lay out the
timetable we -- ‘cause -- gave the contractor
because I think -- we're going to have to know
that timetable on those tasks in order to sort of
figure out meeting schedules and how -- when
they’re going te get feedback and so forth, so...

MS. DIMUZIO: I don’t -- I have them upstairs
in the room, so I'll go upstairs and get a copy of
that and I can bring it down,

DR. MELIUS: You actually make copies for the
Board?

MS. DIMUZIO: Yeah. Yeah.

DR. MELIUS: Would it be best to take a short
break or something, get some of this stuff copied?

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let's -- let’s take ten.
Uh-huh, that's fine.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES