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 5 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the 5th 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


Reviews held at the Red Lion Richland Hanford House, 


Richland, Washington on July 17, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

July 17, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 


BLIND REVIEWS 9 


BASIC VS. ADVANCED REVIEWS 52 


SC&A TASKS FOR FY08 62 


STATUS AND FUTURE PLANS 69 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 80 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

BEACH, Josie 


Nuclear Chemical Operator 


Hanford Reservation 


Richland, Washington 


CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

6 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


COLLEY, VINA 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


FIERING, JOANIE 


FULTZ, KAL 


HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


SHATELL, CHARLES 


STAUDT, DAVID, CDC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

JULY 17, 2007
 

9:05 a.m.


 P R O C E E D I N G S 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, I -- I think we're 


ready to convene here. This is the 


subcommittee meeting starting. The full Board 


meeting will start I believe right after lunch 


today. One o'clock, is that right? Yeah, 1:00 


o'clock. 


My name's Mark Griffon. I'm the Chair of the 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction for the 


Advisory Board, and we're happy to see you here 


in Richland, Washington. Again, this is a -- a 


specific subcommittee dealing with some of the 


case reviews and some of the detailed reviews 


that we're doing. The general meeting will 


start at -- at 1:00, so we'll have a more 


formal introduction from the Chair of the 


Board, Dr. Paul Ziemer, at that point. 


I should mention at the start that we have – 


Chia-Chia Chang is here as our Designated 


Federal Official today. Lew Wade's not here. 


Lew I think is coming in later this afternoon 


and will be here tomorrow morning. But Chia-


Chia will take that duty as the Designated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Federal Official. Other subcommittee members 


are Wanda Munn, Dr. John Poston, Mike Gibson, 


and Bob Presley is an alternate. So given 


that, I think we can start the -- it's a short 


agenda today but we do want to get back on 


course with a few items. 


And two main items I think that I wanted to 


discuss -- one was the blind reviews for the 


dose reconstruction process, and the other is 


the -- the sort of question of the advanced 


versus basic review, and I wanted to reflect 


back on the original scope of the advanced 


reviews and make sure -- I think there are some 


items within that scope that have not been 


covered in previous dose reconstruction reviews 


and I think we need to sort of look back at 


those and see, as we move on, do -- you know, 


do we want to incorporate those and -- and, you 


know, how do we want to do that? Do we want to 


do them for -- I think they're -- I think it's 


going to fall out that we'll want to do those 


for certain types of cases but we can get into 


that a little more. 


Then I also wanted to just do an update of the 


-- all the sets of cases that we've been 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

reviewing. We've been reviewing the case -- 


the individual case reviews and so far -- when 


I talk about a set of cases, we've been doing 


basically sets of twenty cases and we've 


completed three sets through our full 


resolution process, but we've got a bunch of 


work sort of in process. The fourth set of 


cases and the fifth set of cases we've -- we've 


met as a subcommittee and -- and gone through a 


resolution process with SC&A, our contractor, 


as well as with NIOSH. We haven't finally 


resolved some of those items. And then we -- 


we also have sixth, seventh, and eighth sets of 


cases in the -- in the hopper. So I'll do a 


little update on that and -- and where we're 


going on future work with that. 


BLIND REVIEWS
 

But I thought it made sense to start with the ­

- to start with blind reviews discussion and I 


think it -- it may be useful to -- to sort of 


reflect back on our discussion -- I think it 


was two meetings ago that we had a fairly 


lengthy discussion on the blind reviews and how 


we were going to go about the blind reviews. 


And I think it might be useful for our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

subcommittee to sort of decide on an approach 


and at least put it into practice, even as -- 


even if it's a preliminary approach. And I've 


got a -- we -- we talked about the idea of 


maybe doing -- well, sort of two -- two 


scenarios. One where we have -- we get the raw 


case data for a particular case -- how -- how 


we select this and how we make sure it's not 


leaked on the case number and all that -- 


that's sort of -- other issue to worry about. 


But we get the raw case data to SC&A, the -- 


the Board's contractor, and under option one 


they would take that raw case data and 


basically decide -- given all the raw data that 


NIOSH would receive on a case, SC&A would then 


take that data and say okay, we're going to 


reconstruct this dose using the following NIOSH 


procedures or tools that are available. But we 


won't see -- sort of won't see how NIOSH did 


it. We won't see their answers, we won't see 


their completed or filled out tools. But we'll 


have at our disposal the tools that NIOSH could 


have used, and the selection of which tools to 


use is up to SC&A and --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) I can't hear 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

anything that's going on (unintelligible) 


there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- you know, certainly 


the -- there's still some room for some -- 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I can't, either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sort of, you know, 


assumptions, the assumptions that you would 


apply in doing --


 MS. BEHLING: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- a dose reconstruction, 


especially for the internal dose side, would 


still be in play. So that would be one 


approach. 


Option two is give all the raw data and so 


forth, but -- but tell SC&A just to do the dose 


reconstruction. Don't -- don't use NIOSH 


tools, just use your own approach. Use your 


best health physics in-house approach without 


the -- without utilizing the -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: He can't hear you. 


 MS. BEHLING: It doesn't appear that 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- NIOSH spreadsheets and tools 


and the statistical models for calculating the 


uncertainties and -- and all those -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, tools we've talked 


about on -- on this Board, and I think it may 


be useful to do one or two blind reviews and -- 


and ask SC&A to -- to, in-house, do it both 


ways. Obviously they would be blind to each 


other when they did that, but to use both 


approach and -- and maybe -- maybe select one 


or two cases to do that way and then report 


back to the Board and -- and see if that 


approach is in fact getting us where we want to 


go with this, if it's answering some of our 


questions about -- I think, you know, the 


fundamental questions we're looking at when we 


want to do blind reviews is the scientific 


validity of -- of -- you know, that goes back 


to our charter, are the approaches 


scientifically valid. And if in fact another 


way of doing it comes, within reason, to the 


same final conclusion or same answer, then 


you've sort of validated -- you know, that's a 


way of saying yes, in fact it is a 


scientifically valid approach. So that's sort 


of what I was going to throw out there for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

discussion on our subcommittee at first is -- 


you know, let's go ahead -- let's go forward 


with the blind model and assign SC&A to do 


option one and two on an individual case, at 


least one individual blind case. Do it -- do 


it both ways and -- and then, you know, report 


back. And we can always modify how we want to 


do these blind reviews, but I think we -- you 


know, it might be useful to get this ball 


rolling. So I guess that's the open item for 


discussion. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. One question I would have, 


Mark, is whether you're considering having a 


single individual at SC&A or more than one 


individual do the dose reconstructions both 


directions. Have you given any thought to 


whether -- to the staffing issue as to who the 


reconstructors would be? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I mean I might even 


ask John to speak to that -- you know, what -- 


what makes sense. I hadn't thought about that, 


if we want to -- you know, I know that -- we 


were -- we were actually talking briefly about 


this, but I -- I think, you know, we might want 


to consider costs in that regard, too. You 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

know, it... 


 MS. MUNN: One of the issues that's of concern 


to me is using the techniques that are 


currently applied in our standard routine. We 


have placed, through our workbooks and other 


items that NIOSH uses, an entirely different 


set of parameters for approach than would 


normally be used in what in other venues would 


be considered best practices for 


reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: And that being the case, it would 


probably be revealing to see if there were 


marked differences and what would -- what the 


end result would be in doing those two 


different methods of approach. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: But the question would also arise 


whether two differing individuals would 


accomplish the same thing. I don't believe I 


have ever asked this specific question, whether 


any --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I can't hear 


anything, either. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) -- not much. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15

 (NOTE: Throughout the following discussion, a 


parallel discussion was being held between two 


telephone participants about their inability to 


hear what was being said in the meeting room. 


Best efforts have been made to segregate the 


meeting room speakers from those on the 


telephone, and efforts to transcribe comments 


of the telephone speakers have been 


discontinued except where noted.) 


 MS. MUNN: -- or if so, how many of the DRs 


that are done inside NIOSH have peer review of 


others who've duplicated that. I don't know 


how much of that is done inside NIOSH. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- yeah, and I don't know 


that. We might ask NIOSH that later in their 


presentation. But I know they have an internal 


QC and do reviews. I'm not sure if they do 


internal blinds. You know, I don't know. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm not, either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But --


 MS. MUNN: That's a question from -- in my 


mind. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I guess my -- yeah, I guess we 


-- we could have possibly multiple individuals 


that -- I guess the -- the other part is, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

would -- I would think we would define this. 
I 

think it's sort of understood, but we would be 


clear with SC&A with this, that when I say, you 


know, best health physics approaches, that 


would be consistent with EEOICPA and the 


regulations that we're operating under here. 


So there is that sort of caveat that it's not ­

- and -- and that -- that way you're, you know, 


at least limited to -- some of the provisions 


in the regulations talk about most current ICRP 


models, for instance -- so I think there are 


some parameters to -- that you have to operate 


within. 


 The other thing I -- I was thinking is that we 


really -- I -- I think it makes mo-- it only 


makes sense to do a blind review with a best 


estimate case. So I think we need to kind of 


hand pick a case that's a best estimate for 


both external and internal because I don't 


think it makes sense to do an overestimate case 


where -- or -- or especially an underestimate 


case 'cause NIOSH could do a partial and do 


less partial than SC&A did, and you know, of 


course you're going to end up with different 


numbers, but the same bottom line essentially, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

you know. I don't know how to -- how revealing 


that is of -- of scientific validity. So you 


know, I would argue that we should try to pick 


a best estimate case as one of -- as one of the 


blinds. And you know, if -- if we -- I guess 


that's open, to me, if -- if we wanted to have 


multiple people within SC&A do it. I thought 


for one -- to have one -- at least to start, to 


have one person do it with sort of their best 


health physics approaches, and the other to do 


it sort of following the NIOSH protocol, and -- 


and then you have a couple of comparisons. You 


can compare back with NIOSH, but you can also 


compare internally with those two, how -- how ­

- how they compare, and maybe -- maybe start 


there with one and then say what have we 


learned from this and, you know, is it valuable 


to do it both ways, is it -- you know. I don't 


know. 


 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark --


 MS. CHANG: Could I interrupt for just a 


second? We were hearing I think some people on 


the phone, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Kathy --


MS. CHANG: -- please do put yourself on mute 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

until you're ready to speak. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Kathy -- Kathy Behling, go 

-- go ahead. I think I heard you -- 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm sorry, I couldn't -- I 

didn't know if you could hear me because we're 


having -- the people on the phone are having a 


very difficult time hearing everyone. It's 


very quiet. 


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


 MS. BEHLING: It's very difficult to hear. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll -- we'll work on that and 


maybe -- we'll work on that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. In fact, someone who was 


on the phone had tried to call the hotel to let 


them know that we -- we just were not hearing 


very clearly. I -- I apologize for 


interrupting. One of the things I just wanted 


to make mention during this working group (sic) 


meeting is the fact that -- I guess what -- as 


I was going through the procedures, the various 


procedure reviews, I came across a procedure 


that indicates that NIOSH also does blind 


reviews of the overall cases. I -- and I'm not 


sure if that's correct or not and I'm not sure 


if that would benefit -- is something that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

should be looking at, in light of this 


discussion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think Stu might have an 


answer for us. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) That is a 


provision -- can you hear me? That is a 


provision (unintelligible) -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? Hello? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I'm still here, but I don't 


hear anyone. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- Kathy, can you hear us 


now? 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I cannot. I can hear you, 


Mark, but that's the -- and there's someone 


else on the phone who's also trying to listen 


in. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I can hear -- I can hear him 


now. That's the first time I've ever heard him 


say anything, though. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. We're -- we're working on 


this. We're hoping to get it better. Can you 


hear us now on the phone? 


UNIDENTIFIED: We're trying to call the hotel 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

to get ahold of the meeting room to let them 


know that we're having difficulty hearing the 


meeting. They won't answer their phone, 


either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, who has -- who -- whoever's 


on the phone, we are working on this so 


hopefully you can hear us now. 


 MR. FULTZ: Yeah, this is Kal Fultz. I'm 


counsel to LLC, an authorized representative of 


Part E and B claims. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask who's talking on the 


phone line now? We hear you. 


 MR. FULTZ: Yeah, this is Kal Fultz. I'm 


authorized representative on claims for Part B 


and E. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, Okay. Can you hear us now 


better? 


 MR. FULTZ: Yeah, I hear -- I hear you now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FULTZ: There's an echo on my line, but I 


hear you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. I think we're -- 


we're a little better now so we're -- we're 


just going to continue and -- and speak up if 


we fade out or whatever, let us know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark. Kathy Behling 

again. Did Stu answer the question? If he 


did, I -- I didn't hear it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, Stu's waiting at the mike, so 


we're -- we're ready for Stu's answer. Here we 


go. 


 MS. CHANG: I'm sorry, can I interrupt just one 


more minute? Who else is on the phone? Is 


there anybody else that want to identify 


themselves? We had someone -- you said your 


name was Kal Fultz. I'm trying to get it for 


the transcriber. 


 MR. FULTZ: I'm Kal, K-a-l, Fultz, F-ul-t-z. 


MS. CHANG: Did you get that, Ray? 


MR. FULTZ: (Unintelligible) LLC -- 


MS. CHANG: All right. 


MR. FULTZ: -- and I'm a representative 


for a claimant on E and Part B -- Part B 


and Part E claims. 


 MS. CHANG: All right. I'm sorry. Go 


ahead, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Stu Hinnefeld 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

here. In response to Kathy's question, 


while the procedure does make allowance 


for us to do blind reviews, we have not 


done any yet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- I don't know 


if any of the other -- oh, John, I'm 


sorry. 


 DR. POSTON: Well, I really had more a 


clarification for the rookie. I -- when 


we're talking about peer review of these 


dose reconstructions, I understand that 


the dose reconstructors are peer 


reviewed when they produce their 


product. Is that correct? Isn't that a 


peer review? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, all the -- all the 


dose reconstructions that are done are 


peer reviewed. So they're reviewed by a 


person who requires somewhat more senior 


qualifications than the basic dose 


reconstructor qualification. They 


review it, which may be a little 


different than actually reworking the 


entire dose reconstruction from scratch. 


I mean they -- they verify all the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

steps, but it may -- it's not exactly 


picking up the original file documents 


and not knowing what the dose 


reconstruction says and going through it 


and see if you get about the same 


answer. It's looking at the dose 


reconstruction and seeing if it was done 


in accordance with the practices and 


procedures that were appropriate for 


that case. 


 DR. POSTON: But -- but there is 


feedback. I mean the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah. 


 DR. POSTON: -- the person who does the 


peer review has the responsibility or 


the authority to send it back. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. POSTON: Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they do. 


 DR. POSTON: Okay. So -- and then NIOSH 


has peer reviews, so what are -- what 


are we talking about? I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, their -- theirs 


aren't blind. I mean we're just talking 


-- we're asking if they're doing blind 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

reviews and they -- they are doing peer 


reviews, I acknowl-- we acknowledge 


that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: My -- my understanding of 


a blind review is you would have two 


dose reconstructors do the same case 


without any communication between each 


other about how the other one's doing it 


and see if you arrive at the same bottom 


line answer. You aren't -- you aren't 


going to get the same dose number, in 


all likelihood, but you would be within 


some -- some region of uncertainty. 


 DR. POSTON: Well, is that a -- is that a 


necessary step? Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 DR. POSTON: -- I mean it seems like it 


could be redundant, to me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'm not necessarily 


arguing that NIOSH needs to do it. I --


I think in our original scope we said 


that we would do a small set of blind 


reviews, so yeah. 


 DR. POSTON: I understand. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


MS. CHANG: Is someone on the phone trying to 


say something? 


 (Electronic feedback) 


Can you mute yourself if you're not, please? 


Thank you. Sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- so I don't know if we -- if 


-- if the subcommittee is ready at this point 


to make sort of a proposal back to the Board to 


say let's initiate blind -- you know, one or 


two blind reviews with those parameters I just 


described, that we would do both op-- have SC&A 


do both options and report back to the 


subcommittee with their results on that. 


 MS. MUNN: And John was going to say something 


to us, I think, about -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: I'm sorry, I can't hear 


anything. 


 MR. GRIFFON: About the one versus two, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- the availability of -- of 


individuals for them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, John Mauro. 


 DR. MAURO: Yes, I -- this is John Mauro. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hello, I can't hear them, 


either. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26

 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Can you hear 


me? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Not really. I can barely hear 


you guys. Do you have a -- do you have a -- 


what kind of phone are you folks talking into? 


 DR. MAURO: I'm on a live mike. 


UNIDENTIFIED: It's a mike. Okay. You don't 


have like one of the polycom phones that, you 


know, pick up --


 MS. MUNN: No. 


UNIDENTIFIED: -- bidirectional --


 DR. MAURO: I'm speaking loud into the mike. 


can tell by the feedback I'm getting, you know, 


it's projecting. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Well, everyone that seems to be 


on this side of the conference is having 


trouble hearing, so --


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, I'm having trouble 


hearing, too. 


 DR. MAURO: Should I come up to one of the 


mikes on the table? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- can you hear better from 


here? 


UNIDENTIFIED: That's the only one that sounds 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

good right now --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: -- that microphone right there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe come up here, John, 


and try that mike. 


 MS. MUNN: These are all live up here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sorry. We are working on this. 


We -- we apologize on the phone line. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Can you hear 


me now? 


UNIDENTIFIED: A little bit. A little better. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I can hear you a little bit, not 


much. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Not -- not as well as the first 


gentleman that... 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think it's the mike. I 


think it's the feed somewhere. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro again. Is that 


better? 


UNIDENTIFIED: That's coming in clear, yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. It sounds like we found the 


mike that works. 


Yes. This is John Mauro. I -- I've -- I'm the 


Program Manager for SC&A, supporting the Board. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

The only point I was going to make regarding 


this blind dose reconstruction to Mark and the 


rest of the subcommittee is, coincidentally, we 


have recently proposed the next fiscal year a 


scope of work which includes blind dose 


reconstructions. As it turns out, the -- we 


describe in some detail how we would go about 


doing that, along with the cost. And we 


provided a unit cost per blind dose 


reconstruction and it is exactly the way in 


which Wanda and Mark have described, namely the 


way we are proposing to do it -- now whether we 


do it in next fiscal year or we do it this 


fiscal year -- just to point out, by the way, 


our budget and scope for this fiscal year does 


include doing two blind dose reconstructions. 


So certainly if you folks elect to have us do 


that as part of this fiscal year's work, we 


certainly will do that. And the approach we 


would take would be the one that was described 


by both Mark and -- and Wanda, whereby -- we've 


already had quite a bit of discussion regarding 


this. The approach would be we would receive 


direction from the working group or the Board 


on one or two cases, preferably realistic 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

cases, whereby we would then have Hans and 


Kathy Behling do what we call the NIOSH 


approach where they would use all of the tools, 


spreadsheets, assumptions, workbooks, and try 


to do it exactly the way they believe NIOSH 


would have -- would do it, or had did it -- 


have done it. Of course they would not have 


access to the actual dose reconstruction 


performed, so the intent would be to see the 


degree to which they follow the methods in 


accord with the methods that NIOSH would 


follow, and then compare results. 


Independent of that, I would do a dose 


reconstruction which I call the basic common 


sense approach, whereby an experienced health 


physicists would gather up all -- or would be 


given all of the data, but not necessarily use 


the spreadsheets, the workbooks, the 


assumptions, as laid out in all of the myriad 


of over 100 procedures that have been developed 


on this program, but do it the way in which I 


would say an experienced health physics -- 


health physicist might do it, in accordance 


with the letter and intent of the regulations 


and the statute, and the intent being -- and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

that way I would be doing the dose 


reconstruction but not following let's say a 


lot of the construct, the detailed protocols 


that have been developed over the years, but 


use more of what I would say something that a 


health physicist would use who did not have the 


benefit of the multiple years of experience and 


-- and -- and protocols that have been 


developed. 


And we felt that a lot would be gained by then 


comparing -- and by the way, I would not speak 


with Hans or Kathy while I did that. I would 


finish up my write-up with my rationale for all 


my assumptions and what I did and why I did it, 


and then we'd be in a position to compare my 


results to Hans' and Kathy's results, to NIOSH 


results -- which of course at the back end of 


the process we would then be able to sit around 


a table with the working group and then explore 


the reasons why there are differences and what 


those differences mean, and their implications. 


So this is what we proposed for next fiscal 


year as -- as a blind dose reconstruction, but 


we could certainly do it this fiscal year also. 


 MS. MUNN: I remember reading something about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

that in your recent reports -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: I can't hear the person talking. 


 MS. MUNN: -- but I can't remember which task 


that falls under. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Are we allowed to make a 


comment? 


DR. MAURO: That's part of task order IV. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I don't think so, at this point. 


 MS. COLLEY: 'Cause I'd like to make a comment, 


as a victim, that redose (sic) is useless. 


This is Vina Colley of Ohio. Redose is 


useless, and it's often dishonest exercise and 


Dr. -- I talked with Dr. (unintelligible) and 


she says that you cannot tell by dose whether 


or not someone was injured any more than by 


knowing the dose of a medicine a patient had -- 


had, you can decide whether or not the patent 


is cured. Dose reconstruc-- reconstruction is 


just a way to confuse the issue and -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: I don't think they can -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Vi -- Vina --


UNIDENTIFIED: -- (unintelligible) at this 


point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This -- this is Mark Griffon, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

Vina. Can you hear me on the phone? 


 MS. COLLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Hi. We are talking about 


the subcommittee items right now. We do have a 


-- and I'd love to hear more of your comments 


if we could have it during public comment. We 


have two public comments during this meeting, I 


believe, tonight and tomorrow night. So I 


think, you know, you might want to expand on 


your comments at that point. 


 MS. COLLEY: Will that be at 8:00 o'clock 


tonight for -- Eastern time? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that 8:00 o'clock Eastern 


time? Is that -- three hours, yeah. Yeah, 


8:00 o'clock Eastern time, and we can put you 


on earlier if -- you know, given the time 


difference. But that would be -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) starts at 


7:30. Is that correct? 


MS. CHANG: Tomorrow night is 7:30 to 8:30, 


Washington State time. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Tonight it's 5:00 o'clock -- 


 MS. CHANG: Tonight is 5:00 to 6:00, and we 


welcome your comments tonight or tomorrow 


night. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Just to get back -- and I 


hope you can hear better on the phone, as well. 


Just to get back to this item, I -- I think I 


can summarize maybe a -- a -- a motion that we 


can bring back to the full Board. But I was 


going to say that the subcommittee recommends 


that the Board should take -- should task SC&A 


with conducting two blind reviews, both being 


done using two different approaches. One, the 


DR using available NIOSH tools; and two, a -- a 


dose reconstruction using, quote, common sense, 


unquote -- common sense approach, unquote, 


without use of NIOSH tools, in accordance with 


the letter and intent of the statutes and 


regulations, as John just said. I think that 


describes it very well. So that -- and I would 


say we -- we should try to do two of these in 


this fiscal year and get them underway and see 


if they're -- it's going to work and see if we 


even want to do more of these. You know, if -- 


if -- what are we getting out of this, what is 


it yielding for -- in terms of our 


understanding of the dose reconstruction 


process, and I think it might be telling from 


that standpoint, so... I don't know if we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

prepared to have this as a motion from the 


subcommittee. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: My first reaction is that it would 


be wise to establish no more than two as an 


initial step to see how productive this might 


be. We -- there's no point in our doing more 


than needs to be done, but certainly this 


amount of quality assurance is minimal from an 


objective point of view and two sounds like a 


good number to start with. If it appears that 


there may be a real issue, then it would be 


incumbent upon us at that time to identify how 


many and under what selection criteria we might 


move forward. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


MS. CHANG: Just for clarification, is the 


motion to recommend that the Board ask SC&A to 


do two for this year or next fiscal year? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was making it for this fiscal 


year. And I don't know if that motion -- I 


would offer that as a formal motion for the 


subcommittee if anybody wants to second it. 


 DR. POSTON: Second. 


 MR. GRIFFON: John seconds it. And as far as 


the -- I've avoided the case selection process, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

but I think we can probably work through that. 


We've discussed it at the last meeting. 
I 


don't know that we need to discuss it a lot 


more. I think it should be a best estimate 


type of case, but I'd be willing to work with 


NIOSH on -- on behalf of the subcommittee; or 


if somebody from the subcommittee wanted to 


work with me, we could work with NIOSH on how 


we can get a case without publicly identifying 


the case, and so forth, and making that 


available to SC&A. I think we have to -- I 


think part of the -- the -- the step involved 


is that we have to actually open up the cases 


and see, because some of these cases that are 


defined as best estimate are not necessarily 


what we -- what I interpret as sort of a best 


estimate case. Stu -- Stu acknowledges that, 


yeah, so... Anyway, Wanda, then John. 


 MS. MUNN: With respect to the timing, I was 


unclear. I -- I believe that what John was 


talking about earlier when we asked about this 


was work for next year. Was it not, John? 


Were you -- you weren't speaking -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But he said he -- he would be 


willing to do it in this -- go ahead. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36

 DR. MAURO: The two blind dose reconstructions 


are within the scope of this fiscal year's 


work. 


 MS. MUNN: Of this year. This year. 


DR. MAURO: However, we have not been directed. 


Now there is a timing problem in that we have 


yet received the eighth set. In other words, 


within our scope is this eighth set of 30 


cases. I believe Stu is probably very close to 


delivering them. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) this week if it wasn't their 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. So the timing problem goes 


as this. That would mean that between now and 


the end of September our intent would have been 


to deliver the eighth set of 30 cases reviewed, 


and also the two blind dose reconstructions. 


can tell you right now, that's not going to 


happen. We're going to slip into next fiscal 


year. We have the budget. We have the 


resources. But we don't have the calendar 


time. So -- so our deliverables regarding the 


eighth set and the two blind dose 


reconstructions probably will not show up until 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

early next fiscal year. 


 MS. MUNN: That was really where my question 


was leading. While -- with the concern we've 


had about budget, I really was getting down to 


budget. But our two constraints, of course we 


all know, are --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- budget and personnel. So thank 


you, John. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, maybe it -- maybe it would 


make more sense to let it slip into next fiscal 


year for these blind reviews, given that -- the 


other factor's going to be us working with 


NIOSH to select the cases so, you know, by the 


time we -- realistically, by the time we do 


that, we're going to be slipping -- time is 


going to slip away here and you don't -- it -- 


it probably will slip into next fiscal year. 


So I gue-- I guess that would be fine for me to 


 MS. MUNN: I would --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to propose it for next fiscal 


year. 


 MS. MUNN: I would offer that as a minor -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, minor -- friendly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

amendment. 


 MS. MUNN: -- friendly amendment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


UNIDENTIFIED: May I ask as to what was the 


discussion on --


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask who -- who's speaking 


on the phone? 


 MR. FULTZ: This is -- this is Kal Fultz, 


excuse me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


MR. FULTZ: I didn't know if I missed this or 


not at the beginning, I couldn't hear at the 


beginning of the meeting, but did -- was there 


a decision made on the future of the Advisory 


Board and its continuance after August? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no. This is the subcommittee 


-- subcommittee meeting. The -- the full 


Advisory Board meeting is going to start at -- 


at 1:00 p.m. --


MR. FULTZ: Oh, I see, right. Okay, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- our time. 


MR. FULTZ: -- (unintelligible) you'll take up 


that (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So then we'll talk about 


the overall program at that point. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

MR. FULTZ: I see, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay? 


 MR. FULTZ: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. John. 


 DR. POSTON: I just wanted to make sure that I 


understood -- even though I seconded the motion 


so we could discuss it, I want to make sure I 


understand what's being proposed, that we ask 


SC&A to do these two blind reviews and then at 


that point we'll evaluate whether additional 


reviews are necessary. Is that what you said? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think they -- they've 


budgeted for additional blind reviews, but I 


think we've -- what I'm saying is that we 


should try this approach and see what we're -- 


what benefit it is to the overall evaluation of 


the dose reconstruction process. You know, 


what -- are we getting something out of this? 


Is it the right thing? Is it the right way to 


approach it? Is one option -- we're doing them 


with these two options; is one more useful than 


the other? I mean, I'm not sure what we're 


going to find out of this. So I think --


 DR. POSTON: Well, that --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's why I want to limit it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

to the number and -- and you know, at this 


point just let's do two blind reviews and see ­

- instead of assigning, you know, ten or 20 


blind reviews, I think we want to do two, see 


what -- what comes out of it and then -- 


 DR. POSTON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then make a decision from 


there. 


 DR. POSTON: And that's exactly my point. We 


want to stop, see what we've got, evaluate the 


cost --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. POSTON: -- of what we've got, and then 


make a decision as to how to go forward. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld from 


NIOSH again. I just wanted to offer -- and I 


don't know if -- I think this is the case, 


somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. If this 


is made fiscal year '08 scope for -- as a 


fiscal year '08 task for SC&A, then my 


understanding is they won't be able to start on 


it until October 1st. You know, we can work in 


the meantime to select the cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but their -- their work 


would -- I think would have to start on October 


1st. Wouldn't that be your interpretation, 


John? If it were October -- if it were '08 


work? 


 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Yes, 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now if it were '07 work, 


and it were tasked to them in '07 as '07 work, 


that task can carry over into FY '08. That 


doesn't mean you have to finish in FY '07. So 


they could start sooner than October 1st if it 


were FY '07 work. I believe that's the way it 


works. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And -- and -- and John, 


you're saying you have the budget available now 


for -- to do it under '07 work, so... 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. We've set aside resources in 


anticipation that this may occur. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Then my friendly amendment would be ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Withdrawn? 


 MS. MUNN: -- that we ask SC&A to proceed along 


this path, understanding that it may not be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

completed --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- in FY 2007. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So we'll -- we'll 


stick with the original, which is that we'll do 


this work under FY '07 budget, and that was in 


the original motion, so -- I can reread the 


motion if we want, or are we ready to -- can we 


vote on the motion at this point? 


 MS. BEHLING: Mark, can I just add something? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Kathy? 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay, yeah. This is Kathy 

Behling. I just want to reiterate what John 


just stated, is we have not received the 30 


cases from the eighth set yet, and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, we fully under-- we fully 


understand that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So we -- we don't 


expect that it'll be done by October 1, you 


know. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But we might as well get it --


 MS. BEHLING: I think you have to make that 


very clear because this is going to be delving 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

into a new area and these are going to take 


some time, so that has to be considered. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think we all are aware of 


that. And it's going to take us time to work 


with NIOSH to select the case --cases, too, 


so... 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. At this point I would 


offer that motion for -- for -- up for a vote, 


if that's okay? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All in favor of the motion from 


the subcommittee to the Board, say aye. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 All opposed? 


 (No responses) 


None opposed. Okay. The motion passes. 


 MS. CHANG: Let me jump in here with a 


housekeeping -- so is the phone situation 


better? Can y'all hear, people on the phone, 


when Stu was up on the microphone? Was that 


okay? 


 MR. FULTZ: Pretty good, I just missed the 


introduction of the other caller that's on the 


phone with me that's not part of the Board or ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

- or SCA. 


 MS. CHANG: And actually --


MR. FULTZ: The person from Ohio, I believe. 


MS. CHANG: -- since you're still here, our 


transcriber didn't quite get your name. It's 


Cal, like California, C-a-l? 


 MR. FULTZ: Oh, my name? 


 MS. CHANG: Yes. 


 MR. FULTZ: Kal -- with a K, actually. 


 MS. CHANG: With a K. 


MR. FULTZ: K-a-l. 


 MS. CHANG: And your last name? Could you 


spell that again? 


 MR. FULTZ: Fultz, F-u-l-t-z. 


 MS. CHANG: F as in Frank, u-l-t-z. All 


right. Thank you. 


MR. FULTZ: Right, F-u-l-t-z. 


MS. CHANG: Thank you. 


 MR. SHATELL: Sir? 


MR. FULTZ: (Unintelligible) LLC is my 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. SHATELL: Sir? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Who -- who is that on -- is 


someone on the phone line? Oh, I'm sorry. 


Hello. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45

 MR. SHATELL: All right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can you give us your name for the 

record, sir? 

 MR. SHATELL: I'm Charles W. Shatell. I worked 

on the Hanford project for 30 years and I was 


with the J. A. Jones Company. I wanted this -- 


is this NIOSH -- a room here with NIOSH -- 


NIOSH people? My NIOSH number is [Information 


Redacted]. I've had -- been with them ever 


since 2001. Now, I've got cancer and I've got 


it bad. I wanted to come up here today, if you 


people are with NIOSH, to let you know what 


I've run up against. The Labor Department says 


everybody has cancer and they don't want to pay 


me nothing. Money don't mean a thing to me. 


Now, what I'm wondering is -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Could --


 MR. SHATELL: -- would we have a contract with 


DOE to change 400 valves at 100 N, and when we 


did that, we weren't informed that we would be 


running into radiation like we did. The 100 N 


fuel elements read 550 R. They were made out 


of cobalt-60, if you know what that is. And 


when the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46

 MR. SHATELL: -- man from --

 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me, sir --

 MR. SHATELL: -- DOE told us that the reading 

was 550 R, all the engineers and a lot of other 


people -- they left, right quick. 550 R will 


kill you, if you know what I'm talking about. 


And so anyhow, we finally got it changed and 


got the thing taken care of. But I ended up 


with cancer. And I've got a four plus four 


cancer and, if anybody knows anything about 


cancer, five plus five kills you. So now we 


got three ways that we could go. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sir -- sir --


 MR. SHATELL: Take your prostate out, take your 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sir --


 MR. SHATELL: -- radiation the rest of your 


life, or take a shot. 


MS. CHANG: Sir --


 MR. SHATELL: I had the shots. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sir, excuse me. 


 MR. SHATELL: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask -- we -- we do have a 


public comment period this after-- or probably 


this evening. Would you be able to come back 

1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

early this evening? Are you going to be here 


all day or -- because right now we're -- we're 


 MR. SHATELL: I thought it was here just this 


morning. 


MS. CHANG: No. The public comment period -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


MS. CHANG: -- is from 5:00 to 6:00. There is 


a sign-in sheet already outside. You can sign 

--

 MR. SHATELL: What time? 

 MS. CHANG: 5:00 to 6:00 tonight. There is a 

sign-in sheet outside so you can go ahead and 


sign up. And also, for the rest of the meeting 


we'll also be having people from NIOSH -- 


advisors that you could speak with -- no, not 


direc-- but definitely tonight and tomorrow 


night. 


MR. FULTZ: I would like to get Mr. Shatell's 


name and number. 


 MR. SHATELL: What I'm interested in was to get 


my part of -- here to the NIOSH because I 


wasn't with them for -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. SHATELL: -- a long time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

MS. CHANG: We have NIOSH people in the -- we 


have NIOSH people right now who are happy to 


speak with you. 


MR. FULTZ: How do you spell your last name, 


Mr. Shatell? 


 MR. SHATELL: I've done everything except -- 


the next thing is I'm going to have to sue 


somebody. 


MR. FULTZ: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


MR. FULTZ: -- Mr. Shatell, how do you spell 


your last name? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sir --


 MR. SHATELL: What time this evening are you 


going to be here? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Excuse me --


MS. CHANG: 5:00 o'clock. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, public comment will be at 


5:00 o'clock. 


 MS. CHANG: And also tomorrow night again at 


7:30. So you could speak both nights. We do 


have NIOSH people -- Mr. Hinnefeld's happy to 


speak with you right now. 


 MR. SHATELL: Is that today? 


MS. CHANG: Yes, sir. Right here in this room. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49

 MR. SHATELL: This afternoon? 


 MS. CHANG: 5:00 o'clock. 


 MR. SHATELL: 5:00 o'clock? 


 MS. CHANG: Yes, sir. Thank you --


 MR. SHATELL: Thank you very much. 


 MS. CHANG: Thank you very much. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And Stu -- Stu's right there. 


He'd be glad to talk with you right now if you 


would like. Thank you. We really do have to 


get through our subcommittee work right now. 


It's not a public comment time and we will have 


plenty of time through this meeting for that. 


So we would ask people to hold back on general 


comments at this point. If you have something 


specific about the subcommittee work, that's 


fine. But general comments are -- 


MR. FULTZ: I have a question about the blind 


study. This is Kal Fultz. Just a quick 


question. When you -- when you do the blind 


study, I'm -- I'm assuming that you're going to 


take -- take cases that NIOSH won't have an 


idea that you're actually doing a blind study 


on? Or are they just providing you with the 


same information that they've used to come up 


with a dose reconstruction, and then you're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

taking it -- without talking with them and 


communicating with NIOSH and just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's the -- the latter is 


what's -- the case is going to be. We're going 


to take the raw data that NIOSH has received 


from the Department of Energy or from an AWE 


site or wherever, and have SC&A take the raw 


data and do the dose reconstruction from there. 


And -- and --


 MR. FULTZ: Now are you considering any type 


of -- the type of work performed at the site 


and -- to the dose reconstruction? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- yeah, all those -- all 


those assumptions and considerations will be 


made, yeah, in the process of the blind review. 


 MR. FULTZ: What about the -- the type of toxic 


material that was handled there? 


 MR. GRIFFON: The -- the only way that toxic 


material's going to have any impact is on the 


internal dose, possibly in terms of solubility 


and things like that. But this program only 


covers radiation exposures, so... 


 MR. FULTZ: Right, so what, ionization of 


radiation and so forth, like that? Are we 


talking about reactor ionization of fuel? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51

 MS. MUNN: All radiation --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, all -- all radi-- all 


ionizing radiation, yes, that's... 


 MS. FIERING: I have a question based on that, 


too. This is Joanie Fiering, also from 


Portsmith, Ohio. I don't know how you would 


factor in lack of proper maintenance on these 


plants. I just read a report recently that -- 


that's from 1996 here in the Piketon pla-- 


plant --


 MR. GRIFFON: Again --


 MS. FIERING: -- that they had actually used 


masking tape on the flanges and had no idea how 


much radiation had been coming out through 


those flanges. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Again, we would invite the-- 


these comments back for our public comment 


session. 


 MS. FIERING: I understand that, and I was 


going to wait, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. FIERING: -- Kal was asking questions about 


the type of work and the type of exposures and 


I thought that would kind of piggyback on 


there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah, we really just have 


to get through our -- our subcommittee work at 


this point. I mean it's --


MR. FULTZ: Right. 


 MS. FIERING: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: We really want to hear your 

comments --

MR. FULTZ: This is a working group meeting, 


yeah. 


 MS. FIERING: Gotcha. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We really want to hear your 


comments, it's just that we have to move 


through this -- this amount of work and this -- 


we only have an hour left for our subcommittee. 


 MS. FIERING: I apologize for interrupting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay. Thank you. 


BASIC VS. ADVANCED REVIEWS
 

All right. The next item I have on the 


subcommittee agenda is the advanced versus 


basic reviews. And from the -- I -- I printed 


off -- and I'm sorry I didn't get this to 


people earlier -- but I printed off the old -- 


the original scope that we had for basic versus 


advanced. Oh, John Mauro has one more comment 


here while we're passing things around. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53

 DR. MAURO: By way of the approach -- something 


that Arjun reminded me of and I think it is an 


important question -- our approach would be to 


use the data set that's provided to us by 


NIOSH. That is, the set of all of the bioassay 


and the external dosimetry data that is 


delivered to NIOSH by DOE as part of the 


process, but that data regarding that worker 


would be then delivered to us in some 


electronic form. The question becomes this: 


as part of the blind dose reconstruction, do we 


go back to da-- to DOE and perhaps explore 


further any places that we want to check out 


regarding data adequacy, completeness. Right 


now our approach is to take the data that has 


been delivered to us, as opposed to exploring 


further, more deeply, going to DOE to see if 


there is more data that we should be looking 


at. 


 MR. GRIFFON: My -- my feeling is that you're 


segueing into my advanced review. I -- I -- I 


think at this point the blind reviews -- I 


think -- and this is just my feeling, but I 


think we should stop with the data set that you 


have from NIOSH. However, the other point I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

think comes up in some of the scope items in 


the advanced review that I want to discuss now. 


And we -- we need to -- I think they're 


certainly worthy points and important points, 


but I think they -- I would offer to cover 


those in the advanced reviews. Lar-- Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott from NIOSH. I 


think it goes beyond the data that is given -- 


been given to us by the Department of Energy 


based upon our request for information. It --


we intend to give you a case file with all of 


the information that has been assembled and 


developed in that case file. That includes the 


Computer Assisted Telephone Interview report 


and any communications that we've had with the 


claimant, any information the claimant has 


submitted. If you -- if you at -- at some 


point decide that you need to approach DOE, 


you'll need to do that through us to get the 


information that you're seeking. But it goes 


beyond what DOE gives us. 


 MR. GRIFFON: My -- my intention is that -- 


that SC&A get all the information that the DR 


person assigned to a case at NIOSH would get, 


which I think involves, like Larry said, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

interview stuff and all those communications, 


as well as the DOE raw data or -- you know, 


so... 


 The other item -- this sort of extends into the 


advanced versus basic, and part of what I 


wanted to do in this -- I -- I raised this 


topic before -- is that I think we've been 


doing sort of -- SC&A has been conducting the 


reviews, but we really haven't characterized 


them as basic or advanced. I think they've 


been calling all of them sort of realistic 


reviews of the cases, and I thought it was 


worthwhile for our subcommittee to look back at 


the original scope and make sure -- and I think 


there are some scope items in the advanced 


review that we need to -- we need to address 


going forward that we haven't necessarily 


touched on in previous reviews. And if you 


look at the document I just sent around, the 


first page -- or the first two and a half pages 


are the original scope, and then you'll see a 


break in the middle of the third page where it 


says "scope which needs to be covered in future 


advanced reviews". That -- that's my insert at 


the bottom, and really all I did was -- the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

the -- the next page is that same scope 


reprinted again, but I just highlighted some of 


the points from the advanced review, the same ­

- it's the same advanced review scope, but I 


highlighted points. 


And I'll just walk through these while you're 


reading, but in the advanced review you have 


review of data gathering, and one -- item one 


says "review the entire administrative record". 


I highlighted that 'cause I'm not sure if we -- 


in the -- in these reviews that SC&A currently 


does, I'm not sure they review the entire 


administrative record. I don't know if that's 


sort of in your -- in your charge. 


The second item says "evaluate whether the 


information from the site profile is consistent 


with the information used for the individual 


dose estimate". And here I would say items two 


and three -- and the third item is that all 


relevant sources of data are considered. And I 


think items two and three in this scope for 


data gathering may better be covered in the 


site profile review as -- when we originally -- 


originally wrote this scope, we -- we really 


didn't understand what our scope was going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

be for our site profile reviews, and I think 


some of these items may be better served under 


the site profile reviews when we're doing them. 


But for some types of cases, we don't have site 


profile reviews so we may want to consider some 


of these items. So that's -- that's the review 


of the data gathering. 


The second -- item B is sort of the phone 


interview process and one is evaluate the 


effectiveness of the phone interviews and the 


second part is the question of the survivors, 


whether survivor claimants -- whether there've 


been an adequate effort to research co-located 


workers for the survivors. 


And then finally, item C is the internal and 


external dose estimate question. And mainly in 


this I -- I focus you on item one, which is 


that -- this is sort of the -- the idea that if 


NIOSH used -- in doing internal dose estimates 


they use -- say they use urinalysis records to 


calculate their intakes and the dose, did they 


cross-check that with air sam-- available air 


sampling data or available in vivo count data 


or anything like that. And -- and we would ask 


that SC&A sort of look at that. And that's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

sort of a reality check, is this -- is this 


estimate consistent with other site data. And 


I don't think we've done that for any of our 


reviews so far. 


So those are sort of the -- that -- that's sort 


of the highlights of the advanced review as we 


intended it, you know, when we -- when we 


initiated this. Now, I would say that some of 


these may want to be reconsidered for future 


advanced reviews, some of them fall more in the 


-- in the -- in the site profile review 


capacity, but I think we want to sort of 


discuss these and, you know, see what we want 


to do with these in the future. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: All your highlighted items are well 


taken and certainly I think need to be where 


we're going generally. My one caveat is with 


item B1. If memory serves, that particular 


item was approached fairly rigorously by our 


working group. I believe we've looked at that 


effectiveness of the Computer Assisted 


Telephone Interviews in another workgroup. 
I 


recall personally doing some work on that 


myself back in Cincinnati, but I'm not -- we -- 


the result of which was a letter suggesting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

some changes with respect to communications 


that followed the CATI. So that it may be a 


duplication of effort, is my point, for that 


particular item. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't re-- I don't recall 


that -- that work-- maybe there was a 


workgroup, I just don't recall what we did or 


what we -- so we may want to look back at that 


and see where that stands, or how -- how we 


concluded that. I know that this was picked up 


in the procedures review, and I think there 


were some outstanding questions on the whole 


CATI interview process. John or Arjun, I don't 


know if you had a comment. 


 MS. HOWELL: Oh, I was just going to refresh 


your memory. I think what Wanda's referring to 


is the CATI phone process interviews that were 


looked up by Dr. Lockey's working group on 


procedures, so -- and they did draft a letter 


from that and you may want to just speak with 


him and make sure that you have access to what 


they prepared on that same issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Good idea. Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Arjun Makhijani from 


SC&A. We -- we did -- when we submitted our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

first review of the procedures there was a 


review of the CATI interviews and there was -- 


it was part of the matrix and a lot of the 


items of the matrix were discussed. And one of 


the things that was done -- Stu is not here but 


maybe Jim might remember -- is that the letter 


going out to the claimant was changed, and a 


number of things were changed. But the one 


outstanding item that was not resolved was the 


one that you mentioned, Mark, which is that we 


had observed that co-located worker interviews 


were generally not being done. And one of the 


recommendations in our review was that for 


survivor claimants who were -- might be denied, 


that those should be done just to make sure 


that there was more of an even playing field 


between survivors and living employee-- 


survivor claimants and living employees. So 


that issue has not been addressed specially in 


any dose reconstruction reviews, so far as I'm 


aware. 


 MS. MUNN: So --


 MR. GRIFFON: Let me get -- go ahead, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The policy and the practice in 


OCAS in doing dose reconstructions includes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

this effort to contact the next -- or workers 


who have been so identified, if it is felt by 


the dose reconstructor that it will add to a 


better understanding in reconstructing the 


dose. And in very few situations have we 


exercised that. We have found that it -- it 


really doesn't help. It doesn't add any more 


dose to the -- to the dose estimate. I think 


we've only done a hand-- a hand-- few of these 


follow-back efforts to interview coworkers. 


 MS. MUNN: My memory is that was one of the 


issues that we discussed when the other 


workgroup was looking at these telephone 


interviews. We did not follow through on it 


because -- again, going from memory -- my 


memory is it was a general feeling of the 


workgroup that when this had been attempted it 


was not productive to a large degree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think -- I think what I would 


offer here -- 'cause I'm looking also at our 


time -- but I think what I would -- oh, is it ­

- is it 10:30? I've got Eastern time on still 

-- okay. Okay. We've got -- we do have time. 

Okay. 

SC&A TASKS FOR FY08 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

I -- I -- I guess what I was considering was, 


you know, either -- either that -- that SC&A, 


in -- in the future adva-- you know, we could 


define advanced reviews, and that we would 


consider this scope, as originally defined, in 


doing these advanced reviews. But we can --


maybe what we need to do is come back with a -- 


a refined scope. I don't know. This is the 


original contract language. Right? So I don't 


know to what extent we can refine this or how ­

- what we have to go through to do that. But 


we might want to refi-- you know, my -- my main 


purpose here was just to bring up some of these 


that I think clearly need to be considered if 


we want to hit our main advanced reviews, and 


then sort of the mechanics of how do we do 


this. I don't think that -- for some of them I 


don't think it's going to be very worthwhile to 


do an advanced review if we also are doing an 


extensive site profile review because we -- 


we'll -- you know, we could assign four 


advanced reviews for Hanford cases and we've 


got an ongoing site profile review that's going 


to probably get at many of those items in that 


process so we don't need to be doing it in both 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

-- in both steps, sort of. But I think that on 


-- on some of the other sites I think it will 


be important, some of the other cases that we 


are not doing site profiles re-- reviews, and 


some of them don't even have site profiles, per 


se. 


 MS. MUNN: Common sense would tell us that this 


subcommittee needs to be very clear in the 


instructions that we give to the contractor so 


that we don't go too far afield, waste our 


time, their time and the taxpayers' money in 


making sure that the quality that we're seeking 


is actually met by the agency. We may want to 


-- I think the word you used was mechanics -- 


sharpen the mechanics a little bit before we 


give instructions to the contractor as to 


exactly what we expect them to do. There 


surely need to be some limits placed on this. 


There's certainly a parameter. There's a 


circle we need to draw around what we expect, I 


think. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And -- and I -- I think 


we would also -- it would probably best work -- 


and this is just open discussion at this point. 


I think we do want to maybe formalize something 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

in -- in writing and then bring a motion back 


to our next subcommittee meeting, but I think 


it would work. It seems like it would probably 


work best -- if you look at the last paragraph 


on the last page of the handout I just gave, I 


had some -- you know, some of the things I 


think we need to consider and -- you know, when 


does it make sense to do an advance review, and 


do we want to -- is the scope going to sort of 


vary, depending on what -- which case. So I --


you know, I think some of those things we've 


already discov-- already discussed, but... 


 MS. MUNN: Could we do some word construction, 


perhaps off-line, and have perhaps a 


subcommittee telephone conference prior to the 


full Board conference in September so that at 


September we could bring the precise wording -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Make a mo-- make a proposal, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. 


I mean any -- any other comments on these scope 


items? I think that's what I was looking for 


today. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

those comments? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I can -- I can e-mail this 


around so if people want to give some red-line 


comments or whatever -- yeah, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Read your mind. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, ma'am. 


 MR. STAUDT: Hey, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- yeah, was someone on the 


phone there? 


 MR. STAUDT: Hi, this is David Staudt from -- 


the Contracting Officer. I -- I would think, 


you know, maybe taking advantage -- on Thursday 


we're going to be talking about the actual task 


for SC&A for the next year. And that type of 


language is in their proposals to us so we -- 


you know, I think you -- you may be able to do 


something right at that point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I --


 MR. STAUDT: Exactly what you want under the -- 


under the blind and -- and otherwise. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did talk -- maybe we can 


come up with some language. I did talk to John 


a little bit prior to this meeting -- John 


Mauro -- and we dis-- you know, we discussed 


how this might play out and -- and if these 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

scope items would necessarily impact his 


proposal. And his initial reaction was that it 


wouldn't impact the proposal before the Board, 


so --


 MR. STAUDT: Okay, good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- as long as -- yeah, as long as 


our -- our language fits within that, I think 


we'll be okay. 


 MR. STAUDT: I think you have quite a bit of 


flexibility. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah, so... I think some 


of the -- you know, and the reason I -- this 


was just an initial dialogue. I wish I had got 


this around a little sooner, but, we'll -- 


we'll -- I'll e-mail it to everyone on the 


subcommittee, get some reactions, and we can 


come up with more specific language for our 


proposal to the Board. I think that's the best 


way to move forward with it. 


Any other -- any other reactions at this point? 


 MS. CHANG: So is the plan to have a proposal 


before the Board on Thursday? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not at this meeting, I don't 


think, no. No. 


 MS. CHANG: And by September would that be too 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

late for the FY '08? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- like I said, I think 


the -- the proposed language that we're going 


to have here, my read is that it's going to be 


consistent with SC&A's proposal so it won't -- 


anything we're going to come up with later is 


not going to contradict anything in the current 


SC&A proposal. So I think we're okay with that 


regard. John, is that -- that's your sense, 


right? 


 DR. MAURO: That's correct. In the preparation 


of our proposal, which I guess we'll be dealing 


with later, I did anticipate that this would be 


an issue and so, yes, we are prepared to take ­

- take on the advanced reviews as you've 


discussed and stay within our budget for next 


year. So yes, however you decide to engineer 


it and define it, I think we're going to be 


fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: When -- when you're -- when 


you're thinking about this, my -- other members 


here, I'd ask you to think about the scope, but 


also think about these mechanics, as I -- as I 


call them, and that -- part of the way I was 


envisioning this working is, as we've seen when 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

we select cases, you can't always just look at 


a list of cases and know what you're going to 


get into when you open the case files and 


stuff. So Stu -- Stu's given us a lot of 


information to help us along those lines, but 


still, until you open the case you're not 


exactly sure what you're going to get. And I 


-- I -- I suggest, or at least the initial 


thought that I have is that we -- we might, at 


some preliminary stage, identify cases as basic 


-- and I envision that most of our cases are 


still going to be basic which, when I say 


basic, is consistent with what SC&A has done in 


all their past case -- case work. And then a 


few we might identify as advanced. But we also 


have an opportunity for an iterative step there 


where SC&A can come back to the subcommittee 


and say, you know, we know you pre-identified 


these as advanced, but we don't think they're 


appropriate, or we think that this basic one 


should be an advanced and so -- so we have an 


iterative step there that we can adjust because 


we know that the parameters -- sometimes when 


we first look at a case, it's not a best 


estimate case or it's not what we thought when 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

we thought best estimate, for example. So you 


know, we sort of have that iterative step that 


SC&A can come back and give us a sort of 


reality check on what the case is about and 


whether the Board still thinks it's worth the 


advanced review effort or whether it should be 


a basic review, for instance, you know, so... 


But -- but I'd ask you to think about how -- 


how we can, you know, apply the mechanics in -- 


through this process. 


All right? Anything else? All right. 


STATUS AND FUTURE PLANS
 

The last item I have for the subcommittee is 


just sort of a status update, and the -- as I 


said earlier, we -- we had -- we have the 


fourth through the eighth set kind of in -- in 


process -- in various stages of the process and 


I'll just review 'cause I needed a refresher 


myself. I talked to Kathy Behling earlier this 


morning. 


The fourth set of cases, we did have a -- a 


comment resolution process. We had some cases 


that needed sort of -- NIOSH went back and 


actually had to provide some specific analysis 


back to the -- back to SC&A, and I believe to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

the workgroup, although I don't seem to have 


that disc that they indicated that they sent. 


Anyway, there-- there's maybe four or five 


cases I think that -- that are impacted by that 


that -- it's sort of a re-analysis of either an 


internal dose component or whatever, so there's 


some ongoing reassessment there. 


The fifth set we also went through the whole 


resolution process, the matrix. At that point 


there was some -- not very many, actually, but 


some that SC&A or NIOSH had to go back and -- 


and sort of further investigate. And my sense 


is that we're -- we're much -- we're close to 


closing out that matrix for the fifth set of 


cases. The fourth set has -- has these -- 


these more robust cases that are -- might take 


a little longer to reassess. 


The sixth set of cases -- SC&A has completed 


the matrix and that's in the early stages of 


the process. I think -- I think that's as far 


as it is right now. SC&A has finished the 


matrix, though. They've -- they've told me 


that they've got the matrix complete, and I may 


actually be the -- the holdup there. But that 


-- that'll go to NIOSH next and -- and NIOSH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

will give their response to SC&A's findings and 


will bring it back to the subcommittee process. 


 The seventh -- 


 MS. MUNN: That was the fourth set? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was the sixth set. 


 MS. MUNN: Sixth set. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. The seventh set of cases ­

- SC&A is finishing their review, and I think 


Kathy said within a couple of weeks -- maybe 


three weeks -- they expect to be doing the team 


meetings, the -- the phone call meetings. And 


Kathy, do we -- we have teams assigned for the 


seventh set. Right? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes, we do. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So we should expect to 

hear from SC&A about setting up those 


conference calls that we do with the two or 


three team members to discuss the cases in two 


or three weeks time on that. 


And the eighth set -- I think that this already 


came up, that the Board selected these cases 


just recently and NIOSH is -- is -- still has 


to get those cases to SC&A, so SC&A has not 


started those yet. But the cases have been 


selected and the process is underway from that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

standpoint. Paul. Paul Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Just a couple of comments. Remind 


the Board that on the first three sets we have 


officially reported to the Secretary on those. 


So in one sense they're closed, although we're 


cognizant of some of the items we need to 


continue to track in the future. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But I think it's important, 


particularly on the next -- let's say the next 


forty, which would be four and five -- sets 


four and five, to try to close those out if we 


can this fiscal year and try to get the reports 


in to the Secretary. 


My final comment is, or two comments -- we're 


basically working on two-- two-person teams 


now. We have six teams of two for -- for set 


seven, working in -- we had been working in 


twos and threes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But with the addition of some 


people and the numbers of cases, the seventh 


set is divided into six teams of two. And then 


at this meeting I -- I have ready with me the 


assignments for the eighth set, which there are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

30 cases in set eight, you may recall now, that 


we identified at the last meeting. And so each 


team of two will have five cases to review, so 


that workload's a little bigger for set eight. 


And I'll distribute those assignments here at 


this meeting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, thank you. And also to --


to that -- the mention of the time line in the 


forth and fifth set, I -- I was proposing -- or 


in my mind, I -- I think we actually discussed 


this, having a subcommittee meeting in 


Cincinnati, more of a working subcommittee 


meeting where we actually have the full day to 


go through the matrices and so forth. And I --


I -- I don't have a calendar here, but I think 


if I can get together or e-mail other folks, 


but I was thinking of early September, or 


definitely prior to the October Board meeting 


to have that -- that meeting. And I think that 


was okay with Kathy and Hans Behling in terms 


of being able to look at the -- the -- we just 


got this disc with the fourth set reanalysis, 


and I think that's the main thing, they want to 


have time to -- to look at that before they 


have a meeting. Is that correct, Kathy? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, Mark. That'll --


that'll work fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: As long as it's the beginning of 


September. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MS. MUNN: A completely self-serving comment 


here. I have another workgroup which will be 


meeting in Cincinnati in the last week in 


August. And if it's possible for us to look at 


that last week in August as being a potential 


for the subcommittee or other workgroup 


meetings, as we have done in the past, trying 


to coordinate them so that travel is a little 


easier for some of us who have a long way to 


go, it would be appreciated. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. And we -- we can talk 


about that off-line. I'll -- I'll -- I'll talk 


to SC&A and make sure -- I just don't want to 


have a meeting when we're, you know, at the 


same point. I mean we want to make sure we 


have sufficient time to review and we can -- I 


want to close out the fourth and fifth set-- I 


want to be in a position where we can close out 


the fourth and fifth sets, at least, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

possibly do initial discussions on the sixth 


set. So -- Paul -- Paul Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: One comment, sort of a suggestion 


for the subcommittee to think about. And that 


is, let's say once we're done with the fifth 


set we'll have reviewed basically 100 cases. 


think it would be useful for the subcommittee 


to think about going back and looking at a 


rollup of those. Now Kathy's helped us do some 


rollups already and -- and there are some sort 


of early steps of this, but a rollup of let's 


say the first 100 cases and try to cull from 


that sort of the overall picture of what we -- 


what the key findings are. We've seen it in 


little segments along the way, but I think it's 


useful to go back and try to get the bigger 


picture to -- once we have a good -- more of a 


representation, and maybe the 100 cases would 


be a good point to do that. Just to think 


about. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. Good idea. 

 MR. PRESLEY: That's a good idea. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. I think we can -- yeah, and 

we can discuss that more at our next meeting 


and see -- and I really do hope we can close 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

out the forth and fifth set. It might be not 


quite this fiscal year, but we'll -- you know, 


we'll do our best on that. 


And I think that's -- that's all I had on the 


agenda for the subcommittee, in a rather short 


agenda for the subcommittee this time, because 


we don't really have any matrix information to 


go through. But -- any other comments or 


concerns or items we need to consider on the -- 


future meetings? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Otherwise I think we can adjourn from 


the subcommittee meeting and give ourselves a 


little extra time before the full meeting. 


Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: So would you like to clarify then 


exactly what we're going to have? Are we going 


to need to be doing some work between now and 


Thursday? I guess that's my real question. 


And if not then --


UNIDENTIFIED: I can hardly hear. 


 MS. MUNN: Did someone say they couldn't hear? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, I can hardly hear. It's 


real low again. 


 MS. MUNN: I was simply inquiring of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

committee for which we are meeting here this 


morning whether this subcommittee has 


additional work to do prior to our Thursday 


discussion of our meeting here. It was a 


question for the subcommittee. 


 MR. GRIFFON: My -- my sense was -- you know, 


this goes back to the contract question and my 


sense --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean -- I just don't want to 


-- I want to make sure we get -- get this 


language correct and people have a chance to 


review it and think about it, and I'm not sure 


if one day is going to be adequate. But my 


sense was that however we construct -- however 


we worked from this scope and the mechanics we 


-- we recommend to put in place are not going 


to effect SC&A's proposal on that. So I don't 


know that we need to have that resolved by 


Thursday. We -- we -- you know, we... 


 MS. MUNN: I was concerned because of the 


comments that the Contracting Officer had made 


and wanted to make sure --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that there was no expectation of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

us on Thursday simply because, with the 


numerous other items that are outstanding on 


our agenda for --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- for this particular meeting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean David -- David Staudt, are 


you still on the --


 MR. STAUDT: Yes I am, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's -- I think that -- 


 MR. STAUDT: No, I think that we're going to be 


fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: As you said, I think the con-- 


the language is flexible enough that I think 


the -- and I think SC&A's comfortable with it, 


so I think we'll be fine. 


 MR. STAUDT: Absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- so we don't have -- 


we don't have to press to get language together 


by Thursday. Yeah. We have a little more 


time. But I would like -- I think it might 


make more sense if we have that meeting at the 


end of August or whatever to have -- to have it 


at that point and to vote on it as a 


subcommittee motion. That would be great. 


That would be my intent. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

79 

All right? Anything else for the subcommittee? 


 (No responses) 


All right. The subcommittee meeting stands -- 


stands adjourned. 


 (Whereupon, the subcommittee meeting adjourned 


at 10:55 a.m.) 

______________________________ 

80 

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 July 17, 


2007; 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 


20th day of Sept., 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 


2 

3