THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


MEETING 11 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION AND 


SITE PROFILE REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the 11th 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


and Site Profile Reviews held at the Marriott Metro 


Center, Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2006. 

 

2 

 8 

C O N T E N T S
 

June 14, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


SELECTION OF 6TH ROUND OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 11 


COMPLETE REVIEW OF 2ND AND 3RD ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL 84 


DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CASES 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORKING GROUP CHAIR 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 


COMPLETE PROCEDURES UPDATE 102 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORKING GROUP CHAIR 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 


DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS 116 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 130 

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
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 


Director 


The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 


Medicine 


Professor of Medicine 


Nashville, Tennessee 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


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


Professor, Texas A&M University 


College Station, Texas 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


STAFF
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

6 

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, NCRP 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BISTLINE, ROBERT W., SC&A 


BOWE, DAVID, SPFPA LOCAL 66 PORTS 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 


CHANG, C C, HHS 


CHANLOW, MICHAEL, WASHINGTON POST 


COHEN, SANFORD, SC&A 


DEHART, JULIA, OHA INC. 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH/OCAS 


FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 


FUORTES, LAURENCE, UNIV OF IOWA 


GRANDE, JAMES, DOL 


HAUGHLY, MINDI, NIOSH 


HEARL, FRANK, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOWARD, JOHN, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


ISHAK, LAURIE, NIOSH 


JOSEPH, TIMOTHY, ORAUT 


KENOYER, JUDSON, DADE MOELLER & ASSOCS. 


KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


LEWIS, JOHN, OMBUDSMAN 


LEWIS, MARK, ATL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCCOY, EILEEN, OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE 


MCDOUGALL, VERNON, ATL 


MCKEEL, DANIEL, MD, SO. IL NUCLEAR WORKERS 


MILLER, RELADE P., NIOSH 


MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 


MOSIER, ROBERTA, DOL 


NESVET, JEFF, DOL 


PARKER, TREY, OMBUDSMAN 


PLATNER, JAMES, CPWR 


POTTER, HERMAN, USW 


PRESLEY, LOUISE S., WIFE OF ROBERT PRESLEY 


RAFKY, MICHAEL, CDC 

7 

RAMSPOTT, JOHN, SO. IL NUCLEAR WORKERS 


SAMPSON, BOB, GAO 


SCHAEFFER, D. MICHAEL, SAIC 


SCHAUER, DAVID A., NCRP 


STEPHENS, VICKIE, IAM CREST 


TENFORDE, THOMAS S., NCRP 


TURCIC, PETE, DOL 


WALBURN, JEFF, SPFPA LOCAL 66 PORTS 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(9:15 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to 


call the meeting to order. This is the meeting 


of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction of 


the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health. The subcommittee will meet all 


morning, and then following lunch today the 


full Board will convene for the regular 


meeting. 


We're pleased to be in Washington, D.C. It's 


always a nice town to visit. For me it's an 


exciting town to visit since I lived here on a 


couple of different occasions. 


I want to remind all of you -- Board members, 


staffers, visitors -- to register your 


attendance. There's a registration book in the 


corridor. Also, individuals who would like to 


participate in the public comment period later 


today, please sign up for that, as well. 


As is usual we have many pieces of paper and 


stacks of paper on the table in the rear, 

1 

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 

including today's agenda and a lot of documents 


relating to today's discussions, so please 


avail yourselves of those materials as you see 


fit. 


Let me call on our Designated Federal Official, 


Dr. Lew Wade, to make any additional opening 


comments he may wish to make. 


 DR. WADE: Well, thank you, Paul -- only to 


welcome you all to the meeting. And I'm 


personally thrilled to see that three new Board 


members have joined us, and I'd certainly like 


to thank them for their willingness to serve. 


But I'd remiss if I didn't also then thank the 


continuing Board members who have continued to 


serve. This is -- this is tough duty, and we 


ask these people to do a great deal in a very 


compressed time frame. And I've never been 


associated with a Board who has performed 


better or taken their responsibilities more 


seriously. So I'd like to thank the continuing 


members and welcome the incoming members. 


I bring you regards from Secretary Leavitt; 


from the Director of CDC, Dr. Gerberding; and 


from John Howard, the NIOSH Director. John 


should be with us through the week, so if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

anyone has a burning issue to deal with John, 


I'll be sure to point him out to you and you 


can take your issue to him. 


 Because we're in Washington we could be well 


visited by some Senators and Representatives. 


We're expecting Senator Clinton to visit us 


tomorrow and make comments. We -- we look 


forward to those visits with -- with the 


understanding of all if members do come we'll 


try and accommodate them as quickly as we can 


because they do have extremely busy schedules. 


So again, welcome to all of you and thank 


particularly the Board for its service. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, and the 


reference to three new members -- we recognize 


that those three individuals, Brad Clawson and 


Dr. Lockey and Dr. Poston, actually have sort 


of been aboard since January. But finally all 


the paperwork I guess is cleared so that they 


can be fully -- declared fully functioning 


members of the Board. They -- they actually 


were pretty fully functioning before, but at 


least we now recognize them as fully 


functioning, and we're pleased to have them 


with us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

SELECTION OF 6TH ROUND OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE 


RECONSTRUCTIONS, DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

The first item for the subcommittee is to 


select the next round of individual dose 


reconstructions. You may recall we've been 


selecting sets of 20 for review. Initially 


review by the Board's contractor, SC&A. And 


then individual reviews involving our Board 


members, and then finally developing matrices 


of findings for resolution. 


At our last meeting we selected the 5th round, 


which at that time I think was actually 20 -- 


was it 24 cases that we -- or 25 I guess we -- 


 DR. WADE: Twenty-five. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we selected, and we may -- 


we'll talk about those a little bit later this 


morning as well because we do need to assign 


Board review teams for those cases. We have 


yet to do that. 


Now I want to identify for us first the 


materials we have to help us with the 6th round 


selection, and I'm going to -- is Stu Hinnefeld 


-- Stu, good morning. Would you help us 


identify the materials that are at -- at our 


places so everybody's clear on what they have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

and how to interpret the... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. Good morning, 


everybody. The materials that we have for 


selection are very similar to the ones that we 


used in Denver to select the 5th case (sic). 


The first page is -- has the very, very small 


print, looks something like this with very 


small font -- is the statistical summary of the 


first 80 cases that were selected. And I 


didn't add the -- the 5th set to this because I 


wasn't really sure if we were doing 25 or 22 or 


20, so I wasn't really sure which ones were 


actually going to go forward, so it's -- we 


still only have the first 80. 


 DR. ZIEMER: These are the first four sets. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And one additional piece 


of information has been added, and that is the 


probability of causation outcome for each of 


the 80 cases. That appears on the second page 


of this clipped-together package in the small 


print, about in the middle of the page. All of 


the probability of causation, this POC list is 


what it's called. All the probability of 


causation outcomes are listed and they're 


sorted in ascending order. And then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

immediately to the left of that it's the 


statistical breakdown by per-- by ten per-- by 


decade percents is presented as well. So that 


additional piece of information has been added 


to the sheet since the Denver meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, the item on the very last 


page is POC values? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct, the very last page is 


the continuation of the 80 POC. It just goes 


too long, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I see. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's just continued on the 


last page. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the -- the total count of 86 


is because there are some -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's some cases -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- multiple site --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Everybody understand? There's --


there's actually 80 cases -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but they represent, in a sense, 


86 sites. Is that a way -- correct way 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 

14 

interpret that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Can -- yes, I think. There --


there are --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, not 86 sites, but 86 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there are -- there are 80 


cases. There are some of those cases that had 


either --


 DR. ZIEMER: Multiple sites. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- two or three sites -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So they show up multiple times. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and they were tallied in all 


those --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sites' column, so that's why 


it's 86. The same thing occurs in the cancer 


grouping, which is the next one to the right. 


That's actually the IREP model grouping. There 


are 84 there because four of these cases had 


dual cancer -- cancer models run. So the same 


reasoning there, and they were tallied in both 


of the -- in both of those models. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So if -- if we lay pages one and 


two side by side, is it -- do they line up? Is 


that correct? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they do. Although 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 

15 

information on two is -- the information on two 


is largely independent of the left-hand column 


on page one. It's largely independent of 


whether you put them side by side or not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah, it's a completely 


different grouping. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then the third page is part of 


the greater than 30 years worked grouping. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's part of the probability of 


causation, the third page is -- is -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, for greater than 30. Is 


that correct? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's actually -- no, it goes 


right under the POC list. 


 DR. WADE: It's this list continued. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's all the -- that's all 


the POC outcomes in the 80 selected cases, if I 


have the same page three as you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. What -- what I was -- did 


you say that those numbers don't relate to the 


left-hand column on page two? I was assuming 


the 21 cases that you're listing here are all 


of these numbers. Is that correct, or not? 

1 

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 

These -- are these POC numbers -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: For all 80 cases, I think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This -- this is for -- this is 


all the 80 cases. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but are they -- are they 


related -- this is just a -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: A tally. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, just a tally. 


 DR. WADE: Stands alone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gotcha. Gotcha, okay. Thank you. 


That's clear. 


Okay, Board members, any questions on that 


document? Everybody clear on what we have 


there? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, proceed, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm not sure what order 


these are in your packet, but there are two 


long listings of case -- cases for potential 


selection that look essentially like this. One 


is a set of randomly-selected cases from the 


available pool for review. That means cases 


that have been finally adjudicated. And the 


other is the list of all the cases that were 


done using what we call a full internal 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 

17 

external dose reconstruction, or complete dose 


reconstruction. So -- and so, you know, if 


that -- if there's interest in focusing on 


those rather than one of the efficiency method 


techniques, then that would be the list to work 


from. So -- and that's all of them. There's 


no random selection associated with that. It's 


all the ones available for review. 


And again I remind you that that designation of 


full internal and external is -- that database 


field is populated by the approving HP by, you 


know, a mouse click. And so there's some 


possibilities for some misses, and I won't 


vouch that every one's 100 percent exact. I 


mean there may be an overestimate in there that 


the HP clicked the wrong -- it's a selection -- 


it's a menu selection. 


 DR. ZIEMER: How many cases are on this list 


that you randomly selected most recently? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The randomly selected list is 


100. Well, I'm sorry. It started as 100. We 


then shared the list with the Department of 


Labor. They identified a few that have action 


since the final adjudication and so they 


potentially may be reopened, and so we took 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

those off the list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it's about 100 cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: About 100. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I see -- I see 200 on this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 200? Okay. Well, I forgot 


what I asked them. It would be 200 then -- 


200. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, wait a minute --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now wait a minute. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, that's not -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was the full. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the full and --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) make sure -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's not right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The highest selection number 


should tell you how many we -- are in the 


random. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The number at the end there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 200 -- it is 200. 


 MS. MUNN: 201. 

 MR. PRESLEY: 201. It's 200 and 201. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And then the third one is 

the --

 MR. HINNEFELD: The final -- the final piece 

1 

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 

there is the cases that were selected in 


Denver. Now at the Board's request we've added 


to all these lists a new data field which is 


the date approved. You asked that -- you would 


like to know how old are these cases, how long 


ago were these approved, and so we've added the 


date approved not only to the 25 that were -- 


25 or 22 -- the original selection by my 


memory, there were 25 originally selected. The 


Board went through the 25 and removed three 


because they were similar to others that were 


selected, so the actual selection was 22. I 


have all 25 on here. The three that I call 


were deselected by the Board at that same 


meeting are asterisked in the right-hand 


column. So it -- I think 22 were selected, but 


all 25 are presented here. 


The date approved is included on that. The 


date approved is also on the bigger lists as 


well. That's a new -- that data field has not 


been there before. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. This group, this -- that's 


basically the 5th round cases, the Denver -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's the 5th round 


cases. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: And we'll need to assign review 


teams for these. And Board -- or committee 


members, what we'll do, and we'll do this after 


a bit, we can -- we can take 20 of these if you 


wish and make the assignments, and either carry 


the other two across or we can leave those 


other two in and just do a 22 load. It depends 


on -- on how the assignments work out, I think. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, just so we're grounded in the 


overall task at hand, on the small font table 


to the far left, you show projected cases and 


you show the middle column the available. That 


represents the -- what -- what does that number 


represent? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That is the percentage -- was 


it two percent or two and a half percent that 


was originally decided would be reviewed, or 


originally considered to be reviewed. It's 


that percentage times the population from that 


site which is available for review. In other 


words that's finally adjudicated. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So if the Board decides it 


wants to review two and a half percent of the 


cases, then two and a half percent of the 


Savannah River cases currently at hand would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

represent 35. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: At this point we've done 14. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So that gives the Board a 


sense of --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Fourteen out of the first 80. 


Remember they're -- the ones on the 5th 


selection are not added in there yet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, are the-- are the 22 cases 


that are in the 5th set, were they excluded 


from these other --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- lists? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, since you've looked at this 


more than anybody else, is there anything else 


that jumps out at you from the information 


you've given us that the Board should take note 


of? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think not. I know --


some things that occurred to me as I put these 


together is there's a lot of interest in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

evaluating cases that are close to the 


compensation point. And -- and there were some 


early-on thought that we should really focus on 


-- on that -- that population, and that's a 


relatively small population. So in thinking 


that we want to do 20 percent or 40 percent of 


our reviews in a particular compensation band 


of say 40 to 50 or 30 to 50 may not be 


attainable because it's not a large population. 


So that has occurred to me. I don't know of 


anything else that comes to mind. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, another question. Referring 


to the random selections table and the full 


internal and external table, the selection IDs 


-- let me take -- for example, the first one on 


internal/external, selection ID 2006-06-000-- 


whatever number of zeroes --3, I assume that 


refers to the June '06 selection, it would be ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- number three. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: How does that relate to the other 


table 003? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's just -- the number 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 

23 

digits keeps them separate. It just -- they -- 


the numbers are just assigned as they were 


selected, or as they were pulled up in -- that 


-- those numbers don't really mean anything and 


they don't correlate between the same. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's clearly not the same case. 


I'm sort of --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- asking do you -- so you 


selected these full ones randomly, but from a 


list of full internal/external. Is that 


correct? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- the one that's in --


that's labeled full internal and external is 


all of the ones available for review that are 


in full internal and external review, so that's 


all of them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's all of them. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's all of them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The ones that are random 


selections are randomly selected from -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the available cases. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the other way to ask it then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

24 

is, some of these may appear on the random 


selection list, but we -- we don't necessarily 


know that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Anything on the random -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, anything on the random 


selection list that is identified under dose 


estimation type as a full internal and external 


should be on the other list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. But it will have a 


different ID number. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll have a different ID 


number here, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So the only way to really 


figure out if it were the same one would be to 


look at the cancer type and the facility. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You could probably sort it out, 


I think. It may be just easier not to -- to 


try not to select --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a full internal and external 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from the random list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Board members, 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 

25 

trying to concentrate on the full 


internal/external and perhaps that would be a 


place to start. 


 Good morning, Wanda. I didn't see you when we 


started, but --


 MS. MUNN: Good morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- welcome, you get the -- 


 MS. MUNN: That's because I wasn't here -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- first comment here. 


 MS. MUNN: -- when you started. My apologies. 

 DR. WADE: So noted. 

 MS. MUNN: I unfortunately did not print out 

the interesting set of graphs that Kathy 


Behling sent out to us just yesterday or the 


day before. That was very informative to me in 


terms of where we were standing, as opposed to 


where we might -- where our goals are. If --


 DR. ZIEMER: I haven't seen this myself. 


 DR. WADE: I can get copies for you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is Kathy here this morning? 


 MR. GRIFFON: They're on their way, I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: They're on their way? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: You want me to get those copied? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Do we have copies of that around, 


John? Do you -- might -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: John Mauro. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we have one? 


DR. MAURO: No, that -- they went out on the 


11th hour, as you know, electronically. We 


were aware that unfortunately some of you folks 


may be in transit when it went out. Kathy and 


Hans will be here probably within a half hour 


and they will be bringing hard copies of that 


material. And she also has a set of slides. 


So I don't have them with me, either. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, fine. The only reason I 


brought it up is because I found it very 


instructive in terms of where we've been 


already --


 DR. WADE: So I --


 MS. MUNN: -- and --


 DR. WADE: They're bringing copies so I don't 


need to get this copied? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. They're bringing electronic 


and hard copy. Whether they're bringing a 


large number -- a stack for hand out to 


everyone, I -- I just don't know, so that -- 


we'll see when they come. That was -- that was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

something that was decided at the -- at the -- 


sort of like the 11th hour might be useful, and 


it apparently was. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If -- if it would be helpful, 


maybe what we could do until they get here is 


go ahead and do the teams on the 5th round, 


Lew. I think we need to do that anyway, and 


then we could come back to this once we have 


the document. Would that be agreeable? Just 


change the order here a little bit. 


 DR. WADE: Before we get to that, I think 


that's a wonderful suggestion, I'll also say to 


the subcommittee and will to the Board again -- 


I always want you to keep in mind the overall 


task at hand. And you know, your goal of two 


and a half percent of the cases has a target 


population of 240, and that number escalates 


each time. We're doing 60 a year. At the end 


of the day on Friday I'll ask you to give me 


permission to get a cost estimate from SC&A for 


next year's work, and I gue-- at that point I'd 


ask you to think about do we want to keep the 


number at 60, do we want a slightly bigger 


number than 60. I know I keep talking about 


that with you. I think it's important 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 

28 

keep that in front of our deliberations and I 


just pose it now and ask you to think about it. 


On Friday we'll revisit that issue. 


 MS. MUNN: Dr. Lockey has a copy of what was 


sent out, if the Chair might perhaps find that 


more useful than I at this time. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we have another copy here, 


but I think it'd be helpful for everyone to 


have a copy as we go into the selection 


process. So if we could defer that for the 


moment and go ahead and do -- we'll take out 


the 5th round summary from the Denver meeting 


and let me ask -- let's do some self-identity 


of teams. 


Dr. DeHart, who else was on your team? 


 DR. DEHART: Gen was working with us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roessler, okay. And Brad, you 


weren't assigned to a team, I don't believe, 


initially. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Not at that time, no. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not at that time. Gibson and 


Ziemer were a team, and -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Presley and Anderson. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Presley, and so we need 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 

29 

replace Anderson, and -- And when -- so okay, 


Griffon -- we need to replace someone there for 


Leon. Okay. Who was with Melius? Wanda, were 


you --


 MS. MUNN: I was. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, and -- okay, we have 


Roessler already. Okay, perhaps -- perhaps, 


Brad, you could work with Mark. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That'd be great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then maybe Poston, you could 


work with Presley. 


 DR. POSTON: Sure. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'd be delighted. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And you'd have the same conflicts 


of interest so it would work out. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's great. 


 MS. MUNN: That'd be great. 


 DR. POSTON: That'd be great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- who's missing? 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lockey. That's right, we have an 


odd number now. 


 DR. WADE: Not an odd. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, no -- no, Gibson's with me. 


 DR. WADE: You could make a three or you could 

1 

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 

make a one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Probably a -- probably a three is 


better so that we have a mix of folks 


reviewing. Let's see, Jim, why don't I put you 

on my team. I need all the help I can get. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Very good. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. WADE: If I might speak briefly to 


conflicts of interest, as you know, if a Board 


member is conflicted with regard to a 


particular site, then we exclude them from 


being assigned as a principal reviewer on the 


site. In Dr. Poston's case, Dr. Poston has a 


son and a daughter who have done dose 


reconstructions within the program, and his 


waiver would have him excluded from reviewing 


dose reconstructions that either his son or his 


daughter had done. It'll take us a while to 


find that out once you pick the cases, so 


that's a check we'll be going through and we 


might have to make some adjustments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We need a new column on here that 


indicates --


 DR. WADE: No, we don't. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that J. Poston did 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 

31

 DR. WADE: We don't need a new column, but 


we'll just -- we'll work that out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll 


move down through the list here. Basically 


what we've done in the past is just gone 


through them in order and if there's a conflict 


of interest, we'll skip that case and move on 


to the next one. 


Let's see, we have -- basically have five 


teams, so we need four cases per team. 


DeHart/Roessler, are there any conflicts on 


these first four cases for you folks? 


 DR. DEHART: None here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now Board members, if you -- this 


is somewhat arbitrary. I suppose if there's a 


case that one of you sees that you really have 


a longing to review and are not conflicted on, 


we can -- we can do a swap. But otherwise I'll 


just take them in order. 


The next four cases are Portsmouth, Elk River, 


Feed Materials and Hanford. 


 MS. MUNN: I can't do that one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, this would be Lockey, Gibson 

and Ziemer. 

 DR. LOCKEY: I can't do Portsmouth. 
1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We can do them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Presley/Poston can do those? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll give you those next 


four. That would be --


 MR. PRESLEY: Portsmouth, Elk River, Feed 


Materials and Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, it'd be 09, 10, 20 and 43. 

Correct? 

 DR. DEHART: We -- 09, no. That's in the first 

four. 

 DR. WADE: The first four you -- 


DR. ROESSLER: No, we have 09. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 10, 20 --


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm in the wrong -- yeah, I missed 


-- I --


 DR. WADE: 10, 20, 43, 44. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It'd be 10, 20, 43 and 44, I'm 


sorry. 


 DR. WADE: Well, let me add a complication. If 


you -- if you notice in the far right, there's 


an asterisk next to 06. That's one that you 


had decided not to do from the original list of 


25, so you need to draw a line through 06. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I see. 


 DR. WADE: And a line through 73. 


 DR. DEHART: That moves us down one. 


 DR. WADE: And a line through 120. So now 


you're --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so let's back up. 


DeHart/Roessler, can you also do -- 


 DR. DEHART: Portsmouth? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the Portsmouth case? 


 DR. POSTON: How about giving them Oak Ridge? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, we could give them Oak 


Ridge 'cause John and I can't do that. 


 DR. DEHART: What? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Oak Ridge National Lab. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 049. 


 DR. DEHART: I can't do Oak Ridge. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roy can't do Oak Ridge, either. 


 DR. WADE: No one can do that. 


DR. ROESSLER: How about Lawrence Livermore? 


 DR. DEHART: That's fine. 


DR. ROESSLER: But that doesn't help -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on here. I'm going back to 


DeHart/Roessler -- 02, 08, okay on 09 so far -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: Okay, that's four. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 02, 08, 09 --

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: That's three. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And are you okay on 10? 


 DR. DEHART: Yeah. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now Presley/Poston -- Elk 


River, 20; Feed Materials, 43; Hanford, 44 -- 


and you can't do Oak Ridge, but you could do 


Lawrence Livermore. Correct? 


 DR. POSTON: Yeah, I think so. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I can't do Oak Ridge, 


either, so -- Mark, can -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You can do Oak Ridge? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so we'll pick up Oak Ridge, 


which is 49, with Griffon/Clawson. Then 7-- am 


I at 78? I think so. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 78 is MIT, you're okay on that, I 


think. And 85 and 101. 


 DR. WADE: That's Griffon/Clawson? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now we've covered 


everything on the first page so far, I believe. 


Now let's -- top of the second page, I'm going 

1 

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 

to try Lockey/Gibson/Ziemer again. Bridgeport 


Brass is 110. I think we're okay there. 


Savannah River, we should be okay, 115; Pantex, 


117; and Superior Steel, 119. 


Now we look at Melius/Munn -- 120 is off the 


list, right? 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Feed Materials is 154; Linde, 157; 


Savannah River, 181; and Pinellas, 188. 


 DR. WADE: Who's doing these four? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Melius/Munn. Not assigned then 


would be the last two, which are 199 and 211, 


and we can carry those forward as the start 


list of the next 20, if that's agreeable. Any 


objection? So these'll be the assignments. 


This doesn't require full Board action so we'll 


-- we'll report it out officially to the full 


Board, but those'll be the assignments. 


John Mauro, I don't know if you got that list, 


but if you didn't, double-check with us 


afterwards and we'll make sure that your folks 


have it because you will have to coordinate 


with those team members as the review is 


carried out. Where are you on the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

DR. MAURO: I've been trying to keep notes but 


I did not keep track. But typically what 


happens is Larry Elliott follows this up with a 


formal letter where he lays out officially the 


allocations. We've -- we've had -- that -- 


that's been in the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and we'll each get our case 


files on each of these --


DR. MAURO: At that -- that -- that same -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for review. 


DR. MAURO: -- time, so -- and -- and in -- in 


addition -- and very often we certainly could 


proceed and -- so when that -- usually what 


happens is we're already working on the cases, 


and then that letter would come in with the 


assignments, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- it's not urgent that we have 


that right away. 


 DR. WADE: I would ask Stu to -- to see that 


what needs to happen, happens so that the 


materials are transmitted to SC&A to begin and 


the letter -- you know, on the assignments as 


soon after that as possible. 


DR. MAURO: We appreciate that. Thank 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 

37

 DR. ZIEMER: John, while you're at the mike, do 


you have a rough idea of when you would expect 


SC&A to begin reviewing this set of cases and ­

- so that we have some idea of -- timetable-


wise, are we talking about, you know, 


July/August and --


DR. MAURO: We'll begin immediately, as soon as 


the -- the next set of CDs comes in, we're -- 


we're waiting -- we're in the gate, so to 


speak, waiting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: We have people ready and we'll hit 


them as soon as they come in. Our experience 


is it does taken two, sometimes as much as 


three months to go through the process of a set 


of 20 to move out the product, so what I think 


the reality of the situation is is we will 


certainly be able to clear the 5th set, and I ­

- and I had mentioned this to Lew -- we have 


the budget, by the way, we're well within 


budget. We have the resources to take care of 


all six sets. But I think we may be requesting 


-- I'll be sending a letter out -- an 


extension. Instead of having delivered them by 


September 30th, which is the end of the period 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

of performance for this round, we may request a 


no-cost extension for maybe another two months 


so that we can do the 6th set. I think it's 


going to be difficult for us to do the two full 


sets of 20 in a three-month time period. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, hopefully we'll at 


least have the initial comments on this set by 


the time of our next meeting. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes. In fact the -- 


typically what happens is, after we go through 


the reviews we get the draft reports, we get 


them out to the teams, we have our telephone 


conversation and then we move the product out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: And I think we probably -- by -- 


now the next meeting would be in -- 


 DR. WADE: September? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, absolutely, yeah. We -- by 


September I would say -- let's say the next set 


of -- the 5th set comes through within a week, 


this -- for the --


 DR. ZIEMER: Hopefully we'll have the matrix by 


then with your comments and -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- maybe even some initial 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 

39 

comments. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I think we could be well down 


the road on -- on the 5th set. I'm more 


concerned about the 6th set. That's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: John, while you're up, just -- since 


there are new -- new members involved in the 


process, could you just let the new members 


know what they could expect in terms of contact 


from you and how this would proceed? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, the -- the approach we use is 


we -- we first receive the set of 20 cases 


electronically. We basically have a team of 


three to four individuals who will then review 


-- basically reproduce all the doses, every 


line item in the IREP code. In the back of 


every one of these cases you'll see there is 


the actual input for -- that goes into IREP. 


We check every number and write a report. 


There's a standard format we use, and we 


identify areas of deficiencies. A draft for 


each one of the 20 will be prepared. 


What we'll do is for each team we will forward 

1 

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 you -- as soon as we have those drafts 


ready, we will forward to you copies of that 


material so that -- and it'll only be the cases 


that you've been assigned so -- so you won't 


have a big pile, just the cases. Then Hans and 


Kathy Behling will give you a call and arrange 


for a time that's convenient to spend an hour 


or two going over each case and -- 


fundamentally, conceptually, what are the 


issues that we've uncovered -- and discuss them 


with you. Certainly receive some feedback from 


you regarding your -- the findings and the 


rationale behind those findings. 


Once we get through that process, then we go 


ahead and formally finish up the product, which 


then becomes this very thick 3-ring binder that 


contains all 20 cases, reflecting your comments 


from the dial-- from the dialogue. That really 


begins -- that's really the beginning of a 


process of closeout. 


With that thick document comes a matrix that -- 


whereby -- there's a scorecard for each case 


whereby the findings are delineated. And at 


that point in the process is when the working 


group meetings begin whereby we go through 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 

41 

matrix, which is a summary of the findings of 


the 20 cases, with the designated working group 


and we sta-- we go through the process of 


closing them out. We work very closely with 


the working group and with Stu. Stu has been 


taking the lead all along. I presume he will 


continue. And -- and we work through each 


finding, and then there's -- at the -- NIOSH 


basically -- in this matrix -- you can almost 


see, issue number one, brief summary of what 


the issue is for that particular case -- 


NIOSH's response saying well, we agree -- 


there's really a -- several categories of 


response that -- NIOSH may agree and -- and say 


we will take some action to fix that. Or we 


agree, but no action's going to be taken. And 


there's a series of proposed actions that NIOSH 


will take. And I guess the final column in the 


matrix would be the Board's final resolution on 


these matters. 


 That takes quite some time. That'll probably 


move us well into next fiscal year and -- but 


in the end we get a -- get to a point where we 


have effectively resolved every one of the 


issues that's -- are in the matrix. And then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

from there I guess a report goes on to -- to 


HHS regarding the findings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: I'm not quite sure, are we -- the 


first set that we reviewed, I'm not quite -- 


has that actually got to the point where the -- 


the letter of completion has moved out, I guess 


up to HHS, on findings or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The letter has not gone to HHS. 


We do have an approved letter, however. 


DR. MAURO: You have appro-- okay. So it's a 


pretty protracted process, but I -- but -- so I 


guess the next one moving through the system 


will be two, then three, then four. So as you 


can imagine, by the time we reach, you know, 


five and six it'll be down the road a bit. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you very much, John. 

 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, could I ask a question? 

 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 

 DR. LOCKEY: We're mandated to do 20 -- 40 -- 

60 a year. Is that correct, 60 reviews a year? 

Is that --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's about the level we are at. 

 DR. WADE: We're not mandated. That's --


 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43

 DR. WADE: -- the Board's decision. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And have we been -- have you been 


doing that? 


 MS. MUNN: We did 40 last --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think this will -- this -- this 


set will bring us to 60 for this year, I 


believe, won't it? I -- I don't recall. 


DR. MAURO: We have -- 80 for -- the first year 


we did 60. We are in the 4th group and the 5th 


group, okay, and the 6th group for this year, 


so 60 a year has been a pace that's been 


working well. The only problem -- and I 


wouldn't call it a problem -- is that we get 


the product out, the matrix, the findings, the 


3-ring binders out, but it's always quite 


uncertain how long it's going to take to get 


closeout when we -- once we have the matrix in 


place. As you can see, we will -- you know, we 


will have the -- the matrix, the reports, the 


paper in place. The dialogue started. How 


long it takes to close out all the issues -- I 


think it took a little bit more time on the 


first one, and then it takes -- the second one 


we're -- we get a little better. I think we're 


getting to the point now where we've seen a lot 

1 

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 

of issues again and again, and we're getting to 


the point where we're clearing those. I would 


say maybe 60 percent of them we can clear 


really quickly. And there's always some new 


ones that take a little bit more time. So as 


we do more and more, I think we get a little 


more efficient in moving the -- what I call the 


matrix closeout process quickly, so I'm hoping 


that this is going to continue in that vein. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Keep in mind also that this 


process is competing for Board time, for NIOSH 


time, for SC&A time with site profile reviews, 


with SEC petitions, so there are sort of 


limiting factors that come into play. In some 


cases, for example -- and it's sort of the case 


now where we have the pressure of -- of closing 


SEC petitions in a timely fashion. That tends 


to go on the front burner, and these for which 


there's no sort of deadline closeout -- except 


for what we impose on ourselves -- tend to then 


move back in the queue. 


 DR. LOCKEY: What -- what is the average -- the 


complete cycle is taking about what time, do 


you think? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, the -- well, the closeout -- 

1 

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 

let's -- I would say the -- the process of 


receiving this -- the CDs, then -- and 


delivering --


 DR. LOCKEY: The process. 


DR. MAURO: -- delivering the report with the 


matrix typically has been on the order of about 


three months. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But that doesn't include the 


closeout of the matrix. 


DR. MAURO: But not the closeout. The 


closeout, I -- I -- quite frankly, I would have 


to say -- you know, it -- it -- because of the 


-- if we went right to the closeout process -- 


okay? -- and were not let's say sort of 


sidetracked a bit on other -- other matters, 


the closeout process I would say probably would 


add another two months, because we usually have 


several -- you think that's a -- a fair -- so 


if we actually were at -- just clicking along, 


three months to get the product out and then 


another month -- month to two -- we might 


actually be in a mode where we could do it 


within in a month right now, I think. I think 


earlier on it took a little longer. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Earlier on we were sort of 


inventing the process -- 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as we went, so --


DR. MAURO: Yes, so in -- in reality I think 


it's -- I mean theoretically, we're operating 


at full efficiency, we probably could move 


these out in four months -- three months to get 


the product out and the one month to move out 


the -- the -- the closeout process. I think 


that would be the optimum mode of -- mode of 


operation. 


 DR. LOCKEY: So eight months? 


 DR. WADE: Reality is a year I think. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Is reality --


DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm talking each set of 20. 


That's -- so --


 DR. WADE: But I think to be fair, and I think 


this is an important discussion, the closeout 


process is taking a long time. And I would say 


a reasonable person would say it would take a 


year from start to finish. We could do better 


with better discipline, but there are things 


competing for the Board's time. 


DR. MAURO: I think that's the reason. I think 

1 

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 

that it's the -- it's not that we're having 


problems closing out the issues. We actually 


put them on the back burner when other hot 


items come up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, --


DR. MAURO: If we actually kept it on the front 


burner all the way, I think we could move them 


out --


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


DR. MAURO: -- pretty quickly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. That -- that was the point 


I was making. 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. Okay, let's --


let's --


 DR. WADE: Could I just continue with Dr. -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. Lew -- uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: -- Lockey's -- I mean the Board has 


decided 60 a year is the target. The Board 


could change that. The Board has decided that 


two and a half percent of cases is a -- is a 


reasonable amount to audit, and that again is a 


Board decision. So all of those things are 


always up for discussion as the Board learns, 


as the process unfolds. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Let's proceed then to look at 


selections -- I guess -- I'm looking for Hans 


and Kathy. They're not here yet, but I don't 


think we should necessarily delay. I think we 


can get under way and if they do appear and we 


have those additional charts, that will help 


inform our selections. But you already have in 


mind and we have Stu's summary that -- that 


tells us where we are on different types of 


cases, so you might have that before you. Even 


though it doesn't have the pie charts that the 


other report does, it does inform us as to what 


facilities we've sampled from, what types of 


cases we've looked at, what POCs have been 


reviewed and so on, so you have -- you have the 


information before you. So I think we can 


proceed to make a selection. And if it's 


agreeable, we'll use the full internal and 


external list as a starting point. 


 DR. WADE: Just for our record, I do have 


Kathy's material in front of me, and it really 


is just a graphic presentation of materials 


that are on your tables. There's a bar chart 


that shows the breakdown of the first 80 cases 


by site, but you have that information -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49

 DR. ZIEMER: Which is a bar chart of this -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- information. 


 DR. WADE: There's a bar chart of the first 80 


cases by risk model. 


 MS. MUNN: Very visual, easy to see. 


 DR. ZIEMER: John. 


DR. MAURO: That came in electronically, I 


believe, and so theoretically you might be able 


to pop it up on the screen. 


DR. ROESSLER: It's a PowerPoint, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, it's a PowerPoint, so if any 


-- so I'm -- I don't have it. 


DR. ROESSLER: I don't know how to make this 


work with that. 


DR. MAURO: My guess is if -- you know, we -- 


we could get it --


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, it's on here. 


DR. MAURO: So it's on -- on -- on -- on that 


staff --


 DR. ZIEMER: She has it on a flash --


DR. MAURO: So we could actually put it up on 


there and we'll do the best we can. I could 


sort of fill in and -- they're pretty self­
1 

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 

evident. It's --


 DR. WADE: And they're just visual 


presentations of information you already have ­

-


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- so as we're discussing the 


category it could be -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: -- presented visually. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Could I just --


 DR. ZIEMER: Comment? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just an observation on the cases 


we have to select from. I mean the 5th set 


that we just put into place, I think it does 


have, if I counted right, four Savannah River 


cases. And when I'm looking at these best 


estimate cases available, there's a lot of 


Savannah River and Hanford cases, so I -- I 


think we should keep that in mind as we're 


going through. We already have done quite a 


few of those. 


DR. MAURO: Already done a few --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- and -- represent a large 

1 

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 

percentage, too, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, they do represent a large 


percentage, right. That's right. That's 


correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and -- and you notice, for 


example, Savannah River Site -- we've done less 


than half of what's --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what our -- what our goal would 


be and so -- and so there's room to add, so 


don't feel bad about selecting additional ones 


if they look interesting. 


I think the method we used before works pretty 


well where we simply go down the list and -- 


and individuals can identify if they think the 


case is interesting, and we'll begin to make a 


tentative list of -- of -- 


 DR. DEHART: Paul --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. DEHART: -- for the benefit of our -- our 

new Board members, I think it's important they 


understand that the first sets of cases are 


considerably different in character from the 


later cases, because the efficiency methods 


that were used made those cases very simple 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 

52 

go through, basically, because there wasn't a 


great deal of effort in terms of doing dose 


reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, good point. And I 


think there was certainly a feeling that those 


cases were fairly straightforward, that there 


would be very little benefit to keep reviewing 


cases of that type over and over again since 


the methodologies were very straightforward and 


the outcomes were -- were straightforward. 


Where we wanted to focus more is on cases that 


required -- if I could describe it as a greater 


level of effort on the part of the dose 


reconstructor in terms of models used, 


assumptions made and those kinds of things, and 


also cases that were closer to the 50 percent 


probability of causation, above or below, 


particularly those that were perhaps slightly 


below. So that certainly influenced how we 


began this selection. And Stu, just -- Stuart 


Hinnefeld, just for clarification, the full 


internal and external from the pool -- this is 


everything in the pool, is that -- was that my 


understanding? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the full internal 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 

53 

external list is everything in the pool. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the order that they -- were 


they randomly selected from that pool? I'm 


wondering if the -- the order that we have on 


our sheet is in any way biased. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll be biased -- it'll -- 


it'll probably be roughly case tracking 


numbers, so it'll be roughly in the -- probably 


it'll -- I think it will be in roughly the 


order in which we received the case from the 


Department of Labor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So there's a high likelihood that 


the list begins with earlier claims and -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Earlier -- earlier referrals to 


us. You know, it'll be -- actual date of 


completion of the claim is on the list -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so you can kind of get an 


idea when we completed the claim. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But the -- the earlier ones on 


the list are -- I think are probably earlier 


referrals to us. I'm not 100 percent confident 


of that, but I think that's probably how -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to get a feel as 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 

54 

what kind of bias would be here if we simply 


start at the beginning of this list and start 


selecting. I mean for example, suppose we 


decided that the first 20 on here were really 


interesting, and those were the 20 we took. 


What -- what kind of bias have we introduced by 


doing that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be --


 DR. ZIEMER: There's a kind of randomness in 


them already, built into the fact that... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It -- it would be -- I -- I -- 


well, I'm speculating -- speculating that it 


would be biased towards the sites where the 


program was better -- best advertised first. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which may be why you get a lot of 


Savannah Rivers in here and so on. Okay. 


Thank you. 


So Board members, again, I seek the wisdom of 


the group. Do you want to proceed down through 


the list in order or do you want to skip 


around? We can go by page and say okay, do you 


see some on page 1 that are interesting and -- 


let's do it that way then. 


Okay, so -- oh, okay. May-- maybe we'll pause 


here a minute and Board members, you can take a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

look at this -- the slides here. Here -- this 


basically is what you have numerically, Stu, in 


your -- in your breakdown -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and it's shown as a bar graph. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's the case. 


Kathy Behling prepared this, so I don't really 


-- I can't say for sure, but I believe that's 


the case. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, for -- for example, let's 


look at Savannah River, I'm looking for -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's got 14. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It shows 14 cases, which is 


exactly what you show on yours. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hanford shows 12 cases. Her's 


seems to show 11, so there's a little 


difference there for some reason. That may be 


one of those double count things, however. 


ORNL shows 11 -- this says X-10 only has three. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Her line is combined. She's 


got all the Oak Ridge plants -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, okay -- yeah, yeah, uh-


huh. She's added Y-12 with eight and X-10 with 


three, uh-huh, to get the 11. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 -- 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56

 MS. MUNN: K-25 in there, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't think K-25's going 


to show up on this list, is it? 


 DR. WADE: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have K-25 cases, no. 


Okay. Anything else you want to see -- and 


there's the risk models. 


 MS. MUNN: Decades of employment seems to be 


one of the --


 DR. ZIEMER: Ray, are you hearing this okay? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Not Wanda. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Couldn't hear Wanda. Wanda, 


repeat. You're right next to Ray, but he's 


listening through the mike. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, the decades of employment were 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Two more -- he 


has two more coming up. Next one -- there it 


is. 


 MS. MUNN: We seem to be away from our goals on 


that one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you know, you're not -- 


there's not much going on in the '30s anyway. 


I'm not sure why the -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: It got --

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- what is going on in the '30s? 


 MR. PRESLEY: It got --


 MS. MUNN: That was me, I --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- page three. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, I think -- I think 


those were cases where the person worked for 


the company before there was nuclear work, and 


their work period carried over. There 


certainly was not --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- any weapons work going on in 


the '30s. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct. That's the 


employee's --


 DR. ZIEMER: That would count here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- employee's start date at 


that covered facility -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- even though the covered 


employment --


 DR. ZIEMER: So I don't think we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- may have --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- expect much --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- occurred later. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the '30s. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) No, but 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have a pretty good distribution 


of the rest, it looks like and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I was only comparing them to 


our goals --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: -- Dr. Ziemer. Our -- our -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go back to, Lew. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Go back to it. 


I think the '50s and '60s are important. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and they -- we seem to have 


been light on them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I thought we were pretty close. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Light on '60 and heavy on '50, 


but --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


DR. ROESSLER: Heavy on '80s. Almost twice as 


much on the '80s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. That's really the only 


striking difference to me, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: It just appears the '60s and '70s -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, again, to keep in mind 


during our selection process. Okay. Good 

1 

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 

point. Any others? Okay, let's -- let's turn 


our attention then to the -- to the table and 


I'll take it by page and let's get -- we'll get 


some candidates. We can -- we can go back and 


see where we are, but let's identify, at least 


preliminarily, interesting cases on the first 


page. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Paul, I'd like to take a look at 


 DR. ZIEMER: Brad Clawson -- use the mike, 


Brad, please. 


 MR. CLAWSON: I'd like to take a look at 08. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 08, a lung case from Argonne West. 


 MR. CLAWSON: That's correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Even I could hardly hear you, Brad. 


You're still not close enough to the mike, but 


I got it. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, thank you. I apologize. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Others on page one? 


 DR. DEHART: Number 18, Gaseous Diffusion 


Plant, combined with Y-12. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, okay, case number 18. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 19, that's a 1960s case. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number 19 is a case at Mound, male 

1 

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 

genitalia. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, two cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And two -- oh, yes, lymphoma. Any 


-- any others on page one? 


 DR. DEHART: 22, Nevada Test Site, lung cancer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I'll just note these are all 


earlier work decades, '50s and '60s, with 


respect to Wanda's earlier concern. 


Okay. Any others on page one? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, let's take a look at page two. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 26 has two cancers, 1960s. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number --


 MS. MUNN: 26. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 26? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Savannah River Site. 


 MS. MUNN: '60s decade. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


DR. ROESSLER: Number 31 at Hanford, just 


barely over the POC. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, number 31, Hanford site, 


acute myeloid leukemia. Any others? 


 MR. CLAWSON: 48, stomach at Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 48, stomach cancer, Hanford. 

1 

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

 DR. DEHART: 49, Y-12. 


 MS. MUNN: That's another '80s one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Very low POC here. 


 DR. DEHART: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Interestingly enough. 


 DR. DEHART: Prostate, I guess. 


DR. ROESSLER: It's also 1980s. 


 MS. MUNN: Which we are overloaded with. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You still want that one, though. 


It's likely to be a prostate, I suppose. 


 DR. DEHART: Yeah. Yeah, I'd like -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Huh? 


 DR. DEHART: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any others? 


 DR. LOCKEY: I'd like 33. I mean I'm not 


sure... 


 DR. ZIEMER: 33 is a Savannah River, two 


cancers -- well, multiple cancers, respiratory 


and non-melanoma skin, squamous cell. 


Yeah, we've got a number that are just barely 


over 50. 


Sometime, NIOSH folks, I'd like to have a 


discussion as to why we're carrying these POCs 


to five significant figures -- 52.599. 


DR. ROESSLER: Exact degree of accuracy. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: We won't have the discussion now, 


but you know --


 DR. WADE: Are you implying there should be 


more significant figures? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You know, like that's 53 plus or 


minus ten, is what it is, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think that's the 


implication. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I know. I know. I'm always 


scolding my students when they do that. We --


we don't have that level of certainty in these 


numbers. 


Well, okay, let's go ahead. I get off on a 


soap box here. 


Let's go ahead to page three -- how many do we 


have here? 


 DR. WADE: You have nine so far. 


 DR. DEHART: We have nine now. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Page three. 

 DR. DEHART: 59. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

 DR. DEHART: 59, a Huntington. 

DR. ROESSLER: Ooh, that's a good one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Multiple, barely over, on skin. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Do we want to look at that other 


one from (unintelligible) that's 1930s? It's a 


low POC, but it's the only thing we've got from 


that time frame. 65, do we want to look at 


that just for the heck of it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's a better one than 


the one we just said. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We only got one in the '30s and 


that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- Yeah. Of course that 


person's work period -- that's really going to 


be -- the work is really done in the '40s and 


'50s, but yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: '40s, '50s and '60s. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: He's got 35 years. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Probably -- well, the other one's 


a skin. I -- this lung might be more -- if you 


were going to choose between the Huntington -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: I would rather have -- I would 


rather have the 65. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Who --


 DR. DEHART: I had suggested -- that's -- 


that's fine. It's going to be -- multiple 

1 

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 

basal cell is what 59 would be. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll drop 59 for the moment. Any 


others on page three? 


 MS. MUNN: We're not going to do 59? Did I 


understand correctly we're not doing 59? 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to -- going to 


substitute 65 for 59. It's a Huntington also, 


but it looks a little more interesting. Well ­

-


 DR. LOCKEY: Which ones? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- matter of opinion, I suppose. 


 DR. WADE: Only 65, so far. 


 MS. MUNN: 65, so far. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any others on -- on page three? 


 DR. LOCKEY: May I ask a question? What's 


Birdsboro Steel & Foundry? I just don't know 


what that is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Birdsboro Steel & Foundry. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was an Atomic Weapons 


Employer, I believe it was a uranium-forming 


plant. They did some sort of either machining 


or shaping of uranium. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Where is Birdsboro? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can look it up, but I don't 


know off the top of my head. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: We probably have one in Indiana, 


but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think it's in Indiana. 


 MS. MUNN: How about --


 DR. ZIEMER: Were you suggesting that one or 


were you just curious? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, I -- I -- it'd be -- is it 


interesting to look at dose reconstruction at a 


small employer like that? Is that something of 


interest? I'm not knowledgeable enough to 


know. I might ask the Board that, is that 


something that we should look at on an 


(unintelligible) basis? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Probably -- it probably falls 


under a generic uranium model, wouldn't it? It 


falls under a generic uranium model under -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It was -- it was probably with 


-- yeah, the complex-wide generic uranium. 


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


no, but we've looked at several of those, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: It is the '60s. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What's your pleasure? You want to 


add that or not? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, why not. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: So 72 --


 DR. ZIEMER: For now we'll put it in and see 


what we end up with here. 


 DR. DEHART: What number was that? 


 DR. LOCKEY: 72. 


 DR. WADE: 72. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Birdsboro Steel is in 


Pennsylvania. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Pennsylvania. Thank you. Any 


others on page three? 


 (No responses) 


 Okay, page four. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 96, Y-12. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number 96 from Y-12. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Early years. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's in the '50s, too, so I don't 


know --


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What we're doing tomorrow might 


impact on that. 


 DR. DEHART: It takes a while for cancer to 


develop. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any others? 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many -- how many bone cancers 


have we really gone through? 

1 

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

 DR. DEHART: Not too many. The way the 


definition is, they could be a -- a metastatic 


disease. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm looking -- oh, John 


Mauro? 


DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I had a thought that I 


wanted to pass on that I thought might be an 


interesting perspective. As you know, we are 


in the process of reviewing the SECs for three 


sites -- Ames, Rocky and Y-12 -- and there are 


many issues that are before us, especially for 


Rocky and Y-12, dealing with adequacy of data, 


coworker models, all of which are in a very -- 


what I would say state of -- of review. I 


would find it -- the cases that have been done 


-- okay? -- now -- and are basically behind us 


because they've been completed, it'd be very 


interesting to see what the sta-- state of 


knowl-- right now we're at a certain state of 


understanding of the models, the applications 


and dealing with the issues that have emerged 


during the SEC process, and then looking at 


actual cases that were already liti-- 


completed, adjudicated, and to see if in fact 


the issues that we are sort of struggling with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

now, how they were dealt with in those cases 


already. It's a perspective that I guess we 


never really talked about, but it'll be very 


revealing to find out how real are the issues 


that we are sort of discussing right now 


regarding SEC really come to ground when they 


adjudicated cases in the past before we engaged 


in these issues. It's just a -- a thought that 


you may want to take into consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually, I -- I haven't noticed 


any Rocky --


 DR. DEHART: No, I haven't either. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- cases on the list. I'm not 


sure there's any Ames cases on this list, are 


there? There are some Y-12s, of course, but 


thank you, John, for the -- the comment. I 


think -- may indicate that some of those cases 


are still awaiting -- pending. 96 of course 


was a Y-12 here. 


Any others on page four? How many have we got? 


 DR. WADE: We're up to 12. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, page five. 


 DR. WADE: We have the two carryovers. 


 MR. PRESLEY: What about 98? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, we're back on page four? 98, 

1 

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 

Allied Chemical? 


 MR. GRIFFON: He's only got two years of work, 


that's the only... 


 MR. PRESLEY: Low POC with two years of work. 


 DR. DEHART: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was surprised it was a full 


external and internal since it's a short time 


period. 


 DR. DEHART: Two years, that's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we have a site profile 


-- essentially a dose model site profile for 


Allied Chemical, but I'm not -- I'm not sure of 


that. We've written a site profile for Allied 


Chemical. I'm not exactly sure why a full one 


was done as to an -- over an estimate. Maybe 


the overestimating techniques didn't work. I 


mean were too high. We actually -- in addition 


to having a site profile, I believe we get 


exposure records from Allied Chemical. I 


believe we do. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a 1960s file, too. For that 


reason, it might be a good one to look at. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want to look at it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we've seen 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 

70 

site, either. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'll add it. 


 MS. MUNN: Good idea. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 98. 


DR. ROESSLER: On page four, how about 93? 


That one -- I want to ask Roy, though. Does 


that category include prostate? Is that right, 


the all male genitalia, is that prostate? 


 DR. DEHART: The -- the coding could be 


prostate, yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. Well, that one -- that 


one looks interesting. That's the '40s, he 


worked for four years -- I'm assuming -- yeah, 


it has to be a male -- yeah, that one looks 


interesting. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Prostate is included in that 


model. I don't know about -- 


DR. ROESSLER: And we -- we need --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this exact case, but 


prostate is --


DR. ROESSLER: We need more --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- included in that model. 


DR. ROESSLER: -- in that category. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 93? 

1 

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 

DR. ROESSLER: 93. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that one --


 DR. DEHART: 93? 


 MS. MUNN: -- one step over the line. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Testicular and prostate are under 


the same? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to look on 


testicular. I --


 MS. MUNN: I think it is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall if --


testicular's ICD so I don't know if it's in 


that 85 to 87 group or not. I'd -- I could 


look it up, but I don't know off the top of my 


head. 


 MS. MUNN: I think it is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The ICD-9 codes that are listed 


here are the ones that track into that model, 


so -- 185 to 187. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll put it in for now. 


So we actually have, with the two carryovers, 


we have 16 cases at the moment. 


 Page five. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 106, Idaho National Lab, 32 


years, POC of 45.98. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I (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 

72

 DR. ZIEMER: Which one is it, 106? Uh-huh. 


 DR. DEHART: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Colon cancer. 


 DR. DEHART: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Okay, good. 


 MS. MUNN: 109 is another lung out of the 


Ordnance Plant in the '60s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Isn't that -- Iowa, though, isn't 


that --


 DR. DEHART: Five years. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- a SEC? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is this -- yeah, would this now be 


under the SEC? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You talking about 109? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Based on the information on 


this page, this looks like this would be an SEC 


case. Now we don't make the determination of 


which cases are compensated. You know, 


Department of Labor makes that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It looks to me like it would 


be, and this case was done before -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: It was done before the SEC. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- before the SEC class was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

added for Iowa. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So --


 MS. MUNN: Mark it off. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- I mean --


 MS. MUNN: It comes off. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- looking at it would be just a 


matter of, again, looking at the procedure, not 


-- doesn't -- it's an academic question. That 


doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at it, 


since it might point out something, but... 


 MR. PRESLEY: How about 113, Bridgeport Brass. 


It's a low POC but he's got 34 and a half 


years, starts out in 1940. 


 MS. MUNN: 113. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Colon and all male. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right, 113. 


 DR. LOCKEY: How about 108? I assume this is ­

- I assume that's kidney. Roy? 


 DR. DEHART: I don't -- well, I'm not sure on 


that. It would almost have to be, since 


bladder's excluded. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Bethlehem Steel? 


 MR. PRESLEY: How about 125? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 DR. WADE: So 108 is in for now? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 108's in? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Is that clear? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 125, it's a gall bladder -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- Superior Steel. 


 MS. MUNN: That looks very interesting. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The '30s, 25.8. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It's a -- it's a compensated, but 


it's still low. 


 MS. MUNN: Just barely. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Just barely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Interesting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- the -- again, one 


thing to clarify, Stu, a lot of these I think 


that say fall into an external -- a full based 


on a model. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: One model, it's not individual 


dosimetry like for Superior Steel -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75

 MR. HINNEFELD: In many cases, like Bethlehem 


Steel would be done that way. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Bethlehem Steel, yeah, so it's 


just one model, so once we've reviewed the 


model --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it doesn't make a lot of sense 


to review a lot of different cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, whatever you say, but for 


-- for things like Bethlehem Steel it says -- 


there we'll say full internal and external 


because they were done in accordance with the 


model and all components -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, no --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the model were included. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm just clarifying for our -- 


yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we've done four Bethlehems 


already. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've done four Bethlehems and it 


would be the same model we're looking at, so... 


And Superior Steel I think is much the same 


approach. 


DR. MAURO: Another one of these thoughts. 


We've noticed that Beth-- Bethlehem Steel -- 

1 

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 

we've looked at a number, as you pointed out, 


and it was -- and the approach was the original 


site profile approach, which of course was the 


subject of a great deal of discussion and I 


believe NIOSH is in the process of revising the 


Bethlehem Steel site profile. All of the 


Bethlehem Steel cases were based strictly on 


the site profile, so -- now what would be 


interesting is if there are any new Bethlehem 


Steel cases that have already been adjudicated 


using the new methodologies and to see how 


those new methodologies that we've discussed 


during the site profile review process have in 


fact been implemented. I haven't had a chance 


to talk with -- whether that exists or not -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or these -- these older ones 


might be interesting if they're below 50 


percent. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, 'cause they'd be -- they 


would be reviewed over again. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause the model, if anything, 


has gone up since we've reviewed. 


DR. MAURO: Well, it's hard to say. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: That may not --


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- Jim Neton, comment? 


DR. NETON: We would review all the cases under 


50 percent as part of our normal program 


evaluation report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, this one would not be, since 


it's over anyway. 


DR. NETON: If it's over, it's not going to be 


reviewed, that's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So do you want to 


leave this in, in any event, or... What's your 


pleasure on this Bethlehem Steel? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, leave it there -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Leave it? 


 MS. MUNN: -- for the time being. 


DR. ROESSLER: What number is this? 


 DR. DEHART: 108. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have mixed emotions on that 


one, it sounds like. Some want to drop, some 


want to leave it. Let's see what else we've 


got. We actually have our 20 cases. Let's get 


a couple extras here. 


 MS. MUNN: How about 136 on the next page? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Superior? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Superior is in at the moment, 125. 

1 

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 

Are there any others on page 5? 


 (No responses) 


If not page six. Wanda, you were suggesting 


which one? 


 MS. MUNN: 136. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 136, Santa Susana Field Lab, lung 


cancer. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: 22 years. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Others? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That 155 is a small company, 28 


years experience, 1950. It's a multiple 


cancer, POC is 27.52, but it's a lot of years 


starting in '50. I don't know -- I don't know 


what they did at -- I don't know what they did 


at American Bearing. 


 MS. MUNN: Probably made bearings. I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you're suggesting 155? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I would -- I would suggest the 


next page, 163 or 166. 


 DR. ZIEMER: On page seven? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, since we're getting down to 


extras. 


 DR. WADE: 163, is that what you said? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 163 and/or 166. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79

 DR. ZIEMER: Put them both on the list. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I’ve got -- I had 171 marked for 


-- for Mound, 24 years, 48.176, multiple 


cancer. It's real, real close. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which one? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 171. 


 MS. MUNN: And it's the '60s. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The '60s, 24 years. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: That's the best of all possible 


worlds. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which one is that? 


 MS. MUNN: 171. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 171. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 171, also take a look at -- what 


do we have -- how many Hanford -- we -- we're 


not --


 DR. DEHART: We've got quite a few. We've got 


12 already done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Twelve. 


 MS. MUNN: We have and we need 25. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's one -- 151 at -- a lung 


cancer at 50.1 percent. That's kind of 


interesting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's 144 that's just a little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

below, Hanford also. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That might be even more 


interesting. It's a little longer. Let's put 


that one on, 144. 


 DR. DEHART: 144? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: 144? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That actually gives us what, Lew, 


25? 


 DR. WADE: 26 by my count, if we include 163, 


166, 171. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's use that as the list. What 


-- our experience has been is that once we 


check these out with Labor and so on, there -- 


there -- we may lose a few anyway. And then if 


we have some extras, we'll carry them forward. 


So 26 is a -- is a -- probably a good group to 


-- to use. 


Let -- let me ask now, do any of you have any 


others that you wish to add to this or any that 


you have second thoughts about and want to have 


deleted? We've actually covered most of the -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: I'd like to take a look at one. I 


know it's a Savannah River, but we haven't done 


very many (unintelligible), so 181. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81

 MS. MUNN: Mike, Brad. 


 MR. CLAWSON: What? 


 MS. MUNN: Your mike. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'd like to look 


at 181. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 181, Savannah River, which is a 


bone, male genitalia. 


Okay. There was one that we were -- we were 


somewhat dubious on -- I'm trying to see which 


it was -- that we can just drop in favor of 


this one. What was that? 


(Pause) 


Did we carry the Bethlehem Steel one forward? 


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


 MS. MUNN: That was one we had and questioned, 


I think. It was 108, wasn't it? 


 DR. WADE: 108 is still on the list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we drop -- is that a -- 


anyone object to just dropping that one in 


favor of this --


 MS. MUNN: No, that's fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's do that, drop 108. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If it's agreeable then, Lew, if 


you would read through the numbers for us 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 

82 

I'll ask that this be a motion that we make to 


the full Board, that the following cases be 


recommended for the next round of 20 -- with 


the understanding that out of these 25, a few 


could disappear because of issues as to 


reopening cases and so on. And if there are 


extras, we'll carry them forward. 


 DR. WADE: So here we go, starting at the top ­

- 08, 18, 19, 22, 26, 31, 33, 48, 49, 65 -- 


 MS. MUNN: Whoa, just a minute. I missed 49. 


DR. ROESSLER: 49, are you sure? 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

 DR. DEHART: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yep. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yep. 

 DR. WADE: Repeating, 65, 72, 93, 96, 98, 106, 


113, 125, 136, 144, 155, 163, 166, 171 and 181. 


And we have the two carryovers from the 5th 


set. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. A motion to recommend this 


to the full Board? 


 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83

 DR. ZIEMER: Did you get the motioner and the 


seconder? Ready to vote? All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Opposed? 


 (No responses) 


The motion carries. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Very well done. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, a question. It might be 


helpful to have what's included in the ICD 


codes if -- could that be provided as a -- as a 


reference list? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 DR. WADE: Oh, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, maybe just a separate 


reference list that people can -- you -- you 


mean on the charts in the future or -- or a 


footnote or something, or an attachment with 


the listing? 

 DR. LOCKEY: Just a separate page -- 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. LOCKEY: -- that if you look at urinary 

organs excluding bladder, I -- just so I know 


what that includes. I think I know, but I'd 


like to be sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, I think we're 

84 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

actually -- when -- when's our break due? 


 DR. WADE: When you decide. 


 DR. ZIEMER: When I decide. I think we'll take 


a comfort break at this point. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:40 a.m. 


to 11:05 a.m.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to call the meeting back 


to order. If you'd all find your seats, we'll 

proceed. 

(Pause) 

COMPLETE REVIEW OF 2ND AND 3RD ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL
 

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CASES
 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORKING GROUP CHAIR
 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH
 

Okay. We're going to take a look at the 


resolution matrix for rounds two and three of 


the dose reconstruction reviews, so round two, 


as you may recall, is actually 18 cases rather 


than 20 because there were two cases -- I 


forget exactly -- I guess they were cases that 


were reopened or something. And than actually 


round three I believe ended up being 22 cases 


to make up for the two missing ones. And the 


workgroup has been working through the 


resolution process on the various comments and 


-- again, you recall this is done through the 


findings matrix where we have the finding from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

SC&A, we have a NIOSH response. And then 


there's a series of sometimes phone calls or 


exchanges or face-to-face meetings involving 


NIOSH, SC&A and the workgroup, and possible 


resolutions with a final Board action in cases 


where resolution is not straightforward. So 


Mark has been working with the matrices. 


Mark, let's begin with the second group, which 


would be the 18 cases, and you have -- I don't 


think we have hard copies of this yet, and this 


is kind of a status report, I believe, of where 


the working group is on the second 18 cases. 


So Mark, I'll turn it over to you, and I know 


you have -- have the matrix there projected. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I really -- where 


we're at -- this is a -- a -- definitely an 


example of the shifted priorities. We've kind 


of put these matrices on the back burner 'cause 


most of us have been involved in the SEC 


petition review stuff, and the matrix I have -- 


well, I've updated the matrix for the 2nd set, 


the 3rd set and the procedures review. At the 


same time, I just found out this morning 


actually that NIOSH has added another column 


onto the matrix, which is basically a 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 

86 

action, a list of their action items out of 


this -- this -- this review process, which is ­

- is certainly going to be very beneficial in 


tracking where things are going with this, but 


-- but where we're going to end up is I have to 


merge my edited matrix with NIOSH's edited 


matrix and produce a final matrix out of this 


and we're probably a workgroup meeting away 


from -- from finalizing this. But I just 


wanted to give you a sense of it. 


The one -- the main thing that's changed in 


these matrices from the last meeting is that I 


have -- I've gone through and SC&A and NIOSH 


have gone through for some of those 


inconsistencies that we noted in the last 


meeting, or -- or question marks. I've 


received some comments back from both SC&A and 


NIOSH on clarifying some of those items. I 


made some -- some small edits to the -- the 


resolution column, and then I tried to put a 


Board ranking on the right-hand side, a Board 


action. And actually at the bottom of this 


matrix I do have the -- the code for what this 


1 through 7 mean on the action items. 


In the Board action column and -- and we didn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 -- 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

print these off because we have two versions 


out there right now. NIOSH has edited one, but 


he didn't -- Stu Hinnefeld didn't edit from my 


last version, so we -- we thought it might be 


more useful and save a little paper if we 


finished the process and then distribute it. 


It's very much the same as the last one that 


was handed out in Denver. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So Mark, for clarity --


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what you're saying is, in 


addition to this NIOSH resolution process -- or 


column -- NIOSH resolution column on the right, 


there is an additional NIOSH action, as it were 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- column that would be added -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or somehow incorporated into 


that resolution --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, actually Stu -- I'm not 


sure how he fit it on the page, but somehow he 


has it on the far right, after the Board action 


-- the Board action number. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, could you clarify 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 

88 

Stu? How does it differ from the NIOSH 


resolution column? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 DR. ZIEMER: It's like a next step or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- some of these resolutions -- 


NIOSH resolution columns will say things like 


NIOSH agrees that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that should be changed or 


amended or -- or some document should be 


changed. And so, you know, the -- the added 


column is what we in -- you know, our 


essentially commitment to do that. It's a list 


of things to put on an action item list to 


track those actions to completion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: A specific action instead of just 


saying NIOSH agrees with a finding and -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And we'll do (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: It may -- it may be that there's 


no action, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, some of them there's no 


action. Some of them -- for instance, a number 


of times in the dose reconstruction reviews 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

there were a number of comments that related to 


the clarity of a couple of our procedures and 


the missed dose component in a couple of our 


procedures, TIB-8 and TIB-10. And so our 


action -- you know, the action column is we -- 


we said we will revise TIB-8 for clarity, or we 


will revise TIB-10 for clarity. It's captured 


as an action item coming out of this process 


that way. So it's something like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So this may be a new column 


that's -- says something or perhaps headed as 


NIOSH follow-up actions or something. We'll --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's --


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


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- right, it's something 


that we feel like we should do because of this 


finding and the closure process and the 


discussion we've had on the finding. We feel 


like there's this action we should do. 


 DR. WADE: I do have a copy for everyone of a 


list of all those actions. Possibly we could 


give that out and it would give some clarity. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I suppose I -- yeah. 
I 


guess it doesn't hurt. These -- these are 


still in draft 'cause the workgroup hasn't even 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

considered this action list, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, the list you're handing out 


now is a summary of the actions that come out 


of the table that Stu's discussing? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so those'll come up in that 


last column in the matrix and -- and Stu's put 


it in a Word format, just for easier -- to save 


paper, too, I guess. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the idea --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: One of these matrices is 53 


pages long, and so the idea between taking this 


action item and putting it onto a different 


piece of paper was to track progress on the 


sing-- on the action item list versus the 53­

page matrix, you know, with all the discussion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So some of these actions will 


appear multiple times, I guess. Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I tried to only have it appear 


once. Once I specified a particular action -- 


for instance, there's -- one of the actions 


from the first set is -- I think it's 


DR16.something, which is revise either TIB-8 or 


TIB-10 for clarity. Okay --


 DR. ZIEMER: Revise TIB-10 to clarify method 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

for reconstructing missed dose. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But that might appear a number of 


times --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That will appear in very many 


of the matrix --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- components. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll appear once on the action 


item list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I see what you're saying. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then going back to -- to my 


edit of the matrix here, I can just -- just 


skim over some of the things, but I was going 


through and trying to also clarify -- 'cause 


there's a number of instances where it doesn't 


affect the case, and if it gets this -- this 


action of number 6, that's basically that it's 


been -- the ac-- there's an action, but it's 


deferred to a site profile review or another -- 


like a rewrite of a TIB or whatever, so it's -- 


it's not -- and -- and there's some of these 


that were unclear. Like that yellow, I think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

I've added since the last matrix so Stu hasn't 


been able to consider that, but it -- it's -- 


it was a matter of -- a situation where it 


didn't really affect the case that we were 


reviewing, but generically for that site, it 


was unclear to me whether it needed to be 


considered for the overall site profile or -- 


or a TIB related to that site had to be 


addressed 'cause it could potentially affect 


other cases that are, you know, closer to the 


POC or whatever. So some of those -- that's 


why we have some -- that's why I have some 


yellow highlighting in here. But in -- in most 


cases -- and like I -- as I indicated earlier, 


I think the -- for the most part, the 2nd set 


and 3rd set and the procedures review are -- 


are a workgroup away probably of being 


finalized as far as a resolution process and -- 


I mean we -- you know, we would just bring a 


full -- a final set back to the Board for 


consideration. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask the Board members, are 


you agreeable to wait until we get some kind of 


a merged form of Stu's matrix with the NIOSH 


action items, or do you also want a copy 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 

93 

this version that is being projected here right 


now? In fact, I -- I guess I need to ask the 


Designated Federal Official, for the public 


record, do we need a copy of Stu's matrix in 


the -- in the public record at this point? 


It's still a working document, but it's not -- 


it's -- certainly can be made available. 


 DR. WADE: I see no reason why not to make it 


available. I think I -- Stu, you have a copy. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: That we could make copies from? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we could certainly make 


copies of this. I just didn't want to create 


confusion, but as long as people understand 


they go together kind of. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I want to make sure --


 MR. GRIFFON: And they're very lengthy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's go ahead and at least have 


available for the public, as well as for the 


Board members -- let's make sure that it's 


dated with today's date and -- so that -- and 


marked as a draft. The -- the Board action 


items are -- at this point are suggestions from 


the Chairman of this -- of the working group. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

These do not represent acted-upon actions or 


approved actions --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so it's simply -- would be a 


recommendation that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it's not even a 


recommendation at --


 MR. GRIFFON: Not a recommen--


 DR. ZIEMER: -- this point, it's -- it's Mark's 


first --


 MR. GRIFFON: It's my interpretation of the 


resolution, really. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And so all he's doing today is 


reporting where he is on this, what has been 


done so far. So if -- if that's agreeable, 


we'll make sure a copy of this document is 


available, and you'll have -- have that at 


least in your files and then we will get the 


merged copy, which perhaps would be available 


by the time we meet again or by the time we 


have our -- we have a Board conference call 


meeting in August, I believe, that's already 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

scheduled. And it may be that we'll be ready 


to take action by then if we get the documents 


merged and if the working group agrees on the 


recommended actions. 


What I would like to avoid doing would be to go 


through item by item on a phone call -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and try to resolve issues, so 


if we can get those documents out in advance, 


and then what we would do would be if Board 


members have an issue with any particular 


recommended action, we could discuss that 


rather than go through them one by one. Would 


that be agreeable with everyone? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Okay, any -- any further questions then on 


round two? 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the only -- the only other 


thing I was going to point out is that just in 


some instances -- and this is part of our 


workgroup process. I tried to look across the 


matrix so if -- if people identify this kind of 


stuff it'd be helpful to -- especially work-- 


other workgroup members. For instance, this 


said inappropriate procedures cited. In this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

instance they went back to the workbooks and 


SC&A realized oh, the calculation was done in 


the Excel spreadsheet workbook methodology and 


it -- it -- like the numbers work out fine. 


But that didn't -- didn't ring right with me 


when inappropriate procedure cited might still 


be true. They might still have cited the wrong 


procedure, so I was unclear -- I was trying to 


make the matrix work all the way across, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I understand. So --


 MR. GRIFFON: Now there's some detail left, but 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- need to resolve what the actual 


finding and --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now one other thing, Board 


members, Mark has this matrix, as well as the 


matrix for the 3rd set, on a flash drive. And 


so if you would rather have it in electronic 


form now instead of paper form, I think we can 


-- you can pick it right off his flash drive 


today, which I've just done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Save some paper, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Those of you who have your laptops 


with you, later in the week or in the breaks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

you can get the document itself, just as you -- 


as it was projected. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All three, for that matter, 2nd, 


3rd and the procedures review are all -- all 


the same way. 


 DR. WADE: Just to be clear about documents, 


let's take the 2nd set. We have Mark's matrix, 


and then Stu also has a matrix to offer which 


has the new column added to it. So I'll make 


both of those documents available to the Board 


members and the public. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And let's make sure they have a 


date on them and that they are somehow 


identified as drafts, and that -- make sure 


it's clear what they represent. 


 DR. WADE: And just from my point of view as 


Designated Federal Official, I think it's very 


important that we leave this meeting with an 


understanding of the exact steps we're going to 


follow trying to bring this to closure. I 


realize that we've been distracted by things 


that have demanded our time, but I do think 


that some discipline is needed here to -- to 


bring the 2nd set, the 3rd set and the 


procedures review to closure as quickly as we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

can. I think most of the heavy lifting is 


done. I think we need just the discipline to 


finish. And I would like to -- to see 


workgroup meetings leading up to possibly a 


report out on our call in August, at worst at 


our face-to-face meeting in September. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, no, I -- I hope fully that 


we can close it out by August 8th, yeah. I --


I think we can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any questions, Board 


members, on -- on the 2nd set review? 


 (No responses) 


 Okay, what about the 3rd set? We also have a 


matrix on that, and is there a similar NIOSH 


matrix on the 3rd set? So everything we've 


said about the 2nd set holds for -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've got duplicates on 


everything, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And what do you want to tell us 


about the 3rd set? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you know, sim-- a very 


similar status. I don't know that there's much 


more to add, very similar status, Paul. We've 


got -- I've got some things that are 


highlighted yellow that I still have questions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

on. I've added the Board action ranking, but 


there's some items, like UR, indicates 


unresolved and -- you know, so there's some 


clarifications we need between SC&A. And it 


may be just that I didn't include -- or 


incorporate the latest update from SC&A or 


NIOSH, so might -- you know, but we're very 


close on that one as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So we'll have a similar follow-


through then where we will get copies of both 


the working group matrix, the NIOSH action 


matrix, with the anticipation that those two 


would be appropriately merged, with a 


recommended Board action as we talked about for 


the 2nd case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that agreeable, Board members? 


Again --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Comments or questions? 


 MS. MUNN: Is it going to be possible for us to 


reformat this so that we get the whole single 


item on one page? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Were you able to fit it all the 


way across in the --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100

 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah, we can -- the last 


column does fit on a page -- 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the font is at least as 


big as that one, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) the four, but 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but is your -- is your 


comment about the -- there's some of these 


fields that go pretty long down the page -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and that's -- that's -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so that's a --


 MS. MUNN: -- that's no problem to me, but it 


occurred to me that if --


 MR. HINNEFELD: To the right? Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- a couple of those columns were -- 


were made horizontal instead of vertical, then 


your new column would probably fit on all 


right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- if -- I've -- I've 


got a note -- I've got copies with it on there 


and it's on -- with that extra column, and I've 


-- I've squashed some of these columns together 


a little bit. I think it -- I think it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

readable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can work with -- we can work 


with the formatting, too. I know what you're 


saying, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Good, 'cause it gets really 


difficult if you have to go to another page to 


see something. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think for instance we can write 


"procedural" and "external" up in a -- 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- vertical fashion. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's what I was -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I gotcha, yeah, we 


can do that. We have the technology, I think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Further comments, Mark, on the 3rd 


set then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think that's it. We're --


we're -- you know, we've -- we've got a little 


more work to do but we're close to closing it 


out, so -- not much further, unless there's 


questions or comments from the workgroup -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: So we'll try to have hard copies 


of both of these available before you leave. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: May-- maybe even perhaps later 


today. If you want electronic copies, Mark has 


them on the flash drive. Very good. Thank 


you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or Paul has them on his laptop, 


too, so you could --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- plug into your laptop, yeah, 


either way. 


COMPLETE PROCEDURES UPDATE
 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORKING GROUP CHAIR
 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH


 DR. ZIEMER: Then the other item we have is 


procedures update. Mark, the workgroup is also 


handling that and can you give us the status of 


that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and that's -- you know, 


again, we have two sets of matrices I -- I'm 


finding out, so Stu's added an additional Board 


action column on that, as well. And -- let's 


see, these -- just one comment on these, I 


guess. On my matrix I think I have a lot less 


yellow on my matrix, which leads me to believe 


that there's a lot less as far as 


clarification. The only thing that should be 


noted is that a lot of time, and this'll show 


up in Stu's actions I'm sure, a lot of times 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

the procedures we reviewed -- since this is 


taking a fair amount of time and these were the 


earliest procedures -- a lot of times they've 


already been replaced and so they're -- they're 


-- some of these proce-- some of the action 


here says review the new procedure that took 


place of this old one or -- and the procedures 


are being recons-- you know, consolidated into 


a new procedure so SC&A is now undertaking 


reviewing those procedures. And hopefully we 


can keep that on a -- you know, a fairly -- 


fairly good track so we don't run into the same 


situation where we're always two procedures 


behind, but -- I don't think that'll be the 


case, but -- so some of this stuff is like -- 


sort of old news, in a way, but -- not that it 


wasn't important to go through, but... 


The one thing I do want to mention is that the 


on-- I think the only place I have any yellow 


on here is related to the CATI procedures, the 


telephone interview procedures. And I think a 


couple of those -- I had -- I jumped the gun a 


little bit saying that SC&A and NIOSH agreed on 


the resolution, and in fact in the last two 


months or whatever it's been, I've received 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

comments back from SC&A that -- that there were 


several of those that they still had some 


issues that needed to be discussed, so we have 


further resolution on -- on a few of the CATI 


procedure items, and you'll see them in this 


matrix when you guys get the update, but you 


know, there -- there's four or five of them. 


Closely related, but they're -- they're all 


about the -- the CATI or the closeout interview 


related to the CATI, those sort of things, 


so... 


And that's about it on procedures review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Questions on that? So we 


have a similar situation then -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Similar situation --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- where we again need to merge -- 


is this -- the matrix that you're showing here 


for procedures review one -- is this different 


than the last version that the Board had? 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only -- let's see. There 


might be a few slight differences, yes, in the 


Board action column, so some minor edits in the 


Board action column -- including what I just 


said about SC&A basically did not agree on some 


of those that I thought there was agreement -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so some minor changes, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we do need copies of this 


then, as well, I would say. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then, again, do I understand, 


Stu, there is a NIOSH version which has, again, 


an action column? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So again, we'll look for that and 


then the procedure would be, again, to 


appropriately merge these, as we did for the 


individual cases. 


Okay. Board members, any questions? Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm a little surprised to find that 


we still have enough outstanding issues on the 


procedures that we need to still maintain the 


matrix. I had -- I was under the impression 


that we'd just about cleaned this up. So I'm 


assuming that we only have one or two 


outstanding issues. Is that a valid 


assumption? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's a va-- maybe four, Wanda, 


I'm --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106

 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm showing them. They're --


they're in -- they're in yellow highlights -- 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so they'll be easy to pick up 


on your electronic form, but -- and they're all 


related to those last procedures that I 


mentioned, the CATI review. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, okay. We can do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And many -- I -- I think 


they might even be related to one or two 


procedures. It's four findings, you know, but 


they're all related to the CATI process, the 


interview or the closeout process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Further questions? 


 DR. WADE: I think it might be wise to -- I 


mean Hans and Kathy are with us now if they 


would like to make any comments. I mean 


they've been terribly influential in this 


process. Do you understand, Hans and Kathy, 


what the Board -- the subcommittee is talking 


about and where it's going with this? And do 


you have anything -- any wisdom to share with 


us that could make the journey less arduous? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm -- I'm not sure that 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 

107 

you've -- have they received your version, Stu, 


of the expanded matrix with the new column on 


it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that was --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I put that together -- just so 


everybody understands, we were asked a couple 


of Board meetings ago -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- about well, what is NIOSH -- 


you know, NIOSH has all these recommendations 


and how are we going to keep these resolutions 


in front of us. You know, how -- how are we 


going to know what's been done as a result of 


all this stuff. And so I said well, I'm -- you 


know, how are we going to -- I said -- and I 


think I promised that I will come up with a 


method for identifying what's going to happen 


and then -- so we can close out resolution. So 


that's why I stuck that extra column on there ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was to be able to track 


completion and resolution of -- that's come out 


of this process. So it was -- you know, 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 

108 

think -- I could -- you know, here are the 


actions. I -- you know, we've got a list of 


the actions. You can tie them back to the 


various findings that -- that they relate to. 


So that's why I put mine together, and it 


wasn't clear to me that we were going to enter 


that part of the process today or -- or later 


or what, and -- and I don't think, Mark, I've 


seen necessarily all the yellow highlighted -- 


the latest version with the yellow highlights. 


Isn't that true? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, you've got -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So --


 MR. GRIFFON: So we're both, yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: So we're --


 MR. GRIFFON: We both did this kind of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now actually --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in the last three or four 


days, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- actually Stu's comment 


triggers, in my mind, a question. And that is 


-- what Stu has described is really sort of a 


follow-up on our whole process. And it seems 


to me we could think in terms of having 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 

109 

matrix and closing it. And then Stu's -- what 


Stu's talking about is simply tracking for us 


what's happened since the matrix. So now I 


have a question in my mind as to whether or not 


we really want to merge the matrices, as 


opposed to saying here's our matrix, we finish 


it up. Stu can update his as -- if there's any 


changes in ours. But that's sort of their 


matrix reporting how they're reacting to our 


action. That's -- that's -- I'm seeing it a 


little differently now. Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, that's the 


way I was seeing it at the time we had 


discussed it earlier. The engineering mind was 


seeing a, quote, deficiencies list. You know, 


what's still outstanding, yet to be done, 


rather than a continuation of the matrix. 


These two matrices are extremely difficult -- 


for me, as a working group member -- to 


manipulate. There's just too much stuff in 


there and, in my mind, we've cleaned out 


virtually all of it. So Stu's short list that 


we have here, the one-pager, is much more in 


line with what I personally had in mind in 


terms of a tracking mechanism, rather than 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

maintaining this long matrices -- or matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I appreciate that, but I think 


Stu's middle matrix is the -- we can't skip 


that middle step. I think we have to come to 


grips to make sure that -- that what we 


envisioned as actions, the workgroup members 


and SC&A -- everybody's in agreement that the 


right actions are coming out of that matrix. 


And then once you have the final actions, I 


agree, you track them separately and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the matrix is put to sleep, 


you know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what -- what I -- what I'm 


saying is I think that Stu's actions in a sense 


rightly are to the -- at the end of the matrix, 


after the Board action list -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as opposed to part of the NIOSH 


response. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, I agree with that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that makes sense. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111

 DR. ZIEMER: So I'm actually envisioning -- as 


-- as opposed to a merger of our documents, I'm 


-- I'm -- I'm envisioning now -- this is for 


the 2nd 20 and the 3rd 20 cases plus this -- 


our regular matrix with our action. Then Stu 


turns around and -- and says here's what we've 


done with your matrix, and that's their action. 


That's how I'm -- but let's get feedback from 


others if -- if you want to merge it in some 


way other than that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- I'm just wondering, it 


-- you know, not having seen these actions, I'm 


just wondering if, when they come back with a 


new mat-- this -- this new report, which -- 


which -- you know, I've gotten hard copy today, 


but I haven't looked at it, then -- then am I 


going to have to -- like if I go down this and 


say wait a second, I thought they were going to 


do this out of this ma-- am I back to the 


workgroup and working through these things 


again or --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think that can occur. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But in a sense, we -- we have the 


response. We have to take a -- we take a 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 

112 

action. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Once he tracks and says here's how 


we responded, we can certainly say well, that's 


a dumb response, why don't -- you know, why -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's likely to happen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We wouldn't say that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We might think that. But in --


but in fact, it's sort of -- we -- we ask for 


accountability. How do we know that in those 


cases where it looked like something remains to 


be done and we -- everybody agrees yes, that's 


going to be done. You're basically reporting 


back, here -- here's the follow-up. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay, we may --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's -- yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- need to --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's okay. We'll --


we'll -- we'll definitely consider it in the 


workgroup process. I mean the -- the only 


hesitation I have is that if -- you know, if 


you're in the middle of the -- the resolution 


and we're all -- we're all thinking well, this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

is -- this is resolved and I'm -- I'm in 


agreement with it because NIOSH is going to do 


this, so we're all in agreement with it, and 


then it turns out their -- their action doesn't 


propose to do that, so -- but I think -- I 


think --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, either way, we --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's still a follow-on thing, 


but --


 MR. GRIFFON: It's still a follow-on, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in a certain sense we need to 


close the matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I know what you're saying. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then we start looking at 


responses. Okay. Well, the workgroup can take 


that into consideration, I -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- on all three of these as we 


proceed. 


 DR. WADE: A couple of comments. I think also 


once you get the NIOSH actions, tracking them 


in this kind of a form is useful 'cause, as 


Wanda said, the matrix -- matrices become very 


unwieldy. So a summary report that will let us 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

look at what NIOSH has committed to do, as 


verified by the working group, and then keep 


track of that I think is important. If you 


remember, the GAO report talked to us about 


putting in place tracking mechanisms, and I 


think this is an attempt to build such a 


tracking mechanism. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any further 


comments or questions regarding the procedures 


update? 


 (No responses) 


 Thank you, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I guess we'll be in touch to 


schedule workgroup meetings soon to -- 'cause I 


agree with Lew, I do want to close this out. 


We've been at this for a while and let's get it 


done while it's fresh in our minds. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, I have one question. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. LOCKEY: With NIOSH's -- in this matrix 

here, NIOSH has a response. That doesn't 


prevent NIOSH from taking preliminary action 


before the Board sees that. Is that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's -- I mean --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115

 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think --


 DR. ZIEMER: Of course --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- they've been doing that, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in cases where it's fairly 


straightforward, there'd be no reason to -- for 


example, if a -- if it was clear a procedure 


was out of date or wasn't -- was no longer 


being used and -- and the response is we're 


using a new procedure or something, I don't 


think we would expect them to sit around 


waiting for us to say okay, use your new 


procedure. 


Now it -- it's quite possible, I guess, in -- 


in some case, that they may proceed to make 


some change that we later think was not the 


right change, but I think in most -- most of 


these cases it's things that they say yeah, you 


noticed that, but we're not doing that anymore 


anyway. It's sort of like that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't think that's always 


the case, but --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, there are -- there is 


some of that, certainly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116

 DR. ZIEMER: And there -- there's -- there's 


really nothing that prevents NIOSH from -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- doing a course correction if 


something's brought to their attention and they 


agree that it should be corrected -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, certainly not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- before we even, you know, bless 


it, as it were. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think TIB-8 and 10 are a good 


example. Right? You've proceeded with those, 


so -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, those -- the clarifying 


revisions to TIB-8 and 10 have been done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Have been done, yeah, so that's ­

- yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Lew, I – 


DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS


 DR. WADE: Well, we have some time, and I -- I 


would suggest that maybe we have a preliminary 


discussion of the interaction between working 


groups and subcommittee and full Board. It's 


on the agenda for our meeting, but I think as 


we sort of evolve down this path, we have a 


number of things that are ongoing. And I think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

the relationships of those things and the 


staging and sequencing of those things really 


need to be talked about. 


I'll remind you you have the full Board, and 


then you have a subcommittee that looks at dose 


reconstructions, procedures reviews and site 


profile reviews. That subcommittee generally 


is made up of the entire Board, less a member 


or two, depending upon travel schedules. And 


then you -- you now have a -- a -- an array of 


workgroups. 


You have a workgroup that Mark chairs that 


looks at dose reconstructions, site profiles 


and procedures reviews. You also have a 


workgroup that Dr. Melius chairs that looks at 


generic SEC issues. And then you've formed a 


number of workgroups that look at specific site 


issues as it relates to site profiles. 


So I just think it's important at this meeting 


that we think about those things and the 


relationships between those things, and that we 


talk a little bit about optimizing our 


procedure. 


 The other issue that sort of cuts across that 


is an issue that everything comes at 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 

118 

eleventh hour, and that makes the process 


difficult to administer, and we need to talk 


about that, as well. Now I don't think we're 


going to finish that discussion today, but 


since we have some time I think it's worth 


starting to frame it anyway, leading up to our 


discussions on Friday. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good point. I would point out, 


it's about -- it's about quarter of, I'm not 


sure exactly what the eating arrangements are. 


We need to be back here at 1:00 and we want to 


make sure people have time to eat and 


reassemble. There -- there at least is 


something here in the hotel, and there are 


other places around. Do we have information on 


eating facilities or -- are we going to -- I'm 


-- I'm sort of asking is an hour going to be 


sufficient here for getting food or are we -- 


are we calling it close? 


 DR. WADE: In -- I think short of a major sit-


down meal at a -- at a restaurant, I think you 


can do it in an hour. If you want to take the 


extra 15 minutes, we could do that and try it 


out today and see what the time does. 


 MS. MUNN: Might be a good idea for those of us 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

who are not familiar with what's around here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Just -- let me follow up a 


minute on -- on Lew's comments. As far as 


working groups and subcommittees and -- I'll 


point out -- or remind you that a subcommittee 


has to be chartered. Its meetings have to be 


announced in the Federal Register. It is an 


open meeting. It follows precisely the same 


kinds of rules as the full Board. 


Working groups are ad hoc. That is, they 


address a specific topic. It is not required 


that they be publicly announced, nor are they 


required to be open to the public, although our 


practice has been both to announce them and to 


make them open to the public, as well. 


But as a practical matter, as -- as I see us 


going forward, I think the idea of having a 


subcommittee which -- whose membership consists 


of the full Board, which is this subcommittee, 


is going to become more and more impractical. 


Now we might be better served to, for example, 


use the half-day for workgroups to meet -- 


smaller subsets meet on specific topics, 


whether it be dose reconstruction, whether it 


be an SEC -- some of us now have SEC leads 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 

120 

so we have -- we have teams that are having 


specific assignments, all of which tend to be 


ad hoc. If you're talking about an SEC 


petition with a team having the lead, that's an 


ad hoc thing that addresses that particular 


issue. 


So what I'd like you to think about is how we 


structure, if we are going to have a large 


number of these teams going forward, and then 


how to utilize our time at full Board meetings. 


Can we set aside times for the subgroups and 


teams to meet. Do we really need to have a 


subcommittee that consists of virtually 


everybody on the Board. So those are the kind 


of issues that we need to discuss and we can 


talk a few minutes, but we -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing -- I mean I -- I 


have had a little bit of time to think about 


this since I've been in the middle of these 


workgroups a lot, but I mean I never 


envisioned, when we first constructed the 


subcommittee, that it was going to be a 


subcommittee of the whole. Somehow it became 


that. I -- I mean I think it might be useful 


to have workgroups for ad hoc SEC petitions, as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

you said, and -- and probably site profile 


reviews. But maybe to think of a subcommittee 


for the standing function of dose 


reconstruction review, the cases and the 


procedures -- just a thought. I mean -­

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it might be better, 'cause 


that's a ongoing function and -- and have it be 


a real subcommittee --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- instead of a subcommittee of 


the whole. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And actually initially that was 


the concept, and what was done to sort of 


facilitate that was we said well, we're never 


sure who is available at a given time to do 


that function, so we would name everybody so 


that -- and you could use any of them. Well, 


then when the subcommittee meets -- as we are 


now -- then everybody is -- shows up, rather 


than having a designated group with alternates. 


So another possibility would be to have the 


subcommittee have designated, regular persons. 


You know, it'd be Mark and Bob and -- whoever's 


on that. And then everybody else is an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

alternate, and they don't -- they could show 


up, but they don't need to unless somebody else 


is going to be absent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think actually we did have 


designees --


 MS. MUNN: I thought we did. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in the first version, didn't 


we? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I thought we did. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We did --


 MR. GRIFFON: And then we said everybody was 


sort of alternates --


 DR. ZIEMER: We did, but -- but then the 


alternates all wanted to show up, so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which is fine, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we have defaulted and -- ending 


up with almost the full Board attending the 


subcommittee meetings, so that's -- that's sort 


of how it's evolved. And -- and it would 


certainly be possible to -- and maybe 


desirable, and we will talk about this in full 


Board meeting later this week, to have one or 


two, maybe three, specific subcommittees whose 


ongoing focus is something like dose 


reconstruction reviews or procedures reviews, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

whatever it may be, identify the individuals -- 


those have to be chartered, by the way. They 


have to go up through the system, they have to 


be approved by HHS and so on. So there's a bit 


of -- more formality in doing a subcommittee 


versus a workgroup, which we can do on an ad 


hoc basis. The Chair can appoint people on 


short notice and we can proceed like that. 


 Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: The only comment that I would have 


personally with the subcommittee that -- as 


it's become, is tied to transportation and 


travel. By that I mean frequently I have to 


travel the preceding night. I'm already here 


and it's really convenient to come in and be a 


part of the subcommittee, and sometimes I need 


to hear it twice, to be perfectly honest. But 


if -- if we change the way the meeting was 


organized and perhaps put the subcommittee at 


the end -- but unfortunately, much of the work 


is -- is programmed into the actual Board 


meeting, so that's very difficult to do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know we're probably going to 


want to break for lunch soon, but I guess one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

thing that I -- in terms of efficient use of 


our time, I find sometimes I am preparing just 


to present something -- an update on this 


matrix, for instance -- when actually I would 


have loved to have three hours this morning 


with a smaller group going through item by 


item. And I know it doesn't lend itself well 


to a --


 DR. ZIEMER: To a large group. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to a larger group. So if we 


had a smaller subcommittee and those that are 


really interested can still -- you know, it's 


open to the public, certainly, but we could go 


through line by line and start doing that -- 


that hard work of -- and tedious work of 


editing each and every line item. You know, 


that -- that's what I was thinking of. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: This is probably one of the most 


sticky wickets that we have to deal with in 


terms of internal activity. And there are a 


couple of issues that make it very difficult. 


One is the overlap of personnel in various 


subcommittees and working groups. 


And the other is the issue that's already 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 

125 

addressed with respect to the last-minute 


activities. We -- I don't know how we're ever 


going to be able to get around that last-minute 


issue because there's the continual opposing 


pressure of needing to move these activities 


forward in a timely manner and at the same time 


trying to give them the thorough overview that 


they need. We're always going to end up in 


this last-minute process, unless we all agree 


that we're going to push the length of our 


activities out considerably further than we see 


them now. 


With respect to the possibility of 


subcommittees as opposed to working groups, I 


guess having seen both in action -- although 


our subcommittee really has expanded 


considerably from what I first thought it was. 


For example, I don't consider myself a part of 


the subcommittee. I'm here as -- because I'm 


an alternate and have to travel all day to be 


here anyway. But working groups are ideal in 


terms of resolving the issue, far more so than 


subcommittees, simply because first of all one 


needs to -- very quickly sometimes -- involve 


more personnel, especially our contractor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

personnel and OCAS or ORAU. When we need to 


have them involved to resolve the issue, then 


working groups have the flexibility to be able 


to pull them in quickly. Getting them all to a 


subcommittee meeting or something that had to 


be announced so far in advance is really 


problematical sometime, I believe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that there's that 


much a difference anymore. I mean we -- we've 


-- we have the working groups all open to the 


public. I don't know, is there a Federal 


Register notice that's -- that's going to make 


this a (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's not required. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it's not required. 


 DR. WADE: The way we do working groups is we 


don't Federal Register notice them. We send 


out a mailing to interested parties. We post a 


notice of the meeting on the web site. We take 


-- we have them fully transcribed and minutes 


developed, so the only difference is that we 


don't issue a Federal Register notice, and 


that's because a Federal Register notice can 


take three weeks --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127

 DR. WADE: -- and we often don't have three 


weeks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Three weeks? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I thought that could be done in a 


week or so. 


 DR. WADE: It can be done in a week, but you 


can't do it often in a week. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: The system will push back. That's 


the only change that we've made between the 


two. I think the open process has served us 


well, frankly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only reason I think for the ­

- the dose reconstruction review, you know, 


it's this idea of -- of it's -- it's not an ad 


hoc, it's an ongoing process -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I think we have to -- you 


know, to abide by -- you know, our own rules. 


I think we have to consider the subcommittee 


for that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If it's an ongoing process, it has 


to be a subcommittee. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. And it doesn't --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

the subcommittee can certainly meet in 


Cincinnati, I think. It doesn't have to be 


tied to these Board meetings every time. We 


can --


 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, have a meeting in 


Cincinnati where we had access to staff and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's food for thought. 


We'll -- we'll return to this on our -- in our 


discussion. We do need to recess. Lew? 


 DR. WADE: One more issue to put on the table 


to think about and that is our friendly court 


reporter. Our process has evolved to the point 


that there's tremendous demands on that 


individual and his staff, and that creates some 


time impacts in terms of availability of 


materials, so it's -- you know, we're dealing 


with a relatively fixed-sum resource and a high 


quality resource, and you need to realize that 


there are those impacts, as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's now recess for 


lunch. We'll reconvene as a full Board at 1:00 


o'clock. Thank you. 

129

1 

2 

3 

 (Whereupon, business was concluded, and the 


Subcommittee was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.) 

______________________________ 

130 

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 June 14, 


2006; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


8th day of July, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102