THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 4 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the 4th 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


Reviews held at The Westin Westminster, 


Westminster, Colorado on May 2, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

May 2, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEW WADE, DFO 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 


DRAFT MOTIONS 15 


TYPES OF REVIEWS 49 


DISCUSSION OF REVIEWED CASES 68 


SELECTION OF CASES TO BE REVIEWED 84 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 128 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

BEACH, Josie 


Nuclear Chemical Operator 


Hanford Reservation 


Richland, Washington 


CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 


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


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


SCHOFIELD, Phillip 


Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 


Los Alamos, New Mexico 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

MAY 2, 2007
 

9:25 a.m.


 P R O C E E D I N G S 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. WADE: Good morning. We're a little bit 


late convening, but I think there's ample time 


for the subcommittee to do its work. Let me 


begin by introducing myself. My name is Lew 


Wade, and I have the privilege of serving as 


the Designated Federal Official for the 


Advisory Board. This is a meeting of the 


subcommittee of the Advisory Board, 


particularly the Subcommittee for Dose 


Reconstruction Reviews. This is the fourth 


meeting of that subcommittee. Those of you who 


have been with us for a while realize that 


there was a subcommittee that went before this 


subcommittee that looked at dose 


reconstructions and site profile reviews. This 


is a fairly newly-constituted subcommittee. 


The subcommittee is chaired by Mark Griffon. 


Members are Gibson, Poston and Munn. The 


alternates -- the first alternate is Brad 


Clawson, the second alternate Robert Presley. 


Dr. Poston is not with us and therefore Brad 


will serve as a memb-- a voting member of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

subcommittee this morning. 


 Again, we're scheduled to meet until 11:30. 


The brief agenda items we're to deal with, in 


no particular order, are discussion of reviewed 


cases, selection of cases to be reviewed, and 


discussion of the overall review process. 


 With that, I'll turn it over to Mark, who is 


the most able chair of the subcommittee. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Good morning to everyone, also. 


And I -- I apologize for a little delay. We're 


getting some copies as I speak, and I want to 


move into the agenda, but I think the -- the 


items Lew read out, I think I'm going to go on 


and go in reverse order of that. And I wanted 


to start off with a discussion because often as 


we run out of time we haven't discussed these 


in depth and I think we need to sort of push 


forward on these fronts. 


 The first item is the -- which we did discuss 


at the last subcommittee meeting, which we held 


in -- in Cincinnati -- was the -- this idea of 


DR guidelines or DR instructions, and these -- 


for those of you who aren't as close to the 


process, these guidelines are basically 


templates that NIOSH and ORAU have developed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

over time to sort of -- they're -- they're 


guides for their dose reconstructors on how to 


do cases for certain sites. They don't have 


them for all sites, I don't believe, but -- 


especially for some of the bigger DOE sites, 


they certainly have these guidelines. And 


they're not -- we have not so far reviewed 


these. They're not procedures -- they're not 


standardized procedures, but they're more 


guides for their dose reconstructors, so we've 


been talking about -- as -- from our standpoint 


in reviewing individual cases, it'd be very 


useful to have these guidelines that were used 


when the case was developed so that we could 


determine if in fact the dose reconstructor was 


following, you know, these -- the internal 


guidance. And it would also help, from SC&A's 


standpoint, to follow -- you know, what 


mechanical steps was the dose reconstructor 


going through in developing the case. And --


and sometimes there's -- in some of these 


there's decision logic, like you know, you use 


TIB-whatever in this kind of situation, and if 


you have this kind of situation you use 


Procedure Number 6 or whatever. So there's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

sort of that -- that -- that sort of 


information is in these guidelines and we -- we 


have discussed this at the last subcommittee 


meeting. We felt that these things would be 


very useful, especially as we're auditing cases 


and we think they'd be useful to add to the 


administrative record of the cases, at least 


going forward. And I have a motion to -- to -- 


a draft motion, I should say, to put forward to 


my other subcommittee members and just see if 


we can bring this to -- to the full Board. And 


right on cue, she's bringing the copies in, so 


-- if you can give those to the Board members 


to -- oh, you did? Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Great. Oh, great, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. So I'll -- I'll just 


-- that -- that's the first item I wanted to 


discuss. 


Then I also drafted another motion on sort of 


conducting blind reviews. We had a slot in the 


original scope of work for SC&A involving blind 


reviews. We've yet to conduct any blind 


reviews, and I have a motion -- a draft again ­

- outlining maybe how -- I -- I think we had a 


number of questions that came up at the last 

1 

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 

full Board meeting, as well as the last 


subcommittee meeting. You know, what would be 


the purpose of this -- of the blind reviews, to 


what end are -- you know, are we doing these. 


And then there's the mechanical steps of -- you 


know, if they're blind reviews, how are we 


going to select the cases, since we do all our 


meetings in public, without giving away the 


identity of the case ahead of time. So -- and 


then there -- I think the other big question 


that we were trying to weigh was do we -- do we 


do this as a strictly blind case where SC&A 


gets the raw data only, or do we do it blind in 


the sense that SC&A gets the raw data but can 


use the NIOSH/ORAU-developed tools to -- to -- 


to determine the doses. It's just the steps in 


the middle that -- that might be different, the 


-- the assumptions and how they use the data 


within those tools. None of that will be 


available, so it'll be blind to that extent, 


but -- but they would still have the tools that 


exist. And -- and there -- there's good 


arguments on both sides of that, I guess, but I 


-- I think -- you know, so that's another thing 


we've been discussing. I have, again, a draft 

1 

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 

motion that I'll put before my colleagues on 


subcommittee --


 DR. WADE: Mark, is it your sense then that the 


subcommittee would vote out on these motions 


and, if they voted positively, you would 


present them to the Board as the work product 


of the subcommittee? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, that was the --


 DR. WADE: Okay, would you like to do them just 


in turn? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was just going to -- 


since people are probably reading, I was going 


to go through the rest of -- of what I have to 


cover on our agenda --


 DR. WADE: Okay Then we'll come back and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- give people time to --


 DR. WADE: -- (unintelligible) in turn. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- digest these. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Af-- after we do those two 


items, an-- another item that -- that has come 


on our agenda in past meetings was the 


discussion of -- the original scope of work for 


our case reviews also included advanced 


reviews, and I just had asked everyone to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

reflect back on that scope and to sort of -- 


and I -- and this -- I don't have a motion 


developed on this. I think we're still at the 


discussion stage on this one. But you know, 


reflect back on that and determine to what 


extent we've covered -- I -- I think some of 


this -- in my opinion, anyway, some of the 


scope items within the advanced review we've 


not really touched on, so -- and on the other 


hand, I think that we might give a little bit 


different direction for SC&A on -- on some of 


the ways they have been doing their -- their 


case reviews. So I -- I think we want to sort 


of re-examine, you know, given our scope -- our 


original scope of work, you know, what subtasks 


within that scope have we been missing maybe, 


and maybe refocus our case reviews to make sure 


we capture some of those. I -- I guess the -- 


one example that has come up in previous 


discussions is, you know, I don't think it -- 


it's really at this point worth the -- the time 


of SC&A to go through -- sometimes in the -- in 


the analysis of a case there's the -- these 


input files that have annual doses by -- annual 


doses for -- for different types of radiation, 

1 

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 

and sometimes people worked there for 40 years, 


so you have sheets and sheets of this. And 


SC&A was -- was, by line item, checking each 


one of those numbers. And I'm not sure if they 


have to spend as much time on that, maybe 


randomly check some of those numbers, but there 


might be a -- more focus on -- on these other 


sort of what we would define as drill-down type 


activities, and that might involve making sure 


the interpretation from the raw data to those 


numbers was -- you know, was valid in -- in 


their -- in their view. So I think we might, 


you know, be able to modify sort of the way we 


go forward with some of the case reviews. And 


I think -- I think -- so that -- that's more of 


a discussion item I think today; not quite 


ready, I don't think, for a motion but I think 


we might discuss that. 


 Then after those three items, the -- the sort 


of mechanical items, I want to give an update 


on where we are with our -- our previous sets 


of reviews, the fourth set of cases, the fifth 


set of cases are both in the NIOSH resolution ­

- or comment resolution process, but I'll -- 


I'll give an update on that. And then finally 

1 

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 

we want to get to the eighth set of cases and I 


think we're hoping to make some preliminary 


identifications here of cases that we can at 


least ask NIOSH for more -- more specific 


parameter data on, and then to be able to bring 


that back to the full Board for selecting the 


eighth set of cases. 


So that's kind of I think what I want to cover. 


Any -- any comments or questions on that? 


 MS. MUNN: No. I would observe that the 


statistical data that was just provided to us 


by SCA in graph form was very revealing for me 


in terms of where we are relative to our 


initial goals. And I'm hoping that in our 


discussion we'll remember to refer back to 


those, especially as we're choosing our blind 


reviews, to see whether our goals were 


realistic at the outset in regard to the 


different types of segments we were looking at 


and whether we need to -- now that we've seen 


where the claims are coming from and what the 


statistics are on those claims, whether the 


goals themselves need to be rethought. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Yeah, we -- that's 


definitely something we should discuss and 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 

15 

I assume you're referring to the overall 


percentage of cases or --


 MS. MUNN: Yes, from the first 148 that we've 


done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: And I just distributed hard copies 


of that and put some on the table. 


DRAFT MOTIONS


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so -- so maybe if we can 


start with those first two sort of draft 


motions, and I think the shorter one -- 


 DR. WADE: Let's start with the first. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- might -- might be the easier 


one, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: So there is a motion. We need 


someone to second. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Seconded. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So this is the motion that 


says NIOSH should make DR guides, paren, 


guidelines, instructions or similar documents, 


close paren, available for all future cases, 


paren, included as part of the administrative 


record, close paren. Additionally, NIOSH 


should make appropriate versions of DR guides, 


paren, guidelines, comma, instructions, comma, 

1 

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 

or similar documents, close paren, available 


for all cases currently under review by the 


Board. 


So we have a motion and a second. Now we can 


have discussion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- go ahead, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: When the motion says available, do 


you mean available totally, publicly, on line, 


to SC&A, to the Board -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I think that's probably 


what Liz is commenting on, too, the -- the -- 


 DR. WADE: Well, let Liz --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, available, I meant 


available on the -- on the O dr-- you know, to 


the Board. 


 MS. MUNN: Available to -- right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: To the reviewers, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Perhaps we should stipulate 


that more clearly in the motion. 


 DR. WADE: Let's hear from Liz. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That takes care of my second 


point, but my first point is if you could just 


change administrative record to the analysis 

1 

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 

reports. An administrative record is a legal 


document. An analysis record is what NIOSH 


puts out. Thanks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Included as part of the analysis 


report? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Analysis report. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. Analysis record. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Analysis record, okay. That --


that would still be -- that's what we see on 


the O drive when we pull up a -- a case or 


whatever? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 


 DR. WADE: And then the second change was, Liz, 


to be formal? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Available -- do we need to put 


any words in there, available to the Board or 


available to Board and SC&A, you want to 


clarify that or --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: It would certainly be 


helpful if you would clarify that. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Available to the Board and 


reviewers. 

1 

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 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah -- well, I'm concerned 


about just using the word reviewers because 


petitioners may consider themselves reviewers 


of a final -- or --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think if we say available 


to the Board, that implies also SC&A since 


they're --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- our contractor. Right? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We know that government 


employees -- government contractors can have 


it, the Board can have it, but if you'd just 


clarify that. 


 MS. MUNN: The language that's appropriate, 


yeah, would be then to the Board and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Available to the Board. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think. Right? Does that cover 


us? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, that --


 MS. MUNN: That -- that incorporates the 


contractor as well, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- and -- and to be 


clear here, I think there is one challenge, 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 

19 

I don't know if NIOSH has a comment on this and 


I -- this appropriate versions, and -- and I 


did say for cases currently under review, so 


that would go back to the fourth set of cases. 


And I know that -- that -- you know, Stu might 


be able to talk to this, but I think so-- some 


of the old versions is -- it's -- you know, 


some of these cases were done in an early time 


period and I don't know if you've kept official 


versions by time, and how -- how difficult 


would this be to do, I -- we might even be able 


to say, you know, when -- when available or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: When possible. 


 MR. GRIFFON: When possible, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think because, as you point 


out, there could very well be cases selected 


for review in the fourth and fifth and even 


from here on that were prepared some time ago, 


and the specific instructions just weren't 


retained. We -- you know, we frequently see 


cases in the review that used versions of 


procedures or Technical Information Bulletins 


that have been superseded by the time we review 


the case. And so very likely it will not in 


and of the -- if it's a controlled document, 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 

20 

can get the version that was used, but these 


are not controlled and I'm not 100 percent sure 


we'll be able to do it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and what if I said after 


the -- in the second sentence, Additionally, 


NIOSH should make appropriate versions of DR 


guides, parentheses/close parentheses, where 


possible? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Appropriate versions of DR 


guides, where possible -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That works for us, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That sounds more reasonable to me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 'Cause I do -- I do 


understand that challenge, but we do want to 


try to get those as -- okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we have to deal in the real 


realm here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So that -- that's it, 


fairly succinct motion. I don't know if -- any 


further comments on it? 


 DR. WADE: I could read the -- the motion as 


modified then. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you want to read it as 


edited? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21

 DR. WADE: Okay, as edited, the motion: NIOSH 


should make DR guides, paren, guidelines, 


instructions or similar documents, close paren, 


available to the Board for all future cases, 


paren, included as part of the analysis record, 


close paren. Additionally, NIOSH should make 


appropriate versions of DR guidelines, where 


possible, paren, guidelines, instructions or 


similar documents, available to the Board for 


all cases currently under review by the Board. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Actually, just an editorial 


thing, I put the "where possible" after the 


parens there in the --


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- last, but --


 DR. WADE: With that change. 


 MS. MUNN: Would you read that last sentence 


one more time, please, Dr. Wade? 


 DR. WADE: The last sentence one more time. 


Additionally, NIOSH should make appropriate 


versions of DR guidelines, paren -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: DR guides. 


 DR. WADE: -- DR guides, paren --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- guidelines, comma, instructions, 

1 

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 

or similar documents, close paren, where 


possible, available to the Board for all cases 


currently under review by the Board. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any further discussion on this 


motion? 


 (No responses) 


I think we -- are we ready to vote on the 


motion? 


 DR. WADE: Okay. All in favor --


 MR. GRIFFON: All in favor? 


 DR. WADE: -- signify? 


 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, it's unanimous, the four 


voting members. 


Okay, the second motion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Second one is the 


motion regarding the blind reviews. 


 DR. WADE: We have a motion. Do we have a 


second? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Seconded. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Second? 


 DR. WADE: Brad seconds. Okay, discussion? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did you -- did you want to read 

1 

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 

it in, Lew, like you did the other one, or -- 


 DR. WADE: I could read it into the record. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You're so good at that, you know. 


 DR. WADE: Motion: The purpose of the blind 


reviews is to determine if required 


assumptions, comma, application of tools, 


comma, interpretation of data, comma, and 


treatment of data yield consistent results for 


the dose to the organ of interest. 


New paragraph. The Board will select cases for 


blind review. Case ID will not be made 


available to SC&A. Further, comma, no 


information which could potentially be used to 


identify the case will be provided to SC&A 


until the blind review is complete. 


New paragraph. The blind review will be 


conducted using available tools developed by 


NIOSH/ORAU, but without any case-specific 


analytical files. These blind reviews will be 


focused on best estimate cases. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So any -- and I -- I recognize 


that the -- I mean there's a mechanical step in 


here, the second paragraph, the mechanics of 


how to select the blind cases without doing it 


in a public forum, obviously -- I'm open for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

suggestions, I should say. I -- I would like 


to have a few blind reviews out of this eighth 


set of cases, and it might be -- at least for 


purposes here today, we might just select two 


less than we normally would out of the -- for 


the eighth set and -- and reserve a slot for 


two blind cases. And then -- I don't know if 


we can do -- select those in like a closed 


session format or something like that, but that 


may be a way to -- that -- that's a mechanical 


thing, though. I think --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there -- on the case 


selection list there is no identification on 


there of those cases. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But they have POC and --


 MR. HINNEFELD: They do have POC, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean is there enough 


information to sort of infer -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's POC on there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I think even that -- 


'cause the POCs are -- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Because that's -- yeah, that 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: To a dec--


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- gives you the answer to 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 

25 

blind (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 40.7, you can find that 


pretty ea-- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, you're right, you're 


right. I -- that was actually not what I was 


going to comment about. We could -- what if we 


prepared that same list without that POC value 


in there to select from for blind cases? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I --


 MS. MUNN: But --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was thinking -- because 


we do want best estimate cases, so -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean my -- my tendency would be 


to do -- to sort of have a -- a 15 or 20-minute 


segment of the subcommittee where we had a 


closed session --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and we just handled it that 


way. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know if that's possible 


or... 


 DR. WADE: Well, it's possible. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26

 DR. WADE: I'd rather explore other options, 


but if that's the option we -- would it be 


possible to have, for the Board, POC 


information and another list for the table that 


would include a POC between 40 and 50, for 


example. Is there a way we can demonstrate the 


fact that this is close to the margin, but 


without giving specific information? I guess 


the attorneys would have to advise. Again, I 


think it's always better to do business in the 


open if at all possible. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 


 MS. HOWELL: Well, I think the current list 


that we've been using for all of these 


selection cases does include the probability of 


causation number, so continuing to provide that 


isn't going to be a problem as long as, you 


know, we always review these to make sure 


there's not an aggregate of information that 


would allow --


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. HOWELL: It's just a matter of -- if it's 


out there on the table, you know, SC&A's just 


going to have to wall themselves off from it, I 


guess, to make sure that they're performing 

1 

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 

blind reviews. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We could take the list we have 


-- 'cause it's a Lotus -- it's an Excel file, 


rather, sort on POCs so that, you know, the 


POCs are the top; clip out the ones that are 


between 40 and 50, make that a file, and then 


delete out those POC numbers. In that case, we 


could generate a list that has all the same 


information that are on the selection lists now 


except for POCs, that would have the full 


internal and externals with POCs between 40 and 


50 percent, but the POC would not be on the 


list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But the cancer --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We could do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- cancer type would still be on 


there. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: How can you do a dose 


reconstruction if you don't know the cancer 


type? 


 MS. MUNN: You can't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, they need to know that, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, you really can'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 

28

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm just thinking through -- what 


are the parameters on there? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There is the employment -- 


first employment decade, duration of 


employment, date that the draft DR was approved 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whether -- there's the 


selection number, which is just an arbitrarily-


assigned number, site -- 


 DR. WADE: You're talking about this 


(unintelligible)? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, you've got --


 DR. WADE: Maybe I could give this out and you 


could look at it. 


 MS. MUNN: What is that? 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I guess that may work 


if we just -- we sorted on the POC. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the main identifying piece 


I think that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, that -- that would be -- 


that would be -- tip off the person who's going 


to do the blind --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- review to what the answer 


was --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which is not -- which is 


what you want to avoid. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So we can generate a 


list in that fashion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sort by -- sort --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if I can do it 


this morning or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sort with all POCs greater than 


40 percent or whatever -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah, it's --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Excel. You can sort on 


POC and just clip out the ones -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- between 40 and 50. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then find best estimate 


cases --


 MR. HINNEFELD: If we work off this list, 


they'll be best estimates -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30

I 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- full external and internal. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. What do people think? 


think that's --


 MR. CLAWSON: Sounds good to me. 


 MS. MUNN: It -- there's a question, I think, 


whether it's really possible to do this to the 


extent we would like to have it done without 


giving information which could in some way -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know. 


 MS. MUNN: -- be traced back to the case. I 


just don't see how you can do that. There --


there may be some magic method out there, but ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Well, and like --


 MS. MUNN: -- and if --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- Stu said, they eventually have 


to know the site and the -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and the cancer type, so... 


 MS. MUNN: And if you know the site and the 


cancer type and the decade in which the person 


went to work --


 MR. GRIFFON: You can narrow it down already, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- then you're getting down to 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 

point where it -- it could be identifiable. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- there's -- there's 


actually more of a problem with that. In order 


to do the dose reconstruction, if this person 


has an exposure record, that would be part of 


what the dose reconstructor would use to do the 


dose reconstruction. And those dose 


reconstruction records are identified, usually 


on every page. So what would -- we would be 


facing doing would be -- 


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


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- printing this record -- 


printing this record, redacting it page by 


page, take off any identifier and then 


rescanning it to make it broadly available. 


And I'm just wondering, is it so critically 


important that SC&A not know which case it is, 


or is it just important they not know the 


outcome. And I don't know if there's a way to 


avoid, you know, having them -- the outcome 


available to them, if we can restrict access on 


a case by case -- I just don't know if we can 


restrict access or not just case by case, based 


on certain rights or not. I mean -- you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

or we could make it an honor system thing, you 


know --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you're not allowed to look 


in NOCTS, you know, when you do this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I was trying to make 


it a -- as clean as possible, but obviously 


we've got some -- some problems with that, 


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: To me, that's a very big deal 


because when you're doing a dose 


reconstruction, the -- the thing that, you 


know, you rely most on -- well, the CATI 


interview, again, would have to be redacted. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The dose -- the exposure record 


that we receive for the individual would have 


to be redacted, quite possibly on every page, 


maybe several places on each page. And -- and 


so it really complicates getting the case 


available --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for SC&A. We could generate 


for them -- as long as they can know who the 


case is, we can put all the 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 

33 

necessary that the dose reconstructor would 


have -- we can put all that information on the 


CD and provide that information on the CD and 


say then -- and during the blind review they 


must work from the CD -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they're not allowed to 


consult NOCTS to help sort this thing out. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They have to work from what's 


on that CD, I think we -- I think we can do 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: This may be necessary, and it may be 


necessary for us to reword the second sentence 


in the second paragraph of the motion in order 


to clarify what the mechanics are going to be. 


We also may need to add "to the extent 


possible" at the very end of the motion. If we 


find, for example, when we get into what's 


available to us --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that best estimate cases don't 


give us the scope that we want to see covered 


in these blind reviews, then we may 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 

34

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- give ourselves a little space 


there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: How are you recommending changing 


the second paragraph, though? I --


 MS. MUNN: The second paragraph, I think the 


wording --


 MR. GRIFFON: Put more specifics in there or... 


 MS. MUNN: No, the wording of that second 


sentence needs to be worked on if we're -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- if we're going to be realistic 


about this. The -- the addition to the end is 


easy, but we need to take a few minutes to 


consider the wording of that second -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we do, yeah. Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- second sentence. 


 DR. WADE: John? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean --


DR. MAURO: If I may, in the first paragraph -- 


 DR. WADE: Try to get very close to the 


microphone, please. 


DR. MAURO: If I may, in the first paragraph 


reference is made to tools, and this goes back 


to the point that Mark had made regarding 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 

35 

business of do you use the tools or don't you 


use the tools. The way -- let me give you an 


example. When I review a dose reconstruction 


and one of these very sophisticated tools are 


before me to be used -- now it turns out Kathy 


Behling runs these tools all the time, took her 


quite some time to learn to use them, and she 


uses them. When I'm giving it, I use what I 


call -- give me all your data, I look at the 


data and I use my best knowledge and not the 


tool, the sophisticated tool, and in the -- 


because when I look at the tool, in some cases 


I don't especially feel that the tool is -- 


serves the process well. I don't -- I don't 


want to get into the specific -- it happens to 


be OTIB-18. So where -- where I'm going with 


this is that when I think about reconstructing 


a person's dose, I feel as if I don't 


necessarily want to be forced to use a tool 


that I do not necessarily like. I'd rather do 


it both ways. I'd rather say okay, John, you 


and whoever is going to do the best -- here -- 


'cause when all is said and done, here's the 


data and this is what we've got. Here's the 


data from DOE. This is -- this is -- and now 

1 

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 

the fact that there might be a team of 


individuals over at NIOSH who put a lot of 


thought in building a sophisticated tool to 


really get -- sharpen the analysis, but in the 


end come out with a tool that perhaps other 


health physicists may say you know, I would not 


necessarily use that tool. I like the idea of 


saying what does that tool really buy you? Is 


it a tool that serves the process well? And so 


I guess what I would like to suggest is that if 


we're going to do the blind dose 


reconstruction, let's -- let's find out, let's 


use the tool and -- but also allow the dose 


reconstruc-- the auditor to use his own 


judgment and not feel as if he has to use the 


tool, and see what the tool buys us. Would it 


result in a better estimate, or perhaps a less 


robust estimate? And I have specific examples 


in mind where I feel the tool itself may not be 


the best way to come at the problem because of 


the way it's been conceived. So I'd -- I -- I 


think that insight into the value, power, 


validity of the tools that have been developed, 


and some of these are very sophisticated, needs 


to be understood and explored and disclosed 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 

37 

the Board because I think -- I know in several 


cases I feel as if the outcome, because we've 


used that tool, resulted in a dose 


reconstruction that I would not necessarily 


agree with, but I did follow all the rules. So 


I -- I sort of want to leave that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I follow you, John. 


guess -- the way I phrased that first part and 


-- and I don't think that restricts you from 


de-- from looking at that. I guess my point 


was that the purpose is to determine if these ­

- these -- you know -- I'm not sure it requires 


the word, but the assumptions, the application 


of the tools, et cetera, et cetera, yield to -- 


so if you're exploring whether they do yield a 


consistent result, you know, one -- I think one 


thing that you -- you should be allowed to do 


under this task would be to say, you know, we ­

- we -- you know, we looked at the -- you know, 


so you have the tools available, but you can 


certainly comment that we didn't -- you know, 


we did this both ways 'cause we don't think the 


tool's really appropriate in this case. We --


we chose this method. I think that it doesn't 


restrict you from looking at that. You're 


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 

38 

looking at whether the use of the tools makes 


sense, sort -- you know, also. So I don't 


think that restricts you from that. 


 DR. WADE: And you really have to distinguish ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- what you're trying to learn with 


a blind review versus a normal review. In a 


normal -- in a non-blind review, you are making 


those judgments all the time 'cause you're 


looking at what NIOSH has done and saying do we 


agree with that. Now here's a blind review. 


What are you trying to accomplish here 


different than what you're accomplishing with 


the normal review? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- that is part -- but 


I think there is a different level. I think in 


these previous reviews a lot of the focus has 


been on if -- if a DR -- a dose reconstructor 


followed procedure and if they used the tool 


correctly and then, you know, sometimes it 


stopped there. You know, they used the tool as 


it was laid out to do, they used it in 


accordance with the appropriate procedures, 


they followed the site profile recommendations. 

1 

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 

They didn't necessarily explore as to whether 


that tool was developed in a way that they -- 


that they felt -- you know. 


DR. MAURO: That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. So -- now for the 


AWE sites we may get into this -- in our next 


discussion about advanced versus basic. For 


some of the AWE sites I think you did do that 


further probative questioning because, you 


know, we had the rationale when of-- oftentimes 


there's not -- you know, it -- it's one case, 


but all the cases for certain ones of these 


sites are done in the same manner, so you're 


basically reviewing the whole site in one -- in 


one case. So in those cases I think you did 


tend to do more of that probative analysis. 


But anyway, I -- I -- I don't think that first 


paragraph restricts you from -- from the -- you 


know, unless we need to edit it. I think Wanda 


has... 


 MS. MUNN: I'm wondering whether additional 


words are necessary in the actual motion, or 


whether our discussion here serves this 


purpose. Certainly we'd like to determine if 


the applications of the tool yielded consistent 

1 

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 

results. But by the same token, the question 


of whether in all cases the use of the tool 


provided the best reconstruction, the best 


notation of dose, is a different issue and 


that's the one that John really addressed here. 


It appears to me that if it's -- if we make it 


clear to our contractor that this statement 


with respect to the application of tools 


incorporates their judgment as to whether or 


not that was an appropriate use may suffice. 


Just don't want the record to -- 


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


 MS. MUNN: -- be misleading. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you're right. I think you're 


right. I -- I mean -- well, do -- do you have 


any proposed language addition to that or -- I 


-- I was thinking one thing we could add is 


yield consistent and scientifically defensible 


results for -- you know, get those words in 


there, the scientifically defensible thing. 


think that's in our original charge, actually, 


so... 


 MS. MUNN: I think so, too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: John, would you find that -- 


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 

41 

DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Would that --


 MS. MUNN: -- reasonable for you 


(unintelligible) --


DR. MAURO: I was thinking those very same 


words. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- work? Yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: That nails it. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. All right. So -- so 


getting back to that second paragraph now, the 


mechanics, I -- I tried to redraft a quick 


paragraph on that, so crossing out that entire 


second paragraph -- a friendly amendment to my 


own motion -- I -- I think maybe -- and this is 


pretty rough, as I was doing it real time, but 


perhaps this could work. The Board will select 


cases for blind reviews. NIOSH will put case 


information on a -- on a CD -- this is pretty 


crude here -- for SC&A to review. SC&A will 


not access the selected case via the NOCTS 


database. And -- and -- I mean if we really 


want to get restrictive about this, certainly 


NIOSH can even deny access to certain folders 


on NOCTS. I mean we -- we've seen this 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 

42 

past. So they could even black -- block the 


Board's access and SC&A's access to certain, 


you know, selected case files and that way we ­

- you know, there'd be no indication that we 


were looking at the case information during the 


review, so... 


 MS. MUNN: That probably shouldn't be 


necessary. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think it's necessary, but 


 MS. MUNN: Certainly our -- our contractor is 


reliable enough to follow the instructions to 


use nothing except the data on the CD. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Absolutely, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: And that's -- seems to be a 


reasonable method of -- of bounding what the -- 


what information is available in order to make 


it truly a blind review. 


 DR. WADE: Just again, Mark, NIOSH will select 


cases for blind review -- the Board will select 


cases for blind review. NIOSH will put what? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'm going to rephrase that 


second sentence. NIOSH will provide case 


information on a -- a CD for SC&A review. Or 


should I just say provide case information 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 

43 

electronic form or on a CD? I don't know. 


 MS. MUNN: CD is probably better. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On a CD, okay --


 MS. MUNN: That puts it --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for SC&A review. And last 


sentence, SC&A will not access the selected 


case via the NOCTS database, just -- just so 


we're clear, you know, that -- you know. And 


then -- and -- does that make sense, Stu? I 


think that addresses what you were talking 


about. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I think that's -- that's 


quite doable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Presumably there will be a 


subcommittee member or members assigned -- 


normally there's a subcommittee member assigned 


to the review of each of the normally-reviewed 


cases. So rather than just say SC&A will not 


confer, it'd be SC&-- you know, subcommittee 


members or SC&A will not -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, something like 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or -- or -- or the Board and SC&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 

44 

will not --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 


 DR. WADE: You're saying the Board and SC&A 


will not access the NOCTS database? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And in the first sentence 


I guess we -- NIOSH will provide information on 


a CD for the Board and SC&A review. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess to be consistent. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Should I read that whole 


paragraph back or I want to read the whole 


motion? I -- it --


 MS. MUNN: Let's read the whole motion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean are there any other 


comments to any other parts, and then I'll try 


to piece this whole thing together in one read. 


 DR. WADE: Oh, I got it, if you want me -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you got it? Okay. 


 DR. WADE: I'll try. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, go ahead. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Motion: The purpose of the 


blind reviews is to determine if required 


assumptions, comma, application of tools, 

1 

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 

comma, interpretation of data, comma, and the 


treatment of data yield consistent and 


scientifically -- ah, let me read it again. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: The purpose of the blind review is 


to determine if required assumptions, 


application of tools, interpretation of data 


and treatment of data yield consistent and 


scientifically defensible results for the 


purpose -- for the dose to the organ of 


interest. 


Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: The Board will select cases for 


blind review. NIOSH will provide case 


information to the Board and SC&A on a CD. The 


Board and SC&A will not access the NOCTS 


database for such cases. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's it. 


 DR. WADE: And the third paragraph, the blind 


review will be conducted using available tools 


developed by NIOSH/ORAU, but without any case-


specific analytical files. The blind reviews 


will be focused on best estimate cases, to the 


extent possible. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: I would add one caveat. Following 


the NOCTS database, I would indicate NOCTS or 


any other available database, because we really 


don't want -- NOCTS is not the only source of 


information available. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you -- you mean that 


regarding NIOSH databases or any other... 


 MS. MUNN: I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure exactly what you're 


referencing there, like the R drive versus the 


NOCTS system, is that what you're getting at? 


 MS. MUNN: Or original DOE files or original 


dose -- original badge reading contractors. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: There's -- there's lots of other 


data out there that's accessible -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --


 MS. MUNN: -- and -- and --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I think the main -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- that the -- isn't -- isn't the 


point we're trying to make don't use anything 


except what's on the CD for your review? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- I -- I've got to 


think about that one. You -- 'cause then we 


have to -- I mean are all the proced-- all the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

tools, procedures, site profi-- everything 


going to be put on that CD or -- or -- I guess 


they could be. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, then say any other claimant 


database, because procedures and things of that 


sort are --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- are not the same as --


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe any other claimant 


database. I think --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, any other claimant -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the main thing we want to 


restrict SC&A from is looking at any analysis 


files that NIOSH has done, you know, if -- if, 


you know, raw records exist, I'm -- I'm not 


sure that's a problem, you know, but I -- I 


think any other claimant database is certainly 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, claimant database. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- certainly appropriate, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any other claimant database. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. One more time 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 

48

 MS. MUNN: One more time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: One more time. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Maybe I'll get it better this 


time. 


The purpose of the blind reviews is to 


determine if required assumptions, application 


of tools, interpretation of data and treatment 


of data yield consistent and scientifically 


defensible results for the dose to the organ of 


interest. 


Second paragraph. The Board will select cases 


for blind review. NIOSH will provide the Board 


and SC&A case information on a CD for review. 


The Board and SC&A will not access the NOCTS 


database or any other claimant databases for 


such reviews. 


The blind reviews will be conducted using 


available tools developed by NIOSH/ORAU, but 


without any case-specific analytical files. 


These blind reviews will be focused on best 


estimate cases, to the extent possible. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Any other comments on the 

motion? 

 (No responses) 

 John, Stu, any other comments? 

1 

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

 (No responses) 


Okay. Ready to vote on the motion? 


 (No responses) 


All in favor, aye? 


 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I guess --


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: We got a unanimous vote? 


 DR. WADE: So the unanimous vote in favor of 


the motion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So motion carries to the full 


Board. 


TYPES OF REVIEWS
 

All right. The next item that I mentioned was 


at least a preliminary discussion of -- of the 


types of reviews that we're doing, blind versus 


advanced, and -- you know, how -- or whether we 


need to go back to our ori-- well, I was -- had 


asked that people look back at the original 


scope and consider the subtasks under the basic 


and advanced reviews and, to the extent we can, 


make sure that, going forward, we -- we haven't 


selected any -- we haven't really defined basic 


or advanced in the past case selections so far. 

1 

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 

And I would argue that a lot of the cases have 


been basic, but certainly the AWE cases fall 


into an advanced review -- what I would say 


advanced review construct. And you know, I -- 


I just wondered if in our next sets of cases we 


need to specifically ask for basic and 


advanced. And if we do, just make that 


distinction. I think we need to have a more 


clear description of how that's going to affect 


SC&A's review. I think they need to know, you 


know, what -- what do you want beyond what 


we've done in the past to consider an advanced 


review. And -- and I -- the description I gave 


earlier, you know, might be one way we -- we 


ask them to modify their approach is that maybe 


we don't have to make sure every line item 


equals out so -- so that -- you know, therefore 


you have less -- less focus on that, but maybe 


more focus in the question of -- for example, 


if you have a raw dataset and -- and there's 


gaps in the individual's records, how were 


those gaps treated by NIOSH. And given the 


site dosimetry program, the history, you know, 


what went on at the site, the badging practices 


of the site, was that appropriate. And I don'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 

51 

think that -- that next step I don't think 


currently we take. 


Now as I say this, also I realize that some of 


this falls into what we sometimes cover under 


our site profile reviews, so here we go with 


this, you know, sort of merging of the -- the 


two tasks. But I think that -- that -- that 


does become important because if -- if we stop 


the review at a point where we say, you know, 


they had gaps in the data and they -- they 


chose to assign it using this method and this 


method is prescribed in the TIB, that's one 


level of review, certainly. And if it's a --


you know, available method to the dose 


reconstructor in the TIB, that's certainly one 


method of review. They -- they've -- they, you 


know, check that they did it according to 


procedure. 


The next step is, you know, is that -- is that 


application of that TIB appropriate for that 


site, given what we know about the dosimetry 


program and the, you know, the his-- you know, 


the history of -- of that site, or the 


individual's, you know, work and job history. 


I mean if someone has gaps and -- and they, 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 

52 

know -- I know that we've reviewed a lot of 


cases where we see, you know, very claim-- 


claimant favorable assumptions that -- that 


you'd say an individual had -- was monitored 


and never had a value over LOD and you're -- 


you're slapping on all this missed dose for 


several years where you -- you probably think ­

-


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, and rightly so, that 


that was very claimant favorable -- 


 MS. MUNN: It's unreasonably --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so then -- then you get down 


to some cases where you might have small gaps, 


and did they -- did they use a different 


approach, did they use a coworker model to fill 


in that gap or did they still go with the LOD 


over two approach, when maybe the nearby doses 


were much higher than LOD over two -- you know, 


so that -- that's the kind of thing I'm -- I'm 


seeing as a more advanced probe -- just one 


example. 


Other things that I've -- in -- in looking back 


at the scope and -- I didn't print out our 


initial -- it's in the original contract 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 

53 

SC&A has the scope in. I don't know if we -- 


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) get it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I have it on disk, but -- I don't 


think we need it for this discussion really, 


but one other thing we brought up in there was 


-- was this question of whether -- whether the 


-- the -- it was the question of the interview 


being consistent with -- so the information 


provided in the interview was consistent with 


the -- the DR approach. And I think we've -- 


we've touched on that and -- and we do have one 


-- one obvious problem from the Board's working 


standpoint is that, you know, this -- this 


whole question of -- of can we -- can we, the 


Board, or SC&A approach the claimant and, you 


know, sort of re-interview them. And I think 


we've -- we've had a lot of, you know, dialogue 


about that in -- in past meetings, but we -- we 


certainly haven't explored -- usually -- and 


the other thing in the CATI interviews 


sometimes there's coworkers mentioned in there, 


and I don't think that our current reviews have 


said, you know, we've -- you know, certainly we 


haven't interviewed any of those coworkers, but 


you know, would -- would -- an advanced review 

1 

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 

could involve maybe looking at -- looking for 


those coworkers' radiation files. I mean they 


may not be claimants, but they might be within 


the DOE records system, looking at those 


coworkers' files and saying okay, you know, 


these people worked in the same operation. 


Thing-- you know, things look consistent with 


these workers, so comparing with like workers I 


guess was another option. That certainly is a 


more -- more advanced probative review. 


So those are some things that -- that, you 


know, sort of jumped out to me as what would be 


considered advanced. You know, I think one -- 


even in the last subcommittee meeting we had 


the -- and it was an AWE case, actually, but it 


was the -- one of the AWE cases where they had 


an assumption on the -- the neptunium and -- 


and plutonium contamination in the recycled 


uranium that was used in the plant, and they 


had a baseline assumption for those 


percentages. But SC&A didn't go that next step 


to determine where -- how those were derived, 


you know, and if they seemed appropriate for 


that facility. I think that would be another 


example (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 

55 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, that -- that's a good example 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- and where -- all we did in our 


review is point out that the justification for 


those ratios, those part per millions, was not 


provided --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- or made reference to, and we 


stopped at that point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Stopped there, right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. A more advanced review would 


be dive into that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and see if those numbers were in 


fact valid. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. So ju-- just some 


examples that I wanted to throw out there, and 


maybe -- you know, I'm not sure I'm ready to 


sort of make a motion to clarify what an 


advanced review should be, but I just wanted to 


maybe open some dialogue here today, and then 


maybe for our next subcommittee meeting we can, 


you know, flesh out what a advanced review is. 


DR. MAURO: There may be another element 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 

56 

this type. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: I notice that on many occasions I ­

- I'm just dying to pick up the phone and call 


up the person who did the dose reconstruction ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- as oppo-- not -- not the 


claimant, but the dose reconstructor, and talk 


to them a little bit because sometimes the 


rationale or the explanation is very 


abbreviated and I know I'm going to spend a lot 


of time trying to figure out -- and in the end 


sometimes I'll simply write, you know, I just 


couldn't match this number and I'm not quite 


sure why. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: A more in-depth review would be let 


me talk to the fir-- because it may be 


perfectly fine, but it's not self-evident to me 


as I read the DR report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we -- and we talked about 


that the last subcommittee meeting and I -- I 


think there's -- I'm not sure I like that 


option, actually, 'cause I think there's 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 

57 

benefit to not having that direct interaction 


because you can -- I think you can tend to be, 


you know, steered in the direction that -- that 


-- and I think a benefit of -- of this review 


is that you sort of attack a problem outside 


the box. You're not led down one path 


immediately. So I think there's trade-offs on 


that, yeah. I think -- I think the -- the 


middle ground there is to have these DR guides 


for each case, and then you sort of, without 


interviewing the dose reconstructor, you have 


some insight into what -- why they were going 


in the path of different decisions. I think 


that's a -- that's ground I'm more comfortable 


on, anyway. I can't speak for everyone, 


obviously. 


 MS. MUNN: There is another option, another 


possibility with regard to situations like 


that. I certainly have great understanding of 


the feeling that issues can be easily worked 


out if there's a direct dialogue between the 


people who are looking at the same information. 


But you're point's well taken, Mark. 


Is there a possibility that in these few 


extreme cases that we're going to be looking at 

1 

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 

-- and I'm only talking about these very best 


estimate, deep review issues -- perhaps a 


mechanism could be worked out similar to what 


we do in some of our working groups where the 


contractor looks at what has been done and 


states the question that comes to their mind. 


If we go one step further and allow the dose 


reconstructor to respond to that question, 


perhaps that could be done without having the 


interaction occur on a personal level. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: And it might clear up the question 


very quickly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I mean the other -- yeah, 


the other -- and -- and you're saying sort of 


do that prior to any finding resolution process 


so that it's not -- is that what you're 


suggesting maybe? 


 MS. MUNN: I would think that you'd want -- if 


there's going to be a response -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: If there's a question hanging in the 


air and there's someone who can answer that 


question, it would seem logical that we'd want 


that question answered before it came to 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 

59 

Would we not? 


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

- I was just also thinking that -- how as we'd 


moved along here, we -- we've almost got a -- a 


few cases that I can point to, especially in 


the fourth set of cases, that -- that were sort 


of turning into advanced reviews, and these are 


these best estimate cases -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- where, you know, NIOSH has 


come back and basically said, you know, we're 


going to provide you some, you know, further 


written analysis to -- you know, because these 


were very close and it was a question of 


whether the finding would result in a 


significantly different dose, you know -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so in tho-- you know, so then 


they -- there is more in-depth probing there. 


But that's sort of on the matrix level where 


we're asking, you know, here's what we -- you 


know, we have this question, and then -- I mean 


I'm assuming that in -- you know, Stu's 


bringing these back to the people that did the 


cases or people that, you know, reviewed them 

1 

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 

or whatever and asking them to provide more 


information or basically a response. But 


that's all in th-- in this formal level of the 


matrix. I mean maybe -- maybe you're right, 


maybe that step can be done prior to -- pri-- 


and then maybe it never gets on a finding level 


is maybe what you're saying, you know, to -- 


 MS. MUNN: Worth considering --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- as a possible mechanism. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I -- yeah, I'm not sure 


there's an answer there, but it -- that -- 


that's an option, for sure. I -- I do think 


that -- my personal feeling is that I -- I like 


that separation of -- of, you know, the auditor 


from the people that were doing the dose 


reconstruction. And then if we do the 


response, I think it's best to have that 


response in the public for-- you know, on our 


subcommittee level and then, you know, there's 


no sense that there was sort of a -- a -- you 


know, a finding was taken off the table 


prematurely or whatever, without public 


scrutiny, I guess would be the word, so -- in 


my sense would be -- but -- but I 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 

61 

think that we have seen that in our -- in our 


review. In our resolution process we've seen 


where we've said, you know, we're not getting 


this number. We're not -- you know, we think 


there's an issue here and instead of just a 


verbal explanation, NIOSH has said let -- let's 


develop -- you know, let's -- let's give you a 


fleshed out, written response to this so you 


can see where we're coming from more -- you 


know, and we've got a bunch of those pending. 


Right, Stu? I mean right now we're in the 


process of that. So I think that -- that 


system works. Go ahead, John. 


DR. MAURO: Another perspective on -- as you 


correctly pointed out, on -- on many occasions 


when we're doing a DR audit, very -- we're at 


the point now where on many of the cases that 


we're auditing there is an SC&A site profile 


review -- Hanford, Savannah River, there are a 


total of 21 right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: So quite frankly, we've got now a 


backlog of knowledge regarding the site profile 


and -- you know, and into it in great depth. 


So we are the beneficiaries right now of being 

1 

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 

able to, while we're doing our DR, call up the 


lead on the site profile and say tell me a 


little bit more about how they did their 


neutron dosimetry or whatever. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: So on that -- from that respect, we 


are in a position to go deeper into being -- 


providing the Board with some insight into the 


strengths and limitations of a given DR. But 


that's not the case for lots of DRs that we 


have not performed the dose -- the -- the site 


profile review. So in those cases I think a 


good question that needs to be asked is do -- 


does SC&A go into the original D-- do we 


perform what I would call a mini-site profile 


review and go into the -- the -- the records, 


the site profile, the documents that stand 


behind the site profile, as if part of our DR 


audit is to probe vertically into selected 


areas, as we see fit, the site profile and its 


supporting documentation for those that we 


haven't done already. And I -- to me, that is 


the -- the richest place for an advanced 


movement, by going down that road. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I tend to agree with 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 

63 

Do -- do we have -- I mean I -- the other thing 


I haven't thought through really is -- is to 


what extent you do have the benefit of all 


those -- all those site profile reviews that 


you've done. And then I guess still, even for 


like Hanford and Savannah River, I'm not sure 


that you ever get down to like -- 'cause a 


couple of these came up in recent find-- and I 


think we're getting -- we're sort of getting at 


it in this resolution step, because questions 


are raised about whether someone should have 


had missed dose assigned for neutrons, and 


NIOSH's response is -- based on the job history 


and building history, they put together a 


compelling argument that, you know, their 


decision was correct. Well, SC&A hadn't, prior 


to that, gone to that depth. But maybe this 


reso-- you know, the resolution step's kind of 


getting us there anyway, so you know, I -- I 


don't know, you know. I think -- those were 


some of the things I was thinking about. Maybe 


some get covered in this resolution step. 


Maybe some need to be clarified in the original 


scope, you know. 


DR. MAURO: But -- but you realize one of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

line items in the matrix table, when we hit 


something like that, it's classif-- let's say 


we're doing a DR case, and we have a lot of 


these -- oh, this is a site profile issue; 


we'll deal with it then. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: Now in the advanced review, the 


question -- you know, we're -- sort of like 


made a big circle now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Are we going to deal with it right 


there as part of the DR, or are we going to put 


it off as a site profile issue, when the day 


comes when we do the site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I've got -- I've got 


some of those currently. I was editing the 


fifth matrix on the plane out here and, you 


know, I have some questions in my mind on a few 


of those, which is -- you know, I -- I think 


some of them -- we said site profile issue, but 


I'm not even sure it's in the hopper for SC&A 


to review that -- that specific site profile, 


or some of them I think are -- are called 

1 

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 

exposure matrixes for the sites. They're not 


quite as big as a site profile, but -- and I -- 


my tendency is for those type of things we 


should handle it right, you know, in the DR 


process for those smaller sites. But yeah, 


it's open to discussion, too, so... I -- I --


go ahead. 


 MS. MUNN: It sounds as though you anticipate 


the end result to be the same whether this is 


done pre-matrix or post-matrix discussion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, although -- although I 


think -- I think some clarification -- and I 


guess what I'd propose now is that before our ­

- for our next subcommittee meeting I'll try to 


circulate, before the day of the subcommittee 


meeting, some -- some draft language to clarify 


scope for an advanced review, 'cause there's 


some of these things that I think we might -- 


might want to touch on befo-- you know, some 


sort of flesh out in the resolution process, 


but some I think -- specifically the CATI 


elements and the coworker elements, and I know 


they're -- they're tricky ones to deal with, 


but I think we -- they're in our scope and I 


think we want to -- we need to -- to address 

1 

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 

them somehow. 


 DR. WADE: Is it your sense that we would look 


at some advanced reviews in the eighth set or 


hold for next year? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- it'll probably -- 


since we're selecting the eighth set now, I -- 


I think it would probably hold off. 


 DR. WADE: To the -- to next year? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Although I think we're getting 


some -- I think we can retrospectively look 


back and say this was an advanced review, this 


is an advanced review. I'm not against that. 


I think some -- several of the AWE ones -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- certainly fall into our 


classification as advanced reviews. Some of 


the Savannah River ones that we're asking for 


written responses back, I think at the end of 


the day we're going to consider those advanced 


reviews, you know, 'cause we're actually 


getting down to, in some of those cases, like I 


said, the work histories and how they match up 


with dosimetry 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 

67

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so we -- we -- I think we can 


assess our matrices backwards as to whether 


they were advanced or basic. But then for this 


-- this new criteria, I think for the nin-- 


ninth set, try to have it ready for the ninth 


set. 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: If that's agreeable. 


 MS. MUNN: Seems reasonable, uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe -- so that -- that ­

- that's -- I guess the action is that I'll 


work with other subcommittee members and have a 


draft for the next subcommittee meeting of -- 


of a -- I guess clarification of -- of scope of 


advanced reviews. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Be helpful. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And maybe -- I think this might 


be a good time to sort of insert Wanda's ite-- 


or I -- agenda item of looking at the SC&A data 


as far as the cases that we've covered. And 


then we'll go into the fourth, fifth and eighth 


case selection, if that's okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We got ten -- 10:30 right now? 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've got about another hour. 


 MS. MUNN: Are we going to take a break at any 


point? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you want to -- I'm getting 


a look for a break. Let's -- let's take a ten-


minute break and come back. 


 MS. MUNN: Just a quick one, thanks. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:30 a.m. 


to 10:50 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we're back in session. 


DISCUSSION OF REVIEWED CASES


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I think where we left it 


off, we were going to just have a discussion I 


think of -- SC&A provided us with a summary 


report -- statistics of the first 60 cases, and 


sort of a look at how many cases per site, 


different statistics like that. I think --


well, I -- I'll let Wanda take ov-- after she 


swallows, I'll let Wanda take over here. 


 DR. WADE: Well done, Wanda. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I'm just looking at 


these now. I actually -- I apologize, but I'll 


let Wanda take the floor. 


 MS. MUNN: And actually I was not looking at 

1 

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 

that printout. I was looking at the graphic 


display that covered the first 148 cases that 


gave us a better feel of -- for example, the 


cases that we've reviewed by years of 


employment, as opposed to our goal. Did you 


receive those? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, they were in that material that 


I gave you. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Are these available for everyone 


 DR. WADE: Yes, they're on the table. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, they are available. 


 MS. MUNN: Because those were so easily 


identifiable as to where we are, the printed 


list that was provided with this shows us very 


clearly that we have overestimated our 


requirements for some of the sites, and in 


other sites we still have quite a ways to go if 


we're going to meet our intended goal of 2.5 


percent. Whether or not we actually have the 


kinds of cases in those particular sites that 


we feel needs the most attention, that are most 


problematical in our minds, is another issue. 


And perhaps we may not quite yet be ready to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

discuss that. But the breakdown of cases as 


reviewed by site is I think pretty indicative 


of where we have to go with a half-dozen of the 


sites and how we've overshot with others. 


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


 MS. MUNN: Categories of POCs, we had 


originally expected to review about 40 percent 


in the zero to 44.9 percent area. We have 65 


percent instead, of the current cases, which 


indicates that the 45 to 49.9 percent that we 


were looking at as 40 percent probably needs to 


be increased --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I --


 MS. MUNN: -- and --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think to some extent that's 


been driven by our available cases -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, to some --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- obviously. 


 MS. MUNN: -- to some, it has. But I think it 


would be wise for us to keep those clearly in 


mind as we --


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. These are certainly 


helpful in our looking at the eighth set 


selection. 


 MS. MUNN: Very especially that 45 to 49.9 

1 

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 

percent POC group. Clearly we only have eight 


percent of our currently-reviewed cases that 


fall into that category. That's pretty low. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask -- I think Kathy and 


Hans, are you on the line? 


 (No responses) 


Kathy and Hans Behling, are you available on 


the phone line? 


 (No responses) 


 DR. WADE: Kathy and Hans, hopefully you're not 


muted. 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: Yes, we're starting to hear you, 


Kathy. Speak up, please. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, we're on the line. 


 DR. WADE: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Thank you. I just 


had a -- a question in your table of the 


numbers of cases by site, the -- it -- the 2.5 


percent, it says 2.5 percent of available 


cases, is that overall cases or is that -- 


that's not just final adjudicated cases, is it? 


That's --


 MS. BEHLING: That number was actually provided 


to me by Stu Hinnefeld and I am under 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 

72 

impression -- and Stu, do correct me if I'm 


wrong -- that that is the number of cases with 


final decisions. I believe there is a number 


referred to OCAS by the DOL, minus ones that 


have been pulled, and then there is this number 


of final decisions. So I -- I believe that 


that number represents the number of cases with 


final decisions. Is that correct, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's my understanding. I 


sent, by site, essentially two numbers. I sent 


the number of cases available for review, 


meaning there's a final adjudication in place. 


And I also sent the total number of cases that 


had been referred to us for dose 


reconstruction, minus any cases that were 


pulled by DOL, which is the case -- that's the 


population which presum-- well, at some point 


will be available for review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I sent both those numbers. 


This looks to me to be the numbers that are 


currently available for review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The lower number then, so the-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The lower number, that's what 


this looks like to me. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73

 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause I mean all of our scope 


was based on the projected totals, you know, 


sort of popu-- population of cases for each 


site. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Presumably, all the cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And they look low to me, that's 


why I was wondering --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Presumably, all the cases will 


someday be adjudicated -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and if you want to review 


two and a half percent of everything that's 


done, then --


 MR. GRIFFON: At some point it has to stop, I 


understa-- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- two and a half percent 


(unintelligible) -- okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- yeah, so I -- I think we ­

- when we look at these numbers, I don't know 


if this is possible, but it might be worthwhile 


also to update this table for -- to include 


that other denominator, all cases available by 


site. I don't know how quickly that can be 


provided, but might be useful. 


Kathy, is that something you -- 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 

74 

you have or... 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, ask me the question 


again -- I apologize. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is -- that -- that 2.5 percent of 


available cases, I'd like to see the 2.5 


percent of all referred cases or -- or is that 


the language, all referred cases? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's all referred cases minus 


pulls, is what it is. But if you just want to 


call it all referred cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's understood that a case 


that gets pulled, we're never going to do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, that's our 


expectation. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: What are you calling referred cases, 


Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Cases that the Department of 


Labor sent to us to do a dose reconstruction 


on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now these are only --


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- final adjudicated 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 

75

 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- here, right. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, I understand that. We --


we've -- that's all we've had to work with from 


the outset. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thus far --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but we're looking at our 


overall scope -- you know, when -- when we 


projected our initial numbers, we did it based 


-- and that -- and that database has obviously 


grown, but we based it on -- on the initial -- 


I know the spreadsheet I made we based it on 


all the sites that were in the NOCTS syst-- all 


the cases that were in the NOCTS system -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I would suspect --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- not -- not just the ones that 


had final dose reconstructions, obviously, 


'cause we were just starting. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Going back -- yeah, going back 


to when that was done, there were -- I would 


think -- very few finally adjudicated cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so you almost surely worked 


from the ones --

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Would not have --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that had been referred to us 


for dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: When the Board does its long-range 


planning, it needs to look at the -- the total 


population. When it does its selection, it has 


to look at what's available. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: What's available now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was my point. For our long-


range projections more, we want to look at that 


other denominator. 


 DR. WADE: So -- so, Kathy --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Kathy, I just wondered, did I ­

- did I in fact send you two numbers for each 


site? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, you did. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: And could you add to your table that 


looks at comparison of number of cases by site, 


add an additional column that would show 2.5 


percent of the referred cases? 


 MS. BEHLING: I will do that, yes. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. Anyway, I -- 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 

77 

Wanda's correct that this -- this -- we should 


certainly reflect on this as we select the 


eighth set and -- is there any other -- 


anything else you want to add to this? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No? Okay. We're going to get to 


the eighth set really quickly here. I'm just ­

- I wanted to give a brief review of the fourth 


and fifth set of matrix (sic). We had a 


meeting in Cincinnati in between the last full 


Board meeting and -- a meeting of the 


subcommittee, and we did -- the main agenda 


items were discussing the fourth set. We're --


we're in, as I said, comment resolution phase 


for the fourth set and the fifth set. The 


fourth set -- you know, the -- the brief update 


is that we -- we're at a point where -- we have 


several best estimate cases, I'd say three or 


four, maybe five -- where NIOSH is coming back 


with some more in-depth written responses 


because these are -- you know, because they're 


best estimate and they're fairly high POCs, but 


they're not over 50, the -- the -- these 


findings could be significant enough to -- 


could have significant impact on the dose 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 

78 

- and, you know, have a significant effect on 


the case. So we -- we've asked for a more in-


depth response on some of those cases and more 


-- that's sort of where we stand. Go ahead, 


Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that -- the information's 


being compiled. We want to make sure it's, you 


know, complete and explanatory and then we'll 


share it with all the workgroup or -- 


 DR. WADE: Stand a little closer to... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the subcommittee members. 


The -- I had one question, though, is that in 


several cases the additional explanatory 


information is IMBA-filed -- an IMBA file that 


demonstrates the internal dosimetry -- you 


know, the bioassay that was there -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what does the curve look 


like that is used in the dose reconstruction, 


you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so I'm not sure, does -- do 


all the -- do all the Board -- or the 


subcommittee members have IMBA on their 


computer 'cause, you know, you have to have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

IMBA to open this IMBA file and see it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think -- I think it -- it was 


made available. I'm not sure if everybody's 


loaded it on or whatever, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And then --


 MR. GRIFFON: Did everyone get copies of that 


early -- early on I know I got a copy. 


 MS. MUNN: That's --


 MR. CLAWSON: I don't. 


 MS. MUNN: -- a lot of heavy-duty wading. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The second part of it is just 


opening the IMBA file, so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in addition to providing the 


file, we need to make sure we have sufficient 


explanation to interpret what you're looking at 


because --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's -- even to a health 


physicist, it's not particularly intuitive -- 


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


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the program is not 


particularly intuitive -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so --


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree, a narrative to go along 


with the IMBA file -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so there's -- we want to 


make sure we have not just the file, but 


sufficient explanation that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, says this is what 


we're demonstrating here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think it's more important 


that SC&A, you know -- we're probably not going 


to get down into the details of the IMBA model 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but SC&A will probably do 


that, and if we have the narrative and -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, I think that -- 


that's the way that will proceed, I believe. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: The IMBA model information is very 


high-level technical detail. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's -- it's kind of 


esoteric. We keep the -- we keep it secret. 

1 

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 

You know, we don't talk about the secrets -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the craft so that way 


we're more valuable as health physicists. 


 MS. MUNN: No, it -- it's really difficult to 


get through, for those of us who don't do it on 


a daily basis. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's not really -- it's not 


really intuitive for those of us who do. 


 MS. MUNN: No, no, it isn't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. Okay. So anyway, 


that -- that -- the fourth set is -- you know, 


I'd say we've closed out many of the action-- 


many of the findings we've closed out, but we 


have several still on the table that -- that 


are requiring this more in-depth response and 


we'll -- we'll pull that up at our next 


subcommittee meeting, which I -- I do like to 


have these subcommittee meetings in between the 


Board meetings. I think we can get down into 


the details of those meetings, where it's a 


little harder at -- at this meeting. 


 The fifth set, we did go through the entire 


matrix at the last meeting and we have at least 


begun the -- the resolution process. I've 

1 

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 

actually edited the matrix, including a NIOSH 


resolution -- actually it's more -- more of a ­

- it should just be resolution, because in some 


cases the resolution was that SC&A was in 


agreement. In other cases, NIOSH is going to 


provide more information. But I have edited 


the matrix. I will -- that was done on the 


plane and last night when I got here at the 


hotel. I'll provide that. It -- it's -- I 


really -- at this stage of the game I think 


it's for the other subcommittee members and 


NIOSH and SC&A to look at and make sure that we 


-- that I accurately understood the -- where we 


stand. I do have some question -- remaining 


question marks on that, so the fourth and fifth 


I'm assuming when we reconvene this 


subcommittee, probably in Cincinnati, we'll 


take those up and try to clo-- you know, try to 


come to closure. And I -- I think we have a 


good shot at closing both those matrices at the 


next meeting, so that's sort of an update on 


the backlog. 


And the six and seventh, I -- I don't know -- 


John, maybe you can just give us an update on 


where -- or Kathy and Hans, where we stand 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 

83 

the sixth and seventh ma-- or cases. We're not 


at the matrix level yet, I don't think -- or 


are we? 


 MS. MUNN: I don't have one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I believe -- I'm 


trying to remember if I have generated the 


matrix for the sixth set or not. I'm -- quite 


honestly, I'm not sure at the moment. The --


the issue with the eighth set is we're current­

- or the seventh set, I'm sorry, we're 


currently in the progress of working on those 


and I'm hoping that possibly we will have a 


draft of those cases prepared maybe at the end 


of May, beginning of June, so that we can hold 


our conference calls at that point in time. 


And I apologize for not remembering that and 


sixth set matrix, put together or not, but I -- 


I will certainly do that within a day or two if 


I haven't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that -- that's okay. 


You're not the only one that doesn't remember. 


Anyway, those sixth and seventh case -- sets of 


cases are in process, but they're in sort of 


the pre-resolution stage right now, but we're ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

- we'll continue working on those. 


SELECTION OF CASES TO BE REVIEWED
 

And then I think the remainder of our time I 


want to focus on the eighth set selection, and 


we've been provided -- Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH, 


provided two spreadsheets for us -- 


 DR. WADE: Stu, could you briefly -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, briefly describe these, 


Stu. 


 DR. WADE: -- what people have (unintelligible) 


have two. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, there -- there were two 


lists provided. One is -- at the heading it 


says "full internal and external". That is the 


list of all the finally-adjudicated cases that 


are identified in our database as being full 


internal and external dose reconstructions, 


which is essentially best estimate, or as close 


as we can identify best estimate case, based on 


-- that's -- that field in the database is 


populated by the HP reviewer when he or she 


reviews the case and -- and approves the draft 


dose reconstruction. They will indicate 


whether this is an overestimate or an 


underestimate, you know, in a particular 

1 

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 

component, or whether it seems to be pretty 


much, you know, that's just the best we can do 


and it's called full internal and external. So 


that is the one list. It has the normal 


selection information and I have sorted this 


list based on the date approved. Now that's 


the date the draft dose reconstruction is 


approved, so the newest cases are at the top, 


and that's why the selection numbers are kind 


of dis-- you know, a jumbled order, actually. 


They probably run kind of -- kind of backwards, 


but not exactly. So these are sorted based on 


date approved, thinking that the more recent 


cases -- if -- if you get into very old cases, 


sometimes procedures and OTIBs were used that 


have been superseded, so those are sorted in 


that fashion. 


The second list is a random selection of some 


200 cases, regardless of whether they're full 


internal or external or overestimates or 


underestimates. And so anything on this second 


list, the random selection list, that says full 


internal and external, you should -- you know, 


if you look real hard you can probably find it 


on the other list, as well. So if 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 

86

 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- also sorted by date 


approved I see. Right? Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, also sorted by date 


approved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So those are the two lists here 


for --


 MR. GRIFFON: Does the first list, the full 


internal/external, does that exclude ones we've 


already selected? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Both lists exclude cases 


that are already selected for review. They 


also exclude cases that the Department of Labor 


has identified as having post-final 


adjudication activity on and therefore may be 


reopened. And so there are about maybe ten to 


15 on each list that were removed by the 


Department of Labor because there's some post-


final decision activity on the case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe -- I think it makes 


most sense, given the statistics we just looked 


at, that we want to focus on the best estimate 


cases to start with and -- and I -- I agree, 


I'm glad you sorted it this way, Stu, that we 


should try to focus on the most recently 

1 

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 

approved cases since a lot of our past reviews 


we've seen, you know -- NIOSH agrees, but a 


TIB's already been revised or whatever, so I 


think this would avoid some of those redundant 


findings that we've been coming up with. So 


maybe just -- I think we'll just throw this 


open as people look down the list. 


 DR. WADE: And John Mauro, for the record, how 


many cases are we trying to -- to find to give 


you your full year's --


DR. MAURO: The full year -- 32 -- if we could 


identify 32 cases today, we will have our full 


cadre cases for the fiscal year 2007. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

question? 

 MR. GRIFFON: No, I was going to ask that -- of 


these 32, we might consider two to be blind, 


given the way we defined it, our blind review 


criteria. Do we need to do that off of a 


separate list or we're going to get... I'm 


unclear on my own motion. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I would suggest that we can -- 


you know, bef-- when we -- before we generate 


the list for blind selection -- 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we can remove the ones 


selected for this --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then do our sort and re-


prepare the lists. So the ones selected in 


this -- this arena would not be available on 


the selection for blinds. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, that would be a way 


to not trip over ourselves, I guess is what -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I was going to propose to 


select -- try to shoot for 30 today and then 


save two for this blind review selection, if 


that's agreeable with folks. 


 MS. MUNN: We're not going to try to do two 


blind selections today? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I think we didn't want 


to have the exact POC number and stuff when we 


did the blind review selection. Is that still 


-- still correct? 


DR. MAURO: Any hel-- maybe I can help out a 


little here. The 32 would cover all of the 


cases that we are obligated to perform that are 


considered basic and advanced. The blind 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

reviews really are over and above that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


DR. MAURO: And I believe there is -- total of 


six, on that order --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- I forget the -- I'd have to go 


back. So therefore the additional blinds are 


over and above the 32. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so -- so I guess we can do 


32 today, if we find 32 reasonable cases here. 


 DR. WADE: And then when they're removed, we 


try to do the blinds at the next subcommittee 


meeting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. Okay, that sounds 


good. 


All right. So anybody -- we're all looking at 


this real time, so going page by page. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd suggest the fourth -- the first 


one might be the one, two, three, four, five, 


six -- oh, 05289. That's one that falls in -- 


recall that we were really short, if we're 


looking at the same goal, on cases between 45 


and 49.99 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- percent. That one falls there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

and --


 MR. GRIFFON: 289 looks good to me. 


 MS. MUNN: INE--


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, people? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, INEL, our goal of available 


cases was 13; we've only looked at five so far, 


so that seems a logical fit. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I als-- also think the second one 


on the list, which is K-25 and Mound, 48.38 


percent. 


 DR. WADE: That's 295? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 295, people, agree, disagree? 


 (No responses) 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay? Going down the list, 


any... 


(Pause) 


 MS. MUNN: 48 dot 649 on page 2. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What's that number again, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: 48.689 (sic) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, POC 48.649? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: That's case 260. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 260? 


 DR. WADE: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, it's down. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's down. 


 MS. MUNN: And then --


 MR. GRIFFON: Two down from that, number 257? 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Y-12 case. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: It fits. 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then we got 254 is a Mound 


case. 


 MS. MUNN: We already have one from that site, 


don't we -- or did we? 


 DR. WADE: You had a mix, Wanda. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we have five -- well, six 


available, but... 


 DR. WADE: So what say you, 254 then -- number 


254? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm asking Wanda, Mike, that 


Mound case, 254? 


 MS. MUNN: Let's look at the cancer types for a 


minute. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it looks okay, unless 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 

92 

hear --


 MS. MUNN: I think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: I've got it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's number five, right, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Right, number five. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. What about -- you -- Bob, 


you were saying 249? 


 MR. PRESLEY: As an outsider. 


 DR. WADE: You can say that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


 DR. WADE: 249? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 249, Portsmouth. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, that kind of gives us a -- 


a look at two sites on that type of cancer. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

(Pause) 

 MR. CLAWSON: 240? 

 MR. GRIFFON: 240, yeah. 

 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 240 looks good. 

 MR. CLAWSON: How about 239? 

 MR. GRIFFON: 239, Hanford? We've done a lot 

of Hanfords and Savannah Rivers, but that's -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

that is -- does look like a decent case. 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: But we're still -- if I'm -- if I'm 


looking at the number of cases that we've 


looked at as opposed to the ones that we had 


for our goal --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we're still --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we could still do --


 MS. MUNN: -- we're still low on those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I say add that one, number 


239, that is. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's eight cases total? 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That first Savannah River one on 


the third page looks good to me. 


 MS. MUNN: Number? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 236. 


 MS. MUNN: That's -- that's in that POC range 


where we have a surplus of --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, where we have a lot, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll put a star by that one, 


Wanda, given your comment that number -- 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 

94 

236 --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's still over 40, but we did 


say 45 to 50 was what we were targeting. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: We can go -- we can go back. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That's Savannah River... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- I mean we do have other 


criteria we've got to remember, too, and the -- 


a lot of these are best --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- estimate cases, which we 


certainly want to look at, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we don't want to be driven 


completely by the POC. 


 MS. MUNN: No, but my feeling is that the small 


number that we're going to have that falls in 


between that -- that guideline that we've 


established is going to be so small that we're 


still going to have room for whatever we want 


to do to fill in with 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 

95

 MR. HINNEFELD: Mark, I just might offer that I 


recall the last time we did a selection we did 


a large group to get more specific dose 


reconstruction information about -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and bring that back for the 


ultimate selection. So could be -- you might 


want to do this in two phases. Pick some that 


you're cer-- pretty certain you want to look at 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then pick a larger group 


the addi-- you know, another group for the 


additional information maybe. You know what 


I'm saying? Last time you picked more than 


what was ultimately going to be selected -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to get additional 


information about how the dose reconstruction 


was done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so just a -- a thought to 


keep in mind is there may be more -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we talked about doing the 


same phase --

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) go back. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- here --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I don't know if that would 


be... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you can apply it where 


you want. I just occurs to me that, you know, 


we're really focusing on 45 to 50 percenters 


here, grabbing the majority of those -- not 


every one but, you know, the majority -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the ones -- the ones 


that we're picking seem like they're going to 


be -- you know, they're not dose model. 


They're going to be full internal and 


externals, the ones we're picking. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But at some point you may want 


to, you know, pick more cases for us to go get 


the additional data on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, and that -- and we 


did talk about doing those. I mean what -- 


what are the logistics of that, Stu? We 


probably can't expect to have that like 


overnight for the Board -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to consider tomorrow or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, not for the remainder of 


this meeting --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because there's at least a 


partially manual search or -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, kind of a 


laborious search to find that information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we did talk about picking this 


eighth set in a similar way that we did -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the seventh set. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We -- we could probably do that 


on a phone -- a Board phone call, though. 


Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: We could. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I -- 'cause I don't want 


to delay this three months, you know, but I 


think we could --


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98

 MR. GRIFFON: -- have a mid step and then make 


a vote on a Board phone call, like we did last 


time, so --


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I think we still want to do 


the same thing, give you these, maybe shoot for 


40 or 45 --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- broaden our -- our lens a 


little bit here --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then have Stu get more 


information on those, come back and then we can 


cull it down to 32. Right? 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Since we're --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm --


 MS. MUNN: -- since we're --


 DR. WADE: On the top of -- on the top of page 


4 there's a number of 45-pluses. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Got that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I was still back on page 

3, actually -- 224, halfway down. It's an X-10 

1 

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 

case, it's 42.6. It's not 45, but it's fairly 


high POC. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Colon cancer's supposed to be 


best estimate, so... 


 MR. CLAWSON: What was the number on that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 224. And I'm on to page 4. I'm 


sorry, I was a little behind everyone. Bob 


mentioned 209, the fourth one down. 


 MS. MUNN: And actually there's 210, just above 


it, as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And 210, right above it? Yeah, I 


actually think they're both -- both reasonable 


selections -- 209 is a multiple cancer with 


pancreatic cancer and -- and so I think -- 


okay, so 210 and 209. 


 MS. MUNN: 195. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Where's that at, Wanda, one -- 


 MS. MUNN: Down near the bottom. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Got it. 


 DR. WADE: 195? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, multiple site. Looks like 


a good -- good one to look at. 


 MS. MUNN: And I would -- I would not do 191, 


simply because we have three cases 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 

100 

reviewed from there and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- only one --


 MR. GRIFFON: My sense is --


 MS. MUNN: -- required. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that -- we're in the middle of 


reviewing Bridgeport on one of our matrices 


right now, I think, and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- is that a site-wide model, 


John, do you recall -- or Stu? Or is it a --


 MS. MUNN: I thought it was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is there individual data or is 


more of a site --


DR. MAURO: I think it has an exposure matrix 


specific for it. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, so there is a --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I think if we reviewed 


some cases, they're all going to use the same ­

-


DR. MAURO: They're all going to look that way. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, and we've already done three. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we've got that covered. 

1 

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 

Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm on to page 5. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that first one, another 


Paducah -- yeah, 185. 


 DR. WADE: 185? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: When -- when we looked at 


Bridgeport Brass, did we combine Havens Lab and 


Adrian? Are those... 


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


off hand, and I don't even recall right off 


hand whether the profile describes them both or 


if it's specific --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to one or the other, so I -- 


I don't remember right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy or Hans, do you know if -- 


if the three cases you mention on your matrix 


here in your presentation -- or in your table 


there, if they were Havens Lab or Adrian or -- 


or you don't know? 


 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I believe that 


one of the Bridgeport Brass cases, the most 


recent one we had looked at, was only 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 

102 

Havens Lab. And the exposure matrix does 


discuss both the Havens Lab and the Adrian 


Plant. But the current one that we're working 


on, that we (unintelligible) just worked on, 


only discussed the Havens Lab. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So the cases we reviewed only 


cover Havens Lab right now? 


 MS. BEHLING: (Broken transmission) previous 


(unintelligible) cases have (unintelligible) 


exposure matrix was not available at the time 


we reviewed (unintelligible) were actually done 


under the OTIB-4 and so we've only had I 


believe one case where we've actually reviewed 


Bridgeport Brass using the exposure matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think it might be worth 


getting a Bridgeport Brass Adrian -- although 


this one may not be the one, it's number 184, 


stomach cancer at 21 percent. With these type 


of cases I'm not sure the -- the POC is as 


important because we're really reviewing the 


exposure matrix, in a sense, so -- I don't know 


what people think about that one, 184. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, but if you're going to look at 


Adrian, we have 187, as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is there a better one? Okay. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: That's 52 percent. 


 MS. MUNN: Compensated. 


 DR. WADE: Bottom of page 4. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Bottom of page 4? Oh, I missed 


it. Yeah, either -- that's fine with me. 


 DR. WADE: 187 it is then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that'll give is 14 total, Lew, 


or... 


 MS. MUNN: That'll bring us up --


 DR. WADE: Now we're at 14. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Fourteen, that gives us a -- 


 DR. WADE: You haven't decided on 185 yet. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


on page 5. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Page 5 we have a recommendation 


of 172, which is halfway down the page. This 


is Mound and Rocky combined. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Almost at 45. Looks okay to me. 


Again, we -- we're broadening our lens here so 


we're shooting for maybe 40 or 45 cases. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that's 15. 


 MS. MUNN: Another -- 157. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, where's that at -- oh, 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 

104 

bottom of the page, page 5? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Paducah? 


 MS. MUNN: Bottom of page 5. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that looks all right. 


 MS. MUNN: Three in a row, Paducah we need 


more, Y-12 we can use more, Savannah we can use 


more, so --


 DR. WADE: So 156 and 155 as well? 


 MS. MUNN: 157, 156 and 155 all fall in the 


range we're looking at. 


 DR. WADE: Proposal for the last three -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Last three? 


 DR. WADE: -- on page 5. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I agree, yes, so 16, 17, 18 


that gives us. 


 MS. MUNN: 153 on page 6? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay, yeah. We have a lot 


of Savannahs, but we need a lot more. Right? 


So yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we can use a bunch. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's 19. 


 MS. MUNN: At least eight or ten. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


(Pause) 

1 

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 

We've got an awful lot of Savannah on the next 


couple of pages here. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: On page 7 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Page 7, that's where I'm at, too. 


 MS. MUNN: -- the next -- 120 up there is the 


first one that falls in the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: 120 works, yep. 


 MS. MUNN: -- category. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's number 20. 


 MS. MUNN: And 101. 


 DR. WADE: 101 is proposed? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 101? Where is that, Wanda -- oh, 


yeah. Again Savannah River, 46,37 percent? 


Anybody at -- think it's okay? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Going on to page 8, unless I hear 

otherwise. 

 MR. CLAWSON: That doesn't look like a very 

good page. 

 MS. MUNN: No, but if we are going to broaden 


our -- our view there, we might consider 083. 


 DR. WADE: 083 has been asked for. 


 MS. MUNN: That site, we don't have very many. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Where is that at, on --


 MS. MUNN: Top of the page --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- up top, okay. 


Oh, Iowa, though, that -- I think we've avoided 


that, didn't we, 'cause it was an SEC -- but is 


this -- is this non-SEC? I don't understand, 


Stu. Can you help me out with this one? Was 


that a non-SEC ti-- I thought an SEC was 


proposed for the entire... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There may be some people who 


worked at Iowa Ordnance who didn't have enough 


time on the AEC portion of Iowa Ordnance and 


therefore didn't qualify for the class. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause bladder's a listed cancer. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Bladder's a listed cancer, I 


believe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: An SEC cancer, so from a time 


frame, I don't think any part of Iowa Ordnance 


is excluded. You know, I think it's the entire 


period of operation is included in the class, 


so it must be that this person was determined 


not to have sufficient time in the AEC -- AEC 


portion of the -- of the plant. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess we can look at it. I'd 

1 

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 

be curious how this would be a -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- best estimate case, but -- 


 DR. WADE: We can find out. So 083 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- is that it? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 083? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. That's 22, Lew, is -- are 


we in agreement there? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, 22. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) anything else in 


there. Everything else is very low or 


compensable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm on page 9, unless I hear 


otherwise. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Close to our time to close the 


meeting, too. 


 DR. WADE: It's okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Nothing there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're okay, we're okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Nothing inside the box. There's 


nothing to the end of the list that's inside -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, where's this Anaconda 

1 

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 

Company, Stu, do you know? Is that a uranium 


type facility or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall off the top of 


my head. Most AWEs are uranium-forming -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, of some sort. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- it might be worth just 


pulling at least additional information and 


seeing what that case is all about. 


 DR. WADE: That's 045? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 045? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Number 22, right? 


 DR. WADE: 23. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 23? Uh-oh -- oh, yeah. I think 


we might be moving into our random cases. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Anyone have anything else on 


these full external/internal? 


 (No responses) 


And so we're at -- we're at 23. If we can get 


up to 40, that would be great, I think. 


 Let's look at the random list. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, if we shift our criterion to 


the decades first employed, our original goal 


for persons in the '60s was 25 percent. Right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

now we have only 17 percent. And for the '70s 


was 25 percent; we have only 14 percent. So 


perhaps -- perhaps the '60s and '70s might be ­

-


 DR. WADE: Question? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was just --


 MS. MUNN: -- criterion. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was just going to mention 


that it would be probably pretty rare to see a 


POC in the 45 to 50 percent range that's an 


overestimate. You shouldn't see any that are 


an underestimate, and if you find something on 


this list that is in the 45 to 50 percent 


range, more than likely it's a full internal 


and external, in which case you may have 


selected it off the list we just looked at. It 


would have had a different tracking number on 


the -- selection number on the other list. So 


I think -- I don't think you'll find any in the 


45 to 50 percent range --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on this list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: If you did an overestimate and it 


fell into 45 to 50, you would then do -- go 


back to doing a best estimate. Right? 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 

110 

wouldn't --


 MR. HINNEFELD: For some time now we've not 


accepted them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There may be some early-on ones 


that were done that way -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but for the --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- lately it's -- they're not 


really accepted that way or -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- only on very rare occasions. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So Wanda -- I'm 


sorry, my attention drifted there. Did you 


have a proposed case or did I miss a -- 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, not --


 MS. MUNN: You heard what I was saying about 


the years? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 1960 -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Other than that, I was just agreeing 


with what Stu was saying. 

1 

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

 MR. CLAWSON: Mark, what about 690? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


comment about the years, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 690 is on the table. Where's 


that at? Give me other -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: First page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's one that I flagged. 


Lawrence Livermore? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 44 percent, it might have just 


been under that 45 cusp. I think that looks 


pretty good, number 24. 


(Pause) 


 687 looks interesting, just 'cause the guy 


worked for 120 years. I'd like to see that 


individual. 


684, Fernald bone cancer, 1950 decade. I think 


that looks --


 MS. MUNN: We're back in the '50s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any objections to that one? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we have all these '50s. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 25, yeah, I know. 


 MS. MUNN: We've got way over the number that 


we need from the '50s decades. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

1 

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

 MR. GIBSON: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: It doesn't seem like we have a lot 


of cases that they maybe started their work 


careers in like the '70s and they worked 


through the cleanup phase. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. GIBSON: And even though the ones that are 


listed have a -- most of them have a low 


probability of causation, I just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think you're right, it's 


another period we want to examine. Wanda's 


point, too, that the '60s we're missing -- you 


know, so we should keep that in mind. We're 


getting a lot of the early start dates, the 


'50s. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm sorry, where --


 MR. GRIFFON: If you see some of those, you 


know, ma-- make sure we get them. 


 MS. MUNN: We're -- we're working on random 


now. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Random, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: And we have chosen one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Two of them, 690 --


 DR. WADE: And 684. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and 684, and both of these 


were 1950, unfortunately, but we -- you know, I 


think you're right, we should look at that 


decade worked or --


 MR. GIBSON: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, carefully. 


 MR. GIBSON: What about case 227 on page 3? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Page 3 of the random? 


 MR. GIBSON: The person started work in the 


'80s and worked 22 years, so that'd put them up 


to 2002. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure I find the number, 

Mike. 

 MR. CLAWSON: What number was that? 

 DR. WADE: Was this on the first list, Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: 227 is the case. It's on page 3. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, of the first list? Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Of the first full estimate list? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: 227, 41. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I think your point is 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 

114 

start date of 1980, too, so that is different. 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


through the cleanup phase. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, let's add that on. That'll 


be number 26. Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: 26? 


 DR. WADE: 26. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did you find that one, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: 27. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You got another one there 


(unintelligible) Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the 26th one we selected. 


Right? 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: But we could -- we could actually do 


both of them, they both fall in the category 


we're --


 MR. GRIFFON: Which -- which -- which is both? 


 MS. MUNN: -- looking at. 


 MR. GIBSON: 27. 


 MS. MUNN: 27 and 26. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, and 26, the next one's -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- starts in 1970? 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, yep, that's okay. That'll 


be the number -- this 27th case selected. The 


numbers are confusing me. 


 DR. WADE: Only briefly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm looking back at -- 


I'll -- I'll take offers from any -- any list, 


but I'm back on the random list at this point. 


 DR. WADE: No reasonable offer refused. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: There's -- on the first page there's 


678 from NTS, a 1960s case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What --


 DR. WADE: 678, first page of random. 


 MR. GRIFFON: First page of random. 


 DR. WADE: 678, Nevada Test Site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was just looking at that, 


starting in 1960s, three years -- at least 


worth looking at to -- yep. Number -- how many 


is that? 


 DR. WADE: 28. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-eight? 


 MS. MUNN: On the next page -- no, that's a -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What page, Wanda? Page 2 --


 MS. MUNN: Page 2 --

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: -- on the random --


 MS. MUNN: -- of the randoms. We have several 


from the '60s in there. How about 649? 


 MR. GRIFFON: At the bot-- near the bottom -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- Paducah? 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, Paducah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is another skin cancer case, 


you realize. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we've had a number of them in 


this batch. 


 MR. GRIFFON: People want that one? 


 MS. MUNN: There's 644. 


 DR. WADE: 649, yes or no? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 649, yes or no, anybody object to 


that one? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's in an SEC, but this is 


a non-listed cancer --


 DR. WADE: Non-covered cancer. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- non-covered cancer. 


 DR. WADE: So say yes to it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, for now. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- first -- first list, anyway. 


 DR. WADE: And then, Wanda, you said 6... 


 MS. MUNN: Somebody said 649. I'm trying to 


have a -- trying to find 649. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We haven't done (unintelligible) 


at Simonds? 


 MS. MUNN: And I'm not seeing it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can probably do another one. 


 MS. MUNN: There it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, which one did you say? 


 MS. MUNN: 649 is what I was looking at. 


 DR. WADE: We got it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I would go back up the 


list, maybe 666, 17.36 POC, breast cancer, 


Savannah River. The only reason -- particular 


interest -- back to what Mike was pointing out, 


the decade worked is 1980, so a later case. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: 666? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Might be an overestimating 


approach, but at least we can look at it. 


 DR. WADE: All right. 

 MS. MUNN: Evil number. 

 DR. WADE: That's 30. 
1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: And then Bob brought up 661, a 


few down from there, Simonds Saw, starting in 


the '60s. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, I think we have --


 MR. GRIFFON: We've done one case from there. 


 MS. MUNN: -- an awful lot of those. Don't we 


have a lot of those? Oh, we'll do it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any objections to that one? 


 MS. MUNN: No, that'll do. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I'll put it down. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-one? 


 MS. MUNN: That will fulfill our requirement 


for that site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: What number did you say, Mark? 


 DR. WADE: 661. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 661. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, I thought you gave a number -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, no, I didn't --


 MS. MUNN: -- another one after that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- give another one, no. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: There is one toward the bottom, a 


Brookhaven National Lab one. I don't 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 

119 

we've --


 MS. MUNN: I saw that. 


 DR. WADE: What number? 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've got one case from there 


alr-- done out of -- well, one based on 


available cases. I don't know -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is number 644. 


 MS. MUNN: We had one in --


 MR. GRIFFON: At the bottom of page 2. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: We had one and one already. 


 DR. WADE: Put it down? 


 MR. CLAWSON: How about on page 3, 6--


 MR. GRIFFON: I'd say at least initially put it 


down. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Hold on now, let me -- 


Brad had one, or --


 MR. CLAWSON: 632. 

 MR. GRIFFON: 632, same thing, okay. Where's 

that at? 

 MR. CLAWSON: It's on page 3. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Page 3. 

 MR. CLAWSON: Los Alamos. 
1 

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

 MS. MUNN: That's a good one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that looks good, 1970s 


start date. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That'll be 34? 


 DR. WADE: 33, I have. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 33? Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: And --


 MR. PRESLEY: The other one was 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: And again, we're shooting for 40 


and anticipating we'll lose a few. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


is 1970 at the Nevada Test Site, which is a 


nervous system (unintelligible) low POC but 


still (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: 1970, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: 627? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any objections? 


 DR. WADE: No? Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Robert, let's look at 623, too, 


that's --


 DR. WADE: 623 is asked to be looked at. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 623? 

1 

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

 MR. CLAWSON: Nevada Test Site. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Nevada Test site, four years, 

1960. 

 DR. WADE: Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay for first cut. 


 DR. WADE: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now we've got several more pages. 


Let's not limit ourselves here. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, there's --


UNIDENTIFIED: -- page 4? 


 MS. MUNN: -- the very bottom one on page 3, 


though, 613, is also --


 MR. GRIFFON: Lawrence Livermore, we haven't 


done that many from there. We just picked one 


today. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, 613? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 613, yeah, put that on the list. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-six -- page 4, Bob has 


something. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, it's 588, Mound, 1980, 


breast cancer, (unintelligible) point six. 


 MR. GRIFFON: From the 1980s. Any objections 


to that? 


 MS. MUNN: Isn't that -- isn't that pretty much 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

like the -- didn't we have one -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did we have one like that before? 


 MS. MUNN: -- almost -- yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We had a 1980 breast cancer. 
I 


can't remember if it was -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: 588? 


 MS. MUNN: With about the same POC, as I 


recall. Different site, I think. 


 DR. WADE: Different site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, let's say yes for now on 


that one. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-seven? I'm going on to 


page 5 on the random list. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, that's '70s and '80s. 562, 


down toward the bottom. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 562, what -- where's that at? 


 DR. WADE: Towards the bottom of page 5. 


 MS. MUNN: Near the bottom. 


 DR. WADE: 562? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That looks okay, yeah. That 


gives us 38. 


(Pause) 


On to page 6 of 7. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


bladder, Los Alamos, (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that on page 6? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Six. 

 MR. GRIFFON: At the bottom, yeah, okay. 

 DR. WADE: What number? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 528, POC 30.2, Los Alamos. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's number 40, ri-- or no -- 


 DR. WADE: No --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 3--


 DR. WADE: -- 39. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 39. 


 DR. WADE: One more. 


 MR. CLAWSON: What about 52-- 525? I know it's 


breast, but we've got Y-12, Pantex -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Where is that at, Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Very bottom of --


 DR. WADE: Very bottom of the page. 


 MR. CLAWSON: -- page 6. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Y-12 and Pantex, 1980s. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124

 MR. GRIFFON: Looks okay. 


 DR. WADE: Might as well just do the last page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's 40, why don't we just go 


through the last page and get a couple extra if 


we need them. 


 MR. GIBSON: Mark, what about 551, Hanford? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I looked at that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 551? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


'70 (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: 1970s, yep, yep. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Doesn't hurt. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Looks good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's 41. 


 DR. WADE: And on the last page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Going to the last page --


 MR. PRESLEY: Livermore, look at 545, 1970. 


It's a Lawrence Livermore breast cancer. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That looks okay, 42. 


 DR. WADE: Five -- is that 545 or --


 MR. GRIFFON: 545 on page 6 of 7. 


 DR. WADE: 545, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125

 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the last page, just to -- 


might as well go through, for completeness. 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, nothing -- I don't see 


anything there. We don't have to add any more. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: We have 42. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We have enough to get our 32. 


 MS. MUNN: There --


 MR. GRIFFON: We have 42 pre-selected cases 


here to bring back to the Board. Is everybody 


happy with that list? Mike, do you have a -- 


 MR. GIBSON: 514. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What page? 


 MR. GIBSON: The last page, page 7. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 514, 16.95, Idaho National Lab? 


 MR. GIBSON: POCs low, but we can compare it to 


Wanda's. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: It's in that -- same decades. 


 MR. GRIFFON: In that time period, 1980. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can certainly add that one on. 


That gives us 43. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: 43. 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


look at (unintelligible). That's low all the 


way around. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I bet that's an 


overestimating approach, yeah, yeah. Okay. 


 DR. WADE: So we've got 43. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Anything else? I think we got -- 


we got enough to get our 32. 


 DR. WADE: I can report them to the Board then 


this afternoon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, so we'll report that. 


That'll be part of our subcommittee report back 


to the Board, and then we'll get more detailed 


data and we'll probably vote on this on a phone 


call meeting, is my assumption. That's how 


we'll move this forward. 


So I think that's all of our business on the 


subcommittee. Anybody have anything else? 


 (No responses) 


I'll do the report back on our motions and the 


eighth set. 


 DR. WADE: I'll get them typed up nice for you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- okay. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all very much. 

127

1 

2 

3 

4 

 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. Meeting adjourned on 


the subcommittee. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 11:55 


a.m.) 

______________________________ 

128 

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 May 2, 2007; 


and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 


testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


26th day of July, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 


2 

3