2

13

14

15

16

17

24

25

110

should ask --
MR. ELLIOTT: Maybe Dave Utterback could come
up and speak to that. I haven’t seen the languace

myself, but originally we understood it to be
dedicated to -- money to be dedicated to CLL,
examining CLL:

DR. UTTERBACK: David Utterback, I'm with
NIOSH, Health-related Energy Research Branch, and
-- I mean I can’t cite the language verbatim, but
the way that it does read is that there is $7 and
a half million from the amount of money allocated
to DOE for public health activities, to be given
to NIOSH to investigate, through epidemiology
studies and other activities, the relationship
between chronic lymphocytic leukemia and
radiation.

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

DR. MELIUS: I would also add -- I was going
te put this at the end but Larry raised it -- Russ
has been working on a -- I don’t know what to call

it, but it would be an analysis of the claims
information, the claims information database that
would allow -- to address issues like frequency of
cancers, frequency cf sites and so forth. And I

think this has been talked about at a previous

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



15

16

17

19

20

21

104

significant changes to IREP and so forth that
would come up and -- this was a policy the Board
did adopt. It was a fairly flexible policy,
depending on the extent of the change and
depending on how NIOSH had worked to come up with
a document, but it would involve some sort of a
peer review or through a workgroup or a scientific
meeting -- there were lots of different avenues.
And then a presentation to the Board with all that
information in a way that we could then make a
endorsement of that change, if -- if appropriate
that...

At that report a year ago we also presented a
number of IREP and other health-related scientific
issues that we recommended be something that get
priority in terms of being addressed. And we
ended up with a list of five issues. We put them
into first and second priorities. I don't think
their priority is as important for my presentation
today, but we had gone through that and as a group
adopted those.

And so what I will do is direct my report
back to you based on that list because it -- that
and I’1l maybe add another -- couple of other

items to it in terms of just updating you.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



16
7,

18

20
21
22
23
24
25

95

MR. GRIFFON: -- to review --

DR. NETON: I meant to inform you of that.
The Savannah River Site of course has been done
for some time, and Hanford is fully complete, as
well, at this time. Those are the only two that
we have fully completed DOE site profiles on.
However, there are a number that have two, three
sections done that could be -- could be reviewed,
although the total picture is not there. I think
I said -- I think there's 24 individual chapters
that have been drafted or Technical Basis
Documents.

MR. GRIFFON: And also with the site
profiles, I'm just thinking in terms of review,
there’s a lot of support documentation or
references listed. Are those kept in an
administrative record for the site profile or are
they available electronically --

DR. NETON: All the documents I've discussed
here or any of our site profiles are on our web
site. All the ones I mentioned today are out
there, available to the public.

MR. GRIFFON: Maybe I -- the ref-- even the
references listed in a site profile, that's what

—

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



111

meeting, but it would allow some better

“information, particularly in addressing these

types of more general issues that would be I think
useful not only for the program, but also for the
Board in thinking about how to prioritize or
address some of these issues in the future. And
there’s been a lot of progress on that and I
think, as Larry said, we'll be hearing about it
shortly.

The fourth area that was the issue of smoking
and how to adjust for smoking -- that, and -
actually when I -- when we did this conference
call on Tuesday, NIOSH was still waiting from
(sic) an analysis to come in from Pierce, and by
the time we -- the next day, it had come in -- or
had just received the report, if I understand
right, and --

MR. ELLIOTT: It does help to have you apply
a little pressure so that we can turn that
pressure over and our colleagues at NCI complied,
BG. -

DR. MELIUS: It was soft pressure. I just
asked Russ, well, when do you think it might come
in? He said I don’t know, I‘11l check with Larry,

and today I got a note from Larry saying it was

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11

12

20
21

22

24

25

108

considerable benefit and merit to compensation, as
well as to research.

DR. MELIUS: And I think, again, that
procedurally sort of fits in with the way we
talked about approaching these -- these issues and
would allow them to come back with a report or,
you know, an update for us, and maybe even a
recommendation at some point.

The third issue was -- we classified as sort
of the rare cancer issues, and grouping of
different types of cancer. And there's really not
much to update on that, other than there is some
funding, we believe, in the omnibus spending
package that was just passed, I think within the
last few days, that would allow some further
analysis by NIOSK on the chronic lymphocytic
leukemia issue, and maybe help expedite addressing
that issue. And I don’t know, Larry, if you found
anything more out in the last 24 hours about that.
I think -- is all you know this huge appropriates
for all the agen-- many of the agencies, I can’t
remember how many are included, has just been
passed finally and there's some language issues
and so forth. And there's a while for somebody to

wade through it and get the language down so you

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12
ts
14
15
16

Bet)

19
20
al
22
23
24
25

100

other way. And then at what point does -- does
the decisions that ynu‘re making, the technical
decisions sort of reach more of a policy issue
that -- that ought to get more -- more complete
public review. And whether we do that as part of
our discussions or at some later point, but I
think it’s something -- it’d be belles if we could
think it through ahead of time rather than having
an issue come up where -- if it -- if a large
issue comes up through an individual dose
reconstruction, I don’t think that serves
everybody very well ‘cause undoubtedly that may
have, you know affected a lot of other cases and
then if -- if we’re debating or having questions
about a -- some sort of a technical policy that
you've set in terms of dose reconstruction, then -
- through an individual -- through a single case,
then I think that’s not the best approach and most
efficient nor the most tair to the claimants. And
if we could think about some criteria for that.
And also to get a little better idea of where
you’re going with these types of documents and
seeing, you know, what‘s the spectrum from the
original regulations to various kinds of

guidelines you develop down to these sort of

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



JE

a2

13

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

DR. NETON: We can make it available
electronically.

DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius.

DR. MELIUS: Specific question and then a --
sort of a follow-up comment, The question first,
Last time -- I think we actually -- last two
meetings, I believe, I may be wrong -- we've heard
from Richard Miller with some concerns about the
site profile for Blockson, and I think we’ve heard
sort of his -- his concerns about that, and I
believe at the last meeting I requested, maybe
somebody else did, that we get briefed on that so
we'd have an understanding -- it came up sort of
obliquely in some of the question here about sort
of natural uranium exposures and so forth. And I
guess I’m asking are we going to hear about that?
I would at least like to understand what the issue
is, if it’s a legal issue or if it's a, you know,
policy issue that -- request or a technical issue.

DR. NETON: All I can say on the Blockson
issue is that we -- the radon section remains
reserved on our web site. It is not completed
yet, and we are going -- internally deliberating
how to handle radon and Blockson at this point, I

can’t really say any more than that.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
zB I
12
Ls
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

96

DR. NETON: Oh, the references in the site
profile themselves? They’re not included, but
most of them -- it'd be difficult -- I mean some
of these reference -- some pretty voluminous
documents, so it’s a -- sort of where do you stop?
You reference references of references. I mean --
so we -- we do have them and we can make them
available to the dose reconstruction contract~--

the reviewer, if that’s where you’re heading with

that.

MR. ELLIOTT: The references are not on our
web site. As Jim says, they're voluminous and
they are available upon request. And we have

provided them, in a number of cases, to the public
upon request. And certainly your contractor's
going to be able to access them as they desire.

We have them on a special drive on one of our
servers and so they'll have that access.

MR. GRIFFON: So you have most of that stuff
electronically. I’m just -- I’m not saying on the
web site. I'm saying available for the review
contractor or for --

MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah.

MR. GRIFFON: -- the Board so that it’d be

easily accessible --

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



11
12

13

is
16
17
18
19
20

22
23
24

25

109

can even look at it.

MR. ELLIOTT: I haven't seen the language.
I've talked with David Utterback -- who's here
today -- a little bit about it, so we know it
passed. We have to take stock of what it says and
how the earmark is couched.

Attendant to that, though, Russ Henshaw is
working on a listing of -- a frequency, if you
will, of the cancers that we have in our claimant
-- claim population, lanking at various types of
cancer -- primaries and -- and what we can say
about that, as well, how many -- how many of those
truly rare, rare, rare type of cancers do we see
and what do we need to do in light of those. So
he is coming up with that and we plan to have
something to present to the Board in a very short
time.

DR. ZIEMER: Can you tell us a little more
about the thrust of the funding? What's the
intent there in the bill that you referred to? Is
that for studies or --

DR. MELIUS: That is for studies, yes. My
understanding -- at least the language I’ve secon
earlier, and I haven't seen final language, was it

would allow -- NIQSH is doing -- well, maybe we

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



12
13
14
15
ié
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

99

indicated that if there were -- and I may not have
the language right, but if there were policy
issues or things that would change how NIOSH would
do -- conduct dose reconstructions, sort of fill
in further details, that there was a process put
in place where those would be announced in the
Federal Register and then reviewed, comments
revicwod by the Board, aleo, or presented to the
Board in some way -- and I may have the details of
that wrong.

I think we also are now entering into this
process where we are looking at individual dose
reconstructions, and then -- and then in between
those two -- and I -- I don’t personally see where
any of the documents you talked about today
represent, you know, a major change. I think

they’re pretty straightforward technical guidance.

But we ought to think about what -- where the line
is in some of these places in terms of -- and what
is the most efficient way of looking at -- for us

to do Lhe individual douse reconstruction reviews
in a way that -- I mean do we just do individual
dose reconstructions till we run amross one of

these documents, in which case then it has to be

reviewed, or is it more efficient to do it in some

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12

13

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

91

the processes, and if we can -- we feel very
comfortable that the exposures are certainly less

than this. They assume no filtration at all on

these beams and open collimation. We -- there's a
pretty -- Ron Cathryn* did a very good job working
out the defaults for these X-ray exposures. 2

think it's pretty solid science.

DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius,

DR. MELIUS: I appreciate the commitment to
doing a -- 1 don’t know what to call it, a site
profile outreach plan, but I was curious when that
will be sort of public. When will we know about
it and -- beyond the sites you've -- you’ve listed
there, and I believe, if I understood you
correctly, you mentinned doing pre-publication
meetings at -- at a number of other sites. But
could you sort of fill in a little bit on the time
-- time frame, at least when we will know when
something's going to happen and what sites you
will visit, what ones you’1ll do public meetings
out, to the extent that you can predict that ahead
of time?

DR. NETON: I'm not prepared to address any
more than what I discussed with the where we're at

with the reach-out program with the individual

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



20

21

22

23

24

102

assumptions that are built into the policy, I
suppose.

Okay. Mike?

MR. GIBSON: But on the other hand, Paul, you
know, some of these assumptions are just that
they‘ re assumptions, and it’s admittedly a limited
document. And so -- on the other hand, there
could be a lot of missed dose for people that
legitimately deserve it.

DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understood, and certainly

they are taking worst-case scenarios. And I'm not

suggesting at this point that -- that they change
that. It’s certainly -- has -- in most cases
appears to me has been a -- really a worst-case

scenario.

Other comments before our lunch break?

(No responses)

Okay, there appear to be none. Thank you
again, Jim, for a very informative presentation.

We’re now ready for the lunch break. We will
reconvene at 1:30. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, a iuncheon recess was taken.)

RESEARCH ISSUES WORKGROUP REPORT
DR. ZIEMER: wWe’re now back in session. Our

first topic for the afternoon session is a report

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



14
B
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

101

technical reference documents that are in place,
and maybe that would help us decide it. And maybe
it's not an issue yet, or maybe it won't be, but I
would like to avoid that becoming a major issue,

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And actually these
kind of issues cut both ways. I think Dr.
Roessler was hinting at it that it’s -- it could
also be when does an assumption go beyond becoming
claimant-friendly to becoming -- ridiculous? Some
of the assumptions are -- push the envelope, I
think. They’re certainly claimant-friendly. They
make some assumptions that clearly go well beyond
that, I would -- in my mind. It's hard to know --
it may be hard to say well, you can't rule out the
possibility, for example, that even though work
was only done two days a week, that somebody might
not have had -- worked longer than that. So it's
hard to draw those lines, I realize.

But insofar as these kinds of things drive
the process, I think you're in essence asking to
make sure that the Board is aware of these.
Insofar as they represent perhaps a policy change,
we need to be on top of that. I think they keep
with the policy. It’s hard -- it's hard to

separate the application of the policy from the

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



oY An HW eF Ww He

o

10

12

13

14

is

16

A

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

as

98

DR. MELIUS: I know I’m ask-- okay. Well,
that's more (off microphone) (Inaudible) -- than I
recalled, so that’s --

DR. ZIEMER: At the last meeting I think the
issue was discussed to some extent, and had to do
with the detinition ot what was -- what was the
site in this case and it involved the radon
exposures of a portion of the site. I gather that
internally that’s still being addressed and
reviewed and -- is there any more that can he said
today or no?

DR. MELIUS: I'm not looking for more then,
if you can’t say it, but -- and I think I’ve used
up my three wishes in terms of scheduling, but if
we could -- if it is -- when it’s ready and can be
presented, I would like to hear it presented.

DR. NETON: I'd be more than happy to do
that.

DR. MELIUS: And I think that raises a bigger
question that comes up with some of these site-
wide documents that you're doing that I think we
as a Board need to look at. And I think it
applies more to this issue of individual dose
reconstruction review. But when we did the

initial set of dose reconstruction regulations, we

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



wu

1s

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

94

compounding what’s already a serious credibility
issue.

DR. NETON: Yeah. It's difficult for me to

predict. I know it’s been drafted and it’s being
internally reviewed. I can’t give you a date on
that. Dick may want to address the other issue,

though, about people who are working --

DR. ZIEMER: Dick Toohey?

DR. NETON: -- on the plan.

DR. TOOHEY: Dick Toohey, ORAU. Let me just
comment that subcontractor assignments for the
next round are being made under our new proposed
rules, so we are assuming OCAS will approve those.
So your concern that we're making new assignments
based on the old rules is not the case.

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let's see, Mark, you
have a comment?

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just looking at the
matrix that you presented, Jim, I had a question.
The one dot I didn’t see on there was which --
which of the DOE site profiles is -- are ready,
completely -- all sections completed and ready so
that the Advisory Board and their contractor can
start --

DR. NETON: Good question

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

i5

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

105

Our first priority was the issue of how to
deal with occupational exposures, that these were
exposures in the workplace and the fact that a lot
of the scientific data that was being used to
develop IREP were derived from non-occupational
exposures that -- and whether that -- there should
be adjustment or something for that, taking --
that -- that deals with a number of technical
issues, healthy worker effect, some changes in the
dose rate and so forth on that.

After -- subsequent to our meeting last -- a
year ago when we discussed this, we also had an
update from NIOSH on where they stand with their
studies, and -- ‘cause they have underway 4 number
of occupational cohort studies that -- and I think
-- at least our discussion after that, although I
don't think we ever formally talked about this,
was that, you know, there was just a lot of work
underway and NIOSH was addressing this issue, but
it was more of a longer-term research issue. And
I think the only conclusion we'd come or rec--
that and my discussions with Larry is that it --
at some point we ought to be updated on where
NIOSH is with their work, and particularly focused

en this issue, and maybe at that time generate

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
11
12
13
14
15

16

i8
eK
20
21
22
23
24

25

107

datasets to come up with a standard methodology of
analysis for issues surrounding age at exposure
and how to go about this.

The problem here is that there’s a number of
approaches that have been used by different
epidemiologists, different biostatisticians, on
evaluating age at exposure. And there are
limitations and there are advantages to each --
each of those different approaches. And so using
a standardized dataset and gaining consensus
across some experts we think makes a lot of sense.
That would enable OCAS to use a consensus approach
methodology in examining age at exposure. it
would also enable the HERB researchers to examine
age at exposure within their various study designs
using a standardized approach.

Time line, I can’t give you a time line.

We're hoping that we can get this put together and
a workshop held this year. We want to -- we have
-- in OCAS we have money dedicated to support this
for this year. We're working with HERB to see
where we can find some additional resources and
how we can best go about doing this But it’s our
intent to get this on a fast track as quickly as

possible because we do believe that it has

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

15

ag.

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

that and I want -- again, like have an update on
that.

DR. NETON: Again, we heard the comments. We
took it very seriously. We’ve had ORAU go back
and take a look at their conflict of interest plan
and there is a revised draft out there -- it is
being internally reviewed right now -- that,
again, we should be able to have out very soon.
It’s not finalized yet, but there is a plan to
address some of the Board's concerns.

DR. MELIUS: On this one I‘m a little bit
more concerned about the timetable for that
because you seem to be moving so rapidly with
these and assigning -- if I understood you
correctly, assigning new ones or subcontract,
whatever you call it, new ones. And I’m assuming
they’re being subcontracted under the old plan.
We've had several examples of at least what I
consider to be very disturbing assignments under
the old site profile contracting, and I quess
when you say soon, I guess if you could be a
little bit more specific, I might feel more
comfortable with it. But you know, if it's going
to drag on again, I think -- and we continue to

assign under the old rules, I think we're just

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



cs

uw

20

ret

22

23

24

25

92

sites. But we certainly -- I think the pian

itself is going to be approved and in place within

-- I'll let Larry help me -- a week or two? I
mean it’s: =- it’s ‘a@ratted, it’s: =

MR. ELLIOTT: It’s very imminent, yes. a ad Ba
be on the web site very soon. I think we also

have a tentative date for INEEL visitation, too,
that wasn’t on your slide.
DR. NETON: There was, yeah.

MR. ELLIOTT: That's in April, I believe.

DR. NETON: April. But we wi get the plan

out there, and then as the schedule is developed
we'll make sure that it’s out there with the plan
so that people know where we are.

DR. MELIUS: That was what I was specifically
asking. I wasn't asking you to give me the plan.

DR. NETON: Okay.

DR. MELIUS: Okay?

DR. NETON: Okay, that’s fine.

DR. MELIUS: Secondly, at the last couple of
meetings we've raised the issue of conflict of

interest among the people conducting the site

profiles under -- under contract. And if I
understood correctly from the last meeting, Larry

or dim, somebody was working on a plan to address

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



11

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

103

on the research issues workgroup. Dr. Melius has
headed up that workgroup. They’ve had a
teleconference meeting recently, and Jim, if
you'll bring us up-to-date and...

DR. MELIUS: The research -- IREP and other
scientific issue workgroup, I think is our
official title, that had another meeting this
week. The meeting was Henry -- Henry Anderson,
myself and Russ Henshaw. Leon was caught on an
airplane and I believe Paul, you were -- though
not an official member of the group, you were
going to sit in and you were caught in travel
status, also, under that. And then subsequent to
that meeting, I had some e-mail correspondence
with Larry to -- and with Russ to update some of

these issues, and I will refer you to them ina

second for -- for some of this.
The -- if -- to refresh your memories --
‘cause I had to refresh mine -- the last report

from the IREP and scientific issues workgroup was
about a year ago. And we -- at that time we
presented a report that included two -- two
things. One was a recommendation for a set of
procedures for how we would deal with scientific

issues that would -- and other change -

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

is

16

20

21

22

23

24

25

106

some more discussion of to what extent we need to
deal with occupational exposures in the context of
the IREP model and what would be next steps. And
maybe there’s nothing that needs to be done even
then, but that would be I think the appropriate
time for that discussion.

Second issue was age at first exposure that
we -- we discussed as issue that’d been brought

up. And NIOSH has been wrestling with that issue,

also, and -- do that, and -- ask you to address
this so I don’t -- distracted, Larry -- and is
think -- thinking of various approaches and let me

let Larry address that since he's the one doing
Le

MR. ELLIOTT: This is on age at exposure --

DR. MELIUS: Age at exposure --

MR. ELLIOTT: -- workshop, and we are working
with the Health Energy-Related Research Branch,
HERB, in NIOSH to put together this workshop. We
are in deliberation about how to go about that and
where we‘re going to out-source that to -- which
contract we would employ that under. Basically
the approach that HERB has proposed is that a set
of experts would be convened in a workshop

setting, and they would use some pre-developed

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES